Reply to Alison & CNMI News

Dear Tuning & Dear Alison,

Belated greetings to all. Long time no email from me to this list -
which is not to say I have unsubscribed.

Alison wrote:

>I was referred to Patrick Ozzard-Low's work on new orchestral
>instruments... 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.

I can't comment on whether I'm a nice chap or not (!) but scanning
through the last tuning digest I noticed Alison's comments and feel I
should reply.

Firstly, I'm still in Norwich, (though I am hoping to move shortly).

Secondly, I'm very sorry, but I strictly limit the amount of emailing I
do - due to a major problem with my fingers/hands - caused (primarily)
by too much typing. (As a pianist, I prefer to conserve my fingers).
I've tried various dictation systems but they have been unbearably slow.
As soon as I have any spare cash I'd like to invest in a super-fast
dictation-friendly PC which would make life alot more bearable. However
- I do scan this list regularly - though I don't attempt to follow every
word.

Alison, I am very sorry if you sent me (or someone at CNMI?) an email
and received no reply! I have just searched my mailbox and your address
is nowhere to be found (and I never delete addresses). Please do email
me again.

The much outdated '21st Century Orchestral Instruments' document
(perhaps I should remove this from the web now?) did set out a
philosophy of new acoustic instruments based on the premise that musical
experiments with alternative tuning systems (ATS) warranted the
application of new designs and technologies. I did also argue that
there would be some value in adopting a 'provisional ATS standard'
_for_the_initial_creation_of_a_complementary set_of_new_instruments.

Practically speaking I am still of the same opinion: essentially, I
think its a good idea to propose a standard and build a set of
complementary instruments which will help performers to realise new
compositions. After that, see how it goes, and maybe build something
else. Inevitably, if pursued, the process will evolve.

However, I should add that my travels in 1998 strongly contradicted my
naive hopes of finding consensus re standardisation: I found no
consensus amongst the 300 composers, performers, instrument makers etc I
met on that trip, nor did I find any _desire_ for consensus.
Artistically that is probably a healthy situation. But from the point
of view of making new instruments it poses a significant problem.
Perhaps discussions on this list have recently tended to suggest a move
toward standardisation - but it must be accepted that there is a very
significant field of 1/4-tone composers (and the like) who don't
subscribe or contribute here.

My conclusion was that, from the point of view of initially proving the
validity of new instrumental _technologies_ - it didn't matter too much
which ATS was adopted. Also, from a practical point of view, new
instrument technologies were more likely to generate support funding
than ATS per se.

You may know from the CNMI (Centre for New Musical Instruments) webpage

http://www.lgu.ac.uk/mit/cnmi

that CNMI won a grant from the Performing Rights Society Foundation to
try to put something of this into practice. In addition Boosey & Hawkes
have semi-donated a brass quintet which is now being converted so that
some or all of the instruments will realise _both_ 19-ET and 24-ET (ie
the same set of instruments provide both systems). We are working with
the British instrument manufacturer Trevor J. James to produce a 24-ET
alto flute. And there is also a project to create a modified bassett
clarinet (not ATS). It is intended that all these instruments will
incorporate electromechanical mechanisms to enable tonehole closure or
valve movements etc, thus providing the extended gamut. Howver, all of
these projects are still very much in their initial stages.

CNMI's activities are focussed on _new_instruments_, as the name is
intended to suggest. Although new tunings are one amongst a number of
reasons for trying to create new instruments, CNMI is not a 'Centre for
Microtonal (or ATS) Music'. But the basic long-term purpose _is_ to
make 'New Instruments for New Music', and we would very much welcome
discussion and potentially collaboration on the ways forward. Again,
I'm very sorry if I have failed to reply to emails from anyone promoting
discussion etc. Please email again!

Some news from CNMI:

1) Thanks to the work of my chief collaborator, Lewis Jones, CNMI will
almost certainly (as of tomorrow possibly!) become a recognised Centre
of Research within London Guildhall University. This doesn't mean the
university will provide any direct financial support for the project -
but it is a step in the right direction.

2) We have made new UK funding bids - one at at an inter-university
level, another with the purpose of appointing a composer-in-residence,
to work alongside the new instrument developments. Both are pending.

3) Further bids are planned. We are seeking to create a 'CNMI Project
Portfolio', as an umbrella under which worthy projects might be able to
participate and gain support. Most of these will be instrument based,
but they might also be in areas of fundamental research (such as
materials, technology, design, acoustics and tuning theory) - as well
as composition and performance. (I hope this is set out reasonably
clearly on the webpages - if not, please let us know). If you have in
mind a project that is appropriate - please contact us! Most of the
funding we have researched is UK based, but it does also exist in the
USA, and in the long-term it may be possible to pursue European funding.

More personal news, I proposed a new version of '21st Century Orchestral
Instruments' to a publisher (Ashgate) last autumn, and have in fact
signed a contract with them today! The proposed book will have a new
title, and, again, will focus primarily on instrument designs and
technologies. The tuning aspects will still be present, but the detail
may largely be consigned to appendices (probably on CD-ROM, along with a
full colour catalogue of instrument pictures, and hopefully some
recordings of instruments - perhaps with examples of ATS). But it is
not likely to be in the shops before 2004!

Lastly, Lewis Jones and I will both be in Chicago next week (June 5)
speaking at the Experimental Musical Instruments session of the
Acoustical Society of America conference. See:

http://asa.aip.org/chicago/calendar.html

If any of you are around it would be good to meet!

Every best wish,

Patrick

--
Patrick Ozzard-Low,
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/mit/cnmi
http://www.c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk
mailto:pol@c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk

--- In tuning@y..., Patrick Ozzard-Low <pol@c...> wrote:
> I did also argue that
> there would be some value in adopting a 'provisional ATS standard'
> _for_the_initial_creation_of_a_complementary set_of_new_instruments.
>
> Practically speaking I am still of the same opinion: essentially, I
> think its a good idea to propose a standard and build a set of
> complementary instruments which will help performers to realise new
> compositions. After that, see how it goes, and maybe build something
> else. Inevitably, if pursued, the process will evolve.

I was simply making a case for 72-tET as a standard _right now_, since it fits so much of the
significant composition of the present era. Tomorrow, who knows?

> However, I should add that my travels in 1998 strongly contradicted my
> naive hopes of finding consensus re standardisation: I found no
> consensus amongst the 300 composers, performers, instrument makers etc I
> met on that trip, nor did I find any _desire_ for consensus.
> Artistically that is probably a healthy situation. But from the point
> of view of making new instruments it poses a significant problem.
> Perhaps discussions on this list have recently tended to suggest a move
> toward standardisation - but it must be accepted that there is a very
> significant field of 1/4-tone composers (and the like) who don't
> subscribe or contribute here.
>
> My conclusion was that, from the point of view of initially proving the
> validity of new instrumental _technologies_ - it didn't matter too much
> which ATS was adopted.

But . . . do you still endorse the premise that a temporary standard _should_ be adopted? If
not, I defer to your expertise -- I was merely replying to the older version of your book.

Patrick Ozzard-Low wrote:

> Dear Tuning & Dear Alison,
>
> Belated greetings to all. Long time no email from me to this list -
> which is not to say I have unsubscribed.
> I can't comment on whether I'm a nice chap or not (!) but scanning
> through the last tuning digest I noticed Alison's comments and feel I
> should reply.
>
> Firstly, I'm still in Norwich, (though I am hoping to move shortly).
>
> Secondly, I'm very sorry, but I strictly limit the amount of emailing I
> do - due to a major problem with my fingers/hands - caused (primarily)
> by too much typing. (As a pianist, I prefer to conserve my fingers).
> I've tried various dictation systems but they have been unbearably slow.
> As soon as I have any spare cash I'd like to invest in a super-fast
> dictation-friendly PC which would make life alot more bearable. However
> - I do scan this list regularly - though I don't attempt to follow every
> word.
>
> Alison, I am very sorry if you sent me (or someone at CNMI?) an email
> and received no reply! I have just searched my mailbox and your address
> is nowhere to be found (and I never delete addresses). Please do email
> me again.
>
> The much outdated '21st Century Orchestral Instruments' document
> (perhaps I should remove this from the web now?) did set out a
> philosophy of new acoustic instruments based on the premise that musical
> experiments with alternative tuning systems (ATS) warranted the
> application of new designs and technologies. I did also argue that
> there would be some value in adopting a 'provisional ATS standard'
> _for_the_initial_creation_of_a_complementary set_of_new_instruments.
>
> Practically speaking I am still of the same opinion: essentially, I
> think its a good idea to propose a standard and build a set of
> complementary instruments which will help performers to realise new
> compositions. After that, see how it goes, and maybe build something
> else. Inevitably, if pursued, the process will evolve.
>
> However, I should add that my travels in 1998 strongly contradicted my
> naive hopes of finding consensus re standardisation: I found no
> consensus amongst the 300 composers, performers, instrument makers etc I
> met on that trip, nor did I find any _desire_ for consensus.
> Artistically that is probably a healthy situation. But from the point
> of view of making new instruments it poses a significant problem.
> Perhaps discussions on this list have recently tended to suggest a move
> toward standardisation - but it must be accepted that there is a very
> significant field of 1/4-tone composers (and the like) who don't
> subscribe or contribute here.
>
> My conclusion was that, from the point of view of initially proving the
> validity of new instrumental _technologies_ - it didn't matter too much
> which ATS was adopted. Also, from a practical point of view, new
> instrument technologies were more likely to generate support funding
> than ATS per se.
>
> You may know from the CNMI (Centre for New Musical Instruments) webpage
>
> http://www.lgu.ac.uk/mit/cnmi
>
> that CNMI won a grant from the Performing Rights Society Foundation to
> try to put something of this into practice. In addition Boosey & Hawkes
> have semi-donated a brass quintet which is now being converted so that
> some or all of the instruments will realise _both_ 19-ET and 24-ET (ie
> the same set of instruments provide both systems). We are working with
> the British instrument manufacturer Trevor J. James to produce a 24-ET
> alto flute. And there is also a project to create a modified bassett
> clarinet (not ATS). It is intended that all these instruments will
> incorporate electromechanical mechanisms to enable tonehole closure or
> valve movements etc, thus providing the extended gamut. Howver, all of
> these projects are still very much in their initial stages.
>
> CNMI's activities are focussed on _new_instruments_, as the name is
> intended to suggest. Although new tunings are one amongst a number of
> reasons for trying to create new instruments, CNMI is not a 'Centre for
> Microtonal (or ATS) Music'. But the basic long-term purpose _is_ to
> make 'New Instruments for New Music', and we would very much welcome
> discussion and potentially collaboration on the ways forward. Again,
> I'm very sorry if I have failed to reply to emails from anyone promoting
> discussion etc. Please email again!
>
> Some news from CNMI:
>
> 1) Thanks to the work of my chief collaborator, Lewis Jones, CNMI will
> almost certainly (as of tomorrow possibly!) become a recognised Centre
> of Research within London Guildhall University. This doesn't mean the
> university will provide any direct financial support for the project -
> but it is a step in the right direction.
>
> 2) We have made new UK funding bids - one at at an inter-university
> level, another with the purpose of appointing a composer-in-residence,
> to work alongside the new instrument developments. Both are pending.
>
> 3) Further bids are planned. We are seeking to create a 'CNMI Project
> Portfolio', as an umbrella under which worthy projects might be able to
> participate and gain support. Most of these will be instrument based,
> but they might also be in areas of fundamental research (such as
> materials, technology, design, acoustics and tuning theory) - as well
> as composition and performance. (I hope this is set out reasonably
> clearly on the webpages - if not, please let us know). If you have in
> mind a project that is appropriate - please contact us! Most of the
> funding we have researched is UK based, but it does also exist in the
> USA, and in the long-term it may be possible to pursue European funding.
>
> More personal news, I proposed a new version of '21st Century Orchestral
> Instruments' to a publisher (Ashgate) last autumn, and have in fact
> signed a contract with them today! The proposed book will have a new
> title, and, again, will focus primarily on instrument designs and
> technologies. The tuning aspects will still be present, but the detail
> may largely be consigned to appendices (probably on CD-ROM, along with a
> full colour catalogue of instrument pictures, and hopefully some
> recordings of instruments - perhaps with examples of ATS). But it is
> not likely to be in the shops before 2004!
>
> Lastly, Lewis Jones and I will both be in Chicago next week (June 5)
> speaking at the Experimental Musical Instruments session of the
> Acoustical Society of America conference. See:
>
> http://asa.aip.org/chicago/calendar.html
>
> If any of you are around it would be good to meet!
>
> Every best wish,
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Ozzard-Low,
> http://www.lgu.ac.uk/mit/cnmi
> http://www.c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk
> mailto:pol@c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk

Dear Patrick

Thank you for your long reply and excuse my delay in replying. I apologise for any impoliteness in
my initial post and I appreciate the effort you've made in typing given the discomfort it causes
you.

I really just wanted to network with current UK microtonalists and related parties and I felt that
your work was unique. Thanks for putting me fully in the picture and I wish you and your venture
every success.

I compose and aspire to being an instrument builder. This will develop as I work. My interests are
in microtonal music and choral music. I also write and perform for 22 tet guitar. If you're ever
near the Scottish Borders let me know. I'm hoping to meet with Robert Walker, a programmer and
musician on the list, this summer. We have in mind some sort of idea to promote interest in
microtonal music through the education system as well as through composition.

I do have in mind a number of projects and will appraise you of the details as they emerge.

Thank you so much for the reply.

Best Wishes.