different kinds of standardisation

Hi Paul,

Paul Erlich wrote:

>>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.

I was actually answering Alison and hadn't really realised that what I
wrote would have been construed as an answer to you (Paul)!

To state the obvious - there are different 'standards' that are being
talked about here:

1) standard compositional tuning system
2) standard notation
3) standard instruments

Equally obviously, there exists no global artistic consensus (amongst
'microtonalists') about (1), although it _may_ be possible to discern
broad separate consensae amongst 1/4-tonalists, JI-ists, 72-ET-ers,
continuum-ers etc. Are you suggesting that a 72 division system will do
the trick for everyone? I can hear already the howls of dissension from
many disparate fronts. Individual composers seek to make pieces in more
than one mutually exclusive tuning system.

My own concern at this point (aside from my compositional work) is to
pursue the instrument issues. The tuning issues prove to be more-or-
less endless since there seems to be no single right answer.

In practice, progress with the instrument making projects will be
determined by obtaining funding, finding the personnel, generating
interest and openness to new technologies, finding performers to work
with, and etc.

The choice of 1/4-tones and 19 for the woodwind and brass projects I
mentioned are a practical, initial attempt, perhaps a compromise, based
on a wide variety of factors. These choices were not made by me, and are
not what I personally would have preferred. But I support them as
having been made in the interests of the project. (As you know, Ezra
Sims (Mister 72) has argued that 24-ET instruments would be
significantly advantageous for realising a 72 division system - I am
loathe to call it 72-ET in Ezra's case). The instruments will provide
19 too.

So I wouldn't say that CNMI has 'adopted 24 (or 19) as a standard' - but
now we've started I guess there is a reason to try to make things that
work together. My hope is that later on, if we are successful,
something else will be developed too.

With regard to my dreamy idea in '21st C Orch Instrs' that somehow
microtonalists might want to pull together in one big club in the
interests of seeing new instruments created in one ATS - well, just
forget it. They don't. But if you can persuade them......!

Hope that's enough to clarify...

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:

> (As you know, Ezra
> Sims (Mister 72) has argued that 24-ET instruments would be
> significantly advantageous for realising a 72 division system - I am
> loathe to call it 72-ET in Ezra's case).

Why? Ezra himself has stated that he can't hear the difference
between 72-tET and JI.