Re: Comments for Julia Werntz (and all)

> Hello Joel.

Hello Julia !

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

The same from me. I got caught up in personal stuff mostly, plus a little football, so much has been neglected over the past couple of weeks. So with apologies to everyone, I'll just clear out my outbox, or rather the draft box.

>> "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?

Temperament is quite clearly defined in it's purpose, primarily modulation. It's provenance is the Latin "Temperamentum", meaning "right proportion, middle way, mean, moderation".

Rick Tagawa has a page at <http://www.ixpres.com/interval/tagawa/72edo.htm>, dealing in the most part with 72 Equal Divisions of 2:1. There is a definition of temperament at the top taken from the Harvard Dictionary of Music.

The same page used to have quotes from Daniel Wolf, from the Tuning List,

"Joe Manieri teaches 72-tone equal temperament at New England Conservatory without any regard to its excellent approximations of simple-integer ratios. This, essentially, is the same approach taken by Carrillo, Haba and Wyschnegradsky in an earlier generation or by Ferneyhough & Co. nowadays: the use of microtones to create a highly inflected musical surface. One of Partch's initial impulses, to accurately represent the inflections of a speaking voice was not unrelated to this view."

and

"The alternative approach, whose pioneers were Lourie, Novaro, Partch (slightly later), Fokker, and Wilson, is probably more central to the interests of the tuning list membership, is certainly a deeper view of musical materials, but one which does not automatically dismiss the other aesthetic. "

It would appear that some here fail to recognise the fine distinction between these two aesthetic aims and their modus operandi.

>
>> "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.)

I was surprised at Carl's reaction and presumed it to be in jest. Especially directly following my suggestion (confirmed by you) of what may have really happened with the semantics there.

> 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.

Understood.

> 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.

I suspect you may have since considered putting more thought into abstracts ! Personally I think the process of writing an essay should begin with an abstract of some sort - a statement of purpose, which can be continually refined to produce a fair account for the essay's prospective audience.

> 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.

Understood.

> 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.)

Also understood. As I suspect it is by others - there are potentially 500+ people reading all this.

> So, don't mistake the abstract for the paper itself,
It would be an unfortunate assumption, especially if the abstract was flawed.

> and, person-to-person, if you
> want to read what I consider the better-written expression of > my views, try the
> PNM version.

I will, in time.

>
>> "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.

:) Common usage does not necessarily mean correct usage ! I see you're not afraid to challenge opinions in the microtonal community, so why stop there ?

>> 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.

It is *nice*, to say the least, to be able to exchange thoughts with the calibre of people here.

> -Julia
>

Cheers !
Joel

Hello Bob, Carl, all !

I'm always surprised when anything I've said seems to make sense to someone.

> "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

> 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.

I'm not bashing it. I was well aware of using the term "JI" at the start of my post when I wrote, "...the harmonic series (JI) related...". It was intentional as I was yet to get to the part suggesting something wrong with the term "Just Intonation". By the same token, I'm not trying to impose a view on anyone, so you are obviously free to use whatever term you please. I find the term "Just Intonation" problematic. It doesn't work for me. I find it lacking & limiting, and so am looking for a more effective approach.

>> 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?

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.

>> "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.

> -Carl

Sincerely,
Joel

Hi again, Joel.

> >> 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?
>
> Temperament is quite clearly defined in it's purpose, primarily
> modulation. It's provenance is the Latin "Temperamentum",
> meaning "right proportion, middle way, mean, moderation".
>

Sure, I realized the point of this criticism on my own after all, after giving it some
more thought. If you want to see some of my own further thoughts on this
particular point, have a look at my message to Margo Schulter (#37992). (Though
forgive me for accidentally attributing your criticism to Carl Lumma!)

> The same page used to have quotes from Daniel Wolf, from the
> Tuning List,
>
> "Joe Manieri teaches 72-tone equal temperament at New England
> Conservatory without any regard to its excellent approximations
> of simple-integer ratios. This, essentially, is the same
> approach taken by Carrillo, Haba and Wyschnegradsky in an
> earlier generation or by Ferneyhough & Co. nowadays: the use of
> microtones to create a highly inflected musical surface. One of
> Partch's initial impulses, to accurately represent the
> inflections of a speaking voice was not unrelated to this view."
>
> and
>
> "The alternative approach, whose pioneers were Lourie, Novaro,
> Partch (slightly later), Fokker, and Wilson, is probably more
> central to the interests of the tuning list membership, is
> certainly a deeper view of musical materials, but one which does
> not automatically dismiss the other aesthetic. "
>
> It would appear that some here fail to recognise the fine
> distinction between these two aesthetic aims and their modus
> operandi.
>

I also lumped those same composers together (Maneri, Carrillo, etc.) in my paper
according to the one general feature wherein they "simply add pitches" rather than
concerning themselves with pure tuning. (Actually, I didn't mention Ferneyhough,
but mentioned Penderecki, Xenakis and Ligeti). But I have to add here that if one
reads my essay, one will also see that the approach of Carrillo, Haba,
Wyshegradsky and Maneri (and a few others, including myself) is really not at all
the same, is fundamentally different from that of Ferneyhough, whose use of
microintervals - though certainly not other aspects of his music - probably has
more in common with Xenakis, Penderecki, etc. In this latter group I would say
that the characterization "highly inflected musical surface" applies. (This is in no
way a value judgement about the music, only a description of their use of
microintervals.)

For the former group, nothing could be further than the truth! (Almost...) In the
essay I describe at great length how central the pitches, the microintervals, are to
the music, thematically and structurally. There is nothing "surface level" about the
microintervals. The fact that "we" do not compose according to the harmonic
models that are relevent to JI and other pure tuning composers does not mean
that our "view of the musical materials" is not as "deep" (as Daniel Wolf says) as
the Partch, Fokker, etc. view. (In fact, some might even say it's deeper, but that
becomes a matter of personal perspective.)

If it does interest you to see exactly how deeply the microintervals matter in this
alternative approach, then I recommend reading the essay, if you ever have the
time. (It might interest Daniel Wolf, too, to learn more facts about Joe Maneri's
music and what he teaches his students.)

> Common usage does not necessarily mean correct usage ! I see
> you're not afraid to challenge opinions in the microtonal
> community, so why stop there ?
>

One has to pick one's battles, sometimes. Probably in the future I will search for
the perfect alternative term. If I write more essays, that is.

>
> 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.

I wonder what Bob could possibly have meant about political correctness and
reality. Does this person know anything about me and the circumstances under
which my paper was written, other than that it was a doctoral thesis? If he did, he
certainly wouldn't have written that.

>My notion is that people who find a music
>"atonal" are like people who don't *get* Jazz.

I'm just curious what you mean by this. Are you referring to those who use the
term to describe, let's say "pantonal" music, in a derisive way, to mean something
akin to "amusical," because they fail to see the beauty and lyricism of Webern's
music, for example?

-Julia

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

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

/tuning/topicId_38137.html#38218

>>
> 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.
>

***Thanks so much for your contribution here, George which I, for
one, found *particularly* well expressed...

Joseph

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

> 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.

It's the best in its size range, +-50%, let us say. This is certainly suggestive!

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> It's the best in its size range, +-50%, let us say.

in 5-limit, right? but then, we can really only compare it to other
meantone tunings (these are what musicians of the time would have
considered, and did).

and earlier on, the "goodness" of 12-equal in the *3-limit* is
relevant -- at the very least, 12-tone tunings were the default for
most of recorded western musical history, so it might be fair to say
the idea to stop at 12 was pretty ingrained from considerations
stemming in the 3-limit era.

since julia strongly supports the idea of 3-limit consonance, we
might not end up being able to convince her of much here . . .

> since julia strongly supports the idea of 3-limit consonance,

I beg your pardon?

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

> > It's the best in its size range, +-50%, let us say.
>
> in 5-limit, right? but then, we can really only compare it to other
> meantone tunings (these are what musicians of the time would have
> considered, and did).

I actually meant what I said, and was comparing badness figures for
everything. Here are the endpoints where an et beats 12 (and for
comparison, 72) from the 3-limit to the 11-limit:

3: [1,53] [70,77]
5: [3,19] [65,84]
7: [5,31] [41,99]
9: [5,41] [41,99]
11:[2,22] [31,270]

The dominance of 12 over the range I indicated is clear.

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

> 3: [1,53] [70,77]

Should be [0,53] [70,77]

> 5: [3,19] [65,84]
> 7: [5,31] [41,99]
> 9: [5,41] [41,99]
> 11:[2,22] [31,270]
>
> The dominance of 12 over the range I indicated is clear.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > since julia strongly supports the idea of 3-limit consonance,
>
> I beg your pardon?

it's virtually the only form of consonance you seem to be willing to
acknowledge a psychoacoustical basis for, in your paper -- the octave
and the fifth!

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > 3: [1,53] [70,77]
>
> Should be [0,53] [70,77]

boy, i'm sure glad that 0-equal isn't better than 12-equal in the 3-
limit! i thought i was going to have to stop playing any notes and
retire to a zen monestary.

seriously, how can the badness of 0-equal be defined?

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

/tuning/topicId_38137.html#38299

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> >
> > > 3: [1,53] [70,77]
> >
> > Should be [0,53] [70,77]
>
> boy, i'm sure glad that 0-equal isn't better than 12-equal in the 3-
> limit! i thought i was going to have to stop playing any notes and
> retire to a zen monestary.
>
> seriously, how can the badness of 0-equal be defined?

***0-equal be *bad!*

JP

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

> > Should be [0,53] [70,77]
>
> boy, i'm sure glad that 0-equal isn't better than 12-equal in the 3-
> limit!

Don't you mean 1-equal?

> seriously, how can the badness of 0-equal be defined?

The error in relative cents is 0, and ajusting it for log-flatness means multiplying by the dth root of 0, namely 0, where d is the number of odd primes in your limit. Therefore the badness of the 0-et, which is a relative matter after all, is 0. If you use the goodness measure good(n) = |zeta(1 + (2 pi)/ln(2) n i)| for the n-et, you see that 0 corresponds to the unique pole of the Riemann Zeta function, representing infinite goodness under this measure.

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

/tuning/topicId_38137.html#38309

> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > Should be [0,53] [70,77]
> >
> > boy, i'm sure glad that 0-equal isn't better than 12-equal in the
3-
> > limit!
>
> Don't you mean 1-equal?
>
> > seriously, how can the badness of 0-equal be defined?
>
> The error in relative cents is 0, and ajusting it for log-flatness
means multiplying by the dth root of 0, namely 0, where d is the
number of odd primes in your limit. Therefore the badness of the 0-
et, which is a relative matter after all, is 0. If you use the
goodness measure good(n) = |zeta(1 + (2 pi)/ln(2) n i)| for the n-et,
you see that 0 corresponds to the unique pole of the Riemann Zeta
function, representing infinite goodness under this measure.

***This is truly heartening, since it means that composing nothing at
all and sitting around like a couch potato(e) is the surest path
to "goodness..." Maybe I'll finally get a chance to read the New
Yorker...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > Should be [0,53] [70,77]
> >
> > boy, i'm sure glad that 0-equal isn't better than 12-equal in the
3-
> > limit!
>
> Don't you mean 1-equal?

no, i meant 0-equal -- the above implies that 12 is the best in the
entire range from 0 to 53, right?

oops, i guess not. it must mean 1 to 52.

ok, i misread -- so the revision you made means that 1-equal doesn't
come out as better than 12-equal. so much for the "talking octave"!

> > seriously, how can the badness of 0-equal be defined?
>
> The error in relative cents is 0,

how do you get that? the error in absolute cents would appear to be
infinite; multiply by 0 to get relative cents and you have infinity
times zero, which is undefined, right?

i have a feeling you'd be better off replying on tuning-math . . .