72 tone standard

Yikes, Paul...about the last thing I want to see is some sort of new
standard tuning...I want to see many and varied tuning systems, and all
of the many possibilities for the music that could be produced from
them. In that regard, I must say I really respect what Reinhard and crew
have done over the years by playing all sorts of music in all sorts of
tunings; I believe they've set a really high standard, and that's the
kind of horizons I like to aim for...infinite. It's very inspiring. To
try and standardize microtonality sems realy confining to me.
Also, are we microtonalists really seen as a "disunified, crazy and
irrelevant" group? That's news to me...maybe I'm missing something. Here
in Denver, the reception to what we have done with non 12 tunings has
largely been very positive, with a lot of folks who seem to be really
curious and interested with the subject. For example, I just finished a
play, where I played 34 tone guitar (and a bit of purely tuned
fretless), which received very good reviews (especially for the music),
and was seen by thousands of folks; most of what I heard/read about this
show was very encouraging. I'm not sure where you are getting your info,
but that's too bad...from what I see happening around the country,
people seem to be responding pretty well to the concept of microtonal
music...I'm sorry that you seem to be getting a negative
impression...hopefully, you're wrong...Hstick

Err, Paul,

I'm glad you've found a way to do your decatonics in 72-EDO, but
please don't forget that the single most popular temperament of all
time, namely meantone, is disrespected just as badly by 72-EDO as it
is by 12-EDO.

Let's just recognise that 72-EDO unifies a huge number of temperaments
including some that are wafso-just and quasi-just, and the notation
can be used consistently out to 17-limit just, and performers can
cope well with it because its an extension of 12-tET, but there's
still a lot that it leaves out.

Aren't cents and ratios enough of a lingua-franca.

--- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:
> Yikes, Paul...about the last thing I want to see is some sort of
new
> standard tuning...I want to see many and varied tuning systems,

Me too. I just don't want all of them to flounder in obscurity for
the rest of my lifetime.

> To
> try and standardize microtonality sems realy confining to me.

Again, I don't want to "standardize microtonality" -- just see that
72-tET is taught and used in many conservatories, etc . . . it's
better than nothing.

> Also, are we microtonalists really seen as a "disunified, crazy
and
> irrelevant" group?

I think so, by most . . . though most people seem to like my
microtonal music, most musicians would probably never attempt to
create such things themselves. So we get more and more composers
trying to be "innovative" in 12-tET . . . yawn.

> I'm not sure where you are getting your info,
> but that's too bad...from what I see happening around the country,
> people seem to be responding pretty well to the concept of
microtonal
> music...I'm sorry that you seem to be getting a negative
> impression...hopefully, you're wrong...Hstick

I hope I'm wrong too!

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> Err, Paul,
>
> I'm glad you've found a way to do your decatonics in 72-EDO, but
> please don't forget that the single most popular temperament of all
> time, namely meantone, is disrespected just as badly by 72-EDO as
it
> is by 12-EDO.

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.
>
> Let's just recognise that 72-EDO unifies a huge number of
temperaments
> including some that are wafso-just and quasi-just, and the notation
> can be used consistently out to 17-limit just, and performers can
> cope well with it because its an extension of 12-tET, but there's
> still a lot that it leaves out.
>
> Aren't cents and ratios enough of a lingua-franca.

Performers. Think of the performers. I certainly wouldn't want any
_electronic_ new music composers to feel shoehorned into 72-tET.

[David Keenan wrote:]
>>Err, Paul,

>>I'm glad you've found a way to do your decatonics in 72-EDO, but
>>please don't forget that the single most popular temperament of all
>>time, namely meantone, is disrespected just as badly by 72-EDO as
it
>>is by 12-EDO.

[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 very strongly disagree with the notion that future music can be
predicted in such a way.

[David:]
>>Let's just recognise that 72-EDO unifies a huge number of
temperaments
>>including some that are wafso-just and quasi-just, and the notation
>>can be used consistently out to 17-limit just, and performers can
>>cope well with it because its an extension of 12-tET, but there's
>>still a lot that it leaves out.

>>Aren't cents and ratios enough of a lingua-franca.

[Paul:]
>Performers. Think of the performers.

And what problem would performers have with cents deviation from 12-
tET
that they wouldn't have with 72-tET?

[Paul:]
>I certainly wouldn't want any _electronic_ new music composers to
feel
>shoehorned into 72-tET.

Huh? I don't see that electronic music and acoustic music should have
different tuning standards in the future. Quite the opposite.

JdL

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

> [Paul:]
> >Performers. Think of the performers.
>
> And what problem would performers have with cents deviation from 12-
> tET
> that they wouldn't have with 72-tET?

You can teach performers, as part of a doctorate degree of study, to
_accurately_ hear and produce twelfth-tones, sixth-tones, and quarter-
tones, in addition to the 12-tET they are learning now. Composers
will then be able to write music and know that it will be produced as
written. Hearing and producing cents accurately is a great goal, but
for most performers it will be a big guessing game without, say,
decades of training. Thankfully in Johnny Reinhard and his cohorts we
have a few such superhumans . . .
>
> [Paul:]
> >I certainly wouldn't want any _electronic_ new music composers to
> feel
> >shoehorned into 72-tET.
>
> Huh? I don't see that electronic music and acoustic music should
have
> different tuning standards in the future. Quite the opposite.

Total unchained freedom. Yes, I support it. But how are we going to
achieve it -- realistically? What do you think of Patrick Ozzard-
Low's arguments about 21st-century orchestral instruments, for
example?

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Paul:]
> >Performers. Think of the performers.
>
> And what problem would performers have with cents deviation from 12-
> tET
> that they wouldn't have with 72-tET?

John,

Reading a plus or minus sign and two digits of cents on the fly is a
lot harder than recognising a single accidental from a set of six. See
the exchange with Ted Mook that I posted yesterday.

-- Dave Keenan

[Paul wrote:]
>>>Performers. Think of the performers.

[I wrote:]
>>And what problem would performers have with cents deviation from
>>12-tET that they wouldn't have with 72-tET?

>You can teach performers, as part of a doctorate degree of study, to
>_accurately_ hear and produce twelfth-tones, sixth-tones, and quarter-
>tones, in addition to the 12-tET they are learning now. Composers
>will then be able to write music and know that it will be produced as
>written. Hearing and producing cents accurately is a great goal, but
>for most performers it will be a big guessing game without, say,
>decades of training. Thankfully in Johnny Reinhard and his cohorts we
>have a few such superhumans . . .

Johnny has proven that musicians can be taught to follow 12-tET +/-
cents. Sure, their accuracy will vary, but let's at least make the
intended target clear to greater precision than 16.67 cents!

[Paul:]
>>>I certainly wouldn't want any _electronic_ new music composers to
>>>feel shoehorned into 72-tET.

[JdL:]
>>Huh? I don't see that electronic music and acoustic music should have
>>different tuning standards in the future. Quite the opposite.

[Paul:]
>Total unchained freedom. Yes, I support it. But how are we going to
>achieve it -- realistically? What do you think of Patrick Ozzard-
>Low's arguments about 21st-century orchestral instruments, for
>example?

I think you are selling musicians short. Improving instruments for
greater microtonal capability is necessary, certainly, but I don't
believe that "going all the way" to infinitely variable intonation is
significantly harder than supporting 72-tET. Perhaps people more
familiar with instrument building could comment on this question?

JdL

[Paul wrote:]
>>>Performers. Think of the performers.

[I wrote:]
>>And what problem would performers have with cents deviation from
>>12-tET that they wouldn't have with 72-tET?

[Dave Keenan:]
>Reading a plus or minus sign and two digits of cents on the fly is a
>lot harder than recognising a single accidental from a set of six. See
>the exchange with Ted Mook that I posted yesterday.

You're right, Dave, and this is a valid point. IMHO, the difference
is worth it, though I must admit I'm speaking as someone who pretty much
takes half an hour to interpret a page of music, so I must defer to
"real" musicians on this point. My guess is this: on first
sight-reading, one may skip past subtle intonational marks to get a
gross idea of the musical line. On subsequent readings, and especially
when the sound of multiple instruments in proper intonation starts to
come into shape, the musician will largely go "off book" and have the
intonational target memorized.

All of the above subject to possible correction! Johnny, any comments?

JdL

On 5/30/01 12:30 AM, "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@USWEST.NET> wrote:

> Also, are we microtonalists really seen as a "disunified, crazy and
> irrelevant" group? That's news to me...maybe I'm missing something.

Yeah actually Paul I was wondering where you got that from.
I wasn't going to "McLaren" you about it, but why not,
it'll save him some typing. ISIS KNOWS, his flangies must be sore:

"can Mister Paul Ehrlich please give us some kind of indication
from some source public or private, as to exactly which non-microtonalists
in this world feel that "we" microtonalists, as if we're all supposed to fit
into some group which seemingly we can't, as just today one newsgroup has
been cancelled and two more added, making ELEVEN, are *either* disunified,
or crazy, OR irrelevant?"

But seriously. I'm not at all offended, just surprised to hear this.
Things still a little conservative up there in Boston town? In New York,
anyway, microtonality isn't any more strange than some of the performance
art that goes on. A rebuilt guitar? Sure, why not, it's down the street
from painted ceramic cow statues and the home of the Rocky Horror Picture
Show...

Really. Who has slung such slander?

On 5/30/01 7:34 PM, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@adaptune.com> wrote:

> All of the above subject to possible correction! Johnny, any comments?

You mean Reinhard?
He's in Norway until June 6th.
I'm housesitting.
I can take a message... :)

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
> "can Mister Paul Ehrlich please give us some kind of indication
> from some source public or private, as to exactly which non-microtonalists
> in this world feel that "we" microtonalists, as if we're all supposed to fit
> into some group which seemingly we can't, as just today one newsgroup has
> been cancelled and two more added, making ELEVEN, are *either* disunified,
> or crazy, OR irrelevant?"

That's awesome, Marc!
>
> But seriously. I'm not at all offended, just surprised to hear this.
> Things still a little conservative up there in Boston town? In New York,
> anyway, microtonality isn't any more strange than some of the performance
> art that goes on. A rebuilt guitar? Sure, why not, it's down the street
> from painted ceramic cow statues and the home of the Rocky Horror Picture
> Show...

Boston's pretty lucky too. But there's a vast expanse out there. Look at Joseph Pehrson's
publishers, for example . . .
>
> Really. Who has slung such slander?

You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest review.

----- Original Message -----
From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: 72 tone standard

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

Hi John. Please allow me to respectfully suggest that you're
reading something into this that Paul didn't write.

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...

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.

-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 wrote:

>
> You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest review.

Roman Emperor to Senator - "Christianity? - bunch of cranks - can't see
it catching on" : - )

Best Wishes.

On 5/30/01 11:11 PM, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

> Boston's pretty lucky too. But there's a vast expanse out there. Look at
> Joseph Pehrson's
> publishers, for example . . .

Don't know em but ok I'll take your word.

>> Really. Who has slung such slander?
>
> You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest review.

Where-at? Microthon 2000 didn't even get a review I don't think.
Or should *that* tell me something...

On 5/31/01 1:07 PM, "Alison Monteith" <alison.monteith3@which.net> wrote:

[Paul]
>> You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest review.

[Alison]
> Roman Emperor to Senator - "Christianity? - bunch of cranks - can't see
> it catching on" : - )

Touché.

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

/tuning/topicId_24006.html#24120

> On 5/30/01 11:11 PM, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Boston's pretty lucky too. But there's a vast expanse out there.
Look at
> > Joseph Pehrson's
> > publishers, for example . . .
>
> Don't know em but ok I'll take your word.
>
>
> >> Really. Who has slung such slander?
> >
> > You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest
review.
>
> Where-at? Microthon 2000 didn't even get a review I don't think.
> Or should *that* tell me something...

http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfest2001.html

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

On 5/31/01 10:50 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

>>>> Really. Who has slung such slander?
>>>
>>> You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest
> review.
>>
>> Where-at? Microthon 2000 didn't even get a review I don't think.
>> Or should *that* tell me something...
>
>
> http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfest2001.html

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ENVIRONMENTALISTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's so insulting it's almost comical.

Hey I'm going out to L.A. in a few weeks...
anyone want I should talk ta dis guy like BrOOkLyN style???

> From: Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>
> To: Tuning List <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 72 tone standard
>
> > [Paul Erlich:]
> >
> > You don't have to look far. We're cranks.
> > Look at the Microfest review.
>
>
> Where-at?

by Mark Swed, _Los Angeles Times_, Tuesday, April 10, 2001:

http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Music-0!A
rticleDetail-28829,00.html

(copy URL, remove line-break, and paste into browser)

I don't really see how Paul interpreted anything in this
article as portraying us as "cranks". Just about the worst
thing Swed had to say was this:

> Most at the MicroFest are obsessed. One heard that
> obsession in boring music that lingered on favored
> intervals but went nowhere.

But I think Paul's right that we microtonalists are often
perceived in an unbecoming fashion.

In list-member Kyle Gann's article on Microthon 1999
<http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/9922/gann.shtml>,
even a piece he reviewed very favorably (my own
_A Noiseless Patient Spider_) was characterized as
"whacked out".

And newspaper reviews of microtonal events don't portray
in the slightest the much more negative attitude that
many people in musical academia have of microtonality.

When I visited Manhattan School of Music a couple of
years after leaving, my former teachers said to me:
"Microtonal music?! Why are you wasting your time on
that?".

And very recently I got an email from someone who otherwise
praised my "A Century of New Music in Vienna" webpage
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm
(which covers much of the ground I presented at Microfest)
except that I placed too much emphasis on microtonality.
I just went back to find his email so that I could quote
something, and found a whole new tirade from him questioning
why I'm trying to tie the great Schoenberg in with this
"out-of-tune bullshit".

> Microthon 2000 didn't even get a review I don't think.
> Or should *that* tell me something...

I think you answered your own question, Marc. The lack
of any "published" review at all for last year's Microthon
(if indeed that was the case... I too do not know of one)
speaks volumes for the public disinterest in the topic.

The reviews that I know of are all partial and were
all written for this list:
/tuning/topicId_15464.html#15466
/tuning/topicId_15464.html#15471
/tuning/topicId_15472.html#15472
/tuning/topicId_15464.html#15473
/tuning/topicId_15464.html#15474
/tuning/topicId_15475.html#15475
/tuning/topicId_15472.html#15477
/tuning/topicId_15472.html#15484
/tuning/topicId_15464.html#15488
/tuning/topicId_15497.html#15497
/tuning/topicId_15497.html#15504

Many of us here on these tuning lists are passionately
devoted to microtonal music and/or theory, and it's easy
for us to forget what a small fringe subset of the larger
population we really are.

Sure, many musicians make microtonal music every day,
but there are an awful lot of them who don't realize
they're doing it, and many who do and simply aren't
much interested in that aspect of their music-making.

I know lots of rock guitarists who prize the "off-pitch"
bent notes they play in their solos, but they're not
going to spend any time contemplating the mathematics
or theory of it - they just do it by ear, and there are
lots of other things going into their solos; the microtonal
notes are only one part of it.

So it's important for us to remember to keep microtonality
in perspective when we're talking about music as a whole.

I think Paul's ideas about a 72-EDO standard are great.
He's not trying to create another ready-made hegemony
that will lord over all musicians and force them to
think only in 72-EDO. He just thinks it would be
advantageous to all of us to have *some* kind of
comprehensive tuning standard other than 12-EDO taught
to musicians-in-training. And I agree totally - I
think it's a terrific plan.

If your future masses of average run-of-the-mill
conservatory students come out of their four years of
schooling with as deep a knowledge of 72-EDO as the
current ones get of 12-EDO, think of how much easier
it would be for them to understand and work in
any number of =< 11-limit JI and MIRACLE tunings
and poly-tunings, as well as 36-, 24-, 18-, 9-,
and 8-EDO, and without sacrificing the current
knowledge of 12-EDO!

I beg all of you who disagreed with Paul to give it some
more thought. As long as we discuss tuning here on the
internet, the hard-core tuning community will make sure
that the variety of tunings in use reflects the variety
of personalities using them. Having another tuning
standard which *simultaneously includes and supercedes
the current one* can only make things better.

-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

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

/tuning/topicId_24006.html#24147

> On 5/31/01 10:50 PM, "jpehrson@r..." <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> >>>> Really. Who has slung such slander?
> >>>
> >>> You don't have to look far. We're cranks. Look at the Microfest
> > review.
> >>
> >> Where-at? Microthon 2000 didn't even get a review I don't think.
> >> Or should *that* tell me something...
> >
> >
> > http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfest2001.html
>
> WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ENVIRONMENTALISTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> That's so insulting it's almost comical.
>
> Hey I'm going out to L.A. in a few weeks...
> anyone want I should talk ta dis guy like BrOOkLyN style???

Swed was here in New York and got a "Special Award" at the American
Music Center a few weeks ago....

Frankly, I like my *own* review that is still to appear in the New
Music Connoisseur Magazine better :)

It's more "microtonal friendly..."

From the archives:

/tuning/topicId_20933.html#20933

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_24006.html#24148

>
> I think Paul's ideas about a 72-EDO standard are great.
> He's not trying to create another ready-made hegemony
> that will lord over all musicians and force them to
> think only in 72-EDO. He just thinks it would be
> advantageous to all of us to have *some* kind of
> comprehensive tuning standard other than 12-EDO taught
> to musicians-in-training. And I agree totally - I
> think it's a terrific plan.
>

Monz... it looks like you, me, Paul and probably Dave Keenan are on
the same train with this one...

_______ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

On 5/31/01 11:06 PM, "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In list-member Kyle Gann's article on Microthon 1999
> <http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/9922/gann.shtml>,
> even a piece he reviewed very favorably (my own
> _A Noiseless Patient Spider_) was characterized as
> "whacked out".

Always a side note, never a thread.
I've mentioned a few times about an idea that's floated around
that around 240-tET is when notes stop sounding separate...

In Kyle Gann's article, he mentioned
"The ear can only distinguish about 250 pitches."