Ideology and Tuning

Hi Tuning Group,

I'm one of the many wallflowers that linger in the
shadows of the tuning list. I'm emerging from the
wings to ask a favor of the list, especially frequent
contributors.

I'm currently pursuing a musicology PhD at the Eastman
School of Music, and plan on doing a dissertation on
the life and music of La Monte Young. This has lead me
into an unexpected realm of inquiry, that of the
relationship between tuning systems (especially JI)
and ideologies that their practitioners might
consciously or unconsciously attach to them (or the
ideologies/worldviews that such tunings emerge from).

As part of my research (which I will utilize in the
next couple of days for an ethnomusicology seminar I'm
taking) I would like to do a brief ethnographical
study in which I solicit information and opinions from
various composers/theorists interested in alternate
tuning systems. A secondary focus of the study will be
an examination of the unique "ethnographic" issues
encountered in studying a group of people scattered
geographically, whose forum of communication about
music is the internet.

I would be very grateful if some of the frequent
contributors to the list would be willing to
participate. I will ask willing parties to answer a
short questionairre off-list via email (or some other
mutually agreeable means). Because of the nature of my
study, some of the questions will be of a rather
personal nature (beliefs about the nature or power of
music/tuning, one's general political orientations,
one's ethnic/religious background and current
religious/spiritual practices or beliefs), but I would
guarantee each individual's anonimity and, if desired,
would also be willing to use a forum in which a
respondent's identity would be hidden from me
personally.

While this will be an ongoing study, my immediate
ethnographic study will need to be conducted within
the next couple of days. If you would be willing to
answer my questionairre (which I imagine will take
about 15 minutes to fill out), please contact me
offlist at jngrimshaw@yahoo.com.

Thanks in advance to everyone willing to participate.

Sincerely,

J. Grimshaw

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Hello Jeremy,

--- In tuning@y..., Jeremy Grimshaw <jngrimshaw@y...> wrote:
> I'm one of the many wallflowers that linger in the
> shadows of the tuning list. I'm emerging from the
> wings to ask a favor of the list, especially frequent
> contributors.

I certainly would be one that would participate, but I'd also ask you
to consider getting recommendations from people on the list of others
that you might want to speak to, especially since this is focusing,
in some larger part, on JI.

I say this because the tuning list, at large, tends to be less
interested in JI than other correspondents that might not frequent
this list, at least any more.

I also heartily suggest that you get in touch with David Beardsly
about your research if you haven't already.

Cheers,
Jon

> From: jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:06 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Ideology and Tuning
>
>
> ... I'd also ask you to consider getting recommendations
> from people on the list of others that you might want to
> speak to, especially since this is focusing, in some
> larger part, on JI.
>
> I say this because the tuning list, at large, tends to be less
> interested in JI than other correspondents that might not frequent
> this list, at least any more.

> I also heartily suggest that you get in touch with David Beardsly
> about your research if you haven't already.

and i can add Pat Pagano, Jon Catler, and La Monte Young himself,
all of whom should be reachable thru David. and also in Florida
there's Darren Burgess.

i haven't been in touch with Denny Genovese for a couple of
months now ... he's in New Jersey, and would also be a good
person to contact about JI.

there are few other at-least-part-time-JI'ers in San Diego
with whom i'm in regular contact but who don't have email
(Jonathan Glasier, Bill Wesley, Jeff Stayton). i'll be
happy to pass the questionnaire along if you'd like me to.

and last but not least, your study really should also
include Brian McLaren's opinions on JI, since he composes
a lot of music in JI tunings ... you might be sorry you
asked, but i don't think it would be right to exclude him.

-monz

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

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> and last but not least, your study really should also
> include Brian McLaren's opinions on JI, since he composes
> a lot of music in JI tunings ... you might be sorry you
> asked, but i don't think it would be right to exclude him.

What is really wacky, Monz, is that you aren't kidding. What if
Jeremy actually wants to get some work done?

Jon

In a message dated 2/10/02 6:39:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jngrimshaw@yahoo.com writes:

> and ideologies that their practitioners might
> consciously or unconsciously attach to them (or the
> ideologies/worldviews that such tunings emerge from).
>
>

S'funny. So people who are not exclusive to JI are less of interest for
their ideologies? Would their ideologies be diluted? Or are JI ideologies
reputed to be so peculiar that their reports will make the juicer read?

skeptically, Johnny Reinhard

> S'funny. So people who are not exclusive to JI are less of
interest for
> their ideologies? Would their ideologies be diluted? Or are JI
ideologies
> reputed to be so peculiar that their reports will make the juicer
read?
>
> skeptically, Johnny Reinhard

Because the dissertation that this will all eventually contribute to
will deal with a composer (namely La Monte Young) who deals with JI,
that's certainly an emphasis for me. That doesn't mean I _personally_
privilige JI or the various ideologies that might inform it--JI just
happens to be more directly pertinent to my diss. However, the reason
I am asking people on the list to participate who don't use JI so
much is that Young shares certain ideological concepts with other
(non-JI) alternate tuning composers, and I'm trying to see whether
those concepts can be traced, in Young's case, specifically to JI or
just more generally to a reaction against traditional equal
temperament.

