From Kyle Gann's web page

The following is from Kyle Gann's page, at

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.html

<begin quote>

I've had interesting experiences playing just-intonation music for
non-music-major students. Sometimes they will identify an
equal-tempered chord as "happy, upbeat," and the same chord in just
intonation as "sad, gloomy." Of course, this is the first time they've
ever heard anything but equal temperament, and they're far more
familiar with the first sound than the second. But I think they
correctly hit on the point that equal temperament chords do have a kind
of active buzz to them, a level of harmonic excitement and intensity.
By contrast, just-intonation chords are much calmer, more passive; you
literally have to slow down to listen to them. (As Terry Riley says,
Western music is fast because it's not in tune.) It makes sense that
American teenagers would identify tranquil, purely consonant harmony as
moody and depressing. Listening from the other side, I've learned to
hear equal temperament music as a kind of aural caffeine, overly busy
and nervous-making. If you're used to getting that kind of buzz from
music, you feel the lack of it as a deprivation when it's not there.
But do we need it? Most cultures use music for meditation, and ours may
be the only culture that doesn't. With our tuning, we can't.

My teacher, Ben Johnston, was convinced that our tuning is responsible
for much of our cultural psychology, the fact that we are so geared
toward progress and action and violence and so little attuned to
introspection, contentment, and acquiesence. Equal temperament could be
described as the musical equivalent to eating a lot of red meat and
processed sugars and watching violent action films. The music doesn't
turn your attention inward, it makes you want to go out and work off
your nervous energy on something.

On a more subtle level, after I've been immersed in just intonation for
a couple of weeks, equal temperament music begins to sound insipid,
bland, colorless. There are only eleven types of intervals available
instead of the potential several dozen that exist in even the simplest
just system, and you don't get gradations of different sizes of major
third or major sixths the way you do in just tuning. On a piano in just
intonation, moving from one tonic to another changes the whole interval
makeup of the key, and you get a really specific, visceral feel for
where you are on the pitch map. That feeling disappears in bland,
all-keys-the-same equal temperament. As a composer, I enjoy having the
option, if I'm going to use a minor third interval, of being able to
choose among the 7/6, 6/5, 19/16, and 11/9 varieties, each with its own
individual feeling.

Far beyond the mere theoretical purity, playing in just intonation for
long periods sensitizes me to a myriad colors, and coming back to the
equal tempered world is like seeing everything click back into black
and white. It's a disappointing readjustment. Come to think of it,
maybe you shouldn't try just intonation - you'll become unfit to live
in the West, and have to move to India or Bali.

Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't at
all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and American
musics are currently tuned. In fact, before the 20th century, European
music had its own wonderful non-equal-tempered tunings, which
unfortunately we've abandoned. To read about them, go to my
Introduction to Historical Tunings page.

<end quote>

Great words, Kyle! I've got some tongue-in-cheek warnings on my web
page about the dangers of listening to adaptively tuned music. Where
you speak of colors vs. black and white, the analogy that I use most is
stereo vs. mono. Either way, there is a depressing compressing of the
sound when returning to 12-tET.

This seemed like a good time to share these words with the list. Thanks
for granting permission!

(Kyle also has some interesting clips of his own music on his page(s)).

JdL

Dan,

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Look, it's all subjective and relative to one's personal views, but
> the bit about "the musical equivalent to eating a lot of red meat
> and processed sugars and watching violent action films" just seems
> so over the top and so stereotypically "political" to me (and I
> think it's obvious that this helps perpetuate some rather
> unfortunate tuning scripture, you know--just is devine, equal is
> evil).

Not to mention that this was gleaned from playing 'chords' for people
to listen to, and music isn't just isolated chords or tunings.

I get so *tired* of these listening 'experiments', where tones, or
intervals, or dyads, or chords, or progressions, get played for a
series of lab rats and then the investigators declaim what is and
what isn't. There is an *awful* lot of subjectivity encompassed in
these matters!

We are certainly inculturated by a lot of accumulated baggage, and
there are certainly physical audio phenomena that can't be denied.
But to give qualities like Kyle does to chords tuned one way or
another just doesn't cut it with me.

