RE: [tuning-math] Digest Number 1239

Gene,

Never thought I'd say it, but I quite _enjoyed_
that piece of Schoenberg - at least in the bihexany
in C!

For comparison, how does the original - presumably
in 12-tET - sound?

Regards,
Yahya

-----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:50:58 -0000
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1238

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > Isn't that a 12-note scale?
>
> Yes, it's a "bihexany", and I think an interesting scale for people to
> investigate who want a 12-note, 11-limit JI scale which is decidedly
> and not just tentitively 11-limit.

Just to amuse y'all, here is a short Schoenberg piece retuned to the
bihexany; of course, it makes a big difference what key we use! This is C.

<url:/tuning-math/files/Gene/schoe19a-bihexany.
mid>

________________________________________________________________________

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/3/05

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> Never thought I'd say it, but I quite _enjoyed_
> that piece of Schoenberg - at least in the bihexany
> in C!
>
> For comparison, how does the original - presumably
> in 12-tET - sound?

Monz might disagree, but to me in 12-equal the life seems to be
squeezed out of it, as if it was written originaly for JI. Which, of
course, is entirely wrong, save for the fact that Schoenberg was
thinking about possible 11-limit implications of 12-equal in a
theoretical way.

Original:

/tuning-math/files/Gene/schoe19a.mid

Bihexany:

/tuning-math/files/Gene/schoe19a-bihexany.mid

hi Gene and Yahya,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > Never thought I'd say it, but I quite _enjoyed_
> > that piece of Schoenberg - at least in the bihexany
> > in C!
> >
> > For comparison, how does the original - presumably
> > in 12-tET - sound?
>
> Monz might disagree, but to me in 12-equal the life
> seems to be squeezed out of it, as if it was written
> originaly for JI. Which, of course, is entirely wrong,
> save for the fact that Schoenberg was thinking about
> possible 11-limit implications of 12-equal in a
> theoretical way.
>
> Original:
>
> /tuning-math/files/Gene/schoe19a.mid
>
> Bihexany:
>
> /tuning-math/files/Gene/schoe19a-
bihexany.mid

no, i don't disagree ... Schoenberg's music does often
sound pretty lifeless to me when it's played in precise
12-edo.

however, i also don't think that *any* 12-tone collection
of pitches accurately reflects what he had in his mind.
(yes, of course i'm speculating ... but it's based on
a quite detailed knowledge of his theories.)

i think Schoenberg was thinking of 12-edo as a kind of
"kaleidoscopic" tuning, in which a multitude of changing
JI implications were constantly "swirling around" the
fixed 12-edo notation. in other words, the "pantonality"
which he wrote about. now *that* would be the ideal
way to retune his music!

-monz