Boston 72-tET scene

Here is a message from Julie Werntz, co-director of the Boston
Microtonal Society:

"I'd be happy to answer any
questions about the Boston 72-note scene. Really, there are two: one
centered around Ezra and Dinosaur Annex, and one around Joe and his
classes
at NEC. They are quite different, and really don't have too much in
common
beyond the use of 72-note ET, and the same symbols - Ezra's. (Though
Ezra
and Joe are friends, and Ezra has long been an honorary member of the
Boston
Microtonal Society - founded by Joe - and we have frequently featured
his
music in our concerts, workshops and newsletter.) Let me know if
there is
anything more specific you'd like to know."

I'll forward any questions to Julie.

My first question for Julie:

Do Boston 72-toners sometimes correspond by email on topics that
require the use of 72-tone accidentals? If so, what characters do they
use in email to stand for Ezra's symbols?

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23672

> Here is a message from Julie Werntz, co-director of the Boston
> Microtonal Society:
>
> "I'd be happy to answer any
> questions about the Boston 72-note scene. Really, there are two: one
> centered around Ezra and Dinosaur Annex, and one around Joe and his
> classes
> at NEC. They are quite different, and really don't have too much in
> common
> beyond the use of 72-note ET, and the same symbols - Ezra's.
(Though
> Ezra
> and Joe are friends, and Ezra has long been an honorary member of
the
> Boston
> Microtonal Society - founded by Joe - and we have frequently
featured
> his
> music in our concerts, workshops and newsletter.) Let me know if
> there is
> anything more specific you'd like to know."
>
> I'll forward any questions to Julie.

Paul... I was thinking about asking Julie a question about the
notation, but I can answer it myself:

1) Do all the microtonalists associated with these organizations use
the same notation

Answer: Yes, as per above.

2) Given they have used this notation for some time, is it pretty
much standardized and ingrained in practice??

Answer: Yes it is, particularly since Joe Maneri has done 20 years
of ear training at New England Conservatory with these symbols.

3) Is there any chance that Ezra Sims or Joe Maneri would welcome any
suggestions as to "improvements" in the notational symbols they
currently use?

Answer: Well, we can ask them, but it is highly unlikely, since all
their scores and theory texts are written with these symbols and
these are the ones that are taught...

(This is, frankly, the kind of question that is so obvious it doesn't
even have to be asked.)

Recapitulation:

This is the kind of question that is so obvious it doesn't even have
to be asked...

(I just saved Julie some work...)

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Dear Tuning List,
I received Joe's book "Preliminary Studies in the Virtual Pitch Continuum" and Julia Werntz's
Dissertation "Toward an Understanding of Expanded Equal Temperaments." After just a preliminary
reading of Julie's Dissertation, it turns out Julie is endorsing an ATONAL approach to using 72.
Basically the idea is that adjacent notes of 72 are barely perceptible and an atonal approach
would better capture the uniqueness of the new intervals.

She's reasoning that a tonal approach would "subject the pitches automatically to the overwhelming
gravity of a fundamental tone."

I told her that for the same reasons I've been thinking the 72 is perfect for written tonal
music. I think that's why popular music is so widely accepted. When you look at the sruti
hovering around concert pitch, by just this barely perceptible amount, I think you can understand
its acceptance in the west.

Regarding the other thread about piano stretching, I woke up thinking that the plus or minus 5
cents from pure ET that make up the bulk of piano tuning might be the fudge factor that would
allow the 13 limit into the 72 or any limit for that matter, since the maximum error of 72 is
8.33� or half the 1/12 of a tone. Unfortunately the 13th is flat 8� in 72 thereby doubling the
error in the upper register (if you wanted sharper pitches there.) I suppose you could restrict
using the 13th in the lower half of the spectrum and undertone 13th in the upper.

Yours,
Rick

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Here is a message from Julie Werntz, co-director of the Boston
> Microtonal Society:
>
> "I'd be happy to answer any
> questions about the Boston 72-note scene. <snip>

Dave Keenan,

<<Paul, another question for Julie: How do Sims and Maneri _say_ these
accidentals?>>

Paul Erlich,

<<That I know. It's "twelfth-sharp", "quarter-sharp", etc. (kind of
confusing because a plain sharp would be "half-sharp" by this
nomenclature).>>

Dave Keenan,

<<Oh wow! That's incredibly dumb.>>

How so? I don't see this at all. This is a practical approach based on
deviations from standard notation and the 12 mindset by folks who are
doing it. The occasion to say "half-sharp" never arises! You have
three extremely easy to internalize situations -- twelfth sharp or
flat, sixth sharp or flat, and quarter sharp or flat (regular sharps
and flats are what they always were).

Beyond that whole-tone, half-tone, quarter-tone, etc. are all standard
terminology with a long track record. What's so "incredibly dumb"
about that?

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> How so? I don't see this at all. This is a practical approach based
on
> deviations from standard notation and the 12 mindset by folks who
are
> doing it. The occasion to say "half-sharp" never arises! You have
> three extremely easy to internalize situations -- twelfth sharp or
> flat, sixth sharp or flat, and quarter sharp or flat (regular sharps
> and flats are what they always were).

Er. Sorry Dan but there are more than three such situations.

> Beyond that whole-tone, half-tone, quarter-tone, etc. are all
standard
> terminology with a long track record. What's so "incredibly dumb"
> about that?

Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp" symbol
_and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
combination)?

Should they say
(a) "sharp and a quarter" or "one and a quarter sharp", or
(b) "three quarters sharp", or
(c) "sharp and a half"?

See my point?

-- Dave Keenan

Dave Keenan wrote,

<<Er. Sorry Dan but there are more than three such situations.>>

Not so. (Sure there could be, but there also could not be!) Suffice it
to say that I've never seen anything like compound or mixed glyphs in
any of the Maneri material I've seen.

<<Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp" symbol
_and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
combination)? Should they say [SNIP] See my point?>>

No. You'd say such and such alphabetized note, say C, "C sharp a
quarter sharp"... again I ask what is so smugly "dumb" about that!

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp" symbol
> _and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
> combination)?
>
> Should they say
> (a) "sharp and a quarter" or "one and a quarter sharp", or
> (b) "three quarters sharp", or
> (c) "sharp and a half"?
>
I'm 99% sure that the answer is (b), but I'll ask Julie to be sure.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Dave Keenan wrote,
>
> <<Er. Sorry Dan but there are more than three such situations.>>
>
> Not so. (Sure there could be, but there also could not be!) Suffice
it
> to say that I've never seen anything like compound or mixed glyphs
in
> any of the Maneri material I've seen.

Er. Sorry Dan but Ted Mook provides them in his Font at
https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
and there are several on this Maneri page that Joseph just scanned
/tuning/files/Pehrson/Sims.GIF

> <<Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp" symbol
> _and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
> combination)? Should they say [SNIP] See my point?>>
>
> No. You'd say such and such alphabetized note, say C, "C sharp a
> quarter sharp"... again I ask what is so smugly "dumb" about that!

Can't you see how ambiguous that is? I imagine that some musicians
would take that to mean that you want them to go only 25c above C#,
when you really want them to go 50c.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that a minority would take it to mean
that you only want them to go either 25c or 50c sharp of _C_. As in
"I'm calling it a C sharp rather than a C, but I don't want you to
sharpen it all the way, only a quarter of the way."

Sorry if I seemed smug. But I believe there is a real issue here.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Beyond that whole-tone, half-tone, quarter-tone, etc. are all
standard
> terminology with a long track record. What's so "incredibly dumb"
> about that?

There's nothing wrong with those. It's when the word "tone" is
omitted, as it inevitably will be (is being), that the problem arises.
e.g. "Sixth-tone sharp" is unambiguous, but "Sixth sharp" is not.

Here are some alternative suggestions.

Degrees
of 72
from C Possibly spoken as
--------------------------------------------------------
0 C
1 C up
2 C semisharp down, C super
3 C semisharp, C half-sharp
4 C semisharp up, D flat sub, D sub-flat
5 C sharp down, D flat down
6 C sharp, D flat
7 C sharp up, D flat up
8 D semiflat down, C sharp super, C super-sharp
9 D semiflat, D half-flat
10 D semiflat up, D sub
11 D down
12 D

-- Dave Keenan

Dave Keenan wrote,

<<Er. Sorry Dan but Ted Mook provides them in his Font at
and there are several on this Maneri page that Joseph just scanned>>

Not at all, all I see are just what I said -- the three signifiers by
way of the six glyphs and the regular sharps and flats!

<<Can't you see how ambiguous that is?>>

No!

<<I imagine that some musicians would take that to mean that you want
them to go only 25c above C#, when you really want them to go 50c. I'd
even go so far as to suggest that a minority would take it to mean
that you only want them to go either 25c or 50c sharp of _C_. As in
"I'm calling it a C sharp rather than a C, but I don't want you to
sharpen it all the way, only a quarter of the way.">>

I'm sorry but this really seems absurd to me. You read it, or say it,
exactly as it's notated. It all seems so very simple to me, but that
must just be me!

--Dan Stearns

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23755

> Dave Keenan,
>
> <<Paul, another question for Julie: How do Sims and Maneri _say_
these
> accidentals?>>
>
> Paul Erlich,
>
> <<That I know. It's "twelfth-sharp", "quarter-sharp", etc. (kind of
> confusing because a plain sharp would be "half-sharp" by this
> nomenclature).>>
>
> Dave Keenan,
>
> <<Oh wow! That's incredibly dumb.>>
>
> How so? I don't see this at all. This is a practical approach based
on
> deviations from standard notation and the 12 mindset by folks who
are
> doing it. The occasion to say "half-sharp" never arises! You have
> three extremely easy to internalize situations -- twelfth sharp or
> flat, sixth sharp or flat, and quarter sharp or flat (regular sharps
> and flats are what they always were).
>
> Beyond that whole-tone, half-tone, quarter-tone, etc. are all
standard
> terminology with a long track record. What's so "incredibly dumb"
> about that?
>
> --Dan Stearns

I'm happy to see that I "guessed" how the Sims/Maneri "crowd" would
vocalize these alterations.

I think Dan's post is entirely "on target" here. There is no "half
sharp" necessary (!!)

1/12 sharp/flat, 1/6 sharp/flat, 1/4 sharp/flat

What could be easier??

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23760

> Dave Keenan wrote,
>
> <<Er. Sorry Dan but there are more than three such situations.>>
>
> Not so. (Sure there could be, but there also could not be!) Suffice
it
> to say that I've never seen anything like compound or mixed glyphs
in
> any of the Maneri material I've seen.
>
> <<Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp" symbol
> _and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
> combination)? Should they say [SNIP] See my point?>>
>
> No. You'd say such and such alphabetized note, say C, "C sharp a
> quarter sharp"... again I ask what is so smugly "dumb" about that!
>
> --Dan Stearns

This is, I believe, correct. Dave is making it all TOO
complicated...

Complicated can be fun, but not in this case, where SIMPLICITY is key
(literally)

___________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23759

>
> Should they say
> (a) "sharp and a quarter" or "one and a quarter sharp", or
> (b) "three quarters sharp", or
> (c) "sharp and a half"?
>
> See my point?
>
> -- Dave Keenan

I think, Dave, they would make it "less complicated" than that.

They would say, for instance, "D sharp 1/6 sharp up" and "D sharp 1/4
sharp up" etc....

keeping the 12-tET accidentals "separate" in speech from the next
alteration...

At least that would seem to be the clearest to me, and would be my
guess...

_________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23763

>
> Er. Sorry Dan but Ted Mook provides them in his Font at
> https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
> and there are several on this Maneri page that Joseph just scanned
> /tuning/files/Pehrson/Sims.GIF
>
> > <<Ok Dan, what should they say when there's a "quarter sharp"
symbol
> > _and_ a "sharp" symbol against the same note (or any similar
> > combination)? Should they say [SNIP] See my point?>>
> >
> > No. You'd say such and such alphabetized note, say C, "C sharp a
> > quarter sharp"... again I ask what is so smugly "dumb" about that!
>
> Can't you see how ambiguous that is? I imagine that some musicians
> would take that to mean that you want them to go only 25c above C#,
> when you really want them to go 50c.
>

I still think, Dave, that with your "math head" (which I distinctly,
ADMIRE, by the way) you are making things too complicated.

If one would want 25c about C# one would say to the musician:

"I want a C# 1/8 tone up" keeping the 12-tET notation at the
first "level..."

If the Bostonians don't do it that way, then I think they are ALSO
making it more complicated than necessary. When I work with
musicians, I am going to try the "easy" way...

It actually is on minor consequence in a rehearsal how one SPEAKS
this stuff, as long as one is consistent and the player knows what
you're talking about!

_________ ______ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23764

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Beyond that whole-tone, half-tone, quarter-tone, etc. are all
> standard
> > terminology with a long track record. What's so "incredibly dumb"
> > about that?
>
> There's nothing wrong with those. It's when the word "tone" is
> omitted, as it inevitably will be (is being), that the problem
arises.
> e.g. "Sixth-tone sharp" is unambiguous, but "Sixth sharp" is not.
>
> Here are some alternative suggestions.

But Dave! EVERYBODY who knows the system or who is taught the system
for EVEN ONE piece knows that the 1/12, 1/6, 1/4 tone alterations
apply to TONES, not SEMITONES.... that's part of the basic
definition of the system! There wouldn't be any confusion in that...
I don't believe!

Personally, I think your "alternative" suggestions are more complex,
and I want "easy street," man, "easy street!"...

__________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23766

> Dave Keenan wrote,
>
> <<Er. Sorry Dan but Ted Mook provides them in his Font at
> and there are several on this Maneri page that Joseph just scanned>>
>
> Not at all, all I see are just what I said -- the three signifiers
by
> way of the six glyphs and the regular sharps and flats!
>
>
> <<Can't you see how ambiguous that is?>>
>
> No!
>
>
> <<I imagine that some musicians would take that to mean that you
want
> them to go only 25c above C#, when you really want them to go 50c.
I'd
> even go so far as to suggest that a minority would take it to mean
> that you only want them to go either 25c or 50c sharp of _C_. As in
> "I'm calling it a C sharp rather than a C, but I don't want you to
> sharpen it all the way, only a quarter of the way.">>
>
> I'm sorry but this really seems absurd to me. You read it, or say
it,
> exactly as it's notated. It all seems so very simple to me, but that
> must just be me!
>
> --Dan Stearns

I absolutely agree with you, Dan. There's no reason to make all of
this more complicated if a CONVENTION has already been established!

There's a "C# 1/6 tone up..."

That's all there is to it!

________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <9elq4b+cvu4@eGroups.com>
Amongst a blizzard of recent posts on the subject, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> > There's nothing wrong with those. It's when the word "tone" is
> > omitted, as it inevitably will be (is being), that the problem
> arises.
> > e.g. "Sixth-tone sharp" is unambiguous, but "Sixth sharp" is not.
> >
> > Here are some alternative suggestions.
>
> But Dave! EVERYBODY who knows the system or who is taught the system
> for EVEN ONE piece knows that the 1/12, 1/6, 1/4 tone alterations
> apply to TONES, not SEMITONES.... that's part of the basic
> definition of the system! There wouldn't be any confusion in that...
> I don't believe!

Hang on, is "sixth sharp" the same as "sixth-tone sharp"? So "sharp" and
"half sharp" are the same? I think I'll join the mathematicians union
and say that is incredibly dumb.

I know the system (but not the symbols) and I wouldn't have guessed it
was like that. Anybody who's taught the terminology will know the
terminology, but that would be true for any terminology. Right?

Of course, if they don't say this at all, as you suggest in every other
post, that wouldn't be so dumb.

> Personally, I think your "alternative" suggestions are more complex,
> and I want "easy street," man, "easy street!"...

A half-sharp is half of what a sharp would usually be. What's complex
about that?

Graham

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23784

>
> Hang on, is "sixth sharp" the same as "sixth-tone sharp"?

I agree that it would be best to say "C#, sixth-TONE sharp..."

So "sharp" and
> "half sharp" are the same? I think I'll join the mathematicians
union and say that is incredibly dumb.
>

Well, OK, like a lot of other things are dumb that have been well
established.

You don't, seriously, want us to start calling a 12-tET C# a:

"C half-tone sharp" do you?? Boy, I'd rather not sleep in that
camp...

Sometimes there's a little "illogic" in conventions...

>
> A half-sharp is half of what a sharp would usually be. What's
complex about that?
>

But that would be "C#, QUARTER-tone sharp," no??

__________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Graham, Dave K., Paul,

What you have to realize is how deeply ingrained the 12 mindset,
specifically the atonal, enharmonic equivalent mindset, is here. And
given that, how miraculously simple a leap it is from 12 to 72 using
just three additional signifiers.

I like generalizations that are logically sound across whole hosts of
possibilities too, but understanding why this notation is picked up as
quickly as it is by so many musicians is not an unimportant
consideration!

It may not be all everyone wants it to be but it is far from
"incredibly dumb" if one views it from within its proper paradigm...
in fact it's rather a marvel.

--Dan Stearns

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

Why are you including me? I'm still 99% sure that the answer is "C
three-quarters sharp" -- the word "tone" is understood -- I see
nothing wrong with that.

Paul,

I don't think "C three-quarters sharp" is relevant. Yes, it is in line
with the types of descriptions Joe would give of the cumulative
twelfth-tones but it is much more convoluted than any of the actual
three signifier notational practice which is what I believe is
relevant here.

It would be C# (or Db) a quarter-tone sharp -- period.

--Dan Stearns

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23794

> Paul,
>
> I don't think "C three-quarters sharp" is relevant. Yes, it is in
line
> with the types of descriptions Joe would give of the cumulative
> twelfth-tones but it is much more convoluted than any of the actual
> three signifier notational practice which is what I believe is
> relevant here.
>
> It would be C# (or Db) a quarter-tone sharp -- period.
>
> --Dan Stearns

YEPPIR! Mighty dumb... but the performers are sure to know what I
mean by that! Too much math, otherwise.

I like math... but not so much in rehearsal!

__________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

> Question from a list member:
>
> "Do Boston 72-toners sometimes correspond by email on topics that
> require the use of 72-tone accidentals? If so, what characters do
they
> use in email to stand for Ezra's symbols?"

Julie replies:

'In general, yes, we Boston 72-toners do tend to say (and in the
absence of a
font, to write, whether it's email or any other text): "twelfth-up,"
"sixth-down," etc. (I've never heard "half-sharp.") It may seem
incredibly
dumb, but maybe it's best to do what is simplest for performers, and
to save
the interesting, creative stuff (e.g. getting beyond the 12 mindset)
for the
composing and music-making.

I don't know any one who has bothered to figure out a way to use the
symols
in email. Sorry.

If you are interested in purchasing a font, though, check out Ted
Mook's
microtonal font for Ezra's symbols at
www.mindspring.com/~tmook/micro.html.'

I don't know where Julie got the "incredibly dumb" part -- either
she's actually reading the list, or she's incredibly psychic!

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Graham, Dave K., Paul,
>
> What you have to realize is how deeply ingrained the 12 mindset,
> specifically the atonal, enharmonic equivalent mindset, is here. And
> given that, how miraculously simple a leap it is from 12 to 72 using
> just three additional signifiers.

Dan, no-one is denying that. All our alternative suggestions over the
last two or three days have been just as firmly rooted in this
mindset, using three addional _pairs_ of signifiers. Although it has
also been suggested that one can see it as a two stage leap from 12 to
24 and then to 72. This point of view can happily coexist with the
direct leap from 12 to 72 with no change of notation.

>
> I like generalizations that are logically sound across whole hosts
of
> possibilities too, but understanding why this notation is picked up
as
> quickly as it is by so many musicians is not an unimportant
> consideration!
>
> It may not be all everyone wants it to be but it is far from
> "incredibly dumb" if one views it from within its proper paradigm...
> in fact it's rather a marvel.

Dan, I feel you are seriously misrepresenting our argument here.

The dumbness Graham and I are currently talking about is not in the
notation, it's purely in the way it is verbalised, and it is purely a
consequence of dropping the word "tone" and having the words
"twelfth", "sixth" and "quarter" attached directly to the words
"sharp" or "flat".

twelfth tone sharp = sixth sharp = up
sixth tone sharp = third sharp = super (or semisharp down)
quarter tone sharp = half sharp = semisharp

The first column is too long to say and the second column is now
ambiguous because folks having been using the first column but
dropping the word "tone". I contend that we need something like the
third column. Not necessarily those words, but a single word that
corresponds to each accidental and involves no ambiguity over whether
the word "tone" is implied or not.

Apparently you think that folks would always automatically take these
fractions "sixth" etc. as applying to whole-tones whether the word
tone is included or not. As evidence to the contrary I submit that
half-sharp and semisharp are quite entrenched in some parts (maybe not
in the USA), and also the fact that cents are percentages of a
semitone, not a tone.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> The dumbness Graham and I are currently talking about is not in the
> notation, it's purely in the way it is verbalised, and it is purely
a
> consequence of dropping the word "tone" and having the words
> "twelfth", "sixth" and "quarter" attached directly to the words
> "sharp" or "flat".

It may have been my fault that that is your impression. In fact, the
words "twelfth", "sixth", and "quarter" are attached to the
words "up" and "down", not "sharp" and "flat".

> Apparently you think that folks would always automatically take

Nothing here is taken automatically. There's always an explanation
behind this, whether it's a full ear-training course with Joe Maneri
at NEC, or at the very least, a legend on the score.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23803

> > Question from a list member:
> >
> > "Do Boston 72-toners sometimes correspond by email on topics that
> > require the use of 72-tone accidentals? If so, what characters do
> they
> > use in email to stand for Ezra's symbols?"
>
> Julie replies:
>
> 'In general, yes, we Boston 72-toners do tend to say (and in the
> absence of a font, to write, whether it's email or any other
text): "twelfth-up," "sixth-down," etc. (I've never heard "half-
sharp.") It may seem incredibly dumb, but maybe it's best to do what
is simplest for performers, and to save the interesting, creative
stuff (e.g. getting beyond the 12 mindset) for the
> composing and music-making.
>
>
>
> I don't know where Julie got the "incredibly dumb" part -- either
> she's actually reading the list, or she's incredibly psychic!

Well, you've heard the expression "great minds think alike..." so
this is obviously one such instance....

___________ _________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23806

>
> twelfth tone sharp = sixth sharp = up
> sixth tone sharp = third sharp = super (or semisharp down)
> quarter tone sharp = half sharp = semisharp
>

Hi Dave...

Well, you have a point, and in any future rehearsals I am going to
say, "C# 1/6 TONE sharp." I'm ALWAYS going to use the word "tone."

I can say "tone..." It's not that long... it's no problem!

__________ ________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23807

>
> It may have been my fault that that is your impression. In fact,
the
> words "twelfth", "sixth", and "quarter" are attached to the
> words "up" and "down", not "sharp" and "flat".
>
> > Apparently you think that folks would always automatically take
>
> Nothing here is taken automatically. There's always an explanation
> behind this, whether it's a full ear-training course with Joe
Maneri at NEC, or at the very least, a legend on the score.

Well, I'll go so far as to be willing to say "C# 1/6 tone UP" if
that's really going to clarify any confusion about "sharp..."

No problem!

__________ _________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > The dumbness Graham and I are currently talking about is not in
the
> > notation, it's purely in the way it is verbalised, and it is
purely
> a
> > consequence of dropping the word "tone" and having the words
> > "twelfth", "sixth" and "quarter" attached directly to the words
> > "sharp" or "flat".
>
> It may have been my fault that that is your impression. In fact, the
> words "twelfth", "sixth", and "quarter" are attached to the
> words "up" and "down", not "sharp" and "flat".

Yes indeed it was, Paul Erlich. I don't have a problem with "sixth up"
etc. only "sixth sharp" etc.

Dan, can we agree that "sixth up" is preferable to "sixth sharp", for
two steps of 72-EDO?

-- Dave Keenan

Dave K.,

You probably don't know this, but I played with Joe Maneri's son Mat
for a couple of years. And during this time I was pretty much there at
the house with the amazing Maneri family everyday -- and what a time
it was!

Anyway, as I'm sure you've probably gathered by now, your "incredibly
dumb" comment definitely frosted my outlook and I probably took it
more personally than need be. But at least now you know some of why
that is.

But all that aside, I honestly don't think it makes much of a
difference one way or the other. Either one, sharp and flat or up and
down, would be immediately understood by anyone familiar with their
actual usage. They'd mean exactly the same thing.

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Dave K.,
>
> You probably don't know this, but I played with Joe Maneri's son Mat
> for a couple of years.

No, I didn't know that. Can we try to keep personal feelings out of
this. There was nothing personal in my "incredibly dumb". It was the
system of words not the people I was referring to. Anyway it seems to
have been a misquote by Paul Erlich.

> But all that aside, I honestly don't think it makes much of a
> difference one way or the other. Either one, sharp and flat or up
and
> down, would be immediately understood by anyone familiar with their
> actual usage. They'd mean exactly the same thing.

But Dan, as someone else mentioned already, _everything_ is
immediately understood by those who are familiar with its usage.
That's a simple tautology. How do you tell if someone is familiar with
the usage of some words? Well you see if they immediately understand
what you mean. So this is entirely irrelevant to my point.

My point is that folks who are _not_ already familiar with it may take
longer to learn what you mean by "sixth sharp" than they would "sixth
up", because of the cognitive dissonance set up between the two
possible initial meanings of sixth sharp. They may continue to make
mistakes for a long time.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23821

>
There was nothing personal in my "incredibly dumb". It was the
system of words not the people I was referring to. Anyway it seems to
have been a misquote by Paul Erlich.
>

True, Paul had originally said "bum'd."

>
> My point is that folks who are _not_ already familiar with it may
take longer to learn what you mean by "sixth sharp" than they
would "sixth up", because of the cognitive dissonance set up between
the two possible initial meanings of sixth sharp. They may continue
to make mistakes for a long time.
>

Where I be right now is:

"C# sixth TONE, UP"

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Dave K.,

Though my patience in doing so was somewhat strained, aside from my
smug comment (which your post would've struck me as regardless), I
kept straight it all straight and narrow and right to the issues even
though you treated my every response as though I knew not what I was
talking about.

As far as your actual one incredibly minor point that shook out of all
of this is concerned, I think your making too much of a mountain out
of what seems to me to be less than a molehill.

--Dan Stearns

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

/tuning/topicId_23672.html#23824

> Dave K.,
>
> Though my patience in doing so was somewhat strained, aside from my
> smug comment (which your post would've struck me as regardless), I
> kept straight it all straight and narrow and right to the issues
even
> though you treated my every response as though I knew not what I was
> talking about.
>
> As far as your actual one incredibly minor point that shook out of
all
> of this is concerned, I think your making too much of a mountain out
> of what seems to me to be less than a molehill.
>
> --Dan Stearns

It's a mere COMMA... PERIOD.

__________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> There was nothing personal in my "incredibly dumb". It was the
> system of words not the people I was referring to. Anyway it seems
to
> have been a misquote by Paul Erlich.
> >
>
> True, Paul had originally said "bum'd."

Er no. I meant that Paul misquoted the Bostonians as saying "sixth
sharp" etc., not that he misquoted me as writing "incredibly dumb". I
definitely wrote "incredibly dumb". :-)

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Dave K.,
>
> Though my patience in doing so was somewhat strained, aside from my
> smug comment (which your post would've struck me as regardless), I
> kept straight it all straight and narrow and right to the issues
even
> though you treated my every response as though I knew not what I was
> talking about.
>
> As far as your actual one incredibly minor point that shook out of
all
> of this is concerned, I think your making too much of a mountain out
> of what seems to me to be less than a molehill.

Sorry Dan.

-- Dave Keenan

On 5/25/01 10:08 AM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> I'm happy to see that I "guessed" how the Sims/Maneri "crowd" would
> vocalize these alterations.

Joe Maneri *does* have his own LANGUAGE...
Does anyone know if he actually uses it
to talk about music?
Or how much of music, or his music,
he's actually invented words for?

On 5/25/01 11:00 AM, "graham@microtonal.co.uk" <graham@microtonal.co.uk>
wrote:

>> Personally, I think your "alternative" suggestions are more complex,
>> and I want "easy street," man, "easy street!"...
>
> A half-sharp is half of what a sharp would usually be. What's complex
> about that?

Ahhhh.
All streets should be this easy.

From Julia Werntz:

"B-flat quarter high," "f sixth low," "c-sharp twelfth
low" etc. is the easiest way to say it. That's what I hear most people
saying.

Also, I asked Julia this question:

> Joseph Pehrson was asking me how Joe Maneri decided on 72-tET.
Clearly it
> wasn't from the consonance angle as it was for James Tenney and
myself, or
> from the Partch-performance angle as it was for Ted Mook. Was it
independent
> of contact with Ezra Sims, perhaps born of quarter-tone and sixth-
tone
> interpretations of Middle Eastern musics?
>

She replied:

Joe came to microtones well before settling on 72, and several
influences
converge in this. One is, surely, his young adulthood spent
performing Greek
music. This opened up a love for "other" pitches, although he never
applied
this in any literal, ethnomusicological way. Another influence were
his
years developing a highly chromatic compositional style as a student
of the
Second Viennese School. (He studied with Berg's student Josef Schmidt
for
ten years.) I write about these two influences in my thesis, because
they
are fundamental, and he has them in common with Wyshnegradsky (with
his
"ultrachromaticism") and Haba, as well.

Joe began using microtonal inflections in his compositions sometime
in the
1970's, and these became ever more specific and minute. At some point
after
he met up with Ezra he studied the 72-note chromatic, which seemed
perfect,
even though he was using it for something entirely different. (Joe
wanted
the intervals in his melodies to be smaller and more nuanced, and of
course
to be able to transpose easily. Ezra is still sceptical about using
1/12-tones and 1/6-tones in melodic progressions. See his essay in
the 1991
Perspectives of New Music.) Joe adopted Ezra's notation, because it
seemed
fine, although it does have problems. He uses it, and I use it,
because
that's what performers around here know, now, and it's easy to learn.
But
it's not too intuitive (e.g. half arrow is a larger interval than
full
arrow, and what the heck is the square root doing there, if you're
not
thinking about just tuning?). Joe and I are working on a new book,
and we
experimented with a new notation, but it's too hard to switch after
all
these years, and there is too much else of greater pertinence to
focus on,
as you know, so we gave up that pursuit.