And, as you, I like Kyle's writing (and most of what I've heard of
his music, too).

Cheers,
Jon

> From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 3:21 AM
> Subject: [tuning] From Kyle Gann's web page
>
>
> Great words, Kyle! I've got some tongue-in-cheek warnings on my web
> page about the dangers of listening to adaptively tuned music. Where
> you speak of colors vs. black and white, the analogy that I use most is
> stereo vs. mono. Either way, there is a depressing compressing of the
> sound when returning to 12-tET.
>

Hello all,

John deLaubenfels has retuned many of my own 12-EDO compositions
into adaptive 5- and 7-limit JI tunings, and I agree wholeheartedly
with both his and Kyle's very apt metaphors describing the comparison
of the retuned version with the original 12-EDO version, at least
for my own music.

love / peace / harmony ...

-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

Sorry if I stirred up a hornet's nest with the quote from Kyle Gann's
web page. Please consider these observations as personal, rather than
an attempt to prescribe to the entire universe of ears.

If there's one thing I've learned since joining this list, it's that we
all like different ways of tuning. Kyle's words resonate strongly with
me, but I recognize that others feel very differently.

JdL

JdL,

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> Sorry if I stirred up a hornet's nest with the quote from Kyle
> Gann's web page.

...and the rest. Oh, please! If all of our postings met with
unanimous praise (or equally unanimous condemnation) the list would
cease to have any value. The true test of a good list -- or
community -- is if it can handle a diversity of opinions in a manner
that illuminates the central subject area. Kyle is well-respected,
and those (of us) who might disagree are simply expressing another
facet of the issue, and the opinions on the distaff side may very
well not apply to all.

Diversity and discussion: what a good thing!

Cheers,
Jon

>...and the rest. Oh, please! If all of our postings met with
>unanimous praise (or equally unanimous condemnation) the list would
>cease to have any value. The true test of a good list -- or
>community -- is if it can handle a diversity of opinions in a manner
>that illuminates the central subject area. Kyle is well-respected,
>and those (of us) who might disagree are simply expressing another
>facet of the issue, and the opinions on the distaff side may very
>well not apply to all.

>Diversity and discussion: what a good thing!

Er... yes, absolutely. But what are you saying "Oh, Please!" about?
Aren't you just repeating my point, while chastising me for making it?

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> But what are you saying "Oh, Please!" about?
> Aren't you just repeating my point, while chastising me for making
it?
>
> JdL

When I read Jon's reply, John, I read a different sense of "Oh,
Please!" . . . as in "you're so right it's ridiculous". Just goes to
show again how difficult this form of conversation is . . . no facial
expressions, body language, timing, and intonation to guide our
understanding of others' words.

>When I read Jon's reply, John, I read a different sense of "Oh,
>Please!" . . . as in "you're so right it's ridiculous". Just goes to
>show again how difficult this form of conversation is . . . no facial
>expressions, body language, timing, and intonation to guide our
>understanding of others' words.

Oh, that makes sense. Does this mean I don't get to beat up on Jon?
Dang! ;->

JdL

JdL,

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> Oh, that makes sense. Does this mean I don't get to beat up on Jon?
> Dang! ;->

Absolutely true. I meant it in "C'mon, John, don't beat yourself up
just for offering a (valid) opinion!" I'm so flamboyant and over-the-
top that often, late at night, I don't take into account the 32,771
ways that a phrase can be taken... :)

Jon

[Ed Foote wrote:]
>Today's world is a world that suppresses public emotional displays. The
>audience member that is weeping in the concert hall is often seen as
>unstable, or not quite rational, even though the purpose of music is so
>often said to be to cause an emotional response, thus providing an
>emotional respite in a world of rationality.

Ha! Been there, done that. In church. A woman friend of a friend was
to perform a song (sorry to say I've forgotten which song), and I just
totally lost it without warning. All I could do not to be wracked with
sobs, it was that beautiful. Got all teary-eyed, and got some funny
looks. Was worth it, though!

JdL

[I wrote:]
>>Oh, that makes sense. Does this mean I don't get to beat up on Jon?
>>Dang! ;->

[Jon wrote:]
>Absolutely true. I meant it in "C'mon, John, don't beat yourself up
>just for offering a (valid) opinion!" I'm so flamboyant and over-the-
>top that often, late at night, I don't take into account the 32,771
>ways that a phrase can be taken... :)

Kyool. Since it was clear to Paul, I must've just fallen into a silly
interpretation.

That wonderful song that choked me up was in 12-tET, BTW; how's that
for irony?

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Interestingly, I read this same passage years ago and almost
> choked--you know, gagged!
>
> I just don't think this is some of Kyle Gann's better writing--and
he
> is, in my opinion, very very good indeed.
>
> Look, it's all subjective and relative to one's personal views, but
> the bit about "the musical equivalent to eating a lot of red meat
and
> processed sugars and watching violent action films" just seems so
over
> the top and so stereotypically "political" to me (and I think it's
> obvious that this helps perpetuate some rather unfortunate tuning
> scripture, you know--just is devine, equal is evil).
>
> In short, I have to confess that it goes against most all my
personal
> experience and considered thinking.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
> Bob:
Are you perhaps missing the basic point because you don't happen to
personally identify with some implied life-style choices here? Are
you screaming back in 12-tET? It's not evil, but I think one of the
great values of music is it's potential and often realized
contribution (with some musics) to coherence in human mental,
behavorial and even phsyiological functioning.

The coherence and ordering power of JI is clear to anyone who has
really become involved with practical JI performance on any
significant scale. One is led to realize just how much more music is
than mere entertainment. To view it as little more than entertainment
is to sell a diamond for the price of spinach. Music has a profound
power to mend the spirit and not simply invigorate us with a kind of
go-go-go energy and enthusiasm, or make us empathetically sad or
happy or even to say "oh, how beautiful". It is much more powerful
than that by far!

It is almost unthinkable, for example, to take the JI Indian ragas
on the sitar or sarod and play them in 12-tET. The music would lose a
tremendous amount of its charm, much of which derives from its
tremendous intonational accuracy and coherence and it's subtle
microtonal flavors. (I don't like the use of the harmonium in Indian
music for this very reason, unless it is justly retuned to the raga,
which I don't think is very common.)

But why arbitrarily assign some kind of JI monopoly to Indian music?
Everything that makes it good for Indian music can also lead us to
myriad polyphonic wonders, and I personally feel this is the future
direction of music in the west. Multi-melodic beauty weaving through
polyphonic structures based on pure, coherent vertical harmonies is
an ideal that is for me well worth aiming for and is the principle
motivation underlying my interest in tuning. It could be a higher,
subtler, more colorful realization of what manifested at an earlier
stage of polyphonic development in the renaissance.

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 3:21 AM
> Subject: [tuning] From Kyle Gann's web page
>
>
> > The following is from Kyle Gann's page, at
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.html
> >
> > <begin quote>
> >
> > I've had interesting experiences playing just-intonation music for
> > non-music-major students. Sometimes they will identify an
> > equal-tempered chord as "happy, upbeat," and the same chord in
just
> > intonation as "sad, gloomy." Of course, this is the first time
> they've
> > ever heard anything but equal temperament, and they're far more
> > familiar with the first sound than the second. But I think they
> > correctly hit on the point that equal temperament chords do have a
> kind
> > of active buzz to them, a level of harmonic excitement and
> intensity.
> > By contrast, just-intonation chords are much calmer, more passive;
> you
> > literally have to slow down to listen to them. (As Terry Riley
> says,
> > Western music is fast because it's not in tune.) It makes sense
> that
> > American teenagers would identify tranquil, purely consonant
harmony
> as
> > moody and depressing. Listening from the other side, I've learned
> to
> > hear equal temperament music as a kind of aural caffeine, overly
> busy
> > and nervous-making. If you're used to getting that kind of buzz
> from
> > music, you feel the lack of it as a deprivation when it's not
there.
> > But do we need it? Most cultures use music for meditation, and
ours
> may
> > be the only culture that doesn't. With our tuning, we can't.
> >
> > My teacher, Ben Johnston, was convinced that our tuning is
> responsible
> > for much of our cultural psychology, the fact that we are so
geared
> > toward progress and action and violence and so little attuned to
> > introspection, contentment, and acquiesence. Equal temperament
> could be
> > described as the musical equivalent to eating a lot of red meat
and
> > processed sugars and watching violent action films. The music
> doesn't
> > turn your attention inward, it makes you want to go out and work
off
> > your nervous energy on something.
> >
> > On a more subtle level, after I've been immersed in just
intonation
> for
> > a couple of weeks, equal temperament music begins to sound
insipid,
> > bland, colorless. There are only eleven types of intervals
> available
> > instead of the potential several dozen that exist in even the
> simplest
> > just system, and you don't get gradations of different sizes of
> major
> > third or major sixths the way you do in just tuning. On a piano
in
> just
> > intonation, moving from one tonic to another changes the whole
> interval
> > makeup of the key, and you get a really specific, visceral feel
for
> > where you are on the pitch map. That feeling disappears in bland,
> > all-keys-the-same equal temperament. As a composer, I enjoy
having
> the
> > option, if I'm going to use a minor third interval, of being able
to
> > choose among the 7/6, 6/5, 19/16, and 11/9 varieties, each with
its
> own
> > individual feeling.
> >
> > Far beyond the mere theoretical purity, playing in just intonation
> for
> > long periods sensitizes me to a myriad colors, and coming back to
> the
> > equal tempered world is like seeing everything click back into
black
> > and white. It's a disappointing readjustment. Come to think of
it,
> > maybe you shouldn't try just intonation - you'll become unfit to
> live
> > in the West, and have to move to India or Bali.
> >
> > Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't
> at
> > all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and American
> > musics are currently tuned. In fact, before the 20th century,
> European
> > music had its own wonderful non-equal-tempered tunings, which
> > unfortunately we've abandoned. To read about them, go to my
> > Introduction to Historical Tunings page.
> >
> > <end quote>
> >
> > Great words, Kyle! I've got some tongue-in-cheek warnings on my
web
> > page about the dangers of listening to adaptively tuned music.
> Where
> > you speak of colors vs. black and white, the analogy that I use
most
> is
> > stereo vs. mono. Either way, there is a depressing compressing of
> the
> > sound when returning to 12-tET.
> >
> > This seemed like a good time to share these words with the list.
> Thanks
> > for granting permission!
> >
> > (Kyle also has some interesting clips of his own music on his
> page(s)).
> >
> > JdL
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > FREE COLLEGE MONEY
> > CLICK HERE to search
> > 600,000 scholarships!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Pv4pGD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~->
> >
> > You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
> through
> > email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> > tuning-subscribe@y... - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> group.
> > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> hold for the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> digest mode.
> > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > In short, I have to confess that it goes against most all my
> > personal experience and considered thinking.
> >
> > --Dan Stearns
> >
> > Bob:
> Are you perhaps missing the basic point because you don't happen to
> personally identify with some implied life-style choices here? Are
> you screaming back in 12-tET?

Actually, Bob, I think you missed *Dan's* point, which was mine as
well: attaching particular 'feelings' or smells or tastes or
metaphors to a particular tuning is a *very* personal matter, and
Kyle's descriptions, as such, only weakened his point. I also happen
to be completely uninterested with the playing of isolated chords or
progressions and then assigning some sort of global musical meaning
to the results.

When you've been on this list for a while, you'll realize that Dan is
*highly* aware of the possibilities of JI and many other tunings, and
beyond that, is able to write about the transformative and emotive
powers of music in a manner that is, well, matched by few.

Few, indeed.

My first steps out of 12tET were from one of the true well-springs:
working with Harry Partch. No one need explain to me how different
the world looks in JI!

Cheers,
Jon

Well, with all due respect for your credentials and experience, I
think you must have missed my point. I didn't take Kyle's words to be
quite so tritely metaphorical as you may have (?). It seemed to me
that perhaps he was pointing to something deeper, which in his
particular worldview came out in those terms.

His words apparently meant something different to me than they did to
you and Dan. Guess that's the nature of words and their perception,
eh? Meaning is always context-dependent and our individual minds and
the experiences that have structured them are both different and the
most significant part of that context, arent' they?

In a word, I think human evolution and mental stability, peace and
happiness are strongly correlated to functional coherence in the
brain and in the body, the opposite of entropy or disorderly, random
noise in a system. JI harmonies represent entropy valleys or points
of maximum sonic coherence. I think this has an absolute value
because it has the power to induce coherence in human listeners, a
power musically both beyond and independent of mere cultural
relativism, that is possibly being ignored here (?) and written off
as merely a matter of personal taste just because of the particular
terminology Kyle used. You tell me.

Or maybe you fundamentally disagree with this thesis (?), which I
felt was implicit in his writing. If so, we have no basis for
discussion on this particular topic.

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > > In short, I have to confess that it goes against most all my
> > > personal experience and considered thinking.
> > >
> > > --Dan Stearns
> > >
> > > Bob:
> > Are you perhaps missing the basic point because you don't happen
to
> > personally identify with some implied life-style choices here?
Are
> > you screaming back in 12-tET?
>
> Actually, Bob, I think you missed *Dan's* point, which was mine as
> well: attaching particular 'feelings' or smells or tastes or
> metaphors to a particular tuning is a *very* personal matter, and
> Kyle's descriptions, as such, only weakened his point. I also
happen
> to be completely uninterested with the playing of isolated chords
or
> progressions and then assigning some sort of global musical meaning
> to the results.
>
> When you've been on this list for a while, you'll realize that Dan
is
> *highly* aware of the possibilities of JI and many other tunings,
and
> beyond that, is able to write about the transformative and emotive
> powers of music in a manner that is, well, matched by few.
>
> Few, indeed.
>
> My first steps out of 12tET were from one of the true well-springs:
> working with Harry Partch. No one need explain to me how different
> the world looks in JI!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Bob and Dan,

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Tuning and music are not interchangeable terms.

Son-of-a-bitch, you've done it again: distilled it down to what would
have been paragraphs of my own babbling.

I heartily endorse the possibilities (or fact) that a tuning or
tunings can be more beneficial, natural, holistic, or ?? than others,
and I hold 12tET in fairly low terms on a _tuning_ level. That said,
and here is opinion only, tunings are meaninless unless they are used
to facilitate the creation of undeniable musical moments. And since
this is a list about 'alternate' tunings (usually inferred as
alternative to the hegemony of 12tET), there is still a paucity of
truly great, emotive, and effective music from the explorations of
the last few decades.

Time will tell. Tunings will abound. I await music that is
transformative.

Cheers,
Jon

Love it, Jon....ha-ha-ha! (I answer Dan also below.) No one could
agree more than I. Much as I admire the guts and tenacity and hard
work of pioneers like Partch, I have heard personally little so far
that I consider terribly pleasing aesthetically or artistically. (Is
there a difference, he asked himself?) For example, Samuel Barber I
consider a towering genius among American composers. I find no one
anywhere near that category in the modern dabblings with JI.

Although as I've just stated in the previous post, I have a strong
personal commitment to JI or JI-approximate tunings such as 72-tET, I
don't (yet) get my musical kicks there except with the performance of
my own choir when they're in top form (Cantus Angelicus at
http://www.cangelic.org) and a few isolated performances, generally
of early music either in meantone or adaptive JI (e.g., the Hilliard
Ensemble in their album "Lassus" featuring the highly chromatic works
of the young and daring Orlando in deliciously well-tuned a cappella
renditions in adaptive JI).

To address Dan's response as well, I do think we're still missing
each other in that, as you responded, a tuning system is not the
whole story and I'm NOT proposing that it is. But neither should it
be it a damper on creativity. Even if everyone were confined by some
strange and inexplicably immutable cosmic laws of nature to JI
composition, I don't think that would represent some horrible
travesty for human musical creativity.

On the other hand, 12-tET has literally confined everyone in almost
just this way over a large chunk of the western world. In spite of
its many wonderful and obvious advantages, I do think that 12-tET and
the almost universal relegation of tuning expertise to professionals
other than the performers themselves, has eliminated for most of
today's musicians the need to ever confront or even become aware of
the small, microtonal tuning anomalies that were a daily experience
of musicians in earlier times. As a result, the common practice
musical culture in which we musicians find ourselves enveloped
generally has very poorly developed pitch discrimination.

In amateur circles, especially choirs, the standard piano, often not
even in decent tune in terms 12-tET, is the standard pounded out for
singers learning their parts. Consequently, typical American
choirs, even semi-professional and professional ones, approach 12-tET
tuning from the outside in, meaning they are generally LESS well in
tune than 12-tET. On the contrary, a choir trained in terms of the
first principles of pure harmony that 12-tET compromises (i.e., able
to intuitively recognize pure JI intervals), when constrained to sing
in 12-tET by a piano or organ accompaniment approaches 12-tET from
the inside out, meaning they intuitively compromise a MORE perfect
tuning to optimize consonance with the accompanying instruments.

I personally find nothing in the potentials intrinsic to JI or its
close approximations that hobbles artistic musical expression unless
you insist that the simple restriction to JI is in itself a block to
it. But if that is our argument, then Shakespeare's creativity was
hampered because he wrote his works only in English and Goethe's
because he wrote his only in German.

If we accept such arguments, then musical creativity becomes too
strictly a function of our freedom to choose a tuning system (our
basic tonal/linguistic vocabulary and even delimiting to a
significant degree the possible melodic/harmonic grammars), and I
personally feel that contradicts our mutually-held thesis (or perhaps
truism) as I understand our positions: namely that artistic merit and
creavity DO NOT reside in the simple choice of a tuning system.

However, and here we may differ (?), I do feel some systems (JI and
its close approximations) are inherently superior to others for the
reasons already outlined. (After all, there are definitely some
spoken languages that would have substantially restricted either
Shakespeare's or Goethe's creativity.)

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Bob and Dan,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Tuning and music are not interchangeable terms.
>
> Son-of-a-bitch, you've done it again: distilled it down to what
would
> have been paragraphs of my own babbling.
>
> I heartily endorse the possibilities (or fact) that a tuning or
> tunings can be more beneficial, natural, holistic, or ?? than
others,
> and I hold 12tET in fairly low terms on a _tuning_ level. That
said,
> and here is opinion only, tunings are meaninless unless they are
used
> to facilitate the creation of undeniable musical moments. And since
> this is a list about 'alternate' tunings (usually inferred as
> alternative to the hegemony of 12tET), there is still a paucity of
> truly great, emotive, and effective music from the explorations of
> the last few decades.
>
> Time will tell. Tunings will abound. I await music that is
> transformative.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> I'm so glad that one of history's most vocal advocates of aural
> causation was Partch: Partch the ultimate musical iconoclast whose
> music outright repulses most JI aesthetes and mightily confuses most
> others (witness Carlos).

You're so glad . . . because of the irony of it? Clearly the
principles Partch set forth in _Genesis_ go even further than
anything Kyle Gann, Ed Foote, John deLaubenfels, or Bob Wendell have
said . . . and yet much of Partch's music ends up seemingly
confounding those principles. Was this a result of a change in
opinion later in Partch's life? Or did Partch have a musical
personality that often had little to do with his theoretical
personality? Jon?

By the way, I "feel" what Kyle and Bob are talking about, having sung
adaptive JI harmony with other singers (perhaps a rapid version of
the spiritual experience one gets in a drum circle) . . . yet I like
Partch and some (but certainly not most) "out" or "avant-garde"
or "experimental" music. Certainly all are valid modes of expression,
but some of us wish to communicate with, and find beauty in, more
abstract ways than others . . . as I've said before, I like to make
music for my inner nine-year-old, but I can't blame those who seek a
more intellectual or "higher" path . . . whether such a path lies in
the tradition of Schoenberg, Boulez, etc. . . . well I guess that's
where I may begin to diverge with the Boston Microtonal Society
philosophy . . . not to stuff you into that basket, Dan . . . oops
I'm rambling

I'm not sure this is germaine to the topic, but maybe it is. I'm
personally kind of sick of the old 20th-century aesthetic that seems
to demand revolutionary change and heavy iconoclastic tendencies in
order for anyone to qualify as a major contributor to the arts. It
kind of reaches a point where being revolutionary is all it takes
(e.g., human excrement on toilet paper photographically reversed with
a black white negative).

I reiterate that there is indeed something deep and beautiful about
justly tuned harmonies that, when applied to great art, such as
DiLasso, Victoria, or Byrd sung a cappella in adaptive JI, elevates
the soul to heights that "experimental" music generally doesn't even
begin to touch. I like "interesting" in terms of garnering materials
for their compositional possibilities. In terms of final product,
"interesting" is rather sterile, though. I prefer "beautiful".

Mozart and Bach were indisputably great composers, but neither
revolutionized basic style. Beethoven was different, but both the
others were content to write conservatively, taking the established
stylistic norms to their highest and most refined expressive values.
Evolution requires overall balance between these apparently opposing
elements to work, otherwise you get degeneration.

The balance between change versus consolidation and refinement is
cyclical and longer-term, but it must ultimately balance out. I
personally hope what I consider to be the overweening revolutionary
"aesthetic" of the 20th century is balanced in this new century by
some consolidation and refinement.

I have never read this myself in an authoritative source, but someone
told me Mozart once said, "Music should be beautiful. Otherwise what
good is it?" Whether he said it or not, I wholeheartedly agree with
the idea. In the arts I prefer beautiful things, things that charm
the human psyche, to merely intellectually interesting, challenging,
radical, or "difficult" things. To me, the latter smack of a kind of
academic, sterile elitism that belongs more to a small circle of
mutual back-slappers who deservedly live isolated in their own smug
little world than to the arts.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> <<You're so glad . . . because of the irony of it?>>
>
> Sarcasm, mild petulance? I dunno, I guess I'm being a bit
> mischievous... To me the irony lies not on Partch's end (I think he
> knew perfectly well what he was doing), but rather in the
> uncomfortable wrench that he unintentionally throws into the whole
> deal.
>
> I mean should he have rolled an oh so obviously JI music out there
as
> a nice loving companion to Genesis there wouldn't have been a whole
> heck of a lot putting the brakes on a long-running orgy of God's
chord
> and Nature's tuning, etc. and et al. Certainly not anything that
came
> from a hardcore JI advocate anyway. Even Helmholtz who had the age
of
> reason and the weight of science on his side couldn't resist the
> esthete trump card--de gustibus non est disputandum!
>
>
>
> <<Clearly the principles Partch set forth in _Genesis_ go even
further
> than anything Kyle Gann, Ed Foote, John deLaubenfels, or Bob Wendell
> have said . . . and yet much of Partch's music ends up seemingly
> confounding those principles. Was this a result of a change in
opinion
> later in Partch's life? Or did Partch have a musical personality
that
> often had little to do with his theoretical personality?>>
>
> If you want to face Partch head-on, I think your going to have to do
> better than that. He wasn't one-dimensional and he didn't make it
> easy. No, by way of his triple fortissimo advocacy and his
startlingly
> original music he added some much needed breadth to the narrative if
> you ask me--in fact, I think he put some much needed color in its
> cheeks. You can't just set one off and pretend it doesn't exist
simply
> because the other isn't its identical twin!
>
> What's been more influential to contemporary JI advocates, Partch's
> music or his writing? Unfortunately that's a no-brainier, and had
> Partch's music not been tuned the way it was and had there been no
> Genesis, well I bet the number of JI Partch fans would then number
in
> the negative numbers. But the music's there... the book's there...
and
> JI is a richer narrative because of it, not despite it!
>
> --Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28910.html#28957

And since
> this is a list about 'alternate' tunings (usually inferred as
> alternative to the hegemony of 12tET), there is still a paucity of
> truly great, emotive, and effective music from the explorations of
> the last few decades.
>

Wow... what a value judgement! I've run into "great, emotive and
effective" music practically every day in the 17 years I've co-run
our composers' group.

What music are you listening to, Jon, besides that of Harry
Partch?? :)

Joey

_______ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28910.html#28960

> Love it, Jon....ha-ha-ha! (I answer Dan also below.) No one could
> agree more than I. Much as I admire the guts and tenacity and hard
> work of pioneers like Partch, I have heard personally little so far
> that I consider terribly pleasing aesthetically or artistically.
(Is
> there a difference, he asked himself?) For example, Samuel Barber I
> consider a towering genius among American composers. I find no one
> anywhere near that category in the modern dabblings with JI.
>

Hello Bob!

Would you believe it if I were to tell you that I find both Harry
Partch and Samuel Barber both pretty much aesthetically and
artistically equals, and equally pleasing??

Of course, I have to twist my head around to do that... but I *enjoy*
twisting my head around... :)

________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

Hey Joe, long time no type!

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Wow... what a value judgement!

Isn't *every single one* of our opinions a "value judgement"? Of
course it is! My point was a simple one: compared to the masterworks
that have been composed in the structure of 12tET tuning, I can't
come up with even a teeny fraction of that number in contemporary
microtonal music (by which I mean music composed since, oh heck, post
16-th Century).

> I've run into "great, emotive and
> effective" music practically every day in the 17 years I've co-run
> our composers' group.

This means two things:

- Your composers group has been doing microtonal music for 17 years
- All your work is gold

I can't, and won't, apologize for whatever tastes and standards I
have in music. I've listened to lots and lots and lots, and don't
forget that, as a performer, I've played - over 30 years - many, many
of the works considered benchmarks of Western composition. It is a
lot more than whether I listen to more than Harry Partch; everyone
around here knows that!

> What music are you listening to, Jon, besides that of Harry
> Partch?? :)

Today? Jacky Ligon, Mike Leahy, Caetano Veloso, Amy Knoles, Gabriel
Faure, tin hat trio, William Walton, Toru Takemitsu, Antonin Dvorak,
Robert Walker, Moby, Mary Ackerly, Alessandra Beloni, Peter Erskine,
Marc Anthony Turnage.

Those are the CDs and mp3s that I can see right next to my desk (or
on the play list of Winamp) while I did 'catch-up' work in the home
office today. Haven't listened to Harry in a few days. And not many
microtonalists, until there is better music out there...

Good to see you back online. I'm still thinking fondly about all my
New York friends, and the Faure I listened to is because my wife is
putting on a concert in two weeks (I'm playing and helping with
logistics) centered around the Faure "Requiem" that will raise money
for the American Red Cross. We're still thinking of all of you, out
on the Left Coast.

Best,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28910.html#29005

> Hey Joe, long time no type!
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Wow... what a value judgement!
>
> Isn't *every single one* of our opinions a "value judgement"? Of
> course it is! My point was a simple one: compared to the
masterworks
> that have been composed in the structure of 12tET tuning, I can't
> come up with even a teeny fraction of that number in contemporary
> microtonal music (by which I mean music composed since, oh heck,
post 16-th Century).
>

Hi Jon!

Thanks for the nice messages... Well, it seems I have *totally*
misread your earlier post. I thought you were dumping on *all*
contemporary music of the last 30 years.

That's what a *lot* of people do... so I guess I'm guilty of a bit
of "profiling" in this category!

Thanks for clarifying things, and good luck with your benefit
concerts, which sound like noble efforts...

Joe

_______ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28910.html#28977

> I'm not sure this is germaine to the topic, but maybe it is. I'm
> personally kind of sick of the old 20th-century aesthetic that
seems to demand revolutionary change and heavy iconoclastic
tendencies in
> order for anyone to qualify as a major contributor to the arts. It
> kind of reaches a point where being revolutionary is all it takes
> (e.g., human excrement on toilet paper photographically reversed
with a black white negative).
>

Hi Bob!

Please see our own lovable "nutty professor's" group for further
exhaustive, and I *mean* EXHAUSTIVE (as usual)commentary on this
topic:

/crazy_music/messages

_______ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson