Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2075

I begin:

Werntz suggests a serial approach: and her techniques reveal it. Werntz is
thus serial. And the serialism proposed is thus more artificial than any JI
scheme suggested, as it has no basis in any connection of tones at all.

Maneri's technique hovers about tones, giving them temporal emphasis - this
is a 'tonal' technique as it does not destroy the sense of tonal polarity.
If I take tonality in too wide a sense for some, then obviously, they do not
pay attention to a much wider scene of music in which diatonicism is the
last thing to be associated with it, yet it is tonal.

> 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"

If that is not serialism, and the example 9 on page 195 of PNM is not a set,
then I have been misled, by both Perle (with whom I have corresponded about
tonality) and Schoenberg, and Rufer, and Babbitt, and a great many others.
What else is an ordered sequence of pitches but a set? Music written using a
set is serial, whether it contains 5 notes or fifty.

I find it both sad and unfortunate that the statements I make are 'absurd',
when they are logically true. These are not opinions, but statements of
fact.

> 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
and
>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

I have read both the Dissertation and the PNM article. Not extracts. Both.
So please correct me if you think that I have not read them. an example of
missing the point is in order:

after discussing works which combine different tuning systems, we get:

>'disobeying the laws of just intonation in order to create interesting
>dissonances'

what laws? There aren't any, so far as I know. Either in combination or
succession. And if there are no laws, then they cannot 'ignore and devalue
the music of all great composers and improvisers' and they cannot 'deny
human complexity'

and then afterwards we have:

>"One is compelled to wonder whay a composer could not just side-step the theory
>and access these new pitches more directly through some sort of system that
>provides, ready made,t he sixth tones, quarter tones, etc. that help make these
>pieces interesting - as microtonal equal temperaments do."

maybe they didn't want the pitches of the equal temperaments. and they may
have to choose several tempered tones from several sets of divisions. As I
said, about using other tones from the harmonic series:

If we are to go about 'adding pitches', then surely, what better place to
start, but with those sounds that are simplest in one sense, yet
/unfamiliar/. These new sounds are 'interesting', without resorting to
artificial divisions of the musical space that Werntz suggests.

12EDO is artifical, as is any other. Music written using such is not
artificial, but its components tend toward an inner truth, whose realization
at the hands of good performers will lead away from 12EDO.

Remember, 12EDO is not a system in itself, it is the outgrowth of a need to
render different keys reasonably in tune. The same applies to 31 and 19 and
other EDOs that contain the diatonic (western 7-note) scale.

I find it irritating to think that a composer would choose a set of
divisions over a selection of tones whose derivation may be mathematical,
but grows from the very nature of the tone. I am sorry, but I will not
fetter the imagination merely to satisfy an arbitrary requirement.

>Don't you all advocate what you do?

Certainly not!

I advocate the search for musical truth, not what I do as a composer. What I
may write as a composer may be utterly wrong. This may happen when (and if)
I get to 90. I don't care. What is more important is the search itself. And
when I see someone who has become fixed only on one thing, an aesthetic, and
thinks it is an eternal law. That is why I criticised the Werntz article,
because it suggests that it is eternally right, when so obviously, by its
very exclusivity of approach, it is wrong.

If one thing comes along that can prove to me systematically (I was trained
as a scientist) that what I have done is wrong, then I will accept it. That
is a challenge worth acceding to. But not one based on opinion.

Personally, I am neither in favour nor against JI, and the same goes for
EDOs. What I am in favour of is music, not blind rules.

Do you have the courage not just to be challenged, but to be proved wrong?
and the courage to accept it?

A quote to finish, p 170 in Werntz 'Adding Pitches', PNM v 39 / 2:

"Certainly the need to engage in the intensely negative act of denouncing is
a dubious foundation for a new music"

Need I say more...

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

> What else is an ordered sequence of pitches but a set?

Mathematicians would not call that a set.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
>
> > What else is an ordered sequence of pitches but a set?
>
> Mathematicians would not call that a set.

oh well, what musicians call 'set theory' is completely different
that what mathematicians call 'set theory'.

and mathematicians use a different set of conventions for what theta
and phi mean in polar coordinates, or the orientation of the x, y,
and z axes, or something, than do physicists. and engineers call the
square root of -1 "j". they simply respect one another's conventions
and get on with it.

i think where they differ, we need to use *musicians'* terminology on
this list, since this is classified as a *music* list. on the tuning-
math list, which falls under *mathematics*, we can use the *math*
conventions . . . how's that?

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

> Remember, 12EDO is not a system in itself, it is the outgrowth of a
need to
> render different keys reasonably in tune. The same applies to 31
and 19 and
> other EDOs that contain the diatonic (western 7-note) scale.
>
> I find it irritating to think that a composer would choose a set of
> divisions over a selection of tones whose derivation may be
mathematical,
> but grows from the very nature of the tone. I am sorry, but I will
not
> fetter the imagination merely to satisfy an arbitrary requirement.

this sounds like an argument for just intonation for diatonic music
that stays within a single key signature.

i don't buy it. i claim that even for a single diatonic scale, with
no key-changes whatsoever, something like meantone temperament (or
better yet, an adaptive just intonation system like vicentino's with
two meantone chains 1/4 comma apart) is preferable to just
intontation (with simple ratios for every pitch, and the inevitable
choice between full-comma shifts or full-comma drifts or full-comma
errors that this implies).

shall we enter into this again?

> (I was trained as a scientist)

oops. there may be too many of us here :)

> Personally, I am neither in favour nor against JI,

oops -- i may have misinterpreted you above. never mind, then!

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37224

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > What else is an ordered sequence of pitches but a set?
> >
> > Mathematicians would not call that a set.
>
> oh well, what musicians call 'set theory' is completely different
> that what mathematicians call 'set theory'.
>
> and mathematicians use a different set of conventions for what
theta
> and phi mean in polar coordinates, or the orientation of the x, y,
> and z axes, or something, than do physicists. and engineers call
the
> square root of -1 "j". they simply respect one another's
conventions
> and get on with it.
>
> i think where they differ, we need to use *musicians'* terminology
on
> this list, since this is classified as a *music* list. on the
tuning-
> math list, which falls under *mathematics*, we can use the *math*
> conventions . . . how's that?

****Hi Paul,

Even in *music*, though, I don't believe a *set* is an *ORDERED*
sequence of pitches, is it??

Joseph

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

> i think where they differ, we need to use *musicians'* terminology on
> this list, since this is classified as a *music* list.

The terminology was taken from mathematics in the first place, wasn't it?

on the tuning-
> math list, which falls under *mathematics*, we can use the *math*
> conventions . . . how's that?

Don't expect me to call something a set it's ordered. :)

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

> i don't buy it. i claim that even for a single diatonic scale, with
> no key-changes whatsoever, something like meantone temperament (or
> better yet, an adaptive just intonation system like vicentino's with
> two meantone chains 1/4 comma apart) is preferable to just
> intontation (with simple ratios for every pitch, and the inevitable
> choice between full-comma shifts or full-comma drifts or full-comma
> errors that this implies).

I think the whole argument is silly; obviously, meantone cannot substitute for JI or vice-versa. If you want to have a ding-dong along these lines, you need a microtemperament such as ennealimmal to put against JI.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > i don't buy it. i claim that even for a single diatonic scale,
with
> > no key-changes whatsoever, something like meantone temperament
(or
> > better yet, an adaptive just intonation system like vicentino's
with
> > two meantone chains 1/4 comma apart) is preferable to just
> > intontation (with simple ratios for every pitch, and the
inevitable
> > choice between full-comma shifts or full-comma drifts or full-
comma
> > errors that this implies).
>
> I think the whole argument is silly; obviously, meantone cannot
>substitute for JI or vice-versa. If you want to have a ding-dong
>along these lines, you need a microtemperament such as ennealimmal
>to put against JI.

what's a ding-dong and what on earth does ennealimmal have to do with
the diatonic scale?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > i think where they differ, we need to use *musicians'*
terminology on
> > this list, since this is classified as a *music* list.
>
> The terminology was taken from mathematics in the first place,
>wasn't it?

i don't know . . . i think musicians pretty much think of a "set" as
a "set of pitches" without regard to the branch of mathematics known
as "set theory". what musicians call "set theory" is more like
combinatorics and the like -- see below.

> > on the tuning-
> > math list, which falls under *mathematics*, we can use the *math*
> > conventions . . . how's that?
>
> Don't expect me to call something a set it's ordered. :)

?? yes, i think mark was actually thinking of a "series" (as in
serial music) or something, rather than what even musicians call a
set, which is a set of pitch-classes in octave-equivalent space
(usually Z12), not specific to rotation or even reflection. for
example, C-F#-B and C-F-B would both be examples of the "set" 0-1-6,
regardless of what order the notes were played in . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37264

>>
> ?? yes, i think mark was actually thinking of a "series" (as in
> serial music) or something, rather than what even musicians call a
> set, which is a set of pitch-classes in octave-equivalent space
> (usually Z12), not specific to rotation or even reflection. for
> example, C-F#-B and C-F-B would both be examples of the "set" 0-1-
6, regardless of what order the notes were played in . . .

***Hi Paul... how are you getting this??

How do you get C-F#-B as 0-1-6??

Thanks!

Joseph

>>The terminology was taken from mathematics in the first place,
>>wasn't it?
>
>i don't know . . . i think musicians pretty much think of a "set" as
>a "set of pitches" /.../

Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.

"Man, that first set was lame but, after the break, I thought we really tore it up on the second set!" :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37277

> >>The terminology was taken from mathematics in the first place,
> >>wasn't it?
> >
> >i don't know . . . i think musicians pretty much think of a "set"
as
> >a "set of pitches" /.../
>
> Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl...

I guess you've never taken a course in music school called "set
theory..."

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37216.html#37264
>
> >>
> > ?? yes, i think mark was actually thinking of a "series" (as in
> > serial music) or something, rather than what even musicians call
a
> > set, which is a set of pitch-classes in octave-equivalent space
> > (usually Z12), not specific to rotation or even reflection. for
> > example, C-F#-B and C-F-B would both be examples of the "set" 0-1-
> 6, regardless of what order the notes were played in . . .
>
> ***Hi Paul... how are you getting this??
>
> How do you get C-F#-B as 0-1-6??
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph

well, this is the standard "set theory" that you should (or perhaps
shouldn't) have gotten in your 20th century music courses . . .

going downward from C, C is 0, B is 1, and F# is 6 . . .

take a look at Forte's "Structure of Atonal Music" for a refresher on
this formalism, a formalism of rather limited utility . . .

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>The terminology was taken from mathematics in the first place,
> >>wasn't it?
> >
> >i don't know . . . i think musicians pretty much think of a "set"
as
> >a "set of pitches" /.../
>
> Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.
>
> -Carl

forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .

>>Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.
>
> -Carl
>
>***Hi Carl...
>
>I guess you've never taken a course in music school called "set
>theory..."

True enough.

>forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .

Where can I hear the music?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >***Hi Carl...
> >
> >I guess you've never taken a course in music school called "set
> >theory..."
>
> True enough.
>
> >forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
>
> Where can I hear the music?

good one, carl. well, the point is that these guys use (invent?) the
terminology that is taught to musicians, musicians who go to music
school at least . . . that may not be the majority of musicians, but
i think it's safe to say that they outnumber the musicians who are
well-versed in mathematese . . . thus my original point.

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37297

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_37216.html#37264
> >
> > >>
> > > ?? yes, i think mark was actually thinking of a "series" (as in
> > > serial music) or something, rather than what even musicians
call
> a
> > > set, which is a set of pitch-classes in octave-equivalent space
> > > (usually Z12), not specific to rotation or even reflection. for
> > > example, C-F#-B and C-F-B would both be examples of the "set" 0-
1-
> > 6, regardless of what order the notes were played in . . .
> >
> > ***Hi Paul... how are you getting this??
> >
> > How do you get C-F#-B as 0-1-6??
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joseph
>
> well, this is the standard "set theory" that you should (or perhaps
> shouldn't) have gotten in your 20th century music courses . . .
>
> going downward from C, C is 0, B is 1, and F# is 6 . . .
>
> take a look at Forte's "Structure of Atonal Music" for a refresher
on
> this formalism, a formalism of rather limited utility . . .

***Hi Paul

Quite frankly, I don't remember counting *downward* like that, but
I'll look it up...

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37301

> >>Gee, I don't know any musicians who use the term set.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >***Hi Carl...
> >
> >I guess you've never taken a course in music school called "set
> >theory..."
>
> True enough.
>
> >forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
>
> Where can I hear the music?
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl!

I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note! They're
*theorists* so they don't have to... (they still keep their jobs...)

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37216.html#37297
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_37216.html#37264
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > ?? yes, i think mark was actually thinking of a "series" (as
in
> > > > serial music) or something, rather than what even musicians
> call
> > a
> > > > set, which is a set of pitch-classes in octave-equivalent
space
> > > > (usually Z12), not specific to rotation or even reflection.
for
> > > > example, C-F#-B and C-F-B would both be examples of the "set"
0-
> 1-
> > > 6, regardless of what order the notes were played in . . .
> > >
> > > ***Hi Paul... how are you getting this??
> > >
> > > How do you get C-F#-B as 0-1-6??
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Joseph
> >
> > well, this is the standard "set theory" that you should (or
perhaps
> > shouldn't) have gotten in your 20th century music courses . . .
> >
> > going downward from C, C is 0, B is 1, and F# is 6 . . .
> >
> > take a look at Forte's "Structure of Atonal Music" for a
refresher
> on
> > this formalism, a formalism of rather limited utility . . .
>
>
> ***Hi Paul
>
> Quite frankly, I don't remember counting *downward* like that, but
> I'll look it up...
>
> Joseph

see what i said above about "not specific to reflection"! any set
turned upside-down is still considered the same set. you're supposed
to use the lowest numbers possible, so 0-1-7 is automatically turned
into 0-1-6 . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

> > >forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
> >
> > Where can I hear the music?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> ***Hi Carl!
>
> I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note!

well, that's a little extreme, don't you think? i mean, forte's book
on *tonal* music is among the best around . . . wouldn't you think
that he acheived his expertise, in some small part, by putting
fingers to keys and pen to paper, at least as a student?

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note!
>
> well, that's a little extreme, don't you think? i mean, forte's book
> on *tonal* music is among the best around . . . wouldn't you think
> that he acheived his expertise, in some small part, by putting
> fingers to keys and pen to paper, at least as a student?

You are *both* engaging in speculation. I happen to think that when Carl said the term wasn't one he encountered among musicians, he probably meant _practising_ musicians. I have to think that any of the best theorists have more than a passing experience with making music, just as all the best musicians are versed in at least a little theory from their respective musical cultures.

Paul responded with names of theorists to Carl's query about musicians; neither term (theorist/musician) is necessarily exclusive of the other group, right?

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Paul responded with names of theorists to Carl's query about
>musicians; neither term (theorist/musician) is necessarily exclusive
>of the other group, right?

you may have missed my explanation of that, jon. these are names of
people whose definition of "set theory" is *taught* to musicians (in
music school). since i have a pretty strong suspicion that there are
more musicians who go to music school and study atonal theory than
there are musicians who are familiar with the subject matter of
higher mathematics, i stand by my original point that there is
a "musicians'" definition of set theory which is different from the
mathematese "set theory". that's all that carl was questioning, and
all i was responding to . . . though i'd never presume to discourage
you from running off on tangents -- that how the really interesting
discussions usually originate!

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> you may have missed my explanation of that, jon. these are names of
> people whose definition of "set theory" is *taught* to musicians (in
> music school).

Thanks for the clarification, it was a bit opaque.

> since i have a pretty strong suspicion that there are
> more musicians who go to music school and study atonal theory than
> there are musicians who are familiar with the subject matter of
> higher mathematics

That's probably true enough; thanks to you guys, I think I'd prefer to be in the latter category these days!

> i stand by my original point that there is
> a "musicians'" definition of set theory which is different from the
> mathematese "set theory". that's all that carl was questioning, and
> all i was responding to . . .

And I thought Carl was saying he hadn't even known musicians to use the term at all.

> though i'd never presume to discourage you from running off on
> tangents -- that how the really interesting discussions usually
> originate!

I've always enjoyed your tangents, too. :) How's this: I just got back from visiting Danlee Mitchell this afternoon, where (among other things) we watched about an hour of video he shot in Istanbul about 2 months ago, including about five incredible musical performances, everything from mehter(?) bands to vocal/oud groups, to a spectacular trio of canon, oud (I'm guessing?), and cello, where all three performers sang while they played. Beautiful stuff, really.

But they must have an embargo on Korg tuners, because some of the notes in the scale sounded flat compared to the piano... :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

> I've always enjoyed your tangents, too. :) How's this: I just got
>back from visiting Danlee Mitchell this afternoon, where (among
>other things) we watched about an hour of video he shot in Istanbul
>about 2 months ago, including about five incredible musical
>performances, everything from mehter(?) bands to vocal/oud groups,
>to a spectacular trio of canon, oud (I'm guessing?), and cello,
>where all three performers sang while they played. Beautiful stuff,
>really.

i'm jealous. the turkish tradition has to be a serious candidate for
the world's most interesting, as regards diversity of pitch
materials . . . to them, even the arabic pitch system is rather
primitive, let alone the western one . . .

. . . and you know how much i love singing while playing! hmm . . . i
hear there's a considerable turkish community in switzerland, which
may be my first trip out of the country -- maybe i can catch some
turkish music while there? (anyone know?)

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

> you may have missed my explanation of that, jon. these are names of
> people whose definition of "set theory" is *taught* to musicians (in
> music school). since i have a pretty strong suspicion that there are
> more musicians who go to music school and study atonal theory than
> there are musicians who are familiar with the subject matter of
> higher mathematics, i stand by my original point that there is
> a "musicians'" definition of set theory which is different from the
> mathematese "set theory".

I definately get the impression Joe was not taught about forcing, large cardinals, or the independece of the continuum hyopthesis when *he* took "set theory".
!

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37307

>
> see what i said above about "not specific to reflection"! any set
> turned upside-down is still considered the same set. you're
supposed to use the lowest numbers possible, so 0-1-7 is
automatically turned into 0-1-6 . . .

***Hi Paul!

Oh! Why sure, though octave transposition. I found your example a
little "tricky," but it's a good one... makes one think about it.

I own _The Structure of Atonal Music_ but, quite frankly, had a
little trouble with it, unlike George Perle's _Serial Composition and
Atonality_ which I read and enjoyed in the entire.

You'll have to drop by some weekend briefly and explain the book to
me...

[That's a joke, for anybody who has this book...]

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37309

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > > >forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
> > >
> > > Where can I hear the music?
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > ***Hi Carl!
> >
> > I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note!
>
> well, that's a little extreme, don't you think? i mean, forte's
book on *tonal* music is among the best around . . . wouldn't you
think that he acheived his expertise, in some small part, by putting
> fingers to keys and pen to paper, at least as a student?

***Sorry, Paul.

Actually, that was a joke, so I'd better not go into "stand up..."

Of course, I like all these cats. In fact, John Clough was one of my
diss. advisers. Clough, as you know, is terrific, and very much into
microtonality.

However, he never claimed in any way to be a composer, nor did he
want to be one. He had *lots* of other things going on.

These are *all* expert musicians, but for many of them, cranking out
compositions is not one of their objectives.

best,

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37311

> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Paul responded with names of theorists to Carl's query about
> >musicians; neither term (theorist/musician) is necessarily
exclusive
> >of the other group, right?
>
> you may have missed my explanation of that, jon. these are names of
> people whose definition of "set theory" is *taught* to musicians
(in
> music school). since i have a pretty strong suspicion that there
are
> more musicians who go to music school and study atonal theory than
> there are musicians who are familiar with the subject matter of
> higher mathematics, i stand by my original point that there is
> a "musicians'" definition of set theory which is different from the
> mathematese "set theory". that's all that carl was questioning, and
> all i was responding to . . . though i'd never presume to
discourage
> you from running off on tangents -- that how the really interesting
> discussions usually originate!

***Actually, some of these classes have a "life of their own" with
the speculative theory every bit as fanciful, sometimes moreso, than
the actual compositions being analyzed! [Sometimes "better" too!]

And, I suspect, in several cases, that the two have virtually nothing
to do with one another!

But, still they can be fun classes!

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37316

>
>
> I definately get the impression Joe was not taught about forcing,
large cardinals, or the independece of the continuum hyopthesis when
*he* took "set theory".
> !

***Hi Gene!

Is that hypotenuse or hippopotamus? In any case, you are quite
right: I was never taught that stuff. Paul is proving that I
already forgot most of the "musician's" set theory that I learned as
well!!!

However, quite frankly, some of those classes can be entertaining, as
I mentioned, especially when referenced against a piece of *music*
which they do *occasionally*! :)

P.S. I'm learning to stay away from "forcing, large cardinals" these
days...

JP

For me the text for set theory was Basic Atonal Theory by John Rahn at
Columbia. You may recall that Prof. Rahn was the editor of Perspectives of
New Music for a LONG time.

Johnny Reinhard

yup I started with Rahn too, then Wuorinen's "Simple Composition" and
Forte's "Structure of Atonal Music". Looked at some Lewin too, but by then I
was figuring out it was all just "paper music" and sounded like hell, so
that was the end of that.(looking back, I can't believe I was so slow to
catch on. Never doubt your "emperor's new clothes" alarm bell when it starts
ringing!)

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Afmmjr@aol.com [mailto:Afmmjr@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:02 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Digest Number 2075
>
>
> For me the text for set theory was Basic Atonal Theory by John Rahn at
> Columbia. You may recall that Prof. Rahn was the editor of
> Perspectives of
> New Music for a LONG time.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
>
>
> 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..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> Never doubt your "emperor's new clothes" alarm bell when it starts
> ringing!)

Fortunately, I had inherited one of my mentor's "Emperor's New Clothes" Cattle Prod (TM), and so it was impossible to ignore the ruse.

Cheers,
Jon

>>>forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
>>
>> Where can I hear the music?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***Hi Carl!
>
>I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note! They're
>*theorists* so they don't have to... (they still keep their jobs...)

I didn't know that, though I suspected it might be true.

Babbitt is an exception among arcane theorists in that he's written
music. Would it be fair to say? Anybody care to recommend some
Babbitt? I've heard it's unlistenable. OTOH, I've heard that Babbitt
loves it. A man after my own heart!

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:

Looked at some Lewin too, but by then I
> was figuring out it was all just "paper music" and sounded like hell, so
> that was the end of that.

Lewin introduces groups and group actions in a musical setting, which means if you write about these for an audience of music theorists you can refer to him; that I hope will be convenient.

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

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37326

> >>>forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
> >>
> >> Where can I hear the music?
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >***Hi Carl!
> >
> >I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note! They're
> >*theorists* so they don't have to... (they still keep their
jobs...)
>
> I didn't know that, though I suspected it might be true.
>
> Babbitt is an exception among arcane theorists in that he's written
> music. Would it be fair to say? Anybody care to recommend some
> Babbitt? I've heard it's unlistenable. OTOH, I've heard that
Babbitt
> loves it. A man after my own heart!
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl

Milton Babbitt, whom I happen to know personally [name drop, name
drop...] has actually written some great pieces, and he's written
some really *terrible* pieces.

The pieces you really have to stay *away* from are pieces like the
solo piano works, where he concentrates on whatever set theory *he*
can apparently hear and few other people can. Well, I suppose after
one took a *course* in it, one could get something out of it, but
what kind of "music" is that!

BUT THERE ARE some really terrific things, expecially when Milton's
intellect, which is superior, is "distracted" into doing things like
operating synthesizers. *Then* his music actually almost takes on
a "neo-romantic" mode... well, for *Babbitt* anyway.

His best piece of all time is a work for synthesizer and voice,
PHILOMEL. In fact, it is one of *my* personal favorites of pieces of
contemporary music of *any* kind! (Well maybe Harry Partch comes
close...)

It's *really* a great piece, almost a sci-fi effort. You must hear
it. In fact, I would suggest you listen to *this* piece FIRST,
absolutely, before anything else.

Another great piece is his _Ensembles for Synthesizer_ created with
the great old Columbia beast. I *finally* saw that sad old synth in
person. Do you know that it had been *vandalized* and that's what
finally put it to rest?? It's the size of half the room. My
assumption is that today the same "firepower" could probably be found
on somebody's *laptop.* [BTW, how many "laptops" really sit on
people's *laps*!-- don't go there]

And then, here is a real curiousity: some of Babbitt's recent great
work has been for GUITAR! I kid you not. He has a solo guitar piece
(played beautifully by New Yorker William Anderson) and a piece for
TWO guitars.

Again, the same principle applies: he's very much caught up in the
SOUND of the guitar and in various "attack" effects in the solo and
duo guitars, so the piece doesn't sound quite so "academic."

So, PLEASE, Carl, pick and choose carefully. I would listen *only*
to my above recommendations first.

Then you can listen to the other 90% of his work, but I would
recommend reading a good book at the same time... [did I really say
that...?]

best,

Joe.

P.S. And this *is* about tuning. All his electronic pieces have
alternately tuned passages, or at least they *seem* to. Maybe it's
the timbres...

P.P.S. Babbitt is also a connoisseur of baseball and beer, as the
recent interview with Frank Oteri of the American Music Center will
attest:

http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=32fp00

[December 2001, New Music Box, if this doesn't come up right...]

Oh, I also notice one can hear short excerpts on this page as well...
although I don't know if I recommend that.

Listen to the *full* PHILOMEL with a good set of speakers...:

http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=32fp13

absolutely seconding the recommendation of Philomel (which I think should be described as live voice plus preprocessed voice), questioning the Ensembles for Synthesizer, which i've only heard once, and adding Du, an expressionist song cycle on poems by August Stramm (whom i discovered via Babbit, tell him that, Joe; nobody in Germany knows Stramm). Du represents 12 tone music at its best, imho.
there are some more settings of Stramm, and anything with Bethany Beardslee singing MUST be recommended.

alas, my exposure to Babbit is much too limited (have yet to find a store that has a Babbit bin... his guitar pieces are typically coupled with other compositions and available with a bit of luck), but: all his system is so much involved with the number 12 that i very much doubt he ever even thought of alternative tunings. on the other hand, the stuff i know is from the 40ies and 50ies...

klaus

Thanks, Joe, for the links and beta. I'll check it out! I'm afraid my
speakers won't do much for the real audio clips, but maybe I should buy
the cds...

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
>
> Looked at some Lewin too, but by then I
> > was figuring out it was all just "paper music" and sounded like
hell, so
> > that was the end of that.
>
> Lewin introduces groups and group actions in a musical setting,
>which means if you write about these for an audience of music
>theorists you can refer to him; that I hope will be convenient.

gene, if you're planning to write anything for an audience of music
theorists, i'm very heartened that you're studying up on the language
they use, and overjoyed that you'll be expressing some of your
incredible ideas to an audience where they might have some real
impact and enjoy some perpetuation, perhaps even to students of music!

Jay here,
In spite of all Babbitt's theorizing and his complex tonal relationships,
his music has a consistent sense of fun and gaiety that is rare. Remember,
this dude cut at least some of his musical teeth writing jingles.
At 01:54 PM 6/7/02 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
>
>/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37326
>
>
>> >>>forte, clough, carey, clampitt, douthett, etc . . .
>> >>
>> >> Where can I hear the music?
>> >>
>> >> -Carl
>> >
>> >***Hi Carl!
>> >
>> >I don't believe *any* of them have written a single note! They're
>> >*theorists* so they don't have to... (they still keep their
>jobs...)
>>
>> I didn't know that, though I suspected it might be true.
>>
>> Babbitt is an exception among arcane theorists in that he's written
>> music. Would it be fair to say? Anybody care to recommend some
>> Babbitt? I've heard it's unlistenable. OTOH, I've heard that
>Babbitt
>> loves it. A man after my own heart!
>>
>> -Carl
>
>
>***Hi Carl
>
>Milton Babbitt, whom I happen to know personally [name drop, name
>drop...] has actually written some great pieces, and he's written
>some really *terrible* pieces.
>
>The pieces you really have to stay *away* from are pieces like the
>solo piano works, where he concentrates on whatever set theory *he*
>can apparently hear and few other people can. Well, I suppose after
>one took a *course* in it, one could get something out of it, but
>what kind of "music" is that!
>
>BUT THERE ARE some really terrific things, expecially when Milton's
>intellect, which is superior, is "distracted" into doing things like
>operating synthesizers. *Then* his music actually almost takes on
>a "neo-romantic" mode... well, for *Babbitt* anyway.
>
>His best piece of all time is a work for synthesizer and voice,
>PHILOMEL. In fact, it is one of *my* personal favorites of pieces of
>contemporary music of *any* kind! (Well maybe Harry Partch comes
>close...)
>
>It's *really* a great piece, almost a sci-fi effort. You must hear
>it. In fact, I would suggest you listen to *this* piece FIRST,
>absolutely, before anything else.
>
>Another great piece is his _Ensembles for Synthesizer_ created with
>the great old Columbia beast. I *finally* saw that sad old synth in
>person. Do you know that it had been *vandalized* and that's what
>finally put it to rest?? It's the size of half the room. My
>assumption is that today the same "firepower" could probably be found
>on somebody's *laptop.* [BTW, how many "laptops" really sit on
>people's *laps*!-- don't go there]
>
>And then, here is a real curiousity: some of Babbitt's recent great
>work has been for GUITAR! I kid you not. He has a solo guitar piece
>(played beautifully by New Yorker William Anderson) and a piece for
>TWO guitars.
>
>Again, the same principle applies: he's very much caught up in the
>SOUND of the guitar and in various "attack" effects in the solo and
>duo guitars, so the piece doesn't sound quite so "academic."
>
>So, PLEASE, Carl, pick and choose carefully. I would listen *only*
>to my above recommendations first.
>
>Then you can listen to the other 90% of his work, but I would
>recommend reading a good book at the same time... [did I really say
>that...?]
>
>best,
>
>Joe.
>
>P.S. And this *is* about tuning. All his electronic pieces have
>alternately tuned passages, or at least they *seem* to. Maybe it's
>the timbres...
>
>P.P.S. Babbitt is also a connoisseur of baseball and beer, as the
>recent interview with Frank Oteri of the American Music Center will
>attest:
>
>http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=32fp00
>
>[December 2001, New Music Box, if this doesn't come up right...]
>
>
>Oh, I also notice one can hear short excerpts on this page as well...
>although I don't know if I recommend that.
>
>Listen to the *full* PHILOMEL with a good set of speakers...:
>
>http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=32fp13
>
>
>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..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37216.html#37337

> Thanks, Joe, for the links and beta. I'll check it out! I'm
afraid my
> speakers won't do much for the real audio clips, but maybe I should
buy
> the cds...
>
> -Carl

***Actually, you "inspired" me, Carl, to purchase the _Philomel_ from
Amazon. Great piece.

Joe