'folk' singers and opera singers

> > >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to
> be,
> > > > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
> > >
> > > There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar
> have
> > > excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> > > like 8-tET.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe he wanted them to be that way...
> >
> > Bob Valentine
>
> Bob:
> Well then, in the musical context in which he has been working,
> that's just another strike against him. You can excuse any kind of
> musical incompetence whatsoever that way, you know, but maybe that's
> your goal in the first place? You tell me.
>

Robert Johnson may have a few dozens of thirds he uses in his
performances. I think determining what each one in cents and declaring
that he is singing in 397-tET would be missing the point. Your typical
flexible pitch instrument in Western tradition currently targets something
along the lines of pythagorean. On a big leading tone, they will sometimes
play sharper, louder and with more energetic vibrato. Intonation, as in
the case of Robert Johnson, is something that is dynamically assigned as
part of the expression of the note. Glenn Gould interpreted Bach with
some rather pathological lingerring on dissonances which may not have
been in the original style, and played it with a different timbre and
tuning than was originally used. Isaac Sterns 8-tET interpretation of
a diminished scale seems radical, but it may have exactly matched what
he (and/or others) saw as the needs of the moment (in that it was
ascending, he was simultaneously getting louder and coercing greater
treble from the instrmument through whatever means he had at his
disposal etc...)

Intonation is one piece of the whole. An isolated major triad can
be judged to be in tune by being beat free. A V in second inversion at
an important point in a piece may want to beat like crazy. At a different
point in the same piece, less beating (and less treble, less volume) may
be more appropriate.

Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical competence
can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is so situational
to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it ultimately comes
down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are provably
correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and search for
such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney Spears
is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in the
history of the planet.

Bob Valentine

Well, Robert, I guess we have to agree to disagree. If that's what
Isaac Stern was really doing, then it missed me totally and I find no
pleasure, musically or otherwise, in it. If he likes it, fine, but
I'd rather listen to Itzhak Perlman or Pinkhas Zuckermann any day of
the week.

If Stern is doing on purpose what seems to me to be sloppy
intonation, then maybe I should wonder if he is competent to imitate
Perlman's superb intonation. I don't wonder much, though, and doesn't
your "everything's subjective" approach inevitably translate to
"anything goes"? That may be a very comfortable place to live, but it
makes a sham of judging competitions or selecting people on the basis
of auditions, doesn't it?

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem
to
> > be,
> > > > > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
> > > >
> > > > There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L.
Shankar
> > have
> > > > excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales
sound
> > > > like 8-tET.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe he wanted them to be that way...
> > >
> > > Bob Valentine
> >
> > Bob:
> > Well then, in the musical context in which he has been working,
> > that's just another strike against him. You can excuse any kind
of
> > musical incompetence whatsoever that way, you know, but maybe
that's
> > your goal in the first place? You tell me.
> >
>
> Robert Johnson may have a few dozens of thirds he uses in his
> performances. I think determining what each one in cents and
declaring
> that he is singing in 397-tET would be missing the point. Your
typical
> flexible pitch instrument in Western tradition currently targets
something
> along the lines of pythagorean. On a big leading tone, they will
sometimes
> play sharper, louder and with more energetic vibrato. Intonation,
as in
> the case of Robert Johnson, is something that is dynamically
assigned as
> part of the expression of the note. Glenn Gould interpreted Bach
with
> some rather pathological lingerring on dissonances which may not
have
> been in the original style, and played it with a different timbre
and
> tuning than was originally used. Isaac Sterns 8-tET interpretation
of
> a diminished scale seems radical, but it may have exactly matched
what
> he (and/or others) saw as the needs of the moment (in that it was
> ascending, he was simultaneously getting louder and coercing
greater
> treble from the instrmument through whatever means he had at his
> disposal etc...)
>
> Intonation is one piece of the whole. An isolated major triad can
> be judged to be in tune by being beat free. A V in second inversion
at
> an important point in a piece may want to beat like crazy. At a
different
> point in the same piece, less beating (and less treble, less
volume) may
> be more appropriate.
>
> Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical
competence
> can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is so
situational
> to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it ultimately comes
> down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are
provably
> correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and search
for
> such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney Spears
> is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in the
> history of the planet.
>
> Bob Valentine

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

> Robert Johnson may have a few dozens of thirds he uses in his
> performances. I think determining what each one in cents and
declaring
> that he is singing in 397-tET would be missing the point.

Of course!

> Intonation, as in
> the case of Robert Johnson, is something that is dynamically
assigned as
> part of the expression of the note.

Absolutely!

> Isaac Sterns 8-tET interpretation of
> a diminished scale seems radical, but it may have exactly matched
what
> he (and/or others) saw as the needs of the moment

Fuggaddabouddit.

> (in that it was
> ascending, he was simultaneously getting louder and coercing
greater
> treble from the instrmument through whatever means he had at his
> disposal etc...)

What on earth are you talking about!!??

> Intonation is one piece of the whole.

As all of us have been saying all along!! Didn't Bob say something
like "Stern's stylistic inappropriateness goes way beyond his
intonational inappropriateness, and his intonational
inappropriateness goes way beyond his stylistic inappropriateness"?
Yes, he did. And I agreed fully.

> Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical
competence
> can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is so
situational
> to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it ultimately comes
> down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are
provably
> correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and search
for
> such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney Spears
> is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in the
> history of the planet.

On the contrary, Bob, failing to set subjective artistic standards
leads to a slope where Britney Spears is the greatest musician on the
planet, because all you have left is the objective criterion of
financial success.

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

> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
No such standard exists for music and search
> for
> > such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney
Spears
> > is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in
the
> > history of the planet.

Paul:
> On the contrary, Bob, failing to set subjective artistic standards
> leads to a slope where Britney Spears is the greatest musician on
the
> planet, because all you have left is the objective criterion of
> financial success.

Bob Wendell:
Go, Paul! Thanks for your able representation of my position both to
Robert and to Gene.
>

First, my EXTREME apologies for sending the entire list back
as a reply. I am using elm, which takes command line arguments
to change fields etc. Unfortunately, I pressed 's' at the wrong
point in its state machine and instead of changing 's'ubject,
it caused a 's'end.

Bob Wendell said :

> I don't wonder much, though, and doesn't
> your "everything's subjective" approach inevitably translate to
> "anything goes"? That may be a very comfortable place to live, but it
> makes a sham of judging competitions or selecting people on the basis
> of auditions, doesn't it?
>

Selecting people on the basis of auditions is purely subjective so
whats the problem? I will choose the player who matches what I want to
hear in the music and a different ensemble will choose what they want.
A lot of people have chosen Isaac Stern as well as Britney Spears and
Milli Vanilli, probably with different criteria than you or I might
use for our auditions.

Judging competitions may well be a sham. Although it may be a somewhat
different process, I've been reading articles about the politics behind
giving prizes to new compositions and how it was ruled for some amount
of time (maybe still) by 12-tone academia. I don't see why a similar
situation may not exist in performance competitions where one can
use the victor to help promote the style you believe in for whatever
reason.

As far as "anything goes", I believe that already exists in the arts.
I try to keep the attitude "some of it is good for me, some of it is
good for someone else".

> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> > Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical
> competence
> > can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is so
> situational
> > to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it ultimately comes
> > down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are
> provably
> > correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and search
> for
> > such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney Spears
> > is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in the
> > history of the planet.
>
> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
>
> On the contrary, Bob, failing to set subjective artistic standards
> leads to a slope where Britney Spears is the greatest musician on the
> planet, because all you have left is the objective criterion of
> financial success.
>

Except that there is no objective "subjective artistic standard"!
I apologize for creating a straw-man standard called 'income'. Like
'fastest', 'loudest', 'highest', 'lowest', 'most in tune' etc
it may well be measurable, but the relevency of that measurement
is dependent on the context. Who has a better chance on the Boston
Bruins, a gold medalist figure skater or a bronze medal hockey
skater?

Feel free to define an "objective "subjective artistic standard"".

Bob Valentine

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

/tuning/topicId_29424.html#29488

>
> Judging competitions may well be a sham. Although it may be a
somewhat different process, I've been reading articles about the
politics behind giving prizes to new compositions and how it was
ruled for some amount of time (maybe still) by 12-tone academia. I
don't see why a similar
> situation may not exist in performance competitions where one can
> use the victor to help promote the style you believe in for
whatever
> reason.
>

Hello Bob!

For a while, at least in certain circles, contemporary compositions
won competitions because they were COPIED professionally... not so
much according to the musical content. Particularly if the pieces
were *incredibly complex* in *addition* to being copied nicely meant
a very good chance at a prize.

Nowadays, with so many people copying with the computer, this is not
such a predominant factor... but there are always "extraneous"
factors deciding competitions (politics, of course, as well as the
preferred style of the judges....)

And, one must not forget, as I can vouch from actually being on
the "adjudicating" side of things on occasion, is the fact that
the "grand prizewinner" of a competition is frequently decided with
the flip of a coin or some such... the only way to determine in many
cases where the finalists are really too close in quality to judge...

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Your point on conmpetitions is well-taken, Robert. I think far too
many are pretty political and quite bogus as a result. In the
"classical" music world (meaning fine arts music of any period), the
12-tET academics still have their strangle-hold in most places as far
as I can tell. Too bad!

In the vocal world, it's pretty pitiful. I have heard even early
music enthusiasts like John Eliot Gardner use supberbly talented and
virtuosic tenors singing Monterverdi's elaborate and very demanding
ornmantation with great beauty and precision, then he chooses some
stupid soprano for a lead part in Orpheo that makes me cringe every
time her pitiful, hooting voice intrudes. I really don't get it!
Whew!

Then maybe she's the wife of the chairman of his board of directors?!
I've had to abide similar situations in a church political context.
Painful!

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> First, my EXTREME apologies for sending the entire list back
> as a reply. I am using elm, which takes command line arguments
> to change fields etc. Unfortunately, I pressed 's' at the wrong
> point in its state machine and instead of changing 's'ubject,
> it caused a 's'end.
>
> Bob Wendell said :
>
> > I don't wonder much, though, and doesn't
> > your "everything's subjective" approach inevitably translate to
> > "anything goes"? That may be a very comfortable place to live,
but it
> > makes a sham of judging competitions or selecting people on the
basis
> > of auditions, doesn't it?
> >
>
> Selecting people on the basis of auditions is purely subjective so
> whats the problem? I will choose the player who matches what I want
to
> hear in the music and a different ensemble will choose what they
want.
> A lot of people have chosen Isaac Stern as well as Britney Spears
and
> Milli Vanilli, probably with different criteria than you or I might
> use for our auditions.
>
> Judging competitions may well be a sham. Although it may be a
somewhat
> different process, I've been reading articles about the politics
behind
> giving prizes to new compositions and how it was ruled for some
amount
> of time (maybe still) by 12-tone academia. I don't see why a similar
> situation may not exist in performance competitions where one can
> use the victor to help promote the style you believe in for
whatever
> reason.
>
> As far as "anything goes", I believe that already exists in the
arts.
> I try to keep the attitude "some of it is good for me, some of it is
> good for someone else".
>
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical
> > competence
> > > can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is so
> > situational
> > > to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it ultimately
comes
> > > down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are
> > provably
> > > correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and
search
> > for
> > > such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney
Spears
> > > is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music in
the
> > > history of the planet.
> >
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> >
> > On the contrary, Bob, failing to set subjective artistic
standards
> > leads to a slope where Britney Spears is the greatest musician on
the
> > planet, because all you have left is the objective criterion of
> > financial success.
> >
>
> Except that there is no objective "subjective artistic standard"!
> I apologize for creating a straw-man standard called 'income'. Like
> 'fastest', 'loudest', 'highest', 'lowest', 'most in tune' etc
> it may well be measurable, but the relevency of that measurement
> is dependent on the context. Who has a better chance on the Boston
> Bruins, a gold medalist figure skater or a bronze medal hockey
> skater?
>
> Feel free to define an "objective "subjective artistic standard"".
>
> Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Your point on conmpetitions is well-taken, Robert. I think far too
> many are pretty political and quite bogus as a result. In the
> "classical" music world (meaning fine arts music of any period),
the
> 12-tET academics still have their strangle-hold in most places as
far
> as I can tell. Too bad!
>
> In the vocal world, it's pretty pitiful. I have heard even early
> music enthusiasts like John Eliot Gardner use supberbly talented
and
> virtuosic tenors singing Monterverdi's elaborate and very demanding
> ornmantation with great beauty and precision, then he chooses some
> stupid soprano for a lead part in Orpheo that makes me cringe every
> time her pitiful, hooting voice intrudes. I really don't get it!
> Whew!
>
> Then maybe she's the wife of the chairman of his board of
directors?!
> I've had to abide similar situations in a church political context.
> Painful!
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> >
> > First, my EXTREME apologies for sending the entire list back
> > as a reply. I am using elm, which takes command line arguments
> > to change fields etc. Unfortunately, I pressed 's' at the wrong
> > point in its state machine and instead of changing 's'ubject,
> > it caused a 's'end.
> >
> > Bob Wendell said :
> >
> > > I don't wonder much, though, and doesn't
> > > your "everything's subjective" approach inevitably translate to
> > > "anything goes"? That may be a very comfortable place to live,
> but it
> > > makes a sham of judging competitions or selecting people on the
> basis
> > > of auditions, doesn't it?
> > >
> >
> > Selecting people on the basis of auditions is purely subjective
so
> > whats the problem? I will choose the player who matches what I
want
> to
> > hear in the music and a different ensemble will choose what they
> want.
> > A lot of people have chosen Isaac Stern as well as Britney Spears
> and
> > Milli Vanilli, probably with different criteria than you or I
might
> > use for our auditions.
> >
> > Judging competitions may well be a sham. Although it may be a
> somewhat
> > different process, I've been reading articles about the politics
> behind
> > giving prizes to new compositions and how it was ruled for some
> amount
> > of time (maybe still) by 12-tone academia. I don't see why a
similar
> > situation may not exist in performance competitions where one can
> > use the victor to help promote the style you believe in for
> whatever
> > reason.
> >
> > As far as "anything goes", I believe that already exists in the
> arts.
> > I try to keep the attitude "some of it is good for me, some of it
is
> > good for someone else".
> >
> > > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you justify musical incompetence this way? If musical
> > > competence
> > > > can be defined then perhaps. However, I think competence is
so
> > > situational
> > > > to the needs of the listener/music at hand, that it
ultimately
> comes
> > > > down to subjectivity. I work as an engineer, where things are
> > > provably
> > > > correct or incorrect. No such standard exists for music and
> search
> > > for
> > > > such a standard always leads one on the slope whereby Britney
> Spears
> > > > is a greater musician performer than any other kind of music
in
> the
> > > > history of the planet.
> > >
> > > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> > >
> > > On the contrary, Bob, failing to set subjective artistic
> standards
> > > leads to a slope where Britney Spears is the greatest musician
on
> the
> > > planet, because all you have left is the objective criterion of
> > > financial success.
> > >
> >
Howdy:
As usual in my agitated state, I fired off a piece of pompous
rhetoric and cryptic--at best--humour. Sorry, Paul.
Questions of Competence and displays of Cleverness just remind me
of the cruelties ("who cares?!"), inanities ("...those [aborigines]
only play out of tune because they don't know any better..."), and
tyrannies ("This is the simplest and most elegant (whispers)...and
profitable!...system in use.") I experienced in the land of 12tET
that drove me to microtonality in the first place.
I eventually made peace with 12et in the same way I made peace
with my father, luckily before he died.
It looks like I'm going back to music school, so I guess I'll find
out with my own throat how tough their stranglehold still is! I hope
I can bring to bear on my peers and professors some of the wonderful
knowledge you all have made available.
Cheers,
Pete

...experienced in the land of 12tET
> that drove me to microtonality in the first place.
> I eventually made peace with 12et in the same way I made peace
> with my father, luckily before he died.
> It looks like I'm going back to music school, so I guess I'll
find
> out with my own throat how tough their stranglehold still is! I
hope
> I can bring to bear on my peers and professors some of the
wonderful
> knowledge you all have made available.
> Cheers,
> Pete

Bob Wendell:
Good luck in music school! If you wish to be ambassadorial there, you
might want to introduce tuning and microtonality themes in the least
dogmatic way possible. Depending on where you are, there can be a lot
of very hard and dogmatic stances defending 12-tET with a vengeance
against all other contendors.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Good luck in music school! If you wish to be ambassadorial there,
> you might want to introduce tuning and microtonality themes in the
> least dogmatic way possible.

And I might offer another thought: all the theories and postulates,
in this instance, will be just so many pieces of paper in the wind.
You'll have to arm yourself with as many wonderful works of music as
you can, that would clearly be diminished or impossible (to attain
their powerful effects) if attempted in the straight-jacket of 12tET.

Only music, great music, will win them over. The rest is just talk...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > Good luck in music school! If you wish to be ambassadorial there,
> > you might want to introduce tuning and microtonality themes in
the
> > least dogmatic way possible.
>
> And I might offer another thought: all the theories and postulates,
> in this instance, will be just so many pieces of paper in the wind.
> You'll have to arm yourself with as many wonderful works of music
as
> you can, that would clearly be diminished or impossible (to attain
> their powerful effects) if attempted in the straight-jacket of
12tET.
>
> Only music, great music, will win them over. The rest is just
talk...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Bob Wendell:
Excellent thoughts, Jon! Bravo! This is indeed where it gets real.