welcome pagew

Welcome Brent,

I am a fellow searcher, been in this club for a few years now and only
close to getting my musical ass off the ground in non-12. That disclaimer
made, I will (at your request) let you know what I think about a few of
your comments.

> 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.

Why ratios?
What would an undiscovered ratio look like?
What is purity?
How pure does something have to be for a human being to consume?

I think I may have started out with some of the same concerns, I wanted
more "in tune" consonances and "new hitherto unheard" consonances. I
now believe that consonances are pretty much known and have something
to do with low-numbered-ratios. Thats fine, I wouldn't expect a
painter to spend a lot of time looking for another primary color.

But there ARE low-numbered-ratios which are not approximated well (or
at all) in 12 and some of those that ARE approximated in 12 can be
significantly improved upon (if they bother you). This can lead you
to all kinds of other ETs, or to building JI pitch collections, or
whatever... There is also the opposite extreme of finding tension
and release in a vocabulary completely absent of low-numbered-ratio
approximations!

> 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.

Your first statement is entirely correct (and no, I haven't spent enough
time with the systems that I haven't rejected like poisonous snakes to
have any idea when a systems magic has really had time to make itself
apparent).

12tet has awesome fifths and fourths. The thirds and sixths are certainly
spicy compared to the just intervals they are assumed to approximate, however
there is abundant proof in the world that this is acceptable.

> 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'm beginning to agree with this, and have begun to think along the lines
of consonance, dissonance, and some wide middle ground that isn't much of
either. This has come through my limited microtonal experiments where
OCCAISIONALLY I have found things that had the effect of "new dissonance"
on me (things that I thought would be "new consonance" in some
cases), whereas many new intervals are sortof 'blah', and stacking
intervals (big chords) can EASILY just cancel the consonant or dissonant
affect of the component intervals.

> 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.

As has been alluded to in another thread, context has a lot to do with
these things.

> 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.
>

"since it is the computation of the relations between ratios
which gives music its strengths or weaknesses." I think a statement like
this could be questioned. Is it true for a solo melody? Is it true for
malody over drone? Is it true independent of timbre, register, dynamics,
tempo, etc?

Keep digging. There are mountains of resources (people/web pages/audio
clips/etc) to question every assumption and thought you may have had
about any of this stuff.

It is very attractive to think that these resources will allow you not
to do the ear-work. The more ear-work I do, the more I realize I'm still
at the very beginning of this search, even to answer the simplest
question, "what am I hoping to get".

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26410.html#26410

>
> Keep digging. There are mountains of resources (people/web
pages/audio clips/etc) to question every assumption and thought you
may have had about any of this stuff.
>
> It is very attractive to think that these resources will allow you
not to do the ear-work. The more ear-work I do, the more I realize
I'm still at the very beginning of this search, even to answer the
simplest question, "what am I hoping to get".
>
> Bob Valentine

Hello Bob and others.

Althought this short statement could just as well be on the new,
practical "Making Microtonal Music" forum, I believe, since it
applies to theory, it could go here as well.

I'm beginning to think there is really only *one* axiom to
composition, simply stated:

is it interesting...

Now, of course, that can be broken down into a lot of objective and
subjective factors, concordance being only one of them. I believe on
this score the community's "nutty professor" is correct. This really
is a vast subject and many things need to be taken into
consideration. It also is very subjective: obviously what
seems "interesting" to one person is not to another.

However, we can only go on the assumption that other people reared in
the same culture and subjected to the same general background will
hear things as *we* do. My experience has been that, in many cases,
this pertains...

For myself, if I find my music is "dull" or "uninteresting" to *me*
even for a millisecond, I throw it out and keep trying.

I think I really throw out an *incredible* amount of material on the
overall...

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Fascinating.
The father of a friend of mine writes for the New Yorker and "interesting" is one of the words the
editorial board won't allow.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> <snip>
>
> I'm beginning to think there is really only *one* axiom to
> composition, simply stated:
>
> is it interesting...
>

> <snip>

--- In tuning@y..., Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26410.html#26438

> Fascinating.
> The father of a friend of mine writes for the New Yorker
and "interesting" is one of the words the
> editorial board won't allow.
>

Well, perhaps they're "jaded" with that evaluation, so they will,
essentially use synonyms that mean the same thing. Could you fill us
in a bit more about this??

thanks

________ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I'm beginning to think there is really only *one* axiom to
> composition, simply stated:
>
> is it interesting...

Don't you think, as creative people, we can find more interesting
words than "interesting"?

Other than that (which goes part of the way to explain why an
editorial board would choose to not use it, and also partly explains
its excoriation as a descriptive at any new art exhibition or dance
recital or ... ) -- other than that, I agree with you 100%, because
in my own work, if it does not completely capture my attention in
someway, either hitting a low, gut-level reaction or tweaking an
intellectual sensor...if it doesn't do that, I can't imagine how I'd
expect anyone else to want to listen to it.

Hence my small output! <g>

Cheers,
Jon

Dear Joseph,
You're right. This whole subject is really "interesting." I think it's a nonword. When you
really think about it it doesn't convey information. It's likely to be overused.

There's a lot more to it if I could remember it all. It's a whole monologue. It's not only the
word "interesting." There's a whole listof words. His name in Dr. John Haas and he occasionally
write articles for the L.A. Times Travel section. He wrote some novels in the 50s, one of which
was made into a movie. I think it stars Julie Christie. I should get hold of him and make him
repeat this terrific writing lesson.

He was a dentist to stars. He talks about doing Bruno Walter. Now he's retired and travels. He
has all these stories about celebrities. He lives in Santa Barbara. Maybe I can get him online.

RT

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_26410.html#26438
>
> > Fascinating.
> > The father of a friend of mine writes for the New Yorker
> and "interesting" is one of the words the
> > editorial board won't allow.
> >
>
> Well, perhaps they're "jaded" with that evaluation, so they will,
> essentially use synonyms that mean the same thing. Could you fill us
> in a bit more about this??
>
> thanks
>
> ________ ________ _________
> Joseph Pehrson

> <snip>

--- In tuning@y..., Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26410.html#26477

> Dear Joseph,
> You're right. This whole subject is really "interesting." I think
it's a nonword. When you
> really think about it it doesn't convey information. It's likely
to be overused.
>
> There's a lot more to it if I could remember it all. It's a whole
monologue. It's not only the
> word "interesting." There's a whole listof words.

Thanks, Rick!

It would be "interesting" to know what they are!

_______ _________ _______
Joseph Pehrson