response

I have been waiting for reactions to my essay on microtonality, and eagerly
welcome comments, criticisms and discussion. This is of course the desired
outcome of such a paper.

I have never been a member of this list primarily because the topic (the "tuning"
branch of microtonality) is not my area of interest, even though I have read
entries here on a few occasions in the past (more so in the last week!). In addition,
I am in general wary of this medium, in which e-mail-level dialogues with their
casual, knee-jerk-reaction style (including occasional name-calling) are made
public. (I seem to remember seeing Stuart Isacoff be cursed with profanities here,
simply for advocating 12-note equal temperament. I myself was called a "quack"
here by someone who has never had any contact with me, and who hadn't even
read my paper or heard my music.) Also, I find it problematic that, for example, if
I hadn't happened to visit the site, someone else (who also has almost certainly
never seen my music or Maneri's, except for some relatively tiny excerpts in the
PNM article) could have gotten away with absurd statements like "Werntz's
microtonalism is serial," and "Maneri's microtonalism is tonal. Is definitely tonal."

However, I realize that there is no real substitute for this democratic type of
forum, and now that my statements are being discussed with such intensity and
inaccuracy I feel compelled to step in and write this letter, for anyone who is
interested. In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary, but since many of you,
even those "vocal" ones with strong opinions on the topic, probably won't go and
borrow a copy of PNM to read it for yourselves, I'll just try to clear up a few of the
misunderstandings I care about most, here on your list. I do this because I don't
want to be slandered, and I do want to encourage genuine, well-thought-out
reactions to the actual points made in my well-thought-out paper.

I have been portrayed here as intolerant and insisting on one way - my way and
Maneri's way - of microtonality. What I really do in my paper is to advocate a few
specific things, for example microtonal equal temperaments in general, an "atonal"
approach (even though I dislike that word), and something I call, for fun,
"atwelvetonality" (a departure from the sound of the 12 equal-tempered intervals).
I advocate these things because of the artistic freedom they can offer to a
composer. But advocating something isn't the same thing as being intolerant of all
other things. Don't you all advocate what you do? I certainly hope so...

My paper was called polemical. The only place where I do get a bit polemical is in
the "Artistic Premise" section (p168), in which I react against what are clearly
polemical (and intolerant) statements about equal temperament and Western
music of the 19th and 2Oth centuries by many prominent proponents of just
intonation. In p166-167 I also point out that some of the JI arguments themselves
seem implicitly intolerant of all of the "impurely" tuned non-Western music of the
world. (No knee-jerk! Read the article and you'll see what I actually say.) It is this
intolerance of which I am intolerant.

I also make some straightforward and admittedly provocative practical and
theoretical criticisms of the very basis of the pure-tuning approach to music. But
again, disagreements and criticisms are not the same as intolerance. Should your
theories not be challenged? I want mine challenged...

Furthermore, I am careful to make a distinction between the arguments made by
some JI proponents and some of the beautiful music that certain of its
practitioners have made. (See p170-171.) This was very important to me, because
it is the music that is of greatest importance, ultimately.

To Margo Schulter: I am grateful that the tone of your letter was so civil,
diplomatic and thoughtful. But the entire motivating force behind your letter
seems to have come from a mistaken impression. You felt the need to address
what was falsely conveyed through the tuning list as some sort of general
intolerance on my part to a multiplicity of tunings or styles of microtonality. It's
not your fault that list members have quoted me entirely out of context, and even
have thoroughly skewed the meaning of my statements. On the other hand I don't
understand why you chose to invest so much of your time in composing a response
to something you haven't even read, when you even acknowledged yourself that
perhaps you didn't have the facts straight. Perhaps you were too trusting of list
members' ethics. I truly would love to know any criticisms you may have of the
paper itself, if you care actually to read it.

My motivation for writing the essay was to point out a never-discussed other way:
how microtones may be accessed directly and applied to one's art, without the very
heavy theoretical baggage that comes with pure tuning, if one is willing to engage
in rigorous ear-training and to pay very close attention to what one is composing.

