Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1878

On 2/8/02 3:19 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 23
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:05:48 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1877
>
> --- 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.

Fair enough, Paul. The thrust of my questions have to do with the
practicality of 'live' performance from notation of these "consonant"
intervals. I understand that electronic performance could immediately be
enhanced by this effort. I guess I'm always looking for the application
within my own world.

Since this topic has to do with notation, I thought it would logically apply
to live performance. Otherwise, why notate? What am I missing?

(I wish I had more time to do my homework regarding the background of these
discussions, but that is just not in the cards at this point. Any time my
'contributions' border on total irrelevance, be kind enough to just tell me
that and I'll re-assume the posture of observer.)

Gerald Eskelin

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

> >> 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.
>
> Fair enough, Paul. The thrust of my questions have to do with the
> practicality of 'live' performance from notation of
these "consonant"
> intervals.

yes, the background here is the ted mook / joe maneri / ezra sims
school of 72-equal notation and performance. people are trained to
sight read 72-equal, and hopefully more will be in the future.

> I guess I'm always looking for the application
> within my own world.

hmm . . . this would not seem very applicable to the world of common-
practice diatonic music, for reasons john de laubenfels has
eloquently expressed. instead, 72-equal notation has been used to
facilitate performance of music by composers such as harry partch,
and joseph is interested in it for the 'avant-garde' musical effects
it allows. in both cases, the fact that it approximates just
intonation intervals so well is very important.

> Since this topic has to do with notation, I thought it would
logically apply
> to live performance.

correct.

On 2/8/02 3:19 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:24:28 -0000
> From: "gdsecor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Extended techniques (Was: Patrick Ozzard-Low)
>
> In reading the digests of the postings of the past 24 hours or so, I
> recall seeing a conversation in which a question was raised whether
> players (or singers) might tend toward just intonation if they were
> performing along with instruments of fixed pitch tuned to rational
> intervals. My guess is that for the majority of singers, no, and for
> instrumentalists, maybe, but don't count on it. Singers and players
> need to be educated about these things, and even a class in musical
> acoustics probably isn't going to be enough to give most music
> students a sufficient awareness of how to go about achieving "better"
> intonation, nor the motivation to do some practical exercises on
> their own to develop that awareness.
>
> --George

I missed your post, George, the fist time around, but noticed it today when
reading Joseph's amusing response.

As it happens, for the past five or six years I have been developing
materials intended to help music educators train young ears in JI tuning. In
fact, I just uploaded a new "Preface" to my website that will soon be
included in my newly revised edition of "Natural Ear Training."

It would be extremely helpful to me if interested tuning-list members would
have the time to give a look and make suggestions for clarity and accuracy.
The language, of course, is aimed at the general reader, so there won't be
any mention of "12-tET" or "Blackjack" (at least not this time around), but
it would be nice to avoid statements that I will later have to swallow.

The URL is <http://www.stage3music.com/EarCharts.html/>

Thanks in advance for any suggestions. In order not to clog the list, you
might want to send them directly to <geskelin@stage3music.com> On the other
hand, if my piece raises any topics that you feel would be of general
interest, we can "hash" them here.

Gerald Eskelin

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

/tuning/topicId_33864.html#34039

>
> The URL is <http://www.stage3music.com/EarCharts.html/>
>

***Somehow, Jerry, this like doesn't work for me... :(

Joseph