limitations of notation in general

Joe Monzo wrote something very interesting:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/2502

>The point that I'm so doggedly belaboring here is that
>what is necessary or desirable in a tuning system does
>not necessarily equate, transport, or sometimes even
>approximate what works for a notation.

>Look at the usual sheet-music notation for harmony:
>letter-names, numbers, and a handful of symbols. And
>that's enough to describe what John Coltrane did?

>Apparently so, because I know a *lot* of musicians
>whose only paleographic understanding of Coltrane's music
>is that small heap of chord notations. And yet, they
>can reproduce it as faithfully as their technique
>will allow.

The point here is the fact that some *living* musicians were around
to hand over the tradition and interpret the notation. The notation
was not enough to do it by itself.

I was just reminded AGAIN of the limitations of notation by a piece
for violin and piano of mine which has been in rehearsal. (This is
in my "alte Stile" using only some quarter tones!)

There was some misunderstand as to the general character of the
music, even though it had been pretty clearly indicated.

In my experience, it is RARE that notation communicates the exact
intention of a composer... That's why it's so important that
composers attend at least ONE rehearsal.

It's nobody's fault. It's just that notation never completely does
the job of delimiting ALL the physical and emotional parameters. So,
it surely doesn't surprise me that in complex, and NEW tuning
systems, notation would come up short as well...

_________ ____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

> [Joseph Pehrson]
>
> It's nobody's fault. It's just that notation never completely
> does the job of delimiting ALL the physical and emotional
> parameters. So, it surely doesn't surprise me that in complex,
> and NEW tuning systems, notation would come up short as well...

Joe, you understand my points entirely.

Probably the main reason I like the prime-factor notation
so much is because it exposes plainly how all the pitches
fit into the lattice, which to me conveys by far the greatest
wealth of harmonic/melodic/affectual information about
musical intervals.

My goal in developing my prime-factor notation was to
provide the simplest possible way for trained musicians
(i.e., already familiar with staff-notation) to get *precisely*
the JI intonational nuances I wanted, as easily and quickly
as possible.

I haven't really tried it myself in practice, for a wide
variety of reasons, some of which were major setbacks in
my life (stolen equipment, marital stuff, etc...).
Now I just create all my music on the computer myself,
so I don't really need it. I'd love to get some real
empirical feedback on it.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

--- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12281

>
> I haven't really tried it myself in practice, for a wide
> variety of reasons, some of which were major setbacks in
> my life (stolen equipment, marital stuff, etc...).
> Now I just create all my music on the computer myself,
> so I don't really need it. I'd love to get some real
> empirical feedback on it.
>

Well, Monz, this is nice... and I enjoy making electronic music, too.

But why don't we try a new direction where we all write "real" music
in different kinds of notation to try out on "traditional,
professional" musicians...

I will discuss the possibility to augment Johnny Reinhard's AFMM in
some of these directions. It could be a kind of "notation concert."
Maybe we could even try the SAME PIECES in different notations and
solicit performer opinions....

This would be VERY interesting to me. I hope Johnny will be as
interested. There will be a board meeting at my place soon, and I
will propose it...

Best,

Joe (too)
___________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

So let me make sure I'm following along correctly. The proposed
notation systems to try out on "traditional, professional musicians"
are:

1. 72 tET
2. 144 tET
3. 24 tET as a reference from which to alter pitches.
4. Just Intonation Ratios - as altered by cents, away from 12 tET.

Help me out if I'm missing one here.

I'm also admittedly shackled to electronic ways of dealing with
tunings, but I think I'd have to put my money on number 4, based upon
my, brief but rewarding experience of working with a professional
cellist back in the mid 90s. She was able to nail the Just pitches
with very brief exposure to them and the notation was traditional
with cents values. I do think and important part of how well it
worked out, was that she had an impeccable ear, and was able to
internalize the pitch set being used, after relating it to the
familiar notation and then playing along with a Justly tuned synth.
It was remarkable to see someone play the small shades of pitch
with "cents" accuracy. One scale I used to use, had two tritones at
24/17 and 17/12, which has only 6 cents between - well, in the middle
range, she could play these two pitches so melodically accurately
that there would be no audible beats to my ears.

I guess this is my 2 "cents"

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
wrote:
>
> But why don't we try a new direction where we all write "real"
music
> in different kinds of notation to try out on "traditional,
> professional" musicians...
>
> I will discuss the possibility to augment Johnny Reinhard's AFMM in
> some of these directions. It could be a kind of "notation
concert."
> Maybe we could even try the SAME PIECES in different notations and
> solicit performer opinions....
>
> This would be VERY interesting to me. I hope Johnny will be as
> interested. There will be a board meeting at my place soon, and I
> will propose it...