horrible idea (ear training)

I received this recent e-mail from composer Lev Zhurbin, who studied
at Juilliard. I thought you might be interested in what they,
apparently, have been teaching there, and their "fixation" on the
diatonic collection.

My *own* response follows:

Lev:
>In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and
sharps are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of
embellishment. And when you do chord progressions, this is plain to
see - whether a note is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter. As
a result of this, I have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors,
leaving them more towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I
haven't yet grown to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and
flats, but I may someday. :)
>

*** Lev, I'm sorry, but I would have to *strongly* disagree with
this. This shows the "backward" thinking of people who are only
interested in the diatonic collection! We've moved 'way past that
these days! Even in 20th century chromaticism!

Do you realize that, with that kind of thinking, your basic smallist
interval is a full 200 cents in many cases? That's pretty "gross" in
*my* book.

Personally, I'm going in entirely the *opposite* direction. With
*REFINED* perception, even quarter tones are starting to sound large,
more like SEMI-tones!

So, no, I don't buy the "color" thesis at all, certainly not for full
half steps!!!
>

jp

Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking. I would go much
further and say that even in the renaissance and baroque the harmonic
pivots to new keys (no matter how they conceived of them) are what
give the music its delicious color.

I had a tenor in my choir at one point (fortunately not for long)
that had trouble hearing the shift to a new tonal center and would
ignore the accidentals that acted as harmonic pivots to the new
center. It totally destroyed the musicality of the section for him to
do that. I agree wholeheartedly that one's ear has to be totally
gross to think that way.

I teach people to hear the reduced syntonic comma one can demonstrate
even with a 12-EDO electronic keyboard. You can play octave Cs, for
example, and fill in the fifth with your voice. Then shift inwards to
a fifth between Eb and Bb and it will force the fifth to shift down
about 18 cents. It would be 21.5 cents on a just keyboard, but the
two cents flatness of the fifths reduces this in 12-EDO. Since
electronic keyboards tuned to 12-EDO are available almost everywhere,
I have taken a practical approach using octaves as just, fifths as
quasi-JI, and letting the voice or whatever fill in the thirds,
sixths, etc.

It works beautifully to train people's ears to hear fine pitch
differences on the order of the syntonic comma. I usually start with
the septimal comma, however, since this 27 cent comma is conversely
*augmented* by four cents on a 12-EDO keyboard to 31 cents (almost a
third of a semitone)! This is still difficult for many to hear
initially. By that I mean they shift, but usually do so slowly and
fail to notice it. Doing it myself as a demonstration usually brings
out some "aha" experiences, since it's easier for them to hear
someone else doing it in one quick, sure move that is actually quite
a significant one. When they're solid with that themselves, then I
move to the one mentioned first.

I like to use an octave and fifth (e.g., C-G-C') and have them fill
in the seventh, which once their ears have become habituated to fill
in just thirds will tend toward the JI septimal seventh of 4:7 rather
than the JI 9:16. The top octave is important, since an 8:9 second
down from it feels more dissonant that 7:8, so it helps force the
issue a bit.

Once they can reliably fill in the JI 4:7, I then move inward to the
fourth between F and Bb on the 12-EDO keyboard. They have to raise
the seventh by 31 cents to get to the new Bb. Then I further train
them to move back down to the 4:7 septimal seventh when I switch back
to C-G-C.

This latter move is more difficult, since the harmony here does not
force them back down as it forced them up. They have to melodically
*remember* where the septimal seventh was to get back there, since
the 9:16 interval still works in the C-G-C context. So this becomes a
very compact and efficient graduated exercise that you can introduce
a piece at a time. Then we can go to the first exercise mentioned
here, which is almost down to half the interval.

So now you have a couple of my "trade secrets" (chuckle).

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I received this recent e-mail from composer Lev Zhurbin, who
studied
> at Juilliard. I thought you might be interested in what they,
> apparently, have been teaching there, and their "fixation" on the
> diatonic collection.
>
> My *own* response follows:
>
>
> Lev:
> >In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and
> sharps are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of
> embellishment. And when you do chord progressions, this is plain to
> see - whether a note is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter.
As
> a result of this, I have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors,
> leaving them more towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I
> haven't yet grown to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and
> flats, but I may someday. :)
> >
>
> *** Lev, I'm sorry, but I would have to *strongly* disagree with
> this. This shows the "backward" thinking of people who are only
> interested in the diatonic collection! We've moved 'way past that
> these days! Even in 20th century chromaticism!
>
> Do you realize that, with that kind of thinking, your basic
smallist
> interval is a full 200 cents in many cases? That's pretty "gross"
in
> *my* book.
>
> Personally, I'm going in entirely the *opposite* direction. With
> *REFINED* perception, even quarter tones are starting to sound
large,
> more like SEMI-tones!
>
> So, no, I don't buy the "color" thesis at all, certainly not for
full
> half steps!!!
> >
>
> jp

On 4/1/02 11:45 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:09:16 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: horrible idea (ear training)
>
> I received this recent e-mail from composer Lev Zhurbin, who studied
> at Juilliard. I thought you might be interested in what they,
> apparently, have been teaching there, and their "fixation" on the
> diatonic collection.
>
> My *own* response follows:
>
>
> Lev:
>> In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and
> sharps are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of
> embellishment. And when you do chord progressions, this is plain to
> see - whether a note is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter. As
> a result of this, I have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors,
> leaving them more towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I
> haven't yet grown to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and
> flats, but I may someday. :)
>>
>
> *** Lev, I'm sorry, but I would have to *strongly* disagree with
> this. This shows the "backward" thinking of people who are only
> interested in the diatonic collection! We've moved 'way past that
> these days! Even in 20th century chromaticism!
>
> Do you realize that, with that kind of thinking, your basic smallist
> interval is a full 200 cents in many cases? That's pretty "gross" in
> *my* book.
>
> Personally, I'm going in entirely the *opposite* direction. With
> *REFINED* perception, even quarter tones are starting to sound large,
> more like SEMI-tones!
>
> So, no, I don't buy the "color" thesis at all, certainly not for full
> half steps!!!
>>
>
> jp

Joseph, I can't imagine such a thing to be the "official" position of the
Julliard school. Sounds like some grad student report or a part-time adjunct
faculty "make-a-name-for-myself" view. I'd find out more about it before
taking it seriously.

For what it's worth,

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking.

It's 7-et thinking, not diatonic thinking. Instead of pretending they are in 7-et, why not just do it?

I heard a rumor Julliard was a good school, so I wonder about this story.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> > Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking.
>
> It's 7-et thinking, not diatonic thinking. Instead of pretending
they are in 7-et, why not just do it?
>
> I heard a rumor Julliard was a good school, so I wonder about this
story.

i wonder if some misinterpretation is going on on joseph's part.
perhaps by ignoring the difference between sharps and flats, the
juilliard person simply means ignoring the difference between Ab and
G#, etc.? something like 7-equal thinking would be completely foreign
in any conservatory outside the thailand/cambodia area.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36077.html#36130

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> >
> > > Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking.
> >
> > It's 7-et thinking, not diatonic thinking. Instead of pretending
> they are in 7-et, why not just do it?
> >
> > I heard a rumor Julliard was a good school, so I wonder about
this
> story.
>
> i wonder if some misinterpretation is going on on joseph's part.
> perhaps by ignoring the difference between sharps and flats, the
> juilliard person simply means ignoring the difference between Ab
and G#, etc.? something like 7-equal thinking would be completely
foreign in any conservatory outside the thailand/cambodia area.

***Hi Paul!

I admit this seems rather "odd" and I would, frankly, prefer if it
were the way you describe, concerning the difference in enharmonics,
but from the e-mail it didn't seem like it. As has been suggested,
perhaps it was just the suggestion of some grad student or such like
who suddenly saw all the "black keys" as "chromaticism" or "color"
and concocted this.

In any case, here is the full e-mail, and it's all I have to go on:

ME:
> ***At the moment, I'm concentrating on 72-equal. Why? Well, it
includes our "regular" 12-equal scale in it! (Divide by 12 and you'll
> see... :) )
> It also includes quartertones! So there are only two new intervals
to learn, a sixth of a whole tone and a 12th of a whole tone.
> I have a chart that shows me how to creat just intonation pitches
> from *any* of our "regular" pitches using this method.

LEV:
this is interesting. where can i get a copy of this chart?
is microtonal music, or perhaps microtonality itself, taught at any
college/university as far as you know? I ask this because.. well for
me, even with perfect pitch, I think it's hard to hear the difference
between sixth of a tone and 12th of a tone.

In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and sharps
are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of embellishment. And
when you do chord progressions, this is plain to see - whether a note
is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter. As a result of this, I
have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors, leaving them more
towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I haven't yet grown
to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and flats, but I may
someday. :)

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36077.html#36130
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking.
> > >
> > > It's 7-et thinking, not diatonic thinking. Instead of
pretending
> > they are in 7-et, why not just do it?
> > >
> > > I heard a rumor Julliard was a good school, so I wonder about
> this
> > story.
> >
> > i wonder if some misinterpretation is going on on joseph's part.
> > perhaps by ignoring the difference between sharps and flats, the
> > juilliard person simply means ignoring the difference between Ab
> and G#, etc.? something like 7-equal thinking would be completely
> foreign in any conservatory outside the thailand/cambodia area.
>
>
> ***Hi Paul!
>
> I admit this seems rather "odd" and I would, frankly, prefer if it
> were the way you describe, concerning the difference in
enharmonics,
> but from the e-mail it didn't seem like it. As has been suggested,
> perhaps it was just the suggestion of some grad student or such
like
> who suddenly saw all the "black keys" as "chromaticism" or "color"
> and concocted this.
>
> In any case, here is the full e-mail, and it's all I have to go on:
>
>
> ME:
> > ***At the moment, I'm concentrating on 72-equal. Why? Well, it
> includes our "regular" 12-equal scale in it! (Divide by 12 and
you'll
> > see... :) )
> > It also includes quartertones! So there are only two new
intervals
> to learn, a sixth of a whole tone and a 12th of a whole tone.
> > I have a chart that shows me how to creat just intonation pitches
> > from *any* of our "regular" pitches using this method.
>
>
> LEV:
> this is interesting. where can i get a copy of this chart?
> is microtonal music, or perhaps microtonality itself, taught at any
> college/university as far as you know? I ask this because.. well
for
> me, even with perfect pitch, I think it's hard to hear the
difference
> between sixth of a tone and 12th of a tone.
>
> In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and
sharps
> are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of embellishment.
And
> when you do chord progressions, this is plain to see - whether a
note
> is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter. As a result of this, I
> have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors, leaving them more
> towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I haven't yet grown
> to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and flats, but I may
> someday. :)

i'm sticking with my interpretation. juilliard advanced harmony class
will teach 12-equal, not 7-equal.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36077.html#36134

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_36077.html#36130
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Right on, Joe! This is truly perverse thinking.
> > > >
> > > > It's 7-et thinking, not diatonic thinking. Instead of
> pretending
> > > they are in 7-et, why not just do it?
> > > >
> > > > I heard a rumor Julliard was a good school, so I wonder about
> > this
> > > story.
> > >
> > > i wonder if some misinterpretation is going on on joseph's
part.
> > > perhaps by ignoring the difference between sharps and flats,
the
> > > juilliard person simply means ignoring the difference between
Ab
> > and G#, etc.? something like 7-equal thinking would be completely
> > foreign in any conservatory outside the thailand/cambodia area.
> >
> >
> > ***Hi Paul!
> >
> > I admit this seems rather "odd" and I would, frankly, prefer if
it
> > were the way you describe, concerning the difference in
> enharmonics,
> > but from the e-mail it didn't seem like it. As has been
suggested,
> > perhaps it was just the suggestion of some grad student or such
> like
> > who suddenly saw all the "black keys" as "chromaticism"
or "color"
> > and concocted this.
> >
> > In any case, here is the full e-mail, and it's all I have to go
on:
> >
> >
> > ME:
> > > ***At the moment, I'm concentrating on 72-equal. Why? Well,
it
> > includes our "regular" 12-equal scale in it! (Divide by 12 and
> you'll
> > > see... :) )
> > > It also includes quartertones! So there are only two new
> intervals
> > to learn, a sixth of a whole tone and a 12th of a whole tone.
> > > I have a chart that shows me how to creat just intonation
pitches
> > > from *any* of our "regular" pitches using this method.
> >
> >
> > LEV:
> > this is interesting. where can i get a copy of this chart?
> > is microtonal music, or perhaps microtonality itself, taught at
any
> > college/university as far as you know? I ask this because.. well
> for
> > me, even with perfect pitch, I think it's hard to hear the
> difference
> > between sixth of a tone and 12th of a tone.
> >
> > In Juilliard advanced-harmony class, we learned that flats and
> sharps
> > are just colours, that they are in fact a sort of embellishment.
> And
> > when you do chord progressions, this is plain to see - whether a
> note
> > is a sharp or a flat simply doesn't matter. As a result of this,
I
> > have grown somewhat ambivalent about colors, leaving them more
> > towards the immediate interpretation on stage. I haven't yet
grown
> > to the stage where I stop putting in sharps and flats, but I may
> > someday. :)
>
> i'm sticking with my interpretation. juilliard advanced harmony
class
> will teach 12-equal, not 7-equal.

***Well, regardless, I hope you got composer Lev Zhurbin's drift:
that microtonality might not have any validity in music if it's not
taught at a respectable music school or conservatory...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Well, regardless, I hope you got composer Lev Zhurbin's drift:
> that microtonality might not have any validity in music if it's not
> taught at a respectable music school or conservatory...

If that's his drift, then he can drift off the edge of the known world for all I care. Validity? Respectable?

How retro...

Cheers,
Jon