Re: Ligon question, interpretation or...

Jacky said :

> Do you not see any ethical (or moral) problems with altering the
> compositional intentions of the work of past composers (especially
> those so recently deceased)? Do you not feel that this kind of
> modification to other's compositions (whether public domain or not),
> represents a kind of "distortion" of the original intent of the
> composer?

As a jazz musician, the question is remarkably detatched from the
way I approach music. Most of the time, we are playing the melody,
harmony and rhythm different from the original composers intent,
and to many people walking into the middle of a performance, it may
be unrecognizeable as th piece in question. However, if the composer
had not done his/her work, my work would not be the same.

I think the classical world is sometimes much too conservative with
interpretation, regarding the composers (and conductors) as 'Gods',
and the actual players as part of the machinery of reproduction. There
are many exceptions to this in the past; rearranging composers works
for other instruments and ensembles, 'variations on a theme of...',
cadenzas, and improvisation in baroque music (realisation of figured
bass).

So, I would rephrase your word 'distortion' as 'interpretation' or
'realisation' or 'renderring'. Thats what performers do. Composers
who didn't want performers to do this thought that electronic music
would finally save them from 'distortion'. Making music 'exactly as
the composer intends' is increasingly easy with MIDI and CSound and
all the other tools at our disposal.

One can similarly consider a computer system which would allow a
playwrite to perfectly realise his/her play through projecting the
background and holographic actors with synthesised speach. Although
this may be of interest, I think audiences, and playwrites, would
be more interested in the results when real people breath life into
the characters.

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> Jacky said :
>
> > Do you not see any ethical (or moral) problems with altering the
> > compositional intentions of the work of past composers
(especially
> > those so recently deceased)? Do you not feel that this kind of
> > modification to other's compositions (whether public domain or
not),
> > represents a kind of "distortion" of the original intent of the
> > composer?
>
> As a jazz musician, the question is remarkably detached from the
> way I approach music. Most of the time, we are playing the melody,
> harmony and rhythm different from the original composers intent,
> and to many people walking into the middle of a performance, it may
> be unrecognizable as the piece in question. However, if the composer
> had not done his/her work, my work would not be the same.
>
> So, I would rephrase your word 'distortion' as 'interpretation' or
> 'realization' or 'rendering.

Bob,

Hello!

All your points are well taken and well put, but perhaps I neglected
to make it clear that I was questioning the re-tuning of Schoenberg's
music in particular. And as we know, his music (latter opus') dealt
with the unique theoretical/philosophical approach of trying to avoid
tonality with his serial techniques, using the 12tET pitch set. This
concept was anchored in this tuning system. So with this in mind, I
find it extremely difficult to be overly euphemistic with regard to
imposing a tuning other than 12tET onto Big Daddy Schoenberg.

Follow me in this line of reasoning for a moment, by considering 2
things:

1. If one attempts to impose a JI quality onto this music, where its
intention is to avoid the feeling of tonality, then "distortion" IMHO
spells more accurately what's being done to Schoenberg's music.
The "Lense" analogy again!

2. If one wishes to "help him along the way" with a tuning system
that would have surely been more beneficial to this already bizarre
theory, then 13tET would be the perfect choice as far as avoidance of
tonality (or perhaps an non-octave spiral tuning). But then, one is
confronted with the fact that Schoenberg's music used highly
specialized 12tET set theory, with the 12 tone row, and also to
impose this onto his music (forgive me Bob!), would also amount
to "distortion" of the geometries of his theory. This however would
be the approach I would be most interested to hear - if Schoenberg
wanted to avoid tonality, then supply his music with a tuning system
with maximal tonal ambiguity, and PLEASE let me know when you've got
the midi file ready!

Just to clarify:

I have absolutely no issues with 'interpretation' or 'realisation'
or 'rendering. I also have been an active improvising musician for
most of my music life, so all you said was in resonance with me, but
when we speak of re-tuning music which is inseparable from its tuning
theory/set theory, then we tread a thin line between "distortion" and
the more euphemistic choices of 'interpretation' or 'realization'
or 'rendering.

I was attempting to also make a humorous point by asking how we might
feel about our own cherished tuning/set concepts, being perverted by
future microtonalists, who may gain a broader subjective vision of
tuning theory in the current century.

The issue here made me think of a possibly interesting project for
some. Why don't we write some pieces in 12tET and let others re-tune
our work, as a form of collaboration? Might be fun, but 12 is a
little annoying on my ears these days.

Thanks for the input!

Jacky Ligon

P.S. This was really an attempt to get Monz to speak about how he
intends to tune this music.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17121

> I think the classical world is sometimes much too conservative with
> interpretation, regarding the composers (and conductors) as 'Gods',
> and the actual players as part of the machinery of reproduction.
There are many exceptions to this in the past; rearranging composers
works for other instruments and ensembles, 'variations on a theme
of...', cadenzas, and improvisation in baroque music (realisation of
figured bass).
>

Look, there are always going to be people going for "authenticity" so
I really don't see where there is a problem... Most of the music of
the past we haven't been hearing in the right way, anyway. Look at
Johnny Reinhard's incredible research into Werckmeister... We
haven't even been listening to BACH in the right way... the COMPOSED
parts, much less the notion of individual interpretations through
figured bass interpretation.

I say distort and enjoy. As long as it is clear that this is an
"alteration" it is fodder for the brain and ear. In the interest of
society as a whole, I would even go so far as to say that the
composer has no RIGHT to take such deviations away from the human
mass... at least when there's no economic earning potential destroyed
for a living composer... and that's almost entirely what copyright is
about anyway!

For me, personally, I already have had people "arrange" pieces of
mine, and I have no problem with this, even though I dislike the
final product. Most of the time, I'm flattered. As long as it's
clear it's not the original, what's the problem??

______ _____ ____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17126

> Hello!
>
> All your points are well taken and well put, but perhaps I
neglected
> to make it clear that I was questioning the re-tuning of
Schoenberg's music in particular. And as we know, his music (latter
opus') dealt with the unique theoretical/philosophical approach of
trying to avoid tonality with his serial techniques, using the 12tET
pitch set. This concept was anchored in this tuning system. So
with this in mind, I find it extremely difficult to be overly
euphemistic with regard to imposing a tuning other than 12tET onto
Big Daddy Schoenberg.

I'm sorry, Jacky, but I believe this reading is a totally inaccurate
assessment of Schoenberg's intention. I will need Joe Monzo, an
expert in these matters, to back me up, but in NO WAY was Schoenberg
hoping to "destroy tonality." I think you need to read up a bit on
your history (despite your great ability in sound manipulation, which
I greatly admire!).

Schoenberg considered himself a continuation of the great Germanic
tradition from Mozart and Brahms onward, and his 12-tone system was
rooted in the idea the EVERY SINGLE TONE was a tonality.

In fact, Schoenberg didn't want his system to be called "atonality"
or "serialism." He thought of it as a way of extending tonality
post-Wagner.

I believe the term he wanted was "pan-tonality," right Monz??

Sorry for the friendly disagreement, but that's what this list is all
about (I think.)

________ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

> Subject: Re: Ligon question, interpretation or...
>
> Bob,
>
> Hello!
>
> All your points are well taken and well put, but perhaps I neglected
> to make it clear that I was questioning the re-tuning of Schoenberg's
> music in particular. And as we know, his music (latter opus') dealt
> with the unique theoretical/philosophical approach of trying to avoid
> tonality with his serial techniques, using the 12tET pitch set. This
> concept was anchored in this tuning system. So with this in mind, I
> find it extremely difficult to be overly euphemistic with regard to
> imposing a tuning other than 12tET onto Big Daddy Schoenberg.

I'm not sure about this, since Shoenberg made some claims about 12tet
relationship to the harmonic series (claims which are not terribly
good mathematically, but if thats the way the guy heard it, its fine
with me). But thats beside the point.

