Ives on tuning

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>If Charles Ives insists that a C# is higher than a Db in his
"acoustic plan" for works like the Concord Sonata, Universe Symphony,
and Unanswered Question, then the plan must fit one or the other
paradigm.

And like some stuttering parody of a broken record, I say he said, "As
to the matter of implied changes in the tone of a note (usually only
one or two in a chord say of from six to eight notes) which when
played on a piano does not change, but which the player can think of
aurally as going higher or lower, as the case may be (see typewritten
chart of measured or tonal-difference beats, etc.)." That is a
specific reference to the _CONCORD SONATA_, and it clearly says,
usually only one or two notes in a chord say of from six to eight
notes.

In an off-list correspondence with Johnny on this topic he wrote
"Hell, I'm just trying to move things forward" and I really see no way
to argue with that - this is a good thing. And I also believe that
there is plenty enough elbow room in what Ives says for this to be an
extremely viable artistic interpretation of what he wrote. I guess
that my personal hope would be that the issue would get the real
in-depth sort of a going over that it deserves (and which is probably
well-nigh impossible for any one person to do), and that in the end,
what can be said to be the case and what can be said to not be the
case, will both get a fair shake. But maybe this is an unrealistic
expectation - consider the current thread on Bach. I'd have to imagine
that that has been given the multiple attention of quite a few
interested and knowledgeable people, and yet...

I have no axe to grind here... no particular type of a position that
must be won... I'm just not convinced, or perhaps willing to connect
some of the same pieces of the puzzle that Johnny (apparently) is. In
the same off-line correspondence Johnny wrote, "There's seems for me
enough circumstantial evidence backed up by the music itself that a
pure Pythagorean tuning is suitable for much of Ives's music. To deny
this is to lose a dimension to Ives that is both deserving and
virtually unheard." I really find it all but impossible to argue with
the gist of that... and I think that our main points of disagreement
here seem to be turning on the semantics of how this is presented,
again: what can be said to be the case, and what can be said to not be
the case... there is a difference I think.

>I look forward to making available a published score, studio
recording, and matching book to explain all this for release in April
2001.

Tonight I was reading with my five-year-old son Bryan before he went
to bed, and as he was trying to sound out "glove," he quickly put
together the "gl" and the picture and told me, "good readers guess." I
think he's got it... In Swafford's appendix to _A LIFE WITH MUSIC_
(which incidentally is completely devoted to editing Ives) he writes,
"Some performers' decisions -- such as to include the "shadow lines"
in the Third Symphony or to keep the Fugue in the First Quartet --
will turn out dubious, but so be it. Ives's music challenges us at
every turn, beginning with the notes on the page. It is the connection
of all aspects of his world, from the inconclusiveness of some of his
manuscripts through his political convictions to his aesthetics and
metaphysics, that shows the ultimate unity in the vision of this
paradoxical genius. If he overrated our abilities as collaborators,
his heart was in the right place and his generosity as lavish in that
as in everything else."

Dan

Each time I post new material to the list relevant to Ives's tuning
conception, Dan feels it necessary to defend the psychologiocal aspects of
Ives's music for piano. Yesterday, I heard a lecture by George Pappastravrou
at C.W. Post on Charles Ives and that is all he spoke about.

From George P.'s point of view (he's in the Ives Society and he recorded the
quartertone pieces are the early CRI recording) the tuning is all
pschological. He announced regularly that the Ives "wrote lots of wrong
notes into his music" on purpose.

Sometime I thank the fates that I am not a pianist. If the Concord Sonata is
thought of _only_ as piano music then there is no more discussion necessary.
However, if Ives is taken at his word, then the idea for this composition and
others is tuned differently, at least as a goal perhaps not to be reached in
his lifetime.

So much was not achieved in Ives's lifetime. He heard little of his music
and was humbled by physical incapacity by the midpoint of his life. To say
that one person cannot put this material on tuning together (you might as
well say one person could not finish the pieces of Ives that were defiantly
unfinished by the composer) is just the dare that drives me on. Wolfgang
Rathert wrote an essay on Ives's "potentiality" which specifically describes
Ives as distinct from all European models. This includes the mixing of
musical styles in his music, and specifically the "unfinished" element, along
with improvisation feels in the music.

I will try to to repeat myself as I continue to put relevant material on the
web. Most important, my idea will be backed up by performances, recordings,
and publications.

I'm not so concerned at being sold short when I speak about controversial
musical issues. It is the rancor that it receives that bridles. And not
only from list members, but from "supposed" Ives specialists. There is no
one on the Ives Society that can discuss these issues, nor could Jan Swafford.

Amazingly, (here a micro-editorial) everyone continues to sell Ives short.
All this discussion about the primacy of the Idea in Ives's music, and then
his tuning ideas vanish from the scene. Same with discussions of Renaissance
music when I was at Columbia U.: no discussion about tuning. Maybe it's less
difficult for one person to figure out the tuning ramifications of Ives than
it is for an individual to comprehend conceptually all the tuning precepts
for all of music through all of time. We have to try.

Johnny Reinhard
American Festival of Alternatively-tuned Music

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>To say that one person cannot put this material on tuning together
(you might as well say one person could not finish the pieces of Ives
that were defiantly unfinished by the composer) is just the dare that
drives me on.

Actually I wrote, "my personal hope would be that the issue would get
the real in-depth sort of a going over that it deserves (and which is
probably well-nigh impossible for any one person to do)." With a
musical output as large and conceptually challenging as Ives, I think
that there is a lot to go over, the above was just a nod in the
direction of patience and thoroughness, not a challenge... Anyone
could take a dare here (and some better than others no doubt), I just
don't see it that way at all... and this just reflects my temperament,
which is to say something like "that's really interesting Johnny, lets
get in there and see what can really be seen." But for someone who
wants to "move things forward" (a good thing!), that may be nothing
more than an irrelevant nuisance, or a pile of tangled busy work
standing in the way of actually getting it done... So be it.

>I'm not so concerned at being sold short when I speak about
controversial musical issues. It is the rancor that it receives that
bridles. And not only from list members,

I don't remember too many people here discussing this so I'll take
that to mean (at least in part) me... I'm offering (as polite as I
know how, which probably ain't always as polite as I would hope) what
objections I have because I'm interested, because I care, and because
I believe (to a certain extent anyway) that I have some understanding
or feel for the parameters of the subject as it's being discussed...
but I don't see where I've either sold you short, or expressed any ill
will...

>but from "supposed" Ives specialists. There is no one on the Ives
Society that can discuss these issues, nor could Jan Swafford.

Well, I'll take you're word for it... and if that really is the case,
then I suppose that you are out there on your own in a way. Some might
see that as making the job easier, and others might see it as making
the job more problematic - things will turn out however they turn
out... My objections have never really been about getting this music
(a Pythagorean reading of Ives note spellings) out there, they have
been about the way that the puzzle is pieced together... and if I
really thought they were nothing but a nay-saying bother, I wouldn't
really give a damn - I've got better things to do (and if I don't - I
damn well should!)

>Amazingly, (here a micro-editorial) everyone continues to sell Ives
short.

Hmm... I don't know about anybody else, but as you did say "everyone,"
I can only say that I think I'm personally doing anything but...

>All this discussion about the primacy of the Idea in Ives's music,
and then his tuning ideas vanish from the scene.

My objections (or whatever they are) have NOT been about not seeing
this through... again my hope was that this would fire up a bunch of
people (say the Ives Society people) and it -- the intonational
implications of Charles Ives note spellings -- would get a big, loving
going over... (anything but vanish).

>Maybe it's less difficult for one person to figure out the tuning
ramifications of Ives than it is for an individual to comprehend
conceptually all the tuning precepts for all of music through all of
time.

I would hope so!

>We have to try.

Well I for one *do* look forward to whatever (archeological) else you
might turn up while chugging through the evidence, and I especially
can't wait to hear the actual (Pythagorean) performances...

Dan (the tuning punk) Stearns