Re: Microtonal peace and pluralism

Hello, there, everyone, and please let me caution that the following
remarks reflect the views of only one person among the "disunified,
crazy, and irrelevant assortment" of microtonalists, as we are
reported to be viewed in the larger musical community.

Speaking at once with artistic ardor and passion, and in peace and
nonviolence, I would like to urge that we make the most of such an
image by unabashedly promoting intonational pluralism, and questioning
_any_ "New World (Micro)tonal Order" seeking to restrict this
pluralism, however commendable the motives might be.

In the eloquent words of Ivor Darreg:

"No one microtonal system has emerged as the ultimate
system, and after trying out several, I want to work
with all of them, each for its unique qualities."

As someone who follows just one approach to mixing the old and new in
a more or less Western European tradition -- only one of the great
world musical traditions -- I might offer a few reasons why pluralism
is so important:

(1) We have diverse stylistic and theoretical outlooks on
concord/discord, so that "optimization" can mean
radically different things to different people;

(2) We favor Pythagorean intonation, meantone, various
17th-21st century well-temperament schemes based on
dramatically diverse assumptions and preferences,
multi-prime JI systems (2-3-5, 2-3-7, etc.), and
also "equal divisions of the octave/nonoctave"
with their own distinct elements of system, logic,
and musical beauty;

(3) For some people orchestral music may be the norm,
for others, single keyboards or other solo
instruments, for others, small ensembles --
with the fluidity of the human voice and other
flexible instruments unbound by any fixed
system (a major point of Bill Alves);

(4) The Darregian/Setharean timbre revolution adds
another parameter of pluralism encouraging
the use of _more_ and _more diverse_ tuning
systems.

What's the best system for mapping 20-tET, a tuning with qualities
I've come very much to treasure? -- why, it's 20-tET, of course.
Unless we want to make 20-tET a "standard" -- and given the 12-tET
experience, I'm not sure this is really such a compliment for any
tuning, quite apart for the fact that other systems have their own
unique qualities -- that means we need a plurality of tunings.

One of the strengths of tuning pluralism is that it lets people affirm
their own stylistic and intonational agendas while encouraging others
to do the same. Here are some reasons why I value pluralism:

1. My outlook is modal rather than either "tonal" or
"atonal/pantonal" -- not to rule out a bit of
"floating panmodality." However, I encourage
others to develop tunings based on tonal or
pantonal assumptions; there's room enough for
all.

2. My philosophy of concord/discord is that a
spectrum of unstable but more or less
"partial concords" can add great flexibility
and expressiveness -- but Partchians and
others are equally free to seek a larger
set of stable concords, or some other
ideal.

3. As one who favors both Pythagorean and
mostly Pythagorean-derived JI systems
involving precise integer ratios, and
a range of temperaments, I find that
these approaches have their distinct
advantages and provide much creative
variety.

It seems to me that the most important lesson that the microtonal
community has to share with the "conventional" (and sometimes
not-so-conventional) musical scene -- and many "mainstream" world
cultures would be described as "microtonal" or "xenharmonic" by the
standards of that scene -- is one of intonational pluralism and
enthusiastic celebration of that pluralism.

This isn't to oppose a variety of "standards" for large ensembles or
the like, for example 31-tET for meantone-oriented repertory, or maybe
144-tET as one "generalized" scheme. Note that 144-tET has close
approximations of regular Pythagorean intervals such as 81:64 or
~407.82 cents (49/144 is 408.3333... cents); and also the 17-tET major
third at ~423.53 cents (51/144 is 425 cents, very close to 23:18).

Then, again, gamelan tunings in slendro or pelog (including those
stretched octaves) likely have a much longer history, and seem to me
as appropriate a "microtonal standard" as anything, not to mention the
history of pure-fifth or Pythagorean tuning in China and elsewhere.
From this kind of viewpoint, 20-tET could be taken as one variant on
slendro (a 5-tET approximation) with "fusion" possibilities in
intercultural settings.

Here I very much support a Darregian view: diversity is our strength,
and stylistic and intonational pluralism a unifying theme in what it
means to be a "microtonalist." Our inability to agree even on a
definition of "just intonation" reflects this variety of musical
traditions we represent, a variety worthy of affirmation.

Again, I speak only for myself, coming from a musical experience which
may neither represent, nor be represented by, any "consensus" on this
List, but may point to the diversity of such experiences and the
importance of mutual recognition of this diversity.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

--- In tuning@y..., mschulter <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24010.html#24010

> Hello, there, everyone, and please let me caution that the following
> remarks reflect the views of only one person among the "disunified,
> crazy, and irrelevant assortment" of microtonalists, as we are
> reported to be viewed in the larger musical community.
>
> Speaking at once with artistic ardor and passion, and in peace and
> nonviolence, I would like to urge that we make the most of such an
> image by unabashedly promoting intonational pluralism, and
questioning
> _any_ "New World (Micro)tonal Order" seeking to restrict this
> pluralism, however commendable the motives might be.
>

Many thanks to Margo Schulter for the kind admonishment that our
selection of a new "World Order" of xenharmonic tunings with 72-tET
might, indeed, be a "limitation" such as it is!

However, I believe we were not really thinking of limiting
microtonalists as much as proposing a practical system to the vast
number of "traditional performers" like Ted Mook who are looking for
a practical way to play a variety of xenharmonic tunings.

Such performers ALREADY seem to prefer 72-tET...

For our OTHER xenharmonic work, and in the xenharmonic community at
large it would be pointless and self-defeating to propose such a
thing... particularly for those more "theoretically" inclined...

>or maybe 144-tET as one "generalized" scheme.

I note that Margo Schulter proposes this possible extension of 72-
tET, as has, of course, Dan Stearns...

Maybe that extra "inflection" would be valuable in certain cases...
but, still, we have the 72-tET base... That might be a
terrific "workaround..."

The standardization proposals, as I see them, were only directed
toward expanding the "acceptance" of xenharmonics in the musician
community at large, and were not meant, in any way, to
propose "limitations..."

_________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

----- Original Message -----
From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Microtonal peace and pluralism

> --- In tuning@y..., mschulter <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24010.html#24010
>
> > or maybe 144-tET as one "generalized" scheme.
>
> I note that Margo Schulter proposes this possible extension of 72-
> tET, as has, of course, Dan Stearns...
>
> Maybe that extra "inflection" would be valuable in certain cases...
> but, still, we have the 72-tET base... That might be a
> terrific "workaround..."

Hi Joe,

Dan has posted recently that he doesn't even use 144-EDO anymore
(prefering instead a multiplicity of notations for the different
tunings he combines). I'm probably a stronger proponent of 144-EDO
than he, at this point.

We've already posted a lot on this (much of it back in April 1999)
and I'm well aware that 144-EDO has inconsistencies which 72-EDO
does not. I've argued strongly in favor of using it as a *notation*
to represent extended-JI, and not necessarily as a tuning.

As I see it, one of its primary advantages is that (in Dan's
notation or my adaptation of it) it still allows one to think
mostly in terms of 72-EDO, since it uses only one extra symbol
which acts as a modifier to the "standard" 72-EDO set.

-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

Margo, of course I agree completely with all this . . . I fear you
may have misunderstood me. My posts today should clarify.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> Many thanks to Margo Schulter for the kind admonishment that our
> selection of a new "World Order" of xenharmonic tunings with 72-tET
> might, indeed, be a "limitation" such as it is!
>
> However, I believe we were not really thinking of limiting
> microtonalists as much as proposing a practical system to the vast
> number of "traditional performers" like Ted Mook who are looking
for
> a practical way to play a variety of xenharmonic tunings.
>
> Such performers ALREADY seem to prefer 72-tET...
>
> For our OTHER xenharmonic work, and in the xenharmonic community at
> large it would be pointless and self-defeating to propose such a
> thing... particularly for those more "theoretically" inclined...

Of course! Joseph, you're the _only_ person who seemed to understand
what I was saying! (Well, except maybe Daniel Wolf, but his proposal
seems to come from some kind of utopia . . . I would reply that
learning the JI intervals through the 11-limit and learning the
nearest 72-tET intervals would lead, for most mortals, to aurally
indistinguishable results . . . except that the latter is of course
much simpler to conceive . . .)

> From: Daniel James Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:09 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Microtonal peace and pluralism
>

>
> Where I may indeed be considered "utopian" in this community, is my
> conviction that it is an essentially different experience to try to
> sing or play a 7:4 interval than it is to sing or play intervals of
> 968.8 cents or a 12tet-m7th-1/6th-tone-flat. Simply by giving that
> rational label to the interval, one embeds the experience of trying
> to reach, or construct, that interval in a particular musical context
> that has ramifications for all other aspects of the performance. If
> that's "utopian", then I accept the label gladly.

What a great way of stating this point! I fully agree, and will
make use of these ideas below.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:34 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 72 tone standard
>
>
> ... 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.

I found this interesting, John, because it's very much the way
my use of HEWM notation (example: 3^-1 7^1 Eb< representing
the 7th harmonic of "F" in the key of "C") is intended to operate.
I think of it as working on several different levels:

The line-and-space staff-notation gives the first general idea
of pitch: the "diatonic", the nominal letter-name, along with a crude
pitch-height graph.

The 12-EDO # and b accidental symbols give a bit of further
pitch discrimination, and the simplest EDO level of perception.
This is as far as regular musicians would understand my scores,
without any further microtonal training.

The ^ and v accidental symbols give the 24-EDO level of perception,
which I've always felt is important to preserve because I believe
24-EDO is the most widely known alternate tuning among performing
musicians.

The + - < and > accidental symbols give the 72-EDO level, which
has been studied and mastered by many musicians, particularly in
Boston and Salzburg, and which is consistent with many JI tunings,
in which I am very interested.

Adding the ~ accidental symbol gives the 144-EDO level, which is
the finest resolution of EDO that I've ever notated in a score
(sections 2, 3, and 5 of _A Noiseless Patient Spider_), and will
probably only use occasionally as needed.

So each of these can be viewed as a finer level of approximation.

Then there is the set of prime-and-exponent accidentals, which
are an entirely different world of experience, as pointed out
by Daniel Wolf. These provide a clear pinpointing of where
the pitches lie in ratio-space, and so give someone familiar
with rational tuning the precise intonation of the pitch, similar
to the way ratios worked for Partch.

My opinion is that presenting scores and analyses of microtonal
music in a notation that works on this many different levels
gives more avenues for accesibility to those studying that music.
Some will wander in via one of the EDO routes, others will find
the lattice diagrams easier to understand, and probably many
will use both approaches since they are both part of the notation
and in my view complement each other in the goal toward clarity.

-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