Re: [tuning] retreat to 24-tET possible...

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> Well, I have heard some of this. I have heard Ezra Sim's music.
However, I am not a fan.... His music to me has an "academic" sound
that would sound pretty much the same REGARDLESS of the tuning he was
using...

All well and fine, personal tastes are whatever they are. However, I
was only speaking for the fact that the 72-tET *notation* is already
up and runing in more than one circle, and that its doability probably
should'nt be in doubt.

> So basically, if I am understanding your correctly, doubling the
number of pitches of 72-tET to 144 actually DECREASES the limit
consistency of the scale, from the 17th limit to the 11th! This would
certainly not advocate for the usage of it as an "improvement" in my
view...

Well no, it's consistency is obviously not improved... this however,
is (in my opinion) to give consistency a potentially misleading,
overbearing, bogeyman-like status! Most folks would see a jump from
12-tET to 24-tET (as you yourself indeed appear to be at least
partially advocating) as an increase in potential resources while
keeping what you already have and know intact. However, 12-tET is
consistent through the 9 odd-limit while 24-tET is consistent through
only the 5 odd-limit! So what? The importance that you place on
consistency depends upon what it is that your trying to do... how you
look at things... how you do things... etc. (etc.).

> Actually, I disagree with you on this point. I am beginning to feel
that instrumentalists, with a little instruction, will be able to work
with the idea that there are 100 cents per semitone, and will be able
to use this, in conjunction with the idea of quartertones.

What! A sudden mysterious leap from a semitone halved to (anything
resembling) one hundredths of semitone? How exactly does one go about
this!

> I don't know how many instrumentalists you are working with
lately... I work with them all the time... but my recent experience is
that EVERYBODY can play quartertones now...They don't even ask about
it!

Well yes, I (from my vantage point) would consider you a lucky man on
both counts.

> It is only a "small step" LITERALLY, from there to an understanding
of 100 cents per semitone.

Again, what (exactly) does this mean!

ds

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

> What! A sudden mysterious leap from a semitone halved to (anything
> resembling) one hundredths of semitone? How exactly does one go
about
> this!

I must agree with Dan. If classically trained musicians can be
trained
to learn quartertones, they can be trained to learn third-tones, and
then to apply the small interval between a third-tone and a quarter-
tone systematically across the octave, to yield 72-tET. Personally
I'd
have much greater confidence in the ability of musicians so trained
to
accurately perform a piece of music by, say, Partch, than musicians
who learned quartertones and then suddenly had their quartertones
divided into fifty parts -- would I trust that such a musician, when
told to play an E-flat 33 cents flat, won't actually play it 39 cents
flat or 26 cents flat?

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12244

>
> All well and fine, personal tastes are whatever they are. However, I
> was only speaking for the fact that the 72-tET *notation* is already
> up and runing in more than one circle, and that its doability
probably should'nt be in doubt.
>
>
Ok... I read a little ahead on the posts, for once, and I can see
that I need to learn more about this system. Could someone PLEASE
send me some samples of it?? I will pay BIG money. Even over $30...

Also, PLEASE include the "key" to the notation. If I'm understanding
this all correctly, the 72-tET system includes 12-tET in it! And it
seems that the "alterations" are really quite a bit more managable
than thinking of 50 cents alterations from a quarter tone.

I can surely see that you guys have spent some time thinking about
this in detail. You must forgive me as still a relative "novice."

However, until I get the information on the system and learn to
"internalize" it, I will continue to use quartertones with an
"adjustment" of up to 50 cents, like Johnny Reinhard taught me!

I should also mention, as an explanation of my current, hopefully,
"practical" method... I also use a "dummy track." No, don't laugh. I
mean, I am using a synthesizer track for the performer to "practice"
with. Then, of course, in performance, that track is subtracted, a
la "music minus one..."

Hopefully, with that along with the quartertone/plus minus 50, they
will be able to do it.

HOWEVER, after reading the explanations of the 72-tET, I am beginning
to wonder if perhaps it isn't even SIMPLER than that, and easier to
do... particularly with the 12-tET subset.

I think I should learn about this immediately. I will check out the
72-tET website that Paul Erlich recently posted.

The important thing will be to get scores and recordings of this
music so I can judge in a practical way for myself.

