Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning 72-tET standardization

Patrick Ozzard-Low raises an interesting point in his _21st Century
Orchestral Instruments_. "It is probably not feasible to create a
range of new instruments which each provide (optimally and
individually) for a number of tunings, and that a decision regarding
a unique system is necessary" In such a context, 31-tET (Patrick's
preference is for 41-tET), might make some sense. But other realities
we have to deal with are

(a) the teaching of 12-tET as a standard during the entire lifetime
of virtually all living musicians in the Western Hemisphere.

(b) the fact that our JI friends on the West Coast are easily
offended by harmonic discrepancies as small as 5 cents.

Given these realities, along with the many other considerations that
we have discussed recently, it seems that we microtonalists, at least
in the US, could profitably strengthen our voice if we all got
together behind 72-tET as a standard for new music. Microtonalists
right now are seen as a disunified, crazy, and irrelevant assortment.
We could bridge the gap between the already-existing Boston atonal
scene and the West Coast JI scene and much in-between with: a single
notation; a consistent, managebale, and reliable set of vocal and
instrumental training methods; and perhaps a new set of instruments,
or modifications to existing instruments, that will facilitate
playing in 72-tET. As we've seen, ear-training could proceed by
having musicians produce and recognize just intervals, each prime
beyond 3 introducing incrementally greater deviation from 12-tET, so
that 72-tET notation would not preclude JI performance. Meanwhile,
the possibilities for cross-pollinization that a lingua franca would
open up are staggering . . .

Why am I coming out with this now? Well, last night I contemplated
adaptive decatonicism. That is, what would happen if you tried to
take my decatonic system, and do to it what Vicentino did to the
diatonic system (i.e., provide two slightly different pitches for
each notated pitch in order to yield much more consonant sonorities).
Well, the solution is pretty much 72-tET! Each note would be
represented by two pitches a twelfth-tone apart, and the choice of
which inflection was chosen would depend on the tetradic context.
Hmm . . . I might be able to live in a 72-tET world . . . just don't
mess up any early music with it . . .

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Paul E wrote:]
>Patrick Ozzard-Low raises an interesting point in his _21st Century
>Orchestral Instruments_. "It is probably not feasible to create a
>range of new instruments which each provide (optimally and
>individually) for a number of tunings, and that a decision regarding
>a unique system is necessary" In such a context, 31-tET (Patrick's
>preference is for 41-tET), might make some sense. But other realities
>we have to deal with are
>
>(a) the teaching of 12-tET as a standard during the entire lifetime
>of virtually all living musicians in the Western Hemisphere.
>
>(b) the fact that our JI friends on the West Coast are easily
>offended by harmonic discrepancies as small as 5 cents.
>
>Given these realities, along with the many other considerations that
>we have discussed recently, it seems that we microtonalists, at least
>in the US, could profitably strengthen our voice if we all got
>together behind 72-tET as a standard for new music. Microtonalists
>right now are seen as a disunified, crazy, and irrelevant assortment.
>We could bridge the gap between the already-existing Boston atonal
>scene and the West Coast JI scene and much in-between with: a single
>notation; a consistent, managebale, and reliable set of vocal and
>instrumental training methods; and perhaps a new set of instruments,
>or modifications to existing instruments, that will facilitate
>playing in 72-tET. As we've seen, ear-training could proceed by
>having musicians produce and recognize just intervals, each prime
>beyond 3 introducing incrementally greater deviation from 12-tET, so
>that 72-tET notation would not preclude JI performance. Meanwhile,
>the possibilities for cross-pollinization that a lingua franca would
>open up are staggering . . .
>
>Why am I coming out with this now? Well, last night I contemplated
>adaptive decatonicism. That is, what would happen if you tried to
>take my decatonic system, and do to it what Vicentino did to the
>diatonic system (i.e., provide two slightly different pitches for
>each notated pitch in order to yield much more consonant sonorities).
>Well, the solution is pretty much 72-tET! Each note would be
>represented by two pitches a twelfth-tone apart, and the choice of
>which inflection was chosen would depend on the tetradic context.
>Hmm . . . I might be able to live in a 72-tET world . . . just don't
>mess up any early music with it . . .

What???!!! What happened to the Paul E who wrote (1365 posts ago, but
a mere 17 days ago):

/tuning/topicId_22538.html#22596

which clearly explained the severe problems of 72-tET? "Just don't mess
up any early music with it" indeed!! Yet you are willing to close the
door on future music that might have a C-A-D-G-C progression? Or let it
drift? Or give it a full comma to swallow all at once? Yecch!!! What
kind of "standard" would saddle the future with such restrictions? A
very poor one, in my book.

Please help me reconcile the two Pauls here!

JdL

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_23961.html#23961

> Given these realities, along with the many other considerations
that we have discussed recently, it seems that we microtonalists, at
least in the US, could profitably strengthen our voice if we all got
> together behind 72-tET as a standard for new music. Microtonalists
> right now are seen as a disunified, crazy, and irrelevant
assortment. We could bridge the gap between the already-existing
Boston atonal scene and the West Coast JI scene and much in-between
with: a single notation; a consistent, managebale, and reliable set
of vocal and
> instrumental training methods; and perhaps a new set of
instruments,
> or modifications to existing instruments, that will facilitate
> playing in 72-tET. As we've seen, ear-training could proceed by
> having musicians produce and recognize just intervals, each prime
> beyond 3 introducing incrementally greater deviation from 12-tET,
so
> that 72-tET notation would not preclude JI performance. Meanwhile,
> the possibilities for cross-pollinization that a lingua franca
would open up are staggering . . .
>

Hear, hear! I'm all for this! What a great idea! I'm waving my
flag right now... well, I'm waving something anyway...

For me, it seems I have found the "elixir..." The way I am feeling
right now, I am ONLY going to be writing in 72-tET from here on out!!!

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

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

The resources of 72 are immense and all respect and credit goes to the fine minds that have
unearthed the possibilities. I myself look forward to exploring the new scales.

But I think we need to stop the bus here and think through the prospect of standardisation. I've
pondered long and hard on the question of standardisation. In one of my first posts to the list I
expressed an interest in current thinking on the topic. The impression I formed from the replies I
received is as follows:-

a. Various ETs have been mooted, 31 being a favourite choice of some.

b. The idea is passe as the symphony orchestra is pretty much dead, particularly in NY, and I take
that to mean the East Coast.

I was referred to Patrick Ozzard-Low's work on new orchestral instruments which I admit is well
researched and interesting. I'm sure he's a nice chap but where is he? He's not on this list which
I would have thought a must given the level of debate here. I emailed his organisation ages ago as
an interested party - no reply. Feels like a jobs-for-the-boys-sort of a deal what with all the
proposed funding.

Let's look at the real world of music. For centuries people have formed choirs and sung beautiful
music. 12 tet in the a cappella rehearsal is merely a convenient form of notation, giving the
singers useful psychoacoustically valid stopping points on the infinite continuum. In the UK one
of the biggest real, practical music making events is the local or church choir. Music is made
almost daily and sung with passion and respect. This will continue till the sun burns out. I
imagine that many in the US and European mainland like to sing too.

Let's take the 72 standardisation a bit further. We have a new orchestra and well trained players.
But no choirs able to join in the fun. Yes, I know we have the Boston ear training (recognition)
method but I'm unaware of any method aimed at singers producing the tones of 72 tet. We'd better
get a move on with this because one of the best choirs in the world, the Hilliards, in the US I
believe, are about able to deal with drift, Pythagorean substitutions for thirds and sixths and
have exquisite intonation. I would say it would take them at least ten years to master 72 tet.
Please prove me wrong. Perhaps we should fly the idea past them for their opinion.

