FW: Response to Werntz at PNM

Dear all,

I am posting this to the list, as Paul thought it was a good idea. It may
duplicate other statements made by me.

It looks like I am going on about this. The answer is yes. After all, Julia
disagreed with Margo. And finding time to disagree with Margo is something
that is a bit unusual.

It seems that Julia is alone in her opinions of the JI/Microtonal scene.

Mark G

----------
> From: Mark Gould <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:04:37 +0100
> To: <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Response to Werntz at PNM
>
> Paul,
>
> as I said.
>
>>>
>>> Instead, I will get back to you with some minor explanations. Which as
>>> always, only a viewpoint.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
> so here goes:
>
> Paul,
>
> after much thinking about the Werntz article, and about the various
> statements made in it, I have come up with the following ideas:
>
> 1. The article represents a viewpoint derived from a teaching method of a
> single composer, and in that regard, Julia represents a student of the
> Maneri School.
>
> 2. As Julia makes clear, she is not convinced by any argument involving
> ratios, and instead merely goes for an equal tempered scale. Yes she chooses
> 72EDO but she does say that others can be used. My only gripe is that 72EDO
> is well known for its ability to approximate quite a number of JI ratios,
> and so it, a bit like 12EDO, has a tendency towards random consonance - if
> we make the Schoenbergian attitude to the 'emancipation of the ratio'. (I
> like that phrase - the emanciaption of the ratio)
>
> 3. Julia's style is borrowed from her teachers. This is no bad thing, but
> Julia has confused it with an overall technique.
>
> 4. The example given of the same interval in 12EDO being perceived
> differently, is simply the ascending harmonic minor scale, which contains an
> augmented second Aflat to B, which is the same size as the intervals G# to
> B. Julia states one is consonant, the other dissonant. My gripe with this is
> that in one (Aflat B) context, we hear it in relation to a C tonic, and in
> the other, to some other tonic (say E for E major), The two tones are the
> same interval, but given their tonal context, then the perception changes.
> However, that the interval is the same size has permitted composers
> (especially of piano music) to use the equivalences to intersect between
> tonalities. How else would the diminished 7th have gained its popularity in
> the tonal literature if the augmented second could not also be reinterpreted
> as a minor third?
>
> 5. I could hear the 12th tone alterations of pitch in the example she gave
> in her article. I heard the lowered tones as odd, not different tones,
> though. A 1/12th tone is only 17cents wide, near enough, and this is smaller
> than the diatonic commas (pythagorean, didymean, etc), and so the ear is
> likely to make the 1/12 tone commatic in nature - this interval represents,
> given the musical surroundings of a diatonic context, a qualitative change
> in the tone. If, on the other hand, the context involved smaller intervals,
> then the 1/12 would show up more readily. My gripe with Julia is that she
> assumes that the context can /only/ contain really small intervals. My
> feeling is that the context can contain large and small intervals, but that
> small intervals are as likely as the larger (which is obvioulsy not the case
> for 7-tone diatonic music).
>
> The example in her article was (upper case for rising, lower case for
> falling):
>
> A f G d E F- C bflat e d- E c- A, where - is flatten by 1/12 of a tone.
>
> 6. My comment about the clarity of hearing JI dissonance is that say 10/7 or
> similar, may be approximated to EDO intervals, but that the actual 10/7 is
> in a way a purer dissonance. I have tried many of these out on my zither
> (useful for such comparisons), and feel that the roughness of a small number
> JI dissonance is often more beautiful than its close EDO counterpart. It is
> still a dissonance, but one whose beating elicits a distinctly powerful
> 'tonal' sensation. 10/7 has a difference tone at 3/1, which is the
> 'dominant' of 1/1. It is this reinforcement (questions relating to
> difference tones aside), which I often hear, and which is missing when EDO
> equivalents are used. JI music does not banish dissonance, but it does
> banish ugliness, in a sense.
>
> After criticising the Werntz article I felt that I ought to make a personal
> statement about what I believe in. Some of it has already appeared in PNM,
> but, in essence, I believe that:
>
> within the infinite complexity of the universe of ratios, there are
> structures, or shapes, whose properties and nature give rise to a coherent
> use of the pitch materials they are formed from.
>
> I call this coherent use 'tonality'.
>
> And - this is my personal belief - that the structures that are proposed in
> my article, and hopefully in a larger work about to be undertaken, are
> examples of this 'tonality'.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37235

> >
> > After criticising the Werntz article I felt that I ought to make
a personal
> > statement about what I believe in. Some of it has already
appeared in PNM,
> > but, in essence, I believe that:
> >
> > within the infinite complexity of the universe of ratios, there
are
> > structures, or shapes, whose properties and nature give rise to a
coherent
> > use of the pitch materials they are formed from.
> >
> > I call this coherent use 'tonality'.
> >
> > And - this is my personal belief - that the structures that are
proposed in
> > my article, and hopefully in a larger work about to be
undertaken, are
> > examples of this 'tonality'.
> >
> > Mark
> >

***Hi Mark! Well, our Schoenberg expert, Joe Monzo, hasn't been
around of late, but I believe I'm correct in stating that Schoenberg,
even in his 12-tone pieces, felt he was operating in an "extended
tonal" universe, a *pan*-tonality. He never liked the
term "atonality" if I'm not mistaken.

best,

Joe Pehrson

hi Joe and Mark,

> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:04 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: FW: Response to Werntz at PNM
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37235.html#37235
>
> >
> > After criticising the Werntz article I felt that I ought
> > to make a personal statement about what I believe in.
> > Some of it has already appeared in PNM, but, in essence,
> > I believe that:
> >
> > within the infinite complexity of the universe of ratios,
> > there are structures, or shapes, whose properties and
> > nature give rise to a coherent use of the pitch materials
> > they are formed from.
> >
> > I call this coherent use 'tonality'.
> >
> > And - this is my personal belief - that the structures
> > that are proposed in my article, and hopefully in a larger
> > work about to be undertaken, are examples of this 'tonality'.
>
>
> ***Hi Mark! Well, our Schoenberg expert, Joe Monzo, hasn't
> been around of late, but I believe I'm correct in stating
> that Schoenberg, even in his 12-tone pieces, felt he was
> operating in an "extended tonal" universe, a *pan*-tonality.
> He never liked the term "atonality" if I'm not mistaken.

i've been around ... just been lurking instead of posting.
too involved in "real life" lately to spend so much time
responding to stuff here.

anyway, yes, as i've explained in detail on various of the
lists before, Schoenberg's new term for what he was doing
after finally "breaking free" of traditional tonality was
"pantonality". the newspaper critics who hated his new style
of music are the ones who labeled it "atonality", and that's
the term that stuck. Schoenberg hated it, mainly because
it's a logical oxymoron: music is made of "tones", so how
could there be music which is "atonal"?

i had a very detailed and very heated debate with brian mclaren
on the crazy_music list about Schoenberg, almost a year ago,
which went into a lot of misconceptions people have of his
(pre-serial) theories. here are the most relevant posts from me:

/crazy_music/topicId_279.html#279
/crazy_music/topicId_393.html#393
/crazy_music/topicId_509.html#509

(hmm... interesting to see that mclaren has deleted all
of his posts! they were filled with errors concerning
Schoenberg's theories anyway, as i point out and correct.)

i also did a lot of much more technical analysis of the
rational basis behind Schoenberg's c. 1911 theory, on the
tuning-math list, from Christmas 2001 thru January 2002.
check the archives. much of this material will be going into
my forthcoming book, "Searching for Schoenberg's Pantonality".

there's a taste of that here:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/harm/1911-1922.htm

and a specific comment to Mark:

> > From: Mark Gould <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> > Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:04:37 +0100
> > To: <paul@stretch-music.com>
> > Subject: Re: Response to Werntz at PNM
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 2. As Julia makes clear, she is not convinced by any
> > argument involving ratios, and instead merely goes for
> > an equal tempered scale. Yes she chooses 72EDO but she
> > does say that others can be used. My only gripe is that
> > 72EDO is well known for its ability to approximate quite
> > a number of JI ratios, and so it, a bit like 12EDO, has
> > a tendency towards random consonance - if we make the
> > Schoenbergian attitude to the 'emancipation of the ratio'.
> > (I like that phrase - the emanciaption of the ratio)

hmm ... i would be more careful here. i do agree that both
12edo and 72edo have "a tendency towards random consonance",
and that's a great way to put it!

but... rather than say that 72edo has an "ability to
approximate quite a number of JI ratios" (which *is*
nevertheless true), i would say that the primary reason
for its "tendency towards random consonance" is *not* because
72edo approximates so many JI ratios, but rather because its
*overall structure* is good at simulating all of the
lower-prime-limit *JI structures* up to the 11-limit.

paul erlich in particular wrote some good posts explaining
this to Joe Pehrson: the way that 1/12-tones simulate the
5-limit syntonic-comma, 1/6-tones simulate the 7-limit comma,
and 1/4-tones simulate the 11-limit "quartertone".

it's best to look at the overall structure of a temperament
to see how it compares to JI structures, rather than focus
on specific commonalities of pitches or intervals. if you
take a close look at those 5-limit and 7-limit commas, you'll
see that they're not very different in size:

81/80 = ~21&1/2 cents
64/63 = ~27&1/4 cents

... a difference of only ~5&3/4 cents; whereas the 11-limit
"quartertone" 33/32 = ~53&1/4 cents, which is almost twice
as large as the septimal comma and a little more than double
the size of the syntonic comma.

the corresponding "commas" in 72edo have quite different
relationships: the 1/6-tone ("pseudo 64/63") is obviously
twice as large as the 1/12-tone ("pseudo 81/80"); and the
1/4-tone ("pseudo 33/32") is 3 times the size of the 1/12-tone,
and 1&1/2 times the size of the 1/6-tone.

but despite these differences, the way the accidentals affect
the harmony still emulates the way they work in JI, so the
audible effect gives the impression of a close resemblance.

more more on this, see my two Dictionary entries:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/hewm.htm
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/72edo.aspx

(OK, Joe, you were successful in bringing me out of
seclusion! now ... back to my cave! ...)

-monz

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

> > 4. The example given of the same interval in 12EDO being perceived
> > differently, is simply the ascending harmonic minor scale, which
contains an
> > augmented second Aflat to B, which is the same size as the
intervals G# to
> > B. Julia states one is consonant, the other dissonant. My gripe
with this is
> > that in one (Aflat B) context, we hear it in relation to a C
tonic, and in
> > the other, to some other tonic (say E for E major), The two tones
are the
> > same interval, but given their tonal context, then the perception
changes.
> > However, that the interval is the same size has permitted
composers
> > (especially of piano music) to use the equivalences to intersect
between
> > tonalities. How else would the diminished 7th have gained its
popularity in
> > the tonal literature if the augmented second could not also be
reinterpreted
> > as a minor third?

absolutely right, but i don't see how that invalidates werntz's point.

> > 6. My comment about the clarity of hearing JI dissonance is that
say 10/7 or
> > similar, may be approximated to EDO intervals, but that the
actual 10/7 is
> > in a way a purer dissonance.

ah yes -- i'm glad to hear you say this. i was afraid you were going
to refer to some ridiculously complex ratios like 57344:32805
as "purer dissonances", as some ji advocates have done, and then i'd
have to argue with you :)

hi monz, really good to see you posting here!

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

> hmm ... i would be more careful here. i do agree that both
> 12edo and 72edo have "a tendency towards random consonance",
> and that's a great way to put it!
>
> but... rather than say that 72edo has an "ability to
> approximate quite a number of JI ratios" (which *is*
> nevertheless true), i would say that the primary reason
> for its "tendency towards random consonance" is *not* because
> 72edo approximates so many JI ratios, but rather because its
> *overall structure* is good at simulating all of the
> lower-prime-limit *JI structures* up to the 11-limit.

i don't get the distinction you're trying to make here.

> paul erlich in particular wrote some good posts explaining
> this to Joe Pehrson: the way that 1/12-tones simulate the
> 5-limit syntonic-comma, 1/6-tones simulate the 7-limit comma,
> and 1/4-tones simulate the 11-limit "quartertone".

that could matter depending on how a composer chooses to compose. i
don't see what this brings to the distinction you're trying to make
above.

> it's best to look at the overall structure of a temperament
> to see how it compares to JI structures, rather than focus
> on specific commonalities of pitches or intervals.

i don't know what you mean by 'JI structures', but based on the
second clause, i have to say i completely disagree. the propensity of
a temperament for "random consononance" is indeed determined by how
well it approximates the consonant intervals or simple ji ratios!

> if you
> take a close look at those 5-limit and 7-limit commas, you'll
> see that they're not very different in size:
>
> 81/80 = ~21&1/2 cents
> 64/63 = ~27&1/4 cents

> ... a difference of only ~5&3/4 cents; whereas the 11-limit
> "quartertone" 33/32 = ~53&1/4 cents, which is almost twice
> as large as the septimal comma and a little more than double
> the size of the syntonic comma.
>
>
> the corresponding "commas" in 72edo have quite different
> relationships: the 1/6-tone ("pseudo 64/63") is obviously
> twice as large as the 1/12-tone ("pseudo 81/80"); and the
> 1/4-tone ("pseudo 33/32") is 3 times the size of the 1/12-tone,
> and 1&1/2 times the size of the 1/6-tone.
>
> but despite these differences, the way the accidentals affect
> the harmony still emulates the way they work in JI, so the
> audible effect gives the impression of a close resemblance.

this is extremely roundabout, and didn't end up saying anything about
the issue. every temperament has its own way of expressing these
pseudo-commas, so what? (and don't forget that the pythagorean comma
*vanishes* in 72-equal, etc.) in the first graph of your et page, the
lines connecting various equal temperament represent the vanishing
commas that the temperaments have in common. but each temperament's
propensity for random consonance is only a function of how close it
is to the center of the graph, and of course, how many notes it has.

in this case, all you have to do is notice how well 72-equal
approximates the consonant intervals, and you're done. see, for
example, this chart:

/tuning/files/perlich/secor.gif

or equivalently, your own 72-equal chart at
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/ETgraphs.htm#72et

there, all the ratios within the 11-odd-limit (all of partch's 29
consonant intervals within the octave) are compared with 72-equal,
and you can see that they're all really close -- the maximum error is
4 cents. that's it! who cares what commas are mapped to what
intervals? (of course, that matters a lot for composition, scale
construction, etc. -- but *not* for an evaluation of consonance or
the capacity for random consonance).

hope you'll peek out of your cave more often,
paul

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

> It looks like I am going on about this. The answer is yes. After
all, Julia
> disagreed with Margo. And finding time to disagree with Margo is
something
> that is a bit unusual.

disagreed with margo about what? come on!

> It seems that Julia is alone in her opinions of the JI/Microtonal
>scene.

these kinds of marginalizing tactics should be beneath us here on
this list. we should be able to discuss the issues on their own
merits, like adults.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > It seems that Julia is alone in her opinions of the JI/Microtonal
> >scene.
>
> these kinds of marginalizing tactics should be beneath us here on
> this list. we should be able to discuss the issues on their own
> merits, like adults.

And, having gone through the PNM article once already, those 'marginalizing tactics' are not, certainly in tone, any different than many of the statements Ms. Werntz makes in her article.

And while I have often called for civility (and tried to do it in a non-condescending manner), we are going to be looking at some very personal, artistic decisions that are being discussed. These areas are not data, or theorems, or factoids to be proved or disproved. I expect people to argue - on both sides - with both head *and* heart. A fair number of points Ms. Werntz puts forward are not merely the 0/1 of factual content, but opinion and preference.

I'm assuming, Paul, that you've read the article, yes?

Cheers,
Jon

I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars, and it
would be impossible for me to be objective and impartial anyway, as
the whole deal involves someone I know who was very helpful and kind
to me personally (Joe Maneri).

But I will say this as regards JI "banishing the ugliness" and so
forth and so on... it's great ad copy, and it's even true enough to a
point... unfortunately that point is right about where tuning stops
and music begins... so unless your music is specifically designed to
exploit this, then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get over...
it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!

When I coined the term EDO I did so because I was trying to bring some
distance and neutrality to ETs--I was trying to strip away some the
negative connotations of tempering.

As far as I was concerned, each and every tuning remakes itself anew
every time someone takes it to music. I had learned from Ives example
early on that all moving parts were fair game. It's what you did with
them that matters... how you put them at the service of your ideas and
inspiration.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
To: "tuning list" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:21 PM
Subject: [tuning] FW: Response to Werntz at PNM

> Dear all,
>
> I am posting this to the list, as Paul thought it was a good idea.
It may
> duplicate other statements made by me.
>
> It looks like I am going on about this. The answer is yes. After
all, Julia
> disagreed with Margo. And finding time to disagree with Margo is
something
> that is a bit unusual.
>
> It seems that Julia is alone in her opinions of the JI/Microtonal
scene.
>
> Mark G
>
> ----------
> > From: Mark Gould <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> > Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 09:04:37 +0100
> > To: <paul@stretch-music.com>
> > Subject: Re: Response to Werntz at PNM
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > as I said.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Instead, I will get back to you with some minor explanations.
Which as
> >>> always, only a viewpoint.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
> > so here goes:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > after much thinking about the Werntz article, and about the
various
> > statements made in it, I have come up with the following ideas:
> >
> > 1. The article represents a viewpoint derived from a teaching
method of a
> > single composer, and in that regard, Julia represents a student of
the
> > Maneri School.
> >
> > 2. As Julia makes clear, she is not convinced by any argument
involving
> > ratios, and instead merely goes for an equal tempered scale. Yes
she chooses
> > 72EDO but she does say that others can be used. My only gripe is
that 72EDO
> > is well known for its ability to approximate quite a number of JI
ratios,
> > and so it, a bit like 12EDO, has a tendency towards random
consonance - if
> > we make the Schoenbergian attitude to the 'emancipation of the
ratio'. (I
> > like that phrase - the emanciaption of the ratio)
> >
> > 3. Julia's style is borrowed from her teachers. This is no bad
thing, but
> > Julia has confused it with an overall technique.
> >
> > 4. The example given of the same interval in 12EDO being perceived
> > differently, is simply the ascending harmonic minor scale, which
contains an
> > augmented second Aflat to B, which is the same size as the
intervals G# to
> > B. Julia states one is consonant, the other dissonant. My gripe
with this is
> > that in one (Aflat B) context, we hear it in relation to a C
tonic, and in
> > the other, to some other tonic (say E for E major), The two tones
are the
> > same interval, but given their tonal context, then the perception
changes.
> > However, that the interval is the same size has permitted
composers
> > (especially of piano music) to use the equivalences to intersect
between
> > tonalities. How else would the diminished 7th have gained its
popularity in
> > the tonal literature if the augmented second could not also be
reinterpreted
> > as a minor third?
> >
> > 5. I could hear the 12th tone alterations of pitch in the example
she gave
> > in her article. I heard the lowered tones as odd, not different
tones,
> > though. A 1/12th tone is only 17cents wide, near enough, and this
is smaller
> > than the diatonic commas (pythagorean, didymean, etc), and so the
ear is
> > likely to make the 1/12 tone commatic in nature - this interval
represents,
> > given the musical surroundings of a diatonic context, a
qualitative change
> > in the tone. If, on the other hand, the context involved smaller
intervals,
> > then the 1/12 would show up more readily. My gripe with Julia is
that she
> > assumes that the context can /only/ contain really small
intervals. My
> > feeling is that the context can contain large and small intervals,
but that
> > small intervals are as likely as the larger (which is obvioulsy
not the case
> > for 7-tone diatonic music).
> >
> > The example in her article was (upper case for rising, lower case
for
> > falling):
> >
> > A f G d E F- C bflat e d- E c- A, where - is flatten by 1/12 of a
tone.
> >
> > 6. My comment about the clarity of hearing JI dissonance is that
say 10/7 or
> > similar, may be approximated to EDO intervals, but that the actual
10/7 is
> > in a way a purer dissonance. I have tried many of these out on my
zither
> > (useful for such comparisons), and feel that the roughness of a
small number
> > JI dissonance is often more beautiful than its close EDO
counterpart. It is
> > still a dissonance, but one whose beating elicits a distinctly
powerful
> > 'tonal' sensation. 10/7 has a difference tone at 3/1, which is the
> > 'dominant' of 1/1. It is this reinforcement (questions relating to
> > difference tones aside), which I often hear, and which is missing
when EDO
> > equivalents are used. JI music does not banish dissonance, but it
does
> > banish ugliness, in a sense.
> >
> > After criticising the Werntz article I felt that I ought to make a
personal
> > statement about what I believe in. Some of it has already appeared
in PNM,
> > but, in essence, I believe that:
> >
> > within the infinite complexity of the universe of ratios, there
are
> > structures, or shapes, whose properties and nature give rise to a
coherent
> > use of the pitch materials they are formed from.
> >
> > I call this coherent use 'tonality'.
> >
> > And - this is my personal belief - that the structures that are
proposed in
> > my article, and hopefully in a larger work about to be undertaken,
are
> > examples of this 'tonality'.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
> front doors, drawers, briefcases,
> padlocks, and more. On sale now!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/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/
>
>

Dan,

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars

Boy, same here. It has gotten beyond tiresome.

> and it would be impossible for me to be objective and impartial
> anyway, as the whole deal involves someone I know who was very
> helpful and kind to me personally (Joe Maneri).

Guess who fills in my particular parentheses? :)

> it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!

Empirical evidence would suggest, in some cases, that indeed the tuning is more important than the 'music'.

> As far as I was concerned, each and every tuning remakes itself
> anew every time someone takes it to music. It's what you did with
> them that matters... how you put them at the service of your
> ideas and inspiration.

Too bad more people aren't sharing that same enlightened stance!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37266

> I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars, and it
> would be impossible for me to be objective and impartial anyway, as
> the whole deal involves someone I know who was very helpful and kind
> to me personally (Joe Maneri).
>
> But I will say this as regards JI "banishing the ugliness" and so
> forth and so on... it's great ad copy, and it's even true enough to
a
> point... unfortunately that point is right about where tuning stops
> and music begins... so unless your music is specifically designed to
> exploit this, then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
> overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get
over...
> it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!
>

***Hi Dan!

Thanks for the interesting commentary and, in fact, I really
appreciate that Julia is bring up all this. I *still* don't have the
PNM article, although I am making plans to get it. (Bravo to Jon
Szanto who managed, at some sacrifice, to get the sucker right
away...)

In any case, just describing a few things before reading the
article: I think one of the very exciting things about working in
the quasi just Blackjack scale is the sense of strange microtonal
step and dissonance that, then, contrasts with the pure sonorities.
*That* I find fascinating, that sense of contrast.

I am not certain that Julie's approach really directs itself to those
kinds of contrasts, which I really like...

Jon Szanto is right here: there are more "artistic" decisions than
anything else, so we should just be discussing the *positive*
observations we have with any given tuning, rather than setting up
some kind of *polemics.*

Hopefully, we can all keep the discussion on that plane, as I still
try to get a copy of PNM without spending $40.

best,

JP

In-Reply-To: <adm9v7+257p@eGroups.com>
Dan:
> > I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars

Jon:
> Boy, same here. It has gotten beyond tiresome.

You know what, I'm getting fairly tired of the theory vs practice holy
wars as well.

> > it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!
>
> Empirical evidence would suggest, in some cases, that indeed the tuning
> is more important than the 'music'.

Now what could that mean? There is empirical evidence that discussion on
this forum tends to be about tuning. But as it's called "tuning" that's
hardly surprising.

> > As far as I was concerned, each and every tuning remakes itself
> > anew every time someone takes it to music. It's what you did with
> > them that matters... how you put them at the service of your
> > ideas and inspiration.
>
> Too bad more people aren't sharing that same enlightened stance!

I thought everybody round here shared it. What do you mean?

Graham

Graham,

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> You know what, I'm getting fairly tired of the theory vs practice
> holy wars as well.

Hmm. I was thinking more of the "my tuning is better than your tuning", as opposed to theory v. practice, but all the holy wars have pretty much been played out.

> There is empirical evidence that discussion on this forum tends
> to be about tuning. But as it's called "tuning" that's
> hardly surprising.

I wasn't speaking about the forum specifically; this community has made some small steps towards a more holistic approach.

> I thought everybody round here shared it. What do you mean?

I was speaking directly to the attitude shared in the paper, which seems quite contrary to what Ms. Werntz claimed the other day. The tuning fora have gotten better, Graham, but I wasn't speaking about them (sorry if it was unclear).

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Thanks for the interesting commentary and, in fact, I really
> appreciate that Julia is bring up all this. I *still* don't have the
> PNM article, although I am making plans to get it. (Bravo to Jon
> Szanto who managed, at some sacrifice, to get the sucker right
> away...)

I made the grueling, two-block trek to the SJSU library only to find the current issue isn't available yet. :(

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

> I was speaking directly to the attitude shared in the paper, which seems quite contrary to what Ms. Werntz claimed the other day. The tuning fora have gotten better, Graham, but I wasn't speaking about them (sorry if it was unclear).

It helps when putting the knock on someone to give a clue who that someone is.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> (sorry if it was unclear).
>
> It helps when putting the knock on someone to give a clue who that someone is.

Ah, yes, I believe I apologized for the cluelessness. Also, Gene, please note about the PNM issue: when I went to SDSU I almost turned back, as I asked for the most recent issue in stock, and the librarian assumed Summer 2002.

The issue is Summer 2001. What is weird about this? Well, the library only received the issue in May. Of 2002. And when I went to the shelve to see if, indeed, the article was in that particular issue (it was), I noted that the Winter 2000 issue, just previous, was indeed received in winter (such as it is in SoCal) of 2001.

Maybe "Perspectives of Year-Old Music"? :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37276

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > (sorry if it was unclear).
> >
> > It helps when putting the knock on someone to give a clue who
that someone is.
>
> Ah, yes, I believe I apologized for the cluelessness. Also, Gene,
please note about the PNM issue: when I went to SDSU I almost turned
back, as I asked for the most recent issue in stock, and the
librarian assumed Summer 2002.
>
> The issue is Summer 2001. What is weird about this? Well, the
library only received the issue in May. Of 2002. And when I went to
the shelve to see if, indeed, the article was in that particular
issue (it was), I noted that the Winter 2000 issue, just previous,
was indeed received in winter (such as it is in SoCal) of 2001.
>
> Maybe "Perspectives of Year-Old Music"? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***And, frankly, I find it rather annoying that one can't *backorder*
ONE issue that came out a *YEAR* ago rather than having to take a
full year $40 subscription for *three* issues that I probably
wouldn't find time to read...

JP

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

> The issue is Summer 2001. What is weird about this? Well, the library only received the issue in May. Of 2002.

What's weirder is that San Jose doesn't have it *yet*, they are still stuck back in Winter, 2000.

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

> ***And, frankly, I find it rather annoying that one can't *backorder*
> ONE issue that came out a *YEAR* ago rather than having to take a
> full year $40 subscription for *three* issues that I probably
> wouldn't find time to read...

It's not that massive an undertaking; I read some of hiding out from the heat in the library yesterday. One fellow was writing about transformations obtained by applying a function to either pitch, duration, or both--an idea he was quite sure was his own new and unique one, but it was good to see people thinking along these lines in print.

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37287

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***And, frankly, I find it rather annoying that one can't
*backorder*
> > ONE issue that came out a *YEAR* ago rather than having to take a
> > full year $40 subscription for *three* issues that I probably
> > wouldn't find time to read...
>
> It's not that massive an undertaking; I read some of hiding out
from the heat in the library yesterday. One fellow was writing about
transformations obtained by applying a function to either pitch,
duration, or both--an idea he was quite sure was his own new and
unique one, but it was good to see people thinking along these lines
in print.

***Oh yes! I know they can sometimes be interesting... I was a
subscriber once...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Oh yes! I know they can sometimes be interesting... I was a
> subscriber once...

Please note that in the issue in question, list contributor Bill Sethares has an article "Kembangan in the Music of Lou Harrison", a very well-written examination of the musical constructs common to both Javanese Gamelan and some of LH's compositions.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Please note that in the issue in question, list contributor Bill Sethares has an article "Kembangan in the Music of Lou Harrison", a very well-written examination of the musical constructs common to both Javanese Gamelan and some of LH's compositions.
>
Right first name, Jon, but the article's mine. Thanks for the plug,
though!

Bill Alves

--- In tuning@y..., "bill_alves" <ALVES@O...> wrote:
> Right first name, Jon, but the article's mine. Thanks for the plug,
> though!

OH MAN! Geez, Bill, I have no idea how I did that! I *thought* I remember Sethares posting a note that started all of this, but maybe it was you! In any event, I was sitting there, reading the article, and thinking "Gee, Bill Alves has been involved in all of this to a high degree as well... how odd."

I am, apparantly, *seriously* overworked/stressed...

Humble apologies, but I enjoyed it (and dang it, I just had to turn down the opportunity to travel to Bali/Java next month... <frown>)

Your inept correspondent,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > It seems that Julia is alone in her opinions of the
JI/Microtonal
> > >scene.
> >
> > these kinds of marginalizing tactics should be beneath us here on
> > this list. we should be able to discuss the issues on their own
> > merits, like adults.
>
> And, having gone through the PNM article once already,
>those 'marginalizing tactics' are not, certainly in tone, any
>different than many of the statements Ms. Werntz makes in her
>article.

no different than using margo's name to falsely erect a division
between participants?

anyhow,

let us try to raise the bar by example, rather than stooping to the
lowest common denominator.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars, and it
> would be impossible for me to be objective and impartial anyway, as
> the whole deal involves someone I know who was very helpful and kind
> to me personally (Joe Maneri).
>
> But I will say this as regards JI "banishing the ugliness" and so
> forth and so on... it's great ad copy, and it's even true enough to
a
> point... unfortunately that point is right about where tuning stops
> and music begins...

well, dan, holy war or no, this *is* eminently on-topic, based on my
reading of the 24-page summary on the werntz disseration page.

what your last clause above suggests, it seems, is that musicians and
theorists who advocate and delve deeply into the construction of just
intonation and allied tuning systems, are myopically focusing on the
interactions and effects observed when *preparing* an instrument, or
set of pitches on a synthesizer, without looking any further into the
actual *musical* effects that will be relevant in the process of
*composition* . . . that a more useful point of view for the musician
would be the latter, more result-oriented one . . .

> As far as I was concerned, each and every tuning remakes itself anew
> every time someone takes it to music. I had learned from Ives
example
> early on that all moving parts were fair game. It's what you did
with
> them that matters... how you put them at the service of your ideas
and
> inspiration.

now add this truism (as i understand it) that pretty much any tuning
system, placed in front of a musician with enough sensitivity,
creative urge, and ability to plan and execute a complete artistic
statement, will have plenty to offer, both in terms of pliability to
the musician's will and in terms of inspiration of his or her
faculties . . .

finally toss in the point of view (of which even ji-leaners such as
joseph and myself, who might dissent from the points above, are fond)
that presenting performers or students with a potentially endless
morass of ever more complex ratios or cents deviations to consider
will pose greater difficulties than working within an equally-
tempered system, particularly one which includes the already-
ingrained 12-equal system within it and expresses all other pitches
in terms of a small set of easily-learned deviations therefrom . . .

and aren't you left with pretty much the same tack that werntz takes
in her dissertation?

> so unless your music is specifically designed to
> exploit this, then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
> overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get
over...
> it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!

now if this doesn't express werntz' point of view perfectly, i don't
know what does!

> then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
> overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get
>over...

ditto. so if people on this list are going to view your points of
view with respect and tolerance (as well they should), why shouldn't
werntz be afforded the same treatment??

(but)

my own point of view on this: "unfortunately that point is right
about where tuning stops and music begins..." -- is true when "music"
is dan stearns music or julia werntz music, but not necessarily when
it's bob wendell music or david hykes music or david beardsley music
or lamonte young music . . . and "so unless your music is
specifically designed to exploit this" itself portends a myopic,
almost solipsistic view of the creative process of ji- and near-ji-
immersed artists -- it refuses to even consider the possibility that
some or all of these artists were following their own truest
impulses, and with a view toward the end musical result and only the
end musical result, found that they *needed* to use just intonation
or something very similar -- rather than the causation proceeding in
the opposite direction, the tuning system decided on for a priori
extramusical or "merely tuning" reasons and the music being crafted
*around* the particular effects and limitations of the tuning system
(which is what "so unless your music is specifically designed to
exploit this" suggests) . . .

now it is certainly true that on the other side of the issue, there
have been more than a few who have advocated just intonation as
the "one true tuning" and questioned the artistic motives of those
creating music that does not conform to some presumed
overarching "just intonation philosophy" . . .

so, what it seems to me both the stearns/werntz camp, and the
unconditional "just intonation is the best intonation" camp, need to
appreciate, is that no matter how little musical enjoyment or
fulfillment or inspiration or enlightenment or entertainment or
feeling one derives from listening to the music of the other camp,
there is actually a *living breathing intelligent human being* behind
that music, who has had such a keen ear and profound creative spark
within her or him that she or he has been willing to eschew the
tuning system of her or his own culture and all the benefits that
conformity to it conveys, and dedicated years, if not a lifetime, to
the pursuit of art for its own sake and for the benefits it extends
to the human spirit.

it's all too easy to ascribe universal significance to the result of
profound aesthetic experimentation and results on the part of one's
teachers or mentors or role models and the resulting profound
aesthetic experiences and lessons and inspiration one may have
derived from them. it's also too easy to observe seemingly
contradictory points of view or methods in others and to therefore
desire to find a way to rationalize the flaws in reasoning or
artistic process that led those others to their conclusions.

this is what werntz does, and what i've seen others on the both sides
of the just intonation issue do, both here on this list and elsewhere.

******* philosophical digression begins here *******

unfortunately this mentality, with its seeming logical validity and
(forgive me) amenability to the format of an academic dissertation,
while perfectly appropriate and helpful in *truly universal* matters
such as mathematics, is one that i think is perenially inappropriate
and unhelpful in the arts. the music of all regions and all
historical periods does not inevitably flow toward (or err when it
retreats against) an ever truer oneness with the eternal music of the
spheres, nor toward an increasing liberation of the totality of sonic
possibilities via the abolishment of hierarchical structuring
relationships or stylistic constraints.

nor are these same (well, exactly analogous) two alternatives
appropriate or helpful views of human society in general, let alone
any aesthetic or spiritual matters in particular. in the
sociopolitical realm, both have been espoused by prominent and
influential philosophers throughout the world and throughout history -
- though the former can be associated roughly with the Age of Reason
and "Enlightened Despotism", and the latter with some particularly
trendy (and largely french) philosophers of the 20th century. to gain
an appreciation for why neither paradigm has merit as an evolutionary
theory, neither for describing why things have happened as they have,
nor for positing how things should be, let me refer the interested
reader to the philosopher Ken Wilber and his books such as _Sex,
Ecology, Spirituality_ (dave keenan recommends _A Brief History of
Everything_ as a more digestable alternative).

i don't want to take up much more space here, so let me simply
suggest that neither of the alternatives sketched above is a viable
philosophy of art, since neither permits the combination of meaning
and freedom that is essential for art to exist as a living cultural
entity. ultimately we are richer for having had both philosophies
expressed and followed through to their logical conclusion, but i
feel that both have outlived their usefulness and the time is ripe
for a richer and deeper understanding.

******* philosophical digression ends here *******

finally, i'd have to agree with one point that mark gould seems to
have made in response to werntz. that one, in the context of a
dissertation on microtonality, should be _more_ inclusive of
alternative methods and approaches than one is in one's own art. one
may have no understanding of the musical reasons for such methods and
no appreciation for the results acheived through them. but if one is
to presume to say something about "microtonality" rather than
simply "my music", surely one can do better than to selectively
cobble together an incoherent assortment of extreme tenets associated
with an alternative approach, in order to justify a wholesale
dismissal of said approach, thus bringing one's own approach into
sharper focus and giving it an air of inevitability, as the only
possibility still standing (as if there were no "middle path"
possible -- many of you will catch on to the additional implications
i hint at with this phrase ;) ).

engaging in some "pure speculation", however, i suspect that this
presentation may be an inevitable expression of the predicament a
doctoral composition student finds oneself in when required to engage
in a "thesis defense". it isn't enough for one's music to speak for
itself -- one must "defend" it intellectually. and, the more
adventurous and unusual such music may be, perhaps the greater
becomes the urge to "justify" it intellectually, even going so far as
to show how the composer might reasonably consider it to be the "one
true path" worthty of devoting one's career to, and therefore
meriting an academic seal of approval. wild speculation, i admit, and
perhaps very insulting to julia werntz. i apologize.

but unless julia comes back into the fray, and helps us reconcile
what many of us are seemingly gleaning from her published writings
with the views she expressed in her single post to this forum, this
speculation is the best i can manage, and probably as far as i'm
willing to go on this particular topic (responding to werntz, that
is). from my experience on this list, it's likely that i've bred more
misunderstanding than understanding here, and as i write fear is
beginning to descend into my heart. perhaps julia is all too aware
that that is often the way of this list, and feels the same
trepidation, preventing her from making any further statements here.

ah well, let me conclude by wishing julia a long and successful
career composing microtonal music, and expressing my joy that another
musician has taken, with full seriousness, the bold step outside the
comfortable world of 12-tone equal temperament!

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37339

Thanks, Paul, for your interesting post which I thought was very well-
written. (I thought you were the guy who was supposedly not so great
with "words!')

I vote with you for *inclusiveness* for microtonality, on this list
and elsewhere! And, yes, of course the arts are *speculative* so
there isn't a "one true way" as one might try to envision in the
sciences...

>
> unfortunately this mentality, with its seeming logical validity and
> (forgive me) amenability to the format of an academic dissertation,
> while perfectly appropriate and helpful in *truly universal*
matters
> such as mathematics, is one that i think is perenially
inappropriate
> and unhelpful in the arts. the music of all regions and all
> historical periods does not inevitably flow toward (or err when it
> retreats against) an ever truer oneness with the eternal music of
the
> spheres, nor toward an increasing liberation of the totality of
sonic
> possibilities via the abolishment of hierarchical structuring
> relationships or stylistic constraints.
>

***Actually, I was hesitating mentioning this, but it seems
conceivable that certain doctoral dissertations would *intentionally*
create divisions in order to make something to write about.

In my *personal* opinion, such a dissertation is *lightyears*
inferior to such a fine work as Joel Mandelbaum's classic one, where
he brings just about *every* conceivable tuning system into play and
rather than create divisions, *explores* the fundamental material we
are working with.

It's no wonder people are *still* reading that...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37235.html#37339
>
> Thanks, Paul, for your interesting post which I thought was very
well-
> written. (I thought you were the guy who was supposedly not so
great
> with "words!')

well, i'm very inconsistent . . . it seems to depend quite a bit on
my brain chemistry at any given moment, which tends to fluctuate a
lot with little ability to consciously control it . . . same goes for
my guitar playing . . .
>
> ***Actually, I was hesitating mentioning this, but it seems
> conceivable that certain doctoral dissertations would
*intentionally*
> create divisions in order to make something to write about.
>
> In my *personal* opinion, such a dissertation is *lightyears*
> inferior to such a fine work as Joel Mandelbaum's classic one,
where
> he brings just about *every* conceivable tuning system into play
and
> rather than create divisions, *explores* the fundamental material
we
> are working with.

well, while we're at it, it seems that mandelbaum draws some
divisions without reasoning entirely consistently on both sides of
them . . . for example, he does make a big deal about the "comma
problem" in just intonation, while he describes 53-tone equal
temperament very positively, without (as far as i could tell) even
mentioning that 53-tone equal temperament is subject to *exactly the
same* comma problems as just intonation . . . but i suspect this was
more an oversight on mandelbaum's part than a reflection of a
theoretical bias or attempt at divisiveness . . . recall that
mandelbaum's actual compositions were all in 19-equal and 31-equal,
which are meantone tunings and therefore don't suffer from the
dreaded "comma problem" . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37346

> well, while we're at it, it seems that mandelbaum draws some
> divisions without reasoning entirely consistently on both sides of
> them . . . for example, he does make a big deal about the "comma
> problem" in just intonation, while he describes 53-tone equal
> temperament very positively, without (as far as i could tell) even
> mentioning that 53-tone equal temperament is subject to *exactly
the
> same* comma problems as just intonation . . . but i suspect this
was
> more an oversight on mandelbaum's part than a reflection of a
> theoretical bias or attempt at divisiveness . . . recall that
> mandelbaum's actual compositions were all in 19-equal and 31-equal,
> which are meantone tunings and therefore don't suffer from the
> dreaded "comma problem" . . .

***Hi Paul.

I've decided I need to know some more about this. Now, *my*
understanding of meantones was directed toward the just sonorities
that they emulated. With 19, it's the MINOR third that's just,
right? And 31 does *both??* [I'm forgetting some of this
already... :( ]

So, the question is, what does that have to do with *modulation??*
Oh... I guess you just mean that these two temperaments have the
*same* possibility of modulation as *any* ET, only because of the
just sonorities you get the "best of both worlds..."

Am I on the right track here??

Tx

Joseph

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the nice post. Let me try to briefly clarify some of my own
feelings with the caveat that I, like most people I'd imagine,
exaggerate in the direction of my own interests.

When I first started getting interested in microtonality it was way
before I had a computer, and one of the only contemporary sources of
info that I had access to was David Doty's 1/1. Unfortunately, the JIN
slant not only bugged me, it didn't line up with my own experiences
either.

It's not that I wasn't interested in JI, that wasn't the case then and
it isn't the case now. It's just that I was interested in
microtonality in the broadest possible sense, and the JIN by its very
name obviously was not. No crime there of course, but when someone
like Partch said essentially the same stuff it was one thing--part and
parcel of an extraordinary man's extraordinary accomplishments (and I
understood it as such as Partch's art was so obviously about more than
tuning). Yet when I'd hear the same stuff coming from others, it
seemed shrill and political... it lacked the clout that Partch carried
by way of the totality of his accomplishments... at least that's how
it struck me.

The simple fact is that the JIN was a bad fit for me, and others like
myself who were looking for a more open-ended and unbiased view of
alternatives to 12-tet. For others I'm sure it was great, and I always
respected Doty's professionalism and his commitment to both quality
control and what it was that interested him--the just way or the
highway!

Around this same time Brian McLaren sent me his, A Brief History Of
Microtonality In The Twentieth Century, and this was much closer to
what I was looking for. I didn't even need to hear any music by the
endless parade of microtonalists and approaches he mentioned... just
the notion that this vast "invisible college" of varied experimenters
and dreamers were at work both now and across history on all these
many different approaches was all my imagination needed--I knew what I
wanted to do, and that was it!

I'm big on interface, and the tools I have at my disposal always play
a part in what I do... I'm not really much of one for platonic truths.
But I'm even bigger on surprising myself... on making music that keeps
my attention and fills me up the way I want... and I learned early on
that tuning matters and it doesn't matter. Yes, different tunings
allowed me to do certain things, but not nearly to the extent that
most everyone I was familiar with seemed to believe.

For some, periodicity buzz is like a drug, but on the whole it doesn't
call out to me any more than a host of other things. What I'm
interested in creating is little multidimensional mobiles peopled by a
lot of action... and by way of analogy, I personally prefer the
chaotic density of nature over the clinical elan of geometrical
edifices and clever visual illusions.

In short, my problems with the JI crowd was mostly one of a bad
fit--of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, the rhetoric
often rubbed me the wrong way too, but I'm over it. I don't need to
belittle others aspirations and natural tendencies to believe in my
own... and if I respect someone's art I can turn my cheek from, and
try to better understand, almost anything.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:35 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: FW: Response to Werntz at PNM (long and broad
but to the point)

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > I don't feel the old desire I used to for tuning holy wars, and it
> > would be impossible for me to be objective and impartial anyway,
as
> > the whole deal involves someone I know who was very helpful and
kind
> > to me personally (Joe Maneri).
> >
> > But I will say this as regards JI "banishing the ugliness" and so
> > forth and so on... it's great ad copy, and it's even true enough
to
> a
> > point... unfortunately that point is right about where tuning
stops
> > and music begins...
>
> well, dan, holy war or no, this *is* eminently on-topic, based on my
> reading of the 24-page summary on the werntz disseration page.
>
> what your last clause above suggests, it seems, is that musicians
and
> theorists who advocate and delve deeply into the construction of
just
> intonation and allied tuning systems, are myopically focusing on the
> interactions and effects observed when *preparing* an instrument, or
> set of pitches on a synthesizer, without looking any further into
the
> actual *musical* effects that will be relevant in the process of
> *composition* . . . that a more useful point of view for the
musician
> would be the latter, more result-oriented one . . .
>
> > As far as I was concerned, each and every tuning remakes itself
anew
> > every time someone takes it to music. I had learned from Ives
> example
> > early on that all moving parts were fair game. It's what you did
> with
> > them that matters... how you put them at the service of your ideas
> and
> > inspiration.
>
> now add this truism (as i understand it) that pretty much any tuning
> system, placed in front of a musician with enough sensitivity,
> creative urge, and ability to plan and execute a complete artistic
> statement, will have plenty to offer, both in terms of pliability to
> the musician's will and in terms of inspiration of his or her
> faculties . . .
>
> finally toss in the point of view (of which even ji-leaners such as
> joseph and myself, who might dissent from the points above, are
fond)
> that presenting performers or students with a potentially endless
> morass of ever more complex ratios or cents deviations to consider
> will pose greater difficulties than working within an equally-
> tempered system, particularly one which includes the already-
> ingrained 12-equal system within it and expresses all other pitches
> in terms of a small set of easily-learned deviations therefrom . . .
>
> and aren't you left with pretty much the same tack that werntz takes
> in her dissertation?
>
> > so unless your music is specifically designed to
> > exploit this, then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
> > overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get
> over...
> > it's as if tuning mattered more than the music!
>
> now if this doesn't express werntz' point of view perfectly, i don't
> know what does!
>
> > then it's my opinion that it's an irrelevant and
> > overblown bit of information that's all too easy to never get
> >over...
>
> ditto. so if people on this list are going to view your points of
> view with respect and tolerance (as well they should), why shouldn't
> werntz be afforded the same treatment??
>
> (but)
>
> my own point of view on this: "unfortunately that point is right
> about where tuning stops and music begins..." -- is true when
"music"
> is dan stearns music or julia werntz music, but not necessarily when
> it's bob wendell music or david hykes music or david beardsley music
> or lamonte young music . . . and "so unless your music is
> specifically designed to exploit this" itself portends a myopic,
> almost solipsistic view of the creative process of ji- and near-ji-
> immersed artists -- it refuses to even consider the possibility that
> some or all of these artists were following their own truest
> impulses, and with a view toward the end musical result and only the
> end musical result, found that they *needed* to use just intonation
> or something very similar -- rather than the causation proceeding in
> the opposite direction, the tuning system decided on for a priori
> extramusical or "merely tuning" reasons and the music being crafted
> *around* the particular effects and limitations of the tuning system
> (which is what "so unless your music is specifically designed to
> exploit this" suggests) . . .
>
> now it is certainly true that on the other side of the issue, there
> have been more than a few who have advocated just intonation as
> the "one true tuning" and questioned the artistic motives of those
> creating music that does not conform to some presumed
> overarching "just intonation philosophy" . . .
>
> so, what it seems to me both the stearns/werntz camp, and the
> unconditional "just intonation is the best intonation" camp, need to
> appreciate, is that no matter how little musical enjoyment or
> fulfillment or inspiration or enlightenment or entertainment or
> feeling one derives from listening to the music of the other camp,
> there is actually a *living breathing intelligent human being*
behind
> that music, who has had such a keen ear and profound creative spark
> within her or him that she or he has been willing to eschew the
> tuning system of her or his own culture and all the benefits that
> conformity to it conveys, and dedicated years, if not a lifetime, to
> the pursuit of art for its own sake and for the benefits it extends
> to the human spirit.
>
> it's all too easy to ascribe universal significance to the result of
> profound aesthetic experimentation and results on the part of one's
> teachers or mentors or role models and the resulting profound
> aesthetic experiences and lessons and inspiration one may have
> derived from them. it's also too easy to observe seemingly
> contradictory points of view or methods in others and to therefore
> desire to find a way to rationalize the flaws in reasoning or
> artistic process that led those others to their conclusions.
>
> this is what werntz does, and what i've seen others on the both
sides
> of the just intonation issue do, both here on this list and
elsewhere.
>
> ******* philosophical digression begins here *******
>
> unfortunately this mentality, with its seeming logical validity and
> (forgive me) amenability to the format of an academic dissertation,
> while perfectly appropriate and helpful in *truly universal* matters
> such as mathematics, is one that i think is perenially inappropriate
> and unhelpful in the arts. the music of all regions and all
> historical periods does not inevitably flow toward (or err when it
> retreats against) an ever truer oneness with the eternal music of
the
> spheres, nor toward an increasing liberation of the totality of
sonic
> possibilities via the abolishment of hierarchical structuring
> relationships or stylistic constraints.
>
> nor are these same (well, exactly analogous) two alternatives
> appropriate or helpful views of human society in general, let alone
> any aesthetic or spiritual matters in particular. in the
> sociopolitical realm, both have been espoused by prominent and
> influential philosophers throughout the world and throughout
history -
> - though the former can be associated roughly with the Age of Reason
> and "Enlightened Despotism", and the latter with some particularly
> trendy (and largely french) philosophers of the 20th century. to
gain
> an appreciation for why neither paradigm has merit as an
evolutionary
> theory, neither for describing why things have happened as they
have,
> nor for positing how things should be, let me refer the interested
> reader to the philosopher Ken Wilber and his books such as _Sex,
> Ecology, Spirituality_ (dave keenan recommends _A Brief History of
> Everything_ as a more digestable alternative).
>
> i don't want to take up much more space here, so let me simply
> suggest that neither of the alternatives sketched above is a viable
> philosophy of art, since neither permits the combination of meaning
> and freedom that is essential for art to exist as a living cultural
> entity. ultimately we are richer for having had both philosophies
> expressed and followed through to their logical conclusion, but i
> feel that both have outlived their usefulness and the time is ripe
> for a richer and deeper understanding.
>
> ******* philosophical digression ends here *******
>
> finally, i'd have to agree with one point that mark gould seems to
> have made in response to werntz. that one, in the context of a
> dissertation on microtonality, should be _more_ inclusive of
> alternative methods and approaches than one is in one's own art. one
> may have no understanding of the musical reasons for such methods
and
> no appreciation for the results acheived through them. but if one is
> to presume to say something about "microtonality" rather than
> simply "my music", surely one can do better than to selectively
> cobble together an incoherent assortment of extreme tenets
associated
> with an alternative approach, in order to justify a wholesale
> dismissal of said approach, thus bringing one's own approach into
> sharper focus and giving it an air of inevitability, as the only
> possibility still standing (as if there were no "middle path"
> possible -- many of you will catch on to the additional implications
> i hint at with this phrase ;) ).
>
> engaging in some "pure speculation", however, i suspect that this
> presentation may be an inevitable expression of the predicament a
> doctoral composition student finds oneself in when required to
engage
> in a "thesis defense". it isn't enough for one's music to speak for
> itself -- one must "defend" it intellectually. and, the more
> adventurous and unusual such music may be, perhaps the greater
> becomes the urge to "justify" it intellectually, even going so far
as
> to show how the composer might reasonably consider it to be the "one
> true path" worthty of devoting one's career to, and therefore
> meriting an academic seal of approval. wild speculation, i admit,
and
> perhaps very insulting to julia werntz. i apologize.
>
> but unless julia comes back into the fray, and helps us reconcile
> what many of us are seemingly gleaning from her published writings
> with the views she expressed in her single post to this forum, this
> speculation is the best i can manage, and probably as far as i'm
> willing to go on this particular topic (responding to werntz, that
> is). from my experience on this list, it's likely that i've bred
more
> misunderstanding than understanding here, and as i write fear is
> beginning to descend into my heart. perhaps julia is all too aware
> that that is often the way of this list, and feels the same
> trepidation, preventing her from making any further statements here.
>
> ah well, let me conclude by wishing julia a long and successful
> career composing microtonal music, and expressing my joy that
another
> musician has taken, with full seriousness, the bold step outside the
> comfortable world of 12-tone equal temperament!
>
>
> 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..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37355

>> In short, my problems with the JI crowd was mostly one of a bad
> fit--of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, the
rhetoric
> often rubbed me the wrong way too, but I'm over it. I don't need to
> belittle others aspirations and natural tendencies to believe in my
> own... and if I respect someone's art I can turn my cheek from, and
> try to better understand, almost anything.
>
>
> take care,
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

****Thanks, Dan, for your interesting commentary. Quite frankly, 1/1
was also the first "alternate tuning" publication *I* was exposed
to. I guess David Doty had somehow done a good job of marketing it,
since I think I just reponded to a *blind* e-mail somewhere along the
road, since it seemed interesting to get such a thing.

Curiously enough, I had *no* idea about any other publications, like
_Xenharmonicon_ so the JI Network represented *everything* about
microtonality to me. I guess that was before the Internet Tuning
List was so active... dunno. I started getting 1/1 in 1988.

When did the Tuning List at Mills start again?? (Anybody??)

But, I really wasn't part of the Mills list, so the 1/1's sat
pretentiously on my coffee table, while I continued blithely to write
in 12-tET. I wasn't even aware that it had a JI bias at that time,
being so ignorant and, obviously, incurious about the field...

These things, though, *very* much are a product of *time and place* I
agree. For instance, I actually *did* join the Tuning List, while it
was at Mills briefly... maybe, I guess in the mid-90's and then
dropped it again.

Well, I just wasn't at the "cul de sac" point in my "regular"
composing that I would arrive at later when I took the *full plunge.."

best,

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37235.html#37346
>
> > well, while we're at it, it seems that mandelbaum draws some
> > divisions without reasoning entirely consistently on both sides
of
> > them . . . for example, he does make a big deal about the "comma
> > problem" in just intonation, while he describes 53-tone equal
> > temperament very positively, without (as far as i could tell)
even
> > mentioning that 53-tone equal temperament is subject to *exactly
> the
> > same* comma problems as just intonation . . . but i suspect this
> was
> > more an oversight on mandelbaum's part than a reflection of a
> > theoretical bias or attempt at divisiveness . . . recall that
> > mandelbaum's actual compositions were all in 19-equal and 31-
equal,
> > which are meantone tunings and therefore don't suffer from the
> > dreaded "comma problem" . . .
>
> ***Hi Paul.
>
> I've decided I need to know some more about this. Now, *my*
> understanding of meantones was directed toward the just sonorities
> that they emulated. With 19, it's the MINOR third that's just,
> right?

almost . . .

> And 31 does *both??* [I'm forgetting some of this
> already... :( ]

the major third is almost just in 31, the minor third is 6 cents off.

> So, the question is, what does that have to do with *modulation??*

who said anything about modulation? but ok, i'll follow along . . .

> Oh... I guess you just mean that these two temperaments have the
> *same* possibility of modulation as *any* ET,

uh . . .

> only because of the
> just sonorities you get the "best of both worlds..."

now you've lost me . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> Unfortunately, the JIN
> slant not only bugged me, it didn't line up with my own experiences
> either.

i feel exactly the same way.

> For some, periodicity buzz is like a drug, but on the whole it
doesn't
> call out to me any more than a host of other things.

i feel exactly the same way about that too.

> and by way of analogy, I personally prefer the
> chaotic density of nature over the clinical elan of geometrical
> edifices and clever visual illusions.

fair enough -- i think either can have tremendous impact on me, given
enough exposure to the other. and who knows -- my tastes are changing
as i get older.

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37364

>
> now you've lost me . . .

***This is getting confusing because I'm "mixing my metaphors..." or
something similar.

What I meant is this:

1) ET's provide the possibility for complete and unlimited
modulation, yes?

2) Meantones provide for quasi-just sonorities of one kind or
another, yes?

3) The traditional quarter comma meantone is *not* an equal
temperamant, yes?

4) However, 19-tET and 31-tET *ARE* BOTH meantones *and* equal
temperaments.

5) In the traditional 12-note quarter comma meantone certain keys are
playable, some not.

6) This would be the same situation for 19-tET and 31-tET, yes?

7) So the question is: which chords, or how *many* chords in 19-tET
and 31-tET ARE playable and close to just, and what do we call these
chords. How can we name them??

I hope my questions are a little clearer this time around.

Thanks so much, Paul!!!

Joseph

>I wasn't even aware that it had a JI bias at that time,
>being so ignorant and, obviously, incurious about the field...

Just want to point out that there's a difference between
a JI bias, which David Doty unquestionably has, and saying
things that are incorrect, which JI theorists have often
done, but not David Doty.

In my opinion, the wrongest Doty gets in the Primer is in
over-estimating the frequency with which mainstream music
is in 12-equal. If anybody can find anything worse, I'd
like to know about it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

> What I meant is this:
>
> 1) ET's provide the possibility for complete and unlimited
> modulation, yes?

in a sense, yes.

> 2) Meantones provide for quasi-just sonorities of one kind or
> another, yes?

yes.

> 3) The traditional quarter comma meantone is *not* an equal
> temperamant, yes?

yes.

> 4) However, 19-tET and 31-tET *ARE* BOTH meantones *and* equal
> temperaments.

yes.

> 5) In the traditional 12-note quarter comma meantone certain keys
are
> playable, some not.

yes, but this is surely off the original topic, right?

> 6) This would be the same situation for 19-tET and 31-tET, yes?

only if you restricted yourself to 12 notes.

> 7) So the question is: which chords, or how *many* chords in 19-
tET
> and 31-tET ARE playable and close to just, and what do we call
these
> chords.

i don't know what you mean. if you're restricting yourself to 12
notes, then the answers are the same as for the 12 notes of meantone.
if not, then 19-equal gives you 19 of each kind of chord, and 31-
equal gives you 31 of each kind of chord . . .

> How can we name them??

using traditional nomenclature -- though of course in 31 especially
you might need a lot of "doubly diminished" and "doubly augmented"
kind of terminology . . . but since you said 'close to just', maybe
you just mean major triads, minor triads, and the ~4:5:6:7 augmented
sixth chords, etc.? these would just be called major triads, minor
triads, augmented sixth chords, etc. . . .
>
> I hope my questions are a little clearer this time around.
>
i don't think i'm following your train of thought at all . . . sorry.

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37429

> > 6) This would be the same situation for 19-tET and 31-tET, yes?
>
> only if you restricted yourself to 12 notes.
>
> > 7) So the question is: which chords, or how *many* chords in 19-
> tET and 31-tET ARE playable and close to just, and what do we call
> these chords.
>
> i don't know what you mean. if you're restricting yourself to 12
> notes, then the answers are the same as for the 12 notes of
meantone. if not, then 19-equal gives you 19 of each kind of chord,
and 31-equal gives you 31 of each kind of chord . . .
>

***Hi Paul!

Ok, so here is where I am confused. Are you suggesting that our
quarter-comma 12-note meantone system is *contained* in 19-tET and 31-
tET?? Not *literally* yes?? I guess it's contained in 31-tET but
not in 19-tET??

I guess what I wanted to know is this:

If you were to take a simple major triad, say in 12-tone meantone,
and transpose it 12 times, you get a certain number of "good" triads,
or triads approximating just and a certain number of "bad" ones.

How does that work in 19-tET or 31-tET?? How many "good"
approximations of major or minor triads are there, and how does one
go about finding them??

Thanks!

Joseph

I think the confusion may be coming from not recognizing that the ET
equivalents of 1/4-comma and 1/3-comma meantone (31-ET and 19-ET
respectively) are, precisely because they are ETs, cyclical and do
NOT run off the end of the earth like their traditional 12-note
forebears. You can transpose freely in any direction you like as far
as you like, since they are cyclical, even if the cycles are quite
long, so you will come back around after 19 or 31 fifths of whatever.
There is no loss of intonational purity for the same reason.
Everything is both equal and cyclical, no matter where you start or
stop.

Even with the traditional meantones, however, splitting the black
keys yielded up to 11 usable keys, only one short of 12-ET. Of
course, these keys were not cyclical. You could just go to the end of
the sharps or to the end of the flats, which would not include
anything with E#, B#, Fb, or Cb.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > 5) In the traditional 12-note quarter comma meantone certain keys
> are
> > playable, some not.
>
> yes, but this is surely off the original topic, right?
>
> > 6) This would be the same situation for 19-tET and 31-tET, yes?
>
> only if you restricted yourself to 12 notes.
>
> > 7) So the question is: which chords, or how *many* chords in 19-
> tET
> > and 31-tET ARE playable and close to just, and what do we call
> these
> > chords.
>
> i don't know what you mean. if you're restricting yourself to 12
> notes, then the answers are the same as for the 12 notes of
meantone.
> if not, then 19-equal gives you 19 of each kind of chord, and 31-
> equal gives you 31 of each kind of chord . . .
>
> > How can we name them??
>
> using traditional nomenclature -- though of course in 31 especially
> you might need a lot of "doubly diminished" and "doubly augmented"
> kind of terminology . . . but since you said 'close to just', maybe
> you just mean major triads, minor triads, and the ~4:5:6:7
augmented
> sixth chords, etc.? these would just be called major triads, minor
> triads, augmented sixth chords, etc. . . .
> >
> > I hope my questions are a little clearer this time around.
> >
> i don't think i'm following your train of thought at all . . .
sorry.

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37432

> I think the confusion may be coming from not recognizing that the
ET
> equivalents of 1/4-comma and 1/3-comma meantone (31-ET and 19-ET
> respectively) are, precisely because they are ETs, cyclical and do
> NOT run off the end of the earth like their traditional 12-note
> forebears. You can transpose freely in any direction you like as
far
> as you like, since they are cyclical, even if the cycles are quite
> long, so you will come back around after 19 or 31 fifths of
whatever.
> There is no loss of intonational purity for the same reason.
> Everything is both equal and cyclical, no matter where you start or
> stop.
>
> Even with the traditional meantones, however, splitting the black
> keys yielded up to 11 usable keys, only one short of 12-ET. Of
> course, these keys were not cyclical. You could just go to the end
of
> the sharps or to the end of the flats, which would not include
> anything with E#, B#, Fb, or Cb.
>

***Oh, of course! Thanks, Bob. That's what I was trying to piece
together. So, the meantones defined by 19-tET or 31-tET,
being "circulating" have many, many more transpositional
possibilities (as many as pitches!) while retaining the "special
characteristics" of the meantone chords... So that's quite a bit
different from the "classical" 12-note quarter-comma meantone in that
respect...

By the way, just how close are 19-tET and 31-tET to just sonorities??

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >I wasn't even aware that it had a JI bias at that time,
> >being so ignorant and, obviously, incurious about the field...
>
> Just want to point out that there's a difference between
> a JI bias, which David Doty unquestionably has, and saying
> things that are incorrect, which JI theorists have often
> done, but not David Doty.
>
> In my opinion, the wrongest Doty gets in the Primer is in
> over-estimating the frequency with which mainstream music
> is in 12-equal. If anybody can find anything worse, I'd
> like to know about it.
>
> -Carl

as i recall, the primer goes out of its way to avoid any value
judgments, or statements about topics outside its stated subject. i
applaud this highly. i'll try to take a look again and get back to
you about any specific objections to the primer i might have.

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

> ***Hi Paul!
>
> Ok, so here is where I am confused. Are you suggesting that our
> quarter-comma 12-note meantone system is *contained* in 19-tET and
31-
> tET?? Not *literally* yes?? I guess it's contained in 31-tET but
> not in 19-tET??

sure. both 31-tET and 19-tET contain 12-note meantone systems. 31-tET
is closer to quarter-comma meantone, while 19-tET is actually
extremely close to *third*-comma meantone.

> I guess what I wanted to know is this:
>
> If you were to take a simple major triad, say in 12-tone meantone,
> and transpose it 12 times, you get a certain number of "good"
triads,
> or triads approximating just and a certain number of "bad" ones.
>
> How does that work in 19-tET or 31-tET?? How many "good"
> approximations of major or minor triads are there,

19 or 31, respectively. unless you're restricting yourself to a 12-
note subset, in which the answer is always 8.

> and how does one
> go about finding them??

either through literal transposition . . . or by noting the number of
degrees of the ET making up the intervals in the chord; starting
anywhere; and building up from there. for example, in 19 the major
third is 6 degrees and the minor third is 5 degrees . . . in 31 the
major third is 10 degrees and the minor third is 8 degrees . . .

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

> By the way, just how close are 19-tET and 31-tET to just
>sonorities??

the '3:2' is 5 cents flat in 31-equal and 7 cents flat in 19-equal.

(reverse for '4:3')

the '5:4' is 1 cent sharp in 31-equal and 7 cents flat in 19-equal.

(reverse for '8:5')

the '5:3' is 6 cents sharp in 31-equal and "just" in 19-equal.

(reverse for '6:5')

the '7:4' is 1 cent flat in 31-equal and 21 cents flat in 19-equal.

the '7:5' is 2 cents flat in 31-equal and 14 cents flat in 19-equal.

the '7:6' is 4 cents sharp in 31-equal and 14 cents flat in 19-equal.

(reverse for '7:3') . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37455

> > How does that work in 19-tET or 31-tET?? How many "good"
> > approximations of major or minor triads are there,
>
> 19 or 31, respectively. unless you're restricting yourself to a 12-
> note subset, in which the answer is always 8.
>

***Well, this is a little funny. Not very, but a little. What
happened is that I'm so *used* to thinking about meantone as a non-ET
that I couldn't get this simple fact in my head: the idea of a
meantone that was *circulating* and *closed* as an ET!

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37459

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > By the way, just how close are 19-tET and 31-tET to just
> >sonorities??
>
> the '3:2' is 5 cents flat in 31-equal and 7 cents flat in 19-equal.
>
> (reverse for '4:3')
>
> the '5:4' is 1 cent sharp in 31-equal and 7 cents flat in 19-equal.
>
> (reverse for '8:5')
>
> the '5:3' is 6 cents sharp in 31-equal and "just" in 19-equal.
>
> (reverse for '6:5')
>
> the '7:4' is 1 cent flat in 31-equal and 21 cents flat in 19-equal.
>
> the '7:5' is 2 cents flat in 31-equal and 14 cents flat in 19-equal.
>
> the '7:6' is 4 cents sharp in 31-equal and 14 cents flat in 19-
equal.
>
> (reverse for '7:3') . . .

***Thanks, Paul. This is *exactly* what I wanted to know. This is
another "keeper" post...

Well, clearly, except for the minor third and major sixth, 19-tET
gets considerably off from just. Possibly that could contribute to
its "aggressive" sound that people keep talking about??

JP

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

> ***Well, this is a little funny. Not very, but a little. What
> happened is that I'm so *used* to thinking about meantone as a non-
ET
> that I couldn't get this simple fact in my head: the idea of a
> meantone that was *circulating* and *closed* as an ET!

ah! well then you've been missing much of what's so interesting about
19 and 31! margo has posted on circulating 31-tone meantone
systems . . . i wish i could find the posts for you quickly.

imagine if vicentino, colonna, gonzaga, and stella had been more
influential by the time bach came around. then it's not so remote to
speculate that our own western tradition would have been using 31
tones ever since!

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37495

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Well, this is a little funny. Not very, but a little. What
> > happened is that I'm so *used* to thinking about meantone as a
non-
> ET
> > that I couldn't get this simple fact in my head: the idea of a
> > meantone that was *circulating* and *closed* as an ET!
>
> ah! well then you've been missing much of what's so interesting
about
> 19 and 31! margo has posted on circulating 31-tone meantone
> systems . . . i wish i could find the posts for you quickly.
>
> imagine if vicentino, colonna, gonzaga, and stella had been more
> influential by the time bach came around. then it's not so remote
to
> speculate that our own western tradition would have been using 31
> tones ever since!

***Hmmm. Well, one can certainly see the "pull" of this!!! I
wonder, though, if possibly the fairly large number of keys needed
for a 31-tET keyboard wasn't an impediment to this.... ??

JP

Wow, really? Personally I thought the primer, like the periodical,
goes out of its way to *stress* value judgments... but hey, it was his
baby, and I think he should've stressed whatever he wanted just the
way he wanted:

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/primer2.html

The biggest bone of contention for me here is that I think Doty
grossly glosses over how music was developing in the wider societal
context of the arts... in the grand scheme of things, tuning was a
moot point in the abandoning of common practice... modernism was going
to happen, get a grip!

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: [tuning] david doty's ji primer (was: Re: time and place)

> --- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> > >I wasn't even aware that it had a JI bias at that time,
> > >being so ignorant and, obviously, incurious about the field...
> >
> > Just want to point out that there's a difference between
> > a JI bias, which David Doty unquestionably has, and saying
> > things that are incorrect, which JI theorists have often
> > done, but not David Doty.
> >
> > In my opinion, the wrongest Doty gets in the Primer is in
> > over-estimating the frequency with which mainstream music
> > is in 12-equal. If anybody can find anything worse, I'd
> > like to know about it.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> as i recall, the primer goes out of its way to avoid any value
> judgments, or statements about topics outside its stated subject. i
> applaud this highly. i'll try to take a look again and get back to
> you about any specific objections to the primer i might have.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Dr_ObB/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/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:

> ***Hmmm. Well, one can certainly see the "pull" of this!!! I
> wonder, though, if possibly the fairly large number of keys needed
> for a 31-tET keyboard wasn't an impediment to this.... ??

well, surely the *practical* considerations, particularly for
designing *wind* instruments to play all the notes, would have been
formidable . . . but if you've studied the fokker 31-tone organ, for
example, you'd see that, at least in terms of playability, there are
nothing but *advantages* to moving toward this kind of design . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37501

> Wow, really? Personally I thought the primer, like the periodical,
> goes out of its way to *stress* value judgments... but hey, it was
his
> baby, and I think he should've stressed whatever he wanted just the
> way he wanted:
>
> http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/primer2.html
>

***Well, it's certainly good for tuning *beginners* which is what I
was when I read it. [Speaking now as an informed and influential
tuning *intermediate* :) ]

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37503

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Hmmm. Well, one can certainly see the "pull" of this!!! I
> > wonder, though, if possibly the fairly large number of keys
needed
> > for a 31-tET keyboard wasn't an impediment to this.... ??
>
> well, surely the *practical* considerations, particularly for
> designing *wind* instruments to play all the notes, would have been
> formidable . . . but if you've studied the fokker 31-tone organ,
for
> example, you'd see that, at least in terms of playability, there
are
> nothing but *advantages* to moving toward this kind of design . . .

**I'd love to try it!

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> Wow, really? Personally I thought the primer, like the periodical,
> goes out of its way to *stress* value judgments... but hey, it was
his
> baby, and I think he should've stressed whatever he wanted just the
> way he wanted:
>
> http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/primer2.html
>
> The biggest bone of contention for me here is that I think Doty
> grossly glosses over how music was developing in the wider societal
> context of the arts... in the grand scheme of things, tuning was a
> moot point in the abandoning of common practice... modernism was
going
> to happen, get a grip!

hey dan, very sorry, when i read it i didn't pay too much attention
to this introduction part of the paper, and now that i look, i
completely agree with you . . . but i guess i focused more, as usual,
on the *psychoacoustics* and the like presented in the paper, and it
seemed very well-researched, well-thought out, clearly grounded in
experience, and best of all, it came from a "so, you've decided to
use ratio tuning, let's get our hands dirty" standpoint rather than
constantly harping on why it's better and why everything else is
worse, like some other presentations in this field . . .

. . . combining threads a bit, i always thought it would have been
wonderful if the "pre-moderns" had established themselves in 31-equal
instead of 12 . . . imagine how much more interesting "modernism"
could have been as a result!

>Well, clearly, except for the minor third and major sixth, 19-tET
>gets considerably off from just. Possibly that could contribute to
>its "aggressive" sound that people keep talking about??

19's aggressive sound may come from its flat 5:4. There's very
little room south of the 5:4 before you hit a local maximum of
discordance -- it tolerates being sharp much better.

-Carl

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37526

> >Well, clearly, except for the minor third and major sixth, 19-tET
> >gets considerably off from just. Possibly that could contribute to
> >its "aggressive" sound that people keep talking about??
>
> 19's aggressive sound may come from its flat 5:4. There's very
> little room south of the 5:4 before you hit a local maximum of
> discordance -- it tolerates being sharp much better.
>
> -Carl

****Hmmm. Yeah, that would do it. Thanks Carl!

JP

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

> 19's aggressive sound may come from its flat 5:4. There's very
> little room south of the 5:4 before you hit a local maximum of
> discordance -- it tolerates being sharp much better.

i would say "dissonance", rather than "discordance". this is almost
entirely due to a cultural familiarity with sharp 5:4s, in my
opinion. once you get acclimated to flat 5:4s, as in pelog and my
injera scales, they're very pleasant.

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

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#37561

> --- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> > 19's aggressive sound may come from its flat 5:4. There's very
> > little room south of the 5:4 before you hit a local maximum of
> > discordance -- it tolerates being sharp much better.
>
> i would say "dissonance", rather than "discordance". this is almost
> entirely due to a cultural familiarity with sharp 5:4s, in my
> opinion. once you get acclimated to flat 5:4s, as in pelog and my
> injera scales, they're very pleasant.

***Hi Paul.

So, essentially, following this thread, you might say that there are
*other* characteristics of 19-tET that contribute to the
alleged "aggressiveness" cited by Darreg and others??

Joseph

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

> ***Hi Paul.
>
> So, essentially, following this thread, you might say that there
are
> *other* characteristics of 19-tET that contribute to the
> alleged "aggressiveness" cited by Darreg and others??
>
> Joseph

i don't hear it. but i sure know what 19 sounds like. whether it's
blackwood, fortuin, haverstick, or fractal tune smithy, 19 sounds
like itself and nothing else (well, except for 1/3-comma
meantone) . . .

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

> i don't hear it. but i sure know what 19 sounds like. whether it's
> blackwood, fortuin, haverstick, or fractal tune smithy, 19 sounds
> like itself and nothing else (well, except for 1/3-comma
> meantone) . . .

I concur--19-et certainly sounds different than 31-et, but it doesn't seem at all aggressive to me. I'd be more inclined to attribute that quality to 27 or 37.

>I concur--19-et certainly sounds different than 31-et, but it doesn't
>seem at all aggressive to me. I'd be more inclined to attribute that
>quality to 27 or 37.

The term brilliance for 17, which I would imagine would be largely do
to the sharp fifths, and carry over to 27 and 37.

Call it what you will, but if you listen to Blackwood's 19-tone etude
and fanfare, don't they sound more ______ than 1/4 comma? (I'd use
the word sour, actually.) Some of it may be due to the proportions of
L and s in the diatonic scale, but it seems also to come from the 5:4s.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Thanks, Paul. This is *exactly* what I wanted to know. This is
> another "keeper" post...
>
> Well, clearly, except for the minor third and major sixth, 19-tET
> gets considerably off from just. Possibly that could contribute to
> its "aggressive" sound that people keep talking about??
>
> JP

If you like dominant seventh chords, the seventh in both temperaments
are sharp, quite sharp in 19t-ET. When you think about it, JI M3s are
narrow relative to 12-EDO, and 1/4-comma splits them in two equal
parts for the M2s. Since the major thirds are seven cents flat in 19
EDO the seconds are quite flat, which raises the sevenths, of course.

I find them a bit gritty even in 31. I'm talking sharp in terms of
normal 9:16 just sevenths and not the 4:7 or septimal seventh. In 31
you have a very pure septimal seventh, only one cent flat, but they
don't always sound "right" in seventh chords, depending on context,
and if your tuning is even a little off, some keys will make them
flatter. Flat septimal sevenths do NOT sound good to many people's
ears these days.

If you want to talk subjective experience, I really like 1/4-comma
meantone or its equivalent, 31t-ET. I recently tuned a nice 21-chord
autoharp in 1/4-comma and it sounds wonderfully pure. If you tune it
from two flats to three sharps, only two of the 21 chords are
unusable (AbM and B7, because the Ab is really G# and the D# is
really Eb).

The nineteen good chords is more than a lot of autoharps have and
they sound so good it makes no sense to me to tune an autoharp in 12t-
ET. I'm thinking it would be great if schools tuned them this way to
train kids ears to hear purer harmonies. Fifths that are five cents
flat is a small price to pay for eliminating major thirds that are 14
cents sharp! The slightly flat fifths give the chords a
pleasant "vibrato" with their slow beats. Where you pay the piper is
either in the restrictions in modulation or the number of pitches
needed per octave.

In the case of the autoharp, the sacrifice is negligible. Very few of
the songs they're used for ever use the two bad chords. I'm actually
considering doing some simple, minimalist composition of vocal songs
with autoharp tuned in 1/4-comma. I'm kind of attracted to the idea
of playing creatively in a modern idiom within such narrow
constraints. Could be a good exercise.

By the way, there's a neat trick I've discovered and use to great
advantage in finding the D between C and E to set the temperament for
1/4-comma. This trick is possible because C# and G# are very close to
JI septimal sevenths above Eb and Bb respectively. After tuning the E
a pure M3 above C, tune a G# another pure M3 above the E. Then find
the Bb and D that form with the G# a pure septimal seventh chord
minus the fifth. This will yield theoretically a D that is only one
cent flat to the theoretically perfect pitch for the D. You already
have a good Bb and G# already as well.

If you can aurally set the D that accurately any other way, thumbs
up, but this is an extremely accurate cross-check. I personally do
the septimal seventh first, then check the D against the C and E for
equal tuning dissonance and recycle if necessary. I then tune the G
to equalize the tuning dissonance between C and D, then likewise the
A with E and D.

You can then use the septical seventh trick to check the C# against
Eb and G as well as for a pure M3 above the A. The huge advantage
this provides is that you get an accurate cross-check without timing
beats on pitches that are relatively remote harmonically and
therefore subject to small but cumulative tuning errors. This is
especially important on strings that are not terribly true, such as
is typical in autoharps, for example.

Well, we digressed a bit, but it's not completely irrelevant. (Or is
it completely my elephant? Groan!)

Cheers,

Bob

Paul,

Thanks for a wonderful post. You have described my own thoughts and
feelings on reading the first 24 pages of Julie's dissertation better
than I ever could. To sum it up, I felt she was setting up a
straw-person version of JI (in particular JI fundamentalism) and then
knocking it down and thinking she had dispensed with JI as any kind of
reason for choosing a tuning system. I realise that I don't really
understand the point of a PhD dissertation in the arts. Science yes.

Of course I think that JI-leaning types (like myself) might do well to
consider, if they haven't already, the scale properties she finds
desirable, that (apparently) have nothing to do with JI.

The hilarious part is that she comes up with exactly the same superset
that we do when coming from a JI perspective. 72-equal. :-) Hoorah!

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

Hello Dave!
It seems we could also use a 72 tone just scale and treat the intervals in the same way as Julia
does. Or would we have to use the nearest 612 equivalent?

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Thanks for a wonderful post. You have described my own thoughts and
> feelings on reading the first 24 pages of Julie's dissertation better
> than I ever could. To sum it up, I felt she was setting up a
> straw-person version of JI (in particular JI fundamentalism) and then
> knocking it down and thinking she had dispensed with JI as any kind of
> reason for choosing a tuning system. I realise that I don't really
> understand the point of a PhD dissertation in the arts. Science yes.
>
> Of course I think that JI-leaning types (like myself) might do well to
> consider, if they haven't already, the scale properties she finds
> desirable, that (apparently) have nothing to do with JI.
>
> The hilarious part is that she comes up with exactly the same superset
> that we do when coming from a JI perspective. 72-equal. :-) Hoorah!
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello Dave!
> It seems we could also use a 72 tone just scale and treat the
intervals in the same way as Julia
> does. Or would we have to use the nearest 612 equivalent?

I think you're right. A properly detemperedapproximation of 72-ET
should have all the same melodic properties. It wouldn't need to be in
612-ET. Is Erv's Hebdomekontany (I'm sure I've spelled it wrong) what
you had in mind?

It would of course have fewer (wafso-)just intervals available, but
that shouldn't matter to Julie. In fact, on one (perhaps unwarranted)
interpretation of what I've read of her dissertation (the first 24
pages), it might be expected to be an advantage.

Hello Dave!
The hebdomekontany- filling out the gaps to 72 seems for a JI a good candidate because it has
less of a defined tonic than most to interfere with a Pan tonal feel.

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Hello Dave!
> > It seems we could also use a 72 tone just scale and treat the
> intervals in the same way as Julia
> > does. Or would we have to use the nearest 612 equivalent?
>
> I think you're right. A properly detemperedapproximation of 72-ET
> should have all the same melodic properties. It wouldn't need to be in
> 612-ET. Is Erv's Hebdomekontany (I'm sure I've spelled it wrong) what
> you had in mind?

>
>
> It would of course have fewer (wafso-)just intervals available, but
> that shouldn't matter to Julie. In fact, on one (perhaps unwarranted)
> interpretation of what I've read of her dissertation (the first 24
> pages), it might be expected to be an advantage.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for a wonderful post. You have described my own thoughts and
> feelings on reading the first 24 pages of Julie's dissertation
better
> than I ever could. To sum it up, I felt she was setting up a
> straw-person version of JI (in particular JI fundamentalism) and
then
> knocking it down and thinking she had dispensed with JI as any kind
of
> reason for choosing a tuning system. I realise that I don't really
> understand the point of a PhD dissertation in the arts. Science yes.
>
> Of course I think that JI-leaning types (like myself) might do well
to
> consider, if they haven't already, the scale properties she finds
> desirable, that (apparently) have nothing to do with JI.
>
> The hilarious part is that she comes up with exactly the same
superset
> that we do when coming from a JI perspective. 72-equal. :-) Hoorah!
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

hello folks . . .

jon szanto sent me a copy the pnm article . . . thanks jon (and
thanks for the other stuff too, which i will check out)!

well, i have no apologies for anything i've said about werntz's
ideas, which were based on the 24-page excerpt of her dissertation.
the ideas here are pretty much the same. some falsehoods are dropped,
and others added.

dave's "sum up" reactions to that dissertation excerpt, above, as
well as his other posts to this list on it, are very like my own
reaction to the first part of the pnm article. i'm prepared to back
this up, on a point-by-point basis, either in writing or in face-to-
face discussion, if anyone thinks they would benefit from such an
effort on my part. otherwise, i'll simply offer julia my warmest
wishes for her composing career, and i, for one, certainly won't
object to her, or anyone else, composing directly from their creative
impulses while disregarding the ideologies of the just intonation
network.

while i believe rhythm and melody are more important, primal elements
in music, my ear has always been drawn toward music in which clear,
strong harmony plays a structurally and emotionally important role,
even before i learned to figure out (without formal training, just by
ear) what all those harmonies were, and long before i chose to delve
deeper into the psychoacoustics, physiology, and mathematics behind
these phenomena.

[a basic point: the fact that the ear interprets the many harmonic
partials of an instrument's tone as a single, clear pitch, while a
different arrangement of sine waves is heard as ambiguous noise,
means it has a greater capacity to organize multi-frequency
information in music into "gestalts" in some harmonic circumstances
than in others. the fact that a simplistic application of this
observation does not immediately explain all the "facts" and
stylistic traits of common-practice music leads me to a deeper
investigation of both, while it leads werntz, alas, to a summary
dismissal of the relevance of the former.]

if werntz's ear was never so drawn (though apparantly, chopin has
enough richness in all departments to interest both of us), then the
shallowness of her look into harmony is not a big surprise. nor is it
a big loss, since the musical dimension that attracts her as a
musician is literally perpendicular to this. . . .

sorry, i gotta go catch the miles davis movie, _the miles davis
story_, boston premiere.

Hi Paul,

> while i believe rhythm and melody are more important, primal elements
> in music, my ear has always been drawn toward music in which clear,
> strong harmony plays a structurally and emotionally important role,
> even before i learned to figure out (without formal training, just by
> ear) what all those harmonies were, and long before i chose to delve
> deeper into the psychoacoustics, physiology, and mathematics behind
> these phenomena.
>
> [a basic point: the fact that the ear interprets the many harmonic
> partials of an instrument's tone as a single, clear pitch, while a
> different arrangement of sine waves is heard as ambiguous noise,
> means it has a greater capacity to organize multi-frequency
> information in music into "gestalts" in some harmonic circumstances
> than in others. the fact that a simplistic application of this
> observation does not immediately explain all the "facts" and
> stylistic traits of common-practice music leads me to a deeper
> investigation of both, while it leads werntz, alas, to a summary
> dismissal of the relevance of the former.]

Why "alas"? You said you were enjoying my string trio... (By the way, I did not
dismiss it. You just recently read the paper - have you already forgotten the
section in which I acknowledge the partial role of psychoacoustics?)

> if werntz's ear was never so drawn (though apparantly, chopin has
> enough richness in all departments to interest both of us), then the
> shallowness of her look into harmony is not a big surprise.

I deduce from your statement here - that my "look into harmony" is "shallow" -
that you have a somewhat narrow definition of harmony. My conception of
harmony is simply different, not shallow. (Among other things, I cannot separate
melody amd harmony in the way that you did in your statement.) It is my concern
for JI, as well as certain stylistically traditional harmonic structures, that is
"shallow." "Harmony" encompasses a wider field than this, however. Perhaps you
should have have been more specicfic and said, "her look into JI-centered
harmonic structures," or something to that effect.

Anyway, what are most telling, for me, are these phrases of yours: "my ear has
always been drawn toward music in which clear, strong harmony..." and "if werntz's
ear was never so drawn..." Apparently you do share my views to some extent on
the subjectivity of the whole matter, regardless of differences over the definition
of "harmony" and othe rpoints...

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > while i believe rhythm and melody are more important, primal
elements
> > in music, my ear has always been drawn toward music in which
clear,
> > strong harmony plays a structurally and emotionally important
role,
> > even before i learned to figure out (without formal training,
just by
> > ear) what all those harmonies were, and long before i chose to
delve
> > deeper into the psychoacoustics, physiology, and mathematics
behind
> > these phenomena.
> >
> > [a basic point: the fact that the ear interprets the many
harmonic
> > partials of an instrument's tone as a single, clear pitch, while
a
> > different arrangement of sine waves is heard as ambiguous noise,
> > means it has a greater capacity to organize multi-frequency
> > information in music into "gestalts" in some harmonic
circumstances
> > than in others. the fact that a simplistic application of this
> > observation does not immediately explain all the "facts" and
> > stylistic traits of common-practice music leads me to a deeper
> > investigation of both, while it leads werntz, alas, to a summary
> > dismissal of the relevance of the former.]
>
> Why "alas"? You said you were enjoying my string trio...

yes, i enjoying peeking into alien worlds -- any music with "life" in
it is going to appeal to me, at least a little, and will show me more
and more faces the more i listen to it. i have some examples of avant-
garde improvisational "music" in my collection that i feel the same
way about. even some harry partch and other just intonation work
occasionally falls into this category for me. these are not the
things that drew me into music in the first place, or that i plan to
draw on in my performances anytime soon. but i always keep my ears
open, so that the best of everything can seep in, little by little.

>(By the way, I did not
> dismiss it. You just recently read the paper - have you already
forgotten the
> section in which I acknowledge the partial role of psychoacoustics?)

you do mention beating, but discuss it in a narrow and inconsistent
way, and don't even touch on the basic issue above, let alone others.
harmony -- take a look at parncutt's book _harmony: a
psychoacoustical approach_ for a glimpse, a taste, of the issues you
appear to be missing (and almost preemptively dismissing).

when you mention that Ab and B are heard as dissonant with each other
in a diatonic context, for example, you soon begin to speak of
composers alchemically transforming dissonance into consonance,
through, seemingly, sheer force of will. this just seems like a cop-
out, since it doesn't lead one to a deeper *theoretical*
understanding of these phenomena, but simply leaves them in the realm
of the composer's imagination. which is fine, especially if the
composer is able to listen objectively to his or her products, and
proceed by trial and error. but, in the context of a theoretical
paper, one might wish to know what it is about the diatonic scale
that allows it to act in such a way, so that perhaps one can begin a
more guided search in the expanded tuning system for other such
resources.

> > if werntz's ear was never so drawn (though apparantly, chopin has
> > enough richness in all departments to interest both of us), then
the
> > shallowness of her look into harmony is not a big surprise.
>
> I deduce from your statement here - that my "look into harmony"
is "shallow" -
> that you have a somewhat narrow definition of harmony. My
conception of
> harmony is simply different, not shallow. (Among other things, I
cannot separate
> melody amd harmony in the way that you did in your statement.)

i don't completely separate them either -- nor can i separate
diatonicity and tonality from them. but they're not the same thing,
either.

> It is my concern
> for JI, as well as certain stylistically traditional harmonic
>structures, that is
> "shallow." "Harmony" encompasses a wider field than this, however.
Perhaps you
> should have have been more specicfic and said, "her look into JI-
centered
> harmonic structures," or something to that effect.

no, i mean the effect of simultaneously-sounding pitches in general
(and even successively-sounding pitches to a small extent). even a
single pitch is composed of many potentially audible pitches. the way
we hear simultaneous notes is not divorced from the way we hear a
single pitch.

but the first part of your paper *is* a very shallow look at
the "other side", as it were. it's almost a parody of an extreme
view, perhaps that often espoused by certain members of the jin. and
those who have been around here for a while know that i've been
absolutely merciless in exposing the fallacies in those views. so i
sympathize with much of your attitude in part 1. but then you throw
out the baby with the bathwater, as i believe dave said. part 2 is
galaxies removed from part 1 -- it's as if you visited one planet in
part 1, decided you didn't want to live there, and then jumped
millions of light years away to a remote planet -- i don't see any
logical progression between part 1 and part 2 (though you try to
frame it that way).

> Anyway, what are most telling, for me, are these phrases of
yours: "my ear has
> always been drawn toward music in which clear, strong harmony..."
and "if werntz's
> ear was never so drawn..." Apparently you do share my views to some
extent on
> the subjectivity of the whole matter, regardless of differences
over the definition
> of "harmony" and othe rpoints...

yes . . . part 2 would have made for a great paper in itself, as a
look into the possibilies and methods turning up along *your* musical
path. part 1 (through p. 171) was mere caricature, and seems rather
unnecessary to your message anyhow.

Hi Paul.

You just recently read the paper - have you already
> forgotten the
> > section in which I acknowledge the partial role of psychoacoustics?)
>
> you do mention beating, but discuss it in a narrow and inconsistent
> way, and don't even touch on the basic issue above, let alone others.
> harmony -- take a look at parncutt's book _harmony: a
> psychoacoustical approach_ for a glimpse, a taste, of the issues you
> appear to be missing (and almost preemptively dismissing).
>

I won't have access to that book until I get back (a few weeks away, at least). I'm
curious which of my main points in that section you think might be altered if I read
it. Also I'm curious why you say my discussion of beating is narrow and
inconsistent.

> when you mention that Ab and B are heard as dissonant with each other
> in a diatonic context, for example, you soon begin to speak of
> composers alchemically transforming dissonance into consonance,
> through, seemingly, sheer force of will. this just seems like a cop-
> out, since it doesn't lead one to a deeper *theoretical*
> understanding of these phenomena, but simply leaves them in the realm
> of the composer's imagination. which is fine, especially if the
> composer is able to listen objectively to his or her products, and
> proceed by trial and error. but, in the context of a theoretical
> paper, one might wish to know what it is about the diatonic scale
> that allows it to act in such a way, so that perhaps one can begin a
> more guided search in the expanded tuning system for other such
> resources.
>

But anyone with even a little bit of background in tonal theory knows why A-flat
and B sound dissonant in that context, and I don't consider the theory there to be
too "deep." I don't feel I would be educating the average PNM reader with such an
explanation. Not only that, but I feel it would have been a digression, since my
point was to give a simple, commonplace example of how the musical context can
alter our perception of intervals, to support my other main point about the JI
dogma concerning consonance and dissonance.

> > It is my concern
> > for JI, as well as certain stylistically traditional harmonic
> >structures, that is
> > "shallow." "Harmony" encompasses a wider field than this, however.
> Perhaps you
> > should have have been more specicfic and said, "her look into JI-
> centered
> > harmonic structures," or something to that effect.
>
> no, i mean the effect of simultaneously-sounding pitches in general
> (and even successively-sounding pitches to a small extent).

Well, maybe it's true that I don't get heavily into analysis of *why* I hear the
harmonies in my music the way I do.

> but the first part of your paper *is* a very shallow look at
> the "other side", as it were. it's almost a parody of an extreme
> view, perhaps that often espoused by certain members of the jin. and
> those who have been around here for a while know that i've been
> absolutely merciless in exposing the fallacies in those views. so i
> sympathize with much of your attitude in part 1. but then you throw
> out the baby with the bathwater, as i believe dave said. part 2 is
> galaxies removed from part 1 -- it's as if you visited one planet in
> part 1, decided you didn't want to live there, and then jumped
> millions of light years away to a remote planet -- i don't see any
> logical progression between part 1 and part 2 (though you try to
> frame it that way).
>

Maybe look at my post "To Joe Pehrson" from earlier today to see a response to
this criticism.

Hello Julia!
After hearing some of you music, it appears that the argument that 72 is so rich in JI appox. that it would not be the best for what you wish to achieve. i found no strong tonal implications so
in support i wish to say this criticism appears unfounded in light of the music being done. The influence of the context in which intervals appears is greatly overlooked.

>
> From: "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@attbi.com>
>
> But anyone with even a little bit of background in tonal theory knows why A-flat
> and B sound dissonant in that context, and I don't consider the theory there to be
> too "deep." I don't feel I would be educating the average PNM reader with such an
> explanation. Not only that, but I feel it would have been a digression, since my
> point was to give a simple, commonplace example of how the musical context can
> alter our perception of intervals, to support my other main point about the JI
> dogma concerning consonance and dissonance.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#38500

> Hello Julia!
> After hearing some of you music, it appears that the argument
that 72 is so rich in JI appox. that it would not be the best for
what you wish to achieve. i found no strong tonal implications so
> in support i wish to say this criticism appears unfounded in light
of the music being done. The influence of the context in which
intervals appears is greatly overlooked.
>

***Hi Kraig!

I'm not totally understanding the above paragraph. Are you saying 72
*is* good or *is not* for her music, or are you just saying that the
way she uses 72 it really doesn't matter, since the context makes it
just as dissonant as she wants...

Actually, upon reflection, I'm tending myself toward the latter
view...

JP

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

Paul Erlich:
> > you do mention beating, but discuss it in a narrow and
inconsistent
> > way, and don't even touch on the basic issue above, let alone
others.
> > harmony -- take a look at parncutt's book _harmony: a
> > psychoacoustical approach_ for a glimpse, a taste, of the issues
you
> > appear to be missing (and almost preemptively dismissing).

Julia Werntz:
> I won't have access to that book until I get back (a few weeks away,
at least). I'm
> curious which of my main points in that section you think might be
altered if I read
> it. Also I'm curious why you say my discussion of beating is narrow
and
> inconsistent.

Hi Julia,

I may have answered some of this (on Paul's behalf) in my post in
another thread.
/tuning/topicId_38491.html#38527

i owe julia an attempt at a response to her response to me. this will
only be a brief attempt and much more might be accomplished in the
future, perhaps in face-to-face discussion.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> Hi Paul.
>
> You just recently read the paper - have you already
> > forgotten the
> > > section in which I acknowledge the partial role of
psychoacoustics?)
> >
> > you do mention beating, but discuss it in a narrow and
inconsistent
> > way, and don't even touch on the basic issue above, let alone
others.
> > harmony -- take a look at parncutt's book _harmony: a
> > psychoacoustical approach_ for a glimpse, a taste, of the issues
you
> > appear to be missing (and almost preemptively dismissing).
> >
>
> I won't have access to that book until I get back (a few weeks
>away, at least).

well, i'd like to register with you at this point that there is much
that is wrong with this book -- especially from the point of view of
a microtonalist. so take the book with several grains of salt. but
the basic idea goes back to rameau, if a bit modernized (the current
explanation, more recent than parncutt who relies on pattern-matching
theories from the early 70's, and supported by direct evidence from
real-time brain scans, is in terms of neural timing, according to
hans straub on SpecMus). what are the conditions for the very
perception of pitch? the degree to which a set of frequencies are in
a harmonic relationship is the degree to which we'll hear the
sensation as a *single pitch* (which can be quite clear even if the
fundamental frequency is physically absent). thus the clear and
coherent tone of the human voice, the bowed string, the reed or brass
instrument. this same phenomenon also imbues our perception of
combinations of pitches with a certain "gestalt" of the same kind --
for example, a diminished triad (particularly if the lower minor
third is augmented by a twelfth-tone and the upper minor third is
diminished by a sixth-tone) evokes the sound of a seventh chord with
a missing root. the degree to which this "root" is clearly defined
(and actually having it played by a bass instrument helps too) is
certainly a component in the perceived concordance of a chord. these
effects are of great importance to harmony.

> I'm
> curious which of my main points in that section you think might be
altered if I read
> it.

this is difficult to answer because i wonder what you even did read
to arrive at the points in that section. what theorists who discussed
just intonation did you consult? benedetti? zarlino? the list goes
on . . . you cite helmholtz and partch, but how much of helmholtz's
book did you read? your dissertation misrepresents the technicalities
of partch's system, your paper says that johnston's piano sonata uses
two or more conflicting just tunings while in fact it's tuned to a
single 81-tone chunk of the lattice. in nearly every case your
statements in this section seem to come out of a shallow survey of
the theory and practice of just intonation and related models.

but the point here is that you focus on beating, and beating is but a
small piece of the puzzle. combinational tones are yet another piece
that we haven't even brought up yet in this discussion.

> Also I'm curious why you say my discussion of beating is narrow and
> inconsistent.

i can tune a 17:13, or *any* interval that is a ratio of smaller
numbers than these, by ear by eliminating beats between the
appropriate pair of partials (which is not too difficult if you know
the interval is about 464 cents). of course, other pairs of partials
will still beat against one another. but, for a typical timbre, this
is even true of 5:4, more so than of 4:3 (despite what you claim in
your paper). take another look of helmholtz. and what about 5:3
(which would fall somewhere in between the two in beatyness) or 6:5?
you say that the only intervals just intonation theory would consider
truly consonant are 2:1, 3:2, 5:4, and maybe 7:4. but this wouldn't
even allow you to construct a consonant triad, since either a major
or minor triad, while containing a 3:2 and a 5:4, must also contain a
6:5.

again, what sources did you consult? i love this one:

"following this idea to its logical conclusion -- which just
intonation theory does not . . ."

now maybe i'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying
that "just intonation theory" (as if it were a monolithic entity)
hasn't followed its ideas to their logical conclusions about all
intervals in the continuum. and that if it did, it would find that
the minor sixth (which was, after all, the most recent of our
consonances to be accepted as such, according to margo) must in fact
be considered dissonant regardless of its tuning. well, since you
cite helmholtz, he most certainly did follow his ideas to their
logical conclusions, and came up with this graph, which shows the
minor sixth as a relatively harmonious interval:

http://users.rcn.com/dante.interport/helmholtz.html

so are you saying helmholtz went wrong in his logic somewhere? where?
and what about all the people who have come after helmholtz?

let me give you another (partially flawed but potentially very
informative for you) book to look at, in case you're truly interested
in learning about these things: it's by william sethares, and it's
called _tuning, timbre, spectrum, scale_.

> But anyone with even a little bit of background in tonal theory
>knows why A-flat
> and B sound dissonant in that context,

knows why? really knows why?

>and I don't consider the theory there to be
> too "deep."

well then, for the sake of putting all the cards on the table, why
don't you lay it out for us as you see it? (i studied tonal theory in
college, but i'd rather launch from a point as close as possible to
your view of it.)

> I don't feel I would be educating the average PNM reader with such
an
> explanation. Not only that, but I feel it would have been a
digression, since my
> point was to give a simple, commonplace example of how the musical
context can
> alter our perception of intervals, to support my other main point
about the JI
> dogma concerning consonance and dissonance.

my point in bringing it up was not to suggest that you ought to
burden your readers with a digression. rather, this is something that
i would hope you might think a little deeper about, in order to
better understand what is going on with consonance and dissonance in
a triadic diatonic language, so that one might set out to think about
what might happen in a non-diatonic, perhaps "microtonal" (however
you define it) language, without simply leaving it as a matter
of "alchemy" . . . perhaps this kind of thinking is too far off your
star charts for you to consider right now, but plenty of it exists in
the many galaxies that lie between your "just intonation model" and
your sketch of a new aesthetic in part 2.

> Maybe look at my post "To Joe Pehrson" from earlier today to see a
response to
> this criticism.

maybe . . .

your dissertation misrepresents the technicalities
> of partch's system,

My paper doesn't even get into the technicalities of Partch's system. Where do you
see a specific *misrepresentation* of the technicalities?

your paper says that johnston's piano sonata uses
> two or more conflicting just tunings while in fact it's tuned to a
> single 81-tone chunk of the lattice.

You've got me here - I should have written that Johnston uses a *single*
conflicting tuning. (It is still "conflicting," however. Intentionally so, as I understand
it.)

in nearly every case your
> statements in this section seem to come out of a shallow survey of
> the theory and practice of just intonation and related models.

Perhaps the sheer number of sources cited could seem "shallow," or small,
especially when compared with the resources of tuning experts such as the many
who are members of this list. And if one hoped for me to delve into the particulars
of just intonation and its cousins, one had the wrong expectations of this essay and
would certainly be disappointed. However, my conception of the basic premise of
contemporary pure tuning trends is wholly intact so far (and has been in fact
reaffirmed by my visits to the Tuning List), and was initially formed through a
study of the writings of many of the leading practitioners that was anything but
shallow.

>
> but the point here is that you focus on beating, and beating is but a
> small piece of the puzzle.

I realize that beating is only one of the issues. I could have been more thorough in
my portrayal of the theoretical premise I criticize, e.g. discussing the human
neurological side of the argument. This is probably a valid criticism of my paper.
But I don't believe it would have had any bearing on the more important,
fundamental arguments I make regarding the influence of musical context, culture,
imagination, etc.

Nonetheless, see David Doty's statements about beating in his "response" to my
essay. "...the consonance to which I refer is essentially an objective phenomenon
that can potentially be detected by anyone with normal hearing. It results from the
absence (or, at least, the minimization) of disturbance from beating partials and
the reinforcement of interval identity by supportive difference tones and
periodicity pitch." I know some people on the list do not share Doty's views, but as
(Director? President?) of the Just Intonation Network, I think he can be considered
one important and influential spokesperson for the movement. Of course, Kyle
Gann also gives *great* importance to beating as evidence of the flaw of equal
temperament in his essay on JI on his site. Not that you all share his views, either
(beats - red meat - violence, etc).

combinational tones are yet another piece
> that we haven't even brought up yet in this discussion.
>

True. What about them? (As far as my argument is concerned.)

> you say that the only intervals just intonation theory would consider
> truly consonant are 2:1, 3:2, 5:4, and maybe 7:4. but this wouldn't
> even allow you to construct a consonant triad, since either a major
> or minor triad, while containing a 3:2 and a 5:4, must also contain a
> 6:5.
>

Well, yes. This would only support my point as far as beatlessness-as-criterion is
concerned.

>
> now maybe i'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying
> that "just intonation theory" (as if it were a monolithic entity)
> hasn't followed its ideas to their logical conclusions about all
> intervals in the continuum.

In the context of that statement, I was referring to that aspect of JI theory which is
concerned with beats.

and that if it did, it would find that
> the minor sixth (which was, after all, the most recent of our
> consonances to be accepted as such, according to margo) must in fact
> be considered dissonant regardless of its tuning. well, since you
> cite helmholtz, he most certainly did follow his ideas to their
> logical conclusions, and came up with this graph, which shows the
> minor sixth as a relatively harmonious interval:
>
> http://users.rcn.com/dante.interport/helmholtz.html
>
> so are you saying helmholtz went wrong in his logic somewhere? where?

As you yourself noted above, I didn't write that Helmholtz didn't follow his ideas to
their logical conclusion, but that "just intonation theory" doesn't. Although
Helmholtz was an advocate of pure tunings, I never intended to implicate him as a
spokesman for the contemporary movement. I simply cited beats in one paragraph
(and made a passing reference to Helmholtz's theory), and made this statement
about JI theory two paragraphs later, having already earlier cited certain other,
specific people as "representatives" of the JI movement in pages 162-164. It didn't
occur to me that it could seem that I was including Helmholtz himself in this
statement, but now I guess I can see how this interpretation could also be made.
And true, with the wording "just intonation theory" in that sentence I seem to be
creating an inaccurate picture of just intonation as a single, monolithic entity.

But, OK, so this graph shows the minor sixth to be relatively harmonious, and
relatively "rough" at the same time - in fact it's just about as rough as the
augmented fourth I also cited in my essay. (Though the F-sharp is not marked on
the graph, you can choose any spot in between the F and the G and see that the
roughness tends to be about the same as at the A-flat. Am I misreading this?) Any
way, how does this affect what I wrote in my essay about the beating of the minor
sixth?

>
> > But anyone with even a little bit of background in tonal theory
> >knows why A-flat
> > and B sound dissonant in that context,
>
> knows why? really knows why?
>
> >and I don't consider the theory there to be
> > too "deep."
>
> well then, for the sake of putting all the cards on the table, why
> don't you lay it out for us as you see it? (i studied tonal theory in
> college, but i'd rather launch from a point as close as possible to
> your view of it.)

What does that little parenthesis mean? Anyway, rather than me playing a guessing
game, why don't you just tell me your explanation of the tension in that sort of
augmented second, beyond the standard
lowered-sixth-degree-and-raised-seventh-degree-needing-to-resolve type of
explanation?

>
> > I don't feel I would be educating the average PNM reader with such
> an
> > explanation. Not only that, but I feel it would have been a
> digression, since my
> > point was to give a simple, commonplace example of how the musical
> context can
> > alter our perception of intervals, to support my other main point
> about the JI
> > dogma concerning consonance and dissonance.
>
> my point in bringing it up was not to suggest that you ought to
> burden your readers with a digression. rather, this is something that
> i would hope you might think a little deeper about, in order to
> better understand what is going on with consonance and dissonance in
> a triadic diatonic language, so that one might set out to think about
> what might happen in a non-diatonic, perhaps "microtonal" (however
> you define it) language, without simply leaving it as a matter
> of "alchemy" . . .

With my use of the word "alchemy" I was not implying anything metaphysical; it
was intended as a kind of colorful reference to how various factors (e.g. traditional
tonal harmonic structures) in a certain musical context can "transform" something
we might expect, in theory, to be a consonance into a dissonance, and vice-versa.
Furthermore,

perhaps this kind of thinking is too far off your
> star charts for you to consider right now,

one of my points in that part of the article was to propose, in passing, looking
beyond the consonance/dissonance dichotomy. But, yes, it would be interesting to
present certain microtonal intervals in different musical contexts and see how their
effect changes, either within a "consonance/dissonance" scheme or in some
broader sense. It was beyond the scope of this paper, for sure (but "star charts"?).
Maybe it could be something worth studying in the future, though it does seem
such a subjective matter, impossible to codify even if one wanted to.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> your dissertation misrepresents the technicalities
> > of partch's system,
>
> My paper doesn't even get into the technicalities of Partch's
system. Where do you
> see a specific *misrepresentation* of the technicalities?

in the dissertation, otonal and utonal, for example, are not defined
correctly. it has no bearing on anything else, however.

> your paper says that johnston's piano sonata uses
> > two or more conflicting just tunings while in fact it's tuned to
a
> > single 81-tone chunk of the lattice.
>
> You've got me here - I should have written that Johnston uses a
*single*
> conflicting tuning. (It is still "conflicting," however.
Intentionally so, as I understand
> it.)

it is "conflicting" in the same sense that a single diatonic scale in
ji or meantone is "conflicting". so yes, definitely a single tuning.
>
> >
> > but the point here is that you focus on beating, and beating is
but a
> > small piece of the puzzle.

> combinational tones are yet another piece
> > that we haven't even brought up yet in this discussion.
> >
>
> True. What about them? (As far as my argument is concerned.)

they operate very differently from beating, and very specifically to
produce audible (but not necessarily undesirable) disturbances in
chords that are not simple harmonic series subsets. as far as your
argument is concerned . . . i'm afraid it's been too long, i plead
the fifth!

> > you say that the only intervals just intonation theory would
consider
> > truly consonant are 2:1, 3:2, 5:4, and maybe 7:4. but this
wouldn't
> > even allow you to construct a consonant triad, since either a
major
> > or minor triad, while containing a 3:2 and a 5:4, must also
contain a
> > 6:5.
> >
>
> Well, yes. This would only support my point as far as beatlessness-
as-criterion is
> concerned.

how so?

> > now maybe i'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're
saying
> > that "just intonation theory" (as if it were a monolithic entity)
> > hasn't followed its ideas to their logical conclusions about all
> > intervals in the continuum.
>
> In the context of that statement, I was referring to that aspect of
JI theory which is
> concerned with beats.

ok -- i took it out of context -- i apologize.

> > and that if it did, it would find that
> > the minor sixth (which was, after all, the most recent of our
> > consonances to be accepted as such, according to margo) must in
fact
> > be considered dissonant regardless of its tuning. well, since you
> > cite helmholtz, he most certainly did follow his ideas to their
> > logical conclusions, and came up with this graph, which shows the
> > minor sixth as a relatively harmonious interval:
> >
> > http://users.rcn.com/dante.interport/helmholtz.html
> >
> > so are you saying helmholtz went wrong in his logic somewhere?
where?
>
> As you yourself noted above, I didn't write that Helmholtz didn't
follow his ideas to
> their logical conclusion, but that "just intonation theory"
doesn't. Although
> Helmholtz was an advocate of pure tunings, I never intended to
implicate him as a
> spokesman for the contemporary movement.

"just intonation theory" won't do it then. you have to implicate the
impicated.

> But, OK, so this graph shows the minor sixth to be relatively
harmonious, and
> relatively "rough" at the same time - in fact it's just about as
rough as the
> augmented fourth I also cited in my essay. (Though the F-sharp is
not marked on
> the graph, you can choose any spot in between the F and the G and
see that the
> roughness tends to be about the same as at the A-flat. Am I
misreading this?)

not at all -- the tritone can be quite harmonious, in the opinion of
helmholtz and much of the rest of "just intonation theory",
particularly in the context of a "barbershop" dominant seventh chord.
i don't necessarily subscribe to this theory fully, but i believe it
plays a role, and is not the worst foundation upon which to build new
explorations.

> Any
> way, how does this affect what I wrote in my essay about the
beating of the minor
> sixth?

my point is that many even more consonant intervals, even major
thirds in lower registers, can exhibit beating, and yet this rarely
disturbs the "just intonation theorist" -- who instead tends to
discover additional, *new* consonant intervals, as they tingle his or
her palate in familiar yet unfamiliar ways. there is beating but
there is also concord between harmonics, between combinational tones,
virtual pitches align, the beats themselves form a consistent rhythm,
etc. these sorts of effects are to a sonority what pungent spices are
to a dish -- they can be hated or loved, but they tend to make
themselves evident. no, they are not all-important by any stretch of
the imagination.

there are so many people here who could be writing about this stuff
better than me. i hope a few will chime in.

what you wrote in your essay about the beating of the minor sixth?
you wrote that taking it as a consonance is therefore contrary to the
whole premise, beatless harmony, that underlies "just intonation
theory". right? well, that's simply not the case, for any instance
of "just intonation theory" that you've mentioned so far.

> Anyway, rather than me playing a guessing
> game, why don't you just tell me your explanation of the tension in
that sort of
> augmented second, beyond the standard
> lowered-sixth-degree-and-raised-seventh-degree-needing-to-resolve
type of
> explanation?

"guessing game"? -- seems like we had a serious communication blip
there. my apologies. anyway, it has to do with scalar gestalts and
the like, things that can coexist with "just intonation theory" (at
least in my mind). so why do i have to go into this now? :) :) :)
sorry -- it's been quite a while since we left off! my apologies
again.

> With my use of the word "alchemy" I was not implying anything
metaphysical; it
> was intended as a kind of colorful reference to how various factors
(e.g. traditional
> tonal harmonic structures) in a certain musical context
can "transform" something
> we might expect, in theory, to be a consonance into a dissonance,
and vice-versa.

certainly -- and i know of few ji composers who would deny their own
music these effects -- remember, as david doty i think pointed out,
some of these folks regard consonance/dissonance as having *five*
different definitions!

> perhaps this kind of thinking is too far off your
> > star charts for you to consider right now,

hmm . . . did you write that or did i?

> one of my points in that part of the article was to propose, in
passing, looking
> beyond the consonance/dissonance dichotomy. But, yes, it would be
interesting to
> present certain microtonal intervals in different musical contexts
and see how their
> effect changes, either within a "consonance/dissonance" scheme or
in some
> broader sense. It was beyond the scope of this paper, for sure
(but "star charts"?).

did i really write that? i can't figure out where i came up with
that . . . doubtless a failed witticism or something . . . i'd really
like to flog myself for it now! (seriously, please accept my apology,
no one should be subjected to anything that even *sounds* like that --
sorry again.)

> Maybe it could be something worth studying in the future, though it
does seem
> such a subjective matter, impossible to codify even if one wanted
to.

the layers of subjectivity, of culture, that are buried in music of
great worth, are immeasurable. i know of some staunch defenders
of "just intonation theory" who hold to this most strongly, who feel
it in their every musical bone. there is no contradition here.

thus my weak attempts at recalling an argument many months fallow,
best regards,
paul

Hi Paul.

Sorry for taking so long; I was away for a few days.

It is hard to get back into the spirit of this conversation, to be sure. In gereral I feel
that I am "finished" with this topic. It was a few yeats ago that I wrote the paper,
and I am much more interested in the music people (including myself) are writing,
than in what they are saying. But I do still believe what I wrote, and as long as
anyone has reactions to what I wrote I am interested to discuss it, because maybe
they'll offer new insights, as a few Tuning List people have. And as I mentioned
earlier, I've had a nagging sense ever since this summer about your reactions
(which seemed particularly intense, even personally offended), and those of some
others.

On the other hand you don't seem to feel so strongly about it anymore. Well
anyway? toward "wrapping it up" I'll say a few more things:

> it is "conflicting" in the same sense that a single diatonic scale in
> ji or meantone is "conflicting".

The same except that in this piece Johnston seems in his composing clearly to be
*exploiting* the conflicts in the tuning to his musical ends rather than trying to
resolve or get around them. That's what make this piece sound the way it does
("microtonal," so to speak), and is why I included it in that part of my paper. This
seemed to scandalize you in the summer, but perhaps it doesn't matter anymore.
(By the way, Jon Szanto pointed out that I ought to put another reminder of which
posts I am responding to, since it was so long ago. It was 38555 and 38622.)

>
> > > you say that the only intervals just intonation theory would
> consider
> > > truly consonant are 2:1, 3:2, 5:4, and maybe 7:4. but this
> wouldn't
> > > even allow you to construct a consonant triad, since either a
> major
> > > or minor triad, while containing a 3:2 and a 5:4, must also
> contain a
> > > 6:5.
> > >
> >
> > Well, yes. This would only support my point as far as beatlessness-
> as-criterion is
> > concerned.
>
> how so?

Just because my point was that if beating is problematic (beating frequently being
cited as evidence of the flaws in 12-note ET), then it's hard to get away from
beating, no matter what you do. What you said there seemed to support that point.

> my point is that many even more consonant intervals, even major
> thirds in lower registers, can exhibit beating, and yet this rarely
> disturbs the "just intonation theorist" -- who instead tends to
> discover additional, *new* consonant intervals, as they tingle his or
> her palate in familiar yet unfamiliar ways.

Is it possible that you, too, are misrepresenting "the just intonation theorist," as if
there is one type? Granted, you know more of them than I do, but I certainly have
heard beats disussed quite a bit as if they are evidence of a flawed interval, and
gave you some examples in my last posts.

> > Anyway, rather than me playing a guessing
> > game, why don't you just tell me your explanation of the tension in
> that sort of
> > augmented second, beyond the standard
> > lowered-sixth-degree-and-raised-seventh-degree-needing-to-resolve
> type of
> > explanation?
>
> "guessing game"? -- seems like we had a serious communication blip
> there. my apologies. anyway, it has to do with scalar gestalts and
> the like,

I guess I'll have to guess what this means.

things that can coexist with "just intonation theory" (at
> least in my mind). so why do i have to go into this now? :) :) :)

I guess it doesn't matter any more?

> the layers of subjectivity, of culture, that are buried in music of
> great worth, are immeasurable. i know of some staunch defenders
> of "just intonation theory" who hold to this most strongly, who feel
> it in their every musical bone. there is no contradition here.

Maybe not in what your friends feel in their bones, just in what certain others run
around proclaining.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> Hi Paul.
>
> Sorry for taking so long; I was away for a few days.
>
> It is hard to get back into the spirit of this conversation,

agreed! there are better things to be said, like wishing your
children well . . .

> others.
>
> On the other hand you don't seem to feel so strongly about it
anymore. Well
> anyway? toward "wrapping it up" I'll say a few more things:
>
> > it is "conflicting" in the same sense that a single diatonic
scale in
> > ji or meantone is "conflicting".
>
> The same except that in this piece Johnston seems in his composing
clearly to be
> *exploiting* the conflicts in the tuning to his musical ends rather
than trying to
> resolve or get around them.

no problem there!

> That's what make this piece sound the way it does
> ("microtonal," so to speak), and is why I included it in that part
of my paper. This
> seemed to scandalize you in the summer, but perhaps it doesn't
matter anymore.

well, i think johnston believes in *more* of the tenets of the "just
intonation movement" than i do, and i *still* don't feel he's taking
any "fundamental liberties" with any of those tenets in this piece.
ok?

> (By the way, Jon Szanto pointed out that I ought to put another
reminder of which
> posts I am responding to, since it was so long ago. It was 38555
and 38622.)

good to have them there for reference. i'll only go back if i feel a
*need* to get caught up in this again. i hope, instead, to "escape"
from this debate, as i feel it's up to the "just intonation
movement", not me, to refute your claims.

> > > > you say that the only intervals just intonation theory would
> > consider
> > > > truly consonant are 2:1, 3:2, 5:4, and maybe 7:4. but this
> > wouldn't
> > > > even allow you to construct a consonant triad, since either a
> > major
> > > > or minor triad, while containing a 3:2 and a 5:4, must also
> > contain a
> > > > 6:5.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, yes. This would only support my point as far as
beatlessness-
> > as-criterion is
> > > concerned.
> >
> > how so?
>
> Just because my point was that if beating is problematic (beating
frequently being
> cited as evidence of the flaws in 12-note ET), then it's hard to
get away from
> beating, no matter what you do. What you said there seemed to
support that point.

firstly, i'll just note that the interval 7:6, which you seem to like
in your paper, clearly falls into the category of intervals referred
to above.

now, let me address this:

"beating frequently being cited as evidence of the flaws in 12-note
ET"

well, i think it's more like this -- one of the most straightforward
(and hence perhaps too-frequently cited) audible demonstrations of
the difference in sound between equal temperament and just intonation
is to play some of these basic, ultra-consonant intervals and compare
them. i believe even isacoff does this on his webpage. you can
immediately hear (actually, i know some great musicians who can't)
that at least *some* of the beating present in the equal temperament
chord disappears entirely in the just intonation version.

now, the thing is, *exactly* the same effect happens (but slightly
diminished in prominence) in the case of the minor sixth --
especially the 8:5 minor sixth, but even, under ideal listening
conditions, the 13:8 and 14:9 minor sixths. you'll hear that certain
beating overtones in the equal-tempered minor sixth simply cease to
beat in the just intonation version. the tuning is "smoothed-out" --
as far as reducing roughness is concerned, the 8:5 tuning is optimal
within the range of "minor sixths", within the range of intervals
that serve that "particular musical function". sure, there may still
be other overtones that beat -- but this is a necessary, unavoidable
aspect of all intervals in this range.

does that mean that all "minor sixths" are somewhat rough? my
roommate in college, who was taking music courses but had no
knowledge of acoustics, tuning, ratios, etc., played the piano and
asked me this question. "why is this interval [plays C-F#] just as
dissonant as this interval [plays C-Ab]"? he was really bugged by
this since he was being taught, in his music class, that these
intervals fell into completely different categories: dissonant, and
consonant, respectively. well, we both know the answer, julia --
*context* makes the difference, and can have all kinds of influence
on the perceived tension or lack thereof of any element of a musical
composition. in fact the very projection of the interval *as* a minor
sixth (as an interval subtending six scale degrees in the operative
diatonic scale) is quite key to the "consonant" quality it acquires
in Western music. note that "augmented fifths", while the same size
acoustically, sound like (and are considered) dissonances! of all our
modern consonances, the minor sixth was the *last* to be accepted
into the pantheon, as margo has documented.

i don't think the "just intonation movement" denies this "context-
relativity" -- it's just that many of its advocates want to go back
to the basic qualities of intervals and chords *themselves*, such as
what my roommate was responding to, and work their way up to complete
musical pieces from there. it's a "rebellious" movement that "cuts
the cord" with Western musical culture, with which it is
disenchanted, and looks to the study of basic musical materials as a
means toward erecting a new culture. perhaps, given as many centuries
to develop as european music has had, it will produce works of great
power and meaning that would impress even you. maybe it won't.
anyway, the 8:5 in just intonation can certainly be projected as a
consonance by all sorts of "contextual" methods -- most
straightforwardly, by contrasting it with the *still rougher*
intervals that surround it or that pepper the intervallic landscape
(see helmholtz's chart again or any of the more modern variations),
or by implying a complete triad through successive alternation with
the missing triad member, etc. . . . in other just intonation
contexts, say something "gothic", the 8:5 might be used as a
(somewhat smooth) version of a *dissonance* -- since in the context
of gothic music, *all* minor sixths (let along augmented fifths) are
projected as dissonances.

what is probably more important than beating, by the way, is that all
the *combinational tones* of the 8:5 minor sixth *line up*. while a
minor sixth in equal temperament produces all sorts of combinational
tones, including one or two still audible at low volumes, for example
the minor sixth a-f' will produce, in the ear, an F (complete with
its own series of harmonics) that is 67 cents sharp relative to the
high F! for the just intonation a-f', this F is perfectly in tune
with the high F. someone who works with equal temperament all the
time learns to "filter out" these out-of-tune combinational tones,
except in extreme examples like two flutes playing high and
loud . . . but if you spend some time with the sounds of just
intonation, these "defects" (from the just intonation movement's
point of view) of equal temperament will stick out like a sore thumb.
helmholtz does discuss combinational tones, so you should be able to
learn more about them even if you don't have anything more recent. in
any case it should be clear that the idea of a "just intonation minor
sixth" is by no means a contradiction in terms!

then there's the whole virtual pitch issue . . .

> > my point is that many even more consonant intervals, even major
> > thirds in lower registers, can exhibit beating, and yet this
rarely
> > disturbs the "just intonation theorist" -- who instead tends to
> > discover additional, *new* consonant intervals, as they tingle
his or
> > her palate in familiar yet unfamiliar ways.
>
> Is it possible that you, too, are misrepresenting "the just
intonation theorist," as if
> there is one type? Granted, you know more of them than I do, but I
certainly have
> heard beats disussed quite a bit as if they are evidence of a
flawed interval, and
> gave you some examples in my last posts.

see above.

look, not all just intonation theorists have all their theory correct
and/or consistent. in fact, i'm the bane of all of them on this
list :) but that's where i come in saying your response is "shallow".
the fact is that any just intonationist, and plenty of musically
untrained experimental subjects, can hear the "smoothness" (defined
by *relative* lack of beating, alignment of combinational tones,
etc.) of the 8:5 in contradistinction to the relative "roughness" of
other minor sixths / augmented fifths. so when a minor sixth is
called for, the "just intonationist" tends to shoot for the 8:5
(though the 13:8, 14:9, or even more complex intervals can often be
more desirable depending on context).

my gut reaction was that it was exceedingly pedantic, and almost
willfully distancing, to point out that the minor sixth has some
beating in it, and to present that if that were some kind of "show-
stopper" for the rest of the just intonation programme. maybe some
proponent of just intonation made a statement that wasn't 100%
accurate in a scientific sense, but your attempt to make a serious
issue out of this in your paper led me to feel that you really must
have delved only very "shallowly" into just intonation theory and
practice. the argument reminded me, strangely enough, of some
medieval proofs of the existence of god, because it so simplistic,
and yet is presented in such a way as to make any alternative seem
utterly absurd. yet if you felt this argument really had any weight --
that is, if it were capable of convincing even one just
intonationist to "switch sides" -- then you really must feel that the
just intonation movement is based on flimsy foundations indeed. and
that is why i felt insulted on its behalf.

> > > Anyway, rather than me playing a guessing
> > > game, why don't you just tell me your explanation of the
tension in
> > that sort of
> > > augmented second, beyond the standard
> > > lowered-sixth-degree-and-raised-seventh-degree-needing-to-
resolve
> > type of
> > > explanation?
> >
> > "guessing game"? -- seems like we had a serious communication
blip
> > there. my apologies. anyway, it has to do with scalar gestalts
and
> > the like,
>
> I guess I'll have to guess what this means.

well, for example the idea that the diatonic scale provides the
overwhelming "pitch gestalt" for western tonal music, and . . . well
i could go on but . . .

> things that can coexist with "just intonation theory" (at
> > least in my mind). so why do i have to go into this now? :) :) :)
>
> I guess it doesn't matter any more?

i'll leave it up to you whether we should continue on this . . .

>
> > the layers of subjectivity, of culture, that are buried in music
of
> > great worth, are immeasurable. i know of some staunch defenders
> > of "just intonation theory" who hold to this most strongly, who
feel
> > it in their every musical bone. there is no contradition here.
>
> Maybe not in what your friends feel in their bones, just in what
certain others run
> around proclaining.

i'll leave it to you to point out where you see this contradiction,
and to those others to then respond -- perhaps my friend (in the
sense above, and i hope in others) kraig grady would like to chime
in, or jon szanto i think could especially have something to say
since he defended the "just intonation movement" against my attacks
in the past . . . as for those who would like to build up a musical
language from scratch, "immune" from any cultural effects, devoid of
any cultural "baggage", i say good luck, i know that that is not how
i can listen to or create music most of the time, but that doesn't
mean your programme is worthless or doomed to failure . . . i find
that such experiments can certainly be a fruitful source of
inspiration, if nothing else.

p.s. do you get now what i was saying about how many of the examples
in the second part of your paper would represent the "paragon of
consonance" according to your own depiction of what is fundamental to
just intonation?

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#39842
>
> i'll leave it to you to point out where you see this contradiction,
> and to those others to then respond -- perhaps my friend (in the
> sense above, and i hope in others) kraig grady would like to chime
> in, or jon szanto i think could especially have something to say
> since he defended the "just intonation movement" against my attacks
> in the past . . . as for those who would like to build up a musical
> language from scratch, "immune" from any cultural effects, devoid
of
> any cultural "baggage", i say good luck, i know that that is not
how
> i can listen to or create music most of the time, but that doesn't
> mean your programme is worthless or doomed to failure . . . i find
> that such experiments can certainly be a fruitful source of
> inspiration, if nothing else.
>

***For me, personally, the consonant intervals that are close to Just
Intonation in the 72-tET system are FAR AND BEYOND more interesting
than the tiny *adjacencies* that a person can combinatorialize in
some kind of linear artificial construct in 72.

The fact that a person can use a scale like *Blackjack* and create
*consonances* along a *lattice* that are similar to traditional
music and yet do not progress along the lines of traditional
functional harmony, is a great source of inspiration, since it
relies on our sense of *traditional* listening.

For me, the simple JI intervals and chords, and their close relatives
which led to our traditional total system are part of our "body
hearing." I'm convinced that our *physical* makeup, particularly the
*emotional* end is *very* hooked into this.

Joseph Pehrson

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

>as for those who would like to build up a musical
> language from scratch, "immune" from any cultural effects, devoid of
> any cultural "baggage", i say good luck, i know that that is not how
> i can listen to or create music most of the time, but that doesn't
> mean your programme is worthless or doomed to failure . . . i find
> that such experiments can certainly be a fruitful source of
> inspiration, if nothing else.

Did Julia say she intended to create a musical language from scratch, immune from any cultural effects and devoid of any of its baggage? I find that hard to believe--she does have a few samples up, and this is hardly how I would describe them.

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

> For me, the simple JI intervals and chords, and their close
relatives
> which led to our traditional total system are part of our "body
> hearing." I'm convinced that our *physical* makeup, particularly
the
> *emotional* end is *very* hooked into this.
>
> Joseph Pehrson

you may be interested in checking out what Martin Braun has to say,
both on the specmus list and on his website. i don't always agree
with him, but he attempts to address this very issue. he's a
neuroscientist, by the way . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_37235.html#39889

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > For me, the simple JI intervals and chords, and their close
> relatives
> > which led to our traditional total system are part of our "body
> > hearing." I'm convinced that our *physical* makeup, particularly
> the
> > *emotional* end is *very* hooked into this.
> >
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> you may be interested in checking out what Martin Braun has to say,
> both on the specmus list and on his website. i don't always agree
> with him, but he attempts to address this very issue. he's a
> neuroscientist, by the way . . .

***Well, this is pretty cool. I found it here:

http://hem.netlink.se/~sbe29751/engH.htm

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > as for those who would like to build up a musical
> > language from scratch, "immune" from any cultural effects, devoid
of
> > any cultural "baggage", i say good luck, i know that that is not
how
> > i can listen to or create music most of the time, but that
doesn't
> > mean your programme is worthless or doomed to failure . . . i
find
> > that such experiments can certainly be a fruitful source of
> > inspiration, if nothing else.
>
> Did Julia say she intended to create a musical language from
>scratch, immune from any cultural effects and devoid of any of its
>baggage?

nope -- she's on quite the opposite side of this one -- try following
our exchange more closely and this might become clearer -- then again
you may have better things to do . . .

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

>
> i don't think the "just intonation movement" denies this "context-
> relativity" -- it's just that many of its advocates want to go back
> to the basic qualities of intervals and chords *themselves*, such as
> what my roommate was responding to, and work their way up to complete
> musical pieces from there. it's a "rebellious" movement that "cuts
> the cord" with Western musical culture, with which it is
> disenchanted, and looks to the study of basic musical materials as a
> means toward erecting a new culture.

Well, your account here of *this aspect* of the just intonation movement matches
mine, as I discussed it in my paper: the idea of "going back" to something, of
Westerners attempting to rebel against Western culture (rather simply embracing
non-Western cultures), even erecting a *new* culture (as if we can just erect
cultures, just like that).

> my gut reaction was that it was exceedingly pedantic, and almost
> willfully distancing, to point out that the minor sixth has some
> beating in it, and to present that if that were some kind of "show-
> stopper" for the rest of the just intonation programme.

As you may recall, this was a secondary point, not intended to be the
"show-stopper." (I'm repeating myself.) My main point was about culure, context,
blah, blah, blah.

the argument reminded me, strangely enough, of some
> medieval proofs of the existence of god, because it so simplistic,
> and yet is presented in such a way as to make any alternative seem
> utterly absurd.

And yet, for me it is the arguments made by so many "just intonationists" which
remind me of quirky religious dogmas. ("Nature's Tuning," etc.)

yet if you felt this argument really had any weight --
> that is, if it were capable of convincing even one just
> intonationist to "switch sides" -- then you really must feel that the
> just intonation movement is based on flimsy foundations indeed. and
> that is why i felt insulted on its behalf.

To that I'll just have to say: "Sorry." What else can I say to that? At least I do
support some of the *music* that has come out of it, if not the talk. In my mind
that is the most important thing.

>
> > > > Anyway, rather than me playing a guessing
> > > > game, why don't you just tell me your explanation of the
> tension in
> > > that sort of
> > > > augmented second, beyond the standard
> > > > lowered-sixth-degree-and-raised-seventh-degree-needing-to-
> resolve
> > > type of
> > > > explanation?
> > >
> > > "guessing game"? -- seems like we had a serious communication
> blip
> > > there. my apologies. anyway, it has to do with scalar gestalts
> and
> > > the like,
> >
> > I guess I'll have to guess what this means.
>
> well, for example the idea that the diatonic scale provides the
> overwhelming "pitch gestalt" for western tonal music, and . . . well
> i could go on but . . .
>
> > things that can coexist with "just intonation theory" (at
> > > least in my mind). so why do i have to go into this now? :) :) :)
> >
> > I guess it doesn't matter any more?
>
> i'll leave it up to you whether we should continue on this . . .
>

It was your question. A long time ago, you had wanted me to delve more into my
dissonant augmented 2nd example in the paper, to explain on a deeper level why
we *really* hear it that way, aside from the leading tone/lowered sixth explanation.
So you have something in mind about "pitch gestalts in Western Music"... But we
can let it go.

> >
> > > the layers of subjectivity, of culture, that are buried in music
> of
> > > great worth, are immeasurable. i know of some staunch defenders
> > > of "just intonation theory" who hold to this most strongly, who
> feel
> > > it in their every musical bone. there is no contradition here.
> >
> > Maybe not in what your friends feel in their bones, just in what
> certain others run
> > around proclaining.
>
> i'll leave it to you to point out where you see this contradiction,
> and to those others to then respond

I think I've probably already exhausted this topic.

>
> p.s. do you get now what i was saying about how many of the examples
> in the second part of your paper would represent the "paragon of
> consonance" according to your own depiction of what is fundamental to
> just intonation?

No. At least I don't see the "irony" you referred to in your original post.