Re: more "true way" nonsense

> "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> What's more, what is a "truly microtonal usage??"

Substitute 'xenharmonic' for 'microtonal' and what Julia is trying to convey about her aesthetic becomes clear.

> Supposedly that includes a "functional" microtonality, but yet it
> *excludes* the simple ratios of the just intonation intervals as
> being significant.

My impression is Julia is looking for new sounds, not a 'purer' third, fourth, fifth, etc. '5-limit Just Intonation' for example, will not yield significant new tonalities.

Xenharmonics, from the Greek 'xenos', meaning 'strange', 'foreign', 'stranger'. A little 1980's television trivia - it was Remington Steele's boyhood name during his time in Greece. And from 'harmonics', more from the Greek sense of the word, concerned with the investigation of the character of monophonic melody. If this interpretation is wrong, someone please point it out. However, I am aware that Ivor Darreg was thinking more in terms breaking free from 12ED2:1. Which actually fits Julia's work rather nicely.

I don't know how much longer Ms. Werntz will bother responding here, but I seriously doubt she has *any* '"True Way"' aspirations. You did quote her saying, "...there is nothing sacred about the number seventy-two...".

Paul E's response is on the money. Hey Paul, nice to find something I can understand & agree with you on without having to strain my brain. Hint: math is not my strong suit ;-)

In TD2123, June 23, Julia (in a response to one of my posts), says, "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.). The 'latter group' she mentions includes Xenakis, Penderecki, and Ferneyhough. The characterisation she agrees with is a quote from Daniel Wolf.

> So, that implies, as well, that the microtonality of Xenakis and
> Penderecki is not "functional."

Nope, just not significant. And this from someone who worships (well, as much as my existential heart allows me to) at the church of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Zappa, et al.

> There is a serious flaw in the logic here, as far as *I* am concerned!

Nope. Just some serious misconstruction/misunderstanding of it's ideas.

> Joseph

Sincerely,
Joel

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38392.html#38392

> > "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > What's more, what is a "truly microtonal usage??"
>
> Substitute 'xenharmonic' for 'microtonal' and what Julia is
> trying to convey about her aesthetic becomes clear.
>

***Hello Joel. I believe her intention is perfectly clear. She has
her *own* preferences in working in microtonality, as do *most*
people.

> > Supposedly that includes a "functional" microtonality, but yet it
> > *excludes* the simple ratios of the just intonation intervals as
> > being significant.
>
> My impression is Julia is looking for new sounds, not a 'purer'
> third, fourth, fifth, etc. '5-limit Just Intonation' for
> example, will not yield significant new tonalities.
>

***Of course...

> Xenharmonics, from the Greek 'xenos', meaning 'strange',
> 'foreign', 'stranger'. A little 1980's television trivia - it
> was Remington Steele's boyhood name during his time in Greece.
> And from 'harmonics', more from the Greek sense of the word,
> concerned with the investigation of the character of monophonic
> melody. If this interpretation is wrong, someone please point it
> out. However, I am aware that Ivor Darreg was thinking more in
> terms breaking free from 12ED2:1. Which actually fits Julia's
> work rather nicely.
>

***I don't think so, because what I've heard of Darreg's work
involves a much *broader* use of various consonances and dissonances
than Julia wishes to include..

> I don't know how much longer Ms. Werntz will bother responding
> here, but I seriously doubt she has *any* '"True Way"'
> aspirations. You did quote her saying, "...there is nothing
> sacred about the number seventy-two...".
>

***She sets up *three* different "Xenharmonic" possibilities in the
first part of her article, and dismisses two, proclaiming the
third, "adding pitches" the "true, functional" microtonality.

If that isn't "True Wayism" I don't know what is. There is *no*
difference between her attitude and the most virulent Just
Intonationist.

[I meant to reply to this part of Paul's comment before...]

> Paul E's response is on the money. Hey Paul, nice to find
> something I can understand & agree with you on without having to
> strain my brain. Hint: math is not my strong suit ;-)
>
>
> In TD2123, June 23, Julia (in a response to one of my posts),
> says, "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.). The 'latter group'
> she mentions includes Xenakis, Penderecki, and Ferneyhough. The
> characterisation she agrees with is a quote from Daniel Wolf.
>
>
> > So, that implies, as well, that the microtonality of Xenakis and
> > Penderecki is not "functional."
>
> Nope, just not significant. And this from someone who worships
> (well, as much as my existential heart allows me to) at the
> church of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Zappa, et al.
>

***I don't know how anybody can say that. Just because the sonic
relationship is *different??* It's a different *preference* that's
all.

>
> > There is a serious flaw in the logic here, as far as *I* am
concerned!
>
> Nope. Just some serious misconstruction/misunderstanding of it's
ideas.
>

****Naaah. I understand it all right, just disagree with it.

J. Pehrson