Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning The case against "faux" notation

I'm considering a new piece in 19-tones per octave... probably in
some just version of 19 rather than 19-tET.

I was looking at the "popular" notation for 19, using all the
enharmonics, and I am dead set against it. I know there are some
people on this list who really like it.

For me, to quote Gertrude Stein, "a C# is a C# is a C#."

I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes in
an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
thereabout) higher than a C.

I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??

I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic system
for 19, is there... or is there...

Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes, and I
mean 12-tET.

I suppose if someone hasn't HAD any "basic training" it wouldn't be
much of a problem, but THOSE are not necessarily the kinds of
musicians I am looking for...

I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and use
cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."

Fooey on "faux."

_______ ____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

I'm considering a new piece in 19-tones per octave... probably in
some just version of 19 rather than 19-tET.

I was looking at the "popular" notation for 19, using all the
enharmonics, and I am dead set against it. I know there are some
people on this list who really like it.

For me, to quote Gertrude Stein, "a C# is a C# is a C#."

I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes in
an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
thereabout) higher than a C.

I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??

I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic system
for 19, is there... or is there...

Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes, and I
mean 12-tET.

I suppose if someone hasn't HAD any "basic training" it wouldn't be
much of a problem, but THOSE are not necessarily the kinds of
musicians I am looking for...

I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and use
cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."

Fooey on "faux."

_______ ____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗j scott <xjscott@earthlink.net>

Hi!

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes in
> an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
> thereabout) higher than a C.

> I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
> enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??

> I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic system
> for 19, is there... or is there...

Yes! I'm sure I will be only one of many in a flurry of responses here.
Using the cammon system of enharmonic sharps and flats makes perfect sense.
19tET is almost a form of meantone. Handel used meantones with 19 notes
per octave. In the Baroque era, there were harpsichords with split keys
so that enharmonics could be played. Obviously few if any used
mathematically pure 19tET at that time (it's possible someone could have
done it on a lute), but they did use scales that had both Db and C# as
separate notes and some of those scales were really really close to
19tET.

In general I personally feel that a MIDI file and a precise description of
the tuning (possibly embedded as a standard MIDI tuning message) and
instrumentation (possibly embedded as sysex patch data) is a more accurate
form of notation than western notation BUT if you are writing music to be
played by a performer, you need something else. I believe that using sharps
and flats to notate 19tET makes sense both from a standpoint of being easy
for the performer in certain situations and having historical precedent. As
an aside, I do believe that if you are going to play that notation on a
black and white keyboard, you should use a split key configuration keyboard
or you if you are playing 19tET mapped straight across a normal keyboard,
and you want ease of performance to be a consideration you should consider
notating the keys as played but not as sounded.

- Jeff

🔗j scott <xjscott@earthlink.net>

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>> I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic
>> system for 19, is there... or is there...

I said:

> 19tET is almost a form of meantone. Handel used
> meantones with 19 notes per octave.

BTW1, this was the 12 usual notes + enharmonic
equivalents for each of 5 black keys + B# & E#.
BTW2, I do not mean to imply that all 19 notes
used were 2^(1/19), though they were close.

Jorgensen also claims that the 1/3 syntonic comma meantone
of Salinas, circa 1577 is pretty similar to 19tET:

From "Tuning" by Owen Jorgensen (1991), pg. 94:

"In the Aaron temperament, the major thirds and minor sixths
were pure in just intonation, and the fourths, fifths, minor
thirds, and major sixths, were each tempered by one-fourth
syntonic comma. The Huygens temperament was based on twelve
notes selected from an equal temperament of thirty-one
micro-tones per octave. The Huygens temperament sounded
almost identical to the Aaron temperament. In the Huygens
temperament, the major thirds were tempered the smallest
imaginable amount wide.

