Re: Declaration of Independence (was 17-tET "set-consistency")

Hello, there, Paul Erlich and Dave Keenan and everyone, and thank you
not only for adding a very important qualification to the caution in
my article about dyadic ratios a:b where a*b > 105, but for providing
an example of a situation which can often come up on this List.

It is very easy, in writing about a certain tuning system such as
17-tET or style of music such as neo-Gothic, to make statements which
might be misleading if applied in other contexts. Here I'm sure we
agree that there is no intention to mislead, but unfortunately the
best of intentions might not prevent what you have rightly described,
Dave, as a real danger of misrepresenting your theoretical views.

As you may be suggesting in your reply, Dave, I was addressing the
question of 17-tET "set consistency" for ratios of 2-3-7-9-11-13 in a
neo-Gothic setting where unstable thirds and sixths of various sizes
are arbitrarily tuned dyads, and combinations involving them
"polydyads," as one might say. Here a*b > 105 would seem a relevant
test, for those who wish to make a distinction of "recognizability."

One reason why I prefer to speak of unstable "triples" and "quads"
rather than "triads" and "tetrads" is to emphasize this point: this is
_not_ a question of complex sonorities regarded as "stable" or "fully
concordant" as in a Partchian n-limit system.

Of course, I would hasten to agree with you both, Paul and Dave, that you
have not presented a*b > 105 as an absolute limit of recognizability
in the context of sonorities such as 16:19:24 or the even larger
integer ratios of LaMonte Young's "Dream House." Had I realized the
potential for this kind of misunderstanding when I was writing the
article, I would have added a prudent qualification -- as I now regret
not doing.

My intention was to add a caution that in the context of the kind of
music I make with complex unstable dyads and "polydyads" -- a
qualification obvious to me, but not necessarily to some readers --
the dyadic a*b > 105 limit might raise questions of "recognizability."

Possibly it might have been better not to have raised the point at
all, since in leaning over backward to be modest about my use of large
integer ratios or their tempered approximations, I may have lost my
theoretical balance in presenting a distinction which is really alien
to my philosophical and theoretical perspective, doing a service
neither to "recognizability" theory nor to my own viewpoint and music.

Instances where a statement, if not given "implicit" qualification,
could be seriously misleading or even invidiously discriminatory,
arise frequently on this List. For example, consider a recent
statement that contemporary singers often accept the tuning of a major
third at 400 cents, although this is "harsh." If we're talking about
music of the 16th century in large portions of Europe, I would of
course agree, as does Vincenzo Galilei when he finds 12-tET unpleasing
on a harpsichord despite his advocacy of this "perfect" tuning as one
of the virtues of his beloved lute.

For Gothic or neo-Gothic music, however, 400 cents might be described
as a rather "subdued" major third, although it is, of course,
categorically recognizable and can come up in tuning systems such as
24-out-of-36-tET.

Some time ago, Kraig Grady contributed an article which caught my
attention on the theme of letting each musical culture explain itself
in its own terms. From now on, in discussing neo-Gothic music, I will
try to focus on practice and theory from this point of view rather
than getting involved in "foreign entanglements" with harmonic entropy
theory or "recognizability" or the like.

Of course, anyone is free to apply these concepts to this music, just
as they might be applied to Balinese gamelan or Georgian polyphony or
the polyphony of the Dan people of Africa. However, by letting others
do this rather than attempting to do it myself, I can at least
minimize the risk of taking other people's concepts out of their
original contexts and distorting either the concepts or the nature of
my music, possibly both.

Specifically, I would like to declare my independence from
"recognizability" theory for dyads or more complex constructions,
leaving others, of course, free to pursue this kind of theory.

With Jacky Ligon -- if I am paraphrasing you accurately, Jacky, and
please don't hesitate to correct or amend -- I would say that if an
interval gives pleasure in a given musical context, it is
"recognizable" in a way that counts.

As far as I'm concerned, ratios such as 14:17:21 or 28:33:42 have a
theoretical equality with constructions using the same odd factors in
a more "otonal" or "rooted" fashion -- if this be rootless
cosmopolitanism, let us make the most of it.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:
> Possibly it might have been better not to have raised the point at
> all, since in leaning over backward to be modest about my use of
large
> integer ratios or their tempered approximations, I may have lost my
> theoretical balance in presenting a distinction which is really
alien
> to my philosophical and theoretical perspective, doing a service
> neither to "recognizability" theory nor to my own viewpoint and
music.

Margo,

I've personally learned greatly from your approach to all this, but I
entirely harmonize with one's urgent need to express within the
languages native to their own musical tradition and practice. It is a
balancing act which I am unqualified to perform.

To thine own self be true.

> Some time ago, Kraig Grady contributed an article which caught my
> attention on the theme of letting each musical culture explain
itself
> in its own terms. From now on, in discussing neo-Gothic music, I
will
> try to focus on practice and theory from this point of view rather
> than getting involved in "foreign entanglements" with harmonic
entropy
> theory or "recognizability" or the like.

