Re: [tuning] Re: proved

In a message dated 6/9/01 4:37:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robertwalker@ntlworld.com writes:

> It would be quite possible for a player to play to greater accuracy
> than he or she can actually hear!
>
>

This happens quite regularly. Players who are really into the zone of
playing are best off in the natural conditional of not really remembering
everything that happened. There is a sort of a real time amnesia that plays
out. It's very important the a high quality recording (and I stress high
quality for real honesty on your feedback) to listen to soon afterwards. In
this sense it is not possible to accurately measure one's accomplishments in
performance. To analyze while playing is an impediment to the imagination.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Afmmjr@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: proved
>

>
> To analyze while playing is an impediment to the imagination.

From my own experience, I'd have to agree with Johnny there.
The analytical thinking is good for before (= composition) and
after (= analysis), but not during playing, especially if
the improvisatory component is prominent, as it is in many
of Johnny's own compositions.

-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

Joe (and Johnny by degrees),

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
(Johnny wrote)
> > To analyze while playing is an impediment to the imagination.
>
> From my own experience, I'd have to agree with Johnny there.
> The analytical thinking is good for before (= composition) and
> after (= analysis), but not during playing, especially if
> the improvisatory component is prominent, as it is in many
> of Johnny's own compositions.

Gentlemen, I think that this is a highly personal area and I don't
think that *any* generalizations can be made. It very well may have
to be chalked up to individual performance practice. I am certain
that much great music is made in a state of complete non-self-
examination, another large amount is made where the player is
completely outside of himself, watching, observing, and adjusting,
and all the broad spectrum in between.

It needn't be one way or another, it only has to result in a
transcendent experience.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 6/9/2001 10:27:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joemonz@yahoo.com writes:

> From my own experience, I'd have to agree with Johnny there.
> The analytical thinking is good for before (= composition) and
> after (= analysis), but not during playing, especially if
> the improvisatory component is prominent, as it is in many
> of Johnny's own compositions.
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
>

But you see Joe that wasn't the point of anything I was trying to say at
least (maybe others it was). My point is not that music should be analysed on
the fly by performers. My point is instead that if one is going to make a
scientific claim, for example accuracy during performance of up to one cent
accuracy, then one should also substantiate that claim scientifically.

Cheers,

Andy

In a message dated 6/9/01 11:43:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JoJoBuBu@aol.com
writes:

> My point is instead that if one is going to make a
> scientific claim, for example accuracy during performance of up to one cent
> accuracy, then one should also substantiate that claim scientifically.
>
>

Dear Andy, the evidence is in the performances themselves. When I must
intone accurately in Partch's monophony, I must vocalize 386 cents thirds (as
in the last interval of "On the City Street"). If I am under or over I can
sense that it is not part of the dictionary of intervals that is contained in
my vocal tone. If you have never experienced "overtone singing" 'ala Hykes,
then you will not understand what I am attempting to explain. I can measure
consonance in my mind's short term memory, which allows me to play or sing
over a measure in advance.

I never said anything about scientific. I said you could call it anecdotal.
Regardless, I'm not the only one in my ensemble that can perform with this
accuracy. Once again, if you can play a straight line of pitch, then you can
stop anywhere along that line. Is it accurate to the cent in its
reproduction? I suggest you come out to hear some performances and simply
trust that you are hearing what you are meant to hear.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/10/2001 12:01:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Afmmjr@aol.com writes:

> Dear Andy, the evidence is in the performances themselves. When I must
> intone accurately in Partch's monophony, I must vocalize 386 cents thirds
> (as
> in the last interval of "On the City Street"). If I am under or over I can
> sense that it is not part of the dictionary of intervals that is contained
> in
> my vocal tone. If you have never experienced "overtone singing" 'ala
> Hykes,
> then you will not understand what I am attempting to explain. I can
> measure
> consonance in my mind's short term memory, which allows me to play or sing
> over a measure in advance.

I have heard hykes stuff and done it to the best of my ability. I'm not very
good,because its not really my interest, but I've definately experienced it.
I've done a good chunk of singing microtones as well. You are still not
understanding this though. I dont dispute you try and hit 386. I dispute that
its exact and I also dispute that you know its exact, because this seems
contrary to scientific evidence I've seen and others have brought up. Also
you dont bring your own science to the forefront but instead keep saying,
"Just believe me I know what I'm doing." Frankly I also dont dispute you have
a good sense of pitch (I woudln't know), but you are making a claim about 1
cent accuracy and in that sense I definately do not just believe you.

>
> I never said anything about scientific. I said you could call it
> anecdotal.
> Regardless, I'm not the only one in my ensemble that can perform with this
> accuracy. Once again, if you can play a straight line of pitch, then you
> can
> stop anywhere along that line. Is it accurate to the cent in its
> reproduction? I suggest you come out to hear some performances and simply
> trust that you are hearing what you are meant to hear.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

I'm just not going to assume this. In fact that is the whole point of this
thread. It is much more beneficial to test real recordings to see if you are
actually doing it, rather than just taking it as being a granted fact. In
fact advancements in human history are made on the concept of not just
assuming one is correct, or that others are correct. but instead testing what
people claim to actually see if it is true. Johnny if what you are saying is
actually true then thats great, but am not going to just believe you because
you say I should.

Andy

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... (who may not reply to this post,
either, wrote:
> I never said anything about scientific.

No, but you did say that one could name a number up to 1200 and you
would sing that particular frequency, to the cent, which raised some
eyebrows. If you can pick a frequency out of the air like that, it
could certainly be measured, and then we wouldn't have to "trust"
anything but a very simple measurement. Musicians use tuners all the
time.

> I suggest you come out to hear some performances and simply
> trust that you are hearing what you are meant to hear.

Oh, come now! Faith-based tuning again! I'm very willing to believe
it can be done, again based on the AFMM reputation for exacting
performance standards, but the gap between 'claim' and 'end result'
it getting wide, based on the "trust me" policy. Folks like used-car
sales people utilize the term "Trust me!" way too often.

With a group such as yours, with all the virtuosos that are
apparantly in the group, it is beyond a shame that there aren't more
than the "Raven" Cd and the old Newport disc (still in print?). The
barriers to putting out CD recordings are essentially gone now,
certainly if you don't mind having a hand in distribution. And, if
only hearing is believing, you wouldn't have to not only try and back
up such claims, but you wouldn't have to go around making them in the
first place...

...the music would speak for you.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 6/10/2001 12:39:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> Oh, come now! Faith-based tuning again! I'm very willing to believe
> it can be done, again based on the AFMM reputation for exacting
> performance standards, but the gap between 'claim' and 'end result'
> it getting wide, based on the "trust me" policy. Folks like used-car
>

Jon I really couldn't agree more.

Andy

In a message dated 6/10/01 12:39:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> And, if
> only hearing is believing, you wouldn't have to not only try and back
> up such claims, but you wouldn't have to go around making them in the
> first place...
>
>

This has become funny, now. There is no measurement you will be able to do
based on released music. Sorry it doesn't work that way. The onus is not on
me to prove anything. And with this I stop discussing what was originally a
question to me about notation. With notation I use 1 cent deviation and have
explained why.

Used car salesman? No, only used microtones.

Best, Johnny

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JoJoBuBu@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: proved
>

>
> But you see Joe that wasn't the point of anything I
> was trying to say at least (maybe others it was).
> My point is not that music should be analysed on
> the fly by performers. My point is instead that if
> one is going to make a scientific claim, for example
> accuracy during performance of up to one cent accuracy,
> then one should also substantiate that claim scientifically.

Hi Andy,

Yes, I know all this... thanks for clarifying anyway.

At this point this thread had wandered away from its
original focus a bit, and I was simply agreeing with
Johnny's statement about not analyzing during performance,
as my own experience bears it out.

I've been conscientiously, and deliberately, staying out
of the "prove it" discussion. Basically I agree with
you on that, so I really didn't have anything to add.
But I'm also very intrigued by what Johnny is saying
and hope that he keeps adding to it.

-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..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> This has become funny, now. There is no measurement you will be
able to do
> based on released music. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Yes it has become funny, but unfortunately, I think you've become the
object of the humor.

> The onus is not on
> me to prove anything.

Yes indeed, the onus is on you. You have described yourself several
times as a "professional", touted your "experience", and continue to
make claims for your ability. If, as a professional, you claim to be
able to perform a certain service, you have to be prepared to prove
that you have actually provided that service. In this case, you claim
to perform music with 1-cent accuracy. Unless you can substantiate
that claim in some objective form, how can you expect anyone to buy
it?

I would have been perfectly satisfied if you had said something
like: "we tune by trying to match cent values, and the subjective
result is more than satisfactory". But instead, you made a claim with
an objective dimension. So, if you can show us the cents as a profi
musician, we'll be happy to show you the money. Otherwise, I have no
obligation to treat you as professional.

> And with this I stop discussing what was originally a
> question to me about notation.

It would have been nice if you had actually engaged in the
discussion, but it sounds like you don't have much tolerance for
discussion.

> With notation I use 1 cent deviation and have
> explained why.
>
> Used car salesman? No, only used microtones.
>
> Best, Johnny

I would definitely have my used microtones checked over before buying
them. Sounds like liver of snake oil to me...

Xavier

Hi there

Andy:

> Well. If one was going to try and hear very small intervals it would be best
> to use a computer. A monochord wth a long string would be tough. Measurements
> would have to be EXACT. Even then if you think your measurements are exact
> you still wouldn't hear it and couldn't really be sure. With a computer if
> its programmed correctly at least you would know its playing what you want
vexactly even though you dont hear it. (or at least as accurately as the
> computer system allows)

> With any live instruments though before doing something like that an
> exploration should occur of the possible accuracy of an instrument, whatever
> it is. It doesn't seem fair to say that many wind instruments, although
> maybe, can even play intervals 1 cent wide only, let alone less, and let
> alone accurately.

Okay, time for some numbers:

Contrabass has string of length around a metre or just over.

Add 10 cents to frequency = multiply frequency by 1.00579.
Since frequency prop. to 1/lenght, this corr. to reducing length by
1/1.00579 = 0.9942
I.e. around 6 mm.

So in first position on double base, one cent is equivalent to about half
a millimetre adjustment of the fingers.

At the frequeny of a Contrabass low E, 10 cents discrimination is fairly
challenging, but possible, and 20 cents is fairly easy to hear.

5 cents, is prob. beyond many players discrimination at this pitch.
That corresponds to movement of finger of 3 mm, which is a large amount
on a string instrument!

So on lowest strings of Double base, players must be able to finger notes
that they can't easily distinguish in pitch.

Now, suppose a ContraBass player wants to learn to play in 1200-tet.
One could start by learning to play an ascending scale in 120-tet.
Start with the 12-tet notes, and interpolate 10 notes between
each one. One may be able to hear all the pitches as distinct, and
one will very likely at least hear every second note in the sequence
as distinct.

Here's a midi clip. I've gone up to 100 cents in steps of 10 cents.
This corresponds to finger spacings of 6 mm.
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/0_to_100_step_10_E1_CBass.mid

Now to play in 1200-tet one needs to do the same again - find one of
the 10 cent steps, and subdivide it into ten steps each of 1 cent.
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/0_to_10_step_1_E1_CBass.mid

(
Here, I think the final step down from 10 cents to 0 cents is just
barely perceptible
Here it is in reverse:
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/0_to_10_step_1_E1_CBass_reverse.mid

If you like a puzzle, can you tell which this is?
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/0_to_10_step_1_E1_CBass_puzzle.mid
)

Okay, I don't have a double base to hand to try this out, but it
seems feasible.

Now, to turn to instrument I do have to hand, the recorder.

On treble recorder, if I try to play consecutive notes in 120-tet,
(matching with computer generated pitches) I can play about four
notes at normal volume for normal fingering, with the turbulence
pitch bending technique.

E.g.
for middle C, can play
(C-30) c-20, c-10, c, c+10, c+20, (c+30)
(numbers in cents).
C-30 and c+30 are just about possible. Wider range if one
lets the volume vary.

If you want to give it a go, here is a midi clip to try to match.
c c-20, c-10, c, c+10, c+20
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/c6_cm20_to_cp20_step_10_recorder.mid

The change in breath pressure is enough so that one can easily divide
each one into 4 steps, and I can also manage 5 steps just about and play, say,
c-10 c-8 c-6 c-4 c-2 c, ...

Here is what it should be, with the 4 steps, which is easier:
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/c6_cm10_to_c_step_2.5_recorder.mid

Here is my best attempt, if anyone else wants to have a go at duplicating
the analysis (max volume - turn down your speakers!)
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/c6_cm10_to_c_step_2.5_practice.ra
(58 Kb).
http://members.nbci.com/tune_smithy/sse/c6_cm10_to_c_step_2.5_practice.wav.
(632 Kb)

Analysing it in CoolEdit (using Triangular from the drop list as most accurate for
frequency analysis, and 65536 for the FFT size), I find the pitch varies, as one
would expect, values:

522.7 - 522.9
519 - 519.3 (plus one bit of 521 at the start)
520.64 - 521.33
522.02 - 522.3
522.69 - 522.77
523.08 - 523.43

This is what it should be:

523.251 Hz 520.237 Hz 520.839 Hz 521.441 Hz 522.044 Hz 522.647 Hz 523.251 Hz

As you see, first note was a bit flat (by 1.5 cents), and overestimated how far
down I needed to go, went down to 519 instead of 520, but not too far out
considering I've just been doing it for a short while!

Maybe someone professional would like to give it a go too,
and make a clip for analysis. It would be an interesting experiment!

With 2.5 cents increments, that gives an ascending scale in 480-tet, and I can
no longer easily distinguish the pitches of successive notes of the scale by ear,
but can still play them.

Actually, I think perhaps I can hear a distinction right now. On the
edge of what is possible.

Maybe just happens if one is particularly alert and fresh - this varies so much.
Or maybe, if one has been practicing small pitch increments for an hour
or so, that tunes one into hearing them...

I think interpolating 10 notes between c6 - 10 cents and C6 would be quite
a challenge, but then, I'm an amateur, and don't spend hours every day
working on my technique.

Pitch of recorder also is especially sensitive to breath.
Maybe other instruments would require more breath pressure to bend the pitch

So I think answer, in terms of practicality for wind instruments
for a professional, must certainly be Yes!

For string instruments, probably yes as well - any string players
like to say?

There's still a bit of a problem here - if one can only get the notes
to within, say, 4 cents of the exact pitch in the first case,
then the whole sequence of notes could be out by up to 4 cents.
That may be what happened with the clip, where first note is flat
by 1.5 cents.

More thought / discussion needed at this point I'm sure.

However, to go back to the notation thread, seems a 12-tet friendly
easy system to learn.

Even an amateur can probably learn to play ten notes for each
12-tet semitone, to get an ascending scale in 120-tet.

Not so hard as one would think at first, considering one probably
uses the same fingering for only about 5 notes.

E.g. on recorder, use middle c fingering and vary breath pressure
and turbulence, gives me c-20, c-10, c, c+10, c+20, and I could
learn those notes I think. Then one needs to work out a fingering
for the notes in the gaps, e.g. c+30, c+40, c+50 , C+60 and c+70.

Since even with the turbulence technique to bend pitch, I need a
new fingering at least every 50 cents on average, so an idea would be
to start by working out a 24-tet fingering for the recorder.

Then, one could learn to play the notes of 120-tet by interpolating 5 notes
for each 24-tet note.

Then, to get the last decimal place of the cents notation,
one will interpolate as best one can. For example, to go to
386 cents, one will play a note about six tenths of the way
between notes 38 and 39 in the 120-tet scale one has learnt.

Probably only a professional will be able to do this to any
degree of accuracy, but an amateur can give it a go anyway.

Nice thing about this system is that though easy to learn and
understand, it also encourages everyone to strive beyond whatever
is their current level of intonational accuracy.

While 72-tet notation instead could easily encourage players to
settle for even less than their a normal level of intonational
accuracy, I think.

Jon:

> Sure: just attach the keyboard to whatever Scala-tuned synth you have
> and - voila! - accuracy beyond what they (may) actually hear!

> In reality though, and leaving aside any beyond-mortal beings, there
> are so many aspects that relate to live performance on both
> instruments and voice that your "contrived example" is pretty much
> just that. Great performers can do miraculous things, but I don't
> think that it is fair (or remotely sane!) to say that any more than a
> few 'touched' individuals could play with greater accuracy then they
> can hear. After all, how would they know? The concert hall stage is
> pretty far removed from the audio lab...

> After a cup of tea and a moments reflection, wouldn't you agree?

Nicely put. But, as you see, after reflection and more
experiments, I still think it is within reach of amateurs
to learn play beyond what they can actually hear!

Then by doing so, or attempting to do so, maybe their hearing can
get refined to finer pitch discrimination too, over a period of time.

Robert

In a message dated 6/10/2001 1:49:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robertwalker@ntlworld.com writes:

> Nicely put. But, as you see, after reflection and more
> experiments, I still think it is within reach of amateurs
> to learn play beyond what they can actually hear!
>
> Then by doing so, or attempting to do so, maybe their hearing can
> get refined to finer pitch discrimination too, over a period of time.
>
>

Great stuff Robert! My point with wind instruments wasn't that you couldn't
play small intervals. Surely this would vary from instrument to instrument
and player to player. On a side note, Ben Johnston told me a few days ago
that he stopped giving microtonal fingerings to performers, for wind inst,
because if his performers used the ones he gave they would always be slightly
different pitches than his intention, and so he therefore stopped giving
alternate fingerings and made players find the fingerings on their own. I
dont know how long hes been doing this.

I definitely was not saying it wasn't possible for all wind instruments to
play intervals of a cent, but I was saying that it might not be possible for
some of them. What I mean is it might not be possiblle to play intervals of a
cent on some instruments. Certainly it might be possible on others. I would
also guess it would be much more difficul to play small microtones on a
violin than a double bass obviously because the string length is much shorter
and then requires smaller finger moves. Is it still possible however???, well
maybe it sure might be. I was really trying to contradict what Johnny said
about pitch on an infinite continuum where you just stop and get it right. I
just dont thin that happens in real performance, although it is definately
more possible in isolated circumstances. Also it MIGHT not be even possible
on some instruments for various mechanical reasons. Anyway I was not saying
its not possible always, and I was saying it might not be possible with some.

The type of thing that you just showed, although I couldn't get the .ra
example to work, is exactly the sort of thing that is important. As for you
conclusion of being able to improve ones ability to distinguish pitches I
wasn't attempting to show disagreement to that in the first place. I have
said I dont believe Johnny that he always hits the exact pitches and knows he
hits them to a degree of one cent, because I dont believe that for one second
with out some evidence to back it up. I have heard too many ear trainng
students say, "I'm hearing it but I didn't write it down right." Or some
other analagous phrase menaing they cant prove it. On the other hand in
isolated circumstances where you are matching pitch to a computer which is
exact and then measure your error, like you did, one definately can improve
at this sort of thing. So can you improve ones sense of pitch,definately I
agree. The most important question then seems to be, "What is possible for
the best of players to perceive and accurately play on various instruments in
isolated circumstances, and in real performance(which must be done with CD's
of performances)?"

Great post,
Cheers,
Andy

On 6/10/01 8:49 AM, "xjhouston7@yahoo.com" <xjhouston7@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes indeed, the onus is on you. You have described yourself several
> times as a "professional", touted your "experience", and continue to
> make claims for your ability.

I can tie my shoelaces.

I know where middle C is on a piano.

I could do differential calculus equations when I was 4.

I ate breakfast this morning.

I wrote and sequenced the entire fourth movement to my 32-tET Mostly
Electric String Quartet in 15 minutes.

Johnny Reinhard can hear and sing intervals to within a cent, and also
trains people to do the same.

Now, I don't know which of these you think is important or not. I don't
think you would guess 100% correctly which of these are a great
psychological accomplishment or not. If I asked which of these you thought
were an accomplishment or not, you'd most likely wind up with a different
set of answers, than if I told you that you would most likely get three
answers wrong, because then you'd be seeded with the thought of something to
look for.

Personally, I don't do cents. I can't really register the value of an
interval as a test tone. It's too small a microcosm for me to grasp. I can
only make distinctions in major applications of *certain* temperaments.
That said, after 12 years or so of playing microtonal guitar, I can
distinguish between several different temperaments played on guitar very
quickly because I'm used to the way the different fretting changes the
timbre. As I've said, when Johnny mistakenly announced on the radio
interview that my piece was in 34, and later had the DJ correct the opening
statement to 32, Johnny in apologizing shrugged and said to me "aw come on
who can hear the difference between 32 and 34 guitar..." In response to my
glare he said "BESIDES you!!!" I might stress distinction of temperament
more than most people do, so I haven't even yet seen the value of knowing
all the cent values of intervals. For the purpose of what *I* do with the
knowledge of microtonal music elements, (which occasionally results in
writing) the absolute interval size, or "cents" spectrum is not so much
irrelevant or demeaning, as it is *confusing* trying to jam 30 different
temperaments into unequal scales in 1200-tET.

So do we agree to differ? Not consciously. I can feel the aural difference
between 32 and 34 on guitar. For Johnny to do this, he'd have to sit there
and go "bommm BINNGGG hmmm LA LA LA" and figure out enough intervals to see
what temperament it was etc. But also, Johnny does THIS to me frequently:
says "bommm BINNG what interval was that?" I say I don't know and I don't
care. I might be able to guess within about 10 or 20 cents... depending on
what interval in what temperament it sounds like, but it really doesn't
register much to me.

This is ironic to both of us because Johnny is usually more holistic and
macro operation oriented, and I usually build music up from the quantum
level. Or maybe it's that we think and talk about music on the other side
of the brain from where we actually shut up and play it.

Let's nip this puppy already. As someone ALREADY pointed out, a 1-cent
deviation at 440 Hz is 1/4 Hz. If a 440 and the note 1 cent higher were
played simultaneously, since the phase period is about 4 seconds, they would
go OUT of phase after about 2 seconds. Which means the amplitude envelope
goes from 100% to 0% in 2 seconds. That's a pretty drastic vibrato. That's
a pretty steep envelope. Figuring that much out, I think you'd have to be
deaf not to be able to hear that if it was being done in front of you.

So Johnny has seemingly spent a lot time with this threshhold. So Johnny is
claiming he could sing a note to within a cent. All that means is, if he
sings a 440, it won't go out of phase with a 440 tone in 2 seconds. I think
for a virtual instrument, it's very simple to lock into a frequency within
about maybe a quarter second. For someone like Johnny, probably a bit less.

But then there's the other issue on the table. The fact that he's at the
level where, not only can he *hear* things in his head clearly, he's refined
that talent to be able to sculpt sounds mentally. From that, he can play or
sing along with music that's already queued *in* his head. So unless you
know of a way to physically extrude music from someone's mind, how about we
drop this thread.

Now relook over the list at the beginning of this post. I'm not speaking to
anyone in particular - but I think the tendencies of the musician's ego are
like this: Pretty much everything you do every day, and think everyone else
should be able to do, you won't care about because it's like a child tugging
at your leg trying to show you something they did while you're wrapped up in
something that intrigues you. On the other hand, when you hear about
something that you personally *can't* do, you'll find it not only
intimidating, but you'll think it's "impossible" and start thinking of the
person who claims they can do it as being a prima donna!!!

"I know three chords man"
"Oh yeah well I know four chords man"
"No way man"
"Way man"
"Show me"
"No"
Welcome back to the bar band scene.

In claiming to be professionals or intellectuals, why can't you simply take
the word of a colleague, especially a world-renowned, well-traveled and
accomplished colleague, when they're simply giving you a *fraction* of their
résumé? Is it so difficult to accept that someone can do something that
you, at the moment, can't? How are we supposed to function as an artistic
support network if a known virtuoso states an ability and is immediately
refuted?

In other words, why do you have to screw with Johnny Reinhard's creativity
when he's actually bothering to take the time to share part of his creative
process with you? There's not a lot of things, that are immediately more
emotionally abusive, than to answer someone confessing a talent with
something like "no you can't; prove it." If your concept of musical
creativity includes *lack* of compassion, then you probably shouldn't be
here. You should be off writing music that might be very interesting and
very correct... but won't ever deeply move anyone.

Marc Jones

On 6/10/01 3:10 PM, "JoJoBuBu@aol.com" <JoJoBuBu@aol.com> wrote:

> I dont believe Johnny that he always hits the exact pitches and knows he
> hits them to a degree of one cent, because I dont believe that for one second
> with out some evidence to back it up. I have heard too many ear trainng
> students say, "I'm hearing it but I didn't write it down right."

My point again, why in all bloody hell
are you even comparing the claims
of inexperienced ear training STUDENTS
to those of an experienced ear training TEACHER?!?!?

My OTHER point again,
if it's below you, you turn your nose up at it,
and if it's above you, you think it's impossible,
until it's shown to you and then you take it for granted.

People scoffed at the Wright Brothers
until their plane was in the air.
Less than a century later
and look at the aviation industries.

People don't care about claims of mastering physics.
They don't want to hear it. They want to see it.
But then once it's known to be useful it's fair game.
It's not abusive, just exploitative.

Are you from Missouri?

Orphs

>In claiming to be professionals or intellectuals, why >can't you simply take
>the word of a colleague, especially a world-renowned, >well-traveled and>
>accomplished colleague, when they're simply giving you >a *fraction* of their
>résumé? Is it so difficult to accept that someone can >do something that
>you, at the moment, can't? How are we supposed to >function as an artistic
>support network if a known virtuoso states an ability >and is immediately
>refuted?

>In other words, why do you have to screw with Johnny >Reinhard's creativity
>when he's actually bothering to take the time to share >part of his creative
>process with you? There's not a lot of things, that >are immediately more
>emotionally abusive, than to answer someone confessing >a talent with
>something like "no you can't; prove it." If your >concept of musical
>creativity includes *lack* of compassion, then you >probably shouldn't be
>here. You should be off writing music that might be >very interesting and
>very correct... but won't ever deeply move anyone.

>Marc Jones

First there is nothing wrong whatsoever with questioning anyones claim about anything no matter who they are, including ones own claims.

Second to say that asking for proof would cause someone to go write correct music is just rude and uncalled for. Besides asking for proof is not an indication of an emotionless individual, nor does it give some level of creativity of that individual.

Third I said repeatedly that I have meant no offense whatsoever by asking for some evidence to support a conclusion.

Lastly I feel like I'm personally being bashed here because I sincerely and honestly question a claim someone made on this list. Although in this case it dealt with Johnny's claim of 1 cent, what if I instead didn't agree with what someone else said, are you going to bash me for questioning that claim as well? This world changes and we all grow intelecutally by sincerely questioning what others claim to be true. I'm sorry that that offends you, but I'm still going to question things.

Andy

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

> While 72-tet notation instead could easily encourage players to
> settle for even less than their a normal level of intonational
> accuracy, I think.

???

>People scoffed at the Wright Brothers
>until their plane was in the air.
>Less than a century later
>and look at the aviation industries.

>People don't care about claims of mastering physics.
>They don't want to hear it. They want to see it.
>But then once it's known to be useful it's fair game.
>It's not abusive, just exploitative.

>Are you from Missouri?

>Orphs

The Wright brothers actually showed, proved, that their plane can fly, they didn't just claim it to be true.

If I was intentionally trying to be offensive I would be but I do not mean any offense to anyone as I've said repeatedly now. I am very sincerely questioning what someone said and meant no offense to anyone at all.

If I can't question what somone says on a mailing list there is no point of being on the mailing list, but with that in mind I will continue to be on here because I enjoy the subject of microtones and its exploration as possibilities within music. You act like there is one correct conception of reality and that if I question that reality I'm commiting an act of treason. I'm sorry that I dont agree with your view of the world on this particular issue, and I'm sorry I question it. I'm sorry my questions offend you, but if I disagree with someones claims I have the right to speak my mind and I will continue to do so, whether you want to pull real evidence to the table or not.

Comments like yours seem intended more to bash people, in this case seemingly myself, than to actually discuss microtones, or question what others claim to be reality, and its too bad that comments like these have to be on this list.

Lastly, and for the record, although I strongly disagree with Johnny I dont feel his comments were at all bashing nor offensive, he was just trying to support his point of view. Your comments though, orphs, seem to be FOR bashing, and thats too bad.

Cheers,
Andy

In a message dated 6/10/01 8:50:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
xjhouston7@yahoo.com writes:

> Yes indeed, the onus is on you.

Not from my side of the pond.

> times as a "professional", touted
your > make claims for your ability.

My reputation need not be made by me. It is made by others as a result of 20
years of performing microtonal composers in all manner of tunings. What you
see as a claim, I see as an insight. If it was a big deal to me, I would
have made it so much earlier than this. If there was any disappointment with
my intonation in the press, in any way that was negative, I'm sure it would
have been brought to your attention by now. When I make an error, I am aware
of something practically no one else is aware of. In this thread I have
spoken of what I hear in order to play microtonally. I've tried to explain
as clearly as I know how the manner in which this takes place. Surprisingly,
it provokes passion that feeds on disrespect.

If, as a professional, you claim to be
> able to perform a certain service, you have to be prepared to prove
> that you have actually provided that service.

You are living in your world and I live in mine. All you do is make yourself
offensive with this tack. The proof is already in the music, but you are
ignorant of the music. The proof is in the notation and style of the music,
and you are unfamiliar with the notation and style. The proof is in the
intentions of the knowledgeable player, and you are disregarding his words.

In this case, you claim
> to perform music with 1-cent accuracy. Unless you can substantiate
> that claim in some objective form, how can you expect anyone to buy
> it?

Drop it, already. I certainly will. If you prefer the academic unbelieved
till satisfactorily proved, then we can agree to disagree. Please don't seek
to undermine my life's work for what you think is either a lie or an
exaggeration. Unless I'm retarded and simply can't see the tree for the
forrest.

> I would have been perfectly satisfied if you had said something
> like: "we tune by trying to match cent values, and the subjective
> result is more than satisfactory". But instead, you made a claim with
> an objective dimension. So, if you can show us the cents as a profi
> musician, we'll be happy to show you the money. Otherwise, I have no
> obligation to treat you as professional.
>
This is the most ignorant statement I can remember reading on this list.
First off there isn't any money at all. A professional gets money...so the
onus is on you. Secondly, if you assume ipso facto that I must say the
result is subjective, you are running a dishonest inquiry. Self-prophesizing
an inquiry is a disservice to truer understanding. Your final point is
intentionally rude and completely uncalled for.

> > And with this I stop discussing what was originally a
> > question to me about notation.
>
> It would have been nice if you had actually engaged in the
> discussion, but it sounds like you don't have much tolerance for
> discussion.
>
I've engaged in it as well as I know how. Sorry this insufficient for your
expectations.

> > With notation I use 1 cent deviation and have
> > explained why.
> >
> > Used car salesman? No, only used microtones.
> >
> > Best, Johnny
>
> I would definitely have my used microtones checked over before buying
> them. Sounds like liver of snake oil to me...
>
> Xavier
>
Microtones are free. There is no need to buy them. (You're not paying for
them, are you?) However, you will pay me lots if you want to experiment on
me. If you don't like my sharing what I intend and believe I achieve, just
let it go already.

Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

> As I've said, when Johnny mistakenly announced on the radio
> interview that my piece was in 34,

I remember that!

> and later had the DJ correct the opening
> statement to 32,

I missed that!

> Johnny in apologizing shrugged and said to me "aw come on
> who can hear the difference between 32 and 34 guitar..."

How ironic! Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me . . . 34 sounds like 5-limit JI; 32 is really "off"
relative to JI.

> Or maybe it's that we think and talk about music on the other side
> of the brain from where we actually shut up and play it.

I do too.
>
> Let's nip this puppy already. As someone ALREADY pointed out, a 1-cent
> deviation at 440 Hz is 1/4 Hz. If a 440 and the note 1 cent higher were
> played simultaneously, since the phase period is about 4 seconds, they would
> go OUT of phase after about 2 seconds. Which means the amplitude envelope
> goes from 100% to 0% in 2 seconds. That's a pretty drastic vibrato. That's
> a pretty steep envelope. Figuring that much out, I think you'd have to be
> deaf not to be able to hear that if it was being done in front of you.

Umm . . . you're talking about a _harmonic_ unison being 0 cents vs. 1 cent. That's perhaps
0.0001% of the considerations involved in this issue.
>
> All that means is, if he
> sings a 440, it won't go out of phase with a 440 tone in 2 seconds.

Is that really all he means? It seems to a lot of people that he was claiming a lot more
than that (no offense, Johnny). I can sing in unison with a reference tone -- whoopdee-
doo. In fact, some microtonal composers have given the performers reference tones in
their headphones to aid performance. But Johnny does not do that -- so I don't thing this
is a valid reduction, Marc.

> Now relook over the list at the beginning of this post. I'm not speaking to
> anyone in particular - but I think the tendencies of the musician's ego are
> like this: Pretty much everything you do every day, and think everyone else
> should be able to do, you won't care about because it's like a child tugging
> at your leg trying to show you something they did while you're wrapped up in
> something that intrigues you. On the other hand, when you hear about
> something that you personally *can't* do, you'll find it not only
> intimidating, but you'll think it's "impossible" and start thinking of the
> person who claims they can do it as being a prima donna!!!

Maybe some people were reacting like this but I think others were genuinely interested
if they could notate their music in 1200-tET and expect reliable performance -- hence the
request for an objective test, using scientific instruments, did not seem totally
unreasonable. I don't think anyone would think any less of Johnny if it turned out that he
sometimes made errors of 2 or 3 cents -- I sure wouldn't!

> There's not a lot of things, that are immediately more
> emotionally abusive, than to answer someone confessing a talent with
> something like "no you can't; prove it."

True -- but not a lot of people said "no you can't". It's too bad if one person did say that.
But I think you don't have too look to far into the archives to find a lot of things a lot more
emotionally abusive than this. And you don't have to look at a lot of lists to find one a lot
more emotionally abusive that this one. I'm sorry if Johnny's feelings were hurt -- he's
certainly doing a lot more for our cause than almost anyone. But no one is harmed by
good, honest, intellectual debate. If you're going to make a specific statement about your
abilities, then you have to expect that people will ask you to prove it. And these are
people interested in microtonality, so are inherently friendlier to the idea than the
majority of people who aren't. I think it would be great to find out just what Johnny's ear,
voice, and/or bassoon _are_ capable of, because I'm sure it's fabulous, and would blow
the minds of many of the doubters out there. 1 cent, 2 cents, 3 cents . . . still fabulous. So
all in all, I see this debate as _positive_ -- the honest search for truth can only help all
involved.

Just my humble opinion and I'd perfectly happy if this entire thread disappeared right
now -- I'm just (as always) trying to understand the point of view of the "other guy" in
the debate.

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

> If you don't like my sharing what I intend and believe I achieve,
just
> let it go already.
>
> Johnny

Okay, we let it go now. But by doing so, we can all see that your
claims in this list can't be taken seriously.

I was happy to learn of such talents for pitch as you here
advertised. If you are recognized by the critics as a specialist for
this talent, then testing you would have helped us to understand more
about what real pitch tolerance is in real performance. It could have
helped to make more interesting electronic music, too, knowing what
this tolerance is.

It would have been easy to make a test, just a little piece is
composed for you to make a digital recording. Only you get a score
copy and a neutral judge. The score is all senza vibrato, mm 60, all
wholes notes separated by whole rests, each note a randomly chosen
note from the range of your instrument or voice with a randomly-
chosen plus or minus in cents. Then have several third parties do
FFT analyse. At the end, compare the analyses with the score.

What instrument do you play anyway?

Xavier

Hi Paul,

> > While 72-tet notation instead could easily encourage players to
> > settle for even less than their a normal level of intonational
> > accuracy, I think.

> ???

Yes, a rather cryptic remark; maybe would be good to expand on it.

I'm just thinking in terms of practicality. One could try subdividing
each 12-tet semitone into 6 steps, and so get 72-tet, and then divide
each of those into 5 steps and get 360-tet, and so on, and it
would work equally well.

I suppose the nice thing about using the sequence
12-tet (24-tet) 120-tet (240-tet) 1200-tet
is that it links in with our decimal number system, and so is easier
to understand when one continues to interpolate to finer and finer
accuracy.

36-tet and 72-tet would be fine if we used base 12 for numbers instead
of base 10.

12-tet 36-tet 72-tet 144-tet 432-tet 864-tet 1728-tet
and maybe we'd now have 1728 cents to an octave, except, using
the place system in base 12, we'd call it 1000 cents to an octave
because 1000 in base 12 is 1728.

The advantages of base 12 have often been pointed out, but so
far there is no signs of anyone taking heed and starting a mass
move to change from 10 to 12. I suppose because we have 10 fingers,
and people like occasionally to be able to count on their fingers!
Also there are competing good systems like hexadecimal, which
programmers would rather like as it is a great notation for
memory dumps and when one wants to use bit operations (and for
midi of course), but not so good for calculations
by hand, as the number base has only the one prime divisor 2.

I think for a uniform arbitrarily precise notation, best to link
into the current notation for numbers.

Take ex. of a piece in 17-tet.

72-tet notation doesn't have the necessary resolution:
degree 2 in 17-tet is 141.176 cents and the nearest note in 72-tet is 133.333 cents.

So one is going to have to go beyond it to the next place in the number
system, in this case, 144-tet. But for some notes in 17-tet, even
144-tet wouldn't be that good, e.g. degree 3 is 211.765 cents
and nearest 144-tet note is 208.333 cents - not bad, but if
some performers such as Johnny can play to much better than 3 cents resolution,
and one would like to encourage others to strive to achieve better resolution too,
better to go further, to 432-tet at least.

For some notes, for precision to the nearest cent, will need to go to 864-tet.

That would be fine, and great, if we were used to thinking in base 12.
One would write degree 3 in 17-tet as degree 76 in 432-tet (= 211.111
cents). Or, degree 304 in 1728-tet.

Except of course, one would use base 12 for all the numbers.

So in fact, one would write 211.111 cents (out of 1200) as
214 (to base 12) cents (out of 1000 to base 12)
in the system of 1728 cents per octave.

2*144+1*12+4 cents = 304 (base 10)

So degree 3 in 17-tet would be 214.something cents
in this system.

Would be a nice system for 12-tet too - the 12-tet notes would be
100 cetns, 200 cents, ... 900 centes, a00 cents b00 cents 1000 cents
where a = 10 and b = 11.

Yes, that would work fine.

However, people are slow to change to a new number system, so
I'm sure rather than learn to think in base 12, they are going to
ignore the least significant digits of the notation - probably anything
much beyond 72-tet. Performers would ignore them, and composers
would soon stop using them. Result is, intonation would suffer, I think.

I'm sure there are plenty of nice things one can say about 72-tet notation.
and it is of course the best one to use if the piece was conceived in
72-tet.

But if someone is using cents, and find that works well for them,
no need for them to change to 72-tet notation!

A nice thing about cents notation is that it especially encourages
players to continually strive beyond their current level of
intonational accuracy, whatever it is.

Ideal of course is to use the notation natural to the piece.
So if in 17-tet, use 17-tet sharps and flats. For 19-tet, use
19-tet sharps and flats. In 31-tet, use 31-tet half sharps and flats.
In j.i., use ratios. For fixed pitch instruments (guitar, gamelan
ensemble as it is fixed pitch to the extent it is anchored by the
tuning of the gamelan percussion, ....), use tablature or such
like notation. Etc. etc.

Hope you enjoy this - I had fun writing it, especially, trying to imagine
what it would be like in an alternative universe in which we
all thought naturally in base 12.
:-)

Robert

On 6/10/01 7:32 PM, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

>> As I've said, when Johnny mistakenly announced on the radio
>> interview that my piece was in 34,
>
> I remember that!

Right. That was when they played the second movement as scheduled.

>> and later had the DJ correct the opening
>> statement to 32,
>
> I missed that!

The show *opened* with the first movement and caught me by complete
surprise. After the first 16 bars or so, up to the first repeat, John
Schafer got on and said "Well let me start out by saying... it's SUPPOSED to
sound like that! [laughs] this is music from marc jones who works in uh...
an alternative tuning system with 32 notes to the octave as opposed to the
usual 12. So while this music may sound like baroque music being played on
a calliope that's running down, it's actually all very carefully plotted out
in terms of the tuning... and then performed at the annual festival of
microtonal music known as the MICROTHON, here in new york."

>> Johnny in apologizing shrugged and said to me "aw come on
>> who can hear the difference between 32 and 34 guitar..."
>
> How ironic! Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me . . . 34 sounds like 5-limit JI;
> 32 is really "off"
> relative to JI.

Yeah exactly. Distinguishing THOSE two isn't a big deal. Slightly airy
just intonation versus a calliope running down. That's why I was so
surprised that they got it wrong.

>> Or maybe it's that we think and talk about music on the other side
>> of the brain from where we actually shut up and play it.
>
> I do too.

Really? I just came up with that idea at the last minute. Thanks for
noticing it, I wouldn't have remembered it probably.

on 6/10/01 9:31 PM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Re: proved
>

In this thread I have
> spoken of what I hear in order to play microtonally. I've tried to explain
> as clearly as I know how the manner in which this takes place.

I should like to say that in observing all of the bickering, etc of this
thread, I heard the original statement of Johnny Reinhards' intonational
accuracy of a cent not as bragging on his part, nor as something that is
impossible to acheive by him that might be provable/disprovable by other men
or machines, but instead, as an admirable goal to strive for. And that's
what I would like to do.

In admiration of Johnnys' skills, and equally admirable skills of other
performers on this list, and the much reported skills of composers like
Partch who tuned all his instruments by ear!, I'm going to keep singing
endless intervals against drones, and sing overtones and harmonics, and
checking myself with a good electronic tuner, etc, until I can hear in my
minds' ear, identify and reproduce with consistent accuracy, any interval,
just or otherwise, that I might wish to use in my music. And that should be
all of our goals, not figuring out how to discredit someone elses'
achievements.

Many thanks to Johnny for the inspiration of this goal.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

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

In a message dated 6/10/2001 11:11:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
klezmusic@earthlink.net writes:

> And that should be
> all of our goals, not figuring out how to discredit someone elses'
> achievements.
>
> Many thanks to Johnny for the inspiration of this goal.
>
>

I dont think anyone here is trying to discredit anyone elses achievements. If
you think that you totally missed the point of people saying, including me,
they wanted accuracy tested.

Andy

Thanks, Seth, for your comments. Actually, the goal is to compose away from
instruments (set by JS Bach). If I can use the word proud, I guess it would
be in not needing to use a tuning machine for the last 7 years or so.
Different tunings lay over each other in so many ways that they all become
intelligible in cents.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

WELL SAID SETH!

GZ

Seth Austen wrote:

> on 6/10/01 9:31 PM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > From: Afmmjr@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: proved
> >
>
> In this thread I have
> > spoken of what I hear in order to play microtonally. I've tried to explain
> > as clearly as I know how the manner in which this takes place.
>
> I should like to say that in observing all of the bickering, etc of this
> thread, I heard the original statement of Johnny Reinhards' intonational
> accuracy of a cent not as bragging on his part, nor as something that is
> impossible to acheive by him that might be provable/disprovable by other men
> or machines, but instead, as an admirable goal to strive for. And that's
> what I would like to do.
>
> In admiration of Johnnys' skills, and equally admirable skills of other
> performers on this list, and the much reported skills of composers like
> Partch who tuned all his instruments by ear!, I'm going to keep singing
> endless intervals against drones, and sing overtones and harmonics, and
> checking myself with a good electronic tuner, etc, until I can hear in my
> minds' ear, identify and reproduce with consistent accuracy, any interval,
> just or otherwise, that I might wish to use in my music. And that should be
> all of our goals, not figuring out how to discredit someone elses'
> achievements.
>
> Many thanks to Johnny for the inspiration of this goal.
>
> Seth
>
> --
> Seth Austen
>
> http://www.sethausten.com
> emails: seth@sethausten.com
> klezmusic@earthlink.net
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Kraig

> Sorry to interject but the trick is the higher one will seem louder

Thanks, I'll look out for that.

Fits in with the way that notes seem to get sharper as they get louder.

Actually found that when first attempting the recorder clip - was playing
all the notes a little too flat, and I think it was because the loudspeaker
was playing them more quietly than I heard the notes I was playing myself.

However found one could seem to disentangle the pitch of the note
from the loudness = sharper effect, (or learn to compensate? not
sure exactly what it was), and then it was okay.

Given your trick a first try and I'm getting more right answers than before
for 3 cents I think. Thanks.

Robert