The Beethoven piece

Off-list thread wending in here:

> David wrote:
> > > I'm assuming that you didn't intend to mix comma-shifted and
> > > unshifted tones in simultaneities. If I'm wrong about that,
> > > forgive me.
>
> And Monz responded:
> > Yes, I did do it intentionally (didn't you read my analysis?).
>
[David:]
> Sorry. I hadn't yet read the whole thing, only the
> introductory paragraphs. If I'd had any idea you'd taken
> such a radical [read: interesting] approach I would have read it all right away!
> :-)
>
> I have a feeling that you're on to something good in
> pursuing and advocating a lateral view through a JI
> framework. In a way, that's combining the best of Medieval
> and Common Practice theory. What I'm not so sure about is
> compromising vertical sonority by a full syntonic comma
> (especially in a Common Practice era piece) for the sake of
> the individual part tunings. I'm also not sure that
> D#+:B+:F#+:B, or E:G:B+ constitute JI. It certainly doesn't
> fit the usual definition of maximizing consonance. It's
> unique, I'll give you that.
>
> I thought at first hearing that most of the chords were out
> of tune with themselves, but when I slowed it way down, I
> could hear that they weren't after all, only 3 or 4 were.
> That was a disorienting discovery. But then I found what
> was causing the misperception: the continual shoving of the
> comma into the listener's face. The articulation of commas
> makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's simply that I'm used to
> having it hidden in one way or another, and I could get
> comfortable with it in time, I don't know. My intuition
> says, "no way, buddy."
>
> Well, it's an interesting experiment, and I'm looking
> forward to hearing the whole piece when it's done. It will
> be fun to see if it helps to hear more of it at once.
>
> David

P. S. Those of you who, like me, listened to the MIDI file
but didn't read his full analysis, be assured that it's
worth the read. This is a boldly radical approach to
rational tuning.
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/beethove/son9schz.htm

[David J. Finnamore, TD 215.4]
>
> I'm also not sure that
> D#+:B+:F#+:B, or E:G:B+ constitute JI. It certainly doesn't
> fit the usual definition of maximizing consonance. It's
> unique, I'll give you that.
>
> I thought at first hearing that most of the chords were out
> of tune with themselves, but when I slowed it way down, I
> could hear that they weren't after all, only 3 or 4 were.
> That was a disorienting discovery. But then I found what
> was causing the misperception: the continual shoving of the
> comma into the listener's face. The articulation of commas
> makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's simply that I'm used to
> having it hidden in one way or another, and I could get
> comfortable with it in time, I don't know. My intuition
> says, "no way, buddy."

I think David brings up a good point here, since he and I have
differing opinions on this matter of 'shoving the comma into
the listener's face'.

It could very well be that it doesn't bother me as much as it
does him simply because I've been playing around with this
kind of thing (at least mentally) for several years. Apparently
I've gotten used to the idea of chords being displaced by a
comma; at any rate, I'd never heard anything like this before
- at least not with full knowledge of exactly what was going
on harmonically/intonationally - and altho I hear the displacements
too, it seems to me to work fine.

Ray Tomes has spoken a little about this idea of putting the
comma shifts in stragegic 'breakpoints' in the music. I suppose
that was what spurred me on to produce this experiment.

I agree that characterizing this experimental tuning as JI
is *not* a good idea, at least not plain unqualified JI, for the
reasons David pointed out. It's probably unfortunate that
many theorists and composers, including myself, have used
'just-intonation' to mean these extended types of rational
systems, since JI by definition already meant the usual 5-limit
tuning which provides interlocking consonant 4:5:6 triads.
Perhaps 'extended JI' is a reasonable name, altho just
calling it a '5-limit rational tuning' is probably best.

The thing I want to emphasize is that the tunings of the chords
in this little fragment did not spring full-blown from my mind
into the MIDI file. They were arrived at thru lots of
experimentation and changes in the tuning, with my ear as the
guide all the way. That's part of the reason it took so long
to do just those 16 measures.

[David]
> This is a boldly radical approach to rational tuning.

I always fantasized about being *some* kind of bold radical
when I was a kid. Glad I found such a peaceful way to do it
(assuming those comma shifts aren't causing too much harm).
:)

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Monz wrote:

> [David]
>> This is a boldly radical approach to rational tuning.
>
> I always fantasized about being *some* kind of bold radical
> when I was a kid. Glad I found such a peaceful way to do it
> (assuming those comma shifts aren't causing too much harm).
> :)

Pain, but no harm. And like they say, "No pain, no gain."

David