reply to JPehrson re new instruments

Hi Tuning,

a couple of people have alerted me to Joe Pehrson's comments on '21st C
Orch Instrs' and I'd thought I'd just send a quick response.

First - Joe, thanks for your interest and comments!

> Particularly the sections where he has "logical"
>electronic interfaces that then "play" the acoustic instruments
>mechanically.

OK... actually, what's actually happening is the player is playing the
instrument as 'normal', except that, for example, instead of a woodwind
having a C19th system of rods-and-levers the mechanism is 'mechatronic'
- ie. electromechanical but involving a logic chip. The player holds
and blows the instr as normal - its just that the keywork, which is
more-or-less in the familiar place effects changes on the tone-holes via
electronic buttons rather than mechanical touchpieces. Same for brass
instrs - I assume everyonme on the list has seen the call for scores for
the 19/24-division trumpet?

We are trying to (very very slowly, admittedly) prototype flute and
clarinet instrs along these lines; a 19/24-div brass quintet should be
ready, hopefully, by summer 2002.

>I would like to see one of those work!

Me too!

But... Giles Brindley has played his Logical Bassoon (which was the
original prototype of this concept) in an amateur UK orchestra for the
last 30 odd years or so. Our (very prototype) trumpet was demonstrated
at the CNMI Symposium in December.

>I think it would be much easier to effect such xenharmonics in some
>kind of "post processing" which he also mentions.

Yes, much easier - but it won't ever be like acoustic intrs (I think).

>Or perhaps, even more practically, what the fine composer Jonathan
>Harvey does... puts all the xenharmonics in the *electronic* part and
>uses *conventional* instruments. Ok, so that's not going to be so
>much fun for somebody who wants to *play* xenharmonics, but the total
>piece is *definitely* xenharmonic, and Harvey gets *lots* of
>performances.

Jonathan does, I think, support the CNMI project in principle.
Meanwhile, while new-such instrs don't exist, he writes what he can,
which is I guess what we all have to do...
>
>So what is my own *personal* conjecture as to what could be done:
>
>1) Develop more and dependable *alternate fingerings.* Sure, they
>vary from instrument and player to player, but using an audio CD
>there should be some kind of "consistency" there (more on this word
>later)

I don't see the development of new instrs to be in contradiction with
the development of extended techniques. The two can complement each
other. As may eventually, 'extended techniques' on new instrs.

>I still don't quite understand Patrick Ozzard-Low's predilection for
>ETs. He mentions the concept of "consistency" that, apparently Paul
>Erlich invented or helped to invent.
>
>Are ETs more "consistent" generally than irregular scales. Maybe. ??

If you look at Appendix 4 of the book, you'll get a better idea of what
is meant by 'consistency'. It is used here as a technical term to
describe specific properties of ETs, and by which we might (ostensibly
at least) distinguish which ETs might be more musically useful than
another. It was Paul Erlich's idea originally, and both he and Paul
Hahn very generously helped me write the Appendix.

>Anyway, Ozzare-Low seems to like them better. I was trying to find a
>clear reason in his writing, but wasn't coming up with the answer.

Well, you might revisit the text on that. To put it in a nutshell:

1: most instruments aren't used to realise 12-ET anyway, even though
they are (to some degree, anyway) designed and engineered to realise
something which approximates it.

2: and new instruments will be in just the same relation to intonation
as the existing ones.

3: performance of any tuning system on instrs of non-fixed intonation
(including JI, 12-ET, etc etc) is very much up to the ear of the
performer

4: the majority of living contemporary composers are used to being able
to transpose and modulate in wild and yet consistent ways - that is very
much easier to achieve if the 'logic' behind what is happening (if not
the precise intonation which results) is an ET (of some sort).

>So, that was a fascinating read.

Thanks...

>I'm not quite sure why he felt he
>had to try to encapsulate the entire history of tuning theory in the
>paper rather than refer to other things, but maybe he thought that
>background was necessary in many people's understanding of the
>paper.

Well, in fact its very thin on history, really, if you reflect on that!

Don't know if I really want to get into all the discussions again about
all this, as I guess we'll go round in the usual circles! However, so
far we CNMI is persevering with the new instr concept.

The Symposium back in December went OK - though there was nothing very
new to report. Graham Breed (on the list) came along, and maybe he
mentioned it.

all best to everyone,

Patrick

--
Patrick Ozzard-Low,
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/mit/cnmi
http://www.c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk
mailto:pol@c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk

--- In tuning@y..., Patrick Ozzard-Low <pol@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33684.html#33684

> First - Joe, thanks for your interest and comments!
>

****My pleasure! And, I must confess I've only done a "quick read"
and I'm half-way through the second read, which will include a study
of the appendices, but I was rather "excited" about all this so
started talking anyway... :)

> > Particularly the sections where he has "logical"
> >electronic interfaces that then "play" the acoustic instruments
> >mechanically.
>
> OK... actually, what's actually happening is the player is playing
the instrument as 'normal', except that, for example, instead of a
woodwind having a C19th system of rods-and-levers the mechanism
is 'mechatronic' - ie. electromechanical but involving a logic chip.
The player holds and blows the instr as normal - its just that the
keywork, which is more-or-less in the familiar place effects changes
on the tone-holes via electronic buttons rather than mechanical
touchpieces.

****Yes, I actually got that from the text, but it was hard for me to
believe it would work, and that the tone holes could be "adjusted"
like that. I'm mesmerized, but would just like to see it in
action... not totally *doubting...*

>
> >I think it would be much easier to effect such xenharmonics in
some kind of "post processing" which he also mentions.
>
> Yes, much easier - but it won't ever be like acoustic intrs (I
think).

****Well, true, that's a significant point!

>
> Don't know if I really want to get into all the discussions again
about all this, as I guess we'll go round in the usual circles!

****I guess this implies that you've done this on this list or on
similar lists before! :)

However, so far we CNMI is persevering with the new instr concept.
>
> The Symposium back in December went OK - though there was nothing
very new to report. Graham Breed (on the list) came along, and maybe
he mentioned it.
>

****Yes, he mentioned it. Rest assured, I am *totally* supportive of
the concept of CNMI and all the developments. I find them absolutely
exciting, but just had some comments and questions I couldn't help
but talk about.

best to you!

Joe Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <rUDRH4Awy0X8Ew0N@c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk>
Patrick Ozzard-Low wrote:

> The Symposium back in December went OK - though there was nothing very
> new to report. Graham Breed (on the list) came along, and maybe he
> mentioned it.

Hello! Yes, partly because I didn't read the bus timetable I missed all
the instrument demonstrations. One problem that got mentioned was that
the solenoids on the adapted trumpets are slow to react, so aren't really
good enough for trills. Probably somebody will come up with a better idea
-- solenoids are somewhat old hat after all.

Do you have the URL for the CNMI's discussion forum? I couldn't find it.
Perhaps this thread could be moved there, in the hope that people more
familiar with the mechanics will be on hand.

Graham