Re: [tuning] Re: Tui and "Microtonal" Music.2

In a message dated 5/6/01 1:06:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jdl@adaptune.com
writes:

> Mmmm. I can recede 12-tET in my mind (and do all the time), but it sure
> as heck has a grip on most Western music out there. Something way
> beyond "standard".
>
>

Maybe it's a case by case situation: I'm thinking that there is nothing
beyond "standard" because it is THE focus for comparison. Now in my
particular case,
12-tET is not a standard other than for the physicalness of a particular
instrument, the intellectual framing of cents, or when 12-tET is the actual
"microtonal" tuning that I am performing in.

This May 18th there will be a New Sounds broadcast on WNYC-FM radio, wherein
John Schaefer and I discuss these very definitions. We taped last Thursday.
I spoke of these different definitions, and I admit it's getting frustrating.

For example, I mentioned that Bach in Werckmeister is not considered
"microtonal" in one definition because there is no interval smaller than a
semitone used. But to call this an alternate tuning is to disregard its
primacy. The first definition is...well, I will leave this alone for it
seems more academic than musical. The second definitions is....well, obvious
as an extension of the first since the "musical" intervals are displaced from
any absolute positions by "micro" intervals. Once the second definition is
in place, more accurately explaining the musical world we live in, it is
possible to have faith in a third definition. Perhaps this one is scary,
unrealistic, or misguided to those who don't share it...and that is
understandable. But it is frustrating to have one's orientation questioned
by those who where different shoes.

To put it a different way, if one can imagine any intervals and compose in a
way that includes all tunings on the same mental page AND play it with
authority, how can one question a credo that all music is microtonal? For
all practicality, 12-tET is as difficult to attain as any microtonal tuning.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>But it is frustrating to have one's orientation questioned by those who
>where different shoes.

Quite true. You make a passionate case for your view, which I in no
way wish to denigrate. I feel, however, that your message is made
harder to communicate because it has become distracted by a disagreement
over the meaning of word(s).

If the word "microtonal" were to be defined as you wish it to be, can
you suggest an alternate word meaning "anything but 12-tET"? Many
people feel need for a word with this meaning, at least until 12-tET's
death-grip upon the West has been shaken off.

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22176.html#22188

> ... You make a passionate case for your view, which I in no
> way wish to denigrate. I feel, however, that your message is
> made harder to communicate because it has become distracted by
> a disagreement over the meaning of word(s).
>
> If the word "microtonal" were to be defined as you [Johnny
> Reinhard] wish it to be, can you suggest an alternate word
> meaning "anything but 12-tET"? Many people feel need for
> a word with this meaning, at least until 12-tET's death-grip
> upon the West has been shaken off.

That's precisely why Ivor Darreg coined the term
"xenharmonic" (from the Greek for "strange sounding").

Ivor was competent and comfortable with speaking *several*
different languages (including a serious enthusiasm for
Esperanto), and would have been quite aware of subtle shades
of meaning such as those we've debated here in connection
with the definition of "microtonal". So he just made up
the word he needed.

His point was that 12-tET *was* the familiar-sounding tuning,
and so therefore *everything* else would be "xenharmonic"
... at least for a little while, until ears became accustomed
to *those* tunings too. And this "getting acquainted"
process is an implicit connotation of the Greek words, too.
So Ivor chose his term *very* carefully.

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

[I wrote:]
>>... You make a passionate case for your view, which I in no
>>way wish to denigrate. I feel, however, that your message is
>>made harder to communicate because it has become distracted by
>>a disagreement over the meaning of word(s).
>>
>>If the word "microtonal" were to be defined as you [Johnny
>>Reinhard] wish it to be, can you suggest an alternate word
>>meaning "anything but 12-tET"? Many people feel need for
>>a word with this meaning, at least until 12-tET's death-grip
>>upon the West has been shaken off.

[Monz:]
>That's precisely why Ivor Darreg coined the term
>"xenharmonic" (from the Greek for "strange sounding").
>
>Ivor was competent and comfortable with speaking *several*
>different languages (including a serious enthusiasm for
>Esperanto), and would have been quite aware of subtle shades
>of meaning such as those we've debated here in connection
>with the definition of "microtonal". So he just made up
>the word he needed.
>
>His point was that 12-tET *was* the familiar-sounding tuning,
>and so therefore *everything* else would be "xenharmonic"
>... at least for a little while, until ears became accustomed
>to *those* tunings too. And this "getting acquainted"
>process is an implicit connotation of the Greek words, too.
>So Ivor chose his term *very* carefully.

Funny, I shoulda remembered that word! If it gained greater acceptance
by people who now use "microtonal" to mean "anything but 12-tET",
perhaps there would be little resistance to defining "microtonal" as
Johnny desires.

Thanks, Monz!

JdL