Horse Sense: was [tuning] Re: cents and centsability.2

Obviously, I'm not making myself clear to Joseph, and perhaps to others.

Let's try a different tack: How many on this list play the written music of
others in diverse tunings? I suspect none. This would mean the training
involved in reading music is different for the trained reader of music (i.e.,
the professionally trained player) and everyone else.

Now, that I have risked total separation from the group, let me dissect the
written music further. To represent music as pure math, so that we could use
1201 units as easily as 1200, is not the true aim of "prescriptive" music
(notated music as a prescription for performance meaning).

Now, if we do choose to use 1200 cents, so as to further enable musicians to
rapidly comprehend their ALREADY understood usage of 12 equal intervals, we
can use the midpoint of the ALREADY ACCEPTED interval of 100 cents into its
half.

Please Joseph, stop confusing a signpost with a preference for quartertone
tuning, or a bias towards quartertone tuning. My usage of 50 cent symbols is
based on lots of trial and error with many different players. It makes
reading easier and more accurate earlier on in rehearsal.

Sometimes a C# is higher than a Db, sometimes lower. This notation allows
specificity by acknowledging the identity ALREADY acknowledged by players.
It is only for them that I use these symbols. I use them for myself, and
I've tried many different notations in my polymicrotonal music. When I speak
to players about it, they understand easily what I am getting at.

Johnny Reinhard

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12538

>> Let's try a different tack: How many on this list play the written
music of others in diverse tunings? I suspect none.

Is this really true?? I thought there were performers on this list
who played music of others in diverse tunings?? Am I wrong again??

This would mean the training involved in reading music is different
for the trained reader of music (i.e., the professionally trained
player) and everyone else.
>

But, has anyone at all questioned this?? I thought that was why we
wanted to find something _universal_ that would be easily
performable. I thought that was why we had the discussion of the
72-tET school, since they do so MUCH ear training with practicing
musicians!

> Now, that I have risked total separation from the group,

I'm not certain why that would be assumed...

let me dissect the written music further. To represent music as pure
math, so that we could use 1201 units as easily as 1200, is not the
true aim of "prescriptive" music (notated music as a prescription for
performance meaning).
>

I'm not understanding this... When has anybody advocated using 1201
units?? I must be missing something... Which post number was that??

> Now, if we do choose to use 1200 cents, so as to further enable
musicians to rapidly comprehend their ALREADY understood usage of 12
equal intervals, we can use the midpoint of the ALREADY ACCEPTED
interval of 100 cents into its half.
>
> Please Joseph, stop confusing a signpost with a preference for
quartertone tuning, or a bias towards quartertone tuning.

I don't think that was ME, if you will re-read the posts. I believe
it was Kraig Grady who was a bit offended by this. And also, Paul
Erlich doesn't like 24-tET. But not ME. I've been using it as a
starting point after your original suggestions...

>My usage of 50 cent symbols is based on lots of trial and error with
>many different players. It makes reading easier and more accurate
>earlier on in rehearsal.

But I thought many of us felt that the "quartertone +" notation WAS
the easiest way for the professional musician! The QUESTION was
whether it should be "quartertone +/- <51" or "quartertone +/- <26."

Joe Monzo, logically, advocates the latter...

> Sometimes a C# is higher than a Db, sometimes lower. This notation
allows specificity by acknowledging the identity ALREADY acknowledged
by players.

Yes, so you are saying that they mean something SPECIFIC... They are
not interchangable. That's been my point, and Monzo's all along...
So there should be no reason to have two different notations for the
SAME pitch... two notations should only "prescribe" two DIFFERENT
pitches...

> It is only for them that I use these symbols. I use them for
myself, and I've tried many different notations in my polymicrotonal
music. When I speak to players about it, they understand easily what
I am getting at.

But, more easily than the 72-tET school?? Have you TRIED 72-tET with
your players? I would hesitate to think that they would be teaching
this system at the New England Conservatory if it were entirely
without merit.

__________ _____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson