The future of tuning

I won't diatribe...

>this is exactly what i would expect from
>virtually all the articles by all authors that i've seen coming out
>of academic music theory for the last few decades. the issue is swept
>under the rug and locked down there by powerful-sounding theoretical
>principles.

Too many theories have twelve as their mantra, holy grail...

Too many musicians hear the word micro and start running...fast.

>the situation is bleak for the western world's young musicians . . .
>except of course those studying with bill alves and a very few
>others . . .

I hope that what I'm doing isn't counted as "sweeping under the rug"

M

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

> I hope that what I'm doing isn't counted as "sweeping under the rug"

me too . . .

i'd like it better understood that 7-out-of-12 is no better a
description than, say, 7-out-of-19 for the western diatonic triadic
musical system in its formative centuries (especially as the tuning
systems in force, meantones, were generally closer to 19-equal than
to 12-equal -- and a few people like costeley were explicitly writing
for a closed 19-tone system) . . . the closed cycle of 12 won out for
reasons of convenience, and not without a generation of heated
battles as the ears of musicians, accustomed to the purer thirds and
sixths of meantone, balked at the shift to such a coarse, crude (yet
convenient) tuning . . .

even if one is a staunch historical revisionist, and throws all
historical accounts to the dustheap, one has no excuse for not
*experimenting* with these things oneself, giving any new tuning a
chance to "settle in" to one's consciosness (or that of an
experimental subject) and *then* evaluating what is or
isn't "cognitively necessary", before passing judgment . . .

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

> even if one is a staunch historical revisionist, and throws all
> historical accounts to the dustheap, one has no excuse for not
> *experimenting* with these things oneself, giving any new tuning a
> chance to "settle in" to one's consciosness (or that of an
> experimental subject) and *then* evaluating what is or
> isn't "cognitively necessary", before passing judgment . . .

I came in late, and would like to know what this was all about. What is the argument that 12-et is cognitively necessary, if that is what he meant?

hi paul and Mark,

> From: <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:13 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: The future of tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
>
> > I hope that what I'm doing isn't counted as "sweeping under the rug"
>
> me too . . .
>
> i'd like it better understood that 7-out-of-12 is no better a
> description than, say, 7-out-of-19 for the western diatonic triadic
> musical system in its formative centuries (especially as the tuning
> systems in force, meantones, were generally closer to 19-equal than
> to 12-equal -- and a few people like costeley were explicitly writing
> for a closed 19-tone system) . . . the closed cycle of 12 won out for
> reasons of convenience, and not without a generation of heated
> battles as the ears of musicians, accustomed to the purer thirds and
> sixths of meantone, balked at the shift to such a coarse, crude (yet
> convenient) tuning . . .

i agree with the point paul is making ... this is only meant
as a technical corrective ...

i'd say that, other than for exceptional cases such as Salinas,
Costeley, and Woolhouse, 19edo was never really considered much
as a practical tuning before the late 1900s.

as far as equal-temperaments go, my opinion is that 12-out-of-31
for the period c. 1500-1650, 12-out-of-43 for c. 1650-1700,
and 12-out-of-55 for c. 1700-1800, are much more likely as
descriptions or approximations of the intended diatonic scale
tunings in the "common-practice" repertoire.

-monz

oops, my bad ... of course, for *diatonic* scales,
i meant *7*-out-of-31-, -43-, and -55-edo, and not 12.

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The future of tuning

> hi paul and Mark,
>
>
> > From: <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:13 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: The future of tuning
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > I hope that what I'm doing isn't counted as "sweeping under the rug"
> >
> > me too . . .
> >
> > i'd like it better understood that 7-out-of-12 is no better a
> > description than, say, 7-out-of-19 for the western diatonic triadic
> > musical system in its formative centuries (especially as the tuning
> > systems in force, meantones, were generally closer to 19-equal than
> > to 12-equal -- and a few people like costeley were explicitly writing
> > for a closed 19-tone system) . . . the closed cycle of 12 won out for
> > reasons of convenience, and not without a generation of heated
> > battles as the ears of musicians, accustomed to the purer thirds and
> > sixths of meantone, balked at the shift to such a coarse, crude (yet
> > convenient) tuning . . .
>
>
> i agree with the point paul is making ... this is only meant
> as a technical corrective ...
>
>
> i'd say that, other than for exceptional cases such as Salinas,
> Costeley, and Woolhouse, 19edo was never really considered much
> as a practical tuning before the late 1900s.
>
> as far as equal-temperaments go, my opinion is that 12-out-of-31
> for the period c. 1500-1650, 12-out-of-43 for c. 1650-1700,
> and 12-out-of-55 for c. 1700-1800, are much more likely as
> descriptions or approximations of the intended diatonic scale
> tunings in the "common-practice" repertoire.
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"

/tuning/topicId_41976.html#41984

<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > even if one is a staunch historical revisionist, and throws all
> > historical accounts to the dustheap, one has no excuse for not
> > *experimenting* with these things oneself, giving any new tuning
a
> > chance to "settle in" to one's consciosness (or that of an
> > experimental subject) and *then* evaluating what is or
> > isn't "cognitively necessary", before passing judgment . . .
>
> I came in late, and would like to know what this was all about.
What is the argument that 12-et is cognitively necessary, if that is
what he meant?

***I'm sorry, but I find this very funny. The theorist means in his
*own* head, so it seems...

Awaiting the "legit" answer from Paul...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi paul and Mark,
>
>
> > From: <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:13 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: The future of tuning
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > > I hope that what I'm doing isn't counted as "sweeping under the
rug"
> >
> > me too . . .
> >
> > i'd like it better understood that 7-out-of-12 is no better a
> > description than, say, 7-out-of-19 for the western diatonic
triadic
> > musical system in its formative centuries (especially as the
tuning
> > systems in force, meantones, were generally closer to 19-equal
than
> > to 12-equal -- and a few people like costeley were explicitly
writing
> > for a closed 19-tone system) . . . the closed cycle of 12 won out
for
> > reasons of convenience, and not without a generation of heated
> > battles as the ears of musicians, accustomed to the purer thirds
and
> > sixths of meantone, balked at the shift to such a coarse, crude
(yet
> > convenient) tuning . . .
>
>
> i agree with the point paul is making ... this is only meant
> as a technical corrective ...
>
>
> i'd say that, other than for exceptional cases such as Salinas,
> Costeley, and Woolhouse, 19edo was never really considered much
> as a practical tuning before the late 1900s.

correct -- that's why i said "a few people".

> as far as equal-temperaments go, my opinion is that 12-out-of-31
> for the period c. 1500-1650, 12-out-of-43 for c. 1650-1700,
> and 12-out-of-55 for c. 1700-1800, are much more likely as
> descriptions or approximations of the intended diatonic scale
> tunings in the "common-practice" repertoire.

sure -- that's why i said "say, 7-out-of-19" and "generally closer to
19-equal than to 12-equal". few pieces of music actually required
more than 19 different pitches per octave, and note that i did not
say "19-*equal*" anywhere else in my post -- just as the academic
music theorists ("set theorists") talk about 12 without wishing to be
specific on tuning.

>> They mistakenly (I believe) fear that, if
>>we're proved correct, then
>> centuries of great music by Bach,
>>Beethoven, Brahms et al will be
>> invalidated - a fear that I consider
>>completely groundless, but one
>> that they will fight for to the death.

>I would think that their real fear is that
>much of the music that has
>come out of their midst in the past
>half-century or so will be
>invalidated, and that Bach, Beethoven, and
>Brahms would be
>demonstrated to have more in common with us
>than with them....

EXACTLY.

Yours,

Kyle

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

...just as the academic
> music theorists ("set theorists") talk about 12 without wishing to be
> specific on tuning.

I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.

hi Gene,

> From: <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:57 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: The future of tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > ...just as the academic music theorists ("set theorists")
> > talk about 12 without wishing to be specific on tuning.
>
> I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.

not at all. the "academic establishment" music-theorists
who are published in such places as _Journal of Music Theory_
are indeed commonly referred to as "set theorists".

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.
>
>
> not at all. the "academic establishment" music-theorists
> who are published in such places as _Journal of Music Theory_
> are indeed commonly referred to as "set theorists".

Not by set theorists, I'd guess. I knew people called that stuff "set theory", but this is ridiculous. Do JI proponents want to call themselves number theorists? I doubt it.

>> ...just as the academic music theorists ("set theorists")
>>talk about 12 without wishing to be specific on tuning.
>
> I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.

Believe it or not I think that's what they call themselves.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"
<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.
> >
> >
> > not at all. the "academic establishment" music-theorists
> > who are published in such places as _Journal of Music Theory_
> > are indeed commonly referred to as "set theorists".
>
> Not by set theorists, I'd guess. I knew people called that
>stuff "set theory", but this is ridiculous.

for the aleph-zeroth time, gene, why is it the musicians who are
being ridiculous when the musicians' meaning of a term differs from
the mathematicians' meaning of a term? for the most part, you must
try to remember, musicians adopt terminology to suit themselves, not
to make reference to existing mathematical lingo -- which is
generally quite irrelevant to their lives.

now, the validity of what the musical "set theorists" are saying is a
different issue altogether . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_41976.html#42054

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith
<genewardsmith@j...>"
> <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > > I hope "set theorists" is wry humor.
> > >
> > >
> > > not at all. the "academic establishment" music-theorists
> > > who are published in such places as _Journal of Music Theory_
> > > are indeed commonly referred to as "set theorists".
> >
> > Not by set theorists, I'd guess. I knew people called that
> >stuff "set theory", but this is ridiculous.
>
> for the aleph-zeroth time, gene, why is it the musicians who are
> being ridiculous when the musicians' meaning of a term differs from
> the mathematicians' meaning of a term? for the most part, you must
> try to remember, musicians adopt terminology to suit themselves,
not
> to make reference to existing mathematical lingo -- which is
> generally quite irrelevant to their lives.
>
> now, the validity of what the musical "set theorists" are saying is
a
> different issue altogether . . .

***Hi Paul,

Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. How do mathematicians think of "set"
or "set theory" so that the *musical* "set theorist" would seem
so "nuts" to them?? Just curious.

J. Pehrson

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

> > Not by set theorists, I'd guess. I knew people called that
> >stuff "set theory", but this is ridiculous.
>
> for the aleph-zeroth time, gene, why is it the musicians who are
> being ridiculous when the musicians' meaning of a term differs from
> the mathematicians' meaning of a term?

It comes across as to me pretentious, for the same reason that calling themselves superstring theorists would, but I suppose few people outside of mathematics know that 21st century set theory is a deep and difficult subject. My feeling that they may want the cachet rubbed off on them doesn't work if they don't know it has any.

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

> Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. How do mathematicians think of "set"
> or "set theory" so that the *musical* "set theorist" would seem
> so "nuts" to them?? Just curious.

To start with, unlike some mathematical areas (group theory, for instance) the structure of finite sets is not a concern of set theorists. The size of the set is an integer, and study of the properties of integers is number theory, not set theory. Set theory focuses more on sizes of sets so large that their very existence might (or might not) entail a contradiction, and would certainly require additional axioms to ensure. Set theory is, therefore, highly unlikely to be of use in music theory, and what musicians call "set theory" is finite math, such as combinatorics and finite groups.

"Gene Ward Smith " wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor <gdsecor@y...>" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > In effect, any of these "authorities" or "experts" who might
> > entertain the thought of investigating the possibilities of alternate
> > tunings would be reduced to the status of "novice," which would be
> > unthinkable. They would either have to learn from someone in a group
> > such as ours (unthinkable), or would have to spend years studying it
> > on their own (impractical).
>
> You might think the more mathematically inclined would be willing to take the plunge.

Or the less musically tight-arsed.

Peace
a.m.

>

"gdsecor " wrote:

>
> Am I making any sense to anyone out there?
>
> --George

Yes, to me at any rate.

Regards

a.m.

>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"

/tuning/topicId_41976.html#42057

<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > > Not by set theorists, I'd guess. I knew people called that
> > >stuff "set theory", but this is ridiculous.
> >
> > for the aleph-zeroth time, gene, why is it the musicians who are
> > being ridiculous when the musicians' meaning of a term differs
from
> > the mathematicians' meaning of a term?
>
> It comes across as to me pretentious, for the same reason that
calling themselves superstring theorists would, but I suppose few
people outside of mathematics know that 21st century set theory is a
deep and difficult subject. My feeling that they may want the cachet
rubbed off on them doesn't work if they don't know it has any.

***Personally, I don't think most of these musicians know the term
has any "cachet" whatsoever... Generally, they are not that involved
in mathematics. They just used the term "set" in probably pretty
rudimentary forms and they were music *theory* professors, hence...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"

/tuning/topicId_41976.html#42058

<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. How do mathematicians think
of "set"
> > or "set theory" so that the *musical* "set theorist" would seem
> > so "nuts" to them?? Just curious.
>
> To start with, unlike some mathematical areas (group theory, for
instance) the structure of finite sets is not a concern of set
theorists. The size of the set is an integer, and study of the
properties of integers is number theory, not set theory. Set theory
focuses more on sizes of sets so large that their very existence
might (or might not) entail a contradiction, and would certainly
require additional axioms to ensure. Set theory is, therefore, highly
unlikely to be of use in music theory, and what musicians call "set
theory" is finite math, such as combinatorics and finite groups.

***Got it, Gene. Well, I can *assure* you that the "set theory"
professors have little knowledge they are being "pretentious..."

Certainly, they are "number" theorists, or maybe even more
specifically "arithmetic" theorists... :)

J. Pehrson