And why do we need choirs? Well look at this list: Bach, Handel, Mozart, (etc.), Stravinsky,
Tavener, Monteith (: - ). All write for voice and instruments. If the instruments move into a
realm that the choirs can't reach we lose one of our greatest traditions. (Opera doesn't count BTW
- it's free to go).

So, finally getting to the point, we can't let the tail wag the dog. Any standard has to be
singable. I can see a partial solution to our hypothetical new order. Choir sings in 12. Composer
carefully orchestrates the harmony so that orchestra fits in. Orchestra gets all the fancy bits in
72. Choir becomes little more than a triangle. Nae chance.

And anyway I have changed my mind (fanfare). Give me one good reason why we should standardise to
another ET? I like to think of microtonality as a chance to break out of the mould. I also find
the cottage industry approach appealing - many artisans working their own vision within a common
ground.

Here endeth today's rant.

Regards

🔗ploo@mindspring.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> >just don't
> >mess up any early music with it . . .
>
> What???!!! What happened to the Paul E who wrote (1365 posts ago,
but
> a mere 17 days ago):
>
> /tuning/topicId_22538.html#22596
>
> which clearly explained the severe problems of 72-tET? "Just don't
mess
> up any early music with it" indeed!!

So I _am_ being consistent.

> Yet you are willing to close the
> door on future music that might have a C-A-D-G-C progression?

I don't want to close any doors. If a 72-tET composer wants to write
this progression, he/she can use 12-tET. But I'm talking about _new_
music, i.e., non-diatonic, _microtonal_ music. There so much of it
around, that would fit 72-tET comfortably, that a pooling of
resources and establishment of norms could be of great benefit.

> Or let it
> drift?

That might be a useful expressionistic effect. I'm thinking composers
who want to subvert or parody common-practice style . . . I frankly
don't think we're going to get any more Bachs or Mozarts.

> Or give it a full comma to swallow all at once? Yecch!!!

You know I agree with you on that, but it seems many (such as Monz,
for example) don't mind effects like that?

> What
> kind of "standard" would saddle the future with such restrictions?

No saddling would take place. I'd continue creating 22-tET and 31-tET
music. But I could write a chamber piece in 72-tET, and expect it to
get a faithful performance from my local chamber ensemble. _That's_
what I'd like to facilitate.

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Let's look at the real world of music. For centuries people have
formed choirs and sung beautiful
> music. 12 tet in the a cappella rehearsal is merely a convenient
form of notation, giving the
> singers useful psychoacoustically valid stopping points on the
infinite continuum.

72-tET notation could function in much the same way . . . Let's look
at the reality though. Gerald Eskelin reported that about 2/3 of the
professional choirs he had heard were using _high_ major thirds
(wider than 12-tET) with less than 1/3 shading in the opposite
direction. Since so much of the fine-intonation done since 1800 off
standard notation is _opposite_ the goal of JI -- that is, the fine-
intonation tends to be in a _Pythagorean_ direction -- the JI
composers out there (Lou Harrison, for example) would be served very
well if your average professional choir knew how to read and sing 72-
tET notation.
>
> Let's take the 72 standardisation a bit further. We have a new
orchestra and well trained players.
> But no choirs able to join in the fun. Yes, I know we have the
Boston ear training (recognition)
> method but I'm unaware of any method aimed at singers producing the
tones of 72 tet.

Well, those ear training classes are _singing_ classes too. You
should have heard the beautiful young woman (her name is Judith)
singing with Joe Maneri at the Microthon. She clearly could sing any
of the 72 pitches on command, with no uncertainty. I've seen her
around Boston -- she comes up every weekend to study with Joe.

Plus, I've discussed how 72-tET ear training (and singing) is
essentially the same as JI ear training from a 12-tET base.

> We'd better
> get a move on with this because one of the best choirs in the
world, the Hilliards, in the US I
> believe, are about able to deal with drift, Pythagorean
substitutions for thirds and sixths and
> have exquisite intonation.

As you probably know, I just went to see them. They're not Americans.

> I would say it would take them at least ten years to master 72 tet.

Jon Wild was reporting on this list that they were quite able, in his
piece, to sing distinctions of a diesis in a strict-JI context, which
is of course something 72 represents very well. If they understand
JI, they'll have a very easy time understanding 72. But they sing so
much early music that it's probably a bad example.

> Please prove me wrong. Perhaps we should fly the idea past them for
their opinion.

Sure, but remember -- 72 _will not work_ for most early music.
>
> And anyway I have changed my mind (fanfare). Give me one good
reason why we should standardise to
> another ET?

I'm just saying one new tuning is better than no new tunings. Right
now, most academic institutions scoff at microtonality. I'm sure many
others can testify. If a whole bunch of composers and theorists from
across the spectrum of new music got together and said, "Look, if we
merely introduced these few new accidentals into the set of notation
that performers were trained to recognize and produce, we'd have a
vast new-music repertoire available to each local performing
establishment". Right now, most of these won't touch microtonal works
with a ten-foot pole . . . who can blame them?

> I like to think of microtonality as a chance to break out of the
mould. I also find
> the cottage industry approach appealing - many artisans working
their own vision within a common
> ground.

That's going to continue to be my approach -- playing my own 22-tET
and 31-tET music. I'm simply talking about getting performing
institutions into the act, into a segment of our culture where
microtonality has a pretty steep uphill battle.

Wow, it's amazing how many people misunderstood me (well, I was too
rushed to really explain myself yesterday) . . .

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Paul E wrote:]
>>>just don't mess up any early music with it . . .

[I wrote:]
>>What???!!! What happened to the Paul E who wrote (1365 posts ago,
but
>>a mere 17 days ago):
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_22538.html#22596
>>
>>which clearly explained the severe problems of 72-tET? "Just don't
>>mess up any early music with it" indeed!!

[Paul:]
>So I _am_ being consistent.

Within the context of making the apparent assumption that the music of
the past will not be echoed into the future, I suppose you are.

[JdL:]
>>Yet you are willing to close the
>>door on future music that might have a C-A-D-G-C progression?

[Paul:]
>I don't want to close any doors. If a 72-tET composer wants to write
>this progression, he/she can use 12-tET.

And we all know how good _that_ is! ;->

>But I'm talking about _new_
>music, i.e., non-diatonic, _microtonal_ music. There so much of it
>around, that would fit 72-tET comfortably, that a pooling of
>resources and establishment of norms could be of great benefit.

_New_ music, you say. How the heck do you know what kind of music
that's going to be? I don't see any correlation between music being
microtonal and it being non-diatonic. Of course, if you simply mean,
the sliver of the musical universe which falls well under the 72-tET
umbrella, it makes more sense. But it's important to remember, that
is no more than a _sliver_ of the musical universe.

[JdL:]
>>Or let it drift?

[Paul:]
>That might be a useful expressionistic effect. I'm thinking
composers
>who want to subvert or parody common-practice style . . . I frankly
>don't think we're going to get any more Bachs or Mozarts.

I don't agree. There's plenty more music to be composed in variants
of
those composers' styles. And lovely music it will be! Drift, IMHO,
has a viscerally negative quality about it for many or most people.

[JdL:]
>>Or give it a full comma to swallow all at once? Yecch!!!

[Paul:]
>You know I agree with you on that, but it seems many (such as Monz,
>for example) don't mind effects like that?

I wonder. I don't think it will help promote microtonal music.

[JdL:]
>>What kind of "standard" would saddle the future with such
>>restrictions?

>No saddling would take place. I'd continue creating 22-tET and 31-
tET
>music. But I could write a chamber piece in 72-tET, and expect it to
>get a faithful performance from my local chamber ensemble. _That's_
>what I'd like to facilitate.

I may be being overly touchy here, but the word "standard" gives me
the
creeps. Kinda like 12-tET all over again.

JdL

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> >But I'm talking about _new_
> >music, i.e., non-diatonic, _microtonal_ music. There so much of it
> >around, that would fit 72-tET comfortably, that a pooling of
> >resources and establishment of norms could be of great benefit.
>
> _New_ music, you say. How the heck do you know what kind of music
> that's going to be?

From the JIN sampler to the latest Maneri ECM to Joseph Pehrson's
next composition, I'm referring to what's going on right now and much
microtonal music of the past century.

> I don't see any correlation between music being
> microtonal and it being non-diatonic.

You don't, huh? May I forward this to Julie Werntz and see how she
replies?

> Of course, if you simply mean,
> the sliver of the musical universe which falls well under the 72-tET
> umbrella, it makes more sense. But it's important to remember,
that
> is no more than a _sliver_ of the musical universe.

It's a hell of a lot thicker than the 12-tET or perhaps 24-tET sliver
most contemporary performing ensembles are stuck in. It would include

1) Most strict-JI music through the 11-limit and possibly through the
17-limit . . . this includes the Indian shrutis.

2) Most Arabic music (currently rendered in 24-tET).

3) Most Persian music (which fits 36-tET very well).\

4) Nearly everything by Wychnegrasky, Xenakis, Haba, Sims, Maneri,
Partch, Tenney . . . it's hard to think of a significant microtonal
composer in the "classical" world whose work would be misrepresented
in 72-tET.
>
> [JdL:]
> >>Or let it drift?
>
> [Paul:]
> >That might be a useful expressionistic effect. I'm thinking
> composers
> >who want to subvert or parody common-practice style . . . I
frankly
> >don't think we're going to get any more Bachs or Mozarts.
>
> I don't agree. There's plenty more music to be composed in
variants
> of
> those composers' styles. And lovely music it will be!

Can you give me an example of such music from the last century, that
is of true artistic merit, and not merely derivative and meant for
film or something?

> Drift, IMHO,
> has a viscerally negative quality about it for many or most >
people.

I agree. And that might be a useful effect to exploit. Not all music
should be "painless"!

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Paul E wrote:]
>>>But I'm talking about _new_
>>>music, i.e., non-diatonic, _microtonal_ music. There so much of it
>>>around, that would fit 72-tET comfortably, that a pooling of
>>>resources and establishment of norms could be of great benefit.

[I wrote:]
>>_New_ music, you say. How the heck do you know what kind of music
>>that's going to be?

[Paul:]
>From the JIN sampler to the latest Maneri ECM to Joseph Pehrson's
>next composition, I'm referring to what's going on right now and much
>microtonal music of the past century.

Which may or may not be a good predictor of future music. My guess is,
not.

[JdL:]
>>I don't see any correlation between music being microtonal and it
>>being non-diatonic.

>You don't, huh? May I forward this to Julie Werntz and see how she
>replies?

You may. Who is she?

[JdL:]
>>Of course, if you simply mean,
>>the sliver of the musical universe which falls well under the 72-tET
>>umbrella, it makes more sense. But it's important to remember, that
>>is no more than a _sliver_ of the musical universe.

[Paul:]
>It's a hell of a lot thicker than the 12-tET or perhaps 24-tET sliver
>most contemporary performing ensembles are stuck in. It would include

>1) Most strict-JI music through the 11-limit and possibly through the
>17-limit . . . this includes the Indian shrutis.

>2) Most Arabic music (currently rendered in 24-tET).

>3) Most Persian music (which fits 36-tET very well).\

>4) Nearly everything by Wychnegrasky, Xenakis, Haba, Sims, Maneri,
>Partch, Tenney . . . it's hard to think of a significant microtonal
>composer in the "classical" world whose work would be misrepresented
>in 72-tET.

Uh-huh. And this music and these people may or may not point to the
music of the future; again my guess is, not. And, sure 72-tET is better
than 12-tET or 24-tET, but to me that's not setting the bar very high.
Quite the opposite, in fact.

[JdL:]
>>>>Or let it drift?

[Paul:]
>>>That might be a useful expressionistic effect. I'm thinking
>>>composers who want to subvert or parody common-practice style . . .
>>>I frankly don't think we're going to get any more Bachs or Mozarts.

[JdL:]
>>I don't agree. There's plenty more music to be composed in variants
>>of those composers' styles. And lovely music it will be!

[Paul:]
>Can you give me an example of such music from the last century, that
>is of true artistic merit, and not merely derivative and meant for
>film or something?

"Not merely derivative". "Not meant for film". If you want to apply
restrictions, there will be no end to them. I think there is a wealth
of wonderful music written in the 20th century that would be sensitive
to a comma pump, and therefore unsuitable for 72-tET. For starters,
how about leaving 20th century "classical" music behind (where, IMHO
most of it belongs) and thinking about popular music? Paul McCartney,
for example. Or Paul Simon. Or Michael Johnson. All very subjective,
but my guess is that these will prove to influence future music of all
genres much more than the stuff that 72-tET serves well.

[JdL:]
>>Drift, IMHO, has a viscerally negative quality about it for many or
>>most people.

[Paul:]
>I agree. And that might be a useful effect to exploit. Not all music
>should be "painless"!

Are you serious? If I want pain, there is plenty outside the world of
music, and in music badly tuned and/or badly crafted, for that matter.
When I listen to music, I want beauty, not pain. And so, I believe, do
most people. In any event, any attempt to find a "standard" based upon
anybody's prediction of future music is very foolish, IMHO. Let's keep
it wide open instead!

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> Paul McCartney,
> for example. Or Paul Simon.

I have no problem notating those in 12-tET, which has proved quite satisfactory for these
composers.

> Or Michael Johnson.

Who's that.

> All very subjective,
> but my guess is that these will prove to influence future music of all
> genres much more than the stuff that 72-tET serves well.

Paul McCartney _is_ my favorite (John a close second).

> >I agree. And that might be a useful effect to exploit. Not all music
> >should be "painless"!
>
> Are you serious? If I want pain, there is plenty outside the world of
> music, and in music badly tuned and/or badly crafted, for that matter.
> When I listen to music, I want beauty, not pain. And so, I believe, do
> most people. In any event, any attempt to find a "standard" based upon
> anybody's prediction of future music is very foolish, IMHO. Let's keep
> it wide open instead!
>
Of course! But I want music that has _emotion_ -- and all one emotion is no emotion at all.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_23961.html#24041

> >
> > I don't agree. There's plenty more music to be composed in
> variants of those composers' styles. And lovely music it will be!
>
> Can you give me an example of such music from the last century,
that is of true artistic merit, and not merely derivative and meant
for film or something?
>

This is humorous (should be on the "humor-Tuning" list) but it
reminds me of a chap that I met through the American Composers
Forum. He called himself, arrogantly, "The Last Composer" and he
seemed to feel that if he were to rewrite Beethoven and Mozart that,
somehow, he was superiour to modernest "dada" as he called it --
virtually anything from our own century.

His music smacked of dilettantism and when I, at one point, gently
suggested he study composition in a program at a school, he
arrogantly asserted that he would not fit in there, since his music
was so superior to the "dada" that all the teachers would be writing
in such institutions that, for that reason, he would not get along
well there...

And sadly, he wrote literally, hours and hours (no kidding) of his
drivel...

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@earthlink.net>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

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

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Let's look at the real world of music. For centuries people have
> formed choirs and sung beautiful
> > music. 12 tet in the a cappella rehearsal is merely a convenient
> form of notation, giving the
> > singers useful psychoacoustically valid stopping points on the
> infinite continuum.
>
> 72-tET notation could function in much the same way . . . Let's look
> at the reality though. Gerald Eskelin reported that about 2/3 of the
> professional choirs he had heard were using _high_ major thirds
> (wider than 12-tET) with less than 1/3 shading in the opposite
> direction. Since so much of the fine-intonation done since 1800 off
> standard notation is _opposite_ the goal of JI -- that is, the fine-
> intonation tends to be in a _Pythagorean_ direction -- the JI
> composers out there (Lou Harrison, for example) would be served very
> well if your average professional choir knew how to read and sing 72-
> tET notation.

Yes, but my point is that for the foreseeable future singers are not going to be able to sing 72
tet. I could envisage reading the notation and I could envisage with much practice, being able to
split the semitone into three against a strong pedal. Top pros could perhaps split it into six.
But thet's a long shot off skipping from, say, tone 1 to tone 53 at will, or even harder, from
tone 1 plus x to tone y. Even then we are miles from modulating music where our tonic changes with
the harmony.

>
> >
> > Let's take the 72 standardisation a bit further. We have a new
> orchestra and well trained players.
> > But no choirs able to join in the fun. Yes, I know we have the
> Boston ear training (recognition)
> > method but I'm unaware of any method aimed at singers producing the
> tones of 72 tet.
>
> Well, those ear training classes are _singing_ classes too. You
> should have heard the beautiful young woman (her name is Judith)
> singing with Joe Maneri at the Microthon. She clearly could sing any
> of the 72 pitches on command, with no uncertainty. I've seen her
> around Boston -- she comes up every weekend to study with Joe.

Mmmm - one rose doth not a garden make. If I grant you the soloist, you would surely concede that
the thickness of a choral texture would mask such small intervals, undermining the composer's
resources even more.

>
> Plus, I've discussed how 72-tET ear training (and singing) is
> essentially the same as JI ear training from a 12-tET base.
>
> > We'd better
> > get a move on with this because one of the best choirs in the
> world, the Hilliards, in the US I
> > believe, are about able to deal with drift, Pythagorean
> substitutions for thirds and sixths and
> > have exquisite intonation.
>
> As you probably know, I just went to see them. They're not Americans.

I know, I heard them perform Machaut's Messe de Notre Dame at Edinburgh last year and I have most
of their releases.

>
> > I would say it would take them at least ten years to master 72 tet.
>
> Jon Wild was reporting on this list that they were quite able, in his
> piece, to sing distinctions of a diesis in a strict-JI context, which
> is of course something 72 represents very well. If they understand
> JI, they'll have a very easy time understanding 72. But they sing so
> much early music that it's probably a bad example.
>
> > Please prove me wrong. Perhaps we should fly the idea past them for
> their opinion.
>
> Sure, but remember -- 72 _will not work_ for most early music.

The Hilliards could sing anything from any repertoire with consummate ease, believe me.

>
> >
> > And anyway I have changed my mind (fanfare). Give me one good
> reason why we should standardise to
> > another ET?
>
> I'm just saying one new tuning is better than no new tunings. Right
> now, most academic institutions scoff at microtonality. I'm sure many
> others can testify. If a whole bunch of composers and theorists from
> across the spectrum of new music got together and said, "Look, if we
> merely introduced these few new accidentals into the set of notation
> that performers were trained to recognize and produce, we'd have a
> vast new-music repertoire available to each local performing
> establishment". Right now, most of these won't touch microtonal works
> with a ten-foot pole . . . who can blame them?

I agree with the spirit of this, and agree that any way of combatting resistance to change, driven
by fear and hubris, should be pressed strongly. What I disagree with is the importance of academic
institutions and our perceived need to have their blessing. Your compatriot Morton Feldman wrote
of this most eloquently.

> > I like to think of microtonality as a chance to break out of the
> mould. I also find
> > the cottage industry approach appealing - many artisans working
> their own vision within a common
> > ground.
>
> That's going to continue to be my approach -- playing my own 22-tET
> and 31-tET music. I'm simply talking about getting performing
> institutions into the act, into a segment of our culture where
> microtonality has a pretty steep uphill battle.

Quality composition has to be the starting point. I'm not wanting to McLarenise here but let's be
patient and wait till we have even just a few compositions of quality in 72 tet before we talk of
standardisation. As I think that acoustic music is likely to be more persuasive there will have to
be a lot of retraining and/or new instrument building. I hope to do my bit for the latter. Over
this side of the Great Pond, I'm hoping that Robert Walker and I can get together this summer in
the beautiful Scottish Borders to plan our UK microtonal campaign. We'll keep you posted.

>
> Wow, it's amazing how many people misunderstood me (well, I was too
> rushed to really explain myself yesterday) . . .

But that's good Paul, it stimulates debate and lets some of the rest of us in with our syntonic
comma's worth.

Best Wishes

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

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Yes, but my point is that for the foreseeable future singers are
not going to be able to sing 72
> tet. I could envisage reading the notation and I could envisage
with much practice, being able to
> split the semitone into three against a strong pedal. Top pros
could perhaps split it into six.
> But thet's a long shot off skipping from, say, tone 1 to tone 53
at will, or even harder, from
> tone 1 plus x to tone y.

Judith's performance would dispell all doubts.

And wouldn't cents only be vastly more difficult?

> Even then we are miles from modulating music where our tonic
changes with
> the harmony.

Not sure how this is relevant . . . Maneri and friends play mostly
atonal music, with no "tonic" or conventional "harmony" -- but they
wouldn't be disturbed if those things were present -- they know the
notation and how to produce the pitches.

> Mmmm - one rose doth not a garden make. If I grant you the soloist,
you would surely concede that
> the thickness of a choral texture would mask such small intervals,
undermining the composer's
> resources even more.

I have no idea what you mean by "mask such small intervals". In 72-
tET, making distinctions of one degree is equivalent to making the
distinction between a 9/8 and a 10/9, or a 10/9 and a 11/10, or a
11/10 and a 12/11 . . . surely intervals that can be much _clearer_
in the thickness of a choral texture.
> > >
> > > I would say it would take them at least ten years to master 72
tet.
> >
> > Jon Wild was reporting on this list that they were quite able, in
his
> > piece, to sing distinctions of a diesis in a strict-JI context,
which
> > is of course something 72 represents very well. If they understand
> > JI, they'll have a very easy time understanding 72. But they sing
so
> > much early music that it's probably a bad example.
> >
> > > Please prove me wrong. Perhaps we should fly the idea past them
for
> > their opinion.

Sure, but don't leave out the explanation of how 72 functions as JI.

> The Hilliards could sing anything from any repertoire with >
consummate ease, believe me.

There's quite a large 24-tET and even some 36-tET repertoire, you
know.

> I agree with the spirit of this, and agree that any way of
combatting resistance to change, driven
> by fear and hubris, should be pressed strongly. What I disagree
with is the importance of academic
> institutions and our perceived need to have their blessing.

I don't want their blessing -- I want their cooperation, since
they're educating so many of our fine musicians! But I'll keep
jamming and playing my 22-tET guitar and 31-tET guitar (which I'm
picking up from the shop today -- hooray!) and keyboard no matter
what academia may be up to.

> Quality composition has to be the starting point. I'm not wanting
to McLarenise here but let's be
> patient and wait till we have even just a few compositions of
quality in 72 tet

How about all the great music by Wychnegrasky, Xenakis, Penderecki,
Haba, Partch (witness Ted Mook), Sims, Maneri, Tenney . . . most of
the JIN music (Canright, for example) can be notated profitably in 72-
tET . . . there's no shortage!
>
> But that's good Paul, it stimulates debate and lets some of the
rest of us in with our syntonic
> comma's worth.

You're right. I like your attitude!

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

(Monz, a reply to your post is below...)

[I wrote:]
>>Paul McCartney, for example. Or Paul Simon.

