RE: [tuning] Re: More of that awful Jeff Harrington

Jacky wrote,

>In other words, one cannot come into the rich vocabulary
>of JI, with 12 tET ears - and all the preconceptions that accompany
>tempered musical thought and practice, and expect the musical system
>to behave in the old well worn familiar ways. The comforts of
>temperaments await those that don't get this crucial point.

Jacky, I sympathize with your defense of JI against Jeff Harrington, and I'd
like to make a couple of points. First of all, 12-tET is a very recent
development, having been "standard" for only 150 years. The history of
Western music stretches back well over a millenium, encompassing many tuning
systems, and strict (meaning vertical _and_ horizontal) 5-limit JI tuning,
though presented over and over again in theory, was almost never a viable
tuning basis of the music. We had Pythagorean through the early 15th
century, a short period of schismatic pythagorean, meantone in the 16th-18th
centuries (for which a Vicentino-like _adaptive_ JI system is musically
viable but unwieldy for live musicians), and well-temperaments in the 18th
and early 19th centuries. The music written in each of these periods
depends, I think you'd agree, on the particular logic of the tuning system
that was informing composers' imaginations at the time. These tuning systems
were never mere "convenient approximations" to strict 5-limit JI -- each
(besides Pythagorean) has a logic that, while making use of the same
essential chordal structures as JI, connects them in a way that JI can't . .
.

. . . so you're absolutely right, strict JI requires us to abandon our
familiar ways of musical thought, the ones which informed the last millenium
of Western music, and explore new ones, which may ultimately come to form
one or more musical languages, perhaps alongside several others that other
microtonal tunings will inform.

I wrote,

>> We've brought that up before and though Jeff severely exaggerates
the point,
>> some of us (Dave Keenan, etc.) have suggested that, in music where
the
>> individual voices need to be heard clearly, it is best to stay a
cent or so
>> off JI for that reason.

Jacky wrote

>Paul,

>In past posts, it has been mentioned that a certain study of
>listening tests found that people fit roughly into two categories: 1.
>Those that prefer some beating in intervals, and 2. Those that find
>beatless or Just intervals more pleasing. I'm wondering if you might
>know if this paper is available on the internet - or do you know how
>I may learn more about this?

This is a different issue -- in this study, subjects were given five
different versions of 4:5:6 and 3:5:7 chords. The five versions had the
middle note flat 30 cents, flat 15 cents, just, sharp 15 cents, and sharp 30
cents. One group of listeners (the "pure" listeners) consistently preferred
the just versions of each chord, while another group (the "rich" listeners)
consistently preferred both of the 15-cent off versions of each chord. The
results were rather different for a 10:12:15 chord. The study was published
in a collection called _Harmony and Tonality_, proceedings of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Music, J. Sundberg, ed. (I've seen this in several
libraries). What we're talking about here are much smaller mistunings -- in
other words, let's proceed without considering, for now, the point of view
of the "rich" listeners.

>> The traditional prohibition against parallel fifths and octaves in
>> counterpoint is typically explained the same way -- the tones lose
their
>> independence, blending into a timbre, and the melody lines
disappear.

>Would it be incorrect to say that this may be more true of the lower
>number ratios, but when one makes choices from higher up the harmonic
>series - the same kinds of distictions may be obtained?

Absolutely -- harmonic entropy is precisely a measure of how well intervals
(and chords, when I get to them) blend into a single timbre. And notice (if
you haven't yet) how on the graphs, unisons (oh yeah, parallel unisons are
prohibited too), fifths, and octaves have much lower harmonic entropy than
other intervals within the octave.

>Not to
>mention that the timbres one chooses will impact on this "blending
>into a timbre" effect (the context thing again). I personally have
>never seen this as a problem in my exploration of JI.

Johnny Reinhard likes to bring up this "problem" too. I think Jeff
exaggerates it quite a bit, but I've definitely noticed it, and feel that a
tiny bit of mistuning (as occurs naturally in optimal meantones or John
deLaubenfels' adaptive-tuning renditions) gives the individual voices more
"buoyancy" with respect to the harmonies. A bigger problem with perfectly
exact (to, say, 0.05 cents) JI chords is that the indiviual tones, even if
clearly audible as separate notes, have harmonic partials which are
phase-locked with respect to one another. What that means is that coinciding
partials will either interfere constructively, or destructively, or
somewhere in-between, and that will never change as long as the chord is
held. This is a very unnatural sound to me, and is never experienced outside
of computer music, since real instruments will always be a tiny bit off JI
no matter what. In the latter case, the coincident partials go through
cycles of constructive and destructive interference, an effect which adds
immensely to the "realism" of a computer rendition of music. When I hear the
progressions of JI chords on Monz's Partch/Fox-Strangeways page, I can hear
all the voices individually -- they don't blend into timbres -- but I'm
disturbed by the "dead" quality of the partials in these phase-locked,
exact-JI chords. I prefer a tiny bit of mistuning, say on the order of a
cent or so, to allow the partials to complete a significant portion of the
constructive-destructive interference cycle during the time the chord is
held, to avoid the very unnatural computer-JI sound of being locked at one
point in this cycle.

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

> This is a very unnatural sound to me, and is never experienced
outside
> of computer music, since real instruments will always be a tiny bit
off JI
> no matter what.

This is extremely fascinating. As you know, this is where I am coming
from. And as an important part of good synthesis techniques, I'm
always concerned with creating "organic" sounding timbres to use in
my JI pieces - and I almost always have this built into the timbres
(both of the JI miniatures on the Tuning Lab have subtle pitch sifts
built into the synth sounds - as well as the flute there is a 30
second long sample of me playing the 1/1 of my wood flute). I enjoy
synth timbres and or samples of real world instruments that do have
this quality of very subtle pitch deviations - perhaps this is what
satisfies my ears in the manner you speak of, about tuning away from
Just. There is a huge difference in using a organ sound/static synth
(as well as the ultra-cheese of general midi modules/sound cards -
with their "out of the box" crappy sounds), and taking the time to
develop evolving/breathing/living timbres for electronic music. You
almost have got to have some ability to do electronic music sound
design for your electronic music to have any integrity. Otherwise it
never goes beyond being a "demo".

I prefer a tiny bit of mistuning, say on the order of a
> cent or so, to allow the partials to complete a significant portion
of the
> constructive-destructive interference cycle during the time the
chord is
> held, to avoid the very unnatural computer-JI sound of being locked
at one
> point in this cycle.

Do you find the above description of using subtle pitch shifting in
the synth timbre themselves a viable solution? Especially if it is
used to achieve the exact thing you speak of? I certainly detest
lifeless synth/sampled sounds - no matter what the tuning system.

Thanks,

Jacky

Jeff should go on to elaborate about cheesy Vrml worlds
ahem

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.virtulink.com/immp/video/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacky Ligon <jacky_ekstasis@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: More of that awful Jeff Harrington

>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
> > I wish Harrington would "hie" it over here. We could use
> his "awful"
> > commentary.
> > (I found his comments on JI timbres very interesting... something I
> > hadn't thought about...)
> >
> > [Harrington at AMC]:
> >
> > Oh, alright... I made a harsh judgement
> > about JI. I guess that explains all that wrong
> > note movement I've heard in Just pieces.
> > Always thought it was the musicians trying
> > so hard to play it right that it came out
> > wrong. :) Wow... that made a whole lot more
> > sense.
>
> It's so obvious that J.H. is coming from a 12 tET school of thought -
> everything he says is permeated with it. If he's hearing "wrong note
> movement" in JI, perhaps it could be due to jaded and burned out 12
> tET perceptions and preconceptions about tuning and music in general.
>
> >
> > You know, it's just *so* important to make
> > music compelling so that people will go and
> > appreciate the theory behind it!
>
> Well, we're waiting to hear that compelling microtonal music you've
> got - where may we find it?
>
> > One concern I have about JI, though and this
> > is probably the reason I'm not that interested
> > in it (yeah right) is that when these perfectly
> > tuned chords resonate... uh... they stop
> > being chords and form timbres. Now I kind
> > of relish that effect, but nonetheless, if you're
> > trying to write counterpoint and suddenly you
> > resolve your suspension and freakin' notes
> > disappear into a timbre. Hey! What's up
> > with that! That's just not good contrapuntal
> > practice!
>
> That he sees this as a detriment rather than a resource shows perfect
> naivety about JI as a tuning system. The rule is simple to
> understand - every conceivable tuning system under the Sun has it's
> own innate and latent potentials for musical generation, out of which
> an entire language of harmony and melody can be derived, and it is
> absurd to think that that any one of them should behave like the
> others do. In other words, one cannot come into the rich vocabulary
> of JI, with 12 tET ears - and all the preconceptions that accompany
> tempered musical thought and practice, and expect the musical system
> to behave in the old well worn familiar ways. The comforts of
> temperaments await those that don't get this crucial point.
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12839

> Jeff should go on to elaborate about cheesy Vrml worlds
> ahem
>

I see you saw some of those, Swifty!....
________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

At 09:16 PM 9/15/00 -0400, you wrote:
>---------------
>Jeff should go on to elaborate about cheesy Vrml worlds
>ahem
>
>Pat Pagano, Director
>South East Just Intonation Society
>http://www.virtulink.com/immp/video/
>http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
>-----Well, whether the poor lad is or isn't hopelessly stuck in 12tet, fact
is, he's composed some damned fine stuff, and his electronic things are dkronky.
Jay

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12846

> >-----Well, whether the poor lad is or isn't hopelessly stuck in
12tet, fact
> is, he's composed some damned fine stuff, and his electronic things
are dkronky.
> Jay

Most of the electronic things are thoroughly "microtonal." He just
likes "irrational" rather than "rational" numbers! As Jacky pointed
out, the same for his "Public Relations..." A really nice guy in
person, though: the ironic part of how the Internet can change the
personality.... probably a VERY fertile field for future (and
present)
psychologists!!!!
________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

Yes but i heard harrington was into JI and now you folks tell me different

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.virtulink.com/immp/video/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:31 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: More of that awful Jeff Harrington

>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12839
>
> > Jeff should go on to elaborate about cheesy Vrml worlds
> > ahem
> >
>
> I see you saw some of those, Swifty!....
> ________ ____ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>
>

i agree
i like his music OK i guess but classifying an entire tuning system as a
"neat idea" kinda miffs me.
I use JI because it hits me and is IMHO the proper tuning ~ not because it
sounds wacky or fits some
fashion

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.virtulink.com/immp/video/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:54 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: More of that awful Jeff Harrington

>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12846
>
>
> > >-----Well, whether the poor lad is or isn't hopelessly stuck in
> 12tet, fact
> > is, he's composed some damned fine stuff, and his electronic things
> are dkronky.
> > Jay
>
> Most of the electronic things are thoroughly "microtonal." He just
> likes "irrational" rather than "rational" numbers! As Jacky pointed
> out, the same for his "Public Relations..." A really nice guy in
> person, though: the ironic part of how the Internet can change the
> personality.... probably a VERY fertile field for future (and
> present)
> psychologists!!!!
> ________ ____ __ __
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>
>

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

> Do you find the above description of using subtle pitch shifting in
> the synth timbre themselves a viable solution? Especially if it is
> used to achieve the exact thing you speak of?

Sure sounds like it to me!

> I certainly detest
> lifeless synth/sampled sounds - no matter what the tuning system.

Same here. Maybe that's one reason I shifted from keyboard to guitar
at age 15 -- though synths have certainly improved in the last 13
years.

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

Maybe that's one reason I shifted from keyboard to guitar
> at age 15 -- though synths have certainly improved in the last 13
> years.

Paul,

In a recent post you mentioned that you had some plans to get a "near
just intonation guitar". I'm wondering what is your plan for the
fretting on this instrument? Ratios or cents values would be of great
interest. Will you use a subset of your 22 tone scale for this?

Thanks,

Jacky

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

> In a recent post you mentioned that you had some plans to get
a "near
> just intonation guitar". I'm wondering what is your plan for the
> fretting on this instrument? Ratios or cents values would be of
great
> interest. Will you use a subset of your 22 tone scale for this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacky

I've been doing a lot of playing on acoustic guitar tuned to a 3-
limit diad, e.g., D-A-D-D-A-D or B-F#-B-F#-B-F#. Frets corresponding
to the 22 srutis of Indian music (in the usual JI interpretation)
would be really nice, but I'm uncertain how playable the upper
members of comma pairs would be, particularly up high on the neck. I
need to give this more thought.