Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning prohibition!

Never was much of a success, in music or anyplace.

This short post is just to address the idea advanced by Arnold
Schoenberg (whom I admire, actually) that in the development of
atonal music and, specifically, the 12-tone method, one should avoid
lower-limit consonances because they will "resonate" too much with
the past and with former associations.

Maybe when Arnie started with his system this was necessary, but the
fact of the matter is that even *later* in his life in his *own*
compositions he mixed both chromatic atonality and chordal
progressions that evoked harmonic patterns derived (inaccurately of
course) from the overtone series....

This is, by the way, one of the main "arguments" in the recent
dissertation/article we have been examining (author will now remain
unnamed, because this is becoming *much* too personal and it's giving
me bad vibes, bad marimba, bad mojo (joe) and the creeps) for not
using any 72-tET intervals that are defined by lower integer ratios.

That *prohibition* didn't even work for 12-equal! Some of the very
*best* pieces of music of the 20th century combined free atonality,
traditional tonality and who knows what. There haven't even *been*
that many pieces, with the exception of Arnold Schoenberg's *first*
serial efforts, that held to these prohibitions!

In microtonality, specifically 72-tET, the result would be even
*more* curious. Take a minor seventh, for example. Which intervals
are we *not* supposed to use, the "real" just minor seventh or the 12-
tET one a septimal comma above that?? They're *both* pretty
consonant. Throw them *both* out, I say.

And how about the major third. Which goes out, the "real" one a 12th
of a tone down from 12-equal, or the 12-equal one? Both are
obviously consonant. Well, let's throw *both* of those out too,
since one *already* was thrown out before in early serialism and
the "real" just one must be even *more* pernicious since it's more
accurate. I suppose we'd better throw that one out *twice!*

And why can't we use chromatic microtonal clusters in our work a la
Xenakis?? Why isn't that *real* microtonality? Sure, the intervallic
relationships aren't there, but why can't we have part of a piece in
clusters and then have some *intervals*... and, while we're at it,
add some *just* elements to boot!

Why not use it all!!? I guess actually I'm going more in the
direction of Johnny Reinhard's "polymicrotonality" in this, even
though staying in one scale 72-tET! There are so many styles even
there, obviously!

So, out with prohibition! I'll drink to that....

Joseph Pehrson

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Never was much of a success, in music or anyplace.
>
> This short post is just to address the idea advanced by Arnold
> Schoenberg (whom I admire, actually) that in the development of
> atonal music and, specifically, the 12-tone method, one should
avoid
> lower-limit consonances because they will "resonate" too much with
> the past and with former associations.
>
> Maybe when Arnie started with his system this was necessary, but
the
> fact of the matter is that even *later* in his life in his *own*
> compositions he mixed both chromatic atonality and chordal
> progressions that evoked harmonic patterns derived (inaccurately of
> course) from the overtone series....
>
> This is, by the way, one of the main "arguments" in the recent
> dissertation/article we have been examining (author will now remain
> unnamed, because this is becoming *much* too personal and it's
giving
> me bad vibes, bad marimba, bad mojo (joe) and the creeps) for not
> using any 72-tET intervals that are defined by lower integer ratios.

where? i don't see any such argument in the article. i think you're
imagining it. i didn't say anything when you brought this up
yesterday, because i daresay we have better things to talk about on
this list. but now you do seem to be running way too far with
this . . .

> That *prohibition* didn't even work for 12-equal! Some of the very
> *best* pieces of music of the 20th century combined free atonality,
> traditional tonality and who knows what. There haven't even *been*
> that many pieces, with the exception of Arnold Schoenberg's *first*
> serial efforts, that held to these prohibitions!
>
> In microtonality, specifically 72-tET, the result would be even
> *more* curious. Take a minor seventh, for example. Which
intervals
> are we *not* supposed to use, the "real" just minor seventh or the
12-
> tET one a septimal comma above that?? They're *both* pretty
> consonant. Throw them *both* out, I say.
>
> And how about the major third. Which goes out, the "real" one a
12th
> of a tone down from 12-equal, or the 12-equal one? Both are
> obviously consonant. Well, let's throw *both* of those out too,
> since one *already* was thrown out before in early serialism and
> the "real" just one must be even *more* pernicious since it's more
> accurate. I suppose we'd better throw that one out *twice!*

calm down, joseph. i think you're having a bad dream. or maybe it's a
mirage due to the heat. but i don't see anything about "avoidance"
or "throwing out consonances" in the article.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_38409.html#38413

>
> where? i don't see any such argument in the article. i think you're
> imagining it. i didn't say anything when you brought this up
> yesterday, because i daresay we have better things to talk about on
> this list. but now you do seem to be running way too far with
> this . . .
>

Pooey!

How about page 184:

"Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar, approach for
composers using microtonal chromatics, not simply out of aesthetic
preference, but, more importantly, because of the simple but defining
characteristic wherein `notes are related only to one
another.' Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
outset to preexisting diatonic schemes, and subject the pitches
automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a fundamental
tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
acknowledged hereed.] will risk being unable to hear each of the
new intervals independently and may therefore not have the richest
palette available to them for writing, thereby limiting the scope of
their musical innovations. In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as small
as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the case
of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.

"Conversely, the absence of the traditional prescribed
intervallic hierarchies enables one to search freely and examine the
new relationships. Although any technique has its underlying bias,
removing the prescriptions of tonality in this manner seems, more
than any other approach, to allow the composer to "start from
scratch," and to use his/her ears and intellect to invent a
compositional method. With the creation of a new intervallic
vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom from
presumptions is crucial."

AND, page 188:

"As was suggested in Part 1, only when the composer begins to
hear and use the new intervals independently from the traditional
twelve can we say that a deeper level of microtonality has been
attained and that a genuinely new language may have emerged. A
concerted effort to avoid emphasis of the traditional intervals is
based, of course, not on some presumed criteria regarding the quality
of certain relationships, but rather upon the need simply to
experience the new relationships, to become familiar with them and
give them musical relevance. This is an extension of the atonal bias
described earlier, and is not unlike Schoenberg's advice in 1923
to avoid major, minor and diminished triads, advice that may seem,
especially to today's twelve-note composers, dogmatic and
arbitrary. At the time it certainly seemed to some composers and
listeners a necessary phase in order to bring one's ears out of
the old formulas and old logic. "

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_38409.html#38413
>
> >
> > where? i don't see any such argument in the article. i think
you're
> > imagining it. i didn't say anything when you brought this up
> > yesterday, because i daresay we have better things to talk about
on
> > this list. but now you do seem to be running way too far with
> > this . . .
> >
>
>
> Pooey!
>
> How about page 184:
>
> "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar, approach for
> composers using microtonal chromatics, not simply out of aesthetic
> preference, but, more importantly, because of the simple but
defining
> characteristic wherein `notes are related only to one
> another.' Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,

nothing so far . . . even in using blackjack, you yourself are
rejecting anything remotely like the diatonic scale . . .

> and subject the pitches
> automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a
fundamental
> tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
> acknowledged hereed.]

or maybe rather the strength of common-practice diatonic tonality, or
maybe both . . .

> will risk being unable to hear each of the
> new intervals independently and may therefore not have the richest
> palette available to them for writing, thereby limiting the scope
of
> their musical innovations.

well, given the context (and given the little sense that this would
make otherwise), it seems julia's talkin' non-diatonic here, not non-
consonant or non-harmonic series.

> In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
> the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as small
> as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the case
> of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
> microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.

here she's *allowing* for the use of small retunings to acheive just
tuning -- though we know she doesn't *advocate* that in general,
she's certainly not saying one should work to specifically *avoid*
just intervals in general.

> "Conversely, the absence of the traditional prescribed
> intervallic hierarchies

again, conventional diatonic tonality

> enables one to search freely and examine the
> new relationships. Although any technique has its underlying bias,
> removing the prescriptions of tonality

there it is, tonality. not "consonance", not "just intervals", but
tonality. think of an atonal just scale, like the hebdomekontany. i'm
sure she wouldn't want to have to learn to sing all those intervals
herself, but for a player of a fixed-pitch instrument, this sort of
construct would seem to be right up her alley!

> in this manner seems, more
> than any other approach, to allow the composer to "start from
> scratch," and to use his/her ears and intellect to invent a
> compositional method. With the creation of a new intervallic
> vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom
from
> presumptions is crucial."

perhaps even your use of blackjack would serve as a perfect example
of this . . . though in a footnote, she seems to feel that constructs
based on fixed scales sound "peculiar" . . . perhaps 21 is too many
notes to count as a fixed scale?

> AND, page 188:
>
> "As was suggested in Part 1, only when the composer begins to
> hear and use the new intervals independently from the traditional
> twelve

blackjack looks good on this basis as well! 41 different intervals,
as evenly spaced as possible among the 72 -- no 12-ism whatsoever!

> can we say that a deeper level of microtonality has been
> attained and that a genuinely new language may have emerged. A
> concerted effort to avoid emphasis of the traditional intervals is
> based, of course, not on some presumed criteria regarding the
quality
> of certain relationships, but rather upon the need simply to
> experience the new relationships, to become familiar with them and
> give them musical relevance.

this could apply just as well to unfamiliar "just" intervals, as it
could to unfamiliar "dissonant" intervals.

so i stand by my contention that you're reading something into
werntz's article that isn't really there . . . so i give you a B- for
reading comprehension . . . plus you're not following your own advice
about "accentuating the positive" with your tone lately
("BS"? "idiotic"?) . . . plus, this whole discussion is not about
tuning anyway, as we've established, so why not move it to metatuning
(i've already tried to move some of the other "BS" over there . . .)?

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_38409.html#38419

***Well, I *am* saying at least one more post about this! :)

But, I'm leaving town tomorrow so will be offline for a bit, probably
to everybody's relief...

> >
> > "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> > discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar, approach for
> > composers using microtonal chromatics, not simply out of
aesthetic
> > preference, but, more importantly, because of the simple but
> defining
> > characteristic wherein `notes are related only to one
> > another.' Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> > outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,
>
> nothing so far . . . even in using blackjack, you yourself are
> rejecting anything remotely like the diatonic scale . . .
>
> > and subject the pitches
> > automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a
> fundamental
> > tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
> > acknowledged hereed.]
>
> or maybe rather the strength of common-practice diatonic tonality,
or maybe both . . .
>

***Both, is obviously the answer. Julia has made it clear that she
is not advocating just intonation structures or that kind of
consonance of any kind. I can't see why that isn't clear if you read
the article! You're "splitting hairs" about the traditional
diatonicity thing. That's *intimately* related to the kind of
harmonic series emulating intervals that she wishes to avoid.

> > will risk being unable to hear each of the
> > new intervals independently and may therefore not have the
richest
> > palette available to them for writing, thereby limiting the scope
> of
> > their musical innovations.
>
> well, given the context (and given the little sense that this would
> make otherwise), it seems julia's talkin' non-diatonic here, not
non-
> consonant or non-harmonic series.
>
> > In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
> > the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as
small
> > as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the
case
> > of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
> > microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.
>
> here she's *allowing* for the use of small retunings to acheive
just
> tuning -- though we know she doesn't *advocate* that in general,
> she's certainly not saying one should work to specifically *avoid*
> just intervals in general.
>
> > "Conversely, the absence of the traditional prescribed
> > intervallic hierarchies
>
> again, conventional diatonic tonality
>
> > enables one to search freely and examine the
> > new relationships. Although any technique has its underlying
bias,
> > removing the prescriptions of tonality
>
> there it is, tonality. not "consonance", not "just intervals", but
> tonality. think of an atonal just scale, like the hebdomekontany.
i'm
> sure she wouldn't want to have to learn to sing all those intervals
> herself, but for a player of a fixed-pitch instrument, this sort of
> construct would seem to be right up her alley!
>

***Paul, do you really think she would be interested in portraying a
Just Intonation structure in 72-tET after all she's said about
wanting to avoid that approach? It's clear she really doesn't want
to use the harmonic series as a foundation.

> > in this manner seems, more
> > than any other approach, to allow the composer to "start from
> > scratch," and to use his/her ears and intellect to invent a
> > compositional method. With the creation of a new intervallic
> > vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom
> from
> > presumptions is crucial."
>
> perhaps even your use of blackjack would serve as a perfect example
> of this . . . though in a footnote, she seems to feel that
constructs
> based on fixed scales sound "peculiar" . . . perhaps 21 is too many
> notes to count as a fixed scale?
>
> > AND, page 188:
> >
> > "As was suggested in Part 1, only when the composer begins to
> > hear and use the new intervals independently from the traditional
> > twelve
>
> blackjack looks good on this basis as well! 41 different intervals,
> as evenly spaced as possible among the 72 -- no 12-ism whatsoever!
>

***Paul, her own *music* given by the examples, belies any interest
in these kind of scales whatsoever. She interested in a kind of
linear, atonality and she trys to avoid *any* traditional diatonic
*or* concordant intervals in the process. The music says it all!

The music actually looks pretty interesting, so if she would only
just "do her own thing" and stop with that it would be an ideal
world...

But, it's not an ideal world. More on Metatuning...

Joseph

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_38409.html#38419
> > so i stand by my contention that you're reading something into
> > werntz's article that isn't really there . . . so i give you a B-
> for
> > reading comprehension . . . plus you're not following your own
> advice
> > about "accentuating the positive" with your tone lately
> > ("BS"? "idiotic"?) . . . plus, this whole discussion is not about
> > tuning anyway, as we've established, so why not move it to
> metatuning
> > (i've already tried to move some of the other "BS" over
> there . . .)?
>
> ***Paul, I don't believe any of this for a moment, since the whole
> idea of consonance is *distinctly* related to the harmonic series
> *and* to traditional diatonicity.

first of all, she's talking *only* about avoiding traditional
diatonicity.

she's not talking about avoiding harmonic series intervals, as you
can see in her remarks about lou harrison.

nor is she talking about avoiding consonance. you failed to provide a
single quote to support that assertion.

finally, while these three things (consonance, harmonic series,
traditional diatonicity) are not unrelated, they're far from being
the same thing -- in particular, traditional diatonicity is *several
layers* removed from raw considerations of consonance, which as you
know can also lead to blackjack (or, say, canasta), a profoundly non-
traditional, non-diatonic construct which i think julia would look on
with much more favor than you think . . .

> So *you* would get a B- in "interpretation..." :)

well, whatever. i don't think you're concentrating very hard on what
either julia or i are saying. but off to metatuning with this whole
discussion!

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

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

> "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar,

"Non-scalar"?? Why do people keep using mathematical terms as jargon in a w=
ay which makes no sense?

Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,

Is "diatonic scheme" defined anywhere in this article?

and subject the pitches
> automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a fundamental
> tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
> acknowledged hereed.] will risk being unable to hear each of the
> new intervals independently and may therefore not have the richest
> palette available to them for writing,

In 72-et, as in any et, the intervals available from any one note are the s=
ame as those available from any other note, so it is hard to see why referri=
ng everything to a certain note as the tonic is any restriction on the palet=
te.

thereby limiting the scope of
> their musical innovations.

Both "be atonal" and "be tonal" are rules, and hence restrictions.

In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
> the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as small
> as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the case
> of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
> microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.

Why are we talking about a traditional diatonic idiom in a temperament whic=
h is not well suited to meantone?

With the creation of a new intervallic
> vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom from
> presumptions is crucial."

One could just as well argue that in the face of the great complexity of 72=
-et, some organizing principle is crucial. I suggest just doing what one wan=
ts, and leaving the other fellow to do what he or she wants.

> "As was suggested in Part 1, only when the composer begins to
> hear and use the new intervals independently from the traditional
> twelve can we say that a deeper level of microtonality has been
> attained and that a genuinely new language may have emerged.

Of course, one of the most obvious ways to break free of the traditional tw=
elve is precisely to use the excellent approximations of 72 et to the 11-lim=
it. Does Julia understand what eg Blackjack is all about? It doesn't seem so=
.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> > discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar,
>
> "Non-scalar"?? Why do people keep using mathematical terms as
jargon in a w=
> ay which makes no sense?

because no one here has any idea that this *is* a mathematical term.

non-scalar -- think like a musician for just a second -- not in a
scale!

> > Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> > outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,
>
> Is "diatonic scheme" defined anywhere in this article?

the key is "preexisting schemes". the ones that were diatonic. this
doesn't need to be defined -- musicians will know what this means --
it's a humanities paper for goodness sake.

> > In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
> > the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as
small
> > as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the
case
> > of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
> > microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.
>
> Why are we talking about a traditional diatonic idiom in a
temperament whic=
> h is not well suited to meantone?

because it contains 12-equal! that's "meantone" enough, and it's
burned into our ears.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> > > discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar,
> >
> > "Non-scalar"?? Why do people keep using mathematical terms as
> jargon in a w=
> > ay which makes no sense?
>
> because no one here has any idea that this *is* a mathematical term.

American Heritage Dictionary:

sca·lar Pronunciation Key (sklr, -lär)
n.

A quantity, such as mass, length, or speed, that is completely specified by=
its magnitude and has no direction.
Mathematics. A number, numerical quantity, or element in a field.
A device that yields an output equal to the input multiplied by a constant,=
as in a linear amplifier.

adj.
Of or relating to a scalar.

> non-scalar -- think like a musician for just a second -- not in a
> scale!

That occurred to me, and it is true (though not recognized by the AHD) that=
a scale or series of steps of some kind is the etymology of the word, but t=
his doesn't help much. What, exactly, does "scalar" mean in this context, an=
d how is someone supposed to know? I keep meeting mathematical jargon in non=
mathematical contexts, and it rarely seems to have a definite meaning in the=
mind of the person using it.

> > > Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> > > outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,
> >
> > Is "diatonic scheme" defined anywhere in this article?
>
> the key is "preexisting schemes". the ones that were diatonic. this
> doesn't need to be defined -- musicians will know what this means --
What does it mean to make microntonal music in a "diatonic scheme", given t=
hat diatonic scales are by definition not microtonal? Does it simply mean 5-=
limit?

> it's a humanities paper for goodness sake.

Speaking as someone who was once in a PhD program in the humanities, I don'=
t think that means standards are irrelevant.

> > Why are we talking about a traditional diatonic idiom in a
> temperament whic=
> > h is not well suited to meantone?
>
> because it contains 12-equal! that's "meantone" enough, and it's
> burned into our ears.

It also contains the goofy meantone system I described recently, but if 12-=
tone is what she means, why not say so?

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> What, exactly, does "scalar" mean in this context, an=
> d how is someone supposed to know?

plenty of people (including yourself) have talked a lot about scales,
mostly 5-10 notes per octave, on tuning-math. music in such a scale
is "scalar".
>
> > it's a humanities paper for goodness sake.
>
> Speaking as someone who was once in a PhD program in the
humanities, I don'=
> t think that means standards are irrelevant.

of what standards do you speak? i just meant that you don't attempt a
rigorous definition of every term when writing a paper in the
humanities, at least outside of philosophy.

> > > Why are we talking about a traditional diatonic idiom in a
> > temperament whic=
> > > h is not well suited to meantone?
> >
> > because it contains 12-equal! that's "meantone" enough, and it's
> > burned into our ears.
>
> It also contains the goofy meantone system I described recently,

can you refresh me on that?

> but if 12-=
> tone is what she means, why not say so?

are you just basing everything off of those tiny, out-of-context
snippets joseph posted? must be . . .

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@mac.com>

> "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_38409.html#38413
>
>>
>> where? i don't see any such argument in the article. i think you're
>> imagining it. i didn't say anything when you brought this up
>> yesterday, because i daresay we have better things to talk about on
>> this list. but now you do seem to be running way too far with
>> this . . .
>>
>
>
> Pooey!
>
> How about page 184:
>
> "Second, there is a decided "atonal" bias to the
> discussion. I advocate an atonal, or non-scalar, approach for
> composers using microtonal chromatics, not simply out of aesthetic
> preference, but, more importantly, because of the simple but defining
> characteristic wherein `notes are related only to one
> another.' Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> outset to preexisting diatonic schemes, and subject the pitches
> automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a fundamental
> tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
> acknowledged here…ed.] will risk being unable to hear each of
> the
> new intervals independently and may therefore not have the richest
> palette available to them for writing, thereby limiting the scope of
> their musical innovations. In fact, as will be demonstrated below,
> the use of a traditional diatonic idiom can make intervals as small
> as a twelfth-tone inaudible (see Example 6), and except in the case
> of justly-tuned tonality, there would seem to be no reason to use
> microtones in a manner in which they can't be perceived.
>
> "Conversely, the absence of the traditional prescribed
> intervallic hierarchies enables one to search freely and examine the
> new relationships. Although any technique has its underlying bias,
> removing the prescriptions of tonality in this manner seems, more
> than any other approach, to allow the composer to "start from
> scratch," and to use his/her ears and intellect to invent a
> compositional method. With the creation of a new intervallic
> vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom from
> presumptions is crucial."
>
> AND, page 188:
>
> "As was suggested in Part 1, only when the composer begins to
> hear and use the new intervals independently from the traditional
> twelve can we say that a deeper level of microtonality has been
> attained and that a genuinely new language may have emerged. A
> concerted effort to avoid emphasis of the traditional intervals is
> based, of course, not on some presumed criteria regarding the quality
> of certain relationships, but rather upon the need simply to
> experience the new relationships, to become familiar with them and
> give them musical relevance. This is an extension of the atonal bias
> described earlier, and is not unlike Schoenberg's advice in 1923
> to avoid major, minor and diminished triads, advice that may seem,
> especially to today's twelve-note composers, dogmatic and
> arbitrary. At the time it certainly seemed to some composers and
> listeners a necessary phase in order to bring one's ears out of
> the old formulas and old logic. "
>
> JP

Wow ! Why didn't someone say the article is this good ? I'm
serious. JP, if you disagree, just say so & leave it at that.
Unbelievable as it may seem to you, some (me for example) do see
the logic of this, and for one actually like it !

'Here we have Julia Werntz on one side, Doty on the other
side...' ?!?? For the love of Elmer Fudd, that just shows how
off-base you are with your interpretation of Julia's conception.

Anyway, now you've decided to let it go, we can get on to other
things. Like what is 'microtonal' ? Ha ha ha ha ha ;-)

Sincerely,
Joel

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_38409.html#38425

Greetings to all my friends on the Tuning List! This *includes*
Julia Werntz!

Greetings from Grosse Pointe, Michigan, where I am spending the 4th
weekend.

I realize I was getting a little "hot under the collar" in some of
the discussions here, but it was also 96 degrees in Grosse Pointe
yesterday, so it's rather intense here as well!

plus you're not following your own
> > advice
> > > about "accentuating the positive" with your tone lately
> > > ("BS"? "idiotic"?) . . . plus, this whole discussion is not
about
> > > tuning anyway, as we've established, so why not move it to
> > metatuning
> > > (i've already tried to move some of the other "BS" over
> > there . . .)?
> >

***Paul, you are right. Some of my commentary clearly got out of
hand as I got rather "excitable..."

However, I disagree that the discussion needs to be moved from this
list where it started. At the moment it *is* about the
IMPLEMENTATION of composition using 72-tET, so it's not about a
*multitude* of tunings, but just *one* but it *does* involved the
theoretical basis of this system so could be on this list.

HOWEVER, it could *also* be on the MakeMicroMusic list, since it is
now of a *practical* bent. I doubt, though, that some of the
posters, including Julia Werntz would be reading it over there.

Incidentally, I should thank Julia for a nice *trip* reading her
paper, which I studied *twice...* I disagreed with some of it, but
enjoyed thinking about all these things. Isn't nice how getting away
a bit increases one's perspective!!!

> > ***Paul, I don't believe any of this for a moment, since the
whole
> > idea of consonance is *distinctly* related to the harmonic series
> > *and* to traditional diatonicity.
>
> first of all, she's talking *only* about avoiding traditional
> diatonicity.
>
> she's not talking about avoiding harmonic series intervals, as you
> can see in her remarks about lou harrison.
>

***Paul, the whole first section of the article is a dismissal of
just intonation and the resultant sonorities. I see *noplace* in the
article where diatonicity, however defined, comes up. Where do you
see that??

If anything, she is just as concerned about the possible emulation of
the 12-tET CHROMATIC as she is with the diatonic set!

From reading her article and studying the short excepts of her music
and Maneri's it seems as though they wish to avoid *both* the 12-tET
diatonic *and* chromatic.

> nor is she talking about avoiding consonance. you failed to provide
a single quote to support that assertion.

**I didn't bring the article along on this trip, but I think the
whole first section implies this, as well as the type of music she's
writing.

>
> finally, while these three things (consonance, harmonic series,
> traditional diatonicity) are not unrelated, they're far from being
> the same thing -- in particular, traditional diatonicity is
*several
> layers* removed from raw considerations of consonance, which as you
> know can also lead to blackjack (or, say, canasta), a profoundly
non-
> traditional, non-diatonic construct which i think julia would look
on
> with much more favor than you think . . .
>

***Paul, I really think you're adding this diatonic *overlay*... I
don't see it in the paper. Quote please??

You're writing your *own* paper here which, admittedly, would have
another level of depth, as it usually does...

> > So *you* would get a B- in "interpretation..." :)

***Actually, I flunked. But, I don't care, since I have a pleasant
disposition...

>
> well, whatever. i don't think you're concentrating very hard on
what
> either julia or i are saying. but off to metatuning with this whole
> discussion!

***Paul, it's nice of you to defend Julia. (Somebody has to do it!)
but I think I fully comprehend the article! You're way ahead of me
on the *math* stuff, but I believe I can fully read and comprehend a
*music* article... And I believe the discussion is best left here.

Anybody *else* insist that it be moved!

Thanks, Group!

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_38409.html#38433

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
>
> Microtonal composers who restrict their music from the
> > outset to preexisting diatonic schemes,
>
> Is "diatonic scheme" defined anywhere in this article?
>

***Hi Gene!

Frankly, I didn't see anything like this in the article, so I'm still
waiting for somebody to come up with a specific quote...

> and subject the pitches
> > automatically to the overwhelming structural gravity of a
fundamental
> > tone, [ahem, the "strength" of the overtone series is tacitly
> > acknowledged hereed.] will risk being unable to hear each of
the
> > new intervals independently and may therefore not have the
richest
> > palette available to them for writing,
>
> In 72-et, as in any et, the intervals available from any one note
are the s=
> ame as those available from any other note, so it is hard to see
why referri=
> ng everything to a certain note as the tonic is any restriction on
the palet=
> te.
>

***Well, it seems that, no matter *what* note one starts on, Julia is
afraid that the consonant low-integer rational sonorities will *take
over* as it were and everything will *gravitate* toward them. Of
course *I* would say that is a reason to try to *incorporate* these
basic elements rather than discard them, but she seems to feel that
they will "overrule" everything... At least, that's *my* take..

>
> With the creation of a new intervallic
> > vocabulary such as the seventy-two note chromatic, such freedom
from
> > presumptions is crucial."
>
> One could just as well argue that in the face of the great
complexity of 72=
> -et, some organizing principle is crucial. I suggest just doing
what one wan=
> ts, and leaving the other fellow to do what he or she wants.
>

***That is *exactly* what *I* think and that's the reason that I feel
that the SECOND HALF of Julia's article is so fine.

(Listening, Julia??)

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_38409.html#38436

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_38409.html#38425
> > >
> > > finally, while these three things (consonance, harmonic series,
> > > traditional diatonicity) are not unrelated, they're far from
> being
> > > the same thing -- in particular, traditional diatonicity is
> > *several
> > > layers* removed from raw considerations of consonance, which as
> you
> > > know can also lead to blackjack (or, say, canasta), a
profoundly
> > non-
> > > traditional, non-diatonic construct which i think julia would
> look
> > on
> > > with much more favor than you think . . .
> > >
> >
> > ***And that's why she said of *my* music in Blackjack, "I don't
> > understand it..."
>
> hey, a piece of music is much more than the scale it's written in.

**Hi Paul!

Yes, I would *hope* so! But I still feel Julia is uninterested in
the use of 72-tET for the lower-number integer ratio-type consonances
that are possible in the system...

Joseph