--Jeremy

Thanks to everyone who has answered my request. For any other
interested parties, I'll include the questions below. Also, thanks to
Jon and Monz for their suggestions about other folks to talk to. That
will be very helpful as my project develops.

I've actually already been in communication with La Monte Young and
David Beardsley. La Monte agreed to an interview with me last March,
and while I was waiting to see him David was working in the Dream
House.

I've kind of taken the back route into Young's music--my initial
interest in him was largely biographical, and I subsequently became
increasingly interested in the specific technical aspects of his
tuning systems. Because Young's tuning is so closely connected to his
spiritual beliefs, this in turn has spurred my interest in the
ideologies that might arguably inform various other (i.e., non-JI)
tuning systems.

Thanks again for all your help. Below are the questions, in case
anyone else wants to cut n' paste them and send their answers to me
offlist (jngrimshaw@yahoo.com).

--Jeremy

=======Thanks for agreeing to participate in this survey. Please feel
free to skip over questions you don't wish to answaer; likewise,
please expand on a topic if you feel like doing so. I have spoken to
a few of you separately, so I apologize if some of the information
requested here might duplicate conversations we have already had off-
list.

If you can respond sometime today, that would be fabulous. As I
mentioned, the main thrust of my research involves the relationships
between ideologies/worldviews and tuning systems. However, I'm also
interested in the internet as a forum for musical communities.
Consequently, some of the questions deal with respondents' general
music activities and their participation in the list, while others
deal specifically with tuning as a possible reflection of worldview.

1) What general part of the world do you live in? (Be as specific or
vague as you like.)

2a) How long have you subscribed to the list?

2b) How frequently do you contribute to the list?

3a) How much time per day/week do you spend reading or posting to the
list?

3b) Do you use the internet in other ways to communicate or
distribute your compositions or ideas about music? (Include URLS of
web pages if you wish.)

4) Are musical activities your main source of income, or do you have
some other "day job"?

5) What kinds of tunings interest you most (JI, alternate TETs,
particular non-Western tunings, etc.)?

6) Do you compose music using alternate tunings? Are you more of a
theorist? Hobbyist? Interested observer?

7) How long have you been interested in alternate tuning systems?
What initially attracted you to them?

8) Do you come from a particular religious background or spiritual
heritage? If so, which?

9) Do you currently practice or subscribe to a particular religious
or spiritual tradition? If so, which, and what initially attracted
you to it?

10) Do you recognize any connections or parallels between your
religious/spiritual views and your musical interests or practices?

11) Do you attribute to music any particular "transcendent" powers?
That is, do you feel that music has an inherent spiritual component?

12) If so, do you feel that particular tuning systems enhance or
augment music's spiritual or transcendent potential? Do you feel that
the equal temperament system is fundamentally less able to articulate
or convey spiritual content or ideas that other kinds of tuning?

13) If you do attribute particular spiritual potential to certain
tuning systems, does that potential rely on mathematical parameters
of a tuning system? How accurately must those mathematical properties
be articulated in practical terms for a given tuning system to
maintain its spiritual potential? (To put it simply, how closely must
the acoustical reality of a tuning system as it is manifested in
performance replicate the theoretical apparatus upon which it is
based?)

Hello, there, Jeremy Grimshaw, and welcome to the Tuning List.

Your survey about tuning and ideology looks very interesting, and as
someone involved in JI along "neo-medieval" lines, I'm getting in
touch via e-mail as you suggest to participate in this research.

One thing I might say is that, at least during the last century or so,
just intonation often represents a passionate commitment to some
musical vision, as with Kathleen Schlesinger or Harry Partch, although
the nature of that vision can vary dramatically.

For some people, it means using "the smallest integer ratios
consistent with a given musical purposes."

For others, it can mean using some very complex integer ratios, with
medieval European Pythagorean tuning as one precedent.

For still others, such as Dave Keenan on this list, "justness" means
aural purity, not necessarily expressed in mathematical terms: it is
above all to be heard, whether modelled by simple integer ratios, or
sometimes by more complex ones in certain situations (e.g. the music
of La Monte Young) with very special harmonic effects. Please let me
hope, Dave, that I've reasonably approximated your viewpoint, and
invite corrections or refinements.

For me, "JI" often means a certain kind of musically "uncompromising"
outlook, since the art of temperament is typically the art of
compromise.