"In the quest for finding a temperament whereby the major
sixths beat slower than the fifths sharing common lower
tones, there was the Francisco de Salinas one-third syntonic
comma meantone temperament published in 1577. In this, the
major sixths and minor thirds were pure in just intonation.
However, Smith probably did not accept this temperament
because the major thirds were beating faster than the fifths
sharing common lower tones. Also, the fifths were beating
too rapidly for good taste. The Salinas temperament is
similar to a selection of twelve tones taken from equal
temperament based on nineteen tones to the octave. The
Salinas temperament was acoustically the opposite from the
Aaron temperament in that the major thirds were beating too
fast in the Salinas, whereas the major sixths were too fast
in the Aaron when compared to the fifths. Robert Smith did
approve of a temperament invented by Mr. Harrison whereby
the major sixths beat slower than the fifths. The Harrison
temperament sounded somewhat similar to the Salinas, because
the major thirds were still a shade faster than the fifths
and the fifths were still on the rough side for good taste.
Mr. Harrison's fifths had a ratio of 1.49441151. The ratio
of Pietro Aaron's fifths were 1.495348782. In the Salinas
and Harrison temperaments, the difference of effects between
the major and minor modes was greatly reduced compared to
the modern effects that we are accustomed to.

"Robert Smith's own temperament of 1749 was more practicable
to tune than was Harrison's, and it was an almost exact
compromise between the Harrison and Aaron meantone
temperaments: sqrt(1.49441151 x 1.495348782) = 1.494880072.
Smith's temperament was very similar to a selection of
twelve tones taken from equal temperament based on fifty
microtones to the octave. In this, the fifth had a ratio of
1.494849249 which can be compared to the ratio 1.494880072,
above. The exact ratio of Smith's fifths was based on the
formula 3X^3 + 4X = 16 where X equals the ratio of the
fifth, or 1.494830501. Smith labeled this temperament 'The
System of Equal Harmony.' In this, when a fifth shared a
common lower tone with a major sixth, they both beat exactly
the same speed. Thus, Smith's new temperament was a form of
equal-beating meantone temperament. ..."

- Jeff

🔗MONZ@JUNO.COM

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

The flurry continues

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> I was looking at the "popular" notation for 19, using all the
> enharmonics, and I am dead set against it. I know there are some
> people on this list who really like it.
>
> For me, to quote Gertrude Stein, "a C# is a C# is a C#."

Yes, and it's a minor third below E and a major third above A.

> I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes
in
> an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
> thereabout) higher than a C.
>
> I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
> enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??

It's built on a spiral of fifths, and 19-equal has a single spiral of
fifths. It's also a meantone.

> I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic
system
> for 19, is there... or is there...

That one's been covered.

> Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
> since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes, and I
> mean 12-tET.

Playing in any other tuning would go against that kind of training.
If you're presenting a guitarist with a new instrument that has a few
extra frets, it's easier to say "that's C# and that's Db" than "C# or
Db is around here, so you can either play C#-27 cents or Db+26 cents".
There'll also be similarities between the way major and minor chords
are fingered, and the way either can be turned into "7-flavour".

Keyboard players' basic training is mostly hand-eye coordination. So
if you don't have an extended keyboard, the nicest thing would be to
write notes according to the keys you hit, rather than what the notes
sound like.

String players seem to think in terms of Pythagorean, where C# would
be higher than Db. Meantone notation would likely confuse them.

> I suppose if someone hasn't HAD any "basic training" it wouldn't be
> much of a problem, but THOSE are not necessarily the kinds of
> musicians I am looking for...

It would also depend on how long you plan to keep them. If you're
forming your own band, and meantone-oriented music is important to
you, then why not do a bit of retraining in the simplest notation? If
you're going to play traditional music with purer chords, those
enharmonies are going to diverge anyway.

Cents relative to 12-equal is established as the lingua franca for
microtonal performers, so if you're only hiring them for the gig that
would be the simplest.

> I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and
use
> cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."
>
> Fooey on "faux."

That would depend on how close the scale you use is to 19-equal or
meantone. Beyond that, how your fancy gets tickled. I'm going to
keep using the simple notation for myself and if somebody else wants
to play something of mine I can write the parts in the notation of
their choice.

