Ferneyhough interview

Concert is Sat. night Dec. 14, Weill hall, 8PM, Ensemble Sospeso

I found your comment that "the most significant recent development in
contemporary (complexist) music is a global absorption of irrational
metrical structures" fascinating, especially the suggestion that such
a development is a parallel, in the world of rhythm, to "an
increasing fascination with microtonality." Would you care to expand
on what you are envisioning here?

http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning

/tuning/topicId_unknown.html#41416

<alternativetuning@y...>" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> I don't know who you are asking, but I do know Ferneyhoughs use of
> the word "irrational" is wrong. His metres are all rational if
often
> complex ratios.
>
> Gabor
>

***The question is simply part of an interview which you will see if
you go to the link...

J. Pehrson

You're right that Ferneyhough didn't really mean "irrational" meters, but it's not clear that he was quoted accurately. What he says he means are meters like 3/10 and 7/24, based on unconventional groupings of quintuplets, triplets, and so on. These were first envisioned in Henry Cowell's 1919/1930 book New Musical Resources. I've used them myself since 1985 (5/6, 17/24), and I suppose the earliest compositional use I've seen (aside from Cowell's made-up examples) is in Boulez's Le Marteau - although these seem to have been changed to something more normal-loking in more recent editions.

What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters are, unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4) don't have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions Ferneyhough uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the ratios of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the first place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational" meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of entering.

On more than one occasion I've tried to convince representatives from Sibelius (the notation software) that it would be a great help to have access to meters with denominators other than powers of 2. No luck there.

Yours,

Kyle Gann

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41419

>
> What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters
are,
> unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4) don't
> have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions Ferneyhough
> uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the ratios
> of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the
first
> place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational"
> meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of
> entering.
>

***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to put the
emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
simple "traditional" forms..

Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!) or
maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.

Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
*both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
other to "hold on to??"

Something to think about, I guess...

J. Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> *both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> other to "hold on to??"

Interesting question, wish I had time to type a good response! In any event, for those who are interested in this guy, point them to this article in your very own NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/arts/music/08KRIE.html

He answers some of your questions himself!

Cheers,
Jon (who had plenty of Ferneyhough when he was here in San Diego at the UC campus... plenty.)

J. Pehrson wrote:

>***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to put the
>emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
>example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
>Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
>simple "traditional" forms..

>Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
>complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!) or
>maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.

>Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
>*both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
>other to "hold on to??"

It's true, most of the time, I think. The one major work to go in both directions at once was Ben Johnston's "Amazing Grace" quartet, whose rhythms (like 35:36) are just as advanced as the pitch relationships, and analogous in every variation. I've tried complexity in both directions, but I tend to be rhythmically complex in my Disklavier pieces, harmonically complex in my synthesizer pieces. I find it very difficult to do both at once.

Still, I have to say that one of my very favorite things about Partch's music is the casual way he'll subdivide quarter-notes into quintuplets and septuplets, or set up a catchy 9/4 pattern as he does in Castor and Pollux. He rarely does much nuance within the beat or meter, but he went further in terms of subdivisions than anyone of his generation except Carter - and with an infectious physicality that Carter never tried to match!

Yours,

Kyle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> take Partch, for
> example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms

hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
with "meter" . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41426

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > take Partch, for
> > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
>
> hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
> with "meter" . . .

***Hi Paul,

Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it myself,
but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..

JP

>Stockhausen of course uses tempi related by
>approximations of the
>twelfth root of two. That's one way of getting
>irrational metres and
>rhythms.

>Gabor B.

That's certainly true, that you can get approximations of irrational tempo relationships by juxtaposing different tempos. Nancarrow used tempos of e against pi in Study #40, and square roots and cube roots in Study #41. And in Studies 45-47 (originally a suite) he used one tempo layer made up of durations from a collection of unrelated tempos, for a recurring isorhythm that is truly irrational, or as close to such an experience as we can perceptually get. It strikes me that that's as close to an irrational *meter* as anyone's gotten, though now I'm trying to figure out how to write in pi/4.

What piece does Partch use 31/16 in? I'm not surprised, but I can't place it.

Kyle

Kyle,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> What piece does Partch use 31/16 in? I'm not surprised, but I can't place it.

"Daphne of the Dunes". Wouldn't it be illustrative if you could view a web page with a copy of some of the music showing the meter, and you could even click on the part to stream RealAudio of that section of the piece, and there would be a little descriptive blurb below it?

I think this was one of the first pages I put up using RA, back in about 97 or so. Good to know it still has it's uses! :)

http://www.corporeal.com/boo_part_hi.html

Cheers,
Jon

hi Kyle,

> From: "Kyle Gann" <kgann@earthlink.net>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:54 AM
> Subject: [tuning] re: Ferneyhough interview
>
>
> ... Nancarrow used tempos of e against pi in Study #40,
> and square roots and cube roots in Study #41. And in
> Studies 45-47 (originally a suite) he used one tempo
> layer made up of durations from a collection of unrelated
> tempos, for a recurring isorhythm that is truly irrational,
> or as close to such an experience as we can perceptually get.
> It strikes me that that's as close to an irrational *meter*
> as anyone's gotten, though now I'm trying to figure out
> how to write in pi/4.

why not try 4/pi instead? now *that* would be an
interesting meter! :)

-monz

>

the most significant recent development in contemporary (complexist) music is
that the Ferneyhoughs have failed to have any effect outside the ivory tower they exist in.
Let him play on the street with a bucket in front of him at the UN and lets see what
global absorption is. The 50's are gone and the claim of this type of music with its supposed 'international "style deserves the disinterest it was always met with, except by the "Musical politics" that shoved it at us.

It is music based on an isolationist arrongance that ignores the 99% of music on the globe and treats it like it doesn't exist, or at least without worth.

That this list had degenerated to a point where a request about a new recording of the Wayward is ignored and instead revels in such
music that base is as far removed from intonation and pitch in general shows that what was once a door to new possibilities is headed for nothing more than "old wine in new bottles". That old wine being nothing but vinegar in the first place.

Ferneyhough is a greaty speaker and knows how like george bush to stay in the limelight. All he has to do is write more complex music than anyone else, but underneath all the flurries beyond our perceptable limits (play me something you remember of his music) he proves that such complexity is just as capable of shallowness. He uses many notes to say little.

Recently i heard a piece by Boulez as apart of some horse torture circus (neither the horses or the performers looked at all happy) and one would think after all these years he would have learned to keep the audiences attention. As always he runs out of ideas after 7 minutes and unfortunately we were deprived the the visual of a music stand just to see how much longer we had to endure the same stuff over and over again.

On the other hand to prove that i am not "just someone who hates this stuff", i have found the new Scelsi disc of works of some larger strings groups quite wonderful. And memorable. and gee it is microtonal for those who like such things

It almost seems this list is filled with people who don't like microtones. When was the last time we heard mentioned Niblock for instance. or Pauline Oliveros, or any of the 90% of the world that uses microtonal music. Has the musical endeavor become the last refuge of some sort of cultural purity, that would rather rot than open it doors to world around us. Cage open the windows to the outside, the next step is to open to those living even further away. This is the real form of Global absorption going on.

>
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Ferneyhough interview
>
>
> I found your comment that "the most significant recent development in
> contemporary (complexist) music is a global absorption of irrational
> metrical structures" fascinating, especially the suggestion that such
> a development is a parallel, in the world of rhythm, to "an
> increasing fascination with microtonality." Would you care to expand
> on what you are envisioning here?
>
> http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html
>
> J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:02:53 -0500
> From: "Jacob Garchik" <jacob@joemaneri.com>
> Subject: Announcing the Joe Maneri Website
>
> Announcing www.joemaneri.com, a comprehensive resource of information about Joseph Gabriel Esther Maneri, legendary improviser, composer, theorist, and educator. This site is the first on the web devoted exclusively to this giant of modern music.
>
> A wealth of facts and resources, the site includes a biography of Joe's musical career, a detailed discography, a complete list of his composed works, scanned pages from scores, sound samples, and rare photos from many phases of Joe's career. Also, for the first time, all of Joe's works are being made available for sale or for rental through the site.
>
> In addition, "Preliminary Studies in The Virtual Pitch Continuum", written by Joe Maneri and Scott A. Van Duyne in 1990, is available for purchase from the Boston Microtonal Society. Modeled after some of Arnold Schoenberg's rigorous modes of study in his "Preliminary Exercises in Counterpoint", the book leads students in the creation of 12 separate 4-note ascending microtonal melodies. Then, through subsequent lessons, students rearrange that material: adding voices to create harmonies, putting them to rhythm and by the end of the book, writing in 6-part microtonal counterpoint. You can view pages and hear examples from the book at www.joemaneri.com/publ.html
>
> The site will be updated continuously in the months ahead. Check back for new information.
> Questions or comments are encouraged.
>
> Enjoy!
> Jacob Garchik
> webmaster and creator, www.joemaneri.com
> jacob@joemaneri.com
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:51:30 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > >>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> > >
> > >umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> > >cents, anyhow . . .
> >
> > Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
>
> 4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some viable
> possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that (and i'm
> still sick) . . .
>
> i'll take a look at such possibilities, and others, when i
> recover . . .
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:32:39 -0000
> From: "Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>" <clumma@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
>
> >>>>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> >>>
> >>>umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> >>>cents, anyhow . . .
> >>
> >>Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
> >
> >4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> >necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some viable
> >possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that (and
> >i'm still sick) . . .
>
> Of course. What I meant there was, since in an lt there is only
> one chromatic uv, mustn't it serve as both 21:20 and 15:14 in the
> above example? If so, it wouldn't seem to push us out of the 20
> cents RMS cutoff (which I think is reasonable).
>
> >i'll take a look at such possibilities, and others, when i
> >recover . . .
>
> Hope you're feeling better! By the way, I really appreciate your
> willingness to provide solutions, if you'll excuse the project-
> management speak. I understood all but one or two steps in your
> procedure...
>
> -Carl
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:04:57 -0800
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: need help with MIDI tempo and patch problems
>
> hello all,
>
> i have a Java applet that does some microtonal MIDI stuff,
> but the tempos and voices (patches) sound the same in
> Cakewalk as in the Java applet, but different when
> played thru Windows Media Player.
>
> can anyone explain why, and how to fix the problem so
> that Windows Media Player (and every other method of
> playing the MIDI output) plays the MIDI correctly?
>
> thanks.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:00:09 -0000
> From: "alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>" <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> I don't know who you are asking, but I do know Ferneyhoughs use of
> the word "irrational" is wrong. His metres are all rational if often
> complex ratios.
>
> Gabor
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Concert is Sat. night Dec. 14, Weill hall, 8PM, Ensemble Sospeso
> >
> >
> > I found your comment that "the most significant recent development
> in
> > contemporary (complexist) music is a global absorption of
> irrational
> > metrical structures" fascinating, especially the suggestion that
> such
> > a development is a parallel, in the world of rhythm, to "an
> > increasing fascination with microtonality." Would you care to
> expand
> > on what you are envisioning here?
> >
> > http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html
> >
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:18:09 +0100
> From: manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com
> Subject: Re: New mp3s - problems streaming
>
> Alison wrote:
> >Thanks to everyone who offered advice on browser issues and mp3s. I
> >tried to upgrade Netscape but (again) the download failed to install. I
> >might switch to Explorer once I figure out how to import bookmarks from
> >Netscape.
>
> A quicker alternative might be to install Winamp, which is what
> I use at home with a modem. It's easy and has always worked for me.
> http://www.winamp.com
>
> Manuel
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:23:02 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning
>
> /tuning/topicId_unknown.html#41416
>
> <alternativetuning@y...>" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> > I don't know who you are asking, but I do know Ferneyhoughs use of
> > the word "irrational" is wrong. His metres are all rational if
> often
> > complex ratios.
> >
> > Gabor
> >
>
> ***The question is simply part of an interview which you will see if
> you go to the link...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:49:26 -0500
> From: Kyle Gann <kgann@earthlink.net>
> Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> You're right that Ferneyhough didn't really mean "irrational" meters,
> but it's not clear that he was quoted accurately. What he says he
> means are meters like 3/10 and 7/24, based on unconventional
> groupings of quintuplets, triplets, and so on. These were first
> envisioned in Henry Cowell's 1919/1930 book New Musical Resources.
> I've used them myself since 1985 (5/6, 17/24), and I suppose the
> earliest compositional use I've seen (aside from Cowell's made-up
> examples) is in Boulez's Le Marteau - although these seem to have
> been changed to something more normal-loking in more recent editions.
>
> What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters are,
> unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4) don't
> have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions Ferneyhough
> uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the ratios
> of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the first
> place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational"
> meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of
> entering.
>
> On more than one occasion I've tried to convince representatives from
> Sibelius (the notation software) that it would be a great help to
> have access to meters with denominators other than powers of 2. No
> luck there.
>
> Yours,
>
> Kyle Gann
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:27 +0100
> From: manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com
> Subject: Re: need help with MIDI tempo and patch problems
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> >Can anyone explain why, and how to fix the problem so
> >that Windows Media Player (and every other method of
> >playing the MIDI output) plays the MIDI correctly?
>
> Since we can't fix Windows Media Player I assume you're
> asking for a workaround for your midi file, but that's
> impossible to answer without having the file.
> Does Megamid play it correctly? There are plenty of other
> midi file players one could use.
> Some off-topic information about Windows Media Player
> that's good to be aware of:
> http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/257283
>
> Manuel
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:57:12 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41419
>
> >
> > What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters
> are,
> > unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4) don't
> > have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions Ferneyhough
> > uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the ratios
> > of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the
> first
> > place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational"
> > meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of
> > entering.
> >
>
> ***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to put the
> emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
> example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
> Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
> simple "traditional" forms..
>
> Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
> complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!) or
> maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.
>
> Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> *both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> other to "hold on to??"
>
> Something to think about, I guess...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:46:57 -0000
> From: "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> > *both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> > other to "hold on to??"
>
> Interesting question, wish I had time to type a good response! In any event, for those who are interested in this guy, point them to this article in your very own NYT:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/arts/music/08KRIE.html
>
> He answers some of your questions himself!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon (who had plenty of Ferneyhough when he was here in San Diego at the UC campus... plenty.)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:04:57 -0500
> From: Kyle Gann <kgann@earthlink.net>
> Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> J. Pehrson wrote:
>
> >***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to put the
> >emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
> >example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
> >Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
> >simple "traditional" forms..
>
> >Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
> >complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!) or
> >maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.
>
> >Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> >*both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> >other to "hold on to??"
>
> It's true, most of the time, I think. The one major work to go in
> both directions at once was Ben Johnston's "Amazing Grace" quartet,
> whose rhythms (like 35:36) are just as advanced as the pitch
> relationships, and analogous in every variation. I've tried
> complexity in both directions, but I tend to be rhythmically complex
> in my Disklavier pieces, harmonically complex in my synthesizer
> pieces. I find it very difficult to do both at once.
>
> Still, I have to say that one of my very favorite things about
> Partch's music is the casual way he'll subdivide quarter-notes into
> quintuplets and septuplets, or set up a catchy 9/4 pattern as he does
> in Castor and Pollux. He rarely does much nuance within the beat or
> meter, but he went further in terms of subdivisions than anyone of
> his generation except Carter - and with an infectious physicality
> that Carter never tried to match!
>
> Yours,
>
> Kyle
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:30:08 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >>>>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> > >>>
> > >>>umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> > >>>cents, anyhow . . .
> > >>
> > >>Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
> > >
> > >4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> > >necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some
> viable
> > >possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that (and
> > >i'm still sick) . . .
> >
> > Of course. What I meant there was, since in an lt there is only
> > one chromatic uv, mustn't it serve as both 21:20 and 15:14 in the
> > above example?
>
> i can't see where you're getting 21:20 from. then again, i'm still
> sick, and i have three gigs coming up in the next week (thank
> goodness for DayQuil) . . . rumor has it Trey's drummer will be
> sitting in on Tuesday . . .
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:48:36 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: bad news from mp3.com
>
> Starting Jan. 31, mp3.com is only going to let "Premium" or "Gold"
> artist sites display more than three "songs..."
>
> This affects Tuning Punks, the Tuning Lab and personal pages.
>
> Well, the "free ride" on the Internet is surely coming to an end.
>
> It's not clear as yet what will be offered in their "Gold" services
> for about $5 per month. Might do it. "Premium" is like $15 per mo.
>
> Hope John Starett keeps the Tuning Punks running for this $50 per
> year...
>
> Don't know if I'll be able to keep "Tuning Lab" up after that... I
> have two *other* artist pages I want to keep up...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:48:47 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > take Partch, for
> > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
>
> hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
> with "meter" . . .
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:41:06 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> >
> >take Partch, for
> > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
>
> hmm...simple? is 31/16 a very simple rhythm? or am i
> confusing "rhythm" with "meter"?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:57:58 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41426
>
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > take Partch, for
> > > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
> >
> > hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
> > with "meter" . . .
>
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it myself,
> but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..
>
> JP
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:42:38 -0000
> From: "alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>" <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> Stockhausen of course uses tempi related by approximations of the
> twelfth root of two. That's one way of getting irrational metres and
> rhythms.
>
> Gabor B.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> > You're right that Ferneyhough didn't really mean "irrational"
> meters,
> > but it's not clear that he was quoted accurately. What he says he
> > means are meters like 3/10 and 7/24, based on unconventional
> > groupings of quintuplets, triplets, and so on. These were first
> > envisioned in Henry Cowell's 1919/1930 book New Musical Resources.
> > I've used them myself since 1985 (5/6, 17/24), and I suppose the
> > earliest compositional use I've seen (aside from Cowell's made-up
> > examples) is in Boulez's Le Marteau - although these seem to have
> > been changed to something more normal-loking in more recent
> editions.
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:54:18 -0500
> From: Kyle Gann <kgann@earthlink.net>
> Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
>
> >Stockhausen of course uses tempi related by
> >approximations of the
> >twelfth root of two. That's one way of getting
> >irrational metres and
> >rhythms.
>
> >Gabor B.
>
> That's certainly true, that you can get approximations of irrational
> tempo relationships by juxtaposing different tempos. Nancarrow used
> tempos of e against pi in Study #40, and square roots and cube roots
> in Study #41. And in Studies 45-47 (originally a suite) he used one
> tempo layer made up of durations from a collection of unrelated
> tempos, for a recurring isorhythm that is truly irrational, or as
> close to such an experience as we can perceptually get. It strikes me
> that that's as close to an irrational *meter* as anyone's gotten,
> though now I'm trying to figure out how to write in pi/4.
>
> What piece does Partch use 31/16 in? I'm not surprised, but I can't place it.
>
> Kyle
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41435

>
> It almost seems this list is filled with people who don't like
microtones. When was the last time we heard mentioned Niblock for
instance. or Pauline Oliveros, or any of the 90% of the world that
uses microtonal music. Has the musical endeavor become the last
refuge of some sort of cultural purity, that would rather rot than
open it doors to world around us. Cage open the windows to the
outside, the next step is to open to those living even further away.
This is the real form of Global absorption going on.
>

***Hi Kraig!

Well, personally, I just posted the interview to the list because
Ferneyhough was *claiming* that his utilization of the entire metric
span had some relationship to the use of the entire *pitch* span as
in microtonality!

It was just for discussion. I have no point of view, which is always
a safe place to be... :)

But, seriously, I haven't heard yet a *note* of his music, and am
tempted to think that such super-complexity has to be pretty much
bunk, but most probably I should hear at least *one* piece before I
make a snap judgement...

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> It almost seems this list is filled with people who don't like
>microtones.

???
i just posted some cents values for some microtonal scales for our
finnish friend last week. we've been treated to a joseph maneri
website this week. kyle gann and joseph pehrson and monz, all diehard
microtonalists at this point, digress for a moment on the topic of
meter and this is your reaction? i wonder what list you're reading
(as i did before during your perplexing and frustrating replies to
the paul/julia discussion).

>When was the last time we heard mentioned Niblock for instance. or
>Pauline Oliveros,

i just mentioned oliveros -- was it last week or the week before --
and got flamed because she was playing her JI accordion with a 12-
equal piano. once again, what list are you reading :)

smiles, hugs and good music-making,

oh wait, there's more . . .

>or any of the 90% of the world that uses microtonal music. Has the
>musical endeavor become the last refuge of some sort of cultural
>purity, that would rather rot than open it doors to world around us.

who is this addressed towards? ferneyhough is not on this list.
should we ignore him? ok, we probably should . . .

. . . recently emerging from a recording session with oud,
-paul

p.s. i tried to remove all the junk you inadvertantly left in your
message, but can't quite manage at this "FREEosk" . . .

> > Questions or comments are encouraged.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > Jacob Garchik
> > webmaster and creator, www.joemaneri.com
> > jacob@j...
> >
> > [This message contained attachments]
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 01:51:30 -0000
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> > <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > >>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> > > >
> > > >umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> > > >cents, anyhow . . .
> > >
> > > Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
> >
> > 4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> > necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some
viable
> > possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that (and
i'm
> > still sick) . . .
> >
> > i'll take a look at such possibilities, and others, when i
> > recover . . .
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:32:39 -0000
> > From: "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>" <clumma@y...>
> > Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
> >
> > >>>>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> > >>>
> > >>>umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> > >>>cents, anyhow . . .
> > >>
> > >>Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
> > >
> > >4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> > >necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some
viable
> > >possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that (and
> > >i'm still sick) . . .
> >
> > Of course. What I meant there was, since in an lt there is only
> > one chromatic uv, mustn't it serve as both 21:20 and 15:14 in the
> > above example? If so, it wouldn't seem to push us out of the 20
> > cents RMS cutoff (which I think is reasonable).
> >
> > >i'll take a look at such possibilities, and others, when i
> > >recover . . .
> >
> > Hope you're feeling better! By the way, I really appreciate your
> > willingness to provide solutions, if you'll excuse the project-
> > management speak. I understood all but one or two steps in your
> > procedure...
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:04:57 -0800
> > From: "monz" <monz@a...>
> > Subject: need help with MIDI tempo and patch problems
> >
> > hello all,
> >
> > i have a Java applet that does some microtonal MIDI stuff,
> > but the tempos and voices (patches) sound the same in
> > Cakewalk as in the Java applet, but different when
> > played thru Windows Media Player.
> >
> > can anyone explain why, and how to fix the problem so
> > that Windows Media Player (and every other method of
> > playing the MIDI output) plays the MIDI correctly?
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > -monz
> >
> >
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:00:09 -0000
> > From: "alternativetuning <alternativetuning@y...>"
<alternativetuning@y...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > I don't know who you are asking, but I do know Ferneyhoughs use of
> > the word "irrational" is wrong. His metres are all rational if
often
> > complex ratios.
> >
> > Gabor
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > Concert is Sat. night Dec. 14, Weill hall, 8PM, Ensemble Sospeso
> > >
> > >
> > > I found your comment that "the most significant recent
development
> > in
> > > contemporary (complexist) music is a global absorption of
> > irrational
> > > metrical structures" fascinating, especially the suggestion that
> > such
> > > a development is a parallel, in the world of rhythm, to "an
> > > increasing fascination with microtonality." Would you care to
> > expand
> > > on what you are envisioning here?
> > >
> > > http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html
> > >
> > >
> > > J. Pehrson
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:18:09 +0100
> > From: manuel.op.de.coul@e...
> > Subject: Re: New mp3s - problems streaming
> >
> > Alison wrote:
> > >Thanks to everyone who offered advice on browser issues and
mp3s. I
> > >tried to upgrade Netscape but (again) the download failed to
install. I
> > >might switch to Explorer once I figure out how to import
bookmarks from
> > >Netscape.
> >
> > A quicker alternative might be to install Winamp, which is what
> > I use at home with a modem. It's easy and has always worked for
me.
> > http://www.winamp.com
> >
> > Manuel
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:23:02 -0000
> > From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_unknown.html#41416
> >
> > <alternativetuning@y...>" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> > > I don't know who you are asking, but I do know Ferneyhoughs use
of
> > > the word "irrational" is wrong. His metres are all rational if
> > often
> > > complex ratios.
> > >
> > > Gabor
> > >
> >
> > ***The question is simply part of an interview which you will see
if
> > you go to the link...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:49:26 -0500
> > From: Kyle Gann <kgann@e...>
> > Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > You're right that Ferneyhough didn't really mean "irrational"
meters,
> > but it's not clear that he was quoted accurately. What he says he
> > means are meters like 3/10 and 7/24, based on unconventional
> > groupings of quintuplets, triplets, and so on. These were first
> > envisioned in Henry Cowell's 1919/1930 book New Musical Resources.
> > I've used them myself since 1985 (5/6, 17/24), and I suppose the
> > earliest compositional use I've seen (aside from Cowell's made-up
> > examples) is in Boulez's Le Marteau - although these seem to have
> > been changed to something more normal-loking in more recent
editions.
> >
> > What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters
are,
> > unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4) don't
> > have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions Ferneyhough
> > uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the
ratios
> > of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the
first
> > place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational"
> > meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of
> > entering.
> >
> > On more than one occasion I've tried to convince representatives
from
> > Sibelius (the notation software) that it would be a great help to
> > have access to meters with denominators other than powers of 2. No
> > luck there.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Kyle Gann
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 11
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:27 +0100
> > From: manuel.op.de.coul@e...
> > Subject: Re: need help with MIDI tempo and patch problems
> >
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> > >Can anyone explain why, and how to fix the problem so
> > >that Windows Media Player (and every other method of
> > >playing the MIDI output) plays the MIDI correctly?
> >
> > Since we can't fix Windows Media Player I assume you're
> > asking for a workaround for your midi file, but that's
> > impossible to answer without having the file.
> > Does Megamid play it correctly? There are plenty of other
> > midi file players one could use.
> > Some off-topic information about Windows Media Player
> > that's good to be aware of:
> > http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/257283
> >
> > Manuel
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:57:12 -0000
> > From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41419
> >
> > >
> > > What's interesting is that such "rational" meters (as all meters
> > are,
> > > unless you want to try to dance an irrational waltz in pi/4)
don't
> > > have any analogue in the kinds of E.T. pitch divisions
Ferneyhough
> > > uses in his music. But they do have a direct analogue in the
ratios
> > > of just intonation, which is how Cowell arrived at them in the
> > first
> > > place, and why I've used them myself. Ferneyhough's "irrational"
> > > meters correspond to a JI world that I'm sure he has no idea of
> > > entering.
> > >
> >
> > ***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to put
the
> > emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
> > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
> > Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
> > simple "traditional" forms..
> >
> > Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
> > complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!) or
> > maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.
> >
> > Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> > *both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> > other to "hold on to??"
> >
> > Something to think about, I guess...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:46:57 -0000
> > From: "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>" <JSZANTO@A...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > > Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity
in
> > > *both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or
the
> > > other to "hold on to??"
> >
> > Interesting question, wish I had time to type a good response! In
any event, for those who are interested in this guy, point them to
this article in your very own NYT:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/arts/music/08KRIE.html
> >
> > He answers some of your questions himself!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon (who had plenty of Ferneyhough when he was here in San Diego
at the UC campus... plenty.)
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:04:57 -0500
> > From: Kyle Gann <kgann@e...>
> > Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > J. Pehrson wrote:
> >
> > >***It's interesting, isn't it, that certain composers seem to
put the
> > >emphasis on *one* dimension rather than another: take Partch, for
> > >example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms and maybe
> > >Schoenberg, with a complex pitch choice (for the time) and pretty
> > >simple "traditional" forms..
> >
> > >Maybe contrasted with Nancarrow, with just the opposite: very
> > >complex rhythms and pretty simple chord changes (nice, though!)
or
> > >maybe the minimalists, with a similar emphasis.
> >
> > >Is it possibly too much that composers would go for complexity in
> > >*both* realms at the same time?? Do we need one dimension or the
> > >other to "hold on to??"
> >
> > It's true, most of the time, I think. The one major work to go in
> > both directions at once was Ben Johnston's "Amazing Grace"
quartet,
> > whose rhythms (like 35:36) are just as advanced as the pitch
> > relationships, and analogous in every variation. I've tried
> > complexity in both directions, but I tend to be rhythmically
complex
> > in my Disklavier pieces, harmonically complex in my synthesizer
> > pieces. I find it very difficult to do both at once.
> >
> > Still, I have to say that one of my very favorite things about
> > Partch's music is the casual way he'll subdivide quarter-notes
into
> > quintuplets and septuplets, or set up a catchy 9/4 pattern as he
does
> > in Castor and Pollux. He rarely does much nuance within the beat
or
> > meter, but he went further in terms of subdivisions than anyone of
> > his generation except Carter - and with an infectious physicality
> > that Carter never tried to match!
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 15
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:30:08 -0000
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: ! middle-path 7-limit tetradic scales for kalle
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> > <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > >>>>It doesn't catch 4:5:6:7 and 7/(7:6:5:4), does it?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>umm . . . 4:6 = 5:7? you won't acheive that with rms below 20
> > > >>>cents, anyhow . . .
> > > >>
> > > >>Isn't it really 21:20 = 15:14?
> > > >
> > > >4:6 "=" 5:7, but that could be a chromatic unison vector, not
> > > >necessarily a commatic one. thus there may very well be some
> > viable
> > > >possibilities. excuse my error, i was sick when i wrote that
(and
> > > >i'm still sick) . . .
> > >
> > > Of course. What I meant there was, since in an lt there is only
> > > one chromatic uv, mustn't it serve as both 21:20 and 15:14 in
the
> > > above example?
> >
> > i can't see where you're getting 21:20 from. then again, i'm still
> > sick, and i have three gigs coming up in the next week (thank
> > goodness for DayQuil) . . . rumor has it Trey's drummer will be
> > sitting in on Tuesday . . .
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 04:48:36 -0000
> > From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: bad news from mp3.com
> >
> > Starting Jan. 31, mp3.com is only going to let "Premium" or "Gold"
> > artist sites display more than three "songs..."
> >
> > This affects Tuning Punks, the Tuning Lab and personal pages.
> >
> > Well, the "free ride" on the Internet is surely coming to an end.
> >
> > It's not clear as yet what will be offered in their "Gold"
services
> > for about $5 per month. Might do it. "Premium" is like $15 per
mo.
> >
> > Hope John Starett keeps the Tuning Punks running for this $50 per
> > year...
> >
> > Don't know if I'll be able to keep "Tuning Lab" up after that... I
> > have two *other* artist pages I want to keep up...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 17
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:48:47 -0000
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > take Partch, for
> > > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
> >
> > hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
> > with "meter" . . .
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 18
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:41:06 -0000
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > >take Partch, for
> > > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
> >
> > hmm...simple? is 31/16 a very simple rhythm? or am i
> > confusing "rhythm" with "meter"?
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 19
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:57:58 -0000
> > From: "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41426
> >
> > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > take Partch, for
> > > > example, with complex JI and very simple rhythms
> > >
> > > hmm . . . is 31/16 a simple rhythm? maybe i'm confusing "rhythm"
> > > with "meter" . . .
> >
> > ***Hi Paul,
> >
> > Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it myself,
> > but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..
> >
> > JP
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 20
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:42:38 -0000
> > From: "alternativetuning <alternativetuning@y...>"
<alternativetuning@y...>
> > Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > Stockhausen of course uses tempi related by approximations of the
> > twelfth root of two. That's one way of getting irrational metres
and
> > rhythms.
> >
> > Gabor B.
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> > > You're right that Ferneyhough didn't really mean "irrational"
> > meters,
> > > but it's not clear that he was quoted accurately. What he says
he
> > > means are meters like 3/10 and 7/24, based on unconventional
> > > groupings of quintuplets, triplets, and so on. These were first
> > > envisioned in Henry Cowell's 1919/1930 book New Musical
Resources.
> > > I've used them myself since 1985 (5/6, 17/24), and I suppose the
> > > earliest compositional use I've seen (aside from Cowell's made-
up
> > > examples) is in Boulez's Le Marteau - although these seem to
have
> > > been changed to something more normal-loking in more recent
> > editions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 21
> > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:54:18 -0500
> > From: Kyle Gann <kgann@e...>
> > Subject: re: Ferneyhough interview
> >
> > >Stockhausen of course uses tempi related by
> > >approximations of the
> > >twelfth root of two. That's one way of getting
> > >irrational metres and
> > >rhythms.
> >
> > >Gabor B.
> >
> > That's certainly true, that you can get approximations of
irrational
> > tempo relationships by juxtaposing different tempos. Nancarrow
used
> > tempos of e against pi in Study #40, and square roots and cube
roots
> > in Study #41. And in Studies 45-47 (originally a suite) he used
one
> > tempo layer made up of durations from a collection of unrelated
> > tempos, for a recurring isorhythm that is truly irrational, or as
> > close to such an experience as we can perceptually get. It
strikes me
> > that that's as close to an irrational *meter* as anyone's gotten,
> > though now I'm trying to figure out how to write in pi/4.
> >
> > What piece does Partch use 31/16 in? I'm not surprised, but I
can't place it.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
i wonder what list you're reading

I am reading a list where a post on the a new recording of the Wayward is of no interest, or so it seems

> (as i did before during your perplexing and frustrating replies to
> the paul/julia discussion).

I have no idea to what you are referring to!
can you be more specific
and why did you not comment on it at the time?
>

>
> oh wait, there's more . . .
>
> >or any of the 90% of the world that uses microtonal music. Has the
> >musical endeavor become the last refuge of some sort of cultural
> >purity, that would rather rot than open it doors to world around us.
>
> who is this addressed towards?

to who it applies of course. Considering how little discussion this subject gets, one wonders why when we have examples of people using microtones
for ages, why it has no interest here. Instead the list seems to go around in circles within its own cultural wasteland digging up elements that can
related to tuning only by stretching it. Ithink the list needs to consider such Cultural isolationism and if it is healthy or even desirable and Why. One
can choose what they want but the question needs to be asked. We are surrounded by cultured that have refined their scales over centuries, i guess
they couldn't possibly have anything to show us could they?

ferneyhough is not on this list.
> should we ignore him?
no but is that more interesting than Partch that a recording can come out without any interest or comment ?

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

Joseph:

you can hear a few excerpts at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000000OB/qid=1039730866/sr=2-2/ref=
sr_2_2/102-2185633-0180102

its enough to get the drift...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> [mailto:jpehrson@rcn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41435
>
> >
> > It almost seems this list is filled with people who don't like
> microtones. When was the last time we heard mentioned Niblock for
> instance. or Pauline Oliveros, or any of the 90% of the world that
> uses microtonal music. Has the musical endeavor become the last
> refuge of some sort of cultural purity, that would rather rot than
> open it doors to world around us. Cage open the windows to the
> outside, the next step is to open to those living even further away.
> This is the real form of Global absorption going on.
> >
>
> ***Hi Kraig!
>
> Well, personally, I just posted the interview to the list because
> Ferneyhough was *claiming* that his utilization of the entire metric
> span had some relationship to the use of the entire *pitch* span as
> in microtonality!
>
> It was just for discussion. I have no point of view, which is always
> a safe place to be... :)
>
> But, seriously, I haven't heard yet a *note* of his music, and am
> tempted to think that such super-complexity has to be pretty much
> bunk, but most probably I should hear at least *one* piece before I
> make a snap judgement...
>
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery
> on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

>
> ***Hi Kraig!

>
> It was just for discussion. I have no point of view, which is always
> a safe place to be... :)

I am sorry if you read in my response that i took it otherwise
>
> But, seriously, I haven't heard yet a *note* of his music, and am
> tempted to think that such super-complexity has to be pretty much
> bunk, but most probably I should hear at least *one* piece before I
> make a snap judgement...

This was part of my point. He is great at PR and few have heard and less have listened to his music.

>
> Joseph Pehrson

>why not try 4/pi instead? now *that* would be an
>interesting meter! :)

>-monz

I love the idea, Monz. But aren't you afraid 4/pi would end up sounding a little like a march?

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann
><kgann@e...> wrote:
> What piece does Partch use 31/16 in? I'm not
>surprised, but I can't place it.

>"Daphne of the Dunes"...

>http://www.corporeal.com/boo_part_hi.html

>Cheers,
>Jon

Thanks, Jon. Now that I see the music I remember that section, and I have a score of it around here somewhere.

Back to Ferneyhough: I attended a three-day (I think) seminar he gave on his music at the University of Chicago back in the '80s, and interviewed him afterwards. At the seminar, he demonstrated how many things he had found to serialize in his music (Etudes Transcendantales, I think), *including* the angles at which the flutist held flute to her lips. There was actually a row that governed the mouthpiece angle. I never printed the interview, because when I paraphrased his views minus all the ever-so-polite Britishishms, what he was saying was that audiences were stupid, and only people willing to put years of work into his music deserved to listen to it. I couldn't make the interview sympathetic, and he would have just come off sounding like an uninteresting jerk.

Many years later I found myself on a panel with him in San Diego. He would redefine terms I used so that they fit in his system, and I realized that that's how he keeps his universe intact: he controls the definitions of all terms used so that everyone present is forced to talk within his system, and he can never be wrong. Only problem is, his discourse never actually relates to the outside world. Brilliant guy, like Boulez and all those guys: deeply arrogant, controlling, living in a world in which it is our duty, all the rest of us, to admire his music because he's managed to get in control. The Henry Kissingers and Donald Rumsfelds of composition.

Actually, I rather admire some of Ferneyhough's music while listening to it, it's so fanatically nuanced, so rich with detail. But I don't remember it afterward, never develop any affection for it, and don't yearn to hear it later, as I do with Partch's music. Strong as Kraig Grady's pronouncement is, I find nothing in it to argue with.

Yours,

Kyle Gann

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning <alternativetuning@y...>" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> Kraig wrote:
>
> > It is music based on an isolationist arrongance that ignores the
> 99% of music on the globe and treats it like it doesn't exist, or at
> least without worth.
>
> Ferneyhough pays a lot of attention to the world's music. I heard
> about him running out of a lecture at Darmstadt to go hear some new
> music from Azerbaidjan.

i doubt you could ever tell that by his music. But glad to hear he is interested in such things
although i don't remember this music ever being mentioned here.

> But Ferneyhough's music is almost all microtonal. There is only one
> piano piece I think and then everything else has at least
> quartertones, the big flute piece mixes 12-equal and quartertones and
> 31-equal.
>
it is hard to hear this music as being concerned with pitch at all.
And much is lost when every deviation of 12 is now called microtonal.
This possibly might have been important when Reinhard first did his concerts to reminds us they are all around us on some level.
we have quickly grown passed this stage
People who rejected what i did years ago now say they are now "microtonal" composers.
Somehow the term possibly should be reserved for those who use it for some systematic approach.
To put for instance some sax player with a few odd fingerings in the same catagory of let say Paul Erlich
is unfair to his work and what his work says.
.

> My teacher (Daniel) had a big email exchange with Ferneyhough some
> years ago, trying to get Ferneyhough to say whether he wanted his
> micrtones tuned exact or not.

I am sure this put him on the spot s the same question might be asked of his 12 tone pitches

Some of this was posted to this list.
i remember now
>
> Gabor B.

> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it myself,
> but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..
>
> JP

Hey JP, could you explain what you mean here?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu <kraiggrady@a...>" <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> We are surrounded by cultured that have refined their scales over centuries, i guess
> they couldn't possibly have anything to show us could they?

So show us.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu <kraiggrady@a...>" <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > We are surrounded by cultured that have refined their scales over centuries, i guess
> > they couldn't possibly have anything to show us could they?
>
> So show us.
Gene!
I am not saying i have cracked the code of what is going on everywhere which is why i pose it as an untapped resource.
Different cultures have different uses and goals for their music that aren't immediately apparent. This has a direct influence on the music scales used.
These are long range pursuits that we are foolish to overlook. For instance one could or does have a scale where each tone is equally (or close to)
disonant/consonant with every other tone in the scale. The result is free counterpuntal music with complete melodic freedom without restiction
imposed by some harmonic limitation. Many gamelan scales fit this criteria and without it music constructed upon nuclear melodies would be
impossible for such "group" compostions. If one wants to have a tuning against a drone where one wants to repeat the theme or limited scale without
a strong cadence implied by the tuning- look at bagpipe tunings and you will not find harmonic series scales for this reason. the music dictates what
the tuning is and these melodies have to be able to be repeated over and over again. These are simple examples of what is vastly complex and
involves thinking about music in ways we are not used to especially when we confront those cultures far removed from our own . The how and whys
of what they do things sometimes strike me of such inventiveness of lets say a boomerang. We know how to fly in machines but we didn't know how
to do that and i am sure tunings right here right now are just as uncanny.

>
> Kraig Grady wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> the most significant recent development in contemporary (complexist) music is
>> that the Ferneyhoughs have failed to have any effect outside the ivory tower they exist in.
>> Let him play on the street with a bucket in front of him at the UN and lets see what
>> global absorption is. The 50's are gone and the claim of this type of music with its supposed 'international "style deserves the disinterest it was always met with, except by the "Musical politics" that shoved it at us.
>>
>> It is music based on an isolationist arrongance that ignores the 99% of music on the globe and treats it like it doesn't exist, or at least without worth.
>>
>> That this list had degenerated to a point where a request about a new recording of the Wayward is ignored and instead revels in such
>> music that base is as far removed from intonation and pitch in general shows that what was once a door to new possibilities is headed for nothing more than "old wine in new bottles". That old wine being nothing but vinegar in the first place.
>>
>> Ferneyhough is a greaty speaker and knows how like george bush to stay in the limelight. All he has to do is write more complex music than anyone else, but underneath all the flurries beyond our perceptable limits (play me something you remember of his music) he proves that such complexity is just as capable of shallowness. He uses many notes to say little.
>>
>> Recently i heard a piece by Boulez as apart of some horse torture circus (neither the horses or the performers looked at all happy) and one would think after all these years he would have learned to keep the audiences attention. As always he runs out of ideas after 7 minutes and unfortunately we were deprived the the visual of a music stand just to see how much longer we had to endure the same stuff over and over again.
>>
>> On the other hand to prove that i am not "just someone who hates this stuff", i have found the new Scelsi disc of works of some larger strings groups quite wonderful. And memorable. and gee it is microtonal for those who like such things
>>
>> It almost seems this list is filled with people who don't like microtones. When was the last time we heard mentioned Niblock for instance. or Pauline Oliveros, or any of the 90% of the world that uses microtonal music. Has the musical endeavor become the last refuge of some sort of cultural purity, that would rather rot than open it doors to world around us. Cage open the windows to the outside, the next step is to open to those living even further away. This is the real form of Global absorption going on.
>>
>
>
> Strong sentiments Kraig but in essence I agree. I was chatting with a PhD composition student who told me that his colleague had decided that the "new complexity" was where it 's at and my heart sank. I thought that stuff was dead and buried. Mozart, who knew a thing or two, indicated three physical areas essential to successful composition, head, heart and ears. New complexity seems to me to ignore the last two of these in favour of the first.

> Perhaps for today's world we need some "new clarity" in music.

Regards
a.m.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...>

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41440

wrote:
> Joseph:
>
> you can hear a few excerpts at:
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000000OB/qid=1039730866/sr=2-
2/ref=sr_2_2/102-2185633-0180102
>
> its enough to get the drift...
>

***Thanks, Dante. I should have thought of that...

Ummm, actually it doesn't *sound* as bad as I feared. Because it's
so complex, it actually seems a little less "academic" than the
traditional serialists... seems more like Xenakis or such like... and
actually *less* like Boulez, whom I am also tiring of.

Well, I'll have to hear the works *live* to get the full impression.
I'm looking forward to seeing the performer reactions, if they're
discernable...

So, now this topic *really* is veering away from Tuning, so I will
continue it on "Metatuning" amidst the Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
stuff...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41447

<clumma@y...> wrote:
> > ***Hi Paul,
> >
> > Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it
myself,
> > but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..
> >
> > JP
>
> Hey JP, could you explain what you mean here?
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl!

Well, if I'm remembering these 31/16 passages they are pretty much
equal strings of 16th notes, yes? And they set up a recurring
rhythmic pattern that is pretty prevalent in Partch, yes? (And which
I like...)

Or maybe I have the wrong passage... I don't have "Daphne" with me
right at the moment...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41460

<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
>
> /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41447
>
> <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > ***Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it
> myself,
> > > but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication in any way..
> > >
> > > JP
> >
> > Hey JP, could you explain what you mean here?
> >
> > -Carl
>
>
> ***Hi Carl!
>
> Well, if I'm remembering these 31/16 passages they are pretty much
> equal strings of 16th notes, yes? And they set up a recurring
> rhythmic pattern that is pretty prevalent in Partch, yes? (And
which
> I like...)
>
> Or maybe I have the wrong passage... I don't have "Daphne" with me
> right at the moment...
>
> JP

***No, I remembered this passage correctly: I see Jon Szanto's score
now (which is a nice public service having this up) with several
measures of 31 equal 16th notes...

JP

IF a piece of music is "compositionally complex" (read: you can or do
publish a 70 page paper in PNM elucidating the structure)

BUT you could improvise something very similar by playing random pitches and
rhythms

THEN the purported compositional structure is largely masturbatory

Q.E.D. & a Merry Ferney-ho-ho-ho to one and all!

Dante

>>> ***Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it
>>> myself, but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication
>>> in any way..
>>>
>>> JP
>>
>> Hey JP, could you explain what you mean here?
>>
>> -Carl
>
> ***Hi Carl!
>
> Well, if I'm remembering these 31/16 passages they are pretty
> much equal strings of 16th notes, yes? And they set up a
> recurring rhythmic pattern that is pretty prevalent in Partch,
> yes? (And which I like...)

Joseph,

You're absolutely right that this sort of melismatic writing is
characteristic of Partch. I wouldn't say it gives me the feeling
of a "regular beat", but no biggie.

I think of _Petals_ as a good showcase of meter for Partch.

But meter is only one aspect of rhythm. Moreover, I tend to think
of tempi, meter, and even rubato as superficial aspects of rhythm.
The way phrases are placed in the framework created by these is
more my cup of tea... while I'm not aware of any tools that make
this notion precise enough to talk about, I think of Partch as as
master of it.

I suppose I could give examples. Bartok is in many ways
rhythmically complex, but is quite boring in this sense that I
find Partch or Beethoven interesting.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41465

<clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>> ***Hi Paul,
> >>>
> >>> Well, no, but the effect is of a recurring beat. I dig it
> >>> myself, but it's characteristic. That's not a deprication
> >>> in any way..
> >>>
> >>> JP
> >>
> >> Hey JP, could you explain what you mean here?
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> > ***Hi Carl!
> >
> > Well, if I'm remembering these 31/16 passages they are pretty
> > much equal strings of 16th notes, yes? And they set up a
> > recurring rhythmic pattern that is pretty prevalent in Partch,
> > yes? (And which I like...)
>
> Joseph,
>
> You're absolutely right that this sort of melismatic writing is
> characteristic of Partch. I wouldn't say it gives me the feeling
> of a "regular beat", but no biggie.
>
> I think of _Petals_ as a good showcase of meter for Partch.
>
> But meter is only one aspect of rhythm. Moreover, I tend to think
> of tempi, meter, and even rubato as superficial aspects of rhythm.
> The way phrases are placed in the framework created by these is
> more my cup of tea... while I'm not aware of any tools that make
> this notion precise enough to talk about, I think of Partch as as
> master of it.
>
> I suppose I could give examples. Bartok is in many ways
> rhythmically complex, but is quite boring in this sense that I
> find Partch or Beethoven interesting.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl!

This is getting momentarily a bit far from tuning but I think most
musicians would agree with you that, fundamentally, *rhythm* is more
important than *meter...* However, *meter* sets up certain
situations in which *rhythm* happens and sets up the ways rhythms can
happen, and they usually do... (So in the abstract sense, somebody
could argue that *meter* is more important... :)

J. Pehrson

> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:16 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
>
> This is getting momentarily a bit far from tuning
> but I think most musicians would agree with you that,
> fundamentally, *rhythm* is more important than *meter...*
> <snip., etc.>

c'mon, guys ... time to move this discussion to metatuning.

-monz

>>This is getting momentarily a bit far from tuning
>>but I think most musicians would agree with you that,
>>fundamentally, *rhythm* is more important than *meter...*
>><snip., etc.>
>
> c'mon, guys ... time to move this discussion to metatuning.
>
> -monz

Sorry monz, I can't agree, since we were discussing the
music of Harry Partch.

-Carl

monz wrote:
> > > c'mon, guys ... time to move this discussion to metatuning.
> > I am not really sure if you are being serious or just (half) joking, but is there some "listing" of all related "tuning" lists? It seems that there are two that have come up (for me at least) in the last few days. I will have to check and see if these are real, or what...

But, seriously, is there a list of related discussions of these sorts of ideas, as I am more interested in hearing about these sorts of things (ie how do rhythm, meter, tuning, etc., all relate). My interests in this stem from Stockhausen's writings.

Thanks,

Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41472

>
>
> monz wrote:
> >
> >
> > c'mon, guys ... time to move this discussion to metatuning.
> >
> >
>
>
> I am not really sure if you are being serious or just (half)
joking, but
> is there some "listing" of all related "tuning" lists? It seems
that
> there are two that have come up (for me at least) in the last few
days.
> I will have to check and see if these are real, or what...
>
> But, seriously, is there a list of related discussions of these
sorts of
> ideas, as I am more interested in hearing about these sorts of
things
> (ie how do rhythm, meter, tuning, etc., all relate). My interests
in
> this stem from Stockhausen's writings.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike

***Personally, Mike, I agree with you, and I believe "list splitting"
has been more of a problem than an asset. Certainly for *composers*
we should be interested in *all* these things, so it seems...

Besides, I think *tolerance* of topics that don't pertain to one's
immediate interest is a virtue as well as the "delete" or "scroll"
keys...

However, it's too late now, and the lists are all over the place.
Robert Walker is keeping track of them, so if you want to find out
what they are and where they are, you should go here:

/Tuning2/

Assuming you're on the Internet and can click on this link, it should
tell you everything you need to know...

best,

Joseph Pehrson

Michael,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> is there some "listing" of all related "tuning" lists? It seems that
> there are two that have come up (for me at least) in the last few
> days. I will have to check and see if these are real, or what...

Well, they *are* real and they *do* serve a purpose, which needn't be rehashed now. You will have seen in the previous message that R. Walker has a place that shows all the lists. The main 'tuning' list (that we're reading right now) is the precursor to the rest. Of those that exist, the ones with the most members/traffic would be:

tuning-math: for the discussions that go deeply into the mathematic realms of tuning and tuning theory

MakeMicroMusic: (known also as MMM) for the practical application of turning the theory of alternate tunings and microtonality into tangible music

meta-tuning: begat as a place where members of this community could take a thread that, while still of interest to a number of people, had veered significantly off of the topic of tuning and/or microtonality

HTH,
Jon

kraig speaks the truth!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu <kraiggrady@a...>"
<kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith
<genewardsmith@j...>" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu <kraiggrady@a...>"
<kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > We are surrounded by cultured that have refined their scales
over centuries, i guess
> > > they couldn't possibly have anything to show us could they?
> >
> > So show us.
> Gene!
> I am not saying i have cracked the code of what is going on
everywhere which is why i pose it as an untapped resource.
> Different cultures have different uses and goals for their music
that aren't immediately apparent. This has a direct influence on the
music scales used.
> These are long range pursuits that we are foolish to overlook. For
instance one could or does have a scale where each tone is equally
(or close to)
> disonant/consonant with every other tone in the scale. The result
is free counterpuntal music with complete melodic freedom without
restiction
> imposed by some harmonic limitation. Many gamelan scales fit this
criteria and without it music constructed upon nuclear melodies would
be
> impossible for such "group" compostions. If one wants to have a
tuning against a drone where one wants to repeat the theme or limited
scale without
> a strong cadence implied by the tuning- look at bagpipe tunings and
you will not find harmonic series scales for this reason. the music
dictates what
> the tuning is and these melodies have to be able to be repeated
over and over again. These are simple examples of what is vastly
complex and
> involves thinking about music in ways we are not used to especially
when we confront those cultures far removed from our own . The how
and whys
> of what they do things sometimes strike me of such inventiveness of
lets say a boomerang. We know how to fly in machines but we didn't
know how
> to do that and i am sure tunings right here right now are just as
uncanny.

dante speaks the truth! i'm too busy playing random pitches these
days to keep up with this list (my apologies to carl) but looks like
this is a great place right now! say it like it is!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...>
wrote:
> IF a piece of music is "compositionally complex" (read: you can or
do
> publish a 70 page paper in PNM elucidating the structure)
>
> BUT you could improvise something very similar by playing random
pitches and
> rhythms
>
> THEN the purported compositional structure is largely masturbatory
>
> Q.E.D. & a Merry Ferney-ho-ho-ho to one and all!
>
> Dante

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> kraig speaks the truth!

Isn't it a truth we have, in fact discussed? For my own part, what about the discussion of the so-called "arabic" scale of 7-notes, for which I provided an example of how to use the fact that it is all, more or less, in tune whatever notes you play together.

As for you, it seems to me you've been quite active bridging the cultures--"Shrutar" and "Pelog" temperaments spring to mind.

hehe- Paul, I doubt you're playing random notes: tonality of any kind is far
from random, and especially improvisation directed by a musical intelligence
and ear, as opposed to pre-compositional grafted abstractions of the
mathematical variety. Math is built into the acoustic dimension of music,
not the artistic. The grand experiment started by Schoenberg had to be done,
but its way past time to say "OK that was interesting, but unfortunately the
music sucks. Let's try something else." The phrase "it looked good on
paper..." must have been invented to discuss mathematical approaches to
composition!

Actually, I mean mathematical approaches to compostion for traditional
instruments played by humans. I'd much rather listen to computer music of
all kinds based on mathematics out the wazoo than listen to a bunch of poor
organics struggling through a score with inhuman rhythms and meters (not to
mention ill-juxtaposed notes whose ill-juxtapostion is apparant to any ear
that is not in denial.)

I'm tutoring a student who's taking theory and composition classes at
Juilliard. Today he brought in an assignment to look at a movement of
Dallapiccolo, make the row matrix and find which Os Is Rs and RIs he's using
and where. As I explained to him how to construct a matrix and we did so, I
coulnd't help but feel excitement due to the beauty and symmetry of it, you
would think something so elegant and crystalline just HAD to result in
amazing music. Oh well, sometimes things just dont pan out the way you would
like. But it looks so good on paper...!

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> [mailto:wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Ferney-ho
>
>
> dante speaks the truth! i'm too busy playing random pitches these
> days to keep up with this list (my apologies to carl) but looks like
> this is a great place right now! say it like it is!
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...>
> wrote:
> > IF a piece of music is "compositionally complex" (read: you can or
> do
> > publish a 70 page paper in PNM elucidating the structure)
> >
> > BUT you could improvise something very similar by playing random
> pitches and
> > rhythms
> >
> > THEN the purported compositional structure is largely masturbatory
> >
> > Q.E.D. & a Merry Ferney-ho-ho-ho to one and all!
> >
> > Dante
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery
> on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> > /tuning/topicId_41411.html#41472
> ***Personally, Mike, I agree with you, and I believe "list splitting" > has been more of a problem than an asset. Certainly for *composers* > we should be interested in *all* these things, so it seems... > I am sure that it works both ways. I think it does make the job of the "editor" (someone who condenses [ie monz] what is written...) a little eaiser if he does not have to read a lot of "opinion" based messages that don't really contain "concrete" info that can be posted in the dictionary... (just a thought),

But, on the other hand... I think you get the point...

Thank again for the link.

Mike

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Michael,
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> >>is there some "listing" of all related "tuning" lists? It seems that >>there are two that have come up (for me at least) in the last few >>days. I will have to check and see if these are real, or what...
> > > Well, they *are* real and they *do* serve a purpose, which needn't be rehashed now. You will have seen in the previous message that R. Walker has a place that shows all the lists. The main 'tuning' list (that we're reading right now) is the precursor to the rest. Of those that exist, the ones with the most members/traffic would be:

Jon,

One of the lists that I read about (ie tuning2) seems it was intended as being a means of getting more disk space from Yahoo. I did read some of the descriptions of the other lists. It sounds like the list "tuning-math" is intended to talk about the math behind all of the tuning theory, while "metatuning" sound like you can talk about the math, Paul Erlich, or "fissiparous tendency" (not that I understand what that is, but is that not the point). I got the idea the person starting the list was being pretty flipant about what topics were allowed...

So, what does that leave left to discuss on the main list "tuning"? The description for "tuning" starts with "This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to alternate tunings:...". Granted, it does point out the word "tuning" 7 times. But if the math should be on "tuning-math", what is left to discuss on "tuning" if not topics related to composition? I think you get my point, that as a new user of the list, it seems like there are many overlapping lists...

But, how are the related topics of pitch, rhythm, and meter to be discussed if there is not one list that encompasses a broader topic? This is one topic that I find interesting, but what list does it belong on? And how far do we have to drift on the topic before we have switch lists?

I am not trying to be difficult, I just think that (IMHO, for what it is worth), it just makes sense that the original list (I am assuming that "tuning" is the first "mother" list), and it only seems logically that it would be the list to "cross-pollinate" the discussion.

Just my .02$...

Mike

>

Ligeti was probably the first i remember pointing this out. He found that one of the supposed total serialized pieces actually cheated and yet this had no effect upon the composition. This stuff has done enough harm (even to myself) that it is hard for me to keep silent ALL the time. To comment on them might be a mistake, it implies they are worth mentioning.

>
> From: "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@rcn.com>
>
>
> IF a piece of music is "compositionally complex" (read: you can or do
> publish a 70 page paper in PNM elucidating the structure)
>
> BUT you could improvise something very similar by playing random pitches and
> rhythms
>
> THEN the purported compositional structure is largely masturbatory
>
> Q.E.D. & a Merry Ferney-ho-ho-ho to one and all!
>
> Dante
>
>

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

Michael,

In general I agree with much of your sentiment. Well, to be more exact, I *sympathize* with your reaction to the trend of the list, and having other lists as well.

Bear in mind that this was not a situation that started fresh, but grew out of some of the evolution of the original "tuning" email list. Originally a traditional non-hosted mailing list out of Mills College, it went through a couple of moves when Mills became unavailable until it landed on Yahoo (to be exact, I suppose, part of the moves were simply the hosting service being bought up).

Why mention this? There were times, in the history of the list, when one particular subject area grew to dominate discussion, much to the delight of some, to the chagrin of others. Never a place to achieve a true "group consensus", enough of the participants in a given area decided that the high traffic (at that juncture) showed need for a separate area to discuss the subject, and an adjunct list was started. I still maintain that only a couple of lists are really active, and most of the people there knew why the list had sprung up and didn't spend a lot of time describing it (well, I'll make an exception for myself, as I put a fair amount of time into the planning of MMM, along with Margo and Jacky...). Most of them remain there today.

What about someone like you - what are you to think?

Pretty loony on one hand, fairly practical on another. This list trys to stay pretty tuning-centric, and if a thread really gets bogged down into another area you shouldn't be surprised if someone simply suggests another venue. Don't take umbrage. OTOH, many just ignore the suggestions, and the list moderator is (essentially) MIA, so sometimes it just goes on.

Like this.

Might as well post away, and see what happens. You'll see what this place is like after a while, and only you can decide if it meets your needs. Hope you stick around...

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Michael,
> Might as well post away, and see what happens. You'll see what this place is like after a while, and only you can decide if it meets your needs. Hope you stick around...

Well, Jon,

I am glad you would like me to stay, but I also had no plans of going anyway. Still being a newbie here, I am still trying to figure out what the topic boundries are...

Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41484

>
>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
> > Michael,
> > Might as well post away, and see what happens. You'll see what
this place is like after a while, and only you can decide if it meets
your needs. Hope you stick around...
>
> Well, Jon,
>
> I am glad you would like me to stay, but I also had no plans of
going
> anyway. Still being a newbie here, I am still trying to figure out
what
> the topic boundries are...
>
> Mike

***Hi Mike,

Well, Jon Szanto is certainly on the right track with this, and he
has been around the lists more than practically anybody, even
*establishing* one.

How about this:

Both *this* tuning list and MakeMicroMusic can be used to talk about
the art of microtonal composition:

If it involves heavy tuning theory it should be *here*, if it
involves more *description* with actual MUSICAL EXAMPLES (heaven
forbid...) it should be on MakeMicroMusic and any *number crunching*
that needs to be done in the process should be done on Tuning Math...

Oh... yes "MetaTuning" was established in an ironic and flip spirit,
just because that's kind of the way Graham Breed's personality goes.
However, it's just right for that, since the list is meant as a place
for freedom of whatever expression (within the limits of the Yahoo
guidelines, which they don't always enforce... oh yes, and we should
try to entertain the new FBI-CIA readers... :)

Are we having fun yet?

Thanks!

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41481

> One of the lists that I read about (ie tuning2) seems it was
intended as being a means of getting more disk space from Yahoo.

***Hi Mike,

Oh... I just wanted to add that the sentence you wrote above is not
correct. This is *not* what Robert Walker wanted to do with this.
In fact, your comment *finally* makes me realize why he was so
*insistent* that that was *not* the purpose of it! :)

He really wanted to keep that site just as a *list* of the lists,
just for newcomers like yourself...

>
> But, how are the related topics of pitch, rhythm, and meter to be
> discussed if there is not one list that encompasses a broader
topic? This is one topic that I find interesting, but what list does
it belong on? And how far do we have to drift on the topic before we
have switch lists?
>

***I agree that this kind of discussion, as long as it involves
microtonal material should be right here.

I wonder if Monz thinks that's OK??

best,

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41411.html#41482

> >
>
> Ligeti was probably the first i remember pointing this out. He
found that one of the supposed total serialized pieces actually
cheated and yet this had no effect upon the composition. This stuff
has done enough harm (even to myself) that it is hard for me to keep
silent ALL the time. To comment on them might be a mistake, it
implies they are worth mentioning.
>

***Hi Kraig!

I really hope you're not getting offended by the Ferney-ho
discussion. Certainly this was not my intention, since, quite
frankly, I share many of your views anyway... (maybe not *all* :)

Personally, though, I've found your comments quite valuable, so I'm
glad you've taken the time to write them, even if you have a great
dislike of certain of these composers...

best,

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"
<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > kraig speaks the truth!
>
> Isn't it a truth we have, in fact discussed? For my own part, what
>about the discussion of the so-called "arabic" scale of 7-notes, for
>which I provided an example of how to use the fact that it is all,
>more or less, in tune whatever notes you play together.
>
> As for you, it seems to me you've been quite active bridging the
>cultures--"Shrutar" and "Pelog" temperaments spring to mind.

kraig wasn't actually speaking about us, was he? oh wait, we've
established that he doesn't actually read these lists, so i'm sure he
kept it deliberately vague :)

>

If he didn't read the list (albeit digest form)
How could he comment on it?
And yes he prefers a macroscopic view over a micro!
And i am not the first to comment on how micro things can get here
pardon the pun

actually your comment is possibly vauge about my supposed vagueness

>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Ferneyhough interview
>
>
> kraig wasn't actually speaking about us, was he? oh wait, we've
> established that he doesn't actually read these lists, so i'm sure he
> kept it deliberately vague :)
>
>

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