Do we need notation?

Listening to barbershop, which deviates pretty far from the
theoretical 12-et, makes me wonder how much we really need notation,
given that instead of a score it would be easier, and perhaps more
useful, to produce a part soundfile instead. Twining apparently didn't
like the results he got until he used headphones, which seems a little
dubious. Another approach, if we wanted a recorded performance, is to
do what Aaron Wolf has done with his barbershop quartet and Melodyne.
That certainly seems to solve the intonation question very nicely, but
it is limited in that it won't work for live performances, and may not
be acceptable to musicians.

I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on the question of
soundfiles as an alternative to printed scores. What do the microtonal
musicians here think about this? I think if it was acceptable it would
make getting a microtonal piece ready for performance far easier.

> I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on the question of
> soundfiles as an alternative to printed scores. What do the
> microtonal musicians here think about this? I think if it was
> acceptable it would make getting a microtonal piece ready for
> performance far easier.

I've been trying to tell you that your timidity renderings
would make perfect rehearsal material if you created versions
for each part with it panned to one side.

While Twining used cans, he stressed the importance of
rehearsal CDs.

-Carl

> > I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on the question of
> > soundfiles as an alternative to printed scores. What do the
> > microtonal musicians here think about this? I think if it was
> > acceptable it would make getting a microtonal piece ready for
> > performance far easier.
>
> I've been trying to tell you that your timidity renderings
> would make perfect rehearsal material if you created versions
> for each part with it panned to one side.
>
> While Twining used cans, he stressed the importance of
> rehearsal CDs.

My barbershop director used to distribute tapes like this,
which is where I got the idea.

In barbershop, we use notation -- it's a helpful ballpark.
We never rehearse with a piano.

Notation has always been ballparky, especially for rhythm.
The range of quality of classical recordings of a given piece
show as much. And writing "swing feel" at the top seems to
be the best that has been done for swing.

For that matter, standard notation isn't 12-tET at all. It's
meantone, and there's a lot more flexibility in it than it
commonly gets credit for in the microtonal community.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> I've been trying to tell you that your timidity renderings
> would make perfect rehearsal material if you created versions
> for each part with it panned to one side.

I don't recall hearing that idea before. You think panning to one side
is preferable to having only one part, I take it?

> While Twining used cans, he stressed the importance of
> rehearsal CDs.

How did he set up his rehearsal CDs?

> > I've been trying to tell you that your timidity renderings
> > would make perfect rehearsal material if you created versions
> > for each part with it panned to one side.
>
> I don't recall hearing that idea before.

I've written at least 2 direct messages to you on MMM about
it.

> You think panning to one side is preferable to having only
> one part, I take it?

It turns the balance knobs on most stereos into makeshift
mixers. The performer can rehearse against their part
alone, against the rest of the ensemble, or as a 2nd in
the entire ensemble.

> > While Twining used cans, he stressed the importance of
> > rehearsal CDs.
>
> How did he set up his rehearsal CDs?

He didn't say.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> In barbershop, we use notation -- it's a helpful ballpark.

Is it going to be helpful without a lot of extra accidentals in most
microtonal situations? What barbershop does is pretty restricted,
compared to the range of 7-limit JI possibilities, for instance.

> For that matter, standard notation isn't 12-tET at all. It's
> meantone, and there's a lot more flexibility in it than it
> commonly gets credit for in the microtonal community.

That's a good point. For the 7-limit, meantone notation would probably
work as a ballpark starting point for music which is either JI or
involves some other kind of tempering in most instances, so long as we
are working with a higher-accuracy system. 126/125, 225/224, and
3136/3125 are completely tempered out. 1728/1715, 1029/1024,
6144/6125, 65625/65536 and 2401/2400 all have a complexity of 31,
which means there's not much problem in adapting meantone for use with
miracle or orwell, for example. Other things, like my piece in
5120/5103-planar (complexity 12) would present a little more of a
problem, but I wonder if it would really be too serious, especially
considering that 12-et tempers it out. The same "12 is familiar"
theory might work with 2048/2025 and 32805/32768 as well, or we might
use garibaldi as the ballpark and not meantone.

> > In barbershop, we use notation -- it's a helpful ballpark.
>
> Is it going to be helpful without a lot of extra accidentals in
> most microtonal situations? What barbershop does is pretty
> restricted, compared to the range of 7-limit JI possibilities,
> for instance.

That's true (though it exceeds the 7-limit on some things,
such as diminished chords and 9-limit consonances). Extra
accidentals aren't a bad idea, but I think they can easily
be taken to extremes. And remember, many styles of music
employ *no notation at all*.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > In barbershop, we use notation -- it's a helpful ballpark.
> >
> > Is it going to be helpful without a lot of extra accidentals in
> > most microtonal situations? What barbershop does is pretty
> > restricted, compared to the range of 7-limit JI possibilities,
> > for instance.
>
> That's true (though it exceeds the 7-limit on some things,
> such as diminished chords and 9-limit consonances).

I consider those both to be 7-prime-limit chords actually.

Extra
> accidentals aren't a bad idea, but I think they can easily
> be taken to extremes. And remember, many styles of music
> employ *no notation at all*.

It would certainly be interesting to see if a piece like Choraled
could be performed in this way. By whom is a question, though.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

> It would certainly be interesting to see if a piece like Choraled
> could be performed in this way. By whom is a question, though.

It occurs to me that 5120/5103-planar, which Choraled is in, might be
excellently well adapted to this idea. If you put 81/80 and 5120/5103
together, you get dominant temperament. That would mean an otonal
tetrad would be notated C-E-G-Bb and not C-E-G-A#, which would be
fine. I could certainly produce a dominant temperament score for it,
and I imagine it would be possible to sing it, given the right performers.

> >
> > That's true (though it exceeds the 7-limit on some things,
> > such as diminished chords and 9-limit consonances).
>
> I consider those both to be 7-prime-limit chords actually.
>

The diminished chords that Carl is talking about are generally claimed
to be tuned with 17, so that's not prime-7-limit.

Most tuning theory barbershoppers I've talked to express that
11 and 13 are these crazy, dissonant, out of the style notes.
I have to agree that I never hear them, but I think it'd be neat
to introduce them, as long as I don't claim it to be in line with
tradition.

Another quick comment: I don't think I've ever seen a barbershop
arrangement or heard anything where multiple 7s are used, as in
a 49/32 note, such as, Gene, what you mentioned a while back
in your scala post about making 7th chords on each of a series of
basic starting notes. Never in barbershop is there a chord rooted
on a 7 of another chord. And only rarely on the 5 (the major third).
Roots are almost entirely pythagorean.

To further discuss the broad issues, I doubt you'll find a quartet
anywhere that doesn't have a shred of some taught idea, such as
"hey, I'm the lead, so you guys tune to me!" just because they were
told that by someone, or by many. In other words, quartets don't
exist in their own little perfect musical world. They follow guidelines
by coaches and books and heresay, sometime not even knowing if they
are following the guideline right, and sometimes getting contradictory
advice! So of course there's a range of possibilities.

A Just Intonation Network member and barbershop friend, always
points out that there are 5 ways to generally tune:
0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the parts can consider themselves as tuning to
the other parts.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> The diminished chords that Carl is talking about are generally claimed
> to be tuned with 17, so that's not prime-7-limit.

Generally by whom? Where does this "generally" come from?

I think the diminished chord of standard music theory is best
understood as either simply 4edo or a chord of meantone temperament,
which means it would be neither an otonal nor a utonal chord, but a
6/5-6/5-6/5-7/6 chord. This comes out to exactly an octave in septimal
meantone; in JI, it would be a 6/5-6/5-6/5-125/108 chord, where now
you have a note, 125/108, which is intermediate between 7/6 and 8/7;
in 19-limit terms very nearly 22/19.

The 17-limit version of the diminised seventh comes in two flavors,
otonal and utonal. Otonally it is 12:14:17:20, but any regular tuning
which can handle the otonal version will have the utonal inversion as
well. I had fun with my recent 46-et piece Chromosounds using all
three of these kinds of chords, which makes a lot of sense since 46
not only tempers out 126/125, it has an excellent 17.

Acute sensitivity might well make it possible to nail the otonal chord
in barbershop.

> Most tuning theory barbershoppers I've talked to express that
> 11 and 13 are these crazy, dissonant, out of the style notes.
> I have to agree that I never hear them, but I think it'd be neat
> to introduce them, as long as I don't claim it to be in line with
> tradition.

Do you think you could get your singers to attempt wild&crazy music
composed by tuning list persons?

> Another quick comment: I don't think I've ever seen a barbershop
> arrangement or heard anything where multiple 7s are used, as in
> a 49/32 note, such as, Gene, what you mentioned a while back
> in your scala post about making 7th chords on each of a series of
> basic starting notes. Never in barbershop is there a chord rooted
> on a 7 of another chord. And only rarely on the 5 (the major third).
> Roots are almost entirely pythagorean.

Yes, I understand. That was what my post was about--this is an example
of a direction I think a barbershop ensemble could go in, if they
wanted to. It would not sound traditional, but it would make use of
the barbershop chord.

> A Just Intonation Network member and barbershop friend, always
> points out that there are 5 ways to generally tune:
> 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the parts can consider themselves as tuning to
> the other parts.

Do the two inner voices ever think they are *not* tuning to other parts?

> > The diminished chords that Carl is talking about are generally
> > claimed to be tuned with 17, so that's not prime-7-limit.
>
> Generally by whom?

In the barbershop community. Also, I've met people who were
taught the dim chord approximates 10:12:15:17 in music school.

> I think the diminished chord of standard music theory is best
> understood as either simply 4edo or a chord of meantone
> temperament, which means it would be neither an otonal nor a
> utonal chord, but a 6/5-6/5-6/5-7/6 chord.

It can be understood that way, but in barbershop, I've heard
it tuned 10:12:15:17.

> > A Just Intonation Network member and barbershop friend, always
> > points out that there are 5 ways to generally tune:
> > 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the parts can consider themselves as tuning
> > to the other parts.
>
> Do the two inner voices ever think they are *not* tuning to other
> parts?

The lead is one of the inner voices. It's the bari and tenor
who don't usually claim they're leading the intonation.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@>
wrote:
>
> > The diminished chords that Carl is talking about are generally
claimed
> > to be tuned with 17, so that's not prime-7-limit.
>
> Generally by whom? Where does this "generally" come from?
> > Acute sensitivity might well make it possible to nail the otonal
chord
> in barbershop.
>

Everyone in the barbershop world that I've talked to
who understands harmonics at all has said that diminished
chords are tuned with 17. It's usually thought of as
10:12:14:17, so baritones (or leads if they are the second to
lowest note) are told to sing out louder and extra strong
on diminished chords to help the other parts tune. If
it were to be 12:14:17:20 (which is probably as realistic
a possibility) the basses would be strongest.

> Do you think you could get your singers to attempt wild&crazy music
> composed by tuning list persons?

I think the more serious ones could in the long run.
In the mean time, we're dealing with a society that
ranges from the greatest singers around, to those who
really work just to hold a tune. It is a fight generally
to get the average barbershopper to go beyond simple
notes and words to putting more musicality in a
performance. But again, there's a wide range of singing
abilities.

I've got singers in my chorus who are willing to hold a
chord while I try singing an 11 identity over it... but
hey, I'm not perfect either, so I need to work at this
stuff.

If I demonstrate a computerized composition that
is accessible enough to appeal to these singers,
I bet it would then not be hard to get them to want to
try singing it.

> > A Just Intonation Network member and barbershop friend, always
> > points out that there are 5 ways to generally tune:
> > 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the parts can consider themselves as tuning to
> > the other parts.
>
> Do the two inner voices ever think they are *not* tuning to other
parts?
>

The inner two voices are ALWAYS "baritone" and "lead." Lead
is called that because that part is the original melody
of the song. Many barbershoppers teach that the melody
should be sung as melodically clean as possible and that
every other part, including bass, should tune to every whim
of the lead melody. I think this actually happens very rarely.
The idea that there could be this range of who actually
tunes to other parts means that some quartets don't listen
and blend well, and are considered poor. But the overall
question remains. Does the bass ever adjust to anyone, or
just insist that he's right because he's the bass? Same
question for the lead. And if they sang JI like my example,
then they could all learn the JI tuning of their parts, and
virtually ignore each other and still tune ok. Realistically,
I think every baritone tunes to the other parts, and every
tenor too (but maybe not AS much so), and it is the
battle between leads and basses as to who gets to be
dominant and focus the tuning. Some people can get dogmatic
about this issue. Some people decry how terrible barbershop
basses are at being solid and consistent. Some people
think they should be, as they are to harmonize to the lead.
None of this is necessarily "right." These are all people
who were taught what they were taught and very few people
who talk about this stuff are the woodshedders who
originated the style. The real open-minded woodshedders
don't understand the theory or even know what they do.
See that link I posted earlier...

-Aaron

> > Do the two inner voices ever think they are *not* tuning to other
> > parts?
>
> The lead is one of the inner voices. It's the bari and tenor
> who don't usually claim they're leading the intonation.
>
> -Carl
>

To be simple and clear, the broadest definition of barberop:

4-parts, homophonic texture for the most part, harmonic 7ths,
5ths-based root movement, and the melody is the second to
highest part.

Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.

Certainly having a harmony part consistenty above the melody
is about the most distinguishing feature of the style.

-Aaron

Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
> ... and the melody is the second to highest part.
>
> Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.

I always thought that if altos (in the SATB world) and 2nd violinists
(in the str quartet world) knew about this, they'd hold protests, set
barricades of tires on fire, and demand their due! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> To be simple and clear, the broadest definition of barberop:
>
> 4-parts, homophonic texture for the most part, harmonic 7ths,
> 5ths-based root movement, and the melody is the second to
> highest part.
>
> Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.

So some of what the Gashouse Gang sings isn't barbershop? Do
barbershop groups experiment much with other a capella styles? I'm
thinking Renaissance barbershop.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
> > ... and the melody is the second to highest part.
> >
> > Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.
>
> I always thought that if altos (in the SATB world) and 2nd violinists
> (in the str quartet world) knew about this, they'd hold protests, set
> barricades of tires on fire, and demand their due! :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

They should just be happy they aren't barbershop baritones!
At least altos and second violinists usually get parts
that kinda make sense on their own, due to the polyphonic
focus of a lot of SATB and string quartet music. Barbershop
baritones sing whatever note is missing from a barbershop
chord after the other three parts claim what they want.
The baritone part can be totally unmelodic and almost
meaninglessly weird on its own... ;)

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > To be simple and clear, the broadest definition of barberop:
> >
> > 4-parts, homophonic texture for the most part, harmonic 7ths,
> > 5ths-based root movement, and the melody is the second to
> > highest part.
> >
> > Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.
>
> So some of what the Gashouse Gang sings isn't barbershop? Do
> barbershop groups experiment much with other a capella styles? I'm
> thinking Renaissance barbershop.
>

A HUGE part of the Gas House Gang's recordings are NOT barbershop!
Barbershop has to have those elements I listed.
Anything else is some other sort of four-part harmony.
The vast majority of barbershop quartets sing other styles
as well. They sort of arrange what they can into the bass,
bari, lead, tenor concept, but to be this extreme:
The Bye Bye Blues arrangement I posted is not as strictly
barbershop as many other arrangements. It says (look at the
score) that it was NOT intended for use in contest. Reason
being that the Bum bum stuff makes it less authentic
barbershop. We'll sing it in contest anyway, but we'll
probably get marked down just a tiny bit for choosing music
that has that polyphonic quality.

The "bell chords" of the bye bye bye bye stuff is considered
barbershop enough, but the basses singing bum bum while the
others sing words is definitely not barbershop.

-Aaron

> > > To be simple and clear, the broadest definition of barberop:
> > >
> > > 4-parts, homophonic texture for the most part, harmonic 7ths,
> > > 5ths-based root movement, and the melody is the second to
> > > highest part.
> > >
> > > Anything like that is pretty much barbershop.
> >

One more thing: generally its stated that to really be
barbershop at least something like 35% of the piece
(as calculated in time, not number of chords) needs to
be harmonic 7th "barbershop" chords. Anything with far
less harmonic 7ths is NOT barbershop.

> The inner two voices are ALWAYS "baritone" and "lead."

That's not true, etiher. Baris sometimes go above the
lead, and tenor sometimes below.

-Carl

> They should just be happy they aren't barbershop baritones!
> At least altos and second violinists usually get parts
> that kinda make sense on their own, due to the polyphonic
> focus of a lot of SATB and string quartet music. Barbershop
> baritones sing whatever note is missing from a barbershop
> chord after the other three parts claim what they want.
> The baritone part can be totally unmelodic and almost
> meaninglessly weird on its own... ;)

It's fantastically hard to sing. Nothing like a viola part,
though they get just as little credit.

-Carl

> The "bell chords" of the bye bye bye bye stuff is considered
> barbershop enough, but the basses singing bum bum while the
> others sing words is definitely not barbershop.

David Wright makes a case against that.

http://www.spebsqsa.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_044942
.hcsp

This guy is the greatest arranger in the history of the sport,
and a mathematician.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > The inner two voices are ALWAYS "baritone" and "lead."
>
> That's not true, etiher. Baris sometimes go above the
> lead, and tenor sometimes below.
>
> -Carl
>

Ok, not ALWAYS, but I've never seen tenor below lead for an entire phrase.
And the only reason tenor is ever lower if the lead is exceptionally high.
And bari isnot just sometimes but *often* above the lead, but that doesn't
contradict what I said. Whether bari or lead is above or below the other,
they are still the two inner parts.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > The "bell chords" of the bye bye bye bye stuff is considered
> > barbershop enough, but the basses singing bum bum while the
> > others sing words is definitely not barbershop.
>
> David Wright makes a case against that.
>
> http://www.spebsqsa.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_044942
> .hcsp
>
> This guy is the greatest arranger in the history of the sport,
> and a mathematician.
>
> -Carl
>
Well, who am I to argue with David Wright? But Burt Szabo does. He thinks that
David Wright is a bit too free with his definition. And Burt wrote the arranging
manual and is a notable arranger and historian, and I'm sure understands
some of the math, although nobody can hold a candle to David Wright, since
he's a professor of math.

Anyway, point still is that if the nature of the sound gets too far from basically
homorhythmic then we're certainly at some point outside of barbershop style.
Maybe that point is pretty far out. The Bye Bye Blues arrangement is certainly
barbershop, but the bum bum parts are still less, um, not within the signature
of what makes something barbershop, even if they don't make the piece non-
barbershop.

Anyway, certainly polyphony, like in Rennaissance music where you have canons
and such cannot be barbershop no matter what the chords or harmonies or balance
of the parts. So my point is that texture is also a defining factor in barbershop.

-Aaron

> > This guy is the greatest arranger in the history of the sport,
> > and a mathematician.
>
> Well, who am I to argue with David Wright? But Burt Szabo
> does. He thinks that David Wright is a bit too free with his
> definition.

Well, what's in a definition...

> Anyway, certainly polyphony, like in Rennaissance music where
> you have canons and such cannot be barbershop no matter what
> the chords or harmonies or balance of the parts.

Agreed. I don't think Gene's idea of expanding barbershop
is a good one, but some barbershopers might be good people to
recruit for projects under a different name. And top-notch
groups like the Gas House Gang, who've already taken some
outroads to general a capella, perhaps. Though the gang
are incredibly square, and heady microtonal music dosen't
strike me as a good fit for them.

That raises the point about a capella in general. It's
thriving, and it's very friendly toward experimentalism.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> And Burt wrote the arranging
> manual and is a notable arranger and historian, and I'm sure understands
> some of the math, although nobody can hold a candle to David Wright,
since
> he's a professor of math.

How much math could be involved?

> Anyway, certainly polyphony, like in Rennaissance music where you
have canons
> and such cannot be barbershop no matter what the chords or harmonies
or balance
> of the parts. So my point is that texture is also a defining factor
in barbershop.

Renaissance polyphony is 5-limit with extensive use of passing notes.
Another kind of polyphony, which in my opinion works better in the
7-limit than it can manage to do in the 5-limit, avoids passing notes.
In the 7-limit, or 9-odd-limit, you can get much more freedom of part
movement, and more independence of the parts, without using passing
notes, than you can in the 5-limit. This sort of polyphony would
certainly be possible for barbershop ensembles if they wanted to
expand the characteristics of the style to do so.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> Agreed. I don't think Gene's idea of expanding barbershop
> is a good one, but some barbershopers might be good people to
> recruit for projects under a different name.

The name is that big a deal?

> That raises the point about a capella in general. It's
> thriving, and it's very friendly toward experimentalism.

It would be cool to get some a capella microtonalism going. I have a
feeling an a capella quartet could handle Choraled, which is
intriguing except for the fact I don't hang out with a capella quartets.

>
> Agreed. I don't think Gene's idea of expanding barbershop
> is a good one, but some barbershopers might be good people to
> recruit for projects under a different name. And top-notch
> groups like the Gas House Gang, who've already taken some
> outroads to general a capella, perhaps. Though the gang
> are incredibly square, and heady microtonal music dosen't
> strike me as a good fit for them.
>
> That raises the point about a capella in general. It's
> thriving, and it's very friendly toward experimentalism.
>

First, off the Gang is retired. You may not have heard that the
baritone, Rob Henry, the brother of the Bass, Jim Henry, died
of cancer in 2003. I was there when the quartet retired in 2004,
at what was almost certainly the most emotional performance I
have witnessed in my entire life. After singing with a rotating
bunch of baritones who had filled in over the previous year. they
had a live video recording of the tune the baritone did a solo on,
ironically: Still Can't Say Goodbye, an incredibly beautiful
non-barbershop song about missing one's dad who
passed on. Rob was up on the video screen singing the solo,
while the other three were on stage, live singing the loo loo parts.
They interspersed the performance video with scrapbook clips and
photos of his life and family and kids. I truly mean it when I say
there was not a dry eye in the 10,000 person audience. It still
stands in my mind as the most moving performance I can even
imagine. The trio barely got through the song, but they did.

Anyway, that aside, the reason barbershopper's won't be found
to be up for new microtonal compositions is simply because
barbershop itself is so challenging and rewarding that it is only
the very rare group that becomes good enough, at a young enough
age to even consider trying difficult new compositions.
You simply won't find a chorus anywhere that has the time
and skill to do that. There may be some quartets, but by that
level you aren't dealing with "barbershoppers" so much as
a specific group of 4 singers. That said, I think a top notch
barbershop quartet will be certainly more successful at new
microtonal compositions than a classical or pop a cappella group.
But I think that professional, serious early music ensembles
that use little or no vibrato are probably just as good candidates.

If somehow my recordings as learning tools can increase pitch
sensitivity within the society as a whole, well who knows?
Certainly it is hard to predict where barbershop will be in
20 years when the generation of the largest era in the preservationist
society have passed on. Generally the younger groups today are
fantastic and are taking things in a modern direction as far as
less hokiness and as far as higher standards go. I'm optimistic
in some ways.

-Aaron

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Listening to barbershop, which deviates pretty far from the
> theoretical 12-et, makes me wonder how much we really need notation,
> given that instead of a score it would be easier, and perhaps more
> useful, to produce a part soundfile instead. Twining apparently didn't
> like the results he got until he used headphones, which seems a little
> dubious. Another approach, if we wanted a recorded performance, is to
> do what Aaron Wolf has done with his barbershop quartet and Melodyne.
> That certainly seems to solve the intonation question very nicely, but
> it is limited in that it won't work for live performances, and may not
> be acceptable to musicians.
> > I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on the question of
> soundfiles as an alternative to printed scores. What do the microtonal
> musicians here think about this? I think if it was acceptable it would
> make getting a microtonal piece ready for performance far easier.

According to the liner notes on Easley Blackwood's CD "Microtonal", Jeffrey Kust "found very helpful an electronic simulation of the piece in true tempo, half tempo, and quarter tempo". So this sort of approach of using recordings has certainly been useful before. I imagine recordings would also be helpful with rhythm, tempo, and dynamics, especially with anything out of the ordinary (think of golden ratio rhythms and such). But there are other cases where notation can be useful.

For one thing, notation can help in the composing process. To some extent, the notation used by composers has different (potentially conflicting) goals from the notation used by performers. The piano roll window in a MIDI editor could be considered a minimal form of notation, especially if you're working with an ET (having different step sizes complicates the use of piano rolls, which don't have many useful landmarks). But if you can use conventional notation, you can jot down a half dozen ideas on the same sheet of paper and plan how to organize them more easily. To some extent, my interest in microtonal notation is influenced by the fact that I used to rely on notation when composing in 12-ET, and I miss having the ability to do this.

It's been a very long time since I've done any performing in a group, but I can imagine how hard it would be to coordinate more than a handful of performers if you don't have a written score to refer to at least in the initial stages. Complex music can certainly be memorized, but referring to notation is useful in the early stages of memorization.

Notation is also good for looking at what other composers have done and learning from their experiences. I can learn more about composing in ET's from reading Easley Blackwood's scores along with the CD than just by listening to the CD alone.

> How much math could be involved?

For my part, I was trying a little to be funny, and
trying a little to say that I generally respect
mathematicians.

> Renaissance polyphony is 5-limit with extensive use of passing
> notes. Another kind of polyphony, which in my opinion works
> better in the 7-limit than it can manage to do in the 5-limit,
> avoids passing notes. In the 7-limit, or 9-odd-limit, you can
> get much more freedom of part movement, and more independence
> of the parts, without using passing notes, than you can in the
> 5-limit.

That's a very good point, and something the idea of using
the harmonic series as a scale also has going for it. Without
passing tones, one can only get melodies with typical step
sizes through frequent chord changes. In the 15-limit and
above, one can get them within simple pop-style chord
progressions.

-Carl

> > Agreed. I don't think Gene's idea of expanding barbershop
> > is a good one, but some barbershopers might be good people to
> > recruit for projects under a different name.
>
> The name is that big a deal?

Absolutely. Barbershopers are very serious about barbershop.
And barbershop is a very productized genre -- it is entirely
the dominion of "the society".

> > That raises the point about a capella in general. It's
> > thriving, and it's very friendly toward experimentalism.
>
> It would be cool to get some a capella microtonalism going. I
> have a feeling an a capella quartet could handle Choraled,
> which is intriguing except for the fact I don't hang out with
> a capella quartets.

Me neither. :( But I know they exist, and I know they're
a weird bunch -- perfect for microtonality.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
>> The "bell chords" of the bye bye bye bye stuff is considered
>> barbershop enough, but the basses singing bum bum while the
>> others sing words is definitely not barbershop.
> > David Wright makes a case against that.
> > http://www.spebsqsa.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_044942
> .hcsp

I don't have and don't want the realplayer, so I only read the comments. Mention of the patter chorus makes me ask this:

Is there a (real, technical) difference between doo-wop and barbershop? And, re the bum bum bass: What's the standing of the Mills Brothers in the community?

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> The "bell chords" of the bye bye bye bye stuff is considered
> >> barbershop enough, but the basses singing bum bum while the
> >> others sing words is definitely not barbershop.
> >
> > David Wright makes a case against that.
> >
> > http://www.spebsqsa.org/web/groups/public/documents/pages/pub_id_044942
> > .hcsp
>
> I don't have and don't want the realplayer, so I only read the comments.
> Mention of the patter chorus makes me ask this:
>
> Is there a (real, technical) difference between doo-wop and barbershop?
> And, re the bum bum bass: What's the standing of the Mills Brothers in
> the community?
>
> klaus
>

Oh, doowop may be sung for fun by a barbershop quartet occassionally,
but they have VERY LITTLE in common as far as style. Doowop rarely has
lots of 7th chords, has totally different style of melody and harmony.
And usually has a totally different texture. Besides being a non-classical
all male singing style, I can't think of almost anything else particularly in
common. Harmonically doowop is incredibly simple and basic compared
to barbershop. Doowop usually has simple diatonic triads that repeat
for the whole song. Barbershop is complex, crazy, high-limit chordal
structures with complex shifts and arrangements. In this case it is so
different that any non-musician can easily identify the difference because
they sound so discreetly different.

As far as Mills Brothers, I don't know what to say exactly. It may not be
strict barbershop, but they are much closer to barbershop tradition,
and have a lot in common with barbershop.

Essentially, barbershop needs a melody range that is comfortable
for an average, not virtuoso, singer. And this melody needs to
IMPLY a fifths-based "circle of fifths" harmonic progression. And
add to that the other stuff I listed, like harmony above melody...
But the main point is the barbershop HARMONY is specific. 7th
chords that resolve around 5ths roots back to home. If it is a
I-IV-V song, and that's all, or in the case of doowop, I-vi-IV-V,
then it *certainly* is not much like barbershop.

-Aaron

Aaron Wolf wrote:

> Oh, doowop may be sung for fun by a barbershop quartet occassionally,
> but they have VERY LITTLE in common as far as style. Doowop rarely has
> lots of 7th chords, has totally different style of melody and harmony.
> And usually has a totally different texture. Besides being a non-classical
> all male singing style, I can't think of almost anything else particularly in
> common. Harmonically doowop is incredibly simple and basic compared
> to barbershop. Doowop usually has simple diatonic triads that repeat
> for the whole song. Barbershop is complex, crazy, high-limit chordal
> structures with complex shifts and arrangements. In this case it is so
> different that any non-musician can easily identify the difference because
> they sound so discreetly different.

I see. Apparently, not everything I had thought of as doo-wop is. Really, the tenor lead alone (in the olden terminology when the upper voices were called altus and cantus or motetus and triplum and tenor _meant_ lead) is an obvious distinction I should have thought of myself.

Thanks,

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> Listening to barbershop, which deviates pretty far from the
> theoretical 12-et, makes me wonder how much we really need notation,
> given that instead of a score it would be easier, and perhaps more
> useful, to produce a part soundfile instead. Twining apparently didn't
> like the results he got until he used headphones, which seems a little
> dubious. Another approach, if we wanted a recorded performance, is to
> do what Aaron Wolf has done with his barbershop quartet and Melodyne.
> That certainly seems to solve the intonation question very nicely, but
> it is limited in that it won't work for live performances, and may not
> be acceptable to musicians.
>
> I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on the question of
> soundfiles as an alternative to printed scores. What do the microtonal
> musicians here think about this? I think if it was acceptable it would
> make getting a microtonal piece ready for performance far easier.
>

***Well, to me, anyway, it seema a little "musically illiterate..."
Most musicians like to look at the line they are going to be performing
to see their place in the scheme of things, or at least where they are
in their part. I agree that a soundfile is a powerful adjunct to this
score, but seems to take us back perhaps a bit to the oral tradition
before the printed word, or the ages of arithmetic, base 10, where we
needed to count on our fingers and toes... :)

Herman Miller's comments were interesting with reference to Easley
Blackwood. I admit I don't frequently notate electronics; I basically
notate what is necessary so that a musician can execute a part and
produce music. So, the electronic parts are notated frequently
as "cues..." However, from a *theoretical* point of view, if one wishes
to study a score, it could be an enhancement to have all the pitches
there, notated somehow. I'm usually on to the next piece by the time
it would take me to do all of that...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...> wrote:

> I admit I don't frequently notate electronics; I basically
> notate what is necessary so that a musician can execute a part and
> produce music. So, the electronic parts are notated frequently
> as "cues..." However, from a *theoretical* point of view, if one wishes
> to study a score, it could be an enhancement to have all the pitches
> there, notated somehow. I'm usually on to the next piece by the time
> it would take me to do all of that...

It would be interesting to know what your performing score looks like
for a piece such as Blacklight. How did you tell the cellist what
pitches to pitch?

>
> It would be interesting to know what your performing score looks
like
> for a piece such as Blacklight. How did you tell the cellist what
> pitches to pitch?
>

***Hi Gene,

Well, with Blacklight it was pretty easy, as in all the Blackjack
pieces. It's just 12-equal, with the 4 additional Sagittal-Wilson
alterations...

The electronic part was all on one line, for "cuing purposes." The
staff was smaller (as is generally done) and I wrote out the
necessary pitches. In some cases I "cheated" with things such
as "top line of chord" indicated... Well, that's what was heard for
cuing purposes, anyway... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what your performing score looks
> like
> > for a piece such as Blacklight. How did you tell the cellist what
> > pitches to pitch?
> >
>
>
> ***Hi Gene,
>
> Well, with Blacklight it was pretty easy, as in all the Blackjack
> pieces. It's just 12-equal, with the 4 additional Sagittal-Wilson
> alterations...
>
> The electronic part was all on one line, for "cuing purposes." The
> staff was smaller (as is generally done) and I wrote out the
> necessary pitches. In some cases I "cheated" with things such
> as "top line of chord" indicated... Well, that's what was heard for
> cuing purposes, anyway... :)
>
> JP
>

***Whoops... well, 6, of course, including the quartertones! :)

JP