AW.: missed by the unimaginative (Ives on tuning)

Thanks for posting the _Memos_ text. I haven't been able to find my own copy.

Ives makes three propositions here that contradict one another in such a way
that I would hesitate to make any final claim for his intonation. First, he
states that the "ear-mind" will make intonational distinctions between tones
that are physically the same. This is entirely in keeping with the
transcendental ideal (the last paragraph cited sure sounds like an
Emersonian!), and implies that a 12tet instrumentarium is perfectly
sufficient for the performance of his music (the quartertone pieces excepted,
of course). Second, he makes a claim for a raised leading tone in sung
ascending melodies and a lowered leading tone in descending melodies, in
spite of the piano's pitch. This suggests a mixed pythagorean and just
intonation. Finally, in his description of his experiments with string
ensemble, he indicates that a db should be lower than a c# . This suggests
pythagorean.

(When Lou Harrison was asked to make an edition of the _Universe Symphony_,
he came to the conclusion that Ives' ideas about tuning were visionary but
(Austin and Reinhard to the contrary) incomplete. 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? 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.)