response to paul

Hi Paul.

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

I suppose one should never say "never." If there are many, many musicians who
have discussed the craft of composing with microtones, free from any pure tuning
theories, please tell me more.

>take just about any, say, santoor player
>in north india -- you will find that he (or if you're lucky, she)
>tunes in just intonation, and yet improvises directly from the heart
>and from cultural tradition that has never had anything to do with
>multiplying complex ratios. players of flexible-pitch instruments in
>this tradition are also demonstrably drawn toward just intonation
>tuning, particularly for those raga-pitches which are very close to
>forming a very simple ratio with the drone, without caring a whit for
>any acoustical or numerical theories that may describe what they are
>doing.

Good point, and thanks for the example, even though my knowledge of Indian
music theory is tiny. But the context is very important; I wasn't even treading in the
territory of non-Western musical traditions, or, of course, pre-equal-temperament
European music, in that discussion in my paper. I made it clear that that
non-Western music is a whole other story from the one I address. (You can see
that in my thesis excerpt, also.)

>well, there's so much more but that's enough for now -- the above is
>not a direct response to your dissertation or the 24-page summary on
>the dissertation website

It's an excerpt, not a summary!

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

> I suppose one should never say "never." If there are many, many
musicians who
> have discussed the craft of composing with microtones, free from
any pure tuning
> theories, please tell me more.

what counts as "pure tuning theories" to you? when i look at such
discussions from carillo, wychnegradsky, and haba, i don't even see a
discussion of concordance/discordance, let alone pure tuning
theories. others have discussed composing in equal and other
temperaments, with an eye toward latent concordance/discordance
relationships, either in general or for harmonic partials or with
respect to a particular instrumentarium, such as one with a special
set of inharmonic partials. do any of the latter categories count
as "pure tuning theories"? and if one keeps an eye toward these
latencies, is one truly any less "free" than if one composes without
even having considered or investigated them? or is freedom something
gained when one learns to control one's materials, partly through a
better understanding of the properties they have?

>
> >take just about any, say, santoor player
> >in north india -- you will find that he (or if you're lucky, she)
> >tunes in just intonation, and yet improvises directly from the
heart
> >and from cultural tradition that has never had anything to do with
> >multiplying complex ratios. players of flexible-pitch instruments
in
> >this tradition are also demonstrably drawn toward just intonation
> >tuning, particularly for those raga-pitches which are very close
to
> >forming a very simple ratio with the drone, without caring a whit
for
> >any acoustical or numerical theories that may describe what they
are
> >doing.
>
> Good point, and thanks for the example, even though my knowledge of
Indian
> music theory is tiny. But the context is very important; I wasn't
even treading in the
> territory of non-Western musical traditions, or, of course, pre-
equal-temperament
> European music, in that discussion in my paper.

indian music and music teachers have had a *huge* impact in the
hotbed of modern Western just intonation practice, namely the west
coast of the united states. are you familiar with, for example,
pandit pran nath, and the students he has had?

do you really think we live in a world where profoundly new music can
be made in exclusively a western or exclusively a non-western
tradition?

> It's an excerpt, not a summary!

oops -- sorry about that!

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

/tuning/topicId_37350.html#37365

> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > I suppose one should never say "never." If there are many, many
> musicians who
> > have discussed the craft of composing with microtones, free from
> any pure tuning
> > theories, please tell me more.
>
> what counts as "pure tuning theories" to you? when i look at such
> discussions from carillo, wychnegradsky, and haba, i don't even see
a
> discussion of concordance/discordance, let alone pure tuning
> theories. others have discussed composing in equal and other
> temperaments, with an eye toward latent concordance/discordance
> relationships, either in general or for harmonic partials or with
> respect to a particular instrumentarium, such as one with a special
> set of inharmonic partials. do any of the latter categories count
> as "pure tuning theories"? and if one keeps an eye toward these
> latencies, is one truly any less "free" than if one composes
without
> even having considered or investigated them? or is freedom
something
> gained when one learns to control one's materials, partly through a
> better understanding of the properties they have?
>

***I certainly would vote for the *latter!* :) In fact, I really
can't *imagine* anyone using 72-tET without full cognizance of
its "special properties" in a quasi-just sense...whether one *uses*
them or not!...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***I certainly would vote for the *latter!* :) In fact, I really
> can't *imagine* anyone using 72-tET without full cognizance of
> its "special properties" in a quasi-just sense...whether one *uses*
> them or not!...

As I've said to Paul, you should read the PNM article before saying things like this. If nothing else, it gave me an insight into exactly what you *can't* imagine: just how and why someone might use 72 without delving into what _you_ consider "special properties".

I'm not saying Ms. Werntz or anyone else *is* fully cognizant of those properties, but they have found other things of interest in 72 that they find valuable, completely aside from those properties.

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37350.html#37374

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > ***I certainly would vote for the *latter!* :) In fact, I
really
> > can't *imagine* anyone using 72-tET without full cognizance of
> > its "special properties" in a quasi-just sense...whether one
*uses*
> > them or not!...
>
> As I've said to Paul, you should read the PNM article before saying
things like this. If nothing else, it gave me an insight into exactly
what you *can't* imagine: just how and why someone might use 72
without delving into what _you_ consider "special properties".
>
> I'm not saying Ms. Werntz or anyone else *is* fully cognizant of
those properties, but they have found other things of interest in 72
that they find valuable, completely aside from those properties.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

****Quite frankly, Jon, I don't believe I have to go and read
anybody's article before I express a viewpoint on some subject, sorry.

And besides, the articles doesn't really sound all that interesting
to me so, although I'm interested in getting it soon, I have other
*higher priority* things to do.

Sorry,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ****Quite frankly, Jon, I don't believe I have to go and read
> anybody's article before I express a viewpoint on some subject, sorry.

In msg #37092, you said:

> So, I'm not really *reversing* just witholding judgement until I
> read the Perspectives.

It seemed to me that you were making suppositions that could only be known or not by reading the article, and since you had said the above I was mentioning it in that light. Your right to proffer an opinion at any time will always be defended by me!

> although I'm interested in getting it soon, I have other
> *higher priority* things to do.

Understandable, as I've been in the same boat the last couple of days.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> I'm not saying Ms. Werntz or anyone else *is* fully cognizant of those properties, but they have found other things of interest in 72 that they find valuable, completely aside from those properties.

How can you (or they) be sure it is completely aside from those properties? Werntz mentioned ear training--where does that actually lead?

>
> what counts as "pure tuning theories" to you? when i look at such
> discussions from carillo, wychnegradsky, and haba, i don't even see a
> discussion of concordance/discordance, let alone pure tuning
> theories.

Just like I wrote in my essay... Anyone else? How about something a little more
recent?

others have discussed composing in equal and other
> temperaments, with an eye toward latent concordance/discordance
> relationships, either in general or for harmonic partials or with
> respect to a particular instrumentarium, such as one with a special
> set of inharmonic partials. do any of the latter categories count
> as "pure tuning theories"?

This is not what I'm referring to. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but if you want to
know what I was referring to, you'll have to get the paper and look especially at
Part 2. I'd be more than happy to make you a copy if I were in town, but
unfortunatley I'm out of the country until mid-July.

If you really want to see it, you could try the BU library. Nobody checks ID's there,
and it's a fantastic library. (Lots of microtonal scores, too.) You can also walk into
the NEC Spaulding Library. Both places have PNM.

or is freedom something
> gained when one learns to control one's materials, partly through a
> better understanding of the properties they have?

I like this point. Of course, the characterization of their "properties" is a subjective
matter. I'm glad we're talking about creative freedom.
>

> do you really think we live in a world where profoundly new music can
> be made in exclusively a western or exclusively a non-western
> tradition?

Profoundly new, or profoundly beautiful, music could be made in a huge number of
ways, inclusive *and* exclusive. And I never wrote or said anything to the
contrary. I simply limited the scope of my discussion in that paper.
>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> How can you (or they) be sure it is completely aside from those properties? Werntz mentioned ear training--where does that actually lead?

I'm being very "face value" about this, Gene: Joe asked how they could ignore the JI-like qualities of 72, the article expresses a great deal of antipathy towards JI in general. I'm not saying there couldn't be underlying phenomena, it is just clear that whatever they have found to like about 72 (they meaning Maneri, Werntz, and others with similar compositional interests), it doesn't lie in approximating just intonation.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> I like this point. Of course, the characterization of their "properties" is a subjective
> matter. I'm glad we're talking about creative freedom.

Would you say the same about characterizing the properties of a chemical element? Why is Element 72 (Hafnium) correctly characterized by a host of properties, whereas Equal Temperament 72 (which we have *already* characterized by a number, which subverts your whole thesis)
uncharacterizable in this way? If you sculpt using Hafnium, it will have properties whether or not you are willing to acknowledge them, and "artistic freedom" will not make them go away. Why is Equal Temperament 72 any different?

This sort of romantic anti-intellectualism is popular on this list, so I don't imagine you are alone here with this point of view, but it hardly seems like a good basis for study.

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

<<I'm not saying there couldn't be underlying phenomena, it is just clear that whatever they have found to like about 72 (they meaning Maneri, Werntz, and others with similar compositional interests), it doesn't lie in approximating just intonation.>>

If the "underlying phenomena" is that you can throw a dart at random at diagram of 72-et and hit something which is a good approximation of an 11-limit ratio, then it seems to me that to rule it out as an important factor in the music of Maneri, et al, you couldn't go merely by what they say, you'd need to make an argument based on the score. Can it, or can it not, reasonably be interpreted as using these ratios as an organizing principle? If you think "artistic freedom" means the question is not relevant, I submit this is not so.

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

/tuning/topicId_37350.html#37377
>
> In msg #37092, you said:
>
> > So, I'm not really *reversing* just witholding judgement until I
> > read the Perspectives.
>
> It seemed to me that you were making suppositions that could only
be known or not by reading the article, and since you had said the
above I was mentioning it in that light. Your right to proffer an
opinion at any time will always be defended by me!
>

***Hi Jon. I suppose I was continuing the discussion in a more
*general* sense, not specifically related to the article, when I made
that comment. However, you are right, when you point to the fact
that the *generator* of the discussion *has* been the paper so these
comments, however tangential, which *mine* was, could easily be taken
in the light of uninformed comments on an article I hadn't yet read...

I'll try to "pare down" my discussion, or label it as *general* until
after I've read the article, which I am fully intending to do.

best,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> This sort of romantic anti-intellectualism is popular on this list,
so I don't imagine you are alone here with this point of view, but it
hardly seems like a good basis for study.

Oh balls, Gene! To ask someone to compare the properties of a tuning
system with one of the physical elements is a real stretch.
Maybe "prosaic and pedantic pro-intellectualism".

She is a composer who is not into the baggage of tuning. And, even if
*you* want to do so, not every element of study and manner of precise
inspection of materials that happens to apply in other endeavors
need, or should, apply to music.

I remember your definition of "scale"; that pretty much said it all.
There are so many facets of your main discipline that have found
great use for you in musical and tuning areas, and has enriched this
group. It would be nice if you could accept that not all of those
principles transfer over to an art form, and the PNM article, in my
reading, was talking a lot more about composition than tuning.

Your analogy does not hold.

Cheers,
Jon

> > I like this point. Of course, the characterization of their "properties" is a
subjective
> > matter. I'm glad we're talking about creative freedom.
>
> Would you say the same about characterizing the properties of a chemical
element?

Of course not!

>Why is Element 72 (Hafnium) correctly characterized by a host of properties,
>whereas Equal Temperament 72 (which we have *already* characterized by a
>number, which subverts your whole thesis)
> uncharacterizable in this way?

I beg your pardon. This analogy is not convincing me... I recognize that these two
things have the number 72 in common... But, I'm just a musician. Have you really
just subverted my whole thesis?!!!

>If you sculpt using Hafnium, it will have properties whether or not you are willing
>to acknowledge them, and "artistic freedom" will not make them go away. Why is
Equal Temperament 72 any different?

Where to begin...

>
> This sort of romantic anti-intellectualism is popular on this list, so I don't imagine
you are alone here with this point of view, but it hardly seems like a good basis for
study.

So, saying that the characterization of intervals is a subjective matter is romantic
ant-intellectualism? Well, so be it.

If you've never read it, you might be interested in the romantic anti-intellectual
essay "Toward a Cultural Theory of Consonance," by Robert W. Lundin in the
1947 Journal of Psychology. (Volume 23) Some of his data are out-dated now, of
course, but his main argument still holds water, in my view. (Obviously, from the
title.)

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> If the "underlying phenomena" is that you can throw a dart at
random at diagram of 72-et and hit something which is a good
approximation of an 11-limit ratio

I have no idea why you chose to use a characterization such as this.
It has been my reading, on this list over the last couple of years,
that one of the interesting qualities of 72 is how well it can
approximate many of the JI intervals. Some people see this as a
bonus, and will use 72 to make near-JI, practical-to-teach/read
music. Others, such as in the Werntz paper, are not interested in
that ability of the scale. So...

> then it seems to me that to rule it out as an important factor in
the music of Maneri, et al, you couldn't go merely by what they say,
you'd need to make an argument based on the score.

Sorry, that's not how I see it. You would take a score, analyze it,
say "See, they are *definitely* being drawn toward just invervals at
these critical junctures in the composition! Aha!! I was right!!!"

I wouldn't.

> If you think "artistic freedom" means the question is not relevant,
I submit this is not so.

I disagree.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Oh balls, Gene! To ask someone to compare the properties of a tuning
> system with one of the physical elements is a real stretch.
> Maybe "prosaic and pedantic pro-intellectualism".

Why? In both cases, we are looking at properties of the materials of an artistic creation.

> She is a composer who is not into the baggage of tuning. And, even if
> *you* want to do so, not every element of study and manner of precise
> inspection of materials that happens to apply in other endeavors
> need, or should, apply to music.

I'm not concerned with her as a composer, but as a theorist. As a composer, she has the artistic freedom to do what she likes; as a theorist, she has the intellectual obligation to understand her own subject matter. Anyone who writes a PhD dissertation on something had better understand it, and conflating the task of a theorist with that of a composer in a cloud of romaticizing about "freedom" should not get you off the hook of that fundamental necessity.

If there was a school of sculptors who sculpted in Hafnium, they are free to ignore its properties. An academic researching this school is not; they should know about Hafnium. Even if they maintain its properties don't really matter, and the sculpture could just as well be in zinc, they should know enough to make that argument, and not try to slide by with the claim that defining the properties of zinc and Hafnium is a subjective enterprise.

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

> I beg your pardon. This analogy is not convincing me... I recognize that these two
> things have the number 72 in common... But, I'm just a musician. Have you really
> just subverted my whole thesis?!!!

Not your PhD thesis, which I have not read, but your philosophical thesis about "properties". Clearly, to maintain that something which is *defined* by the octave and the number 72 has no objectively given properties makes no sense.

> So, saying that the characterization of intervals is a subjective matter is romantic
> ant-intellectualism? Well, so be it.

That's not an argument.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Why? In both cases, we are looking at properties of the materials
of an artistic creation.

The materials themselves are sufficiently different to warrant
different methodologies of investigation.

> If there was a school of sculptors who sculpted in Hafnium, they
are free to ignore its properties. An academic researching this
school is not; they should know about Hafnium.

It appears that she is one of the sculptors, writing about her
experiences with the material.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> If you've never read it, you might be interested in the romantic
anti-intellectual
> essay "Toward a Cultural Theory of Consonance," by Robert W. Lundin in
the
> 1947 Journal of Psychology. (Volume 23) Some of his data are out-dated
now, of
> course, but his main argument still holds water, in my view.
(Obviously, from the
> title.)

I found Lundin in the bibliography of Parncutt's "Harmony", and it's all
of four pages long so I think I'll look it up. However, the title raises
the question "who said anything about consonance?" There's a lot more to
the issue of how the auditory system works and how that relates to music
than the question of consonance.

Clearly, to maintain that something which is *defined* by the octave and the
number 72 has no objectively given properties makes no sense.

In my paper... I acknowledged the role of nature (overtones, etc.) on our
perception of intervals. But, yes, it does make sense to me to say that we cannot
set down in stone certain "objectively given properties" and ignore other
constantly varying factors. On this point we will most likely have to agree to
disagree. In my view, while science has its influential role in our perception of
music and art, it is not the only influential factor. (See PNM essay.) Science and
music simply are not the same thing, even if they are inseparable.
>
> > So, saying that the characterization of intervals is a subjective matter is
romantic
> > ant-intellectualism? Well, so be it.
>
> That's not an argument.

That's right. It wasn't intended as one.

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

But, yes, it does make sense to me to say that we cannot
> set down in stone certain "objectively given properties" and ignore other
> constantly varying factors. On this point we will most likely have to agree to
> disagree.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like something I would disagree with.

In my view, while science has its influential role in our perception of
> music and art, it is not the only influential factor.

Not all painting is about perspective, of course. My objection was that it seemed to me you were saying that science and nature had no role; one would hardly want to claim it was the only factor.

genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> This sort of romantic anti-intellectualism is popular on this list, so I don't imagine you are alone here with this point of view, but it hardly seems like a good basis for study.
>

Problem is Gene, a lot of musicians have a hatred of intellectualism and
a love for romance. It's called poetry.

Oh - and another thing, the longest and most challenging journey in the
world is from the head to the heart.

Peace and love

[Alison wrote...]
>Problem is Gene, a lot of musicians have a hatred of intellectualism and
>a love for romance. It's called poetry.

That's not poetry!

-Carl

>She is a composer who is not into the baggage of tuning.

Then why is she here?

>And, even if *you* want to do so, not every element of study and
>manner of precise inspection of materials that happens to apply in
>other endeavors need, or should, apply to music.

Sorry, Jon, but I think Gene's analogy was a good one here.

>It would be nice if you could accept that not all of those
>principles transfer over to an art form, and the PNM article, in my
>reading, was talking a lot more about composition than tuning.

They're independent things, not mutually exclusive. If my culture
has me relishing discordance, fine, but the music still sounds the
same, and that is: different than it would if it were concordant.

Dissonance gives way to musical context, within limits. Figuring
out what those limits are has been a part of discussions here, and
on the harmonic entropy list. We even have the terminology discordant,
and dissonant, to separate the psychoacoustic phenomenon from the
musical one.

No one claims to catch all the variables. For example, I find that
spatial separation makes it harder for me to accurately hear JI.
Why? I've got no idea (I think I'm not alone, though, 'cause
Barbershop singers stand close together, and are never mic'ed
separately). Does this invalidate a search for generalized-diatonic
scales? Of course not.

-Carl

>>then it seems to me that to rule it out as an important factor in
>>the music of Maneri, et al, you couldn't go merely by what they say,
>>you'd need to make an argument based on the score.
>
>Sorry, that's not how I see it. You would take a score, analyze it,
>say "See, they are *definitely* being drawn toward just invervals at
>these critical junctures in the composition! Aha!! I was right!!!"
>
>I wouldn't.

Well I might not say all that, either. But if Maneri's music, for
example, didn't have _any_ 11-limit consonances in it, we couldn't say
it was "in" JI. We could say that JI was an organizing principle,
though, since Maneri would have had to _try_ to avoid JI in 72 after
he'd played many more than 72 notes.

Much great music has been written for which there is definitely a valid
way to see JI as an organizing principle. If you use a computer or some
stochastic composition technique to write random music, it wouldn't have
JI as an organizing principle. Actually, it wouldn't have any organizing
principles at all.

Rhythm is the most important organizing principle in Partch's music, if
not in all music. And I'd say, JI was too. The two don't interfere
with eachother. You can take one out and still have the other. But if
you took either one out, you'd damage Partch's music.

This sort of thing is all Gene was getting at.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> [Alison wrote...]
> >Problem is Gene, a lot of musicians have a hatred of intellectualism and
> >a love for romance. It's called poetry.
>
> That's not poetry!

I'm sure that what Alison meant was "pottery". Yes, that must be it. That would be the only thing that made sense. How could anyone draw a line from 'romance' to 'poetry'?

Good catch, Carl.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> Problem is Gene, a lot of musicians have a hatred of intellectualism and
> a love for romance. It's called poetry.

It's not called articles in an academic journal.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > what counts as "pure tuning theories" to you? when i look at such
> > discussions from carillo, wychnegradsky, and haba, i don't even
see a
> > discussion of concordance/discordance, let alone pure tuning
> > theories.
>
> Just like I wrote in my essay... Anyone else?

busoni, ives?

> How about something a little more
> recent?

boulez, tucker, eaton, ferneyhough, balzano, krenek, de vries,
barbieri, maknkopf, staub, r. boulanger, criton, tons of russian
composers,

> > others have discussed composing in equal and other
> > temperaments, with an eye toward latent concordance/discordance
> > relationships, either in general or for harmonic partials or with
> > respect to a particular instrumentarium, such as one with a
special
> > set of inharmonic partials. do any of the latter categories count
> > as "pure tuning theories"?
>
> This is not what I'm referring to.

not what you're referring to as "pure tuning theories"? well then,
we'll have a lot more examples to add, from goldsmith to
sethares . . .

> I'm sorry to repeat myself, but if you want to
> know what I was referring to, you'll have to get the paper and look
especially at
> Part 2.

the PNM paper?

> I'd be more than happy to make you a copy if I were in town, but
> unfortunatley I'm out of the country until mid-July.

excellent . . . then i'll take up jon szanto's offer . . .

> > do you really think we live in a world where profoundly new music
can
> > be made in exclusively a western or exclusively a non-western
> > tradition?
>
> Profoundly new, or profoundly beautiful, music could be made in a
huge number of
> ways, inclusive *and* exclusive. And I never wrote or said anything
to the
> contrary.

nor did i suggest you did!

> I simply limited the scope of my discussion in that paper.

i'm just questioning the meaningfulness of that distinction. after
all, even maneri's music is jazz, with many non-western influences.
if you can consider that, why not consider the west-coast composers
who've studied with indian teachers and also have other non-western
influences in their music?

--- In tuning@y..., Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > If you've never read it, you might be interested in the romantic
> anti-intellectual
> > essay "Toward a Cultural Theory of Consonance," by Robert W.
Lundin in
> the
> > 1947 Journal of Psychology. (Volume 23) Some of his data are out-
dated
> now, of
> > course, but his main argument still holds water, in my view.
> (Obviously, from the
> > title.)
>
> I found Lundin in the bibliography of Parncutt's "Harmony", and
it's all
> of four pages long so I think I'll look it up. However, the title
raises
> the question "who said anything about consonance?" There's a lot
more to
> the issue of how the auditory system works and how that relates to
music
> than the question of consonance.

exactly. i tried to bring this up when i spoke to julia in e-mail and
in person. i'm not sure if i mentioned any particular work in
response to her citation of lundin, but if i had, it would have been
parncutt's book. it's too bad parncutt quantizes to 12-equal. he
should have taken a continuous approach. that is what harmonic
entropy is about.

> Problem is Gene, a lot of musicians have a hatred of intellectualism and
> a love for romance. It's called poetry.

It might be a good idea to distinguish "arid intellectualism" from
"intellectualism" in general, just as the existence of wallowing
sentimentality does not invalidate romanticism.

> Oh - and another thing, the longest and most challenging journey in the
> world is from the head to the heart.

Thinking that the two are mutually exclusive is a big mistake, in my
opinion. A head without a heart can be cold and cruel, but a heart without a
head can either be mawkishly sentimental or lead to fascism (one could
characterize fascisms like nazism as pure emotion with no intellect).

Lets not go down that slippery slope of pitting the head against the heart:
the reason we have both is that they work best together.

Dante

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>then it seems to me that to rule it out as an important factor in
> >>the music of Maneri, et al, you couldn't go merely by what they
say,
> >>you'd need to make an argument based on the score.
> >
> >Sorry, that's not how I see it. You would take a score, analyze
it,
> >say "See, they are *definitely* being drawn toward just invervals
at
> >these critical junctures in the composition! Aha!! I was right!!!"
> >
> >I wouldn't.
>
> Well I might not say all that, either. But if Maneri's music, for
> example, didn't have _any_ 11-limit consonances in it, we couldn't
say
> it was "in" JI. We could say that JI was an organizing principle,
> though, since Maneri would have had to _try_ to avoid JI in 72 after
> he'd played many more than 72 notes.

actually, the vertical intervals featuring in maneri and van duyne's
exercises seem to lean more toward the 11-limit consonances than
random chance would explain. joe monzo noticed this also, as he
posted a while back. maybe was this van duyne's influence rather than
maneri's?

> I'm not concerned with her as a composer, but as a theorist.

For this particular doctorate (a Ph.D. in composition and theory), I was expected
to theoretize as a composer. These two disciplines were not separable, in this
particular situation. I maintained this slant in the PNM article, of course.

>As a composer, she has the artistic freedom to do what she likes; as a theorist,
she has the intellectual obligation to understand her own subject matter. Anyone
who writes a PhD dissertation on something had better understand it,

Remind me which aspect of my subject matter I don't understand, please. You, who
have not read the paper.

> boulez, tucker, eaton, ferneyhough, balzano, krenek, de vries,
> barbieri, maknkopf, staub, r. boulanger, criton, tons of russian
> composers,

This all originates in what was sloppiness, on my part, in using the expression
"never-discussed other way." And I realize I also wrote: "If there are many, many
musicians who have discussed the craft of composing with microtones, free from
any pure tuning theories, please tell me more." In this latter statement, I was really
responding to your mention of people on this list. Certainly some of the people
you cite (though a couple of them I'm not familiar with) as well as others, have
written about microtones free of pure-tuning concerns, and so "never" would
obviously be a gross exaggeration if applied simply to this general category. My
sentiments there were really that 1: the specific issues I discuss in Part 2 of my
essay (not the points themselves, but the issues), are not easily found, and 2: in
"microtonal" fora, the discussions do tend primarily to be about various types of
pure tuning (of course I realize that this particular list is a tuning list per se).

> > look
> especially at
> > Part 2.
>
> the PNM paper?
>
Part 2 is almost exactly the same in both the thesis and the PNM article (whereas
Part 1 differs significantly).
>
> > > do you really think we live in a world where profoundly new music
> can
> > > be made in exclusively a western or exclusively a non-western
> > > tradition?
> >
> > Profoundly new, or profoundly beautiful, music could be made in a
> huge number of
> > ways, inclusive *and* exclusive. And I never wrote or said anything
> to the
> > contrary.
>
> nor did i suggest you did!

But you said... (look above) "Do you really think we... etc." That seemed like a
suggestion... Anyway, this is getting silly.
>
> > I simply limited the scope of my discussion in that paper.
>
> i'm just questioning the meaningfulness of that distinction.

This is the kind of discussion best had after reading the paper. I'm not trying to
push the paper on you, it's just that it was the origin of this discussion.

after
> all, even maneri's music is jazz, with many non-western influences.

Are you aware that Maneri's composed scores are not jazz? And that's without
getting into philosophical debates about what defines jazz, and whether the two
disciplines ("classical" composition and jazz) within one individual inform and
influence each other, which of course they do to some extent. Many people are not
aware of Joe's formal training and parallel career as a composer, especially since
there are nearly no published scores or recordings of his composed works, while
he has gained great fame for his jazz performing. Really, his compositions and his
improvisations ought not to be mixed up in this discussion.

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

>"If there are many, many
> musicians who have discussed the craft of composing with
microtones, free from
> any pure tuning theories, please tell me more." In this latter
statement, I was really
> responding to your mention of people on this list.

mostly i would point to the makemicromusic these days, rather than
this list -- believe it or not, you'll even find some composing in
pure tunings, free from pure tuning theories (i.e., a *free* use of
ji-derived pitch materials).

> Part 2 is almost exactly the same in both the thesis and the PNM
article (whereas
> Part 1 differs significantly).

ok, jon will be sending me a copy of your article, and we'll pick it
up from there (thanks, jon!) . . . i'm sorry to have jumped the
gun . . .

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

> Remind me which aspect of my subject matter I don't understand, please. You, who
> have not read the paper.

You, who have put words in my mouth. I didn't make such a claim, for that very reason; I was responding to the notion, which you may or may not endorse, that you are free to ignore the properties of the 72-et while at the same time theorizing about it.

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

In this latter statement, I was really
> responding to your mention of people on this list.

You could start with Paul, and continue on from there. I don't know
what you mean by "pure tuning" since you refuse to define it, but it
could hardly encompass many of the temperaments and scales we
routinely consider here.

>>Well I might not say all that, either. But if Maneri's music, for
>>example, didn't have _any_ 11-limit consonances in it, we couldn't
>>say it was "in" JI. We could say that JI was an organizing principle,
>>though, since Maneri would have had to _try_ to avoid JI in 72 after
>>he'd played many more than 72 notes.
>
>actually, the vertical intervals featuring in maneri and van duyne's
>exercises seem to lean more toward the 11-limit consonances than
>random chance would explain. joe monzo noticed this also, as he
>posted a while back. maybe was this van duyne's influence rather than
>maneri's?

I hasten to say that I was using Maneri's name here as a placeholder
only. I was just giving examples of clear ways we could make statements
like Gene's about a score.

Once again, I've never heard Maneri, but a few real audio samples on
the web, which I found completely forgettable. Naturally, none of his
many fans around here will so much as recommend an album.

-Carl

Carl,

My personal suggestions would be:

Trinity, Mat's solo acoustic violin and viola ECM recording

Paniots Nine, which was released on John Zorn's Avant label and
contains what's left of the recordings Joe made for Atlantic in 1963

Blessed, a telepathic father and son duet recording on ECM

Light Trigger, another duet recording featuring Mat and the Maneri of
the drums, Randy Peterson

There are lot's of recordings out there, but try and find one of
these.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:27 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: response to paul

> >>Well I might not say all that, either. But if Maneri's music, for
> >>example, didn't have _any_ 11-limit consonances in it, we couldn't
> >>say it was "in" JI. We could say that JI was an organizing
principle,
> >>though, since Maneri would have had to _try_ to avoid JI in 72
after
> >>he'd played many more than 72 notes.
> >
> >actually, the vertical intervals featuring in maneri and van
duyne's
> >exercises seem to lean more toward the 11-limit consonances than
> >random chance would explain. joe monzo noticed this also, as he
> >posted a while back. maybe was this van duyne's influence rather
than
> >maneri's?
>
> I hasten to say that I was using Maneri's name here as a placeholder
> only. I was just giving examples of clear ways we could make
statements
> like Gene's about a score.
>
> Once again, I've never heard Maneri, but a few real audio samples on
> the web, which I found completely forgettable. Naturally, none of
his
> many fans around here will so much as recommend an album.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Deo18C/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/
>
>

> > Remind me which aspect of my subject matter I don't understand, please. You,
who
> > have not read the paper.
>
> You, who have put words in my mouth. I didn't make such a claim, for that very
reason; I was responding to the notion, which you may or may not endorse, that
you are free to ignore the properties of the 72-et while at the same time theorizing
about it.

Here are your actual words (and I didn't put them in your mouth).

"I'm not concerned with her as a composer, but as a theorist. As a composer, she
has the artistic freedom to do what she likes; as a theorist, she has the
intellectual obligation to understand her own subject matter. Anyone who writes
a PhD dissertation on something had better understand it, and conflating the
task of a theorist with that of a composer in a cloud of romaticizing about
"freedom" should not get you off the hook of that fundamental necessity."

Why don't you just hold back from this type of statement, in which you indicate
that you think I didn't understand the subject I wrote my dissertation on, until you
have read the essay?

On the other hand... why do I even care?

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

> Why don't you just hold back from this type of statement, in which you indicate
> that you think I didn't understand the subject I wrote my dissertation on, until you
> have read the essay?

Can you explain how you can logically deduce from the premise that I said you have an obligation the conclusion that I claim you haven't met it?

> On the other hand... why do I even care?

Why should you care if someone outside your field raises questions? It might broaden your horizons.

> > On the other hand... why do I even care?
>
> Why should you care if someone outside your field raises questions? It might
broaden your horizons.

No, why do I care about Gene Smith's behavior. I think I'll stick with some of the
other tuning list people, who at this point seem more likely to broaden my
horizons.

>No, why do I care about Gene Smith's behavior. I think I'll stick with
>some of the other tuning list people, who at this point seem more likely
>to broaden my horizons.

If Gene can't broaden your horizons, you're in serious trouble. :)

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >No, why do I care about Gene Smith's behavior. I think I'll stick with
> >some of the other tuning list people, who at this point seem more likely
> >to broaden my horizons.
>
> If Gene can't broaden your horizons, you're in serious trouble. :)

If a person can't communicate information in a manner that other people can understand, will tolerate, or even deign to read, then they aren't going to be broadening many horizons. We all chose how to illuminate our lives, Carl, and sometimes avoiding such behavior is worth more than the information that *might* have been transferred.

Regards,
Jon