RE: odd; Allen Strange (Paul E)

From: PAULE

>>>I find "odd-limit" an unsatisfactory term. Since 1 3 5 7 9 11 .. are
>>>what Partch called identities, why don't we call it identity-limit?
>
>>That's a good suggestion, if only because "odd" connotes "strange." It is
>>also a nice way of honoring Partch.
>
>I find "identity-limit" too cumbersome; it's very 'clunky' in the mouth,
>and that is a factor in adopting a new term. I prefer 'odd', since they
>simply ARE odd numbers. Besides, I work with Allen Strange every day, and
>I don't find him odd at all . . . !
-- Brian B.

Well, I think Jonathan Walker's misunderstanding of the limit concept points
out that understanding the prime limit concept does not guarantee that the
word "odd" will be enough to get Partch's limit concept across. A 12-note
Pythagorean tuning will involve odd numbers as high as 177147 (this apperas
in the ratio of the wolf), but the music itself may never go past the
3-identity, or, especially if schismatic approximations are used, the
5-identity (as in the middle and late Medieval periods, respectively).

By the way, this is not a question of adopting a new term, it is a question
of preserving the terminology introduced by Harry Partch in light of
separate developments that have stolen the word "limit."

By the other way, my roommates this summer had studied electronic music at
Harvard using Allen Strange's textbook. They wanted me to tell him that they
loved his book! They're doing a lot of techno music, which favors vintage
analog synths just like rock&roll favors vintage guitars.


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:38 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA19956; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 23:38:34 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA19963
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id OAA10547; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:36:56 -0800
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:36:56 -0800
Message-Id: <199703271735_MC2-1360-2011@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:47:25 -0800 Johnny Reinhard said:
>Since an instrumentalist, all the way through teaching theory, I have
>considered "music theory" as an abstraction, a scaffold built from music
>proper. Theorists were "after-the-fact" people that gave explanations for
>why things are the way they are.
>
This is why traditional music 'theory' should be renamed music systems,
as there is really no theory at work at all.


>Significantly, this list indicates that this may no longer be so. With
>"microtonal" theory, composers are eager to follow the findings of
>theorists (some of whom may also be composers). Instrumentalists will
>put in the neccessary sweat to find fingerings, but first the music's
>theory must be adequately laid out.
>
Right! Music theory, now in its liberated (& real) definition, is alive
and well, as it should always be. As composer/performer/theorists,
we propose a theory (involving tuning, structure, purpose, etc.) that
then demands music be composed in an attempt to work out the ramificaitons
of the theory. We then must perform this new music in a test of the
theory's validity in practice. Then we refine the theory based on this
test, and try the cycle once again, and again, and ........

Now, if we can just get this idea across to the many traditional
music program curriculum suits....!
-- Brian B.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:30 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA20241; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:29:58 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA20244
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id WAA28552; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:27:10 -0800
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:27:10 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

I like to use the terms _speculative theory_ and either _music analysis_
or _descriptive theory_ to distinguish the creation of potential musical
resources (both in terms of materials and relationships between materials,
i.e. ''systems'') from the hermeneutic enterprise of describing and
interpreting existing musical works or characterizing attributes of
repertoires. On the other hand the _ prescription_ of musical formulae,
which is what is generally taught as ''music theory'', and consists
essentially of giving algorithms for making variations on existing pieces
is possible only as a consequence of the speculative and analytical modes
and such ''recipes'' are hardly theory.

Naturally, the speculative and analytic enterprises are at their richest
when they are not strictly separated. Most new musical resources are found
as creative consequences of rethinking existing musics, and new models can
often refresh our ways of listening to or performing music. Modeling new
compositions on historical models - as is done in most theory courses - is
a perfectly reasonable and useful exercise so long as the student is aware
that the technique in hand for the exercise is but one of several
possibilities for imitating the model, and that the student is encouraged
to explore as many techniques as possible.

Someone has said that theorists fall into ''lumpers'' and ''splitters'':
those that look for grand schemes that explain everything in one fell swoop
and those who seek as many alternative explainations as possible. I fall
firmly into the latter category, as I feel it better fits with my
experience of music as one constantly changing with my own perspective and
with the richness of the musical materials themselves.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:43 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA20464; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:43:30 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA20466
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id FAA19639; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:41:38 -0800
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:41:38 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

Traditional Music Theory qualifies as theory in contrast to Music
Application. At a university, an "Applied" music major is one who majors
in performance on a particular instrument. A Theory major is one who
studies the underlying patterns in music rather than the process of
actually making music.