-Julia Werntz

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37181.html#37181

> I have been waiting for reactions to my essay on microtonality,
and eagerly welcome comments, criticisms and discussion. This is of
course the desired outcome of such a paper.
>

***Hello Julie!

Welcome to the list discussion and we will (at least *most* of us)
try to remain civil... :)

After reading the short abstract of your dissertation I had made the
rather unwise decision to comment on it, without reading the entire.
As you know, I also had not read the _Perspectives_ article either.

This is why, of course, I quickly deleted my post, although I realize
some people (including David Beardsley, who is a fast reader) already
read it in e-mail form...

I am not prepared to make the same mistake again (not that mistakes
usually take much preparation...) I am awaiting delivery of the
_Perspectives_ article before I make any further commentary.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and, hopefully, something
meaningful will come of such an interchange.

best,

Joseph Pehrson

Dear Julia (if I may be so informal),

Here is hoping you can stick around, at least for a short while, so
that some of the issues brought up in your writings, and the
responses from some in the online community, could be discussed.

I will state up front that I have not had access to the PNM article,
which I hope to retrieve today or tomorrow at one of the two
university libraries. My only comments, as posted on this list, were
in connection with the pages from the abstract of your thesis.

> In addition, I am in general wary of this medium, in which
> e-mail-level dialogues with their casual, knee-jerk-reaction style
> (including occasional name-calling) are made public.

Your wariness is understandable, and while the forum and format are
far more casual than the preparation of an academic document, the
upside is that it is a living, real-time environment, and many
discussions bear fruit in a remarkably short time, covering wide
geographical distances that simply couldn't be done any other way.

And, being transmittled through humans, there are also times of less
erudite and gentile communication. It is mostly "color commentary",
and can be easily ignored.

> (I seem to remember seeing Stuart Isacoff be cursed with
> profanities here, simply for advocating 12-note equal temperament.

I believe it was more than "simply advocating", but I'd let others
speak for themselves.

> I myself was called a "quack"

Well, in an oblique way, that would be _me_, and if it came across as
hurtful I certainly did not mean it personally, but as a serio-comic
aside on academia, accreditation, and (as you say) a "general
wariness".

> Also, I find it problematic that, for example, if I hadn't
> happened to visit the site, someone else (who also has almost
> certainly never seen my music or Maneri's, except for some
> relatively tiny excerpts in the PNM article) could have gotten
> away with absurd statements like "Werntz's microtonalism is
> serial," and "Maneri's microtonalism is tonal. Is definitely
> tonal."

Well, if you publish, you certainly don't expect every discussion,
debate, or rebuttal to be forwarded to you in some form of hard-copy,
do you? The fact that this medium is not only live but archived means
you have been able to see the comments, unlike if there was a
discussion of the work at some distant location.

> but since many of you, even those "vocal" ones with strong
> opinions on the topic, probably won't go and borrow a copy of
> PNM to read it for yourselves...

Hey, wait a minute: *I'm* certainly going to access a copy. It is
going to entail an effort on my part, PNM not exactly being on the
local newstand.

> My motivation for writing the essay was to point out a never-
> discussed other way

So. I won't offer any more comments until I've read the PNM article,
which will happen within the next couple of days. I enjoy lively,
colorful discourse, and will frame any commentary in that vein, not
in a personal manner. West Coast style...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

> My motivation for writing the essay was to point out a never-
discussed other way:
> how microtones may be accessed directly and applied to one's art,
without the very
> heavy theoretical baggage that comes with pure tuning, if one is
willing to engage
> in rigorous ear-training and to pay very close attention to what
one is composing.
>
> -Julia Werntz

hi julia, good to see you posting here!

i hope those who have taken your statements out of context will be
patient enough to listen to what it is you have to say . . .

as for the above "never-discussed other way", surely you're aware
that many, many musicians (including some on this list) have done
exactly what you describe above? can you clarify on what element of
it you feel never is or has been discussed?

the "very heavy theoretical baggage that comes with pure
tuning" . . . something is wrong with that statement. *any* tuning
system can inspire heaps and heaps of theoretical material, some of
which is perfectly valid, and plenty of which is counterproductive
and even self-contradictory. it's too bad that there's a segment of
what is presented as "just intonation theory" which falls in the
latter category, and finds wide expression, even for example in the
otherwise fine article on ben johnston's music that i photocopied for
you . . .

it's not the case that simply using a just intonation tuning forces
one to subscribe to, or even comprehend, *any* of its theoretical
baggage, valid or invalid. take just about any, say, santoor player
in north india -- you will find that he (or if you're lucky, she)
tunes in just intonation, and yet improvises directly from the heart
and from cultural tradition that has never had anything to do with
multiplying complex ratios. players of flexible-pitch instruments in
this tradition are also demonstrably drawn toward just intonation
tuning, particularly for those raga-pitches which are very close to
forming a very simple ratio with the drone, without caring a whit for
any acoustical or numerical theories that may describe what they are
doing.

it is not even the case that wanting justly-tuned, beatless harmonies
at every point in time in one's music compels one to use ratio-based
just intonation, or "strict just intonation", or ji as it is commonly
understood -- the option of adaptive ji has been around at least as
long as vicentino, is very often exhibited by choral groups who have
no idea of ratios of any other "baggage", yet is rarely discussed
outside these lists.

well, there's so much more but that's enough for now -- the above is
not a direct response to your dissertation or the 24-page summary on
the dissertation website (which i already posted some responses to).
instead, it's intended as a possible jumping-off point for some
interesting discussions, inspired by your paragraph above -- please
take it or leave it as you see fit!

best,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

> I have been waiting for reactions to my essay on microtonality, and eagerly
> welcome comments, criticisms and discussion.

Do you have a Postscript or PDF version available on a website, or could it be made available?

> However, I realize that there is no real substitute for this democratic type of
> forum, and now that my statements are being discussed with such intensity and
> inaccuracy I feel compelled to step in and write this letter, for anyone who is
> interested. In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary

In my ideal world it would *always* happen. :)

> I have been portrayed here as intolerant and insisting on one way - my way and
> Maneri's way - of microtonality. What I really do in my paper is to advocate a few
> specific things, for example microtonal equal temperaments in general, an "atonal"
> approach (even though I dislike that word), and something I call, for fun,
> "atwelvetonality" (a departure from the sound of the 12 equal-tempered intervals).
> I advocate these things because of the artistic freedom they can offer to a
> composer.

Rules about what is *not* allowable can't logically lead to artistic freedom; if they do anything they lead to the top of Parnassus rather than on a random ramble. To say we should use equal temperaments is to adopt a rule, albeit a much less restrictive rule than saying we should use only 12 notes to the octave in an equal temperament. It gives us freedom only in comparison to that more restrictive rule, and gives us nothing by way of structure unless we bring something else to the discussion--as I, and many others, would bring in particular the approximation of ratios.

To say we must be atonal is simply a rule, and offers no more freedom than the rule which says we must be tonal. The question to ask, it seems to me, is do these rules *help*, not whether there is a magic rule which will somehow bring us "artistic freedom".

But advocating something isn't the same thing as being intolerant of all
> other things. Don't you all advocate what you do?

Advocating is not quite the same as providing an argument which can withstand scrutiny; that is why it would be interesting to see what you've provided in that department.

> My motivation for writing the essay was to point out a never-discussed other way:
> how microtones may be accessed directly and applied to one's art, without the very
> heavy theoretical baggage that comes with pure tuning, if one is willing to engage
> in rigorous ear-training and to pay very close attention to what one is composing.

Not my cuppa, but I see it could work for some people. I can't help but think of music in mathematical terms, but I'm doubtless an outlier.

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

/tuning/topicId_37181.html#37197
>
> Not my cuppa, but I see it could work for some people. I can't help
but think of music in mathematical terms, but I'm doubtless an
outlier.

***Ummm, ummm, not entirely. Is been done before by the *majors.* I
think you would have gotten along famously with Iannis Xenakis or
presently with Milton Babbitt. Too bad Milton's getting so old and
frail...

Joseph