response to mark

Hello Mark.

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

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

>Need I say more...

Among other things, you have deeply misunderstood the spirit in which the article
was written. What I "denounce" in that particular quotation are the denunciations
of non-just music made by many JI proponents. That's all. (And elsewhere in Part 1
I also make theoretical and practical criticisms of the pure-tuning approach to
music. ) I don't threaten anyone's free speech, or democracy itself, I just challenge
what certain people say (and speeking freely). To some, believe it or not, it seems
like certain pure-tuning diatribes like the ones I cite in PNM are intolerant and
would restrict creative freedom.

Please, everyone who is concerned with this issue, make note of the following very
important point, lest anyone succeed in portraying me as a tyrant: In Part 2 of the
PNM essay the compositional suggestions I make are really mainly intended to
interest those who already are inclined, on their own accord, to compose, totally
free from pure tuning concerns, with functional microtonal equal temperaments.
They are not intended for JI composers, who presumably believe in what they are
doing, and for whom these suggestions would be irrelevant. In fact, I'm certain the
points in Part 2 would seem completely outrageous to most JI people. (As does,
for example, Joe Maneri's book.)

In other words, the paper is not one message, stating "Everyone must abandon
just intonation, adopt a microtonal equal temperament, write atonally, and make
use of microintervallic conjunct motion." The messages are two: in Part 1) "Here
are my criticisms of the pure tuning movement and my arguments in favor of
microtonal equal temperaments," and in Part 2) "Here are some suggestions for
those who are unconcerned with pure tuning, and compose with microtonal equal
temperaments."

There are a few such (impure) composers out there, for whom these points would
be food for thought, but on the whole there hasn't been much communication and
discourse amongst them about these issues, which deal with the craft of
composing, especially when compared to the seemingly endless resources available
to pure-tuning theorists and composers.

I never expected this essay to be popular with the pure-tuning crowd. Obviously.
But I *am* interested to know their reactions to the points, especially in Part I. I
criticized the very foundation of the pure-tuning approach to music, and am curious
to hear back from people like you about the issues I raised in that part of the
paper. Even when I disagree, I do like it when people believe very strongly what
they believe. I thrive on plurality, despite what you, Mark Gould, seem to want to
make people think.

If you, other readers, care about the other nit-picking details, then read on...

>Werntz suggests a serial approach: and her techniques reveal it. Werntz is
>thus serial.

This equation doesn't quite work.

I "suggest," in that I give hypothetical examples of how a serialist (someone else)
could make use of the general approach to microtonality outlined in Part 2 of the
paper. (This does not make Werntz serial. Not that Werntz has any problem with
serialism.) In addition, I show how I have used some motivic sets in the first
movement of my string trio. The way I use them, we could also call them, simply,
"motives." Many serious serial composers probably wouldn't say that this qualifies
as serialism, because my treatment of them is too free. But definitions do vary,
and if it's serialism to you, then fine. It's not serialism to me.

>And the serialism proposed is thus more artificial than any JI
>scheme suggested, as it has no basis in any connection of tones at all.

Do you care to explain this, or does this statement suit you just fine as it is? I seem
to remember writing at length about voice-leading (i.e. the connection of tones), in
those same pages.

>Maneri's technique hovers about tones, giving them temporal emphasis - this
>is a 'tonal' technique as it does not destroy the sense of tonal polarity.

It's true that I describe Maneri's emphasis of certain tones through a sort of
"hovering." The final section of my essay, which you are referring to, is devoted to
these emphasized pitches, and that is where I speculate about parallels with
diatonic, music. If the existence of emphasized pitches is *synonymous* with
tonality for you, that's fine too. This is another word with multiple interpretations.
Maybe I prefer your "tonal polarity." This would be a more apt term for what I
describe in those pages.

> What I really do in my paper is to advocate a few
> specific things, for example microtonal equal temperaments in general, an
> "atonal"
> approach (even though I dislike that word), and something I call, for fun,
> "atwelvetonality"

>If that is not serialism, then I have been misled,

You have been misled. Who told you that equal temperament and atonality equal
serialism? Not George Perle! (And I'm sure he never told you anything about
"atwelvetonality.")

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

They are mistakes, presumptions you have made. If you want to be qualified to
speak about my music, or Maneri's, or anyone else's, then get yourself some
scores and study them first.

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

>maybe they didn't want the pitches of the equal temperaments.

Fair enough.

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

For some, like you, that "inner truth" is scientific nature. For others, like me, that
"inner truth" is human nature - even when it doesn't sync with science, as in the
example of some types of equal temperaments. This is closer to the crux of the
issue, for me. (By the way, the language in the paper makes it clear that most of
Part 1 is intended as my opinion, not as fact. What I do state as fact is... that it's
*not* a fact that everyone perceives consonance and
dissonance in the same way, because of several variables which I outline.)

Some of us may be led away from 12-note equal temperament, not in the direction
of pure tuning, but to other divisions of their own or others' invention, including
the ones that for you seem artificial and arbitrary.

>I find it irritating to think that a composer would choose a set of
>divisions over a selection of tones whose derivation may be mathematical,
>but grows from the very nature of the tone.

I'm never irritated by the means other composers choose to reach their ends.
That's a very personal issue. But I am sometimes irritated by their (or theorist's)
careless proclamations, which is why I wrote what I wrote in Part 1 of my essay.

>I am sorry, but I will not fetter the imagination merely to satisfy an arbitrary
>requirement.

I don't remember requiring you, or anyone else, to do anything.

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

Please restrain yourself.

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

> I never expected this essay to be popular with the pure-tuning crowd. Obviously.

Just to be clear, this list isn't confined to the "pure-tuning crowd," however broadly defined. Its name is "tuning", and together with its sister list "tuning-math", it's a tuning crowd--and, I suspect, a crowd anyone inside or outside academia who is interested in tuning could learn from. In other words, it isn't hostile territory _per se_, and you can make yourself at home if you so choose.

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

> I never expected this essay to be popular with the pure-tuning
crowd. Obviously.

well, i don't count myself within that crowd, by any means.

> But I *am* interested to know their reactions to the points,
especially in Part I. I
> criticized the very foundation of the pure-tuning approach to
music, and am curious
> to hear back from people like you about the issues I raised in that
part of the
> paper.

i could give you a point-by-point on the 24-page excerpt. in fact, i
could probably spend 100 pages doing that. but lest i waste your time
and my own, perhaps you should better define what you mean by "the
pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?

> They are mistakes, presumptions you [Mark] have made. If you [Mark]
want to be qualified to
> speak about my music, or Maneri's, or anyone else's, then get
yourself some
> scores and study them first.

i had assumed that mark was speaking from familiarity with actual
scores and/or recordings of both werntz's and maneri's music. i had
assumed so because he made such sweeping statements about both. did i
assume incorrectly?

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> i had assumed that mark was speaking from familiarity with actual
> scores and/or recordings of both werntz's and maneri's music. i had
> assumed so because he made such sweeping statements about both. did i
> assume incorrectly?

If you will gain access to the PNM article, as opposed the the excerpt you have referenced, you will see that it includes a number of score excerpts. Whether they cover all that Mark has commented on, I couldn't say.

Beyond that, the PNM article is a different document than the excerpt, and it would behoove you to review it when discussing the points someone brings up, at least when they have arisen from that particular source.

Since you are in such close physical proximity to Ms. Werntz, maybe she could forward you a copy. If not, I would reproduce mine and send it to you - for scholarly study, of course.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Since you are in such close physical proximity to Ms. Werntz, maybe
>she could forward you a copy. If not, I would reproduce mine and
>send it to you - for scholarly study, of course.

either option would be most heartily welcomed. i used to be able to
slip into the harvard music library and spend my days reading PNMs
and everything else, but i'm not a harvard student, and at one point
they began checking IDs . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> either option would be most heartily welcomed. i used to be able to
> slip into the harvard music library and spend my days reading PNMs
> and everything else, but i'm not a harvard student, and at one point
> they began checking IDs . . .

Ah, the halls of academia. Try on your end, but let me know if it's no-go and I'll mail you a copy...

Cheers,
Jon

>
> i could give you a point-by-point on the 24-page excerpt. in fact, i
> could probably spend 100 pages doing that. but lest i waste your time
> and my own, perhaps you should better define what you mean by "the
> pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?

People who are deeply involved with pure tuning.
>
> > They are mistakes, presumptions you [Mark] have made. If you [Mark]
> want to be qualified to
> > speak about my music, or Maneri's, or anyone else's, then get
> yourself some
> > scores and study them first.
>
> i had assumed that mark was speaking from familiarity with actual
> scores and/or recordings of both werntz's and maneri's music. i had
> assumed so because he made such sweeping statements about both. did i
> assume incorrectly?

You certainly did. Ask him yourself.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > i could give you a point-by-point on the 24-page excerpt. in
fact, i
> > could probably spend 100 pages doing that. but lest i waste your
time
> > and my own, perhaps you should better define what you mean
by "the
> > pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?
>
> People who are deeply involved with pure tuning.

well, i guess that would be people like ben johnston (have you heard
many of his string quartets?), and, on this list, margo schulter,
bill alves, david beardsley, pat pagano, and many others who have
turned up on this list for time to time . . . the inclusion of other
names would depend on how you defined "pure tuning" -- ultimately, it
may not be possible to define this adequately, as the deep
definitional debates between dave keenan, jacky ligon, and others
demonstrate . . . we can enter into this if you wish . . . how do
*you* define pure tuning?

perhaps you should better define what you mean
> by "the
> > > pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?
> >
> > People who are deeply involved with pure tuning.
>
> well, i guess that would be people like ben johnston (have you heard
> many of his string quartets?), and, on this list, margo schulter,
> bill alves, david beardsley, pat pagano, and many others who have
> turned up on this list for time to time . . . the inclusion of other
> names would depend on how you defined "pure tuning" -- ultimately, it
> may not be possible to define this adequately, as the deep
> definitional debates between dave keenan, jacky ligon, and others
> demonstrate . . . we can enter into this if you wish . . . how do
> *you* define pure tuning?

The statement in question was my comment that I never expected my essay to be
popular with the pure-tuning crowd. And it's not, so far.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> perhaps you should better define what you mean
> > by "the
> > > > pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?
> > >
> > > People who are deeply involved with pure tuning.
> >
> > well, i guess that would be people like ben johnston (have you
heard
> > many of his string quartets?), and, on this list, margo schulter,
> > bill alves, david beardsley, pat pagano, and many others who have
> > turned up on this list for time to time . . . the inclusion of
other
> > names would depend on how you defined "pure tuning" --
ultimately, it
> > may not be possible to define this adequately, as the deep
> > definitional debates between dave keenan, jacky ligon, and others
> > demonstrate . . . we can enter into this if you wish . . . how do
> > *you* define pure tuning?
>
> The statement in question was my comment that I never expected my
essay to be
> popular with the pure-tuning crowd.

um, what i had in mind was where you said you would like a reaction
to the points expressed in your article from advocates of pure tuning.

> And it's not, so far.

well, the popularity thing is not what i meant to discuss.

> > perhaps you should better define what you mean
> > > by "the
> > > > > pure-tuning crowd" above . . . ?
> > > >
> > > > People who are deeply involved with pure tuning.
> > >
> > > well, i guess that would be people like ben johnston (have you
> heard
> > > many of his string quartets?), and, on this list, margo schulter,
> > > bill alves, david beardsley, pat pagano, and many others who have
> > > turned up on this list for time to time . . . the inclusion of
> other
> > > names would depend on how you defined "pure tuning" --
> ultimately, it
> > > may not be possible to define this adequately, as the deep
> > > definitional debates between dave keenan, jacky ligon, and others
> > > demonstrate . . . we can enter into this if you wish . . . how do
> > > *you* define pure tuning?
> >
> > The statement in question was my comment that I never expected my
> essay to be
> > popular with the pure-tuning crowd.
>
> um, what i had in mind was where you said you would like a reaction
> to the points expressed in your article from advocates of pure tuning.

Well, then... yes I would welcome reactions from any of these people.
???

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

/tuning/topicId_37353.html#37470

>>
> The statement in question was my comment that I never expected my
essay to be
> popular with the pure-tuning crowd. And it's not, so far.

***Dunno, Julie. Jon Szanto seems to be defending some of
your "spontaneous" ideas around here and with his Partch association
he's more in the Just than ET camp, I do believe...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37353.html#37470
>
> >>
> > The statement in question was my comment that I never expected my
> essay to be
> > popular with the pure-tuning crowd. And it's not, so far.
>
> ***Dunno, Julie. Jon Szanto seems to be defending some of
> your "spontaneous" ideas around here and with his Partch
association
> he's more in the Just than ET camp, I do believe...
>
> J. Pehrson

don't forget margo!

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

/tuning/topicId_37353.html#37497

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_37353.html#37470
> >
> > >>
> > > The statement in question was my comment that I never expected
my
> > essay to be
> > > popular with the pure-tuning crowd. And it's not, so far.
> >
> > ***Dunno, Julie. Jon Szanto seems to be defending some of
> > your "spontaneous" ideas around here and with his Partch
> association
> > he's more in the Just than ET camp, I do believe...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> don't forget margo!

***And Margo, too! Julie, this is hardly a "monochromatic" place
around here... if it *were* we wouldn't be arguing as much as we
do... :)

JP