What is microtonal?

This is what the proposed FAQ has now:

==

(1) MICROTONALITY AS THE USE OF "SMALL" INTERVALS. In the most obvious
definition, microtonality (from Greek _mikro_, "small") is the use of
intervals smaller than the usual whole-tones and semitones of the
best-known Western European compositional traditions, although the use
of such intervals is a routine feature of many world musics.

(2) MICROTONALITY AS THE USE OF "UNUSUAL" INTERVALS OR TUNINGS. In a
second and related definition broadening the first, microtonality is
the use of any interval or tuning system deemed "unusual" or
"different" in a given cultural setting -- in many 20th-21st century
settings, for example, just about any tuning for keyboard or guitar
other than a division of the octave into 12 equal semitones (12-tone
equal temperament, or 12-tET). The composer Ivor Darreg's concept of
_xenharmonics_, which it is tempting to describe in a paraphrase of
the Latin poet Terence as the conviction that "nothing intonational is
alien to me," seems synonymous with this sense of "microtonal."

(3) MICROTONALITY AS A MUSICAL CONTINUUM OR DIMENSION. In a third
definition, microtonality is simply the dimension or continuum of
variation among intervals and tuning systems, embracing _all_ musics.

==

The third definition makes microtonal mean tuning, so why not just
say tuning? The second definition makes a Slendro scale microtonal,
which seems to indicate a word without "micro" in it should be found
instead--eg, xenharmonic.

Hey Gene,

Yes, I read Margo's brilliant definition
of microtonality when it came out and raved
about it but I am not talking about words now.
I am talking about music.

Jacky, do you think that your piece is microtonal?
Theoretically, or do you hear it as such?

- Jeff

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

> Er, don't think blackjack is quartertonal, or are
> you using it in the imprecise sense, like when people
> say Arabic music has quartertones when it doesn't
> really.

The latter; it seemed like the right usage considering the context.
If you want to get technical (and clearly, you do!) it has steps of
sizes both 5/12 of a tone and 1/6 of a tone in abundence.

> >> Tuned into MTV the other night and saw a video
> >> by Eminem. Wow! Now that guy is creative. A real
> >> artist. Great stuff. A mind like Shakespeare.

> > Not a chance. Shakespeare was genuinely brilliant as well as
> > creative. Also, his poetry scanned.

> Are you kidding me?

Nope. Read it, and you'll find I am right. He also had a bigger
vocabulary and demonstrated much more imagination in his diction.

In case you are wondering, I also don't think Eminem has a mind like
Einstein.

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Jacky, do you think that your piece is microtonal?
> Theoretically, or do you hear it as such?
>
> - Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for your interesting question. Allow me to say that the first
Blackjack piece was *highly* microtonal sounding, because I used the
entire tuning and several subsets in complex rhythmic juxtaposition.
This piece explored the more dissonant properties of the scale, but
if one were to be able to listen to the individual parts that make up
the whole, then there would have been consonant sounds there too. It
was the use of highly chromatic fast passages *with* the subsets,
that gave the impression of more dissonance.

Now with the 2nd piece the approach was to only use subsets one-at-a-
time. In this piece there were 7 distinct tuning shifts. Paul felt
that in the first segment that something must have went wrong, and he
didn't feel the tuning was correct, but I checked my Scala files and
found that I did indeed use the correct intervals. I attribute the
illusion of the major sound of the first section to be coming from
the voicings that I used.

Here I will post the subsets I used for the second piece, which
accord with the progression of the music:

1.

150.000
350.000
500.000
700.000
850.000
1050.000
1200.000

2.

116.667
266.667
500.000
700.000
933.333
1083.333
1200.000

3.

116.667
266.667
466.667
733.333
933.333
1083.333
1200.000

4.

233.333
383.333
500.000
700.000
816.667
966.667
1200.000

5.

150.000
350.000
466.667
733.333
850.000
1050.000
1200.000

6.

150.000
266.667
350.000
466.667
733.333
850.000
933.333
1050.000
1200.000

7.

116.667
233.333
350.000
466.667
733.333
850.000
966.667
1083.333
1200.000

One will observe that between segment 2 & 3, I just altered the
fourth and fifth degrees.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

In a message dated 9/3/01 1:18:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> The third definition makes microtonal mean tuning, so why not just
> say tuning?
>
>

"Microtonal" is a perspective on tuning. Choosing a decidedly cross-cultural
meaning of the term "microtonal" repudiates any particular cultural
definitions. The other definitions are less comprehensive to the reality of
a culture that considers all musical tones to be microtonally (by any
definition) apart from another musical tone. Even the construction of the
musical tone's timbre makes use of splinters of difference.

When focusing on what "microtonal" music means, I began to recognize there
were individuals throughout the world in and throughout the past, that
explored divisions within divisions of pitch. Timotheous was renown for his
kithara playing of "ants."

Someday, hopefully, there will be no "microtonal" category, and tuning will
have been as liberated as dissonance and noise. Etymological definitions are
inadequate to the breath of music that we present on American Festival of
Microtonal Music concerts. Yes, there is no interval smaller than a semitone
in an Egyptian Maqam, but all the others may be displaced by a quartertone.
To declare the larger intervals offset by quartertones non-microtonal is
mincing words.

Johnny Reinhard

for me i have always felt it means either smaller than a semitone or a semitone with the addition and or subtraction of another smaller interval to produce a particular sound usually NOT present in traditional Equal Temp "tuning", so i would still require some sort of added significator of the type of tuning.....

thats my 2.56 cents..............

hahahahaha
aja
ha
ooooooooooo,

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] What is microtonal?

In a message dated 9/3/01 1:18:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

The third definition makes microtonal mean tuning, so why not just
say tuning?

"Microtonal" is a perspective on tuning. Choosing a decidedly cross-cultural
meaning of the term "microtonal" repudiates any particular cultural
definitions. The other definitions are less comprehensive to the reality of
a culture that considers all musical tones to be microtonally (by any
definition) apart from another musical tone. Even the construction of the
musical tone's timbre makes use of splinters of difference.

When focusing on what "microtonal" music means, I began to recognize there
were individuals throughout the world in and throughout the past, that
explored divisions within divisions of pitch. Timotheous was renown for his
kithara playing of "ants."

Someday, hopefully, there will be no "microtonal" category, and tuning will
have been as liberated as dissonance and noise. Etymological definitions are
inadequate to the breath of music that we present on American Festival of
Microtonal Music concerts. Yes, there is no interval smaller than a semitone
in an Egyptian Maqam, but all the others may be displaced by a quartertone.
To declare the larger intervals offset by quartertones non-microtonal is
mincing words.

Johnny Reinhard
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In tuning@y..., jacky_ligon@y... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> > Jacky, do you think that your piece is microtonal?
> > Theoretically, or do you hear it as such?
> >
> > - Jeff
>
> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your interesting question. Allow me to say that the first
> Blackjack piece was *highly* microtonal sounding, because I used the
> entire tuning and several subsets in complex rhythmic juxtaposition.
> This piece explored the more dissonant properties of the scale, but
> if one were to be able to listen to the individual parts that make up
> the whole, then there would have been consonant sounds there too. It
> was the use of highly chromatic fast passages *with* the subsets,
> that gave the impression of more dissonance.
>
> Now with the 2nd piece the approach was to only use subsets one-at-a-
> time. In this piece there were 7 distinct tuning shifts. Paul felt
> that in the first segment that something must have went wrong, and he
> didn't feel the tuning was correct, but I checked my Scala files and
> found that I did indeed use the correct intervals. I attribute the
> illusion of the major sound of the first section to be coming from
> the voicings that I used.

Jacky, Jeff . . .

Scala doesn't always work the way you think it will. I will stake my reputation on the fact that the scale in the first part of
the .mp3 file in question was _not_:

>
> Here I will post the subsets I used for the second piece, which
> accord with the progression of the music:
>
> 1.
>
> 150.000
> 350.000
> 500.000
> 700.000
> 850.000
> 1050.000
> 1200.000

(which is a Mohajira scale) but was instead a 12-tET major scale, or something very close to it. I'm not deaf yet!

By the way, I really like what Jacky did with the non-blackjack major scale at the beginning of his piece. There may have
been an error in implementation, but musically, the result was most pleasing!

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

> By the way, I really like what Jacky did with the non-blackjack
major scale at the beginning of his piece. There may have
> been an error in implementation, but musically, the result was most
pleasing!

My dog certainly liked it, but that may be evidence it wasn't really
microtonal.

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

/tuning/topicId_27815.html#27845

> --- In tuning@y..., jacky_ligon@y... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> > > Jacky, do you think that your piece is microtonal?
> > > Theoretically, or do you hear it as such?
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > Thanks for your interesting question. Allow me to say that the
first
> > Blackjack piece was *highly* microtonal sounding, because I used
the
> > entire tuning and several subsets in complex rhythmic
juxtaposition.
> > This piece explored the more dissonant properties of the scale,
but
> > if one were to be able to listen to the individual parts that
make up
> > the whole, then there would have been consonant sounds there too.
It
> > was the use of highly chromatic fast passages *with* the subsets,
> > that gave the impression of more dissonance.
> >
> > Now with the 2nd piece the approach was to only use subsets one-
at-a-
> > time. In this piece there were 7 distinct tuning shifts. Paul
felt
> > that in the first segment that something must have went wrong,
and he
> > didn't feel the tuning was correct, but I checked my Scala files
and
> > found that I did indeed use the correct intervals. I attribute
the
> > illusion of the major sound of the first section to be coming
from
> > the voicings that I used.
>
> Jacky, Jeff . . .
>
> Scala doesn't always work the way you think it will. I will stake
my reputation on the fact that the scale in the first part of
> the .mp3 file in question was _not_:
>
> >
> > Here I will post the subsets I used for the second piece, which
> > accord with the progression of the music:
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > 150.000
> > 350.000
> > 500.000
> > 700.000
> > 850.000
> > 1050.000
> > 1200.000
>
> (which is a Mohajira scale) but was instead a 12-tET major scale,
or something very close to it. I'm not deaf yet!

Was Jacky using SCALA with "Fractal Tune Smithy?" I think there
still may be some "bugs" in that linkage... (??)

___________ __________ ________
Joseph Pehrson