Roll on the automagic notation convertor!

Graham

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

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>I was looking at the "popular" notation for 19, using all the
>enharmonics, and I am dead set against it.

Why on earth?

>I know there are some
>people on this list who really like it.

Modern notation with sharps and flats is historically just as appropriate to
19-tET as to 12-tET.

>I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
>enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??

Because 19-tET is a meantone tuning.

>I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and use
>cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."

Well, if you're dealing with musicians trained in 12-tET, that makes sense.
But historically, traditional notation is no more "faux" for 19-tET than for
12-tET -- they're both meantone tunings.

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

🔗j scott <xjscott@earthlink.net>

Hi Paul,

>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> J. Scott wrote,
>
>> 19tET is almost a form of meantone. Handel used
>> meantones with 19 notes per octave.
>
> Actually, one of Handel's organs had 16 notes, and the other had
> 14. I've never seen a reference of Handel using more than 16 notes
> per octave.

Thanks for correcting me. I am indeed unable to substantiate
my claim & I believe you are right. I don't know how I
started thinking that -- apparently the only ancient context
I can find for 19tET like tunings is the 1577 1/3 syntonic
comma meantone temperament I mentioned. And this was a 12 of
19 only as far as I can tell -- I have no evidence that the
split key keyboard arrangements used 1/4 comma (~31tET) or
1/3 comma (~19tET) or something else. It also seems Handel
is believed to have used a well temperament, rather than a
meantone.

- Jeff

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

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18698

>
> > I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes
> in an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
> > thereabout) higher than a C.
> >
> > I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
> > enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??
>
> It's built on a spiral of fifths, and 19-equal has a single spiral
of fifths. It's also a meantone.

Thank's so much, Graham, for your commentary, which I appreciate.

I was wondering if I had the arithmetic right on this. In other
words, if one were to divide the syntonic comma of 81/80, or
approximately 21.5 cents by 3 in order to get a 1/3 comma meantone,
that would approximate 7.16 cents.

Subtracting that from a just fifth of 702 cents would equal a fifth,
in 1/3 comma meantone of 695 cents.

So, in other words, constructing a spiral of fifths of 695 cents in
width would create a 1/3 comma meantone of 19 pitches per octave (??)

(I think this is right, since I see a 694.7 cents in the 19-tET
scale...)

>
> > Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
> > since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes,
and
I mean 12-tET.
>
> Playing in any other tuning would go against that kind of training.
> If you're presenting a guitarist with a new instrument that has a
few extra frets, it's easier to say "that's C# and that's Db" than
"C# or Db is around here, so you can either play C#-27 cents or Db+26
cents". There'll also be similarities between the way major and minor
chords are fingered, and the way either can be turned into
"7-flavour".

This, I believe, was what Wim Hoogewerf was getting at... I can see
it would work well with a "fixed pitch" instrument, where just
"relearning" the physical scale and relating it to a simple notation
would come into play.

For me, though, it is less convincing for a continuous pitch
instrument like a trombone (which I will be working with) strings, or
voice... Their 12-tET "compass" is pretty ingrained, and I think it
better to work WITH the grain than against the "woof" (or the wolf).

>
> > I suppose if someone hasn't HAD any "basic training" it wouldn't
be much of a problem, but THOSE are not necessarily the kinds of
> > musicians I am looking for...
>
> It would also depend on how long you plan to keep them. If you're
> forming your own band, and meantone-oriented music is important to
> you, then why not do a bit of retraining in the simplest notation?
If you're going to play traditional music with purer chords, those
> enharmonies are going to diverge anyway.
>

> Cents relative to 12-equal is established as the lingua franca for
> microtonal performers, so if you're only hiring them for the gig
that would be the simplest.

Well, for the kind of stuff I do, that's pretty much the way it would
be... so thanks for the commentary...

_______ ____ ____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

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

Joseph wrote,

>So, in other words, constructing a spiral of fifths of 695 cents in
>width would create a 1/3 comma meantone of 19 pitches per octave (??)

That's right, it's one of the famous approximate correspondences:

19-tET ~= 1/3-comma meantone
31-tET ~= 1/4-comma meantone
43-tET ~= 1/5-comma meantone
55-tET ~= 1/6-comma meantone

These and other correspondances can be found at Joe Monzo's "Equal
Temperament" glossary entry:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

(click on any instance of the word "meantone" to see even more good stuff)

>For me, though, it is less convincing for a continuous pitch
>instrument like a trombone (which I will be working with) strings, or
>voice... Their 12-tET "compass" is pretty ingrained, and I think it
>better to work WITH the grain than against the "woof" (or the wolf).

By that argument, a composer seeking to approximate JI with an ET would of
course be better off with something that keeps the 12 reference points, i.e.
72-tET. But 72-tET unfortunately has no better meantone tuning within it
than 12-tET itself -- I once suggested a further 4-fold division of 72-tET
to 288-tET in order to get a meantone happening . . . of course 288 is
already getting close to 1200 . . .

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

Speaking of http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm, I sent Joe Monzo
a list of addenda to his list of ET composer/advocates . . . and I'll be
reminding him in a few weeks. So if anyone has anything to add that is not
on the webpage or on the list below, please do so! In particular, Brian
McLaren's XH17 article has many more such references, but I've seen
objections to the effect that much of Brian's info is incorrect (even in
this article), so if someone wants to verify any of the references in that
article and report back to us, that would be wonderful!

Richard Boulanger 60-tET (1980s?)

Clem Fortuna: 7-tET and 15-tET (1991)

Leigh Gerdine 31-tET (1973)

Tui St. George Tucker 24-tET (19??)

Gary Morrison 10-tET (1978)

Matthew Puzan 19-tET (19??)

Erik Griswold 19-tET (198?)

Hornbostel 23-tET (1920s) (describing Burmese music)

N. Kulbin 48-tET (1915)

Paul Beaver 1728-tET (=12^3) (???)

Erv Wilson and John Chalmers 270-tET (1970s?)

Alois Hába 36-tET (1920s-30s)

Tillman Schafer 19-tET and 50-tET (1940s)

Helen Fowler 41-tET (1989)

Mildred Couper 24-tET (1941)

Alexander J. Ellis 53-tET (1875)

Dr. Abram M. Plum 31-tET (1970s)

Georg Hajdu: 17-, 19-, and 22-tET

Paul Hahn: 270-tET (1997)

Dave Keenan and Paul Erlich: 46-tET (2000) [superset of "7-limit shruti"
guitar fretting]

Standard Turkish Theory: 53-tET and 1060-tET [1060 = 53*20 -- their analogue
of cents]

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

JOseph

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>
>
> >
> > > I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19 notes
>
> > in an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
> > > thereabout) higher than a C.\

One could argue that 12 ET notation is a Faux notation with C#=Db

>
>
> >
> > > Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
>
> > > since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes,
> and
> I mean 12-tET.

I think many musicians are intuitively bothered by the enharmonic
relationships in Basic training.
If basic training doesn't work to leave the door open to the future and
becomes merely a wall stifling any growth
then out it must go! Which is what much of the last century of music
has had to do.

>
>
> For me, though, it is less convincing for a continuous pitch
> instrument like a trombone (which I will be working with) strings, or
> voice... Their 12-tET "compass" is pretty ingrained, and I think it
> better to work WITH the grain than against the "woof" (or the wolf).

I think most players have learned to adjust their intonation when faced
with real music and let "theory" fall by the wayside. Many players are
not theoretically inclined in the first place nor does this effect their
ability to play what is put in front of them. The intonation of
orchestras is well known and considered obvious to every conductor I
have ever talked too. Same with String Quartets. I know of a case of a
prominent ensemble where the Cellist always plays in 12 ET on the
button, much to many complaints . Some of these are even from people who
even consider what i do invalid (not explainable to their $60,000 basic
training:)

But to be helpful it seems best to make the players a tape or burn them
a CD of the tones you want them to use as well as their part. I have
found this to work regardless of what i call the pitches. I will say
this is higher than your C# and here it is! I play it for them. One
sound is equally to 1000 symbols!

>
>
>
>
> 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.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> I think most players have learned to adjust their intonation when
faced
> with real music and let "theory" fall by the wayside.

Kraig,

This is also my experience!!

> Many players are
> not theoretically inclined in the first place nor does this effect
their
> ability to play what is put in front of them. The intonation of
> orchestras is well known and considered obvious to every conductor I
> have ever talked too. Same with String Quartets. I know of a case
of a
> prominent ensemble where the Cellist always plays in 12 ET on the
> button, much to many complaints . Some of these are even from
people who
> even consider what i do invalid (not explainable to their $60,000
basic
> training:)
>
> But to be helpful it seems best to make the players a tape or burn
them
> a CD of the tones you want them to use as well as their part. I have
> found this to work regardless of what i call the pitches. I will say
> this is higher than your C# and here it is! I play it for them. One
> sound is equally to 1000 symbols!

I would toally agree, and this in a nutshell is what I do with
singers. I've also found a valuable visual aide for singers, is to be
able to look at piano roll notation, for cues and pitch height.

What do you use to create your reference tones? Your organ? A synth?

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

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

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

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

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:
>
> Jacky wrote,
>
> >I think it was message 18731. Glad he's back!!!
>
> You're right! And I'm glad he's back too. Well, that's three messages I now
> know of that didn't made it into my e-mail but are in the archives -- and
> there may well be many more. This does not speak highly of the Yahoo
> transition, but of course I could simply switch to web-only mode and be
> happy for now.

It has more to do with your local isp & email web traffic
than Yahoo Paul.

--
* 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
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:18:34 -0500, "Paul H. Erlich"
<PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM> wrote:

>Speaking of http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm, I sent Joe Monzo
>a list of addenda to his list of ET composer/advocates . . . and I'll be
>reminding him in a few weeks. So if anyone has anything to add that is not
>on the webpage or on the list below, please do so! In particular, Brian
>McLaren's XH17 article has many more such references, but I've seen
>objections to the effect that much of Brian's info is incorrect (even in
>this article), so if someone wants to verify any of the references in that
>article and report back to us, that would be wonderful!

....

>Tui St. George Tucker 24-tET (19??)

1967 (Second Sonata for Solo Recorder, "The Hypertonic"). (Any earlier
ones?)

Notably missing are 11, 13, and 14-TET. While examples of 11-TET and 13-TET
that I'm aware of are rare and isolated, Ralph Jarzombek has written a
series of pieces in 14-TET (dates unknown).

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Herman Miller wrote,

<<Notably missing are 11, 13, and 14-TET. While examples of 11-TET and
13-TET that I'm aware of are rare and isolated,>>

I'm really not sure what this page is for; I mean what degree of
commitment to these tunings qualifies one's name getting affixed to
it, etc., ... but I have done a lot of work over the years in 20 and
13 equal, and a few serious pieces in 11 as well. (In fact I've had
the 20 equal guitar for a decade or so now, and have spun the odometer
around on it at least once...)

Theoretically I proposed a possible tempering framework for 14 and
23-tET that was inspired by the Cuban composer Enrique Ubieta's
"bimodalisim". (Later, after a brief correspondence with Ubieta, I
came to the conclusion that 9-tET was probably the tuning best suited
to implement his basic premise... Ubieta himself seems firmly
committed to 12-tET).

--Dan Stearns

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Paul Erlich wrote,

<<In particular, Brian McLaren's XH17 article has many more such
references, but I've seen objections to the effect that much of
Brian's info is incorrect (even in this article),>>

This article meant a lot to me because it was the first thing I ever
saw that seemed to paint a picture of an unbounded underground scene
just bustling with wild microtonal experimentation and commitment...
and not just in a contemporary scene, but in a historical one as well;
I remember the bits about the historical Russian microtonal scene
being particularly interesting...

Anyway, whether it was factually letter perfect or too far from it
from someone's perspective hardly matters to me now in the larger
sense, because it was an engaging (and notably vitriolic free for
those of you familiar with Brian's extremely prolific output as a
writer on subjects pertaining to microtonality), inspiring dose of
what I really needed to read at that time; It was much more resonant
than the 1/1 magazines or "On the Sensations of Tone" for me
personally then, all of which I was exposed to around the same time,
because it said 'go for it young man! A world of wonder and wide-open
possibilities awaits! And your not alone either! Your part of this
larger community and history as well...'

--Dan Stearns

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗MONZ@JUNO.COM

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> Herman Miller wrote,
>
> <<Notably missing are 11, 13, and 14-TET. While examples of
> 11-TET and 13-TET that I'm aware of are rare and isolated,>>
>
> I'm really not sure what this page is for; I mean what degree of
> commitment to these tunings qualifies one's name getting affixed
> to it, etc.,

I'm not sure either, and I'm the one who made it! I'm simply
citing some names that go with particular ETs.

> ... but I have done a lot of work over the years in 20 and
> 13 equal, and a few serious pieces in 11 as well. (In fact I've
> had the 20 equal guitar for a decade or so now, and have spun
> the odometer around on it at least once...)
>
> Theoretically I proposed a possible tempering framework for 14
> and 23-tET that was inspired by the Cuban composer Enrique
> Ubieta's "bimodalisim". (Later, after a brief correspondence
> with Ubieta, I came to the conclusion that 9-tET was probably
> the tuning best suited to implement his basic premise... Ubieta
> himself seems firmly committed to 12-tET).

Wow, Dan! I'm *so* sorry that I neglected to mention your many
forays into other ETs!! (especially since we're mutual fans of
each other's work!)

Soon as I can get around to updating that page, I'll include the
info provided by you, Herman, and Paul. Thanks for pointing
yourself out!

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Perhaps we can add Skip LaPlante to 13tET (Theme and Variations in 13tET for
Homemade Instruments)

My work ET work is rare, but has utilized sections in areas of 5tET (Dune),
7tET (Millennium, Zanzibar, Middle-earth), little use of 24tET (Dune), and
the polymicrotonal 5 against 7 against 11tET (Cosmic Rays).

Tui St. George Tucker's first microtone in a piece was written for her as an
alto recorder soloist by Hovhaness. She became strictly interested in
quartertones and used a notation influenced by the overtone series: since
each succeeding tone of the overtone series is smaller, Tui only used flats
as accidentals. In ensemble playing (for recorder trio), we would be asked
to make quartertone intervals more just when it was harmonically useful. In
John Cage's last years (he wrote in 74tET in "Ten"), and it was Tui whom he
would telephone for advice from NY to Blowing Rock,NC. Cage tried different
tuning constellations for different pieces, mainly with number titles.

Johnny Reinhard

🔗Ralph Lorenz <rlorenz@mhub0.net.kent.edu>

🔗MONZ@JUNO.COM

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

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18710

> >I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and
use cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."
>
> Well, if you're dealing with musicians trained in 12-tET, that
makes sense. But historically, traditional notation is no more "faux"
for 19-tET than for 12-tET -- they're both meantone tunings.

Thanks, Paul, for bringing this to my attention... as did Graham
Breed and Daniel Wolf and a few others.

What a great list!

________ _____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18723
>
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I'm considering a new piece in 19-tones per octave... probably in
> > some just version of 19 rather than 19-tET.
> >
>
> I would recommend some of the early Xenharmonicons (5-7 or
thereabouts) for Ivor Darreg's
> discussions of 19- and other -et notations. Somewhere in there
(Ihaven't got the article to
> hand) there is a convincing layout of sharps and flat for 19 tet
which could be used for other
> 19 tone systems.

