Experimental ETs (was Re: Equal divisions of phi (1.618/1))

)

In a message dated 6/15/2004 7:20:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dawiertx@sbcglobal.net writes:

Why would anybody want to write music in 11-tet or 13-tet? Weirdness and
experimentalism.

Gene, more often than not, it is the way the materials are put together, rather than the materials themselves, that makes the success of a composition. We already know that using the best materials is not guarantee of compositional success.

best, Johnny (away at summer camp)

p.s. check out Skip La Plante's Theme and Variations in 13-Equal coming out soon as part of the new PITCH CDs. It is written more for reasons of fun.

OK, but if you can say that using the best materials does not guarantee compositional success, then I could say that this is interesting only "technically" (i.e. as a series of numbers or as a score on paper) but not very much for the ear itself. In such cases, there are usually very few people who will join, which is quite similar to the well-known matter of dodecaphonic music. In my view at least, there are much much more people interested in JI than in dodecaphony. Making something like "undecaphonic" or "tridecaphonic" music could, I believe, lead to separating those interested in various tunings into two groups, where one would be significantly smaller than the other. Well, but if you don't mind, then what's the problem?

In a message dated 6/30/2004 1:00:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
p.parizek@worldonline.cz writes:

> OK, but if you can say that using the best materials does not guarantee
> compositional success, then I could say that this is interesting only
> "technically" (i.e. as a series of numbers or as a score on paper) but not very much
> for the ear itself.

Ideas are as important, if not more important, than any ideal of a harmony.
Some music is based on timbres alone, or are only rhythmic. Love of bells
means love of inharmonicity, for example.

In such cases, there are usually very few people who will join, which is
quite
> similar to the well-known matter of dodecaphonic music. In my view at
> least, there are much much more people interested in JI than in dodecaphony.

This is likely because of the good work of people like ourselves. However,
majorities mean little when speaking in terms of things like intellect, or
detail, or any number of mathematical issues. ;)

Making something like "undecaphonic" or "tridecaphonic" music could, I
believe,
> lead to separating those interested in various tunings into two groups,
> where one would be significantly smaller than the other. Well, but if you don't
> mind, then what's the problem?

No, that's no problem. The more variety there is out there, the better it
will be for all of us.

best, Johnny Reinhard