the seismic shift

Joseph,

Nice Post. I think you're right in most regards too, and Brian McLaren
has been shouting this same song for years, fff.

Personally, I'm more interested in *new sounds*, and new acoustic
sounds are no less desirable; probably more so on the whole in fact.
One of the things that I found so striking about Partch the first time
I heard his music was all the utterly alien timbers... it was a
wonderful, grotesque, organic tidal wave of fresh timberal stimuli!
Tuning?, what tuning? Just intonation?, who cares--did you hear all
those frigin' weird ass, Korean cowboy zither things!

Same with the EMI compilations--how many times can you say holy shit,
what the hell was that! Tunings in and of themselves never do this for
me. Tuning music never doers this for me. I'll take new instruments
and new sounds with their often randomly tuned approach over
theoretically righteous new tunings all day. It's no contest... new
instruments are Monz of Love!

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Patrick Ozzard Low

> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_33601.html#33728
>
> > > i thought the point of the electromechanical bit was to take
care
> > of all these automatically. why couldn't one just add a very small
> > > number of 'alteration' keys to the standard 12-equal fingerings,
> > and have the electromechanical mechanism translate this into the
> > > appropriate coverings of the tone holes for 72-equal??
> >
> > And if most or all of one's available fingers are already busy
> > performing the standard 12-equal fingerings, then where are you
> going to come up with fingers to operate these keys?
> >
> > --George
>
> Alright... I was going to wait until I had *completely* studied the
> Ozzard-Low the *second* time, but I've *almost* done that, so it's
> time to comment! :)
>
> Over the holidays, I visited a friend in Michigan who sells pianos.
> He's *always* handled *acoustic* pianos, mostly uprights, but tried
a
> beautiful store with magnificent concert grands. That enterprise
> failed miserably...
>
> In any case, he was asking me about MIDI keyboards and so forth a
few
> years ago. Apparently he didn't know much about them.
>
> However, *this* year I asked him about his business and I asked him
> what percentage of *electronic* pianos he was selling *this* year.
>
> His answer? That's all I'm selling now...
>
> There has been a seismic shift toward electronic instruments in the
> last few years and, of course, this trend has been coupled with the
> microprocessing of computers. This is one reason, I believe, that
> microtonality is going more and more into the mainstream. *More*
> people own equipment that can play microtonality... mostly MIDI
> keyboards, than ever before.
>
> There have also been other important aesthetic changes. A few years
> ago electronic composers weren't taken seriously unless they worked
> in music schools that had a *lot* of equipment. I *know* because I
> was trying to do "independent" work in those days and was
> solidly "dissed..."
>
> However, this aesthetic has changed. I've seen "calls for scores"
> for electronic instruments of late where the only criterion is that
> the sound source is something that one "plugs in!"
>
> And, many groups, such as _Bang on a Can_ in New York, and
> other "prestigious" groups have a *wide* variety of electrically-
> produced pieces.
>
> So my point? Simply that our current "modern" sound is more
> electronic than ever before.
>
> (Ok... I'm waiting for a barrage of disagreement from our "acoustic
> set" here... probably Kraig Grady and several others, but I didn't
> say *everybody* should do this, only that it's an overall trend...)
>
> If this is true, and of course these are sentiments expressed by
Ivor
> Darreg before just about anybody, then it means that, quite
possibly,
> the sound of acoustic instruments is *antiquated.*
>
> Now don't get me wrong. I'm not totally dissing "antiquated..."
I'm
> just saying that it may turn out that our present orchestral
> instruments will be considered species of an "early music"
> only "early music" will *eventually* mean the music of the 19th
> Century and, possibly, the 20th.
>
> If this is true, (My acoustic "enemies" are now waiting for me in a
> dark alley by this time in this short post) then it means the
> addition of an electronic component to "traditional" instruments is
> not only inevitable, but it will "redefine" the sounds of so-
> called "art music."
>
> In other words, we won't *expect* the acoustic sound so much any
> more... particularly since sampling is getting so good and an
> instrument like, for example, the electronic piano, is sounding
"good
> enough" to satisfy many people. Sure, the enharmonicity is missing,
> and the instrument might not do so well in playing Beethoven or
> Chopin, but the point is, nobody is going to *use* that instrument
> for "authentic" performances of Beethoven or Chopin.
>
> Beethoven and Chopin will be "early music..." and these pieces will
> be performed on "period" instruments, i.e. *ACOUSTIC* pianos, and
> hopefully, as Ed Foote does and others, in the *correct* tunings of
> the day as well...
>
> So what does this mean for our discussion?
>
> Well, it means that the addition of an *electronic* component to
> instruments, such as woodwinds, is not such a "big deal." Quite
> possibly we will "get used" to the electronically-modified sounds
and
> the "real" sounds of acoustic instruments will sound and
> seem "antiquated" or "period" pieces.
>
> If that be the case, which is the *premise* of this post (please
save
> the eggs and tomatoes until *after* the post has concluded) then it
> means that having some kind of "translation" of the *performed*
pitch
> of a woodwind, let's say, is "no big deal"...
>
> The performer will just play *normally* and with a *foot pedal* or
> some such, could play the *alterations* for 72-tET, for instance...
> with only *three* necessary, of course, the 1/12 of a whole tone,
the
> 1/6th of a whole tone and the quarter tone.
>
> That would all be done by *alteration* of the existing tone by some
> kind of adaptive mechanism, more akin to the present "MIDI
> controllers" for woodwinds today. Of course, those are not really
> *excellent* instruments yet. *That* development will have to take
> place... but I mean a *fine* instrument that has the capability to
> electronically alter the sound as post-processing.
>
> It seems this is a *much* more logical and inevitable development
> than the so-called "logical" instruments which demand electronic
> alteration of the *acoustic* mechanical mechanisms of traditional
> instruments. Not only is it *much* more difficult to make such
> instruments but the point is, *nobody will appreciate them* since
> the "contemporary" sound that people will expect will be an
> *electronic* one.
>
> Ok.. now is the time for the tomatoes... :)
>
> And, by the way, if anyone wants to place a *bet* about all this, I
> know I will collect, and will expect to in 100 years! :)
>
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
> Monitoring Service trial
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/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/
>
>

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

/tuning/topicId_33747.html#33747

> Joseph,
>
> Nice Post. I think you're right in most regards too, and Brian
McLaren
> has been shouting this same song for years, fff.
>

Thanks, Dan! Just "post-ulating..."

JP