"New" way of working [composition]

Well... it's new to ME, anyway.

I'm developing a new procedure for composing AWAY from the piano. This
is a stretch, since I've been accustomed to 30 odd (let me tell you)
years composing at the instrument.

It's over. Only the tunable MIDI keyboard now... the piano is just not
flexible enough. The neighbors also dislike the piano, which is one
sensible thing about them.

I have an idea for this process... that probably many of you are already
using. The principle is to use the MIDI keyboard as a kind of
TABLATURE... practically in the "guitar" sense.

In other words, in order to minimize the "extra baggage" that would go
with trying to figure out how to notate microtonality... let's say a
scale in 19 tones per octave, for example, I simply notate literally on
the staff what I am playing on the MIDI keyboard.

LATER, I will do the "translation" process of figuring out what the
12-tET notes really are. Why do I have to do this?? Well, the answer is
obvious, unless one is strictly writing electronic music which, I
personally believe, should never be notated unless it is accompanying
other live instruments.

The "translation" to 12-tET is, of course, not really difficult at
all... not much different than transposing the traditional "transposing
instruments" in part copying.

All we need to do is find the 1/1, which is Scala is always "middle C"
or 261.63HZ. From there, Scala makes it very clear through the simple
"Show" command what all the cents values are. One can easily
"translate" the MIDI tablature notation to "real" 12-tET pitches for
traditional instruments.

Of course, practically each pitch will have a cents value minus or plus
over it... but that will be a new "performance practice" for traditional
instruments performing microtonality.

Curiously enough, sometimes I am finding that the Scala scale does not
transmit "middle C" 261HZ to the "middle C" on my MIDI keyboard. Does
anyone know why that is?? Fortunately, I can use a "tuning meter" to
figure out where 261HZ really is, and I can go from there in translating
my "tablature keyboard" notation to "real" 12-tET notation.

Are other people working this way, also?? The advantage, I believe, is
that one can just write notes down on paper that we are used to... and
not worry about all the pitch/performance particulars until LATER. That
way, the compositional process is not impeded... and, let's face it,
we're used to writing notes down on paper from a keyboard, so better
leave the "translation" to a later stage...

I guess the real question is whether traditional instrumentalists can or
will really play this stuff. I was heartened in listening to a huge
performance recently in Alice Tully Hall of Earle Brown's music... The
instrumentalists were asked to do a LOT of things... harmonics, unusual
techniques, etc., so I've come to the conclusion that asking performers
to think of a semitone as 100 steps in cents is really not such a big
deal after all. Certainly the strings and vocalists can learn to do
this division in cents. And, of course, the brass instruments may
already have the required pitches in their spectra of harmonics. The
woodwinds may be more problematic... and this is why we may need to
concentrate on more "fingering charts" for them...

Personally, I feel this "new" way of working will make my composing MUCH
less 12-o-centric. For example, a recent piece I wrote for Johnny
Reinhard was in 1/8 tones. Personally, I feel the piece was quite
successful... but I still have the lingering feeling that some of the
1/8 tones were "elaborations" of 12-tET pitches that I couldn't help but
give predominance... at least in the back of my mind, due to the
accustomization.

But, what would it be like to compose at a keyboard where I didn't have
the vaguest idea of what the notes were!! Much better, I believe.

We'll see how this goes. At least I'm not sitting at the piano anymore,
which is, I believe, a BIG accomplishment...

_____________ ______ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> In other words, in order to minimize the "extra baggage" that would go
> with trying to figure out how to notate microtonality... let's say a
> scale in 19 tones per octave, for example, I simply notate literally on
> the staff what I am playing on the MIDI keyboard.

As you may have guessed, this is such an old idea that there is a body of
literature arguing against it. Harry Partch, who generally used tablatures of
his own devising, did notate modified keyboard instruments this way for
performance.

> LATER, I will do the "translation" process of figuring out what the
> 12-tET notes really are. Why do I have to do this?? Well, the answer is
> obvious, unless one is strictly writing electronic music which, I
> personally believe, should never be notated unless it is accompanying
> other live instruments.

Translate to 12-tET? The very thought of it! And electronic music should
never be notated? I disagree there as well. Partly because somebody else may
need to understand it one day. Or you might even need to convert it to use a
different synthesizer. Or live, electronic instruments may be accompanying
each other.

> The "translation" to 12-tET is, of course, not really difficult at
> all... not much different than transposing the traditional "transposing
> instruments" in part copying.