[Paul (E) wrote:]
>I have no problem notating those in 12-tET, which has proved quite
>satisfactory for these composers.

Satisfactory insofar as it didn't prevent them from writing wonderful
music. Unsatisfactory, to my ear, in that their wonderful diatonic
music is not as well tuned as it easily could be.

Are you in fact (as seems to be my impression) relegating all diatonic
music, past and future, to fixed tuning? No, that can't be. So we
really have nothing to quarrel about, I suppose. I'm only objecting
to the notion that 72-tET can be predicted to work for future music.
And perhaps that's a straw position, not promoted by you. ?

>>Or Michael Johnson.

>Who's that.

A singer/songwriter I happen to like, not well known.

>>All very subjective,
>>but my guess is that these will prove to influence future music of all
>>genres much more than the stuff that 72-tET serves well.

>Paul McCartney _is_ my favorite (John a close second).

Lennon, that would be. I've got several of his disks. He was probably
a good influence on Paul while they were together in the Beatles, but
his forte is more words than music, IMHO.

[Paul:]
>>>I agree. And that might be a useful effect to exploit. Not all music
>>>should be "painless"!

[JdL:]
>>Are you serious? If I want pain, there is plenty outside the world of
>>music, and in music badly tuned and/or badly crafted, for that matter.
>>When I listen to music, I want beauty, not pain. And so, I believe, do
>>most people. In any event, any attempt to find a "standard" based upon
>>anybody's prediction of future music is very foolish, IMHO. Let's keep
>>it wide open instead!

[Paul:]
>Of course! But I want music that has _emotion_ -- and all one emotion
>is no emotion at all.

Of course.

(Reply to Monz's post:)

[Paul E wrote:]
>>>That's OK, an insignificant number of new music composers are using
>>>meantone. And that's all this was about, new music. Of course I'm all
>>>for doing everything possible to ensure faithful meantone
>>>performances of early music, and I'm going to be making a lot of
>>>meantone "pop" music on my 31-tET guitar.

[I wrote:]
>>I very strongly disagree with the notion that future music can be
>>predicted in such a way.

[Monz wrote:]
>Hi John. Please allow me to respectfully suggest that you're
>reading something into this that Paul didn't write.

Could well be.

>While it's easy to see an implication of predicting the future
>of music in what he wrote here, all he actually says about
>meantone is that "an insignificant number of new music composers
>are using" it, which I'd have to agree with...

OK. But the word "standard" has a very two-edged implication to it.
What is set in motion now could well live past its usefulness, and take
back what it has given in early gains for microtonal promotion.

>Douglas Leedy is the only composer really into meantone who
>comes readily comes to my mind, and I suppose the few well-known
>31-tET'ers still around.

>The rather large school of 31-tET that was going strong a few
>decades ago, centered in the Netherlands, seems to be less
>active or less focused these days. And no disrespect meant
>here either, to Manuel and the others who are still active in
>31-tET. In fact I have a 31-tET guitar that I hope to become
>able to play well enough to compose some things for it.

I don't expect any of the existing microtonal music (that I've heard) to
spark a microtonal revolution, 72-tET or otherwise. I think microtonal
inflection will gradually become understood and accepted overtop
diatonic music which, to my ear, has much greater appeal than the
alternatives (that I've heard). Even if I'm only 1% correct, that 1%
of music needs a way to be notated that is understood by live musicians.
Being labeled "non-standard" would not help.

But, by all means promote 72-tET for the music it suits!

JdL

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@mindspring.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> So we
> really have nothing to quarrel about, I suppose. I'm only objecting
> to the notion that 72-tET can be predicted to work for future music.
> And perhaps that's a straw position, not promoted by you. ?

Exactly. I just see it as viable for much _present_ and _recent_ new
music. Perhaps in 50 years it will be completely irrelevant.
>
> >Paul McCartney _is_ my favorite (John a close second).
>
> Lennon, that would be. I've got several of his disks. He was
probably
> a good influence on Paul while they were together in the Beatles,
but
> his forte is more words than music, IMHO.

Both produced much crap after the Beatles, IMHO. Lennon's _music_,
though, was incredible -- Glass Onion, I am the Walrus, etc.
etc. . . . off-topic.
>
> >While it's easy to see an implication of predicting the future
> >of music in what he wrote here, all he actually says about
> >meantone is that "an insignificant number of new music composers
> >are using" it, which I'd have to agree with...
>
> OK. But the word "standard" has a very two-edged implication to it.
> What is set in motion now could well live past its usefulness, and
take
> back what it has given in early gains for microtonal promotion.

With this kind of thinking, the status quo will always reign supreme.

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., George Zelenz <ploo@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23961.html#24115

> Satie Definitely!
>
> GZ
>

I'm not quite so certain that Satie follows "common practice" harmony
that much more than, let's say Debussy or Ravel...

It's certainly much more "static" in his ideosyncratic way... I doubt
the same opportunities for "comma pumping" are present...

Anyone care to prove me wrong??

> >
> > Stravinsky's reworking of Bach - not 'merely' derivative at all.

Are you thinking here, perhaps, of Pergolesi?? as in Pulcinella??

Well, here is some commentary from a great website:

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/stravinsky.html

>Diaghilev was not entirely satisfied with the music at first. He had
expected a respectful arrangement, modernizing, but not obscuring
Pergolesi's music. What Stravinsky gave him was more a reworking than
an arrangement. In fact, some of the movements, as the vivo duet of
contrabass and brass, are downright disrespectful. "I knew that I
could not produce a 'forgery' of Pergolesi because my motor habits
are so different; at best, I could repeat him in my own accent. That
the result was to some extent a satire was probably inevitable".

So, I'm not quite so certain...

This isn't Tuning, exactly, but it's not non-Tuning either, since we
are discussion common practice progressions as they relate to
practice vis a vis the comma pump...

____________ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@mindspring.com>

Joseph, Paul,

what do you mean by comma pump?

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I'm not quite so certain that Satie follows "common practice"
> harmony
> > that much more than, let's say Debussy or Ravel...
> >
> > It's certainly much more "static" in his ideosyncratic way... I
> doubt
> > the same opportunities for "comma pumping" are present...
> >
> > Anyone care to prove me wrong??
>
> My bet is that there is at least one comma pump somewhere in Satie's
> music -- a comma pump isn't always as pedantic as I-iv-ii-V-I in
> block chords.
> >
> > at best, I could repeat him in my own accent. That
> > the result was to some extent a satire was probably inevitable".
>
> Thanks for finding that, Joseph! You know, a serious composer writing
> common-practice music today is a bit like (closer to my field of
> interest) progressive rock bands after 1978 . . . the cultural
> relevancy is gone, so the conditions for artistic success are much
> more difficult to obtain . . . we are all cultural beings, you know.
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@mindspring.com>

JdL, Paulo,

Thanks. That's what i thought.

You betcha' mucho that Satie's music, in J.I. would ( with Austrian accent ) "PUMP YOU UP!"

Thanks again,

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> [George Zelenz wrote:]
> >Joseph, Paul,
>
> >what do you mean by comma pump?
>
> It refers to a progression which tends to cause tuning drift if music is
> tuned in JI. The easiest example is C-A-D-G-C, with ratios
>
> 5/6 x 4/3 x 4/3 x 4/3 = 320/162
>
> which after octave reduction becomes 80/81, a syntonic comma flatter
> than where the tuning started.
>
> And yes, I'll bet Satie has plenty of comma pumps in his music.
>
> JdL
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:37 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 72-tET standardization
>

> > [Paul E wrote:]
> >
> > I frankly don't think we're going to get any more Bachs or Mozarts.
>
>
> [John deLaubenfels:]
>
> I don't agree. There's plenty more music to be composed in variants
> of those composers' styles. And lovely music it will be! Drift, IMHO,
> has a viscerally negative quality about it for many or most people.

While I don't claim any kind of Bachian or Mozartean greatness for
this piece, and while it's true that commatic drift doesn't bother me
(in fact I usually find it expressive if it's melodically recognizable),
John did an adaptive retuning of a piece of mine that was deliberately
intended to sound more than a little like Bach, my _Gavotte_ for piano
written in 1980, and so I think it could be mentioned here:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/italiansuite/gavottecs7s.mp3

This was written near the end of my freshman year at Manhattan
School of Music, for Ludmila Ulehla's harmony/counterpoint class.
She had us studying and mimicking Bach's Italian Suites, but
I kept trying to put in what she called "cocktail harmonies"
and never finished any of the other pieces; this last one was
the only one completed. I got an A+ for it because I was able
to sneak in several modern-sounding harmonies that followed the
Bachian "rules" so strictly that she had to concede I had
accomplished the task she set out for us and she simply couldn't
justify making me change them. So she recognized the cleverness
of what I had acheived and rewarded me appropriately.

(My favorite "modern" touches: the unexpected resolution onto
a passing major-7th chord at 0:08; the nice late-romantic-sounding
"minor 6th" chord at 0:47; the neapolitan move I made into a
very unrelated key over the pedal-point (drone) in part 2
of the middle section, at 1:40; and the odd modulation back to
the tonic, still over the same drone, at 1:46. I'm also fond
of the way the drone is syncopated from the 3rd beat of one bar
to the 2 beat of the next all the way thru the entire middle
section. Note also that the middle section changes mode from
major to minor, but otherwise the opening thematic motive is
the same as that in the main section.)

I asked John to retune this in various different ways, and
the one I chose to put on my website is an adaptive tuning
grounded to a COFT which renders very good approximations to
7-limit JI vertical sonorities, and is stretched towards the
high and low ends of the range as in my Rhodes piano stretch
tuning chart:
/tuning/files/monz/rhodes.jpg

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but my point is that for the foreseeable future singers are
> not going to be able to sing 72
> > tet. I could envisage reading the notation and I could envisage
> with much practice, being able to
> > split the semitone into three against a strong pedal. Top pros
> could perhaps split it into six.
> > But thet's a long shot off skipping from, say, tone 1 to tone 53
> at will, or even harder, from
> > tone 1 plus x to tone y.
>
> Judith's performance would dispell all doubts.

Hearing is believing.

> And wouldn't cents only be vastly more difficult?

The difficulty is in the limitation of the average voice, which is what most choirs rely on, even
pro and semi-pro choruses, to produce and to leap around between very small intervals,

>
>
> > Even then we are miles from modulating music where our tonic
> changes with
> > the harmony.
>
> Not sure how this is relevant . . . Maneri and friends play mostly
> atonal music, with no "tonic" or conventional "harmony" -- but they
> wouldn't be disturbed if those things were present -- they know the
> notation and how to produce the pitches.
>
> > Mmmm - one rose doth not a garden make. If I grant you the soloist,
> you would surely concede that
> > the thickness of a choral texture would mask such small intervals,
> undermining the composer's
> > resources even more.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "mask such small intervals". In 72-
> tET, making distinctions of one degree is equivalent to making the
> distinction between a 9/8 and a 10/9, or a 10/9 and a 11/10, or a
> 11/10 and a 12/11 . . . surely intervals that can be much _clearer_
> in the thickness of a choral texture.

I mean that large choirs are rarely bang on tone. There's a thickness of texture, part of the
beauty I think, and that thickness is often greater than one 72nd of an octave. So we are
restricted melodically.with larger choirs. I can't see many composers wanting to write for highly
specialised ensembles all the time.

>
> > > >
> > > > I would say it would take them at least ten years to master 72
> tet.
> > >
> > > Jon Wild was reporting on this list that they were quite able, in
> his
> > > piece, to sing distinctions of a diesis in a strict-JI context,
> which
> > > is of course something 72 represents very well. If they understand
> > > JI, they'll have a very easy time understanding 72. But they sing
> so
> > > much early music that it's probably a bad example.
> > >
> > > > Please prove me wrong. Perhaps we should fly the idea past them
> for
> > > their opinion.
>
> Sure, but don't leave out the explanation of how 72 functions as JI.
>
> > The Hilliards could sing anything from any repertoire with >
> consummate ease, believe me.
>
> There's quite a large 24-tET and even some 36-tET repertoire, you
> know.
>
> > I agree with the spirit of this, and agree that any way of
> combatting resistance to change, driven
> > by fear and hubris, should be pressed strongly. What I disagree
> with is the importance of academic
> > institutions and our perceived need to have their blessing.
>
> I don't want their blessing -- I want their cooperation, since
> they're educating so many of our fine musicians! But I'll keep
> jamming and playing my 22-tET guitar and 31-tET guitar (which I'm
> picking up from the shop today -- hooray!) and keyboard no matter
> what academia may be up to.
>
> > Quality composition has to be the starting point. I'm not wanting
> to McLarenise here but let's be
> > patient and wait till we have even just a few compositions of
> quality in 72 tet
>
> How about all the great music by Wychnegrasky, Xenakis, Penderecki,
> Haba, Partch (witness Ted Mook), Sims, Maneri, Tenney . . . most of
> the JIN music (Canright, for example) can be notated profitably in 72-
> tET . . . there's no shortage!

Penderecki, yes, I've studied his Passion of St. Luke and I love it. He uses microtones texturally
in the turbasections.

> >
> > But that's good Paul, it stimulates debate and lets some of the
> rest of us in with our syntonic
> > comma's worth.
>
> You're right. I like your attitude!

And I admire your tenacity in debate!

Best Wishes

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> Mathieu claims that in music with a comma pump, when played in
equal temperament, there's a
> certain point in the progression where yourmind "pops" and its
interpretation shifts by a comma. I
> think that's ludicrous. Anyone else want to share their opinion?
>
> Yes, me again. I interpreted Mathieu's use of the "mindpop" as a
helpful analogy to describe the
> psychoacoustic process of perceiving comma shift. 'Something'
obviously takes place in order for
> us to accommodate comma shifts.

I think that's a fallacy. A huge fallacy. I believe _nothing_ takes
place . . . the music simply ends up where it began, we recognize
that and like it, and there's no reason we would have expected
anything different. None.

If you use strict JI, and want to avoid drift, then you have to stick
a comma shift in there somewhere. But all that says is that there's a
problem, or at least a curiosity, about using strict JI for certain
progressions. It says nothing, I believe, about how we hear music in
other temperaments.

> I find it quite reasonable to assume that our brain accommodates
> itself to auditory stimuli.

I agree with this completely. Each chord, at least each major chord,
is perceived, even in equal temperament, as a harmonic entity (though
for the minor triad in equal temperament there is quite a debate as
to _which_ harmonic entity that may be). But there's nothing,
absolutely nothing, in my opinion, that "does the math" and
calculates extended ratios based on the results of one chord
following another. So in John deLaubenfels' example,

C------------A------------D------------G------------C
1/1 * 5:3 = 5/3 * 2:3 = 10/9 * 4:3 = 40/27 * 2:3 = 80/81

the ear-brain system recognizes, and likes, the ratios 5:3, 2:3, and
4:3, but (I believe) does not "do the math" required to recognize
that one C is different from the other C. If you use JI, you'll hear
the difference between the two Cs . . . not because they're
mathematically different, but because they _sound_ different -- one
is lower than the other one. But if you use meantone or equal
temperament, the two Cs will sound the same, and hence they _are_ the
same . . . period.

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 11:44 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Satie and comma pumps
>

> >
> > Mathieu claims that in music with a comma pump, <etc.>
> >
>
> I think that's a fallacy. A huge fallacy. I believe
> _nothing_ takes place . . . <etc.>

Hi Paul,

This is really a great argument. It seemed to me at
first that Mathieu's romantic idea made sense, but
your refutation of it is beautiful.

I'd add my own argument here as well:

Also to be considered is the fact that 12-EDO represents
Pythagorean tuning a lot better than 5-limit JI.

This is important, because the interval 2^(4/12) [= 400 cents]
is just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to be
perceived as 81:64 [= ~408 cents] as 5:4 [= ~386 cents].
The error of approximation is thus 75% greater for the
5-limit than than for the Pythagorean
(~-13.68628614 / ~7.82 cents).

This would make the "perceived" intonation of the pump be:

C ------------- A ---------- D --------- G --------- C
1/1 * 27:16 = 27/16 * 2:3 = 9/8 * 4:3 = 3/2 * 2:3 = 1/1

So there's no "pop" at all.

As a side note, I'd also add that Erv Wilson, thinking
of a linear system where the skhisma vanishes, considers
this "double mapping" of the 12-EDO "major 3rd" to both
3^-8 [== 5:4] and 3^+4 [= 81:64] to be a sort of "gateway"
enabling us to follow the growth of larger MOSs in *either*
the positive or the negative directions of mapping.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> This is really a great argument.

I'm glad you think so -- actually, it was primarily directed at
_you_! See that post from December that I recently directed you to.

> It seemed to me at
> first that Mathieu's romantic idea made sense,

It is a little "romantic", isn't it.

> but
> your refutation of it is beautiful.

I hope truth = beauty in this case.
>
> I'd add my own argument here as well:
>
> Also to be considered is the fact that 12-EDO represents
> Pythagorean tuning a lot better than 5-limit JI.

Well, my argument applies to meantone too.
>
> This is important, because the interval 2^(4/12) [= 400 cents]
> is just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to be
> perceived as 81:64 [= ~408 cents] as 5:4 [= ~386 cents].

Ack! You know how I feel about directly perceiving ratios as complex
as 81:64! What happened to my beautiful argument? If you can directly
perceive 81:64, then why not 81:80? But no, ratios of 81 are far too
complex to perceive directly.

> The error of approximation is thus 75% greater for the
> 5-limit than than for the Pythagorean
> (~-13.68628614 / ~7.82 cents).
>
> This would make the "perceived" intonation of the pump be:
>
> C ------------- A ---------- D --------- G --------- C
> 1/1 * 27:16 = 27/16 * 2:3 = 9/8 * 4:3 = 3/2 * 2:3 = 1/1

No, I don't think you can perceive 27:16 directly. It's too complex.
But what about meantone?

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Satie and comma pumps
>
>
> Well, my argument applies to meantone too.

Right, that's true. My response is really directed
more at Alison's original quoting of Mathieu, in
regard to the perception of 12-EDO.

> >
> > This is important, because the interval 2^(4/12) [= 400 cents]
> > is just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to be
> > perceived as 81:64 [= ~408 cents] as 5:4 [= ~386 cents].
>
> Ack! You know how I feel about directly perceiving ratios as complex
> as 81:64! What happened to my beautiful argument? If you can directly
> perceive 81:64, then why not 81:80? But no, ratios of 81 are far too
> complex to perceive directly.
>
> ...
>
> No, I don't think you can perceive 27:16 directly. It's too complex.
> But what about meantone?
>

But Paul, I was very careful here to speak only of
*intervals* and not pitches, and we're talking about
a triadic harmony illustration, not individual dyads!

I agree with you that 81:64, and possibly (but here
I'm not as sure) 27:16, are too complex to be perceived
as those mathematical ratios *when the testing context
is dyadic*.

But in a triadic harmonic context, I'm very confident in
making the claim that a perceptive listener could perceive
these Pythagorean intervals as the implied harmonic basis
of a progression *actually tuned to 12-EDO*.

In fact, I'm arguing that 12-EDO's greater closeness to
Pythagorean than to 5-limit JI would *encourage* that
type of perception. And my argument is centered on the
fact that *all* of the intervals in the 12-EDO matrix
are closer to Pythagorean ratios than to any with 5^1
or 5^-1 as factors.

You don't agree with this? Please elaborate.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Thu, 31 May 2001 23:14:30 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>Mathieu claims that in music with a comma pump, when played in equal
>temperament, there's a certain point in the progression where your
>mind "pops" and its interpretation shifts by a comma. I think that's
>ludicrous. Anyone else want to share their opinion?

More like a gradual sliding than a sudden "pop". The standard meantone
progressions actually seem pretty solid -- progression by a tempered fifth
doesn't sound like any kind of "pop" since the scale itself is built from
these tempered fifths. Some of the more extreme progressions like the one
at the end of my Mizarian Porcupine Overture can sound a bit "slippery"
before you get accustomed to them, but there's never a point where anything
suddenly seems to "pop". On the other hand, you can *hear* the distinct
"pop" in my 22-TET retuning of Galticeran, where I couldn't get the
originally 12-TET progressions to line up neatly in 22-TET.

A while back I was playing around with retuning a MIDI arrangement of
Ravel's _Pavane pour une infante defunte_. It worked effortlessly in
31-TET, but I just couldn't get the progressions to work in 34-TET without
noticeable popping. Tuning it to 22-TET accentuated the size of the comma,
but that almost sounded okay since it was starting to get big enough to be
a deliberate step, and tuning it to 72-TET shrunk the comma enough that it
was less objectionable. This ought to sound "natural", if our mental image
of the progression actually "pops" at some point, but none of the just or
near-just versions sounded as good as the 31-TET version.

--
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

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 23:14:30 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
>
> >Mathieu claims that in music with a comma pump, when played in equal
> >temperament, there's a certain point in the progression where your
> >mind "pops" and its interpretation shifts by a comma. I think that's
> >ludicrous. Anyone else want to share their opinion?
>
> More like a gradual sliding than a sudden "pop". The standard meantone
> progressions actually seem pretty solid -- progression by a tempered fifth
> doesn't sound like any kind of "pop" since the scale itself is built from
> these tempered fifths. Some of the more extreme progressions like the one
> at the end of my Mizarian Porcupine Overture can sound a bit "slippery"
> before you get accustomed to them,

I think that's entirely a result of our experience with categorical
interval classes and how they combine. Once you're used to them,
there's nothing "slippery" or "sliding" about them.

> but there's never a point where anything
> suddenly seems to "pop". On the other hand, you can *hear* the distinct
> "pop" in my 22-TET retuning of Galticeran, where I couldn't get the
> originally 12-TET progressions to line up neatly in 22-TET.

You had to insert a comma shift somewhere -- yes?
>
> A while back I was playing around with retuning a MIDI arrangement of
> Ravel's _Pavane pour une infante defunte_. It worked effortlessly in
> 31-TET, but I just couldn't get the progressions to work in 34-TET without
> noticeable popping.

Right -- the comma shift.

> Tuning it to 22-TET accentuated the size of the comma,
> but that almost sounded okay since it was starting to get big enough to be
> a deliberate step, and tuning it to 72-TET shrunk the comma enough that it
> was less objectionable. This ought to sound "natural", if our mental image
> of the progression actually "pops" at some point, but none of the just or
> near-just versions sounded as good as the 31-TET version.

Exactly! This is because 31-tET is a meantone tuning, where the comma
vanishes. I'm sure that 50-tET would have satisfied you as well, since
50-tET is close to the optimal meantone . . . yes?

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:58:33 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>> On the other hand, you can *hear* the distinct
>> "pop" in my 22-TET retuning of Galticeran, where I couldn't get the
>> originally 12-TET progressions to line up neatly in 22-TET.
>
>You had to insert a comma shift somewhere -- yes?

I suppose it must have been a comma shift, but it wasn't the sort of
progression where you might expect one. Possibly what might have happened
is a delayed comma shift. When I realized the melody was drifting downward,
I shifted it back up, but the actual comma shift must have occurred
earlier. I did that retuning over a year ago -- now that I've had more
experience with comma-shifting ET's I might be able to find a better place
for the shift.

>> A while back I was playing around with retuning a MIDI arrangement of
>> Ravel's _Pavane pour une infante defunte_. It worked effortlessly in
>> 31-TET, but I just couldn't get the progressions to work in 34-TET without
>> noticeable popping.
>
>Right -- the comma shift.

Especially since Ravel used lots of extended harmonies like seventh and
ninth chords -- which provide more opportunities for comma shifts to pop up
and make it difficult to hide them.

>> Tuning it to 22-TET accentuated the size of the comma,
>> but that almost sounded okay since it was starting to get big enough to be
>> a deliberate step, and tuning it to 72-TET shrunk the comma enough that it
>> was less objectionable. This ought to sound "natural", if our mental image
>> of the progression actually "pops" at some point, but none of the just or
>> near-just versions sounded as good as the 31-TET version.
>
>Exactly! This is because 31-tET is a meantone tuning, where the comma
>vanishes. I'm sure that 50-tET would have satisfied you as well, since
>50-tET is close to the optimal meantone . . . yes?

I'm sure 50-TET would sound fine, but I didn't try it specifically. It
would be easy enough to test.

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

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > > And wouldn't cents only be vastly more difficult?
> >
> > The difficulty is in the limitation of the average voice, which is
> what most choirs rely on, even
> > pro and semi-pro choruses, to produce and to leap around between
> very small intervals,
>
> Not sure whether that's answering the question . . . wouldn't cents
> only be vastly more difficult?

You're asking a question that isn't related to the point that I'm discussing. Cents or 72 notation
- I don't know which is more difficult. It's the physical production of the notes that I'm saying
would be very difficult if not impossible for the average choir. This despite a kind reply from
Julie verifying her individual success with 72.

>
> > I mean that large choirs are rarely bang on tone. There's a
> thickness of texture, part of the
> > beauty I think, and that thickness is often greater than one 72nd
> of an octave.
>
> Now you sound _exactly_ like the 12-tET conservatives when they argue
> against JI.

Is that meant to be a compliment or an accusation? Am I arguing against JI? Strange because I've
just spent huge reserves of energy immersing myself in the subject, composing and studying every
shred of material I can find about it. I love JI music and I am on a mission to pull choirs around
to singing in non-12 but I have my own ideas as to how to achieve this. Now to make my point
clearer. In my experience, choirs of a large-ish number, say 20 upwards, singing "in unison"
aren't in unison because it's virtually impossible to do so. There's always a wobble of a few
cents that gives a leading edge to the texture - this being at a guess wider than one seventy
second of an octave.

>
>
> > So we are
> > restricted melodically.with larger choirs.
>
> Restricted melodically . . . I don't see it.

Well, a composer might want to write a line for large chorus that goes (in 72nds) steps 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6. I don't think this is possible. Write a piece with this type of chromaticism and get a
Boston choir to perform it and I'll eat my hat.

Best Wishes.

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Alison,

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Well, a composer might want to write a line for large chorus that
> goes (in 72nds) steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I don't think this is
> possible. Write a piece with this type of chromaticism and get a
> Boston choir to perform it and I'll eat my hat.

I haven't 'run the numbers' to see how close these steps would be to
the smallest consecutive intervals in Partch's 43-tone octave would
be (and the obvious difference would be the ET-ness of the former)
but wanted to pass this on...

I'm not a singer, far from it, but the first piece I worked on with
Partch was "The Dreamer That Remains". In the opening, just before
the title line is sung, there is a descending line, sung strongly, of
about 6 or 8 pitches going down by steps of the scale. When we first
started singing it in rehearsal along with the organ (Chromelodeon),
they seemed impossibly close. And then the amazement as, with
familiarity and repetition, the distance between them seemed to
almost palpably widen, until the steps felt as big as any 12tET 1/2
steps!

I'm sure most people here have had this kind of experience, yourself
probably on many occasions, but while the 72 steps may be smaller in
general, I wonder if it just might be possible.

Then again, it was unison singing, no counterpoint, etc. Opened my
eyes, that's for sure; nonetheless, a lot of work to get to that
point...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Oh, Monz, I hate you!

(actually, I simply realized I'd go bonkers if I let this ride, so I
found the old copy I made of the score...)

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Can you post the ratios for this segment? I'd like to
> compare it to 72-EDO, make a webpage with mp3 files of both,
> etc. Thanks.

Memory was partially correct, here is the line:

9/5 - 8/5 - 3/2 - 40/27 - 16/11 - 10/7 - 9/8

Partially, in that the first two pitches are a fair amount apart, but
pitches 3-6 descend in the smallest increments in the 11-limit
diamond; the final pitch descends a third (I think it's a 9/8, appr.
concert 'a', but the ratio wasn't in the score, just the reference
pitch).

> If you have the score but don't know the ratios, scan that
> passage and send it to me with a legend for the tablature
> and I'll do the math.

The chorus parts were male chorus in octaves, and he just wrote the
reference lines with standard 12tET notation and ratios to actually
place the notes. So much harder to explain, so take a look in the
files area for a folder named "szanto", and in it you'll find
yah.jpg, which is everything but the final note. ("Yah" is the
compelling lyric at this point in the piece...).

HTH,
Jon

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

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

JSZANTO@ADNC.COM wrote:

> Alison,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Well, a composer might want to write a line for large chorus that
> > goes (in 72nds) steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I don't think this is
> > possible. Write a piece with this type of chromaticism and get a
> > Boston choir to perform it and I'll eat my hat.
>
> I haven't 'run the numbers' to see how close these steps would be to
> the smallest consecutive intervals in Partch's 43-tone octave would
> be (and the obvious difference would be the ET-ness of the former)
> but wanted to pass this on...
>
> I'm not a singer, far from it, but the first piece I worked on with
> Partch was "The Dreamer That Remains". In the opening, just before
> the title line is sung, there is a descending line, sung strongly, of
> about 6 or 8 pitches going down by steps of the scale. When we first
> started singing it in rehearsal along with the organ (Chromelodeon),
> they seemed impossibly close. And then the amazement as, with
> familiarity and repetition, the distance between them seemed to
> almost palpably widen, until the steps felt as big as any 12tET 1/2
> steps!
>
> I'm sure most people here have had this kind of experience, yourself
> probably on many occasions, but while the 72 steps may be smaller in
> general, I wonder if it just might be possible.
>
> Then again, it was unison singing, no counterpoint, etc. Opened my
> eyes, that's for sure; nonetheless, a lot of work to get to that
> point...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

I think I should have said from the outset that I would LOVE for choral 72 singing to happen.
Thanks Jon for empowering this. Perhaps I should work in that direction too and who knows? I think
though that it is a bit premature for some of us to be calling for a standard without anything
resembling a repertoire to back it up. I do, however, respect the enthusiasm.

Most musicians are practical people and would turn up their noses at a few lattices, however well
drawn. I'm a Partchian in the sense that if you want something to happen badly enough you devote
your life to it. So I would like to see those who advocate the 72 standard make sacrifices, maybe
drop out and go underground, build instruments, compose, perform and set up their own institutions
instead of trying to win over existing institutions. Which, believe it or not, is what I'm more or
less doing in the name of Art. And it is deeply satisfying.

Best Wishes.