One of those aspects of "uncompromising" intonation is the willingness
to let certain intervals be "different." In one tuning that recently
came to me with much inspiration from people such as Kathleen
Schlesinger, George Secor, and Jacky Ligon, for example, there are
lots of pure fifths, but also a "fifth" at 32:21, a full 27 cents
wider than pure.

From one viewpoint, it's tempting to say, "Why not temper and get all
the fifths _close_ to pure, rather than have this needless asymmetry?"

From another viewpoint, however, 32:21 is also a "just" ratio (in the
non-Keenan sense of an integer ratio, and one further arising from a
certain kind of "JI" design) making possible a beautiful sonority such
as Keenan Pepper's "crunchy" 16:21:24:28.

One thing I've found is that in approaching a concept such as "JI,"
musical assumptions about style and taste can be as important as
mathematical ideals in the abstract. For example, in 16th-century
Europe, both JI and tempered schemes tend to have major thirds close
to the simplest ratio of 5:4 -- for some people, _the_ "just major
third."

In contrast, both JI and tempered schemes that I use for neo-medieval
music often tend to have major thirds near 14:11 or 9:7, for example.
Maybe this is fun, in part, because the intonational choices and
trade-offs in this part of the spectrum haven't been so thoroughly
explored, at least in the literature that I've seen -- but I like it
because it seems to fit the musical styles involved.

To me, "justness" might imply, "Yes, I want to tune _exactly_ this
ratio, whether simple or complex, rather than some compromise -- or,
in the real world of either flexible-pitch instruments or synthesizer
tuning tables and the like, as close to that ratio as I can come."

For people like Harry Partch who have built custom instruments in just
intonation systems, that note of "specialness" becomes yet richer.

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in your survey, and
I would be delighted to take part in continuing dialogue, on the List
or off.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

Margo!
First I remember someone stating that riley used the 32/21 as a drone in Descending Moonshine
Dervishes? Don't have my copy here to check.
I would tend to agree with your take on "JI". The desire to avoid ambiguousness
regardless of it's consonance and dissonance. This clarity to its identities allows the ratios to
"speak to us" with clearly defined emotional content that engages the composer in a partnership in
the act of creating music. And as one former poster commented, there is the "poetry" of thinking
in terms of pure ratios as opposed to such arbitrary measurements as cents.

"M. Schulter" wrote:

>
> For me, "JI" often means a certain kind of musically "uncompromising"
> outlook, since the art of temperament is typically the art of
> compromise.
>
> One of those aspects of "uncompromising" intonation is the willingness
> to let certain intervals be "different." In one tuning that recently
> came to me with much inspiration from people such as Kathleen
> Schlesinger, George Secor, and Jacky Ligon, for example, there are
> lots of pure fifths, but also a "fifth" at 32:21, a full 27 cents
> wider than pure.
>
> >From one viewpoint, it's tempting to say, "Why not temper and get all
> the fifths _close_ to pure, rather than have this needless asymmetry?"
>
> >From another viewpoint, however, 32:21 is also a "just" ratio (in the
> non-Keenan sense of an integer ratio, and one further arising from a
> certain kind of "JI" design) making possible a beautiful sonority such
> as Keenan Pepper's "crunchy" 16:21:24:28.
>
> One thing I've found is that in approaching a concept such as "JI,"
> musical assumptions about style and taste can be as important as
> mathematical ideals in the abstract. For example, in 16th-century
> Europe, both JI and tempered schemes tend to have major thirds close
> to the simplest ratio of 5:4 -- for some people, _the_ "just major
> third."
>
> In contrast, both JI and tempered schemes that I use for neo-medieval
> music often tend to have major thirds near 14:11 or 9:7, for example.
> Maybe this is fun, in part, because the intonational choices and
> trade-offs in this part of the spectrum haven't been so thoroughly
> explored, at least in the literature that I've seen -- but I like it
> because it seems to fit the musical styles involved.
>
> To me, "justness" might imply, "Yes, I want to tune _exactly_ this
> ratio, whether simple or complex, rather than some compromise -- or,
> in the real world of either flexible-pitch instruments or synthesizer
> tuning tables and the like, as close to that ratio as I can come."
>
> For people like Harry Partch who have built custom instruments in just
> intonation systems, that note of "specialness" becomes yet richer.
>
> T

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Jeremy Grimshaw <jngrimshaw@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33950.html#33950

> Hi Tuning Group,
>
> I'm one of the many wallflowers that linger in the
> shadows of the tuning list. I'm emerging from the
> wings to ask a favor of the list, especially frequent
> contributors.
>
> I'm currently pursuing a musicology PhD at the Eastman
> School of Music, and plan on doing a dissertation on
> the life and music of La Monte Young.

****Wow.

I really have to say that Eastman has changed since I attended school
there in the dark ages. At that time they didn't even *have*
Ethnomusicology, not feeling it quite "Worthy" of the Western
Tradition...

I'll be happy to answer your questions, and I notice you posted them
to the list. Please be aware that your e-mail address didn't come
out on the web... it "truncates" them for safety, but anyone can see
it's at "Yahoo.com" so in this case it doesn't matter.

Good luck with this!

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wearaguayabera" <jngrimshaw@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33950.html#33971

> Because the dissertation that this will all eventually contribute
to will deal with a composer (namely La Monte Young) who deals with
JI, that's certainly an emphasis for me. That doesn't mean I
_personally_ privilige JI or the various ideologies that might inform
it--JI just happens to be more directly pertinent to my diss.
However, the reason I am asking people on the list to participate who
don't use JI so much is that Young shares certain ideological
concepts with other (non-JI) alternate tuning composers, and I'm
trying to see whether those concepts can be traced, in Young's case,
specifically to JI or just more generally to a reaction against
traditional equal temperament.
>
> --Jeremy

****Jeremy, to us an aphorism, I think you've maybe "hit the nail on
the head" with this one!

Actually, I thing some people could make the case that La Monte Young
doesn't use Just Intonation at all! [*I* wouldn't say that, so now
don't some of you go glowering at *me!*]

But, *some* might say that. For one things, the primes are *so high*
that they fall into what we have termed on this list "rational
intonation" of which Just Intonation (cult caps) is but a *subset.*
(Lower integer)

Another fascinating fact is that La Monte Young doesn't use ratios of
5... so that means all the major and minor thirds are "out the
window."

Now, as *I* understand it, that's one thing that he actually shares
with Aaron Copland. Can you believe it? Aaron Copland uses fifths,
or 3-limity type things rather than 5-limit things all the time.

Why?? Because that was a *general trend* of modernism at the time.

Did you ever think that La Monte Young and Aaron Copland would have
something in common? I think it's more than possible! :)

Joseph Pehrson

> --- In tuning@y..., "wearaguayabera" <jngrimshaw@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_33950.html#33971
>
>
> > Because the dissertation that this will all eventually contribute
> to will deal with a composer (namely La Monte Young) who deals
with
> JI, that's certainly an emphasis for me. That doesn't mean I
> _personally_ privilige JI or the various ideologies that might
inform
> it--JI just happens to be more directly pertinent to my diss.
> However, the reason I am asking people on the list to participate
who
> don't use JI so much is that Young shares certain ideological
> concepts with other (non-JI) alternate tuning composers, and I'm
> trying to see whether those concepts can be traced, in Young's
case,
> specifically to JI or just more generally to a reaction against
> traditional equal temperament.
> >
> > --Jeremy
>
>
> ****Jeremy, to us an aphorism, I think you've maybe "hit the nail
on
> the head" with this one!

as for ideology and ji, someone just e-mailed me to remind me of this
passage on kyle gann's website, which i had read before:

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.html

"My teacher, Ben Johnston, was convinced that our tuning is
responsible for much of our cultural psychology, the fact that we are
so geared toward progress and action and violence and so little
attuned to introspection, contentment, and acquiesence. Equal
temperament could be described as the musical equivalent to eating a
lot of red meat and processed sugars and watching violent action
films. The music doesn't turn your attention inward, it makes you
want to go out and work off your nervous energy on something."

and i just laughed about the fact that Gann proceeded to use the
word 'beef' in this subsequent paragraph:

"Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't
at all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and American
musics are currently tuned."

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:05 PM
> Subject: [tuning] just intonation and red meat (was: Re: the Copland-La
Monte Young connex)
>
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.html
>
> "My teacher, Ben Johnston, was convinced that our tuning is
> responsible for much of our cultural psychology, the fact that we are
> so geared toward progress and action and violence and so little
> attuned to introspection, contentment, and acquiesence. Equal
> temperament could be described as the musical equivalent to eating a
> lot of red meat and processed sugars and watching violent action
> films. The music doesn't turn your attention inward, it makes you
> want to go out and work off your nervous energy on something."
>
> and i just laughed about the fact that Gann proceeded to use the
> word 'beef' in this subsequent paragraph:
>
> "Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't
> at all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and American
> musics are currently tuned."

i wonder if he intended the pun. it strikes me that he might have.

-monz

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

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33950.html#34035

> "Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't
> at all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and
American musics are currently tuned."

****Hmmm. Bland beef. Sounds like English cooking...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> "Does this sound like I have a problem with European music? I don't
> at all. My beef is with the bland way in which European and
> American musics are currently tuned."

Whenever I come across someone with a beef, I just tell them "Temper,
temper..."

Cheers,
Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>

> Another fascinating fact is that La Monte Young doesn't use ratios of
> 5... so that means all the major and minor thirds are "out the
> window."

Let's see. None in the Well Tuned Piano. None in his
sine tone installations. None is his works for strings (that
I know of...). None in the Frour Dreams of China.

But what about the Blues Band?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley