Acoustic Instrument Fallacy? (timbral "richness" vs tuning accuracy):

With all due respect to the alleged pioneers and
innovators of alternative tuning systems, and, adding
the caveat that I have a woefully restricted listening
background in regard to alternative tunings (having
only heard a couple of snatches of some Harry Partch
music via what I'm sure was a combination of both a
mediocre PC sound card and set of headphones), I
can't help but wonder how the alleged superiority of
any alternative tuning system can possibly be perceived,
when that tuning system is embodied in an analog
acoustical instrument, which is subject to the
expansion/contraction cycles of the changing temperature
and humidity (among who knows what other factors) of
the physical universe.

And I don't mean to "beat up on" alternative tuning
systems enthusiasts in particular, either, since the
psychopathological fetshisation of acoustic instruments
is certainly the norm in 12TET music performance, theory,
and education also. But I do consider this mailing list to be
concerned with the loftiest and most general principles
of musical aesthetics, and the most general principles
will of necessity be non-tuning-system-specific.

I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth out there and see
if anybody else had contemplated on these issues or not.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...>
wrote:
>
>
> With all due respect to the alleged pioneers and
> innovators of alternative tuning systems, and, adding
> the caveat that I have a woefully restricted listening
> background in regard to alternative tunings (having
> only heard a couple of snatches of some Harry Partch
> music via what I'm sure was a combination of both a
> mediocre PC sound card and set of headphones), I
> can't help but wonder how the alleged superiority of
> any alternative tuning system can possibly be perceived,
> when that tuning system is embodied in an analog
> acoustical instrument, which is subject to the
> expansion/contraction cycles of the changing temperature
> and humidity (among who knows what other factors) of
> the physical universe.

These effects can be measured, and have been discussed quite a bit
here, as well as on lists concerned with historically authentic
harpsichord and organ tunings. In most cases, the resulting effects
on the intervals in the tuning system over the course of a
performance will be a lot smaller than the difference between that
tuning and 12-equal. The latter difference is easily perceived by
experienced users. If that's not what you meant, then I must ask you,
how can 12-equal possibly be perceived?

> And I don't mean to "beat up on" alternative tuning
> systems enthusiasts in particular, either, since the
> psychopathological fetshisation of acoustic instruments
> is certainly the norm in 12TET music performance, theory,
> and education also.

:)

> But I do consider this mailing list to be
> concerned with the loftiest and most general principles
> of musical aesthetics, and the most general principles
> will of necessity be non-tuning-system-specific.
>
> I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth out there and see
> if anybody else had contemplated on these issues or not.

Pitch changing due to humidity and temperature changes? Yes.
Psychopathological fetishisation of acoustic instruments? I think
there's a feeling around here that it's been relatively rare for
genuine musical expression to be effected through purely electronic
means, but it's becoming more and more common as the technology
becomes more advanced and the field matures artistically. But if
you're saying that it's psychopathological to want to use the human
voice for music, to want to open your mouth and sing, then I'll have
to respectfully disagree no matter how advanced music synthesis
technology becomes . . .

Thanks for the response, Wally.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > With all due respect to the alleged pioneers and
> > innovators of alternative tuning systems, and, adding
> > the caveat that I have a woefully restricted listening
> > background in regard to alternative tunings (having
> > only heard a couple of snatches of some Harry Partch
> > music via what I'm sure was a combination of both a
> > mediocre PC sound card and set of headphones), I
> > can't help but wonder how the alleged superiority of
> > any alternative tuning system can possibly be perceived,
> > when that tuning system is embodied in an analog
> > acoustical instrument, which is subject to the
> > expansion/contraction cycles of the changing temperature
> > and humidity (among who knows what other factors) of
> > the physical universe.
>
> These effects can be measured, and have been discussed quite a bit
> here, as well as on lists concerned with historically authentic
> harpsichord and organ tunings. In most cases, the resulting effects
> on the intervals in the tuning system over the course of a
> performance will be a lot smaller than the difference between that
> tuning and 12-equal. The latter difference is easily perceived by
> experienced users. If that's not what you meant, then I must ask
you,
> how can 12-equal possibly be perceived?
>
> > And I don't mean to "beat up on" alternative tuning
> > systems enthusiasts in particular, either, since the
> > psychopathological fetshisation of acoustic instruments
> > is certainly the norm in 12TET music performance, theory,
> > and education also.
>
> :)
>
> > But I do consider this mailing list to be
> > concerned with the loftiest and most general principles
> > of musical aesthetics, and the most general principles
> > will of necessity be non-tuning-system-specific.
> >
> > I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth out there and see
> > if anybody else had contemplated on these issues or not.
>
> Pitch changing due to humidity and temperature changes? Yes.
> Psychopathological fetishisation of acoustic instruments? I think
> there's a feeling around here that it's been relatively rare for
> genuine musical expression to be effected through purely electronic
> means, but it's becoming more and more common as the technology
> becomes more advanced and the field matures artistically. But if
> you're saying that it's psychopathological to want to use the human
> voice for music, to want to open your mouth and sing, then I'll
have
> to respectfully disagree no matter how advanced music synthesis
> technology becomes . . .
>