Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1885

On 2/11/02 1:29 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:47:04 EST
> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1881
>
> In a message dated 2/9/02 6:12:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> stg3music@earthlink.net writes:
>
>
>> Whether specific
>> *amounts* of deviation can be (or should be) successfully communicated
>> remains to be seen.
>>
>>
>
> Gerald, at least with instruments, "specific" amounts of deviation have been
> seen many, many times over. As a vocalist, it sure makes a differenece to me
> personally.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

I'm sorry, Johnny, but I don't know what you mean. Can you be specific about
any of the "many times over"? And what is the "it" that makes a difference
to you?

Gerald Eskelin

On 2/11/02 1:29 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:39:16 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: reply to Gerald Eskelin (was: Re: Digest Number 1878)
>
>
> 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.
>
I think I'm missing something. On one hand this notation is for avant-garde
effects and on the other it approximates just intonation. Huh???

Perhaps I'll check in with John de Laubenfels' eloquence.

Gerald Eskelin

Hi Gerald,

As you may be aware, I have produced microtonal concerts for 21 years in a
myriad of microtonal tunings. Learning experientially, the musicians
involved have discovered that EXACT cents values are necessary for quick and
facile reading.

As a player, on the bassoon for example, if I have to play an E +2, I don't
have to add any keys to succeed. However, if I say JI only, it might change
the sure-footedness of the A I played just before it. Or there might not
even be an A, but an odd interval before it.

Still, you might ask, why put +2 when there is so little difference on an
instrument that can't distinguish that well on its own (not unlike a trumpet
in this sense)? It matters, it matters, it matters. All disaster would
break out otherwise for this would be indicative of the musicians NOT having
the EXACT position of the pitch in the mind which is necessary for the work
we do. Without the +2 on the E it is most likely that the very next note
would be played wrong since we would lose the sense of relativity. I do not
have perfect pitch.

As a vocalist performing music of Harry Partch it is even more clear to me.
When there is a repeated note like in "Long Departed Lover" one cannot merely
repeat an exact pitch like it was a physics laboratory. The mind zeros in on
the EXACT pitch so that there is a human coloring to the phonemes of the
words which are all important. One does not speak naturally with exact
repeats of pitch because that is the sound of the "monotonous" which is what
put us to sleep in school when we were whelps.

The actual pitch inflections that ornament a repeated note are micro-micro,
so small as not to register in the intellect for but a few. It's close to
using a different vowel in the head to change the tone for a singer. To the
surprise of some, it involves the juggling of intervals that may best be
indicated by cents. This choice of cents has no longer anything to do with
equal temperament. It is the grease by which performers can, and do, shimmer
the sound, dazzle the listener, and keep the interest of the listener, all
without vibrato.

best, Johnny Reinhard

> Gerald, at least with instruments, "specific" amounts of deviation have been

> > seen many, many times over. As a vocalist, it sure makes a difference to
> me
> > personally.
> >
> > Best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> I'm sorry, Johnny, but I don't know what you mean. Can you be specific about
> any of the "many times over"? And what is the "it" that makes a difference
> to you?
>
> Gerald Eskelin
>
>
>

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

> > 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.
> >
> I think I'm missing something. On one hand this notation is for
avant-garde
> effects and on the other it approximates just intonation. Huh???

that's right, and the two are not even mutually exclusive. notice i
mentioned partch above.