Thanks so much, Allison, for your suggestion. I hope someday to
include the entire Xenharmonicon to my library collection if I can.
In the meantime, Kraig Grady has generously posted quite a few of the
issues at Anaphoria... so I can begin with those...

Thanks again!

________ _______ ____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18728

> Joseph wrote,
>
> >So, in other words, constructing a spiral of fifths of 695 cents
in
> >width would create a 1/3 comma meantone of 19 pitches per octave
(??)
>
> That's right, it's one of the famous approximate correspondences:
>
> 19-tET ~= 1/3-comma meantone
> 31-tET ~= 1/4-comma meantone
> 43-tET ~= 1/5-comma meantone
> 55-tET ~= 1/6-comma meantone
>
> These and other correspondances can be found at Joe Monzo's "Equal
> Temperament" glossary entry:
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm
>
> (click on any instance of the word "meantone" to see even more good
stuff)

Thanks for this reference, Paul, which I've promptly printed out...

This ET reference list is just one more of those "hidden" Joe Monzo
pages that I have never seen. I have mentioned to Joe that it would
be great if he could have links from his main page to important stuff
like this, but he is so busy at the moment... However, it really
shouldn't be buried back so far in just a dictionary entry, in my
opinion...

________ ____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18731

> JOseph
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
>
I am not AT ALL in favor of a "faux" notational system of 19
notes in an octave that would assign, let us say, a C# as 63 cents (or
thereabout) higher than a C.\
>

> One could argue that 12 ET notation is a Faux notation with C#=Db
>

Hi Kraig. Since you're back it must mean that you've finished, or
mostly finished, your "shadow puppet play..." for the Microfest.
Sorry you won't be repeating this piece at the beginning of April
when I will be there.... Maybe there will be a video available....

You certainly make an excellent point here. 12-tET is surely as
"faux as they go..."

> But to be helpful it seems best to make the players a tape or burn
them a CD of the tones you want them to use as well as their part. I
have found this to work regardless of what i call the pitches. I will
say this is higher than your C# and here it is! I play it for them.
One sound is equally to 1000 symbols!
>

This is really a sensible solution and, in fact, is something that I
am now doing for ALL my microtonal music with live instruments. The
players get a CD with a kind of "music minus one" situation, with a
track that illustrates the scales for them and another track which
plays their part in the alternate tuning with the other instruments...

________ _____ ____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18740

> Hi David,
>
> >It has more to do with your local isp & email web traffic
> >than Yahoo Paul.
>
> Can you give me any more info on this? I jumped to the conclusion
that this was a Yahoo issue because I'm almost certain this never
happened with Mills, onelist, or egroups -- sometimes the messages
would appear in my e-mail out of order, but at least they'd always
appear, eventually . . .

I remember with egroups there were digests I would not get at all,
when I was on "digest mode..."
_______ _____ ____ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18684.html#18767

> Hi Joseph,
>
> As your working on your own music, perhaps you might find that some
of
> the things that often get mentioned as a "problem" in 19 (especially
> when reinterpreting preexisting music in 19-tET) like too flat a
> leading tone, could be cleverly and interestingly written around --
> i.e., using a B# in place of a B (or what have you) in the above
> example, etc. etc.,... and in this way, things that you might
> initially interpret as enharmonic spelling anomalies could actually
be
> used to really underscore unusual xenharmonic (tonal) episodes.
>
> --Dan Stearns

Thanks so much, Dan, for this input. Ears and, hopefully, mind are
wide open... [and hopefully filling with something...]

_________ ____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>
> Hi Kraig. Since you're back it must mean that you've finished, or
> mostly finished, your "shadow puppet play..." for the Microfest.

No way! but thought I would drop in briefly to see what was going on.
This list though is like a part time job to keep up so I will be back to
work quite soon and offlist!

>
> Sorry you won't be repeating this piece at the beginning of April
> when I will be there.... Maybe there will be a video available....

hopefully a DVD at some point. It is way too much work to let it just
disappear.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm