A common misconception?

From the Groven piano FAQ page:

"It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal temperament, the standard used today, did not become wide-spread until as late as 1917. In other words, all music prior to the 20th century was written and heard in other kinds of tunings."

Comments?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>From the Groven piano FAQ page:
>
> "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
>system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal
>temperament, the standard used today, did not become wide-spread
>until as late as 1917. In other words, all music prior to the
>20th century was written and heard in other kinds of tunings."
>
>Comments?

This is true, but misleading. We have used the meantone map on
the chain of fifths for hundreds of years, and world-wide the 5-
and 7-tone chain of fifths has been the almost exclusive source
of tuning material. Some may be tempered to achieve greater
consonance on instruments like mbira or gamelan metalophones...
Paul, do you think anything in Thai music relies on the vanishing
commas in the scales mentioned recently?

Some have argued that the deterioration of the 5-limit consonances
in equal temperament (vs. meantone and well temperament) has
contributed to the use of the non-tonal "church" modes, the
exploration of dissonance, and other techniques in the past
century, but I think the desire for such devices has fueled the
push towards equal temperament at least as strongly.

Erv Wilson has said he thinks some of the things he hears in
jazz suggest the schismic mapping on the chain of fifths, and
a potential break from 12, ie 31->12->41.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> This is true, but misleading.

So to say that Brahms, Wagner, or Mahler did not write with the 12-et in mind is true, but misleading? It seems to me if it's true, it's important to know, but if it's false, it's more than merely misleading.

>So to say that Brahms, Wagner, or Mahler did not write with the
>12-et in mind is true, but misleading?

I'd say so.

>It seems to me if it's true, it's important to know, but if it's
>false, it's more than merely misleading.

What does it mean, "in mind"? They're clearly broken of
meantone -- there's no wolf, and things like the 128:125
are assumed to vanish -- yet they bother to keep their
enharmonic accidentals straight. It's often safe to assume
that they were working with a closed 12-tone temperament.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are passages, if not entire
works, where 19 or even 12 out of 31 would work.

Were the sonorities actually in 12-equal? Well, they're only
really in 12-equal on a piano. In this case, only Mahler would
have seen accurate 12-equal. Does it make a difference? There's
evidence that Beethoven and Chopin knew and cared about
un-equal temperament on their pianos... not sure about Brahms,
Wagner, or Mahler.

In this way, the quote could be considered misleading. But it
is technically false that these composers worked in 12-equal,
or worse, that 'Bach invented equal temperament'.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> Were the sonorities actually in 12-equal? Well, they're only
> really in 12-equal on a piano. In this case, only Mahler would
> have seen accurate 12-equal.

Why? Who tuned Brahms' piano, and how? What about the one Wagner pounded away on, even with Liszt in the room?

> From: clumma <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:41 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> Were the sonorities actually in 12-equal? Well, they're only
> really in 12-equal on a piano. In this case, only Mahler would
> have seen accurate 12-equal. Does it make a difference? There's
> evidence that Beethoven and Chopin knew and cared about
> un-equal temperament on their pianos... not sure about Brahms,
> Wagner, or Mahler.

I just posted something about the evidence of Mahler regretting
the loss of meantone.

AFAIK, there's no documentation about the preferred tunings of
Wagner, and Swafford's bio of Brahms says a bit about it.
So I can say this:

Re Wagner: his harmony uses enharmonic devices that won't
work in meantone, in particular often requiring the tempering
out of the diesis 128:125 = [0 -3]. There was an interesting
paper published about this a few years back.

Re Brahms: he was so conservative as to retain the old
valvless horns and trumpets in his scores because of his
stated love of their JI pureness, presumably referring
primarily to the 5-limit pitches and possibly in some
instances to the 7-limit ones. This numeric distinction
is my own supposition -- his harmony AFAIK never requires
anything that sounds directly 11-ish, meaning that of
course he may use 5- or 7-limit harmonies in the brasses
which emulate 11-limit ratios, but always intending the
listener to receive them in their 5- or 7-limit interpretation.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

(Oops!... my bad. I sent another post written subsequent to
this one *before* sending this. Sorry.)

> From: clumma <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 7:09 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > From the Groven piano FAQ page:
> >
> > "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
> > system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal
> > temperament, the standard used today, did not become wide-spread
> > until as late as 1917. In other words, all music prior to the
> > 20th century was written and heard in other kinds of tunings."
> >
> > Comments?
>
> This is true, but misleading. We have used the meantone map on
> the chain of fifths for hundreds of years, and world-wide the 5-
> and 7-tone chain of fifths has been the almost exclusive source
> of tuning material. Some may be tempered to achieve greater
> consonance on instruments like mbira or gamelan metalophones...

Carl, your subsequent comments are worthwhile, but it's my guess
that the quote refers pretty exclusively to Eurocentric music.

But *this* part of your post definitely interests me!
A little more on this follows.

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:24 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > This is true, but misleading.
>
> So to say that Brahms, Wagner, or Mahler did not
> write with the 12-et in mind is true, but misleading?
> It seems to me if it's true, it's important to know,
> but if it's false, it's more than merely misleading.

Wow, Gene -- you hit a *major* nerve with me here !!!

I've been *the biggest* Mahler fan for 65% of my life,
and for 33% of my life I've been honing my computer
realization of the first movement of his 7th Symphony,
which I've always felt was a tremendously unappreciated
work, even among many Mahler fans. One big remaining
part of this effort is to retune it out of 12-EDO.

In April, at my Microfest 2001 lecture "Microtonality
in Berlin and Vienna in the early 1900s", Warren Burt
mentioned an article in which Mahler was quoted as saying
to Schoenberg: "European music, in giving up Meantone tuning,
had suffered a great loss". So now I have my ammunition! :) ...

There's stuff in the tuning list archives about this,
beginning here:
/tuning/topicId_21271.html#21271

Note that all of Mahler's major pieces were written for
orchestra, and that in his lifetime he was one of the world's
pre-eminent conductors, and one who would spend much time
working meticulously on the intonation of his performers.

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

In a message dated 12/28/01 4:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
joemonz@yahoo.com writes:

> Re Brahms: he was so conservative as to retain the old
> valvless horns and trumpets in his scores because of his
> stated love of their JI pureness, presumably referring
> primarily to the 5-limit pitches and possibly in some
> instances to the 7-limit ones.

Swafford specifically says in his Brahms bio that it is for reasons of tone
that Brahms's preferred valveless horns. Hand intonation provides different
colorings of the notes.

Re: Groven's comments about pre-1917...he is talking about Norway which still
retains a microtonal folk tradition. We can't assume geographical agreement
on tuning changes.

Re: Mahler...I'm just finishing the Alma Mahler Memoires. Nothing about
tuning in there. The fact that Mahler was conducting "strange" orchestras
all the time would seem to indicate that he accepted the differences of
different orchestras, and then used his personality to impress upon the
players his preferences. Many, many orchestral musicians disliked Mahler's
manner for this reason.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

"Nearly the majority of lutenists and fiddlers make all the frets equal"
Martin Agricola "Musica Instrumentalis Deudsch" (1545)

"From the invention of viols and the lute until now, they have always been
played with the equal-semitone division"
Nicola Vincentino "L'antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica" (1555)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: genewardsmith [mailto:genewardsmith@juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 9:42 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] A common misconception?
>
>
> From the Groven piano FAQ page:
>
> "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
> system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal
> temperament, the standard used today, did not become wide-spread
> until as late as 1917. In other words, all music prior to the
> 20th century was written and heard in other kinds of tunings."
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Hello, there, everyone, and please let me comment on Groven's remarks
from a perspective of the very wide range of historical European
tuning systems -- not to speak of those of other world musics -- with
qualities distinct from those of 12-tET.

As Dante has correctly noted, 12-tET was indeed recognized by the
mid-16th century as a standard tuning for lutes and viols, as
theorists such as Vicentino and Zarlino note. However, these same
theorists advocate other types of tuning systems for keyboards, and
for flexibly intoned music such as that of vocal ensembles.

Vicentino in 1555 advocates a 31-note meantone cycle likely based on
pure or near-pure major thirds (1/4-comma meantone or 31-tET), and
realized on his archicembalo or superharpsichord. He also describes an
alternative tuning for his keyboard, with 36 notes in all, achieving
what appears to be a form of adaptive just intonation.

Zarlino takes 5-limit just intonation (modelled on Ptolemy's syntonic
diatonic, as applied to modern practice in 1529 by Fogliano) as the
ideal basis of vocal harmony, but notes that a fixed tuning would
involve complications such as impure fifths (40:27) narrow by a
syntonic comma which singers seem to avoid. He concludes that such
singers, unlike fixed keyboards in 5-limit just intonation (the
experimental exception rather than the rule), make fine adjustments to
obtain the desired consonances.

For keyboard instruments, he describes his 2/7-comma temperament in
1558 (with major and minor thirds equally impure), and in 1571 gives
an account also of 1/4-comma meantone ("not difficult" to tune) and
1/3-comma meantone ("languid" in quality).

As is well known, 16th-century keyboard music (and much vocal music)
fits nicely within a 12-note meantone tuning such as the most typical
Eb-G#, observing the diesis distinction (e.g. G# vs. Ab); and for more
adventurous music, larger keyboards may make available anything from a
split key or two (e.g. G#/Ab, Eb/D#) to a 19-note or 31-note gamut.

Of course, there is no inconsistency in observing that 12-tET was a
standard for fretted instruments as early as the mid-16th century
(with Mark Lindley pointing to some evidence in 15th-century visual
art for similarly equal frettings), but did not become a keyboard
standard until the era of 1850-1900 or so.

Lindley, by the way, strongly recommends meantone for some early
16th-century lute music, and also emphasizes how the equal fretting of
viols could be "bent" by skillful players to fit a prevailing meantone
kind of ensemble feeling. Some theorists report that the different
tunings of keyboards (meantone with unequal semitones) and lutes
(12-tET) caused problems when these instruments were mixed in
ensembles.

On a keyboard, Renaissance meantones not only make available pure or
near-pure 5-limit thirds and sixths so nicely fitting the style of
this era, but also strikingly unequal semitones (around 117 cents and
76 cents in 1/4-comma meantones) adding a special quality to chromatic
passages. Vicentino's music additional uses as an integral melodic
step the 41-cent enharmonic diesis or fifthtone defined by the
difference between these semitones -- or the similar 39-cent step of
1/31 octave in a 31-tET realization of his music.

The main point I would make is that medieval Pythagorean intonation,
Renaissance meantone or adaptive JI for flexible ensembles, and also
Baroque-Romantic well temperaments all have distinctive musical
qualities.

Of course, when we also consider the Pythagorean or near-Pythagorean
tunings of Chinese and Japanese traditions, the customized intonations
and regional affinities of Balinese and Javanese gamelan, and the
compressed octave tunings of African xylophone music, for example, the
picture of pluralism becomes immeasurably richer.

As a regular tuning, 12-tET could be seen as something of a compromise
between medieval Pythagorean and Renaissance/Manneristic/Baroque
meantone -- or as the levelling out of the distinctions in an unequal
12-note well-temperament. It also happens to be a very convenient
scheme for fretting a lute or similar instrument where multiple
strings will be played at the same time in polyphonic textures -- a
point made by Vincenzo Galilei in the late 16th century.

In introducing people to the range of intonations even in a single
compositional family of traditions like those of Western Europe, I
would emphasize that intonational diversity can reflect also the
diversity of musical styles, for example:

(1) Medieval polyphony based on a contrast between
pure fifths and fourths and complex thirds and sixths
(Pythagorean intonation), in comparison with the
restful and stable thirds of the Renaissance (meantone
or adaptive 5-limit JI);

(2) Open Pythagorean and meantone systems -- or meantone
cycles of 19 or 31 -- in contrast with the typically
unequal 12-note well-tempered cycles of the era
1680-1850; and

(3) The "key color" favored in 18th-19th century schemes
of well-temperament, in contrast to the uniformity
of 12-tET.

By the end of the 19th century, conceptually at least, 12-tET was seen
as a "standard" -- but sometimes with the reservation that new
technologies (e.g. the Bosanquet generalized keyboard of this era)
would make available the resources of "just" and "mean" intonations.

Here I would add that what has prevailed historically should not be
taken as an exhaustive guide to what is musically beautiful or
practical, but it can serve as a very helpful source of perspective
when a single tuning is taken more or less by default as "standard."

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

> From: <Afmmjr@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> In a message dated 12/28/01 4:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> joemonz@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > Re Brahms: he was so conservative as to retain the old
> > valvless horns and trumpets in his scores because of his
> > stated love of their JI pureness, presumably referring
> > primarily to the 5-limit pitches and possibly in some
> > instances to the 7-limit ones.
>
> Swafford specifically says in his Brahms bio that it is for reasons of
tone
> that Brahms's preferred valveless horns. Hand intonation provides
different
> colorings of the notes.

Thanks, Johnny! I borrowed Swafford's Brahms bio from the library
a couple of years ago and so I don't have my own copy to check.
I could have sworn I remembered this info as stated in my post,
but there you go.

> Re: Mahler...I'm just finishing the Alma Mahler Memoires. Nothing about
> tuning in there. The fact that Mahler was conducting "strange" orchestras
> all the time would seem to indicate that he accepted the differences of
> different orchestras, and then used his personality to impress upon the
> players his preferences. Many, many orchestral musicians disliked
Mahler's
> manner for this reason.

Yep... Mahler was *famous* for being a tyrant of a conductor.

That's why, now that I *know* that Mahler regretted the abandonment
of meantone, that I have such a strong gut feeling that he would
have imposed a meantone-like intonation upon his orchestras.

Since I've found that Josef Petzval was lecturing on and
demonstrating 31-EDO at the Univsersity of Vienna at precisely
the time that Mahler attended that school in his teens, there's
at least a possibility that Mahler became quite familiar
with 31-EDO/meantone at that time.

Mahler also used double-sharps very often in his scores,
which I take as another indication that he was thinking in
meantone. In the Critial Edition of his scores, now accepted
as the standard, these double-sharps have invariably been
changed to the naturals which in 12-EDO are enharmonically
equivalent, for the sake of "easier reading"... and I
think that's a sacrilege, because it obliterates whatever
intonational nuance Mahler had in mind when he wrote the
double-sharp.

It should be noted that Schoenberg himself instituted this
procedure of replacing double-sharps with 12-EDO equivalent
naturals in his published scores, as early as the _Chamber
Symphony_, which I believe was published in 1907.

Alma vaguely documents many arguments that Mahler had with
Schoenberg about compositional matters during 1904-7. I'm
fairly certain that one or more of them would have been about
intonation, since Schoenberg ultimately (in 1908) accepted
12-EDO after he himself flirted with quartertones.

(Note that Schoenberg didn't act on this decision until
*after* Mahler left Vienna for New York, indicating again
the strong devotion Mahler's personality exuded from those
who were close to him. Even a few years later, Schoenberg
had intended to dedicate his _Harmonielehre_ to Mahler as it
was being written in 1910, but Mahler died before it was
published, so the dedication became a memorial, in which
Schoenberg called Mahler a "saint", and which ends:
'... it is my wish that this book bring me such recognition
that no one can pass over my words lightly when I say:
"He was an altogether great man" '.)

The argument between Mahler and Schoenberg, which Alma
specifically documents, about _klangfarbenmelodie_ (melody
of timbres), and Mahler's statement after hearing the
_Chamber Symphony_ in 1907 that he was "too old to have an
ear for" Sch�nberg's music, "was perhaps referring directly
to his loss of the ability to hear high frequencies, due to
aging and daily exposure to the volume of 100-piece orchestras."
That's quoted from my "A Century of New Music in Vienna"
webpage, under the year 1907:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm
(be on guard for the loud music that will open with the page).
Schoenberg's hearing was quite apparently sensitive enough to
perceive some higher overtones.

BTW, isn't the Alma diary a fascinating read? I'm pissed
that they cut about half of it out in the English translation.
I'd love to know everything that's in the German version.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> Yep... Mahler was *famous* for being a tyrant of a conductor.
>
> That's why, now that I *know* that Mahler regretted the abandonment
> of meantone, that I have such a strong gut feeling that he would
> have imposed a meantone-like intonation upon his orchestras.

That needs to be amended... it should say "... I have such a
strong gut feeling that he would have *wanted* (or tried) to impose
a meantone-like intonation upon his orchestras, at least part
of the time."

Certainly, since Mahler was bemoaning the abandonment of meantone,
he too was guilty of doing so. So only a detailed analysis of his
harmonic practices, along with a study of the historical details
I wrote about in my post, can reveal what was in his mind intonationally
as he composed. It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
spots, and meantone in effect at others.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> Certainly, since Mahler was bemoaning the abandonment of meantone,
> he too was guilty of doing so. So only a detailed analysis of his
> harmonic practices, along with a study of the historical details
> I wrote about in my post, can reveal what was in his mind intonationally
> as he composed. It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
> and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
> spots, and meantone in effect at others.

And, most likely, a good deal of adaptive-JI thrown in for good
measure as well!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> From the Groven piano FAQ page:
>
> "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal temperament,
the standard used today, did not become wide-spread until as late as
1917. In other words, all music prior to the 20th century was written
and heard in other kinds of tunings."
>
> Comments?

Somewhere around 1850, I'd say. 1917 is the date of the development
of some sort of extremely mathematically precise 12-tET piano tuning
method, I think, but they were getting pretty close before that.
Organs in England and Spain were generally in meantone until the
1850s.

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> >From the Groven piano FAQ page:
> >
> > "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
> >system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal
> >temperament, the standard used today, did not become wide-spread
> >until as late as 1917. In other words, all music prior to the
> >20th century was written and heard in other kinds of tunings."
> >
> >Comments?
>
> This is true, but misleading. We have used the meantone map on
> the chain of fifths for hundreds of years, and world-wide the 5-
> and 7-tone chain of fifths has been the almost exclusive source
> of tuning material. Some may be tempered to achieve greater
> consonance on instruments like mbira or gamelan metalophones...
> Paul, do you think anything in Thai music relies on the vanishing
> commas in the scales mentioned recently?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the original quoted assertion,
but . . . Thai music may exploit the vanishing of 25:24 (Daniel Wolf
seems to believe in a 5-limit interpretation of Thai music), Pelog
the 135:128, and Slendro the 1029:1024. It's a matter that could be
argued back and forth endlessly, it seems to me.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > Were the sonorities actually in 12-equal? Well, they're only
> > really in 12-equal on a piano. In this case, only Mahler would
> > have seen accurate 12-equal.
>
> Why? Who tuned Brahms' piano, and how? What about the one Wagner >
pounded away on, even with Liszt in the room?

You might want to look at Jorgenson's book. I think it's pretty safe
to say that these piano tunings were far closer to 12-tET than to any
open meantone system.

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> Re Wagner: his harmony uses enharmonic devices that won't
> work in meantone, in particular often requiring the tempering
> out of the diesis 128:125 = [0 -3]. There was an interesting
> paper published about this a few years back.

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to claim that Wagner used
12-tET in a 7-limit sense (as Vogel and Lindley & Turner-Smith
argue), which would rule out meantone as well.
>
> Re Brahms: he was so conservative as to retain the old
> valvless horns and trumpets in his scores because of his
> stated love of their JI pureness, presumably referring
> primarily to the 5-limit pitches and possibly in some
> instances to the 7-limit ones. This numeric distinction
> is my own supposition -- his harmony AFAIK never requires
> anything that sounds directly 11-ish, meaning that of
> course he may use 5- or 7-limit harmonies in the brasses
> which emulate 11-limit ratios, but always intending the
> listener to receive them in their 5- or 7-limit interpretation.

But most of Brahms' music also requires that the 81:80 and 128:125
vanish.

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:44 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > From the Groven piano FAQ page:
> >
> > "It is a common misconception that we have used the same tuning
> > system for hundreds of years. In fact, twelve-tone equal temperament,
> > the standard used today, did not become wide-spread until as late as
> > 1917. In other words, all music prior to the 20th century was written
> > and heard in other kinds of tunings."
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Somewhere around 1850, I'd say. 1917 is the date of the development
> of some sort of extremely mathematically precise 12-tET piano tuning
> method, I think, but they were getting pretty close before that.
> Organs in England and Spain were generally in meantone until the
> 1850s.

A British perspective from <http://www.uk-piano.org/history/pitch.html>:

"It would seem that equal temperament was used in North Germany,
as early as 1690. In 1842 The Organ of St Nicholas, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
was tuned to equal temperament this is believed to be the first Organ
to be tuned in equal temperament in England for a concert. Willis the
organ builder did not use equal temperament until 1854. However,
[in] 1846 Walter Broadwood directed Mr. Hipkins, the head piano tuner
at Broadwood's, to instruct their tuners in the use of equal temperament.
Mr.Hipkins used two tuning forks: one for Meantone and one for equal
temperament (Meantone) A433.5 (Equal) A436.0."

The "Mr. Hipkins" referred to is the author of:

Hipkins, Alfred James. 1893.
"Tuning." A Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
London: Macmillian and Company.

Hipkins apparently had a method for tuning 12-ET that was more accurate
than those used by other tuners.

From our own Ed Foote, at
<http://www.ptg.org/archive/pianotech/1999/v1997.n1879>:

> To: pianotech-digest@ptg.org
> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 08:00:04 EDT
> From: A440A@AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: Historical temperamentals
>
>
> ...
>
> To assume that the tuners of the early 1800's were working their way
> through the various temperaments until they finally were tuning the most
> difficult, newest, and least documented style of tuning in 1850 is, in my
> opinion, a mistake. Reinforcing this is the documentation done at the
> Broadwood factory in 1850, where Hipkins states the tuners weren't tuning
> anything like equal temperament. I suggest that whatever was going out
the
> door of the factory was most closely indicative of what the general
> piano-buying public favored. This is still true today, and means that
when
> the factorys begin shipping their pianos in well temperaments,
> a landmark has been reached. ( I am not holding my breath)
>
> The strongest evidence for temperament variety is the analysis
Jorgensen
> presents of Ellis's findings in 1885, 35 years after Hipkins had
> "instructed" the tuners at Broadwood's to tune in ET. Scientific
> measurement at the time was advanced enough for credibility, I think, and
> these results clearly show a strong bias for the same style of inequality
> that had been recognized for over 150 years. Is it just coincidence that
the
> factory tuners of 1885 were still tuning temperments that followed the
intent
> of Werckmiesters rules? That the harmonic form was the same, just varying
by
> degrees? I think not.

A nice Javascript presentation on temperament by Chip Miller
(requires Macromedia Shockwave) is at:
http://www.uh.edu/~tkoozin/projects/chipmiller/

The clearing-house webpage for piano history is
http://www.uk-piano.org/history/history.html

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>"Nearly the majority of lutenists and fiddlers make all the frets
>equal" Martin Agricola "Musica Instrumentalis Deudsch" (1545)

Hmmm... he must mean the intervals equal.

>"From the invention of viols and the lute until now, they have
>always been played with the equal-semitone division"
>Nicola Vincentino "L'antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica"
>(1555)

Thanks for reminding us, Dante. Yes, fretted strings are the
exception. But on most guitars intonation is commonly unequal
anyway, due to different ways of voicing chords with respect to
the open-string tuning.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
> and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
> spots, and meantone in effect at other.

Phew! That's more like it.

> > It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
> > and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
> > spots, and meantone in effect at others.
>
>
> And, most likely, a good deal of adaptive-JI thrown in for good
> measure as well!

And adaptive _tuning_ too!

I wrote,

> But most of Brahms' music also requires that the 81:80 and 128:125
> vanish.

Which, together with the considerations others posted, implies a
healthy use of adaptive JI and/or adaptive tuning might be
appropriate for Brahms. Did John deLaubenfels do any Brahms examples?

>>But most of Brahms' music also requires that the 81:80 and 128:125
>>vanish.
>
>Which, together with the considerations others posted, implies a
>healthy use of adaptive JI and/or adaptive tuning might be
>appropriate for Brahms.

Just wanted to shake the terminology bush a bit... JdL has called
his stuff adaptive tuning... I'd say:

I. Adaptive Tuning - forms of tuning that operate on the intervals
in music, as opposed to the pitches, may be considered adaptive.
The global pitch set may be considered in terms of things like tonic
drift over the course of a piece, but does not readily reflect the
structure of the tuning (and may be very large).
See also: Classical Tuning, Fixed Tuning.

|||||A. Adaptive JI - Adaptive tuning where harmonic, but not
_necessarily_ melodic intervals are rendered in just intonation.
For example, Lou Harrison's "free style", early work by John
deLaubenfels. See also: Classic JI, Fixed JI.

|||||B. Adaptive Temperament - Adaptive tuning where both harmonic
and melodic intervals are tempered, but where the degree of
temperament is relatively small and may be calculated specifically
for a given piece of music. For example, John deLaubenfels'
current work.

>Did John deLaubenfels do any Brahms examples?

Too many, if you ask me. ;)

-Carl

>>Did John deLaubenfels do any Brahms examples?
>
>Too many, if you ask me. ;)
>
>-Carl

I see they are no longer on his web site. You out
there, John? I actually have all of them, but
wouldn't want to redist. without hearing from John
first.

-Carl

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:03 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
> > and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
> > spots, and meantone in effect at other.
>
> Phew! That's more like it.

Glad to see that you approve, Paul! ;-)

Actually, I'm really glad that I thought of adding this,
because it's probably pretty close to what the best performances
of Mahler actually have going on, and it is some great stuff!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe, could you list or send to me the citation re Mahler and his preference
for meantone? I don't remember ever seeing it. Thanx. Johnny Reinhard

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:03 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A common misconception?
>
>
> > > It was probably an intricate mixture of meantone
> > > and 12-EDO harmonic techniques, 12-EDO being in effect at some
> > > spots, and meantone in effect at others.
> >
> >
> > And, most likely, a good deal of adaptive-JI thrown in for good
> > measure as well!
>
> And adaptive _tuning_ too!

Right, and good of you to make that point. Depending on exactly
how sophisticated Mahler's harmonic technique was -- and I would
definitely it's in the upper bracket -- it probably involves
adaptive tuning more than adaptive JI.

Mahler's approach was basically pretty diatonic except for the
last two symphonies (9 and 10), and 1 to 8 would have at least a
few moments in which a close adherence to JI would sound best
and would still work. In 9 and 10 I'd say that he had learned
quite a bit from Schoenberg, and was doing stuff that would
rely a lot more on some form of temperament, whether 12-EDO,
meantone, or adaptive tuning.

My extensive study of Schoenberg has really given me a new
appreciation of his use of the 12-EDO tuning. From what I've
been able to discern, he chucked microtonality and stuck
with 12-EDO primarily for the very pragmatic reasons of
performance and income. So his challenge was to find a
way to use that tuning to express the expanded harmonic
ideas in his imagination.

His abandonment of the principles of traditional tonality
provided him with a few years (1908-14) in which he could
explore the more-or-less totally free use of the 12-EDO
pitch-set.

But his composing was interrupted by his term of service
in the army during World War 1, and during and after the
war he felt a real need to find a system of structural
tonal manipulation to replace the hierarchical system of
tonality which he had given up. Schoenberg had a few contacts
with Josef Hauer during this time, and this resulted in
his formulation of the "Method of Composition With 12
Tones Related Only To Each Other" around 1920, popularly
known as "serialism" or "the 12-tone method".

Of course Mahler never went this far, and one of the
main reasons I like his music so much is that some of it
explores some distant reaches on the edges of tonality,
but much of it is comfortably diatonic-based. There's
a broad palette of expression in Mahler that Schoenberg
approached (and actually possibly even surpassed occassionally,
as in _Gurrelieder_) in his finest early works but then
shied away from in his determination to pursue the new.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32008

> --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > Were the sonorities actually in 12-equal? Well, they're only
> > really in 12-equal on a piano. In this case, only Mahler would
> > have seen accurate 12-equal.
>
> Why? Who tuned Brahms' piano, and how? What about the one Wagner
pounded away on, even with Liszt in the room?

My guess would be that the extent of modulation and chromatic usage
in Wagner and Liszt would argue for 12-tET, in which case the MIDI
triple piano description is clearly wrong.

However, I have no historical backup on that... anybody?

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32013

> Wow, Gene -- you hit a *major* nerve with me here !!!
>
> I've been *the biggest* Mahler fan for 65% of my life,
> and for 33% of my life I've been honing my computer
> realization of the first movement of his 7th Symphony,
> which I've always felt was a tremendously unappreciated
> work, even among many Mahler fans. One big remaining
> part of this effort is to retune it out of 12-EDO.
>
> In April, at my Microfest 2001 lecture "Microtonality
> in Berlin and Vienna in the early 1900s", Warren Burt
> mentioned an article in which Mahler was quoted as saying
> to Schoenberg: "European music, in giving up Meantone tuning,
> had suffered a great loss". So now I have my ammunition! :) ...
>
> There's stuff in the tuning list archives about this,
> beginning here:
> /tuning/topicId_21271.html#21271
>
>
> Note that all of Mahler's major pieces were written for
> orchestra, and that in his lifetime he was one of the world's
> pre-eminent conductors, and one who would spend much time
> working meticulously on the intonation of his performers.
>
>

Hi Monz!

Well, most of the people on this list are somewhat "anti 12-tET" and,
I believe, the *majority* of us would like to hear *most* music in
other tunings than 12-tET...

I guess the question still remains, though, what tuning Wagner and
Liszt actually used in composition...

I guess the Mahler position is a little more equivocal...

best,

J. Pehrson

jpehrson2 schrieb:

> My guess would be that the extent of modulation and chromatic usage
> in Wagner and Liszt would argue for 12-tET, in which case the MIDI
> triple piano description is clearly wrong.
>
> However, I have no historical backup on that... anybody?

I tried to stay out of this issue because I'm not able to
tell you the exact place where it happens, but here it is
anyway:

I've heard from several trombone players, at least one of
whom had actually played in Bayreuth, that [in some opera,
probably in a third trombone part] there is a notated switch
from Eb to D# [or the other way round, or maybe it is C# and
Db...] within one long held note. Why talk about Wagner's
notation? Because at least in Bayreuth this switch is
realized, and there is an actual KOMMA (well, chroma) SHIFT.
Don't rule this out, there are more notes between two
pitches than are dreamt of in your fixed systems...

klaus

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32040

> Hello, there, everyone, and please let me comment on Groven's
remarks
> from a perspective of the very wide range of historical European
> tuning systems -- not to speak of those of other world musics --
with
> qualities distinct from those of 12-tET.
>

Hello Margo!

This is one of the best short historical tuning summaries I have ever
read. Thanks so very much for including this!

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32095

>
> Of course Mahler never went this far, and one of the
> main reasons I like his music so much is that some of it
> explores some distant reaches on the edges of tonality,
> but much of it is comfortably diatonic-based. There's
> a broad palette of expression in Mahler that Schoenberg
> approached (and actually possibly even surpassed occassionally,
> as in _Gurrelieder_) in his finest early works but then
> shied away from in his determination to pursue the new.
>
>
>
> -monz
>

But then, of course, Joe, Schoenberg has many really *great* 12-tone
pieces... at least that's *my* impression.

My problem is with the hoards of "imitators" who write "serial music"
by sticking a chart on the wall and throwing darts at it!

best,

JP

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:52 AM
> Subject: [tuning] serial bullseye
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_32000.html#32095
>
> >
> > Of course Mahler never went this far, and one of the
> > main reasons I like his music so much is that some of it
> > explores some distant reaches on the edges of tonality,
> > but much of it is comfortably diatonic-based. There's
> > a broad palette of expression in Mahler that Schoenberg
> > approached (and actually possibly even surpassed occassionally,
> > as in _Gurrelieder_) in his finest early works but then
> > shied away from in his determination to pursue the new.
> >
> > -monz
> >
>
> But then, of course, Joe, Schoenberg has many really *great* 12-tone
> pieces... at least that's *my* impression.
>
> My problem is with the hoards of "imitators" who write "serial music"
> by sticking a chart on the wall and throwing darts at it!

Oh yes, Joe, ... I didn't mean to imply that *none* of Schoenberg's
serial work was as good as his early work. In fact, two of his
very finest compositions are the _String Trio_ and _A Survivor
From Warsaw_, written near the end of his life and fully serial.

What I wish to emphasize is that (in my opinion):

1) Schoenberg's late-romantic style, as exhibited in early pieces
such as _Verkl�rte Nacht_ (still by far his most popular),
_Pelleas und Melisande_, the _1st Quartet_, and especially
_Gurrelieder_, has a wealth of expression couched in an idiom
which most listeners would find very palatable and with which
they would not feel uncomfortable, and which certainly would
have resulted in great financial success and a much more
comfortable life had Schoenberg continued in that vein;

2) His "free atonality" works and their immediate precursors,
starting with the _Chamber Symphony_ and including:

- the 2nd Quartet
- _Friede auf Erden_ (for choir, preferably _a capella_)
- 3 Pieces for Piano, op. 11
- 5 Orchestral Pieces, op. 16
- _Erwartung_ (opera)
- 6 Little Pieces for Piano, op. 19
- _Die Gl�ckliche Hand_ (opera)
- _Pierrot Lunaire_
- _Herzgewachse_

display an incredible facility of invention and a desire to
break free of all compositional restraints. His expressed
goal during this period was to compose music that was "nothing
but pure feeling" with no formal limitations, and I think a
really good performance of any of these pieces will convince
any receptive listener that he succeeded beyond even his own
wildest dreams; and

3) [most of all, and the point behind posting all this here]
I'm convinced that Schoenberg would have become one of the
first top-rank microtonal composers if *he* had been convinced
that it was economically viable in his lifetime. As I've pointed
out before, my conclusion is that Schoenberg decided to accept
the limitations of the 12-EDO scale for primarily financial
reasons, and because he had found a way *out* of those limitations
which allowed him to use all 12 notes in ways freer than those
available under the strictures of traditional harmony, but
but still following a rigorous method developed out of the
innate structure of the tuning itself.

It's been said (I think originally by Lou Harrison) that
Schoenberg was the first composer to face up to the acoustical
facts of the 12-tone scale.

"Modern" composers since Wagner were trying to express music for
which their training -- grounded in Pythagorean and meantone
tunings, whether they knew it or not -- had ill-prepared them.

By the time Schoenberg came along, 12-EDO had become the
accepted standard tuning, and Schoenberg recognized the
limitations and inconsistencies that were built into it in
terms of traditional meantone-based music-theory -- for instance,
the fact that D# and Eb are written differently but are supposed
to be the same note. ... or are they? This thread has opened
up the question of exactly what intonation late-romantic
composers had in mind, and it's not necessarily an easy question
to answer.

Schoenberg's experiments of 1899-1906 had already put him at the
forefront of the "modern" school. Then in 1906 there were some
momentous developments in the German musical world regarding
microtonality: Richard H. Stein published his _Zwei Konzertst�cke_
with their ad-lib quarter-tones in the cello part, Thaddeus Cahill
demonstrated his Telharmonium in America and made a *big* splash,
and most importantly as regards Schoenberg, and in fact as a direct
result of Cahill's experiments, Busoni published his _Sketch of
a New Aesthetic of Music_, which outlined 36-EDO (as two 18-EDO
cycles a semitone apart) and also waxed rhapsodic about the
possibilities of utilizing the infinitude of divisibility of
the pitch-continuum.

Busoni sent Schoenberg a copy of the book in 1909, and
it was read with great enthusiasm. And right at this time
was the moment Schoenberg decided not to use quarter-tones
after all... but the piece which immediately followed,
the atonal *and* athematic _Erwartung_, was IMO the single
greatest break with tradition in the history of European music.

So the point I'm really making is that Schoenberg's "free atonality"
works are the ones where he *really* let his imagination fly.
Once the war interrupted his career and then he developed serialism,
I think (in general... even during this time there are exceptions,
like the 3rd Quartet) it put quite a damper on his creativity.

That is ... until his "temporary death" in 1946. In the works he
wrote after *that* (i.e., String Trio, _Warsaw_), there was a sudden
resurgence of the powerful expressionistic style of 1908-14,
but this time it was married to his strict serial technique.
These two pieces definitely get my vote for his most accomplished
mature (i.e., post-WW1) works.

Many more details about the earlier stuff, with audio clips,
on my "A Century of New Music in Vienna" page:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm

(loud music opens with the page... turn your volume down first!)

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32157

*****Thanks, Monz, for your Schoenberg post which was of great
interest to me...

>
>
> What I wish to emphasize is that (in my opinion):
>
>
> 1) Schoenberg's late-romantic style, as exhibited in early pieces
> such as _Verklärte Nacht_ (still by far his most popular),
> _Pelleas und Melisande_, the _1st Quartet_, and especially
> _Gurrelieder_, has a wealth of expression couched in an idiom
> which most listeners would find very palatable and with which
> they would not feel uncomfortable, and which certainly would
> have resulted in great financial success and a much more
> comfortable life had Schoenberg continued in that vein;
>

*****Well, Monz, of course those works still exist and are played
incessantly... especially _Verklarte Nacht_... so no harm done there.

Also, is it not true that Schoenberg was well aware of the "success"
of these works during his lifetime? Isn't there a well-documented
instance where he "turned his back" to the audience, figuratively if
not literally at a performance (I believe in Vienna) where there was
*lots* of applause, but by then he had already gone into
more "advanced" methods??

By the way... this kind of "evolution" is, of course, part of the
baggage with practically *every* great artist, no? The inability to
stay put with the comfortable, even if something new fails to a
degree...

That could be an important tenet for incipient (not incipid)
microtonal composers as well! :)

>
> 2) His "free atonality" works and their immediate precursors,
> starting with the _Chamber Symphony_ and including:
>
> - the 2nd Quartet
> - _Friede auf Erden_ (for choir, preferably _a capella_)
> - 3 Pieces for Piano, op. 11
> - 5 Orchestral Pieces, op. 16
> - _Erwartung_ (opera)
> - 6 Little Pieces for Piano, op. 19
> - _Die Glückliche Hand_ (opera)
> - _Pierrot Lunaire_
> - _Herzgewachse_
>
> display an incredible facility of invention and a desire to
> break free of all compositional restraints. His expressed
> goal during this period was to compose music that was "nothing
> but pure feeling" with no formal limitations, and I think a
> really good performance of any of these pieces will convince
> any receptive listener that he succeeded beyond even his own
> wildest dreams; and
>
>
> 3) [most of all, and the point behind posting all this here]
> I'm convinced that Schoenberg would have become one of the
> first top-rank microtonal composers if *he* had been convinced
> that it was economically viable in his lifetime. As I've pointed
> out before, my conclusion is that Schoenberg decided to accept
> the limitations of the 12-EDO scale for primarily financial
> reasons, and because he had found a way *out* of those limitations
> which allowed him to use all 12 notes in ways freer than those
> available under the strictures of traditional harmony, but
> but still following a rigorous method developed out of the
> innate structure of the tuning itself.
>

***** Well, there is certainly no question in my mind after reading
_Harmonielehre_ that Schoenberg thought a *lot* about tuning.

Whether he had it all wrong, as Harry Partch seems to attest or not,
he *did* spend quite a bit of time thinking about it.

With him, though, the *practical* necessities held out. I think,
though, that for a composer in an "advanced" idiom he *did* have
quite a few performances during his lifetime so, maybe he really
*did* know what to do, despite all his complaining late in life...

> It's been said (I think originally by Lou Harrison) that
> Schoenberg was the first composer to face up to the acoustical
> facts of the 12-tone scale.
>

*****Yeppir. Doesn't surprise me at *all* that Lou would be on S's
side! (Take that, "nutty professor!")

> "Modern" composers since Wagner were trying to express music for
> which their training -- grounded in Pythagorean and meantone
> tunings, whether they knew it or not -- had ill-prepared them.
>
> By the time Schoenberg came along, 12-EDO had become the
> accepted standard tuning, and Schoenberg recognized the
> limitations and inconsistencies that were built into it in
> terms of traditional meantone-based music-theory -- for instance,
> the fact that D# and Eb are written differently but are supposed
> to be the same note. ... or are they? This thread has opened
> up the question of exactly what intonation late-romantic
> composers had in mind, and it's not necessarily an easy question
> to answer.
>

****There was a recent post to this list, I think Heinz, who seemed
to attest to the "residue" of meantone even in Wagner.

Monz... I would love to see your research "crackin" on this topic
when you get going on it.

What tunings did Liszt and Wagner actually *use?*

(That could be very easily added to your Vienna Webpage)

> Schoenberg's experiments of 1899-1906 had already put him at the
> forefront of the "modern" school. Then in 1906 there were some
> momentous developments in the German musical world regarding
> microtonality: Richard H. Stein published his _Zwei
Konzertstücke_
> with their ad-lib quarter-tones in the cello part, Thaddeus Cahill
> demonstrated his Telharmonium in America and made a *big* splash,
> and most importantly as regards Schoenberg, and in fact as a direct
> result of Cahill's experiments, Busoni published his _Sketch of
> a New Aesthetic of Music_, which outlined 36-EDO (as two 18-EDO
> cycles a semitone apart) and also waxed rhapsodic about the
> possibilities of utilizing the infinitude of divisibility of
> the pitch-continuum.
>
> Busoni sent Schoenberg a copy of the book in 1909, and
> it was read with great enthusiasm. And right at this time
> was the moment Schoenberg decided not to use quarter-tones
> after all... but the piece which immediately followed,
> the atonal *and* athematic _Erwartung_, was IMO the single
> greatest break with tradition in the history of European music.
>
>
> So the point I'm really making is that Schoenberg's "free atonality"
> works are the ones where he *really* let his imagination fly.
> Once the war interrupted his career and then he developed serialism,
> I think (in general... even during this time there are exceptions,
> like the 3rd Quartet) it put quite a damper on his creativity.
>

****Hmmm. Well "possibly," Monz, but don't forget that during his 10
year hiatus he composed nothing at all. He obviously needed
a "different way" and had exhausted himself in the previous medium.

I believe that's why it took the 12-tone system to get him "going"
again! At least, that's a possible interpretation.

Schoenberg was never one, unlike some "minimalists" to *repeat*
himself if he could offer nothing new...

(Apologies to any minimalists on this list... that was only a little
joke :) )

> That is ... until his "temporary death" in 1946. In the works he
> wrote after *that* (i.e., String Trio, _Warsaw_), there was a sudden
> resurgence of the powerful expressionistic style of 1908-14,
> but this time it was married to his strict serial technique.
> These two pieces definitely get my vote for his most accomplished
> mature (i.e., post-WW1) works.
>

**** I happen to be a fan of some of the later serial works including
the *wonderful* _Variations for Orchestra_. Do you know that work,
Monz??

Very cool... it even has a flexitone in it. Whooshie,
whooshie...sound. Very microtonal.

JP

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 11:55 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: serial bullseye
>

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_32000.html#32157
>
> > <snipped>
>
> Also, is it not true that Schoenberg was well aware of the
> "success" of these works during his lifetime? Isn't there
> a well-documented instance where he "turned his back" to the
> audience, figuratively if not literally at a performance
> (I believe in Vienna) where there was *lots* of applause,
> but by then he had already gone into more "advanced" methods??

It *was* "literally". You're referring to the premiere of
_Gurrelieder_ in 1913.

Schoenberg never for a moment doubted his talent and facility
as a composer, and he knew that his very early works were
well-liked by the impressed audiences.

But he was treated so badly by the press and by audience
members as his style began to change c. 1905-09 that he
held this public fondness for his youthful works in much
contempt.

The _Gurrelieder_ were mostly composed in 1900-01, then
laid aside for a long time. Schoenberg completed the work
and orchestrated it in 1910-11, by which time he had written
the most "progressive" music anyone in Europe had heard.

When the piece was finally premiered in 1913, the audience,
having been thru the scandals of Schoenberg's premieres of
1907-12 (several of which ended in fights, and one was even
reported in the paper in the "Urban Crimes" section rather
than "Arts"), had come ready to show disapproval (by whistling
and hissing), but instead was stunned to hear a gorgeous score
in a very familiar late-romantic idiom. They gave Schoenberg
a 15-minute standing ovation at the end, during which he
walked back onstage, faced the orchestra and bowed to them
to express his appreciation for a job well done, and walked
offstage disgusted, as the audience continued to applaud.
He remained bitter about that overdue success for the rest
of his long life.

(whew! ... *that* really felt like an anecdote! ... hope it
made for entertaining reading ...)

> Well, there is certainly no question in my mind after reading
> _Harmonielehre_ that Schoenberg thought a *lot* about tuning.
>
> Whether he had it all wrong, as Harry Partch seems to attest or not,
> he *did* spend quite a bit of time thinking about it.

I'm glad you wrote "*whether*" he had it wrong, because I'm not
at all convinced that he did. Recently on the tuning-math list
(I think you may have missed it), Gene helped me create a
periodicity-block which is defined by the harmonic relationships
in Schoenberg's illustration of the diatonic scale's relationship
to the overtone series, in Chapter 4 of _Harmonielehre_ (p 24-25
of the standard Carter English translation).

I haven't yet had the time to make the graphics of the Schoenberg
periodicity-block, but the dialog on tuning-math begins at
/tuning-math/message/2159
> From: "monz" <joemonz@y...>
> Date: Tue Dec 25, 2001 6:44 pm
> Subject: lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications

Be sure to read the follow-ups for the numbers Gene derived.

> With him, though, the *practical* necessities held out. I think,
> though, that for a composer in an "advanced" idiom he *did* have
> quite a few performances during his lifetime so, maybe he really
> *did* know what to do, despite all his complaining late in life...

Schoenberg gained a fair amount of fame and recognition in the 1920s,
just before he had to leave because of Hitler. He had a harder time
in America, because even tho he was famous here as a *personality*,
and as a teacher, his compositions were barely known. He applied for
Guggenheim fellowships, as an old man, so that he could supplement
his very meager income from UCLA and so that he'd have time to
compose more, and the committee turned him down. He was not able
to retire at 65 because of this, and he stayed in his position at
UCLA until his health no longer permitted him to work. I'd say that
he had reason to be a bitter old man.

Hmmm ... and that's another real parallel with Partch. I hang out
with people here who knew *him*, and notwithstanding their high
regard for him as a composer, theorist, instrument-maker, and
human being, just about every one of them will admit that was
really a cranky old son-of-a-bitch.

> > "Modern" composers since Wagner were trying to express music for
> > which their training -- grounded in Pythagorean and meantone
> > tunings, whether they knew it or not -- had ill-prepared them.
> >
> > By the time Schoenberg came along, 12-EDO had become the
> > accepted standard tuning, and Schoenberg recognized the
> > limitations and inconsistencies that were built into it in
> > terms of traditional meantone-based music-theory -- for instance,
> > the fact that D# and Eb are written differently but are supposed
> > to be the same note. ... or are they? This thread has opened
> > up the question of exactly what intonation late-romantic
> > composers had in mind, and it's not necessarily an easy question
> > to answer.
>
>
> ****There was a recent post to this list, I think Heinz, who seemed
> to attest to the "residue" of meantone even in Wagner.

I saw that. It was Klaus Schmirler (a microtonal trombonist),
discussing a trombone part which had a D# tied to an Eb
(which, as Paul pointed out to me, can also be found in Mozart,
and certainly in Beethoven).

I'm not at all surprised about something like that. As I wrote,
the choice I eventually end up instituting in the retuning of my
Mahler audio-files will very likely be some combination of meantone,
12-EDO, and adaptive-JI ... or in other words, an adaptive-tuning
which mimics the three of those, different ones being given different
weight at different times. I think this is most likely the kind
of tuning which would have resulted from a real orchestral performance
of Mahler's music under his own baton.

And Mahler's two gods were Beethoven and Wagner, so certainly, the
largest roots of Mahler's harmonic practice would stem from theirs,
especially Wagner's.

> Monz... I would love to see your research "crackin" on this topic
> when you get going on it.
>
> What tunings did Liszt and Wagner actually *use?*
>
> (That could be very easily added to your Vienna Webpage)

Thanks for the suggestion, Joe. I know that Liszt did some
very interesting harmonic experiments in late piano pieces such
as _Nuages Gris_, which seem to require 12-EDO. Also, he
was fond of an octatonic scale... but I haven't really studied
this, so I don't have details. I'm much more familiar with
Wagner's work, but again, have never put in any serious study
of its harmonies.

> > So the point I'm really making is that Schoenberg's "free atonality"
> > works are the ones where he *really* let his imagination fly.
> > Once the war interrupted his career and then he developed serialism,
> > I think (in general... even during this time there are exceptions,
> > like the 3rd Quartet) it put quite a damper on his creativity.
>
> ****Hmmm. Well "possibly," Monz, but don't forget that during his 10
> year hiatus he composed nothing at all. He obviously needed
> a "different way" and had exhausted himself in the previous medium.
>
> I believe that's why it took the 12-tone system to get him "going"
> again! At least, that's a possible interpretation.

Joe, it's important to remember that Schoenberg actually did serve in
the German army during World War 1 -- that's the *biggest* reason
for the hiatus in his composing. Another big reason: immediately
after the war, Schoenberg formed his "Private Society for Musical
Performances" in Vienna, and he was very busy overseeing that
endeavor for the couple of years it existed. Also, his financial
situation was very shaky from the time he quit his job as a bank
clerk (at age 16) until he took an academic position in Berlin
in the early 1920s. I think *that's* why he was able to get back
to composing again: because he finally had a job that enabled him
to survive, so that he could find some free time to compose.

> **** I happen to be a fan of some of the later serial works including
> the *wonderful* _Variations for Orchestra_. Do you know that work,
> Monz??
>
> Very cool... it even has a flexitone in it. Whooshie,
> whooshie...sound. Very microtonal.

Yes... the _Variations_ are another one of the exceptions
(Schoenberg early serial pieces that I like)... the other main
one being the _3rd Quartet_.

But really, if you're a Schoenberg fan, and you don't know the
_String Trio_ or _A Survivor From Warsaw_, then you're really
missing out. _Survivor_, in particular, is one of the most
powerful pieces ever written by *anybody*!

Penderecki also made nice use of the flexitone... I think it was
in _De Natura Sonoris_.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

monz schrieb:

> I saw that. It was Klaus Schmirler (a microtonal trombonist),
> discussing a trombone part which had a D# tied to an Eb
> (which, as Paul pointed out to me, can also be found in Mozart,
> and certainly in Beethoven).

P.E. accepted that pitches shift in the middle of a note???
Tell me more.

k

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32000.html#32183

>
> I'm glad you wrote "*whether*" he had it wrong, because I'm not
> at all convinced that he did. Recently on the tuning-math list
> (I think you may have missed it), Gene helped me create a
> periodicity-block which is defined by the harmonic relationships
> in Schoenberg's illustration of the diatonic scale's relationship
> to the overtone series, in Chapter 4 of _Harmonielehre_ (p 24-25
> of the standard Carter English translation).
>
> I haven't yet had the time to make the graphics of the Schoenberg
> periodicity-block, but the dialog on tuning-math begins at
> /tuning-math/message/2159

Thanks, Monz... I've been "checking out" this discussion...

> > I believe that's why it took the 12-tone system to get
him "going"
> > again! At least, that's a possible interpretation.
>
>
> Joe, it's important to remember that Schoenberg actually did serve
in
> the German army during World War 1 -- that's the *biggest* reason
> for the hiatus in his composing. Another big reason: immediately
> after the war, Schoenberg formed his "Private Society for Musical
> Performances" in Vienna, and he was very busy overseeing that
> endeavor for the couple of years it existed. Also, his financial
> situation was very shaky from the time he quit his job as a bank
> clerk (at age 16) until he took an academic position in Berlin
> in the early 1920s. I think *that's* why he was able to get back
> to composing again: because he finally had a job that enabled him
> to survive, so that he could find some free time to compose.
>

Monz... aren't you discussing a period very *early* in S's life?? I
mean much *later,* AFTER the "free atonality" stage. I believe he
quit composing for 10 years until he came up with the 12-tone
system...

Is that not correct? I'll have to look at my Stuckenschmidt. (That
sounds vaguely off-color...)

>
>
> Yes... the _Variations_ are another one of the exceptions
> (Schoenberg early serial pieces that I like)... the other main
> one being the _3rd Quartet_.
>
> But really, if you're a Schoenberg fan, and you don't know the
> _String Trio_ or _A Survivor From Warsaw_, then you're really
> missing out. _Survivor_, in particular, is one of the most
> powerful pieces ever written by *anybody*!
>

Oh sure, Monz... I know both the _String Trio_ and _Survivor..._, but
_Variations_ has always been one of my favorite of S's pieces...

JP

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:21 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: serial bullseye
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_32000.html#32183
>
> > > [Joe Pehrson]
> > > I believe that's why it took the 12-tone system to get
> > > him "going" again! At least, that's a possible
> > > interpretation.
> >
> >
> > [me, monz]
> > Joe, it's important to remember that Schoenberg actually did serve
> > in the German army during World War 1 -- that's the *biggest* reason
> > for the hiatus in his composing. Another big reason: immediately
> > after the war, Schoenberg formed his "Private Society for Musical
> > Performances" in Vienna, and he was very busy overseeing that
> > endeavor for the couple of years it existed. Also, his financial
> > situation was very shaky from the time he quit his job as a bank
> > clerk (at age 16) until he took an academic position in Berlin
> > in the early 1920s. I think *that's* why he was able to get back
> > to composing again: because he finally had a job that enabled him
> > to survive, so that he could find some free time to compose.
> >
>
> Monz... aren't you discussing a period very *early* in S's life?? I
> mean much *later,* AFTER the "free atonality" stage. I believe he
> quit composing for 10 years until he came up with the 12-tone
> system...

Joe, I don't mean to imply that artistic reasons had *nothing*
to do with the c. 1914-1920 hiatus in Schoenberg's composing,
but only to stress that there were indeed many other activities
intruding on his life during that time which made it difficult
to work.

Certainly, after a few years of freewheeling inspiration immersed
in the "free atonality" style, Schoenberg began yearning for a
means of tighter structural control in his use of pitch resources.

In fact, at some points during the "hiatus" he was working on
_Jakobsleiter_, which he never did finish, and *this* was the
piece where he first starting experimenting with cyclical use
of the entire 12-EDO pitch-class set. It was originally a huge
symphonic project (not entirely unlike Ives's _Universe Symphony_),
but was altered drastically over the years and decades as
Schoenberg kept attempting to resume work on it.

There was quite a correspondence going on between Schoenberg and
Hauer during this time, and unfortunately musical history has
really not given Hauer the credit he deserves for the role he
played in the development of the 12-tone method.

Now, this discussing is really veering off-topic and should
continue on Metatuning, unless microtonality creeps back in
in a big way...

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
>
>
> monz schrieb:
>
> > I saw that. It was Klaus Schmirler (a microtonal trombonist),
> > discussing a trombone part which had a D# tied to an Eb
> > (which, as Paul pointed out to me, can also be found in Mozart,
> > and certainly in Beethoven).
>
> P.E. accepted that pitches shift in the middle of a note???

Not in this case, where a vertical diminished sixth would be implied,
but in general, this shouldn't surprise you. For example, Vicentino's
second tuning, a model form of adaptive JI for Renaissance singing,
has very frequent, subliminal shifts in common tones between chords.