Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning no commmercial potential

This is a follow up to what Neil Haverstick was saying about the commercial
potential of microtonal music.

IMHO microtonal music is already popular but people [creators & consumers]
are not aware that the music is microtonal.. One obvious example is the
recent success of Moby's album 'Play'. Almost all the songs relied heavily
on samples of field recordings made by Alan Lomax of a capella singing by
blues singers. These recordings unmistakenly contained 7 limit just
intonation harmonies and melodies. So obviously people respond to music
with unfamiliar harmonies.

One observation I have made is that to actually make popular music the most
important thing is to have words, lyrics, singing. Instrumental music of
any kind [with one important exception] has not been popular since people
stopped dancing to jazz. And there is another point, people generally want
to have some physical involvement with music. This is the crux of Partch's
corporeal manifesto that everyone seems to have ignored or
forgotton.'Genesis of A Music' was not just a book about microtones or
extended just intonation but the biggest thread was a tirade against
abstract music.

And what kind of music are most of the microtonalists creating ?
Answer-abstrct music.

Put simply abstract music is not popular. Songs and music people can dance
to are popular.

This music need not be bland and mediocre but if it is in Just Intonation
it should not sound 'out of tune' [Dave Keenan made this excellent point].
The problem with art music is that techniques and form are the ends not the
means to an end. For me the goal of music is communication of ideas
wrapped up in emotions.

Music does not in itself convey ideas or at least not very specific ideas.
Words do convey specific ideas. Music accompanying lyrics can colour and
add a general emotional feeling, perception or value to ideas contained in
songs.

The other big one is dance. If music does not make human limbs and torsos
want move in a rhythmic way it only succeeds in conveying a general emotion
or if words are included ideas will however be communicated.

Most microtonal music I have heard fails on almost all these counts, And
could never be popular unless some consideration were given to these ideas.

The lyrics in songs needn't be banal or stupid. Tom Waits who has written
some of the best lyrics since Captain Beefheart has had commercial success
with his last album 'Mule Variations' which was 1 on the American album
charts for quite a while.

Anyway with some care anyone on this list could come up with something that
was commercially popular yet still had intellectual interest.

But please when you send off your demo to a record company don't talk about
what tuning your track is in ! They won't care but if it sounds good they
will know.

Justin White

DAVID JONES LIMITED ACN 000 074 573

This email and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for
the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose
or use the information contained in it. If you have received this email in
error, please tell us immediately by return email and delete the document.

The contents and any attachments are the opinion of the sender and not
necessarily that of David Jones Limited.

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Justin White wrote,

<< The problem with art music is that techniques and form are the ends
not the means to an end. For me the goal of music is communication of
ideas wrapped up in emotions. >>

Why I should give a rat's hat I don't really know, but these types of
blanket statements -- "the problem with __________" (fill in the blank
with your prescription for the thang you ain't personally diggin') --
do indeed get me honked!

I mean it just seems to me that anyone whose really in it the right
way is going to have to find out for themselves what's problematic and
what's not... no?

For me personally, Partch's corporeality would be a match made in
hell! All wrong... but in the context (and singular delivery) of
Partch, it I find it both immensely inspiring and just as it should
be... the man, the music, the ideas, they all line right up.

Personally I think Partch's music, while lining up favorably with most
of your 'what makes a popular music criteria', is one of the most
least likely to be "commercially popular" that I could possibly think
of... and thank the deity of your choice for that I'd say! I mean
we're talking a streak of fierce and ornery independence so strong
here that it's all but guaranteed to scare off everyone save the
intrepid experimentalist and (only because Partch preached the JI
gospel as he did) those overly interested in tuning issues.

Here's a question for anyone who cares to offer a view...

Do you think the spirit of Partch's music would be said to have
resonated most with

a) the EMI, DIY crowd
b) the experimentalist fringe
c) the alternate tuning crowd
d) _________ (dealers choice)

--Dan Stearns

🔗mango <j.kolling@chello.nl>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

Justin White wrote,

>Almost all the songs relied heavily
>on samples of field recordings made by Alan Lomax of a capella singing by
>blues singers. These recordings unmistakenly contained 7 limit just
>intonation harmonies and melodies.

Whoa! I agree that there's a lot of microtonality there, but "almost all"
"unmistakenly contained" 7-limit just? Care to back that up?

>Instrumental music of
>any kind [with one important exception] has not been popular since people
>stopped dancing to jazz.

Around here there's a very, very popular brand of jazz/funk that young
people are dancing to. Ever heard of Medeski, Martin, and Wood?

>If music does not make human limbs and torsos
>want move in a rhythmic way it only succeeds in conveying a general emotion

A general emotion? I don't know what that means, but I've seen huge
audiences transfixed during long non-danceable, lyricless segments of many
bands such as Phish. Being in a danceable band myself, I know that our
non-danceable numbers are enjoyed with as much appreciation as the danceable
ones -- people appreciate the chance to rest their bodies and use their
heads instead.

🔗Monz <MONZ@JUNO.COM>

Justin White:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16929
>
> Put simply abstract music is not popular. Songs
> and music people can dance to are popular.
>
> ...
>
> The other big one is dance. If music does not
> make human limbs and torsos want move in a rhythmic
> way it only succeeds in conveying a general emotion
> or if words are included ideas will however be
> communicated.

Paul Erlich responded:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16952
>
> A general emotion? I don't know what that means,
> but I've seen huge audiences transfixed during
> long non-danceable, lyricless segments of many
> bands such as Phish. Being in a danceable band
> myself, I know that our non-danceable numbers are
> enjoyed with as much appreciation as the danceable
> ones -- people appreciate the chance to rest their
> bodies and use their heads instead.

Whoa!! Hold on there, Justin! In agreement with
Paul, I must add that my favorite composer (most folks
here already know this...) is Mahler, and if anyone's
music is abstract, it's *his*!

And I'm far from alone in my admiration: Mahler is
today one of the most popular composers ever. If
you'd like to see evidence that some people are far
more fanatical about him than even I am, take a
look at this:

http://www.visi.com/~mick/shrine.html

You have to be really careful about making sweeping blanket
statements about what makes music popular. In this day and age,
people have access to everything that's ever been written, and
tastes vary accordingly. I personally really dig music that
"sounds out of tune", and I bet Dan Stearns does too!

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

🔗Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>

on 12/28/00 1:45 AM, tuning@egroups.com at tuning@egroups.com wrote:

> Personally I think Partch's music, while lining up favorably with most
> of your 'what makes a popular music criteria', is one of the most
> least likely to be "commercially popular" that I could possibly think
> of... and thank the deity of your choice for that I'd say! I mean
> we're talking a streak of fierce and ornery independence so strong
> here that it's all but guaranteed to scare off everyone save the
> intrepid experimentalist and (only because Partch preached the JI
> gospel as he did) those overly interested in tuning issues.

Dan,

I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. Partch was a true pioneer, and
didn't appear to give a x#$% what anyone thought, or whether they liked they
music. I love his music, but even more than that, I love his vision, his
willingness to delve deeply into thinking about the core issues of what
passes for music, and to come up with a body of work based on that vision.

> Here's a question for anyone who cares to offer a view...
>
> Do you think the spirit of Partch's music would be said to have
> resonated most with
>
> a) the EMI, DIY crowd
> b) the experimentalist fringe
> c) the alternate tuning crowd
> d) _________ (dealers choice)
>

All of the above, IMO

Seth

--
Seth Austen
http://www.sethausten.com
email; seth@sethausten.com

--------

"All TRUTH passes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
Third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

no commmercial potential

🔗Justin White <justin.white@davidjones.com.au>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗mango <j.kolling@chello.nl>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

🔗Monz <MONZ@JUNO.COM>

🔗Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

🔗MotoMusic@aol.com

🔗Adam Bushell <AdamCWB@appleonline.net>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>