The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among others)

Paul,

You mentioned in the superparticular thread the following:

"That's perfectly fine, and "benign" as I say, but I think one can go
further, both in describing other options, and in considering the
potential desire of a composer to have heirarchical harmonic
organization in their music, and/or one or more degrees of complete
modulational freedom."

I realise that even melodic, monophonic music can imply a harmony,
but about the second part (after the and/or): do you consider music
or musical structures that can modulate to be superior systems over
those that can't/don't?

Opinions aren't just restricted to you, Paul, if others have thoughts
on this I'd be curious.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon!
I for one consider systems that can modulate ideal in that they give the music maker options
and ranges of expression hard to match with a single scale. The great exception is the music of
India where the scales have been developed over thousands of years and contain within them all
forms of melodic archetypes and motion, accented and unaccented tones sometimes occurring in only
one direction. The philosophy here is more going deeper into something as opposed to going
outside. There is a focus on the eternal of emotional states. In fact it is my understanding that
Sanskrit has more words for different emotions than any other.
Nor is it confined to western music. The Chopi's of southern Mozambique take five tone scales out
of there heptatonic scale. the same process occurs in Japanese, and Pelog is often taken out to 7
places with subsets of 5 taken. Most persian music does so also. Musically Ptolemy saw it as
representing an emotional crisis where as in Indonesia it occurs when there is a change of
character. Somehow these two don't seem to contradict each other. Persian music relies on it for
its music and one of the things my ear has become more accustomed to is the modulation of scales
in Turkish music. Kudsi Erguner is a great example of one artist taking this to it heights. Not
surprising being what the Japanese might call one of the great intangible treasures.
Anyways most of these musical systems are melodic.

jonszanto wrote:

> I realise that even melodic, monophonic music can imply a harmony,
> but about the second part (after the and/or): do you consider music
> or musical structures that can modulate to be superior systems over
> those that can't/don't?
>
> Opinions aren't just restricted to you, Paul, if others have thoughts
> on this I'd be curious.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig,

Thanks, many good thoughts. I don't know that I would have thought of
Balinese or Javanese as being 'modulating' musics, even if subsets
are taken; I guess to my ear the largest set is still small enough
that it seems to actually be the 'whole' and the subsets are just
that - parts of the whole. But interesting to think of in your way.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon!
According to Kunst this is the way they think of Pelog. Jawar is central to Nyorog and Liwung
being a fifths higher and lower respectfully.
also see http://www.anaphoria.com/mcphee.PDF for Bali and page 4 for the quick visual cliff note
version

jonszanto wrote:

> Kraig,
>
> Thanks, many good thoughts. I don't know that I would have thought of
> Balinese or Javanese as being 'modulating' musics, even if subsets
> are taken; I guess to my ear the largest set is still small enough
> that it seems to actually be the 'whole' and the subsets are just
> that - parts of the whole. But interesting to think of in your way.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You mentioned in the superparticular thread the following:
>
> "That's perfectly fine, and "benign" as I say, but I think one can
go
> further, both in describing other options, and in considering the
> potential desire of a composer to have heirarchical harmonic
> organization in their music, and/or one or more degrees of complete
> modulational freedom."
>
> I realise that even melodic, monophonic music can imply a harmony,
> but about the second part (after the and/or): do you consider music
> or musical structures that can modulate to be superior systems over
> those that can't/don't?

Not superior. One of the guitars I'm planning (with Dave Keenan) has
a fixed drone and uses a partially just, partially tempered scale
built around the drone. This is for the Eastern-influenced music that
I play on my acoustic guitar -- boy am I getting tired of those 12-
tET frets!

But very often, I like to hear chord changes -- Bach and the Beatles
are the reason I do music in the first place -- and even the
great "1/1-oriented" JI composers such as Partch and Johnston have
typically ended up with systems that, through the use of small
commas, do allow one or more degrees of complete modulational
freedom. (In case anyone with a technical interest with this is
reading, Partch's system can be seen [e.g., by Wilson] as a 41-tone
system with complete modulational freedom if you forgive the commas
896/891, 441/440, 245/243, and 100/99 . . . Johnston has many 22-, 31-
, 53-, . . . tone examples.)

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

> I don't know that I would have thought of
> Balinese or Javanese as being 'modulating' musics,

The New Grove entry on these certainly gives that impression, though
the use of modulation is limited compared to, say, Thai music.

> even if subsets
> are taken; I guess to my ear the largest set is still small enough
> that it seems to actually be the 'whole' and the subsets are just
> that - parts of the whole. But interesting to think of in your way.

Have you listened to Thai music? Certainly you don't get a sense of a
7-tone "whole" from *that* music, do you?

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Jon!
> According to Kunst this is the way they think of Pelog. Jawar
is central to Nyorog and Liwung
> being a fifths higher and lower respectfully.
> also see http://www.anaphoria.com/mcphee.PDF for Bali and page 4
for the quick visual cliff note
> version

Now that's modulation and hierarchical tonal organization if I ever
saw it! Thanks Kraig!

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Jon!
> I for one consider systems that can modulate ideal in that they
give the music maker options
> and ranges of expression hard to match with a single scale. The
great exception is the music of
> India where the scales have been developed over thousands of years
and contain within them all
> forms of melodic archetypes and motion, accented and unaccented
tones sometimes occurring in only
> one direction. The philosophy here is more going deeper into
something as opposed to going
> outside. There is a focus on the eternal of emotional states. In
fact it is my understanding that
> Sanskrit has more words for different emotions than any other.
> Nor is it confined to western music. The Chopi's of southern
Mozambique take five tone scales out
> of there heptatonic scale. the same process occurs in Japanese, and
Pelog is often taken out to 7
> places with subsets of 5 taken. Most persian music does so also.
Musically Ptolemy saw it as
> representing an emotional crisis where as in Indonesia it occurs
when there is a change of
> character. Somehow these two don't seem to contradict each other.
Persian music relies on it for
> its music and one of the things my ear has become more accustomed
to is the modulation of scales
> in Turkish music. Kudsi Erguner is a great example of one artist
taking this to it heights. Not
> surprising being what the Japanese might call one of the great
intangible treasures.
> Anyways most of these musical systems are melodic.
>
>
> jonszanto wrote:
>
> > I realise that even melodic, monophonic music can imply a harmony,
> > but about the second part (after the and/or): do you consider
music
> > or musical structures that can modulate to be superior systems
over
> > those that can't/don't?
> >
> > Opinions aren't just restricted to you, Paul, if others have
thoughts
> > on this I'd be curious.

J Gill: The functional considerations (evolving in situations
surrounded by the instrument's inherent limitations as well as it's
inherent musical possibilities) which weigh heavily upon the means by
which music is created by individuals exploring "musical structures"
(which are practicably able to be "brought to light" through the
instruments used), have, in recent history - and only inasmuch as the
electronicly controllable tunings of synthesized/sampled sound
sources are considered to be an adequate vehicle of expression by the
practicing musician - grown to include scenarios whereby, as a result
of dynamic micro-control of the pitch of the notes of a given scale
in "real-time", by the musician or by an algorithm, (perhaps it may
be true that, for the first time) the separation of the matter of
playing at a different *pitch* is (beneficially) segregated from the
issues of playing the same *physical pattern* at a modified location
in the particular (fixed-pitch, as opposed to widely bendable pitch)
instrument's set of possible notes (where the differing step-sizes in
anything other than ET will result in a particular set of problems).

Granted, however, that whether one trusts either a machine, or one's
own hands/feet, to in "real-time" : (globally) modulate pitch (only)
by some specific multiplier/divider; or to micro-tune specific scale
intervals in order to realize identical step-sizes relative to a new
reference pitch - such a component of the entire process of creating
sounds is (potentially) not without it own (newly introduced) set of
characteristics (possibly including new limitations as well as new
possibilities), thus becoming yet another aspect of the process...

Nevertheless, it seems (to me) that (in the electronic dynamically
micro-tunable case) the ongoing relationship between the "player and
that played" has/will (potentially) free us from the unidirectional
causality of the musical instrument(s)' influencing our choices of
movements through the universe of notes which are playable (and also
strike the player as sonically pleasing) on such instruments in the
course of exercising our desires to "move around in pitch", for
reasons including either the desired frequency range of the note(s)
to be played, or the resultant timbre which a (non-electronic)
instrument *yields* when sounding particular resonators (ie strings),
and terminating and/or exciting such resonators (as strings) at
various locations along their length.

Rather than build a new instrument and/or play that instrument in a
different manner (as the only technique available to adapt to the
given limitations which an instrument has presented the player with
in previous usages) in the process of the player/builder evolving
adequate means for musical expression, the electronic micro-tonalist
appears to (at least in theory) have the ability to (conversely)
influence the (electronic) musical instrument *within* the course of
the presentation of the musical output (as opposed to cut-and-try
with a new instrument, or an adjustment of such an instrument which
is not practical/possible for the player to make "on-the-fly" within
the course of the presentation).

None of this is news to the reader, but it does beg a 2nd question
(though probably an indeterminable one) which seems as important as
Jon's above ["do you consider music or musical structures that can
modulate to be superior systems over those that can't/don't?"],
because it seems (to me) to speak to what one intends to mean when
utilizing the terms "musical structure". The 2nd Question would be:

"If it were *not* for the specific physical, timbral, and
intonational characteristics of all (non-dynamically-electronically-
micro-tunable) musical instruments which we (have, and do) utilize in
order to make satisfying sounds (the characteristics of which seem to
have clearly had a profound influence upon the evolution of our
choices of scales/chords), and we *could* have (throughout the past)
presented our music, and, as well, been able to control its timbre
and intonation to our immediate and every liking in "real-time" (as
is, or at least is potentially now the case via electronic
instruments)... WOULD THE TERM "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" THEN IMPLY TO US
ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MATHEMATICAL/CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM UNNECESSARY IN
THE PROCESS OF CAUSING THE MUSIC IN OUR MINDS TO BECOME REDUCED TO
SONIC PRACTICE IN ITS PRESENTATION, OR WOULD CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL
STUCTURES" EXIST INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ACT OF CREATION OF THE MUSIC?

3rd Question: IS THE PROCESS OF "CREATION" OF MUSIC SEPARABLE (IN
CONCEPT) FROM THE PROCESS OF (SONIC)"PRESENTATION" OF THAT MUSIC?

4th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 3rd Question (above):
CAN MUSIC BE CREATED BY ONE WHO HAD NEVER ENGAGED IN THE HUMAN
EXPERIENTIAL PROCESS OF PRESENTATION (ONE *PLAYING* THE SOUNDS)?

5th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 4th Question (above):
HOW WOULD ANY CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" (AS OPPOSED TO ROTE
INSTRUCTIONS) AID YOU IN THE "KNOWING" OF WHAT THE COMPOSITION WOULD
SOUND LIKE UPON PRESENTATION (HAVING NO "GROUNDING" IN HAVING HEARD
THE SOUNDS THEMSELVES RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION, IN SOME MANNER,
OF SUCH A "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" TO THE DECISIONS OF WHICH *NOTE(S)* TO
SELECT WITHIN THE BODY OF THE COMPOSITION)?

It seems (to me) that, where it comes to the *WHEN* of placing
musical notes/chords, we would probably *not* expect even a genius to
be able to simply look at a bunch of vertical lines on a piece of
paper, arranged in various multi-periodic patterns across the page
(beatiful to the eye, or not) to, upon viewing the pattern, *know*
what it would *actually* sound like played on a percussion instrument
(s)! If, without ever *hearing* a drum before, that person could,
then, some how draw out a *unique* new "rhythmic spatial pattern",
hand it to a musician, and a brilliant and moving percussion piece
emerged upon performance, folks might be inclined to term it "pure
luck" (rare output of chimps on typwriters, etc), or refer to that
person as "idiot savant" (and not, probably, as a percussionist).

Yet, when we aspire that a "musical structure" (one relating to the
choices of "which notes"?, and at "what pitch"?) can, by its nature,
generate information relating [by the implication(s) of it's very
topology], to "desirable" choices [as opposed to possibilities
discarded *only* through the process of "hearing" in a situation
where the listener is able to "correlate" (within context) what is
being decribed by the *concept*, together with what our "aural mind"
opines], it may come as a disappointment to some (myself included) to
be reminded that - one could no more expect a person who had not ever
*heard* the resultant sounds (implicitly associated within the
process of generating those sounds) which are characterized by the
conceptual (mathematical, topological) framework of such a "musical
structure" to be able to determine the tonal choices of a musical
piece, than one could (or should) expect a machine to be able to
perform such a task. No "point of (inductive) reference" can exist in
a conceptual framework which does not derive (in full) from the
actual (consumated) process in question - the (human) "hearing" of it.

Since it seems reasonable *not* to expect either chimps, savants, or
algorithms to define what the substance of one's next musical
exploration may entail, is it no less reasonable expect that a
mathematical or geometrical conceptual framework (regardless of how
aesthetically satisfying it may well be on conceptual and visual
levels), like the chimp, savant, and HAL 9000, *cannot* be falsely
burdened with the expectation of its performance in the world as
something (number and pattern) from which "all things (in the world)
arise". It seems prudent not to mistake "form" (having no meaning
without eyes to behold it) for what is (implicitly indwelled and
transactional) "knowledge" which arises out of the creation of sound
(that which demonstrably exists within the aural perception of non-
musician listeners who, without the appreciation of any sort of
conceptual/analytical framework necessary, are regularly moved and
inspired by sound/timbre placed in time by genius (no better defined)

Related Question: If a musician's "ear" and "technique" develops
prior to that musician's awareness of "musical structures", what
differences might exist between that musician's tonal choices, and
the tonal choices of a second musician who first studies concepts
which may be referred to as "musical structures", and only then sits
down to make noise and develop an "ear" for such structures?

Curiously, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

> "If it were *not* for the specific physical, timbral, and
> intonational characteristics of all (non-dynamically-electronically-
> micro-tunable) musical instruments which we (have, and do) utilize
in
> order to make satisfying sounds (the characteristics of which seem
to
> have clearly had a profound influence upon the evolution of our
> choices of scales/chords), and we *could* have (throughout the past)
> presented our music, and, as well, been able to control its timbre
> and intonation to our immediate and every liking in "real-time" (as
> is, or at least is potentially now the case via electronic
> instruments)... WOULD THE TERM "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" THEN IMPLY TO US
> ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MATHEMATICAL/CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM UNNECESSARY IN
> THE PROCESS OF CAUSING THE MUSIC IN OUR MINDS TO BECOME REDUCED TO
> SONIC PRACTICE IN ITS PRESENTATION, OR WOULD CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL
> STUCTURES" EXIST INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ACT OF CREATION OF THE >
MUSIC?

Well, we can only hope that plenty of composers explore both possible
answers to this question. My tentative guide has to be the vocal-
based music of world cultures, which, despite the complete
flexibility of the voice, in virtually every case, has settled on
some set of conceptually fixed systems -- often, as in "raga"
and "maqam", something beyond a "scale" but still implying only a
limited set of pitch options.

> 3rd Question: IS THE PROCESS OF "CREATION" OF MUSIC SEPARABLE (IN
> CONCEPT) FROM THE PROCESS OF (SONIC)"PRESENTATION" OF THAT MUSIC?

The West operated that way for some time, but perhaps that's the
exception rather than the rule.

> 4th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 3rd Question (above):
> CAN MUSIC BE CREATED BY ONE WHO HAD NEVER ENGAGED IN THE HUMAN
> EXPERIENTIAL PROCESS OF PRESENTATION (ONE *PLAYING* THE SOUNDS)?

Well, sure, but personally I find such music tends to pale in
comparison with music fully imagined, in real time, by someone with a
rich cultural heritage -- especially those few who have mastered a
variety of cultural expressions and combined those influences. These
are the true musical masters of our world.

> 5th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 4th Question (above):
> HOW WOULD ANY CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" (AS OPPOSED TO ROTE
> INSTRUCTIONS) AID YOU IN THE "KNOWING" OF WHAT THE COMPOSITION
WOULD
> SOUND LIKE UPON PRESENTATION (HAVING NO "GROUNDING" IN HAVING HEARD
> THE SOUNDS THEMSELVES RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION, IN SOME
MANNER,
> OF SUCH A "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" TO THE DECISIONS OF WHICH *NOTE(S)*
TO
> SELECT WITHIN THE BODY OF THE COMPOSITION)?

I don't think I'd ever dream of attempting such a thing. But without
opening and training our ears, either via some system or via the
total pitch continuum, we (well, perhaps I) would never achieve the
familiarity with new pitch materials necessary to imagine, and hence
compose, music using such materials.

> It seems (to me) that, where it comes to the *WHEN* of placing
> musical notes/chords, we would probably *not* expect even a genius
to
> be able to simply look at a bunch of vertical lines on a piece of
> paper, arranged in various multi-periodic patterns across the page
> (beatiful to the eye, or not) to, upon viewing the pattern, *know*
> what it would *actually* sound like played on a percussion
instrument
> (s)!

If you're talking about a written score or part, I think you
underestimate many, if not most, professional musicians! If that's
not what you're talking about, I don't understand what you're talking
about.
>
> Yet, when we aspire that a "musical structure" (one relating to the
> choices of "which notes"?, and at "what pitch"?) can, by its
nature,
> generate information relating [by the implication(s) of it's very
> topology], to "desirable" choices [as opposed to possibilities
> discarded *only* through the process of "hearing" in a situation
> where the listener is able to "correlate" (within context) what is
> being decribed by the *concept*, together with what our "aural
mind"
> opines], it may come as a disappointment to some (myself included)
to
> be reminded that - one could no more expect a person who had not
ever
> *heard* the resultant sounds (implicitly associated within the
> process of generating those sounds) which are characterized by the
> conceptual (mathematical, topological) framework of such a "musical
> structure" to be able to determine the tonal choices of a musical
> piece, than one could (or should) expect a machine to be able to
> perform such a task. No "point of (inductive) reference" can exist
in
> a conceptual framework which does not derive (in full) from the
> actual (consumated) process in question - the (human) "hearing" of
it.

This is a very reasonable thought . . . I would agree with you if you
said that the process must begin and end with real, audible, heard
music . . . but in-between? Perhaps some people, perhaps many
musicians and theorists in the past century, have had a deep
familiarity with various musical styles, a deep familiarity with
musical tunings over broad geography and history, and a deep
understanding of how the two are intertwined . . . perhaps these
people, hesitantly at first, might begin to see _patterns_ and
_connections_ amongst these facts and insights, until a _unified
view_ of the whole picture comes into focus. Now let's say each of
these people comes up with their own system or set of systems which
fall perfectly into the scheme of patterns and connections they've
found, but _expand_ the heretofore available pitch possibilities in
one direction or another.

Now let's say another such musician comes along, at the end of said
century, and comes at it with the same attitude and knowledge . . .
and finds that a great number of the disparate schemes that have been
devised over the past century . . . and comes up with a _broader
unified view_ that encompasses those as well! Should not such a
musician then attempt to submerse him/herself in the sonic worlds
implied by expanding this insight in one direction or another, until
his/her imagination begins to _make music_ with such materials?

My heroes of "THE PROCESS OF "CREATION" OF MUSIC INTEGRATED WITH THE
PROCESS OF (SONIC)"PRESENTATION" OF THAT MUSIC" in our "default" 12-
tone equal-tempered system, the jazz musicians, Parker, Gillespie,
Powell, Coltrane, and their progeny, work from deep cultural
influences, but also from a very sophisticated *theoretical*
understanding of the 12-tone system and its melodic and harmonic
structures and behaviors. No young musician today, aside from the
rare Art Tatum born once a generation, is going to be able to make a
serious statement in the jazz style without assimilating both the
deep cultural influences, _and_ the sophisticated harmonic theory of
jazz (I challenge you to name an exception to this). As these
innovators found the theory of their musical system invaluable in the
effort to take their influences a step further, surely someone
seeking to take their music to an entirely new tuning system is going
to be at least as motivated to study the foundations of musical
harmony and their logical expansion. And as long as they're doing
that, why not let the study _influence_ their choice of tuning
systems to try out? Sure, one could try out lots and lots of tuning
systems with musical trial and error. But it took entire cultures
hundreds of years to find a coherent musical language within any
given tuning system. So I can see the disadvantages to such an
approach.

Just my philosophy -- plenty of room for others.

> Since it seems reasonable *not* to expect either chimps, savants,
or
> algorithms to define what the substance of one's next musical
> exploration may entail, is it no less reasonable expect that a
> mathematical or geometrical conceptual framework (regardless of how
> aesthetically satisfying it may well be on conceptual and visual
> levels), like the chimp, savant, and HAL 9000, *cannot* be falsely
> burdened with the expectation of its performance in the world as
> something (number and pattern) from which "all things (in the
world)
> arise".

I'm not clear on what you mean by that.

> It seems prudent not to mistake "form" (having no meaning
> without eyes to behold it) for what is (implicitly indwelled and
> transactional) "knowledge" which arises out of the creation of
sound
> (that which demonstrably exists within the aural perception of non-
> musician listeners who, without the appreciation of any sort of
> conceptual/analytical framework necessary, are regularly moved and
> inspired by sound/timbre placed in time by genius (no better
defined)

Well you're preaching to the converted on that one. I'm an ear-based
musician, through and through, and will never accept the paper-
conceived, paper-destined music of, e.g., many of the serialists of
the last century, who it seems to me were more interested in the
mathematical permutation of a set of 12 objects than in musical
expression.
>
> Related Question: If a musician's "ear" and "technique" develops
> prior to that musician's awareness of "musical structures", what
> differences might exist between that musician's tonal choices, and
> the tonal choices of a second musician who first studies concepts
> which may be referred to as "musical structures", and only then
sits
> down to make noise and develop an "ear" for such structures?

Well, among the greats, it turns out that it often makes rather
little difference in the quality of the output. A great musician uses
_whatever means necessary_ -- beginning either with a great ear and
technique and little conceptual baggage, or with a disciplined
training from theoretical bases, or somewhere in-between -- to master
several existing cultural styles to the point where the traditional
audiences of said styles can be moved by his/her music . . . and
then, perhaps, proceeds to clear new pathways before him/herself
based on that experience. When you compare the work of the path-
clearers who had gone through this process, against those who had
not, you see a far greater chasm than when you compare those who
began with "ear" and "technique" against those who began with
the "structures" and then developed the "ear". Miles Davis vs. John
Coltrane might count as a rough example of the latter dichotomy . . .
how about Mozart vs. Beethoven . . . I'm sure you could come up with
myriad such examples.

But again, I feel the process must _begin_ and _end_ with real,
audible, heard music.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Have you listened to Thai music? Certainly you don't get a sense of
> a 7-tone "whole" from *that* music, do you?

My experience with Thai music is best described by the phrase "slim
to none".

Hi Paul,

One of music's great charms is that it's also a thing that effects
people emotionally, and generally if someone's creative enough and
they've got something worth saying, they'll get something effective
done regardless of skill and historical knowledge--sometimes I think
musicians are the worst thing that ever happened to music!

Personally, I'll take the imaginative storyteller over the skilled
artisan every time... if someone's got something worth saying they'll
find a way, and music be damned, because it might help and it might
not.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 6:09 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: The supremacy of modulation (for Paul, among
others)

> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
>
> > "If it were *not* for the specific physical, timbral, and
> > intonational characteristics of all
(non-dynamically-electronically-
> > micro-tunable) musical instruments which we (have, and do) utilize
> in
> > order to make satisfying sounds (the characteristics of which seem
> to
> > have clearly had a profound influence upon the evolution of our
> > choices of scales/chords), and we *could* have (throughout the
past)
> > presented our music, and, as well, been able to control its timbre
> > and intonation to our immediate and every liking in "real-time"
(as
> > is, or at least is potentially now the case via electronic
> > instruments)... WOULD THE TERM "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" THEN IMPLY TO
US
> > ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MATHEMATICAL/CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM UNNECESSARY
IN
> > THE PROCESS OF CAUSING THE MUSIC IN OUR MINDS TO BECOME REDUCED TO
> > SONIC PRACTICE IN ITS PRESENTATION, OR WOULD CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL
> > STUCTURES" EXIST INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE ACT OF CREATION OF THE >
> MUSIC?
>
> Well, we can only hope that plenty of composers explore both
possible
> answers to this question. My tentative guide has to be the vocal-
> based music of world cultures, which, despite the complete
> flexibility of the voice, in virtually every case, has settled on
> some set of conceptually fixed systems -- often, as in "raga"
> and "maqam", something beyond a "scale" but still implying only a
> limited set of pitch options.
>
> > 3rd Question: IS THE PROCESS OF "CREATION" OF MUSIC SEPARABLE (IN
> > CONCEPT) FROM THE PROCESS OF (SONIC)"PRESENTATION" OF THAT MUSIC?
>
> The West operated that way for some time, but perhaps that's the
> exception rather than the rule.
>
> > 4th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 3rd Question (above):
> > CAN MUSIC BE CREATED BY ONE WHO HAD NEVER ENGAGED IN THE HUMAN
> > EXPERIENTIAL PROCESS OF PRESENTATION (ONE *PLAYING* THE SOUNDS)?
>
> Well, sure, but personally I find such music tends to pale in
> comparison with music fully imagined, in real time, by someone with
a
> rich cultural heritage -- especially those few who have mastered a
> variety of cultural expressions and combined those influences. These
> are the true musical masters of our world.
>
> > 5th Question: IF one would answer yes to the 4th Question (above):
> > HOW WOULD ANY CONCEPTUAL "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" (AS OPPOSED TO ROTE
> > INSTRUCTIONS) AID YOU IN THE "KNOWING" OF WHAT THE COMPOSITION
> WOULD
> > SOUND LIKE UPON PRESENTATION (HAVING NO "GROUNDING" IN HAVING
HEARD
> > THE SOUNDS THEMSELVES RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION, IN SOME
> MANNER,
> > OF SUCH A "MUSICAL STRUCTURE" TO THE DECISIONS OF WHICH *NOTE(S)*
> TO
> > SELECT WITHIN THE BODY OF THE COMPOSITION)?
>
> I don't think I'd ever dream of attempting such a thing. But without
> opening and training our ears, either via some system or via the
> total pitch continuum, we (well, perhaps I) would never achieve the
> familiarity with new pitch materials necessary to imagine, and hence
> compose, music using such materials.
>
> > It seems (to me) that, where it comes to the *WHEN* of placing
> > musical notes/chords, we would probably *not* expect even a genius
> to
> > be able to simply look at a bunch of vertical lines on a piece of
> > paper, arranged in various multi-periodic patterns across the page
> > (beatiful to the eye, or not) to, upon viewing the pattern, *know*
> > what it would *actually* sound like played on a percussion
> instrument
> > (s)!
>
> If you're talking about a written score or part, I think you
> underestimate many, if not most, professional musicians! If that's
> not what you're talking about, I don't understand what you're
talking
> about.
> >
> > Yet, when we aspire that a "musical structure" (one relating to
the
> > choices of "which notes"?, and at "what pitch"?) can, by its
> nature,
> > generate information relating [by the implication(s) of it's very
> > topology], to "desirable" choices [as opposed to possibilities
> > discarded *only* through the process of "hearing" in a situation
> > where the listener is able to "correlate" (within context) what is
> > being decribed by the *concept*, together with what our "aural
> mind"
> > opines], it may come as a disappointment to some (myself included)
> to
> > be reminded that - one could no more expect a person who had not
> ever
> > *heard* the resultant sounds (implicitly associated within the
> > process of generating those sounds) which are characterized by the
> > conceptual (mathematical, topological) framework of such a
"musical
> > structure" to be able to determine the tonal choices of a musical
> > piece, than one could (or should) expect a machine to be able to
> > perform such a task. No "point of (inductive) reference" can exist
> in
> > a conceptual framework which does not derive (in full) from the
> > actual (consumated) process in question - the (human) "hearing" of
> it.
>
> This is a very reasonable thought . . . I would agree with you if
you
> said that the process must begin and end with real, audible, heard
> music . . . but in-between? Perhaps some people, perhaps many
> musicians and theorists in the past century, have had a deep
> familiarity with various musical styles, a deep familiarity with
> musical tunings over broad geography and history, and a deep
> understanding of how the two are intertwined . . . perhaps these
> people, hesitantly at first, might begin to see _patterns_ and
> _connections_ amongst these facts and insights, until a _unified
> view_ of the whole picture comes into focus. Now let's say each of
> these people comes up with their own system or set of systems which
> fall perfectly into the scheme of patterns and connections they've
> found, but _expand_ the heretofore available pitch possibilities in
> one direction or another.
>
> Now let's say another such musician comes along, at the end of said
> century, and comes at it with the same attitude and knowledge . . .
> and finds that a great number of the disparate schemes that have
been
> devised over the past century . . . and comes up with a _broader
> unified view_ that encompasses those as well! Should not such a
> musician then attempt to submerse him/herself in the sonic worlds
> implied by expanding this insight in one direction or another, until
> his/her imagination begins to _make music_ with such materials?
>
> My heroes of "THE PROCESS OF "CREATION" OF MUSIC INTEGRATED WITH THE
> PROCESS OF (SONIC)"PRESENTATION" OF THAT MUSIC" in our "default" 12-
> tone equal-tempered system, the jazz musicians, Parker, Gillespie,
> Powell, Coltrane, and their progeny, work from deep cultural
> influences, but also from a very sophisticated *theoretical*
> understanding of the 12-tone system and its melodic and harmonic
> structures and behaviors. No young musician today, aside from the
> rare Art Tatum born once a generation, is going to be able to make a
> serious statement in the jazz style without assimilating both the
> deep cultural influences, _and_ the sophisticated harmonic theory of
> jazz (I challenge you to name an exception to this). As these
> innovators found the theory of their musical system invaluable in
the
> effort to take their influences a step further, surely someone
> seeking to take their music to an entirely new tuning system is
going
> to be at least as motivated to study the foundations of musical
> harmony and their logical expansion. And as long as they're doing
> that, why not let the study _influence_ their choice of tuning
> systems to try out? Sure, one could try out lots and lots of tuning
> systems with musical trial and error. But it took entire cultures
> hundreds of years to find a coherent musical language within any
> given tuning system. So I can see the disadvantages to such an
> approach.
>
> Just my philosophy -- plenty of room for others.
>
> > Since it seems reasonable *not* to expect either chimps, savants,
> or
> > algorithms to define what the substance of one's next musical
> > exploration may entail, is it no less reasonable expect that a
> > mathematical or geometrical conceptual framework (regardless of
how
> > aesthetically satisfying it may well be on conceptual and visual
> > levels), like the chimp, savant, and HAL 9000, *cannot* be falsely
> > burdened with the expectation of its performance in the world as
> > something (number and pattern) from which "all things (in the
> world)
> > arise".
>
> I'm not clear on what you mean by that.
>
> > It seems prudent not to mistake "form" (having no meaning
> > without eyes to behold it) for what is (implicitly indwelled and
> > transactional) "knowledge" which arises out of the creation of
> sound
> > (that which demonstrably exists within the aural perception of
non-
> > musician listeners who, without the appreciation of any sort of
> > conceptual/analytical framework necessary, are regularly moved and
> > inspired by sound/timbre placed in time by genius (no better
> defined)
>
> Well you're preaching to the converted on that one. I'm an ear-based
> musician, through and through, and will never accept the paper-
> conceived, paper-destined music of, e.g., many of the serialists of
> the last century, who it seems to me were more interested in the
> mathematical permutation of a set of 12 objects than in musical
> expression.
> >
> > Related Question: If a musician's "ear" and "technique" develops
> > prior to that musician's awareness of "musical structures", what
> > differences might exist between that musician's tonal choices, and
> > the tonal choices of a second musician who first studies concepts
> > which may be referred to as "musical structures", and only then
> sits
> > down to make noise and develop an "ear" for such structures?
>
> Well, among the greats, it turns out that it often makes rather
> little difference in the quality of the output. A great musician
uses
> _whatever means necessary_ -- beginning either with a great ear and
> technique and little conceptual baggage, or with a disciplined
> training from theoretical bases, or somewhere in-between -- to
master
> several existing cultural styles to the point where the traditional
> audiences of said styles can be moved by his/her music . . . and
> then, perhaps, proceeds to clear new pathways before him/herself
> based on that experience. When you compare the work of the path-
> clearers who had gone through this process, against those who had
> not, you see a far greater chasm than when you compare those who
> began with "ear" and "technique" against those who began with
> the "structures" and then developed the "ear". Miles Davis vs. John
> Coltrane might count as a rough example of the latter dichotomy . .
.
> how about Mozart vs. Beethoven . . . I'm sure you could come up with
> myriad such examples.
>
> But again, I feel the process must _begin_ and _end_ with real,
> audible, heard music.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Call any Phone in the World from your PC with CrystalVoice
> -LOW rates world-wide - $0.039/min in U.S.
> FREE trial. Click here.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Ib1xVB/IxbDAA/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@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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Paul!
I am curious what recordings of Thai music you have as it sounds like you might have something
quite different than myself! BTW there is a big thai population here to the point that off the
freeway there are signs that say Thaitown

jonszanto wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Have you listened to Thai music? Certainly you don't get a sense of
> > a 7-tone "whole" from *that* music, do you?
>
> My experience with Thai music is best described by the phrase "slim
> to none".
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31468

> Jon!
> According to Kunst this is the way they think of Pelog. Jawar
is central to Nyorog and Liwung
> being a fifths higher and lower respectfully.
> also see http://www.anaphoria.com/mcphee.PDF for Bali and page 4
for the quick visual cliff note
> version
>

Hi Kraig...

I had no idea the Colin McPhee book was reproduced partially on
Anaphoria! That's just great... There's obviously lots of stuff over
there I don't know about...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31470

> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know that I would have thought of
> > Balinese or Javanese as being 'modulating' musics,
>

It did certainly seem, from reading the McPhee, that the sense of
modulation in Balinese music is very extensive and complex...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31472

>
> It seems (to me) that, where it comes to the *WHEN* of placing
> musical notes/chords, we would probably *not* expect even a genius
to
> be able to simply look at a bunch of vertical lines on a piece of
> paper, arranged in various multi-periodic patterns across the page
> (beatiful to the eye, or not) to, upon viewing the pattern, *know*
> what it would *actually* sound like played on a percussion
instrument
> (s)! If, without ever *hearing* a drum before, that person could,
> then, some how draw out a *unique* new "rhythmic spatial pattern",
> hand it to a musician, and a brilliant and moving percussion piece
> emerged upon performance, folks might be inclined to term it "pure
> luck" (rare output of chimps on typwriters, etc), or refer to that
> person as "idiot savant" (and not, probably, as a percussionist).
>

But J. Gill... musicians can do this all the time! Many people,
myself included, are not bad "hearing" orchestral music just by
looking at a printed score... That's part of musicianship training
which I believe is crucial to being a composer.

(Some disagree, obviously)

Joseph

Joseph!
I figured since it was out of print, it should go up. After trying to get a copy for years,
Gary Todd of the Cortical foundation found a copy for me (he also found Hugh Tracy's book about
the Chopi's for me).

jpehrson2 wrote:

>
> Hi Kraig...
>
> I had no idea the Colin McPhee book was reproduced partially on
> Anaphoria! That's just great... There's obviously lots of stuff over
> there I don't know about...
>
> Joseph
> to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote

> /tuning/topicId_31463.html#31472
>
> >
> > It seems (to me) that, where it comes to the *WHEN* of placing
> > musical notes/chords, we would probably *not* expect even a
genius
> to
> > be able to simply look at a bunch of vertical lines on a piece of
> > paper, arranged in various multi-periodic patterns across the
page
> > (beatiful to the eye, or not) to, upon viewing the pattern,
*know*
> > what it would *actually* sound like played on a percussion
> instrument
> > (s)! If, without ever *hearing* a drum before, that person could,
> > then, some how draw out a *unique* new "rhythmic spatial
pattern",
> > hand it to a musician, and a brilliant and moving percussion
piece
> > emerged upon performance, folks might be inclined to term
it "pure
> > luck" (rare output of chimps on typwriters, etc), or refer to
that
> > person as "idiot savant" (and not, probably, as a percussionist).
> >
>
> But J. Gill... musicians can do this all the time! Many people,
> myself included, are not bad "hearing" orchestral music just by
> looking at a printed score... That's part of musicianship training
> which I believe is crucial to being a composer.
>
> (Some disagree, obviously)

JG: Joe, perhaps I did not make it as clear as one might in my post
that the conditions of these examples are intended to describe the
expectations which one might have for persons decribed by: "without
ever *hearing* a drum before, that person...". This relates to a
person who has not had direct experience performing "percussion"
(or "playing" of melodic instruments, as a second similar case). The
intended purpose of my statements relating to such parties who are
(as a result of not being an entity which has any *direct* knowledge
of the action of "percussing" or "playing") "disassociated" from the
process, is to demonstrate the "inability" of a conceptual "musical
structure" (as a thing, and not a mind and body) to engage in the act
of *playing* (thus, in the act of choosing). Pretty obvious, perhaps!

My goal was to speak to the limitations of what may be conceptualized
as a "musical structure", pointing out that [like the chimp, savant,
or person without the benefits of direct knowledge of the "reduction
to practice" of generating and evaluating "sounds" (in general)],
a "musical structure" (other than some form of "rote directions",
which would represent the results of the direct knowledge of others)
has no heart, no soul, no intention, no will, etc...

Best Regards, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31525

>
> JG: Joe, perhaps I did not make it as clear as one might in my post
> that the conditions of these examples are intended to describe the
> expectations which one might have for persons decribed by: "without
> ever *hearing* a drum before, that person...". This relates to a
> person who has not had direct experience performing "percussion"
> (or "playing" of melodic instruments, as a second similar case).
The intended purpose of my statements relating to such parties who
are (as a result of not being an entity which has any *direct*
knowledge of the action of "percussing" or "playing") "disassociated"
from the process, is to demonstrate the "inability" of a
conceptual "musical structure" (as a thing, and not a mind and body)
to engage in the act of *playing* (thus, in the act of choosing).
Pretty obvious, perhaps!
>
> My goal was to speak to the limitations of what may be
conceptualized as a "musical structure", pointing out that [like the
chimp, savant, or person without the benefits of direct knowledge of
the "reduction to practice" of generating and evaluating "sounds" (in
general)], a "musical structure" (other than some form of "rote
directions", which would represent the results of the direct
knowledge of others) has no heart, no soul, no intention, no will,
etc...
>

Hello J!

Oh... sorry, I misunderstood your paragraphs. Perhaps you would be
interested in the "musical structure" of such a composer as Xenakis.
Xenakis created structures that were just "conditions" for something
to happen. No one had any idea what they would be or when, but only
that they "would" happen in a given period of time... Now that makes
the "structure" pretty distinct from the physical sound world, so
perhaps that kind of "musical structure" would fit into your
conception...

best,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Paul!
> I am curious what recordings of Thai music you have

I listened to the ones in the New York Public Library.

> as it sounds like you might have something
> quite different than myself!

You don't hear Thai music as essentially pentatonic?

> BTW there is a big thai population here to the point that off the
> freeway there are signs that say Thaitown

Lucky you! Any good restarants?

Paul!
I hear thai music as pentatonic but don't hear it as modulating more
than say Javanese or
Balinese, which i assumed from what you had said.

Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!

paulerlich wrote:

>
> You don't hear Thai music as essentially pentatonic?
>
> > BTW there is a big thai population here to the point that off the
> > freeway there are signs that say Thaitown
>
> Lucky you! Any good restarants?
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!

I should work backwards on this one: in San Diego there are a lot of
great Thai restaurants as well, and maybe since I frequent them I
ought to find out more about the music!

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_31463.html#31571

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!
>
> I should work backwards on this one: in San Diego there are a lot
of
> great Thai restaurants as well, and maybe since I frequent them I
> ought to find out more about the music!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I had just mentioned to Paul Erlich today that we have one of the
best Thai restaurants in New York right in our building
complex....quite an elegant restaurant too...

We should continue to "Thai" this thread over on metatuning...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Paul!
> I hear thai music as pentatonic but don't hear it as modulating more
> than say Javanese or
> Balinese, which i assumed from what you had said.

Not at all -- if you look back at the thread, all I was saying here
was that one hears Thai music as using a (transposable) 5-note system
rather than a 7-note totality. A few 20th century Thai composers took
the latter approach, but . . . maybe they were influenced by Yasser :)
>
> Many many good thai restaurants here and they stay open late!!

Boy are you lucky. The only thing open late in my town is a greasy
Chinese joint -- even "Store 24" closes at midnight in Somerville, MA!