Reflections on Julia Werntz article

REFLECTIONS ON JULIA WERNTZ ARTICLE (Reflections on Perspectives)

Caveat: The below is intended for Julia Wertz as a supportive,
constructive, composer-oriented essay by a fellow user of the 72-tET
system. Any opinions that don't come off that way are only the
province of the momentarily deranged author and should be taken in
the spirit off good will, regardless! :)

Now to work:

Finally, I had the opportunity to ingest and, hopefully digest, Julia
Werntz' _Perspectives of New Music_ article. It's rather a
shame that _Perspectives_ doesn't make it a bit easier to procure
this stuff. Why should we have to take out a full-year $40
subscription just to get one earlier issue of the mag?? Well, enough
bitching, there's more to come.

Frankly, I applaud Julia for her inclusion in the publication. I
know they are quite discriminating, but whether they are really all
*that* discriminating concerning microtonal articles is yet another
question! After all, the previous articles on microtonality appeared
over 10 years ago!

Regardless, curiously enough, the most interesting thing about
Julia's article is her musical examples! Her music really
doesn't look as "academic" as one might surmise by her
repeated insistence of the avoidance of any low-integer ratio
harmonic relationships, by serialism or whatever. Actually, the
short examples of her work seem rather tonal but in the sense of a
linear deviation from a tone. This process is also seen in the work
of her teacher Joe Maneri and in his music, also illustrated, it also
seems somewhat "anti academic." Why is this?? Because to my
mind, even though Julia is constantly changing 72-tET pitches in this
music, she still keeps pretty much linearly to her starting place!
That establishes a tonal center, in the sense of the presence of a
frequency range of tones, and it's something for the ear to grasp
onto! So, really this is somewhat different from totally serialized
or randomized music.

As a fellow 72-tetter, and I really should emphasize this, since I am
also rather die-hard about this system at this point, and I feel that
72-tetters should really stick together (just like the little tones
might stick together) I find it rather curious that she should use
and maintain 72-tET in her work rather than any other system.
According to Julia, the use of 72 is only because (pg 185)
"partly because it is the system of temperament used by Maneri
(whose music so uniquely demonstrates the potential of this branch of
microtonalism), but also because its intervals are sufficiently small
to illustrate the general issues that I believe are important.....
However there is nothing sacred about the number seventy-two..."
Clearly, according to Julia, the number could be 72 or 48 or 30 (as
she mentions) and it really doesn't make any difference.

This is where I would part company. I would say that even in the
most random explication of music created with 72-tET the distinct
harmonic relationships that are so close to many of the low-integer
intervals would exert a "gravitational pull..." And,
personally, unlike Julia, I believe this is one of the
"charms" not a defect of this particular temperament.

Like Paul Erlich, I wish Julia had concentrated on just describing
her own method of composition with 72, the second half of the
article, and refrained from "dumping" on all kinds of
composers in the first half, in a tirade that I believe is incredibly
specious on the overall.

Yet, it's not so bad as the ridiculous short extract of her
dissertation that is available for public consumption (and why is
that exactly??) but it is still pretty intellectually spurious.

The assumption is that any composer trying for just intonation
effects in his/her music is going to write, by necessity, a kind of
puerile triadic pabulum. Now, what is that assumption based upon?
According to Julia, it's due to the fact that just intonation
composers would only use a very limited palette, since any larger-
integer ratios would not be acceptably free from beating for use by
the initiated. So, in this scenario, where do we place a composer
like La Monte Young, who uses upper-limit JI? Where do we really
place Lou Harrison, one of the greatest composers of our time (value
judgment) with all the multiplicity of approaches he's shown over
the years. Where do we place Ben Johnston, with the intricate
complexity and upper-relations of his splendid and AUDIBLE, AUDIBLE,
AUDIBLE music with higher-limit partials?? No, this makes absolutely
no sense whatsoever.

We can also refute this limited JI palette nonsense by the
consideration of 72-tET as an adaptive just intonation system, as
Paul Erlich has so aptly pointed out. Linearly 72-tET is tempered
but, horizontally, if people use the kind of interval training
methods that I, personally, advocate (eliminating the syntonic and
septimal commas against a drone to learn the 12th tone and 6th tone
intervals) we have a kind of adaptive just that, in no way, has to
stick with a very limited palette. Indeed, even in my explorations
with the quasi just intonation harmonic lattices of the Blackjack
scale, a 21-pitch extract from the 72-tET continuum, I was able to
involve ALL KINDS of consonances and dissonances, easily utilizing
chords up to the 11-limit, which, at least to my ear, were more
discordant than concordant! That was an essential part of my fabric,
although I was fully aware and intentionally utilized lower-limit
consonances.

Indeed, like most composers I have certain preferences and biases and
in this case I hold one very strongly: music that has at least some
elements of lower-integer ratios is audible resounding music, that
has a corporal aspect that actually rings in the body and emotions.
This is the element that is lacking in extended academic serial
composition, the music that hoards of listeners have rejected time
and again, and has almost caused if not already caused the death of
contemporary music among audiences, certainly in this country and to
a large degree in Europe as well. Much of this music has failed.
Audiences now gravitate to minimalism and popular-based music.
Largely atonal music has failed to secure a following partially, I
believe, because it does not resonate in the ears and the mind-body
of the listeners.

Listen, I come from a background of somebody who used to perform
Schoenberg's piano music publicly (I now, however, hate the
piano). I've studied all that stuff and much of it, particularly
by the masters, I enjoy. However, so much of this kind of music has
been created by "paint by numbers" imitators. Fact is,
it's easy music to write; all you need is a chart on the wall. I
remember a professor, when I was a TA (yes, I did at least that much
of an academic stint) who got freshman who could barely play the
guitar to write "sophisticated" 12-tones works by just
referencing a
chart. Well, I have to admit, the pieces sounded no better or worse
than the music of most "professionals" working in that genre!

So, it's obvious that the kind of music that I, personally, like
is at least theoretically different from Julia's preferences. (I
doubt it even is in practice which lends even further lack of
credence to her essay), but the most astonishing thing is the other
musics that she has decided to "dump on" and assert are not
the real microtonality:

By the way, I always hate it when people portentously (and rather
pompously) insist on labeling music the true this and that. How is
that, indeed, any different from the True Believer's assertions
of Just Intonation??

In this carnage, Julia manages to claim that Penderecki, Xenakis,
Ligeti and Bartok are not using "real, true" microtonality.
Penderecki, Xenakis and Ligeti because the usage is part of some
larger structure that does not feature specific intervals, and Bartok
because the usage is "elaborative." Now, please, who is the
judge of all this?? Julia Werntz, I guess. Come on. Penderecki and
Xenakis use wild non-twelvulated microtonality (who's ever heard
of "microtonalism") and, in particular, Xenakis created this
music from GLISSANDI, the ULTIMATE microtonal sound!!!! What BS.

And, on the other hand, who is really to say that Bartok, who
emulates FOLK MUSIC in his work is not using microtonality? Come
on. Folk music is microtonal! It's not 12-equal, what is it??

All these artificial divisions and determinations are really what I
feel is absolutely the worst part of Julia's essay. I feel there
is a need to "create copy" by setting up various "straw
people" and dumping on them.

Why is all this necessary? As Paul Erlich says, she should just
write about the techniques she enjoys using and forget all the
negativity which, I truly and firmly believe, has no rational (no pun
intended) justification (no pun intended...)!

Joseph Pehrson

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

> We can also refute this limited JI palette nonsense by the
> consideration of 72-tET as an adaptive just intonation system, as
> Paul Erlich has so aptly pointed out. Linearly 72-tET is tempered
> but, horizontally, if people use the kind of interval training
> methods that I, personally, advocate

did you mean "vertically" rather than "horizontally", joseph?

here's a thought: julia, in her discussion in part 1, mentions franz-
richter herf and his "ekmelic" school among the "just intonation"
camp, and notes that the tuning they actually use is 72-tone equal
temperament. (i forgot to mention this example to johnny, with rolf
maedel being another member of this school.) so this whole
discussion, julia's whole argument, doesn't really concern "tuning"
at all -- since 72-tone equal temperament can apparently support
*both* extremes, according to both julia and yourself.

back to johnny reinhard -- he said he had read the article, but
refrained from commenting. that seems unfortunate, since his own
compositions for solo bassoon and for string quartet are paragons of
totally-free-pitched, atonal composition, a field julia seems to be
promoting as a valid and fertile field for future musical
exploration. and yet julia's article doesn't even mention him, let
alone any of his compositions. i would have hoped that johnny would
have at least shared some of his thoughts/experiences in this area,
and this could have been a valuable exchange for everyone involved.
i'll venture a guess that what happened, though, is that he didn't
see fit to pursue the article much further that the first few pages,
given his extensive experience performing works in just intonation,
and feeling, as he has reported recently, the profound emotional
effects that precise just tunings can convey. this is unfortunate
because he has so much experience with *both* extremes of julia's
spectrum, as well as many others, and with *integrating* them all in
his own playing and concert programming -- he of all people should
have something interesting to say about all this.

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

> In this carnage, Julia manages to claim that Penderecki, Xenakis,
> Ligeti and Bartok are not using "real, true" microtonality.
> Penderecki, Xenakis and Ligeti because the usage is part of some
> larger structure that does not feature specific intervals, and
Bartok
> because the usage is "elaborative." Now, please, who is the
> judge of all this?? Julia Werntz, I guess. Come on.

hey, i think she draws a valid distinction here, and is free to draw
up terminology for it as she sees fit (there certainly isn't a
uniform consensus on what all these terms mean right now).

> Penderecki and
> Xenakis use wild non-twelvulated microtonality (who's ever heard
> of "microtonalism") and, in particular, Xenakis created this
> music from GLISSANDI, the ULTIMATE microtonal sound!!!! What BS.

glissandi . . . this doesn't really go far toward creating a set of
independent, distinct pitches with clear musical functions, which is
julia's point (her paper is titled "adding pitches", not "smearing
through all the pitches"). now i admit, the emotional effect of
slowly proceeding through the continuum of pitches can be quite
profound, as i experienced on the Fripp and Eno album _No
Pussyfooting_. but that's not what julia's shooting for in her paper,
so i think your your comments are *extremely* short-sighted and
unfair here, joseph . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_38366.html#38369

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > In this carnage, Julia manages to claim that Penderecki, Xenakis,
> > Ligeti and Bartok are not using "real, true" microtonality.
> > Penderecki, Xenakis and Ligeti because the usage is part of some
> > larger structure that does not feature specific intervals, and
> Bartok
> > because the usage is "elaborative." Now, please, who is the
> > judge of all this?? Julia Werntz, I guess. Come on.
>
> hey, i think she draws a valid distinction here, and is free to
draw
> up terminology for it as she sees fit (there certainly isn't a
> uniform consensus on what all these terms mean right now).
>
> > Penderecki and
> > Xenakis use wild non-twelvulated microtonality (who's ever heard
> > of "microtonalism") and, in particular, Xenakis created this
> > music from GLISSANDI, the ULTIMATE microtonal sound!!!! What BS.
>
> glissandi . . . this doesn't really go far toward creating a set of
> independent, distinct pitches with clear musical functions, which
is
> julia's point (her paper is titled "adding pitches", not "smearing
> through all the pitches"). now i admit, the emotional effect of
> slowly proceeding through the continuum of pitches can be quite
> profound, as i experienced on the Fripp and Eno album _No
> Pussyfooting_. but that's not what julia's shooting for in her
paper,
> so i think your your comments are *extremely* short-sighted and
> unfair here, joseph . . .

***The comparisons she makes are interesting, but the fact that she
sets up what she feels is the "True Way" or the "correct" or full
implementation of microtonality is what bothers me...

Besides, when we talk about "clear musical functions" she ignores the
Just Intonation simple relationships and that "muddies the waters" as
far as I am concerned.

If she had just described her *own* methods and ways of working with
72-tET that would have been great, but declaring the "right way" and
dumping on other people is a big turn off in my book!

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_38366.html#38368

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > We can also refute this limited JI palette nonsense by the
> > consideration of 72-tET as an adaptive just intonation system, as
> > Paul Erlich has so aptly pointed out. Linearly 72-tET is
tempered
> > but, horizontally, if people use the kind of interval training
> > methods that I, personally, advocate
>
> did you mean "vertically" rather than "horizontally", joseph?
>

***Yes, that's a mistake.

>
> back to johnny reinhard -- he said he had read the article, but
> refrained from commenting. that seems unfortunate, since his own
> compositions for solo bassoon and for string quartet are paragons
of
> totally-free-pitched, atonal composition, a field julia seems to be
> promoting as a valid and fertile field for future musical
> exploration. and yet julia's article doesn't even mention him, let
> alone any of his compositions. i would have hoped that johnny would
> have at least shared some of his thoughts/experiences in this area,
> and this could have been a valuable exchange for everyone involved.
> i'll venture a guess that what happened, though, is that he didn't
> see fit to pursue the article much further that the first few
pages,
> given his extensive experience performing works in just intonation,
> and feeling, as he has reported recently, the profound emotional
> effects that precise just tunings can convey. this is unfortunate
> because he has so much experience with *both* extremes of julia's
> spectrum, as well as many others, and with *integrating* them all
in
> his own playing and concert programming -- he of all people should
> have something interesting to say about all this.

***My impression is that Johnny has not fully read the article. I
was unaware that he was giving the impression that he *had* read it,
since *I* personally didn't get that impression from him...

JP