Re: [tuning] Defining Just

on 11/26/00 3:23 AM, tuning@egroups.com at tuning@egroups.com wrote:

> David has here touched on a very important topic for me. Which can
> best be put as a question: Is the microtonal music we make "tuning
> theory" (or the realization thereof), or is it "music". Ultimately,
> and most importantly, I believe it's the latter that must always take
> precedence. Microtonal tuning theory does not good music make. And
> one must face a huge "alienation factor" with the consumer of this
> kind of niche market, when the focus is on the theory.

> What do you put forth with microtonal music that draws in the
> uninitiated? It's an important question to ask in the face of many
> cultural facts, such as: symphonies disbanding for lack of support,
> high school music programs being discontinued, classical music
> concert and CD sales at an all time low, and the ever deeper
> entrenchment of the big conglomo "content controlling" major record
> labels, who have such a power grip on the airwaves; distributing
> their own brand of "audio valium" - this is happening all over the
> country. What do microtonal composers have to contribute in these
> changing times? Part of the answer for me is beautiful music.

> Can I get an Amen-a-?
>

Absolutely, amen-a Jacky.

I think about this issue alot, and its' ramifications on my approach to
making music. I play many things in public without ever mentioning that they
are in JI, and many people appear to enjoy and be moved by the music. Much
of my living is made playing traditional folk music of one sort or another,
Appalachian, Celtic, blues, klezmer, eastern-European, etc. In much of this
music, the traditional players, mostly unschooled in our current
terminology, played in various folk intonations, many of which, when
analyzed from the 'math' perspective, turn out to be JI.

I have spent much effort, mostly by ear, to learn to play this music with
its' proper intonation, I have also spent considerable effort in learning to
understand and utilize JI from the math perspective. Folk music sounds
whitewashed to me to play it straight ET. And yet, I often encounter people
with classical background stating that the old music on 78s is 'out of tune'
and they prefer this music when listening to people who are playing it
'clean'.

Perhaps most fascinating to me is the many cases in which one or more
instruments are playing ET and others are juxtaposing JI against it, say a
voice or fiddle playing in JI with a guitar or piano accompaniment in 12ET.
See Cape Breton fiddle music or blues for great examples of this phenomenum.
One can onder what it would be like to hear this music completely JI, but tt
doesn't lessen the music for me to hear this juxtaposition, if anything, it
adds considerable intensity to the music.

I remember having an interesting thought when first encountering and
studying JI on a more intellectual level that has always stuck with me. The
question was whether I could get so into composing in JI that all music in
12 ET, including my own body of work as well, would cease to hold any
meaning for me? I have no answer for this, it is always evolving. Suffice it
to say, that for me, the quality/beauty/emotion of the music always takes
precedence. This holds true whether the music is simple folk or highly
mathematical avant-garde. It works or it doesn't, and for the most part, I
consider that to be highly subjective. Things that I didn't get on first
listen, I now love; things that I use to listen to as the 'ultimate' no
longer do anything for me.

Seth

--
Seth Austen
please visit me on the web at http://www.sethausten.com
email; seth@sethausten.com

Download a song (mp3) at www.mp3.com/sethausten