Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Comments for Julia Werntz (and all)

Hello Julia (and all),

Simply referring to the "Full Citation & Abstract" of "Toward an understanding of expanded equal temperament (Joseph Maneri)" at UMI, I humbly make the following personal observations :

"Toward an understanding of expanded equal temperament"

If you are not particularly interested in, or will not be dwelling on, the harmonic series (JI) related properties of the 72 tone scale that is the focus of your thesis, then it should not be called a temperament. It is 72EDO we are discussing.

"These rationales are: a belief in just intonation, an interest in exotic tunings, and an urge simply to add pitches."

You have a point in writing about "a belief in just intonation". The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like "11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.

With respect to all here, I recognize that the term Just Intonation has been in use for a long time, although I am not sure of it's origins. However, things change. See for example, the language of the texts at "Texts on Music in English" <http://www.music.indiana.edu/tme/>.

"The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings do not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition, while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a genuinely microtonal music."

I suspect this is the bit that rattled a lot of nerves. If it went something along the lines of "in the author's personal opinion and within the subject of this thesis", then it may make more sense. Even then however, to state that you *conclude* that nothing else makes for a "genuinely" microtonal music, is still, well, bizarre. Therefore, and with reference to the rest of the abstract and your responses on this list, I think the above one statement just needs to be reworded, because I can sense what you're trying to say.

"...only grouping the pitches in a manner which de-emphasizes the traditional twelve intervals may result in a truly distinct and significant form of microtonalism"
Yes ! Investigations into historical tunings for example, serve a very useful purpose within the realm of "period performance" & pure research. But I think they require that we build on the same ingenuity of their creators/discoverers, to take music forward into the future.

"From these points the author derives further that a microtonal technique must be based on careful voice-leading in general..."
Yes ! And I hope more scholarship explores this sort of practical matter for the practicing musician. OUP, for example lists (at <http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-515087-2>) a book scheduled for May 2002, titled "Harmonic Rhythm - Analysis and Interpretation" by Joseph P. Swain. While I suspect this work does not cover microtonality, it is an example of the sort of avenues where a more xenharmonic approach to scholarship would be interesting, to say the least.

"The paper concludes with speculation about the applicability of serial techniques, as well as the inherent atonality of this music."

In spite of the term "atonal" being taken for granted almost universally, particularly with academia, I have to say that I long shared the sentiments in a Monzo post from Jan 2001 (Tuning Digest 1029), "Schoenberg very logically argued (as he always did) that since the very substance of music was "tone", then "atonal" was an oxymoron and could not describe anything having to do with music." and "...what Schoenberg clearly wanted to do was to *expand* tonality".

I'd also like to add that "non-Western musical traditions" are just as (& often times more) closed-minded than *western* ones. Microtonality as we here are interested in (I hope), as adventurers & explorers, is a universal phenomenon. We seek what is outside convention, however subjective that may be to our personal existence. In Thailand, Thai music is just called music.

Several times did I begin & delete this e-mail, not certain if it would be worth your time, so with appreciation to those of you who read this far, thank you.

- Joel

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Thank you, Joel. You make some very cogent points. Too many theses
are based on what is "politically correct" academically and
consequently have little to with anything real. For obvious reasons
it would seem to be inherent in the system.

Most sincerely,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:
> Hello Julia (and all),
>
> Simply referring to the "Full Citation & Abstract" of "Toward an
> understanding of expanded equal temperament (Joseph Maneri)" at
> UMI, I humbly make the following personal observations :
>
> "Toward an understanding of expanded equal temperament"
>
> If you are not particularly interested in, or will not be
> dwelling on, the harmonic series (JI) related properties of the
> 72 tone scale that is the focus of your thesis, then it should
> not be called a temperament. It is 72EDO we are discussing.
>
>
> "These rationales are: a belief in just intonation, an interest
> in exotic tunings, and an urge simply to add pitches."
>
> You have a point in writing about "a belief in just intonation".
> The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I
> would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be
> better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic
> series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the
> harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like
> "11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.
>
> With respect to all here, I recognize that the term Just
> Intonation has been in use for a long time, although I am not
> sure of it's origins. However, things change. See for example,
> the language of the texts at "Texts on Music in English"
> <http://www.music.indiana.edu/tme/>.
>
>
> "The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings do
> not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition,
> while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that
> only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third
> of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a
> genuinely microtonal music."
>
> I suspect this is the bit that rattled a lot of nerves. If it
> went something along the lines of "in the author's personal
> opinion and within the subject of this thesis", then it may make
> more sense. Even then however, to state that you *conclude* that
> nothing else makes for a "genuinely" microtonal music, is still,
> well, bizarre. Therefore, and with reference to the rest of the
> abstract and your responses on this list, I think the above one
> statement just needs to be reworded, because I can sense what
> you're trying to say.
>
>
> "...only grouping the pitches in a manner which de-emphasizes
> the traditional twelve intervals may result in a truly distinct
> and significant form of microtonalism"
> Yes ! Investigations into historical tunings for example, serve
> a very useful purpose within the realm of "period performance" &
> pure research. But I think they require that we build on the
> same ingenuity of their creators/discoverers, to take music
> forward into the future.
>
>
> "From these points the author derives further that a microtonal
> technique must be based on careful voice-leading in general..."
> Yes ! And I hope more scholarship explores this sort of
> practical matter for the practicing musician. OUP, for example
> lists (at <http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-515087-2>) a book
> scheduled for May 2002, titled "Harmonic Rhythm - Analysis and
> Interpretation" by Joseph P. Swain. While I suspect this work
> does not cover microtonality, it is an example of the sort of
> avenues where a more xenharmonic approach to scholarship would
> be interesting, to say the least.
>
>
> "The paper concludes with speculation about the applicability of
> serial techniques, as well as the inherent atonality of this
> music."
>
> In spite of the term "atonal" being taken for granted almost
> universally, particularly with academia, I have to say that I
> long shared the sentiments in a Monzo post from Jan 2001 (Tuning
> Digest 1029), "Schoenberg very logically argued (as he always
> did) that since the very substance of music was "tone", then
> "atonal" was an oxymoron and could not describe anything having
> to do with music." and "...what Schoenberg clearly wanted to do
> was to *expand* tonality".
>
>
> I'd also like to add that "non-Western musical traditions" are
> just as (& often times more) closed-minded than *western* ones.
> Microtonality as we here are interested in (I hope), as
> adventurers & explorers, is a universal phenomenon. We seek what
> is outside convention, however subjective that may be to our
> personal existence. In Thailand, Thai music is just called music.
>
>
> Several times did I begin & delete this e-mail, not certain if
> it would be worth your time, so with appreciation to those of
> you who read this far, thank you.
>
> - Joel

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

>If you are not particularly interested in, or will not be
>dwelling on, the harmonic series (JI) related properties of the
>72 tone scale that is the focus of your thesis, then it should
>not be called a temperament. It is 72EDO we are discussing.

Right you are.

>You have a point in writing about "a belief in just intonation".
>The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I
>would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be
>better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic
>series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the
>harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like
>"11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.

"11-limit JI" will do just fine. Anyone who uses a term and
then turns around to bash it for 'associated ideology' is taking
a cheap shot indeed.

>However, things change.

And nobody knows why. It's true. Certainly Bach had nothing to
do with 12 tones being selected over 31, as Paul suggested.

>"The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings do
>not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition,
>while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that
>only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third
>of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a
>genuinely microtonal music."

Who wrote this rubbish, and why is it in my mailbox?

>"...only grouping the pitches in a manner which de-emphasizes
>the traditional twelve intervals may result in a truly distinct
>and significant form of microtonalism"

Hopefully, whatever this means was made clear with a score at
some point.

>"The paper concludes with speculation about the applicability of
>serial techniques, as well as the inherent atonality of this
>music."

Inherent atonality of serial music? Even I know that's not right.

-Carl

🔗jwerntz2002 <juliawerntz@attbi.com>

Hello Joel.

Thanks for your message, and sorry for the delayed reply. I appreciate your
comments, and want to respond to some of them:

> "Toward an understanding of expanded equal temperament"
>
> If you are not particularly interested in, or will not be
> dwelling on, the harmonic series (JI) related properties of the
> 72 tone scale that is the focus of your thesis, then it should
> not be called a temperament.

Why?

> "The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings do
> not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition,
> while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that
> only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third
> of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a
> genuinely microtonal music."

> I suspect this is the bit that rattled a lot of nerves. If it
> went something along the lines of "in the author's personal
> opinion and within the subject of this thesis", then it may make
> more sense. Even then however, to state that you *conclude* that
> nothing else makes for a "genuinely" microtonal music, is still,
> well, bizarre. Therefore, and with reference to the rest of the
> abstract and your responses on this list, I think the above one
> statement just needs to be reworded, because I can sense what
> you're trying to say.

Yes, I'm sure it rattled nerves, and I can understand why some people would react
as Carl Lumma did. (He called it rubbish.) Just know that, although this does
express the gist of my message, it is expresses it in a very crude, even obnoxios
manner because of the context in which is was written. It is an excerpt from the
abstract to my thesis. The abstract was one of the last touches before submitting
the final draft, and it was necessay to distill all the points of the dissertation into X
number of words. The result was a very crude, dry language (even drier than the
thesis itself), intended for little more than archiving purposes in my mind. Although
I knew this document was accessible to the public, what I really intended for
"general consumption," as I've explained here before, was the PNM essay. Even if
one disagrees with my points, one would have to admit that they are not worded in
such an abrasive manner in PNM. (E.g. Where I outline my points in the
introduction, I just state that the "simply adding pitches" approach "has several
advantages over" the "pure tuning" approach. That shouldn't be as annoying, I'd
think, especially if one recognizes that it is presented as opinion.)

So, don't mistake the abstract for the paper itself, and, person-to-person, if you
want to read what I consider the better-written expression of my views, try the
PNM version.

> "From these points the author derives further that a microtonal
> technique must be based on careful voice-leading in general..."
> Yes ! And I hope more scholarship explores this sort of
> practical matter for the practicing musician.

I wonder what you'd have to say about Part 2 of my essay (either thesis or PNM)
in which I discuss this at great length. Also, you might like to see Joe Maneri's and
Scott Van Duyne's book, "Preliminary Studies in the Virtual Pitch Continuum,"
even though it is not written with pure tuning in mind.
>
>
> "The paper concludes with speculation about the applicability of
> serial techniques, as well as the inherent atonality of this
> music."

> In spite of the term "atonal" being taken for granted almost
> universally, particularly with academia, I have to say that I
> long shared the sentiments in a Monzo post from Jan 2001 (Tuning
> Digest 1029), "Schoenberg very logically argued (as he always
> did) that since the very substance of music was "tone", then
> "atonal" was an oxymoron and could not describe anything having
> to do with music." and "...what Schoenberg clearly wanted to do
> was to *expand* tonality".

I agree whole-heartedly with this. I can't stand the word, especially since it's so
misleading, and makes what for some is a "positive" creative state of being seem
negative. But I chose to use it because it seems to be common usage. I did wince
everytime I wrote it.

>
> I'd also like to add that "non-Western musical traditions" are
> just as (& often times more) closed-minded than *western* ones.
> Microtonality as we here are interested in (I hope), as
> adventurers & explorers, is a universal phenomenon. We seek what
> is outside convention, however subjective that may be to our
> personal existence. In Thailand, Thai music is just called music.
>
>
> Several times did I begin & delete this e-mail, not certain if
> it would be worth your time

Thank you for sending your thoughts.

-Julia

🔗jwerntz2002 <juliawerntz@attbi.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

>>>"The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings do
>>>not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition,
>>>while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that
>>>only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third
>>>of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a
>>>genuinely microtonal music."
>>
>Who wrote this rubbish, and why is it in my mailbox?
>
>It was me... Please have a look at my other post, to Joel Rodrigues,
>for an explanation.

I saw that. Anyway, you responded to this remark, but not to any
of the others I made.

Convincing rationales are one sort of thing. Have you heard any of
the music listed at: http://lumma.org ? Although I admit I have no
idea what you mean by "genuinely microtonal" music.

>It's dangerous when these quotations are posted entirely out of context.
>I'm here sort of as a visitor on this list, since people are reacting
>to my paper, and some have wished to share opinions.

I agree that it's dangerous, and have experienced first hand what happens,
when quotations are taken out of context.

On the other hand, several people have gone out of their way to get your
paper and were unsuccessful, so if you'd like to continue the discussion
it's time to make with the goods. If you're here, you must agree that it
is possible, in principle, to express your ideas here.

-Carl

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Carl,

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> >Who wrote this rubbish, and why is it in my mailbox?
>
> I saw that. Anyway, you responded to this remark, but not to any
> of the others I made.

When someone refers to your work as rubbish without having investigated it, it certainly takes away any impetus to engage them in meaningful dialogue. For the record, the "rubbish" section you refer to raised my hackles mightily, but dismissing it out of hand isn't a real smart thing to do.

Though I remember making a comment about a 'quack', so I'm not squeeky clean, either.

> On the other hand, several people have gone out of their way to get
> your paper and were unsuccessful

And some were.

> so if you'd like to continue the discussion it's time to make with
> the goods. If you're here, you must agree that it
> is possible, in principle, to express your ideas here.

Gad Carl! Here is an author who saw her work being commented (maybe vilified) when taken in sectional form, possibly out of context, and certainly not refering to the writing she said would be most pertinant to this forum. Seeing one's work discussed (and trashed) and deciding to defend, illuminate, or correct shouldn't put the burden on *her*!

And Julia *has* discussed her ideas. At least with people who spoke in a respectful and collegial manner.

I have a lot I disagree with in the PNM article, and am finishing a reread, so when I post my thoughts they are very much going to be at odds with her.

Just so that you know I'm opposed to the way she and her work have been handled, not that I'm defending her positions.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > When someone refers to your work as rubbish without having investigated it, it certainly takes away any impetus to engage them in meaningful dialogue.
>
> Carl was responding not to her work but to the synopsis

Thanks, I knew that. Now let me clue you in as well: I meant "refers to your work" in the broadest possible sense - something an author has written, getting written off as rubish. I think most people can follow that descriptive phrase of mine.

> which you also immediately identified as rubbish

I most certainly did not. The furthest I did was put a tag line about some doctors being quacks, which probably should have had a <grin> after it. If you'll go back and read what I said, and note that while I found serious questions in my own mind about the abstract (even just one page of it), I also said that I would investigate reading the PNM article before finalizing my views. With that background, you'll be in fine shape to come back and offer an apology.

> So far attempts to discuss what she actually said have not been sucessful, due to difficulties in locating the article or thesis

Yes, it is not on the local newstand, and I'm still not sure why I went to the trouble, but I did. I haven't commented on anything I *haven't* read, and I wonder why others can't do the same.

> and the fact that Julia is willing to say what she didn't say, but not what she does say.

It's in the paper. She is a 'guest' here, drawn by her own writings being discussed (for the most part negatively, and in response to incomplete publications). I'd probably poke my head into a conversation where I was being raked, too, but I'd hope that people would do me the courtesy (what a concept) of reviewing the materials before having me for lunch.

> She ducks, weaves and dodges, and refuses to define her terms; she could do a lot better. Respect is a two-way street.

You talk the talk, but you seem unable to walk the walk. I wish it were otherwise, because you have a lot to offer.

Regards,
Jon

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@mac.com>

> more seriously, i don't think joel is even clear with this
> terminology below. is it harmonic series tuning up to the 11th
> partial, or the 11-limit tonality diamond, or 11-prime limit just
> intonation? all are possible interpretations of joel's term, but they
> are quite different.
>>> The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I
>>> would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be
>>> better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic
>>> series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the
>>> harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like
>>> "11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.

I see "n-limit" being used without qualification here as a matter of course. What interpretation is to be made of this generic use ? I have not conjured up the term "n-limit". But, I see you use it, so what do you mean when you say "n-limit" ?

But, thank you for pointing out my negligence. Some form of qualification is necessary and I've looked through the archives to see what happened when the matter of "limits" came up before. There's obviously been extensive debate in the past, with perhaps no agreement on a standard definition.

In a 1997 post, John Chalmers says:

"RE Limits: I agree with Paul Erlich about limit terminology.
As generally used on this List, "N-Prime limit" implicitly means
that powers of N and multiples of N with smaller primes are
included in the tuning. Partch's usage of the term N Limit
means that N is the largest ODD number appearing in either the
numerator or denominator of the ratios defining the tuning.
Thus 33/32 would be said to be at the 11-prime limit by conventional
usage, but at the 33-limit in Partch's terms. I think these
nomenclatures are clear enough, but one could add 'odd' to be
unambiguous. Statements such as at the "33 odd-number limit" or
"33(odd) limit" should be clear."

Jonathan Walker responds:

"However, the prime-limit modification of Partch's terminology, related
to the small-omega function seems to have won greater favour, possibly
because it is more open to generalisation. For instance, how do we
specify the limit of a fully chromatic 14th-century monochord, or even
worse, a schismatic 15th-century monochord (i.e. Fb serving for E etc.)
Both are constructed entirely from Pythagorean ratios, and thus 3-limit
by the prime terminology; but if we use the odd-limit terminology we
must say, for example, 531441-limit, even though all odd numbers up to
this limit which are not powers of 3 are excluded. I notice that John,
above, suggests adding "odd" for the Partchian limit terminology,
leaving the prime limit as a default. Have I construed you correctly,
John?"

Manuel further says:

"The prime limit definition should NOT be the default, despite its utility in
describing a tuning system. The odd limit definition is not intended to
describe a tuning system; it is intended to describe musical practice.
Despite what Jonathan Walker said, one does not consider music in
Pythagorean tuning to be a 531441-limit system under the odd definition of
limit. Even under Partch's own (odd) definition, Partch's music was
11-limit, not 33-limit nor some product of powers of numbers through 11.
Partch listened carefully and came up with the most useful definition for
the ear and for musical practice, not for studying the mathematics of tuning
systems.

The definition is: A piece of music is N-limit if all intervals whose
(heard) rational approximations use odd numbers up to N, and all chords
containing only such intervals, are considered consonant, while intervals
which cannot be so approximated, or any chord containg at least one such
interval, are considered dissonant. In other words, it's how high up the
harmonic series (or how far down the subharmonic series) the ear is asked to
go in a particular piece."

Manuel, I need to research & ponder further, but do you still stand by this ? Because this seems to make the most sense to me. Though, I would use "harmonic" and "inharmonic" instead of "consonant" and "dissonant".

BTW, who are you, "emotionaljourney22" ? Paul Erlich ?

Sincerely,
Joel

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:
> > more seriously, i don't think joel is even clear with this
> > terminology below. is it harmonic series tuning up to the 11th
> > partial, or the 11-limit tonality diamond, or 11-prime limit just
> > intonation? all are possible interpretations of joel's term, but
they
> > are quite different.
> >>> The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I
> >>> would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be
> >>> better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic
> >>> series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the
> >>> harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like
> >>> "11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.
>
> I see "n-limit" being used without qualification here as a
> matter of course. What interpretation is to be made of this
> generic use ? I have not conjured up the term "n-limit". But, I
> see you use it, so what do you mean when you say "n-limit" ?

it depends on context. see:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/limit.htm

harry partch, who originally coined the term, definitely leaned
toward definition 2, though most who came after him misunderstood and
went with definition 1.
>
> The definition is: A piece of music is N-limit if all intervals
whose
> (heard) rational approximations use odd numbers up to N, and all
chords
> containing only such intervals, are considered consonant, while
> intervals
> which cannot be so approximated, or any chord containg at least one
such
> interval, are considered dissonant. In other words, it's how high
up the
> harmonic series (or how far down the subharmonic series) the ear
> is asked to
> go in a particular piece."

well, this kind of sidesteps the issue of anomalous saturated
suspensions:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~gbreed/ass.htm

> Manuel, I need to research & ponder further, but do you still
> stand by this ? Because this seems to make the most sense to me.
> Though, I would use "harmonic" and "inharmonic" instead of
> "consonant" and "dissonant".

i disagree. note that the context in each case is "considered
consonant" and "considered dissonance". thus, the limit terminology
becomes a descriptor of a component of musical style. we know,
roughly, what it means for a composer to *consider* something
consonant and to *consider* something else dissonant. so what's wrong
with that?

> BTW, who are you, "emotionaljourney22" ? Paul Erlich ?

yup!

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Hi George,

Personally, I don't believe that logic and coherence in music has to
be too tightly tied to musical acoustics (or, even more so,
mathematical relationships). I believe that music is above all else a
creative medium, and that is the engine that drives what can and can't
work above and beyond what historically or culturally has worked.

It's all a work in progress to my mind, and I'm not willing to rule
out any possibility. Humans are a pretty enterprising and curious lot
and not at all entirely bound by their physiology to blind obedience.

Musical acoustics are what they are, but they're not all that there
is... I'm personally of the persuasion that they're much less than
they're cracked up to be--god's template, or a bullying, overbearing
nag? Both I'd bet.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "gdsecor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Comments for Julia Werntz (and all)

> May I commend Julia Werntz for having the patience to consider
> carefully the comments and criticism voiced by those in this forum.
> If we can all gain a better grasp of one another's ideas and goals,
> then we can establish avenues of communication and understanding
that
> will be reflected in what we have to say and write about one
another,
> even if we continue to disagree about certain essential issues.
>
> Up to this point I have stayed out of the debate. There are a
couple
> of things in the message to which I am replying that provoked the
> comments that follow.
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:
> > Hello Bob, Carl, all !
> >
> > >> "The author concludes that just intonation and exotic tunings
do
> > >> not provide convincing rationales for microtonal composition,
> > >> while a simple creative impulse to add pitches does, and that
> > >> only a fully functional microtonal equal temperament (the third
> > >> of the three methods) enables the composer to develop a
> > >> genuinely microtonal music."
> > >
> > > Who wrote this rubbish, and why is it in my mailbox?
> >
> >
> > You jest, no ? That is similar to my initial reaction. But, on
> > consideration of the rest of what Ms. Werntz goes on to say
> > there & on this list, I am convinced it is a case of semantics
> > gone horribly wrong. Even the most crazed ideologue in this
> > group cannot intentionally be that wrong, can they !???
> >
> >
> > >> "...only grouping the pitches in a manner which de-emphasizes
> > >> the traditional twelve intervals may result in a truly distinct
> > >> and significant form of microtonalism"
> > >
> > > Hopefully, whatever this means was made clear with a score at
> > > some point.
> >
> > If read carefully it is, I suspect, the essence of what draws a
> > great many of us to microtonality. Xenharmonics ! For instance,
> > I wasn't drawn by the prospect of a "purer" fifth (as
> > meaningless as that notion is), rather I was in search of more
> > pitches to play with. Plain & simple.
>
> Bravo! But the next question is always, "On what principle(s) shall
> I organize these new pitches?"
>
> Whoever needs to make decisions about the future would be wise to
> understand the past. We arrived at 12-ET because it approximates
the
> simplest rational intervals -- it's not the best approximation, but
> it's not the worst either.
>
> If you are interested in writing "tonal" (as opposed to "atonal"
> or "pantonal") music, then musical acoustics (and the mathematics of
> rational intervals) should be a significant factor in how you go
> about finding more pitches in the octave. And if you are going to
> use more pitches, then you might as well take the opportunity to
look
> for something that approximates rational intervals better than
12-ET.
>
> >
> > >> "The paper concludes with speculation about the applicability
of
> > >> serial techniques, as well as the inherent atonality of this
> > >> music."
> > >
> > > Inherent atonality of serial music? Even I know that's not
right.
> > >
> >
> > Leaving aside the fact that that's an easily made
> > misconstruction of Julia's statement, there is no such thing as
> > "atonal" music. My notion is that people who find a music
> > "atonal" are like people who don't *get* Jazz. A friend of mine
> > often complained there was nothing to anchor her mind to.
>
> When I first heard that so-called "atonal" composers prefer the
> term "pantonal", I was quite amused. That reminds me of a business
> in which every job is stamped "PRIORITY"; if *everything* gets
> priority, then *nothing* gets priority. So if all of the tones are
> at once equally entitled to be called tonal centers, then there is
> really no tonal center at all, hence "atonality".
>
> Trouble is, even if one chooses to ignore the principles of musical
> acoustics and mathematical relationships, they are still there. So
> the pantonal composer is something like an architect designing a
> building, but ignoring the laws of physics. Sooner or later the
> gravity of the situation becomes apparent once the customer (the
> audience) decides that the product is unsuitable or undesirable.
>
> Yes, I know that not everything is going to appeal to everyone and
> that, when it comes to taste, "mass" often correlates with "crass."
> But in order for art to be successful, it must communicate, and in
> order to communicate it must have an audience outside one's own
> circle of artists or composers. Is this more likely to happen by
> pursuing an atonal or pantonal approach or by establishing an
> expanded harmonic vocabulary through the employment of intervals
> representing or approximating those found above the sixth harmonic
> (while reaffirming the traditional concept of tonality, including
the
> principle of consonance and dissonance)?
>
> Such is the rationale for advocating the approach to microtonality
> that I have taken.
>
> That said, I should quickly add that the element of "creative
> impulse" (in whatever form) in a musical composition outweighs all
of
> our theorizing. Without it we have music that is pedantic and
> lifeless. With it, we have music that is successful regardless of
> which "rules" the composer has followed or disregarded, that speaks
> to us in some way, even if we don't fully comprehend its
> technical "language."
>
> --George
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/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/
>
>