Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning thought wrapped in asbestos

The following thought is wrapped in asbestos, and is, hopefully, anti-
flamatory...

Well, the thought that I got from the McLaren CD was somewhat
revolutionary, since I hadn't thought about it like that at all!

It's essentially the fact that it MIGHT be possible to view the
entire Just Intonation trend as a byproduct of WESTERN
civilization... the idea of creating scientific paradigms... as
opposed to other kinds of music considered equally valuable by other
cultures.

I had never thought of this, and the ramifications are immense and,
perhaps unsettling. It means that one could view a figure such as
Harry Partch as a WESTERN phenominon... in the sense that
he was following that rational tradition, and theoretical tradition.

[Jon Szanto... scream softly, OK??]

Just a thought, and I have to admit that McLaren makes me THINK in
ways I hadn't before...

REM endline asbestos return

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Joe,
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> perhaps unsettling. It means that one could view a figure such as
> Harry Partch as a WESTERN phenominon... in the sense that
> he was following that rational tradition, and theoretical tradition.
>
> [Jon Szanto... scream softly, OK??]

No need to scream at all: Partch *is* a Western artist. He was born
and raised in the Western part of the US, and many of his influences
came from what would be considered "traditional" Western sources.

Of course, he also was exposed to a wide variety of musical
influences very early in life (and in a manner that probably didn't
happen often until the last couple of decades exposure in the West
to 'world' musics). And his model for intonation, and basic
conceptual aesthetics, traces (obviously) to ancient Greece.

In this case, are ancient Greek models "Western"? I don't know, I'm
not a historian, or even well-read enough in this area to say. But
certainly Partch's vehicles are performances that have enough of 'the
West' in them that I don't have reason to scream. This is how Partch
has been viewed all the time -- Western, but certainly non-
traditional. The only people who would have been confused are the
ones that only focused on the surface aspects, such as disliking the
Euro-centric idea of concert formats, etc.

I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to become as 'outside' of a
tradition or 'culture' as he did, though you often (and currently)
sound like you'd like to find a way to do that. But as Paul says, you
won't find it by asking what is _right_. Whatever you end up doing,
if it seems right for you, *will* be right. Whether a life in one
intonation (hey, like the stuff or not, Partch managed to explore a
hell of a lot of territory in his JI ghetto, as did many other
composer in their chosen realms), or whether you find great delight
in playing with many various tunings, one at a time for a while (or
multiple!), only YOU will know when your artistic needs are being
addressed.

I loved one of the things Jim Tenney said on a panel discussion at
the UCLA Partch Centennial (I'll try to get close to a quote): "One
of the first things I ask a composition student, starting on a new
piece, is 'What tuning system are you going to use?'"

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24650.html#24658

> > I loved one of the things Jim Tenney said on a panel discussion
at
> the UCLA Partch Centennial (I'll try to get close to a quote): "One
> of the first things I ask a composition student, starting on a new
> piece, is 'What tuning system are you going to use?'"
>

Thanks, Jon, for the commentary... which is a valuable addition to
this discussion. I agree, EVERY composition teacher should ask the
above... that's great. Nothing assumed.

It rather reminds me of the time I went over to composer Patrick
Grant's place to have an older orchestral piece (12-tET)rendered into
MIDI with his 12 synthesizers, or whatever he has...

He asked me, "Well what tuning is it in?" and I had to stammer "Er,
well, there are lots of *glissandi* in it...umm..."

________ __________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Andy,

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> Well yes everything you say is true but dont forget the influence
> of his parents whom definately had an eastern slant. Although it
> would be silly to say this makes his music eastern, obviously not,
> it would probably be fair to say Partch had an eastern bent because
> of hs parents influence. How that exactly relates to his earlier
> music I dont know, maybe none, but the seed was planted.

Oh, this is absolutely true. I was responding to Joe's implication
that I would freak at HP being considered Western. I know full well
the influences on Partch, and they weren't just eastern, but also
african and native American and a host of others. He not only heard
Chinese lullabies from his mother's singing, but continued listening
when, as a single young man living in the Bay area, frequently
attended Chinese opera.

One of the other fascinating presentations in LA was Philip
Blackburn's. In addition to tracing HPs life, he did something quite
unique: he took all of the 'influences' (or most of them) that HP had
cited over his lifetime, made audio selections of parts of them, and
then juxtaposed them (by cross-fading) with examples of the
influences in Partch's own compositions. Indian vina playing, with
glides and glissandos, sequeing to adapted viola in "Li Po" settings;
chinese lullabies and folk melodies sequeing into the "Hong Kong
Music Hall" section from "The Bewitched". It was really a great
illumination! I was happy to contribute a couple of examples to him
from Partch's own record collection, including blues/folk singer
Odetta, who came *this close* to being cast as the original Witch
in "The Bewitched".

Harry, if anything, was in his own universe. His performing outlet,
and the areas of culture that he ended up relying upon for a living,
were Western in nature.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> The following thought is wrapped in asbestos, and is, hopefully, anti-
> flamatory...
>
> Well, the thought that I got from the McLaren CD was somewhat
> revolutionary, since I hadn't thought about it like that at all!
>
> It's essentially the fact that it MIGHT be possible to view the
> entire Just Intonation trend as a byproduct of WESTERN
> civilization... the idea of creating scientific paradigms... as
> opposed to other kinds of music considered equally valuable by other
> cultures.

Ironic then, isn't it, that in the height of Western intellectualism, we find 12-tone serial music that is
diametrically opposed to just intonation, while in Hindu ragas, as well as many folk styles like Irish
and Appalachian fiddle playing, we find rampant use of just intervals? No, Western music is
pretty average on the Just -- Non-Just continuum, except for the fact that Western music is big
on _harmony_ -- and harmony developed, at every stage, by musicians _breaking_ the rules
that had been laid down based on music created in a previous era. When organum developed,
no one sat down and said, "well, which notes of the diatonic scale will go well together? Let's
figure this out scientifically". No, even the ancient knowledge of ratios had never been applied to
this problem, and that knowledge was lost for the time being anyway. But today, we clearly see
that organum was 3-limit harmony. Similarly, in the 15th century when triadic/tertian harmony
began to "infiltrate" "serious" Western music (probably an importation from Celtic folk styles),
the paragons of scientific paradigms of music said "no" -- it broke all the "laws" that they had set
forth -- but musical practice held sway over musical theory. It was only later, in the 16th century,
that the first glimmers of understanding into the nature of sound, pitch, and what ratios had to do
with tuning and harmony, as well as other basic principles of physics, began to dawn on Galileo
and his contemporaries. And the fact that the already-standard triadic/tertian harmony was 5-limit
harmony began to be discovered. And even then, no mathematician or scientist could predict
what the future of Western music had in store -- the development of tonality in the 17th century,
of homophony in the 18th, of chromatic harmony and enharmonic modulation (largely) in the
19th, and of 12-tone atonality in the 20th. At every point in history, musicians led the way, and
the ratio-wielding scientists and mathematicians could only follow. Music is too strong a cultural
force to let scientific paradigms influence it to any significant extent . . . science was only useful in
solving _practical_ problems, such as figuring out ways of building instruments . . . and
mathematics was useful in developing tuning systems that would allow composers to do what
they were trying to do without making unreasonable demands on performers.

Now, people who _did_ have a strong bias toward certain scientific paradigms included
Helmholtz and Partch. If you want to weigh their contributions to music against, say, Schoenberg
and Boulez, that's fair. But in your statement above, you're implying that Western music uses
Just Intonation (which it doesn't) as a result of a cultural bias toward scientific systematization
(which, as I see it, has influenced music about as much as nail polish).

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗David Beardsley <davidbeardsley@biink.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:37 PM
> Subject: [tuning] thought wrapped in asbestos
>

> The following thought is wrapped in asbestos, and is, hopefully, anti-
> flamatory...
>
> Well, the thought that I got from the McLaren CD was somewhat
> revolutionary, since I hadn't thought about it like that at all!
>
> It's essentially the fact that it MIGHT be possible to view the
> entire Just Intonation trend as a byproduct of WESTERN
> civilization... the idea of creating scientific paradigms... as
> opposed to other kinds of music considered equally valuable by other
> cultures.
>
> I had never thought of this, and the ramifications are immense and,
> perhaps unsettling. It means that one could view a figure such as
> Harry Partch as a WESTERN phenominon... in the sense that
> he was following that rational tradition, and theoretical tradition.

Exactly, Joe. Brian is on his anti-theory rampage precisely because
he's knowledgeable enough to understand that music is processed
primarily in the *right* hemisphere of the brain, the seat of
our emotions and creativity, and not primarily in the left hemisphere,
which controls language and analysis.

-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

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:10 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: thought wrapped in asbestos
>

> Joe,
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > perhaps unsettling. It means that one could view
> > a figure such as Harry Partch as a WESTERN phenominon...
> > in the sense that he was following that rational tradition,
> > and theoretical tradition.
> >
> > [Jon Szanto... scream softly, OK??]
>
> ... And his [Partch's] model for intonation, and basic
> conceptual aesthetics, traces (obviously) to ancient Greece.
>
> In this case, are ancient Greek models "Western"? I don't
> know, I'm not a historian, or even well-read enough in this
> area to say.

Hmmm... now *that* sure is a can of worms!

I'd argue very strongly that *many* (possibly even most,
or even nearly all) learned ancient Greek concepts of music
and music-theory were taken over "whole-hog" from the Babylonians,
who in turn took them over whole-hog from the Sumerians.

In case you missed it, Jon, I've recently finally put up
a webpage as a beginning exploration of my ideas about Sumerian
tuning (there will be lots more!), complete with a graphic of
a Babylonian tablet:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm

Note that I said "learned". Surely there were indigenous
musical traditions in ancient Greece that were preserved too.

> I loved one of the things Jim Tenney said on a panel
> discussion at the UCLA Partch Centennial (I'll try to get
> close to a quote): "One of the first things I ask a
> composition student, starting on a new piece, is 'What
> tuning system are you going to use?'"

Yes, *THAT* is a great quote! It impressed me too.

-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

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:06 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: thought wrapped in asbestos
>

> ... Western music is pretty average on the
> Just -- Non-Just continuum, except for the fact
> that Western music is big on _harmony_ -- and
> harmony developed, at every stage, by musicians
> _breaking_ the rules that had been laid down based
> on music created in a previous era.

Amen! Thanks, Paul, for stating this once again.
It's a very important aspect of the development of
Eurocentric music.

While there will always be an individual visionary
voice (or several) among composers of any era, any
historical period chosen at random up to about 1990
or so exhibits, within circumscribed geographical or
cultural boundaries, various categories of style into
which the vast majority of composers fit their work.

(The situation is a bit different now, because we have
pretty much the entire history and geography of recorded
music available to us for not only listening but also
reuse.)

Those stylistic considerations ensured that there would
be some form of "common vocabulary" in harmonic practice
from its inception, around 800 AD, until the 20th century.

The visionary composers were the ones who "broke the rules"
in order to achieve a heretofore unknown expressive effect.
(I give Beethoven, Wagner, and Schoenberg the highest marks
here, but there were *lots* of others, beginning perhaps with
Guillaume de Machaut - or even Perotin? -, Marchetto, etc.)

> When organum developed, no one sat down and said, "well,
> which notes of the diatonic scale will go well together?
> Let's figure this out scientifically". No, even the
> ancient knowledge of ratios had never been applied to
> this problem, and that knowledge was lost for the time
> being anyway.

Well... that's not entirely true. As early as the
_musica enchiriadis_
<http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/MUSENCH_TEXT.html>,
which I, going against the consensus (c. 900), date
from the late 700s, there is a detailed theoretical
consideration of how the notes of the available 18-tone
gamut are to be put together into organum.

> But today, we clearly see that organum was
> 3-limit harmony.

In general, yes... but I would debate the universal
applicability of that, since I interpret what's in
the _musica enchiriadis_ to hint at 5-limit usage.

And Boethius, c. 505 AD, clearly described with
Greek-letter notation what were pseudo-5-limit scales,
which differentiated the syntonic comma (~22 cents)
but not the skhisma (~2 cents)... so they were actually
in a form of skhismic temperament! Around the time
the _enchiriadis_ treatises were written, Boethius's
book was elevated to the lofty status which it held
in Eurocentric theory for a good 600 years, until the
blatant recognition of 5-limit harmony by Odington,
Ramos, et al.

(Sheesh... I really need to get on the ball and turn
my papers on both of these into webpages.)

> Similarly, in the 15th century when triadic/tertian
> harmony began to "infiltrate" "serious" Western music
> (probably an importation from Celtic folk styles),
> the paragons of scientific paradigms of music said
> "no" -- it broke all the "laws" that they had set
> forth -- but musical practice held sway over musical
> theory. It was only later, in the 16th century,
> that the first glimmers of understanding into the nature
> of sound, pitch, and what ratios had to do with tuning
> and harmony, as well as other basic principles of physics,
> began to dawn on Galileo and his contemporaries. And
> the fact that the already-standard triadic/tertian
> harmony was 5-limit harmony began to be discovered.

Paul, this is a useful simplification, but it leaves out
such lumanaries as Theinred of Dover (1200s), Walter
Odington (c. 1316), Marchetto (1318) and a host of other
predecessors. They all spoke about tunings which did
*not* follow the 3-limit paradigm, Odington specifically
comparing the use of a "major 3rd" of 5/4 ratio (as 80/64)
to one of 81/64.

(I also began working on an Odinton webpage back in Philly
a few months ago... eventually it will turn up on my site.)

> ... in your statement above, you're implying that Western
> music uses Just Intonation (which it doesn't) as a result
> of a cultural bias toward scientific systematization
> (which, as I see it, has influenced music about as
> much as nail polish).

Paul, your outlook on this really is very close to McLaren's,
which surprised me. That last parenthetical comment even
sounds to me like it was lifted from one of his essays!

-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

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Hmmm... now *that* sure is a can of worms!

That's why I explicitly stated that it was far outside of any
knowledge on my part.

> I'd argue very strongly that *many* (possibly even most,
> or even nearly all) learned ancient Greek concepts of music
> and music-theory were taken over "whole-hog" from the Babylonians,
> who in turn took them over whole-hog from the Sumerians.

No reason to refute that from me, but let's accept it at face value --
knowing that, would someone springing from Greek (ne Baby/Sumer)
origins be considered Western or Eastern? Just what, and when,
determines what is Western? And isn't this way out of tuning list
discussion areas???

(not that I'm not curious to understand what could be called
Western...)

> In case you missed it, Jon

Not a matter of missing, just a matter of days filled with areas
closer to what I do, etc. and not having 47 hours a day to do all
that I'd like. I'll take a look when I can now that the subject has
come up...

Speaking of missing, almost immediately I scanned the Dreamer score
and put up an .mp3 of it, a couple of days ago. You seemed to drop
the thread like a hot tuber. Whazzup?

> Yes, *THAT* is a great quote! It impressed me too.

But one of the only things that impressed me from JT! Liked the guy,
don't like the philosophy (keep the Worm Can-Openers sheathed...)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

In a message dated 6/9/2001 6:54:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> Andy,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> > Well yes everything you say is true but dont forget the influence
> > of his parents whom definately had an eastern slant. Although it
> > would be silly to say this makes his music eastern, obviously not,
> > it would probably be fair to say Partch had an eastern bent because
> > of hs parents influence. How that exactly relates to his earlier
> > music I dont know, maybe none, but the seed was planted.
>
> Oh, this is absolutely true. I was responding to Joe's implication
> that I would freak at HP being considered Western. I know full well
> the influences on Partch, and they weren't just eastern, but also
> african and native American and a host of others. He not only heard
> Chinese lullabies from his mother's singing, but continued listening
> when, as a single young man living in the Bay area, frequently
> attended Chinese opera.
>
> One of the other fascinating presentations in LA was Philip
> Blackburn's. In addition to tracing HPs life, he did something quite
> unique: he took all of the 'influences' (or most of them) that HP had
> cited over his lifetime, made audio selections of parts of them, and
> then juxtaposed them (by cross-fading) with examples of the
> influences in Partch's own compositions. Indian vina playing, with
> glides and glissandos, sequeing to adapted viola in "Li Po" settings;
> chinese lullabies and folk melodies sequeing into the "Hong Kong
> Music Hall" section from "The Bewitched". It was really a great
> illumination! I was happy to contribute a couple of examples to him
> from Partch's own record collection, including blues/folk singer
> Odetta, who came *this close* to being cast as the original Witch
> in "The Bewitched".
>
> Harry, if anything, was in his own universe. His performing outlet,
> and the areas of culture that he ended up relying upon for a living,
> were Western in nature.
>
> Cheers,
>

Wow thats awesome! I wish I could have seen that presentation!

Andy

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:59 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: thought wrapped in asbestos
>
>
> ... would someone springing from Greek (ne Baby/Sumer)
> origins be considered Western or Eastern? Just what, and
> when, determines what is Western? And isn't this way out
> of tuning list discussion areas???

That's exactly why I called it "a can of worms"!

With the *extensive* reading *I've* done of the
Sumerian / Babylonian / Greek musical literature
(in that order to clarify historical precedence),
I'm very hesitant to put the Greeks down on either
the Western *or* the Eastern side!

The ancient Greeks truly straddled both cultural
paradigms, and were in fact a main point of entry
for Eastern concepts to infiltrate the West, the
other main one being the Hebrew traditions which
later formed the basis of European Christianity.

And yes, at this point it *is* becoming quite
off-topic. I think spiritual_tuning would be a
better place to continue it, as we've already dug
up some comments about this over there.

> Speaking of missing, almost immediately I scanned the Dreamer score
> and put up an .mp3 of it, a couple of days ago. You seemed to drop
> the thread like a hot tuber. Whazzup?

Wow, Jon, it just dawned on me that I may not have even
posted a "thank you" to you for that! Sorry... and thanks!
Just been busy creating my Sumerian, Mozart Tuning, and
Ganassi webpages in the interim. I guess I did drop that
thread. Sorry again. I'll eventually go back to it.

(I *wish* there were a way to cram 48 hours into a day
... I don't think I'd do any more work than I'm already
doing now, because I largely follow that kind of schedule
already anyway, but at least I could get a bit more sleep!...)

-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

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Just intonation is in fact a Greco-Persian product with an origin further back along the silk
road civilizations. So it is at least Mid eastern/Western.
What other cultures do is not non just, non ET. No one sits around thinking about they
aren't not going to tune up. They are tuning up SOMETHING. What that is part of the mystery that
varies from place to place and we aren't even sure exactly what it is they do, much less brake the
code.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> It's essentially the fact that it MIGHT be possible to view the
> entire Just Intonation trend as a byproduct of WESTERN
> civilization... the idea of creating scientific paradigms... as
> opposed to other kinds of music considered equally valuable by other
> cultures.

> -- Kraig Grady

North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JoJoBuBu@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: thought wrapped in asbestos
>

> In a message dated 6/9/2001 11:15:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:
>
>
> > I've got basic agreement on publishing some of the presentations on
> > the Meadows website, and I'll see if Philip would like an online go
> > at it. He may still want to present it 'live' at various places, so
> > we'll see. If that doesn't go, I'll put together something similar
> > with the source materials we have in the archives. Summer is going to
> > give me more time to work on new material for the site, and other
> > plans...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
>
> Oh wonderful. Let me know when I can read it.

Andy,

While reading Blackburn's talk would be very interesting,
the main point of his presentation, and the thing Jon emphasized
so much, was the *sonic* illustration of the musical influences
on Partch.

Philip has done some real detective work, because some of
the influences blended almost seamlessly into the Partch
music inspired by them. Quite amazing, really.

So I'm sure Jon will be focusing on that aspect of Philip's
lecture, which would be great to have on Corporeal Meadows.

Most likely, you meant "listen to the audio files as well"
to be included when you wrote "read"... but I just thought
the above worth mentioning.

-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

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24650.html#24669

>Now, people who _did_ have a strong bias toward certain scientific
paradigms included Helmholtz and Partch. If you want to weigh their
contributions to music against, say, Schoenberg and Boulez, that's
fair. But in your statement above, you're implying that Western music
uses Just Intonation (which it doesn't) as a result of a cultural
bias toward scientific systematization (which, as I see it, has
influenced music about as much as nail polish).

Thanks, Paul, and this makes sense. I guess we could say, then, that
is's more specifically PARTCH, and any similar followers... maybe
Dean Drummond, who is using the scientific paradigm vis a vis just
intonation. That method, then, is a fairly recent development...

By your various comments regarding the "practical" as opposed
to "theoretical" evolution of music, it seems you and McLaren are
totally in agreement.

I have no idea what any of the disagreements have been about. I
would find it interesting to know... and it would be valuable for my
*own* progress, but I really don't want to start anything
inflamatory...

I would prefer ignorance to flames. This gives me a great choice,
doesn't it... :)

__________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24650.html#24719

> Just intonation is in fact a Greco-Persian product with an
origin further back along the silk
> road civilizations. So it is at least Mid eastern/Western.
> What other cultures do is not non just, non ET. No one sits
around thinking about they
> aren't not going to tune up. They are tuning up SOMETHING. What
that is part of the mystery that
> varies from place to place and we aren't even sure exactly what it
is they do, much less brake the
> code.

It seems as though McLaren is *mostly* interested in this "non-
just/non-equal" world -- partially because he sees so many cultures
(exclusive of Western/Indian) using it! Ironically enough, such
scales, apparently, can also be subject to the most advanced and
rigorous mathematical/scientific analysis today, a la Sethares. I
will eagerly await further developments in this field!

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Joe (and Paul, in a way),

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Thanks, Paul, and this makes sense. I guess we could say, then,
> that is's more specifically PARTCH, and any similar followers...
> maybe Dean Drummond, who is using the scientific paradigm vis a vis
> just intonation.

I don't think that saying Partch's work came from some sort
of "scientific paradigm" is necessarily wrong, but if you put anymore
emphasis on it then that it was the generation, it is very
misleading! Partch uncovered his interest in Just Intonation through
research, and it was a direct search initiated by his dissatisfaction
with the statis quo, 12tET.

So he did a lot of research (all this as documented as can be
expected) and did many revisions of what could be considered his
views and ways on the subject, and then he Put It Aside! Once the
final revisions had been done on Genesis of a Music, which came out
of the much-revised Monophony text, he focussed on composing using
his particular flavor of Just Intonation. While there were some
changes during his earliest years of this exploration, including
decisions on notation (Li Po settings ended up in at least 5
differing notations during development), within the very
first 'period' of his compositional development he had already
decided his intonational path and didn't spend a whole lot of time on
it after that.

The point? The point is that while many people put a lot of time and
effort and *importance* on the research and development of
intonational systems, Partch did a fair amount to get started and
then he USED it. To link him to a "scientific paradigm", even if one
could say that that is what got the ball rolling, mis-implies his
motivations and interests. His interest were music, magic, text-
setting, myth, and an all-involving artistic form. To use Partch as
an exemplar of any manner of "scientific paradigm" is not correct,
other than in the narrow focus of finding his materials.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24650.html#24747

> The point? The point is that while many people put a lot of time
and
> effort and *importance* on the research and development of
> intonational systems, Partch did a fair amount to get started and
> then he USED it. To link him to a "scientific paradigm", even if
one
> could say that that is what got the ball rolling, mis-implies his
> motivations and interests. His interest were music, magic, text-
> setting, myth, and an all-involving artistic form. To use Partch as
> an exemplar of any manner of "scientific paradigm" is not correct,
> other than in the narrow focus of finding his materials.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Thanks, Jon, for this valuable clarification and I think people would
be hard pressed to view Partch as anything but a *practical*
musician, at least after his musical output is taken into
consideration.

Another matter, that I don't believe has been mentioned recently, is
the fact that, in Partch's age, the PHYSICAL instruments were not so
easy to alter. Therefore, the fact that he stayed in one particular
tuning for most of his work is not so surprising. Of course, he also
didn't *like* electronic sounds, apparently (??), but that is a
different matter.

Would his view have been different if he had lived in a later era,
where alteration of tuning systems through electronic means were
easy and prevalent?? Would he have used a greater variety of tuning
systems and electronic means??

You, Jon, are certainly in a much better position to speculate on
this than *I* would be....

Thanks!

________ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Another matter, that I don't believe has been mentioned recently,
> is the fact that, in Partch's age, the PHYSICAL instruments were
> not so easy to alter. Therefore, the fact that he stayed in one
> particular tuning for most of his work is not so surprising. Of
> course, he also didn't *like* electronic sounds, apparently (??),
> but that is a different matter.

At the end of a paragraph, which I'll put the start of below, Partch
says: "But to produce significant music in Just Intonation we must
have instruments, and instruments are no small problem. The chapter
which follows [describing his instruments] is an account of one
effort which is perhaps the beginning ... of an answer."

> Would his view have been different if he had lived in a later era,
> where alteration of tuning systems through electronic means were
> easy and prevalent?? Would he have used a greater variety of
> tuning systems and electronic means??

My answer could only be called speculation, but maybe informed
speculation: I tend to believe that he would have stuck with his use
of JI, but would have appreciated accuracy in tuning. There are,
however, so many *other* important aspects to what he was interested
in creating. This place is the "tuning" list, so it is understandable
that the focus is on Partch's use of JI. But until and unless any
electronic instruments could/would be built that would satisfy the
needs for physical beauty and a compelling, physical presence (both
in form and in manner of playing), I feel confident in positing that
Harry would have said "Well, that's great for someone else but not
for me."

> You, Jon, are certainly in a much better position to speculate on
> this than *I* would be....

Yeah, maybe I should call up Dione Warwick and see if she can contact
Harry for an answer!

Anyhow, the paragraph that ended above started this way, with some
good impilcations for looking at tunings and the like:

"Equal Temperament is a current habit, as is also the scople for
modulation which it allows. Composers can "think" only in Equal
Temperament for just one reason: because it is all they have got to
think in. Music systems are made valid -- and workable -- by
significant music, as these pages have so frequently sought to remind
us."

Sentiments that I concur with more than anything, and why Practical
Music, where ever it may occur, should be the goal and not a
serendipitous by-product of research.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Seth Austen <klezmusic@earthlink.net>

on 6/9/01 6:47 PM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: jpehrson@rcn.com
> Subject: thought wrapped in asbestos
>
> The following thought is wrapped in asbestos, and is, hopefully, anti-
> flamatory...
>
> Well, the thought that I got from the McLaren CD was somewhat
> revolutionary, since I hadn't thought about it like that at all!
>
> It's essentially the fact that it MIGHT be possible to view the
> entire Just Intonation trend as a byproduct of WESTERN
> civilization... the idea of creating scientific paradigms... as
> opposed to other kinds of music considered equally valuable by other
> cultures.

Joseph

This is a wonderful thought. I'd signed off the list for a bit, but have
come back. I guess I must be addicted to the tuning list, which is pretty
funny considering how my brain glazes over when served with too much math.
I'd also been on the other list before it went up in flames, and found some
of McLarens' writings extremely thought provoking as to how much time and
energy I ought to be spending with the numbers, so to speak.

I've spent the bulk of my professional music making life in various folk
music forms, Appalachian, Celtic and New England based fiddle music, French
hurdy-gurdy music, klezmer, acoustic and bottleneck acoustic blues styles,
to name a few of my passions/obsessions. All of these musics use
microtonality, although many traditional players don't think or talk about
it. But some do, although it's often to talk about "playing the notes in
between the cracks" as opposed to expressing these ideas in ratios. When I
came to study JI and microtonality, I joined this tuning list and microtonal
world from that perspective. I'd already spent much time training myself (or
untraining as it were) to play those in between notes, and so it has been a
helpful background with which to approach learning JI.

I would agree wholeheartedly with McLaren that we must not lose sight of the
music, when we're getting wrapped up in the purely theoretical. There is
much great music out there that is not 12 ET, but that is not thought about
in scientific terms by its practitioners. On the other hand, I would like to
believe that my current studies of learning to accurately produce 3,5,7,11
etc limit intervals with my voice, fiddle, slide and fretless guitar are not
for nought. To me, the particular usefulness of my current studies is that
it is giving me a way to express microtonal ideas in a more concrete manner
in notation of my own compositions or when communicating with other
musicians.

Without wishing at all to lose sight of the music, I also have come to
appreciate the inherent beauty in the numbers and lattice systems. Yow, did
I really just say/write that? I guess I did, I think it's the fact that I
just had a huge revelation this weekend, with the help of WA Mathieus'
Harmonic Experience, regarding all those damn numbers in the fractions, and
why and how they came about to be those particular numbers. Hmmm. Perhaps
the usefulness in the numbers is the doors to other possibilities that they
might open up. Then, play the sounds and let the ears decide!

> Just a thought, and I have to admit that McLaren makes me THINK in
> ways I hadn't before...

Me too, and I think we can all grow by opening ourselves up to think about
things in ways that we haven't thought about them in the past. What is this
CD you mentioned? It sounds like something I'd like to hear.

Now, about those asbestos suits, where do I get fitted for a nice stylish
one?

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

In a message dated 6/10/2001 11:36:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> So he did a lot of research (all this as documented as can be
> expected) and did many revisions of what could be considered his
> views and ways on the subject, and then he Put It Aside! Once the
> final revisions had been done on Genesis of a Music, which came out
> of the much-revised Monophony text, he focussed on composing using
> his particular flavor of Just Intonation. While there were some
> changes during his earliest years of this exploration, including
> decisions on notation (Li Po settings ended up in at least 5
> differing notations during development), within the very
> first 'period' of his compositional development he had already
> decided his intonational path and didn't spend a whole lot of time on
>

On this same note. In Bob Gilmores phd dissertation it discusses partch from
1930-1933 for the most part. Apparently within that time frame alone partch
had six different notation systems! (dont remember page numbers off the top
of my head)

How exactly are we defining "scientific paradigm" and not "scientific
paradigm" in this thread? I think this definition would make these posts
more clear for me.

Andy

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 7:19 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: thought wrapped in asbestos
>

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24650.html#24690
>
> > I've recently finally put up a webpage as a beginning
> > exploration of my ideas about Sumerian tuning (there will
> > be lots more!), complete with a graphic of a Babylonian tablet:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm
> >
>
> Not too many people have commented on this, but I would say it's
> worth going over there just to see the tablet! This is the method!

Thanks, Joe. As far as I can recall, *no-one* (except you) has
commented on this yet.

And <g>that's a very clever little allusion you added at the end!

(Boy, it's been a busy week for me at the ol' Webpage Factory!...)

-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

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <klezmusic@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24650.html#24758

> Me too, and I think we can all grow by opening ourselves up to
think about things in ways that we haven't thought about them in the
past. What is this CD you mentioned? It sounds like something I'd
like to hear.
>

It's McLaren's "Introduction to Microtonality" which I mistakenly
thought would be too "preliminary" for me. Instead, it was almost
too "advanced"....

Probably you should e-mail him privately since his e-mail address is
not in the "members" section of this list.... or at least it *looks*
like he's currently on this list...

> Now, about those asbestos suits, where do I get fitted for a nice
stylish one?
>

Ummm. We may all need them. I'm hoping not...
Unfortunately "style" has had little part in flaming...

_______ ______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> > When organum developed, no one sat down and said, "well,
> > which notes of the diatonic scale will go well together?
> > Let's figure this out scientifically". No, even the
> > ancient knowledge of ratios had never been applied to
> > this problem, and that knowledge was lost for the time
> > being anyway.
>
>
> Well... that's not entirely true. As early as the
> _musica enchiriadis_
> <http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/MUSENCH_TEXT.html>,
> which I, going against the consensus (c. 900), date
> from the late 700s, there is a detailed theoretical
> consideration of how the notes of the available 18-tone
> gamut are to be put together into organum.
>
>
> > But today, we clearly see that organum was
> > 3-limit harmony.
>
>
> In general, yes... but I would debate the universal
> applicability of that, since I interpret what's in
> the _musica enchiriadis_ to hint at 5-limit usage.

Huh? I'll have to look at what you have there, but it was my understanding that organum
harmony consisted exclusively of parallel fifths, fourths, and octaves.
>
> And Boethius, c. 505 AD, clearly described with
> Greek-letter notation what were pseudo-5-limit scales,
> which differentiated the syntonic comma (~22 cents)
> but not the skhisma (~2 cents)... so they were actually
> in a form of skhismic temperament!

But what does this have to do with the musical _practice_ of organum?

> Paul, this is a useful simplification, but it leaves out
> such lumanaries as Theinred of Dover (1200s), Walter
> Odington (c. 1316), Marchetto (1318) and a host of other
> predecessors. They all spoke about tunings which did
> *not* follow the 3-limit paradigm, Odington specifically
> comparing the use of a "major 3rd" of 5/4 ratio (as 80/64)
> to one of 81/64.

Sure, there are always lots of theorists contemplating all sorts of systems . . . but the
relevant point is, what impact did they have on musical _practice_? Perhaps we are
simply more inclined to remember those theorists who made a "lucky guess" and forget
many others?

> > ... in your statement above, you're implying that Western
> > music uses Just Intonation (which it doesn't) as a result
> > of a cultural bias toward scientific systematization
> > (which, as I see it, has influenced music about as
> > much as nail polish).
>
> Paul, your outlook on this really is very close to McLaren's,
> which surprised me.

If that's true, then Joseph must have seriously misunderstood McLaren, and McLaren of
course has seriously misunderstood me.