system/sensation

first, hello to all five hundred ninety of you -

question:

why has the focus with microtonality often been on the creation
of new Systems of tuning rather than on the sensation of individual
frequencies or intervals?
(or the systemization of these sensations for
that matter?)
certainly lamonte is interested in this phenomena of deepening
sensation through listening for extended duration to distant harmonics,
but as a whole, it seems there is more interest in the
creation of new, 'better' paradigms (perhaps out of anger for the old)
within which to construct music that, formally or otherwise, might be quite
similar to much of the music composed in equal temperament. Wasn't
Partch, the hero of many microtonalists greatly interested in Corporeality,
the physical nature of the sensation of sounds?
Has that concept been slowly misunderstood since he passed, or is
that now a hidden element in new microtonal music that is not as often
discussed as the more scientific/technical issues? Is this a mistake?
what are the primary concerns (as intentions realized or unrealized)
of composers on this list who find one tuning to be the 'best' for
their work? in that circumstance, what determines what is 'best' or
provides the necessary possibilities?
If not sensation, what, and why?

thanks in advance for your responses, i am interested to hear everyone's
feelings on this matter - if you would like to contact me directly:
send email to: m@micahsilver.org

thanks again,

--

--- In tuning@y..., ¤ <m@m...> wrote:
>
> why has the focus with microtonality often been on the creation
> of new Systems of tuning rather than on the sensation of individual
> frequencies or intervals?

well, the sensation of individual intervals has also been discussed
to a considerable extent. once you decide what intervals you want to
use, though, it's then quite an interesting (and not always trivial)
task to come up with a system that exploits them with enough
frequency, regularity, cognitive digestibility, or whatever criteria
a particular musician may set.

> certainly lamonte is interested in this phenomena of deepening
> sensation through listening for extended duration to distant
harmonics,
> but as a whole, it seems there is more interest in the
> creation of new, 'better' paradigms (perhaps out of anger for the
old)
> within which to construct music that, formally or otherwise,
might be quite
> similar to much of the music composed in equal temperament.

or often (as on this list), music that might bear some formal
similarities to music composed in the older tuning systems of
meantone or pythagorean.

> Wasn't
> Partch, the hero of many microtonalists greatly interested in
Corporeality,
> the physical nature of the sensation of sounds?

are you defining corporeality *as* the physical nature of the
sensation of sounds? i wonder if jon has a reaction to this . . .

> Has that concept been slowly misunderstood since he passed, or is
> that now a hidden element in new microtonal music that is not as
often
> discussed as the more scientific/technical issues? Is this a
mistake?

sounds like you have an interesting point of view on these issues
that is behind these questions . . . do share, and in all likelihood
it will spark some interesting discussion (though things are rather
quiet around here right now) . . .

> what are the primary concerns (as intentions realized or
unrealized)
> of composers on this list who find one tuning to be the 'best' for
> their work? in that circumstance, what determines what is 'best' or
> provides the necessary possibilities?
> If not sensation, what, and why?

i think many people on this list start from sensation, at least in
that they orient their tunings around the same types of intervals
partch did (i assume this aligns with your meaning in this
question?). then there is a question of closure, which partch
addressed several times, most famously with a set of 43 pitches --
this question leads many others to propose their own finite systems.
in addition, there are cognitive concerns that can come into
play . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., ¤ <m@m...> wrote:

> > what are the primary concerns (as intentions realized or
> unrealized)
> > of composers on this list who find one tuning to be the 'best' for
> > their work? in that circumstance, what determines what is 'best' or
> > provides the necessary possibilities?
> > If not sensation, what, and why?
>
> i think many people on this list start from sensation, at least in
> that they orient their tunings around the same types of intervals
> partch did (i assume this aligns with your meaning in this
> question?). then there is a question of closure, which partch
> addressed several times, most famously with a set of 43 pitches --
> this question leads many others to propose their own finite systems.
> in addition, there are cognitive concerns that can come into
> play . . .

The structural relationships between tones and chords is a major considerat=
ion. You can't simply count up chords or intervals, take note of the accurac=
y of the intonation, and understand what a tuning system is like.

� wrote:

> first, hello to all five hundred ninety of you - question: why has
> the focus with microtonality often been on the creationof new Systems
> of tuning rather than on the sensation of individualfrequencies or
> intervals? (or the systemization of these sensations forthat matter?)
> certainly lamonte is interested in this phenomena of
> deepeningsensation through listening for extended duration to distant
> harmonics, but as a whole, it seems there is more interest in
> thecreation of new, 'better' paradigms (perhaps out of anger for the
> old) within which to construct music that, formally or otherwise,
> might be quitesimilar to much of the music composed in equal
> temperament. Wasn'tPartch, the hero of many microtonalists greatly
> interested in Corporeality,the physical nature of the sensation of
> sounds?Has that concept been slowly misunderstood since he passed, or
> isthat now a hidden element in new microtonal music that is not as
> oftendiscussed as the more scientific/technical issues? Is this a
> mistake? what are the primary concerns (as intentions realized or
> unrealized)of composers on this list who find one tuning to be the
> 'best' fortheir work? in that circumstance, what determines what is
> 'best' orprovides the necessary possibilities?If not sensation, what,
> and why? thanks in advance for your responses, i am interested to hear
> everyone'sfeelings on this matter - if you would like to contact me

One of the factors that prevents composers exploring many systems, if
that is your question in a nutshell, is, from my point of view, the
sheer hard work involved. Look at several hundred years of the combined
efforts of brilliant minds, geniuses and institutional endeavour and you
have the culture of 12 tet. We, that is, contemporary microtonalists,
are often starting from scratch or perhaps with the assistance of some
inspired guiding principles from the theorists.

At the risk of being controversial and absolutely not wishing to
disrespect any of the brilliant minds on this list, I would say it is a
much greater task to produce serious music than serious theory.

Kind Regards
a.m.

>

Amen! and will be so for still some time to come!

>
> From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
> Subject: Re: system/sensation
>
> At the risk of being controversial and absolutely not wishing to
> disrespect any of the brilliant minds on this list, I would say it is a
> much greater task to produce serious music than serious theory.
>
> Kind Regards
> a.m.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

Alison Monteith wrote:
I would say it is a much greater task to produce serious music than serious theory.
For someone like me who don't produce music but only paramusical theories, it's surely a healthy
attitude to think like so, but in same time I could hardly object someone more rationalist than me
who would said that may depend of the exigence one have about what is good music and what is
good theory, serious or not. I prefer to remain cautious about what I ignore.

Gene wrote:
The structural relationships between tones and chords is a major consideration.
You can't simply count up chords or intervals, take note of the accuracy of the
intonation, and understand what a tuning system is like.
I emphasis and totally agree.

What may explain the resurgence over millenaries, for instance, of the chinese anhemitonic scale,
in so much musical civilizations, may only be understood as qualified structural relationships. The
free choice of one musician for a tone set is something arbitrary at science viewpoint, but largely
prefered tone systems (I don't say tuning system but tone system) in time and planet regions ask
for an explanation generally far from immediate interest of composing and playing here and now.

Pierre

>pierre wrote :

> The
>free choice of one musician for a tone set is something arbitrary at >science viewpoint, but largely
>prefered tone systems (I don't say tuning system but tone system) in >time and planet regions ask
>for an explanation generally far from immediate interest of >composing and playing here and now.
>

To me, your explanation begets the conclusion that indeed these strong, regional "tone systems" do
have everything to do with "here and now." First, the choice for a tone group did at one point happen
in one moment that created the group - from then on one could argue that the sensation of that group
became invested within the people who heard it and somehow resonated so deeply with them and their
collective culture that the sound became a part of the here and now for those people, Even when the
scale wasn't being played (because they had internalized the sensation and that stayed with them). Again,
this process of internalizing a sound having experienced its touch is something quite constant for all of
us and the choice to revisit a sound like the scale you mentioned, in my view is a choice to return to the
space created by that sensation. ??
--

--

(Sorry for delay)

?? wrote:
... these strong, regional "tone systems" do have everything to do with "here and now."
... the choice for a tone group did at one point happen in one moment that created the group ...
... the sensation of that group became invested within the people who heard it and somehow
resonated so deeply with them and their collective culture that the sound became a part of
the here and now ...
... this process of internalizing a sound having experienced its touch is something quite
constant for all of us
... the choice to revisit a sound like the scale ... is a choice to return to the space created
by that sensation
1) I don't disagree that "here and now" would imply some internalized habits but I leave to others some
judgment in that matter. I wanted simply to say that my research is not concerned by immediate interest
of composing and playing.

2) Would you believe also that English was created in one moment?

3) I would believe that we are yet in the crisis subsequent to the tonal language breaking. It seems that
many here wish they would escape 12-ET but would keep diatonism and temperament way of thinking.
Would you interpret that as a consequence of a such internalization?

4) I can hardly accept the term sensation in my vocabulary. On one hand, as far as I seek to track
something that would be an elementary sensation, say the red sensation, I find relations, for instance
the importance of the background / foreground, the cultural diversity of limits about the red category, etc.
On the other hand, qualities appears always finest far from quantities and far from elementary level, as
fused globality, like the face of things. So I see an elementary sensation as a regressive perception in
artificial conditions of forced attention.

You're sit on a bench aside a person and your knees are touching. If that person is a nice girl at ease
with you or that kind of guy who always need much place, you would probably have different percepts
and affects, even if by regressive attention you could'nt find a distinct sensation.

5) A mental space is something relational. It's constructed with quality differences (and some concrete
law of transformation of these differences) rather than qualities as such.

Pierre