It would be nice if the computer could do this sort of thing automatically.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any that do. There are some open source
sequencers out there now, although I haven't looked at modifying them yet. The
idea would be that you could have a common format for the score, and then print
out each part in a tablature specific for that instrument. Or the music could
be published electronically, and people could choose their favourite notation
to view it in. Much like you can choose to view a MIDI file in either piano
roll or staff notation.

> All we need to do is find the 1/1, which is Scala is always "middle C"
> or 261.63HZ.

I think you'll find that Scala chooses the 1/1 at "middle C" such that A is 440
Hz. Unless you tell it otherwise.

> Of course, practically each pitch will have a cents value minus or plus
> over it... but that will be a new "performance practice" for traditional
> instruments performing microtonality.

This is another old argument, but I prefer the idea of using a notation that
fits the tuning. Like staff notation with "quartertone" shifts for meantone,
or 12-note notation with comma shifts for schismic (or even JI). I think there
is some evidence that performers do find the 12-tET with cent deviations
easier, but I don't know how that scales down to less technically proficient,
non-specialists. The fact this remains controversial shows why it would be so
good not to choose, and publish the music in a mutable, electronic way.

> Curiously enough, sometimes I am finding that the Scala scale does not
> transmit "middle C" 261HZ to the "middle C" on my MIDI keyboard.

See above. You need to use a keyboard map file to change the reference note
from a to C.

> Are other people working this way, also?? The advantage, I believe, is
> that one can just write notes down on paper that we are used to... and
> not worry about all the pitch/performance particulars until LATER. That
> way, the compositional process is not impeded... and, let's face it,
> we're used to writing notes down on paper from a keyboard, so better
> leave the "translation" to a later stage...

Yes, I generally write the music as it looks on the keyboard. But I also
choose 12 note octaves so that it roughly corresponds to what I hear. With my
meantone guitar, I use a modified guitar tablature with "quartertone" shifts.
When I use my 12-note fourth keyboard mapping, I either use a similar 12-note
octave notation, or write it as it looks. If I wrote stuff down for that
mapping a lot, I suspect I'd move to the former idea. It's closer to how I
think when I play it.

There's stuff on my website about this. Try
http://x31eq.com/schismic.htm

> I guess the real question is whether traditional instrumentalists can or
> will really play this stuff. I was heartened in listening to a huge
> performance recently in Alice Tully Hall of Earle Brown's music... The
> instrumentalists were asked to do a LOT of things... harmonics, unusual
> techniques, etc., so I've come to the conclusion that asking performers
> to think of a semitone as 100 steps in cents is really not such a big
> deal after all. Certainly the strings and vocalists can learn to do
> this division in cents. And, of course, the brass instruments may
> already have the required pitches in their spectra of harmonics. The
> woodwinds may be more problematic... and this is why we may need to
> concentrate on more "fingering charts" for them...

Well, I don't know much about traditional instrumentalists. I'll just repeat,
for those too thick too catch it the first two times, that it would be really
cool for the computer to automatically generate a tablature for the woodwinds
based on whatever format you use for the score. If we talk about this enough,
perhaps somebody will write the program for us.

> Personally, I feel this "new" way of working will make my composing MUCH
> less 12-o-centric. For example, a recent piece I wrote for Johnny
> Reinhard was in 1/8 tones. Personally, I feel the piece was quite
> successful... but I still have the lingering feeling that some of the
> 1/8 tones were "elaborations" of 12-tET pitches that I couldn't help but
> give predominance... at least in the back of my mind, due to the
> accustomization.

Anything that gets you away from 12-thinking would be good. 1/8-tones sound
like a generally bad idea for this. But just try writing 12-o-centric music in
5- or 7-tET! Both of them fit a traditional keyboard really well.

> But, what would it be like to compose at a keyboard where I didn't have
> the vaguest idea of what the notes were!! Much better, I believe.

So long as it's a good tuning on there. Not that it's that easy to find a bad
tuning (I have experimented with random tunings, and they work quite well, at
least melodically). Ideally, the theory would give you a scale (static or
otherwise) and you use you ears from there.

Another idea is to use the sequencer as a guide to rhythm. Play in the music
as you think it should sound, then work out how to fit it to the staff. Adjust
the sequenced notes to match what you've written, and see if any subtlety is
lost. That should discourage you from using rhythmic patterns that look good
on paper. Although instrumentalists are already used to working around these.

Graham