Time ignored ?

Periodicity Blocks, Propriety, Maximal eveness, Constant structures, MOS, etc,
etc... these are some of our theories related to scale
construction and though they certainly have their uses they overlook a very
important feature of music.

TIME !

Scales as constructed and talked about on this list and others are entities
existing in a realm of pure potential.

Looking at lattices and readouts from the scala data page the above qualities
can be easily seen.

But real music does not consider every note that exists in a scale or gamut.
Music [or should I say the listener ]only take the pitches that are souning in
present time into account. And if we are remembering former phrases where is our
attention ? Do we continually relate every new pitche back to pitches sounded
earlier ?

Can a scale be said to be strictly proper if not all the pitches in the scale
are used ?

Perhaps we should be only looking at these values and judging scales in this way
in reference to compositions or proposed compositions. We may need to go further
and break down our compositions into parts to see whether they have these
properties and whether the music could be improved if it did.

Any thoughts about how time can sometimes laugh at our timeless [all pitches at
once theories] ?

Justin White

Justin,

--- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:
> Any thoughts about how time can sometimes laugh at our timeless
> [all pitches at once theories] ?

Only that you've come up with one of the most unique observations
I've seen around here in a long... while.

Can we call you Justin Time? <g>

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:

> But real music does not consider every note that exists in a scale
or gamut.
> Music [or should I say the listener ]only take the pitches that are
souning in
> present time into account.

I disagree.

> And if we are remembering former phrases where is our
> attention ?

Many levels of attention, in many degrees of rememberance. A pitch
set (particularly one with 5-10 notes) makes its mark on our musical
mind, and if the set is "coherent" enough, a change in this set
stands out as a musical "event" of significance.

> Do we continually relate every new pitche back to pitches sounded
> earlier ?

Yes, but not to the extent claimed by Boomsliter & Creel (IMHO),
which you (ironically enough) seem very impressed by.

> Can a scale be said to be strictly proper if not all the pitches in
the scale
> are used ?

That would seem hard to justify, wouldn't it?

> From: Justin White <justin.white@davidjones.com.au>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:45 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Time ignored ?
>
>
>
> Any thoughts about how time can sometimes laugh
> at our timeless [all pitches at once theories] ?

Hi Justin,

This is something I touch on at the very end of my book.
It's interesting to me that, from my perspective, even
harmonic analysis is totally time-dependent.

If one is analyzing pitches in terms of their frequency
ratios, one is certainly taking time into consideration,
since frequency is defined as the number of waveform periods
*per second of time*.

The first thing I teach any of my new music students
is that music is unique among all art-forms because it
is the only abstract art which requires prolongation thru
time in order to be perceived. Every aspect of it, except
the "timeless all pitches at once theory", involves time.

(i.e., Most cinema and theater, which also require time,
are representational and not abstract. Yes, some cinema
is abstract, but examples are rare.)

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:
>
>>>> But real music does not consider every note that exists in a
scale or gamut. Music [or should I say the listener ]only take the
pitches that are souning in present time into account. >>>>

If I may venture to speak, perehaps, for Indian music. Music does
consider every pitch, in the gamut.

>>>> Do we continually relate every new pitche back to pitches
sounded earlier ? >>>>

>>>> [Paul's comments] Yes, but not to the extent claimed by
Boomsliter & Creel (IMHO), > which you (ironically enough) seem very
impressed by. >>>>

Before 500-600 years, yes, we related to every new note as an
interval, related to the previous note, and NOT related to the tonic
given by the tanpura: there neither was a tonic, nor was there a
tanpura, then, at least in the "Chamber" Indian music.

>>>> Can a scale be said to be strictly proper if not all the pitches
in the scale are used ? >>>>

Again, until close to the 15th century, Yes, we had scales with only
5 or 6 notes, too; they were called moorchchhana-s, the modal scales.

Regards,
Haresh.

>Any thoughts about how time can sometimes laugh at our >timeless [all pitches
>at
>once theories] ?

>Justin White

Hi Justin,

You bring up a very interesting point which I myeslf have been noticing about some of the analysis. To be specific I have seen a few diagrams, lattices, etc lately of some of Ben Johnston's work. I use this example only because I am thoroughly familiar with his work.

Some of the diagrams shown on here have been, so to speak, complete lattices of an entire piece. Specifically posted not long ago were lists of notes with the 6th quartet, if I remember correctly.

With Johnston's work especially this type of analysis is, in my opinion, pretty dang useless and more complicated then necessary. I'm not saying lattices are not valuable, because they most definitely can be, but in the context of Johnston's work they are very far in the background of compositional practice.
For example:

With Johnston's work it is all about modulation to microtonal keys. Lets say for example he uses a major chord. I'm using this example merely for simplicity.

C-E-G.

Now lets say he modulates to, in his notation, C-(C minus). He would argue that this the same chord modulated down via comma. To look at this and list all 6 pitch classes is not as important as understanding that the music modulates. To speak more "in the large" suppose he used a whole passage of notes in a song, say 12 pitch classes. Now suppose he modulates to 5 different keys using those same pitch classes, which is not uncommon for him. This example highlights why it is not only simpler to understand via modulation, as opossed to all pitches at once in a big lattice, because of the huge amounts of notes. The analyzer when looking at the music only has to remember the relationships between the 12 pitch classes and then in their head modulate them to the appropriate place which is simple if you've done it once.

On a last note this is not intended as a thorough description of Ben's modulation technique so please dont take it as such. In a nutshell however its basically standard modulation technique. Common tones, etc.. Lastly alot of his music does this, but its more common in his later stuff.

So to sum up I agree. Time is an extremely important part of music. Lattices, analysis, etc, should reflect it if possible.

Bye bye,
Andy

Justin,

I have believed for quite a long time now, even in the ignorant presence
of the 12 ET system, that when time is involved with a scale system, the
consonance/dissonance of the scale is determined by the complex relations
between the ratios before and theoretically after it. You can see this
simply by taking even a very "consonant chord" such as a sus4 and placing it
in the middle of a dissonant chord progression. Subjectively, the individual
chordal consonance is sacrificed and combined with the other dissonances or
consonances of the progression. This is why an entire composition in memory
will seem as roughly one huge "watercolor" chord. The brain tends to group
similar things into one. This is also evident with overtones and octave
equivalence and with all consonances for that matter.
I believe the that the sole reason of consonance is due to the similarity
it bears to the reference. Since unity is the ultimate consonance, any other
tone which bears a closer resemblance to unity will have a stronger
consonance than any tone which does not. As of now, though, I cannot concern
myself particularly with the complexities which time and memory involve,
though I still enjoy theorizing about it. In order to find the optimal
tuning system, I must first search after purity of ratios. I feel that there
are many ratios, possessing certain purities, which have never been
discovered. It would only be through the experimentation of a new system
that I would be able to figure out what its true potential was. I have been
doing such experimentation with the 12 ET system. I have found that it lacks
consonance to a large degree. There are few real "consonances" with 12 ET.
There are a great deal of dissonances that exist. These dissonances are not
very good either because they tend to "blend" into one another. I have
discovered that this blending is no good. Each individual tone, or chord,
should have a distinct quality whether that be a consonant or a dissonant
one. This will allow the a piece of music in the new system to have a
stronger effect upon one's perceived memory. This will also make music much
more powerful since it is the computation of the relations between ratios
which gives music its strengths or weaknesses. Please let me know what you
think.

Sincerely,
Brent

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

> With Johnston's work it is all about modulation to microtonal keys.
>Lets say for example he uses a major chord. I'm using this example
>merely for simplicity.
>
> C-E-G.
>
> Now lets say he modulates to, in his notation, C-(C minus). He
>would argue that this the same chord modulated down via comma. To
>look at this and list all 6 pitch classes is not as important as
>understanding that the music modulates.

But even more important is, how does he get there? From C to C-?
Surely by going through some intermediate regions in the lattice, yes?

> On a last note this is not intended as a thorough description of
>Ben's modulation technique so please dont take it as such. In a
>nutshell however its basically standard modulation technique. Common
>tones, etc..

What better way to see that than on a lattice?

> So to sum up I agree. Time is an extremely important part of music.
> Lattices, analysis, etc, should reflect it if possible.

Exactly. Monz's JustMusic software is intended to show the music
evolving on the lattice, by "lighting up" the pitches that are being
played at any given time. This could be very "illuminating", though
Monz and I differ in how we like to construct our lattices.

Again, lattices are for people who think spacially -- who understand
relationships better when they can "see" them portrayed visually. Not
all people are like this . . . but some are . . . so please don't
discount such portrayals as "pretty dang useless". When trying to
understand the complex play of pitches in a particular work of
microtonal music, some of us will be better able to grasp one method
of demonstration, others will be better able to grasp another . . .
for me, lattices have been extremely enlightening in many situations
and so it's always a convenient lens for peering at any particular
problem . . . all the pitches and their relationships with one
another are mapped out in a _static_ way, so that the _dynamics_ of
the music can be viewed against an unchanging background . . . why
should that be such a problem for you?

> With Johnston's work it is all about modulation to microtonal keys.
>Lets say for example he uses a major chord. I'm using this example
>merely for simplicity.
>
> C-E-G.
>
> Now lets say he modulates to, in his notation, C-(C minus). He
>would argue that this the same chord modulated down via comma. To
>look at this and list all 6 pitch classes is not as important as
>understanding that the music modulates.

>But even more important is, how does he get there? >From C to C-?
>Surely by going through some intermediate regions in >the lattice, yes?

> On a last note this is not intended as a thorough description of
>Ben's modulation technique so please dont take it as such. In a
>nutshell however its basically standard modulation technique. Common
>tones, etc..

>What better way to see that than on a lattice?

> So to sum up I agree. Time is an extremely important >part of music.
> Lattices, analysis, etc, should reflect it if >possible.

>Exactly. Monz's JustMusic software is intended to show >the music
>evolving on the lattice, by "lighting up" the pitches >that are being
>played at any given time. This could be >very "illuminating", though
>Monz and I differ in how we like to construct our >lattices.

>Again, lattices are for people who think spacially -- >who understand
>relationships better when they can "see" them >portrayed visually. Not
>all people are like this . . . but some are . . . so >please don't
>discount such portrayals as "pretty dang useless". >When trying to
>understand the complex play of pitches in a particular >work of
>microtonal music, some of us will be better able to >grasp one method
>of demonstration, others will be better able to grasp >another . . .
>for me, lattices have been extremely enlightening in >many situations
>and so it's always a convenient lens for peering at >any particular
>problem . . . all the pitches and their relationships >with one
>another are mapped out in a _static_ way, so that the >_dynamics_ of
>the music can be viewed against an unchanging >background . . . why
>should that be such a problem for you?

Umm paul, you must have just jumped in on the conversation because you completely missed my point. I was reacting explicitly to very large lattices for a whole piece which was the point of the thread, hence the name being time ignored as in ignoring time and drawing a big lattice. I wasn't expressing the view point that all lattices are bad, which is how I'm guessing you interpreted what I wrote.

A lattice which is huge, such as a complete lattice of of all the pitches in Ben's sixth quartet, which would hence ignore time, is pretty dang useless because it ignores modulation.

I'll say, to use Ben as an example, that he would never write out a big lattice to help him compose or analyse his own music nowadays. I think if I was trying to figure out Ben's music, I am referring to music of his that modulates, by looking at a big ol lattice I would probably go insane from confusion and the lattice would be gigantic ... with some of the pieces at least. There are other techniques for analyzing music like that which are simpler...

Small lattices or evolving lattices are great for examples but thats something different than was being discussed here. Of course an evolving lattice is helpful, but a general picture of a huge lattice which ignores time, so to speak, is relatively unhelpful in my opinion.

So in general I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, at least nothing major, but instead you were talking about something else unrelated to my point in this thread.

Cheers Paul!
Andy

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

> Umm paul, you must have just jumped in on the conversation because
>you completely missed my point. I was reacting explicitly to very
>large lattices for a whole piece which was the point of the thread,
>hence the name being time ignored as in ignoring time and drawing a
>big lattice.

That's not how I read the point of the thread, but of course we're
both only human! The only thing I remember about very large lattices
was something a while back that Joseph Pehrson and Joe Monzo
mentioned in connection with a Ben Johnston piece -- and I didn't see
anything in this thread remotely reminiscent of that (until you
brought it up).

>I wasn't expressing the view point that all lattices
>are bad, which is how I'm guessing you interpreted what I wrote.
>
> A lattice which is huge, such as a complete lattice of of all the
>pitches in Ben's sixth quartet, which would hence ignore time, is
>pretty dang useless because it ignores modulation.

Umm . . . if all you had to look at was the lattice, then of course
it would tell you virtually nothing about the piece in question. But
the point of the lattice is to show you how the various notated
pitches are related acoustically to one another, that's all! Who
would suggest otherwise? You'd look at the _score_, see all the
pitches notated there, then look at the lattice to see how those
pitches are related to one another -- the relationships in _time_
being shown in the _score_. Conversely, you could come up with
compositional ideas by tracing modulatory paths through the lattice
(as Joseph Pehrson has been doing). Of course, the lattice is
completely _static_, but it remains a useful _aid_ to either reading
or writing a _score_.

>I wasn't expressing the view point that all lattices
>are bad, which is how I'm guessing you interpreted what I wrote.
>
> A lattice which is huge, such as a complete lattice of of all the
>pitches in Ben's sixth quartet, which would hence ignore time, is
>pretty dang useless because it ignores modulation.

>Umm . . . if all you had to look at was the lattice, >then of course
>it would tell you virtually nothing about the piece in >question. But
>the point of the lattice is to show you how the >various notated
>pitches are related acoustically to one another, >that's all! Who
>would suggest otherwise? You'd look at the _score_, >see all the
>pitches notated there, then look at the lattice to see >how those
>pitches are related to one another -- the >relationships in _time_
>being shown in the _score_. Conversely, you could come >up with
>compositional ideas by tracing modulatory paths >through the lattice
>(as Joseph Pehrson has been doing). Of course, the >lattice is
>completely _static_, but it remains a useful _aid_ to >either reading
>or writing a _score_.

But you see thats what I am saying Paul is that with some music it can be more of a hindrance than an aid, and I think Johnston's music, his later more modulatory music specifically, is a good example of that!!!

Cheers,
Andy

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

/tuning/topicId_26380.html#26419

> But you see thats what I am saying Paul is that with some music it
can be more of a hindrance than an aid, and I think Johnston's music,
his later more modulatory music specifically, is a good example of
that!!!
>
> Cheers,
> Andy

In all fairness, though, Andy... the introduction to the Ben Johnston
_Sixth String Quartet_ has a HUGE lattice that takes up a good
portion of the introduction! It's chroma based on chroma and,
apparently, it's there to assist the performers one way or another...

_______ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

> But you see thats what I am saying Paul is that with some music it
can be more of a hindrance than an aid, and I think Johnston's music,
his later more modulatory music specifically, is a good example of
that!!!
>
> Cheers,
> Andy

>In all fairness, though, Andy... the introduction to >the Ben Johnston
>_Sixth String Quartet_ has a HUGE lattice that takes >up a good
>portion of the introduction! It's chroma based on >chroma and,
>apparently, it's there to assist the performers one >way or another...

_______ ______ ________
>Joseph Pehrson

I can gaurantee you his reasoning has nothing to do with assisting performers. You dont actually think he expects performers to be looking at a big lattice while thinking about what tones to use do you?

I dont think he includes said diagrams in any other string quartets. In fact at the moment I'm hard pressed to think of a any other piece at all where he includes a complete lattice of the tones, although its possible he doesn't in one or two more. The reason he doesn't, rarely ever, include such diagrams is because they are not particularly helpful in understanding his music. If they were he would probably include them with every piece, rather than just one piece.

As I've said I haven't given up on lattices entirely. In some circumstances they are extremely helpful, but in the context of large pieces of music with many notes, especially in many dimensions or highly modulatory, lattices are not helpful. However if the lattices were dynamic, not static, and changed to represent one specific thing at a time rather than trying to represent a whole piece the argument would be completely different. However someting really dynamic only happens in computer land not in stuff written down on paper land(which is next to New Jersey hehehe).

Cheers,
Andy

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

/tuning/topicId_26380.html#26418

Conversely, you could come up with
> compositional ideas by tracing modulatory paths through the lattice
> (as Joseph Pehrson has been doing). Of course, the lattice is
> completely _static_, but it remains a useful _aid_ to either
reading or writing a _score_.

Yes, this is a *very* practical way of using a lattice and, as Paul
mentions, I have been using this method *extensively* of late!

__________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
> As I've said I haven't given up on lattices entirely. In some
>circumstances they are extremely helpful, but in the context of
>large pieces of music with many notes, especially in many dimensions
>or highly modulatory, lattices are not helpful. However if the
>lattices were dynamic, not static, and changed to represent one
>specific thing at a time rather than trying to represent a whole
>piece the argument would be completely different. However someting
>really dynamic only happens in computer land not in stuff written
>down on paper land(which is next to New Jersey hehehe).

It seems you have failed to understand many of the points I was
trying to make. Lattices can be very helpful for highly modulatory
music precisely because they're static. One "sees" the music move
around on the lattice, as one follows the notes on the score and
locates them on the lattice. Pivot tones in modulation, and their
relationship to the pitch areas being departed from and the pitch
areas being approached, are immediately apparent. If the lattice
itself moved or changed shape it would be harder to distinguish
musical motion from this other motion. However I think we both agree
that a computer-based approach, where the notes actually sounding at
any given time "light up" on the lattice, would make this process
easier . . .

Paul said:
>It seems you have failed to understand many of the >points I was
>trying to make. Lattices can be very helpful for >highly modulatory
>music precisely because they're static. One "sees" the >music move
>around on the lattice, as one follows the notes on the >score and
>locates them on the lattice. Pivot tones in >modulation, and their
>relationship to the pitch areas being departed from >and the pitch
>areas being approached, are immediately apparent. If >the lattice
>itself moved or changed shape it would be harder to >distinguish
>musical motion from this other motion. However I think >we both agree
>that a computer-based approach, where the notes >actually sounding at
>any given time "light up" on the lattice, would make >this process
>easier . . .

Ahh I thought you were trying to say that dynamic lattices were better than static lattices, or something of that sort.

With static lattices and highly modulatory music we will I think just have to agree to disagree, at least for now. I dont find much stock in static lattices that have to cover very large amounts of tones. However limited static lattices, meaning static lattices which dont have that many tones on them can be very useful within certain contexts. We could definitely go into this topic in more detail in the context of real music, but I am moving soon and might not be able to respond for a good chunk of time anyway. So another time we can talk about this in much greater detail. This is as you well know is a big topic.

With dynamic lattices we do agree as you said. Computer programs like this could definitely be an aid.

Cheers Paul,

Andy

>Lots of this kind of analysis has been done for works >of tonal and
>post-tonal music. But a lot of the work that has been >going on here,
>that may be bothering you, has been the work of trying >to understand
>what it is that makes a pitch set "coherent" in the >first place.
>This, and the creative scale-construction work that >revolves around
>it, is mainly _pre-compositional_ in nature -- it >serves as a
>starting point for the composer to begin exploring the >infinite sea
>of possibilities that microtonality has to offer. >Rather than trying
>thousands and thousands of possibilities in order to >find one that
>works, one tries to do a little _thinking_ first in >order to try to
>narrow one's search.

One small point here Paul is that it is a problem to call some of this work Pre-coompositional. One example that has been used is the intro to Ben Johnston's 6th quartet. This type of graph can not be constructed before the piece is made. Its not possible for Ben to create those graphs before hand because his music just doesn't work that way, to speak very generally. Therefore it could not have been part of the PRE-compositional process. It could perhaps be called post composition analysis, but certainly not precomposition.

So I agree that this process of taking a multitude of tones is scale construction, but with a composer like Ben it is definitely not done before hand and is not part of the precompositional process.

Cheers,
Andy

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

/tuning/topicId_26380.html#26456

>
> One small point here Paul is that it is a problem to call some of
this work Pre-coompositional. One example that has been used is the
intro to Ben Johnston's 6th quartet. This type of graph can not be
constructed before the piece is made. Its not possible for Ben to
create those graphs before hand because his music just doesn't work
that way, to speak very generally. Therefore it could not have been
part of the PRE-compositional process. It could perhaps be called
post composition analysis, but certainly not precomposition.
>
> So I agree that this process of taking a multitude of tones is
scale construction, but with a composer like Ben it is definitely not
done before hand and is not part of the precompositional process.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy

Hey Jojobubu my man Andy!

Are you sure about the 6th quartet with this?? The article I read in
Perspectives shows an *extraordinary* amount of pre-compositional
planning in this piece... both in the structure and chroma-tics...

Perhaps you're thinking more of other pieces, maybe like the 5th
String Quartet that are more "spontaneous" in this regard??

Joe

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> >Lots of this kind of analysis has been done for works >of tonal
and
> >post-tonal music. But a lot of the work that has been >going on
here,
> >that may be bothering you, has been the work of trying >to
understand
> >what it is that makes a pitch set "coherent" in the >first place.
> >This, and the creative scale-construction work that >revolves
around
> >it, is mainly _pre-compositional_ in nature -- it >serves as a
> >starting point for the composer to begin exploring the >infinite
sea
> >of possibilities that microtonality has to offer. >Rather than
trying
> >thousands and thousands of possibilities in order to >find one
that
> >works, one tries to do a little _thinking_ first in >order to try
to
> >narrow one's search.
>
>
> One small point here Paul is that it is a problem to call some of
>this work Pre-coompositional. One example that has been used is the
>intro to Ben Johnston's 6th quartet. This type of graph can not be
>constructed before the piece is made.

Huh? This is off-topic. We were talking about scales of 5-10 notes.
Nor were we talking about "graphs" of any kind. You keep wanting to
relate every discussion to this one issue. Please stop that!

> So I agree that this process of taking a multitude of tones is
>scale construction, but with a composer like Ben it is definitely
>not done before hand and is not part of the precompositional process.

On the contrary Ben has constructed many scales pre-compositionally.
For example one that keeps coming up is the 22-tone scale for the 7-
limit section of the 4th string quartet (I remember reading him write
about how he likes to find JI scales with approximately equal steps,
which is of course very closely related to the whole PB thing, of
which many of Ben's scales are examples). There are lots of other
examples of this I've seen. Moreover, we have this remark from John
Jeffrey Gibbens, _Design in Ben Johnston's _Sonata for Microtonal
Piano__, Interface, Vol. 18 (1989), pp. 161-194:

"Johnston responded to a tradition in just intonation
experimentation. Expansions and approximations of [5-limit] just
intonation have consistently followed the addition sequence 2, 5, 7,
12, 19, 31, 50, 81, etc. Given the number of "notes" available on the
instrument and the composer's difficulties in finding instrumental
alternatives, a limit of 81 pitches was a logical choice."

>Hey Jojobubu my man Andy!

>Are you sure about the 6th quartet with this?? The >article I read in
>Perspectives shows an *extraordinary* amount of pre->compositional
>planning in this piece... both in the structure and >chroma-tics...

>Perhaps you're thinking more of other pieces, maybe >like the 5th
>String Quartet that are more "spontaneous" in this >regard??

>Joe

Yep I'm sure although I wouldn't have known this from reading the articles unfortunately. From reading some of Ben's articles, for example "scalar order as a compositional resource" which is I think in perspectives in the 60's, I also thought he had this huge pre-compositional process. However when I actually worked with him I discovered that those graphs were created by going in after the fact and counting the tones. In other words he would write the piece and then figure out the scale or just have a general plan like to use up to the 13-limit with no other specifics than that before hand. Obviously thats pretty general and not mapped out. This isn't true with EVERY piece of course, but its true I think on the whole.

Cheers Joe, (not Joe Joe Boo Boo hehehehehehe)
Andy

>Huh? This is off-topic. We were talking about scales >of 5-10 notes.
>Nor were we talking about "graphs" of any kind. You >keep wanting to
>relate every discussion to this one issue. Please stop >that!

I catch you are getting offended. Nothing I'm saying is intended to offend you Paul. This was not off topic. You were talking about scale construction in your post. Scale construction can be done via graphs....

>On the contrary Ben has constructed many scales pre->compositionally.
>For example one that keeps coming up is the 22-tone >scale for the 7-
>limit section of the 4th string quartet (I remember >reading him write
>about how he likes to find JI scales with >approximately equal steps,
>which is of course very closely related to the whole >PB thing, of
>which many of Ben's scales are examples). There are >lots of other
>examples of this I've seen. Moreover, we have this >remark from John
>Jeffrey Gibbens, _Design in Ben Johnston's _Sonata for >Microtonal
>Piano__, Interface, Vol. 18 (1989), pp. 161-194:

Well duh Paul. I didn't say he ABSOLLUELY NEVER thinks about a scale before writing a piece that would be ludicrous. He's also written about scale construction and etc. He does use scales and lattices, but its not fair to say its all precompositional process because only sometimes is that stuff dervied before he actually writes a piece. You are making it sound like I meant he has no precomp process, but thats just not true nor was it what I said.

Not to mention the fact that the piece you mention, the microtonal piano sonata which I am familiar with, was arguably one of the pieces with the most amount of precompositional process hes ever made. Most other pieces dont even come close to having the amount of precomp process as involved with the microtonal piano sonata.

Cheers,
Andy

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

> Yep I'm sure although I wouldn't have known this from reading the
>articles unfortunately. From reading some of Ben's articles, for
>example "scalar order as a compositional resource" which is I think
>in perspectives in the 60's, I also thought he had this huge pre-
>compositional process. However when I actually worked with him I
>discovered that those graphs were created by going in after the fact
>and counting the tones. In other words he would write the piece and
>then figure out the scale or just have a general plan like to use up
>to the 13-limit with no other specifics than that before hand.
>Obviously thats pretty general and not mapped out. This isn't true
>with EVERY piece of course, but its true I think on the whole.

Well if that's the case, and Ben so often ends up with a scale that
is a periodicity block (such as the 53-tone 5-limit one, for another
example), then this shows that the PB concept is not merely a
putative pre-compositional one but a more powerful principle that
shows itself naturally in the course of music making. Yes, the pitch-
set alone, as embodied by a lattice standing without a score, says
very little about the composition and the "story" it has to tell. But
the simple fact that certain "laws" or tendencies concerning the
pitch universes explored in musical works can be understood
mathematically is, I think, a very important result in the field of
_tuning_. Not composition, not aesthetics, but _tuning_. Which is,
after all, the name of this list!

Now many composers prefer to have the field of pitches laid out for
them in advance, as on an instrument. Harry Partch comes to mind, as
do Kraig Grady and Joseph Pehrson. For such composers, what could be
more useful (within the realm of _tuning_) than understanding, or
otherwise making use of the results of, these general principles
and "laws"?

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> >Huh? This is off-topic. We were talking about scales >of 5-10
notes.
> >Nor were we talking about "graphs" of any kind. You >keep wanting
to
> >relate every discussion to this one issue. Please stop >that!
>
> I catch you are getting offended.

Not at all -- just annoyed.

>Nothing I'm saying is intended to >offend you Paul. This was not off
topic. You were talking about >scale construction in your post. Scale
construction can be done via >graphs....

It can be but that's not the aspect of it Justin was talking about
here. Please keep in mind the context of what I write, and what it is
in reply to. Otherwise we don't have the conditions for a productive
conversation.

> Well duh Paul. I didn't say he ABSOLLUELY NEVER thinks about a
>scale before writing a piece that would be ludicrous. He's also
>written about scale construction and etc. He does use scales and
>lattices, but its not fair to say its all precompositional process
>because only sometimes is that stuff dervied before he actually
>writes a piece.

Who said it's all precompositional process?

Paul said:

>Now many composers prefer to have the field of pitches >laid out for
>them in advance, as on an instrument. Harry Partch >comes to mind, as
>do Kraig Grady and Joseph Pehrson. For such composers, >what could be
?more useful (within the realm of _tuning_) than >understanding, or
>otherwise making use of the results of, these general >principles
>and "laws"?

What are you talking about?
Are you talking about consonance and dissonance like why woulnd't somone want to know how consonance and dissonance works? I have no idea what you're asking me.

Andy

>It can be but that's not the aspect of it Justin was >talking about
>here. Please keep in mind the context of what I write, >and what it is
>in reply to. Otherwise we don't have the conditions >for a productive
>conversation.

well yaa. But Paul that assumes that I wasn't paying attention and that you were being perfectly clear. It would probably be much mroe appropriate to say that I probably wasn't paying close enough attention AND you weren't being clear enough.

> Well duh Paul. I didn't say he ABSOLLUELY NEVER thinks about a
>scale before writing a piece that would be ludicrous. He's also
>written about scale construction and etc. He does use scales and
>lattices, but its not fair to say its all precompositional process
>because only sometimes is that stuff dervied before he actually
>writes a piece.

>Who said it's all precompositional process?

My impression from you post was that you were implying that I said this or that you understood me to have implied this.

Now I really dont have any idea what you were saying to me honestly.

Andy

> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:56 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Time ignored ?
>
>
> Well if that's the case, and Ben so often ends up with a scale that
> is a periodicity block (such as the 53-tone 5-limit one, for another
> example), then this shows that the PB concept is not merely a
> putative pre-compositional one but a more powerful principle that
> shows itself naturally in the course of music making. Yes, the pitch-
> set alone, as embodied by a lattice standing without a score, says
> very little about the composition and the "story" it has to tell. But
> the simple fact that certain "laws" or tendencies concerning the
> pitch universes explored in musical works can be understood
> mathematically is, I think, a very important result in the field of
> _tuning_. Not composition, not aesthetics, but _tuning_. Which is,
> after all, the name of this list!

Wow, Paul, really good stuff!!

-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..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
>
>What are you talking about?
>Are you talking about consonance and dissonance like why woulnd't
>somone want to know how consonance and dissonance works? I have no
>idea what you're asking me.

I'm not asking you anything. Instead, I was trying to stay on-topic
for this thread and directly respond to Justin's original post which
started this thread:

/tuning/topicId_26380.html#26380

I'm sorry my post was so mysterious to you. Hopefully Justin
understood what I was trying to say. Clearly Monz understood my
post . . . maybe he can help . . . I can't think of a better way to
say what I said. If you have any more specific questions, please ask.

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

> well yaa. But Paul that assumes that I wasn't paying attention and
>that you were being perfectly clear. It would probably be much mroe
>appropriate to say that I probably wasn't paying close enough
>attention AND you weren't being clear enough.

Absolutely. I'm about 90% recovered from my strep now so I should be
making more and more sense now :)

Andy wrote,

>>> Well duh Paul. I didn't say he ABSOLLUELY NEVER thinks about a
>>>scale before writing a piece that would be ludicrous. He's also
>>>written about scale construction and etc. He does use scales and
>>>lattices, but its not fair to say its all precompositional process
>>>because only sometimes is that stuff dervied before he actually
>>>writes a piece.

I wrote,

>>Who said it's all precompositional process?

Andy wrote,

> My impression from you post was that you were implying that I said
> this or that you understood me to have implied this.

On the contrary, you seem to have said the exact opposite:

"So I agree that this process of taking a multitude of tones is scale
construction, but with a composer like Ben it is definitely not done
before hand and is not part of the precompositional process."

That seemed to be a definitive "not" rather than a "sometimes".

Best,
Paul

>On the contrary, you seem to have said the exact >opposite:

>"So I agree that this process of taking a multitude of >tones is scale
>construction, but with a composer like Ben it is >definitely not done
>before hand and is not part of the precompositional >process."

>That seemed to be a definitive "not" rather than >a "sometimes".

>Best,
>Paul

I understand what you were saying now. I was not trying to imply a definitive "not," but I see from this statement why you interpreted it that way. I was referring mostly to the context of Ben's later work, and I thought I had made that clear, because I think this is a relatively true statement for that work. A great example would be the ninth quartet. Also with some of his work, and the sixth was discussed briefly. I think the amount of precomp which people think happens in his work is not proportional to the actual amount of precomp in his work. This of course would not be fair to say about all of his work as I just said.

Of course with something like the microtonal piano sonata, as we both know, nearly the opposite is true. With that piece theres alot of precomp. Ben has always spoken to me about that piece, micro piano sonata, in terms of boulez, which says something about what he was thinking in that particular context.
I think however that that piece is more the exception then the rule, and I think Ben would agree if I asked him specifically about that as well.

Good luck getting over your strep. I caught it once as well, it sucks...

Cheers,
Andy

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

/tuning/topicId_26380.html#26486

I think, Andy, on the overview I'm pretty much understanding what
you're trying to get at.

It would seem initially that Ben Johnston would be an EXCESSIVELY pre-
compositional composer with all the lattices, chroma upon chroma,
serialism, complex set construction based upon the harmonic series,
etc., etc.

HOWEVER, his music really doesn't SOUND so much like that (well, with
the exception of the 6th String Quartet which is nobody's favorite,
even *his* as I understand it...).

His music SOUNDS pretty "intuitive..." so somehow he balances all the
background theory with pure listening.

It seems that's what you are trying to stress, and I think
particularly with a composer with such strong theoretical
underpinings as Ben Johnston, it's a good and important point...

_______ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

>I think, Andy, on the overview I'm pretty much >understanding what
>you're trying to get at.

>It would seem initially that Ben Johnston would be an >EXCESSIVELY pre-
>compositional composer with all the lattices, chroma >upon chroma,
>serialism, complex set construction based upon the >harmonic series,
>etc., etc.

>HOWEVER, his music really doesn't SOUND so much like >that (well, with
>the exception of the 6th String Quartet which is >nobody's favorite,
>even *his* as I understand it...).

Yes. Yes he actually considered rewriting the 6th quartet for a while, but decided against it. You are very much getting at what I think Ben is saying and my meaning, with his music most especially with his later music, although its there to a lesser extent in his earlier music depending on the piece. He calls this, "art concealing art," and if my brain serves me correctly you can read an article about it in the book, "20th century composers on 20th century music" by I think elliot shwartz and barney childs. I could be wrong there because all of my books and articles are packed up in preparation for my move and so I might have a screwed up citation or article but I think thats the one. You can blame my brain as long as you dont blame me. (hehe)However the point is the same Ben calls this general process, as you mention above, Art concealing art and it is an extremely important part of his music by his own admission.

>His music SOUNDS pretty "intuitive..." so somehow he >balances all the
>background theory with pure listening.

Ben would absolutely agree with you. In fact thats the point of art concealing art so you are describing Bens music in a way similar to how he would. That article will describe this process more. Its abstract, but if you know his scores well you will see specifically what he is referring to in his music.

>It seems that's what you are trying to stress, and I >think
>particularly with a composer with such strong >theoretical
>underpinings as Ben Johnston, it's a good and >important point...

>_______ ______ ______
>Joseph Pehrson

Thanks Joe. I absolutely think you were understanding what I was getting at and I appreciate the comments. In fact the way you described it is very similar to the way I have heard Ben describe his own music many many times, which is of course what I am trying to convey as best as I can.

Cheers Joe,
Andy