I also don't think the early serialists were as enamoured with creating
a 'statisticaly flat music' or a 'mathematically perfect music' as
some of the later composers were.

I think that coming up with a system to avoid innapropriate tonality
was just as needed for them as an abstract painter who moves back
from a painting, says 'woops' and fixes (or destroys) parts of the
painting which are unintentionally representative.

It comes down to control of tension and release, and having sudden
innapropriate tonal moments can ruin that control (as some errant
blobs of paint which 'look like a horse smoking a pipe' may suddenly
neutralize the effectiveness of a painting titled 'misery').

Another thing is, in this music, although tonality is avoided, all
other aspects of classical music are there. In particular, the
language of 'dissonant' intervals providing tension, and the classic
simple intervals providing release is clearly there (of course, this
is augmented by dynamic, tempo and timbral queues).

With this in mind, if the major seventh is supposed to be strident
and the major third calm in a given section of a piece, then there
may be nastier major sevenths than 2^(11/12), and there certainly is
a calmer major third than 2^(4/12)!

<snip of your pure JI and 13tet points>

So you can see that I would probably choose neither extreme. Pure
JI may dull the tense points, or create unexpected tension lessenning
(a 15/8 major seventh may manage to express its simple components in
context, in other words, be too simple a prime). And tuning in a
completely aharmonic et will ruin the ability to get the proper amount
of repose.

I'm not saying this will really work, just that there is a very
musical motivation to doing this sort of realisation.

On the other hand, I can see a lot of places where not obeying rules
like "D# = Eb and theres only one of them that is invariant throughout
the piece" may produce some results that do not match the intentions
of the composer or, more importantly, the intent of the music. Depending
on how sensitive one is to drift, a case could be made that an ideal
realisation of a 12-tone serial piece would adaptively tune iteself to
12tet.

> Jacky Ligon
>
> P.S. This was really an attempt to get Monz to speak about how he
> intends to tune this music.
>

Yes, I am interested to hear how he approaches this.

Bob Valentine

Jacky Ligon wrote,

<< a tuning system that would have surely been more beneficial to this
already bizarre theory, then 13tET would be the perfect choice as far
as avoidance of tonality >>

Hi Jacky,

Just a quick word on behalf of those downtrodden non-fifth type equal
tunings(!), roughly those where the fifth falls outside of a 1:2^(4/7)
and 1:2^(3/5) range...

I've made much music in 13 equal. It is not a "restive" tuning, but it
is also not an "atonal" tuning. It is one of my favorites and can
actually be quite beautiful. At the very least, it is hardly the
ravenous pack of werewolves it is often said to be!

Though I only have one piece online that I can point to in my defense,
I hope to have more soon; including a newer piece, "Head of Flame",
which uses a 6-tone 11 equal scale that is also remarkably beautiful.

I find that emphasizing subsets (i.e., particular scales) in these
tunings helps steer them in a more manageable direction. And one thing
this certainly does is reinforces a sense of a tonic!

Crude but effective, and to my mind interesting in a way that any
12-tET substitution could not be. Their particular distortions and
'out of tuneness' are their strength in a way other than how wrong
they may sound in a direct comparative sense.

Anyway, anyone who would care to or hasn't can see "With Eyes so Blue
and Dreaming" at

<http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/55/117_west_great_western.html>

for a 13 equal piece that (for the most part) has nothing to do with
atonality or its like.

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Jacky Ligon wrote,
>
> Hi Jacky,
>
> Just a quick word on behalf of those downtrodden non-fifth type
equal
> tunings(!), roughly those where the fifth falls outside of a 1:2^
(4/7)
> and 1:2^(3/5) range...
>
> I've made much music in 13 equal. It is not a "restive" tuning, but
it
> is also not an "atonal" tuning. It is one of my favorites and can
> actually be quite beautiful. At the very least, it is hardly the
> ravenous pack of werewolves it is often said to be!

Dan,

I find much value too in "those downtrodden non-fifth type equal
tunings", as I feel they are valuable for helping one to embrace the
great polar opposites of simplicity and complexity in tuning systems.
I routinely use many forms of rational neutral 5ths as well.

Do you know, this is one thing that I admire most about your tuning
approach, is I detect that you have this philosophy of reacting to
the sound of the tuning, by actually playing it on an instrument,
without being repelled by the numbers before you hear what you see on
paper. This also is at the bottom of the way I approach RI/JI. I
don't make it a practice to bitch about the numbers, then reject
them; but try to find the "innate musical pattern" (or
Darregian "mood"), by playing and exploring any tuning to find out
empirically what are its melodic/harmonic attributes. It's the
pattern creating generative capability of the human mind and spirit
which reveals the best of any tuning system, by tuning it up and
actually playing it - and then hopefully making a complete
composition from the effort.

This just shows me what a vital and creative spirit you have, when
you are willing to explore the hidden beauties of even the most
challenging of tunings - this I find enormous common ground with.

>
> I find that emphasizing subsets (i.e., particular scales) in these
> tunings helps steer them in a more manageable direction. And one
thing
> this certainly does is reinforces a sense of a tonic!

Yes, it's very interesting how creative subsetting of ETs, can yield
structures with MP and constant structures (even non-octave) - an
area of huge interest to me.

>
> Crude but effective, and to my mind interesting in a way that any
> 12-tET substitution could not be. Their particular distortions and
> 'out of tuneness' are their strength in a way other than how wrong
> they may sound in a direct comparative sense.

I also enjoy controlled distortions and the concept of tunings which
may be capable of creating tonal ambiguity (usually as a special
effect tuning).

>
> Anyway, anyone who would care to or hasn't can see "With Eyes so
Blue
> and Dreaming" at
>
> <http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/55/117_west_great_western.html>
>
> for a 13 equal piece that (for the most part) has nothing to do with
> atonality or its like.
>

I have heard this - and I think everything else you have made
available on the site - and enjoy it very much! Over the holidays I
introduced my visitors to the music of many of my microtonal friends
here on the list, and yours was very positively received, as was Neil
Haverstick's music (love The Gate! He's Bad! - reminds me a bit of
Frisell's "Power Tools").

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

Dan Stearns wrote:

> Just a quick word on behalf of those downtrodden non-fifth type equal
> tunings(!), roughly those where the fifth falls outside of a 1:2^(4/7)
> and 1:2^(3/5) range...
>
> I've made much music in 13 equal. It is not a "restive" tuning, but it
> is also not an "atonal" tuning. It is one of my favorites and can
> actually be quite beautiful. At the very least, it is hardly the
> ravenous pack of werewolves it is often said to be!

Hear, hear! The key to 13 EDO (Equal Divisions of the Octave, since we seem to have a few
newbies posting :-), in my experience, is to emphasize thirds and to minimize fourths and
fifths. 13 EDO has beautiful thirds (and sixths, of course). Chords made from certain stacks
of thirds work better in 13 than in 12, IMO.

A fun way to approximate 13 and get a feel for it was discussed here some time ago. On a
guitar with a movable bridge, move it back and slant it until you get octaves on the 13th fret
on each string. I like to tune such a modified guitar in thirds: G-B-D#-Fx-A-C#. I think
that's right. Anyway, all (13 EDO) major thirds except between the 4th and 5th strings
(counting down from the lowest pitched string) which is a minor third. You might want to use
lighter than usual strings for the low pitch ones, and heavier than usual for the higher pitch
ones, since the overall range is a little less.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:
>
> 2. If one wishes to "help him along the way" with a tuning system
> that would have surely been more beneficial to this already bizarre
> theory, then 13tET would be the perfect choice as far as avoidance of
> tonality

I think 11tET (a subset of 22tET) would be better.
>
> The issue here made me think of a possibly interesting project for
> some. Why don't we write some pieces in 12tET and let others re-tune
> our work, as a form of collaboration? Might be fun, but 12 is a
> little annoying on my ears these days.

Some of this has already been going on, with John deLaubenfels' mighty fine adaptive tuning
software doing the retuning.