72-tone Notation revisited

In a message dated 3/1/02 12:09:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> by the smiley, i assume you know it's always 12-equal piano. they're
> not as 'emancipated' as some here might hope :) :)
>
>
>

I don't' believe 72 notation is as specific and reliable as many on this list
have been declaring. The masters Joe Maneri and Ezra Sims do not use it to
reflect an equal division tuning. Maneri plays in tongues, as he has
described it and as I have experienced many times. Sims uses the notation as
a scaffold for getting finer just intonation relationships.

Neither artists use the tuning notation to give what Joseph Pehrson is trying
to imbue it with. Joe wants accurate targeting of his written notes. Here
we have a third. I bet different players interpret it differently in ways
matching the way their instruments work. The late Frans Richter Herf had
orchestras in 72 with single musicians alternate playing single notes, one at
a time, that barely seemed to relate, and without any lush harmonies (but I'm
not sure of his notation).

Perfect Pitch musicians might treat it differently than others and take
longer to be expressive with the material (since there is so much examination
going on all the time to the person's resident data base in the mind).

Since good intonation requires an internalized relationships of pitches, it
is delayed by new notations. For the record, I have played most every
notation or been in the position to teach it. But in all honesty, not 72.
Now I'd like things a bit easier for musicians. I'd like to honor what they
report to me. My violist and cellist and everyone else prefer cents. Of
course they need to be expressive musically and this is most likely to happen
with cents. This assumes the player is not the composer and must approach
the music clean. Explanations for the "meaning" of the intervals are a
separate matter.

Best, Johnny Reinhard (in hopes of having more music notation submitted to
the AFMM for future live performances)

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/1/02 12:09:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > by the smiley, i assume you know it's always 12-equal piano.
they're
> > not as 'emancipated' as some here might hope :) :)
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't' believe 72 notation is as specific and reliable as many on
this list
> have been declaring. The masters Joe Maneri and Ezra Sims do not
use it to
> reflect an equal division tuning. Maneri plays in tongues, as he
has
> described it and as I have experienced many times. Sims uses the
notation as
> a scaffold for getting finer just intonation relationships.
>
> Neither artists use the tuning notation to give what Joseph Pehrson
is trying
> to imbue it with. Joe wants accurate targeting of his written notes.

if you look at the intro notes for joseph's piece, 'blackjack', it
sure sounds like he's agreeing with the sims philosophy 100% --
wouldn't you agree?

> Since good intonation requires an internalized relationships of
pitches, it
> is delayed by new notations. For the record, I have played most
every
> notation or been in the position to teach it. But in all honesty,
not 72.

i'm in favor of honesty. the testimonials of ted mook, julie werntz,
and just about everyone who's taken joe maneri's class do not confirm
your speculations here. my own personal experience is that the 72
intervals can be learned and assimilated with astounding expediency.
you have the two *immediately audible* properties of

*an immediate connection with familiar 12-equal and quartertones

*an unmistakeable and unmatched ability to agree with ji,
especially 'partchian' ji

and then the huge conceptual simplification that comes because of the
incredibly direct 'bicycle chain' property we've discussed.

> Now I'd like things a bit easier for musicians. I'd like to honor
what they
> report to me. My violist and cellist and everyone else prefer
cents. Of
> course they need to be expressive musically and this is most likely
to happen
> with cents. This assumes the player is not the composer and must
approach
> the music clean.

yes. undoubtedly 72 takes a little extra training. but it's so
*tangible*. quartertones, sixth-tones, and their common denominator,
twelfth-tones. that's all. a small investment and then the student
can sight read them all, playing with *total conviction*. i just
witnessed a performance last night of a number of these students --
bass, clarinet, saxophone, trombone. remember the conviction with
which judith berkson sang? it's the rule, not the exception.

and besides, what's wrong with getting acquainted with
the 'landmarks' before you go on to wander the whole territory with
cents?

> Best, Johnny Reinhard

same to you!

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35081.html#35081
>
> Since good intonation requires an internalized relationships of
pitches, it is delayed by new notations. For the record, I have
played most every notation or been in the position to teach it. But
in all honesty, not 72.
> Now I'd like things a bit easier for musicians. I'd like to honor
what they report to me. My violist and cellist and everyone else
prefer cents. Of course they need to be expressive musically and
this is most likely to happen with cents. This assumes the player
is not the composer and must approach the music clean. Explanations
for the "meaning" of the intervals are a separate matter.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard (in hopes of having more music notation
submitted to the AFMM for future live performances)

***Hi Johnny!

Well, as I mentioned, I would be more than happy to write cents
values above the notes of the Sims/Maneri 72-tET notation for you.

