Ogolevets' theories of temperaments

Dear Tuning List Members!

As I am staying for a few years in Russia, I am using the time here,
researching interesting developments in Russian music, among which there is
some interesting microtonal theory and composition. There is a crowd of
people who are fascinated with Wyscvhegradsky's music and with Arseny
Avraamov's theoretical writings - I even had the chance to meet the son of
the latter. Present-day electronic composers are trying their hand at some
microtonal electronic music. I am now reading a book by the theorist, Alexei
Ogolevets, called "Introduction to Contemporary Musical Thinking", which was
published in 1946, during the height of the Stalin years. Now, as it
happens, regarding his behavior Ogolevets was a really odious character, who
played an unfavorable role during the purge on artists in 1948. At the same
time, strange at may seem, he was a brilliant musical mind, who developed an
original theory of tunings amnd temperaments, very much along the line of
what you, folks, are doing. Sometimes it happens in life that villainy can
combine with genius. I have just started reading the book, so I can't
summarize the whole thing (it's long!).

When one starts to read the book, one can see that he's a real intellectual
mind, but one can also see a plenty of ideological infiltrations from his
time, which at this late date sound quite comical. He starts by examining
the Pythagorean perfect fifths tuning, why C# is higher that Db, why are
most accidentals spelled as sharps in ascending scalar motion and as flats
in descending motion and how the cycle of fifths determines the higher
sharps and lower flats. Then he examines the Just Intonation temperament,
which he starts to condemn as a "false" system used by "reactionary,
clerical forces" (while, presumably the "progressive, revolutionary" forces
all used the Pythagarean system) He denounces Zarlino, Rameau and Riemann as
false prophets for basing their theories on the "mystical" overtone scale
(as opposed to the "realist" circle of fifths), stating that "C sharp is
never lower than D flat, it is always higher", and, lastly, criticizes
Riemann for accepting both systems - the Pythagorean and the Just
Intonation. While all this ideaolgical hogwash sounds very comical when we
read it nowadays, the question still persists: whether this kind of attitude
(extreme hostility towards Just Intonation temperament as an "unnatural"
one, and favoring the Pythagorean system as the "natural" one) has ever been
found in the last few centuries - the 18th, the 19th, the 20th, and
particularly around the 1940's, when the book was written. Is this some kind
of pronounced position of a large quantity of theorists, based on objective
assumptions (and, respectively, countered by other theorists)? Or is this
the drivel of a Soviet idealogue of the 1940's who is on the lookout for
enemies, wherever he could find them in his imagination?

I won't bore you with chapter-by-chapter summaries of this book, but I will
try to share my experiences of it with you after I will finish reading it -
or if I find some really interesting, mind-boggling ideas on the way. This
Pro-Pythagorean and Anti-Just Intonation really puzzled me on the way, so
that's why I decided to check with you whether there have been any other
cases of this kind, or is this just drivel to be overlooked.

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23347

I am now reading a book by the theorist, Alexei
> Ogolevets, called "Introduction to Contemporary Musical Thinking",
which was published in 1946, during the height of the Stalin years.

Hello Anton!

Thanks so much for your interesting post. Alexei Ogolevets is, of
course, the microtonalist cited by Brian McLaren in his presentation
(which I, unfortunately, missed due to the plane flight) at the
MicroFest in Claremont, CA last month...

The work McLaren was showing around (untranslated) was _Foundations
of Harmonic Language_, not the work YOU site, butit *does* seem as
though Ogolevets views Pythagorean tuning over practically everything
else.

We have several "experts" on this list on such matters... Margo
Schulter is the definitive last word on Pythagorean, so if you have
any questions about that tuning or can cite certain reasons Ogolevets
finds it superior I am certain she, as well as many others, will find
it interesting...

But contrasting it with Just Intonation?? Well, we recently had a
debate on the list contrasting the NOTATION of Just Intonation using
Pythagorean tuning rather than 5-limit Just as a basis, but that is a
different matter, so it will be up to some of our more "historically
minded" posters to answer if this conflict has had historical
precedent...

_________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

Well, Anton, the most obvious one to me is Charles Ives. His was a
Pythagorean orientation to sharps and flats.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:
> Dear Tuning List Members!
> I am now reading a book by the theorist, Alexei
> Ogolevets,

Ah, finally! This has been a mystery name around here for a long time.

> the question still persists: whether this kind of attitude
> (extreme hostility towards Just Intonation temperament as an "unnatural"
> one, and favoring the Pythagorean system as the "natural" one) has ever been
> found in the last few centuries - the 18th, the 19th, the 20th, and
> particularly around the 1940's, when the book was written. Is this some kind
> of pronounced position of a large quantity of theorists, based on objective
> assumptions (and, respectively, countered by other theorists)?

The strange philosophy you're looking at, in the terms you've described them, is unique to
certain individuals in the last two centuries of Western theory. Pythagorean tuning was most
appropriate for Medieval music, but since the Renaissance, at least a 5-limit of consonance has
been the norm in the West. From before 1500 to 1800, meantone tuning was used, so G# was
usually lower than, and never higher than, Ab. Around 1800 there was an aesthetic shift (similar
to one that has occured about 80 years earlier) from meantone toward equal temperament
(even on string instruments) and somtimes all the way to Pythagorean intonation. I hope to write
more about this in the future. But it's not uncommon to see theorists proclaim the perfect fifth as
supreme and discount all other intervals (other than octaves, fourths, etc.)

> Or is this
> the drivel of a Soviet idealogue of the 1940's who is on the lookout for
> enemies, wherever he could find them in his imagination?

Always a possibility.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23349

> Well, Anton, the most obvious one to me is Charles Ives. His was a
> Pythagorean orientation to sharps and flats.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

But Johnny, Ives never had any obvious antipathy to Just Intonation
as did Ogolevets, did he?

Doesn't the "overtone machine" in the Universe Symphony go up the
overtone series in Just Intonation....

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Thanks, Joseph, Johnny and Paul, for your tips on Pythagorean tuning
specialists. As I read further into the book last night, I did arrive to the
conclusion that Ogolevets was basically advocating a return to Pythagorean
tuning for tonal music of a Classical-Romantical trend (which for him is the
only acceptible kind of music), which in this case would become the harmonic
foundationof tonal music - here, the distinction between the respective
flats and sharps would become decisively more important, since they would
"gravitate" towards their respective tonic. Also the phenomenon of the
syntonic comma would be something not to be overlooked. (He writes:
"quarter-tone theorists and composers are all wrong, since they split the
equal-tempered half-tone in half, while overlooking the comma.") My friend,
Mark Belodubrovsky, a composer from Bryansk, who suggested the book to me,
claims that this theory and this kind of thinking could very well be
extended and applied to atonal music as well (despite Ogolevets' harsh
anti-atonal stance), so the theory is more advanced than its author even
perceives it to be. It's just that I have never heard of anyone talk about
Just Intonation tuning being "wrong". Have any of you ever heard of such a
thing? The overtone series, after all, is a product of nature. Does he
actually think that it was imagined by "metaphysically inclined theorists"?

The book is written in a very systematic, scholarly way, and you end up
learning a lot from it. It does mention the attempts at 17-equal and
31-equal scales of the 16th century. It does have a lot of prescriptions of
"right" and "wrong", but we can just laugh at most of those. Still, the book
is rather dated - being from the 1940's - and, moreover, it is Soviet, so I
realize that all of this material is rather elementary, compared to what
you, folks, are doing. So I should probably run through the book quickly and
go on to reading more advanced theory books. This book should be probably
best viewed from a historical perspective - though Harry Partch's "Genesis
of a Music" and Joseph Yasser's book about his 19-tone scale are probably
still more advanced.

In a message dated 5/21/01 12:30:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> But Johnny, Ives never had any obvious antipathy to Just Intonation
> as did Ogolevets, did he?
>
>

No antipathy, but "hearing" JI intervals was not something mastered by Ives.
So, a machine was needed (as opposed to quartertones, and an eventual
Pythagorean in performance). It's ironic that Lou Harrison believes only the
trombone is a safe microtonal wind instrument (contrary to all others), and
yet took Ives to task for his insecurity with JI in his monograph
(unpublished) on the Ives "Universe Symphony" sketches.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:
> Also the phenomenon of the
> syntonic comma would be something not to be overlooked. (He writes:
> "quarter-tone theorists and composers are all wrong, since they
split the
> equal-tempered half-tone in half, while overlooking the comma."

Are you sure Ogolevets wasn't referring to the Pythagorean comma?
That would make a thousand times more sense than the syntonic comma,
given what you've posted about Ogolevets so far.

> It's just that I have never heard of anyone talk about
> Just Intonation tuning being "wrong".

I talk about Just Intonation being "wrong" all the time. Of course,
it's only wrong as regards the common-practice Western repertoire.
There's a long tradition of this, stretching back to Benedetti in the
16th century, and extending to Barbour and Blackwood in the last
century. As a practical matter, even the advocates of Just Intonation
ended up using various varieties of meantone temperament. In fact,
for a few centuries (until 1800), meantone wasn't even referred to as
a temperament. It was simply called "correct tuning". If someone in
those days spoke of "temperament", they meant a deviation from
meantone (such as Werckmeister), not a deviation from JI.
>
> The book is written in a very systematic, scholarly way, and you
end up
> learning a lot from it. It does mention the attempts at 17-equal

You mean 19-equal, I believe.

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23410

> Thanks, Joseph, Johnny and Paul, for your tips on Pythagorean tuning
> specialists. As I read further into the book last night, I did
arrive to the conclusion that Ogolevets was basically advocating a
return to Pythagorean tuning for tonal music of a Classical-
Romantical trend (which for him is the only acceptible kind of
music), which in this case would become the harmonic foundation of
tonal music

Hello Anton!

Wow... that means the major thirds are getting a little wide there,
no??

- here, the distinction between the respective
> flats and sharps would become decisively more important, since they
would "gravitate" towards their respective tonic.

As I understand it from reading Margo Schulter's posts... Pythagorean
really has a totally different set of "leading tone" conventions than
meantone or 12-tET, correct (??)

It's just that I have never heard of anyone talk about
> Just Intonation tuning being "wrong". Have any of you ever heard of
such a thing? The overtone series, after all, is a product of nature.

Well, of course, Anton, people like Schoenberg or, indeed, ANYONE
totally inured into 12-tET tuning might think that...

But, contrasted with Pythagorean not so much...

Still, the book
> is rather dated - being from the 1940's - and, moreover, it is
Soviet, so I realize that all of this material is rather elementary,
compared to what you, folks, are doing. So I should probably run
through the book quickly and go on to reading more advanced theory
books.

Possibly... although Brian McLaren has spent a lot of time with this
author as well...

This book should be probably
> best viewed from a historical perspective - though Harry
Partch's "Genesis of a Music" and Joseph Yasser's book about his 19-
tone scale are probably still more advanced.

Of course, those TWO do seem more important. Say, does anyone know
where one can get a copy of the Yasser work?? Is it still published??
A search at Amazon.com is not finding it...

________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Of course, those TWO do seem more important. Say, does anyone know
> where one can get a copy of the Yasser work?? Is it still
published??
> A search at Amazon.com is not finding it...
>
Joseph, have you been to the Performing Arts branch of the New York
Public Library in Lincoln Center?

The two books in question, Partch's and Yasser's, plus Helmholtz's,
were the only three books I had read on the subject when I was in
high school (having found them in said NY Public Library branch). I
hadn't read anything else a year later when I came up with my
decatonic 22-tET theory, which is sort of a synthesis of Partch and
Yasser. You see, both books had a lot I agreed with and a lot I
disagreed with, so I took the parts I agreed with and sort of stuck
them together.

Later, I found a lot more books in the NYU library, the Yale music
library, and the Harvard music library. Mainly, I was making sure no
one had thought of my idea first. To my surprise, no one had!

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23424

> In a message dated 5/21/01 12:30:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > But Johnny, Ives never had any obvious antipathy to Just
Intonation
> > as did Ogolevets, did he?
> >
> >
>
> No antipathy, but "hearing" JI intervals was not something mastered
by Ives.
> So, a machine was needed (as opposed to quartertones, and an
eventual
> Pythagorean in performance). It's ironic that Lou Harrison
believes only the
> trombone is a safe microtonal wind instrument (contrary to all
others), and
> yet took Ives to task for his insecurity with JI in his monograph
> (unpublished) on the Ives "Universe Symphony" sketches.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

Thanks, Johnny! I now see the relationship between Ives and JI...

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23463

> >
> Joseph, have you been to the Performing Arts branch of the New York
> Public Library in Lincoln Center?
>
Hi Paul...

I've seen Easily Blackwood's book there, but not the Yasser... but I
should check again... thanks!

______ _____ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> I've seen Easily Blackwood's book there,

Back when I was hanging out there, Easley Blackwood's book was too
new to have made it into the library . . . but his microtonal LP was
there! I took it home and listened to it . . . my little sister liked
it because it was "weird but nice".

> but not the Yasser...

That book was falling apart . . . perhaps it has disintegrated over
the last 10 years . . . sorry to have contributed to its demise :(

On 5/21/01 4:56 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

>> Joseph, have you been to the Performing Arts branch of the New York
>> Public Library in Lincoln Center?
>>
> Hi Paul...
>
> I've seen Easily Blackwood's book there, but not the Yasser... but I
> should check again... thanks!

They split the library up into two parts that are both now downtown.
They're supposed to be reopening the Lincoln Center library
on June 14th.

FYI.

Marc

On 5/21/01 5:42 PM, "paul@stretch-music.com" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

>> I've seen Easily Blackwood's book there,
>
> Back when I was hanging out there, Easley Blackwood's book was too
> new to have made it into the library . . . but his microtonal LP was
> there! I took it home and listened to it . . . my little sister liked
> it because it was "weird but nice".

Hey Johnny has a copy of that album!
I was going to look for it while he's in Norway.
It's a nice library to housesit, I must admit.
Thanks for reminding me.

You're talking about that electronic etudes album, yes?

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

> You're talking about that electronic etudes album, yes?

Yes . . . of course now anyone can buy it on CD, with extra material
(including a 15-tET guitar suite).

I like half the pieces on this album and hate a few -- the ones where
he's trying to be conventional in a tuning which, according to his
own book, conventional music doesn't work. The book came out later --
maybe that explains it.

On 5/21/01 7:25 PM, "paul@stretch-music.com" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

>> You're talking about that electronic etudes album, yes?
>
> Yes . . . of course now anyone can buy it on CD, with extra material
> (including a 15-tET guitar suite).

I didn't know it was out on CD.
Nobody tells me these things.
Thanks.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23474

> > Joseph, have you been to the Performing Arts branch of the
> > New York Public Library in Lincoln Center?
> >
> Hi Paul...
>
> I've seen Easily Blackwood's book there, but not the Yasser...
> but I should check again... thanks!
>
> ______ _____ ______
> Joseph Pehrson

Yasser's book is on the shelf at LaSalle University's
Connelly Library, in Philadelphia. You might be able
to get it thru interlibrary loan.

(And what a terrific resource ILL is... thanks to it,
I now finally have a copy of the original 1911 edition
of Schoenberg's _Harmonielehre_, something I've coveted
for years.)

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

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:
>
> Hello Anton!
>
> Wow... that means the major thirds are getting a little wide there,
> no??
>
Yes, exactly. Isn't it the case in any manifestation of Pythagorean tuning?

>
> As I understand it from reading Margo Schulter's posts... Pythagorean
> really has a totally different set of "leading tone" conventions than
> meantone or 12-tET, correct (??)

In Ogolevets' system, each note of the diatonic-chromatic scale gravitates
toward a certain direction. In the tonality of C (major or minor) E would
gravitate up, while F would gravitate down. Then F# would gravitate up and G
would gravitate both ways and Ab would gravitate down. Obviously the leading
tones have more of an energetic pull towards their respective tonics.
Otherwise, their function is pretty much the same (in terms of functional
harmony).

<< Well, of course, Anton, people like Schoenberg or, indeed, ANYONE
> totally inured into 12-tET tuning might think that...>>

That's what I always heard and read! So I was very surprised at this
interpretation of Just Intonation. I am not sure that it's a very just
evaluation.

<< Possibly... although Brian McLaren has spent a lot of time with this
> author as well...>>

Oh, sure, I understand why he spent so much time on it - it's very
interesting and very substantial. It's just that it's still historical, and
what I am seeing the people here do sounds just so much advanced and
complex. Ogolevets is equivalent of "Classical tonal harmony", while what
you all are doing is equivalent to "20th century harmony" (if one makes the
comparison).

<<Of course, those TWO do seem more important. Say, does anyone know
> where one can get a copy of the Yasser work?? Is it still published??
> A search at Amazon.com is not finding it...>>

Yasser is probably quite rare to find and out of print for a long time. I
did find it in the Rutgers University musical library at Douglass Campus -
you can make a trip there and have a look at it there. Or you might find it
at the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center, if you're lucky - they
have a lot of good old books there, and it would be much more convenient for
you to go there.

From: paul@stretch-music.com

<<Are you sure Ogolevets wasn't referring to the Pythagorean comma?
That would make a thousand times more sense than the syntonic comma,
given what you've posted about Ogolevets so far.>>

Oh, I mean the Pythagorean comma - sorry, that was careless on my side. He
does cite the folowing scheme plenty of times:

C - 0, D-flat - 90, (interval in between - 24), C-sharp - 114, D -

<<I talk about the Just Intonation being wrong all the time. Of course,
it's only wrong as regards the common-practice Western repertoire.
There's a long tradition of this, stretching back to Benedetti in the
16th century, and extending to Barbour and Blackwood in the last
century. As a practical matter, even the advocates of Just Intonation
ended up using various varieties of meantone temperament. In fact,
for a few centuries (until 1800), meantone wasn't even referred to as
a temperament. It was simply called "correct tuning". If someone in
those days spoke of "temperament", they meant a deviation from
meantone (such as Werckmeister), not a deviation from JI.>>

So Ogolevets does have some people who concur with him. Could you explain to
me, why is the Just Intonation "wrong"? I couldn't detect any relevant
reasons from Ogolevets' explanation, so, perhaps you will do a better job,
and explain how does it sway from the "natural" tuning. I don't mean to
argue - I am just curious.

<<You mean 19-equal, I believe.>>

No, it said 17-equal in the book (unless it's a mistake on his part. It does
mention the 31-equal organ, too.

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23347.html#23550

> jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > Hello Anton!
> >
> > Wow... that means the major thirds are getting a little wide
there,
> > no??
> >
> Yes, exactly. Isn't it the case in any manifestation of Pythagorean
tuning?
>

I'm just saying that it might make some "traditional" harmonic
progressions a little, 'er, "peculiar."

Paul Erlich, is that right, or would many "classic period"
and "romantic period" composers work OK in Pythagorean??

(Paul will know this...)

> Otherwise, their function is pretty much the same (in terms of
functional harmony).

I await Paul's commentary on this...

>
> << Possibly... although Brian McLaren has spent a lot of time with
this author as well...>>
>
> Oh, sure, I understand why he spent so much time on it - it's very
> interesting and very substantial. It's just that it's still
historical, and what I am seeing the people here do sounds just so
much advanced and complex. Ogolevets is equivalent of "Classical
tonal harmony", while what you all are doing is equivalent to "20th
century harmony" (if one makes the comparison).
>

Well, I think it's more that you probably want a good
solid "grounding" in this new subject. Hanging around this list will
help.... However, certainly thorough reading of Partch's
_Genesis..._, and Helmholtz _Sensations..._ is mandatory...

Paul Erlich can answer ANY additional questions you might have...
(and some you haven't thought of!)

>
> <<Of course, those TWO do seem more important. Say, does anyone
know where one can get a copy of the Yasser work?? Is it still
published??
> > A search at Amazon.com is not finding it...>>
>

> Yasser is probably quite rare to find and out of print for a long
time. I did find it in the Rutgers University musical library at
Douglass Campus - you can make a trip there and have a look at it
there. Or you might find it at the New York Public Library at Lincoln
Center, if you're lucky - they have a lot of good old books there,
and it would be much more convenient for you to go there.

I'm pretty sure it is no longer there, since I have been through
the "microtonal" section of the NYPL pretty thoroughly...

Thanks, Anton!

________ _____ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Ant" <ant@d...> wrote:

> So Ogolevets does have some people who concur with him.

Not necessarily.

> Could you explain to
> me, why is the Just Intonation "wrong"? I couldn't detect any
relevant
> reasons from Ogolevets' explanation,

I doubt he presents any.

> so, perhaps you will do a better job,
> and explain how does it sway from the "natural" tuning. I don't
mean to
> argue - I am just curious.

Well, besides lots of experience trying to play common-practice music
in JI tunings on the keyboard (ouch!), I can start off by giving you
the classic examples: a I-vi-ii-V-I progression and a I-IV-ii-V-I
progression.

Exercise for you: arrange each of those progressions so that as many
common tones as possible are tied. Now, assign JI ratios to all
pitches. Post your results, and we'll discuss.

> <<You mean 19-equal, I believe.>>
>
> No, it said 17-equal in the book (unless it's a mistake on his part.

It probably is. In the 16th and 17th centuries, 19-equal was
occasionally used, since it's essentially identical to 1/3-comma
meantone. 17-equal, on the other hand, would have been completely
foreign to the 16th and 17th century musical aesthetic and repertoire.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that it might make some "traditional" harmonic
> progressions a little, 'er, "peculiar."
>
> Paul Erlich, is that right, or would many "classic period"
> and "romantic period" composers work OK in Pythagorean??
>
> (Paul will know this...)

A completely straightforward application of Pythagorean would work
for much "classic" and "romantic" music . . . all the thirds and
sixths become a little more "tense" than in 12-tET . . . and many
string ensembles do tend to play this way (apparantly a new
phenomenon around 1800).
>
> > Otherwise, their function is pretty much the same (in terms of
> functional harmony).
>
> I await Paul's commentary on this...

Well, certainly the resolution of tendency tones is more "incisive"
in Pythagorean. Which may be the attraction in Romantic music . . .
for the Classical period, though, we know that "pure" thirds and
sixths were much more in line with the aesthetic.