The Voice channels through the Pure Vessel, and Speaks a Language
Outside of Time; Of Timeless Truths.

> Specifically, I would like to declare my independence from
> "recognizability" theory for dyads or more complex constructions,
> leaving others, of course, free to pursue this kind of theory.

This has been a driving point for me for quite a while now too. I was
forced to abandon all this based upon the inherent realities and
experience of creating multi-part compositions in Just Intonation,
and the desire to make deliberate choices of ratio which fit the
style of my music - which is very melodically based. In the unique
context sensitive environment of actual music, where rhythm and
melodic movement act to animate a tuning, by placing it on its own
unique time map, and give it the life of composition, I constantly
see the *rules (of thumb)* being broken, and the resulting music be
completely harmonious - and *Just* sounding as an overall musical
texture. Although I may be unable to describe why this is so, I know
what my ears tell me, and we know how much *audible quality* is
revered in this forum. I will join you on two points: 1. I would
never denigrate anyone's desire to pursue any mode of
theoretical/music exploration, and 2. I openly and unashamedly will
pursue what is true to the language of my music - anything else is
indeed alien and an injustice to the music.

> With Jacky Ligon -- if I am paraphrasing you accurately, Jacky, and
> please don't hesitate to correct or amend -- I would say that if an
> interval gives pleasure in a given musical context, it is
> "recognizable" in a way that counts.

You couldn't have spoken my heart any more accurately and eloquently,
than if it were your own. It is the only kind that has any
significance to my practice and experience. The "recognizability"
issue is dead for me - and here is the reason: Behind allot of this
theory, we see great effort to *narrow* the field of choices, by
declaring limits to our perceptions of this and that "odd"
or "prime". I believe it all goes much deeper than this. The act of
hearing and mentally deciphering full music is much more complex,
than simple models will ever reveal. Music just won't stand still and
obey the rules we want to impose, because every piece of music is
different, every context is different, every composer and musical
listener is different, and the choices of timbre could change
radically every time. And chords analyzed outside of musical context,
without the elements of rhythm and timbre taken into consideration
are a futile exercise, which only reveals something about the nature
of the thing being studied in isolation. "Recognizability" as a means
to narrow the field, has no meaning to my music reality. My choices
are deliberate, and different dependent upon the colors I choose to
use on my canvas of sound. Perhaps it's a bit stubborn of me, but
this sonic picture I paint, with intervals I've been using for quite
a long, long time.

On the wonderful and informative occasion, when you and I compared
the ratios we commonly use in the area of the Minor Third and Major
Third, I realized I had met someone who had such a deep and intimate
musical understanding of the language of the ratios. We found that we
favored a number of the same *flavors*, and where I was unfamiliar
with yours, new and exciting possibilities expanded for me. All this
is to say, that I found immense common ground in that you had this
rich vocabulary and command over deliberate use of ratio, for the
context of your music. In no small way did it surprise and delight me
to find another that has learned the sound of many flavors of ratio
over the course of years of musical practice, and knows how to
harness their harmonic and melodic possibilities within the context
of personal style.

To intimately know what it sounds like, and to make music with it, to
me it is the ultimate goal. Once a composer/performer has command of
this language (where one chooses JI as their path), and has
internalized the intervals, nothing is arbitrary, or incorrect in
some context outside the logic of its own being, but are deliberate
and calculated. This comes out of years of *hands on instrument*
music and scale making, where Spirit, Body and Mind are trained to
channel lasting works of music art. I'm sure Haresh could speak to
this, as a trained Hindustani vocalist.

> As far as I'm concerned, ratios such as 14:17:21 or 28:33:42 have a
> theoretical equality with constructions using the same odd factors
in
> a more "otonal" or "rooted" fashion -- if this be rootless
> cosmopolitanism, let us make the most of it.

We should follow our hearts and ears and let music practice be the
guide to the truths of microtonal music, while at the same time
cherishing the right for others to do things in their own way, and
speak of it within their own personal language and musical style. And
when we find that others speak in a different stylistic language,
which may be based largely upon empirical music experiences, we
should look closer at the living realizations of the microtonal
music, and not construe that they may be anti-mathematical by
expressing a view which is unique to the individual. I would dare say
there are few who have worked in this area for years, and have
repeatedly transposed the theory onto finished pieces of music, that
do not have sufficient math ability to get the job done. These same
composers may reveal other personal musical realities, which are
valid but less mathematically toned. I do not find myself listening
to East Indian classical music for mathematical purposes (except
where I may enjoy counting the taala), but for the blissful beauty of
melodic improvisation. If I can just capture some small portion of
this essence in my own music, I will consider it an achievement.

Thanks for this wonderful post,

Jacky Ligon