But, it seems a little silly, since there are only *three* numbers:
50, 33 and 17... just repeating over and over.

Particularly for the quarter-tones at 50 cents. I'm sure people have
played quarter-tones on AFMM concerts over the years without having
50 cents written every time...

I note that you are a bit flexible on the idea of *template* notation
in *some* limited instances, so not *everything* on AFMM concerts is
*always* in cents.

Basically, as I believe Paul Erlich has mentioned before, 72-tET is
essentially "training wheels" notation for the full 1200-tET
continuum.

There's a difference, too, in the kinds of people we are working
with. *You* have a cadre of *specialists.* They can play *anything*
and this has been proven. Many can *easily* play 1200-tET to close
to 1 cent accuracy.

However, *I'm* more interested, at the moment, in
approaching "traditional" players who have never worked in
microtonality.

I don't think they can *do* 1200-tET at this stage.

Getting them to just do 50 cent, 33 cent and 17 cent deviations is
*enough* for *my* expectations at the moment...

But will happily "write them in" for you if necessary!

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

>My violist and cellist and everyone else prefer cents. Of
> course they need to be expressive musically and this is most likely to happen
> with cents.

It seems to me the only possible reason cents could be easier than 72-et is because one is used to cents; it is inherently far more difficult, for the simple reason that 1200 is a bigger number than 72.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35081.html#35118

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> >My violist and cellist and everyone else prefer cents. Of
> > course they need to be expressive musically and this is most
likely to happen
> > with cents.
>
> It seems to me the only possible reason cents could be easier than
72-et is because one is used to cents; it is inherently far more
difficult, for the simple reason that 1200 is a bigger number than 72.

**Ummm, I'm no mathematician, but 72 is a *lot* smaller than 1200! :)

And 72 manages to *hit* many if not *most* of the crucial just
intonation sonorities of the pitch continuum...

jp

Really, 72 is a smaller number than 1200? I hadn't realized. I better tell
my violist and cellist ASAP. : ) All joking aside, this is not an issue of
math. This is an issue of musicianship.

Navigating 72 dieses of 16.666666666etc. cents is more abstract than turning
12 into 1200. The non-math-priority mind (like mine). When Partch comes in
ratios, my violist writes it out in cents (not 72). When my perfect pitch
player has to play music, 16.666 cents is too vague for playing any exact
note.

Besides the fact that learning 72 only aids 72 and some related tunings (like
quartertones at 24), cents has it all. There is instant recognition of ANY
pitch and ANY interval. Frankly, I don't believe it is fair to complain
about which is harder when we have a living culture of musicians that play
cents (and which therefore includes all others).

As to covering JI intervals, 23 x 16.666 = 383.318. That sucks as a just
major third. The JI composers would never accept that interval as a JI major
third. Besides, it is the 12-tET major third that is best represented.
There is no real JI 383 cent interval. I have had personal experience
retraining a 72-trained musician with difficulty for this reason, who now
composes in Werckmeister III (which would be a total waste in 72).

Now, I'm not a musician, but dividing 12 into 1200 is mentally very
comfortable. Quartertones are big in microtonal music, particularly in size.
Shaving it down into half and quarters is no harder than shading by 14 cents
for an accurate 386 cent JI major third. The actual training musicians have
had with the Korg tuners demonstrate that one can read a dial graded by 5
cent indications. Finding the middle is easy. One used a simple dial with
the thumb. 1 cent away from a demarcated 5 cent location was as easy as 2
cents. My thumb was in itself quite adept at finding the exact cent sought
and then hear it play out. These players have trained others, and so on. It
is now international. 72 is favored in Boston and Salzburg, Austria.

Please understand, I am excited for the activity in Boston, know well both
Ezra and Joe, and realize that some (like soprano Meredith Borden) can
proceed naturally to a JI world of intervals. But I bet they never go back.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

n a message dated 3/2/02 1:01:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > >My violist and cellist and everyone else prefer cents. Of
> > > course they need to be expressive musically and this is most
> likely to happen with cents.
> >
> > It seems to me the only possible reason cents could be easier than
> 72-et is because one is used to cents; it is inherently far more
> difficult, for the simple reason that 1200 is a bigger number than 72.
>
>
> **Ummm, I'm no mathematician, but 72 is a *lot* smaller than 1200! :)
>
> And 72 manages to *hit* many if not *most* of the crucial just
> intonation sonorities of the pitch continuum...
>
> jp
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Navigating 72 dieses of 16.666666666etc. cents is more abstract than turning
> 12 into 1200.

It isn't; you've just phrased it in a cents-centric way. I could as easily say that navigating 1200 cents each of which is 3/50th of a
72-et step is much more complicated and mathematically difficult than simply using 72-et to start with.

The non-math-priority mind (like mine). When Partch comes in
> ratios, my violist writes it out in cents (not 72).

Your violinist therefore must be used to performing in cents; I don't see what other conclusion you can draw. Again, this strikes me as at bottom circular--you are defending a practice as easier on the grounds that people who are already using it find it easier.

> Besides the fact that learning 72 only aids 72 and some related tunings (like
> quartertones at 24), cents has it all. There is instant recognition of ANY
> pitch and ANY interval.

Up to +- 1/2 cent.

> As to covering JI intervals, 23 x 16.666 = 383.318. That sucks as a just
> major third. The JI composers would never accept that interval as a JI major
> third.

This suggests that 3 cents is too much of an error, but that 1/2 cent
is acceptable. If so, you are indeed better off staying away from
72-et, and cents seems like a good solution. You might note that you can get the same accuracy up to the 11-limit from 270, and beat it with 612, of course.

Is there general agreement among JI people that +-1/2 cent is close enough? I would think doing better would be very hard.

How easily to people trained in cents hit a third which is three cents flat, or a fifth two cents flat? The problem of playing tempered music using cents also arises.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35081.html#35147

Hi Johnny!

Thanks so much for your contributions to this discussion since, on
the overall, you clearly have *more* practical experience producing
microtonality than anybody on this list.

That's why we have to take your *cents* interpretation very seriously.

In general, I think there will be little disagreement, since the
cents numbers can be clearly written over the notes.

In fact, in support of your argument, you should note that Joe Maneri
even uses *cents* notation in his *own* diagram!:

/tuning/files/Pehrson/Sims.GIF

If you note all the numbers there, you can see that Joe Maneri is
using them *himself* for training purposes!

>
> Navigating 72 dieses of 16.666666666etc. cents is more abstract
than turning 12 into 1200. The non-math-priority mind (like mine).

***72 is *really* easy, Johnny! There is no math involved in it
whatsoever! It *does* mean, however, and in this you are more than
correct, that the microtonal universe is limited to the 72-tET system.

However, that system contains, *all* our "regular* 12-tET notes,
*all* our quartertones, and the player only has to learn *two*
different smaller intervals than that!

They just learn a 33 cent deviation and a 17 cent deviation from any
given pitch! That's a *very* limited universe that people can
PRACTICE.

I say that *that's* where the musicianship lies, in *practicing.*

PRACTICING 1200 per octave is just too much! Where do you start?
What intervals do you have them practice? You can't do everything at
once!

My pieces now come with a CD so that the player can PRACTICE the
deviations of 33 cents and 17 cents from the 12-tET notes. That's
all they have to do.

Where's the math in that? It's totally *real* musicianship, real
playing. It would take *years* to develop the same ability
throughout the entire 1200 spectrum. I wouldn't even know where to
start.

I suppose you would have to start like this:

0 cent to 5 cents

0 cent to 10 cents

0 cent to 15 cents

0 cent to 20 cents

0 cent to 25 cents

Then, you wouldn't have to go past 25 from any given quartertone.
And even *that* isn't enough, since you're saying they should be able
to hit *every* cent. I'm exhausted, already, thinking about it!

Frankly, that also is the "problem" with the incipient microtonal
composer. We don't know where to start after quarter tones. At
least, I will speak for my humble self.

When I started working with microtonality seriously, about one or two
years ago... well, I'd done pieces for years before, as you know, but
not as intensively, the only thing I could think to do were quarter-
tones.

What else would I do? I didn't know. I imagined the most reasonable
thing to do in an alternate tuning was to try to do *pure*
intervals. This wasn't just my *own* idea, some other people also
came up with it... :)

In any case, given this fact, I needed a *known universe* as a
composer to work with. Working with 72 does, indeed, limit my
options, but they are the "near just intonation" options that I have
been looking for to offset 12-tET and 24-tET and with 72-tET you can
do *both* of these things at the same time, in a *very* easy and
systematic way!

When Partch comes in ratios, my violist writes it out in cents (not
72).

***You should talk to Ted Mook, then, about this, since he *swears*
by the 72-tET notation for easy performance of Partch. And he's
done, apparently *lots* of it, with several recordings out. Several
examples of his work with Partch in the 72-tET notation are shown
here:

http://www.webcom.com/~tmook/lipo.html

When my perfect pitch player has to play music, 16.666 cents is too
vague for playing any exact note.
>

****I guess what you're saying here is that your players are taught
to play finer divisions than 17 cents. Well, that's great but,
frankly, I have some trouble hearing some of these smaller intervals
myself, sometimes (I confess) and wouldn't like to try to teach
musicians *new* to microtonality smaller intervals that I, myself, am
comfortable with.

I guess I'm a little "gross..." but 17 is plenty small enough for me,
thank you.... I grant that's a present limitation in my abilities,
but I think some musicians new to the area might have the same
problem.

> Besides the fact that learning 72 only aids 72 and some related
tunings (like quartertones at 24), cents has it all. There is
instant recognition of ANY pitch and ANY interval.

***It would be an interesting test to have average performers read 72-
tET intervals to a pitch counter and then read random 1200 pitches
from number notation and see who would be the most accurate.

My personal feeling is that the players who have practiced 33 and 17
over and over and over again would be the most accurate, insofar as
getting at least *those* pitches right.

People trying to pick out up to 25 or even 50 (as in *your* system)
cents deviation from a quartertone might be "lost at sea."

I'm saying, of course, to the *average* fine performer new to
microtonality, not the ones that you have specially trained...

Frankly, I don't believe it is fair to complain
> about which is harder when we have a living culture of musicians
that play cents (and which therefore includes all others).
>

****Well, and, apparently, there's an underground culture of 72-tET
players around too, both in New York and Boston. I'm finding out
more about this every day!

> As to covering JI intervals, 23 x 16.666 = 383.318. That sucks as
a just major third. The JI composers would never accept that
interval as a JI major third.

***Well, I don't know. Kraig Grady even seems to accept 72-tET and
he's a kind of "litmus test" as it were. That's the only ET he'll
even CONSIDER. And, yes, I admit, the thirds are 3 cents off. That
subtle distinction is, most probably lost on *me* personally,
regrettably.

Besides, it is the 12-tET major third that is best represented.
> There is no real JI 383 cent interval. I have had personal
experience retraining a 72-trained musician with difficulty for this
reason, who now composes in Werckmeister III (which would be a total
waste in 72).

***Yes, it is true that many of the temperaments are not well
represented by 72-tET. But most of them aren't notated in CENTS.
They just retune the harpsichord and that's it!

>
> Now, I'm not a musician, but dividing 12 into 1200 is mentally very
> comfortable.

****I wouldn't sell yourself short, Johnny! You are a very *fine*
musician!

You meant, of course, *mathematician...* Well, I can't see where all
the math is, frankly. All I can see is the routine practicing of 33
cents 17 cents deviations over and over and over again, just like we
have to practice ANYTHING to get it right. EVENTUALLY, it *will* be
accurate. But to practice the full spectrum? Or to practice up to
25 cents (or 50?) away from a quartertone??

What kind of exercises for musicians *are* there for this
practicing? Do *you* have them? Are they available in the way that
the Maneri ear training exercises are available for musicians to
practice??

I've never seen such exercises. If we *train* people, we need
exercises, so it seems to *me!*

I'm not *doubting* this is possible, I've just *never* seen the 1200
ear training procedures as of yet. Maybe they are around.

I don't know if I can buy the thought that such practicing can come
in play by just playing *pieces!* There's not enough reiteration of
the same *intervals* in playing pieces.

It's like using Czerny to gain piano finger dexterity. Not great
music, not too much fun, but it develops the *technique!*

Quartertones are big in microtonal music, particularly in size.
> Shaving it down into half and quarters is no harder than shading
by 14 cents for an accurate 386 cent JI major third.

***I think for many players it would be hard to shade down by exactly
14 cents. Why more than 17? Well, simply because the player has
been playing so *many* 17 deviations. Unless there is more such
training for 14 shadings, I'm not sure I can buy that...

The actual training musicians have
> had with the Korg tuners demonstrate that one can read a dial
graded by 5 cent indications. Finding the middle is easy. One used
a simple dial with the thumb. 1 cent away from a demarcated 5 cent
location was as easy as 2 cents. My thumb was in itself quite adept
at finding the exact cent sought and then hear it play out. These
players have trained others, and so on. It is now international. 72
is favored in Boston and Salzburg, Austria.
>

***I guess here you're saying that 72-tET is favored in only two
locations.

Say, I didn't know it was being used in Salzburg, Austria! :)

Thanks for the tip. See, you know more about 72 than *I* do, as I
surmised!

> Please understand, I am excited for the activity in Boston, know
well both Ezra and Joe, and realize that some (like soprano Meredith
Borden) can proceed naturally to a JI world of intervals. But I bet
they never go back.
>

***You mean once we've gone into Just there is no turning back?
That's *scary* Johnny. It's a little like the "Night of the Living
Dead..."

I appreciate this exchange and, although 72 has turned out to be
*extremely* beneficial for me PERSONALLY in my composing, I will
continue to offer the extra service of putting cents deviations above
all my notes, as necessary!

Then it's in the beloved *cents notation* as well!!!

best, and thanks again!

jp