the history of microtones in the 20th century

http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/features/microtones1intro.html

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, wally paulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> http://www.paristransatlantic.com/magazine/features/microtones1intro.html

``This in turn must certainly be due to the absence of a theoretical-concept-as-rationale that is conspicuous, novel and unifying, and behind which they could collectively rally and distinguish themselves. (Bancquart: "I have no `theory' for microintervallic music. I think it is too early, and in general I don't like theories." Maneri: "My mind doesn't understand all that mathematical stuff... I have it in my voice and in my heart" Eaton: "I've never been much of a theorist... I use whatever gets the job done...I've just simply used what I've used because of the great, great expressive potential of it.") Even among complexity composers, the reasoning behind their use of microtones seems most often to be little more than some sort of creative urge.''

This seems confuse the fact that for many people "My mind doesn't understand all that mathmatical stuff" with the notion that tuning theory is conspicuosly absent. I would say it is conspicuously present.

"""
This in turn must certainly be due to the absence of a theoretical-
concept-as-rationale that is conspicuous, novel and unifying, and
behind which they could collectively rally and distinguish
themselves. (Bancquart: "I have no `theory' for microintervallic
music. I think it is too early, and in general I don't like
theories." Maneri: "My mind doesn't understand all that mathematical
stuff... I have it in my voice and in my heart" Eaton: "I've never
been much of a theorist... I use whatever gets the job done...I've
just simply used what I've used because of the great, great
expressive potential of it.") Even among complexity composers, the
reasoning behind their use of microtones seems most often to be
little more than some sort of creative urge.
"""

> This seems confuse the fact that for many people "My mind
> doesn't understand all that mathmatical stuff" with the notion
> that tuning theory is conspicuosly absent. I would say it is
> conspicuously present.

?

What worries me is that the author criticizes tuning theory
because it isn't a 'conventional' music theory. [well, by now
conventional, though most musicians have never even heard of
the most popular 'conventional' theory (serialism)!] Tuning
theory is apples to this sort of oranges, which is really
not music theory but suggestions for algorithms that compose
music.

Common-practice theory flirts more with tuning -- we can come
up with tunings that suit common practice music, or ones that
almost make it almost impossible. The tuning choice is sort
of a level up.

As far as I'm concerned, Bancquart has the right idea.

-Carl

Julia Werntz's webpage says:

"But in my view, another important reason is that the composers
themselves, like Maneri, Eaton, Blackwood, Bancquart and Criton, have
never established a truly prominent international niche, despite each
one’s long-standing dedication to the “cause” of microtonality. This
in turn must certainly be due to the absence of a theoretical-concept-
as-rationale that is conspicuous, novel and unifying, and behind
which they could collectively rally and distinguish themselves. "

I don't know of any great composers who were established by having
a "theoretical-concept-as-rationale that is conspicuous, novel and
unifying". Maybe Monteverdi (first and second practice) and Wagner
(total-art-work) are exceptions. But I don't think that Maneri,
Eaton, Blackwood, Bancquart are the great composers of our day, so
maybe I don't understand?

Gabor

From the article: -

the vast majority of these
microtonalists may be sorted into two general categories,
according to the basic objective behind their use of the new
pitches: those who simply add pitches to 12-note equal
temperament, expanding upon the model of 12-note equal temperament
(most often through microtonal equal temperaments such as 24-note
(quarter-tones), 36-note (sixth-tones), 48-note, 72-note, 96-note,
etc.), and those who practice contemporary pure tuning methods
such as the various modern forms of just intonation, Pythagorean
and mean-tone tuningsthe underlying motivation being a rejection,
a correction, of the 12-note equal temperament model.

What! No mention here of other ET users. I wonder how "vast majority" was arrived at.

My main objection to the article is that it misses the obvious point. No substantial repertoire =
no coherent integrated theory.

Best
a.m.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> What! No mention here of other ET users. I wonder how "vast majority" was arrived at.

Not to mention linear and planar temperament types, who constitute a vast minority.

> My main objection to the article is that it misses the obvious point. No substantial repertoire =
> no coherent integrated theory.

I dunno, I think we have more theory than repertoire at the moment.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"
<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Alison Monteith
<alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > What! No mention here of other ET users. I wonder how "vast
>majority" was arrived at.
>
> Not to mention linear and planar temperament types, who constitute
>a vast minority.

the article did mention meantone as belonging to the "pure tuning"
category, so presumably most of these other temperaments would too.
users of, say, 13-equal, or even subsets of 72 like 8- and 9-equal,
or irregular, intuitively arrived at tunings with no reference made
to integer ratios or their approximation, would be the
real "minority" excluded by the article's categories.

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

/tuning/topicId_42132.html#42147

>
> What worries me is that the author criticizes tuning theory
> because it isn't a 'conventional' music theory. [well, by now
> conventional, though most musicians have never even heard of
> the most popular 'conventional' theory (serialism)!] Tuning
> theory is apples to this sort of oranges, which is really
> not music theory but suggestions for algorithms that compose
> music.
>
> Common-practice theory flirts more with tuning -- we can come
> up with tunings that suit common practice music, or ones that
> almost make it almost impossible. The tuning choice is sort
> of a level up.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, Bancquart has the right idea.
>
> -Carl

***I would tend to agree that the "downside" of a "unified(field)"
theory for microtonality would be that composers would tend to start
writing the same kinds of music. (Look what happened with
serialism...)

J. Pehrson

"Gene Ward Smith " wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > What! No mention here of other ET users. I wonder how "vast majority" was arrived at.
>
> Not to mention linear and planar temperament types, who constitute a vast minority.
>
> > My main objection to the article is that it misses the obvious point. No substantial repertoire =
> > no coherent integrated theory.
>
> I dunno, I think we have more theory than repertoire at the moment.

I agree and a lot of that theory is of the highest calibre, but bodies of musical theory dealing with
non-microtonal music are more coherent and integrated because they have such a large field to explore.

On the other hand with the fragmentation and blurring of idioms in contemporary music perhaps we'll
never have a body of strictly microtonal music in the same way that we had tonal and serial musics.

Best Wishes
a.m.

In today's issue of The New York Times, Allan Kozinn wrote:

"The principle that drives microtonality is that the Western scale need not
be divided into only 12 notes; it can just as usefully be divided into 20, 50
or any number a composer decides upon, so long as instruments can be made on
which the pitches can be played and musicians are willing to learn those
instruments. There has long been a sufficiently large group of microtonal
composers and performers in New York--and listeners interested in what they
are up to--for the bassoonist and composer Johnny Reinhard to run an annual
festival of the music."

Mr. Kozinn continues to describe the works on tomorrow's AFMM concert. I
thought it would be interesting to the Tuning List to examine his point of
view in light of previous discussions.

As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50 ET, but I'm
open to it. :)

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote

/tuning/topicId_42132.html#42171

> In today's issue of The New York Times, Allan Kozinn wrote:
>

***Yes, I saw the nice listing, Johnny. Congrats!

Joseph

Hello Johnny, may be pieces will be done in 20 ET and 50 ET. But why only ET? I believe 'shruti'-s are non-ET, and, presumably, there are several other non-ET scales. Would not working in those areas also give us more variety and a different aesthetic perspective?

Thank you for your time and in anticipation,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In today's issue of The New York Times, Allan Kozinn wrote:
>
> "The principle that drives microtonality is that the Western scale need not
> be divided into only 12 notes; it can just as usefully be divided into 20, 50
> or any number a composer decides upon, so long as instruments can be made on
> which the pitches can be played and musicians are willing to learn those
> instruments. There has long been a sufficiently large group of microtonal
> composers and performers in New York--and listeners interested in what they
> are up to--for the bassoonist and composer Johnny Reinhard to run an annual
> festival of the music."
>
> Mr. Kozinn continues to describe the works on tomorrow's AFMM concert. I
> thought it would be interesting to the Tuning List to examine his point of
> view in light of previous discussions.
>
> As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50 ET, but I'm
> open to it. :)
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

sorry to interject, haresh, but johnny was simply making a joke! in
case you didn't know, johnny's own music draws pitches from the 1200-
cent fabric in almost every way imaginable, both equal and unequal.

you are right that there are "several" non-ET scales. of course you
are aware of meantone tuning; in addition, a vast number of
theoretical non-ET systems have been discussed on the tuning-math
list . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>"
<hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
> Hello Johnny, may be pieces will be done in 20 ET and 50 ET. But
>why only ET? I believe 'shruti'-s are non-ET, and, presumably, there
>are several other non-ET scales. Would not working in those areas
>also give us more variety and a different aesthetic perspective?
>
> Thank you for your time and in anticipation,
> Haresh.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In today's issue of The New York Times, Allan Kozinn wrote:
> >
> > "The principle that drives microtonality is that the Western
scale need not
> > be divided into only 12 notes; it can just as usefully be divided
into 20, 50
> > or any number a composer decides upon, so long as instruments can
be made on
> > which the pitches can be played and musicians are willing to
learn those
> > instruments. There has long been a sufficiently large group of
microtonal
> > composers and performers in New York--and listeners interested in
what they
> > are up to--for the bassoonist and composer Johnny Reinhard to run
an annual
> > festival of the music."
> >
> > Mr. Kozinn continues to describe the works on tomorrow's AFMM
concert. I
> > thought it would be interesting to the Tuning List to examine his
point of
> > view in light of previous discussions.
> >
> > As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50
ET, but I'm
> > open to it. :)
> >
> > best, Johnny Reinhard

>>I dunno, I think we have more theory than repertoire at the
>>moment.
>
>I agree and a lot of that theory is of the highest calibre, but
>bodies of musical theory dealing with non-microtonal music are
>more coherent and integrated because they have such a large field
>to explore.

I have to disagree -- I think conventional (20th-century) theory
is far less coherent than the theory we do around here.

>On the other hand with the fragmentation and blurring of idioms
>in contemporary music perhaps we'll never have a body of
>strictly microtonal music in the same way that we had tonal and
>serial musics.

And there's a good reason for that: microtonal music is not a
*type* of music. It isn't that there's a ""theory"" of it that
we don't have yet, waiting to be developed. It's that there
is no ""theory"" of it, period. Academics are so brainwashed
many apparently can't grasp this simple concept.

-Carl

Hello, thanks for the quick response. To continue with the joke, I think I will compose music in 20/50ET when I can grow flowers in the sky (as the Sanskrit saying goes)!

After having been a member of this group for the lasr three years, I still find the idea of "equality" in temperament a little difficult to digest: I continue to remain under the impression that all such equalities are artificial and 'troublesome' to the ear. There is this 'new' air sweeping the music theory circles in India, that even Indian music is "24ET". Has quarter tone been inherently natural to any music? What is it I am missing here, please?

Appreciatively,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> sorry to interject, haresh, but johnny was simply making a joke! in
> case you didn't know, johnny's own music draws pitches from the 1200-
> cent fabric in almost every way imaginable, both equal and unequal.
>
> you are right that there are "several" non-ET scales. of course you
> are aware of meantone tuning; in addition, a vast number of
> theoretical non-ET systems have been discussed on the tuning-math
> list . . .
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>"
> <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
> > Hello Johnny, may be pieces will be done in 20 ET and 50 ET. But
> >why only ET? I believe 'shruti'-s are non-ET, and, presumably, there
> >are several other non-ET scales. Would not working in those areas
> >also give us more variety and a different aesthetic perspective?
> >
> > Thank you for your time and in anticipation,
> > Haresh.
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > In today's issue of The New York Times, Allan Kozinn wrote:
> > >
> > > "The principle that drives microtonality is that the Western
> scale need not
> > > be divided into only 12 notes; it can just as usefully be divided
> into 20, 50
> > > or any number a composer decides upon, so long as instruments can
> be made on
> > > which the pitches can be played and musicians are willing to
> learn those
> > > instruments. There has long been a sufficiently large group of
> microtonal
> > > composers and performers in New York--and listeners interested in
> what they
> > > are up to--for the bassoonist and composer Johnny Reinhard to run
> an annual
> > > festival of the music."
> > >
> > > Mr. Kozinn continues to describe the works on tomorrow's AFMM
> concert. I
> > > thought it would be interesting to the Tuning List to examine his
> point of
> > > view in light of previous discussions.
> > >
> > > As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50
> ET, but I'm
> > > open to it. :)
> > >
> > > best, Johnny Reinhard

Haresh, you are correct. I should not have put ET. best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>"
<hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
> Hello, thanks for the quick response. To continue with the joke, I
>think I will compose music in 20/50ET when I can grow flowers in the
>sky (as the Sanskrit saying goes)!
>
> After having been a member of this group for the lasr three years,
>I still find the idea of "equality" in temperament a little
>difficult to digest: I continue to remain under the impression that
>all such equalities are artificial and 'troublesome' to the ear.

are you more comfortable with the idea of temperament that is
unequal, for example the well-temperaments that are used
in "historically accurate" performances of bach?

>There is this 'new' air sweeping the music theory circles in India,
>that even Indian music is "24ET". Has quarter tone been inherently
>natural to any music?

most of the arabic music i'm familiar with uses subsets of,
essentially, 24-equal. but not indian music.

> What is it I am missing here, please?

i'm not sure what you mean. are you familiar with the evolution of
temperament in europe, and how it is that equal temperament became
europe's standard in the 1800s, for example? how about the thai
example?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50 ET, but I'm
> open to it. :)

50 is quite interesting. Now if only I could get that Sibelius plugin...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>" <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:

>I still find the idea of "equality" in temperament a little difficult to digest: I continue to remain under the impression that all such equalities are artificial and 'troublesome' to the ear. There is this 'new' air sweeping the music theory circles in India, that even Indian music is "24ET". Has quarter tone been inherently natural to any music? What is it I am missing here, please?

I'd suggest not settling on the first et that comes along, but 24 et seems to work for Arabic music. I'd guess Indian music might do better in a system with better 5-limit harmony (34, 41, 46, 53 or the perennial favorite around here, 72?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>"
<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>"
<hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
>
> >I still find the idea of "equality" in temperament a little
>difficult to digest: I continue to remain under the impression that
>all such equalities are artificial and 'troublesome' to the ear.
>There is this 'new' air sweeping the music theory circles in India,
>that even Indian music is "24ET". Has quarter tone been inherently
>natural to any music? What is it I am missing here, please?
>
> I'd suggest not settling on the first et that comes along, but 24
>et seems to work for Arabic music. I'd guess Indian music might do
>better in a system with better 5-limit harmony (34, 41, 46, 53 or
>the perennial favorite around here, 72?)

the use of frequency-ratios (or string-ratios, etc.) is a feature of
indian music theory only in relatively recent times, having been
imported from western and arabic music theory. the early indian
theory texts make no mention of any frequency ratios. although many,
including myself, have interpreted the early texts in primarily just-
intonation terms, there is really no hard evidence for this
interpretation, and even the most naive readings i've seen, which
equate the 22 divisions with 22-tone equal temperament, really cannot
be refuted since there is no surviving record of actual early indian
practice. the evidence on modern practice is mixed, and the impact of
recent ratio/JI theory on actual practice has been considerable and
would be difficult, if not impossible, to factor out.

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

/tuning/topicId_42132.html#42196

<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > As far as I recall, we've never done a piece in either 20 or 50
ET, but I'm
> > open to it. :)
>
> 50 is quite interesting. Now if only I could get that Sibelius
plugin...

***Didn't Pete Walton ever get back to you, Gene? Sometimes he's
slow... it may take a week or so...

J. Pehrson

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

> ***Didn't Pete Walton ever get back to you, Gene? Sometimes he's
> slow... it may take a week or so...

He finally did, but never actually sent it. That was long ago.

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

/tuning/topicId_42132.html#42204

<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Didn't Pete Walton ever get back to you, Gene? Sometimes he's
> > slow... it may take a week or so...
>
> He finally did, but never actually sent it. That was long ago.

***Gheez, Gene... I'd wish you'd speak up, man!

I will send it to you forthwith... or with forth...

J. Pehrson

>

Personally the point of Just intonation is its new structural possibilities and frankly I dont like to be be grouped with you simple lattice exercises. That no mention of those working in higher level tone space is unfortunate oversight considering there are works as well of instruments that can play them.

History is written by people who were not there

>
> Subject: Re: the history of microtones in the 20th century
>

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

hi Gene and Haresh,

> From: <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 2:41 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: the history of microtones in the 20th century
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@h...>"
> <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
>
> > I still find the idea of "equality" in temperament
> > a little difficult to digest: I continue to remain
> > under the impression that all such equalities are
> > artificial and 'troublesome' to the ear. There is
> > this 'new' air sweeping the music theory circles in
> > India, that even Indian music is "24ET". Has quarter
> > tone been inherently natural to any music? What is
> > it I am missing here, please?
>
> I'd suggest not settling on the first et that comes along,
> but 24 et seems to work for Arabic music.

in fact, 24edo has been the subject of fierce debate
among Egyptian, Turkish, and Syro-Lebanese musicians.
see the bottom part of my Tuning Dictionary
"quarter-tone" entry:
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/qt.htm

> I'd guess Indian music might do better in a system
> with better 5-limit harmony (34, 41, 46, 53 or the
> perennial favorite around here, 72?)

Neil Haverstick began issuing pieces done in 34edo
on his _Acoustic Stick_ CD. as far as i understand,
it was because he felt that 34edo worked well with
the music he wanted to compose which was based loosely
on Indian music.

-monz

"Carl Lumma " wrote:

> >>I dunno, I think we have more theory than repertoire at the
> >>moment.
> >
> >I agree and a lot of that theory is of the highest calibre, but
> >bodies of musical theory dealing with non-microtonal music are
> >more coherent and integrated because they have such a large field
> >to explore.
>
> I have to disagree -- I think conventional (20th-century) theory
> is far less coherent than the theory we do around here.

For example?

>
> >On the other hand with the fragmentation and blurring of idioms
> >in contemporary music perhaps we'll never have a body of
> >strictly microtonal music in the same way that we had tonal and
> >serial musics.
>
> And there's a good reason for that: microtonal music is not a
> *type* of music. It isn't that there's a ""theory"" of it that
> we don't have yet, waiting to be developed. It's that there
> is no ""theory"" of it, period. Academics are so brainwashed
> many apparently can't grasp this simple concept.
>
> -Carl

But you've just said that there is theory around here and that it is coherent.

Best Wishes
a.m.

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

> Neil Haverstick began issuing pieces done in 34edo
> on his _Acoustic Stick_ CD. as far as i understand,
> it was because he felt that 34edo worked well with
> the music he wanted to compose which was based loosely
> on Indian music.
>
>
>
> -monz

neil did a nice job on 34 in "from the west" on his _african stick_
cd. in it, he tunes the guitar to a drone tuning and uses it sort of
like a sitar (i do this all the time, in fact the planned "shrutar"
is exactly for this kind of playing). this and the more "atonal" 34
piece are my favorite works on this cd.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > Neil Haverstick began issuing pieces done in 34edo
> > on his _Acoustic Stick_ CD. as far as i understand,
> > it was because he felt that 34edo worked well with
> > the music he wanted to compose which was based loosely
> > on Indian music.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
> neil did a nice job on 34 in "from the west" on his _african stick_
> cd. in it, he tunes the guitar to a drone tuning and uses it sort
of
> like a sitar (i do this all the time, in fact the planned "shrutar"
> is exactly for this kind of playing). this and the more "atonal" 34
> piece are my favorite works on this cd.

whoops, i meant the _acoustic stick_ cd - - - and the point was that
34 and 46 are both _diaschismic_ tunings, so they appear to be
compatible with the indian conception of the sruti system.

>> I have to disagree -- I think conventional (20th-century) theory
>> is far less coherent than the theory we do around here.
>
>For example?

Hang out on tuning-math for a while, or search these archives.

>> >On the other hand with the fragmentation and blurring of idioms
>> >in contemporary music perhaps we'll never have a body of
>> >strictly microtonal music in the same way that we had tonal and
>> >serial musics.
>>
>> And there's a good reason for that: microtonal music is not a
>> *type* of music. It isn't that there's a ""theory"" of it that
>> we don't have yet, waiting to be developed. It's that there
>> is no ""theory"" of it, period. Academics are so brainwashed
>> many apparently can't grasp this simple concept.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>But you've just said that there is theory around here and that it
>is coherent.

It's a play on the word "theory", hence the doubled quotes. The
article uses the term to mean the algorithmic-composition-type
theory of 20th-century American academia, and equates microtonality
with such theories. That's an equation that don't equate.

-Carl