notation, tuning and significant figures

As I understand it, some of the 72 folks use 72 notation because
it is close enough to just and there are people who already play
it. My assumption is that given whatever signs are used to produce
the infamous "tclM3", they will play the best 5:4 (or something
very close to it that is appropriate to the musical context).

In other words, it is a better way of specifying the JI intervals
and it is up to the player to adapt them.

If one changes all these symbols to -17c, would one want the same
result (in other words, the precision is over-specified, since you
want them to add a few cents depending on taste). Or did you want
what you asked for in the first place and that players whould ignore
the JI intervals they are near and play them a bit "out" but
exactly as written?

It reminds me of an engineering story when a US company decided to
"go metric". Suddenly all the plans showed ridiculous numbers in
the measurements with preposterous degrees of precision. Of course,
barring accumulated errors, if you just divided everything by 2.54
you had all the plans in nice simple numbers, but in inches again.

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

> As I understand it, some of the 72 folks use 72 notation because
> it is close enough to just and there are people who already play
> it. My assumption is that given whatever signs are used to produce
> the infamous "tclM3",

what does "c" stand for?

> they will play the best 5:4 (or something
> very close to it that is appropriate to the musical context).

this is true of ezra sims and those who have played his music, such
as ted mook. i don't know why carl is so skeptical, since he himself
claims that barbershop quartets already do it, without any special
notation, to the accuracy he's demanding.

>>they will play the best 5:4 (or something very close to it that is
>>appropriate to the musical context).
>
>this is true of ezra sims and those who have played his music, such
>as ted mook. i don't know why carl is so skeptical, since he himself
>claims that barbershop quartets already do it, without any special
>notation, to the accuracy he's demanding.

Barbershop groups have a long musical tradition (dating back to the
turn of the century, and English a capella hymn singing just as long
before that) and make a point of practicing singing in JI. They don't
have special notation. Actually they do: meantone notation is very
special.

Maneri's group doesn't make a point of practicing JI, to go by what
I've always read here and the one time I've heard them. And as we've
seen, 10 naturals would be a better choice than 7 for 72-tET and
extended JI. In other words, it's the opposite of Barbershop. Which
was my point: to spend a million calories looking for the ultimate
notation before a single piece of music has been composed or performed
is to put the cart before the horse. And: you've got just as good of
a chance getting your extended JI compositions performed correctly by
conventional musicians as you do by any "microtonal" group I know of,
rehearsal time being equal.

-Carl

Earlier in this thread, in a message which still hadn't appeared as I
write, I wrote some guff about the fact that you can use 6x12-tET
notation to specify rational pitches other than the obvious (to the
ear) ones by using the right enharmonic spelling.

However, what I failed to consider was that this is next to useless
for the performer who would be far better off, in this case, with
cents on the score, rather than something incomprehensible like
Bbb<^^.

But I agree that when the composer doesn't care about a 3 cent
error from JI, then 6x12-tET notation (using only the short and
obvious spellings) ought to be better for performers, than cents.
Assuming of course, that they haven't already learned one or the
other.

I wrote...
>And: you've got just as good of a chance getting your extended JI
>compositions performed correctly by conventional musicians as you
>do by any "microtonal" group I know of, rehearsal time being equal.

Now, your "microtonal" or "extended JI" score might get more
rehearsal time in Maneri's group than a million dollars could
buy in many conventional groups. And for that, they deserve
nothing but praise.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> As I understand it, some of the 72 folks use 72 notation because
> it is close enough to just and there are people who already play
> it. My assumption is that given whatever signs are used to produce
> the infamous "tclM3", they will play the best 5:4 (or something
> very close to it that is appropriate to the musical context).
>
> In other words, it is a better way of specifying the JI intervals
> and it is up to the player to adapt them.
>
> If one changes all these symbols to -17c, would one want the same
> result (in other words, the precision is over-specified, since you
> want them to add a few cents depending on taste). Or did you want
> what you asked for in the first place and that players whould ignore
> the JI intervals they are near and play them a bit "out" but
> exactly as written?

A good point. And if the composer so desires, 72-tET notation can be
used to specify exact rational pitch targets other than the obvious
ones, by taking the 3 new pairs of accidentals as representing the 5,
7 and 11 commas and using the correct enharmonic spelling.

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>they will play the best 5:4 (or something very close to it that is
> >>appropriate to the musical context).
> >
> >this is true of ezra sims and those who have played his music,
such
> >as ted mook. i don't know why carl is so skeptical, since he
himself
> >claims that barbershop quartets already do it, without any special
> >notation, to the accuracy he's demanding.
>
> Barbershop groups have a long musical tradition (dating back to the
> turn of the century, and English a capella hymn singing just as long
> before that) and make a point of practicing singing in JI. They
don't
> have special notation. Actually they do: meantone notation is very
> special.
>
> Maneri's group doesn't make a point of practicing JI, to go by what
> I've always read here and the one time I've heard them.

hey, i said ezra sims and ted mook, not maneri. hello?

> And as we've
> seen, 10 naturals would be a better choice than 7 for 72-tET and
> extended JI. In other words, it's the opposite of Barbershop.

?! ?! ?!

> And: you've got just as good of
> a chance getting your extended JI compositions performed correctly
by
> conventional musicians as you do by any "microtonal" group I know
of,
> rehearsal time being equal.

does that include johnny reinhard and his group?

>>>this is true of ezra sims and those who have played his music,
>>>such as ted mook. i don't know why carl is so skeptical, since
>>>he himself claims that barbershop quartets already do it, without
>>>any special notation, to the accuracy he's demanding.
>>
>>Barbershop groups have a long musical tradition (dating back to the
>>turn of the century, and English a capella hymn singing just as long
>>before that) and make a point of practicing singing in JI. They
>>don't have special notation. Actually they do: meantone notation is
>>very special.
>>
>>Maneri's group doesn't make a point of practicing JI, to go by what
>>I've always read here and the one time I've heard them.
>
>hey, i said ezra sims and ted mook, not maneri. hello?

Hello. Well, do they practice in JI or not? I know nothing of
Ted Mook. About Sims I know little, but I did hear a few things
of his already -- nothing to suggest to me he can do what I'm
talking about. Which doesn't mean he doesn't.

>>And: you've got just as good of a chance getting your extended JI
>>compositions performed correctly by conventional musicians as you
>>do by any "microtonal" group I know of, rehearsal time being equal.
>
>does that include johnny reinhard and his group?

Yes.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>And: you've got just as good of a chance getting your extended JI
> >>compositions performed correctly by conventional musicians as you
> >>do by any "microtonal" group I know of, rehearsal time being equal.
> >
> >does that include johnny reinhard and his group?
>
> Yes.

OK, I've just got to say this: Carl, I have no idea on what experience you base such a broad manifest, but to say that any group of conventional musicians could and would perform at the same intonational level as an ensemble that deals with these issues regularly is simply not based in the real world.

One can but assume that you do not perform on a regular basis, do not rehearse with groups that perform on a regular basis, and - at best - go to concerts. If this is incorrect, and you happen to perform and rehearse on a daily, if not weekly basis, then it would be great to know how you can discount a performer's affinity for certain aspects of the musical art, in this case intonation.

I only know of JR's groups through a couple of recordings, as far as my ear is concerned. But the testimony of the many people in this community must serve as some standard to judge the veracity of their work, just as the ears of Paul and Dan have spoken to the Maneri groups and their performance.

And if - a big if - you say that a group of "conventional musicians" could do just as well, would you like to share a couple of stories as to how this has been accomplished? Such as taking an extended JI score to a group that was not familiar with such non-12tET practices, and proceeding to accomplish a good performance of that piece?

I've worked with musicians, professional and not, in many areas of music, for many a year, on a near daily basis, and I frankly think your premise doesn't hold water. In fact, I'd say this: take a score that is intonation heavy, with players needing to pay attention to intonational matters beyond "playing in tune" in 12tET, and I'll bet you dollars to low-fat donuts that groups used to intonational subtleties will outperform them (all other contingencies being equal) any day of the year.

As if any of this mattered, I guess!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35192.html#35221

> Earlier in this thread, in a message which still hadn't appeared as
I
> write, I wrote some guff about the fact that you can use 6x12-tET
> notation to specify rational pitches other than the obvious (to the
> ear) ones by using the right enharmonic spelling.
>
> However, what I failed to consider was that this is next to useless
> for the performer who would be far better off, in this case, with
> cents on the score, rather than something incomprehensible like
> Bbb<^^.
>
> But I agree that when the composer doesn't care about a 3 cent
> error from JI, then 6x12-tET notation (using only the short and
> obvious spellings) ought to be better for performers, than cents.
> Assuming of course, that they haven't already learned one or the
> other.

***I guess the big "philosophical" point here is whether performers
*ought* to be *trying* for Just Intonation when they play 72-tET.

Some people seem to be saying they *shouldn't*; they should just play
in 72 as a system and try to play the 6th and 12th of whole tones
accurately.

Others seem to feel that the performer will *naturally* play Just
when this close to the "real" interval.

Dunno. With only a 3 cent difference, my guess is that many
performers won't be able to hear the difference, unless they are
specifically trained in xenharmonics, so maybe the point is moot.

Mook thinks it's moot. He think's it's just...and plays Partch with
it...

jp

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

/tuning/topicId_35192.html#35235
> > And: you've got just as good of
> > a chance getting your extended JI compositions performed
correctly
> by
> > conventional musicians as you do by any "microtonal" group I know
> of,rehearsal time being equal.
>
> does that include johnny reinhard and his group?

***I guess I'm really not understanding this. To me, it would seem
almost *impossible* to get an extended JI composition realized by
conventional musicians unless there is some "handle" for them to
grab, such as 72-tET.

And certainly rehearsal time would be *far* greater than that for a
group practiced in xenharmonics...

I must be missing something...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> I wrote...
> >And: you've got just as good of a chance getting your extended JI
> >compositions performed correctly by conventional musicians as you
> >do by any "microtonal" group I know of, rehearsal time being equal.
>
> Now, your "microtonal" or "extended JI" score might get more
> rehearsal time in Maneri's group than a million dollars could
> buy in many conventional groups. And for that, they deserve
> nothing but praise.

i'm going to ask joe maneri if he knows as much about you as you know
about him.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35192.html#35263

> And if - a big if - you say that a group of "conventional
musicians" could do just as well, would you like to share a couple of
stories as to how this has been accomplished? Such as taking an
extended JI score to a group that was not familiar with such non-
12tET practices, and proceeding to accomplish a good performance of
that piece?
>
> I've worked with musicians, professional and not, in many areas of
music, for many a year, on a near daily basis, and I frankly think
your premise doesn't hold water. In fact, I'd say this: take a score
that is intonation heavy, with players needing to pay attention to
intonational matters beyond "playing in tune" in 12tET, and I'll bet
you dollars to low-fat donuts that groups used to intonational
subtleties will outperform them (all other contingencies being equal)
any day of the year.
>
> As if any of this mattered, I guess!
>

****It matters a *lot* Jon, and I agree with you *entirely.*

In fact, to go even further, many conventional musicians don't *want*
to deal with any kind of intonation aside from playing "in tune" in
12-tET.

That was the attitude a got a bit from the cellist in Spain I was
writing to.

He basically said, "Strings are so *imprecise* anyway, why mook
around with alternate tunings?." We're so off of 12-tET as it is,
what difference does it make??"

And this guy is a "professional..."

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> In fact, to go even further, many conventional musicians don't
> *want* to deal with any kind of intonation aside from playing
> "in tune" in 12-tET.

Hey, just to be fair I left *out* the entire spectrum of people that wouldn't cross the street to leave 12tET for something else. I was only comparing 12tET'ers that were going to try another intonation vs. a group already versed in one or more alternate tuning practices.

Also, in another post you said:

> I guess the big "philosophical" point here is whether performers
> *ought* to be *trying* for Just Intonation when they play 72-tET.
> Some people seem to be saying they *shouldn't*; they should just
> play in 72 as a system and try to play the 6th and 12th of whole
> tones accurately. Others seem to feel that the performer will
> *naturally* play Just when this close to the "real" interval.

In case you missed it, I got my ass kicked on 'another' list for equating a tuning with a philosophy. Some people just couldn't swallow that for a moment, so you want to be careful what you consider a "philosophy", Joe.

Nonetheless, I stand by all my statements; the commentaries to the contrary were ineffective and off-point.

Cheers,
Jon

>OK, I've just got to say this: Carl, I have no idea on what experience
>you base such a broad manifest, but to say that any group of
>conventional musicians could and would perform at the same intonational
>level as an ensemble that deals with these issues regularly is simply
>not based in the real world.

I've spent my entire life making music. What makes you think
conventional musicians don't deal with intonation on a regular
basis? What kind of groups do you play with?

>One can but assume that you do not perform on a regular basis,

You can assume whatever you like. Not sure what it gets you.

>I only know of JR's groups through a couple of recordings, as far
>as my ear is concerned. But the testimony of the many people in
>this community must serve as some standard to judge the veracity
>of their work, just as the ears of Paul and Dan have spoken to
>the Maneri groups and their performance.

I've taken both Paul and Dan's comments on JR's group as the
basis for mine.

>And if - a big if - you say that a group of "conventional
>musicians" could do just as well, would you like to share
>a couple of stories as to how this has been accomplished?

I think I already did that.

>Such as taking an extended JI score to a group that was not
>familiar with such non-12tET practices, and proceeding to
>accomplish a good performance of that piece?

I've performed music in 7-limit JI, and had my music performed
in 5-limit JI, to a closer degree than I've ever heard out of a
"microtonal" group, with the exception of the Flux quartet's
performance of Durham at AFMM, and perhaps the folks who played
on Larry Polansky's Simple Harmonic Motion. No wait: these
aren't exceptions -- they must be conventional after all, since
they aren't regularly mentioned on the tuning list and don't use
6th-tone notation, and don't spend a half-hour before every
concert explaining that they're a "microtonal" group.

>I'll bet you dollars to low-fat donuts that groups used to
>intonational subtleties will outperform them (all other
>contingencies being equal) any day of the year.

Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
transcription. Then we'll have Maneri's group record it and
put the result up to a vote. Whaddya say?

>As if any of this mattered, I guess!

Now you say so!

>>Now, your "microtonal" or "extended JI" score might get more
>>rehearsal time in Maneri's group than a million dollars could
>>buy in many conventional groups. And for that, they deserve
>>nothing but praise.
>
>i'm going to ask joe maneri if he knows as much about you as you
>know about him.

? Why would Maneri have heard of me? And does it have to do with
my comment here, where I'm trying to pay Maneri's approach a
compliment?

I'm amazed. Years of complaining about the close-mindedness of
conventional music... and at the first suggestion that the current
status of 72-tone performing groups is a bit of hype, the entire
community is thrown into a fit of ready-mix denial and ad hominem
speculation. To me, it makes the reality of 72-tone performance
look like the reality of the ninja art of invisibility.

The onus of proof is on them. 100 years of recorded music, and
still no ensemble playing in the 11-limit. If the practice of
72-tone performance really gives 72-tone, then the 11-limit would
be no harder than anything else they do in a typical day. Let's
hear it! But instead, I get, 'we could do it, we just don't choose
to. We choose to explore the dissonances of 72'. Well to my
untrained ear, the dissonances of 72 sound just like the dissonances
of any other tuning, so it's meaningless to me.

-Carl

Carl,

You're confused... very confused. Joe's groups--i.e., his various
ensembles that make records--are jazz groups. They play Joe's music.
They wouldn't give you the time of day unless you for somehow made
your presence known with your playing and music. They don't give a
damn about the 11-limit and even less of a damn about nerdy little
no-playing theory weasels...

On the other hand, Paul Erlich specifically mentioned another group, a
completely different group, that is *actively looking* for scores
written in 72. This is your chance to prove whatever it is that you
seem so hell-bent on proving. Paul posted the instrumentation and the
contact... so if whatever it is that you must know needs to be done,
quit yapping and get off your ass and do it!

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: notation, tuning and significant figures

> >OK, I've just got to say this: Carl, I have no idea on what
experience
> >you base such a broad manifest, but to say that any group of
> >conventional musicians could and would perform at the same
intonational
> >level as an ensemble that deals with these issues regularly is
simply
> >not based in the real world.
>
> I've spent my entire life making music. What makes you think
> conventional musicians don't deal with intonation on a regular
> basis? What kind of groups do you play with?
>
> >One can but assume that you do not perform on a regular basis,
>
> You can assume whatever you like. Not sure what it gets you.
>
> >I only know of JR's groups through a couple of recordings, as far
> >as my ear is concerned. But the testimony of the many people in
> >this community must serve as some standard to judge the veracity
> >of their work, just as the ears of Paul and Dan have spoken to
> >the Maneri groups and their performance.
>
> I've taken both Paul and Dan's comments on JR's group as the
> basis for mine.
>
> >And if - a big if - you say that a group of "conventional
> >musicians" could do just as well, would you like to share
> >a couple of stories as to how this has been accomplished?
>
> I think I already did that.
>
> >Such as taking an extended JI score to a group that was not
> >familiar with such non-12tET practices, and proceeding to
> >accomplish a good performance of that piece?
>
> I've performed music in 7-limit JI, and had my music performed
> in 5-limit JI, to a closer degree than I've ever heard out of a
> "microtonal" group, with the exception of the Flux quartet's
> performance of Durham at AFMM, and perhaps the folks who played
> on Larry Polansky's Simple Harmonic Motion. No wait: these
> aren't exceptions -- they must be conventional after all, since
> they aren't regularly mentioned on the tuning list and don't use
> 6th-tone notation, and don't spend a half-hour before every
> concert explaining that they're a "microtonal" group.
>
> >I'll bet you dollars to low-fat donuts that groups used to
> >intonational subtleties will outperform them (all other
> >contingencies being equal) any day of the year.
>
> Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
> the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
> transcription. Then we'll have Maneri's group record it and
> put the result up to a vote. Whaddya say?
>
> >As if any of this mattered, I guess!
>
> Now you say so!
>
>
> >>Now, your "microtonal" or "extended JI" score might get more
> >>rehearsal time in Maneri's group than a million dollars could
> >>buy in many conventional groups. And for that, they deserve
> >>nothing but praise.
> >
> >i'm going to ask joe maneri if he knows as much about you as you
> >know about him.
>
> ? Why would Maneri have heard of me? And does it have to do with
> my comment here, where I'm trying to pay Maneri's approach a
> compliment?
>
>
> I'm amazed. Years of complaining about the close-mindedness of
> conventional music... and at the first suggestion that the current
> status of 72-tone performing groups is a bit of hype, the entire
> community is thrown into a fit of ready-mix denial and ad hominem
> speculation. To me, it makes the reality of 72-tone performance
> look like the reality of the ninja art of invisibility.
>
> The onus of proof is on them. 100 years of recorded music, and
> still no ensemble playing in the 11-limit. If the practice of
> 72-tone performance really gives 72-tone, then the 11-limit would
> be no harder than anything else they do in a typical day. Let's
> hear it! But instead, I get, 'we could do it, we just don't choose
> to. We choose to explore the dissonances of 72'. Well to my
> untrained ear, the dissonances of 72 sound just like the dissonances
> of any other tuning, so it's meaningless to me.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> FREE COLLEGE MONEY
> CLICK HERE to search
> 600,000 scholarships!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> He basically said, "Strings are so *imprecise* anyway, why mook
> around with alternate tunings?."

ROFLAO!

this is the best pun all year. someone should forward this to ted!

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

> The onus of proof is on them. 100 years of recorded music, and
> still no ensemble playing in the 11-limit.

huh? many of us here were priveledged to obtain ben johnston's string
quartets cd, and one of the ensembles played 11-limit so accurately,
you'd swear it was a chromelodeon playing.

> If the practice of
> 72-tone performance really gives 72-tone, then the 11-limit would
> be no harder than anything else they do in a typical day. Let's
> hear it! But instead, I get, 'we could do it, we just don't choose
> to. We choose to explore the dissonances of 72'.

you would *not* get this from the sims/dinosaur annex school or from
ted mook . . . you have nothing to complain about until one of these
folks has given a composition of yours a run-through and you're
disappointed with the results.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> You're confused... very confused. Joe's groups--i.e., his various
> ensembles that make records--are jazz groups. They play Joe's music.
> They wouldn't give you the time of day unless you for somehow made
> your presence known with your playing and music. They don't give a
> damn about the 11-limit and even less of a damn about nerdy little
> no-playing theory weasels...
>
> On the other hand, Paul Erlich specifically mentioned another
group, a
> completely different group,

well, they are students of joe's, although their members have
expressed much more interest in ji, at least verbally.

> that is *actively looking* for scores
> written in 72. This is your chance to prove whatever it is that you
> seem so hell-bent on proving. Paul posted the instrumentation and
the
> contact... so if whatever it is that you must know needs to be done,
> quit yapping and get off your ass and do it!

absolutely . . . and if that doesn't work, there are folks around who
have this training *and* are ji-conscious too. but it seems you
already made up your mind that this is *a priori* not possible.

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

> Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
> the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
> transcription.

you've got a conventional recording of brahms that lends itself to a
72-tone transcription? this i have to hear! label and recording
artist, please!

In a message dated 3/7/02 3:35:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, carl@lumma.org
writes:

> Well to my
> untrained ear, the dissonances of 72 sound just like the dissonances
> of any other tuning, so it's meaningless to me.
>
> -Carl
>
>

I'm afraid it's time to call the bluff on Carl Lumma. He has come to only a
single Microthon and he was presented with a brass quintet of his
composition. Carl's piece was supposed to be in JI but it wasn't, it was
played in 12-tET, maybe expressively moving toward Just on occasion, but
obviously to me that it was played wrong. Kyle Gann heard it, too. We
immediately discussed it right after the performance. Carl's response to the
Flux quartet is ignorant since these players have worked with me on
microtonal music for years (Tom Chiu is the AFMM violinist). How I had
wished that Carl had allowed for me to listen to a rehearsal of his ensemble
so that the tuning would have been accurate to claim. I am sad to have to
bring this up at this time but it is relevant to Carl's opinions about what
musicians can hear. Unfortunately, he does not hear as well as some others,
or he wouldn't be going by his perceptions of memories of what Paul and Dan
said. (Dan has never been to an AFMM concert and it was Paul that drew the
line in the sand about the AFMM for Carl to cross...and he did). Thank you
Jon and Joseph for your responses. Your intuition was good.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> I'm afraid it's time to call the bluff on Carl Lumma. He has come
to only a
> single Microthon

actually, he came to the second one too, and didn't disagree when i
told him the 11-limit otonalities in my last 22-equal piece worked
just fine. since 72-equal is five times more accurate in the 11-limit
than 22-equal, i'm at a loss to understand his recent statements
here. 'nil nil nil' -- i'm having a 'nutty professor' flashback.

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> I've spent my entire life making music.

You're still young: I have empirical evidence of this! :)

> What makes you think conventional musicians don't deal with
> intonation on a regular basis?

I never said that. But the difference between dealing with intonation and having someone play a score composed in an intonational system other than the one widely used in the West is a very large difference, one that you gloss over.

> What kind of groups do you play with?

San Diego Symphony, Pacific Symphony Orchestra, San Diego Opera, La Jolla Chamber Music Society, etc. Boring, but I have a long track record and resume in groups that regularly perform on a professional level, and I clock probably 120+ concerts a year. Not to mention 15 years with the Harry Partch Ensemble.

> >One can but assume that you do not perform on a regular basis,
>
> You can assume whatever you like. Not sure what it gets you.

What it gets me is the impression of someone who will make a sweeping generalization about "conventional musicians" without very much experience, on a wide-ranging basis, with them.

> I've performed music in 7-limit JI, and had my music performed
> in 5-limit JI, to a closer degree than I've ever heard out of a
> "microtonal" group, with the exception of the Flux quartet's
> performance of Durham at AFMM, and perhaps the folks who played
> on Larry Polansky's Simple Harmonic Motion. No wait: these
> aren't exceptions -- they must be conventional after all, since
> they aren't regularly mentioned on the tuning list and don't use
> 6th-tone notation, and don't spend a half-hour before every
> concert explaining that they're a "microtonal" group.

Now, don't be sarcastic. I'm simply saying that your thesis is exceedingly broad, and only broad experience - with both conventional and 'microtonal' musicians - could lend credence to your statement. Otherwise it is opinion, and weakly supported. Next you'll give opinions on opera without having heard Puccini! :)

> Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
> the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
> transcription. Then we'll have Maneri's group record it and
> put the result up to a vote. Whaddya say?

I don't see how this compares to your original statement?! I thought we were talking about microtonal music, not people playing 12tet 'in tune'.

> Now you say so!

I just mean that splitting these hairs is time better spent elsewhere; my reason for responding was the too-large nature of your premise, and it's unsupportability.

Cheers,
Jon

>I'm afraid it's time to call the bluff on Carl Lumma.

By all means!

>He has come to only a single Microthon and he was presented with a
>brass quintet of his composition. Carl's piece was supposed to be
>in JI but it wasn't, it was played in 12-tET, maybe expressively
>moving toward Just on occasion,

It wasn't played in 12, Jonny. Nor was it played in 5-limit JI, or
the 7-limit JI it was written in. I explained this publicly on this
list, and to you afterwards.

Your bassoon piece, which consisted of you disassembling your bassoon
on stage and clicking the keys -- this was microtonal?

>but obviously to me that it was played wrong. Kyle Gann heard it,
>too.

I also explained the failure of the performance to Kyle, when I
spoke to him afterwards.

It's funny you bring this up, because I was earlier going to mention
Kyle's comments here, but decided not to. Kyle asked me how the
piece was notated. I told him in meantone. His asked me how this
was possible. I told him it was possible to notate 7-limit JI to a
good approximation using standard meantone notation. His eyes glazed
over and after a pause, he walked away.

>Carl's response to the Flux quartet is ignorant since these players
>have worked with me on microtonal music for years

I said they were an exception!

There's no line in the sand, Jonny. I've always supported your
efforts in what little ways I could. It is you who have taken
my answer to Paul as an insult, which it was not.

You rehearse my brass quartet. That I find insulting, now as the
first time you offered. In fact my brass quartet played at AFMM
cold, and made many mistakes, besides not rendering the intonation
correctly. I wish I could have rehearsed them, but it wasn't
possible. They were scattered around the globe until the night
before. As I told you when you offered me the gig, I wasn't looking
to perform anything, and took the gig only reluctantly (for personal
reasons). Still, I would have liked to put on a better show, and
apologize for not doing so. Still, there was more content in my
presentation than in many there that day, in my opinion.

-Carl

Johnny,

Please accept my apologies for mis-spelling your name.
I had no intention of doing so.

-Carl

>You're confused... very confused. Joe's groups--i.e., his various
>ensembles that make records--are jazz groups. They play Joe's music.

Dan,

We may disagree, but we won't even know until we get back in sync.
I was using the Brahms as a thought experiment to help explain my
view. I didn't entertain any idea that these guys would want to
play Brahms to our satisfaction!

>They wouldn't give you the time of day unless you for somehow made
>your presence known with your playing and music.

Something I have very little interest in for the time being.

>so if whatever it is that you must know needs to be done,
>quit yapping and get off your ass and do it!

I need to build the tools first, and yapping is a big part of
that.

Anywho, I wish you guys would stop thinking so much about how I
may or may not know what I claiming, and start considering my point.

Why is the ad hominem usually considered a fallacy? Because how
someone knows something or not is completely irrelevant to whether
he's right. Often, a claim may be random enough that the lack of
strong evidence is reason to ignore it. But here, I've got a
50% chance of just being right for no reason at all. So instead
of attacking me, you could say, "go get recording X". Paul finallly
did this, and I'm trying to get that recording, but IIRC it isn't
available right now.

-Carl

In a message dated 3/7/02 9:46:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, carl@lumma.org
writes:

>
>
> >I'm afraid it's time to call the bluff on Carl Lumma.
>
> By all means!
>
> >He has come to only a single Microthon and he was presented with a
> >brass quintet of his composition. Carl's piece was supposed to be
> >in JI but it wasn't, it was played in 12-tET, maybe expressively
> >moving toward Just on occasion,
>
> It wasn't played in 12, Jonny. Nor was it played in 5-limit JI, or
> the 7-limit JI it was written in. I explained this publicly on this
> list, and to you afterwards.
>

Carl, the point here is that you presented a work that completely
misrepresented itself. It was supposed to be in JI. But, hey things happen.
That is what the Microthon was all about. It was my attempt to give amateur
musicians more opportunity. It was also a time to have more fun. I don't do
them anymore because they are not on the same professional level as AFMM
concerts, which you have apparently never attended.

> Your bassoon piece, which consisted of you disassembling your bassoon
> on stage and clicking the keys -- this was microtonal?
>

As I have announced since 1981, I consider all music microtonal. Zanzibar
used multiphonics, 7-tone equal temperament, morphings of the instrument,
sound effects include muting, a ping pong ball vibrating and bouncing, a
quartertone jazz riff, a modal theme using the 7/6 prominently, and much more
difficult to describe. When you compose more you will come to realize that
one does not repeat in composition, and there a multiplicity of styles with
which one can compose. And I did it as a duet for 2 bassoons! It is
academic in the negative sense to have music "sound" microtonal. The music
says more than the actual microtones (or more accurately, the microtonal
intervals) deliver.

> >but obviously to me that it was played wrong. Kyle Gann heard it,
> >too.
>
> I also explained the failure of the performance to Kyle, when I
> spoke to him afterwards.
>
> It's funny you bring this up, because I was earlier going to mention
> Kyle's comments here, but decided not to. Kyle asked me how the
> piece was notated. I told him in meantone. His asked me how this
> was possible. I told him it was possible to notate 7-limit JI to a
> good approximation using standard meantone notation. His eyes glazed
> over and after a pause, he walked away.

I bet Kyle already knew that about the notation and was fishing for why the
performance turned out the way it did.

> >Carl's response to the Flux quartet is ignorant since these players
> >have worked with me on microtonal music for years
>
> I said they were an exception!

You'll have to explain better what you mean by "exception." I trained Tom
Chiu microtonally and he trained the Flux Quartet. In fact, the original
cellist of the group was trained by me and he trained the other players as
well. Before you announce to the world on the internet that it is just as
easy for regulars to play accurate microtones as specialists (which is a
backhanded compliment to musicians at large, and which graciously includes
most microtonal specialists (Greg Evans-horn, Michiyo Suzuki-clarinet, Dave
Eggar-cello, Tom Chiu-violin, Andrew Bolotowsky-flute, etc.), get a hold of
yourself. Really, I am a bit surprised by your responses, naive by most any
measurement.

> There's no line in the sand, Jonny. I've always supported your
> efforts in what little ways I could. It is you who have taken
> my answer to Paul as an insult, which it was not.
>

I am not insulted, I don't think.

> You rehearse my brass quartet. That I find insulting, now as the
> first time you offered.

This was your greatest error. This is what I do best. That you don't
appreciate my involvement in positively shaping music in live performance is
clear. I have been embarrassed by a few things on my concerts, but I have
learned not to repeat mistakes. Most people appreciate it when the director
offers to take a listen a make a comment towards the concert's success.

In fact my brass quartet played at AFMM
cold, and made many mistakes, besides not rendering the intonation
> correctly. I wish I could have rehearsed them, but it wasn't
> possible. They were scattered around the globe until the night
> before. As I told you when you offered me the gig, I wasn't looking
> to perform anything, and took the gig only reluctantly (for personal
> reasons).

I don't know your personal reasons, and I was not aware of this situation.
Because it was the Microthon I let it go. In fact, the mistakes were not
glaring at all. Under the circumstances, however, you should have canceled.

Still, I would have liked to put on a better show, and
> apologize for not doing so. Still, there was more content in my
> presentation than in many there that day, in my opinion.
>
>

In your mind, that may well be so. But I bet there were a lot of composers
there that night who felt the same way about their own particular pieces.
Maybe you don't feel improv can be microtonal because it swoops around. The
musician can have points of reference that are microtonal while playing
glissandi in all directions. How could you, as a listener tell? I don't
think that you, Carl, could. Nor could most anyone, even LOOKING at the
score. But it doesn't make it any less microtonal.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

>>I've spent my entire life making music.
>
>You're still young: I have empirical evidence of this! :)

Indeed.

>>What kind of groups do you play with?
>
>San Diego Symphony, Pacific Symphony Orchestra, San Diego Opera,
>La Jolla Chamber Music Society, etc. Boring, but I have a long
>track record and resume in groups that regularly perform on a
>professional level, and I clock probably 120+ concerts a year.

Cool! You play percussion, right?

>>>One can but assume that you do not perform on a regular basis,
>>
>>You can assume whatever you like. Not sure what it gets you.
>
>What it gets me is the impression of someone who will make a
>sweeping generalization about "conventional musicians" without
>very much experience, on a wide-ranging basis, with them.

To be clear, my statement was: the best "microtonal" ensembles
of free-pitched instruments would be not significantly better
at playing extended JI than fine "conventional" groups.

My experiences... I've got 10 years between 4 amateur choirs,
starting at the age of 5. 7 years of piano, starting at age 17,
including two paying solo gigs in 2000 and two non-paying band
gigs in 1997. I took a year of classical lessons at Moravian
college in Bethlehem and one year of jazz at Indiana University, Bloomington. 6 months in a 1-once-a-week Barbershop quartet
rehearsals in 1997. 4 years playing the trumet, in three different
school ensembles concurrently. I've written roughly 30 short
works for chamber ensemble, three of which have been performed
publicly. I was a member for 3 months in the Exotic Music
ensemble (about once a week) in Gainesville, Florida. I've played
in countless fireside drum circles, and attended many, many
concerts all around the world. And I've got a recording
collection to rival that of the Almighty Himself.

In short, I'm an amateur. I futz with computers for a living. I've
also worked retail at a hiking shop, and in a grocery store. And
I've temped in several offices. And I ghost wrote dummies books for
a guy for 6 months in 1998.

Now you know. Feel better?

>>Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
>>the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
>>transcription. Then we'll have Maneri's group record it and
>>put the result up to a vote. Whaddya say?
>
>I don't see how this compares to your original statement?! I
>thought we were talking about microtonal music, not people
>playing 12tet 'in tune'.

I meant Brahms in 5-limit JI.

-Carl

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

> Carl, the point here is that you presented a work that completely
> misrepresented itself. It was supposed to be in JI.

When I first came to this group, I used JI to mean rational intonation, and was corrected. I'm still waiting to find out what JI is, if not that. If something close to 31-et (which apparantly is what Carl was aiming at) isn't JI, but (according to some) 72-et *is* JI, it's a little murky.

In a message dated 3/8/02 2:55:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Carl, the point here is that you presented a work that completely
> > misrepresented itself. It was supposed to be in JI.
>
> When I first came to this group, I used JI to mean rational intonation, and
> was corrected.

Who mis-corrected you? JI is rational numbers. I wrote that Carl Lumma
misrepresented his piece because he had 5 sight readers doing a piece with no
leadership and so they played rather conventionally. I was at fault for
programming it, but the marathon-style concert (8 hours) let Carl's 1.5
minute piece pass by with but a bit of the commentary already shared.

I'm still waiting to find out what JI is, if not that. If something close to
31-et (which
> apparently is what Carl was aiming at) isn't JI, but (according to some)
> 72-et *is* JI, it's a little murky.
>
Gene, I have played in 31-tET for more than 20 years in many different
contexts. It is not JI, or Jon Catler would never have changed his guitars
to JI from 31. If you heard the 2 side by side, you could tell the
difference. There is a different feel, a different gestalt, a different
texture, character...31-tET is spicy 1/4 comma meantone that modulates
forever.

72 is, likewise, not JI. Yes, the closeness of some intervals to JI nooks
improves its use as a tuning, but it is not JI. And if there is a keyboard
playing, 72-notes will not move towards just. And if there is any complexity
of the 72-note piece then there will not be to much movement toward JI.
Likewise, in 12-tET musicians do not play just thirds, even without
keyboards. String players usually sharpen their thirds when given a chance,
contrary to JI's 5/4.

I hope this helps.

Johnny Reinhard

Carl,

The problem, at least as I see it, isn't saying 'suppose this' or
'suppose that', but rather how what you say actually reads... what you
initially wrote that got me going was:

"If these 72-toners can actually play, well, let's face it: they
can't. If somebody wants to prove me wrong, it would be quite simple:
send them a score for a single, 11-limit otonality and post the
recording here. Or point me to an existing recording where 11-limit
otonalities can be heard."

Considering my own experiences and the fact that none of "these
72-toners" participate here, I answered as I did. That I was annoyed
probably makes whatever I said unlistenably shrill. That's my fault,
it happens. But I don't think people are just rhetorical objects
either.

I know the people I spoke of, and to my mind they're not just friends,
but folks who through a lifetime of dedication have accomplished
something unique and powerful art. And, yes, seeing their names
arrogantly tossed around like tokens in some comparatively
inconsequential game annoys me... this is how I read it. Do I read
more into things than I should, probably, yes... but I don't think
you're being very clear either...

Isn't it possible to posit 'what-ifs' and theoretical arguments
without unflatteringly centering them on people you don't really know
much about? I think the same points could be made without all the
sideshows if this was the case.

Everybody has their own likes and dislikes and ways of going about
things. We're not all going to agree, and that's a good thing, but
some of this seems so avoidable... including the shrillness of my
responses. I'll see if I can't bite harder next time (my tongue, that
is).

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 9:22 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: notation, tuning and significant figures

> >You're confused... very confused. Joe's groups--i.e., his various
> >ensembles that make records--are jazz groups. They play Joe's
music.
>
> Dan,
>
> We may disagree, but we won't even know until we get back in sync.
> I was using the Brahms as a thought experiment to help explain my
> view. I didn't entertain any idea that these guys would want to
> play Brahms to our satisfaction!
>
> >They wouldn't give you the time of day unless you for somehow made
> >your presence known with your playing and music.
>
> Something I have very little interest in for the time being.
>
> >so if whatever it is that you must know needs to be done,
> >quit yapping and get off your ass and do it!
>
> I need to build the tools first, and yapping is a big part of
> that.
>
> Anywho, I wish you guys would stop thinking so much about how I
> may or may not know what I claiming, and start considering my point.
>
> Why is the ad hominem usually considered a fallacy? Because how
> someone knows something or not is completely irrelevant to whether
> he's right. Often, a claim may be random enough that the lack of
> strong evidence is reason to ignore it. But here, I've got a
> 50% chance of just being right for no reason at all. So instead
> of attacking me, you could say, "go get recording X". Paul finallly
> did this, and I'm trying to get that recording, but IIRC it isn't
> available right now.
>
>
> -Carl
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Stock for $4.
> No Minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

>The problem, at least as I see it, isn't saying 'suppose this' or
>'suppose that', but rather how what you say actually reads... what
>you initially wrote that got me going was:
>
>"If these 72-toners can actually play, well, let's face it: they
>can't. If somebody wants to prove me wrong, it would be quite
>simple: send them a score for a single, 11-limit otonality and
>post the recording here. Or point me to an existing recording
>where 11-limit otonalities can be heard."

Dan,

Okay- I admit this reads way too strongly. I still stand by
what I said, but I'll go and get as many recordings of this
crew as I can find, and see if I can't change my mind.

-Carl

>but the marathon-style concert (8 hours) let Carl's 1.5
>minute piece pass by with but a bit of the commentary
>already shared.

The 45-minutes of a guy making metal-sraping noises,
however, is stuck in all our minds for eternity.

_Retrofit_ was over 3 minutes at the indicated tempo.
May have come off as 2; I don't know since I never
got the promised digital recording. You originally
offered me the opening spot of a set, and I thought
it would make a nice fanfare.

For the record, there were 4 performers, not five.
Retrofit was for euphonium, horn, and two trumpets.

Johnny, I bid you no ill will. You played marvelously
on many occasions... most memorable for me was the
(non-quartertone) Wyschnegradsky piece at the 2000
AFMM concert. I told you afterwards how well I thought
it came off. Your work as an organizer is also amazing.
I hope your work continues as successfully in the future
as it has for these many years.

I haven't heard your ensemble do the things you claim
it does. Now you know. Can you live with this?

You thought my piece didn't belong in your program, at
best. Now I know. I can live with it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

> >>Okay- let's try it with Brahms. You pick the piece, I pick
> >>the conventional recording. I'll even do the 72-tone
> >>transcription. Then we'll have Maneri's group record it and
> >>put the result up to a vote. Whaddya say?
> >
> >I don't see how this compares to your original statement?! I
> >thought we were talking about microtonal music, not people
> >playing 12tet 'in tune'.
>
> I meant Brahms in 5-limit JI.

that would be quite ugly, i feel. unless of course you mean adaptive
JI, which bears no similarity whatsoever to 72 (where the comma is
nearly its full size and cannot be subdivided into smaller parts).
this is why john delaubenfels was so strongly opposed to adopting 72
as a "standard" -- because it wouldn't to anything to 'improve' (by
adaptive-JI standards) the intonation of almost any piece of
classical music you could name -- and that's john's primary interest
in alternative tuning.

I wrote...

>though I assure you that I am more than capable of rehearsing a
>brass quartet to play music in 7-limit JI.

I hasten to add that the same is not true of the 11-limit!
I could possibly manange, but would need a lot of practice
before I'd consider myself "more than capable"!

-Carl

>>You rehearse my brass quartet. That I find insulting, now as the
>>first time you offered.
>
>This was your greatest error. This is what I do best. That you don't
>appreciate my involvement in positively shaping music in live performance
>is clear.

I really do appreciate your involvement, though I assure you that I
am more than capable of rehearsing a brass quartet to play music
in 7-limit JI. If it had been just me out of the area, I would have
taken you up on your offer. But I'm afraid neither of us can
compete with the Lion King, a gig in Bermuda, or going to school in
Pennsylvania when it comes to the performers' time. The first two
things came up completely unexpectedly, and my rehearsals got
canceled.

-Carl

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

> Gene, I have played in 31-tET for more than 20 years in many different
> contexts. It is not JI, or Jon Catler would never have changed his guitars
> to JI from 31. If you heard the 2 side by side, you could tell the
> difference.

I've heard the two side-by-side lots of times, and it's easy to tell the difference; it's harder with 72-et, but still possible.

> I hope this helps.

What would help would be some sort of consensus on what we mean.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Carl, the point here is that you presented a work that completely
> > misrepresented itself. It was supposed to be in JI.
>
> When I first came to this group, I used JI to mean rational
>intonation, and was corrected. I'm still waiting to find out what JI
>is, if not that. If something close to 31-et (which apparantly is
>what Carl was aiming at) isn't JI, but (according to some) 72-et
>*is* JI, it's a little murky.

well, for most of the centuries that term 'just intonation' and its
cognates have been in use, it was used primarily to distinguish those
systems where the consonances are tuned purely (by ear) and 81:80 is
preserved as a small but audible interval, from those where it the
consonances are deliberately fudged so that the 81:80 vanishes
entirely. by this definition, 31-equal would definitely not be ji,
while a subset of 72-equal or 84-equal might very well fall within
the range of the results of historical attempts to actually tune up
ji systems on harpsichords and the like.

>>Carl, the point here is that you presented a work that completely
>>misrepresented itself. It was supposed to be in JI.
>
>When I first came to this group, I used JI to mean rational
>intonation, and was corrected. I'm still waiting to find out what
>JI is, if not that. If something close to 31-et (which apparantly
>is what Carl was aiming at) isn't JI, but (according to some)
>72-et *is* JI, it's a little murky.

Gene,

I think the best answer is 72 and 11-limit JI are currently the
same thing as far as ensembles of free-pitched instruments go.
Likewise 31 and the 7-limit.

If we pretend the "holy grail" of auditory scene analysis, the
"unmixer" (which may just have been realized by these guys:
www.appliedneurosystems.com) exists, feed it a recording of say,
a string quartet, apply pitch tracking to each part, and do a
statistical analysis on the vertical relationships, I wager
we'd find that they are centered around JI, not 72 or 31, EVEN
IF THE MUSIC WAS NOTATED IN 72 OR 31, and NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE
PERFORMERS ARE. This is basically the assumption behind my
recent posts. I probably should have said this earlier. :)

The thread you're referring to happened in August, and in it I
proposed the relativistic measure of "JI" which this assumption
requires, while Dave Keenan proposed an absolute measure that
held for any instrumentation. The relevant thread starts around
message number 27214.

-Carl

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

> that would be quite ugly, i feel. unless of course you mean adaptive
> JI, which bears no similarity whatsoever to 72 (where the comma is
> nearly its full size and cannot be subdivided into smaller parts).
> this is why john delaubenfels was so strongly opposed to adopting 72
> as a "standard" -- because it wouldn't to anything to 'improve' (by
> adaptive-JI standards) the intonation of almost any piece of
> classical music you could name -- and that's john's primary interest
> in alternative tuning.

You'd do a lot better to learn how to play in 12, 22, and 31 and then how to shift gears from one to the other, but I doubt that's going to take the world by storm.

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:09 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: notation, tuning and significant figures
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Gene, I have played in 31-tET for more than 20 years
> > in many different contexts. It is not JI, or Jon Catler
> > would never have changed his guitars to JI from 31.
> > If you heard the 2 side by side, you could tell the
> > difference.
>
> I've heard the two side-by-side lots of times, and it's
> easy to tell the difference; it's harder with 72-et, but
> still possible.

i feel compelled to mention yet again, as i have here
many times before, that Ezra Sims, the composer whose
72edo notation has been adopted/adapted as the new standard
here, has stated both in published writings and in private
letters to me that he has made "computer mock-ups" of his
compositions tuned in b o t h 72edo a n d 37-limit JI
and he can't hear a significant difference.

-monz

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

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35192.html#35387

> i feel compelled to mention yet again, as i have here
> many times before, that Ezra Sims, the composer whose
> 72edo notation has been adopted/adapted as the new standard
> here, has stated both in published writings and in private
> letters to me that he has made "computer mock-ups" of his
> compositions tuned in b o t h 72edo a n d 37-limit JI
> and he can't hear a significant difference.
>
>

****Thanks very much for mentioning this again, Monz! I had
forgotten all about it! I feel greatly relieved... not that *I*
can't, um, er, well...

No more *3 Penny Opera* worries!

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > that would be quite ugly, i feel. unless of course you mean
adaptive
> > JI, which bears no similarity whatsoever to 72 (where the
comma is
> > nearly its full size and cannot be subdivided into smaller
parts).
> > this is why john delaubenfels was so strongly opposed to
adopting 72
> > as a "standard" -- because it wouldn't to anything to 'improve'
(by
> > adaptive-JI standards) the intonation of almost any piece of
> > classical music you could name -- and that's john's primary
interest
> > in alternative tuning.
>
> You'd do a lot better to learn how to play in 12, 22, and 31 and
>then how to shift gears from one to the other,

i disagree -- none of these have triads nearly as good as in john
delaubenfels' renditions.

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

> > You'd do a lot better to learn how to play in 12, 22, and 31 and
> >then how to shift gears from one to the other,

> i disagree -- none of these have triads nearly as good as in john
> delaubenfels' renditions.

After I posted that, I realized I should have added "JI" to the list.
My experiment suggested to me that if you can shift gears between JI,
22-et and 31-et you can handle just about anything 12-et throws at you, and if you can't, you can always add 12-et to the list.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > You'd do a lot better to learn how to play in 12, 22, and 31
and
> > >then how to shift gears from one to the other,
>
> > i disagree -- none of these have triads nearly as good as in
john
> > delaubenfels' renditions.
>
> After I posted that, I realized I should have added "JI" to the list.
> My experiment suggested to me that if you can shift gears
>between JI,
> 22-et and 31-et you can handle just about anything 12-et
>throws at you, and if you can't, you can always add 12-et to the
>list.

if you play a I-vi-ii-V-I progression in vicentino's second tuning of
1555 (nearly optimal by delaubenfels standards for this
progression), how would you understand that as "shifting
gears"? i suppose it is in JI *during* each chord, but in 31
*between* chords, 31 determining the transitions -- yes?

>There was an education here that a piece should not be performed when
>it malforms and can have no choice but to malform.

Actually, I didn't know how it would perform.

>What was in question was a serious of assumptions that I challenged
>as false. The only embarrassment to Carl should be his erroneous
>assertions.

I don't remember making any assertations about the tuning at the
time.

> 'I don't give out failures'

You did send me a tape after I pestered you about 20 times, that
sounded like it had been dubbed on a boom box. It wasn't the digital
copy we agreed on, and I don't have a tape player anymore.

-Carl

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

> if you play a I-vi-ii-V-I progression in vicentino's second tuning of
> 1555 (nearly optimal by delaubenfels standards for this
> progression), how would you understand that as "shifting
> gears"?

My proposal is simply to play such a progression in 31-et, but I'm not suggesting this as a good idea for actual performance.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > if you play a I-vi-ii-V-I progression in vicentino's second tuning
of
> > 1555 (nearly optimal by delaubenfels standards for this
> > progression), how would you understand that as "shifting
> > gears"?
>
> My proposal is simply to play such a progression in 31-et,

well then both vicentino's adaptive ji and delaubenfels' algorithm
do much better.