Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Across the park...

[Johnny Reinhard:]
> Hi all - Attached is the press release just sent out detailing the
AFMM's Columbus Day concert at the New York Society for Ethical
Culture, Oct. 11th

Thanks for the press release (which certainly had my ears watering).
Hopefully I'm not being overly intrusive here, but in this press
release you again reference an extended Pythagorean tuning in the
context of an Ives piece ("Equally significant is the extended
Pythagorean tuning used for the performance: it finally distinguishes
a C# from a Db. Ives had always insisted that a C# is higher in pitch
than a Db, and that a B# is an eighthtone higher than a C. This is
possible by spiraling the perfect fifths through 2 octaves."). What
I'm very curious to know, is whether this means that the whole score
is being transferred over to a Pythagorean tuning (i.e., 81/64s for
4/12s, etc.), or if it is just specific spellings (i.e. distinguishing
a C# from a Db, etc.) that are being recast?

Again, thanks for any additional info that you might want to share
here,
Dan

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Thanks Paul and Jon: below is press release info for October 11, 1999

Contact:
Johnny Reinhard AFMM 212-517-3550 Fax 212-517-5495
Afmmjr@aol.com
http://www.echonyc.com/~jhhl/afmm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

AMERICAN FESTIVAL OF MICROTONAL MUSIC

Presents a Columbus Day Orchestra Concert Featuring First Performances by

Mordecai Sandberg, Charles Ives, Johnny Reinhard, Jon Catler, Alyssa Ryvers,
and Luc Marcel

Monday October 11th the American Festival of Microtonal Music, conducted by
Paolo Bellomia, will present a concert of premieres at the New York Society
for Ethical Culture, located at 2 West 64th Street off Central Park West.
The concert begins at 8 PM and admission is $15.

Dutch soprano Dorien Verheijden is featured soloist in the first full
performance of Mordecai Sandberg's Psalm #51 for soprano and orchestra. It
was written in 1944 in New York City and received only a partial performance
by the AFMM in 1987 in Merkin Hall. Sandberg devoted his life to setting the
Bible in a polymicrotonal glove which allowed for 16ths-of-tones up to
thirdtones and quartertones. The text is in Hebrew and comes directly from
the Psalms of David.

The Unanswered Question posed by American great Charles Ives in 1908 is heard
in an alternate form, suggested by the composer. The English horn, played
here by Robert Ingliss, is the soloist rather than the familiar trumpet, and
the woodwind choir is more diverse. Equally significant is the extended
Pythagorean tuning used for the performance: it finally distinguishes a C#
from a Db. Ives had always insisted that a C# is higher in pitch than a Db,
and that a B# is an eighthtone higher than a C. This is possible by
spiraling the perfect fifths through 2 octaves.

Middle-earth for orchestra composed by AFMM director Johnny Reinhard is a
polymicrotonal composition embracing several different tuning combinations in
order to better bring to life the vivid creatures in J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord
of the Ring" series. In addition to a Hobbits movement, there are Khaz�d
(the Dwarves), Mordor (Trolls and Orcs), and Eldarin (High Elves), each in
different tunings responsive to Tolkien's characters.

Rocker and virtuoso electric just intonation guitarist Jon Catler premieres
his Meet The Composer sponsored orchestral work, Evolution. The orchestra
resonates a stasis of rich harmonic content drawn from the heights of the
overtone series, while soloists ripple through.

Alyssa Ryvers pitches a tri-dimensional brew in Hologram which uniquely
fractures the sound continuum and is scored for 3 piccolos, 3 bassoons,
clarinet in A, trumpet in C, English horn, French horn, trombone, tuba, and
strings.

Maestro Bellomia, originally from Rome, now living in Ottawa, commissioned
Montrealer Luc Marcel to create Mod�le 312 for 11 virtuoso microtonalists,
one instrument to a part. The titled is derived from having sought the
perfect model, citing "eureka" only on the 312th attempt.

The orchestra for this concert features members of the AFMM Ensemble which
highlights keyboardist Joshua Pierce, violinist Tom Chiu, clarinetist Michiyo
Suzuki, hornist Greg Evans, violist Anastasia Solberg, bassist Mathew
Fieldes, and bassoonist Johnny Reinhard.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@capecod.net>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

A couple of digest back there was some discussion of what the
intonational implications of Charles Ives note spellings might be...

