Microtonal (or any) authenticity

Well, respected elders, learned scholars, kids:


John Starret asks --

>What do you think? By what are we bound in the interpretation of another
>microtonalist's music?
[...snip...]
>It seems to me that a sensitive arrangement of Partch for string quartet
>is entirely appropriate, as long as the tonality is respected.

Question is: should I respond on the list or to John personally? It was
nigh well one year ago, on July 12, 1996, when O Absent One (Brian McLaren)
first broached the subject. It got me into the fray, and really (*really*),
matters Partchian have been churning ever since!

It may be very old hat at this point; OTOH, there might be new members
since then that aren't aware of some of the, if not 'educated', then
'experienced' voices in this matter. I've had just brief correspondences
with John Starret, who is a great resource online, and we can work
off-list, I'm sure.

If you want to see the original go-around, they were one of the first
pieces of ... content on Corporeal Meadows, still ensconced at:

http://www.adnc.com/web/jszanto/jrnl_0.html

I'll let one or two cycles of the digest go around (hmmm...cycles) before
coming in again. Bye!

Cheers,
Jon

P.S.
>Hell, John Schneider plays
>Partch on his guitar and doesn't get slapped around (as far as I know).

As an aside, I have spoken with John Schneider at length about this,
including disagreements. That said, there is a world of, a galaxy of, a
mighty universe of difference between someone recreating an instrument the
work was composed for to perform it as intended, and someone transcribing
it for not only an unintended but *unwanted* ensemble. Pure poop.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Jonathan M. Szanto | If spirits can live online . . . . . . . . .
Backbeats & Interrupts | . . . . . Partch lives in Corporeal Meadows
jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.adnc.com/web/jszanto/welcome.html
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:36 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA04781; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:37:16 +0200
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:37:16 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA04786
Received: (qmail 21335 invoked from network); 4 Jul 1997 06:36:53 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 4 Jul 1997 06:36:53 -0000
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

If this was dealt with in digest 1122, I apologize - I haven't received that
one yet.

In digest 1124, refering to something I wrote in 1119, I write:

> ... However, there is still a
> unique relationship if you consider that the lower one will cross the zero
> point only at points at which the higher one is also crossing _and
> completing
> an even number of cycles_. It turns out that odd-number multiples cross
in
> mid-cycle where the lower one crosses, and even ones cross at completed
> cycles.

Ack! I did it again! Sometimes I feel like Andy Griffith: "Barn, can you
believe that I can fit this gre't big foot - all of it - in my mouth?!"

Actually, any number which is [a power of two greater than one] of any whole
number (x*2^y, where x any whole number, and y is any whole number > 1 --
12, for example) will fit my definition (I think). There seems to be no
especially unique relationship for powers of two. I see now that I was
originally visualizing waveforms with the following series of relationships:
1/1, 2/1, 3/2, 4/2, 5/4 ... - in other words, I was assuming octave
invariance in my attempt to prove octave invariance - bad reasoning all
through. Sorry, everyone. Ah, the power of a false assumption! Having
discovered that, I was still clinging desparately to Marion's observation:

>On octave invariance, it has just occurred to me that, in LCM
>terms, the octave has a property that no other ratio shares.
>That is two notes that differ only by octaves can be mixed
>without making the length of the resulting "interference" pattern
>longer than the waveform of the lowest note.

But wouldn't that be true of x:1 where x any whole number, not just powers
of two? So it appears to be an argument for otonal ratio invariance, of
which octave invariance is merely the simplest example. Am I on the right
track yet?

Well, maybe psycho-physical evidence will prove to be a good arrow in our
quiver, Paul E.

David J. Finnamore

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 02:51 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05543; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 02:51:39 +0200
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 02:51:39 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05525
Received: (qmail 24046 invoked from network); 6 Jul 1997 00:51:35 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jul 1997 00:51:35 -0000
Message-Id: <199707060049.UAA14674@phyleus.interlinx.qc.ca>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu