Re: [tuning] Re: Defining Just intonation direct/indirect

This isssue is important because "most" people are trained with et from the
get go.
so as composers of JI music it is our dual role when using the true tuning
system to infiltrate the tyranny and pluck the gemules(artists, virtuosi)
out.
It is our doody to make the transition pleasant. some folks tend to do this
via extended Ets 31,19,72 etc....which sound "out" wack NYC avant ...blah
blah...
Others simply radiate to Just Intonation immediately on a purely emotive
level.
The purity and the cerebral data implicates a return and eventual
acceptance.
we wish to expose to the purity. So some compositons become "direct"
JI, --music for musicians interested in the tuning pegs or
"indirect" JI or extended et--music for everyone without the "this is in
72", "17 limit" etc...label or significator.
because your mom does not care it that's a 7/4 or whatever she want's to
know if it sounds pretty.
here's an example of INDIRECT JI
I work at a Hospice House in Florida. Every year i make a donation in the
form of a piano tuning for both of our Baby Grand Steinway pianos
I had them put in Pythag 5 intonation. I use them for my piano compositions
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/page7.html
But about a month ago the hoisty toitsy Willis Bodine Chorale came to give a
concert of music. There were Psalms set to musik etc...about 5 pieces from
various periods
People adored it...some ladies even wept...i kid you not....All in Pythag
and i think i was the only one to notice.Out of all the Music Majors in the
chorale not one noticed that it was not
ET that they were used to....

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Defining Just intonation

> ligonj@northstate.net wrote:
>
> > I
> > believe it's important to consider that most folks listen to music on
> > a purely emotional level.
>
> That's right. Consider popular music (includes bubblegum, rap, metal,
> dance and so on...). It's not popular because the general public
> knows anything about tuning issues.
>
> > Can I get an Amen-a-?
>
> Yep.
>
>
> --
> * D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
> * 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
> * http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
>
>
> 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:

> It is our doody to make the transition pleasant. some folks tend to
do this
> via extended Ets 31,19,72 etc....which sound "out" wack NYC
avant ...blah
> blah...
> Others simply radiate to Just Intonation immediately on a purely
emotive
> level.

This dichotomy is bunk. 31-tET and 72-tET can be just as "radiant"
and "emotive", and JI as "out-wack-NYC-avant" . . . it's all in how
you use these tunings, and both are very flexible, but with different
strengths and weaknesses . . . for a better example of a tuning
forcing a feeling (a pretty cool one at that), try blues harmonica in
7-tET, for example.

> But about a month ago the hoisty toitsy Willis Bodine Chorale came
to give a
> concert of music. There were Psalms set to musik etc...about 5
pieces from
> various periods
> People adored it...some ladies even wept...i kid you not....All in
Pythag
> and i think i was the only one to notice.Out of all the Music
Majors in the
> chorale not one noticed that it was not
> ET that they were used to....

Pythagorean is pretty darn close to 12-tET, my friend!

Paul
do you really read these posts or am i wasting my time?
I was merely saying that some folks make transitions from standard ET in
differing ways.
Some transitions being direct and indirect
And i am completely aware of how close pythag is to 12equal, dude.
What i think is "bunk" is your shitty attitude.

ciao

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
> Paul
> do you really read these posts or am i wasting my time?
> I was merely saying that some folks make transitions from standard
ET in
> differing ways.
> Some transitions being direct and indirect
> And i am completely aware of how close pythag is to 12equal, dude.
> What i think is "bunk" is your shitty attitude.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, obviously I misunderstood you and
took you to be making a dichotomy which you weren't. If you can
forgive me, I'd like to hear a clarification of your point about
direct or indirect transitions. Again, my apologies for the shitty
attitude -- this is the kind of friendly but intense debate that I
grew up with and practiced in school -- I like challenging people's
preconceptions because I believe that unquestioned doctrine (whether
12tET or JI or whatever) is the most dangerous impediment to freedom
and progress. Hope you can forgive me and that we can continue with
an enlightening dialogue.

Well Paul
as it seems your comments to jacky as the ones in my own post are very
similar
my point was/is that there is a transitional process...not that 19 or 31 are
not radiant or emotive but
that they are steps towards a wider range of expression and true virtuosi
and even simple individuals can appreciate
a well/just tuned interval. The line i and i think you were drawing (it
seemed to me & which is why i posted ITFP) was one that it need not
be announced that , "this piece is in 17 limit or 72 tet" to be a valid
work. And my thread was that there are two idioms (at least) that i have
detected.
Direct and indirect. Neither being mutually exclusive mind you, but slightly
different.

No hard feelings...
no time to waste
cheers

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/

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

> And my thread was that there are two idioms (at least) that i have
> detected.
> Direct and indirect. Neither being mutually exclusive mind you, but
slightly
> different.

Hmm . . . curious about these labels. Whom would you put forward as
exemplars of these idioms? Where would Partch fall, and Wendy Carlos?
Haverstick? Ezra Sims -- indirect? Me & Ara, if you heard our
performance at the Microthon (since you brought up mothers, my mom
really liked the first piece and thought the other two were a little
too "conceptual", even though the first was most mathematically
worked-out)?

well i would say playing AFMM would count as a direct situation all round,
because of the name of it...
your mom would be indirectly influenced though as she would be using terms
like "conceptual" where the term you may prefer might be "31tet"
Her opinions are just as valid as a Prof of Music, even moreso because she
may have a willingness present to appreciate something because it happens to
be her son.
an ease of the rules....

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 3:23 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Defining Just intonation direct/indirect

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
>
> > And my thread was that there are two idioms (at least) that i have
> > detected.
> > Direct and indirect. Neither being mutually exclusive mind you, but
> slightly
> > different.
>
> Hmm . . . curious about these labels. Whom would you put forward as
> exemplars of these idioms? Where would Partch fall, and Wendy Carlos?
> Haverstick? Ezra Sims -- indirect? Me & Ara, if you heard our
> performance at the Microthon (since you brought up mothers, my mom
> really liked the first piece and thought the other two were a little
> too "conceptual", even though the first was most mathematically
> worked-out)?
>
>
>
> 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:
> well i would say playing AFMM would count as a direct situation all
round,
> because of the name of it...

I thought there was a lot of, as you put it, "NY-avant" music at the
microthon, which I thought you were defining as "indirect" -- am I
mistaken?

> your mom would be indirectly influenced though as she would be
using terms
> like "conceptual" where the term you may prefer might be "31tet"

Don't get it. Are you saying that "direct" means the music is the
only thing being communicated while "indirect" means there's a bunch
of lingo attached? That wouldn't really fit your remark . . . I guess
I'm failing to catch your drift. Well, I won't trouble you if you
wish to drop this, but please feel free to clarify . . .

No paul if you say
This is X, my composition in 31 tet you are making a direct attribute of the
music known.
If you simply play it without a moniker attached and let the listener decide
what it is or how it feels
you are subjecting them "indirectly" to an alternative tuning but not
featuring the tuning system as a type of qualifier
that is all i was saying

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 4:09 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Defining Just intonation direct/indirect

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
> > well i would say playing AFMM would count as a direct situation all
> round,
> > because of the name of it...
>
> I thought there was a lot of, as you put it, "NY-avant" music at the
> microthon, which I thought you were defining as "indirect" -- am I
> mistaken?
>
> > your mom would be indirectly influenced though as she would be
> using terms
> > like "conceptual" where the term you may prefer might be "31tet"
>
> Don't get it. Are you saying that "direct" means the music is the
> only thing being communicated while "indirect" means there's a bunch
> of lingo attached? That wouldn't really fit your remark . . . I guess
> I'm failing to catch your drift. Well, I won't trouble you if you
> wish to drop this, but please feel free to clarify . . .
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

shreeswifty wrote:
>
> No paul if you say
> This is X, my composition in 31 tet you are making a direct attribute of the
> music known.
> If you simply play it without a moniker attached and let the listener decide
> what it is or how it feels
> you are subjecting them "indirectly" to an alternative tuning but not
> featuring the tuning system as a type of qualifier
> that is all i was saying

The same would go for David Finnamores assumption that
listeners get "confused" by non-tonal music.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/15910

> No paul if you say
> This is X, my composition in 31 tet you are making a direct
attribute of the music known.
> If you simply play it without a moniker attached and let the
listener decide what it is or how it feels
> you are subjecting them "indirectly" to an alternative tuning but
not featuring the tuning system as a type of qualifier that is all i
was saying
>

I can certainly see what Swift Shree is saying... but, on the other
hand, for me personally, I would like more program notes explaining
what various tunings are in concerts. I really think I would enjoy
the pieces more, with a little more theoretical discussion of the
tuning "underpinnings..." Just my own preference... I guess...

_________ ___ __ _ _
Joseph Pehrson

So
Joeseph
according to what i am saying
you would be someone who enjoys "direct" communication or JI extET etc...
most likely because you are a composer yourself
the qualifier is significant to you because it is a language you are
familiar with as opposed to "mom"
who just likes the pretties :-)
cheers
Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Defining Just intonation direct/indirect

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/15910
>
> > No paul if you say
> > This is X, my composition in 31 tet you are making a direct
> attribute of the music known.
> > If you simply play it without a moniker attached and let the
> listener decide what it is or how it feels
> > you are subjecting them "indirectly" to an alternative tuning but
> not featuring the tuning system as a type of qualifier that is all i
> was saying
> >
>
> I can certainly see what Swift Shree is saying... but, on the other
> hand, for me personally, I would like more program notes explaining
> what various tunings are in concerts. I really think I would enjoy
> the pieces more, with a little more theoretical discussion of the
> tuning "underpinnings..." Just my own preference... I guess...
>
> _________ ___ __ _ _
> 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, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/15977

> So
> Joeseph
> according to what i am saying
> you would be someone who enjoys "direct" communication or JI extET
etc...
> most likely because you are a composer yourself
> the qualifier is significant to you because it is a language you are
> familiar with as opposed to "mom"
> who just likes the pretties :-)
> cheers
> Pat Pagano, Director
> South East Just Intonation Society
> http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
> http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/

Without doubt, there is truth to this! Charles Ives, of course, was
"the man" who hated the "pretties..." In fact, he envisioned an
"overtone machine" that only generated harmonic series pitches, to be
played during his _Universe Symphony_. Did you know about that??
Johnny Reinhard proved this definitively. In his rendition, however,
he used Jon Catler as his JI "overtone machine..." And a powerful
one it was!!!....
_________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson