Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Ben Johnston String Quartet CDs

Well, my Ben Johnston string quartet CDs as mastered by Andy Stefik
(JoJoBuBu) arrived yesterday, and I listened to them right away.

There were a few surprises. In the first place, I was a little
surprised how, on the overall, intonation really does not
take "center stage" in these string quartets. With the exception of
a couple of movements, for the most part I found it difficult to
distinguish the intonation... assuming it was 5-limit just, from any
other possibilities... Pythagorean, possibly or 12-tET.

Of course, for me, anyway, string quartets are a little "slippery"
in this capacity... it seems to me they vary intonation "all over the
place" and most performances seem to have somewhat fluctuating
intonation... maybe that's just *my* perception, but so it seems.

In any case, all the performances are quite competent. I have no
idea which quartet ensembles they are, since there was no
accompanying literature with the self-produced CDs. Really these
pieces should be on commercial release. Perhaps they will be, and
this is the first step toward getting them there. They could
probably be used for that, except for a stray cough here and there
which possibly could be excised...

Occasionally, I hear what might be termed "string quartet ADAPTIVE
intonation" where the player will play the note first in 12-tET (or
maybe Pythagorean??) and then "adjust" it quickly (usually lowering)
to get the necessary 5-limit JI sonority. Although, to be fair, that
doesn't happen too much... but sometimes.

I listened to them all a couple of times, but really it will take
more than that, so I only had a few cursory reactions:

String Quartet #1: quite an early work... rather "experimental" with
some strange "John Cagean" type silences mixed with some active
counterpoint... er, "peculiar..." but pretty interesting.

String Quartet #2: A major work from his earlier period, as any
textbook will tell you. Mostly serial, and especially the first
movement sounds that way, but movement 2 has some really beautiful
melodic passages, and movement 3 is perhaps the MOST "xenharmonic" of
the whole set. In that movement, microtonality takes "center stage"
if that's where people like it... As I mentioned, in several of the
other quartets that's not necessarily the case. That is not
particularly a *criticism* in my book...

String Quartet #3: Well, maybe the most "solid" from an earlier,
serial standpoint. This is a fine piece of music. However, to me
the relationship to "alternate tunings" seems somewhat minimal.
Perhaps I'll have to listen again to get more of a connection...

String Quartet #4: The famous, "Amazing Grace..." and the *only*
string quartet, to my knowledge, to be on commercial CD. No need for
*me* to comment on this one...

String Quartet #5: One of my favorites, although I can't figure out
what the quoted tune is. Anybody know?? Very Charles Ivesian...
This and some incredible counterpoint in the middle section make this
a standout... This is the one, though, where I heard some
player "adjustments" "on the fly" as it were. (A live John
deLaubenfels process!)

String Quartet #6: This is an interesting piece, but I have a few
problems with the length. There are several LONG melodic lines that
traverse various interesting harmonies. It almost sounds as if
Johnston was going through the lattice, or some such, with these
harmonies, and the melodic lines are kind of just "chugging
along..." Maybe this was a performance problem and, in reality, the
HARMONIES should take predominance and the melodic lines (first,
cello, then viola, etc., etc.) should be *underplayed...* Well, the
*harmony* is really what's happening in this piece, at least so it
seemed to me...

String Quartet #9: Well, there were no recordings of #7 and #8 which
is altogether unfortunate... since I really enjoyed the direction of
#9 and it would be interesting to see how that evolved from the
earlier ones. Perhaps these pieces haven't been played?? Anybody
know?? Anyway, #9 is much more "post modern"... i.e. no longer
serial in orientation and blatently *tonal...* The first movement I
found particularly fine, with an interesting exploration of, I guess,
5-limit tonalities in an almost "minimalist" mode... The 3rd
movement is practically a chorale. Quite beautiful, but pretty
traditional... I'll have to think about that one a while. The 4th
movement is, again, quite tonal but it gets a bit more chromatic,
particularly in the first motive, possibly to counter the simple
harmonies of the "chorale..."

Anyway, a great experience and, hopefully, these remastered CDs are
the first step to getting these valuable pieces on commercial CD.
That's where they belong, obviously....

_________ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:57 AM
Subject: [tuning] Ben Johnston String Quartet CDs

>
> String Quartet #6: This is an interesting piece, but I have a few
> problems with the length. There are several LONG melodic lines that
> traverse various interesting harmonies. It almost sounds as if
> Johnston was going through the lattice, or some such, with these
> harmonies, and the melodic lines are kind of just "chugging
> along..." Maybe this was a performance problem and, in reality, the
> HARMONIES should take predominance and the melodic lines (first,
> cello, then viola, etc., etc.) should be *underplayed...* Well, the
> *harmony* is really what's happening in this piece, at least so it
> seemed to me...

Joe, I was working last year on a major analysis of this piece.
I'll see what I can dig up and upload in the near future.
The harmony is indeed a central feature of the 6th Quartet.

Did you ever get those issues of _Perspectives of New Music_
with the microtonal articles? The analysis by Steven Elster
of the 6th is excellent, and points out the serial tonality
manipulations in this piece. It's pretty much the basis of
what I'm doing... I just add lattice diagrams, etc. ... you
know me - lots of pretty pictures to explain all the math.
(I've cited Elster several times here - search the list archives.)

>
> String Quartet #9: Well, there were no recordings of #7 and #8 which
> is altogether unfortunate... since I really enjoyed the direction of
> #9 and it would be interesting to see how that evolved from the
> earlier ones. Perhaps these pieces haven't been played?? Anybody
> know??

You already know about my tiny attempt at the 2nd movement from the 8th.
I'd love to do the whole piece in MIDI. Someday...

> Anyway, #9 is much more "post modern"... i.e. no longer
> serial in orientation and blatently *tonal...* The first movement I
> found particularly fine, with an interesting exploration of, I guess,
> 5-limit tonalities in an almost "minimalist" mode... The 3rd
> movement is practically a chorale. Quite beautiful, but pretty
> traditional... I'll have to think about that one a while. The 4th
> movement is, again, quite tonal but it gets a bit more chromatic,
> particularly in the first motive, possibly to counter the simple
> harmonies of the "chorale..."

It's really interesting to me to read your reactions upon listening
to these pieces, Joe, because I already knew about their construction
before I ever heard any of them, so I can't get the "fresh" reception
that you can.

The 9th is actually Johnston's big stepping-stone into substantially
higher-prime-limit harmonic territory. He had settled on 13-limit
during the 7th and 8th Quartets, then here in the 9th he goes all
the way to 31. That's another whole octave and 1/4 up the harmonic
series.

So I'm not surprised at all that a chorale is one of the stylistic
touches... it would be a superb way to exploit great stacks of
otonal harmonies.

-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

>Joe, I was working last year on a major analysis of >this piece.
>I'll see what I can dig up and upload in the near >future.
>The harmony is indeed a central feature of the 6th >Quartet.

>Did you ever get those issues of _Perspectives of New >Music_
>with the microtonal articles? The analysis by Steven> >Elster
>of the 6th is excellent, and points out the serial >tonality
>manipulations in this piece. It's pretty much the >basis of
>what I'm doing... I just add lattice diagrams, >etc. ... you
>know me - lots of pretty pictures to explain all the >math.
>(I've cited Elster several times here - search the> list archives.)

To Joe P. Its based on the stream of conciousness writing. Ben's idea was have it sound like no line, harmony, or what not was more important than anything else during the piece(including harmony melody). Sure there is harmony in a sense, but it is subservient and not the most important idea in the music. So thats why when you listened it sounded like one line wasn't as important because it was designed to be that way.

>You already know about my tiny attempt at the 2nd >movement from the 8th.
>I'd love to do the whole piece in MIDI. Someday...

To Joe P again. (two joes = double the fun? hehe - thats a joke just not a very good one. Spare my poor humor)

If I remember correcly the 8th was performed but not recorded. The 7th has never been played (although I might have that backwards)The tenth has not been recorded or performed. It was written for Kronos, but they have been working on some arrangments Ben did of U.S. Highball. As for recordings Anything on the CD's that Ben is sending you soon has been recorded. Anything else has not been recorded unless someone bootlegged it without him knowing.

To Joe M. I think you can get a good semblance of where the ninth came from by looking at the 4th and 5th. By the time the 5th came around you can hear clearly he was starting to pull in the higher partials. Then it kept going and kept going. I shouldn't even specify those two really because the development has been going the whole time. The ninth pulls in alot of partials of course. The stuff he is working on now goes up to like the 50th partial or so ... somewhere around there. (not a string quartet)

>It's really interesting to me to read your reactions >upon listening
>to these pieces, Joe, because I already knew about >their construction
>before I ever heard any of them, so I can't get >the "fresh" reception
>that you can.

>The 9th is actually Johnston's big stepping-stone into >substantially
>higher-prime-limit harmonic territory. He had settled >on 13-limit
>during the 7th and 8th Quartets, then here in the 9th >he goes all
>the way to 31. That's another whole octave and 1/4 up >the harmonic
>series.

>So I'm not surprised at all that a chorale is one of >the stylistic
>touches... it would be a superb way to exploit great >stacks of
>otonal harmonies.

To Joe M, Ben has done more stuff than the ninth that goes beyond thirteen for sure. I really dont think the ninth was the definitive piece that started all that for him. For that matter he talked about doing alot of this stuff with partch way back in 1950. Also realize that he has written more than just string quartets. This process of going into higher primes has been going on for a long time. The ninth may have been a general step in that direction, but it wasn't actually as significant as perhaps the fifth was in that direction in my opinion. Although it really doesn't matter and I'm bickering over a small point really, I dont think the ninth was the first piece to go above 13. To be sure we would have look through his non-string quartet output.

As for Joe P's comments I think your pretty damn close. Heres a few notes to clarify things. I only say these things because by remastering Bens string quartet CD I had to become very familiar with his quartets.

First off this quartet should not be considered post modern. Have you read Bill Duckworth's Book , "Talking Music" ? He calls composers like Glenn Branca, John Zorn, and Blue Gene Tyranny as being postmodern. Ben really doesn't fit with any of these composers and defintiely not with what I see as being postmodern.

If asked how to classify his music he would say its revisionist. (He has said this to me many times) The concept actually comes from Bob Gilmore (via private conversation). Bob said, according to Ben, that Ben's music should be called revisionist because it takes ideas of form and what not and says, "What would have happened if the traditional music would have been in just intonation instead of 12TET. What direction would they have gone in." (potentially)

So when you say it sounds chromatic you are exactly right, because thats the point it is chromatic. Its a different kind of chromatic per se, but chromatic nonetheless.

Also with the first movement of the ninth to better understand it look at the commas. Some chords can NOT be tuned exactly in tune by design. The performers have to fudge one way or another, and he did it on purpose. (to speak generally)In fact I think it has to do with his sense of humor to a certain extent. Like, "Ha ha you have to play this out of tune."

Lastly as for some of the quartets being tonal. I think this can be seen as far back as the second quartet. Look at the second movement of the second quartet. it IS serial, but he designed the serialism in a way so that it starts to sound tonalish, or at least not overly dissonant. This is, I think, really when this sort of thing began in his music and it took off from there. This sort of idea, not necessarily relating to serialism, is to hide or conceal theory, technique, or whatever, so that its still listenable. Ben calls this idea "art concealing art." The most known example of it is the fourth quartet. Notice here that this is basically Anti-Elitism while still pursuing generally new ideas.

Cheers Joes!
Andy

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_25918.html#25928
>
>
> Joe, I was working last year on a major analysis of this piece.
> I'll see what I can dig up and upload in the near future.
> The harmony is indeed a central feature of the 6th Quartet.
>
> Did you ever get those issues of _Perspectives of New Music_
> with the microtonal articles? The analysis by Steven Elster
> of the 6th is excellent, and points out the serial tonality
> manipulations in this piece. It's pretty much the basis of
> what I'm doing... I just add lattice diagrams, etc. ... you
> know me - lots of pretty pictures to explain all the math.
> (I've cited Elster several times here - search the list archives.)
>

Well, FINALLY I did my "homework" and went carefully through *both*
Perspectives articles in a little under 3 hours! That's the *first*
read, though, but it was time VERY well spent, in my view.

In a way, it's a nice tribute to procrastination, since I've had the
Perspectives articles for about a month, and haven't read them. In
the *meantime* the STRING QUARTET CD came out! You can imagine how
much *more interesting* the Fonville and Elster articles were after
HEARING the quartets!

I found the Fonville "Guide" to be *particularly* readable! I'd
recommend that to anybody over practically *anything* about Johnston,
as you did for me... It really put a lot of things together for
me... I even understand that the chromatic semitone 25/24 PLUS the
syntonic comma 81/80 = 135/128... which is a VERY important interval
for Johnston, particularly in the 6th quartet!

I was wondering if you could help me with one thing, Monz??

At the end of the Fonville "Guide" Fonville states: "A complete
listing (notation, ratios, and cent values) of all the lattice
structures up to 31, including all possible combinations Johnston has
used, is available from the author."

The author being Fonville, not Johnston, in this case... I was
wondering how to contact Fonville?? Or is it possible that
the "miraculous monz" would *also* have such a similar chart??

I shore would like one of 'em.... (will pay $$)

Now on to a general, interesting, and important consideration about
Johnston's processes on the overview. This study was PARTICULARLY
important for me, because it indicated to me how FAR certain
composers go into "precompositional" ideas.... particularly
Johnston's construction of the 6th String Quartet.

I thought I was really doing something by finding harmonies through
common tones in a blackjack lattice, but this is all CHILD'S PLAY
compared with the intricate and elaborate pre-compositional structure
that Johnston sets up for the 6th String Quartet as explained, rather
clearly I might add, by Steven Elster...

Now the question is whether this pre-compositional activity for the
6th String Quartet isn't perhaps a bit "over cooked..." Well, what
I'm saying is that of ALL the quartets it was actually my LEAST
favorite.... I liked the beginning, but the long melodies really
seemed repetitive, and it seemed like he was spinning out
(ausspinungspiel) some kind of gestalt and *had* to get through with
it...

Is *this* where such detailed pre-compositional work leads??

Well, it may be just *me!!* I have similar problems with some of the
works of Milton Babbitt... cool dude he can sometimes be...

Getting to the Elster... what was PARTICULARLY fascinating to me was
his presentation of SERIAL CHARTS in HARMONIC SERIES ORDER. I
capitalize these words, because this really made a BIG impression
with me. Like many people, I have studied serial rows and matrices
up the wazoo, but *never* did I see them organized by harmonic series
principles.

This idea, and I believe this is *probably* at the CORE of Ben
Johnston's serialism, was VERY striking to me... and I think that
Elster VERY clearly demonstrated it.

Also, there was a very neat chart which showed all the common tones
from the hexachords... and these common tones are used in the piece
to join hexachords together. Actually, it looks as though he uses a
LOT of common hexachords between rows such as Retrograde and
Retrograde Inversion...

Elster points out the important structure of the two complementary
hexachords of the row (used to be called "combinatoriality") with
transposition by that all important 135/128... a combination of
a "chromatic" adjustment with "justice..." our syntonic comma. Very
cool...

Man, that's neat.

Things get a little freer about the middle of the quartet and then,
this is just my theory, Johnston becomes conceptually exhausted and
runs the ENTIRE THING BACKWARDS in a giant palindrome!

Maybe that's why I find it a little repetitive. The beginning is
great, though.

>
> The 9th is actually Johnston's big stepping-stone into substantially
> higher-prime-limit harmonic territory. He had settled on 13-limit
> during the 7th and 8th Quartets, then here in the 9th he goes all
> the way to 31. That's another whole octave and 1/4 up the harmonic
> series.
>

Actually, I had *no* idea that he was using the 11th partial in the
6th String Quartet... so all of this was a surprise.

An interesting UNDERSTATEMENT by Steven Elster reads as
follows: "Executing an accurate eleventh partial, without having
actually heard a fundamental pitch, will always be difficult..."

My personal response: NO KIDDING!

Really, I sometimes wonder how accurate these quartet performances
are.... The suggestions by Elster for the performance of the 6th
really seem impractical to me. He's talking about performers
analyzing the piece and figuring out how the 11th partial sounds by
listening to the hexachords underneath, etc., etc...

How practical is all this, really?? I wonder.

It makes me run back to 72-tET in a BIG HURRY!... Well, good luck to
them, anyway. Hopefully everybody will find performers who have also
majored in music theory and WANT to play music through theoretical
analysis.

Such performers don't exist too much in the "real" performing
world... I don't believe...

All of this, however, is a rich and rewarding study....

Will this study benefit my *own* music??... Well, it certainly sets
certain paradigms for "well thought out" music... maybe even "too
cooked!"

Thanks!

_______ ______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_25918.html#25937

>
> To Joe P. Its based on the stream of conciousness writing. Ben's
idea was have it sound like no line, harmony, or what not was more
important than anything else during the piece(including harmony
melody). Sure there is harmony in a sense, but it is subservient and
not the most important idea in the music. So thats why when you
listened it sounded like one line wasn't as important because it was
designed to be that way.
>

Hi Andy! Well, I see what you're saying, but it seems a bit of a
stretch to call this quartet "stream of consciousness" after reading
the detailed analysis by Steven Elster!

Maybe "process music" would be a better term for it. This particular
quartet really is akin, in some ways to so called "process" pieces...
(that's not a deprication, by the way...)

>
> If I remember correcly the 8th was performed but not recorded.

Man... how could anybody DO that! That boggles the brain more than
the music...

> As for Joe P's comments I think your pretty damn close. Heres a few
notes to clarify things. I only say these things because by
remastering Bens string quartet CD I had to become very familiar with
his quartets.
>
> First off this quartet should not be considered post modern. Have
you read Bill Duckworth's Book , "Talking Music" ? He calls composers
like Glenn Branca, John Zorn, and Blue Gene Tyranny as being
postmodern. Ben really doesn't fit with any of these composers and
defintiely not with what I see as being postmodern.
>

Well... Andy, this is a broad term... at least as it's been used in
New York for about the last decade or so. It also takes in the so-
called "New Romanticism" that we've seen around since the early
1980's... maybe before in such composers as George Rochberg, George
Crumb and David del Tredici... so actually if you consider
serialism "modern" and the earlier works of Ben Johnston "modern,"
then the later ones really would be "post modern" I do believe...

I don't know how you could differentiate the kind of "Bang on a Can"
type composers you cite... maybe "raving post modern" or some such! :)

> If asked how to classify his music he would say its revisionist.
(He has said this to me many times) The concept actually comes from
Bob Gilmore (via private conversation). Bob said, according to Ben,
that Ben's music should be called revisionist because it takes ideas
of form and what not and says, "What would have happened if the
traditional music would have been in just intonation instead of
12TET. What direction would they have gone in." (potentially)
>

Well, I could see that. However, really the *net* effect of
Johnston's music falls right into the particular zeitgeist he was in
at any particular time. When there was "modernism" HE was modern...
when there was "new romanticism," HE was "new romantic..."

Frankly, I don't believe he is as far from other composers and
general trends as the term "revisionist" would indicate, but I
suppose this is open to dispute... We can think about it! :)

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

In a message dated 7/2/2001 12:02:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_25918.html#25937
>
> >
> > To Joe P. Its based on the stream of conciousness writing. Ben's
> idea was have it sound like no line, harmony, or what not was more
> important than anything else during the piece(including harmony
> melody). Sure there is harmony in a sense, but it is subservient and
> not the most important idea in the music. So thats why when you
> listened it sounded like one line wasn't as important because it was
> designed to be that way.
> >
>
> Hi Andy! Well, I see what you're saying, but it seems a bit of a
> stretch to call this quartet "stream of consciousness" after reading
> the detailed analysis by Steven Elster!
>
> Maybe "process music" would be a better term for it. This particular
> quartet really is akin, in some ways to so called "process" pieces...
> (that's not a deprication, by the way...)

Hehe, well those are Ben's words not mine. He got the idea from James Joyce,
and therefore stream of conciousness seemed appropriate to describe it. The
funny thing with Ben's music is that there are huge theoretical underpinnings
as you said ... dont get to caught up in that aspect. The other day I was
asking him about some stuff in a score we're putting on finale. I asked him
about his note choices in a certain passage and his response was, to my
surprise, that he was just being a composer. Yes there is theory involved,
but my impression from Ben is that he lets his intuition guide him more than
anything else.

Funny the reaction that you gave about this Ben has told me several stories
about before where people have said exactly the same thing. He mentioned
someone saying the same thing about the fourth quartet. They read an article
about it and they thought it was like some dissonant thing that is hugely
complicated. Then they heard it... this is exactly art concealing art. He
uses the theory, but its all hidden away - and my gues, this is a guess mind
you, is that its hidden away in his brain as well.

>
> >
> > If I remember correcly the 8th was performed but not recorded.
>
> Man... how could anybody DO that! That boggles the brain more than
> the music...
>
>
I know!!!!! I coulnd't believe it either!

> > As for Joe P's comments I think your pretty damn close. Heres a few
> notes to clarify things. I only say these things because by
> remastering Bens string quartet CD I had to become very familiar with
> his quartets.
> >
> > First off this quartet should not be considered post modern. Have
> you read Bill Duckworth's Book , "Talking Music" ? He calls composers
> like Glenn Branca, John Zorn, and Blue Gene Tyranny as being
> postmodern. Ben really doesn't fit with any of these composers and
> defintiely not with what I see as being postmodern.
> >
>
> Well... Andy, this is a broad term... at least as it's been used in
> New York for about the last decade or so. It also takes in the so-
> called "New Romanticism" that we've seen around since the early
> 1980's... maybe before in such composers as George Rochberg, George
> Crumb and David del Tredici... so actually if you consider
> serialism "modern" and the earlier works of Ben Johnston "modern,"
> then the later ones really would be "post modern" I do believe...
>
> I don't know how you could differentiate the kind of "Bang on a Can"
> type composers you cite... maybe "raving post modern" or some such! :)
>
>

Hehe yaa I gotcha. I kind of like the term raving post modern. Or perhaps,
"Ass kicking music." Hehehehe I mentioned those composers in relation to
postmodern because thats the category they're under in Duckworth's book. I
hide behnd my source allthough When you really want to get right
down to the semantics the term post-modern is pretty silly anyway. Post
modern? It almost makes it sound like we're discussing composers not yet
born... and it certainly doesn't tell you what the music sounds like. Perhaps
instead we should call the composers I mentioned, "Raving Postmodern ass
kicking music" (just kidding by the way) Or even better not use the term post
modern at all.

> > If asked how to classify his music he would say its revisionist.
> (He has said this to me many times) The concept actually comes from
> Bob Gilmore (via private conversation). Bob said, according to Ben,
> that Ben's music should be called revisionist because it takes ideas
> of form and what not and says, "What would have happened if the
> traditional music would have been in just intonation instead of
> 12TET. What direction would they have gone in." (potentially)
> >
>
> Well, I could see that. However, really the *net* effect of
> Johnston's music falls right into the particular zeitgeist he was in
> at any particular time. When there was "modernism" HE was modern...
> when there was "new romanticism," HE was "new romantic..."
>
> Frankly, I don't believe he is as far from other composers and
> general trends as the term "revisionist" would indicate, but I
> suppose this is open to dispute... We can think about it! :)
>
> ________ ______ _______
>

Well dont forget that my reaction was to your saying the 9th quartet was post
modern. I didn't think you meant all of his music was post modern, and I
SURELY didn't mean ALL of his music is revisionist ... just some pieces
really, and the ninth quartet is most definitely revisionist. I will explain
this term better in a moment. As for the other periods of his music, however,
his music was definitely much different and revisionist doesn't fit it.

Revisionist isn't meant to mean away from current trends or composers. What
Bob Gilmore, to put words in his mouth, meant was that its a revision of OLD
composers. For example it could be a revision of Wagner taking chromaticism
to a new place. Its not intended to mean revising george crumb or another
current trend. Ben's music relates quite a bit to some current trends. It
also doesn't mean emulating a composers style per se, but revising tonality
very generally with modern JI which is seemingly the point of a piece like
the ninth and some other stuff - mostly newer stuff. This term couldn't even
be applied to some of his earlier stuff because the notation to do the
chromaticism hadn't yet been developed!! As I said it asks, "what if 12 TET
wasn't adopted what would the music have sounded like."

I'm well aware this doesn't apply to all of his music. Certainly not. But it
definitiely applies to the ninth quartet which is what we were discussing
anyway. (or perhaps we were both discussing different things - this english
language needs to be revised I think)

Cheers Joe!
Andy

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_25918.html#25950

>
> Funny the reaction that you gave about this Ben has told me several
stories about before where people have said exactly the same thing.
He mentioned someone saying the same thing about the fourth quartet.
They read an article about it and they thought it was like some
dissonant thing that is hugely complicated. Then they heard it...
this is exactly art concealing art. He uses the theory, but its all
hidden away - and my gues, this is a guess mind you, is that its
hidden away in his brain as well.
>

Hi Andy!

Oh sure, Johnston is an excellent composer. His work *never* sounds
contrived or "academic..." I just think the 6th String Quartet is a
little too long, and the melodic lines that spin out through it...
and which *have* to, if Johnston is to complete the elaborate
process, are not all that interesting.

Still not bad, but it's not my favorite quartet of the set... and,
rather humorously, it seems to be the quartet that commentators have
MOSTLY written about... maybe because it is *so* "process" oriented
and capable of written theoretical description...

> >
>
> Hehe yaa I gotcha. I kind of like the term raving post modern. Or
perhaps, "Ass kicking music."

This is fine.... maybe "burrito violento..."

Hehehehe I mentioned those composers in relation to
> postmodern because thats the category they're under in Duckworth's
book. I hide behnd my source allthough When you really want
to get right down to the semantics the term post-modern is pretty
silly anyway. Post modern?

Absolutely, Andy... it is an IDIOTIC term... After all, how can
something be "post modern" if TODAY is "modern..."

Besides, every generation of composers has called its
music "modern..."

Certainly that term won't last... who knows, in 100 years they might
call it all "that quaint non-electronic acoustic music of an earlier
century..."

>Perhaps instead we should call the composers I mentioned, "Raving
Postmodern ass kicking music" (just kidding by the way)

"Spanking" good idea!

_________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

I just got these CDs too, and I must say, as a set, this may very
well be the most important Western microtonal recording in existence!

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

> String Quartet #6: This is an interesting piece, but I have a few
> problems with the length.

Me too.

> There are several LONG melodic lines that
> traverse various interesting harmonies. It almost sounds as if
> Johnston was going through the lattice, or some such, with these
> harmonies,

Yes, exactly . . . mostly, they sound like they're derived from 11-
limit hexads . . . I was going to recommend that you listen to these
harmonies since the MIRACLE scales (especially those beyond
blackjack) are very rich in these kinds of harmonies.

> and the melodic lines are kind of just "chugging
> along..."

Yup! My reaction exactly. Gets a bit tedious . . . good thing there
are so many gems within this and the other quartets to keep your
interest.

> Maybe this was a performance problem and, in reality, the
> HARMONIES should take predominance and the melodic lines (first,
> cello, then viola, etc., etc.) should be *underplayed...*

Well, since the performance was so incredibly fine in all other
respects, I'm tempted to guess that the performers were accurately
following Johnston's dynamic markings for this piece . . .

> Well, the
> *harmony* is really what's happening in this piece, at least so it
> seemed to me...

Definitely.

> String Quartet #9:

I'm guessing this had a different set of performers than the other
pieces.

Oh, and I just read that #1 was in 12-tET.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

> String Quartet #9:

>I'm guessing this had a different set of performers >than the other
>pieces.

>Oh, and I just read that #1 was in 12-tET.

Clarifications here. String quartet #9 nine DID have different performers than #6 so you ears serve you well. #9 had the stanford quaret, supposedly called the ives quaret nowadays, and also used an electronic realization to help the performers ... so I hear at least. I dont remember what group did the sixth.

Also since these were all collected from old tapes the different performances sound quite different just because the tapes were in varying quality. For example the tape from SQ#1 was from the 60's sometime.

#1 was in 12tet kind of. Ben was working with cage in new york at the time. (the long silences might have tipped this off) and Ben was just about to break through into writing with JI (which was a barrier for him at the time as to whether to do it). He intentionall wrote on the score notes as the appropraite enharmonic non-equivilants and supposedly cage even commented about this to him and encouraged him to go ahead with his direction (low and behold SQ#2 he started). With this in mind I dont think it is known as to what tning system is in. To really know one would have to test it electronically.

My own guess is that because of the notation he was using at the time that the actual audio will be some sort of hybrid between JI and 12TET. My guess as for his intentions with the notation is that that was roughly his intention as well.

Cheers,
Andy

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

> Also with the first movement of the ninth to better understand it
>look at the commas. Some chords can NOT be tuned exactly in tune by
>design. The performers have to fudge one way or another, and he did
>it on purpose. (to speak generally)In fact I think it has to do with
>his sense of humor to a certain extent. Like, "Ha ha you have to
>play this out of tune."

>Can you elaborate? Clearly, the first movement is >based on an entire
>diatonic scale played as a chord. It reminded me very >much of the
>Chinese Sheng (mouth-harp) and perhaps as a result, I >assumed that it
>was in Pythagorean tuning. I certainly didn't hear >any "wolf fifths"
>in this chord. So did Ben notate this chord as >Pythagorean, or
>something else?

Heres a crude example. I'm at work so I dont have the score handy but this is the general idea.

Suppose you have a cluster (his notation)with the notes

C, D, E, F, G all played at the same time.

In his notation to tune correctly the D to the G it must be plain D. However to tune the D to the F it must be D- (D down a syntonic comma).

Its basically this sort of idea that pokes its head through on occassion in the ninth. I think he only does this in the first movement, but I dont have the score handy and I could be wrong.

So its still 5-limit JI really, but its makes you wonder what the players actually do. If Both D's are correct in one instance and wrong in another in that chord then which one are they actually using by ear? Also are they tempering the D between the two kinds of D's? I think those are two very interesting questions.

Cheers,
Andy

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Now the question is whether this pre-compositional activity for the
> 6th String Quartet isn't perhaps a bit "over cooked..." Well, what
> I'm saying is that of ALL the quartets it was actually my LEAST
> favorite.... I liked the beginning, but the long melodies really
> seemed repetitive, and it seemed like he was spinning out
> (ausspinungspiel) some kind of gestalt and *had* to get through
with
> it...

My reaction exactly.
>
> Is *this* where such detailed pre-compositional work leads??

Maybe, if you don't let the _improvisational_ process take an equally
important role . . .
>
> Actually, I had *no* idea that he was using the 11th partial in the
> 6th String Quartet... so all of this was a surprise.

That should have been clearly audible to you . . . if you've been
working on your ear-training (ahem) . . .
>
> An interesting UNDERSTATEMENT by Steven Elster reads as
> follows: "Executing an accurate eleventh partial, without having
> actually heard a fundamental pitch, will always be difficult..."
>
> My personal response: NO KIDDING!
>
> Really, I sometimes wonder how accurate these quartet performances
> are....

They sound incredibly accurate to me . . . the chords don't even
sound like they're being executed by three string players . . .
sounds much more like a reed organ to me . . . perhaps because these
exact harmonies are most familiar from the Chromelodeon in Partch's
music . . .

> The suggestions by Elster for the performance of the 6th
> really seem impractical to me. He's talking about performers
> analyzing the piece and figuring out how the 11th partial sounds by
> listening to the hexachords underneath, etc., etc...
>
> How practical is all this, really?? I wonder.
>
> It makes me run back to 72-tET in a BIG HURRY!...

Well, 72-tET is also incredibly accurate for these chords . . . the
question would then become, how accurately can performers reckon 72-
tET? I would argue that JI intervals through the 11-limit should be
used in order to _learn_ 72-tET -- rather than 72-tET being used to
get around the necessity of being able to hear and perform 11-limit
JI intervals!
>
> Will this study benefit my *own* music??... Well, it certainly
sets
> certain paradigms for "well thought out" music... maybe even "too
> cooked!"

Perhaps in the _harmonies_ in this quartet, and other elements in the
other quartets, you can find a great deal of inspiration . . . ? I
would think so . . .

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

Paul Erlich wrote:

> I just got these CDs too, and I must say, as a set, this may very
> well be the most important Western microtonal recording in existence!

Interesting opinion. Sorry lads you won't like this but I have to say that although I understand
Ben Johnston's importance as a composer in the general scheme of things his music does less for me
than others. I haven't yet heard the quartets though. Schoenberg doesn't do much for me either
though I respect his genius. (sorry Monz).

I feel that there is an element of bias at work in some of this discussion, as if because he
writes for string quartet, and because the string quartet has an obvious Western cultural tag of
quality, things are suddenly raised to a more elevated plateau. This might lead us eventually to
consider the Symphony as the ultimate art form. It seems to me that there is also a suggestion
that the complexity of pre-compositional planning is also a mark of quality. I don't agree with
this. Are there any recent microtonal works, perhaps even from this list, which are better (yes,
better, because some of us are critics) than ANY existing symphony? These are the questions I
think we need to be looking at.

I think that if we are to judge anyone's string quartets, and I've written for quartet myself,
then they should be judged against other quartets, perhaps against the works of Shostakovich. When
dealing with a tried and tested medium like the quartet I think you have to consider much more
than tuning. The minimalist string works of Part and Tavener (to name but two), and the unique
works of Cage, though not specifically in Just Intonation, have done more to stretch my
understanding of tonality and the potential for new music.

My tuppenceworth.

Best Wishes.

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@mindspring.com>

Dear Alison, i know what you mean.

I looked in the charter statement for this list, and found nothing that mentioned hyperbole.

However, i received my CD's yesterday, and i'm really glad to be listening to them.

I think they are pretty great. Hats off to JoJoBuBuAliBabbaBuBuJo!

Alison Monteith wrote:

> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > I just got these CDs too, and I must say, as a set, this may very
> > well be the most important Western microtonal recording in existence!
>
> Interesting opinion. Sorry lads you won't like this but I have to say that although I understand
> Ben Johnston's importance as a composer in the general scheme of things his music does less for me
> than others. I haven't yet heard the quartets though. Schoenberg doesn't do much for me either
> though I respect his genius. (sorry Monz).
>
> I feel that there is an element of bias at work in some of this discussion, as if because he
> writes for string quartet, and because the string quartet has an obvious Western cultural tag of
> quality, things are suddenly raised to a more elevated plateau. This might lead us eventually to
> consider the Symphony as the ultimate art form. It seems to me that there is also a suggestion
> that the complexity of pre-compositional planning is also a mark of quality. I don't agree with
> this. Are there any recent microtonal works, perhaps even from this list, which are better (yes,
> better, because some of us are critics) than ANY existing symphony? These are the questions I
> think we need to be looking at.
>
> I think that if we are to judge anyone's string quartets, and I've written for quartet myself,
> then they should be judged against other quartets, perhaps against the works of Shostakovich. When
> dealing with a tried and tested medium like the quartet I think you have to consider much more
> than tuning. The minimalist string works of Part and Tavener (to name but two), and the unique
> works of Cage, though not specifically in Just Intonation, have done more to stretch my
> understanding of tonality and the potential for new music.
>
> My tuppenceworth.
>
> Best Wishes.
>
> 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/

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

>Dear Alison, i know what you mean.

>I looked in the charter statement for this list, and >found nothing that
>mentioned hyperbole.

>However, i received my CD's yesterday, and i'm really >glad to be listening to
>them.

>I think they are pretty great. Hats off to >JoJoBuBuAliBabbaBuBuJo!

>GZ

LOL!!!! This name always gets funny reactions ... I didn't want a name that just had my last name like anstefik@aol or something and I didn't want like
shaftrocks374632@aol or something so I figured jojobubu would work fine. hehe

Sincere thanks. I worked hard to remaster the recordings as best as I could and I was quite happy with the result.

As for the other discussion (below) I think theres some merit to these things. I know that I am certainly not trying to put praise towards Ben, Schoenberg or anyone really. I dont think anyone is saying that I am, but I want to make it clear that I'm not. As for myself my favorite type of music is probably a combo of different popular musics with a little unpopular musics (hehe) thrown in... I love new metal for example. Really these are all just matters of taste however. I cant stand Webern's music, but I love Limp Bizkit. I love Arvo Part, but I'm not particularly fond of Black Sabbath. With Phillip Glass its hit and miss whether I like any given song, but with Steve Reich and Pink Floyd I love just about everything (not completely but close). Everyone has tastes and thats ok.

This is all valuable to a certain extent, but really its just my opinion and has no bearing on the real world. Same with these CD's. Some will enjoy it and some wont. Some will think Ben is a mediocre composer, or that they enjoy the theory but not the tunes or what not, and some will think he's the best thing since bread and butter. Or if you, whomever is reading at this moment, dont like bread and butter perhaps since microwavable macaroni...

So is Ben the best, the worst, or somewhere in between? Who knows ... the discussion is a healthy one, but in the end it is just conjecture.

Cheers all,

Andy (JoJoBuBuAliBabbaBuBuJo) hehehehehehehe

Alison Monteith wrote:

> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > I just got these CDs too, and I must say, as a set, this may very
> > well be the most important Western microtonal recording in existence!
>
> Interesting opinion. Sorry lads you won't like this but I have to say that
although I understand
> Ben Johnston's importance as a composer in the general scheme of things his
music does less for me
> than others. I haven't yet heard the quartets though. Schoenberg doesn't
do much for me either
> though I respect his genius. (sorry Monz).
>
> I feel that there is an element of bias at work in some of this
discussion, as if because he
> writes for string quartet, and because the string quartet has an obvious
Western cultural tag of
> quality, things are suddenly raised to a more elevated plateau. This might
lead us eventually to
> consider the Symphony as the ultimate art form. It seems to me that there
is also a suggestion
> that the complexity of pre-compositional planning is also a mark of
quality. I don't agree with
> this. Are there any recent microtonal works, perhaps even from this list,
which are better (yes,
> better, because some of us are critics) than ANY existing symphony? These
are the questions I
> think we need to be looking at.
>
> I think that if we are to judge anyone's string quartets, and I've written
for quartet myself,
> then they should be judged against other quartets, perhaps against the
works of Shostakovich. When
> dealing with a tried and tested medium like the quartet I think you have to
consider much more
> than tuning. The minimalist string works of Part and Tavener (to name but
two), and the unique
> works of Cage, though not specifically in Just Intonation, have done more
to stretch my
> understanding of tonality and the potential for new music.
>
> My tuppenceworth.
>
> Best Wishes.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_25918.html#26051

> In a message dated 7/5/2001 10:26:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > >
> > > So is Ben the best, the worst, or somewhere in between? Who
knows
> > ... the discussion is a healthy one, but in the end it is just
> > conjecture.
> > >
> >
> > This is all true, Andy... but the discussions and interest will
all be
> > greatly facilitated if these quartets get on COMMERCIAL CDs...
> >
> > I REALLY hope your work on this is a step in that direction, but
if
> > Ben Johnston is like a LOT of really fine composers I know, unless
> > somebody ELSE does the fundraising for the commercial CD, it ain't
> > about goin' to happen!
> >
> > ______ _____ ______
> >
>
> You're probably right. In all honesty I know a chunk about audio,
music, and
> what not, but I really dont know much about the process of setting
up a
> commercial classical album. I have some experience as a radio DJ so
I have a
> contact or two around, but I wouldn't even know where to begin. I
dont know
> if this is what Ben wants anyway ... but your right it would be
helpful for
> people that want to listen to or study his music to have a
commercial album
> available.
>
> I tell you what. I'll run it by him and see what he thinks about it.
>
> Cheers Joe! I made those copies yesterday and I will be sending them
to you
> soon.
>
> Andy

Thanks so much, Andy...

Well, as you have already surmised, I'm saying that possibly YOU
should be the "point person" for the commercial CD. I'm not trying to
"assign work" or anything :) but it sounds like Johnston is not the
kind of composer who would do this kind of work himself. I KNOW what
I'm talking about here, because I know other composers in the same
situation, and who have the same kinds of attitudes (actually La Monte
Young has, unfortunately, the same feelings about recordings... one
reason there are FEW CDs of his works!)

I would recommend that you research funding possibilites for such a
CD... Mary Flagler Cary, Aaron Copland Fund and the Jerome
Foundation are three such recording possibilities.... These are hard
for *me* as a composer to get, but with a name like Ben Johnston, it
should be possible.

Any further information on funding possibilities I can provide
offlist...

best,

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson

Ben Johnston String Quartet CDs

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

🔗George Zelenz <ploo@mindspring.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗JoJoBuBu@aol.com

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>