Re: [tuning] question on equal temperaments

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> If the UNEQUAL temperaments are so interesting in their
idiosyncracies, why is it so imperative to even WANT to use equal
temperaments??

To me, any tuning system not only has a potential usage unique to that
tuning (and of course unequal and equal tunings are obviously
different constructs each with a myriad of built-in potential); but
also in a more general or global sense, they reflect a potential
wealth of affective or logically analyzable conditions that to my mind
can only serve to enriched and broaden *music's* potential. Personally
I can see NO need (aside from the dictates of ones own artistic likes
and dislikes) to prune the field of choices here... In fact, I can
barely imagine why one would even suggest such a thing!

> Have alternate equal temperaments been successful for you?? and are
they WORTH the evening out of all the intervals and their special
characteristics in order to achieve it??

I personally tend to use a lot of equal tunings simply for the beauty
and musical usefulness (as I see it) inherent in them, and a lot of
these are by no means even best seen as "temperaments"; i.e., 11, 13,
20, (etc.). I think this is an important distinction that you might
not be taking into consideration. I also occasionally use some unusual
equal temperaments in the usual sense; i.e., to achieve a greater
degree of a certain desirable JI paradigm while at the same time
tempering out another not so desirable condition of that JI paradigm
(see the recent 5L4s, 9-tone posts)... and here the impetus and the
"compromise" all seem sound enough. But I must say that I really do
just see all this as a question of individual choice and preference
(rather than anything that could be looked at in any sort of
structural absolutist terms), and I personally prefer as deep a
reservoir of potential as I can possibly imagine to work from; others
may not.

Dan

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12060

Personally I can see NO need (aside from the dictates of ones own
artistic likes and dislikes) to prune the field of choices here... In
fact, I can barely imagine why one would even suggest such a thing!
>

Hello Dan! Thank you so much for your response to my questions.
Well, actually, MANY people have mentioned the desirability of
limiting choice in the arts. I believe T.S. Elliot was a great
advocate of restrictions... but I don't have any quotes handy here.

Surely Jean Cocteau was:

QUOTATION:
"Commissions suit me. They set limits. Jean Marais dared me to write
play in which he would not speak in the first act, would weep for joy
in the second and in the last would fall backward down a flight of
stairs."

This reminds me of a discussion that I am constantly having with
Johnny Reinhard. I think we will always disagree on this matter,
since it is more a matter of personality than anything. He advocates
TOTAL FREEDOM, and a "polymicrotonal" approach, and I abhor that...
prefering some kind of limitation in my materials.

For example, if I were to write a grand piece for garbage pail,
garden hose and hammer, I would stick with, and be wildly creative
with my garbage pail, garden hose and hammer. I wouldn't think for a
MOMENT of throwing a SCREWDRIVER in there! That would sound terrible.

I prefer restricted materials, and "wild creativity" within the
confines of those parameters. Even Stravinsky believed in this
concept. In fact, he found great solace in the fact that he only had
12 white and black keys to work with. (What tuning heresy!) I can't
find the quote right here... but I believe it is from his
"Autobiography."

> I personally tend to use a lot of equal tunings simply for the
beauty and musical usefulness (as I see it) inherent in them, and a
lot of these are by no means even best seen as "temperaments"; i.e.,
11, 13, 20, (etc.). I think this is an important distinction that you
might not be taking into consideration.
>

Well, of course, these ET's look really terrible from the point of
view of Paul Erlich's "ET consonance chart" so some might be inclined
to not think of them as tunings at all.

I would never say such a thing. But I imagine someone like Harry
Partch might (!?)

I would tend to think such ETs would fall more in the realm of a
"fabrication" not in the prevarication sense, but more akin to the
12-tone system. It's a wonder you are not so interested in that.

But, on the other hand, you admire Ives and his polychromatic
constructs, so there is certainly some consistency in that viewpoint.

Thanks so very much again for your comments!!!
___________ _____ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

> In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>> Personally I can see NO need (aside from the dictates of ones own
>> artistic likes and dislikes) to prune the field of choices here...

There are two kinds of restrictions that artists accept in contemplating the making of an art work:

1. The self-imposed... "I will restrict myself to this palette of possibilities in this context because it intrigues or inspires me, or challenges me and my artistic intelligence". Joseph Pehrson gave a sterling example of this:

> a grand piece for garbage pail, garden hose and hammer

2. The other-imposed... "I will accept these restrictions [gladly or not, depending] which are imposed on me by the government/ church/ tribe/ technology etc."

Examples of (2) are harder to come by, but for instance, Soviet composers who lived with various impositions through most of the 20th century, yet continued to produce great work.

Tuning restrictions could certainly be of either type. Sometimes we don't know what the restrictions are, until we break out of them.

Rick