concert in Frankfurt

A short report on a concert (Friday, 20 Dec. 1996) by the
Radio-Sinfonie-Orchester Frankfurt in the broadcast hall of Hessischer
Rundfunk.

The program had works by Claude Vivier (Orion(79)), Walter Zimmermann
(Suave mari magno, part I (96)) and Klarenz Barlow (Orchideae Ordinariae or
The Twelfth Root of Truth (89)).

Although the Vivier work included some arresting natural harmonics in an
otherwise odd mixture of Messiaen unisons, Hovhaness-esque orientalisms and
some Stockhausen effects, the Zimmermann and Barlow works are of more
interest to the tuning community.

Zimmermann uses pitches from Aristoxenus�gamut (including quarter-tone, and
in the Aristoxenian spirit, the exact intonation is undefined, but the
extremely musical performance under Peter Rundel tended towards the 24tet
values) and like Schumann's _sphinx_s , he has transribed a Greek text
(Epicurus) letter by letter using the Greek instrumental and vocal
notations. The nine-minute work has, however, a largely harmonic texture,
in which the individual modes are assigned to each of six small orchestras
distributed around the stage. Rhythmic coordination ranges from all six
ensembles together, groups or single ensembles coordinated, and
uncoordinated solo playing.

Barlow's work is not microtonal per se, but it does seem to be a very
effective translation of the harmonicity and tonality functions used in his
Autobus piece into a very large orchestral work. It is essentially a four
movement symphony - with cross fades between movements, acoustical grafitti
c/o Bruckner and Stravinsky, and an extraordinary piano cadenza that sends
the work out in the grand style (with a slight nod to Frank Sinatra:
Barlow, saying to the whole symphonic tradition: I did it my way!)

Barlow has published an extended analysis of the work in the Feedback
Papers (Cologne).

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:47 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22289; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:50:23 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22288
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id JAA07265; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 09:50:20 -0800
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 09:50:20 -0800
Message-Id: <199612211249_MC2-DC5-E22C@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Gary Morrison wrote:

> As I was wading through my past messages, I came upon those I sent
> regarding the question of whether there's value in systematizing tunings.
> That as opposed to playing whatever pitch you need at the moment.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I'd like to be able to compose with a tool which allowed access to any pitch
I needed without having to predetermine the set. That doesn't mean my pitch choices must be random or
lacking analyzable structure.

> ...a particle physicist said...approximate quote anyway..."...six
> quarks and six leptons, coming in different 'colors', and in their
> antiparticle forms, is too complicated."
>
> ...they're fighting...the sense...that...they just patch up their theory
> by contriving a new particle, rather than finding a way that
> well-understood particles or forces can explain that phenomenon.
>
> In analogy, using a coherent system of pitches rather than just
> inventing a new pitch whenever you run into a new compositional problem to
> solve, I believe can lead to more meaningful musical results.

All analogies break down, and it probably doesn't help much to pick at them, but it's kind of fun, so: To me,
you have it backwards. A "coherent system of pitches" sounds like the "too complicated" six quarks etc., and
the idea of picking any pitch you need from a single parameter of frequency sounds like the unifying,
simplifying analog to a physical theory which would explain all 6 quarks.

I'd like to think of it more as systemized tunings being individual specimens of the infinity of pitch
combinations, all based on the single umbrella parameter of frequency, just as the infinity of molecular
configurations may someday be explainable by a single physical theory.

I prefer to think of pitch systems as temporary compositional devices which may be used over a whole piece or
just in passing. A composition approaching the complexity of natural beauty might end up using thousands
of pitches in hundreds of analyzable "molecular" subsets.

Matt Nathan

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:50 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA28288; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:52:37 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA28285
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id IAA15236; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 08:52:35 -0800
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 08:52:35 -0800
Message-Id: <32BD7468.B25@interlinx.qc.ca>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

I suspect that Matt Nathan and I are saying the same thing in two
different ways. Matt is concentrating in particular on tuning systems that
have an indefinite number of pitches, like JI or meantone tunings.

Those are systems though. In meantone, you always choose notes on a
circle of a fixed-sized fifth, and similarly in 5-limit JI you always make
major triads take the form of 4:5:6 (or with one or more notes
octave-displaced). (I'm calling the 81:64-based major triad a 3-limit JI.)


But if we're not saying the same thing, then let me suggest that the
analogy I posed between particle physics and tunings is based on a
similarity between laws of harmony and counterpoint, and the laws of
physics. Picking pitches chaotically makes it more difficult to create a
sensation of inevitability and thus logical resolution in a cadence.

The traditional form of tritone resolution (leading tone upward, and
seventh down) is based largely upon the hindsight-obviousness of resolution
by half-steps to a quintessentially less discordant interval. A lot of
what makes that so much sense, is simply that 12-toned systematics
convinces us that half steps are the smallest possible pitch difference.
The fact that the tritone is so dissonant and yet so close a consonant,
makes us hear that resolution and say "ah yes, how could we ever imagine it
otherwise". That's a lot of what makes that resolution satisfying.

Similarly, in science, the best-accepted ideas are ones that have a
sense of hindsight-obviousness. Scientists, and to a fair degree musical
audiences, like hindsight-obvious relationships between pre-known elements.
It's much harder to deal with something that requires you to accept an
all-new axiomatic idea.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:48 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01542; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:51:24 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01535
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id JAA25422; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:51:21 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:51:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199612231228_MC1-DC3-5B92@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Ooo. I'd better stop babbling about this, but there's one other
equally-important consideration about systematizing tuning: And that is to
what degree your nonsystematization is based upon chaos or exception.

To illustrate by extreme example, sticking with a strict system for all
but one note can sound very awkward. That's kind of like sticking a note
from an electric guitar in the middle of a string quartet! But clearly if
your entire composition is based upon unsystematic pitch, then no one note
is likely to "stick out" relative to any other. The overall result will
make more musical sense, even though it's more truly random.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:15 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01473; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:18:13 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01586
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id KAA26315; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:18:09 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:18:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199612231815.KAA00974@well.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Gary Morrison wrote:

> I suspect that Matt Nathan and I are saying the same thing in two
> different ways. Matt is concentrating in particular on tuning systems that
> have an indefinite number of pitches, like JI or meantone tunings.

Actually, I'm not concentrating on any particular systems. I'm suggesting that it's a simpler organizing
principle to consider the audio spectrum as the pitch resource rather than any individual pitch system which
must then be forced into all duties including analytic. The latter is something that bugs me about Charles
Lucy's claims for his (adopted) system, which I told him in conversations when I met him. He says the Lucy
system can be used to approximate other scales of the world. My question is: Why bother; why not just use the
scale you're trying to approximate? Tuning systems are guides into the infinite resource, they are not that
resource. They provide a way of drawing individual choices from the daunting infinity of possibilites; a way
to get started. I'm interested in tuning systems because each suggests a way of hearing, and I enjoy hearing
in different ways. I am however just as interested in drawing pitches from the infinite resource using my ear
and inspiration, and analyzing it later if need be. Beauty often has an underlying mathematical structure, and
mathematical structure often appears beautiful, as Joseph Schillinger pointed out, which probably says
something about the construction of mind. While it's entirely valid to construct a pitch set using some formal
process and then see what music we can make out of it, we shouldn't forget that pitched music is neither
limited to nor necessarily described by that particular formal process.

> But if we're not saying the same thing, then let me suggest that the
> analogy I posed between particle physics and tunings is based on a
> similarity between laws of harmony and counterpoint, and the laws of
> physics. Picking pitches chaotically makes it more difficult to create a
> sensation of inevitability and thus logical resolution in a cadence.

Who said anything about picking pitches chaotically (although that sounds really interesting, see below)? I
had a feeling responding to an analogy might have been a bad idea. Your analogy means something specific to
you which it didn't suggest to me, and misunderstanding ensued. Oh well.

Speaking of chaos, I have found a few places on the web where you can download and listen to fractal sounds,
including this site which uses the pixels values from a sequential scan of a Mandelbrot rendering to choose
from a (not choatically derived) pitch set (a 6-note octave-repeating scale in 12tet: 0 2 4 7 9 11, or
x.x.x..x.x.x, or a major scale without the 4th degree). I'd be interested to hear what it would sound like
with a chaotically derived pitch set.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/VUCC/Misc/Art1/Sonify/Mandi.html

Here's a good starting place for finding fractal music on the web:

http://www-ks.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/people/schulz/fmusic/

Matt Nathan

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:22 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01622; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:24:41 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01626
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id OAA28412; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:24:38 -0800
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:24:38 -0800
Message-Id: <32BF0698.7A5C@ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

I certainly agree with Matt Nathan, and Varese, and many others that
limiting oneself to a finite set of pitches is not necessarily good for
the music. The full sonic spectrum is the tabula rasa upon which to draw
sensible intervals.

When Harry Partch proclaimed 43-notes to his 2/1 it was largely to
acknowledge the inability of humans to grasp the infinite. Partch used
numerous interval outside of the 43-note gamut in his scores.

Perhaps microtonal composers are like children in exploring the sonic
terain. Just as a mother warns a child against turning the corner during
play time, lovingly providing safety limits, we composers have superegos
limiting our explorations into the expanse. This appears unnecessary,
except in a personal pedagogical sense.

Now is the time for all microtonalists to learn the "essential"
relationships of a variety of pitch combinations for the betterment of
musical vocabulary, and gradually improving musical communication.

This is not meant to be a chastisement to a composer plumbing the depths
of a particular tuning. However it is a line in the sand that ghettoizing
notes is no longer necessary, or desireable.

Johnny Reinhard
Director
American Festival of Microtonal Music
318 East 70th Street, Suite 5FW
New York, New York 10021 USA
(212)517-3550/fax (212) 517-5495
reinhard@ios.com


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:52 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02327; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:55:06 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02155
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id FAA24485; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 05:55:00 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 05:55:00 -0800
Message-Id: <199612241353.VAA15028@hk.super.net>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

As sometimes occurs, definitions (or lack of them in this case) can get
in the way of understanding. Sorry if I didn't explain my premises well
enough.

Unlike Lucy's scenario, I'm not refering to a single system of tuning
for every possible musical expression. Certainly each system has its own
strengths and weaknesses for each sort of expression.

I'm refering to systems in the sense of choosing pitches for a
composition based on a clearly-recognizable (more or less consciously) set
of pitch relationships. That could, for example, take the form of an
equal-temperament paradigm. That as opposed to some essentially arbitrary
spacing, or each appearance of what is essentially the same pitch-class
taking on a somewhat different pitch with no apparent reasoning behind it.


Of course I suppose that could be useful on occasion. Those occasions
would - best I can tell - mostly be cases where you want the results to be
confusing or hard to follow. It would perhaps be kind of like walking
blindfolded on rocky terrain: You never know exactly the height of your
next step! That could perhaps have an interesting musical effect.

But looking up to the bigger question, I personally find value in
composing music with the approach of creating a musical environment
including pitch, instrumentation, and style, and then working in that
environment. Many of the more exciting musical devices composer's disposal
come from devising brilliant ways of "stretching the limits". Some of
Stravinsky's orchestral colors are examples of that, they show insightful
ways of using familiar resources to produce surprising results. That makes
audiences say "wow!".

Well its obviously very difficult to cleverly stretch the limits if you
afford yourself no limits to start with! If your resources are infinite,
then the effect is somewhat more of, "well, so what if you achieved that
effect; who couldn't, given infinite resources?" Systematizing tunings can
provide just such a limit to stretch, if you use it correctly.

I guess people don't want to take too many axioms for granted; people
seem to be more interested in clever combinations of a small number of
accepted resources, than in "inventing a new particle" - justifying a new
idea by just saying that it's axiomatically valid.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 19:45 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02479; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 19:47:47 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02468
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id KAA00576; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:47:44 -0800
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:47:44 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu