missed by the unimaginative (Ives on tuning)

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Reference pages 189-190 of the Memos for an engaging discussion of
tuning.

In case anyone might be interested, I've decided to just go ahead and
post (sans commentary) the section from the _Memos_ that Johnny
referenced here (which was cited in a thread that pertained to the
intonational implications of Charles Ives's note spellings).

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=+

Then another complaint from Prof. $5000 is the combination of notes in
the chords. If he can't get his Jadassohn out and check it up, then
it really isn't nice music etc. etc. "He puts notes in a chord that
don't belong in it--and he usually has too many notes--he doesn't
understand harmony--for instance, on page three, there is a B# and B
in the same chord{7}--that is wrong" (Grandma Prof. says). It is not,
you g-- d--- sap!--takin' money for emasculating music and students.
I suppose I should explain by footnotes for soft-feeted, for those who
can't see or do anything unless they have been "learned to" nice in
some music kindergarten for grown-ups in legs. The twelve notes in a
nice well-tuned piano are "twelve notes"--machine-made almost--but at
present the best instrument, that is, the widest sound implement we
have, for only one man to use. But the mind, ear, and thought don't
have to be always limited by the "twelve"--for a B# and a C are not
the same--a B# may help the ear-mind get higher up the mountain than a
C always. It has another use, perhaps a more important [use] than a
nice little guide in a resolution--it makes a chord, in some cases,
more a help and incentive for the ear to say (nearer to) what it
feels. For instance, in the key of C, B going up to C, sometimes
under certain moods, is sung (regardless of the piano) nearer to C
than B on the piano--and, going down from C to B, farther away. Now
when the two B's are used in a chord, there is a practical, physical,
acoustical difference (overtonal, vibrational beats) which make it a
slightly different chord than the B's of an exact octave--and [even]
on the piano the player sees that and feels that, it goes into the
general spirit of the music--though on the piano this is missed by the
unimaginative.

Some of the chords in this, but more often passages from the _Second
String Quartet_ and some of the chamber sets--one I remember in pages
3-6 of _The St. Gaudens_{8}--I copied out and had played by six
violins at Tams, playing in a kind of chord-system made--that is,
assuming that a Db was nearer down to C, and that a C# was nearer up
to D.
After the players had sensed this difference in playing the
passage--say B-B#-C, D-Db-C (to remember the B# and C, and the D and
Db etc.)--to me they usually sounded nearer to each other than a
quarter-tone, though in the upper and lower movements I noticed very
little difference. Then [I] would try to have the player think and so
play the Db as it had [been] played in going up to D, and then play
with the others in a chord--and this had its own way [of being]
different to the usual.

For instance, I don't remember this particular chord Prof. S. remarked
on page 3--but a passage marked page 15 (see end of fourth brace)--in
the left hand, two lower notes of the chords, a G goes up to Ab
(though in the sketch marked G#){9}, and the B to Cb, and Cb to
C,--the B (when played by strings) went up from B, and the Cb went
almost to C.
And when this passage is played on the piano, this difference can be
sensed, if not actually heard--that's the piano maker's or tuner's
fault, not the ear's. That is, as the G goes to Ab, the B is sensed
as going to Cb--in the strings the chord Ab-Cb-Gb-Bb{10} 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.

Thus, when a movement, perhaps only a section or passage, is not
fundamentally based on a diatonic (and chromatic) tonality system, the
marked notes (natural, sharp, or flat) should not be taken as
literally representing those implied resolutions, because in this case
the do *not* exist. The eye mustn't guide or enslave the ear too much
or entirely in all cases--any more than the hand should too readily
("easily" better word), by the ways of its anatomy, physiology, and
its life, limited too much by custom and habit and bodily ease, should
narrow (enslave?--soften?--dwarf?--emasculate?) pianoforte
music--Zat's right, Rollo? (Charles E. Ives, _Memos_, pp. 189-90)

________________
{7} In the first line of p. 3.

{8} Measures 13-18 of _The St. Gaudens_ would seem to lend themselves
particularly to this kind of experiment. Ives probably means pp. 3-6
of the score by Emil Hanke.

{9} Page 15, fourth brace, of the first edition is p. 16, third brace,
of the new editions. The g# of the sketch is in a parallel passage on
p. 5, first brace.

{10} Though Ives uses all capital letters, he obviously means the
third chord from the end of the third brace of p. 16 (new editions).

>(see typewritten copy sent to Bellamann of
>technical plan etc. of Sonata, with tone-vibration tables etc.)

Was this sent by Ives? If so, it would seem key to determining Ives'
intended tuning system, if indeed such a thing could be constructed.

[Daniel Wolf:]
> Finally, in his description of his experiments with string ensemble,
he indicates that a db should be lower than a c#. This suggests
pythagorean.

Yes, and I would imagine that it's the decidedly tangible nature of
those specific suggestions ("he indicates that a db should be lower
than a c#," etc.), that lead people like Johnny Reinhard, or Warren
Burt ("a bit of extended Pythagoreanism like Chuck would have wanted")
to see an extended Pythagorean framework as his most probable
intonational intention. And as I've posted several times before,
though this can hardly but lead to interesting results, I think it's
taking one evidential nuance, or quantifiable tidbit and running with
it (i.e., IMO, I think it's overstating the case.).

>One has the impression that Ives' grasp of tuning theory was casual,
leading to vaguenesses and contradictions that are impossible to
resolve. Given that an "impossible resolution" is entirely within the
Ivesian spirit, isn't it appropriate to try as many possibilities as
one can, understanding that no solution will be definitive?

I would certainly say so. But I also think that part of the allure of
extended Pythagorean realizations here is their comparative
doability... where one takes a worthwhile, potentially very
interesting *and* (somewhat...) evidentially supportable 'shortcut'
round a lot of potentially troublesome (or stifling) "vaguenesses and
contradictions."

>For myself, I'd love to hear _the Unaswered Question"
with the strings in triadic JI, the woodwinds in pythagorean or 12tet
and the solo trumpet in the free style. This is not a solution
grounded in any theoretical text by Ives but rather one that I find
would well project certain aspects of the musical text.

And FWIW, this general plan seems to reflect a sensibility that is
much more in line with my own as well.

Dan

[Paul H. Erlich:]
>Was this sent by Ives? If so, it would seem key to determining Ives'
intended tuning system,

I've never seen it, and I really don't know anything about it other
than what I quoted... but Henry Bellamann (and pianist Lenore Purcell)
are mentioned in Swafford's biography, _A Life with Music_ (p. 320) in
the context of a pioneering lecture-recital on the _Concord_:
"Bellamann's lecture-recitals on the _Concord_ never got to New York,
but were mounted the following winter in Columbia and other southern
cities. In bits and pieces, if in fact she played the whole thing, the
obscure Miss Purcell gave the unofficial world premiere of the
_Concord_. For its official premiere the sonata had to wait another
eighteen years." Perhaps (though as I said, I really have no idea) it
was sent (and eventually lost, forgotten, abandoned, etc.(?)) to
Bellamann in this context?

Dan

[Daniel Wolf:]
> Finally, in his description of his experiments with string ensemble,
he indicates that a db should be lower than a c#. This suggests
pythagorean.

Yes, and I would imagine that it's the decidedly tangible nature of
those specific suggestions ("he indicates that a db should be lower
than a c#," etc.), that lead people like Johnny Reinhard, or Warren
Burt ("a bit of extended Pythagoreanism like Chuck would have wanted")
to see an extended Pythagorean framework as his most probable
intonational intention. And as I've posted several times before,
though this can hardly but lead to interesting results, I think it's
taking one evidential nuance, or quantifiable tidbit and running with
it (i.e., IMO, I think it's overstating the case.).

>One has the impression that Ives' grasp of tuning theory was casual,
leading to vaguenesses and contradictions that are impossible to
resolve. Given that an "impossible resolution" is entirely within the
Ivesian spirit, isn't it appropriate to try as many possibilities as
one can, understanding that no solution will be definitive?

I would certainly say so. But I also think that part of the allure of
extended Pythagorean realizations here is their comparative
doability... where one takes a worthwhile, potentially very
interesting *and* (more than less) evidentially supportable 'shortcut'
round a lot of potentially troublesome (or stifling) "vaguenesses and
contradictions."

>For myself, I'd love to hear _the Unaswered Question"
with the strings in triadic JI, the woodwinds in pythagorean or 12tet
and the solo trumpet in the free style. This is not a solution
grounded in any theoretical text by Ives but rather one that I find
would well project certain aspects of the musical text.

And FWIW, this general plan seems to reflect a sensibility that is
much more in line with my own as well.

Dan

NOTE: I sent this post once already, but it seems to have disappeared,
so (assuming it lost) I have gone ahead and sent it again (should it
appear twice - my apologies).

Just as Dan Wolf objects to the permanence without approval of his posts, I
must respond to his re Ives and tuning. I am sure he means well and I hope
to be clear about my position. For Dan Stearns, I hope this holds up
similarly to a math proof.

Perhaps it best to proceed in a list format (no pun intended).

1. There are only 2 tunings (or pure tuning models) in Western art music:
just intonation and the spiral of fiths. These provide the conceptual models
of intonation necessary to composing. Temperaments are designed to get a
combination effect, and to achieve modulation. Temperaments tend to favor
one tuning or another.

2. In the spiral of fifths, a C# is higher than a Db. In just intonation it
is the reverse. Ives gives not a vague piece of minutiae, but the key to a
puzzle that must have an answer (like a clef to a staff). No one can compose
music at the level of Ives and not have a specific intonational model for his
imagination to develop in harmonies and melodies.

3. While the piano was the most flexible instrument for the time Ives was
composing, it need not be restrictive to new developments in both instrument
design and playing technique. Extended Pythagorean, the cycle of fifths
through 2 octaves, gives the music of Ives a perspective otherwise lost. I
read Ives as being practical about the piano. He is writing about thoughts
on intonation that no one could (or has) previously picked up. It took
intense performances of Ives to apperceive his aesthetic.

4. Both AFMM performances of the "Universe Symphony" and the "Unanswered
Question" demonstrated the value of this tuning orientation in the
performance. The recent "Unanswered Question" had more universal approval
than any other performance of any single piece of any single composer since
the AFMM began in 1981.

5. Ives pointing out that a B# is an eighthtone higher than a C has already
been demonstrated on the tuning list as being perfectly appropriate to an
Extended Pythagorean tuning and merely underscores the correctness of the key
(C# is higher than Db).

6. Ives, being sympathetic to different tunings through his father's legacy,
was never given the opportunity to tweak musicians to the subtleties of
different tunings, other than the story in the Memos, recently posted. Had
he the chance, he would have taken it as seriously as he did his printed
score notation. His anger with Kirkpatrick changing the accidentals for a
published score is legendary.

7. Where 12-tone equal temperament is an impovement on the Extended
Pythagorean, Ives would prefer it. It is a symetrical tuning with its own
qualities. I have long believed all music to be microtonal, and can easily
understand why Ives would sometimes use 12-TET for the passages that it does
well. However, Ives seems to indicate it is not for the majority of his
music.

8. The leading tone is an interesting idea, but I don't think it has
anything to do with just intonation. It is an exagerated linear stretching
of a note, akin to the spiral of fifths melodic melodic foundation (left
hemisphere). This is contrary to the overtone series-dictated just
intonation favored for harmonic considerations (right hemisphere). Together,
integrated through temperament, the 2 tuning models offer differed shades of
the human condition as expressed through composition and theory.

9. Extended Pythagorean is also the basis for Babylonian music, modern
Turkish music, the music of Guillaume Machaut, and was calculated through
many octaves on a monochord with an abacus long before Anaximander of Miletus
wrote on infinity.

10. Believing Ives to be "vague" and "incomplete" is contrary to getting his
work out and about. Presently the AFMM is undertaking a new Ives project.
We are re-recording the "Universe Symphony" which we did live in 1996 so that
it can be commercially distributed. Also the score has been entered into
Finale, and we're working on a book spilling the details of its organization.

Johnny Reinhard
afmmjr@aol.com

p.s. I hope someone has the time to put their thoughts on the last AFMM
concert on the list :)

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>For Dan Stearns, I hope this holds up similarly to a math proof.

I'm sorry Johnny, but it really doesn't... but (FWIW) I don't think
that that's nearly as important as the gist of the first sentence of
your fourth point: "Both AFMM performances of the "Universe Symphony"
and the "Unanswered Question" demonstrated the value of this tuning
orientation in the performance."

And while I have to admit that rereading the "Memos" only seemed (to
me) to bolster the basic tenets of the opinions that I've already
posted on this topic; sitting back and sniping away at someone who I
feel is really *doing* something very worthwhile, is starting to seem
a bit ugly to me... so unless I feel that I've got something else
constructive (or potentially worthwhile) to say on this topic - I'm
bowing out.

Respectfully,
Dan

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>1. There are only 2 tunings (or pure tuning models) in Western art music:
>just intonation and the spiral of fiths. These provide the conceptual
models
>of intonation necessary to composing. Temperaments are designed to get a
>combination effect, and to achieve modulation. Temperaments tend to favor
>one tuning or another.

I would claim that the model necessary to composing Western art music from
1480-1880 and pop music since has been meantone temperament. Meantone
(1/4-comma, 2/7-comma, etc.) combines the conceptual simplicity of the
spiral of fifths (i.e. Pythagorean tuning) with the consonant triads of just
intonation.

>2. In the spiral of fifths, a C# is higher than a Db. In just intonation
it
>is the reverse.

There is no single definition of the interval between C# and Db in just
intonation. Just intonation pitches and intervals are ambiguous with respect
to standard Western nomenclature. However, it is true that Db is higher than
C# in the normal range of meantone temperaments.

I have a copy of a 1926 letter to Charles Ives form a professor at Yale. He
had been asked by Ives's father-in-law to map out the frequencies for
quartertones based on equal temperament and based on a "diatonic" scale.

Ross Gunn, Ph.D., tried to opt out on the "diatonic" part of the task by
stating:
"It is obviously impossible to make computations for the diatonic scale since
the frequency intervals are different at different parts of the scale. It
could probably be worked out by a rather laborious process and the aid of a
good musician but I know of no mathematical way of solving the problem."

The bigger problem was that he gave "just" relationships. And most
importantly, he had C# LOWER than Db, which is the oppossite for Ives by his
regular admission.

Ives's sense of the diatonic was perhaps a throwback to a band yankee band
tuning, interestingly at odds with the overtones of the all-important
military bugle.

I just asked Joel Mandelbaum about what he thought of the recent AFMM
performance of the Ives "Unanswered Question" in extended pythagorean tuning.
He said he's convinced the tuning is Ives's tuning, but it would be a
different tuning if he were Ives.

Ah, the just-eared do show a bias.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Years later, Ives scholar John Kirkpatrick said the following for Vivian
Perlis and her oral history project. "But much later, after he died, it
finally dawned on me that what he had in mind was a suggestion of an interval
that wasn't really a perfect fourth. The A-sharp would be a little higher
than a B-flat would be, and the F natural would be a little lower than an
E-sharp would be. So it was really slightly more than a perfect fourth, and
for the words "The most are gone now," "gone" would be a little under what
you'd expect as the interval of a fourth, and would be correspondingly
expressive in that way." (Charles Ives Remembered: An Oral History, Da Capo
Press, p.221)

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

To shed further light on Ives's tuning model, please see here p. 42 of his
Memos.

"Nature has bigger things than even-vibration-ratios for man to learn how to
use. Consonance is a relative thing (just a nice name for a nice habit). It
is a natural enough part of music, but not the whole, or the only one. The
simplest ratios, often called perfect consonances, have been used so long and
so constantly that not only music, but musicians and audiences, have become
more or less soft. If they hear anything but doh-me-soh or a near-cousin,
they have to be carried out on a stretcher."

Incidentally I found a great bassoon fingering for a Wolf 4th interval. It
makes for a haunting horn call on a bassoon...very distinct. I will be using
it in improvisation for its special quality.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Hey Johnny,

Great quote... I used it as a sort of petit, albeit in your face,
manifesto on the sleeve of my _Opus Contra Naturam_ tape.

> Incidentally I found a great bassoon fingering for a Wolf 4th
interval. It makes for a haunting horn call on a bassoon...very
distinct. I will be using it in improvisation for its special
quality.

Neat... As a long time sufferer of acute midi-itis, I definitely seem
to have a soft spot for instruments that are known to spit howl drool
and grumble on occasion, and I can think of few that seem to naturally
do that as well as the bassoon! (I think I listened to way too much
Henry Cow and Universe Zero when I was growing up, and have
clandestinely longed to be a bassoonist ever since...)

Dan

BTW, I've enjoyed what I've heard of your CD... wonderfully colorful
percussionist (somewhat reminiscent of both Jamie Muir's _Dark Drug_,
and Masashi Harada's playing on _Kavalinka_ ).

>(I think I listened to way too much
>Henry Cow and Universe Zero when I was growing up, and have
>clandestinely longed to be a bassoonist ever since...)

Now there's some 20th century music I can dig!

Happy Thanksgiving USers and Happy Day to all others!

Here's some more evidence, almost a smoking gun, towards Ives's tuning
conceptions. It's a letter written to composer Ingolf Dahl and Sol Babitz by
Ives with the aid of his wife, Harmony (yes, that was her real name) about
the 3rd Violin Sonata. I will quote the relevant passages:

"Babitz / Dahl

"I am.... He thanks you for your letter.....

"He is rather sorry that some flats and sharps have been changed into
each other. Mr. Ives usually had a reason technically, acoustically or
otherwise, for using sharps and flats. If a D-flat is in one part and
C-sharp in another on the same time beat, it was mainly due to some
acoustical plan--which he had in mind or was working out or trying to in
those days.......

"But after the first page, whatever changes there are in accidentals
(which he hopes are not many, especially in the 3rd movement) do not bother
to put them back as the old copy.--Either way won't 'make or break' the
listener's ear.

"With our kindest wishes to you both
[signed Harmony T. Ives]"

(Charles Ives and His World, ed. J. Peter Burkholder, Princeton Univ. Press,
1996, p.250-251)

Once again Charles Ives indicates decisively his intention to have the C#
distinct to the Db in the way previously indicated in posts. This time it is
described as having an _acoustical_ basis in the above letter. It is _not_
for every note of his music, as when it is not tonal and then 12-TET, or when
in quartertones or eighthtones, or when he is Just Intonaton (very rare).

Once again the letter points out that the ideal intonation for Ives was not
that of conventional 12-TET, though it was not far enough off to "make or
break" the music.

The "Unanswered Question" does have an important relationship to this letter
(which I discovered researching last evening): There are in the "same time
beat" regular occurences of "both C# and Db" type relationships.

And incidentally, just played the Oct. 11th AFMM performance of the Ives
"Unanswered Question" for Peermusic which publishes the piece last Friday.
They want to buy the recording for their own use. It appeared to bowl them
over. I guess the extended Pythagorean tuning, the English horn soloist, and
the clarinet as the lowest instrument in the quartet, all according to Ives's
hopes and dreams, really makes the difference.

Johnny Reinhard
American Festival of
Microtonal Music

Happy Thanksgiving USers and Happy Day to all others!

Here's some more evidence, almost a smoking gun, towards Ives's tuning
conceptions. It's a letter written to composer Ingolf Dahl and Sol Babitz by
Ives with the aid of his wife, Harmony (yes, that was her real name) about
the 3rd Violin Sonata. I will quote the relevant passages:

"Babitz / Dahl

"I am.... He thanks you for your letter.....

"He is rather sorry that some flats and sharps have been changed into
each other. Mr. Ives usually had a reason technically, acoustically or
otherwise, for using sharps and flats. If a D-flat is in one part and
C-sharp in another on the same time beat, it was mainly due to some
acoustical plan--which he had in mind or was working out or trying to in
those days.......

"But after the first page, whatever changes there are in accidentals
(which he hopes are not many, especially in the 3rd movement) do not bother
to put them back as the old copy.--Either way won't 'make or break' the
listener's ear.

"With our kindest wishes to you both
[signed Harmony T. Ives]"

(Charles Ives and His World, ed. J. Peter Burkholder, Princeton Univ. Press,
1996, p.250-251)

Once again Charles Ives indicates decisively his intention to have the C#
distinct to the Db in the way previously indicated in posts. This time it is
described as having an _acoustical_ basis in the above letter. It is _not_
for every note of his music, as when it is not tonal and then 12-TET, or when
in quartertones or eighthtones, or when he is Just Intonaton (very rare).

Once again the letter points out that the ideal intonation for Ives was not
that of conventional 12-TET, though it was not far enough off to "make or
break" the music.

The "Unanswered Question" does have an important relationship to this letter
(which I discovered researching last evening): There are in the "same time
beat" regular occurences of "both C# and Db" type relationships.

And incidentally, just played the Oct. 11th AFMM performance of the Ives
"Unanswered Question" for Peermusic which publishes the piece last Friday.
They want to buy the recording for their own use. It appeared to bowl them
over. I guess the extended Pythagorean tuning, the English horn soloist, and
the clarinet as the lowest instrument in the quartet, all according to Ives's
hopes and dreams, really makes the difference.

Johnny Reinhard
American Festival of
Microtonal Music

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Once again Charles Ives indicates decisively his intention to have
the C# distinct to the Db in the way previously indicated in posts.
This time it is described as having an _acoustical_ basis in the above
letter.

But "Mr. Ives usually had a reason technically, acoustically or
otherwise, for using sharps and flats," and "If a D-flat is in one
part and C-sharp in another on the same time beat, it was mainly due
to some acoustical plan," seem to me to be entirely consistent with
what he wrote in the _MEMOS_. And again this would seem to be another
perfect opportunity to substitute "some acoustical plan--" with
something that would firmly express this more or less easily
expressible (if it all really were simply a case of 'note spellings
coincide with chains of 3/2s and 4/3s') technical particular.

>It is _not_ for every note of his music, as when it is not tonal and
then 12-TET,

I agree with the first part, but as far as the "when it is not tonal
and then 12-TET," I get nearly the opposite impression when I read "in
many cases the accidental mark (call [it] key index--though really not
an accidental, [but] a sign for a different ratio of overtonal
vibrations) is made to suggest and conform to the above theory--in
other places so as not to bring to mind a tonality which does not
exist, and so not [to] feel or think about not having a key. This is
so it won't mislead the eye first, then as a result also the ear and
the mind et al." It seems to me that he meant to (occasionally)
subvert *tonal* expectations with these note spellings... "So two
notes standing alone a whole tone apart seem (to the nice classroom)
to be a nice sign that they are a part of the dominant seventh, and
must act obediently--but the ear sometimes doesn't feel exactly that
way--so we must be fair and change that sign. Suppose two curves, an
up and down, start on Eb and Db, and are held down hard through the
arpeggios and back, and we don't land in Ab major--that sign isn't
fair, Rollo, it points us the wrong way--so the sign-maker makes it C#
and Eb, and the music via the ear takes its own way up the mountain
better, and feels better about [it]. For instance, just as an
illustration or instance [of] wrong signs made nearer right, or at
least away from a misleading tendency-- see _Thoreau_, page 61, 2nd
brace, chord [at] beginning of 6th quarter-note beat--this is L.H.:
C#-F#-E,{16} R.H.: G#-F-Bb--if the right-hand G# had been put an Ab,
the eye would probably, to most, have suggested a resolution to a nice
Eb major tonic chord, even in spite of the C# in the left hand with F#
and E over [it] which may seem to lead towards a B gate--but it
doesn't get there," etc.

>Once again the letter points out that the ideal intonation for Ives
was not that of conventional 12-TET, though it was not far enough off
to "make or break" the music.

I think I agree with this... But if I were to purely speculate for a
moment, I'd be tempted to say that "some acoustical plan--which he had
in mind or was working out or trying to in those days" probably never
went very far beyond just that... and that I'd somehow doubt that he
actually ever got to hear (literately not figuratively) and weigh his
music in a full Pythagorean intonation... Some of the more tonal songs
that have a later date might make for interesting study and debate
along these lines. Take for example _The Collection_ (which is dated
1920). The chromatics of the 4/2 intro would read very differently in
twelve tone equal temperament and extended Pythagorean (and not
necessarily for the worst in extended Pythagorean either), but it
would also seem that the tonic triads (even with the third an octave
above the root) that open (when the meter changes from 4/2 to 3/2)
this quite conventional sounding tune would've really stood out (yes,
even more than they already do in twelve tone equal temperament!) were
they taken in a Pythagorean intonation... and while I'm ENTIRELY
speculating here (which I'd probably be best off NOT doing), I do
think that all these sorts of issues would have to be (or rather
should be) addressed by somebody before "a smoking gun" becomes a
'case closed!'

>And incidentally, just played the Oct. 11th AFMM performance of the
Ives "Unanswered Question" for Peermusic which publishes the piece
last Friday. They want to buy the recording for their own use. It
appeared to bowl them over.

Congratulations (and continued successes)!

Dan

To Dan and those following this thread, it might be a good idea to outline
what the issues are herein. There are some addressed in Dan's response.
Perhaps I am only suggesting an insight on long available material that
clarifies Ives's "acoustical plan."

The past post mentioning the "acoustical" importance for the accidentals was
the first I had seen. Until my recent discovery of that 1944 letter I could
question in my own mind whether the notation was more psychological than
acoustical. Even more recently I have found individuals to "piano" and
therefore unable to imagine a studio recording that makes use of otherwise
unavailable sounds.

These are the issues I can register:

1. Could Ives imagine an extended Pythagorean?
Absolutely. To imagine the "Universe Symphony" is to imagine many times more
complex calculations. Why shouldn't we grant Ives the confidence that his
imagination was formidible, that his memory was formidible, that he was ahead
of his time and still a bacic part of it. I can't imagine Ives composing the
way he did and not accept that his imagination could "hear" what may not be
easily aviaible to him. Hell, he never heard the vast majority of his own
music and kept composing until his control faltered.

2. Dan expressed doubt that he "actually ever got to hear and weigh his
music in a full Pythagorean intonation. So?
With all the experimenting going on in Danbury thanks to his father, I
believe that Charles Ives would hear all the relationships that are truly
important. He would distinguish a temperament as useful, but only a
compromise for what he knows truly exists. The mathematics are simple for
3-limit JI and have been known since earliest times through the monochord.
As a composer I regularly compose in new tunings that I have never heard
fully so as to weigh this music. I do it all in my head and so I think Ives
did too.

3. It is _not_ for every note of his music, as when it is not tonal and then
12-TET
The implicatin here is that if the majority of Ives's music is 12-TET then he
would have an atonal basis for his music. His theory always speaks to keys
and therefore to heirarchical tonality and therefore rarely atonal. I do not
belive he is being read correctly here. Ives states clearly to my eyes that
the 12-TET is in the minority for his music.

If there are other issues, please present them. It is very helpful to
examine and evaluate this material at this time. Since working on a
"Universe Symphony" book, I've added a chapter on Intonation and I am eager
to work out these issues.

thanks Dan!

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

To Dan and those following this thread, it might be a good idea to outline
what the issues are herein. There are some addressed in Dan's response.
Perhaps I am only suggesting an insight on long available material that
clarifies Ives's "acoustical plan."

The past post mentioning the "acoustical" importance for the accidentals was
the first I had seen. Until my recent discovery of that 1944 letter I could
question in my own mind whether the notation was more psychological than
acoustical. Even more recently I have found individuals to "piano" and
therefore unable to imagine a studio recording that makes use of otherwise
unavailable sounds.

These are the issues I can register:

1. Could Ives imagine an extended Pythagorean?
Absolutely. To imagine the "Universe Symphony" is to imagine many times more
complex calculations. Why shouldn't we grant Ives the confidence that his
imagination was formidible, that his memory was formidible, that he was ahead
of his time and still a bacic part of it. I can't imagine Ives composing the
way he did and not accept that his imagination could "hear" what may not be
easily aviaible to him. Hell, he never heard the vast majority of his own
music and kept composing until his control faltered.

2. Dan expressed doubt that he "actually ever got to hear and weigh his
music in a full Pythagorean intonation. So?
With all the experimenting going on in Danbury thanks to his father, I
believe that Charles Ives would hear all the relationships that are truly
important. He would distinguish a temperament as useful, but only a
compromise for what he knows truly exists. The mathematics are simple for
3-limit JI and have been known since earliest times through the monochord.
As a composer I regularly compose in new tunings that I have never heard
fully so as to weigh this music. I do it all in my head and so I think Ives
did too.

3. It is _not_ for every note of his music, as when it is not tonal and then
12-TET
The implicatin here is that if the majority of Ives's music is 12-TET then he
would have an atonal basis for his music. His theory always speaks to keys
and therefore to heirarchical tonality and therefore rarely atonal. I do not
belive he is being read correctly here. Ives states clearly to my eyes that
the 12-TET is in the minority for his music.

If there are other issues, please present them. It is very helpful to
examine and evaluate this material at this time. Since working on a
"Universe Symphony" book, I've added a chapter on Intonation and I am eager
to work out these issues.

thanks Dan!

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>The past post mentioning the "acoustical" importance for the
accidentals was the first I had seen.

Again I see this as being an entirely consistent thread that runs
through all of Ives' references (that I've seen) to these note
spellings... these are a few from the previously cited _MEMOS_
references:

"For instance, in the key of C, B going up to C, sometimes
under certain moods, is sung (regardless of the piano) nearer to C
than B on the piano--and, going down from C to B, farther away. Now
when the two B's are used in a chord, there is a practical, physical,
acoustical difference (overtonal, vibrational beats) which make it a
slightly different chord than the B's of an exact octave"

"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."

As far as your points 1 and 2 go, I personally agree with most all of
what your saying... but I think the point (as I see it anyway) here is
that Ives never said, "Pythagorean," or 'note spelling are such as to
coincide with chains of 3/2s and 4/3s.' And even though the
opportunity seemed to present itself on numerous occasions, he never
pressed this... he never saw it through the way he did say his use of
quartertones - no troubling ambiguities there, he (and performances in
his lifetime) saw the interest through...

Something along the lines of 'note spelling are such as to coincide
with chains of 3/2s and 4/3s' might very well be the evidentially
soundest conclusion one can piece together from the evidence as it is
(what he said, etc.); but I've seen nothing to sway me from my
original feeling that a wholesale recasting of Ives' music into a
Pythagorean intonational framework is over amplifying one particular,
tantalizing evidential bit... And that this is viable creative
decision of Johnny Reinhard based on what he has best deduced, rather
than some clear historically languishing intonational directive of
Ives himself.

To point 3, I really think that he clearly indicates in the _MEMOS_
that these note spellings *were* used to bypass typical harmonic/tonal
expectations and "mental" habits.

>I've added a chapter on Intonation and I am eager to work out these
issues.

Have you had any kind of contact with say the "Ives Society" people,
or Lou Harrison (who would really seem to have a unique perspective on
this due to his first hand knowledge of Ives manuscript roughs and his
own personal history of intonational interest), etc.?

Dan