Re: [tuning] Re: limitations of notation in general

Jacky Ligon wrote,

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

I'm sure there are many, many more as well (Ben Johnston's notation
for instance). These ones just happen to be up due to the recent
threads.

> 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.

Maybe you could write a bit more about the piece here... how the
context enabled these two intervals to be both distinct from one
another, and from many other "random" or near intervals in a range
that would cover a small handful of cents to the left or to the right.

Dan

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> Maybe you could write a bit more about the piece here... how the
> context enabled these two intervals to be both distinct from one
> another, and from many other "random" or near intervals in a range
> that would cover a small handful of cents to the left or to the
right.
>

Unfortunately what we did together, I wouldn't qualify as a "piece".
I was never able to develop it to a performance level, or even make
an acceptable recording - only just practicing and trying out various
tunings with synthesizers and the Cello - so all I can contribute is
what I remember from observation. The context involved extremely
slow, simple playing in a droning style, where for instance the synth
and the cello would be playing in unison over a drone. So there
wasn't much use of random pitch (as my synth was providing a
reference some of the time) - and I was deliberately using simple
chord structures so as to make a 6 cents melodic shift audible - I
realize that this would take some careful listening for the
uninitiated. Even though this small of an interval fits within
the "limit of discrimination" if you tune this up and play the
interval in the middle range - with a string-like timbre, both
simultaneously, then sequentially - it doesn't take long to begin to
recognize them as 2 distinct pitches. Admittedly, these are subtle
kinds of effects that require a more delicate and minimal approach
for the effect to perceived - but I just love this kind of listening
experience. I guess my point was simply that, I observed that
performers can work with cents. If it would be helpful, I will
happily create a musical example for the Tuning Experiment page to
demonstrate what the 6 cents sounds like. Of course this would be
electronic, so would it have any value in this discussion about live
performance?

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

There is no value to trying different notations of the same piece. Notation
is only 1 step along the way to making music.

Ben Johnston's notation is no assist as it requires mathematical computation
for accidentals of a single note, often combining addition and subtraction.

As Gardner Read's book pointed out there are many different notations for
many different tunings, however because I present all of them, I recommend a
notation that works well for them all.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12295

> There is no value to trying different notations of the same piece.
Notation
> is only 1 step along the way to making music.
>
> Ben Johnston's notation is no assist as it requires mathematical
computation
> for accidentals of a single note, often combining addition and
subtraction.
>
> As Gardner Read's book pointed out there are many different
notations for
> many different tunings, however because I present all of them, I
recommend a
> notation that works well for them all.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

Hi Johnny!

Well... that shoots that one for a possibility with the AFMM. Maybe
we can try this "little experiment" elsewhere.

How about this, crew... how about maybe a short "experimental piece"
rather than a whole work which, as Johnny suggests, maybe
"counter-productive" in a musical sense...

This experiment would be a short exercise which would be in
quarter-tone notation with cents "adjustments" as Johnny fervently
advocates and then, presuming it is in a tuning system compatible
with it :), the same exercise translated to 72-tET.

Then let the player comment on which "seemed" more intuitive. Is
this interesting, or is it a dumb exercise?
__________ ____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jacky Ligon" <jacky_ekstasis@y...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12294

If it would be helpful, I will
> happily create a musical example for the Tuning Experiment page to
> demonstrate what the 6 cents sounds like. Of course this would be
> electronic, so would it have any value in this discussion about
live
> performance?

Sorry, Jacky... I missed this on my first "list read." Yes, this
would be terrific, when you get around to it...
______________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

Monz wrote,

>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.

To me, it carries no melodic information whatsoever.

> [Paul H. Erlich]
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12321
>
> Monz wrote,
>
> > 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.
>
> To me, it carries no melodic information whatsoever.

I was originally going to write 'harmonic/affectual', but then
I had the thought that intervals can be used in melody with (in
some styles of music) no intentional harmonic context whatever.
So I thought it prudent to add 'melodic'. That's all I meant.

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