standardisation

Paul Erlich wrote:

>>... a "standard" such as 72-tET.... But, the whole thread started as a
>>response to Patrick Ozzard-Low, and now that he's given up on the
>>idea, it's kind of moot.

I'm not sure that I've 'given up' on the idea of provisional alternative
tuning system standard.

I hope I've been clear that _if_ one could achieve some kind of
practical consensus, say amongst a sigificantly cohesive set of
composers, performers and instrument designers/makers that 'tuning
system X' was the one to go for, and committed to it over a period of 5
or 10 years (or more), then I think remarkable results might arise.

Clearly, there exist loose collections of composers, sometimes together
with performers, often united by an element of geographical proximity
(or the internet), who have done and are doing something similar. I
guess that around Boston - 72 notes and Ezra Sims, Joe Maneri (and
family), Julia Werntz, and others - are examples. In France the
microtonal thinking of Pascale Criton and others seems to have been
influenced by the presence in the Paris Conservatoire (no longer there,
I think) of the Carillo 96-divison piano, and a collateral interest in
the tuning 'continuum', and in relationships with electroacoustic media.
We can all probably name other similar alignments or groups. It's
difficult to guess, but taken together these groups are possibly out-
numbered by the number of composers (and performers) who seem to remain
content with inflective 1/4-tone writing.

Few or none of these collectives/groups/whatever have much in the way of
associated and well-developed instrument development projects.
Obviously I've put considerable effort into trying to generate interest
in that aspect. Perhaps the arguments for the advantages of adopting a
provisonal ATS standard are beginning to seep in? I don't know.

But, in addition individual preferences, the fact that these
affiliations and artistic directions are already ingrained, also makes
the likelihood of _trans-collective_ consensus remote.

BTW-1 - thoughts re adopting _72_ divisions as a standard:

- you mention a singer (Judith) with an extremely fine ear - but bear
in mind that although trillions of musicians study ear-training not all
of them develop Boulez's ear... No, it's not a disease. Identifying
that the bass clarinet played D not Eb in the middle of Gurreleider
isn't something all musicians are ever going to be able to do. A
_standard_ will only work if the majority of the relevant musicians are
capable of achieving it. Alison's comments on this were very much to
the point, I think.

- how do you envisage instrument deisgns relating to 72? By creating 24
or 36 division winds? and keyboard/percussion instruments? (I'm not
against this - I'm just asking!)

BTW-2 - I thought Daniel Wolf's suggestions re ear training were rather
good, and not impractical (as I think someone suggested? can't find all
the comments now).

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-Reply-To: <eGW8TdBte2F7EwfC@c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk>
Patrick wrote:

> Few or none of these collectives/groups/whatever have much in the way
of
> associated and well-developed instrument development projects.
> Obviously I've put considerable effort into trying to generate interest
> in that aspect. Perhaps the arguments for the advantages of adopting a
> provisonal ATS standard are beginning to seep in? I don't know.

Newband are building new instruments, and getting composers to write for
them. I can see advantages in a similar approach: if you have the
funding, build some instruments around a compatible set of tunings, train
some musicians to play them, and then commission some music.

> But, in addition individual preferences, the fact that these
> affiliations and artistic directions are already ingrained, also makes
> the likelihood of _trans-collective_ consensus remote.

A new body of instruments may be of most value for those who aren't
currently working with alternative tunings for reasons of practicality.

> - how do you envisage instrument deisgns relating to 72? By creating 24
> or 36 division winds? and keyboard/percussion instruments? (I'm not
> against this - I'm just asking!)

This is where Miracle comes in! Keyboard and percussion instruments can
be built for the 21 or 31 note subset scales, and still be in tune with
instruments that equally divide the 12-equal steps. Wind instruments are
something of a black art to me. But it may be that a subset of the
instrumentarium could play in 31-equal too, or even 10-equal, which would
bring in more composers.

21st Century theory for 21st Century instruments!

If you want to reduce typing (and you have been doing a fair bit lately
:) you can call me at (01275) 344 236 daytime and (01275) 340 971
evenings and weekends. Not that I have any particular insights on this
subject, but if you haven't been following the Miracle thread perhaps I
could fill you in.

And hopefully I won't get a load of crazies ringing me up ...

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., Patrick Ozzard-Low <pol@c...> wrote:

> A
> _standard_ will only work if the majority of the relevant musicians
are
> capable of achieving it.

Witness Julie's comments that I just posted. I'd add that 72-tET is
nothing more than 12-tET with a just 5:1 and a just 7:1 above and
below each tone, and an 11th harmonic above each tone (for the
quartertones). So starting with 12-tET, you can just learn a few JI
intervals and poof! 72-tET.
>
> - how do you envisage instrument deisgns relating to 72? By
creating 24
> or 36 division winds? and keyboard/percussion instruments? (I'm not
> against this - I'm just asking!)

All these are possibilities. There are many, and compatibility with
12 is of course a huge selling-point.

Also, I find it odd that you agreed with both Alison's and Daniel
Wolf's views about ear-training, since they seem diametrically
opposed as to the level of accuracy they're assuming.

-Paul

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

/tuning/topicId_24174.html#24196

>
> Witness Julie's comments that I just posted. I'd add that 72-tET is
> nothing more than 12-tET with a just 5:1 and a just 7:1 above and
> below each tone, and an 11th harmonic above each tone (for the
> quartertones). So starting with 12-tET, you can just learn a few JI
> intervals and poof! 72-tET.
> >

That is so *totally* incredible. By the way, I got my "multi
colored" dots! I can combine little dots with big dots... I'll have
all KINDS of spots before my eyes! Great! Should have enough for
MANY tetrads...

[sorry Daniel Wolf... under 100 words again...]

__________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> That is so *totally* incredible. By the way, I got my "multi
> colored" dots! I can combine little dots with big dots... I'll
have
> all KINDS of spots before my eyes! Great! Should have enough for
> MANY tetrads...

If you're mapping the 7-limit complete tetrads (i.e., the ones that
look like tetrahedra in the lattice; the ones labelled 4:5:6:7 or 1/
(7:6:5:4) in the keyboard patterns), you should have an average of
three dots on each key on the keyboard. Why? Because there are 16
tetrads . . . 16*4 = 64 "functions" . . . 64/21 = 3.05 "functions"
per pitch. If you're sticking to the otonal tetrads, the number will
be half as many . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_24174.html#24201

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > That is so *totally* incredible. By the way, I got my "multi
> > colored" dots! I can combine little dots with big dots... I'll
> have
> > all KINDS of spots before my eyes! Great! Should have enough
for
> > MANY tetrads...
>
> If you're mapping the 7-limit complete tetrads (i.e., the ones that
> look like tetrahedra in the lattice; the ones labelled 4:5:6:7 or 1/
> (7:6:5:4) in the keyboard patterns), you should have an average of
> three dots on each key on the keyboard. Why? Because there are 16
> tetrads . . . 16*4 = 64 "functions" . . . 64/21 = 3.05 "functions"
> per pitch. If you're sticking to the otonal tetrads, the number
will
> be half as many . . .

I *may* be able to get the otnal ones too.

I should have enough "stickies." I have basically 8 different
distinct colors and 4 other "supplementary" small dots that could go
on each of the 8 colors. So I guess that's 5 "supplementary"
including the plain ones = 40 different colors, I guess...

That shouldn't be too bad, right??

__________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24174.html#24204

> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24174.html#24201
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > > That is so *totally* incredible. By the way, I got my "multi
> > > colored" dots! I can combine little dots with big dots...
I'll
> > have
> > > all KINDS of spots before my eyes! Great! Should have enough
> for
> > > MANY tetrads...
> >
> > If you're mapping the 7-limit complete tetrads (i.e., the ones
that
> > look like tetrahedra in the lattice; the ones labelled 4:5:6:7 or
1/
> > (7:6:5:4) in the keyboard patterns), you should have an average
of
> > three dots on each key on the keyboard. Why? Because there are 16
> > tetrads . . . 16*4 = 64 "functions" . . . 64/21 =
3.05 "functions"
> > per pitch. If you're sticking to the otonal tetrads, the number
> will
> > be half as many . . .
>
> I *may* be able to get the otnal ones too.
>
> I should have enough "stickies." I have basically 8 different
> distinct colors and 4 other "supplementary" small dots that could
go
> on each of the 8 colors. So I guess that's 5 "supplementary"
> including the plain ones = 40 different colors, I guess...
>
> That shouldn't be too bad, right??
>
> __________ _______ ________
> Joseph Pehrson

OH... of course I could do a "big dot" with TWO different
color "small dots" on it... that would give me 80 different possible
otonal and utonal tetrads..., and I guess I could even go to three or
four... if I could really recognize that dot as a distinct pattern
quickly....

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> If you're sticking to the otonal tetrads, the number
> will
> > be half as many . . .
>
> I *may* be able to get the otnal ones too.

You mean the _utonal_ ones?
>
> I should have enough "stickies." I have basically 8 different
> distinct colors

Enough for the 8 otonal tetrads! Perfect!

> and 4 other "supplementary" small dots that could go
> on each of the 8 colors. So I guess that's 5 "supplementary"
> including the plain ones = 40 different colors, I guess...

oof . . . way too many. You need to be able to visually group the
keys at a glance . . . and if you're using _two_ stickers to indicate
_one_ function, you'll have an average of _six_ stickers on each
key . . . hairy.

Here's my suggestion. Put the small dots away for now, and let's
first put the big dots where they belong. Tell me what colors you
have, and I can make a table for you . . . we can do this off-list.

HEY!

What does it take????

You can't even trim the big original msg from you and Paul and you
and Paul, wasting even more bandwidth, and then you are writing about
all these colored dots that no one but you and Paul care about?

Please, Joe, get a clue. Please. Dan Wolf was nice about it, but I
know many people feel the same way about all the *needless* posts.

I wish no one had to say things like this. *Good* self-moderating
lists actually _self-moderate_.

-Jon

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Tell me what colors you have, and I can make a table for you . . .
> we can do this off-list.

Finally: common sense. Thank you, Paul!

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

/tuning/topicId_24174.html#24211

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > If you're sticking to the otonal tetrads, the number
> > will
> > > be half as many . . .
> >
> > I *may* be able to get the otnal ones too.
>
> You mean the _utonal_ ones?
> >
> > I should have enough "stickies." I have basically 8 different
> > distinct colors
>
> Enough for the 8 otonal tetrads! Perfect!
>
> > and 4 other "supplementary" small dots that could go
> > on each of the 8 colors. So I guess that's 5 "supplementary"
> > including the plain ones = 40 different colors, I guess...
>
> oof . . . way too many. You need to be able to visually group the
> keys at a glance . . . and if you're using _two_ stickers to
indicate
> _one_ function, you'll have an average of _six_ stickers on each
> key . . . hairy.
>
> Here's my suggestion. Put the small dots away for now, and let's
> first put the big dots where they belong. Tell me what colors you
> have, and I can make a table for you . . . we can do this off-list.

Thanks, Paul! Great idea...

__________ ______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24174.html#24212

> HEY!
>
> What does it take????
>
> You can't even trim the big original msg from you and Paul and you
> and Paul, wasting even more bandwidth, and then you are writing
about
> all these colored dots that no one but you and Paul care about?
>
> Please, Joe, get a clue. Please. Dan Wolf was nice about it, but I
> know many people feel the same way about all the *needless* posts.
>
> I wish no one had to say things like this. *Good* self-moderating
> lists actually _self-moderate_.
>
> -Jon

I don't see why you're so concerned about this. Despite what you
say, you rarely post or enter into conversation over here, except to
complain.

I dont' even think, by your actions, that you are a real part of this
group!

___________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I don't see why you're so concerned about this.

Because other people are as well, and I'm just the only one willing
enough to stick his neck out. The post just before this one was
another "Hey Paul, that's cool" after the entire msg quoted, a total
waste of our community space. If it is valid information, fine. You
can play your chummy games off list.

> Despite what you say, you rarely post or enter into conversation
> over here, except to complain.

Bullshit. You just don't happen to read any of those, or are not
interested, which is perfectly fine. Just don't say it *doesn't*
happen. And quantity of posting is NOT an indicator of membership.

> I dont' even think, by your actions, that you are a real part of
> this group!

So it's your group now, huh? Being here, constantly, since the Mills
College days means nothing.

I speak for a fair number of people who would once again ask ALL on
this list to examine their posting styles and see if they can improve
the s/n ratio. We've lost some good people recently because of it,
and it you think that isn't important, it is a real shame.

-Jon

[Jon Szanto wrote:]
>>HEY!
>>
>>What does it take????
>>
>>You can't even trim the big original msg from you and Paul and you
>>and Paul, wasting even more bandwidth, and then you are writing about
>>all these colored dots that no one but you and Paul care about?
>>
>>Please, Joe, get a clue. Please. Dan Wolf was nice about it, but I
>>know many people feel the same way about all the *needless* posts.
>>
>>I wish no one had to say things like this. *Good* self-moderating
>>lists actually _self-moderate_.

[Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
>I don't see why you're so concerned about this. Despite what you
>say, you rarely post or enter into conversation over here, except to
>complain.

>I dont' even think, by your actions, that you are a real part of this
>group!

Joe, I really have to protest.

You damn Jon because he doesn't post enough, but you damn him when he
posts.

Everyone who reads these posts is a member of this list, no matter how
frequently they themselves post.

Jon _does_ complain, yes, but has _many_ posts which are not complaints.
They're in the archives (my own sense is that his posts have, on the
whole, grown more and more positive of late).

And Jon addresses a very real concern that I've heard MANY people speak
of. Surely you are not unaware of this? For him to add his voice is
perfectly appropriate. BTW, I agree with the thrust of his point, even
if I might have worded it slightly differently.

JdL

Paul couldn't be more correct when he says

> that 72-tET is
> nothing more than 12-tET with a just 5:1 and a just 7:1 above and
> below each tone, and an 11th harmonic above each tone (for the
> quartertones). So starting with 12-tET, you can just learn a few JI
> intervals and poof! 72-tET.

That is exactly how I think about it. Really good major and minor thirds, great 7ths and 11ths.
What could be more singable?

I've been a choir director for many years and I find that tempered thirds are next to impossible
to sing with any sustain. The only way tempered thirds seem to work is in a constantly moving
context.

I linked the 72-tET website to Jesus Bernal's site. He teaches acoustics at the National
Conservatory in Mexico and he also runs a microtonal composition workshop. His site has a sample
of Novaro's music.

http://www.geocities.com/Bernalorg/

--- In tuning@y..., Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@e...> wrote:

> I linked the 72-tET website to Jesus Bernal's site. He teaches
acoustics at the National
> Conservatory in Mexico and he also runs a microtonal composition
workshop. His site has a sample
> of Novaro's music.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Bernalorg/

This is the most intriguing post since I've joined the Tuning List.
The small bit of information here really makes one wish that
Navarro's work were better known and more available:

"His first works about his microtonal theories were published in
1924.In 1951 he published"Sistema Natural de la Música"(Natural
Musical System);in this book he explains his scales,based on
fragments of the harmonic series:fundamental(in normal way),reciprocal
(reversed)and complex(combining fundamental with reciprocal). For
12TET he prefers perfect fifths instead of perfect octaves(seventh
root of 1.5)proposing also intermediate tunings;one of them was used
at West Point organ(I don´t know if it is so tuned now). He also
built instruments in several temperaments,approaching just
intonations,incluiding a 53TET lute for which he wrote a study(I
think he never played it,the present recording was made using a
Yamaha SY77)."

Xavier

Paul wrote:

>>72-tET is nothing more than 12-tET with a just 5:1 and a just 7:1
>>above and below each tone, and an 11th harmonic above each tone (for
>>the quartertones). So starting with 12-tET, you can just learn a few
>>JI intervals and poof! 72-tET.

Nice and reductive..... but, Paul, as with so many of the discussions
we had previously, my view often differs from yours because I envisage
the necessity of composers, performers and instruments emloying some
such system to achieve complex and 'totally chromatic' music (that is,
employing all _n_ notes in one piece. That was part of the 'criteria'.
Anyway, as I implied, I am not _against_ 72!

Paul wrote:

>>I find it odd that you agreed with both Alison's and Daniel
>>Wolf's views about ear-training, since they seem diametrically
>>opposed as to the level of accuracy they're assuming.

Wasn't one talking about how existing choirs currently sing, and the
other describing a strategy for individual learning? In that context
there is no contradiction between the different levels of accuracy
suggested.

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:
> Paul wrote:
>
> >>72-tET is nothing more than 12-tET with a just 5:1 and a just 7:1
> >>above and below each tone, and an 11th harmonic above each tone
(for
> >>the quartertones). So starting with 12-tET, you can just learn a
few
> >>JI intervals and poof! 72-tET.
>
> Nice and reductive..... but, Paul, as with so many of the
discussions
> we had previously, my view often differs from yours because I
envisage
> the necessity of composers, performers and instruments emloying some
> such system to achieve complex and 'totally chromatic' music (that
is,
> employing all _n_ notes in one piece.

Well, if it's really a high priority to have a system of N equally-
tempered notes all in one piece, and 72 is too many, 72 gives them a
great wealth of options:

N=8
N=9
N=12
N=18
N=24
N=36

This is an advantage of 72-tET that I haven't mentioned, but Monz has.

> Wasn't one talking about how existing choirs currently sing, and the
> other describing a strategy for individual learning? In that
context
> there is no contradiction between the different levels of accuracy
> suggested.

Well, one seemed to think 72-tET was too fine a standard, while the
other seemed to think it too coarse.