Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1882

On 2/10/02 6:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:18:09 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: ear training for Blackjack
>
> --- 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.*

Got to hear it! Where do I buy?
>
> 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.

Really? By this, do you (and Johnny) mean that players *consciously* adjust
exactly to 1/4-tones? Or to something in the vicinity? As you know, I
realize that pitch-sensitive players adjust pitches to suit their
"instincts" but I'm not sure they are shooting for a specific mark other
than "best" tunings.
>
> 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).

Love it.
>
> 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).

Ditto.
>
> 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.

Very interesting. I can't wait to hear the CDs.
>
> 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.

Shall I get out my old clarinet, or maybe I'll just try to vocalize it. I
still have a pretty good falsetto.
>
> 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!)

Well, don't count on me for the clarinet fingerings. I quit playing long
before I realized there were more than 12 pitches per octave.
>
> 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

Thanks for the very clear overview, Joseph. Good luck with this. I think it
will make a fine contribution toward opening eyes (and ears) among musicians
and music educators.

Gerald Eskelin

On 2/10/02 6:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:15:52 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: consensus in notation
>
>
> Even though I didn't *want* to, I changed ALL my charts, graphs,
> lattices, information, etc., etc., etc. to the new Blackjack key of G.
>
> Joe

Perhaps you can clarify something for me that has been bothering me since
reading about Blackjack. If it is based on equal temperament, why is it
important that it be in a particular key? The whole idea of equal
temperament was to freely transpose music to any of 12 tonalities. So why is
Blackjack *in* the key of G?

Gerald Eskelin

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

> Perhaps you can clarify something for me that has been bothering me
since
> reading about Blackjack. If it is based on equal temperament, why
is it
> important that it be in a particular key? The whole idea of equal
> temperament was to freely transpose music to any of 12 tonalities.
So why is
> Blackjack *in* the key of G?

blackjack is a selection of 21 tones from 72 tone equal temperament.
since joseph has to map all 21 tones to his keyboard, he has no room
for any of the rest of the tones in 72-equal. so he can't transpose
the scale at all. instead he uses the scale in a 'key' where g and d
form the most consonances with other notes . . . g-d is the
harmonically central dyad . . . so he calls it the key of g.

On 2/10/02 6:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 10:03:16 +0200 (IST)
> From: Robert C Valentine <BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM>
> Subject: Welcome back, was Re: G Bv D
>
>
>>>
>>> Great question. Note that his book takes a much more JI approach to
>>> what music and musicians do, even implying the use of 11 and 13
>>> limit entities in the performance of "in tune" Western music. Since
>>> this doesn't match at all what I hear, I have some scepticism about
>>> theorizing he may make, regardless of the quality of his choral
>>> directing.
>>>

Me:

>> I join you in that skepticism, Bob. I learned a lot during my months on the
>> list. Too bad I can't go back and modify all the copies of my books. At
>> least I'll be a bit more cautious in any future writing.
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> You left for a round of golf about a year and half ago and here you
> are. Sounds about like my game...
>
> Regarding whatever skepticism we may have now, I probably would have said the
> same things (or attempted to say something like it) as in your book, regarding
> tuning. A lot of my thoughts have been challenged and changed since joining
> this
> list and to your credit, you did get a lot of "message" out there to the
> musical
> masses who think that the number 12 is the basis for all of music past,
> present
> and future.
>
> Meanwhile, regarding the high third, it may well be that there is no pure
> psychoacoustic-physiological basis for a specific frequency or ratio. If we
> accept that, then one could start to conject the same for the variety of
> neutral intervals in Arabic/Turkish/Persian musics (despite their theorists)
> as well as "blue notes". Maybe people just choose the note that sounds good,
> given SOME amount of psychoacoustic-physiological and many helpings of
> cultural
> "stuff".
>
> Nice to read your voice again,
>
> Bob Valentine

Thanks, Bob. Nice to be back.

I'm quite convinced that the ethnic characteristics you mention should in
fact be considered deviations from acoustic "standards." The same could be
said of Pablo Casals' "urgent" leading tones (which I believe approximate
"my" high third.

That thought reminds me of the discussion here of the G-Bv-D triad. While
there is no doubt that the JI third is acoustically consonant, I find that
even novice group singers, once made sensitive to flexible tuning, go for
the "deviation." Oh, well!

Gerald Eskelin

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

/tuning/topicId_34032.html#34032

> > ****Hi Jerry!
> >
> > Thanks for your post.
> >
> > All my pieces nowadays come with an *audio CD.* On this CD is
*Ear
> > Training.*
>
> Got to hear it! Where do I buy?

***Hi Jerry!

Thanks so much for your nice message. Well, this new "xenharmonic"
stuff isn't handled by my "regular" publisher, but you can hear the
piece here:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1831/1831747.html

This is the "prototype" version, meaning with a MIDI trombone part.

The "real" performance with trombone has been scheduled, and it will
be announced shortly... (hopefully)

best,

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_34032.html#34043

> Perhaps you can clarify something for me that has been bothering me
since reading about Blackjack. If it is based on equal temperament,
why is it important that it be in a particular key? The whole idea of
equal temperament was to freely transpose music to any of 12
tonalities. So why is Blackjack *in* the key of G?
>

***Hi Jerry...

Actually, Blackjack is *not* an equal temperament, so the
transpositional possibilities are somewhat limited in that respect.
Well, I prefer to say "ideosyncratic..." The just sonorities are
great, though! :) I notice Paul posted more about it below...

best,

Joseph