I'm thinking, though, that I may want to try it. Any suggestions
about how I can get the music would be greatly appreciate.

Could we start with somebody OTHER than Ezra Sims, though. :)

Nothing personal, just a bias...

>
> Well no, it's consistency is obviously not improved... this however,
> is (in my opinion) to give consistency a potentially misleading,
> overbearing, bogeyman-like status! Most folks would see a jump from
> 12-tET to 24-tET (as you yourself indeed appear to be at least
> partially advocating) as an increase in potential resources while
> keeping what you already have and know intact. However, 12-tET is
> consistent through the 9 odd-limit while 24-tET is consistent
through only the 5 odd-limit!

OK. So this is an excellent argument, which Paul Erlich also makes
further along the post line...

So actually, Dan, perhaps it really is true that "consistency" really
doesn't mean all that much...

This is truly, not to pun, "consistent" with your other arguments
about equal scales in general as compared to uneven just scales....
in the overview perhaps the "purity" of the paradigm is not the only
consideration...

Of course, as is patently obviously, my contention is that virtually
every living "classical" musician can play quarter tones... or, at
least, won't "go crazy" upon encountering such music (except in a few
extremely conservative quarters... quarter-tones) and this is, of
course, a powerful positive for this system.

Besides, I've been using quarter-tones in my music for a long time...
and have never even THOUGHT of them as being "xenharmonic," they are
so tied to the 12-tET "common practice."

> > Actually, I disagree with you on this point. I am beginning to
feel that instrumentalists, with a little instruction, will be able
to work with the idea that there are 100 cents per semitone, and will
be able to use this, in conjunction with the idea of quartertones.
>
> What! A sudden mysterious leap from a semitone halved to (anything
> resembling) one hundredths of semitone? How exactly does one go
about this!
>
Ummm... I didn't have the vaguest idea of what you were talking about
here until Joe Monzo explained it to me here:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12254

4 pairs (which form the 72-tET basis):

# and b for 1/2-tones = 100 cents
^ and v for 1/4-tones = 50 cents
> and < for 1/6-tones = 33.1/3 cents
+ and - for 1/12-tones = 16.2/3 cents
>

That DOES look mighty "practical." I'm assuming that the notation
works "in combination" then, obviously. i.e. # + ^ + <, etc. It
obviously has to... but I've never seen this yet in real music!!!

>
> > I don't know how many instrumentalists you are working with
> lately... I work with them all the time... but my recent experience
is that EVERYBODY can play quartertones now...They don't even ask
about it!
>
> Well yes, I (from my vantage point) would consider you a lucky man
on both counts.

Actually, Dan, there isn't so much "luck" to it. It's been a long,
hard "haul" and much of my time... as is Johnny Reinhard's by the
way... is taken up raising money and doing grant applications.

Fortunately, I can sometimes "abuse" my "day job" to do some of this.
I'm glad to know that no one else around here conducts themselves in
a similar manner...

>
> > It is only a "small step" LITERALLY, from there to an
understanding of 100 cents per semitone.
>
> Again, what (exactly) does this mean!
>

Like I said, until Monz delimited it for me in #12254, I had
ABSOULTELY no idea what you were talking about!

Hoping to get "up to speed" soon... and I WANT TO SEE AND HEAR THOSE
72-tET SCORES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________ ____ ___ ___ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12251

> I must agree with Dan. If classically trained musicians can be
> trained
> to learn quartertones, they can be trained to learn third-tones,
and
> then to apply the small interval between a third-tone and a quarter-
> tone systematically across the octave, to yield 72-tET. Personally
> I'd have much greater confidence in the ability of musicians so
trained to
> accurately perform a piece of music by, say, Partch, than musicians
> who learned quartertones and then suddenly had their quartertones
> divided into fifty parts -- would I trust that such a musician,
when
> told to play an E-flat 33 cents flat, won't actually play it 39
cents
> flat or 26 cents flat?

Ummm. The practical logic of this is irrefutable. But, is Harry
Partch's 43 tone system ALSO a subset of 72-tET???

Gee... I guess it WOULD be... since if 72 is accurate to the 11th
limit... and Partch goes to the 11th limit!!

Wow.

_____________ _____ ___ __ ___
Joseph Pehrson