Johnny Reinhard wrote: "It seems that Charles Ives envisioned an
extended Pythagorean tuning for his music. Ives wanted sharps higher
than flats. He states in his Memos on the Concord Sonata that B# is an
1/8th tone higher than C." And that he believed this to imply an
extended Pythagorean intonation. I responded that I seemed to remember
(from reading the "Memos" several centuries ago), and feel that there
was more (From say his personal anagogic proclivities, ideas, and
convictions on the one hand, to say the more prosaic areas of his
actual compositional use of modulation, polytonality, and etc. on the
other.) to these spellings than the inert possibilities of unrealized
intonation. (Though there are of course plenty of possibilities well
worth investigating there as well.)

While I've been waiting for the S.Yarmouth library to track me down a
version of the "Memos," so I can hopefully get a better informed take
on all of this, I've been reading Jan Swafford's "A Life with Music,"
in which I came across the following in a footnote (page 449, note
42): "...Griggs was dubious about equal temperament, the standard
system of tuning since Beethoven's time. This may have influenced
Ives's later, often baffling, sometimes infuriating eccentricities in
the spelling of chromatic lines and chords. Though A# and Bb are the
same key on the piano, for example, Ives argued that in some
metaphysical but significant way they are not the same note even in
atonal music. He also looked at sharps as innately stronger (because
they tend tonally to lead upwards), flats as weaker (because they tend
to lead downward). These ideas about spelling make a modicum of sense
in other instruments, especially strings, which do make adjustments
between flats and sharps - a violinist will tend instinctively to play
a sharp a little higher than the enharmonic flat. But none of that
applies to piano."

While I have no idea to what degree (the author and composer) Jan
Swafford is really interested in (or knowledgeable of) the ins and
outs of intonation, I feel pretty confident that it would be less so
than Johnny Reinhard... and yet reading this only seemed to strengthen
my initial feeling (suspicion) that when Johnny writes (referencing an
AFMM performance of "The Unanswered Question"): "...the whole score is
being done in an extended Pythagorean tuning. It seems to me this is
the basis of Ives's conceptual imagination..." he's probably
overstating the case.

However, this is not to say that a version of the Concord or the
Unanswered Question in an extended Pythagorean tuning, performed by
people exceptionally well versed in handling alternate intonations, is
not something that I'm dying to hear - because I for one certainly
am(!)... or that this (extended Pythagorean tuning) might not be an
exceptionally prudent way to bypass what would in all likelihood prove
to be a colossal and very problematic job of sorting assessing and
guessing... or that this isn't going to be a better informed
improvement on a hodgepodge of a fixed 12e, and (to paraphrase
Swafford) often baffled, and sometimes infuriated performers dealing
with Ives "eccentricities in the spelling of chromatic lines and
chords."

What I guess I am trying to say is that the "basis of Ives's
conceptual imagination" (as it pertains to intonation and those
spellings), just seems to me like a far richer maze and tangle than
any rigidly verbatim extrapolation of a B# agreeing with a 3^12/2^18.

Anyone else have any thoughts or insights on any of this?

Dan

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@xxxx.xxxx>

> [Dan Stearns, TD 325.9]
>
> A couple of digest back there was some discussion of what
> the intonational implications of Charles Ives note spellings
> might be...
>
> Johnny Reinhard wrote: "It seems that Charles Ives envisioned
> an extended Pythagorean tuning for his music. Ives wanted
> sharps higher than flats. He states in his Memos on the Concord
> Sonata that B# is an 1/8th tone higher than C." And that he
> believed this to imply an extended Pythagorean intonation.
> <etc... snip>
> I've been reading Jan Swafford's "A Life with Music,"
> <snip>
> Though A# and Bb are the same key on the piano, for example,
> Ives argued that in some metaphysical but significant way they
> are not the same note even in atonal music.
> <snip>
> Johnny['s] ... probably overstating the case.
>
> <snip>

Off-topic, I wanted to mention that I just finished reading
Swafford's really excellent _Johannes Brahms: A Biography_.
I'm amazed at how much of a life story Swafford was able
to piece together about this elusive composer who burned
much of his 'evidence' (letters and manuscripts).

Re: this Ives question: I have never read the _Memos_,
and would certainly like to. But my gut feeling, based
on what little I have read on the subject from the source
(in _Essays Before a Sonata, The Majority, and other writings_),
is that Dan is right, and that Ives had a much more complicated
idea about tuning behind his statements about sharps and flats.
BUT...

I too can't wait to hear the AFMM rendition of
_Unanswered Question_. I feel certain that simply
playing the piece for once with a really careful attention
to the intonation, regardless of which tuning is actually
being used, will be a revelation.

A systematic attempt, like Johnny's Pythagorean one,
will probably display aspects of this great piece that
we've never heard before. My prediction is that there
will come across a warmth of expression that one does
not usually associate with Ives's 'atonal' music.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>The footnote Dan referenced misrepresents Ives, in my opinion.

I quoted the Swafford bit as there were (I thought) some interesting
similarities to what I had previously posted... and those initial
responses (of a couple weeks back) to this subject were in part based
on my own faded recollections of reading the "Memos..." but I will
wait until I get the "Memos" again before I try to cite (or half-cite)
anything from it.

However, I would think that this quote (the Ives quote that you
posted) would only seem to make the whole issue of tuning (his)
spellings more complex, or involved... or not any more like a rigidly
applied extended Pythagorean anyway.

Putting aside "in some metaphysical but significant way" for the
moment... do you think that Ives use of major triads - of which the C
& F major triads in the first couple of measures of "The Things Our
Father Loved" would be an example* - were (ever) intended to imply (or
be heard with) a Pythagorean 81/64?

Dan

___________
*And which also has the piano taking a (perhaps enticingly
Pythagorean) G# over the C major, and a C# over the F major...

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

Dan, I would think that the Ives quote indicates that 12TET is the minority
tuning for Ives. Ives didn't work with intervals as small as 7 cents and so
probably didn't make such a fuss on whether to use an 81/64 ditone when
compared to the piano major third.

I'm actual quite careful about making absolute statements about Ives.
Clearly, your imagination has taken off with new possible intonational
interpretations of his music and I'm happy to see this. We are just now
uncovering the deeper intonational conceptional model that Ives possessed,
which goes far in explaining much of his attitudes on dissonance.

The fact that Ives used 12TET and quartertones and eighthtones and just
intonation, with a probable Pythagorean basic model, would indicate a
polymicrotonal model which is more complex than any single approach.

A possible clue in significant "major chords" might be found in the spacing
of the chord. In "Unanswered Question" the opening "major chord" is split
throughout the compass and no one could tell too easily which "third" was
intended.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Ives didn't work with intervals as small as 7 cents and so probably
didn't make such a fuss on whether to use an 81/64 ditone when
compared to the piano major third.

Hard to say for sure one way or the other (fuss, or no fuss, that is),
but I'd say that the (relatively) small difference between the 81/64
and the 4/12 is quite a bit larger (so to speak) than most ~8�
differences, and as such, would probably call quite a bit of attention
to itself in the standard (or non-dissipated) major triad voicings
(which are far from a rarity in Ives).

> The fact that Ives used 12TET and quartertones and eighthtones and
just intonation, with a probable Pythagorean basic model, would
indicate a polymicrotonal model which is more complex than any single
approach.

And that "model which is more complex than any single approach," is
more that anything else, the real crux of what I've been trying to get
at here (as well as a real defining inspiration on the ways I've tried
to go about my own musical business)... because as I said before, I
actually do very much look forward to hearing these extended
Pythagorean realizations of Ives.

Dan

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

This is a footnote from Jan Swafford's biography of Charles Ives, _A
Life with Music_. I've quoted it in its entirety because I believe
that the topics contained therein do relate and overlap with various
tuning related issues, and as I found it all pretty interesting, well
there's at least the chance that others might too. (And of course it
all specifically relates to the TD thread on the possible intonational
implications of Charles Ives note spellings.)

There are a couple of minor things that may not be clear (as this is a
footnote and as such assumes a prior reference to the main text)...
When Swafford says that the _Tone Roads_ seem to portend the "sound of
1960s music," he's talking about the (classical) avant-garde of the
1960s, and serialism in particular... also the "Second Quartet" is a
continuing reference to String Quartet no.2...

"Ives's relationship to atonality is such a complex and technical
question that it is not addressed extensively here. For a survey see
Allen Forte, "Ives and Atonality." Notwithstanding Forte's basic
position that "the major part of [Ives's] mature output can be
described as atonal" (162), one should add some qualifications. For
one thing, many of those same pieces could as well be described as
*not* atonal; as Forte notes (163), "melodic lines in Ives tend to be
diatonic, chromatic, or whole tone." Ives's attitude to the matter is,
as with much else, hard to pin down. But we should remember that for
musicians today the word "atonal" carries a good deal of technical and
polemical baggage, most of which has little to do with Ives. When he
was writing his music Ives did not know the word. He was aware of the
concept, in his own terms. As Ives says in the _Memos_ (56), he wrote
"In the Cage" (1906) "to show that a song dose not necessarily have to
be in any one key to make musical sense." (He added sarcastically,
from the perspective of the 1930s, "To make music in no particular key
has a nice name nowadays--'atonality.'" The melodic line of "In the
Cage," however, is whole tone.) The difficulty of placing atonality
and polytonality in Ives's music is a subset of defining atonality or
polytonality at all. Hidenmith in _A Composer's World_ denies even the
possibility of atonality, because a given sonority can always be
related to a central tone. Polytonality can be reasoned out of
existence in the same way. In the direction of addressing these
issues, a few points may be made. First, there are what we might call
an "atonal sound" and a "polytonal sound," which experienced listeners
recognize. The "atonal sound" defies definition; it is complex and
subjective, though nonetheless real. Ives sounds that way only
occasionally, partly because, as Forte says, Ives's leading lines are
rarely atonal. When Ives does exhibit an "atonal sound," as in the
_Tone Roads_, he seems less Ivesian than, in that case, prophetic of
the sound of 1960s music. Similarly, some of the first movement of the
Second Quartet arguably sounds as Schoenbergian as Ivesian. The
"polytonal sound" is simpler, a matter of emphasized cross-relations
between lines or strata. Examples include some of Milhaud's relatively
early and lusciously polytonal works such as _Les Choephores_. As
detailed earlier, Ives explored overtly polytonal effects in some of
his _Psalms_. Soon, however, his polytonality tended to become so
dense that the cross-relations melt into a general sense of chromatic,
perhaps "atonal" texture. At the beginning of the "_Saint-Gaudens_,"
for example, the string lines can be seen as polytonal--perhaps E
minor above A minor, with chromatics obscuring both. The total effect,
however, could be called near-atonal, except that the repeated A-C
ostinato in the basses tends to create a tonal anchor. There are times
certainly--as in much of the Second Quartet--when the lines take
precedence and the harmony more or less takes care of itself (though
the quartet is intentionally steadily dissonant). Adding up all these
effects, one arrives at a few rules of thumb: Achieving atonality as
such was rarely a systematic goal of Ives's, in the way it was with
Schoenberg and his followers. Though Ives used what amounts to
twelve-tone lines here and there, he showed no favoritism for such
lines; they are a technical device equal among many. Nor did Ives
develop the kind of systematic procedures for avoiding tonality that
the Europeans did--notably the rhetoric of constantly leaping lines,
nonstop dissonance, banishment of triads, and so on. No matter how
leaping, chromatic, or dissonant Ives got, he still usually saw things
as combinations of keys and/or as eventually related to or aiming at
tonality--even if he never quite arrived at that tonality. (The idea
of an implicit but never-actually-achieved tonal center would be
highly Ivesian. He sometimes explained his idiosyncratic note
spellings, for example, with reference to leading tones that never
actually lead.) Meanwhile the presence of diatonic tonality in most of
his music, however veiled, helped him shift readily between atonal and
diatonic effects." (Jan Swafford, _A Life with Music_. Note 37, pp.
468-69)

Dan

Across the park...

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@xxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@capecod.net>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@xxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>