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:52 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA20463; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:52:56 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA20455
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id FAA20023; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:51:29 -0800
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 05:51:29 -0800
Message-Id: <199703281348.AA03379@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

Gary Morrison wrote:

'' Traditional Music Theory qualifies as theory in contrast to Music
'' Application. At a university, an "Applied" music major is one who
majors
'' in performance on a particular instrument. A Theory major is one who
'' studies the underlying patterns in music rather than the process of
'' actually making music. ''

This is an excellent example how compartmentalization has been so damaging.
The ''applied'' music student (presumably in a conservatory and not a
liberal arts institution) reading the notes without any analysis is - to my
ears - not making music as much as someone pushing notes around on a piece
of paper without regard for how they might sound. Too, I would contend that
your ''theory major'' is certainly not studying anything having to do with
music unless the processes of ''actually making (and listening to) music''
are always in consideration. My experience of ''music theory'' in US
undergraduate training is also that the patterns learned are not
''underlying'' but rather superficial surface aspects of existing
repertoire (I mentioned the mechanical extraction of ''schenkergrams'' is
an earlier posting; I fear that the algorithmic approaches not in use will
have similar results),


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:56 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA20828; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:56:22 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA20833
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id OAA08627; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:53:29 -0800
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:53:29 -0800
Message-Id: <333BBF57@fsdsmtpgw.fsd.jhuapl.edu>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

On Thu, 27 Mar 97 Brian Belet wrote:

>As composer/performer/theorists,
>we propose a theory (involving tuning, structure, purpose, etc.) that
>then demands music be composed in an attempt to work out the ramificaitons
>of the theory. We then must perform this new music in a test of the
>theory's validity in practice. Then we refine the theory based on this
>test, and try the cycle once again, and again, and ........

In the 17th century the term "musica theoretica" was used to refer to
philosophical discussions of divisions of the octave (i.e., alternate
tunings) and their acoustical implications, whereas "musica prattica"
referred to actual music-making, including everything now called "music
theory"! The theoreticians and the practitioners did not seem to pay much
attention to each other, according to what I have read.

It's nice to see that musica theoretica is alive and well on this list and
that practicing musicians are using those theories so that we can hear and
assess them.

Gordon Collins
gordon_collins@jhuapl.edu

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:35 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21159; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:35:53 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA21139
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id IAA14587; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 08:29:53 -0800
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 08:29:53 -0800
Message-Id: <282922615.22986115@goodmedia.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

>The ''applied'' music student (presumably in a conservatory and not a
>liberal arts institution) reading the notes without any analysis is - to my
>ears - not making music as much as someone pushing notes around on a piece
>of paper without regard for how they might sound.

Well, that's a risk of course, but the point is one of emphasis more
than exclusiveness. An applied major spends most of his/her time
practicing repertoire, techniques, and scales, but comparatively less on
plowing through scores deciding which particular variant of sonata form
this particular piece uses, and how that affects its impact upon us. And
the reverse is more true of the Theory major.

I'm inclined to think that the relative importances of Theory majors
studying patterns in the existing repertoire, and of them exploring future
possibilities, are about equal. I'm sure that almost all of us on this
list would agree on the importance of future possibilities, but suggesting
possibilities for why existing music affects us the way it does also
provides valuable insight into future possibilities.



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:52 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21211; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:52:12 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA21214
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id KAA18628; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 10:45:41 -0800
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 10:45:41 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

> I'm inclined to think that the relative importances of Theory majors
>studying patterns in the existing repertoire, and of them exploring future
>possibilities, are about equal.

I should qualify that: When it comes to actually composing or
performing I think that we should shoot for the future directions, but as
far as the raw book-work studying of music, I think that figuring out where
we're coming from is about equally important with figuring out what's next.


Well, roughly anyway...



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:46 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21519; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:46:14 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA21526
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id LAA04823; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:44:16 -0800
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:44:16 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu