Re: [tuning] Partch's 1/1

Jacky Ligon wrote:
>
> Hello to all.
>
> While we're on the topic of Partch:
>
> A few years ago I ask Dean Drummond why Harry Partch used "G" as his
> 1/1. He said Partch never really explained this, but he theorized that
> it might have been because there would've been available a G
> 392 Tuning Fork as a pre electronic tuning standard, also that he was
> a baritone, and the G at the bottom of the bass clef was probably a
> strong note at the bottom of his range. The latter intrigues me, in
> that this would almost imply that Partch was using this strong vocal G
> pitch, as a sort of "1/1 Body Pitch" (or the 1/1 of his singing voice)
> to which he made all of his instruments conform. Are there any other
> composers that post here, or that any of you know about that use such
> a "Corporeal" reason for choosing the 1/1 in a just intonation
> composition?

I think I remember reading somewhere that he chose G
because it fit the range of his voice.

>
> Most of the time, out of convenience, I'll use concert "C" as the 1/1
> for pieces. There are also some benefits related to mapping tunings to
> a "7 white - 5 black" synthesizer keyboard, that make "C" a convenient
> choice. But when I did some tests of my voice in order to identify
> what my vocal 1/1 would be (singing with droning sine waves), I found
> that it was "E" (an interesting thing to find out after playing the
> guitar for over 20 years, since the 12 TET guitar's low string is E).
> Another interesting note about this too, is that "C" seems to be a
> difficult key for me to sing in, and feel natural doing it. But
> practicing along with a drone on E feels very natural. Any comments
> about the reasons why you might choose a particular 1/1 for your
> compositions?

I picked up on La Monte Youngs use of B=60 cycles, so A=426.7.
All my 1/1s tend to be either E or A. All my raga lessons
have been in B which just doesn't lay well on the guitar,
although I'm working on a 6 string slide tuning in B (sort
of, I haven't thought about it in a while).

> Another thing about Harry that I read somewhere, is that he would
> rarely combine more than 4 of his orchestral instruments together at
> once in a composition. I've wondered if there could've been some
> physical or aesthetic reason for this (or both). Perhaps it could've
> been related to the overtone structures of the percussion instruments
> would not allow too much layering, or else the combined timbres might
> have clashed with one another.
>
> Any thoughts?

Maybe he was only comfortable writing for a few instruments
at a time? Makes good arranging sense to me.

Experts?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm