Observations on tempering

(1) People are too timid about tempering the 18th century repertoire.
Mozart, in particular, needs real tempering! Playing him in 12-equal
is an atrocity.

(2) Fake orchestral sounds can get on your nerves if you listen to too
much of it.

(3) If I was a billionare, I would found a conservatory to train
people in the use of 31-et not only to perform music previous to the
19th century, but for everything from the 15th through the 20th
centuries. 31-equal could play most things written for 12-equal and
make it sound better.

Gene, I agree with you. Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> (3) If I was a billionare, I would found a conservatory to train
> people in the use of 31-et not only to perform music previous to
the
> 19th century, but for everything from the 15th through the 20th
> centuries. 31-equal could play most things written for 12-equal and
> make it sound better.

not true for beethoven or most composers since (see mathieu's book
for evidence). i'd say late 15th through late 18th, with exceptions
such as bach.

hi paul,

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:50 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Observations on tempering
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > (3) If I was a billionare, I would found a
> > conservatory to train people in the use of
> > 31-et not only to perform music previous to
> > the 19th century, but for everything from the
> > 15th through the 20th centuries. 31-equal could
> > play most things written for 12-equal and
> > make it sound better.
>
> not true for beethoven or most composers since
> (see mathieu's book for evidence). i'd say late
> 15th through late 18th, with exceptions such
> as bach.

i'm not willing to argue against you *too* strongly
yet, because i haven't yet spent the time on the
experiment, but my hunch is that 31edo will work
great for long stretches of Mahler's symphonies.
i'd also guess for Brahms, too.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > (3) If I was a billionare, I would found a conservatory to train
> > people in the use of 31-et not only to perform music previous to
> the
> > 19th century, but for everything from the 15th through the 20th
> > centuries. 31-equal could play most things written for 12-equal and
> > make it sound better.
>
> not true for beethoven or most composers since (see mathieu's book
> for evidence). i'd say late 15th through late 18th, with exceptions
> such as bach.

I don't have Mathieu's book and I am not inclined to accept your
statement, since it contradicts what I've been hearing. I suppose the
only way to really tell would be to compare some 31-equal rescorings
with the 12-equal originals. I don't think either you are Mathieu has
done this, so I wonder what the basis is for this claim; I haven't
either but listening to rainbow and grail gives me *some* idea, rather
than none at all.

If you want an example of something which might cause problems, try a
Stravinksy piece in octatonic. Symphony of the Psalms didn't sound at
all right in some keys.

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

> i'm not willing to argue against you *too* strongly
> yet, because i haven't yet spent the time on the
> experiment...

Neither has Paul.

...but my hunch is that 31edo will work
> great for long stretches of Mahler's symphonies.
> i'd also guess for Brahms, too.

The early romantic symphonies of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert and
Berwald really improve a *lot* by getting away from 12-et, I can tell
you that much. I really wonder why Mathieu had an opinion about 31-et
in this repertoire, and what it could possibly have been based on.

>> i'm not willing to argue against you *too* strongly
>> yet, because i haven't yet spent the time on the
>> experiment...
>
>Neither has Paul.

Paul may be basing his statement on experiences with
John deLaudbenfels' midi retunings, which you missed.
And/or 31-equal guitar (do you have it yet, Paul? If
so, howabout a post on this axe, and what you've been
doing with it?).

But the thing is, other than some statement about
romantic music using the augmented and diminished
temperaments, and 12 better representing those than
31, what it comes down to is personal pref. Paul has
a talent for describing his personal prefs as
objective facts.

>I really wonder why Mathieu had an opinion about
>31-et in this repertoire, and what it could possibly
>have been based on.

I took a look at his book once... and unfortunately
can't say anything even remotely good about it.

-Carl

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

> i'm not willing to argue against you *too* strongly
> yet, because i haven't yet spent the time on the
> experiment, but my hunch is that 31edo will work
> great for long stretches of Mahler's symphonies.
> i'd also guess for Brahms, too.

Inspired by this comment, I uploaded a piano reduction of the Brahms
#2 to tuning_files. It makes quite a showpiece for grail, since sweet-
sounding 5-limit passages are followed by distinctly microtonal ones.
While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly suggests to
me that it might be a good thing for Brahms. The sweetness of the
thirds would shed a whole new light on the piece.

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Inspired by this comment, I uploaded a piano reduction of the Brahms
> #2 to tuning_files. It makes quite a showpiece for grail, since sweet-
> sounding 5-limit passages are followed by distinctly microtonal ones.
> While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly suggests to
> me that it might be a good thing for Brahms. The sweetness of the
> thirds would shed a whole new light on the piece.

At what point, when the retunings of a piece alter the tunings of the 'notes' to a great degree, does one consider it "recomposing"? If, in the process of actually changing notes - because isn't that really what is happening? - you are altering the composition into a newly created piece?

This is, in a sense, a somewhat rhetorical question; however, your project is advancing to a high degree of realization, and you are making claims that, while to some extent grounded in various theorems of tuning, also contain a very large amount of personal preference. So you now enter the same territory as one who would take Brahms, for example, and say "I bet this would 'sound' a lot better if I changed some of these notes." You are not recreating a temperament that might have been used, or recreating a performance that in all possibility took place, you are overlaying an entirely new scheme of intonation on a piece composed in a differing one.

These are just things I'm thinking about as I watch people changing music before our very ears.

Cheers,
Jon

What book are you talking about when referring to "Mathieu's Book?"

>not true for beethoven or most composers since (see mathieu's book
>for evidence). i'd say late 15th through late 18th, with exceptions
>such as bach.

In a message dated 6/9/03 11:19:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> At what point, when the retunings of a piece alter the tunings of the
> 'notes' to a great degree, does one consider it "recomposing"? If, in the process
> of actually changing notes - because isn't that really what is happening? -
> you are altering the composition into a newly created piece?
>
>

This has been the point for me when I object to Bach in meantone tunings,
etc. And yet, Bach has remained great in equal temperament, even though it is
much more likely that it was in Werckmeister III. If a composer was clearly in
a specific tuning I would still argue to retain that tuning.

When JdL started this trend on the list to "retune", or merely joined in on
it, I was aghast for the same reason that Jon is making. I've since tried to
relax about it as an example of speculative theory. In that vein, and having
played much music in 31-tone, I can understand how Gene would want to sweeten
the pie. Exceptions aside, most music would sound more consonant in 31-tET
than in 12-tET.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > (3) If I was a billionare, I would found a conservatory to train
> > > people in the use of 31-et not only to perform music previous
to
> > the
> > > 19th century, but for everything from the 15th through the 20th
> > > centuries. 31-equal could play most things written for 12-equal
and
> > > make it sound better.
> >
> > not true for beethoven or most composers since (see mathieu's
book
> > for evidence). i'd say late 15th through late 18th, with
exceptions
> > such as bach.
>
> I don't have Mathieu's book and I am not inclined to accept your
> statement, since it contradicts what I've been hearing. I suppose
the
> only way to really tell would be to compare some 31-equal rescorings
> with the 12-equal originals. I don't think either you are Mathieu
has
> done this, so I wonder what the basis is for this claim; I haven't
> either but listening to rainbow and grail gives me *some* idea,
rather
> than none at all.

beethoven et al used plenty of "the other" vanishing comma of 12-tone
besides the 81:80 (which vanishes in meantone). it doesn't matter
whether you consider the other one the major diesis (648:625), minor
diesis (128:125), the diaschisma, the schisma, or the pythagorean
comma -- all are equivalent if the 81:80 vanishes. but rendering such
pieces in 31-equal would force either drifts or shifts of 1 degree of
31-equal, or 39 cents -- far worse than the usual 81:80 comma problem
in just intonation.

note that i'm not implying 12-equal must be used -- any truly
*closed* 12-tone tuning would be fine -- 12-equal is simply the
*regular* member of this family.

> If you want an example of something which might cause problems, try
a
> Stravinksy piece in octatonic.

ah, yes, the "diminished scale", based on 648:625 vanishing.

> Symphony of the Psalms didn't sound at
> all right in some keys.

i need to familiarize myself with this piece. suggested recordings? i
wonder if any stretches of it would work in other "diminished"
tunings, such as 28-equal, 16-equal, etc. if only 648:625 is
functionally vanishing, they should.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> And/or 31-equal guitar (do you have it yet, Paul? If
> so, howabout a post on this axe, and what you've been
> doing with it?).

carl, you missed a long stretch of time on this list. i played that
guitar a lot for a while, and diatonicism was just pure bliss. lots
of blues variations and such too, posted to this list about that.
while it's spend most of its life in the 31-equal version of standard
tuning (and will soon return to it when the piano is put into 12-out-
of-31), it's now in the open tuning i use on acoustic guitar for
research and development purposes. i'm still mulling the fretting for
my microtonal acoustic guitar, pretty important right now since my
acoustic duo is actually making more money than the big fusion band
right now and i'm eager to push it out of the 12-equal
cage. "shrutar" is still choice #1, though.

> But the thing is, other than some statement about
> romantic music using the augmented and diminished
> temperaments, and 12 better representing those than
> 31, what it comes down to is personal pref. Paul has
> a talent for describing his personal prefs as
> objective facts.

no, i meant stuff related to the former, not personal preference. see
my last post (and below).

> >I really wonder why Mathieu had an opinion about
> >31-et in this repertoire, and what it could possibly
> >have been based on.
>
> I took a look at his book once... and unfortunately
> can't say anything even remotely good about it.

he shows that beethoven et. al. make explicit use of enharmonic
equivalence, which means that a closed circle of 12 tones is implied.
he even maps out the actual unison vectors which he thinks beethoven,
brahms, etc. are banishing, with musical examples.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i'm not willing to argue against you *too* strongly
> > yet, because i haven't yet spent the time on the
> > experiment, but my hunch is that 31edo will work
> > great for long stretches of Mahler's symphonies.
> > i'd also guess for Brahms, too.
>
> Inspired by this comment, I uploaded a piano reduction of the
Brahms
> #2 to tuning_files. It makes quite a showpiece for grail, since
sweet-
> sounding 5-limit passages are followed by distinctly microtonal
ones.
> While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly suggests to
> me that it might be a good thing for Brahms.

why? "grail" is a 12-tone "well-temperament" of some sort, isn't it?
clearly 31-equal doesn't close on itself the way a 12-tone well-
temperament does. this makes all the difference when enharmonic
modulation comes into play.

_The Harmonic Experience_

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Louis_Nelson@a... wrote:
> What book are you talking about when referring to "Mathieu's Book?"
>
> >not true for beethoven or most composers since (see mathieu's book
> >for evidence). i'd say late 15th through late 18th, with
exceptions
> >such as bach.

>> And/or 31-equal guitar (do you have it yet, Paul? If
>> so, howabout a post on this axe, and what you've been
>> doing with it?).
>
>carl, you missed a long stretch of time on this list. i played that
>guitar a lot for a while, and diatonicism was just pure bliss. lots
>of blues variations and such too, posted to this list about that.
>while it's spend most of its life in the 31-equal version of standard
>tuning (and will soon return to it when the piano is put into 12-out-
>of-31), it's now in the open tuning i use on acoustic guitar for
>research and development purposes. i'm still mulling the fretting for
>my microtonal acoustic guitar, pretty important right now since my
>acoustic duo is actually making more money than the big fusion band
>right now and i'm eager to push it out of the 12-equal
>cage. "shrutar" is still choice #1, though.

What type of axe is it? Who did the work? And do I understand
correctly that it's in 12-out-of-31, or is it a 31-tone instrument?

>> But the thing is, other than some statement about
>> romantic music using the augmented and diminished
>> temperaments, and 12 better representing those than
>> 31, what it comes down to is personal pref. Paul has
>> a talent for describing his personal prefs as
>> objective facts.
>
>no, i meant stuff related to the former, not personal
>preference.

There's an effect there, but it *is* personal preference.

>he shows that beethoven et. al. make explicit use of enharmonic
>equivalence, which means that a closed circle of 12 tones is implied.
>he even maps out the actual unison vectors which he thinks beethoven,
>brahms, etc. are banishing, with musical examples.

Well, there's not going to be any argument there.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> What type of axe is it?

a carvin with a thick flat ebony fingerboard.

> Who did the work?

our own john starrett, of course! neil was selling it . . .

> And do I understand
> correctly that it's in 12-out-of-31, or is it a 31-tone instrument?

the latter. i can play any diatonic music comfortably well into the
second octave, but only if i warm up on it for a while. the highest
frets are fingernail fodder, like a sarod.

>> What type of axe is it?
>
>a carvin with a thick flat ebony fingerboard.
>
>> Who did the work?
>
>our own john starrett, of course! neil was selling it . . .

Rockin'!

>> And do I understand
>> correctly that it's in 12-out-of-31, or is it a 31-tone instrument?
>
>the latter. i can play any diatonic music comfortably well into the
>second octave, but only if i warm up on it for a while. the highest
>frets are fingernail fodder, like a sarod.

How does this compare to your 22-tET axe?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >i can play any diatonic music comfortably well into the
> >second octave, but only if i warm up on it for a while. the
highest
> >frets are fingernail fodder, like a sarod.
>
> How does this compare to your 22-tET axe?

i can play anywhere on the 22-equal axe. both have two full octaves.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> At what point, when the retunings of a piece alter the tunings of
the 'notes' to a great degree, does one consider it "recomposing"? If,
in the process of actually changing notes - because isn't that really
what is happening? - you are altering the composition into a newly
created piece?

This is getting into philsophy. One thing I've noticed is the
difference between rainbow and rail when it comes to this; rainbow is
1/4-comma meantone bridged by some sharp thirds. The sharp thirds to
me sound out of tune, so we might say we are not recomposing, but
rescoring. With grail, the thirds sound microtonal--they sound not so
much like out of tune thirds as like a microtonal rescoring. However,
there isn't all that much difference, cents-wise, between them.

> This is, in a sense, a somewhat rhetorical question; however, your
project is advancing to a high degree of realization, and you are
making claims that, while to some extent grounded in various theorems
of tuning, also contain a very large amount of personal preference. So
you now enter the same territory as one who would take Brahms, for
example, and say "I bet this would 'sound' a lot better if I changed
some of these notes."

Not really. I'm talking about the rescoring of Brahms in 31-equal; it
would *not* have microtonal passages. It would clearly be the same
piece, with sweeter-sounding thirds. There would be questions, of
course, as to how to deal with various chords and progressions, and
you would need to use your noggin when doing the scoring.

>Not really. I'm talking about the rescoring of Brahms in 31-equal; it
>would *not* have microtonal passages. It would clearly be the same
>piece, with sweeter-sounding thirds. There would be questions, of
>course, as to how to deal with various chords and progressions, and
>you would need to use your noggin when doing the scoring.

Paul's point is that no matter how you use your noggin, you'll get
comma shifts and/or drift, which he, and millions of people like him,
don't like.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> These are just things I'm thinking about as I watch people changing
music before our very ears.

To put this into perspective, consider the following:

(1) I was talking about a 4-hand piano version rendered from a midi
file; you made no remarks about the huge change that involves.

(2) Playing Brahms in 31-et is a smaller and much less egregious
change that playing Mozart in 12-et, yet you work for an organization
which does the latter as a matter of routine. Is that somehow more
acceptable for some reason, and if so, what is the reason?

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

> beethoven et al used plenty of "the other" vanishing comma of 12-tone
> besides the 81:80 (which vanishes in meantone).

We know he isn't a meantone composer, yes.

it doesn't matter
> whether you consider the other one the major diesis (648:625), minor
> diesis (128:125), the diaschisma, the schisma, or the pythagorean
> comma -- all are equivalent if the 81:80 vanishes. but rendering such
> pieces in 31-equal would force either drifts or shifts of 1 degree of
> 31-equal, or 39 cents -- far worse than the usual 81:80 comma problem
> in just intonation.

You are making it sound as if this is a real heavy-lifting project,
such as converting Beethoven to 22-equal. With 31, we can start by
simply taking every note to be exactly what Beethoven wrote in the
score. Then where an adjustment would improve things, adjust.

> note that i'm not implying 12-equal must be used -- any truly
> *closed* 12-tone tuning would be fine -- 12-equal is simply the
> *regular* member of this family.
>
> > If you want an example of something which might cause problems, try
> a
> > Stravinksy piece in octatonic.
>
> ah, yes, the "diminished scale", based on 648:625 vanishing.
>
> > Symphony of the Psalms didn't sound at
> > all right in some keys.
>
> i need to familiarize myself with this piece. suggested recordings?

I have the Shaw/Atlanta, which is fine, but I don't know how it
compares to other recordings.

i
> wonder if any stretches of it would work in other "diminished"
> tunings, such as 28-equal, 16-equal, etc. if only 648:625 is
> functionally vanishing, they should.

Trying it with 28 might be interesting; I think I'll give it a shot.

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

> > While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly suggests to
> > me that it might be a good thing for Brahms.
>
> why? "grail" is a 12-tone "well-temperament" of some sort, isn't it?

It shows that the Brahms #2 could benefit from sweet-sounding thirds.

on 6/9/03 9:58 AM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/9/03 11:19:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
> writes:
>
>> At what point, when the retunings of a piece alter the tunings of the
>> 'notes' to a great degree, does one consider it "recomposing"? If, in the
>> process
>> of actually changing notes - because isn't that really what is happening? -
>> you are altering the composition into a newly created piece?
>
> This has been the point for me when I object to Bach in meantone tunings,
> etc. And yet, Bach has remained great in equal temperament, even though it is
> much more likely that it was in Werckmeister III. If a composer was clearly
> in a specific tuning I would still argue to retain that tuning.

The Padgham well-tempered organ book suggests that Bach probably played on
quite a few organs that were in Silberman 1/6 comma mean tone. I can find
the text and post it here if anyone wants to read it.

> When JdL started this trend on the list to "retune", or merely joined in on
> it, I was aghast for the same reason that Jon is making. I've since tried to
> relax about it as an example of speculative theory. In that vein, and having
> played much music in 31-tone, I can understand how Gene would want to sweeten
> the pie. Exceptions aside, most music would sound more consonant in 31-tET
> than in 12-tET.

We are always lacking in our historical knowledge. Furthermore some things
that are "known" for a while get refuted later. So speculation always
remains, and the intuition can not be put in a cage. Meanwhile since we
know much much music in which 12et was likely NOT to have been used, then
for that music, NOT returning (meaning using 12et) is worse than returning,
because it is more likely to be wrong.

-Kurt Bigler

In a message dated 6/9/03 6:59:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkb@breathsense.com writes:

> The Padgham well-tempered organ book suggests that Bach probably played on
> quite a few organs that were in Silberman 1/6 comma mean tone. I can find
> the text and post it here if anyone wants to read it.
>
>

And Bach is legendary for pointing out the Wolf fifths in Silbermann's
tuning. Would like to hear more about Padgham, though. Please do post it.

As a matter of fact, I'd love to see real documentation that Silbermann used
sixth-comma meantone, rather than the hearsay of history.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Gene,

Some things, in polite and organized discussion, needn't have to be said; then again, leaving them out may make the wrong impression. So, I'll add at this point that I am well aware that these are forays into 'new' territory, explorations, experiments, etc. I realize that you aren't promoting these as end-all, be-all performances, so I am happy that *you* are happy exercising your 'tuning' muscles. We won't get anywhere at all if we don't try new things. In that sense, I'm there with you...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> To put this into perspective, consider the following:
>
> (1) I was talking about a 4-hand piano version rendered from a midi
> file; you made no remarks about the huge change that involves.

Did I really *have* to? I _especially_ didn't want to say anything after you had recently mentioned about getting ill from listening to too many midi reductions. I can not only sympathize, but I have had to hold myself back repeatedly in the sense that this stuff sounds so *bad* reduced to cheezy electronic sounds. Again, I realize that this is a wonderful toolset to explore, and keeping that in mind, I have avoided making commentary on both the midi presentation, as well as reducing a symphony to a piano piece.

For the record, I don't much care for arrangements of pieces, but it really has to do with how much the original is intrinsically locked into its 'orchestration'.

> (2) Playing Brahms in 31-et is a smaller and much less egregious
> change that playing Mozart in 12-et, yet you work for an organization
> which does the latter as a matter of routine. Is that somehow more
> acceptable for some reason, and if so, what is the reason?

Only acceptable in that:

1. that is how history has played out - this is where the music has landed (12tet) and, in most any sense, one can't go back. We do not speak in old English - even Shakespeare is presented in many linguistic inflections (not to mention wildly "creative" productions).

2. if I found it unacceptable, knowing full-well that there isn't really anyplace that would produce, on a regular basis, these works in their original intonations (subject to the millions of squabbles over just what the correct ones would be) - *if* I found it unacceptable, what should I do?

The main thing is that history - for good or bad - has moved the majority of performances of Mozart from whatever intended tuning(s) into 12tet; you, on the other hand, are taking accepted music and, on your own whims (to get "sweet thirds", etc) are single-handedly altering the performances of it.

It may very well sound good to you. If you propose that something like this be adopted by others, how would you propose to do it? And I DO speak on aesthetic and philosophical grounds, not tuning theory.

Cheers,
Jon

>> (2) Playing Brahms in 31-et is a smaller and much less egregious
>> change that playing Mozart in 12-et, yet you work for an organization
>> which does the latter as a matter of routine. Is that somehow more
>> acceptable for some reason, and if so, what is the reason?
>
>Only acceptable in that:
>
>1. that is how history has played out

How do you either of you get off saying the San Diego Symphony ('zthat
who you work for, Jon) plays Mozart in 12-et?

-Carl

on 6/9/03 4:44 PM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/9/03 6:59:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kkb@breathsense.com writes:
>
>> The Padgham well-tempered organ book suggests that Bach probably played on
>> quite a few organs that were in Silberman 1/6 comma mean tone. I can find
>> the text and post it here if anyone wants to read it.
>
> And Bach is legendary for pointing out the Wolf fifths in Silbermann's
> tuning. Would like to hear more about Padgham, though. Please do post it.
>
> As a matter of fact, I'd love to see real documentation that Silbermann used
> sixth-comma meantone, rather than the hearsay of history.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

I don't know whether this is real documentation. But I'll type in the
Silbermann chapter, which is not too long. Not sure this ends up being
worth much, but here it is, complete with a few typos, no doubt...

The Well-Tempered Organ, Charles A. Padgham, Positif Press, 1986.

Part Two. Chapter 4. Silberman (Sixth Comma Mean Tone)

Gottfried Silbermann (1683-1753) a contemporary and fellow organ prover of
J.S. Bach, was a famous German organ builder who also bilt clavichords and
early piano-fortes. As a kind of musical pun on his name he is noted for
his silvery organ mixtures. He was no lover of equal temperament in which
his beautiful mixtures would not preserve their purity and clarity of tone
and their blending qualities. it is said that he was prevails upon to tune
a few of his organs equally. He was the first to popularise the Cornet stop
which had five ranks (sometimes three in smaller organs), which contained
tierce and quint pipes. These multiple stops sound better in an unequal
temperament, and in fact they were mostly removed from English organs after
the introduction of equal temperament. Twenty years after Silbermann's
death the temperament he used was recorded with remarkable accuracy by the
German organist Georg A. Sorge who played two Silbermann organs in
Thüringen.

This temperament is a regular mean tone type in which eleven fifths are
equally flattened by 1/6-th Pythagorean comma, leaving a small wolf fifth
G#Eb sharp by 5/6-th comma (19.54 cents). It corresponds closely with
1/5-th Syntonic comma mean-tone because 1/6-th Pythagorean comma (3.91
cents) is nearly iequal to 1/5-th Syntonic comma (4.30 cents). Although
producing eitht reasonably good thirds, four are very sharp (by 29.33 cents)
which results in four major and four minor scales being very badly
intonated, three of the four major scales being unusable. It is thus a
restricted temperament in which it is not possible to play in all keys.
There is also no different key flavour amongst the good keys.

J.S. Bach is known to have played on Silbermann organs (Sumner 1966) and
would have experienced this tempering. It is interesting that on the face
of it the keys in which Bach wrote his organ works avoid teh bad keys in
this temperament. However, the degree of modulation used in his
compositions means that badly intonated invervals are frequently met with,
which results in some very rough sounding intervals. In general J.S. Bach's
organ works do not sound well in any restricted temperament with a
pronounced wolf, but sound better in an unrestricted good temperament.
[These are all terms that Padgham has defined in earlier chapters.]

However, as Lange (Lange 1972-3) points out Bach could have exploited the
bad intervals for extreme musical expression, for example by deliberately
using the Wolf. He quotes a number of examples including the A flat major
chorale in the St Matthew Passion, this key being the harshest in most mean
tone tunings.

[I'll skip the Tuning Procedure and just give the cents values here.]

0
86.31
196.09
305.86
392.18
501.96
588.27
698.04
784.36
894.14
1003.91
1090.22
1200.00

The temperings in the circle of fifths are:

C -1/6P G -1/6P D -1/6P A -1/6P E -1/6P B -1/6P F# -1/6P C# -1/6P G# Wolf
(+5/6P) Eb -1/6P Bb -1/6P F -1/6P C

The references given are as follows:

Sumner W.L. 1966 "The organs played by Bach", Eighth Music Book, 2nd
Edition. Ed. M. Hinrichsen, Hinrichsen and Peters, pp 71-115

Lange H.K.H. 1972-3 "Gottfried Silbermann's Organ Tuning", ISO Information
(a) No 8, Sept 1982, pp 543-556 (b) No 9, Feb 1983, pp 647-658 (c) No 10,
Nov 1973, pp 721-730

-Kurt Bigler

Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> How do you either of you get off saying the San Diego Symphony
> ('zthat who you work for, Jon)

Yep.

> plays Mozart in 12-et?

ROFLOL. You're right on that one: it may be 12, but *equal*? Or unanimous??

Yeah, this is where the rubber meets the road where tuning is concerned: we're talking about human beings, and it has been a while since they were calibrated...

Cheers,
Jon

>ROFLOL. You're right on that one: it may be 12, but *equal*?
>Or unanimous??
>
>Yeah, this is where the rubber meets the road where tuning is
>concerned: we're talking about human beings, and it has been a
>while since they were calibrated...

Not only that, who says they're even trying for 12? There's
this persistent myth in microtonality that the world is in 12.

-Carl

Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Not only that, who says they're even trying for 12? There's
> this persistent myth in microtonality that the world is in 12.

Well, microtonalists mythologize about a lot of things. But I sit in that beast, week in and out, and I have lived with one of the critters (my wife) for many years. Is it 12? Doesn't really matter all that much, because consensus is so far out of the question that one simply hangs a label on it. 12 works better than anything else.

Now if you were referring to whether her string quartet was "trying for 12", then you'd have a topic of discussion...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Paul's point is that no matter how you use your noggin, you'll get
> comma shifts and/or drift, which he, and millions of people like him,
> don't like.

I don't like crappy thirds. Obviously, it would be idiotic to drift by
a diesis, and if you do what I suggested and start out by looking at
the score exactly as notated, that won't happen. The noggin comes into
play, if ever, when you need to decide which compromise works best in
the occasional passages where the question even arises.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Did I really *have* to? I _especially_ didn't want to say anything
after you had recently mentioned about getting ill from listening to
too many midi reductions.

The problem is mostly with the strings. If someone could get an
artificial string sound that wasn't basically frightful, it would be a
true contribution. Keyboard instruments are much better.

> > (2) Playing Brahms in 31-et is a smaller and much less egregious
> > change that playing Mozart in 12-et, yet you work for an organization
> > which does the latter as a matter of routine. Is that somehow more
> > acceptable for some reason, and if so, what is the reason?
>
> Only acceptable in that:
>
> 1. that is how history has played out - this is where the music has
landed (12tet) and, in most any sense, one can't go back.

Yes we can. There is no technical obstacle to what I
proposed--training people to use 31-et instead. Of course, it's hardly
likely to actually happen.

We do not speak in old English - even Shakespeare is presented in many
linguistic inflections (not to mention wildly "creative" productions).

Shakes is early modern English, and we can understand him just fine
presented the way he wrote it.

> 2. if I found it unacceptable, knowing full-well that there isn't
really anyplace that would produce, on a regular basis, these works in
their original intonations (subject to the millions of squabbles over
just what the correct ones would be) - *if* I found it unacceptable,
what should I do?

If you found it unacceptable your complaints about playing Brahms in
31-equal would make a lot more sense.

> The main thing is that history - for good or bad - has moved the
majority of performances of Mozart from whatever intended tuning(s)
into 12tet; you, on the other hand, are taking accepted music and, on
your own whims (to get "sweet thirds", etc) are single-handedly
altering the performances of it.

Why should I or anyone care about "history" when "history" has got it
wrong? I don't see much difference between taking Mozart as notated
and playing it in 12-equal, and taking Brahms as notated and playing
it in 31-equal. One difference is that Mozart would certainly hate the
result, while the traditionalist Brahms might be an entirely different
story. On the whole, I think the Brahms would sound better anyway.

> It may very well sound good to you. If you propose that something
like this be adopted by others, how would you propose to do it?

I'm not a traveling salesman. People can do as they will.

>And I DO speak on aesthetic and philosophical grounds, not tuning theory.

Talking about "history" does make you sound a bit like a Hegelian, but
I don't see you've made any kind of argument by reifying it.

on 6/9/03 5:25 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>> ROFLOL. You're right on that one: it may be 12, but *equal*?
>> Or unanimous??
>>
>> Yeah, this is where the rubber meets the road where tuning is
>> concerned: we're talking about human beings, and it has been a
>> while since they were calibrated...
>
> Not only that, who says they're even trying for 12? There's
> this persistent myth in microtonality that the world is in 12.

Second.

C'mon you guys, you gotta be a little clearer. I don't know much about the
orchestra, but my understanding is that some instruments have both a Bb an
an A#, for example. My impression was that the orchestra (piano aside) had
little at all to do with 12et (is someone really saying otherwise?). Then
there are fixed-tuning instruments (which are more than 12-tone) and
open-tuning instruments, which presumably will be handled somewhat like the
way (non-operatic!) singers handle their spontaneous tuning: in relation to
what they hear, which is probably closer to a contextually-chosen Just
tuning.

This is one thing that has always confused me about the assumptions of how
12-tone tunings have supposedly influenced composition over the last several
centuries. Is it because these composers sat at the piano to do their
composition? (This is probably just revealing my ignorance, in which case,
apologies.)

It seems to me it might be useful to specify tunings in a less limited (not
12-tone) way, and to use these greater-than-12-tone specifications with
additional information about how the 12-tone situation should be
interpreted. For example, just take the cycle of 5ths a little further than
a span of 12, and for 12-tone purposes, clearly specify the break between
where the sharps end and the flats begin (e.g. F#/Db). Mind you I just
barely have the right terminology to talk about this, so apologies again.

Are there .scl format variants that will order things by cicle of fifths
instead of chromatically which would allow more flexible 12-tone subsets to
be taken of greater-than-12-tone scales that extend further around a cycle
of 5ths? I would like to have tunings available which represent
greater-than-12-tone orchestral instruments. Aren't these instruments
always Just? But what kind of Just?

(I should probably be reading the archives more, but I hardly have time to
keep up with the list!)

-Kurt Bigler

>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Some comments regarding
W. A. Mathieu's book _The Harmonic Experience_
and tuning issues (in particular, 31 notes)

As a private student of Mathieu, he's personally gone over most of this
book with me, and corrected many of my misunderstandings of it--so I
think the below is a good (but very summary) representation of the
author's intention.

Mathieu's approach to harmony is fundamentally about coming to hear how
12-tone equal-temperment can _represent_ 5 and/or 7-limit just
intonation. For example, if you play a C major triad, and then an E
major triad, and then a C major triad, and then a Ab major triad, then
the G# and the Ab are the same key on a 12-tet keyboard, but the G# is
heard as representing 25/16 while the Ab is heard as representing 8/5.

The real magic comes, though, when you play CMajor, EMajor, AbMajor,
CMajor, because a big zap occurs when the same equal-tempered note
changes from representing 25/16 G# to 8/5 Ab.

So, from an hearing perspective, it's about hearing what
just-intonation harmony is being represented in an equal-tempered
harmonic progressions, and especially hearing how notes are modulating
from representing one just-intonation note to another.

The final element to the mix is symmetrical harmony, such as whole tone
or symetrical diminished harmony, because this type of harmony
_depends_ upon the equal-spacing of 12-tet to work. So, for example,
if you play the notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C-Bb-Ab-F#-E-D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-D,
somewhere in there, between Bb and F#, is distributed the sensation of
modulating from 5-limit just harmony in C to symmetrical 12-tet, and
then to 5-limit just harmony in D.

Now, Mathieu outlines in the book the 31 just intervals which are
easiest to represent in 12-tet. For example, while the Great Deisis
above is easy to play in 12-tet, it is almost impossible to create a
pythagorean comma, because this would require modulating through 12
keys fast enough that sense memory would remember the first key you
played.

So, although Mathieu is a fan of alternative tunings, was a student of
Easley Blackwood, author of "The Structure of Recognizable Diatonic
Tunings", and can sing (and expects his students to be able to sing) 31
just intervals, tuning-wise he is a big fan of 12-tet harmony with
variable-pitch solo instruments that can hone in on the just-intoned
intervals being represented, or ensembles such as Renaissance singers,
who can adjust there harmony continously to be in just-intonation,
without being limited to only being perfectly in tune in one key.

I love this group!

Louis

>The problem is mostly with the strings. If someone could get an
>artificial string sound that wasn't basically frightful, it would be a
>true contribution. Keyboard instruments are much better.

This is very much a problem of the controller. The attack, decay,
bowing, etc. of strings has much to do with their sound.

-Carl

>This is one thing that has always confused me about the assumptions
>of how 12-tone tunings have supposedly influenced composition over
>the last several centuries. Is it because these composers sat at
>the piano to do their composition?

No, but they start using enharmonic shifts that rely on commas other
than 81:80 vanishing.

>Are there .scl format variants that will order things by cicle of
>fifths instead of chromatically which would allow more flexible
>12-tone subsets to be taken of greater-than-12-tone scales that
>extend further around a cycle of 5ths?

Not sure what you're asking, but Scala certainly allows one to
extend scales in all sorts of ways and save the results to a file.

By the way, the format doesn't enforce chromatic order, ascending or
otherwise.

>I would like to have tunings available which represent greater-than-
>12-tone orchestral instruments. Aren't these instruments always
>Just? But what kind of Just?

They're whatever the players happen to play. I played trumpet for
many years, and sang in choirs for most of my life, and I don't
believe it's even possible to consistently hit target harmonies other
than just ones, without specifically practicing very hard (I know of
no school of "play 12-equal" that comes close) to do so.

Melodic tuning can be almost anything.

-Carl

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> The problem is mostly with the strings.

No, the problem is not mostly with strings. There are good string libraries out, as well as good libraries for all wind, brass, and percussion libraries.

The matter of making a non-acoustic, non-real-time instrumental simulation actually *work* take a great deal of effort and understanding not only of the instruments involved, but of all the playing techniques that players of those instruments would use. You can't mimic the nuances of a subtle performance if you don't know about the gestural aspects of playing, or if you don't plan on 'playing' them. Give me the best multi-layered string sample setup, and in the hands of a hack it will sound laughable, and in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing it will sound... similar to real string sections.

> Yes we can. There is no technical obstacle to what I
> proposed--training people to use 31-et instead. Of course, it's hardly
> likely to actually happen.

That is what I meant by it can't happen. I realize the technology. I also recognize the real world for what it is.

> Shakes is early modern English, and we can understand him just fine
> presented the way he wrote it.

I didn't mean to quibble with the literal description of his period English, but I'm sure you have it to a 't'. As to your second point, you speak from the perspective of a university professor - I bet his speeches sound distinctly odd to residents of South Central Los Angeles. The language has changed (I didn't say evolved).

> If you found it unacceptable your complaints about playing Brahms in
> 31-equal would make a lot more sense.

I don't agree, sorry.

> Why should I or anyone care about "history" when "history" has
> got it wrong?

You don't have to care; that you choose to ignore common practice (in the case of 12tet Mozart) is your particular path.

> I don't see much difference between taking Mozart as notated
> and playing it in 12-equal, and taking Brahms as notated and playing
> it in 31-equal.

Fine. I do see a difference. And I wish I would have been there, within years of Mozart's death, to accurately chronicle the proper tunings and try to leave a clear path for musicians to continue to perform the music *as Mozart intended*. I've just finished a lenghthy book on the early music revival, and it pretty much confirmed what I've thought: it is virtually impossible to continue a musical performance tradition in the intent of the composer, because the ego of performers continually wants to inflict something of themselves on the works in question.

> I'm not a traveling salesman. People can do as they will.

I don't buy that at all, Gene. You wouldn't make statements about having a fortune and starting a school, much less than post a great deal on these things. I think you *do* want to influence opinion, and I know you believe strongly in your own developments. I'd be pretty disappointed if it was otherwise.

> Talking about "history" does make you sound a bit like a Hegelian, but
> I don't see you've made any kind of argument by reifying it.

I didn't convince you? I'm shocked!

Cheers,
Jon

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:18:24 -0000, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

>Gene,
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> Inspired by this comment, I uploaded a piano reduction of the Brahms
>> #2 to tuning_files. It makes quite a showpiece for grail, since sweet-
>> sounding 5-limit passages are followed by distinctly microtonal ones.
>> While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly suggests to
>> me that it might be a good thing for Brahms. The sweetness of the
>> thirds would shed a whole new light on the piece.
>
>At what point, when the retunings of a piece alter the tunings of the 'notes' to a great degree, does one consider it "recomposing"? If, in the process of actually changing notes - because isn't that really what is happening? - you are altering the composition into a newly created piece?

At the very least, it would be an arrangement, like my 31-ET version of
Ravel's Pavane.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/pavane-31.mid

(It's also an arrangement in the more traditional sense, since Ravel wrote
it for piano and not a combination of English horn, harp, marimba, reed
organ, ocarina, etc.)

At some point, a rearrangement has so little resemblance to the original
that it might make sense to think of it as a wholly new composition
(decomposition?), like my 13-ET rendition of Pachelbel's Canon.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/canon13-ap.mid

Then at some point in the middle it gets hard to draw the line, like my
"Porcupines in the Moonlight", a 15-ET version of Beethoven's Moonlight
Sonata. Arrangement or recomposition?

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/herman_miller.html

I especially like the effect of the third movement, but it's no substitute
for a good well-tempered version, and I wouldn't try to claim it's anything
that Beethoven would approve of. Still, I enjoy listening to these sorts of
retuning experiments, and the Grail retunings sound quite a bit better than
I imagined they would from seeing the description of the tuning.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44367

> C'mon you guys, you gotta be a little clearer. I don't know much
about the orchestra, but my understanding is that some instruments
have both a Bb an an A#, for example.

***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are resolutely
in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??

Patrick Ozzard-Low is trying to do something about this, but until
then...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > The problem is mostly with the strings.
>
> No, the problem is not mostly with strings. There are good string
libraries out, as well as good libraries for all wind, brass, and
percussion libraries.

What would be an actual example?

> > I don't see much difference between taking Mozart as notated
> > and playing it in 12-equal, and taking Brahms as notated and playing
> > it in 31-equal.
>
> Fine. I do see a difference.

What is it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:18:24 -0000, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>

> At the very least, it would be an arrangement, like my 31-ET version of
> Ravel's Pavane.
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/pavane-31.mid

If you had simply gone ahead and played every note in Ravel's score
exactly as he wrote it but in 31-et, would it still count as an
arragement? In what way is this different than taking Mozart and
playing every note exactly as he wrote it, only in 12-et?

> At some point, a rearrangement has so little resemblance to the original
> that it might make sense to think of it as a wholly new composition
> (decomposition?), like my 13-ET rendition of Pachelbel's Canon.
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/canon13-ap.mid

You can't do 13 or 15 without it being an arragement in the sense that
the score does not translate directly to a tuning, as it will for a
meantone system.

>Still, I enjoy listening to these sorts of
> retuning experiments, and the Grail retunings sound quite a bit
better than
> I imagined they would from seeing the description of the tuning.

It did what I wanted it to do, which was to let me retune in a sort of
meantone with a safety belt against total stinkers. That it still is
worth listening even when applied to the likes of Brahms is not
something I was sure was going to happen, but I find the results quite
interesting.

>***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are resolutely
>in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??

They're in with enharmonic equivalence, but not with 12.

-Carl

>>No, the problem is not mostly with strings. There are good string
>>libraries out, as well as good libraries for all wind, brass, and
>>percussion libraries.
>
>What would be an actual example?

There are near-perfect string physical models, and Carlos demonstrated
almost 20 years ago that even the very primitive digital additive
synthesis, carefully done, can be excellent.

-Carl

on 6/9/03 7:49 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>
> /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44367
>
>> C'mon you guys, you gotta be a little clearer. I don't know much
> about the orchestra, but my understanding is that some instruments
> have both a Bb an an A#, for example.
>
>
> ***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are resolutely
> in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??

Mind you I've never played one. But I remember in high school people
complaining when the band director got fussy and made them use the flat
(which was harder to reach) rather than the sharp. That was 30+ years ago,
but have these instruments really changed? They were "modern" back then,
no?

>
> Patrick Ozzard-Low is trying to do something about this, but until
> then...
>
> J. 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/
>
>
>

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > No, the problem is not mostly with strings. There are good string
> libraries out, as well as good libraries for all wind, brass, and
> percussion libraries.
>
> What would be an actual example?

Sorry to say that, since I have not had need to buy them, I am not up on the current 'best' sample libraries. A few years ago the McGill University sample cds were considered near the top, but the past decade has seen an avalanche of 'product' for sampled sound, certainly with a large part of it geared towards reproducing acoustic instruments. The film composer industry uses this stuff big time, and they know how to manipulate the samples to make *very* effective emulations of real orchestras. If one really wanted to invest the time and money into making a recreation of an orchestra playing in non-12tet, they could come pretty close.

If - big *if* - you are interested in samplers and libraries, I will ask a couple of colleagues that do film and tv work for recommendations. I know their work and it is remarkable for its similarity - sort of the audio equivalents of the digital actors in "Matix:Reloaded". The only caveat is they may also be using quite a bit of custom library work.

> > > I don't see much difference between taking Mozart as notated
> > > and playing it in 12-equal, and taking Brahms as notated and playing
> > > it in 31-equal.
> >
> > Fine. I do see a difference.
>
> What is it?

One is an accepted (by most of the populace) cultural shift that has taken place over nearly 2 centuries, the other an individual attempt to force one thing onto another ("I don't like crappy thirds"). And while playing Mozart in 12et may very well be _technically_ inaccurate, the question is (as Jesse Jackson so eloquently spoke) moot.

But we all pick out battles, philosophically and otherwise. You may retune the world to your heart's content; I just may be unconvinced, as will, possibly, others. That's life in the big city.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44383

> >***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are
resolutely
> >in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??
>
> They're in with enharmonic equivalence, but not with 12.
>
> -Carl

***But they're all *supposedly* tuned and standardized to 12-tET.
yes??

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44385

> on 6/9/03 7:49 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44367
> >
> >> C'mon you guys, you gotta be a little clearer. I don't know much
> > about the orchestra, but my understanding is that some instruments
> > have both a Bb an an A#, for example.
> >
> >
> > ***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are
resolutely
> > in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??
>
> Mind you I've never played one. But I remember in high school
people
> complaining when the band director got fussy and made them use the
flat
> (which was harder to reach) rather than the sharp. That was 30+
years ago,
> but have these instruments really changed? They were "modern" back
then,
> no?
>

***Hi Kurt!

Well, I think, though, they're going for the same pitch with both
keys, but we'll have to ask our resident woodwind expert, Johnny
Reinhard, what he thinks of this.

Johnny, we're not talking about *taping* or *adjusting* orchestral
instruments here, just the way they are, for better or (as most of
*us* think, worse) coming "out of the box...)

Thanks!

Joseph

>/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44383
>
>> >***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are
>resolutely
>> >in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??
>>
>> They're in with enharmonic equivalence, but not with 12.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***But they're all *supposedly* tuned and standardized to 12-tET.
>yes??

Uh, they're all presumably tuned to a single reference pitch.

Really, it's as if these things had pitch buttons on them. Have
you ever tried to play a violin, bassoon, trombone, or trumpet?

-Carl

>http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/herman_miller.html
>
>I especially like the effect of the third movement,

What's going on at 3:38?

Otherwise, really nice. The 3rd mvmt. is one of the
first B. works I really got into. It works very well
in 15.

-Carl

>But I remember in high school people complaining when the band
>director got fussy and made them use the flat (which was harder
>to reach) rather than the sharp. That was 30+ years ago, but
>have these instruments really changed? They were "modern" back
>then, no?

OK, there are no note buttons on instruments, except the piano
and tuned percussion. There are positions. All elementary
methods I have seen teach only one position per enharmonic pair
per octave. But all players at the undergrad level or above are
familiar, consciously or not, with the subtle intonation effects
of alternate positions and are capable of fine tuning control
with their embouchures.

On the trumpet, one of the least flexible brass instruments,
there are two slides, controlled by thumb and 3rd or ring finger,
plus lip. Even in high school our first three chairs routinely
used these slides, alternate fingerings, and listened for blend.

-Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:18 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Observations on tempering

> Carl,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > How do you either of you get off saying the San Diego Symphony
> > ('zthat who you work for, Jon)
>
> Yep.
>
> > plays Mozart in 12-et?
>
> ROFLOL. You're right on that one: it may be 12, but *equal*? Or
unanimous??
>
> Yeah, this is where the rubber meets the road where tuning is concerned:
we're talking about human beings, and it has been a while since they were
calibrated...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

i'm glad you mentioned this, Carl, because
it's exactly what i was going to add to the
discussion.

back on the subject of Mahler, there's not a
single shred of evidence that any of the performances
of his symphonies given under his own direction
were ever in 12edo, even nominally. and thanks
to the Peter Yates _Soundings_ article, now we
know for sure that Mahler was fond of meantone.

i've made the point again and again that an orchestra's
tuning is *flexible* and *fluid*, and Mahler's
painstaking care as a conductor, especially concerning
his own work, would have definitely extended into
the realm of intonation. i'm hoping to capture
some of that in my MIDI retunings of his pieces.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> You are making it sound as if this is a real heavy-lifting project,
> such as converting Beethoven to 22-equal. With 31, we can start by
> simply taking every note to be exactly what Beethoven wrote in the
> score. Then where an adjustment would improve things, adjust.

where there's an enharmonic modulation, the 39-cent anomaly can't be
adjusted away.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > > While this is hardly how 31-et would work, it certainly
suggests to
> > > me that it might be a good thing for Brahms.
> >
> > why? "grail" is a 12-tone "well-temperament" of some sort, isn't
it?
>
> It shows that the Brahms #2 could benefit from sweet-sounding
>thirds.

yes, but achieved how? through 31-equal? this will involve
difficulties (as i've been trying to point out). other ways (such as
adaptive JI)? sure!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > Paul's point is that no matter how you use your noggin, you'll get
> > comma shifts and/or drift, which he, and millions of people like
him,
> > don't like.
>
> I don't like crappy thirds. Obviously, it would be idiotic to drift
by
> a diesis,

okay . . .

> and if you do what I suggested and start out by looking at
> the score exactly as notated, that won't happen.

only if you decide to use diesis shifts. any less idiotic?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >***I don't believe so... modern orchestral instruments are
resolutely
> >in 12 with enharmonic equivalence, I believe, yes??
>
> They're in with enharmonic equivalence, but not with 12.

that makes it sound like there are more than 12 enharmonic-
equivalence classes per octave. there aren't.

>> They're in with enharmonic equivalence, but not with 12.
>
>that makes it sound like there are more than 12 enharmonic-
>equivalence classes per octave. there aren't.

Let me clarify:

() Modern orchestras are committed to enharmonic equivalence
to the extent modern orchestral repertoire is committed to it.

() This does not imply 12-tone equal temperament.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/herman_miller.html
> >
> >I especially like the effect of the third movement,
>
> What's going on at 3:38?
>
> Otherwise, really nice. The 3rd mvmt. is one of the
> first B. works I really got into. It works very well
> in 15.

Of course, putting it into 31 is a hell of a lot easier. It seems to
me you are contradicting yourself a bit by saying it works nicely in
15 and then supporting Paul's claim that the sky will fall if you
tried to put in into 31.

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

> i've made the point again and again that an orchestra's
> tuning is *flexible* and *fluid*, and Mahler's
> painstaking care as a conductor, especially concerning
> his own work, would have definitely extended into
> the realm of intonation. i'm hoping to capture
> some of that in my MIDI retunings of his pieces.

I managed to retune one movement of the Mahler 9 if you are interested.

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

> where there's an enharmonic modulation, the 39-cent anomaly can't be
> adjusted away.

So you bite the bullet. Why make more of it than that?

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

> yes, but achieved how? through 31-equal? this will involve
> difficulties (as i've been trying to point out).

Minor ones compared to putting Beethoven into 15-equal. So far you
haven't said anything which isn't obvious, but you seem to make more
these difficulties than I think is warrented.

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

> > and if you do what I suggested and start out by looking at
> > the score exactly as notated, that won't happen.
>
> only if you decide to use diesis shifts. any less idiotic?

Certainly. In any case, you can't assume doing that will always sound
wrong.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > > and if you do what I suggested and start out by looking at
> > > the score exactly as notated, that won't happen.
> >
> > only if you decide to use diesis shifts. any less idiotic?
>
> Certainly. In any case, you can't assume doing that will always sound
> wrong.

Maybe it would help if you gave an example of a passage which 31-equal
just can't hack.

In a message dated 6/10/03 2:33:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

>
> OK, there are no note buttons on instruments, except the piano
> and tuned percussion. There are positions. All elementary
> methods I have seen teach only one position per enharmonic pair
> per octave.

Carl, I'm amazed that you could ever have thought otherwise. Positions are
only to get in the ball park of pitch targeting. Elementary methods are
exactly that, elementary. There is a quantum leap between them and the
professional. There are numerous ways to play numerous pitches on numerous instruments.

But all players at the undergrad level or above are
> familiar, consciously or not, with the subtle intonation effects
> of alternate positions and are capable of fine tuning control
> with their embouchures.
>

Consciously speaking, unless the player can hear the intonation in their
head, there is no chance in hell that they will be able to "perform" the correct
pitch required. Furthermore, 12-tET is about the hardest tuning there is to
perform accurately. It is not a natural tuning, but one taught by rote after
many years of training.

Subconsciously, a players hopes for the best and accepts just about anything
as long as nobody complains.

> On the trumpet, one of the least flexible brass instruments,
> there are two slides, controlled by thumb and 3rd or ring finger,
> plus lip. Even in high school our first three chairs routinely
> used these slides, alternate fingerings, and listened for blend.
>

This is a myth. The trumpet has a minor third range with embouchure alone, a
major second below and a semitone above. When we performed Bach's
Brandenburg Concerto #2 on March 29, 2003, piccolo trumpeter Tom Verchot amazingly
negotiated the Werckmeister III tuning laid out by harpsichordist Rebecca
Pechefsky...with only 4 days preparation from rehearsal to concert.

Slides are good for quartertones if there is no 4th piston added as per Don
Ellis. Louis Babin was exceptional for his use of slides to play, but they are
usually a bit stiff for accurate controls.

Incidentally, Paul, harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky thinks it's nonsense
that she doesn't tune to pure octaves on the instrument.

> -Carl
>
>
>

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/10/03 12:14:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> Well, I think, though, they're going for the same pitch with both
> keys, but we'll have to ask our resident woodwind expert, Johnny
> Reinhard, what he thinks of this.
>

There alternate keys for certain notes on most woodwinds, but they are more
for technique flexibility than for pitch differentiation. Sometimes an
alternative key, or fingering (called false fingerings by some) has a slightly
different pitch which can be useful if there is a tendency for a note to be either
sharp or flat. Every note has its tendencies to be either sharp or flat,
sometimes occurring before the instrument has been warmed up, or as a result of a
particular reed. There are usually timbral differences as well, but this too
can be valuable such as when needing a bigger tone or a darker tone.

Flutes can change pitch by rolling the flute to the mouth. Open hole flutes
(most used by professionals) offer the most possibilities (which is why Robert
Dick had an open hole bass flute made).

Clarinets start flat and bassoons start sharp. Clarinets can change reeds
and barrels for tuning. Bassoons don't tune up at all. These instruments
require a "resonance pocket" for optimum timbre, the pitch is then adjusted
afterwards, as regards training. Beginners don't have the "resonance pocket" to be
in tune accurately.

Bassoon tuning comes from a multitude of different techniques, only possible
when the mind "hears" the exact tuning, which takes many years for
"conventional" 12-tET.
Even assuming that the instrument is in perfect repair, if one was to simply
"press and blow" the sound would be horrendous. There is a different mental
placement as well as an inner shape for each note. There is a different mental
placement and inner shape for each trill, and even for legato connections of
all sizes.

Other tuning techniques for bassoon, and applicable to other woodwinds such
as oboe and saxophone, include:
1. partial shading, or "depressings" of keys
2. partial covering of tone holes, keeping fingerings in contact with the
stream of air
3. glottal drops which lower pitches from a semitone to a whole tone,
depending on the unique characteristics of the note
4. embouchure change (usually as a last result because one has to return to
the choice embouchure soon after and this is difficult in faster passages)
5. wind velocity changes
6. alternative fingerings

There are no pitches which are impossible to play on woodwinds, though some
are easier than others. I hope this helps.

Johnny Reinhard

> Johnny, we're not talking about *taping* or *adjusting* orchestral
> instruments here, just the way they are, for better or (as most of
> *us* think, worse) coming "out of the box...)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>

>>OK, there are no note buttons on instruments, except the piano and
>>tuned percussion. There are positions. All elementary methods I
>>have seen teach only one position per enharmonic pair per octave.
>
>Carl, I'm amazed that you could ever have thought otherwise.

Johnny, I was correcting others on this list.

>Elementary methods are exactly that, elementary.

Exactly what I was saying.

>Consciously speaking, unless the player can hear the intonation in
>their head, there is no chance in hell that they will be able to
>"perform" the correct pitch required.

Of course. I just meant they may not linguistically realize that's
what they're doing if you ask them. As an extreme example, Barbershop
singers intuitively find the 7-limit, but if you ask most singers,
I doubt they know the term "7-limit".

>Furthermore, 12-tET is about the hardest tuning there is to perform
>accurately.

Exactly what I've been saying.

>>On the trumpet, one of the least flexible brass instruments,
>>there are two slides, controlled by thumb and 3rd or ring finger,
>>plus lip. Even in high school our first three chairs routinely
>>used these slides, alternate fingerings, and listened for blend.
>
>This is a myth. The trumpet has a minor third range with embouchure
>alone, a major second below and a semitone above.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me, a trained trumpet player, on
exactly what I said that isn't true.

Embouchure adjustments can do far more than a min 3rd, though fine
control is often best achieved with slides.

>Slides are good for quartertones if there is no 4th piston added as
>per Don Ellis. Louis Babin was exceptional for his use of slides
>to play, but they are usually a bit stiff for accurate controls.

Then why would they be good for quartertones?

>Incidentally, Paul, harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky thinks it's
>nonsense that she doesn't tune to pure octaves on the instrument.

I've never measured it, but I suspect there's roughly zero
inharmonicity in harpsichord timbre after the attack transient has
worn off. If so, you tune 1200-cent octaves when you eliminate
beats on the instrument.

-Carl

>Of course, putting it into 31 is a hell of a lot easier. It seems to
>me you are contradicting yourself a bit by saying it works nicely in
>15 and then supporting Paul's claim that the sky will fall if you
>tried to put in into 31.

I didn't support such a claim, I just said there's music which does
move by major and minor diesic commas.

>Minor ones compared to putting Beethoven into 15-equal.

That depends on the passage. In the 3rd mvmt. of the moonlight, I
don't hear any syntonic or diesic movement. Then, there might be
passages which involve the minor diesis but not the syntonic comma.
In such passages the transfer to 15 would be "easier" than 31.

I was surprised how well the passage tolerated the 15-tET fifths.

>>only if you decide to use diesis shifts. any less idiotic?
>
>Certainly. In any case, you can't assume doing that will always
>sound wrong.

That's why I said it comes down to personal preference. To Paul,
these things always sound wrong. This has caused many flame wars
on this list over the years, and I don't see the point of rehashing
it now. Paul, would you please qualify statements about this in
the future?

-Carl

Carl, pardon me if you were only responding to others. It looked like it was
you, but maybe it was sarcasm on your part. Please remove your name from my
comments.

> Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me, a trained trumpet player, on
> exactly what I said that isn't true.

I believe you had said that the trumpet is the least flexible of the brass
instruments and I was saying that it has a much bigger intervallic flexibility
than the woodwinds.

>
> Embouchure adjustments can do far more than a min 3rd, though fine
> control is often best achieved with slides.
>
> >Slides are good for quartertones if there is no 4th piston added as
> >per Don Ellis. Louis Babin was exceptional for his use of slides
> >to play, but they are usually a bit stiff for accurate controls.
>
> Then why would they be good for quartertones?
>

Perhaps because these are bigger leaps and bigger adjustments than
temperament distinctions.

> >Incidentally, Paul, harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky thinks it's
> >nonsense that she doesn't tune to pure octaves on the instrument.
>
> I've never measured it, but I suspect there's roughly zero
> inharmonicity in harpsichord timbre after the attack transient has
> worn off. If so, you tune 1200-cent octaves when you eliminate
> beats on the instrument.
>
> -Carl

Then we agree on this. For me personally, there is no difference in hearing
a single cent melodically than there is hearing a 1200 cent octave
melodically. No hearing of beats involved.

best, Johnny

>Carl, pardon me if you were only responding to others. It looked like
>it was you, but maybe it was sarcasm on your part. Please remove your
>name from my comments.

Sorry; didn't mean to get testy.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > where there's an enharmonic modulation, the 39-cent anomaly can't
be
> > adjusted away.
>
> So you bite the bullet. Why make more of it than that?

because it violates the composer's intent for a smooth elision, for
example each diminished seventh chord has four possible ways it can
resolve; classically the spelling (and often, the tuning) would
correspond with the ultimate resolution, but romantic composers made
use of the ambiguity and i wouldn't want to rob their music of this
effect.

plus the whole idea of strictly observing enharmonic distinctions
when writing a score began to deteriorate already with haydn and by
the 19th century only a few composers could be bothered -- you may or
not be aware that the orchestra is full of transposing instruments,
for example instruments in e-flat and instruments in a playing at the
same time. composers would constantly make use of enharmonic
equivalence in order to keep the key signatures manageable for all
the players. rendered in 31-equal, you'd end up with lots of 39-
cent "unisons" and other unwanted effects.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Maybe it would help if you gave an example of a passage which 31-
equal
> just can't hack.

i don't have any orchestral scores handy, but such examples are quite
commonplace. even if you ignore the enharmonic key signatures for
transposing instruments problem, mathieu has quite a few good
examples. anyone out there with mathieu's book (i know there are
quite a few of you), would you care to scan in one of the musical
examples from beethoven or later, which mathieu uses to illustrate
the elision of commas other than 81:80 (the syntonic) in 12-tone
equal temperament?

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

> Incidentally, Paul, harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky thinks it's
>nonsense
> that she doesn't tune to pure octaves on the instrument.

i don't know what you told rebecca i said, maybe it's best if you put
me in touch with her directly. is it nonsense that one would wish to
minimize beating when tuning octaves?

In a message dated 6/10/03 3:20:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> i don't know what you told rebecca i said, maybe it's best if you put
> me in touch with her directly. is it nonsense that one would wish to
> minimize beating when tuning octaves?
>
>
>

Why would I mention your name? She doesn't know anything about you. It goes
without saying that we all need to be as clear as possible on this list. My
understanding is that you did not believe that harpsichordist would tune to
pure octaves because of inherent inharmonicity in the harpsichord. Rebecca
tunes her octaves rather rapidly. Like Bach, she can tune Werckmeister III in 15
minutes. She did it before an audience of ours last year.

Paul, didn't you question whether Werckmeister "could" tune pure octaves on a
harpsichord? As he said he did, so did Rebecca. Where now is the confusion?

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I've never measured it, but I suspect there's roughly zero
> inharmonicity in harpsichord timbre after the attack transient has
> worn off.

"roughly" is the key word. "precisely", harpsichord strings feature
both systematic and unsystematic (random) deviations from
harmonicity. for details, you can try to track down an article such
as this, which details greater and lesser degrees of inharmonicity in
harpsichords:

http://www.auditory.org/asamtgs/asa95stl/4pMU/4pMU1.html

> If so, you tune 1200-cent octaves when you eliminate
> beats on the instrument.

a few of them, outside the bass register, might *round* to 1200 cents
(to the nearest cent), but they won't be *precisely* 1200 cents as
they would with organ, bowed strings, winds, brass, or voices.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/10/03 3:20:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > i don't know what you told rebecca i said, maybe it's best if you
put
> > me in touch with her directly. is it nonsense that one would wish
to
> > minimize beating when tuning octaves?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Why would I mention your name? She doesn't know anything about
you. It goes
> without saying that we all need to be as clear as possible on this
list. My
> understanding is that you did not believe that harpsichordist would
tune to
> pure octaves because of inherent inharmonicity in the harpsichord.

isn't an octave that beats as little as possible precisely what
werckmeister, going by the quote from him that you posted, would
regard as a "pure" octave?

arnold dreyblatt, _the sound of one string_:

"The product of the frequency and the length is a useful figure,
utilized by piano and harpsichord builders in determining the degree
of inharmonicity. A wire becomes more perfectly harmonic as it
approaches its breaking point."

if harpsichords had zero inharmonicity, why would harpsichord
builders need to calculate it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > I've never measured it, but I suspect there's roughly zero
> > inharmonicity in harpsichord timbre after the attack transient has
> > worn off.
>
> "roughly" is the key word. "precisely", harpsichord strings feature
> both systematic and unsystematic (random) deviations from
> harmonicity. for details, you can try to track down an article such
> as this, which details greater and lesser degrees of inharmonicity
in
> harpsichords:
>
> http://www.auditory.org/asamtgs/asa95stl/4pMU/4pMU1.html
>
> > If so, you tune 1200-cent octaves when you eliminate
> > beats on the instrument.
>
> a few of them, outside the bass register, might *round* to 1200
cents
> (to the nearest cent), but they won't be *precisely* 1200 cents as
> they would with organ, bowed strings, winds, brass, or voices.

_History of the Harpsichord in Eighteenth Century France and the
Flemish Influence_ by Janet Pierce

"The use of wire of different alloys on the same instrument gave the
maker an effective means to adjust tone quality by decreasing or
increasing the inharmonicity."

why would the maker need/want/be able to decrease or increase the
inharmonicity if there were none in the first place?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it would help if you gave an example of a passage which 31-
> equal
> > just can't hack.
>
> i don't have any orchestral scores handy, but such examples are quite
> commonplace. even if you ignore the enharmonic key signatures for
> transposing instruments problem, mathieu has quite a few good
> examples.

Forget orchestral scores, they are too hard to deal with. I'd like a
piano sonata or chamber music.

anyone out there with mathieu's book (i know there are
> quite a few of you), would you care to scan in one of the musical
> examples from beethoven or later, which mathieu uses to illustrate
> the elision of commas other than 81:80 (the syntonic) in 12-tone
> equal temperament?

What about simply a midi file? If someone does give a score, could it
be a Sibelius score?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> What about simply a midi file?

i thought your intent was to observe written enharmonic distinctions
and render them as 39-cent differences. how could you do this from a
normal midi file, which only contains 12 pitch classes?

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

> because it violates the composer's intent for a smooth elision, for
> example each diminished seventh chord has four possible ways it can
> resolve; classically the spelling (and often, the tuning) would
> correspond with the ultimate resolution, but romantic composers made
> use of the ambiguity and i wouldn't want to rob their music of this
> effect.

Septimal meantone is a 126/125 system. This makes for a great deal of
ambiguity in the diminished seventh, 6/5-6/5-6/5-7/6, which means that
normally you wouldn't be robbing anyone of any required ambiguity. I'd
like to see an example where meantone cannot hack it, or I'm simply
going to dismiss this as sky-is-falling paranoia.

> plus the whole idea of strictly observing enharmonic distinctions
> when writing a score began to deteriorate already with haydn and by
> the 19th century only a few composers could be bothered -- you may or
> not be aware that the orchestra is full of transposing instruments,
> for example instruments in e-flat and instruments in a playing at the
> same time.

Which is one reason why I said the music would need to be rescored.

composers would constantly make use of enharmonic
> equivalence in order to keep the key signatures manageable for all
> the players. rendered in 31-equal, you'd end up with lots of 39-
> cent "unisons" and other unwanted effects.

Which is another reason why I said the music would need to be rescored.

You've given a whole list of feeble objections. What's the real beef?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> Forget orchestral scores, they are too hard to deal with. I'd like a
> piano sonata or chamber music.

Mathieu mentions the first movement of the Appassionata (Sonata in F Minor, Op. 57).

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > What about simply a midi file?
>
> i thought your intent was to observe written enharmonic distinctions
> and render them as 39-cent differences. how could you do this from a
> normal midi file, which only contains 12 pitch classes?

My intent is to take a piece which can't be put into 31-et and put it
into 31-et, and see what happens.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > because it violates the composer's intent for a smooth elision,
for
> > example each diminished seventh chord has four possible ways it
can
> > resolve; classically the spelling (and often, the tuning) would
> > correspond with the ultimate resolution, but romantic composers
made
> > use of the ambiguity and i wouldn't want to rob their music of
this
> > effect.
>
> Septimal meantone is a 126/125 system. This makes for a great deal
of
> ambiguity in the diminished seventh, 6/5-6/5-6/5-7/6, which means
that
> normally you wouldn't be robbing anyone of any required ambiguity.

what are you talking about? on C, this chord is C-Eb-Gb-Bbb in
meantone, TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS, while romantic harmony often requires
it to function as C-Eb-Gb-A or C-Eb-F#-A or C-D#-F#-A at the same
time.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> >
> > > What about simply a midi file?
> >
> > i thought your intent was to observe written enharmonic
distinctions
> > and render them as 39-cent differences. how could you do this
from a
> > normal midi file, which only contains 12 pitch classes?
>
> My intent is to take a piece which can't be put into 31-et and put
it
> into 31-et, and see what happens.

you just gave no clue as to how you'd answer my question.

In a message dated 6/10/03 3:53:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> isn't an octave that beats as little as possible precisely what
> werckmeister, going by the quote from him that you posted, would
> regard as a "pure" octave?
>
>
>

Yes, but it need not be the only way to achieve such an octave. Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/10/03 3:53:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > isn't an octave that beats as little as possible precisely what
> > werckmeister, going by the quote from him that you posted, would
> > regard as a "pure" octave?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but it need not be the only way to achieve such an octave.

right, but if such an octave is indeed regarded as "pure", then you
can't say i claimed the octaves would end up "impure".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> I'd
> like to see an example where meantone cannot hack it, or I'm simply
> going to dismiss this as sky-is-falling paranoia.

try schubert's late string quartet where there are constant
modulations by consecutive major thirds (is it #15?) . . . the number
of diesis shifts, or degree of diesis drift, that would occur in
meantone would be totally unacceptable to my ears, and i'd bet to
schubert's too. and this is like 1815 or so, barely even into the
romantic period!

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> w
> try schubert's late string quartet where there are constant
> modulations by consecutive major thirds (is it #15?) . . .

The deal is, you're supposed to tell me. His other late, great quartet
is #14, Death and the Maiden. Schubert is fond of the relationship of
a major third, but in some ways that favors 31, with its wonderful
major thirds.

I was beginning to work on the Apassionata, but Schubert might be a
better plan. I need to know which Schubert, however.

the number
> of diesis shifts, or degree of diesis drift, that would occur in
> meantone would be totally unacceptable to my ears, and i'd bet to
> schubert's too. and this is like 1815 or so, barely even into the
> romantic period!

I'd imagine a little later.

The "Observations on tempering" thread, and a couple others, have been very
interesting and helpful to me in starting to understand orchestral tuning.
I appreciate this very much - it is closing a knowledge gap that has been
gaping for a couple of years.

I have learned a few things and would also like to further clarify some
things.

Suppose you have a really "competent" orchestra. I think what I am hearing
is that such an orchestra will probably not be using 12-tEt. Also from what
I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is probably being used. Is
that right?

Now is where it gets less clear for me, so let me posit some things, and I
would appreciate some feedback on how well I guessed.

I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably chosen for a given
piece (or movement) informed at _least_ by what key the piece is in, and
that a really sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is really familiar with
the origins of a particular piece might be chosing the 12-tone
interpretation very carefully. If the piece is in A major, I would assume
that the C# will be played like a C# and not like a Db, whereas with the
same instruments on another piece the Db will be used, and that furthermore
with enough experience and sophistication that finer grades of distinction
may well be made, e.g. based on the fact that Mahler was fond of mean-tone
(if I am remembering that correctly). Furthermore I think I am hearing that
such sophistication is not an entirely obscure thing, but something you may
expect from, say, well more than a dozen symphonies around the world, so
that there is a strong leading edge of competence and sophistication guiding
a worldwide symphonic culture, and that such sophistication is being trained
academically in quite a few schools worldwide.

Or am I wrong, and is the conscious sophistication I am suggestion a very
rare thing, but which is perhaps occasionally approached _unconsciously_ ?

Thanks,
Kurt Bigler

hi Kurt,

> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:07 PM
> Subject: [tuning] orchestral tunings
>
>
> Suppose you have a really "competent" orchestra.
> I think what I am hearing is that such an orchestra
> will probably not be using 12-tEt. Also from what
> I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is
> probably being used. Is that right?

modern wind (woodwind and brass, but especially woodwind)
and tuned percussion instruments are tuned to 12edo. but,
and it's a BIG but, the embouchure (i.e., the setting and
actions of the lips) has *everything* to do with the
intonation of a wind instrument!

most players in today's orchestras are probably playing
something *resembling* 12edo, but there's no way it can
be exact in the way that, say, a solo piano performance
could be.

then there's the fact that the string players are
probably leaning more towards Pythagorean tuning, due
to both the tuning of the open strings (in "perfect 5ths",
which sound best on string instruments when they're
3:2 ratios), and to the teaching of "expressive intonation"
with small "leading-tones" which began around 1790.

> Now is where it gets less clear for me, so let me posit
> some things, and I would appreciate some feedback on
> how well I guessed.
>
> I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably
> chosen for a given piece (or movement) informed at
> _least_ by what key the piece is in, and that a really
> sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is really familiar
> with the origins of a particular piece might be chosing
> the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.

good luck finding a conductor who's *that* sophisticated!
as for a whole orchestra ... no way. the vast majority
of highly trained musicians know as much about tuning
as your local garage-band guitarist ... and in fact,
he may empirically know *more* about it! -- if he likes
the blues, that probably *is* the case.

my opinion is that the very best orchestras are
playing in some kind of adaptive-tuning or adaptive-JI.
in this case, yes, the key of the piece would play
a large role in determining the tuning. but again,
the actual intonation is more a result of empirical
experimentation or practice, and careful listening,
than of any premeditated calculating.

in a more specific case, for example, the playing of
a Mozart symphony in 55edo or some other meantone,
the key of the piece only plays a role in determining
which particular subset of the overall tuning is used,
and no, it's not limited to 12 pitch-classes, and anyway,
the choice of pitches/tuning was already made by Mozart
in his choice of notation. 55edo has an established
(i.e., "premeditated calculation") tuning and he chose
particular notes from it in writing his pieces. in
the first movement of his 40th Symphony, he uses 19
different pitches (based on the assumption that sharps
are different from their "enharmonically-equivalent" flats).
and it's fascinating to see how he limits his set of
pitches for certain sections of the music, then expands
the set at other places by adding new flats, etc.

you can get an idea of this on my 55edo webpage,
which opens with an mp3 of the beginning of the
40th Symphony in 55edo tuning:
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm

BIG DISCLAIMER: as paul erlich has argued, one cannot
assume that Mozart *always* intended 55edo or meantone
in general for his intonation. there are many places
in his compositions which use the type of enharmonic
modulations being discussed right now in the "observations
on temperament" thread, and which would preclude the
use of *different* "enharmonically-equivalent" sharps/flats.
in other words, if there's one chord with a C# and it's
tied to a Db in the next chord, paul would say that they
have to be the same pitch. i would disagree, because
i don't mind small pitch shifts, but paul dislikes them
strongly. ... and yet again, Mozart's keyboard pieces
sound good in closed 12-tone well-temperament and most
ikely were intended to be played in that type of tuning.

> If the piece is in A major, I would assume that the C#
> will be played like a C# and not like a Db, whereas with
> the same instruments on another piece the Db will be used,

that's a perfectly logical assumption to make. but
here's the problem: *which* C#, and *which* Db.

that's a question which really matters, because some
historical tunings place the sharps higher than their
"enharmonically-equivalent" flats (i.e., Pythagorean),
while others do the reverse (i.e., all meantones).

Pythagorean came first, and it is plainly audibly
apparent that the tuning which was prevalent at the
time the piece was composed has a lot to do with
how that C# is going to sound. in Pythagorean, it
will be a strident and bright "wide major-3rd" of
~408 cents, whereas in meantone, it will be or approximate
the mellow and soft "JI major-3rd" of ratio 5:4,
~386 cents.

> and that furthermore with enough experience and
> sophistication that finer grades of distinction may
> well be made, e.g. based on the fact that Mahler was
> fond of mean-tone (if I am remembering that correctly).

yes, Mahler stated to Schoenberg that "it's too bad
we've gotten rid of meantone, thereby losing so many
harmonic possibilities".

> Furthermore I think I am hearing that such
> sophistication is not an entirely obscure thing,
> but something you may expect from, say, well more
> than a dozen symphonies around the world, so that
> there is a strong leading edge of competence and
> sophistication guiding a worldwide symphonic culture,
> and that such sophistication is being trained
> academically in quite a few schools worldwide.
>
> Or am I wrong, and is the conscious sophistication
> I am suggestion a very rare thing, but which is
> perhaps occasionally approached _unconsciously_ ?

i've already touched on a lot of these points earlier
in this post. my position: there are very few
orchestras which display a really fine and subtle
sense of intonation as a whole. (Johnny Reinhard's
AFMM ensembles are one glaring exception.)

you'll find it more in individual talented musicians.
and again, i think it has more to do with the individual
and his/her ability to listen than anything else.

no, it's not being trained to any great degree.
the good news is that now, here and there, the teaching
of intonation *is* popping up in academic curricula,
and it seems to be a phenomenon that's growing. but
in general, no, music schools won't touch it.

this list, right here, is the cutting edge in this
endeavor.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> Suppose you have a really "competent" orchestra. I think what I am
hearing
> is that such an orchestra will probably not be using 12-tEt. Also
from what
> I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is probably being
used. Is
> that right?

if it's not 12-equal, it's almost certainly not any *fixed* set of 12
pitches. instead, it's more like what's been referred to around here
as adaptive tuning. a description of some rather ideal forms of such
are described here:

http://www.sonic-arts.org/dict/adaptivetuning.htm

and implemented here:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/d/jdelaub/jstudio.htm

> Or am I wrong, and is the conscious sophistication I am suggestion
a very
> rare thing, but which is perhaps occasionally approached
_unconsciously_ ?

it's an occasional thing. about equally often, you'll actually find
the opposite tendencies, C# getting tuned *higher*, rather than
lower, than Db. the swing historically was away from
this "pythagorean" intonation around 1420, and back towards it around
1800, in the west.

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

> BIG DISCLAIMER: as paul erlich has argued, one cannot
> assume that Mozart *always* intended 55edo or meantone
> in general for his intonation. there are many places
> in his compositions which use the type of enharmonic
> modulations being discussed right now in the "observations
> on temperament" thread, and which would preclude the
> use of *different* "enharmonically-equivalent" sharps/flats.
> in other words, if there's one chord with a C# and it's
> tied to a Db in the next chord, paul would say that they
> have to be the same pitch. i would disagree, because
> i don't mind small pitch shifts, but paul dislikes them
> strongly. ... and yet again, Mozart's keyboard pieces
> sound good in closed 12-tone well-temperament and most
> ikely were intended to be played in that type of tuning

i was referring more to examples where C# and Ab are played at the
same time in the course of an enharmonic modulation. that's a wolf
fifth in any but a 12-tone well-temperament. but it's still much more
tolerable in 55-equal than in 31-equal (vis-a-vis the
current "observations on temperament" thread)!

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

> my opinion is that the very best orchestras are
> playing in some kind of adaptive-tuning or adaptive-JI.

I dunno. To me it sounds more like the BPO does a better job of
hitting 12-et rather than wandering over the map.

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

> i was referring more to examples where C# and Ab are played at the
> same time in the course of an enharmonic modulation. that's a wolf
> fifth in any but a 12-tone well-temperament. but it's still much more
> tolerable in 55-equal than in 31-equal (vis-a-vis the
> current "observations on temperament" thread)!

I've been figuring that is the reason for preferring 1/6 over 1/4 comma.

>The "Observations on tempering" thread,
//
>Also from what I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is
>probably being used. Is that right?

One can always tell when nobody has any real data on something
around here ... we all get short.

The fact is, nobody has the slightest clue what chamber groups
play, let alone orchestras.

But excitingly, determining the former, at least, is beginning to
sound like a feasible research program. We'd probably need to
write software to do exactly what we wanted. It'd be nice if more
chamber music recordings were tracked per instrument, but my guess
is that something useful could be still worked out with something
like...

stereo recording ->
multi-scale FFT ->
pick out instruments ->
extract fundamentals ->
tuning description .

...The person on this list that probably knows the most about this
stuff is Francois Laferriere.

If Paul's right about the harmonicity of orchestral instruments, the
fundamental extraction layer shouldn't cause any arguments if we
stick to, say, wind ensemble. For each voice, at each time bin in
the piece, it should give a standard (say, 1- or 2-bit) energy value
at a certain frequency.

The tuning description layer is the trick. Crucially, the study
should attempt several different models to see if any make any more
sense than any other. Models I can think of that might be worth
trying...

() One could sum the energies from the fundamental extraction layer
over the time ranges defined by the piece's structural 'sections',
for individual voices or the entire ensemble. One would vary the
width of the frequency and time bins, and look for clumps.

() Track the *drift* of various commas over the course of the piece.
Where the drift changes in the score, look for events in the FFT.
It might be cool to have one party do the drift-tracking and
another the FFT-looking. The first group could throw in some known
number of random points with the real drift change points, which the
2nd group would try to find.

() Extended Reference - If Boomsliter and Creel are right, some
(perhaps even a limited number) of the JI versions of a given
classical score satisfy...

[] The harmonic limit goes down rapidly as the window size
on the JI score (in beats) shrinks. For common-practice
music, its minimum should be the 5-limit.

[] The overall drift of the JI score matches the overall
drift of the recording.

() Can Akkoc's work should be looked into here.

>I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably chosen for a
>given piece (or movement) informed at _least_ by what key the piece
>is in, and that a really sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is
>really familiar with the origins of a particular piece might be
>choosing the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.

Very few ensembles attempt this. On this list we have Reinhard,
and we might still have Bob Wendell...

/tuning/files/Bob%20Wendell/

>Or am I wrong, and is the conscious sophistication I am suggestion
>a very rare thing, but which is perhaps occasionally approached
>_unconsciously_ ?

First we need to know if our model should assume fixed pitches.

-Carl

Wow, I feel like I asked the right questions! For me this is one hot set of
answers, both from monz and from wallyesterpaulrus. At least I am
experiencing these responses as suddenly very focused, a little bit
different from how I have experienced the "Observations on tempering" and
related threads.

For the moment, there are only a few points where I have additional
questions...

on 6/11/03 12:36 AM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

>
> hi Kurt,
>
>
>> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
>> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:07 PM
>> Subject: [tuning] orchestral tunings
>>
>>
>> Suppose you have a really "competent" orchestra.
>> I think what I am hearing is that such an orchestra
>> will probably not be using 12-tEt. Also from what
>> I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is
>> probably being used. Is that right?
>
>
> modern wind (woodwind and brass, but especially woodwind)
> and tuned percussion instruments are tuned to 12edo.

Ok, this is slightly different from what I thought I was hearing, mainly
between wallyesterpaulrus and Carl, in the 12 but not 12et discussions and
clarifications.

> but,
> and it's a BIG but, the embouchure (i.e., the setting and
> actions of the lips) has *everything* to do with the
> intonation of a wind instrument!

Yes, I got this from the previous threads. So I am really asking not about
the instruments' tuning proclivities, but how they actually tend to be
played.

>> Now is where it gets less clear for me, so let me posit
>> some things, and I would appreciate some feedback on
>> how well I guessed.
>>
>> I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably
>> chosen for a given piece (or movement) informed at
>> _least_ by what key the piece is in, and that a really
>> sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is really familiar
>> with the origins of a particular piece might be chosing
>> the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.
>
> good luck finding a conductor who's *that* sophisticated!
> as for a whole orchestra ... no way. the vast majority
> of highly trained musicians know as much about tuning
> as your local garage-band guitarist ... and in fact,
> he may empirically know *more* about it! -- if he likes
> the blues, that probably *is* the case.
>
> my opinion is that the very best orchestras are
> playing in some kind of adaptive-tuning or adaptive-JI.
> in this case, yes, the key of the piece would play
> a large role in determining the tuning. but again,
> the actual intonation is more a result of empirical
> experimentation or practice, and careful listening,
> than of any premeditated calculating.

Ok, but has that process really been tainted by 12et over the last couple of
centures, as some seem to indicate? It seems much more likely that
everybody has most likely been doing something "adaptive" for centuries.

> in a more specific case, for example, the playing of
> a Mozart symphony in 55edo or some other meantone,

Aha. I only learned meantone from 12-tone contexts. I'm taking it that if
you extend the equal tempering of the 5ths further, rather than allowing the
wolf to enter by closing the circle at 12, then you get a pattern that goes
through 55 steps before it repeats. I hope your website below clarifies
this non-12-tone interpretation of meantone. Otherwise I'd appreciate a
good book reference. (And apologies for probably not having the
"prerequisites" for this list!)

> the key of the piece only plays a role in determining
> which particular subset of the overall tuning is used,
> and no, it's not limited to 12 pitch-classes, and anyway,
> the choice of pitches/tuning was already made by Mozart
> in his choice of notation. 55edo has an established
> (i.e., "premeditated calculation") tuning and he chose
> particular notes from it in writing his pieces. in
> the first movement of his 40th Symphony, he uses 19
> different pitches (based on the assumption that sharps
> are different from their "enharmonically-equivalent" flats).
> and it's fascinating to see how he limits his set of
> pitches for certain sections of the music, then expands
> the set at other places by adding new flats, etc.

So you are actually saying that Mozart expliclty used 55edo subsets and
named those subsets when he wrote his pieces? So he actually provided a
mapping between 12-note plus sharp/flat notation and 55edo, specifically?
(Probably this will get much clarified once I really understand meantone.)
Now I have to really go read up on the greater-than-12 et stuff. I'm
assuming now that all the common greater-than-12 et scales that have been
discussed actually relate to various different meantone tunings, and this
probably clarifies the relationship between standard notation and a
greater-than-12 et "interpretation" (which probably becomes trivial, from
what I'm guessing now). I'll look at the webpage you gave...

> you can get an idea of this on my 55edo webpage,
> which opens with an mp3 of the beginning of the
> 40th Symphony in 55edo tuning:
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm
>
>
> BIG DISCLAIMER: as paul erlich has argued, one cannot
> assume that Mozart *always* intended 55edo or meantone
> in general for his intonation. there are many places
> in his compositions which use the type of enharmonic
> modulations being discussed right now in the "observations
> on temperament" thread, and which would preclude the
> use of *different* "enharmonically-equivalent" sharps/flats.
> in other words, if there's one chord with a C# and it's
> tied to a Db in the next chord, paul would say that they
> have to be the same pitch. i would disagree, because
> i don't mind small pitch shifts, but paul dislikes them
> strongly.

Getting a little off-topic here, perhaps... The strongest experience for me
that I believe relates to this is with Messien's modulations. Not
specifically the tied C#/Db kind of thing, although I think these do occur
sometimes, but chord changes where rather far shifts in scale are implied
(to my ear). (Excuse my language, I lack the fine-tuned terminology, so I
try to make up for it with more words.) The strange thing to me is to hear
(on this list) that Messiaen was a "equal tempered kind of guy" (I forget
from whom now). I have not reconciled the relationship between octatonic
and ordinary notation, so I go mostly by what my ears tell me. Most of the
Messiaen I have heard has been for organ, and almost all of that has been
played using 12et. In _spite_ of that limitation, I (somehow) hear
modulations _strongly_ conveyed that break from 12et. I swear I hear
impossible things happening all the time. This is somehow contextually
implied by an entire sequence of chord progressions. I am not sophisticated
enough to explain it, by my the strong interpretation my ears give me is
always implying nearly just intervals, and my listening is always being
"pushed around" (requiring constant harmonic reorientation) by 12et Messiaen
more strongly than any other music I know of. So to me 12et has plenty of
ambiguity that in Messiaen's hands allows for rich contextual harmonic
expression. I don't know how this relates to the use of octatonic, nor have
I looked into non-12et interpretations of octatonic. The 4 repetitions
within the octave seems to allow a break from some too-standard ways of
riding the circle of fifths, and yet (to me) capitalizes on the
relationships it is breaking from.

> i've already touched on a lot of these points earlier
> in this post. my position: there are very few
> orchestras which display a really fine and subtle
> sense of intonation as a whole. (Johnny Reinhard's
> AFMM ensembles are one glaring exception.)

I better go hear him next chance I get. Where is he?

> you'll find it more in individual talented musicians.
> and again, i think it has more to do with the individual
> and his/her ability to listen than anything else.
>
> no, it's not being trained to any great degree.
> the good news is that now, here and there, the teaching
> of intonation *is* popping up in academic curricula,
> and it seems to be a phenomenon that's growing. but
> in general, no, music schools won't touch it.
>
> this list, right here, is the cutting edge in this
> endeavor.
>
> -monz

Thanks very much to everyone.

-Kurt

hi Kurt,

> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings
>
>
> Wow, I feel like I asked the right questions!
> For me this is one hot set of answers, both from
> monz and from wallyesterpaulrus.

you might as well be told that "wallyesterpaulrus"
is an alias for paul erlich, an eminent tuning
theorist who's been on this list for almost a
decade now. so now you can just refer to him
as "paul". :)

> At least I am
> experiencing these responses as suddenly very
> focused, a little bit different from how I have
> experienced the "Observations on tempering" and
> related threads.
>
> For the moment, there are only a few points where
> I have additional questions...
>
>
> on 6/11/03 12:36 AM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > hi Kurt,
> >
> >
> >> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
> >> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:07 PM
> >> Subject: [tuning] orchestral tunings
> >>
> >>
> >> Suppose you have a really "competent" orchestra.
> >> I think what I am hearing is that such an orchestra
> >> will probably not be using 12-tEt. Also from what
> >> I am hearing, some other closed 12-tone system is
> >> probably being used. Is that right?
> >
> >
> > modern wind (woodwind and brass, but especially
> > woodwind) and tuned percussion instruments are
> > tuned to 12edo.
>
> Ok, this is slightly different from what I thought
> I was hearing, mainly between wallyesterpaulrus and
> Carl, in the 12 but not 12et discussions and
> clarifications.
>
> > but,
> > and it's a BIG but, the embouchure (i.e., the
> > setting and actions of the lips) has *everything*
> > to do with the intonation of a wind instrument!
>
> Yes, I got this from the previous threads. So I
> am really asking not about the instruments' tuning
> proclivities, but how they actually tend to be
> played.

that's a good distinction to make. i was
making the point that all of todays woodwinds
are constructed with 12edo firmly and accurately
*intended*.

this was *not* the case before c. 1820 or so.
the older woodwinds, which were pretty much just
tubes with holes in them, were tuned more-or-less
to meantone. when Boehm redesigned the flute and
others (Triebert, oboe; Buffet, clarinet; Heckel,
bassoon) followed suit, their intentions were
threefold: 1) louder volume, 2) lots of keys,
which made certain passages easier to play, and
3) perfect 12edo tuning.

> >> Now is where it gets less clear for me, so let me posit
> >> some things, and I would appreciate some feedback on
> >> how well I guessed.
> >>
> >> I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably
> >> chosen for a given piece (or movement) informed at
> >> _least_ by what key the piece is in, and that a really
> >> sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is really familiar
> >> with the origins of a particular piece might be chosing
> >> the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.
> >
> > good luck finding a conductor who's *that* sophisticated!
> > as for a whole orchestra ... no way. the vast majority
> > of highly trained musicians know as much about tuning
> > as your local garage-band guitarist ... and in fact,
> > he may empirically know *more* about it! -- if he likes
> > the blues, that probably *is* the case.
> >
> > my opinion is that the very best orchestras are
> > playing in some kind of adaptive-tuning or adaptive-JI.
> > in this case, yes, the key of the piece would play
> > a large role in determining the tuning. but again,
> > the actual intonation is more a result of empirical
> > experimentation or practice, and careful listening,
> > than of any premeditated calculating.
>
> Ok, but has that process really been tainted by 12et
> over the last couple of centures, as some seem to
> indicate? It seems much more likely that everybody
> has most likely been doing something "adaptive" for
> centuries.

*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
if you consider *all* musicians. i have a lot to say
about the entrenchment of 12edo below, so yes, i would
say that there's been a "12edo taint" for a few centuries.

> > in a more specific case, for example, the playing of
> > a Mozart symphony in 55edo or some other meantone,
>
> Aha. I only learned meantone from 12-tone contexts.
> I'm taking it that if you extend the equal tempering
> of the 5ths further, rather than allowing the wolf
> to enter by closing the circle at 12, then you get
> a pattern that goes through 55 steps before it repeats.
> I hope your website below clarifies this non-12-tone
> interpretation of meantone. Otherwise I'd appreciate
> a good book reference. (And apologies for probably
> not having the "prerequisites" for this list!)

you guess it right. i go into more detail about it
below. if you look up "meantone" in the Tuning Dictionary
and follow the links you'll get a lot of this info.
play around with the "mouse-over" applets too.

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/meantone.htm

> > the key of the piece only plays a role in determining
> > which particular subset of the overall tuning is used,
> > and no, it's not limited to 12 pitch-classes, and anyway,
> > the choice of pitches/tuning was already made by Mozart
> > in his choice of notation. 55edo has an established
> > (i.e., "premeditated calculation") tuning and he chose
> > particular notes from it in writing his pieces. in
> > the first movement of his 40th Symphony, he uses 19
> > different pitches (based on the assumption that sharps
> > are different from their "enharmonically-equivalent" flats).
> > and it's fascinating to see how he limits his set of
> > pitches for certain sections of the music, then expands
> > the set at other places by adding new flats, etc.
>
> So you are actually saying that Mozart expliclty
> used 55edo subsets and named those subsets when he
> wrote his pieces? So he actually provided a mapping
> between 12-note plus sharp/flat notation and 55edo,
> specifically? (Probably this will get much clarified
> once I really understand meantone.) Now I have to
> really go read up on the greater-than-12 et stuff.

Kurt, you're bringing up a lot of different subjects
that have all been discussed at length here many
times before. it's not uncommon for this to happen
when someone is a newcomer to this list.

first of all, no, Mozart never actually stated
"my pieces should be played in 55edo". his father
Leopold taught that violin intonation should divide
the whole-tone into 9 commas, the "diatonic semitone"
into 5 commas, and the "chromatic semitone" into 4.
this works out to be 55edo. Leopold also wrote
approvingly to his son about Tosi's reccomendation
of this tuning, and Mozart's student Thomas Atwood
preserved notes which show that Mozart taught it
to him.

if you'll take a look at the last graphic at
the bottom of my 55edo webpage, you'll see
that the space between C and D may be notated
as follows:

C Dbb Bbbbb Bx C# Db Ebbb B### Cx D
| | | | | | | | | |

as you mentioned above, note that, because 55edo,
along with all other EDOs, is a closed system, any
of these notes can be considered "enharmonically
equivalent" to others. in this case, the enharmonic
equivalent would be 55 steps away in the "meantone
cycle", i.e., in the chain of 5ths. i'll illustrate ...

to ascend from one degree of 55edo to the next by
counting 5ths in the "circle of 5ths", you either
subtract 12 or add 43: thus, if C is our reference
point or zero position in both the circle of 5ths
and the 55edo *scale* (both generator 0 and 2^(0/55) ),
then the next higher degree of 55edo, 2^(1/55),
which is exactly 21 & 9/11 cents, will be notated
as either generator -12 (Dbb) or generator +43 (Gxxx).

now, it's quite possible to find an occasional Dbb
in a Mozart score, but i'll bet everything i own
that he never once notated a Gxxx in any of his 600+
compositions. so therefore he never intended his
entire musical pitch-universe to contain even half
of the entire 55edo; in fact, Atwood's notes show
that Mozart's set of pitches covered at most a
21-tone chain of 5ths. if these notes were arranged
as a subset of a 55edo scale, it would have uneven
gaps in it.

so look again at my diagram above. let each pair of
vertical lines represent the boundaries of a 55edo comma
(21 & 9/11 cents). can you see how the interval from
C to C# subtends 4 commas? and Db to D is also 4 commas?
these are "chromatic semitones".

notice how C to Db and C# to D are both 5 commas.
these are "diatonic semitones", since there is a
change of letter-name. also note the single comma
between C# and Db.

also note that these pitch differences extend beyond
the realm of individual pitches and also into the
realm of keys, so that the keys of Gb-major and
F#-major are *not* the same, as they are in 12edo.

anyway, our musical notation did not develop in
terms of 12edo, which was a relative latecomer.
it developed originally in terms of Pythagorean
tuning, and then in the late 1400s the European
tuning paradigm shifted to meantone and the notation
was adapted to fit that family of tunings. this
resulted in the curious switch i mentioned before,
where C# used to be higher than Db but now became lower.

> I'm assuming now that all the common greater-than-12
> et scales that have been discussed actually relate
> to various different meantone tunings, and this
> probably clarifies the relationship between standard
> notation and a greater-than-12 et "interpretation"
> (which probably becomes trivial, from what I'm
> guessing now). I'll look at the webpage you gave...

there are many EDOs which *do* belong to the meantone
family, but there are lots of others which don't.

the first graphic here:

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/eqtemp.htm

shows how a bunch of different EDOs fit into
various families of temperaments. mouse-over the
"Zoom: 10" link, and look along the yellow line
labeled "meantone": you'll see 12, 19, 26, 31, 33,
43, 45, 50, 55, etc. those are all EDOs which work
as meantones.

but you'll also see that there are lots of other lines,
with temperaments lying on those lines. and every
temperament belongs to several different families.

> > you can get an idea of this on my 55edo webpage,
> > which opens with an mp3 of the beginning of the
> > 40th Symphony in 55edo tuning:
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm
> >
> >
> > BIG DISCLAIMER: as paul erlich has argued, one cannot
> > assume that Mozart *always* intended 55edo or meantone
> > in general for his intonation. there are many places
> > in his compositions which use the type of enharmonic
> > modulations being discussed right now in the "observations
> > on temperament" thread, and which would preclude the
> > use of *different* "enharmonically-equivalent" sharps/flats.
> > in other words, if there's one chord with a C# and it's
> > tied to a Db in the next chord, paul would say that they
> > have to be the same pitch. i would disagree, because
> > i don't mind small pitch shifts, but paul dislikes them
> > strongly.
>
> Getting a little off-topic here, perhaps...
> The strongest experience for me that I believe
> relates to this is with Messien's modulations.
> Not specifically the tied C#/Db kind of thing,
> although I think these do occur sometimes, but
> chord changes where rather far shifts in scale
> are implied (to my ear). (Excuse my language,
> I lack the fine-tuned terminology, so I try to
> make up for it with more words.) The strange thing
> to me is to hear (on this list) that Messiaen was
> a "equal tempered kind of guy" (I forget from whom
> now). I have not reconciled the relationship
> between octatonic and ordinary notation, so I go
> mostly by what my ears tell me. Most of the
> Messiaen I have heard has been for organ, and
> almost all of that has been played using 12et.
> In _spite_ of that limitation, I (somehow) hear
> modulations _strongly_ conveyed that break from
> 12et. I swear I hear impossible things happening
> all the time. This is somehow contextually
> implied by an entire sequence of chord progressions.
> I am not sophisticated enough to explain it, by my
> the strong interpretation my ears give me is always
> implying nearly just intervals, and my listening is
> always being "pushed around" (requiring constant
> harmonic reorientation) by 12et Messiaen more
> strongly than any other music I know of. So to
> me 12et has plenty of ambiguity that in Messiaen's
> hands allows for rich contextual harmonic expression.
> I don't know how this relates to the use of octatonic,
> nor have I looked into non-12et interpretations of
> octatonic. The 4 repetitions within the octave seems
> to allow a break from some too-standard ways of
> riding the circle of fifths, and yet (to me)
> capitalizes on the relationships it is breaking from.

Messaien was certainly an original musical thinker,
so i'm not surprised at your reaction to hearing
his pieces.

i could go on and on and say a lot here, but i
want to be brief. essentially, 12edo became the
standard tuning during the 1900s because of a
variety of factors, and chief among them was the
fact that it fits into so many different families
of temperaments that it enabled composers who sought
a change of style to break out of old-fashioned
tuning paradigms and explore new ones, without having
to create a new tuning and suffer the consequent
inability of finding instruments and performers to
play it.

so, 12edo worked as a meantone (there's no audible
difference between it and 1/11-comma meantone) which
won it some early favor. then, around the time of
Beethoven and Schubert, composers began to modulate
in patterns which:

1)
assumed the diesis would vanish ("diesic" or
"augmented" temperament), allowing them to use
augmented triads in which a fourth note would
be the same as the first; and

2)
assumed that minor-3rds could be stacked into
a diminished-7th tetrad where a fifth note would
be the same as the first (diminished temperament).

i also noted in my last post that right at the beginning
of Beethoven's career, an "expressive intonation" was
beginning to be taught which resembled Pythagorean tuning.
there is yet another family of temperaments to which
12edo belongs, which emulates Pythagorean (Aristoxenean
temperament).

in the later 1800s, Lizst and Ravel began exploring
the octatonic scale, which is *also* possible in 12edo.
this was picked up by Scriabin, Stravinsky, and others.
(you mention "non-12et interpretations of octatonic":
16edo and 28edo are two good examples, as you can see
on the "equal temperament" definition graphic.)

finally, in 1911, Schoenberg's _Harmonielehre_ expounded
his ideas on using all 12 notes of 12edo without
reference to keys, and 10 years later, his "12-tone method"
set up a system of composing (serialism) which used
12edo in this manner, and it became firmly entrenched
in musical academia for the rest of the century.

> > i've already touched on a lot of these points earlier
> > in this post. my position: there are very few
> > orchestras which display a really fine and subtle
> > sense of intonation as a whole. (Johnny Reinhard's
> > AFMM ensembles are one glaring exception.)
>
> I better go hear him next chance I get. Where is he?

New York City. There's an AFMM (American Festival of
Microtonal Music) every year, consisting of several
concerts of exclusively microtonal music. (well, OK,
Johnny also considers 12edo to be microtonal, so
he sneaks that in too, once in a while ...)

> > you'll find it more in individual talented musicians.
> > and again, i think it has more to do with the individual
> > and his/her ability to listen than anything else.
> >
> > no, it's not being trained to any great degree.
> > the good news is that now, here and there, the teaching
> > of intonation *is* popping up in academic curricula,
> > and it seems to be a phenomenon that's growing. but
> > in general, no, music schools won't touch it.
> >
> > this list, right here, is the cutting edge in this
> > endeavor.
> >
> > -monz
>
> Thanks very much to everyone.
>
> -Kurt

I can't shake a memory I had of Boulez rehersing the NY Philharmonic and telling the players that they were out of tune. My impression at the time was that they were wandering away from 12et. I think the music was Berg's Violin Concerto. At least that was one of the pieces on the program.

--rt

><snip>
>
>>From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
>>To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:27 AM
>>Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings
>>
<snip>

>>
>>>
>>>my opinion is that the very best orchestras are
>>>playing in some kind of adaptive-tuning or adaptive-JI.
>>>in this case, yes, the key of the piece would play
>>>a large role in determining the tuning. <snip>
>>>

In a message dated 6/11/03 10:12:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ricktagawa@earthlink.net writes:

> I can't shake a memory I had of Boulez rehersing the NY Philharmonic and
> telling the players that they were out of tune. My impression at the
> time was that they were wandering away from 12et. I think the music was
> Berg's Violin Concerto. At least that was one of the pieces on the program.
>
> --rt
>
>

Rick, Boulez was notorious for his perfect pitch insistence on tuning
changes, even for Harold Gomberg, the oboist that tuned the orchestra. The players
hated him for this. I'd bet his tuning was more ET than many other conductors.

More common is that the instrumental background of the conductor greatly
influences his or her choice of tuning paradigm. Former string players will have
a Pythagorean basis (based on the tuning of the open strings), while brass
players will favor a more just tuning (check out Schwartz for analysis). The
rare woodwind conductors (Holliger) are likely more modal in approach. This may
also affect the repertoire that the conductor's choose. There may be other
influences, such as nationality, as well.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>modern wind (woodwind and brass, but especially woodwind)
>and tuned percussion instruments are tuned to 12edo.

What's your evidence for this, monz?

I suspect some manufacturers do, some don't.

>*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
>and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
>if you consider *all* musicians.

In the classical world? I couldn't disagree more.

>i have a lot to say about the entrenchment of 12edo below,
>so yes, i would say that there's been a "12edo taint" for
>a few centuries.

Centuries?

-Carl

>() Extended Reference - If Boomsliter and Creel are right, some
>(perhaps even a limited number) of the JI versions of a given
>classical score satisfy...
>
> [] The harmonic limit goes down rapidly as the window size
> on the JI score (in beats) shrinks. For common-practice
> music, its minimum should be the 5-limit.
>
> [] The overall drift of the JI score matches the overall
> drift of the recording.

Add to this...

[] Both the JI score and obviously the 12-tET score could
be rendered with midi, and listeners could be asked which
sounds more faithful to the sound recording. The JI score
should fair at least as well as the 12-tET one in such a
test.

>() Can Akkoc's work should be looked into here.

Add to this...

() Manuel once reported on a study that found that chords in a
performance start unjust and justify over a certain time period.
One could check for that.

-Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <ekin@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings

> >modern wind (woodwind and brass, but especially woodwind)
> >and tuned percussion instruments are tuned to 12edo.
>
> What's your evidence for this, monz?

unfortunately i can't document any of it now,
because i read it so long ago. but i grew up
as a woodwind player, and read many times in
books and in woodwind manufacturer brochures
about "perfect 12-tone equal temperament" as
the intonational goal in manufacturing modern
woodwind instruments.

> I suspect some manufacturers do, some don't.

well, OK, i have no basis for my statements
about brass or percussion. but woodwinds, yes.

> >*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
> >and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
> >if you consider *all* musicians.
>
> In the classical world? I couldn't disagree more.

hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.

everyone, and i mean everyone, simply took 12edo for
granted as "the" tuning and "the" scale. when i found
Partch's book it was like stumbling into another universe.

> >i have a lot to say about the entrenchment of 12edo below,
> >so yes, i would say that there's been a "12edo taint" for
> >a few centuries.
>
> Centuries?

OK, for sure at least one century (the 20th) ...
but i'd argue for the 19th too.

Beethoven was the first composer who really started
using pitches as tho they were tuned to something
resembling 12edo. now, we know that he had a lot
of influence ... and his career began pretty much
at 1800 (and so did his deafness).

-monz

>> >*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
>> >and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
>> >if you consider *all* musicians.
>>
>> In the classical world? I couldn't disagree more.
>
>hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
>teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
>i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
>either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.

I find this really hard to believe, unless things really
changed in the 80's. Were you playing any free-pitched
instruments in any ensembles at Manhattan?

-Carl

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

> everyone, and i mean everyone, simply took 12edo for
> granted as "the" tuning and "the" scale. when i found
> Partch's book it was like stumbling into another universe.

People don't question. I first got interested in tuning theory in
grade school, when a music teacher visted our class and explained the
basics of the diatonic scale. When I asked why there were seven scale
notes and twelve notes total to the octave, she was flabbergasted at
my question. It was obvious it had never occured to her, and she just
aswered "that's the way it is". This was the same answer I got when I
asked why the method for multiplication we were being taught worked;
in that case I figured out the answer for myself, which was an
excellent learning experience. This wasn't so easy, but it stuck in my
mind.

In a message dated 6/11/03 4:51:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
> teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
> i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
> either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.
>
> everyone, and i mean everyone, simply took 12edo for
> granted as "the" tuning and "the" scale. when i found
> Partch's book it was like stumbling into another universe.

Monz, of course I received my MM from the same conservatory you went to
study. I can tell you that conductors at that level would ask for higher and lower
pitch with no reasons given. However, when I played in perfect 12-tET for
the MSM wind quintet, I was roundly chided for being "out of tune" only to give
in and quit playing ET as an ideology. Talking is not necessarily how
musicians communicate.

best, Johnny Reinhard

----- Original Message -----
From: <Afmmjr@aol.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings

> In a message dated 6/11/03 4:51:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> monz@attglobal.net writes:
>
>
> > hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
> > teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
> > i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
> > either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.
> >
> > everyone, and i mean everyone, simply took 12edo for
> > granted as "the" tuning and "the" scale. when i found
> > Partch's book it was like stumbling into another universe.
>
>
> Monz, of course I received my MM from the same conservatory
> you went to study. I can tell you that conductors at that
> level would ask for higher and lower pitch with no reasons
> given. However, when I played in perfect 12-tET for the
> MSM wind quintet, I was roundly chided for being "out of tune"
> only to give in and quit playing ET as an ideology.
> Talking is not necessarily how musicians communicate.

well, i *have* to say "amen" to that.

as i said in an earlier post, good musicians
(playing non-fixed-pitch instruments, of course)
who are sensitive to intonation listen carefully and
adjust their intonation as they play.

i guess the point i was really making was that, at
least when you and i were in school, "good intonation"
generally meant trying to blend in with everyone else
as much as possible, and did not refer to any kind
of tuning ideology other than 12edo.

i can respect what you have to say about your experience
playing 12edo, and i'm not trying to claim that 12edo
*is* the tuning used by orchestras all over the world.
i'm simply saying that music students learn that "the"
scale has 12 notes and that's all there is to it.

when i was at MSM, there was simply never mention of any
kind of tuning other than 12edo, with the single exception
of Elias Tanenbaum's class in electronic music, where he
showed us how to set up the synthesizer to use different
tunings.

... and it was Tanenbaum himself who, a couple of years
later when i visited MSM and told him about my interest
in microtonality, replied "why are you wasting your time
with that?".

the good thing is that today more and more music students
are taking a serious interest in tuning. and as they get
older and acquire jobs as music teachers, more and more
teachers do too.

-monz

>Monz, of course I received my MM from the same conservatory you went
>to study. I can tell you that conductors at that level would ask for
>higher and lower pitch with no reasons given. However, when I played
>in perfect 12-tET for the MSM wind quintet, I was roundly chided for
>being "out of tune" only to give in and quit playing ET as an ideology.
>Talking is not necessarily how musicians communicate.

Great story!

-C.

>i guess the point i was really making was that, at
>least when you and i were in school, "good intonation"
>generally meant trying to blend in with everyone else

And what do you suppose would be the result of such
an effort?

>as much as possible, and did not refer to any kind
>of tuning ideology other than 12edo.

>i can respect what you have to say about your experience
>playing 12edo, and i'm not trying to claim that 12edo
>*is* the tuning used by orchestras all over the world.
>i'm simply saying that music students learn that "the"
>scale has 12 notes and that's all there is to it.

Oh, we learned the scale had 12 notes, and often tuners,
keyboard instruments, or the conductor's ear is used to
control *drift*...

>when i was at MSM, there was simply never mention of any
>kind of tuning other than 12edo,

Of course not. But that doesn't mean they practice it!

-Carl

Those interested in my proposal of trying to measure ensemble
intonation might like this...

http://farben.latrobe.edu.au/mikropol/volume6/dixon_s/mikro.html

...while it doesn't sound like their method has the frequency
resolution we'd want, they're getting impressive results without
even peaking at the score (source midi file), which we could do.

-Carl

An interesting sidebar on the unconsious nature
of intonation practice...

http://tinyurl.com/e3fz

-Carl

on 6/11/03 5:20 AM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

>> From: "Kurt Bigler" <kkb@breathsense.com>
>> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings
>>
>> Wow, I feel like I asked the right questions!
>> For me this is one hot set of answers, both from
>> monz and from wallyesterpaulrus.

> you might as well be told that "wallyesterpaulrus"
> is an alias for paul erlich, an eminent tuning
> theorist who's been on this list for almost a
> decade now. so now you can just refer to him
> as "paul". :)

Yes, I had suspicions of that, but didn't manage to do the analysis that
would prove it before writing that message last night. Thanks for the
introduction.

>> Now I have to
>> really go read up on the greater-than-12 et stuff.

> Kurt, you're bringing up a lot of different subjects
> that have all been discussed at length here many
> times before. it's not uncommon for this to happen
> when someone is a newcomer to this list.

Yes, and you were very generous to provide a great tutorial in spite of
that. (I hope you got something out of it, like at least material you can
reuse, otherwise probably better than you just give the web references when
newbies start making work for you in the future. :) I will study it
thoroughly along with the website you referred to.

Thanks for all.

-Kurt Bigler

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44423

> There are no pitches which are impossible to play on woodwinds,
though some
> are easier than others. I hope this helps.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
>

***Thanks, Johnny, for the woodwind post...

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44434

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, Paul, harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky thinks it's
> >nonsense
> > that she doesn't tune to pure octaves on the instrument.
>
> i don't know what you told rebecca i said, maybe it's best if you
put
> me in touch with her directly. is it nonsense that one would wish
to
> minimize beating when tuning octaves?

***This discussion is really starting not to make sense to me. From
the list, I was understanding that when one tuned *pure* octaves,
especially on the piano, one really was using *stretched* octaves,
whether intending this or not... ??

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44470

> Getting a little off-topic here, perhaps... The strongest
experience for me
> that I believe relates to this is with Messien's modulations. Not
> specifically the tied C#/Db kind of thing, although I think these
do occur
> sometimes, but chord changes where rather far shifts in scale are
implied
> (to my ear). (Excuse my language, I lack the fine-tuned
terminology, so I
> try to make up for it with more words.) The strange thing to me is
to hear
> (on this list) that Messiaen was a "equal tempered kind of guy" (I
forget
> from whom now). I have not reconciled the relationship between
octatonic
> and ordinary notation, so I go mostly by what my ears tell me.
Most of the
> Messiaen I have heard has been for organ, and almost all of that
has been
> played using 12et. In _spite_ of that limitation, I (somehow) hear
> modulations _strongly_ conveyed that break from 12et. I swear I
hear
> impossible things happening all the time. This is somehow
contextually
> implied by an entire sequence of chord progressions. I am not
sophisticated
> enough to explain it, by my the strong interpretation my ears give
me is
> always implying nearly just intervals, and my listening is always
being
> "pushed around" (requiring constant harmonic reorientation) by 12et
Messiaen
> more strongly than any other music I know of. So to me 12et has
plenty of
> ambiguity that in Messiaen's hands allows for rich contextual
harmonic
> expression. I don't know how this relates to the use of octatonic,
nor have
> I looked into non-12et interpretations of octatonic. The 4
repetitions
> within the octave seems to allow a break from some too-standard
ways of
> riding the circle of fifths, and yet (to me) capitalizes on the
> relationships it is breaking from.

***I agree with you here, Kurt! The harmonic relationships in
Messiaen are really stretching at 12-tET. I'm not certain how much
he studied tuning, but the resonances surely make as much use of the
harmonic series as 12-equal has to offer! And he would go for more,
if he could!

>
> > i've already touched on a lot of these points earlier
> > in this post. my position: there are very few
> > orchestras which display a really fine and subtle
> > sense of intonation as a whole. (Johnny Reinhard's
> > AFMM ensembles are one glaring exception.)
>
> I better go hear him next chance I get. Where is he?
>

***In New York. Where are you based, Kurt??

Tx,

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44484

> >> >*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
> >> >and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
> >> >if you consider *all* musicians.
> >>
> >> In the classical world? I couldn't disagree more.
> >
> >hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
> >teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
> >i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
> >either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.
>
> I find this really hard to believe, unless things really
> changed in the 80's. Were you playing any free-pitched
> instruments in any ensembles at Manhattan?
>
> -Carl

***I studied at the graduate level at the Eastman School of Music and
also at the University of Michigan. Tuning was never discussed in
any classes outside briefly in an *acoustics* class at Michigan,
*very* briefly in a Medieval class at Michigan and in a "piano
tuning" class at Michigan...

Otherwise, in all my theory classes it was never even mentioned why
black keys have two different enharmonic names. In fact, I never
really knew anything about this until I joined the present Tuning
List!

J. Pehrson

>***I studied at the graduate level at the Eastman School of Music and
>also at the University of Michigan. Tuning was never discussed in
>any classes outside briefly in an *acoustics* class at Michigan,
>*very* briefly in a Medieval class at Michigan and in a "piano
>tuning" class at Michigan...
>
>Otherwise, in all my theory classes it was never even mentioned why
>black keys have two different enharmonic names. In fact, I never
>really knew anything about this until I joined the present Tuning
>List!

You guys are really missing my point. I'm not talking about theory!!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44508

> >***I studied at the graduate level at the Eastman School of Music
and
> >also at the University of Michigan. Tuning was never discussed in
> >any classes outside briefly in an *acoustics* class at Michigan,
> >*very* briefly in a Medieval class at Michigan and in a "piano
> >tuning" class at Michigan...
> >
> >Otherwise, in all my theory classes it was never even mentioned
why
> >black keys have two different enharmonic names. In fact, I never
> >really knew anything about this until I joined the present Tuning
> >List!
>
> You guys are really missing my point. I'm not talking about
theory!!
>
> -Carl

***No, we get that, Carl... you're talking about adjustments during
*playing...* However, we're still "beefing" that almost *nothing*
about the process was ever addressed in school. It's such a
bewildering omission that it takes *years* to recover from this
fact... :)

J. Pehrson

>***No, we get that, Carl... you're talking about adjustments during
>*playing...* However, we're still "beefing" that almost *nothing*
>about the process was ever addressed in school. It's such a
>bewildering omission that it takes *years* to recover from this
>fact... :)

It's soo true.

As a kid I remember wondering about the cracks between the keys, and
why the barbershop concerts we went to sounded special. In high
school, I asked my music theory teacher about the cracks, and he said
that quarter-tone pianos had been tried but never caught on for some
reason.

Also in high school, I had Switched-On Bach 2000, and read the liner
notes like twenty times. I couldn't figure out what she was talking
about. My freshman year at IU, I found the JI Network site, and read
the Primer excerpt there. Again, it was just so outside the box, I
couldn't figure out what he was talking about. But I could tell it
was big, and I sent away for a bunch of materials, and...

-Carl

on 6/11/03 6:07 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> ***I agree with you here, Kurt! The harmonic relationships in
> Messiaen are really stretching at 12-tET. I'm not certain how much
> he studied tuning, but the resonances surely make as much use of the
> harmonic series as 12-equal has to offer! And he would go for more,
> if he could!
>
>>
>>> i've already touched on a lot of these points earlier
>>> in this post. my position: there are very few
>>> orchestras which display a really fine and subtle
>>> sense of intonation as a whole. (Johnny Reinhard's
>>> AFMM ensembles are one glaring exception.)
>>
>> I better go hear him next chance I get. Where is he?
>
> ***In New York. Where are you based, Kurt??

Unfortunately (in this case) I am in Berkeley, CA. Carl Lumma is also here,
a few blocks away, and we are going to meet tomorrow!

-Kurt

> Tx,
>
> Joseph Pehrson

Kurt,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> Unfortunately (in this case) I am in Berkeley, CA. Carl Lumma is also here,
> a few blocks away, and we are going to meet tomorrow!

On the fortunate side, you have one of the very best of the American orchestras now performing (SFS), a capable but more importantly adventurous group in the Berkeley Symphony (community) orchestra, still (astonishingly enough) led a few times a year by Kent Nagano, and a very healthy early music scene. You have the opportunity to hear and experience many of the issues, including intonation, that have been discussed on the list, only you can go and hear with actual instruments and actual performers instead of some midi realization. You could ask performers in a fine orchestra what *they* think about intonation, schemes of tuning, their thoughts on 12tet, and all the other issues, instead of articles and opinions that are far removed from either the practice or the experience.

It's a great place up there, one of my favorites in the world (I spent a wonderful 36 hours up there about 1.6 weeks ago) and I remain envious of Bay area denizens.

Enjoy your time with Carl, it will be fruitful...

Cheers,
Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <ekin@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] orchestral tunings

> >> >*good* musicians hear subtle differences in intonation
> >> >and adjust their playing, but they're a small minority
> >> >if you consider *all* musicians.
> >>
> >> In the classical world? I couldn't disagree more.
> >
> >hmmm. i studied at a conservatory, and not one single
> >teacher ever said a word about intonation. nor did
> >i ever hear it discussed among any of my colleagues,
> >either in rehearsal or in casual conversation.
>
> I find this really hard to believe, unless things really
> changed in the 80's. Were you playing any free-pitched
> instruments in any ensembles at Manhattan?
>
> -Carl

sure. the one performance ensemble i belonged to
was the Composers Improvisation Group. we played just
about anything that would make a sound, including
a lot of stuff beyond your typical orchestral instruments.
and even when we played those, we were allowed to do
all sorts of obscene things to them, and you can
imagine some of the pitches which resulted!

but anyway, we viewed all that as sort of "coloristic"
stuff, and didn't go into any depth at all about
tunings per se, or even any kind of analysis of
harmonic content. it was all just "cool sounds".

-monz

>sure. the one performance ensemble i belonged to
>was the Composers Improvisation Group. we played just
>about anything that would make a sound, including
>a lot of stuff beyond your typical orchestral instruments.
>and even when we played those, we were allowed to do
>all sorts of obscene things to them, and you can
>imagine some of the pitches which resulted!
>
>but anyway, we viewed all that as sort of "coloristic"
>stuff, and didn't go into any depth at all about
>tunings per se, or even any kind of analysis of
>harmonic content. it was all just "cool sounds".

Sounds cool, and you can get interesting results with
such an approach. I'm sure Jonathan played you recordings
of the ID project...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> w
> > try schubert's late string quartet where there are constant
> > modulations by consecutive major thirds (is it #15?) . . .
>
> The deal is, you're supposed to tell me. His other late, great
quartet
> is #14, Death and the Maiden. Schubert is fond of the relationship
of
> a major third, but in some ways that favors 31, with its wonderful
> major thirds.
>
> I was beginning to work on the Apassionata, but Schubert might be a
> better plan. I need to know which Schubert, however.

i'm pretty sure it's #15. why don't you try it and we'll find out!

> the number
> > of diesis shifts, or degree of diesis drift, that would occur in
> > meantone would be totally unacceptable to my ears, and i'd bet to
> > schubert's too. and this is like 1815 or so, barely even into the
> > romantic period!
>
> I'd imagine a little later.

huh?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> Ok, but has that process really been tainted by 12et over the last
>couple of
> centures, as some seem to indicate? It seems much more likely that
> everybody has most likely been doing something "adaptive" for
>centuries.

the tendency to play pure thirds and sixths was far greater in the
1480-1750 era than since. one can read much documentation in the 18th
century that shows how tastes and performance practices changed over
just a couple of generations, and by 1800, one reads about the very
*opposite* tendencies from the "pure" ones being widely taught.
today, many if not most of the finest string quartets will completely
avoid any semblance of pure thirds or sixths, even when playing music
written when this would have been appropriate.

> > in a more specific case, for example, the playing of
> > a Mozart symphony in 55edo or some other meantone,
>
> Aha. I only learned meantone from 12-tone contexts. I'm taking it
that if
> you extend the equal tempering

you mean "meantone temperament"?

> of the 5ths further, rather than allowing the
> wolf to enter by closing the circle at 12, then you get a pattern
that goes
> through 55 steps before it repeats.

55, or 50, or 43, or 31, or 19, depending on what variety of meantone
you're using (approximately, these correspond to 1/6-comma meantone,
2/7-comma meantone, 1/5-comma meantone, 1/4-comma meantone, and 1/3-
comma meantone, respectively).

> I'm
> assuming now that all the common greater-than-12 et scales that
have been
> discussed actually relate to various different meantone tunings,

well, 22-equal doesn't, for example. only a few equal temperaments
lie on the "meantone line", as you can see on my first graph here:

http://www.sonic-arts.org/dict/eqtemp.htm

> and this
> probably clarifies the relationship between standard notation and a
> greater-than-12 et "interpretation" (which probably becomes
trivial, from
> what I'm guessing now).

yes, for meantones.

> I don't know how this relates to the use of octatonic, nor have
> I looked into non-12et interpretations of octatonic. The 4
repetitions
> within the octave seems to allow a break from some too-standard
ways of
> riding the circle of fifths, and yet (to me) capitalizes on the
> relationships it is breaking from.

perhaps what you're hearing is not a break from 12-equal but a break
from meantone. the same graph i mentioned above contains
a "diminished" line which shows all the ETs which support octatonic
harmony. while messaien's music is still in 12-equal, you might be
hearing a shift from the meantone line to the diminshed line in how
the harmonic logic works out (i haven't heard much messaien that
brings out this particular aspect to me; then again, i haven't heard
much messaien).

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

> i also noted in my last post that right at the beginning
> of Beethoven's career, an "expressive intonation" was
> beginning to be taught which resembled Pythagorean tuning.
> there is yet another family of temperaments to which
> 12edo belongs, which emulates Pythagorean (Aristoxenean
> temperament).

well, aristoxenean temperament simply means 12-equal when it comes to
the fifths, and possibly a multiple thereof when pure thirds and pure
sixths are figured in. since the aristoxenean circle of fifths closes
after 12 fifths, there is a sense in which these tunings don't
emulate pythagorean, with its famous pythagorean comma. a closer
emulation of pythagorean comes from the family known as "schismic",
which also has a line on the graph in question, as well as two
strangely unconnected dictionary entries on monz's site, "schismic"
and "schismatic".

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44521

> sure. the one performance ensemble i belonged to
> was the Composers Improvisation Group. we played just
> about anything that would make a sound, including
> a lot of stuff beyond your typical orchestral instruments.
> and even when we played those, we were allowed to do
> all sorts of obscene things to them, and you can
> imagine some of the pitches which resulted!
>
> but anyway, we viewed all that as sort of "coloristic"
> stuff, and didn't go into any depth at all about
> tunings per se, or even any kind of analysis of
> harmonic content. it was all just "cool sounds".
>
>

***Actually, back in the days when I was studying electronic music at
Michigan, which had a pretty substantial studio back at those times
(whoopie late 60's) there was *no* discussion of harmonic consonance
regarding electronic music.

There was a trigger keyboard that most people ignored, since it was
in 12-equal, and we knew enough to avoid that, if possible, but there
never were studies of possible intonations and consonances along the
lines of Paul Erlich's Harmonic Entropy studies.

People weren't thinking of that dimension of sound in those ways at
that time, at least at that studio...

J. Pehrson

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:13:29 -0000, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:18:24 -0000, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
>
>> At the very least, it would be an arrangement, like my 31-ET version of
>> Ravel's Pavane.
>>
>> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/pavane-31.mid
>
>If you had simply gone ahead and played every note in Ravel's score
>exactly as he wrote it but in 31-et, would it still count as an
>arragement? In what way is this different than taking Mozart and
>playing every note exactly as he wrote it, only in 12-et?

Maybe "arrangement" isn't the best word. Still, it doesn't go as far as
"recomposing".

Ravel uses extended harmonic resources that could be represented more than
one way in 31-ET. I chose the meantone interpretation, but I could as
easily have used a closer approximation to the 7th harmonic in the 9th
chords.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:23:29 -0700, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>>http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/herman_miller.html
>>
>>I especially like the effect of the third movement,
>
>What's going on at 3:38?

I think it's a glitch in the MIDI file. I'm not anywhere near a good enough
pianist to play the third movement in real time, so I sequenced it at a
*really* slow tempo, with lots of hand-editing of timing and removal of
stray notes. The only reason the result is musical is that I had a *lot* of
spare time that year.

>>>I especially like the effect of the third movement,
>>
>>What's going on at 3:38?
>
>I think it's a glitch in the MIDI file. I'm not anywhere near a
>good enough pianist to play the third movement in real time,

It's tough. I've never even attempted it, other than to look at
it and see what he's doing.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >The "Observations on tempering" thread,
> //
> stereo recording ->
> multi-scale FFT ->
> pick out instruments ->
> extract fundamentals ->
> tuning description .
>
> ...The person on this list that probably knows the most about this
> stuff is Francois Laferriere.
>
> -Carl

That's a huge order!

I stopped the measurement part of my little research project on
intonation a few months ago to focus on the software tool part. I
tought that I could avoid software development, but unfortunately what
I need does not really exists. Further I realized that pitch
extraction algorithm commonly used for pitch analysis suffer severe
precision problem for fundamental reasons (I will try to write more
comprehensively later). Autocorrelation based pitch extraction are
limited to precision around 1% (15 cents!! ridiculous for the tuning
list members) and are unable to perform multi-pitch analysis. I can do
much better than that by hand (let say +/- 1-2 cents on multi-pitch
voice for well suited recording), but it is EXTREMELY tedious. As the
information is there, I do not despair to build some tool to make high
precision computer assisted (but not entirely automatic) multi pitch
extraction based on McAulay and Quatieri analysis method.

But I have to limit myself to chamber ensembles. Orchestras produces
fuzzy FFT that are really hard to analysize with precision.

I shall write more about it later

yours truly

François Laferrière

Hello all!

I remember that in the complete recording of Mozart symphonies by the
Academy of Ancient Music directed by C. Hogwood and J.Schroder the
early symphonies where played with harpsichord continuo but not the
later ones. As far as I remember, in the notes, it is stated that this
choice corresponds to and historical change in practices. It was also
alleged that that the later symphonies where sufficiently "fleshed
out" to not necessitate keyboard continuo. But from from Monz's
comment

> the choice of pitches/tuning was already made by Mozart
> in his choice of notation. 55edo has an established
> (i.e., "premeditated calculation") tuning and he chose
> particular notes from it in writing his pieces. in
> the first movement of his 40th Symphony, he uses 19
> different pitches (based on the assumption that sharps
> are different from their "enharmonically-equivalent" flats).
> and it's fascinating to see how he limits his set of
> pitches for certain sections of the music, then expands
> the set at other places by adding new flats, etc.

it seems that there is more than that. The use of fixed tuned continuo
instrument in early symphonies precludes the enharmonic distinction (I
think that splitted black keys where beginning to be uncommon by
Mozart time??). So it seems that removing the harpsichord was
necessary to give room to extra intonation sophistication of later
symphonies.

So we may suppose that the symphonic genre moved from a keyboard
driven intonation to string driven intonation by the time of mozart:
the just tuning of string quartet instrument become the most important
intonation constraint (if the idea that sympathetic vibration of open
strings is correct). I do not remember at which time/symphony number
the harpsichord continuo has ceased to be used, but Monz's comment
suggest that it was a great paradigm shift in orchestra intonation.

I am wondering if at the time Haydn composed his "sturm und drang"
symphonies (experimental music for the time) he intended performance
with keyboard continuo. In those symphonies, Haydn experiment unusual
key signatures.

yours truly

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:

> it seems that there is more than that. The use of fixed tuned
continuo
> instrument in early symphonies precludes the enharmonic distinction
(I
> think that splitted black keys where beginning to be uncommon by
> Mozart time??).

right, mozart and his contemporaries used _well-temperament_ (i.e.,
closed 12-tone systems) on the keyboard, even while teaching extended
meantone for strings. the contradiction was resolved in different
ways by different thinkers of the time . . . we'll probably never
know exactly what happened _in practice_ . . .

> So it seems that removing the harpsichord was
> necessary to give room to extra intonation sophistication of later
> symphonies.

??

> So we may suppose that the symphonic genre moved from a keyboard
> driven intonation to string driven intonation by the time of mozart:
> the just tuning of string quartet instrument become the most
important
> intonation constraint (if the idea that sympathetic vibration of
open
> strings is correct).

i have no idea what you're referring to here. can you please clarify?
sympathetic vibrations aside (since i'm not sure where you're going
with that), strings are today tuned in perfect fifths, including the
C of the cello all the way through the E of the violin, so one often
hears about a pythagorean tendency in strings. however, in mozart's
time, the idea of tuning flattened fifths was still pervasive -- the
term "meantone" didn't even exist yet, as this tuning based on
flattened fifths was so common and well-known it was simply referred
to as "correct" or even "true" intonation.

Paul,

I need your info/help on the following:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> strings are today tuned in perfect fifths, including the
> C of the cello all the way through the E of the violin, so one often
> hears about a pythagorean tendency in strings. however, in mozart's
> time, the idea of tuning flattened fifths was still pervasive -- the
> term "meantone" didn't even exist yet, as this tuning based on
> flattened fifths was so common and well-known it was simply referred
> to as "correct" or even "true" intonation.

If that was the case, how is it said that they tuned the flattened fifths to some common degree of accuracy? It is easy for me to see how one would agree that a 'perfect' fifth is in tune: you would tune until there was a cessation of beats. But if you weren't tuning to a perfect interval, how would you know where to stop?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I need your info/help on the following:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > strings are today tuned in perfect fifths, including the
> > C of the cello all the way through the E of the violin, so one
often
> > hears about a pythagorean tendency in strings. however, in
mozart's
> > time, the idea of tuning flattened fifths was still pervasive --
the
> > term "meantone" didn't even exist yet, as this tuning based on
> > flattened fifths was so common and well-known it was simply
referred
> > to as "correct" or even "true" intonation.
>
> If that was the case, how is it said that they tuned the flattened
>fifths to some common degree of accuracy? It is easy for me to see
>how one would agree that a 'perfect' fifth is in tune: you would
>tune until there was a cessation of beats. But if you weren't tuning
>to a perfect interval, how would you know where to stop?

hi jon,

as you might well expect, the process of tempering fifths was,
particularly in the early part of the meantone era, an art rather
than a science. of course the fifths had to be flattened enough so
that the thirds and sixths ended up relatively pure, but that still
leaves quite a challenge, as well as a bit of leeway, in the tuning
of the fifths. as musicians tended to tune their own instruments in
those days, each would have a significant amount of experience in the
art of tempering, through which they would hone their skills (and,
undoubtedly, come to personal tempering solutions, unique varieties
of regular and irregular meantone that are lost to us today). later
on, the discovery of overtones and beating eventually led to the
publication of more "scientific" methods of acheiving certain flavors
of meantone, but by this time meantone was already on the way out.

you can find some excellent documentation on this in the big
jorgenson _tuning_ tome, for example.

Paul,

Thanks. It has always interested me the facets of music making that today would be nailed down through measurement and analysis, but that at one time were simply another aspect of the 'art' of music. And also means that there is a lot we simply will not, and can not know for certain about practices in those earlier periods.

Cheers,
Jon

>I stopped the measurement part of my little research project on
>intonation a few months ago to focus on the software tool part. I
>tought that I could avoid software development, but unfortunately what
>I need does not really exists. Further I realized that pitch
>extraction algorithm commonly used for pitch analysis suffer severe
>precision problem for fundamental reasons (I will try to write more
>comprehensively later). Autocorrelation based pitch extraction are
>limited to precision around 1% (15 cents!! ridiculous for the tuning
>list members) and are unable to perform multi-pitch analysis. I can do
>much better than that by hand (let say +/- 1-2 cents on multi-pitch
>voice for well suited recording), but it is EXTREMELY tedious. As the
>information is there, I do not despair to build some tool to make high
>precision computer assisted (but not entirely automatic) multi pitch
>extraction based on McAulay and Quatieri analysis method.

Thanks, Francois. +/- 1-2 cents should be sufficient.

I'm excited to hear about your software project. If you'd like
to discuss this off-list, please don't hesitate to contact me.

I will look up McAulay and Quatieri analysis.

>But I have to limit myself to chamber ensembles. Orchestras produces
>fuzzy FFT that are really hard to analysize with precision.

I am quite happy to restrict my attention to wind and vocal chamber
ensembles. I don't care about strings!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Thanks. It has always interested me the facets of music making that
>today would be nailed down through measurement and analysis, but
>that at one time were simply another aspect of the 'art' of music.
>And also means that there is a lot we simply will not, and can not
>know for certain about practices in those earlier periods.

very true -- such was my point when debating bob wendell about the
question whether zarlino's 2/7-comma meantone, the earliest meantone
tuning expressed with mathematical precision, would have been tuned
accurately enough in the 16th century for its synchronous-beating
properties to be realized. i think i managed to convince him that it
wouldn't.

however, i don't doubt that 16th century theorists and tuners could
empirically verify their theories that tempering the fifths "a bit"
would result in pure (5:4) major thirds, and that tempering them "a
tiny bit more" would result in pure (5:3) major sixths. surely they
weren't acheiving perfect 1/4-comma and 1/3-comma meantone, because
they had no way to temper all the fifths the same amount of cents
(and fractions thereof). but on average, since the thirds or sixths
were pure or nearly so, the fifths would have been tempered by the
theoretically stated amounts. at this point i fall into bob's camp in
that i can't, in good conscience, doubt that the 16th century tuning
realities were at least this close to what was painstakingly
documented by theorists and musicians of the time. so it upsets me
greatly when modern theorists dismiss historical tuning systems
altogether, citing the distance between theory and practice in those
days and the "we can not know" argument, and assume that 12-equal has
been the essential "cognitive" basis of western music all along, when
the simple act of targeting pure thirds or sixths would have resulted
in a tuning system so radically different, as regards enharmonics at
least, from 12-equal.

[Francois wrote...]
>it seems that there is more than that. The use of fixed tuned
>continuo instrument in early symphonies precludes the enharmonic
>distinction (I think that splitted black keys where beginning to
>be uncommon by Mozart time??). So it seems that removing the
>harpsichord was necessary to give room to extra intonation
>sophistication of later symphonies.

I see the move away from fixed bass as part of musical development
unrelated to issues of intonation.

Interestingly, the continuo came back in Jazz, but this is off-topic.

[Paul wrote...]
>right, mozart and his contemporaries used _well-temperament_ (i.e.,
>closed 12-tone systems) on the keyboard, even while teaching extended
>meantone for strings. the contradiction was resolved in different
>ways by different thinkers of the time . . . we'll probably never
>know exactly what happened _in practice_ . . .

Fortunately the intonation of the continuo doesn't much interfere
with the intonation of the strings, especially in an adaptive JI
setup where the bass provides roots. The quick decay of the
harpsichord, especially when used for 'comping, the timbral and
rhythmic differences, mean that interference is minimal, esp. for
fast tunes and larger orchestras. Which isn't to say it doesn't
exist. But a global, fixed-pitch solution is not necessary. There
will be a few places in the adaptive stream where the strings will
either bend to the harpsichord, or not.

-Carl

>I will look up McAulay and Quatieri analysis.

Ah, I'd come across this before. Perhaps it was an old post
by you (Francois)... have you ever tried Lemur or Loris?

-Carl

Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> however, i don't doubt that 16th century theorists and tuners could
> empirically verify their theories

The only thing is that when you say "16th century theorists and tuners" it makes it appear monolithic, and that what one would "empircally verify" would satisfy another. With all the technology available at *our* point in history, is every one in agreement? Have all debates been satisfied?

I see your point, but you are still casting an educated and somewhat 'hopeful' glance backward, and the truth of the matter is that we can never know for sure. It is all anecdotal, it is all educated conjecture, because we have no recordings to aurally verify what we surmise was the reality.

> i can't, in good conscience, doubt that the 16th century tuning
> realities were at least this close to what was painstakingly
> documented by theorists and musicians of the time. so it upsets me
> greatly when modern theorists dismiss historical tuning systems
> altogether

I'd never dismiss them, but I can see where people would have room to question assertions.

Don't get worked up, and you've already clarified my thoughts on the subject, and I concur (essentially) with your thoughts on the tuning of the 'perfect' fifths.

Your non-historian,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > however, i don't doubt that 16th century theorists and tuners
could
> > empirically verify their theories
>
> The only thing is that when you say "16th century theorists and
>tuners" it makes it appear monolithic,

not at all -- that's why i said "theories".

> and that what one
>would "empircally verify" would satisfy another.

that doesn't sound right -- perhaps you misread me?

>With all the technology available at *our* point in history, is
>every one in agreement? Have all debates been satisfied?

what are you referring to exactly?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> not at all -- that's why i said "theories".
>
> > and that what one
> >would "empircally verify" would satisfy another.
>
> that doesn't sound right -- perhaps you misread me?

You portray a scenario where any number of tunors and/or theorists can empiracally verify their theory, but achieved no consensus. In other words, one person had a theory that he felt he could verify, another the same with his own theory, etc. So there were many "theories", all (according to you) empircally verifiable, and yet quite possibly contrary to each other. Either the main body of work being done worked in sync with each other, amplifying and solidifying the ideas of intonation (approaching monolithic) or they were all divergent. If the second, I can see no way to gather up all the potentially contradictory trends of the time and have a comfort zone that 'they' knew exactly what they were doing, and base current (future) research on that.

> >With all the technology available at *our* point in history, is
> >every one in agreement? Have all debates been satisfied?
>
> what are you referring to exactly?

That it seems I've seen people present differing views on tuning, supposedly with empirical results, and still have the parties not in any kind of agreement. In a future glance back, how could one draw conclusions - such as you have on the tuning of 5ths - from such a panoply of contradictory work?

Cheers,
Jon

Dear Paul and Jon, how then do you explain that Werckmeister issued
copperplate prints of six different tunings? Wouldn't this give rather objective
results for tempering fifths? (I think so.)

Now, I have "learned" to hear an exact quarter comma flattened fifth. Since
quarter-comma flat fifths, which produce beatless major thirds, were in the
musical environment for decades before Werckmeister, why couldn't musicians of
the time tune -- in 15 minutes at its best -- Werckmeister III tuning, as they
claimed?

And since perfect pitch is a gene, surely these people could "memorize" the
interval and be accurate steadily enough to gain renown for their tuning
skills.

I have to disagree that this study is so nebulous.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> I have to disagree that this study is so nebulous.

Well, I'm just trying to learn more. And while I am always willing to accept how amazing the human can be, music is most frequently consider an aural event, and I'm trying to find a way to accept written documents and information as a substitute for having actually heard the material.

And if study of these period tunings is non-nebulous, how do you explain all the disagreement between people over just one topic, such as the usuge of the Werckmeister tunings?

Cheers,
Jon

Jon, I truly do appreciate your question and I think I found a good tract
that goes straight to the point. To give evidence that exact reproduction of
precise microtonal intervals was indeed possible, Werckmeister wrote:

Each one who wants to comprehend these must himself take hold or pick up the
copper-plate in his reading if he wants to have an understanding of the
temperament. But whoever has first understood these a little, he can show a boy in
an hour how this temperament is constituted, but to the entire process of the
monochord and the temperaments contained therein, belongs time and work,
especially great patience, which is not given everyone. And in this way there is
also no one as far as I know who has touched upon a reason for this. Hence so
many wrong opinions have arisen among musicians and organ builders. I do, in
so far as God gives me grace, and understanding, and I do not intend to bury
my talent in natural sciences, but gladly serve my God and my fellow man with
all my heart (Hehr, p. 108).

best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

Thanks - that is a very persuasive piece. I'm sorry if this is an obtuse question, but what are the "copper-plates" that are referred to? I especially like the bit at the end about burying his natural talent, and the reasons for the varied opinions as well.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon, there are 3 publications of Werckmeister's Musicalische Temperatur, each
with a foldout of the monochordia with 6 different tunings: Rasch, Lindley,
and Pfeiffer.

All best, Johnny Reinhard

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44580

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Thanks. It has always interested me the facets of music making
that
> >today would be nailed down through measurement and analysis, but
> >that at one time were simply another aspect of the 'art' of music.
> >And also means that there is a lot we simply will not, and can not
> >know for certain about practices in those earlier periods.
>
> very true -- such was my point when debating bob wendell about the
> question whether zarlino's 2/7-comma meantone, the earliest
meantone
> tuning expressed with mathematical precision, would have been tuned
> accurately enough in the 16th century for its synchronous-beating
> properties to be realized. i think i managed to convince him that
it
> wouldn't.
>
> however, i don't doubt that 16th century theorists and tuners could
> empirically verify their theories that tempering the fifths "a bit"
> would result in pure (5:4) major thirds, and that tempering them "a
> tiny bit more" would result in pure (5:3) major sixths. surely they
> weren't acheiving perfect 1/4-comma and 1/3-comma meantone, because
> they had no way to temper all the fifths the same amount of cents
> (and fractions thereof). but on average, since the thirds or sixths
> were pure or nearly so, the fifths would have been tempered by the
> theoretically stated amounts. at this point i fall into bob's camp
in
> that i can't, in good conscience, doubt that the 16th century
tuning
> realities were at least this close to what was painstakingly
> documented by theorists and musicians of the time. so it upsets me
> greatly when modern theorists dismiss historical tuning systems
> altogether, citing the distance between theory and practice in
those
> days and the "we can not know" argument, and assume that 12-equal
has
> been the essential "cognitive" basis of western music all along,
when
> the simple act of targeting pure thirds or sixths would have
resulted
> in a tuning system so radically different, as regards enharmonics
at
> least, from 12-equal.

***This is such an interesting paragraph, I just had to make a
comment. Paul, you should put this into some kind of book or
sumpthin'

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44581

> Fortunately the intonation of the continuo doesn't much interfere
> with the intonation of the strings, especially in an adaptive JI
> setup where the bass provides roots. The quick decay of the
> harpsichord, especially when used for 'comping, the timbral and
> rhythmic differences, mean that interference is minimal, esp. for
> fast tunes and larger orchestras. Which isn't to say it doesn't
> exist. But a global, fixed-pitch solution is not necessary. There
> will be a few places in the adaptive stream where the strings will
> either bend to the harpsichord, or not.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl,

We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice of
ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the string
players really go out of their way to listen to the intonation of the
fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course, maybe that's just
because they are trying to master Werckmeister today, and it was
different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt it...

J. Pehrson

In a message dated 6/14/03 11:28:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> > Fortunately the intonation of the continuo doesn't much interfere
> > with the intonation of the strings, especially in an adaptive JI
> > setup where the bass provides roots. -

Hi Carl, I have also noticed that in modern ET performances with harpsichord,
the harpsichord seems superfluous to what was going on. That's what got me
thinking that it couldn't be so back in the day (Baroque). Now, working in
WIII with string players, it is a new day. Players fight to get as close to the
instrument that sets the tuning. At least for Bach, there is no adaptive JI.
As long as the instrument cannot change its pitch, its inflexibility is the
rule of law. Perhaps that is a reason why the parts are in a figured bass,
allowing the player to make judicious choices of what notes to play or not play.

The quick decay of the > > harpsichord, especially when used for 'comping,
> the timbral and> rhythmic differences, mean that interference is minimal, esp.
> for
> > fast tunes and larger orchestras.

Let us not forget all the rehearsals that take place before the eventual
performance. There is great listening to the instrument of least flexibility, the
harpsichord. If this was truly interference, as perhaps in the classical
period, it would be eradicated from the piece.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > not at all -- that's why i said "theories".
> >
> > > and that what one
> > >would "empircally verify" would satisfy another.
> >
> > that doesn't sound right -- perhaps you misread me?
>
> You portray a scenario where any number of tunors and/or theorists
>can empiracally verify their theory, but achieved no consensus. In
>other words, one person had a theory that he felt he could verify,
>another the same with his own theory, etc. So there were
>many "theories", all (according to you) empircally verifiable, and
>yet quite possibly contrary to each other.

how so?

>Either the main body of work being done worked in sync with each
>other, amplifying and solidifying the ideas of intonation >
(approaching monolithic) or they were all divergent. If the second, I
>can see no way to gather up all the potentially contradictory trends
>of the time and have a comfort zone that 'they' knew exactly what
>they were doing, and base current (future) research on that.

i must be missing your point. if it helps, i certainly don't feel
that it's the *trends* that demonstrate the degree of verifiability
of what any given tuner said they were doing, i think the
verifiability must come first, in terms of logical inference from
direct documentated observations, including those that show that (as
it was in some instances) the result was different from the intent.
the trends can then be discerned from the pattern of verified tunings
as well as documented historical evidence during periods in which the
tuning aesthetic was changing within musicians' lifetimes.

> > >With all the technology available at *our* point in history, is
> > >every one in agreement? Have all debates been satisfied?
> >
> > what are you referring to exactly?
>
> That it seems I've seen people present differing views on tuning,
>supposedly with empirical results, and still have the parties not in
>any kind of agreement. In a future glance back, how could one draw
>conclusions - such as you have on the tuning of 5ths - from such a
>panoply of contradictory work?

what panoply of contradictory work, exactly, are you referring to?
the conclusions i've drawn on the tuning of 5ths are simply based on
documented historical fact, and not at all on "differing views on
tuning". there have been different views on religion, but yet
historians have a pretty good sense of some times and places where a
certain religion was practiced fervently . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Dear Paul and Jon, how then do you explain that Werckmeister issued
> copperplate prints of six different tunings? Wouldn't this give
rather objective
> results for tempering fifths? (I think so.)

i'm not sure what you mean. can you elaborate your point?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> And if study of these period tunings is non-nebulous, how do you
>explain all the disagreement between people over just one topic,
>such as the usuge of the Werckmeister tunings?

the question of whether one man, bach, used werckmeister iii and how
much, is one which unfortunately bach left us no direct writings on.
the situation for the european culture as a whole, however, is a
*bit* :) better, with heaps of documentation and plenty of cross-
checking to rely on . . .

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

> ***Hi Carl,
>
> We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice of
> ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the string
> players really go out of their way to listen to the intonation of
the
> fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course, maybe that's just
> because they are trying to master Werckmeister today, and it was
> different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt it...
>
> J. Pehrson

joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent posts
on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the other
side . . .

In a message dated 6/15/03 4:19:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent posts
> on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the other
> side . . .
>
>
>

Paul, maybe Joseph actually hearing the music made a difference that Ibo
cannot make by arguments alone. Johnny

Paul,

I'm officially out of this thread. We have reached another one of our points where neither seems to be able to have a clear view of the other's point, and I don't see any reason to waste the list's time and space.

Cheers,
Jon

> ***Hi Carl,
>
> We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice
> of ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
> string players really go out of their way to listen to the
> intonation of the fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course,
> maybe that's just because they are trying to master Werckmeister
> today, and it was different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt
> it...

Hi JP,

My position is that the tendency for ensembles to stray from a
single fixed-pitch universe is greatly underestimated by theory
as it is currently practiced on these lists. The harpsichord is
separated from the strings by timbre, rhythm, usually an octave
or so, and in live performance, spatial location. I'm not
saying string players don't hear, follow, and sometimes match
the continuo. But it's not correct to say the ensemble is
'playing in Werkmeister 3', or whatever tuning the harpsichord
happens to be in. We'll have measurements on this before too
long, to settle it once and for all.

-Carl

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44649

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Hi Carl,
> >
> > We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice
of
> > ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
string
> > players really go out of their way to listen to the intonation of
> the
> > fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course, maybe that's just
> > because they are trying to master Werckmeister today, and it was
> > different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt it...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent
posts
> on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the
other
> side . . .

***Hi Paul,

I *thought* I had read most of his interchange with Johnny, but maybe
I'm forgetting the details. Do you have a particular post in mind??
(Not to make you "hunt and peck...")

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44658

> > ***Hi Carl,
> >
> > We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice
> > of ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
> > string players really go out of their way to listen to the
> > intonation of the fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course,
> > maybe that's just because they are trying to master Werckmeister
> > today, and it was different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt
> > it...
>
> Hi JP,
>
> My position is that the tendency for ensembles to stray from a
> single fixed-pitch universe is greatly underestimated by theory
> as it is currently practiced on these lists. The harpsichord is
> separated from the strings by timbre, rhythm, usually an octave
> or so, and in live performance, spatial location. I'm not
> saying string players don't hear, follow, and sometimes match
> the continuo. But it's not correct to say the ensemble is
> 'playing in Werkmeister 3', or whatever tuning the harpsichord
> happens to be in. We'll have measurements on this before too
> long, to settle it once and for all.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl,

I guess my view is somewhat "skewed" by conversations with the
cellist Dan Barrett, who asserted that the string players spent
*lots* of time in rehearsal listening carefully to the fixed-pitch
harpsichord so they could get their Werckmeister intonation correct
for the AFMM concert...

Now whether this practice was the same in Mozart's time, I have no
idea...

JP

In a message dated 6/15/03 1:13:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> I'm not
> saying string players don't hear, follow, and sometimes match
> the continuo. But it's not correct to say the ensemble is
> 'playing in Werkmeister 3', or whatever tuning the harpsichord
> happens to be in. We'll have measurements on this before too
> long, to settle it once and for all.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Carl, I find your comments anti-musician. I do not believe you have the
acuity of pitch distinction to believe that others do. I recall your brass
ensemble playing 12tET under the guise of just. Though this is not directly
transferable to you, it leave me concerned that you are basing your judgments on
non-experience. While it is not possible for everyone outside NYC to attend a
successful AFMM concert, let alone to attract everyone in NYC, it is faulty logic
for you to assume the worst. A great recording does exist of Brandenburg
Concerto #2 in Werckmeister III tuning. And while one could extract a note here
and there that is not scientifically one of the chosen 39 distinct intervals
of Werckmeister III, you are barking up the wrong tree.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>I guess my view is somewhat "skewed" by conversations with the
>cellist Dan Barrett, who asserted that the string players spent
>*lots* of time in rehearsal listening carefully to the fixed-pitch
>harpsichord so they could get their Werckmeister intonation correct
>for the AFMM concert...

Ah, well if they're consciously rehearsing it that way for an AFMM
concert, it shouldn't be surprising if it's closer to Werckmeister
than the average chamber performance.

-Carl

>Carl, I find your comments anti-musician.

What in my message could possibly be construed as "anti-musician"?

>I do not believe you have the acuity of pitch distinction to believe
>that others do. I recall your brass ensemble playing 12tET under the
>guise of just. //

Johnny, we've been through this all before, about last year this time.
Do we really need to dig it up again?

Ok, let's...

() Pardon me I'm not swayed by the repeated, extraordinary, and
totally un-substantiated claims you make about the acuity of your
pitch discrimination.

() I never claimed my brass ensemble performed in just intonation.
Since "all music is microtonal", I didn't see a problem putting
them in your concert, since you solicited my participation. I intended
to rehearse them to perform in JI, but there wasn't time to rehearse
them at all, as it turned out. Their performance was terrible, which
places it just slightly above the majority of other acts that day.

() "My" brass ensemble most certainly did NOT perform in 12-tET.
They were all over the place. I'm happy to submit the recording for
analysis of this. You defaulted on your agreement to provide a
digital recording of this performance, and you strongly discouraged
me from making my own. However I have the cassette you provided,
and can access it within the next 6 months.

() Note that it wasn't "my" brass ensemble. When's the last time you
had a non-AFMM classical ensemble at an AFMM concert? Or does the
AFMM have an international monopoly on non-12 classical performance?

() I happen to have the score and recording of _Durham_, certainly
the best act that day, which was in "11-limit just intonation", by a
quartet you claim to have rehearsed. Care to agree on parameters for
a spectral analysis of various chords in this piece?

I haven't looked at this piece closely yet, but I don't remember any
clearly-voiced 11-limit otonalities in the score, which are certainly
absent from the recording.

I suspect a few changes were made to the score in rehearsal. If not,
several moments clearly depart from what's on the page note-wise, let
alone tuning-wise.

-Carl

In a message dated 6/15/03 10:23:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> Carl, I find your comments anti-musician.
>
> What in my message could possibly be construed as "anti-musician"?
>
> >I do not believe you have the acuity of pitch distinction to believe
> >that others do. I recall your brass ensemble playing 12tET under the
> >guise of just. //
>
> Johnny, we've been through this all before, about last year this time.
> Do we really need to dig it up again?
>
> Ok, let's...
>
> () Pardon me I'm not swayed by the repeated, extraordinary, and
> totally un-substantiated claims you make about the acuity of your
> pitch discrimination.
>

This is what I am calling anti-musician. Maybe you can only trust a machine
to have pitch accuracy.

> () I never claimed my brass ensemble performed in just intonation.
> Since "all music is microtonal", I didn't see a problem putting
> them in your concert, since you solicited my participation. I intended
> to rehearse them to perform in JI, but there wasn't time to rehearse
> them at all, as it turned out. Their performance was terrible, which
> places it just slightly above the majority of other acts that day.
>

It is true that a Microthon has lots of amateurity in it. That was the idea:
to present the opportunity for lots of folks to present their work in
microtonality. The AFMM has only done two and plans no more. The results were
indeed often terrible. That is what Kyle Gann is likely referring to when he
speaks of "uneven" performances. And while I do believe intended ET is as
microtonal as any other tuning, I programmed your piece believing it was intended for
just.

> () "My" brass ensemble most certainly did NOT perform in 12-tET.
> They were all over the place. I'm happy to submit the recording for
> analysis of this. You defaulted on your agreement to provide a
> digital recording of this performance, and you strongly discouraged
> me from making my own. However I have the cassette you provided,
> and can access it within the next 6 months.
>

Since the cassette tells the same tale as a CD, you should be able to analyze
it anyway but up. I could send you a CD. Give me an address, if this
"better quality of recording" would make any difference what so ever. I would have
thought it not necessary based on the results. You may notice that no one
else has been voicing chagrin of not getting a recording. I just don't like to
send out CDs of bad performances for distribution. S'funny, you're upset that
you did not get a CD, but find it surprising that I would be disturbed at
getting an out of tune performance.

> () Note that it wasn't "my" brass ensemble. When's the last time you
> had a non-AFMM classical ensemble at an AFMM concert? Or does the
> AFMM have an international monopoly on non-12 classical performance?
>

More and more we will have AFMM concerts so that the players are more and
more familiar with the tunings involved.

> () I happen to have the score and recording of _Durham_, certainly
> the best act that day, which was in "11-limit just intonation", by a
> quartet you claim to have rehearsed. Care to agree on parameters for
> a spectral analysis of various chords in this piece?
>

No, I did not rehearse them. Nor did I rehearse most anything on the
Microthon. I do remember offering that to you, but I guess it didn't work out. Out
of respect for creative artists, I cannot force my opinions on performing
artists. I can only choose not to bring them back in performances. You might to
work things out with the composer of said piece, now an anti-microtonalist.
As such, he has not been invited back.

> I haven't looked at this piece closely yet, but I don't remember any
> clearly-voiced 11-limit otonalities in the score, which are certainly
> absent from the recording.
>

I think you should focus on what brought me to this, that you are quick to
spout out about what other cannot do, but you are not really secure in what you
can do as regards pitch by ear. If that is the case, please stop propagating
what I, or other musicians, can and cannot hear. Please avoid statements of
what we are, and are not listening to.

> I suspect a few changes were made to the score in rehearsal. If not,
> several moments clearly depart from what's on the page note-wise, let
> alone tuning-wise.
>
> -Carl

Who knows, maybe they even made some errors?

best, Johnny Reinhard

>>() Pardon me I'm not swayed by the repeated, extraordinary, and
>>totally un-substantiated claims you make about the acuity of your
>>pitch discrimination.
>
>This is what I am calling anti-musician. Maybe you can only trust
>a machine to have pitch accuracy.

I've seen and heard musicians do things that I could only call
supernatural. It's the height of the human endeavor for me.

>() "My" brass ensemble most certainly did NOT perform in 12-tET.
>They were all over the place. I'm happy to submit the recording for
>analysis of this. You defaulted on your agreement to provide a
>digital recording of this performance, and you strongly discouraged
>me from making my own. However I have the cassette you provided,
>and can access it within the next 6 months.
>
>Since the cassette tells the same tale as a CD, you should be able
>to analyze it anyway but up. I could send you a CD.

The cassette should be sufficient, but I was just advancing an
explanation of why I don't have a copy at hand -- all of my analog
media are in Montana.

>Give me an address, if this "better quality of recording" would make
>any difference what so ever.

Certain kinds of distortion that occurs in cassette recordings might
cause problems; I don't really know.

I'm still committed, by the way, to purchasing a complete set (or as
much as I can afford) of the AFMM recordings when they're available.
If you would include a digital copy of _Retrofit_ in such a shipment
for my own archives I would be appreciative.

>I just don't like to send out CDs of bad performances for distribution.

Me either, and you can't bet I won't be distributing it.

>>() I happen to have the score and recording of _Durham_, certainly
>>the best act that day, which was in "11-limit just intonation", by a
>>quartet you claim to have rehearsed. Care to agree on parameters
>>for a spectral analysis of various chords in this piece?
>
>No, I did not rehearse them.

Sorry, I must have remembered incorrectly from last year's thread.

>I do remember offering that to you, but I guess it didn't work out.

Had the Regal Brass been available for rehearsals, as any professional
group should (and they usually are) I'm sure you, I, or even they
could have improved their performance a great deal.

>You might to work things out with the composer of said piece, now an
>anti-microtonalist.

Yeah, this is a shame. He's a good composer.

>>I haven't looked at this piece closely yet, but I don't remember any
>>clearly-voiced 11-limit otonalities in the score, which are certainly
>>absent from the recording.
>
>I think you should focus on what brought me to this, that you are
>quick to spout out about what other cannot do, but you are not really
>secure in what you can do as regards pitch by ear.

I was just saying that the kind of 11-limit harmony that's easiest
to recognize may not appear in the piece.

>>I suspect a few changes were made to the score in rehearsal. If not,
>>several moments clearly depart from what's on the page note-wise, let
>>alone tuning-wise.
>
>Who knows, maybe they even made some errors?

I don't know anything about strings, but it looks quite hard, and they
definitely choose a demanding tempo.

-Carl

In a message dated 6/15/03 11:45:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> >This is what I am calling anti-musician. Maybe you can only trust
> >a machine to have pitch accuracy.
>
> I've seen and heard musicians do things that I could only call
> supernatural. It's the height of the human endeavor for me.

This is the only real issue. To me there is nothing supernatural in what
"musicians do." Maybe it's akin to Tai Chi. In this self defense form, slow
motion of movements over decades make it possible for the master practitioner to
see an opponent attacking as if in slow motion, allowing for swift responses
of defense. It can look like a "supernatural" response, but not to the expert.

Where ever I travel these days, I try to give tuning demonstrations with my
voice. Ask some of the Californians. Usually I outline the schisma formed by
the difference between a 3/2 perfect fifth and its ET 700 cent counterpart.
Then I sing the cent in between. (Yes, I know it is slightly less than 2 cents
mathematically, ; ) .)

To go on about my "claims" in light of this gradually touches a nerve because
there is nothing I can do over the internet that can change a prejudice that
it is a "false claim." At least, may I suggest, that you withhold judgment
until a later date.

I do wish you all best and hope that you come out with some remarkable
achievements in the microtonal field.

best, Johnny Reinhard

hello Paul

CFrançois:
> So we may suppose that the symphonic genre moved from a keyboard
> driven intonation to string driven intonation by the time of mozart:
> the just tuning of string quartet instrument become the most
important
> intonation constraint (if the idea that sympathetic vibration of
open
> strings is correct).

Paul:
> i have no idea what you're referring to here. can you please
clarify?
> sympathetic vibrations aside (since i'm not sure where you're going
> with that), strings are today tuned in perfect fifths, including the
> C of the cello all the way through the E of the violin, so one often
> hears about a pythagorean tendency in strings. however, in mozart's
> time, the idea of tuning flattened fifths was still pervasive -- the
> term "meantone" didn't even exist yet, as this tuning based on
> flattened fifths was so common and well-known it was simply referred
> to as "correct" or even "true" intonation.
>

I never, up to know, question how the string quartet (quintet in fact
if the double bass is included) is tuned.

DBass.....E2..A2..D3G3
Cello...C2..G2....D3..A3
Alto............C3..G3..D4..A4
Violin..............G3..D4..A4..E5

I suppose that A2,A3 and A4 are tuned on the tuning fork and the other
string are just fifth for the violin family and in fourth for the
double bass (is that correct?). Fortunately, the chain of fourth
(double bass) lead to the same tones as the fifth chain so that the
double bass have only common tones with the violin family.

What I mean is that, this suggest a resonnance framework based on
pythagorean chain of fifth. This truncated chain contains only five
tones C,D,E,G,A. When playing one of those notes, there is probably an
auditory attraction to those notes in order to have a more "brillant"
sound. If there is a tempered instrument in the ensemble, the flexible
tuning instruments try to blend with it.

I observed that with choir. When signing a capella, thirds are just
(more or less). When the piano double the voices, vocal third are
tempered to follow the piano.

Seems that the habit of Mozart time to flattened the open string fifth
was in order to have "better" (nearer just) open string third and
sixth that blend better with the harpsichord.

This CDEGA framework do not let much chance to deviate from
pythagorean intonation when playing in C major. But when moving away
from C major, the number of intonation solution increase quickly.

I am wondering if there has been a systematic analysis of this string
quartet resonance framework wrt intonation? anybody have hear of such
research, article, web site??

yours truly

François Laferrière

Hello Carl:

[Carl wrote:]
> I see the move away from fixed bass as part of musical
> development unrelated to issues of intonation.

I try to learn my kids to not be satisfied by a single answer to a
"why" question ;-)
The disapearance of the harpsichord from the orchestra is certainly
due, in part to its incapacity to get audible in larger orchestras.
But, as suggested by Monz note, that may be not the only reason
related to intonation. Further the harpsichord sound may have been
simply out of fashion...

> Fortunately the intonation of the continuo doesn't much interfere
> with the intonation of the strings, especially in an adaptive JI
> setup where the bass provides roots. The quick decay of the
> harpsichord, especially when used for 'comping, the timbral and
> rhythmic differences, mean that interference is minimal, esp. for
> fast tunes and larger orchestras. Which isn't to say it doesn't
> exist. But a global, fixed-pitch solution is not necessary. There
> will be a few places in the adaptive stream where the strings will
> either bend to the harpsichord, or not.

I am not convinced. Even though the harpsichord notes have quick
decay, it also have a lot higher harmonics of significant amplitude
that do interfere with upper instrument notes (especially if played
vibratoless, as it seems to be more common in baroque and classical
eras). Further, the bass realisation on the keyboard imply chords, not
a single line bass (unlike cello continuo).

So getting rid of fixed tuning instrument gives more flexibility for
the realisation of chord much more complex than tryad and eventually
open the way for complex constructions such as the "Tristan chord"
etc.

yours truly

François Laferrière

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >I will look up McAulay and Quatieri analysis.
>
> Ah, I'd come across this before. Perhaps it was an old post
> by you (Francois)... have you ever tried Lemur or Loris?
>
> -Carl

Yes, I tried Lemur, and even though it is not open source, they nicely
published the file format, so perhaps, I will be able to write post
processing analysis software for lemur files.

Thanks

François

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/15/03 4:19:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent
posts
> > on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the
other
> > side . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
> Paul, maybe Joseph actually hearing the music made a difference
that Ibo
> cannot make by arguments alone. Johnny

hearing the music? joseph was talking generalities, not a specific
performance.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > ***Hi Carl,
> >
> > We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice
> > of ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
> > string players really go out of their way to listen to the
> > intonation of the fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course,
> > maybe that's just because they are trying to master Werckmeister
> > today, and it was different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt
> > it...
>
> Hi JP,
>
> My position is that the tendency for ensembles to stray from a
> single fixed-pitch universe is greatly underestimated by theory
> as it is currently practiced on these lists.

hmm . . . certainly we've seen quite a spectrum of views on this
issue, with joseph currently seeming to fall into the fixed-pitch
camp and you and i arguing the alternative. are we not going far
enough?

> The harpsichord is
> separated from the strings by timbre, rhythm, usually an octave
> or so, and in live performance, spatial location.

not to mention, often different pitches altogether!

> I'm not
> saying string players don't hear, follow, and sometimes match
> the continuo. But it's not correct to say the ensemble is
> 'playing in Werkmeister 3', or whatever tuning the harpsichord
> happens to be in. We'll have measurements on this before too
> long, to settle it once and for all.

if johnny instructed the players to play in werckmeister 3, they may
be coming closer to it than they normally would. but i have extensive
first-hand experience with a similar combination of instruments,
steel-string acoustic guitars and voices, and i'll tell you that good
voices will tend to adaptively tune to one another regardless of the
equally-tempered intervals of the guitar. you can often even hear the
slow beating in the vocal harmonies and contrast them with the rapid
beating in the guitar chord.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>
> /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44649
>
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > ***Hi Carl,
> > >
> > > We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the practice
> of
> > > ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
> string
> > > players really go out of their way to listen to the intonation
of
> > the
> > > fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course, maybe that's
just
> > > because they are trying to master Werckmeister today, and it
was
> > > different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt it...
> > >
> > > J. Pehrson
> >
> > joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent
> posts
> > on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the
> other
> > side . . .
>
>
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> I *thought* I had read most of his interchange with Johnny, but
maybe
> I'm forgetting the details. Do you have a particular post in
mind??
> (Not to make you "hunt and peck...")
>
> JP

basically, the idea of string players going out of their way to
listen to the intonation of the fixed-pitch continuo makes some
sense, but ibo and others, speaking from first-hand experience, know
that in each particular harmonic verticality, many, if not most,
skilled string players (at least those sensitive to any tuning
aesthetic other than modern strict 12-equal) will be far more liable
to lock into adaptive harmonies with one another than to respect the
scale of the harpsichord to the extent of playing significantly
tempered intervals even when they may not be present at that moment
in time. obviously it's an aesthetic choice the director must make
whether to encourage or work against these tendencies, and i'm not
claiming one approach is more valid than the other. but from personal
experience, i know that when it comes to singing at least, the
gravitational pull of vertical just sonorities with the other singers
far overwhelms the tempering that a few individual, rapidly decaying
steel strings may imply. recall that the ear hears a harmonic series
as a single musical entity, integrated and without separable parts --
when a group of singers produces a vertically just harmony, the
impression is of a single, marvellous vocal sound being produced, and
the seduction of listener and singer alike that results is simply
overwhelming (in my experience).

you said "the practice of ensemble playing". there is more than one
ensemble in existence!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably chosen for a
> >given piece (or movement) informed at _least_ by what key the piece
> >is in, and that a really sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is
> >really familiar with the origins of a particular piece might be
> >choosing the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.
>
> Very few ensembles attempt this. On this list we have Reinhard,
> and we might still have Bob Wendell...

bob wendell? bob staunchly advocated an *adaptive* tuning aesthetic,
to the point where full-comma shifts, though he thought they should
*ideally* be minimized, didn't really bother him at all. the idea of
a fixed 12-tone system, even for a particular segment of music, would
be quite the opposite of bob's aesthetic beliefs.

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

> ***Hi Carl,
>
> I guess my view is somewhat "skewed" by conversations with the
> cellist Dan Barrett, who asserted that the string players spent
> *lots* of time in rehearsal listening carefully to the fixed-pitch
> harpsichord so they could get their Werckmeister intonation correct
> for the AFMM concert...

because johnny asked them to?

>hmm . . . certainly we've seen quite a spectrum of views on this
>issue, with joseph currently seeming to fall into the fixed-pitch
>camp and you and i arguing the alternative.

And Francois recently weighing in.

>are we not going far enough?

I think I've already gone too far. :)

>> The harpsichord is separated from the strings by timbre, rhythm,
>> usually an octave or so, and in live performance, spatial location.
>
>not to mention, often different pitches altogether!

In fact, that too.

>if johnny instructed the players to play in werckmeister 3, they may
>be coming closer to it than they normally would.

Of course (see my subsequent post).

>but i have extensive first-hand experience with a similar combination
>of instruments, steel-string acoustic guitars and voices, and i'll
>tell you that good voices will tend to adaptively tune to one another
>regardless of the equally-tempered intervals of the guitar. you can
>often even hear the slow beating in the vocal harmonies and contrast
>them with the rapid beating in the guitar chord.

Absolutely. In fact, just yesterday I heard a local 'vintage jazz'
group called Hot House < htttp://hothouseswingband.com > perform
(they're great -- they did "that killin' jive", a "reefer madness"
tune) and, just as you'll hear on classic Warner Bros. cartoons (for
example), the vocal harmonies were in a completely different world
from the rest of the band. I suspect the channel separation common
in rock production makes this more pronounced than in the acoustic
setting of a classical chamber ensemble, but nevertheless...

-Carl

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

[carl:]

> > () Pardon me I'm not swayed by the repeated, extraordinary, and
> > totally un-substantiated claims you make about the acuity of your
> > pitch discrimination.

[johnny:]

> This is what I am calling anti-musician. Maybe you can only trust
a machine
> to have pitch accuracy.

so the only possible options are

1. trust johnny's extraordinary, unsubstantiated claims
2. be an anti-musician

???

this strikes me as some kind of musical fascism -- don't question
authority! count me out.

> S'funny, you're upset that
> you did not get a CD, but find it surprising that I would be
disturbed at
> getting an out of tune performance.

huh? carl was at least as disturbed as anyone at getting an out of
tune performance. why would he be surprised if you felt similarly? i
don't get it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:

> Seems that the habit of Mozart time to flattened the open string
fifth
> was in order to have "better" (nearer just) open string third and
> sixth that blend better with the harpsichord.

or to blend better at all, harpsichord or no.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:

> So getting rid of fixed tuning instrument gives more flexibility for
> the realisation of chord much more complex than tryad and eventually
> open the way for complex constructions such as the "Tristan chord"
> etc.

pardon me, but this seems totally backward to me, francois. the more
complex harmonies developed out of the standardization of 12-equal,
it seems to me. i must be missing something in your thinking. so you
believe that the "Tristan chord" would not be adequately represented
had a harpsichord been present to plunk out its attack? how do you
think it should be tuned? 5:6:7:9? 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4? 10:12:15:17?
something else? what "much more complex" chords are you referring to?
can you give any examples?

In a message dated 6/16/03 3:39:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> but i have extensive
> first-hand experience with a similar combination of instruments,
> steel-string acoustic guitars and voices, and i'll tell you that good
> voices will tend to adaptively tune to one another regardless of the
> equally-tempered intervals of the guitar. you can often even hear the
> slow beating in the vocal harmonies and contrast them with the rapid
> beating in the guitar chord.

Paul, there is no similarity here. Guitarists bend strings which distorts
tuning. Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting system of any
kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend strings when they are
playing. The harpsichord does not.

Also, good voices are not the instrumentalists. They can measure visually
while the voice cannot.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/16/03 4:39:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> this strikes me as some kind of musical fascism -- don't question
> authority! count me out.
>
>

This may be a form of projection on your part. You seem to be the new
representative of the status quo. If you come to NYC, why not find out for
yourself. Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 3:39:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > but i have extensive
> > first-hand experience with a similar combination of instruments,
> > steel-string acoustic guitars and voices, and i'll tell you that
good
> > voices will tend to adaptively tune to one another regardless of
the
> > equally-tempered intervals of the guitar. you can often even hear
the
> > slow beating in the vocal harmonies and contrast them with the
rapid
> > beating in the guitar chord.
>
>
> Paul, there is no similarity here. Guitarists bend strings which
distorts
> tuning.

johnny, there is no bending going on with two acoustic guitars
with .013 gauge strings and a mandolin.

> Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting system of
any
> kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend strings
when they are
> playing. The harpsichord does not.

the amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered third to a
just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on it, but
it's *huge* on one of these instruments. it's a whole other universe.

plus, try bending the pitch *downward*, which would be required on
the thirds of the major chords. do you have any idea how difficult
this is?

plusplus, did you read what i wrote about beating?

> Also, good voices are not the instrumentalists. They can measure
visually
> while the voice cannot.

what are you saying? that if the vocalists were hooked up to tuning
machines so that they could see their pitch inflections differently,
they would suddenly abandon the sheer bliss of locked-in vocal
harmonies in favor of a 12-equal neutral position on the tuner? i
doubt it!

>> >I am assuming that a given 12-tone system is probably chosen for a
>> >given piece (or movement) informed at _least_ by what key the piece
>> >is in, and that a really sophisticated orchestra/conductor that is
>> >really familiar with the origins of a particular piece might be
>> >choosing the 12-tone interpretation very carefully.
>>
>> Very few ensembles attempt this. On this list we have Reinhard,
>> and we might still have Bob Wendell...
>
>bob wendell? bob staunchly advocated an *adaptive* tuning aesthetic,
>to the point where full-comma shifts, though he thought they should
>*ideally* be minimized, didn't really bother him at all. the idea of
>a fixed 12-tone system, even for a particular segment of music, would
>be quite the opposite of bob's aesthetic beliefs.

You're absolutely right. I remember bringing up Bob Wendell recently
when someone was asking about training techniques for JI... don't know
why I would have brought him up re. the above question...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 4:39:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > this strikes me as some kind of musical fascism -- don't question
> > authority! count me out.
> >
> >
>
> This may be a form of projection on your part. You seem to be the
new
> representative of the status quo.

??

>If you come to NYC,

with audio tests for you? or are those "anti-musician"?

P,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> you said "the practice of ensemble playing". there is more than one
> ensemble in existence!

Exactly. And steel string acoustic guitar and voices (never mentioned what *kind* of music) is a very different setting from harpsichord and stringed instruments. Context has a big role to play in this, which you only allude to in commenting on the 'director's' role in the preparation.

If all musical phenomena could be reduced and deduced through measurement only, it would be a really, really, really dull art. Thankfully, things happen that pertain to context, style, performance practice, training, attitude, intention, etc. If and when one of the people who really cares about measurement of these phenomena finally gets a tool set that can work in any kind of environment and any kind of media, I really hope they set themselves the task of 'measuring' a wide assortment of the kind of ensembles that do this style of music - the styles of music that would be most properly represented in the meantones and Werckmeister modes that have been discusse - on a regular and very high-skill level.

Not experiments of a few notes.
Not similar 'kinds' of ensembles.
Not local community groups.
Not one or two single ensembles, and certainly not those that are thrown together for a performance or two.

What would really blow open the doors of perception is if there could be input on this subject by artists and performers of this very kind of music, in these very kind of settings, rather than the usual suspects from within this cloistered gathering. People who are actually out there performing it, wallowing in the intonations. Not opinions, experiments, midi files, 'similar' situations, and lots of other "input" that doesn't come anywhere *near* the source of the discussion.

I may not be around, but it would be interesting, to say the least.

Cheers,
Jon

Well said, Jon.

Johnny

In a message dated 6/16/03 5:10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > Paul, there is no similarity here. Guitarists bend strings which
> distorts
> > tuning.
>
> johnny, there is no bending going on with two acoustic guitars
> with .013 gauge strings and a mandolin.
>

I don't believe this based on my experiences. A good way to check this is to
look at a good videotape of the playing and look for nonparallel strings in
the playing. If they become nonparallel then they change tuning. I bet it
happens all the time.

> > Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting system of
> any
> > kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend strings
> when they are
> > playing. The harpsichord does not.
>
> the amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered third to a
> just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on it, but
> it's *huge* on one of these instruments. it's a whole other universe.
>

Exactly my point. The change of 400 cents to 386 cents, or 14 cents is
minimal so that any stretch of any kind puts the intonation awry. It's not enough
just to strum a perfectly set up instrument. The slightest bend of the
string, all too natural for guitarists, even acoustic classical players, means that
they have a flexibility of intonation that goes outside of any set tuning.
The harpsichord does not do this.

> plusplus, did you read what i wrote about beating?
>
> > Also, good voices are not the instrumentalists. They can measure
> visually
> > while the voice cannot.
>
> what are you saying? that if the vocalists were hooked up to tuning
> machines so that they could see their pitch inflections differently,
> they would suddenly abandon the sheer bliss of locked-in vocal
> harmonies in favor of a 12-equal neutral position on the tuner? i
> doubt it!

Unlike the guitar experiment where one can "see" nonparallel strings in
actual playing, the voice cannot. And yes, as a vocalist, biofeedback from tuning
machines do make a huge difference in gaining the confidence to diagnose an
interval. Even as a bassoonist, which is based on vocal principles, I needed
trustworthy biofeedback to learn my intervals. Abandoning sheer bliss is not at
issue. Professional trustworthiness trumps one's particular definition of
sheer bliss. There are other times when one's sheer bliss is the aim, and other
times when it is not.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 6/16/03 5:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> with audio tests for you? or are those "anti-musician"?

All it would require is a visit. I could set up a schisma and then divide
it, and even turn single cents into a scale, vocally and instrumentally. And
you could listen to the AFMM Bach BC#2 besides. "Anti-musician" is not trusting
the musicians that make your music for you.

best, Johnny

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44711

> hmm . . . certainly we've seen quite a spectrum of views on this
> issue, with joseph currently seeming to fall into the fixed-pitch
> camp and you and i arguing the alternative. are we not going far
> enough?
>

***Well, I have no "ax to grind" on this issue. In fact, I wouldn't
grind my "ax" in any case... I'm just responding to what Dan Barrett
said about Johnny Reinhard's rehearsals and that was that the strings
listened very carefully and tried to emulate the Werckmeister tuning
in the harpsichord, and that's how they were able to reproduce it.
At least that's what Dan was telling me...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44712

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44649
> >
> > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ***Hi Carl,
> > > >
> > > > We should probably hear from Johnny Reinhard about the
practice
> > of
> > > > ensemble playing regarding this. My impression was that the
> > string
> > > > players really go out of their way to listen to the
intonation
> of
> > > the
> > > > fixed-pitch continuo (harpsichord). Of course, maybe that's
> just
> > > > because they are trying to master Werckmeister today, and it
> was
> > > > different back in Mozart's time, but I doubt it...
> > > >
> > > > J. Pehrson
> > >
> > > joseph, have you read many of friederich (ibo ortgies)'s recent
> > posts
> > > on this list? perhaps you're not getting the full view from the
> > other
> > > side . . .
> >
> >
> > ***Hi Paul,
> >
> > I *thought* I had read most of his interchange with Johnny, but
> maybe
> > I'm forgetting the details. Do you have a particular post in
> mind??
> > (Not to make you "hunt and peck...")
> >
> > JP
>
> basically, the idea of string players going out of their way to
> listen to the intonation of the fixed-pitch continuo makes some
> sense, but ibo and others, speaking from first-hand experience,
know
> that in each particular harmonic verticality, many, if not most,
> skilled string players (at least those sensitive to any tuning
> aesthetic other than modern strict 12-equal) will be far more
liable
> to lock into adaptive harmonies with one another than to respect
the
> scale of the harpsichord to the extent of playing significantly
> tempered intervals even when they may not be present at that moment
> in time. obviously it's an aesthetic choice the director must make
> whether to encourage or work against these tendencies, and i'm not
> claiming one approach is more valid than the other. but from
personal
> experience, i know that when it comes to singing at least, the
> gravitational pull of vertical just sonorities with the other
singers
> far overwhelms the tempering that a few individual, rapidly
decaying
> steel strings may imply. recall that the ear hears a harmonic
series
> as a single musical entity, integrated and without separable parts -
-
> when a group of singers produces a vertically just harmony, the
> impression is of a single, marvellous vocal sound being produced,
and
> the seduction of listener and singer alike that results is simply
> overwhelming (in my experience).
>
> you said "the practice of ensemble playing". there is more than one
> ensemble in existence!

***Yes, certainly this makes sense, Paul and I'm sure it happens.
Although, don't people say sometimes that strings play in
Pythagorean?? That's a *type* of just, yes, but the thirds would be
quite a bit larger than the integrated just ones, no??

And, in the case of the Werckmeister, the players were specifically
instructed to listen to the fixed-pitch harpsichord to get the tuning
right... at least this was my impression, unless Johnny informs us
otherwise...

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44714

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Hi Carl,
> >
> > I guess my view is somewhat "skewed" by conversations with the
> > cellist Dan Barrett, who asserted that the string players spent
> > *lots* of time in rehearsal listening carefully to the fixed-
pitch
> > harpsichord so they could get their Werckmeister intonation
correct
> > for the AFMM concert...
>
> because johnny asked them to?

***Yes, apparently, plus the fact that, apparently, that was the only
way they thought they could do it accurately....

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44724

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
> <francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
>
> > So getting rid of fixed tuning instrument gives more flexibility
for
> > the realisation of chord much more complex than tryad and
eventually
> > open the way for complex constructions such as the "Tristan chord"
> > etc.
>
> pardon me, but this seems totally backward to me, francois. the
more
> complex harmonies developed out of the standardization of 12-equal,
> it seems to me. i must be missing something in your thinking. so
you
> believe that the "Tristan chord" would not be adequately
represented
> had a harpsichord been present to plunk out its attack? how do you
> think it should be tuned? 5:6:7:9? 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4? 10:12:15:17?
> something else? what "much more complex" chords are you referring
to?
> can you give any examples?

***Your idea certainly seems on target, Paul. Complex chords coming
from 12-equal: from Wagner to complex jazz chords, as we've
discussed. Firmly "wedded" to 12-equal...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 5:10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > > Paul, there is no similarity here. Guitarists bend strings
which
> > distorts
> > > tuning.
> >
> > johnny, there is no bending going on with two acoustic guitars
> > with .013 gauge strings and a mandolin.
> >
>
> I don't believe this based on my experiences.

how many gigs or recordings have you executed on guitar? .013 gauge
strings?

> A good way to check
this is to
> look at a good videotape of the playing and look for nonparallel
strings in
> the playing. If they become nonparallel then they change tuning. I
bet it
> happens all the time.

on very light string electrics, yes. i can hear such changes in tuning
and i know when they occur -- usually they are to be discouraged, but
done very carefully they can be part of an "adaptive" tuning approach,
as i demonstrated to joseph recently (on his electric guitar).

> > > Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting system
of
> > any
> > > kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend strings
> > when they are
> > > playing. The harpsichord does not.
> >
> > the amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered third to
a
> > just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on it, but
> > it's *huge* on one of these instruments. it's a whole other
universe.
> >
>
> Exactly my point. The change of 400 cents to 386 cents, or 14 cents
is
> minimal so that any stretch of any kind puts the intonation awry.

johnny, can't you understand plain english? read what i wrote again.

>It's not enough
> just to strum a perfectly set up instrument. The slightest bend of
the
> string, all too natural for guitarists, even acoustic classical
players,

i'm not talking about classical guitar, johnny. those have nylon
strings, and are usually much softer.

> > plusplus, did you read what i wrote about beating?

no answer.

look johnny, take an acoustic (steel-string) guitar with .013s in
standard tuning. try to play a D major chord, A major chord, E major,
G major, or C major (the most common in acoustic guitar music) and
bend them *anywhere near* just intonation. even in the *direction* of
just intonation. can you?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/03 5:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > with audio tests for you? or are those "anti-musician"?
>
>
> All it would require is a visit.

with audio tests for you?

In a message dated 6/17/03 1:27:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > I don't believe this based on my experiences.
>
> how many gigs or recordings have you executed on guitar? .013 gauge
> strings?
>

My experiences are with Jon Catler and other great guitarists. As you well
know, I am not a guitarist. Nor am I a harpist, violinist, harpsichordist,
etc. But I am a virtuoso and I am a director of just about every instrument at
one time or another. Perhaps what you are trying to say is it is less likely
to bend .013 gauge strings? Why not just say so?

> > A good way to check
> this is to
> > look at a good videotape of the playing and look for nonparallel
> strings in
> > the playing. If they become nonparallel then they change tuning. I
> bet it
> > happens all the time.
>
> on very light string electrics, yes. i can hear such changes in tuning
> and i know when they occur -- usually they are to be discouraged, but
> done very carefully they can be part of an "adaptive" tuning approach,
> as i demonstrated to joseph recently (on his electric guitar).

Ah, I am not Joseph. And I was not there. But I think Ibo's idea of
adaptive tuning as it applied to Bach was off the wall. Now, you may be doing it for
blues and other musics, but it has lead you to wrong understandings of what
is done in playing Bach. I realize that I am continuing to point to Bach, but
that is where I am specializing and I think the generalists are selling out
the truth. (generally speaking, of course)

> > > > Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting system
> of
> > > any
> > > > kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend strings
> > > when they are
> > > > playing. The harpsichord does not.
> > >
> > > the amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered third to
> a
> > > just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on it, but
> > > it's *huge* on one of these instruments. it's a whole other
> universe.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly my point. The change of 400 cents to 386 cents, or 14 cents
> is
> > minimal so that any stretch of any kind puts the intonation awry.
>
> johnny, can't you understand plain english? read what i wrote again.
>

Man, you are obtuse! I can read what you wrote several ways. I'm only
trying to get your real meaning. Maybe you can try insulting me a bit more before
you do. It's sure to make me extra receptive.

> >It's not enough
> > just to strum a perfectly set up instrument. The slightest bend of
> the
> > string, all too natural for guitarists, even acoustic classical
> players,
>
> i'm not talking about classical guitar, johnny. those have nylon
> strings, and are usually much softer.
>
> > > plusplus, did you read what i wrote about beating?
>
> no answer.
>
> look johnny, take an acoustic (steel-string) guitar with .013s in
> standard tuning. try to play a D major chord, A major chord, E major,
> G major, or C major (the most common in acoustic guitar music) and
> bend them *anywhere near* just intonation. even in the *direction* of
> just intonation. can you?

Besides the fact I don't have a guitar, or even the callouses to proceed, I
have no interest in hearing movements to just intonation. You are forcing the
issue to your terrain and I am searching for different answers to different
questions. If you can't help, just drop it already. J

In a message dated 6/17/03 1:27:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> with audio tests for you?

Maybe you won't be able to hear the differences yourself and that is what
worries you. I'm sorry, I don't mean to embarrass you. J

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/03 1:27:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > > I don't believe this based on my experiences.
> >
> > how many gigs or recordings have you executed on guitar? .013
gauge
> > strings?
> >
>
> My experiences are with Jon Catler and other great guitarists. As
you well
> know, I am not a guitarist. Nor am I a harpist, violinist,
harpsichordist,
> etc. But I am a virtuoso and I am a director of just about every
instrument at
> one time or another. Perhaps what you are trying to say is it is
less likely
> to bend .013 gauge strings? Why not just say so?

didn't i?

> > > A good way to check
> > this is to
> > > look at a good videotape of the playing and look for
nonparallel
> > strings in
> > > the playing. If they become nonparallel then they change
tuning. I
> > bet it
> > > happens all the time.
> >
> > on very light string electrics, yes. i can hear such changes in
tuning
> > and i know when they occur -- usually they are to be discouraged,
but
> > done very carefully they can be part of an "adaptive" tuning
approach,
> > as i demonstrated to joseph recently (on his electric guitar).
>
> Ah, I am not Joseph. And I was not there. But I think Ibo's idea
of
> adaptive tuning as it applied to Bach was off the wall.

what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

> Now, you
may be doing it for
> blues and other musics, but it has lead you to wrong understandings
of what
> is done in playing Bach.

excuse me, johnny, *i* was the one talking about *not* bending the
strings. i brought up the adaptive thing only to *agree* with you
about the electric guitar (and to point out to you that i already
know very well what does and does not happen when you play various
chords on various guitars). when *i* play bach, i never attempt any
adaptive bending, and certainly on the 12-tone guitar i would never
dream of perverting bach's music with the kinds of pitch shifts that
would result. why are you twisting this around?

> I realize that I am continuing to point
to Bach, but
> that is where I am specializing and I think the generalists are
selling out
> the truth. (generally speaking, of course)

well, i don't know what generalist you're speaking of, but again, i
was the one talking about the strings *not* bending toward just
intonation.

> > > > > Even with perfect tuning of open strings, and a fretting
system
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > kind of perfection, players, even the best players, bend
strings
> > > > when they are
> > > > > playing. The harpsichord does not.
> > > >
> > > > the amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered
third to
> > a
> > > > just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on it,
but
> > > > it's *huge* on one of these instruments. it's a whole other
> > universe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exactly my point. The change of 400 cents to 386 cents, or 14
cents
> > is
> > > minimal so that any stretch of any kind puts the intonation
awry.
> >
> > johnny, can't you understand plain english? read what i wrote
again.
> >
>
> Man, you are obtuse! I can read what you wrote several ways. I'm
only
> trying to get your real meaning. Maybe you can try insulting me a
bit more before
> you do. It's sure to make me extra receptive.

i'm very sorry. let me restate with capital letters

The amount of force it takes to bend an equally-tempered
third to a just third is minimal on an electric guitar with .009s on
it, but it's *huge* on one of these instruments. It's a whole other
universe.

and let me add

Even on an electric guitar, it's well nigh impossible to play any of
the 5 most common major chords (the way they're most commonly played)
and bend them into just intonation. try it!

> Besides the fact I don't have a guitar, or even the callouses to
proceed, I
> have no interest in hearing movements to just intonation.

The point is that this can't be done, not that it can (and would or
wouldn't then be of musical interest)!

> You are
forcing the
> issue to your terrain and I am searching for different answers to
different
> questions. If you can't help, just drop it already. J

i'd love to help. i'm keenly aware of guitar practice in many styles
and having been a listener, a performer, and a recording producer, i
can hear that the beats in the acoustic guitar chords go *faster*
than the corresponding beats in the vocal harmonies they accompany. i
can move any interval a semitone down and then bend it up to match
the vocal harmony if i wish. the most common chords, however, use
open strings, which can't be bent while fretting other strings. and
major chords would require you to bend the latter strings *downward*
in pitch, which simply can't be done on acoustic steel-string guitar.
i'm sorry if i got emotional and/or incomprehensible in the course of
sharing what i know with you. but i stand by my statements (insult
excepted) due to my intimate experience with this issue.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/03 1:27:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > with audio tests for you?
>
> Maybe you won't be able to hear the differences yourself and that
is what
> worries you. I'm sorry, I don't mean to embarrass you. J

i never made claims of being able to produce/recognize any interval
from 0 to 1200 cents to an accuracy of 1 cent.

let's say i'm completely deaf. ok? now how about those audio tests?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
> <francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
>
> > Seems that the habit of Mozart time to flattened the open string
> fifth
> > was in order to have "better" (nearer just) open string third and
> > sixth that blend better with the harpsichord.
>
> or to blend better at all, harpsichord or no.

absolutely correct

François

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> This may be a form of projection on your part. You seem to be the new > representative of the status quo. If you come to NYC, why not find out for > yourself. Johnny

Paul, is this true? Maybe you could get them to do "Down, Down, Deeper and Down" with 22-equal fretted guitars! I'd buy it!!

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
> <francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
>
> > So getting rid of fixed tuning instrument gives more flexibility
for
> > the realisation of chord much more complex than tryad and
eventually
> > open the way for complex constructions such as the "Tristan chord"
> > etc.
>
> pardon me, but this seems totally backward to me, francois. the more
> complex harmonies developed out of the standardization of 12-equal,
> it seems to me. i must be missing something in your thinking. so you
> believe that the "Tristan chord" would not be adequately represented
> had a harpsichord been present to plunk out its attack? how do you
> think it should be tuned? 5:6:7:9? 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4? 10:12:15:17?
> something else? what "much more complex" chords are you referring
to?
> can you give any examples?

Chord "complexity" is an ill choosen term, sorry about that

In what I have in mind is any chord which can include ratio such as
7/6 (266 ¢) 7/4 (969 ¢) or any such simple ratio that are far away
from any interval from any usual temperament.
My belief (not really substanciated yet, to be honest...) is that
simple ratio (low harmonic entropy ?) have a strong attraction for
ensemble of flexible pitch instruments or voices. For instance the
simplest form of the common 7th dominant chord is 4:5:6:7 is out of
question on a keyboard.

In fact, I have plenty of questions on orchestral tuning, but not the
shadow of an answer:

- If the removal of the keyboard is a necessary condition for
expression of septimal intervals, is it sufficient?
- Are those interval attested in western music performance?
- If so in which style ? (I would not be surprised that they where
used in madrigals by the time of Monteverdi)
- Is it only imaginable that septimal interval occured in classical
orchestra?

yours truly

François Laferrière

In a message dated 6/17/03 5:44:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
francois.laferriere@oxymel.com writes:

> > > Seems that the habit of Mozart time to flattened the open string
> > fifth
> > > was in order to have "better" (nearer just) open string third and
> > > sixth that blend better with the harpsichord.
> >
> > or to blend better at all, harpsichord or no.
>
>

Couldn't we say the same since Werckmeister, to tune the open strings to the
pitches of the harpsichord? Or are you saying that the purpose is different by
Mozart's time? Johnny

In a message dated 6/17/03 3:08:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> Even on an electric guitar, it's well nigh impossible to play any of
> the 5 most common major chords (the way they're most commonly played)
> and bend them into just intonation. try it!

This is where I was confused. I was never questioning what you are saying
because I was never talking about moving towards just. I was stating that the
bending of strings to play chords (at least on acoustic guitars) inevitably
involves some bending of strings, measurable visibly by less than perfect
parallel lines of the guitar strings.

Johnny

In a message dated 6/17/03 3:12:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> i never made claims of being able to produce/recognize any interval
> from 0 to 1200 cents to an accuracy of 1 cent.

Please come visit and I promise to make clear what I have been "claiming."
BTW, it is no different that what Seashore said in his analysis of what
musicians can hear.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/03 3:08:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > Even on an electric guitar, it's well nigh impossible to play any
of
> > the 5 most common major chords (the way they're most commonly
played)
> > and bend them into just intonation. try it!
>
>
> This is where I was confused. I was never questioning what you are
saying
> because I was never talking about moving towards just.

that seemed to be what you were implying, in the context of the
discussion we were having.

> I was stating that the
> bending of strings to play chords (at least on acoustic guitars)
inevitably
> involves some bending of strings, measurable visibly by less than
perfect
> parallel lines of the guitar strings.

the result on a steel-string acoustic guitar or mandolin, which is
what i was talking about, is tiny, and doesn't qualify for me as a
departure from equal temperament in the context of this discussion
(which was about the accompanying sustaining instruments moving to
just intonation with respect to one another while the plucked metal
strings maintain a significantly tempered tuning). i'm very sensitive
to these bendings and what they sound like. it takes quite a bit of
strength to push the strings down on a steel-string acoustic guitar.
on many occasions i've witnessed an acoustic guitar player pick up a
solidbody electric guitar (which uses lighter strings) and play all
the chords way out of tune. why? because they're using just as much
effort to push the strings down, which ends up not only pushing them
down, but pushing them way out of parallelism, and bending them way
off pitch by varying amounts. the same goes when moving from steel-
string acoustic to nylon-string classical.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/03 3:12:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > i never made claims of being able to produce/recognize any
interval
> > from 0 to 1200 cents to an accuracy of 1 cent.
>
> Please come visit and I promise to make clear what I have
>been "claiming."

it's not the above?

> BTW, it is no different that what Seashore said in his analysis of
what
> musicians can hear.
>
> best, Johnny

then maybe you should clarify for me and carl, since at least i
thought you were claiming the above.

In a message dated 6/17/03 3:27:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> then maybe you should clarify for me and carl, since at least i
> thought you were claiming the above.
>
>
>

Please, let me finish off a single thread already. Yes, yes, yes, I can hear
a single cent and would like to demonstrate this for you. You don't have to
answer, just make a visit when next you are in NYC. (whew!) ; ) J

----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com

>Please, let me finish off a single thread already. Yes, yes, yes,
>I can hear a single cent and would like to demonstrate
>this for you. You don't have to answer, just make a visit
>when next you are in NYC. (whew!) ; ) J

I'm not sure I understand you Johnny. What are you getting at?

just kidding. ;)

* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44756

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/16/03 5:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > with audio tests for you? or are those "anti-musician"?
> >
> >
> > All it would require is a visit.
>
> with audio tests for you?

***I can see a bunch of folks with tuning meters and white lab coats
attending next year's AFMM gigs. Personally, I would find the white
lab coats "de rigueur..."

JP

In a message dated 6/17/03 8:53:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> ***I can see a bunch of folks with tuning meters and white lab coats
> attending next year's AFMM gigs. Personally, I would find the white
> lab coats "de rigueur..."
>
> JP

Actually, Joseph, my piece "Hearing a Cent" on February 8, 2003 was designed
to prevent such a circus. But there are always going to be virgins (but in
white lab coats?) ;-)

Johnny

on 6/11/03 6:07 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> ***I agree with you here, Kurt! The harmonic relationships in
> Messiaen are really stretching at 12-tET. I'm not certain how much
> he studied tuning, but the resonances surely make as much use of the
> harmonic series as 12-equal has to offer! And he would go for more,
> if he could!

I want to learn more about this, and so I want to try my hand at
recomposing/retuning some Messiaen to try to bring out what my ears are
telling me he "meant". I am thinking of starting with the first movement of
L'Ascension for organ, because it is not too long, and I have the (sheet)
music.

I am thinking the process should go like this: I try to hear the movement
of the implied fundamental (I usually hear this as a kind of implied base
voice) and express that as a series of just intervals, i.e. express each
implied bass note as a just interval relative to the previous one. Then I
interpret each _actual_ note as a just interval in relation to the implied
fundamental. Of course this might imply a pitch shift in the middle of a
note.

There are other ways of stating this process, but the bottom line is I would
like to honor first what my ears hear as the "fixed reference" for
sequential harmonic movements within the piece, rather than preconceiving a
scale and trying to fit the notes to that. The latter process would seem to
be a compromise, not getting at what I am really hearing. Of course I might
find that what I am hearing leads to a pitch shift between the beginning and
end of the piece, but I would rather accept that than an apriori fixed
scale.

Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it yet, but
I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd appreciate any
basic advice of a different approach to take.

If you (anyone) has a Messiaen piece in mind that you think would be an
interesting case to apply this or a similar process to, let me know. If the
piece is already available as a midi file, all the better.

-Kurt Bigler

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it
yet, but
> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
appreciate any
> basic advice of a different approach to take.

something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction, where
minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a chief
desideratum) has been accomplished with john delaubenfels' adaptive
tuning methods, particularly in 11-limit retunings of schoenberg. see
the "links" folder to your left if you're reading this on the yahoo
website. once you have a piece in mind (and a midi file of it), you
might want to send it to john and have him try a few different
variations of his program on it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44806

> on 6/11/03 6:07 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***I agree with you here, Kurt! The harmonic relationships in
> > Messiaen are really stretching at 12-tET. I'm not certain how
much
> > he studied tuning, but the resonances surely make as much use of
the
> > harmonic series as 12-equal has to offer! And he would go for
more,
> > if he could!
>
> I want to learn more about this, and so I want to try my hand at
> recomposing/retuning some Messiaen to try to bring out what my ears
are
> telling me he "meant". I am thinking of starting with the first
movement of
> L'Ascension for organ, because it is not too long, and I have the
(sheet)
> music.
>
> I am thinking the process should go like this: I try to hear the
movement
> of the implied fundamental (I usually hear this as a kind of
implied base
> voice) and express that as a series of just intervals, i.e. express
each
> implied bass note as a just interval relative to the previous one.
Then I
> interpret each _actual_ note as a just interval in relation to the
implied
> fundamental. Of course this might imply a pitch shift in the
middle of a
> note.
>
> There are other ways of stating this process, but the bottom line
is I would
> like to honor first what my ears hear as the "fixed reference" for
> sequential harmonic movements within the piece, rather than
preconceiving a
> scale and trying to fit the notes to that. The latter process
would seem to
> be a compromise, not getting at what I am really hearing. Of
course I might
> find that what I am hearing leads to a pitch shift between the
beginning and
> end of the piece, but I would rather accept that than an apriori
fixed
> scale.
>
> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it
yet, but
> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
appreciate any
> basic advice of a different approach to take.
>
> If you (anyone) has a Messiaen piece in mind that you think would
be an
> interesting case to apply this or a similar process to, let me
know. If the
> piece is already available as a midi file, all the better.
>
> -Kurt Bigler

***Hello Kurt,

I agree entirely with your method here, since I, too, hear Messiaen
as particularly harmonically rich, and not a 12-equal kind of sound
at all. It was a limit that he had, of course, but I think the
harmonic vision would work better in just or such like.

I think the _Vingt Regards_ have a *lot* of music that could be used
for this, and it probably is already sequenced, or part of it.

I don't think SCALA is going to be of much help with this particular
project, unless it will help you set up localized just scales to work
with...

It doesn't do tuning "in real time" as it were. However, there was a
gentleman, John DeLaubenfels on the list a while ago, and he
developed a tuning program that would do adaptive just intonation of
entire pieces.

Maybe running Messaien through that kind of program would be
revealing....

Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44808

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
> > Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded
it
> yet, but
> > I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
> appreciate any
> > basic advice of a different approach to take.
>
> something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction, where
> minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a chief
> desideratum) has been accomplished with john delaubenfels' adaptive
> tuning methods, particularly in 11-limit retunings of schoenberg.
see
> the "links" folder to your left if you're reading this on the yahoo
> website. once you have a piece in mind (and a midi file of it), you
> might want to send it to john and have him try a few different
> variations of his program on it.

***Hoo... this is funny. Paul, I obviously hadn't read your post
becore I made my recommendation to Kurt... :)

Joseph

Kurt wrote:
>Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it yet,
but
>I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd appreciate any
>basic advice of a different approach to take.

Yes, if you have the time, you can enter it as a sequence file,
and specify the tuning for each note, see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/seq_format.html

Manuel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Please, let me finish off a single thread already. Yes, yes, yes,
I can hear
> a single cent and would like to demonstrate this for you. You
don't have to
> answer, just make a visit when next you are in NYC. (whew!) ; ) J

Two tones at the same time a cent apart can be heard by anyone if the
absolute pitch is in the right range. No big deal.

But I think your claim is maybe stronger, that you can hear and
reproduce a melodic cent, or even play on demand any one tone and
then the tone one cent higher or lower than than first tone. Is this
correct?

If this is you claim then please let us test it. Your claim appears
to be objective, so it should be testable by reasonable people.

If you won't do that much then at least put a recording of your
demonstration online. Or, can you pay my transport to New york from
Szeged?

Gabor

In a message dated 6/19/03 2:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> Or, can you pay my transport to New York from
> Szeged?
>
>

Oh sure, how much do you want? ; ) Johnny

In a message dated 6/19/03 2:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> But I think your claim is maybe stronger, that you can hear and
> reproduce a melodic cent, or even play on demand any one tone and
> then the tone one cent higher or lower than than first tone. Is this
> correct?
>
>

This is correct. And it has been tested in front of audiences, on the radio,
and before the finest ears in the business. Thanks for asking. Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/19/03 2:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alternativetuning@y... writes:
>
> > Or, can you pay my transport to New York from
> > Szeged?
>
> Oh sure, how much do you want? ; ) Johnny

Better yet, Gabor, why don't you raise the funds to have Johnny come over, along with some of his colleagues, and play some microtonal concerts? That way you could get together, test his playing accuracy, and have some good music as well!

Cheers,
Jon

Good idea Jon, but it will take a long time. Top musicians here
(full time, National Opera house or Festival orchestra) get about
50000 Ft/month (circa 250USDollars). Much cheaper to hire us than
bring Americans over; beside that Hungarian music is microtonal
already...

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/19/03 2:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > alternativetuning@y... writes:
> >
> > > Or, can you pay my transport to New York from
> > > Szeged?
> >
> > Oh sure, how much do you want? ; ) Johnny
>
> Better yet, Gabor, why don't you raise the funds to have Johnny
come over, along with some of his colleagues, and play some
microtonal concerts? That way you could get together, test his
playing accuracy, and have some good music as well!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Gabor,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> Good idea Jon, but it will take a long time. Top musicians here
> (full time, National Opera house or Festival orchestra) get about
> 50000 Ft/month (circa 250USDollars).

Yes, yes. I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek! :)

> Much cheaper to hire us than
> bring Americans over; beside that Hungarian music is microtonal
> already...

Ha! Boy is it, and a great rhythmic world as well! How far apart, stylistically, would you say Hungarian music is from Romanian gypsy music? While I can't say I hear a *lot* of it, I did grow up with Hungarian folk/gypsy records in our house (the house of Szanto), and recently I picked up a fabulous CD by Taraf de Haidouks, who are from Bucharest. Sure reminded me of things I heard when I was young...

Cheers,
Jon

>>But I think your claim is maybe stronger, that you can hear and
>>reproduce a melodic cent, or even play on demand any one tone and
>>then the tone one cent higher or lower than than first tone. Is
>>this correct?
>
>This is correct. And it has been tested in front of audiences, on
>the radio, and before the finest ears in the business. Thanks for
>asking.

But not here. And why not?

-Carl

In a message dated 6/19/03 5:58:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> But not here. And why not?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Carl, please reread my posts, as Paul would say. It doesn't work that
way...over the internet, I mean.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> But not here. And why not?

Dead horse walking...

Cheers,
Jon

>>But not here. And why not?
>
>Carl, please reread my posts, as Paul would say. It doesn't
>work that way...over the internet, I mean.

I've read that, but you just said it works on a recording.
That means it can work over the internet.

-Carl

Carl, singing a cent is very intimate. It's as difficult to demonstrate over
the internet as it would be to shake hands over the internet. Besides, I bet
you could sing a cent, too! best, Johnny

on 6/18/03 5:07 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it
> yet, but
>> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
> appreciate any
>> basic advice of a different approach to take.
>
> something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction, where
> minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a chief
> desideratum)

Probably that is in general a very good idea. I want to approach this first
without having that kind of limitation, however.

> has been accomplished with john delaubenfels' adaptive
> tuning methods, particularly in 11-limit retunings of schoenberg. see
> the "links" folder to your left if you're reading this on the yahoo
> website. once you have a piece in mind (and a midi file of it), you
> might want to send it to john and have him try a few different
> variations of his program on it.

Thanks, I'll do that (try to contact John). However, I probably want to try
my own hand at the retuning first, to avoid being biased by another
interpretation.

-Kurt Bigler

on 6/18/03 8:05 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> ***Hello Kurt,
>
> I agree entirely with your method here, since I, too, hear Messiaen
> as particularly harmonically rich, and not a 12-equal kind of sound
> at all. It was a limit that he had, of course, but I think the
> harmonic vision would work better in just or such like.
>
> I think the _Vingt Regards_ have a *lot* of music that could be used
> for this, and it probably is already sequenced, or part of it.

Thanks. Any chance you have a favorite recording of this that I might try
to buy? I found 2 on amazon, one is a 2-CD set the other a single CD. I'd
probably give it all a listen and then maybe pick a piece from it.

-Kurt

on 6/19/03 2:03 AM, Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>
wrote:

> Kurt wrote:
>> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it yet,
> but
>> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd appreciate any
>> basic advice of a different approach to take.
>
> Yes, if you have the time, you can enter it as a sequence file,
> and specify the tuning for each note, see
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/seq_format.html

Maybe I'd give this a try, if scala could convert a MIDI file to this format
so I'd have something to start out with, assuming I could in some fashion
"correct" the pitch information in-line - but this is probably not that
helpful if I have to enter pitch bend amounts, i.e. if the sequence file is
really just a text transcription of MIDI.

I might end up having to write my own software for this. But maybe I could
do something that you could include in scala? But I have no experience with
ADA nor with tcl/tk (if I'm remembering right what you used). I have some
pretty clear thoughts about a possible way to structure it. Basically I'd
like to have a score interface that lets me add annotations that define the
just relationships, with some clicking and dragging and typing. I'll say
more if you're interested. I'm assuming there will be considerable
application for this kind of thing, and would want to do it in the most
general way, which probably I'm not fully anticipating given my lack of
experience.

Also, maybe there is some in-between approach that will minimize development
effort, yet make this kind of task less tedious, and from which something
could be learned about an ultimate better way to do this.

Thanks,
Kurt

>
> Manuel
>
>
>
> 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, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44855

> on 6/18/03 5:07 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >
> >> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded
it
> > yet, but
> >> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
> > appreciate any
> >> basic advice of a different approach to take.
> >
> > something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction,
where
> > minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a chief
> > desideratum)
>
> Probably that is in general a very good idea. I want to approach
this first
> without having that kind of limitation, however.
>
> > has been accomplished with john delaubenfels' adaptive
> > tuning methods, particularly in 11-limit retunings of schoenberg.
see
> > the "links" folder to your left if you're reading this on the
yahoo
> > website. once you have a piece in mind (and a midi file of it),
you
> > might want to send it to john and have him try a few different
> > variations of his program on it.
>
> Thanks, I'll do that (try to contact John). However, I probably
want to try
> my own hand at the retuning first, to avoid being biased by another
> interpretation.
>
> -Kurt Bigler

***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that this
entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would go
back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure out
how to do this properly with a computer program...

(It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list, and
it was *very* exciting at the time...!)

Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss the
details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done that..."

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44856

> on 6/18/03 8:05 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Hello Kurt,
> >
> > I agree entirely with your method here, since I, too, hear
Messiaen
> > as particularly harmonically rich, and not a 12-equal kind of
sound
> > at all. It was a limit that he had, of course, but I think the
> > harmonic vision would work better in just or such like.
> >
> > I think the _Vingt Regards_ have a *lot* of music that could be
used
> > for this, and it probably is already sequenced, or part of it.
>
> Thanks. Any chance you have a favorite recording of this that I
might try
> to buy? I found 2 on amazon, one is a 2-CD set the other a single
CD. I'd
> probably give it all a listen and then maybe pick a piece from it.
>
> -Kurt

***Hi Kurt,

The wonderful recording I have was a special gift from microtonal
guitarist Wim Hoogewerf. It is on the "Erato" label and features the
composer's wife, Yvonne Loriod, who premiered the piece in Paris in
1945... Wim thought the recording wasn't available in the States...
dunno...

Incidentally, I find *much* lengthy modern piano music boring,
particularly *extended* piano works, and this piece is an entire CD!
However, it's fascinating throughout, despite the similarity in
timbre, obviously, from start to finish...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44855
>
> > on 6/18/03 5:07 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't
downloaded
> it
> > > yet, but
> > >> I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
> > > appreciate any
> > >> basic advice of a different approach to take.
> > >
> > > something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction,
> where
> > > minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a
chief
> > > desideratum)
> >
> > Probably that is in general a very good idea. I want to approach
> this first
> > without having that kind of limitation, however.
> >
> > > has been accomplished with john delaubenfels' adaptive
> > > tuning methods, particularly in 11-limit retunings of
schoenberg.
> see
> > > the "links" folder to your left if you're reading this on the
> yahoo
> > > website. once you have a piece in mind (and a midi file of it),
> you
> > > might want to send it to john and have him try a few different
> > > variations of his program on it.
> >
> > Thanks, I'll do that (try to contact John). However, I probably
> want to try
> > my own hand at the retuning first, to avoid being biased by
another
> > interpretation.
> >
> > -Kurt Bigler
>
>
> ***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that this
> entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would go
> back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
> John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure out
> how to do this properly with a computer program...
>
> (It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list,
and
> it was *very* exciting at the time...!)
>
> Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss the
> details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done that..."
>
> J. Pehrson

well, thanks joseph, but the thing is, john and i were concerned with
minimizing horizontal retune motion, while kurt doesn't seem
concerned with that. of course, his ideal of identifying the
fundamental of every chord will already run into huge problems in
messaien, and choosing just melodic intervals for these fundamentals
to progress by will be arbitrary at best, but i'll let kurt worry
about that :)

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

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44888

> >
> > ***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that
this
> > entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would
go
> > back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
> > John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure
out
> > how to do this properly with a computer program...
> >
> > (It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list,
> and
> > it was *very* exciting at the time...!)
> >
> > Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss
the
> > details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done
that..."
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> well, thanks joseph, but the thing is, john and i were concerned
with
> minimizing horizontal retune motion, while kurt doesn't seem
> concerned with that. of course, his ideal of identifying the
> fundamental of every chord will already run into huge problems in
> messaien, and choosing just melodic intervals for these
fundamentals
> to progress by will be arbitrary at best, but i'll let kurt worry
> about that :)

****Ahh, yes. This makes sense that the Messiaen tuning for just
sonorities could be more "localized..." since the overall palette is
much more complex... However, whether everything would work "any
which way" is subject to debate as you allude to above...

JP

on 6/20/03 4:05 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>
> /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44888
>
>>>
>>> ***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that
> this
>>> entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would
> go
>>> back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
>>> John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure
> out
>>> how to do this properly with a computer program...
>>>
>>> (It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list,
>> and
>>> it was *very* exciting at the time...!)
>>>
>>> Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss
> the
>>> details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done
> that..."
>>>
>>> J. Pehrson
>>
>> well, thanks joseph, but the thing is, john and i were concerned
> with
>> minimizing horizontal retune motion, while kurt doesn't seem
>> concerned with that. of course, his ideal of identifying the
>> fundamental of every chord will already run into huge problems in
>> messaien, and choosing just melodic intervals for these
> fundamentals
>> to progress by will be arbitrary at best, but i'll let kurt worry
>> about that :)
>
> ****Ahh, yes. This makes sense that the Messiaen tuning for just
> sonorities could be more "localized..." since the overall palette is
> much more complex... However, whether everything would work "any
> which way" is subject to debate as you allude to above...
>
> JP

Well, to reply to both of you: I don't actually need anything except a tool
to make it less tedious to record my reinterpretive annotations onto the
piece. I will not be referring to any theory at all (except the "raw"
language of just intervals), and I will be going by exactly what I "hear".
There is no science in that at all, and I won't claim any in the result. My
specific "hearing" of the music may well be somebody else's "any which way",
but I don't think that was what Paul really meant. Rather he recognizes
that only restrictions imposed on what I do will be those I impose by my on
"choice", which makes it in a way less restrictive. As much as possible for
me I hope this will actually be a "no choice" scenario.

Of course, I may discover that there are ambiguities, or that I find it
harder to hear so clearly when I become explicitly accountable for
identifying every detail. But is kind of normal for music to a musician -
we have to learn how to get our minds out of the way, and we are more or
less successful.

A good reason for having a good user-interface in place _before_ beginning
such a task is to reduce the mental distraction level in the transcription
process.

I will not try for any ultimate truth, but rather what I am clearly hearing
in the moment. My "ear" has a strong tendency to put in fundamental
(implied bass line) notes in many things I hear, and I will not be concerned
about any theory supporting a particular choice of "fundamental", and indeed
"fundamental" may turn out to be inaccurate - I will be curious to finally
write down that implied bass note and find out what it _really_ is. I will
simply record what I hear, asking myself questions and re-listening as
needed to clarify the ambiguities as they come up. It might not always (or
ever) be an implied fundamental that turns out to be the best "anchor" for
the movement of the piece. It might turn out to rest more in the melodic
line, which also tends to have a very compelling presence. Either way it
will be good to have a tool that lets me define these anchors freely. My
guess is that a tool constructed this way _will_ have some very general
utility, that people _will_ want to try this entirely unrestricted approach.
I believe there is no problem in defining the interface in a fully general
way for the most broadly conceived notion of this kind of task.

I won't be surprised if there are re-tune motions on held notes, but there
might not be. I _will_ be surprised if there is a net beginning-to-end
retune motion, because I suspect the composer would have tried to avoid such
an "implication", and was probably not relying on being unconciously bound
to a fixed 12et to keep it from happening. However, I will be curious just
to find out what comes.

Probably enough said, until I actually do it, _except_ to the degree that
there is interest out there in defining a user-interface for this, or an
underlying data mode. However, I have to teach myself scala before I get
too carried away.

Thanks to everyone for their support, and please chime in with your related
interests. If there is a lot of interest, I am more likely to do more work
on creating a new tool, to be sure something that can work together with
scala, or maybe even become part of it, if it turns out that way.

-Kurt Bigler

>***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that this
>entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would go
>back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
>John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure out
>how to do this properly with a computer program...
>
>(It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list, and
>it was *very* exciting at the time...!)
>
>Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss the
>details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done that..."

There's lots of good stuff there, but the primary concern was
automatic adaptive tuning. Sounds like Kurt is more interested
in a tool that lets a composer put tuning in a score. Something
that you and I are both keenly interested in, JP.

-Carl

>his ideal of identifying the fundamental of every chord will already
>run into huge problems in messaien,

Why?

>and choosing just melodic intervals for these fundamentals
>to progress by will be arbitrary at best,

Huh? Honestly, I don't know where you get this stuff. How could
any artistic choice like this be arbitrary?

-Carl

>Well, to reply to both of you: I don't actually need anything except
>a tool to make it less tedious to record my reinterpretive annotations
>onto the piece. I will not be referring to any theory at all (except
>the "raw" language of just intervals), and I will be going by exactly
>what I "hear".

Excellent, and as I thought (my message that just went out was composed
earlier, at a cafe that blocks SMTP).

-Carl

on 6/20/03 3:18 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>>
>>> on 6/18/03 5:07 PM, wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Will scala let me do something like this? I haven't downloaded it
>>>>> yet, but I am about to. If scala can't handle what I'm saying I'd
>>>>> appreciate any basic advice of a different approach to take.

>>>> something quite similar (except for the horizontal direction,
>>>> where minimizing retuning motion of held or repeated pitches is a
>>>> chief desideratum)
>>>
>>> Probably that is in general a very good idea. I want to approach
>>> this first without having that kind of limitation, however.

>> ***From my experience on this list, I've gathered, Kurt, that this
>> entire "adaptive tuning" issue is a *huge* undertaking. I would go
>> back and look at the posts of about 3-4 years ago to see all that
>> John deLaubenfels and Paul Erlich went through trying to figure out
>> how to do this properly with a computer program...
>>
>> (It was one of the very first things I encountered on this list,
>> and it was *very* exciting at the time...!)
>>
>> Maybe you won't want to "reinvent the wheel" after you discuss the
>> details more with John and Paul. They've "been there, done that..."
>>
>> J. Pehrson
>
> well, thanks joseph, but the thing is, john and i were concerned with
> minimizing horizontal retune motion, while kurt doesn't seem
> concerned with that. of course, his ideal of identifying the
> fundamental of every chord will already run into huge problems in
> messaien, and choosing just melodic intervals for these fundamentals
> to progress by will be arbitrary at best, but i'll let kurt worry
> about that :)

Well, I hope I don't have to choose them, and while I won't claim to be
recording Messiaen's intention (so that it might not interest you), I do
hope to record clearly what my ears tell me are somehow "blatently implied"
intervals.

I know I'm repeating myself now, but I want to underline this: I don't know
why but for some reason with Messiaen my "ears are pulled" out of 12et into
something else. We will see whether the specificity survives the test of
explicit notation. Please with me clarity (not luck). It would be
interesting if someone else independently came up with the same
interpretation of at least a few measures. I would actually hope that would
be true, and if so it might suggest that Messiaen knew (consciously or not)
how to make clear use of contextual implication of intervals not actually
present.

I'm not so much interested here in my own abilities, but actually in
learning something about this contextual implication which I suspect is
present. Whether I succeed or not myself I think there is something very
interesting to learn here.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_44309.html#44896

>
> There's lots of good stuff there, but the primary concern was
> automatic adaptive tuning. Sounds like Kurt is more interested
> in a tool that lets a composer put tuning in a score. Something
> that you and I are both keenly interested in, JP.
>
> -Carl

***I guess that makes sense, Carl... maybe some kind of utility that
makes it easier to insert pitch bends coordinated with certain
primary pitches rather than having to "wade through" lists and lists
of them... dunno.

JP

>***I guess that makes sense, Carl... maybe some kind of utility that
>makes it easier to insert pitch bends coordinated with certain
>primary pitches rather than having to "wade through" lists and lists
>of them... dunno.

Yeah, like a score entry package that plays user-defined accidentals.
Actually, Finale is supposed to do this. And your our resident
expert on the status of the Sibelius plugin(s).

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> I _will_ be surprised if there is a net
> beginning-to-end
> retune motion,

from what you described, there would almost certainly be one. this is
one of the things john's program eliminates. a typical mozart piece
goes down by several tones when strict JI is imposed!

> because I suspect the composer would have tried to
avoid such
> an "implication",

??

> and was probably not relying on being
unconciously bound
> to a fixed 12et to keep it from happening.

there are many, many other ways to keep it from happening. for
example, any systems of "springs" keeping an adaptively "justified"
string of chords "grounded" to a calculated optimal 12-tone tuning
for the piece. nothing to do with 12-equal.

> Thanks to everyone for their support,

i support you!

on 6/20/03 8:37 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_44309.html#44896
>
>> There's lots of good stuff there, but the primary concern was
>> automatic adaptive tuning. Sounds like Kurt is more interested
>> in a tool that lets a composer put tuning in a score. Something
>> that you and I are both keenly interested in, JP.
>>
>> -Carl
>
> ***I guess that makes sense, Carl... maybe some kind of utility that
> makes it easier to insert pitch bends coordinated with certain
> primary pitches rather than having to "wade through" lists and lists
> of them... dunno.
>
> JP

You shouldn't have to think about pitch bends at all. That's what a good
user-interface avoids.

Here's a real basic interface definition, one simple action that allows for
almost everything. You have a score interface and an interval tool that
enables a particular set of clicking/dragging capabilities. You click and
drag from any note to any other note in the score, vertically related, or
horizontal forward or back - totally arbitrary, and then you specify by
typing a ratio or selecting a ratio from a list what ratio you want to
assign to the interval between those notes. Let's say the ratio would
always be the ratio of the drag destination over the drag source. You
continue dragging out ratios until the whole piece is fully specified, at
which point the software could tell you you are done. If you specify an
interval that is out of the range of what would be likely given the local
relationship established by the staff, you get a warning that you probably
made a mistake. Then in order to produce MIDI you need to specify a fixed
note that will establish the absolute pitch (whereas everything else is
relative).

This doesn't actually allow for an implied fundamental being recognized
explicitly, but that can be dealt with if it is useful. You don't really
need the implied fundamental to be explicit to specify the intervals - you
just have to do a quick division in your head and enter the result on the
score. But if the score editor let you add another note you could put in
another note for it, and mark it "silent".

The score might have a mode which shows the inter-note relationships in a
visual form, as lines dragged between notes, hopefully in some distinctive
color. Then you can click on a note or on a line, and have all the info you
entered show up somewhere.

I suspect someone has already done this, i.e. created a language that can
specify relative pitch information in this way. I have never used any of
those programs that came out of IRCAM and CCRMA etc. But it is probably
less likely that anyone has solved this problem in a score-editing context
that allows a midi file for input. I will ask around, though.

It would be good if there were an object-oriented notation program that
allowed extensible functionality via plug-ins with a messaging interface.
Such a platform would make all kinds of things possible. Maybe there is
some open-source code out there to start with. I'll try to find out.

I don't know enough about scala to understand how it fits into the picture,
but I suspect that this program I am describing would export a format that
scala could use to generate the MIDI with pitch bends.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >his ideal of identifying the fundamental of every chord will
already
> >run into huge problems in messaien,
>
> Why?

determining the fundamental messaien heard, or that anyone would
hear, or determining whether messaien heard these chords as having a
single fundamental, given the kinds of chords he used, would run into
huge problems.

> >and choosing just melodic intervals for these fundamentals
> >to progress by will be arbitrary at best,
>
> Huh? Honestly, I don't know where you get this stuff. How could
> any artistic choice like this be arbitrary?

determining the just melodic intervals in the fundamentals that
messaien intended, or to assume that he intended any at all, would be
rather arbitrary. but we could make it interesting. do we seek out
just intervals that make the first chord and the second chord share a
common overtone? is this overtone actually notated in the score? what
if the overtone shifts a semitone in the notation even though it's
theoretically the same just pitch? do you rethink your
interpretation?

on 6/20/03 8:50 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>> ***I guess that makes sense, Carl... maybe some kind of utility that
>> makes it easier to insert pitch bends coordinated with certain
>> primary pitches rather than having to "wade through" lists and lists
>> of them... dunno.
>
> Yeah, like a score entry package that plays user-defined accidentals.

User-defined accidentals, if I get your meaning right, probably doesn't cut
it for this task. See my other detailed post.

-Kurt

> Actually, Finale is supposed to do this. And your our resident
> expert on the status of the Sibelius plugin(s).
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> 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, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> I do
> hope to record clearly what my ears tell me are somehow "blatently
implied"
> intervals.

awesome!

on 6/20/03 9:11 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> I do
>> hope to record clearly what my ears tell me are somehow "blatently
> implied"
>> intervals.
>
> awesome!

I was only describing a "hope" not a certified skill. The "blatentness" is
something I _believe_ I hear but I have not tested yet. That's why I want
to find out!

-Kurt

on 6/20/03 8:56 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> I _will_ be surprised if there is a net
>> beginning-to-end retune motion,
>
> from what you described, there would almost certainly be one. this is
> one of the things john's program eliminates. a typical mozart piece
> goes down by several tones when strict JI is imposed!

You have been through a lot with this, which I haven't, so I just have to
give you my nieve response. It sounds like you are assuming (or have
perhaps proven from experience) that the net horizontal motion would not be
sensed by the listener. One listener in particular is important: the
composer. The hypothetical composer, hearing internally in JI would use
techniques such as you describe below (springs, etc.) or others as part of
the essential process of composing in JI (or hearing in JI while composing
in 12-et). This would not merely be to avoid drift as an unwanted
side-effect, but to avoid drift because the piece the composer hears in fact
does NOT drift, and the intervals are chosen accordingly. This would come
as naturally to the composer as not chosing to make a step that would lead
to falling off a cliff. I am posing a hypothetical JI composer here. I am
supposing that any composer might hear in JI even while realizing the
restrictions and tensions that will result from the piece being realized
(and in fact "composed") in 12-et. Given a choice between two alternative
paths in a composition, certain composers might naturally avoid the ones
that do not express the intended implications well in 12-et. My hunch is
that in fact Messiaen was able to do this, and might have been fairly unique
in this ability. I also wonder how the choice of octatonic might support
such a mode of composition.

>> because I suspect the composer would have tried to
>> avoid such an "implication",
>
> ??

Having heard the piece internally in JI, the composer recognizes that 12-et
can only "imply" the JI, and a skillful composer might avoid compositional
paths whose 12-et realizations would imply a JI "truth" that has "drift". A
skillful listener might recognize this. Any listener might be influenced by
it.

This is an analysis/resynthesis game. You do the analysis with the
resynthesis in mind and minimize errors. Just like audio compression, in a
sense. Transmitting true (JI) music over a limited bandwidth (12-et)
medium.

>> and was probably not relying on being unconciously bound
>> to a fixed 12et to keep it from happening.
>
> there are many, many other ways to keep it from happening. for
> example, any systems of "springs" keeping an adaptively "justified"
> string of chords "grounded" to a calculated optimal 12-tone tuning
> for the piece. nothing to do with 12-equal.
>
>> Thanks to everyone for their support,
>
> i support you!

Thanks again!

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> I know I'm repeating myself now, but I want to underline this: I
don't know
> why but for some reason with Messiaen my "ears are pulled" out of
12et into
> something else.

Retuning Messiaen using something like grail might seem like a brain-
damaged idea, but it occurs to me that if you can find or sequence a
midi file for the specific piece you have in mind and then retune it
in all 12 keys, you could listen for which passages seem to make the
most sense in one tuning or another. I could do this and email you
the results if you point me to a midi file; the only Messiaen midis I
have at the moment are organ music, however.

on 6/20/03 9:07 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>>> his ideal of identifying the fundamental of every chord will
>>> already run into huge problems in messaien,
>>
>> Why?
>
> determining the fundamental messaien heard, or that anyone would
> hear, or determining whether messaien heard these chords as having a
> single fundamental, given the kinds of chords he used, would run into
> huge problems.

Go low enough and you'll find it though - if it was there in the first place
(i.e. in the composer's conscious or unconscious experience). It is also
possible that the entire vertical structure does not have to be reduced to a
single fundamental. Perhaps it will turn out that there are important
"intermediate fundamentals" implied by embracing some but not all of the
vertical structure at one point. But no doubt these ideas are not as new as
I am here.

This is all in the spirit of stating some interesting hypotheses prior to
doing a pilot study.

>>> and choosing just melodic intervals for these fundamentals
>>> to progress by will be arbitrary at best,
>>
>> Huh? Honestly, I don't know where you get this stuff. How could
>> any artistic choice like this be arbitrary?
>
> determining the just melodic intervals in the fundamentals that
> messaien intended, or to assume that he intended any at all, would be
> rather arbitrary.

To intend a fundamental is a different thing from intending an experience
that feels right to the composer, with the vast resources of the unconsious
at his disposal. We might learn something here about what feels right.
Different composers teach different things about that. We can all find out
now what Messiaen is teaching each of us. And I think that will be worth a
lot.

> but we could make it interesting. do we seek out
> just intervals that make the first chord and the second chord share a
> common overtone?

I wouldn't impose that agenda on the process. You are right that I will be
"picking" intervals. Actually I will probably be singing them, and hoping
my voice is steady enough that the sounds it makes don't confuse my hearing,
and make me "lose my place" in the process. Having sung them, I can then
make a tentative JI interpretation, play it (in JI) and then correct if
necessay.

As an aside, it will be very useful if the score annotation tool lets you
select time spans or individual notes and play them based on the annotated
interval information.

> is this overtone actually notated in the score?

This is getting back to the same thing I started saying in the "interval
annotation interface" thread regarding how an implied fundamental might or
might not be represented. The goal would be that whatever fundamental
principle my ears tell me is the defining one can be represented as an
annotation on the score. Whatever that happens to be. I am assuming for
the sake of simplicity that it will be a good start, and perhaps sufficient,
to have the ability to specify ratios between the fundamentals of the notes
actually already present in the score, and that the "user" can fill in the
rest of the process, using scraps of paper if necessary to do calculations.
It might be useful to be able to express ratios of ratios directly in the
annotation, to avoid having to do numeric calculations when you really just
want to enter data. In this particular case, I don't think this process
depends much on the harmonics present in the rendering instrument. Many
different harmonic structures recreate basically "the same Messiaen", as I
hear it. (But I can't stand it when the string players can't restrain their
vibrato. I wonder whether Messiaen wanted this (but tend to assume not) and
am surpised that Nagano accepts it.)

> what
> if the overtone shifts a semitone in the notation even though it's
> theoretically the same just pitch? do you rethink your
> interpretation?

The goal is to not rethink the interprestation as a consequence of the final
result, but to go only on the feedback of how individual intervals sound.
It is my supposition that if ALL of the harmonic tensions can be felt,
intervals will be chosen that will not lead to a net drift. Perhaps the
truth of this will turn out to be a function of the composer. That would be
interesting.

-Kurt

on 6/20/03 10:30 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> I know I'm repeating myself now, but I want to underline this: I
>> don't know why but for some reason with Messiaen my "ears are pulled" out of
>> 12et into something else.
>
> Retuning Messiaen using something like grail might seem like a brain-
> damaged idea, but it occurs to me that if you can find or sequence a
> midi file for the specific piece you have in mind and then retune it
> in all 12 keys, you could listen for which passages seem to make the
> most sense in one tuning or another.

That's conceivable. However I do have a slight agenda of not wanting to
alter my current experience by listening to any other retunings prior to
creating my own. Just in case there is anything "delicate" about this.

> I could do this and email you
> the results if you point me to a midi file; the only Messiaen midis I
> have at the moment are organ music, however.

Organ is what I am most familiar with. Do you have L'Ascension? If not,
how about La Nativite? If not, what else?

Thanks.

-Kurt

>Having heard the piece internally in JI, the composer recognizes that
>12-et
>can only "imply" the JI, and a skillful composer might avoid
>compositional
>paths whose 12-et realizations would imply a JI "truth" that has
>"drift". A
>skillful listener might recognize this. Any listener might be
>influenced by
>it.

I'm not sure this is useful information, and you might be already
familiar with this... but W. A. Mathieu, in his book "Harmonic
Experience", occasionally analyzes whether the gap between two
different JI tones implied by the same ET tone is crossed directly, or
over a period of ambiguouty. Also, (and this is very pertinent to
Messian) he analyzes how JI harmony in one tonality slides into
symmetrical harmony, which, in some sense, implies ET, where all
intervals are the same, and slides out again into a different JI
tonality.

So, for example, you could have in measure 1 a unequivocal 25:16
interval from a particular tone, that slides into whole tone scale
unequivocally 2^(8/12) interval above that tone in measure 2, and in
measure 3, resolves into 45/32 above 2^(2/12) interval above that tone.
In other words, if the tone is C, a JI G# moving to an ET G#, moving
to an G# that is a JI aug. 4th above an ET D (relative to C).

And the energy between these tones can be dissipated over an entire
measure.

Anyway, this sort of analysis seems useful for Messiaen.

Louis

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 6/20/03 8:56 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >> I _will_ be surprised if there is a net
> >> beginning-to-end retune motion,
> >
> > from what you described, there would almost certainly be one.
this
is
> > one of the things john's program eliminates. a typical mozart
piece
> > goes down by several tones when strict JI is imposed!
>
> You have been through a lot with this, which I haven't, so I just
have to
> give you my nieve response. It sounds like you are assuming (or
have
> perhaps proven from experience) that the net horizontal motion
would
not be
> sensed by the listener.

on the contrary, i'm assuming it wouldn't occur in the first place.

> One listener in particular is important:
the
> composer. The hypothetical composer, hearing internally in JI would
use
> techniques such as you describe below (springs, etc.)

they would? then there'd be no preference for just intervals between
the fundamentals, if the latter are even defined at all.

> or others as
part of
> the essential process of composing in JI (or hearing in JI while
composing
> in 12-et).

then it's not JI at all, it's adaptive tuning.

> I am posing a hypothetical JI composer
here. I am
> supposing that any composer might hear in JI even while realizing
the
> restrictions and tensions that will result from the piece being
realized
> (and in fact "composed") in 12-et.

it what sense is this "hearing in JI"? perhaps there's a different
terminology we could come up with for what this is . . .

> Given a choice between two
alternative
> paths in a composition, certain composers might naturally avoid the
ones
> that do not express the intended implications well in 12-et. My
hunch is
> that in fact Messiaen was able to do this, and might have been
fairly unique
> in this ability. I also wonder how the choice of octatonic might
support
> such a mode of composition.

yes, this is the kind of thinking i was alluding to earlier . . . look
again at the nice temperament graph:

http://www.sonic-arts.org/dict/eqtemp.htm

the meantone line is the subset of regular 5-limit tuning space in
which renaissance and early common-practice (pre-beethoven,
pre-schubert) music doesn't drift or experience other comma problems.
it comes closest to the JI center between 31-equal and 19-equal.
12-equal is way off to the side!

meanwhile, the diminished line is the subset of regular 5-limit tuning
space in which progressions of triads in a single octatonic scale
don't drift, etc. 12-equal is quite close to optimal!

> >> because I suspect the composer would have tried to
> >> avoid such an "implication",
> >
> > ??
>
> Having heard the piece internally in JI, the composer recognizes
that 12-et
> can only "imply" the JI, and a skillful composer might avoid
compositional
> paths whose 12-et realizations would imply a JI "truth" that has
"drift".