Ives revisited

I've been working on a bit of a synopsis of Johnny Reinhard's
extended Pythagorean interpretation for Ives' spelling/tuning
template, which I'll post in a second.
Ives always railed against the orthodox and the stifling effects of
reflexive mental habits, and most of his explanations for the note
spellings are really screeds along these lines. But, he also
repeatedly states that enharmonic spellings are NOT the same
acoustically, and the technical explanations he offer agree with
Reinhard's extended Pythagorean tuning, but they always manage to
fall short of coming right out and saying so as well. It's possible
that Ives is expressing the same idea in different terms;
that "Pythagorean" was not part of his language and the whole issue
is one of semantics. Assuming that's the case, the question then
becomes one of what now... to what extent should Ives be reinvented--
beyond his existing pieces for quartertones--as a microtonalist?
As is usually the case with Ives, it's hard to tell for sure, even
from the plentiful evidence at hand, because he embraced ambiguity
and contradiction so thoroughly that it runs through almost every
facet of his work.
Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

Ives revisited:
thinking outside the box
...and the circle of fifths

As some of you may know, NY bassoon virtuoso Johnny Reinhard is one
of a growing number of composers that have realized some version of
Charles Ives' legendary unfinished Universe Symphony. What's less
well known, and in my opinion much more noteworthy, is that Reinhard
has also suggested that there was an extended Pythagorean intonation
latent in Ives' often curious note spelling.

In 12-tone equal temperament enharmonic spellings like F# and Gb are
always acoustically synonymous. In an extended Pythagorean intonation
the sequence of fifths never closes as it does in 12-tone equal
temperament, and enharmonic equivalencies are always acoustically
distinct. Ives' writing in the Memos and elsewhere offers tantalizing
indications that his unorthodox note spellings were in fact adhering
to the extended Pythagorean model.

To go along with the various clues and anecdotal indications that
Reinhard has assembled along these lines, there's also some pretty
solid empirical evidence that indicates there even may have been some
JI (just-intonated) sonorities via schismatic spellings that were
edited out of Ives.

Here's a fascinating bit from an exchange I had with David Porter of
the Ives Society:

Last year I spent several months going over the "new" (22 years old)
critical editions of Tone Roads Nos. 1 & 3 and Halloween. In TR #1
and Halloween, John Kirkpatrick had respelled many of Ives's notes to
make them more "practical" and more "correct" harmonically. The
reason I spent so much time undoing all that foolishness was to make
these Old editions in line with our new Ives Society guidelines. (We
now preserve Ives's spelling, rhythms, and have a consistent format
for describing details of the editing.)

Ives himself states his thinking in an Appendix to his "Memos"--flats
represent repose and rest, sharps represent activity. I've seen
several places where a first draft uses flats, but the later and
final drafts use sharps. C# is nearer to D than to C, etc., Db closer
to C than to D. Hence that descending "triad" in "West London" b-ab-
e. The "3rd" ab should be flatter than a "proper" g#.

It's Reinhard's premise that Ives harbored more than ideological and
metaphysical ambitions when he spelled things as he did. In fact,
it's Reinhard's expressed view that Ives' unorthodox note spelling
should be seen as a sort of Trojan horse that hid a specific and far-
reaching organization of acoustical significance. In this sense an
extended Pythagorean tuning--where an enharmonic # is always sharper
than an enharmonic b, etc--lines up beautifully with certain
anecdotal bits in the Memos and elsewhere. The only problem is that
Ives never came right out and said "Pythagorean" himself, so the
application of this premise will always invite controversy.

It shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Ives that his own
rationale for the note spellings offers arguments favorable to both
corporeal and transcendental interpretation. But if the sheer volume
of rhetoric given to each possibility is any indication, then Ives
clearly hits his stride discussing the latter. Yet that's certainly
true of Ives on the whole, and it should in no way obviate the fact
that he did offer concrete--if something short of explicit--tuning
data regarding his note spelling that can be acted upon by clever and
resourceful persons such as Johnny Reinhard. If there's anything like
a smoking gun regarding the exact acoustical significance of Ives'
note spelling, then it's my opinion that it might be found in a
typewritten technical plan of the Concord Sonata that Ives mentions
sending to Henry Bellamann in the Memos:

In the strings the chord Ab-Cb-Gb-Bb is a different chord from Ab-B-
Gb-Bb (see typewritten copy sent to Bellamann of technical plan etc.
of Sonata, with tone-vibration tables etc.)--the difference in its
overtonal beats (actually measured vibrationally), especially if hit
rather hard, is evident.

The example that Porter points out is a somewhat different beast
however. In an extended Pythagorean tuning the only pure or beatless
sonorities would be those based on the 2nd and 3rd harmonics. This is
very much like a medieval tuning paradigm, only in medieval music
thirds weren't considered consonances. But Ives, for all his abundant
dissonance and harmonic experimentation, hardly shunned triads and
their like in the militant manner of the first generation of
atonalists. Yet by Reinhard's reckoning, major triads in an extended
Pythagorean performance of Ives would employ thirds even wider than
those of equal temperament; which is already quite sharp as regards
sonorities involving the 5th harmonic. However, in the West London
triad that Porter mentions the third is a schismatic third--one where
the difference from a just third is a schisma, a tiny interval of
approximately 2 cents. So in this case it could be said that Ives is
exploiting a pure, just intonated triad by 'misspelling' the third as
a Pythagorean diminished fourth.

This is either a rarity in Ives, or something that was rather
systematically edited out in an attempt to tidy things up. Either way
it makes an interesting addendum to Reinhard's extended Pythagorean
interpretation for Ives' spelling/tuning template, and for anyone
wanting to realize these implications in Ives, these recent critical
editions--that preserve Ives' original spellings, et al--will be a
valuable addition to an oeuvre that still has some surprisingly fresh
tricks up its sleeve.

http://www.zebox.com/daniel_anthony_stearns/

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

> To go along with the various clues and anecdotal indications that
> Reinhard has assembled along these lines, there's also some pretty
> solid empirical evidence that indicates there even may have been some
> JI (just-intonated) sonorities via schismatic spellings that were
> edited out of Ives.

Better yet, what about Ives in 94-equal, with very slightly sharp
fifths to take better advantage of the 7-limit sonorities? Or we could
just go completely Mad Scientist and do it in 22-equal.

>I've seen
> several places where a first draft uses flats, but the later and
> final drafts use sharps. C# is nearer to D than to C, etc., Db closer
> to C than to D.

In Pythagorean, but how do you extract that tuning intention from the
draft?

>So in this case it could be said that Ives is
> exploiting a pure, just intonated triad by 'misspelling' the third as
> a Pythagorean diminished fourth.
>
> This is either a rarity in Ives, or something that was rather
> systematically edited out in an attempt to tidy things up.

Be nice to know which!

As I recall, I sent an early version of the tuning chapter and not the entire
book. Maybe it's time to send the entire book. I'm happy that Dan has
become interested in the tuning perspectives of Ives.

Actually, the biggest difference is in contemporary performances. We have
successfully recorded for release Ives's String Quartet #2, Universe Symphony,
and The Unanswered Question. The difference in using extended Pythagorean is
night and day.

As for other versions.... I do not think so, but that's for another day.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 2004:01:05 03:57:59 PM, daniel_anthony_stearns@yahoo.com
writes:
>
>Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

Ok. Welcome in advance ;)

>As is usually the case with Ives, it's hard to tell for sure, even
>from the plentiful evidence at hand, because he embraced ambiguity
>and contradiction so thoroughly that it runs through almost every
>facet of his work.

That is a reaaally nicely written "nutshell" essentialist definition of
Ives as person and musician IMHO.

Ok, here goes...
Ives - being a New Englander [like later iconoclastic poet e e cummings
and collage artist Joseph Cornell] - was heavily influenced by the
Transcendentalists (Emerson, Thoreau, Dickinson, Alcott and Co.) who were in turn
influenced not only by New England's native Quakers and Unitarians but by the recent
_attempted_ translations of Hindu and Buddhist "mysticism" (& tiny bits of
rather mangled&butchered Chinese and Japanese poetry) [Over in Europe, even the
infamous dark magus Aleister Crowley attempted his own translations, i.e the
_Tao te Ching_.]
Philosopher William James' _The Varieties of Religious Experience_,
published in America in 1902, had the equivalent impact on American thought as
French philosopher Henri Bergson's philosophy of _Elan Vital_ (also known in
certain darker occult circles as _Vril_) had on Europe (and still does).

So what's with all this "density" 0_o?
Quite simply Asian philosophy (& languages themselves) embody the
very/vary "ambiguity and contradiction" that Ives always found affective/effective
and was always seeking in his life and music.

So it would be absolutely interesting & thrilling to have multiple
viewpoints on Ives from all sorts of different Hindus... and likewise from Buddhists
and Taoists, too --- i.e., Vedic concepts of _Nada Brahma_ & _Lila_, Zen
aesthetics, and the Taoist "Music of Nature" ideal... [[all which in turn had
direct influence on John Cage and, to an arguably higher degree, Lou Harrison...
ah! DaTSuZoKu!!!! see the everwidening circles of ripple effects upon rippling
effects!!!... chaos & order becomin' chaordres!!!]]

aaanywaaays... Also: IIRC, film-maker Robert Altman's sound-on-sound
concept was somewhat inspired by Ives (esp'ly Altman's 1976 election year movie
_Buffalo Bill and the Indians or Sitting Bull's History Lesson_)
... & IIRC Altman is a New Englander... or directly related/descended
from them...
and Altman's genius with film sound editing influenced some "ambient
musics"... like guitarist Henry Kaiser's soundtrack to _Rivers & Streams_, the
film about Andy Goldsworthy's emphermal nature-based artpieces made natural
materials...

One final thing: And I like this phrase you write elsewhereish: "an
oeuvre that still has some surprisingly fresh tricks up its sleeve."
Charles Ives as Trickster Archetype "Incarnated"...

I better stop now before I give enough ideas for a goddam Ives
encyclopedia...or at least a killer PhD thesis...or two...or... whatever!...
& I gotta all-ways have some tricks up _my_ sleeves...
---
Z

Thanks for the input. It gave me the idea that I ought to flesh out
the whole story a bit. Here's a revised take should anyone be
interested...
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> I've been working on a bit of a synopsis of Johnny Reinhard's
> extended Pythagorean interpretation for Ives' spelling/tuning
> template, which I'll post in a second.
> Ives always railed against the orthodox and the stifling effects of
> reflexive mental habits, and most of his explanations for the note
> spellings are really screeds along these lines. But, he also
> repeatedly states that enharmonic spellings are NOT the same
> acoustically, and the technical explanations he offer agree with
> Reinhard's extended Pythagorean tuning, but they always manage to
> fall short of coming right out and saying so as well. It's possible
> that Ives is expressing the same idea in different terms;
> that "Pythagorean" was not part of his language and the whole issue
> is one of semantics. Assuming that's the case, the question then
> becomes one of what now... to what extent should Ives be reinvented-
-
> beyond his existing pieces for quartertones--as a microtonalist?
> As is usually the case with Ives, it's hard to tell for sure, even
> from the plentiful evidence at hand, because he embraced ambiguity
> and contradiction so thoroughly that it runs through almost every
> facet of his work.
> Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

IVES REVISITED:
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS
Dan Stearns

It's a well-known fact that Charles Ives left the Universe Symphony
in the hands of posterity, and NY bassoon virtuoso Johnny Reinhard is
one of a growing number of composers that have collaborated with Ives
posthumously to realize a version of the legendary unfinished
symphony. What's less well known, and in my opinion much more
noteworthy, is that Reinhard--a longtime microtonalist and founder of
the American Festival of Microtonal Music--has also suggested that
there was an extended Pythagorean intonation latent in Ives' often
curious note spelling.

In 12-tone equal temperament enharmonic spellings like F# and Gb are
always acoustically synonymous. In an extended Pythagorean intonation
the sequence of fifths never closes as it does in 12-tone equal
temperament, and enharmonic equivalencies are always acoustically
distinct. Ives' writing in the Memos and elsewhere offers tantalizing
indications that his unorthodox note spellings were in fact adhering
to the extended Pythagorean model.

The most compelling arguments supporting this interpretation are
Ives' own assertions that B# was as an eighthtone higher than C, and
that enharmonic sharps were higher in pitch than enharmonic flats. In
an extended Pythagorean tuning, B# overshoots the octave by a
Pythagorean comma, and the Pythagorean comma is within a fraction of
a cent of an eighthtone. Likewise, the chain of perfect fifths that
defines Pythagorean tuning generates enharmonic sharps that are
higher in pitch than enharmonic flats.

To go along with the various clues and anecdotal indications that
Reinhard has assembled along these lines, there's also some pretty
solid empirical evidence that indicates there even may have been some
JI (just-intonated) sonorities via schismatic spellings that were
edited out of Ives.

Here's a fascinating bit from an exchange I had with David Porter of
the Ives Society:

"Last year I spent several months going over the "new" (22 years old)
critical editions of Tone Roads Nos. 1 & 3 and Halloween. In TR #1
and Halloween, John Kirkpatrick had respelled many of Ives's notes to
make them more "practical" and more "correct" harmonically. The
reason I spent so much time undoing all that foolishness was to make
these Old editions in line with our new Ives Society guidelines. (We
now preserve Ives's spelling, rhythms, and have a consistent format
for describing details of the editing.)

Ives himself states his thinking in an Appendix to his "Memos"—flats
represent repose and rest, sharps represent activity. I've seen
several places where a first draft uses flats, but the later and
final drafts use sharps. C# is nearer to D than to C, etc., Db closer
to C than to D. Hence that descending "triad" in "West London" b-ab-
e. The "3rd" ab should be flatter than a "proper" g#."

Ives always railed against convention and the tyrannical effects of
reflexive mental habits, and most of his explanations for the note
spellings are really screeds along these lines. Yet it's Reinhard's
premise that Ives harbored more than ideological and metaphysical
ambitions when he spelled things as he did. In fact, it's Reinhard's
expressed view that Ives' unorthodox note spelling should be seen as
a sort of Trojan horse that hid a specific and far-reaching
organization of acoustical significance. In this sense an extended
Pythagorean tuning--where an enharmonic # is always sharper than an
enharmonic b, etc--lines up beautifully with certain anecdotal bits
in the Memos and elsewhere. The only problem is that Ives never came
right out and said "Pythagorean" himself, so the application of this
premise will always invite controversy.

It's possible that Ives is expressing the same idea in different
terms; that "Pythagorean" was not part of his language and the whole
issue is one of semantics. If one assumes that's the case, the
question really becomes one of what now... to what extent and by what
criteria should Ives be reinvented beyond his existing pieces for
quartertones as a microtonalist? To date Reinhard and the AFMM have
organized performances of the Second String Quartet, The Unanswered
Question and the Universe Symphony in extended Pythagorean tuning.

It shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Ives that his own
rationale for the note spellings offers arguments favorable to both
corporeal and transcendental interpretation. But if the sheer volume
of rhetoric given to each possibility is any indication, then Ives
clearly hits his stride discussing the latter. Yet that's certainly
true of Ives on the whole, and it should in no way obviate the fact
that he did offer concrete--if short of explicit--tuning data
regarding his note spelling that can be acted upon by clever and
resourceful persons such as Johnny Reinhard. If there's anything like
a smoking gun regarding the exact acoustical significance of Ives'
note spelling, then it's my opinion that it might be found in a
typewritten technical plan of the Concord Sonata that Ives mentions
sending to Henry Bellamann in the Memos:

"In the strings the chord Ab-Cb-Gb-Bb is a different chord from Ab-B-
Gb-Bb (see typewritten copy sent to Bellamann of technical plan etc.
of Sonata, with tone-vibration tables etc.)—the difference in its
overtonal beats (actually measured vibrationally), especially if hit
rather hard, is evident."

The example that Porter points out is a somewhat different beast
however. In an extended Pythagorean tuning the only pure or beatless
sonorities would be those based on the 2nd and 3rd harmonics. This is
very much like a medieval tuning paradigm, only in medieval music
thirds weren't considered consonances. But for all his dissonance and
harmonic experimentation, Ives never disavowed triads and tonality,
and even the Fourth Symphony and the Concord Sonata (two of his most
daunting works) feature entire movements of programmatic tonality.
Yet by Reinhard's reckoning, major triads in an extended Pythagorean
performance of Ives would employ thirds even wider than those of
equal temperament; which is already quite sharp as regards sonorities
of the 5th harmonic. Well this brings us back to the descending B-Ab-
E triad. Because in the West London triad that Porter mentions the
third would be a schismatic third—one where the difference from a
just third is a schisma, a tiny interval of approximately 2 cents. So
in this case it could be said that Ives is exploiting a pure, just
intonated triad by 'misspelling' the third as a Pythagorean
diminished fourth.

This is either a rarity in Ives, or something that was rather
systematically edited out in an attempt to tidy things up. Either way
it makes an interesting addendum to Reinhard's extended Pythagorean
interpretation for Ives' spelling/tuning template, and for anyone
wanting to realize these implications in Ives, these recent critical
editions—that preserve Ives' original spellings, et al—will be a
valuable addition to an oeuvre that still has some surprisingly fresh
tricks up its sleeve.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> Thanks for the input. It gave me the idea that I ought to flesh out
> the whole story a bit. Here's a revised take should anyone be
> interested...
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
> <daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> > I've been working on a bit of a synopsis of Johnny Reinhard's
> > extended Pythagorean interpretation for Ives' spelling/tuning
> > template, which I'll post in a second.
> > Ives always railed against the orthodox and the stifling effects
of
> > reflexive mental habits, and most of his explanations for the
note
> > spellings are really screeds along these lines. But, he also
> > repeatedly states that enharmonic spellings are NOT the same
> > acoustically, and the technical explanations he offer agree with
> > Reinhard's extended Pythagorean tuning, but they always manage to
> > fall short of coming right out and saying so as well. It's
possible
> > that Ives is expressing the same idea in different terms;
> > that "Pythagorean" was not part of his language and the whole
issue
> > is one of semantics. Assuming that's the case, the question then
> > becomes one of what now... to what extent should Ives be
reinvented-
> -
> > beyond his existing pieces for quartertones--as a microtonalist?
> > As is usually the case with Ives, it's hard to tell for sure,
even
> > from the plentiful evidence at hand, because he embraced
ambiguity
> > and contradiction so thoroughly that it runs through almost every
> > facet of his work.
> > Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

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

/tuning/topicId_51016.html#51695

<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> IVES REVISITED:
> THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
> ...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS

***Isn't this a repeat post from a few weeks ago on the list??

J. Pehrson

Yes, but it was a work in progress, and based on a couple of things
that were said in response to it, I fleshed it out quite a bit...
mostly so that it no longer assumes an understanding of where Ives,
Reinhard and Pythagorean intersect.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
>
> /tuning/topicId_51016.html#51695
>
> <daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> > IVES REVISITED:
> > THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
> > ...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS
>
> ***Isn't this a repeat post from a few weeks ago on the list??
>
> J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_51016.html#51727

<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
> Yes, but it was a work in progress, and based on a couple of things
> that were said in response to it, I fleshed it out quite a bit...
> mostly so that it no longer assumes an understanding of where Ives,
> Reinhard and Pythagorean intersect.
>

***Well, it read pretty similar to me, but glad you "fixed it up..."

J. Pehrson