Brian McLaren's "Introduction to Microtonality" take aways...

Well, FINALLY, I got around to listeninng to Brian McLaren's
excellent "Introduction to Microtonality" CD. Frankly, when I first
got this CD at the Claremont MicroFest, I thought it was superfluous
as part of his written package "Microtonality, Past, Present, Future"
which I STILL haven't found time to read (enough of such griping...)
BUT I did get a chance to listen to the CD.

The CD, although understandable and appropriate for beginners, is
decidedly NOT puerile stuff, and there is much for more "seasoned"
participants in it as well. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I had a couple of "take aways" that I would like to share with the
group and which may or may not prompt further commentary. Ironically
enough, McLaren's frequent point about all the theorists not hearing
music, blah, blah, was not one of them! I mean, that's pretty
evident in certain cases, particularly when the theoritician or
scientist/mathematician is not a composer. I don't believe that
finding is really as "revolutionary" as the clever Mr. Zill (with all
due respect) seems to feel it is.

HOWEVER, THESE are the significant "take aways" that remained in my
mind:

1) The importance of experience in and participation in a VARIETY of
different tunings.

Well, I've been trying to do this... but I guess I'm very big right
now on the current "Miracle" developments. However, McLaren is
making me rethink the idea that possibly I will spend the "rest of my
life" with "blackjack" and 72-tET. Maybe not so smart given all the
other alternatives... For a while, possibly.

2) A real question as to the significance of Just Intonation and
harmonic series frequency ratios as a basis of music vis a vis
perceptibility.

I believe this is an area where McLaren and Paul Erlich differ
strongly. McLaren views all music as a process of "acculturation"
and doesn't feel that just ratios are particularly significant as an
audible "stopping point" other than their establishment in a
cultural sense.

Dunno. That seems to "fly in the face" of Helmholtz, Partch and such
like... and certain scientific studies that, if I recall, associate
small integer frequency ratios with particular INGRAINED human
responses....

McLaren, of course, points to all the different cultures which do NOT
use just ratios but more "non just, non equal" or inharmonic timbres
a la Sethares... And, it does seem to be an area in which McLaren
excells in his own music, at least what I have heard so far. It also
seems like an area where advanced scientific or mathematical thinking
could also contribute... possibly MORE than in the JI realm, but OF
COURSE, filtered through EXPERIENCE as McLaren gently suggests...

Dunno. Is there anything really "special" about Just Intonation that
is not just acculturation like everything else?? Do I react to small
interger ratios or their approximations BECAUSE of my exposure to and
thorough immersion in Western culture and NOT because of any endemic
PHYSICAL response?

I have absolutely no idea. However, I do know those simple ratios
have a "resonance," literally, with me... and it's going to be pretty
hard to "break away" from my "Western Civ." background.

Anyway, that's the McLaren CD. I saw, I bought, I liked...

___________ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<1) The importance of experience in and participation in a VARIETY of
different tunings.>>

Yes, a point that can't be stressed enough to my mind.

<<McLaren is making me rethink the idea that possibly I will spend the
"rest of my life" with "blackjack" and 72-tET. Maybe not so smart
given all the other alternatives...>>

Amen.

--Dan Stearns

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

> 1) The importance of experience in and participation in a VARIETY of
> different tunings.

That's a great path . . . but another path might be to develop a unique language with which to
express yourself . . . and that might take a lifetime depending on the depth with which you want
to pursue that.
>
> 2) A real question as to the significance of Just Intonation and
> harmonic series frequency ratios as a basis of music vis a vis
> perceptibility.

Why don't you trust your _own_ perceptions on this, Joseph? Remember all the "Tuning Lab"
experiments? The various tunings of the dominant seventh chord, and your initial reactions to
them? Have you forgotten all this?

> I have absolutely no idea. However, I do know those simple ratios
> have a "resonance," literally, with me...

Because of how you hear them, right?

> and it's going to be pretty
> hard to "break away" from my "Western Civ." background.

That seems contradictory, Joseph. When you first heard pure 4:5:6:7 chords on the Tuning Lab,
did you like them because of your "Western Civ." background? Wouldn't your background lead
you to prefer, rather, the 12-tET dominant seventh chords that you'd been hearing and playing
on the piano all your life?
>
> Anyway, that's the McLaren CD. I saw, I bought, I liked...

I like his music too . . . remember, the only reason I led you toward 72-tET and the MIRACLE
stuff is that it seemed that you specifically _liked_ near-JI sonorities and wanted to use them in
your compositions. Of course, lots of people who _hate_ near-JI sonorities use 72-tET too . . .
but of course they wouldn't be interested in the MIRACLE stuff . . . Anyway, Joseph, it's an
_artistic_ decision on your part whether you want smooth, stable consonances to feature heavily
in your music or not . . . you can hear what they sound like, and see where they are located in
72-tET . . . no amount of arguing between me, McLaren, or anyone else should have the
slightest impact on you in this regard . . .

. . . maybe you just enjoy "fanning the flames" . . . I have better things to do . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_24628.html#24645

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > 1) The importance of experience in and participation in a VARIETY
of different tunings.
>
> That's a great path . . . but another path might be to develop a
unique language with which to express yourself . . . and that might
take a lifetime depending on the depth with which you want to pursue
that.

Why, of course, Paul! Hopefully, I've already established this to
some extent... or at least some people have told me that I have.

The relationship between my *own* personal language and various
tuning has not been entirely established, however. After all, I've
only been exploring this seriously for a year and a half!

The results are not totally in. Certainly, for the time being, I am
going to be exploring "blackjack."

I only mentioned the McLaren comments because it *did* cause me to
reflect a bit more and think about maybe seeing some of the other
options... and, for that reason, that comment by him seemed
valuable...

> >
> > 2) A real question as to the significance of Just Intonation and
> > harmonic series frequency ratios as a basis of music vis a vis
> > perceptibility.
>
> Why don't you trust your _own_ perceptions on this, Joseph?
Remember all the "Tuning Lab" experiments? The various tunings of the
dominant seventh chord, and your initial reactions to them? Have you
forgotten all this?
>

Uh huh....

Seriously, though, it is true I had strong reactions to the just
chords, but McLaren has me thinking that possibly my reactions are
tied in with "acculturation" rather than something "intrinsic."

Actually, I don't know, and probably won't be able to find out unless
I "step outside my own skin" which might prove a difficult prospect!

In reality, it doesn't make any difference, since the just intervals
*do* have an impact and I hope to continue exploring them, regardless
of the motivation...

>
> > and it's going to be pretty
> > hard to "break away" from my "Western Civ." background.
>

> That seems contradictory, Joseph. When you first heard pure 4:5:6:7
chords on the Tuning Lab, did you like them because of your "Western
Civ." background? Wouldn't your background lead you to prefer,
rather, the 12-tET dominant seventh chords that you'd been hearing
and playing on the piano all your life?

Well, that's a good point. I'll have to think about that one. I
guess my _initial_ reaction to just intervals, particularly the major
third, after a 1/2 lifetime of 12-tET was that it was "out of
tune..." but, I admit, I quickly started to enjoy just intervals
intensely!

> >
> > Anyway, that's the McLaren CD. I saw, I bought, I liked...
>
> I like his music too . . . remember, the only reason I led you
toward 72-tET and the MIRACLE stuff is that it seemed that you
specifically _liked_ near-JI sonorities and wanted to use them in
> your compositions.

Oh... well, I'm grateful for that! I don't feel I've been "misled"
in any way! McLaren just has me thinking that I should keep
my "options open." I note that Dan Stearns seems to agree with that
as well...

Anyway, Joseph, it's an
> _artistic_ decision on your part whether you want smooth, stable
consonances to feature heavily in your music or not . . . you can
hear what they sound like, and see where they are located in
> 72-tET . . . no amount of arguing between me, McLaren, or anyone
else should have the slightest impact on you in this regard . . .
>

Oh, absolutely!

> . . . maybe you just enjoy "fanning the flames" . . . I have better
things to do . . .

Oh, absolutely NOT. I keep forgetting about all that "past
history." Actually, I wasn't around to witness it, so that's
probably the reason.

My post was simply my reaction to the McLaren CD and a couple of
points that he made which interested me, and MAYBE will influence me
to a degree... who knows...

I was interested in further commentary, because these are important
concepts and I would like to hear various viewpoints on them.

When I sat down to write the post, I wasn't even aware that McLaren
was posting to the list!

I then *DID* see his post, but I sent my post anyway... since I guess
my view is that if McLaren gets "abnoxious" (how could that be
possible??) people can just "ignore" it, anyway...

Joseph, the fireman... extinguisher ready...

_________ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 6/9/2001 3:25:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> > That seems contradictory, Joseph. When you first heard pure 4:5:6:7
> chords on the Tuning Lab, did you like them because of your "Western
> Civ." background? Wouldn't your background lead you to prefer,
> rather, the 12-tET dominant seventh chords that you'd been hearing
> and playing on the piano all your life?
>
> Well, that's a good point. I'll have to think about that one. I
> guess my _initial_ reaction to just intervals, particularly the major
> third, after a 1/2 lifetime of 12-tET was that it was "out of
> tune..." but, I admit, I quickly started to enjoy just intervals
>

I know this comment is out of context but this got me thinking. Wouldn't you,
Joe, probably have heard 4:5:6:7 dom seventh chords at some point anyway
earlier in your life, and possibly with out knowing you did? I mean If you
have listenend to string quartets before ... I'm sure one of them tuned up a
seventh chord. No to mention, and I dont know about your background at all
Joe, but have you sung in choirs??, or listenend to many of them? Don't you
think it would be reasonable to say that although you have heard dominant
seventh chords on the piano that you had also heard 4:5:6:7, meaning a just
dom seventh, in different contexts and also without knowing that that is what
you were hearing? Does this make any sense to you?

I know for myself the first time I "heard" a just major third I thought to
myself, "I've heard this a billion times, although I never knew that if it
was in tune it was a 5/4 rather than an ETE major third" In fact when I was
younger one of my guitar teachers kept telling me to stop tuning up my major
thirds on my guitar, a normal guitar, because it would throw the rest of the
guitar out of wack (obviously). At the time I didn't really get why major
thirds had to be out of tune, but later after studying tuning more the sounds
were the same but the theory was more clear.The experience of hearing a just
third didn't at all show me a new sound, but it did give me a new name to
identify a sound which I already knew. I would say the same thing with the
dom seventh chord, at least for myself. The point of this rant is that,
perhaps, you were more accustomed to just chords than you think because music
you've listened to was tuned up by the players intuitively. Maybe that is a
reason why you would tend to like just chords.

Lastly, maybe this really isn't true with you specifically , because I dont
know ... maybe your experience is mostly with piano. Its just a thought
though.

Cheers,
Andy

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24628.html#24653

>
> I know this comment is out of context but this got me thinking.
Wouldn't you, Joe, probably have heard 4:5:6:7 dom seventh chords at
some point anyway earlier in your life, and possibly with out knowing
you did?

Well, this is possible, since I did also sing in choirs, but I had
*LOTS* of "first-handed" (literally) piano experience, so that would
contradict it...

>
> I know for myself the first time I "heard" a just major third I
thought to myself, "I've heard this a billion times, although I never
knew that if it was in tune it was a 5/4 rather than an ETE major
third"

Well... frankly, I think my experience, probably because of the
incessant piano, was different. The just major third sounded
only "out of tune" to me at first.

NOW... here is a caveat. I was VERY interested in electronic music
as a teenager and even wrote some of it with a primitive test-
equipment oscillator that I made (from Heathkit!). In fact, I tried
to fancy myself a "little expert" in electronic music about the time
I was 16 or 17, so something "out of tune" isn't going to rattle my
rafters, so to speak... I always LIKED different sounds and
different tunings...

AND HERE is a McLaren thought... if I am to be truly candid:

Is it possible that I like just intonation sounds because I think
they are "in fashion" or I happen to enjoy the music of Harry Partch
or Dean Drummond??

Do I consider this intonation "cool" or some such and,
subconsciously, want to incorporate it in my music because I feel it
is "in style."

Don't belittle "style" by the way... Stravinsky (no comparison with
*me*, naturally) lived and died for "style..."

That would be a McLaren thought.... The "culture" was determining my
hearing and my responses, not something ingrained or intrinsic to my
hearing, as Helmholtz asserts.

Dunno.... really dunno....

_________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 6/9/2001 5:11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24628.html#24653
>
> >
> > I know this comment is out of context but this got me thinking.
> Wouldn't you, Joe, probably have heard 4:5:6:7 dom seventh chords at
> some point anyway earlier in your life, and possibly with out knowing
> you did?
>
> Well, this is possible, since I did also sing in choirs, but I had
> *LOTS* of "first-handed" (literally) piano experience, so that would
> contradict it...
>
> >
> > I know for myself the first time I "heard" a just major third I
> thought to myself, "I've heard this a billion times, although I never
> knew that if it was in tune it was a 5/4 rather than an ETE major
> third"
>
> Well... frankly, I think my experience, probably because of the
> incessant piano, was different. The just major third sounded
> only "out of tune" to me at first.
>
> NOW... here is a caveat. I was VERY interested in electronic music
> as a teenager and even wrote some of it with a primitive test-
> equipment oscillator that I made (from Heathkit!). In fact, I tried
> to fancy myself a "little expert" in electronic music about the time
> I was 16 or 17, so something "out of tune" isn't going to rattle my
> rafters, so to speak... I always LIKED different sounds and
> different tunings...
>
> AND HERE is a McLaren thought... if I am to be truly candid:
>
> Is it possible that I like just intonation sounds because I think
> they are "in fashion" or I happen to enjoy the music of Harry Partch
> or Dean Drummond??
>
> Do I consider this intonation "cool" or some such and,
> subconsciously, want to incorporate it in my music because I feel it
> is "in style."
>
> Don't belittle "style" by the way... Stravinsky (no comparison with
> *me*, naturally) lived and died for "style..."
>
> That would be a McLaren thought.... The "culture" was determining my
> hearing and my responses, not something ingrained or intrinsic to my
> hearing, as Helmholtz asserts.
>
> Dunno.... really dunno....
>
> _________ _______ _________
> Joseph Pehrson
>

Interestng. Yaa I see what you mean. Piano wasn't very heavy in my life, I
played for like 8 years when I was really really young, but I never cared too
much about it, and so it didn't effect me a whole lot other than getting me
interested generally in music.

Andy

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > . . . maybe you just enjoy "fanning the flames" . . . I have better
> things to do . . .
>
> Oh, absolutely NOT. I keep forgetting about all that "past
> history." Actually, I wasn't around to witness it, so that's
> probably the reason.

You weren't around to witness it? A friend of mine forwarded me some loooong posts from the
Practical Microtonality lists that I felt were virulent in the lies they were promulgating. You
professed to be entertained by these posts, because of their gratuitous nature. I don't fault you
for being entertained, but don't say you weren't around to witness it.
>
> My post was simply my reaction to the McLaren CD and a couple of
> points that he made which interested me, and MAYBE will influence me
> to a degree... who knows...

By all means, give everything a try, and go with what you like. _You_ were the one who
seemed so interested in JI or something very close . . . if that choice was based on the
perceived "authority" of Helmholtz, Partch, or whoever, then let me wholeheartedly encourage
you to re-evaluate _right now_ -- you might want to ask Julie Werntz for a copy of her
dissertation, which as I understand it, is a totally anti-tonality, anti-JI, etc. view of what microtonality
should be about. Of course, with that approach you'd never get anything like Graham Breed's l
"pump" chord progression, arranged by Joe Monzo, that had you exclaiming "OHMYGOD"
over and over again.

As for the just 4:5:6:7 -- remember how I had you compare it with a large number of other
tetrads, both JI and tempered, and you steadfastly chose it as the "most consonant" despite it
being fairly low down on the initial ranking? You weren't letting _theoretical_ considerations
influence your opinion then, were you?

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:

>
> I know this comment is out of context but this got me thinking. Wouldn't you,
> Joe, probably have heard 4:5:6:7 dom seventh chords at some point anyway
> earlier in your life, and possibly with out knowing you did? I mean If you
> have listenend to string quartets before ... I'm sure one of them tuned up a
> seventh chord.

Any string quartet playing seventh chords as 4:5:6:7 in this century would have been booted
out of the academy! Classical string ensembles today tend toward major thirds _larger_ than
12-tET, except when playing early music to period specifications, in which case dominant
sevenths would be very far from 4:5:6:7.
>
> I know for myself the first time I "heard" a just major third I thought to
> myself, "I've heard this a billion times, although I never knew that if it
> was in tune it was a 5/4 rather than an ETE major third" In fact when I was
> younger one of my guitar teachers kept telling me to stop tuning up my major
> thirds on my guitar, a normal guitar, because it would throw the rest of the
> guitar out of wack (obviously). At the time I didn't really get why major
> thirds had to be out of tune,

That supports the point I was trying to make to Joseph. The just major third is "natural" in that all
kinds of folk musicians and other musicians outside Western academia will tend to tune harmonic
major thirds justly -- about a twelfth-tone flat relative to 12-tET. It has nothing to do with people
tuning according to any "scientific paradigms".

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:05 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Brian McLaren's
> "Introduction to Microtonality" take aways...
>

> Actually, I don't know, and probably won't be able
> to find out unless I "step outside my own skin"
> which might prove a difficult prospect!

Well, Joe... if you manage to achieve that, please
join the spiritual_tuning list and post about it there!

I wanted to make one comment, because IIRC it concerns
this particular McLaren CD. Pretty close to the beginning
he says something along the lines of "each theorist has
his own particular favorites", and then voices come from
all angles spouting such aphorisms as "11-limit is best",
"Clearly, 31-tET is superior", etc. I laughed so hard
I had to rewind the CD and listen to it again about 8 more
times. Brian's work is a lot more palatable when the humor
comes to the fore, because he can be quite a funny guy.

-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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:06 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Brian McLaren's
> "Introduction to Microtonality" take aways...
>
>
> AND HERE is a McLaren thought... if I am to be truly candid:
>
> Is it possible that I like just intonation sounds because I think
> they are "in fashion" or I happen to enjoy the music of Harry Partch
> or Dean Drummond??
>
> Do I consider this intonation "cool" or some such and,
> subconsciously, want to incorporate it in my music because I feel it
> is "in style."

Now *that's* some interesting self-examination, Joe!

>
> Don't belittle "style" by the way... Stravinsky (no comparison with
> *me*, naturally) lived and died for "style..."

Sounds like you read the _New Yorker_ article about Stravinsky.
I just finished it an hour ago. If you haven't read it, then
that's an amazing coincidence to me... (2 in one day concerning you!),
because that issue is now pretty old, from Halloween of last year
(with the imitation-1950s pin-up girl dressed as a witch riding
a broom on the cover... which, BTW, is an almost-exact reproduction
of an actual calendar cover that I saw as a child.)

-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 a message dated 6/9/2001 7:23:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
> >
> > I know this comment is out of context but this got me thinking. Wouldn't
> you,
> > Joe, probably have heard 4:5:6:7 dom seventh chords at some point anyway
> > earlier in your life, and possibly with out knowing you did? I mean If
> you
> > have listenend to string quartets before ... I'm sure one of them tuned
> up a
> > seventh chord.
>
> Any string quartet playing seventh chords as 4:5:6:7 in this century would
> have been booted
> out of the academy! Classical string ensembles today tend toward major
> thirds _larger_ than
> 12-tET, except when playing early music to period specifications, in which
> case dominant
> sevenths would be very far from 4:5:6:7.

Why do you say this? Where can I read about this its interesting?

> >
> > I know for myself the first time I "heard" a just major third I thought
> to
> > myself, "I've heard this a billion times, although I never knew that if
> it
> > was in tune it was a 5/4 rather than an ETE major third" In fact when I
> was
> > younger one of my guitar teachers kept telling me to stop tuning up my
> major
> > thirds on my guitar, a normal guitar, because it would throw the rest of
> the
> > guitar out of wack (obviously). At the time I didn't really get why major
> > thirds had to be out of tune,
>
> That supports the point I was trying to make to Joseph. The just major
> third is "natural" in that all
> kinds of folk musicians and other musicians outside Western academia will
> tend to tune harmonic
> major thirds justly -- about a twelfth-tone flat relative to 12-tET. It has
> nothing to do with people
>

I totally missed that conversation and just chimed in on the 4:5:6:7 thing
so I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I agree just thirds sound
natural for sure.

Cheers,
Andy

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JoJoBuBu@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Brian McLaren's "Introduction to Microtonality"
take aways...
>
>
> In a message dated 6/9/2001 7:23:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@stretch-music.com writes:
>
> > Any string quartet playing seventh chords as 4:5:6:7 in this century
would
> > have been booted
> > out of the academy! Classical string ensembles today tend toward major
> > thirds _larger_ than
> > 12-tET, except when playing early music to period specifications, in
which
> > case dominant
> > sevenths would be very far from 4:5:6:7.
>
> Why do you say this? Where can I read about this its interesting?

Hi Andy. I'm sure Paul will send a more detailed response to this.
I'll just get the ball rolling...

The bowed strings violin, viola, and cello are normally tuned
so that the 4 open strings form perfect Pythagorean "5ths" of
3:2 ratio. Thus, in order to have other notes be in tune
with the open strings, the player has to use a finger position
which gives Pythagorean tuning.

Another aspect to this is that a narrow "leading tone" came
to be preferred during this period in European music.

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

/tuning/topicId_24628.html#24666

>
> You weren't around to witness it? A friend of mine forwarded me
some loooong posts from the Practical Microtonality lists that I felt
were virulent in the lies they were promulgating. You professed to
be entertained by these posts, because of their gratuitous nature. I
don't fault you for being entertained, but don't say you weren't
around to witness it.
> >

Hi Paul...

McLaren writes well. Even when it's complete BS, he writes well.
That's mostly what I was relating to. Believe me, it's not easy for
somebody like me, a relative newcomer to the field, to try to learn
from such perceptive and informative individuals as yourself and
McLaren when they are throwing atomic bombs at one another.

I wish there could be some kind of "civil" debate between the
principals in this field. I would learn much from that. However, I
understand that this probably can't be the case. I'm not quite sure
whose fault this is, except that I suspect it probably is not yours,
so it probably is the "other guy's..."

Any more on this should probably be on "Tuning Gossip..."

> > My post was simply my reaction to the McLaren CD and a couple of
> > points that he made which interested me, and MAYBE will influence
me to a degree... who knows...
>
> By all means, give everything a try, and go with what you like.
_You_ were the one who seemed so interested in JI or something very
close . . . if that choice was based on the perceived "authority" of
Helmholtz, Partch, or whoever, then let me wholeheartedly encourage
> you to re-evaluate _right now_ -- you might want to ask Julie
Werntz for a copy of her dissertation, which as I understand it, is a
totally anti-tonality, anti-JI, etc. view of what microtonality
> should be about. Of course, with that approach you'd never get
anything like Graham Breed's l "pump" chord progression, arranged by
Joe Monzo, that had you exclaiming "OHMYGOD" over and over again.
>

I do seem a little "inconsistent" don't I... I did *love* that
progression, and I've really "enjoyed" the JI sounds. And I *am*
understanding your points about the "flexibility" of 72-tET.

I'm just not sure I'm ever going to get to the bottom of "why I do..."

Is it CULTURAL *or* ENDEMIC.... I don't know, and probably won't be
able to find out. That is a question that McLaren has me asking.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions! That's the only way, of
course, that anybody learns anything!

> As for the just 4:5:6:7 -- remember how I had you compare it with a
large number of other tetrads, both JI and tempered, and you
steadfastly chose it as the "most consonant" despite it being fairly
low down on the initial ranking? You weren't letting _theoretical_
considerations influence your opinion then, were you?

Well, a good point, and I have to confess these simple just
sonorities have an impact with me, for one reason or another.

And, I'm happily composing in blackjack now, using all the
suggestions you have given me.

However, will I be using ONLY the blackjack scale for the rest of my
life with 72-tET notation?

I am SERIOUS when I say that, based upon our discussions and my
experimentation with that scale, I was SERIOUSLY considering that!

I was thinking that it would replace 12-tET for me as a STANDARD, and
I wouldn't need to do anything else... EVER.

McLaren just has me questioning the wisdom of that... and it *was* a
rather *drastic* thought, the more I think about it.

Believe me, I appreciate your help!

________ ________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_24628.html#24691

>
> >
> > Don't belittle "style" by the way... Stravinsky (no comparison
with *me*, naturally) lived and died for "style..."
>
>
> Sounds like you read the _New Yorker_ article about Stravinsky.
> I just finished it an hour ago. If you haven't read it, then
> that's an amazing coincidence to me...

Yes, I *did* read that... so maybe that stayed in my mind, although
I've also read *many* articles about Stravinsky that said the same
things, including his own statements in his _Autobiography_.

Most recent New Yorker coverage on composers was a couple issues ago
on Gyorgy Ligeti...

_________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
> Why do you say this? Where can I read about this its interesting?

Which statement in particular are you referring to?

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

> However, will I be using ONLY the blackjack scale for the rest of my
> life with 72-tET notation?

I hope not.
>
> I am SERIOUS when I say that, based upon our discussions and my
> experimentation with that scale, I was SERIOUSLY considering that!

Well, I never would have encouraged that . . . as I recall, Kraig Grady simply remarked
that the scale has so many resources, a lifetime could easily be spent exploring them . . .
you kind of jumped on that, and thought of making that _your_ lifetime . . . seemed kind of
silly . . . you never know what you'll decide to try 10 years from now!

> I was thinking that it would replace 12-tET for me as a STANDARD, and
> I wouldn't need to do anything else... EVER.

I think, particularly due to the fact that blackjack is an improper scale, you'd find
yourself, at some point, _needing_ a pitch outside the blackjack 21, to express a melody
or harmony in your head. 12-tET managed to "imprison" so many people for so long
because it contains every possible transposition of the materials found within itself --
and this is only true of ETs. So I wouldn't be too surprised if you were happy with 72-tET
for the rest of your life . . . but blackjack, I doubt it. But you might want to at least give
yourself a chance to get really familiar with it, through ear-training and composing, get
to know it inside and out . . . those skills will be very handy when (if) you expand to larger
subsets of 72-tET.

Or you might decide that your first piece in blackjack will be your last. That's fine too --
microtonality is still such a rare and underexplored world that you may feel it better
worth your while to explore lots and lots of different scales, or even the idea of not
having a scale at all ("ascalar music"?).
>
> McLaren just has me questioning the wisdom of that... and it *was* a
> rather *drastic* thought, the more I think about it.

Well, I'm glad . . . it appears that McLaren and I agree on a lot!

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

/tuning/topicId_24628.html#24790

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > However, will I be using ONLY the blackjack scale for the rest of
my
> > life with 72-tET notation?
>
> I hope not.
> >
> > I am SERIOUS when I say that, based upon our discussions and my
> > experimentation with that scale, I was SERIOUSLY considering that!
>
> Well, I never would have encouraged that . . . as I recall, Kraig
Grady simply remarked that the scale has so many resources, a
lifetime could easily be spent exploring them . . .
> you kind of jumped on that, and thought of making that _your_
lifetime . . . seemed kind of silly . . . you never know what you'll
decide to try 10 years from now!
>

Absolutely!

> > I was thinking that it would replace 12-tET for me as a STANDARD,
and I wouldn't need to do anything else... EVER.
>
> I think, particularly due to the fact that blackjack is an improper
scale, you'd find yourself, at some point, _needing_ a pitch outside
the blackjack 21, to express a melody or harmony in your head. 12-tET
managed to "imprison" so many people for so long because it contains
every possible transposition of the materials found within itself --
> and this is only true of ETs. So I wouldn't be too surprised if you
were happy with 72-tET for the rest of your life . . . but blackjack,
I doubt it. But you might want to at least give yourself a chance to
get really familiar with it, through ear-training and composing, get
> to know it inside and out . . . those skills will be very handy
when (if) you expand to larger subsets of 72-tET.
>

It looks as thought I will be spending quite a bit of time
with "blackjack..." I'd better, since I have all these little
colored stickers all over my keyboard! :)

Frankly, just one piece will not be enough, even though that was my
procedure with several other scales I was exploring previously. THIS
time, I think I have a "keeper" (not to overdo the McLaren "fish"
analogy) and I believe I will try AT LEAST several pieces...

Whether beyond that, I don't know...

Regarding 72-tET, that is a different matter. I see a more serious
extended future for me using THAT as a notation. From now on??
Well, like you say, that's a silly question. Who know what even
TOMORROW will bring!

> > McLaren just has me questioning the wisdom of that... and it
*was* a rather *drastic* thought, the more I think about it.
>
> Well, I'm glad . . . it appears that McLaren and I agree on a lot!

As a relative newcomer to the field, and almost an "outsider" I would
say that too! More than one instance of that. Thereby
any "problems" I believe are more of presentation or personality.
Too bad. Those should be minimized...

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson