reply to Dan Stearns

I appreciate your detailed comments---here are some replies:

>But to my way of working and dealing with it, oblique and densely
>static information like that in the Pollock example you cite, is
>routinely parsed into attainable gestures; melodies and rhythms, a
>veritable musical DNA if you will.
>
>This kind of abstraction seems to me to be the easy part. It also
>seems to be exactly the point where composers were impelled to reduce
>the freewheeling allegoric whirl of abstract impressionism into a
>more manageable formalism--hence serialism and all its near cousins.
>

Yes, but it's important to note that even with a high degree of formalism,
there can still be lots of room for "freewheeling allegoric whirls." As a
composer, this is my favorite state to work in: it's like junk sculpture,
I'm given some fairly tightly constraining garbage, perhaps a bizarre and
random collection of it, and I have to make cool music out of
it. I love composing this way. It may not always work out best for the
listener, and that I'm well aware of, but as composer it's a lot of fun.

I also see this as separate from the "flat" issue: the latter is simply
a matter of large-scale form, arches, and etc. There can be "flat"
intuitive music, and "arched" systematic music.

>
> Simply put, I think it's much more difficult to sustain and
> effectively present a sense of abstractionism, or "flatness", in long-
> form presentations like novels or substantial musical compositions.
> It seems to me that the things that make an abstract expressionist
> painting (like those of Jackson Pollock) special are almost fatally
> enervated when their immediacy is spread across these types of long-
> form mediums.
>

Yep, and I think the main mistake, born of arrogance, more than anything
else, of the post-war "evil" composers was in refusing to deal with this,
perhaps because they felt that it was an "external" issue that wasn't
about "the music itself."

>
> However, I think it's worth noting that I've always gotten a strong
> sense of "obvious or dimensionally conjunct large-scale goals, points
> of arrival, `climaxes,' sectional boundaries and the like" in many of
> the other pieces of yours that I've heard. In many of these pieces
> unpredictability and artistic stewardship were in a perfectly
> rewarding synchronization--in fact I'd consider this to be a CB
> trademark.
>

Well, I think most of my music is "non-flat": intentionally so. I
usually plan out climaxes and kinetic forms and so on very carefully. In
fact, in a way, "Sand" was really an attempt to trascend myself, or my
habits as a composer. It was very hard for me not to do these things; I
think writing a piece that's "flat"---yet coherent---that leaps and bounds
and steps along at various speeds, not in any particular direction or
towards any particular goal---to write a piece like that that's good is
the most difficult thing, maybe it's impossible. So, perhaps this piece
is a failure, but I have certainly learned a lot from doing it.

>
>
> As far as the use of alternative tuning in Sand... I think it's only
> relevant in that the tuning isn't the same old same old, and while
> it's obvious enough that more is not necessarily more interesting,
> more interesting is more interesting (especially in the hands of a
> talented composer such as yourself).
>

Hmmmmmmmmm. . . not exactly sure what you mean here. .

>
>To my mind music is more allegory than psychoacoustic construct. And
>if it's allegory's right and proper business to present the clear and
>the obscure in a context that allows each something on the order of a
>symbiotic equal-footing, lucid symbolism is only going to upset the
>apple cart anyway.
>

This is beautiful writing. . .though I'm not sure what it means either. .

:)

>
>These are hardly the perennial tuning-list minutia of lattice metrics
>and calls to maximize consonances and overthrow the evil serialist's
>evil 12-tet conspiracy. But then again, it's precisely in this regard
>that Sand and its accompanying dissertation are one of the more
>thought provoking and substantial contributions I've seen to these
>forums in the years that I've been here... thanks.
>

yur Welcome.

(Perhaps we should move to "metatuning", if you're still on that list. .)

cb

Hi Chris,

It seems to me that transcending habits and comfort zones are
necessary and healthy things that composers often must do, but
obstinate flatness is almost like trying to compose with your hands
tied... in fact, I'm not so sure that I've ever heard a flat piece
that I'd say was *unconditionally* good!

I think Braxton's modular music does a real nice job of undercutting
habits and tendencies while still organizing an exciting, dynamic
musical environment for the composer the listener and the
performer... but his music is generally not flat in the way you
describe it.

Like yourself, I'm a pretty firm believer in the idea that music's
got to do more than just work--I'm thinking of your toilet analogy
here! It's got to be special in some hard to define but easy to
recognize way... I mean I can only get so excited by concepts, and
it's ultimately the act of listening to a piece that has got to move
me.

Sand seems like an experimental piece to me in the truest sense of
the word and I can't wait to hear where you go with what you've
learned from it!

Tenney's Water on the Mountain... Fire in Heaven would be an example
of flat music where the tuning and certain specific aspects of it are
fundamentally at the core of piece's conception (though I personally
thought this piece was largely unsatisfying due to its flatness too).
Sand didn't seem to me to be a piece where the specific tuning used
was inseparable from the piece that was utilizing it. It was,
however, interesting precisely because it wasn't the standard tuning
and because it was microtonality in the hands of a talented composer.

As I said before, this is pretty much the antithesis of what the
online microtonal community represents--it represents a technocracy
largely devoid of artistic and musical input.

I believe that music is more allegory than psychoacoustic construct.
It's a great enigmatic, and great enigmatic's symbolism will always
invite detection and avert definition.

Not that that would ever stop anybody from trying, but if allegories
are based on parallels between two levels of meaning, the one that's
assumed and the one that's literally presented, then it would seem
that microtonalists' pathological obsession with the literal minutia
of this or that tuning condition undermines so much of what music is
really all about... its magic, its liveliness, its soul!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your detailed comments---here are some replies:
>
>
> >But to my way of working and dealing with it, oblique and densely
> >static information like that in the Pollock example you cite, is
> >routinely parsed into attainable gestures; melodies and rhythms, a
> >veritable musical DNA if you will.
> >
> >This kind of abstraction seems to me to be the easy part. It also
> >seems to be exactly the point where composers were impelled to
reduce
> >the freewheeling allegoric whirl of abstract impressionism into a
> >more manageable formalism--hence serialism and all its near
cousins.
> >
>
>
> Yes, but it's important to note that even with a high degree of
formalism,
> there can still be lots of room for "freewheeling allegoric
whirls." As a
> composer, this is my favorite state to work in: it's like junk
sculpture,
> I'm given some fairly tightly constraining garbage, perhaps a
bizarre and
> random collection of it, and I have to make cool music out of
> it. I love composing this way. It may not always work out best
for the
> listener, and that I'm well aware of, but as composer it's a lot
of fun.
>
> I also see this as separate from the "flat" issue: the latter is
simply
> a matter of large-scale form, arches, and etc. There can be "flat"
> intuitive music, and "arched" systematic music.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Simply put, I think it's much more difficult to sustain and
> > effectively present a sense of abstractionism, or "flatness", in
long-
> > form presentations like novels or substantial musical
compositions.
> > It seems to me that the things that make an abstract expressionist
> > painting (like those of Jackson Pollock) special are almost
fatally
> > enervated when their immediacy is spread across these types of
long-
> > form mediums.
> >
>
> Yep, and I think the main mistake, born of arrogance, more than
anything
> else, of the post-war "evil" composers was in refusing to deal with
this,
> perhaps because they felt that it was an "external" issue that
wasn't
> about "the music itself."
>
>
>
> >
> > However, I think it's worth noting that I've always gotten a
strong
> > sense of "obvious or dimensionally conjunct large-scale goals,
points
> > of arrival, `climaxes,' sectional boundaries and the like" in
many of
> > the other pieces of yours that I've heard. In many of these pieces
> > unpredictability and artistic stewardship were in a perfectly
> > rewarding synchronization--in fact I'd consider this to be a CB
> > trademark.
> >
>
>
> Well, I think most of my music is "non-flat": intentionally so. I
> usually plan out climaxes and kinetic forms and so on very
carefully. In
> fact, in a way, "Sand" was really an attempt to trascend myself, or
my
> habits as a composer. It was very hard for me not to do these
things; I
> think writing a piece that's "flat"---yet coherent---that leaps and
bounds
> and steps along at various speeds, not in any particular direction
or
> towards any particular goal---to write a piece like that that's
good is
> the most difficult thing, maybe it's impossible. So, perhaps this
piece
> is a failure, but I have certainly learned a lot from doing it.
>
>
> >
> >
> > As far as the use of alternative tuning in Sand... I think it's
only
> > relevant in that the tuning isn't the same old same old, and while
> > it's obvious enough that more is not necessarily more interesting,
> > more interesting is more interesting (especially in the hands of a
> > talented composer such as yourself).
> >
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm. . . not exactly sure what you mean here. .
>
> >
> >To my mind music is more allegory than psychoacoustic construct.
And
> >if it's allegory's right and proper business to present the clear
and
> >the obscure in a context that allows each something on the order
of a
> >symbiotic equal-footing, lucid symbolism is only going to upset the
> >apple cart anyway.
> >
>
> This is beautiful writing. . .though I'm not sure what it means
either. .
>
> :)
>
> >
> >These are hardly the perennial tuning-list minutia of lattice
metrics
> >and calls to maximize consonances and overthrow the evil
serialist's
> >evil 12-tet conspiracy. But then again, it's precisely in this
regard
> >that Sand and its accompanying dissertation are one of the more
> >thought provoking and substantial contributions I've seen to these
> >forums in the years that I've been here... thanks.
> >
>
> yur Welcome.
>
>
> (Perhaps we should move to "metatuning", if you're still on that
list. .)
>
> cb

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_42700.html#42700

>
>
> Well, I think most of my music is "non-flat": intentionally so. I
> usually plan out climaxes and kinetic forms and so on very
carefully. In fact, in a way, "Sand" was really an attempt to
trascend myself, or my habits as a composer. It was very hard for me
not to do these things; I think writing a piece that's "flat"---yet
coherent---that leaps and bounds and steps along at various speeds,
not in any particular direction or towards any particular goal---to
write a piece like that that's good is the most difficult thing,
maybe it's impossible. So, perhaps this piece is a failure, but I
have certainly learned a lot from doing it.
>

***Hi Chris,

Well, of course this piece is a great success. However, I
*personally* believe one has to "factor in" the actual algorithmic
methods and design into the mix. That stuff is actually *part of the
piece* in my humble opinion...

>
> (Perhaps we should move to "metatuning", if you're still on that
list. .)
>
> cb

***In *my* opinion, the proper forum for this discussion is Jon
Szanto's MakeMicroMusic forum, where there already *has* been some
talk of it...

J. Pehrson

I've given this a lot of thought, and it's my opinion that metatuning
and tuning-math are the only necessary splinter groups.

Metatuning for all the clearly off-topic posts, and tuning-math for
all the mathematical posts that clearly inhabit the minutia end of
that spectrum.

If this type of a posting procedure were generally adhered to, I
really think it would alleviate the high-traffic crush of redundant
(or off-topic) posts to this group. And it's my opinion that this
would allow Jon Szanto's MakeMicroMusic to seamlessly reunite with
its parent group and that there'd be fewer gripes on the overall.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_42700.html#42700
>
> >
> >
> > Well, I think most of my music is "non-flat": intentionally
so. I
> > usually plan out climaxes and kinetic forms and so on very
> carefully. In fact, in a way, "Sand" was really an attempt to
> trascend myself, or my habits as a composer. It was very hard for
me
> not to do these things; I think writing a piece that's "flat"---yet
> coherent---that leaps and bounds and steps along at various speeds,
> not in any particular direction or towards any particular goal---to
> write a piece like that that's good is the most difficult thing,
> maybe it's impossible. So, perhaps this piece is a failure, but I
> have certainly learned a lot from doing it.
> >
>
> ***Hi Chris,
>
> Well, of course this piece is a great success. However, I
> *personally* believe one has to "factor in" the actual algorithmic
> methods and design into the mix. That stuff is actually *part of
the
> piece* in my humble opinion...
>
> >
> > (Perhaps we should move to "metatuning", if you're still on that
> list. .)
> >
> > cb
>
> ***In *my* opinion, the proper forum for this discussion is Jon
> Szanto's MakeMicroMusic forum, where there already *has* been some
> talk of it...
>
> J. Pehrson

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

> Metatuning for all the clearly off-topic posts, and tuning-math for
> all the mathematical posts that clearly inhabit the minutia end of
> that spectrum.

Tuning-math is for more than the minutia--it is also for major stuff
which is heavily mathematical.

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

/tuning/topicId_42700.html#42810

<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> I've given this a lot of thought, and it's my opinion that
metatuning
> and tuning-math are the only necessary splinter groups.
>
> Metatuning for all the clearly off-topic posts, and tuning-math for
> all the mathematical posts that clearly inhabit the minutia end of
> that spectrum.
>
> If this type of a posting procedure were generally adhered to, I
> really think it would alleviate the high-traffic crush of redundant
> (or off-topic) posts to this group. And it's my opinion that this
> would allow Jon Szanto's MakeMicroMusic to seamlessly reunite with
> its parent group and that there'd be fewer gripes on the overall.
>

***Hi Dan,

Well, personally I would tend to agree with you... HOWEVER, I believe
we've been *outvoted* since MakeMicroMusic turned out to be a vibrant
place with a "vibe" all it's own, centered to a degree on synthetic
generation of alternately-tuned music, and the means with which such
can be implemented... hardware and software discussions, etc., etc...

And Metatuning has turned into a political forum...

Joe Pehrson

Okay, whatever. I think tuning-math was a successful splinter. It cut
down on the volume of one-dimensional traffic here and it gave those
who are interested in that a good place to do their thing however
they please.

No doubt it's all pretty sensitive, and now that it's fractured I
doubt it can ever realign. But what exactly is the focus of this
group now that there seems to be a subgroup tailored to most every
conceivable aspect of microtonality... does it even matter?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
> <daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
>
> > Metatuning for all the clearly off-topic posts, and tuning-math
for
> > all the mathematical posts that clearly inhabit the minutia end
of
> > that spectrum.
>
> Tuning-math is for more than the minutia--it is also for major stuff
> which is heavily mathematical.

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

/tuning/topicId_42700.html#42821

<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> Okay, whatever. I think tuning-math was a successful splinter. It
cut
> down on the volume of one-dimensional traffic here and it gave
those
> who are interested in that a good place to do their thing however
> they please.
>
> No doubt it's all pretty sensitive, and now that it's fractured I
> doubt it can ever realign. But what exactly is the focus of this
> group now that there seems to be a subgroup tailored to most every
> conceivable aspect of microtonality... does it even matter?
>

***This group tends to deal with *general* microtonal theory. When
it gets *too* smart, it goes over to Tuning Math... :)

J. Pehrson