p.s. for johnny

one can't listen to johnny's group's performance and then turn to him
and say, "you were wrong". the performances are absolutely beautiful
and absolutely *right*. so who cares about a possibly false cents
ideology, when the *RESULT* would seem to justify all human folly?

still, there are other right ways and other sets of ears out there.
bach's music retains its beauty when transfigured in myriad different
ways, for example pablo casals' "expressive intonation" where he
described the difference between a c-sharp and a d-flat as some
fairly huge quantity (if one were to express it in cents). some
harpsichordists are accustomed to retuning for each piece, may do
this even for bach, and obtain splendid results.

surely johnny will abhor anything of the sort. i know a certain 20th
century composer whose enthusiasts insist on following their
interpretation of the composer's intentions and abhor alternate
performances . . . some of them also abhor 12-tone equal temperament.
a lot of people abhor what has happened to "jazz" or the music that
strangely goes by that name these days -- be it too avant-garde or
too commercial. what drives these emotions? surely the deep love for
something that has been achieved in music. it seems so immense,
surely it must be the entire universe of musical truth?

the ego has a way of desiring outward expansion and dominance. surely
we can "temper" this tendency with the feelings of human
connectedness and transcendence that music gives us. there are many
ways of reaching that part of people's souls. it is a precious
blessing to be the giver of such gifts, and to receive the adulation
that comes in return. but the ego is never satisfied . . .

Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> surely johnny will abhor anything of the sort. i know a certain
> 20th century composer whose enthusiasts insist on following their
> interpretation of the composer's intentions and abhor alternate
> performances

When you talk about Bach's works you actually say "Bach". Don't hide behind a screen: who is the *certain* composer? Then, and only then, does it become a meaningful discussion...

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 4/18/03 3:51:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > surely johnny will abhor anything of the sort. i know a certain
> > 20th century composer whose enthusiasts insist on following their
> > interpretation of the composer's intentions and abhor alternate
> > performances
>
> When you talk about Bach's works you actually say "Bach". Don't hide behind
> a screen: who is the *certain* composer? Then, and only then, does it
> become a meaningful discussion...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>

Hi Jon,

Somehow, I didn't receive Paul's e-mail on this. I can only imagine he means
Harry Partch. And it is true, I would abhor Partch's music if it was not
performed in his tuning.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Somehow, I didn't receive Paul's e-mail on this. I can only imagine
> he means Harry Partch.

I figured that out all on my own; I'd just like to see Paul put it out there for the record.

> And it is true, I would abhor Partch's music if it was not
> performed in his tuning.

I seriously doubt that is what he was referring to.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Johnny,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Somehow, I didn't receive Paul's e-mail on this. I can only
imagine
> > he means Harry Partch.
>
> I figured that out all on my own; I'd just like to see Paul put it
>out there for the record.

yes, partch. i guess i tripped the big red wire this time, didn't i?
i was super-tired when i wrote that, if i still have any chance to
save my @$$ from the flames of hell . . .

> > And it is true, I would abhor Partch's music if it was not
> > performed in his tuning.
>
> I seriously doubt that is what he was referring to.

right, i wasn't specifically referring to tuning, but i *could* have
been, since ted mook's use of a 72-equal notation for partch's work
has raised a lot of eyebrows (even if the *notation* was merely a
guide to find the actual just *sounds*) despite the implied errors
being much smaller than what you'll find in many partch performances
and recordings . . .

P-Man,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> yes, partch. i guess i tripped the big red wire this time,
> didn't i?

Nope, just the tiny fuschia one. :)

> i was super-tired when i wrote that, if i still have any chance to
> save my @$$ from the flames of hell . . .

We save those flames for things that are life- and planet-endangering actions!

> right, i wasn't specifically referring to tuning, but i *could* have
> been, since ted mook's use of a 72-equal notation for partch's work
> has raised a lot of eyebrows (even if the *notation* was merely a
> guide to find the actual just *sounds*) despite the implied errors
> being much smaller than what you'll find in many partch performances
> and recordings . . .

As I thought. We'll come back to this some day, no need to fan other areas at the moment (and no time today, really). As for notation, it really *could* be anything _as_long_as the end result were the correct pitchs. Partch himself went through scads of notational attempts. As for "implied errors", there is no correlation between notation and accurate performance (in at least this specific instance) - the variability of human performers will always surpass the exacting nature of the notation. When the planets, gods, and dietary supplements are all in alignment, you'll get all the right notes, played in the right way. It doesn't happen often enough in our lifetime...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> P-Man,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > yes, partch. i guess i tripped the big red wire this time,
> > didn't i?
>
> Nope, just the tiny fuschia one. :)
>
> > i was super-tired when i wrote that, if i still have any chance
to
> > save my @$$ from the flames of hell . . .
>
> We save those flames for things that are life- and planet-
endangering actions!
>
> > right, i wasn't specifically referring to tuning, but i *could*
have
> > been, since ted mook's use of a 72-equal notation for partch's
work
> > has raised a lot of eyebrows (even if the *notation* was merely a
> > guide to find the actual just *sounds*) despite the implied
errors
> > being much smaller than what you'll find in many partch
performances
> > and recordings . . .
>
> As I thought. We'll come back to this some day, no need to fan
>other areas at the moment (and no time today, really). As for
>notation, it really *could* be anything _as_long_as the end result
>were the correct pitchs. Partch himself went through scads of
>notational attempts. As for "implied errors", there is no
>correlation between notation and accurate performance (in at least
>this specific instance)

i don't understand. there's no correlation between ted mook's
notation and his performance? maybe i should clarify that by "implied
errors" i mean the errors implied if the 72-equal notation were taken
literally -- remember that the very idea of such notation was
abhorrent to some.

> - the variability of human performers will always surpass the
>exacting nature of the notation.

even johnny?

In a message dated 4/18/03 4:51:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > - the variability of human performers will always surpass the
> >exacting nature of the notation.
>
> even johnny?
>
>
>

Paul, what are you trying to arouse? Johnny

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

> i don't understand. there's no correlation between ted mook's
> notation and his performance? maybe i should clarify that by "implied
> errors" i mean the errors implied if the 72-equal notation were taken
> literally -- remember that the very idea of such notation was
> abhorrent to some.

Just to liven things up around here, I'll point out that
hemiennealimmal notation is quite sufficient for notating Partch.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/03 4:51:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
> [jon wrote]
> > > - the variability of human performers will always surpass the
> > >exacting nature of the notation.
> >
> > even johnny?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Paul, what are you trying to arouse? Johnny

i'm trying to throw jon's statement into question. if anyone can do
it, it's you.

Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> i'm trying to throw jon's statement into question. if anyone can do
> it, it's you.

...he said to Johnny. Paul, these are the kind of banterings that seem (to me) to be the ultimate waste of time. Anyone can notate or annotate a given set of pitches (let's call this "music"), and there they sit: immutable. Those pitches, in a virtual sense, exist exactly as meant.

Now give that to a human being. Unless the human being is:

a. gifted and trained to play the exact pitches written
b. infallible

there are bound to be errors. I, frankly, do not believe Johnny Reinhard is anything but a human. And he, too, can make errors, as can his players, as can we all.

But I think Johnny makes music, and that is far more important to me.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > i'm trying to throw jon's statement into question. if anyone can
do
> > it, it's you.
>
> ...he said to Johnny. Paul, these are the kind of banterings that
seem (to me) to be the ultimate waste of time. Anyone can notate or
annotate a given set of pitches (let's call this "music"), and there
they sit: immutable. Those pitches, in a virtual sense, exist exactly
as meant.
>
> Now give that to a human being. Unless the human being is:
>
> a. gifted and trained to play the exact pitches written
> b. infallible
>
> there are bound to be errors. I, frankly, do not believe Johnny
Reinhard is anything but a human. And he, too, can make errors, as can
his players, as can we all.
>
> But I think Johnny makes music, and that is far more important to
me.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

jon, ted mook's intonation has a huge amount to do with his notation.
the two are not independent entities, and you seemed to say they were,
which is the statement i was referring to above. sorry i dragged
johnny's name into this, it was just the most convenient example of
someone here who could attest to this kind of relationship from
personal experience.

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

/tuning/topicId_43388.html#43388

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> one can't listen to johnny's group's performance and then turn to
him
> and say, "you were wrong". the performances are absolutely
beautiful
> and absolutely *right*. so who cares about a possibly false cents
> ideology, when the *RESULT* would seem to justify all human folly?
>
> still, there are other right ways and other sets of ears out there.
> bach's music retains its beauty when transfigured in myriad
different
> ways, for example pablo casals' "expressive intonation" where he
> described the difference between a c-sharp and a d-flat as some
> fairly huge quantity (if one were to express it in cents). some
> harpsichordists are accustomed to retuning for each piece, may do
> this even for bach, and obtain splendid results.
>
> surely johnny will abhor anything of the sort. i know a certain
20th
> century composer whose enthusiasts insist on following their
> interpretation of the composer's intentions and abhor alternate
> performances . . . some of them also abhor 12-tone equal
temperament.
> a lot of people abhor what has happened to "jazz" or the music that
> strangely goes by that name these days -- be it too avant-garde or
> too commercial. what drives these emotions? surely the deep love
for
> something that has been achieved in music. it seems so immense,
> surely it must be the entire universe of musical truth?
>
> the ego has a way of desiring outward expansion and dominance.
surely
> we can "temper" this tendency with the feelings of human
> connectedness and transcendence that music gives us. there are many
> ways of reaching that part of people's souls. it is a precious
> blessing to be the giver of such gifts, and to receive the
adulation
> that comes in return. but the ego is never satisfied . . .

***This is a nice essay.

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_43388.html#43411

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > P-Man,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > yes, partch. i guess i tripped the big red wire this time,
> > > didn't i?
> >
> > Nope, just the tiny fuschia one. :)
> >
> > > i was super-tired when i wrote that, if i still have any chance
> to
> > > save my @$$ from the flames of hell . . .
> >
> > We save those flames for things that are life- and planet-
> endangering actions!
> >
> > > right, i wasn't specifically referring to tuning, but i *could*
> have
> > > been, since ted mook's use of a 72-equal notation for partch's
> work
> > > has raised a lot of eyebrows (even if the *notation* was merely
a
> > > guide to find the actual just *sounds*) despite the implied
> errors
> > > being much smaller than what you'll find in many partch
> performances
> > > and recordings . . .
> >
> > As I thought. We'll come back to this some day, no need to fan
> >other areas at the moment (and no time today, really). As for
> >notation, it really *could* be anything _as_long_as the end result
> >were the correct pitchs. Partch himself went through scads of
> >notational attempts. As for "implied errors", there is no
> >correlation between notation and accurate performance (in at least
> >this specific instance)
>
> i don't understand. there's no correlation between ted mook's
> notation and his performance? maybe i should clarify that
by "implied
> errors" i mean the errors implied if the 72-equal notation were
taken
> literally -- remember that the very idea of such notation was
> abhorrent to some.
>

***It would seem to me that getting at Patrch through 72 like Mook
does, and then "tweaking it" a bit would be as accurate as just about
any other method of playing notationed Partch.

Am I incorrect about this, and, if so, is there incontrovertible
evidence about it? (Like a *recorded test* but I know around here
that's a big "no-no"...)

J. Pehrson