Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1877

On 2/7/02 9:16 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 05:09:25 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Naming intervals - size matters
>

> ****So that gets back to the *very beginning* of my post. *I'm* more
> interested in NOTATION and making the nomenclature consistent with
> the notation even if it "corrupts" the idea of the "pure" third as
> the "real" one, and *you* don't feel it's necessary to have the
> notation and the nomenclature work together.
>
> When a player "ad-JUSTs" he makes a change, he plays the "adjusted"
> one G:Bv and the notation *reflects that* just in the addition of
> another character!
>
> For me, in this "unreal" "funhouse" world, the corrupt is the true
> (Enron?) and G:B *unadorned* is the "real" major third!
>
> Joseph
>
Very cute, Joseph. (I chuckled out loud on this one.)

After noting the discussion on the list regarding notation to reflect tuning
practice, a few questions come to mind. Is the idea here to suggest to the
performer to lower or raise certain pitches "on the fly"? Okay, so far. But
then lower or raise *how* far? Would that be a matter of education? Or is
the idea to move the pitch toward "best" tuning--i.e., small-number
ratio--which likely can be 'heard' acoustically?

My questions are raised against a backdrop of having noted a *variety* of
thirds in choral practice. In fact, one prominent choral conductor who is
very much aware of 'acoustic' tuning told me he prefers the just third; yet
his choir clearly sang (on a CD intended to promo his tuning ideas) some
high thirds. Might this notation have helped him keep things in check?

One other matter that comes to mind is the suggestion here (on the list)
that the factor that tends to pull the third higher than just is the
influence of 12-tET training. As you may remember, the reason I spent a few
months on the list last year looking for a rationale for the high third was
because the third I was hearing from my singers (both novice and
professional) is somewhat *higher* than the 12-tET third. (This is not meant
to rehash the past, but simply to keep it in mind.)

Gerald Eskelin

Gerald said:
As you may remember, the reason I spent a few
months on the list last year looking for a rationale for the high third was
because the third I was hearing from my singers (both novice and
professional) is somewhat *higher* than the 12-tET third.

Pehaps it is time to consider that Werckmeister's chromatic (widely used in Bach's time in Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt) used 4 different major thirds, and all of them sharper than just. The music composed should reflect a key's particular arrangement in terms of what sounds right, perhaps including a kind of "locking."

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 2/7/02 9:16 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 05:09:25 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Naming intervals - size matters
> >
>
> > ****So that gets back to the *very beginning* of my post. *I'm*
more
> > interested in NOTATION and making the nomenclature consistent with
> > the notation even if it "corrupts" the idea of the "pure" third as
> > the "real" one, and *you* don't feel it's necessary to have the
> > notation and the nomenclature work together.
> >
> > When a player "ad-JUSTs" he makes a change, he plays
the "adjusted"
> > one G:Bv and the notation *reflects that* just in the addition of
> > another character!
> >
> > For me, in this "unreal" "funhouse" world, the corrupt is the true
> > (Enron?) and G:B *unadorned* is the "real" major third!
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> Very cute, Joseph. (I chuckled out loud on this one.)
>
> After noting the discussion on the list regarding notation to
reflect tuning
> practice, a few questions come to mind. Is the idea here to suggest
to the
> performer to lower or raise certain pitches "on the fly"? Okay, so
far. But
> then lower or raise *how* far? Would that be a matter of education?
Or is
> the idea to move the pitch toward "best" tuning--i.e., small-number
> ratio--which likely can be 'heard' acoustically?

the above discussion related to 72-tone equal temperament. the
conventional semitone is divided into six equal parts. all the
consonant intervals (in fact, all 29 that Partch considered
consonant, including 'outfielders' like 18:11) are correct within 4
cents in 72-tone equal temperament.

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33827.html#33827

> >
> Very cute, Joseph. (I chuckled out loud on this one.)
>
> After noting the discussion on the list regarding notation to
reflect tuning practice, a few questions come to mind. Is the idea
here to suggest to the performer to lower or raise certain
pitches "on the fly"? Okay, so far. But then lower or raise *how*
far? Would that be a matter of education? Or is the idea to move the
pitch toward "best" tuning--i.e., small-number ratio--which likely
can be 'heard' acoustically?
>

****Hi Jerry!

Thanks for your post.

All my pieces nowadays come with an *audio CD.* On this CD is *Ear
Training.*

Basically, I have the performer compare 12-tET pitches with "altered"
Blackjack pitches with only *three* alterations available using 72-
tET notation, which is what I now use:

1/12 whole tone deviation up and down
1/6 whole tone deviation up and down
1/4 whole tone deviation up and down

12-tET players are pretty much used to 1/4-tone playing these days,
as Johnny Reinhard mentioned, so this is not so much of a problem.

For learning the other "alterations" I use the method advocated by
Paul Erlich:

The 1/12 whole tone alteration (16 cents) is practiced by playing a
drone unison note and starting with a tempered 12-tET major third and
then lowering it until it stops beating (syntonic comma).

The 1/6 whole tone alteration (33 cents) is practiced by playing a
minor 7th against a drone pitch and then lowering it until it stops
beating (septimal comma).

So, in addition to matching the "ear training" alterations on the CD,
the players can practice by stopping the beating of these 12-tET
tempered intervals *acoustically* in the way that you mention.

In addition, I *then* have yet *another* track that plays the entire
Blackjack scale through the audible range of the instrument ascending
and descending for practice.

FINALLY, I have a track that is, essentially, a *music minus one*
track, that has the electronic piece *PLUS* the instrumental part in
the correct tuning in MIDI for the player to play along with.

The *last* track on the "trainer" CD is the actual piece to be played
in concert *WITHOUT* the solo instrumental part which will,
hopefully... :) be performed by the player.

I believe I'm pretty much going to stick with this format for all the
instruments I work with, except for the fact that I will have to have
extensive and *accurate* fingering charts when I get to woodwinds.

Guess which woodwind I will do first?? (Well, Johnny Reinhard *has*
promised me the fingerings!)

For the time being, I am concentrating on *solo* instrumental pieces
with electronics. I have *plenty* of larger pieces in my oeuvre, and
it seems that this is the most *practical* and best way,
educationally, to get new players to understand and want to play
these new tunings. And I can also work with the player *directly* as
necessary.

That's whatssup...

Joseph Pehrson