Re: [tuning] freedom vs. license [drivers]

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> 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.

Right. I never said (or at least never meant to say) that it's not a
good idea to have an agenda, or a strong idea of what one would like
to do with such and such options... I just prefer a broad palette when
it comes to tunings en mass.

> 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.

Sure, tastes as well; certain aesthetic near-and-dear's are inevitably
going to ecstatically excite some while leaving others totally
nonplussed.

> He advocates TOTAL FREEDOM, and a "polymicrotonal" approach, and I
abhor that... prefering some kind of limitation in my materials.

Well, I would guess that you mean that you abhor the viewpoint as it
simply doesn't work for you, or runs up against what it is that your
trying to achieve, but I still imagine that you would be open to the
actual music done by those who work in this personally disagreeable
fashion?

> 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.

Hmm, even if it didn't!

> I prefer restricted materials, and "wild creativity" within the
confines of those parameters.

Oh, I definitely like parameters as well -- it's restrictions that I
don't do so well with!

> Well, of course, these ET's look really terrible from the point of
view of Paul Erlich's "ET consonance chart"

So what!

> so some might be inclined to not think of them as tunings at all.

That certainly shouldn't be the result of such a chart! However, you
may be right, that that is a somewhat common byproduct of such things
though... too bad if you ask me.

> 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.

Hmm, not sure I'm following you there, could you elaborate a bit?

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

Sure, "Ives and his polychromatic constructs" were definitely a huge
formative influence on what I wanted to do microtonally. "Don't leave
me here" is a very easy piece to follow in that regard, as its
composite mixes 20, 19, and 12 equal (20 and 12 for the most part) as
well as 5-limit JI, without the overall density of parts of most of
what I do.

<http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/55/117_west_great_western.html>

After working with these types of intonational composites for over ten
years now, I really do believe that they not only lend added layers of
individuality and definition to dense aggregates of separate parts,
but that they also can substantially enrich the impact of the whole
(at least that's my view...). I should also point out that these
composites generally do not sound nor operate like either JI or ET
structures, and that the parameters that I'm interested in here are
music first structures, and (for better or worse) you would not likely
windup there with any overriding, tuning first type of parameter.

> Thanks so very much again for your comments!!!

Likewise!

Dan

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12087

>
> > He [Reinhard] advocates TOTAL FREEDOM, and a "polymicrotonal"
approach, and I abhor that... prefering some kind of limitation in my
materials.
>
> Well, I would guess that you mean that you abhor the viewpoint as it
> simply doesn't work for you, or runs up against what it is that your
> trying to achieve, but I still imagine that you would be open to the
> actual music done by those who work in this personally disagreeable
> fashion?
>

Oh, why absolutely, Dan. I thought you knew me well enough to assume
that... but I guess not :) Johnny Reinhard is a MASTER in working in
this way, and he has made much masterful music in it. But, of
course, he has an EXCEPTIONAL feeling for disparate materials and
theater. He could make virtually ANYTHING engrossing -- systems or
non-systems!

>
> > Well, of course, these ET's look really terrible from the point of
> view of Paul Erlich's "ET consonance chart"
>
> So what!
>
>
> > so some might be inclined to not think of them as tunings at all.
>
> That certainly shouldn't be the result of such a chart! However, you
> may be right, that that is a somewhat common byproduct of such
things though... too bad if you ask me.
>

No, no. I'm just saying that somebody with a very strong viewpoint,
like Partch, would use such a chart to "evaluate" temperaments. I
thought you even agreed with that. (Partch "wit and spit.") I never
even said it was my own attitude...

>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm, not sure I'm following you there, could you elaborate a bit?
>

Well, you were just recently mentioning the Mathieu we had been
discussing and the "smoothness" of the mechanical method...

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12073

>I certainly agree! Though it might also be instructive to remember
>something along the lines of no less a JI advocate than W. A.
>Mathieu's "Trojan horse of equal temperament" here:

>"Play an equal-tempered chromatic scale again, up and down several
>octaves in one hand, not too fast, and let your ear savor its
>regularity, its newfangled, manufactured, precisely measured
>_sameness_. Don't be bored, be fascinated, mesmerized. This
>sensibility opens the door for the more complex symmetrical forces
>hidden inside the Trojan horse of equal temperament."

...something "constructed" and not immediately evidenced in nature.
At least that's what I was getting from your post. Nothing wrong
with
that... it's just that BOTH the Mathieu and the 12-tET system have
that kind of "constructional sophistication." Now, whether it REALLY
IS sophistication, as Schoenberg might assert, or going AGAINST
nature... and going against nature, as Helmholtz or Kraig Grady might
assert is NOT REALLY SOPHISTICATED at all. Some might find it
actually stupid.

On your OWN work:
> individuality and definition to dense aggregates of separate parts,
> but that they also can substantially enrich the impact of the whole
> (at least that's my view...). I should also point out that these
> composites generally do not sound nor operate like either JI or ET
> structures, and that the parameters that I'm interested in here are
> music first structures, and (for better or worse) you would not
likely windup there with any overriding, tuning first type of
parameter.
>

Sounds like great, innovative stuff Dan!!

__________ ____ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson