Re: Presumptions

I think serial music is AWESOME.

I think serial music theory makes a lot more sense than tonal music
theory, and has a LOT less capacity for brainwashing more maudlin
(not to mention...) music-consuming (!) suckers.

I think it should be the FIRST music theory that anyone learns.

None of my students could have cared less what a major triad was
until I coerced them (hee!) into believing it was "important",
somehow.

;-)

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well then, let's talk about presumptions.
>
> It is presumption to put words I never said, or wrote, into my
> mouth -- and then criticize me for what I didn't actually say.
Case
> in point: I said that some of the dullest music I've heard was
> composed by post-Webern total serialists (thanks to Jeremy for
> supplying the term, which I'd forgotten). I did NOT say the music
> was worthless. I did NOT say the music was soulless. I did NOT say
I
> didn't like ANY of it, NOR did I say anything to disparage those
who
> find that music highly enjoyable. I even went to the effort to
> append "with the rare exception" -- which apparently bypassed
notice
> by others (with exceptions, of course!).
>
> (Actually, when someone puts words into my mouth, it illuminates
> their own preconceptions quite nicely, thanks.)
>
> To say I find something dull (musically) simply means that I find
it
> uninteresting after the first hearing (and I gave many first
> hearings). However, this was apparently too much for others, who
> promptly and soundly trounced this upstart for heresy against the
> musical avant-garde. I was compared to creationists and
reactionary
> politicians. Simply calling me a knuckle-dragging proto-hominid
> would have taken less space, I think.
>
> It was baldly stated that I didn't comprehend the inseperability
of
> mathematics and music; that I didn't comprehend the 12-tone method
> of composition; that my opinion was anti-intellectual. I've
pointed
> out that I enjoy Schoenberg, Sessions, Carter etc, and that in
fact
> I have composed a good deal of "atonal" music myself, earlier in
my
> development. These inconvenient admissions went unacknowledged.
>
> And many of these accusations came from someone who admitted to
> setting not a single note to even one - ONE - 12-tone composition.
> Hmmm.....seems to me, that I ought to be the offended party here,
> what with the blatant insults to my person and my intellectual
> integrity, and so forth. And all for saying that I found a tiny
bit
> of music, dull. I don't recall labelling anyone effete academic
> dilettantes or snot-nosed-and-whiney children, for having an
opinion
> different from my own. Opinions are like a certain bodily orifice:
> everyone has one, but they all stink.
>
> Apologies from the offending persons are due, and will be
graciously
> accepted.
>
> Note: liberal application of the apostrophe, or random mis-
spellings
> may not hereafter be accidental. Annoying pickers of nits has been
> an enjoyable hobby of mine fore many years.
>
> XXOO,
> jlsmith
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:
>
> I think serial music is AWESOME.
>
> I think serial music theory makes a lot more sense than tonal music
> theory, and has a LOT less capacity for brainwashing more maudlin
> (not to mention...) music-consuming (!) suckers.
>
> I think it should be the FIRST music theory that anyone learns.
>
> None of my students could have cared less what a major triad was
> until I coerced them (hee!) into believing it was "important",
> somehow.
>
> ;-)
>
> Pete
>

Pete, sorry if I missed it, but as FZ said:
"Facetiousness hardly ever translates onto print."

Serial music can be both great and terrible, because serial theory on its own
is far too simplistic to cover the broad issues of music. I teach my students
that a major triad is what it is: a selection of the the 6 notes in the harmonic
series played at once, each with its own full harmonic spectrum. At any rate,
the major triad is anything BUT arbitrary. It is a fundamental occurance that
we can't honestly deny. It necessarily has a primary place in music and sound.
But, I'll agree with you that most of the *reasons* that traditional theory
puts out to explain it are not valid. Serial theory's biggest mistake is to
reject other music theories, just because they aren't completely reasonable.

I think we ought to accept that within all these theories, serial as well, there
may be valid points and misunderstandings, and foolishness as well. Each
idea within these theories needs to be considered on its own merit. I have
studied enough of all these theories to know that all of them have their weak
points, and the best music very, very rarely is built entirely on a strict
theoretical school. The best traditional tonal music uses a lot of elements
of serialization (though less intentionally maybe). And you've got to admit
that it is easy for serialized music to be worthless. Serialization doesn't
automatically make something musically good, valuable, etc.

Instead of teaching your students to disregard theories you think are
foolish, why not teach them the facts of acoustics and perception and give
them the tools to question these theories and evaluate them for themselves?
You'd best not teach them that major triads are insignificant outside of
the ideas of theory because you'd literally be teaching them false information.

Sincerely,
Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:
>
> I think serial music is AWESOME.
>
> I think serial music theory makes a lot more sense than tonal music
> theory, and has a LOT less capacity for brainwashing more maudlin
> (not to mention...) music-consuming (!) suckers.
>
> I think it should be the FIRST music theory that anyone learns.

Why? It's an artificial system; one could just as easily constuct
other artificial systems and use them instead, and end up being a
little more original. It's neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition to produce atonal music, and atonality is neither a
necessary nor a sufficient condition to produce good music.

> None of my students could have cared less what a major triad was
> until I coerced them (hee!) into believing it was "important",
> somehow.

Have they ever heard one in tune? Just asking. If you want more of a
challenge, write some serial music in 31edo in three parts, using as
many triads as possible.

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

> I think we ought to accept that within all these theories, serial as
well, there
> may be valid points and misunderstandings, and foolishness as well.

There are "theories", as in rules of a style. Changing the "theory" is
one way of changing the style. There is also psychoacoustics, which is
something else.

> Instead of teaching your students to disregard theories you think are
> foolish, why not teach them the facts of acoustics and perception
and give
> them the tools to question these theories and evaluate them for
themselves?

This is a really interesting proposal.

Aaron,

Or, you might say lawfulness is its own reward.

Or, that if you you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to
fear from the police.

I don't teach the folly of anything, except being human, perhaps,
and THAT only by personal (!) example.

Pete

> You'd best not teach them that major triads are insignificant
outside of
> the ideas of theory because you'd literally be teaching them false
information.
>
> Sincerely,
> Aaron
>

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

"...the major triad is anything BUT arbitrary...
It necessarily has a primary place in music and sound.
But, I'll agree with you that most of the *reasons* that traditional
theory
puts out to explain it are not valid. Serial theory's biggest
mistake is to
reject other music theories, just because they aren't completely
reasonable."

I disagree. There's nothing in serialism or set theory that rejects
anything, really. It's more clearly and unapologetically a set
of 'arbitrary' rules. At least that's how I take it.

That certain academic and cultural 'rulers' had a political agenda
is hardly worth noting. Certainly not compared to the political
agenda of their predecessors, in the common practice period. Or,
maybe it's worth noting that serialists (may have) sought to counter
the politics of their predecessors, in the hallowed halls of tonal
music.

The overtone series is fascinating, I guess, but I really do think
it's rather pedantic (at the very least!) to dwell on it as a sort
of uber-scale.

The misuse of (acoustical) science to justify Western musical (and
other) hegemonie(s) is what causes me to wax facetious and
sarcastic. All due apologies tendered.

Cheers,

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@>
> wrote:
>
> "...the major triad is anything BUT arbitrary...
> It necessarily has a primary place in music and sound.
> But, I'll agree with you that most of the *reasons* that traditional
> theory
> puts out to explain it are not valid. Serial theory's biggest
> mistake is to
> reject other music theories, just because they aren't completely
> reasonable."
>
> I disagree. There's nothing in serialism or set theory that rejects
> anything, really. It's more clearly and unapologetically a set
> of 'arbitrary' rules. At least that's how I take it.
>
> That certain academic and cultural 'rulers' had a political agenda
> is hardly worth noting. Certainly not compared to the political
> agenda of their predecessors, in the common practice period. Or,
> maybe it's worth noting that serialists (may have) sought to counter
> the politics of their predecessors, in the hallowed halls of tonal
> music.
>
> The overtone series is fascinating, I guess, but I really do think
> it's rather pedantic (at the very least!) to dwell on it as a sort
> of uber-scale.
>
> The misuse of (acoustical) science to justify Western musical (and
> other) hegemonie(s) is what causes me to wax facetious and
> sarcastic. All due apologies tendered.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>

Pete,

Overall, I agree. My main point is still the Zappa quote. Fecitiousness
doesn't come across in print.

Funny though that you say the "overtone series" shouldn't be a sort of
"uber-scale." So, what you just said is: Overtones should be thought of
as an over-scale. Uber means OVER. I think *some* of the false mystique
and reverence for the harmonic series comes from the bad english
translation of Helmholtz' "obertone" as "overtone" instead of the
accurate "uppertone". Upper correctly feels like these tones are the
ones there, the upper ones. Over has this kind of powerful and
metaphysical connotation, like those tones exist in a higher realm.

Still, anyone exploring pitch, especially in anything beyond monophonic
music, is going to find the harmonic series plays at least a large part
in how they relate pitch. Or to be more specific, the spectrum of the
sounds they use will affect these things (see Bill Sethares work). And
since voice is the foundation of just about every pitch-focused music,
the harmonic series is prominant whether you like it or not. I'm not
placing it on a pedastel, I'm just accepting reality. And I'm trying not
to put any value judgment on anything. If you want to play non-
harmonic scales, and like them, that's great. That doesn't mean
that harmonics are irrelevant.

Cheers!
-Aaron

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

> Overall, I agree. My main point is still the Zappa quote.
Fecitiousness
> doesn't come across in print.

> Aaron

Dig.

I can't help from trying though, for those rare moments when it
actually works. (big smile)

> Funny though that you say the "overtone series" shouldn't be a
sort of
> "uber-scale." So, what you just said is: Overtones should be
thought of
> as an over-scale.

No. I don't think the harmonic series has anything to do
with "scales", other than as a scientific curiosity. The
entrenchment of five-limit musical thinking is just that: politics.
And all "theory", not to say science, is generally unwholesomely
tidy. As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
done, so to speak. For me it is, except to the extent that I love
Western music, as an aesthetic habit and an intellectual amusement.

> Over has this kind of powerful and
> metaphysical connotation, like those tones exist in a higher realm.

Precisely. It's that kind of "inevitability" that I think is the
basis of all `political' terror, from the tiniest authoritarian
coercion on up, no matter how objective one fancies oneself. eg

> And
> since voice is the foundation of just about every pitch-focused
music,
> the harmonic series is prominant *whether you like it or not*.
(emphasis mine)

I don't see how that follows. It's only "prominent" to the extent
that one's vocal or instrumental timbre/technique fails to obscure
it with a strong fundamental tone.

The only singers I know of who are `chained' to the harmonic series
are the ones who actually produce it with their vocal chords, ie,
the Tuvans, et al. Western brass instruments and techniques are
rather elaborately focussed on `fixing' the harmonics they depend
on. The contradiction is profound, and generally ignored, for
perhaps obvious reasons.

I think people who supposedly can't sing in tune simply lack the
discipline and/or the political will to assert that their music is,
in fact, "in tune".

The extent to which one cultural group or another defines
intervallic beating as "bad" is purely a matter of taste, in my
opinion, but that hasn't deterred physicists and other scholars from
concluding that Western music and 12-tone equal temperament
is "good". It just beats faster, and thus more
apparently "imperceptibly", I think. And the "best" (Western?)
classical and pop singers are just REALLY GOOD at singing (very
deliberately) out of tune.

Maybe?

Pete

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:

> No. I don't think the harmonic series has anything to do
> with "scales", other than as a scientific curiosity. The
> entrenchment of five-limit musical thinking is just that: politics.

Lots of excellent music is basically five-limit.

> And all "theory", not to say science, is generally unwholesomely
> tidy.

Them dang scientists. But I blame it on the mathematicians, who
consider nothing but unwholesomely tidy theory. It's the focus of evil
in the modern world.

> As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> done, so to speak.

I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?

> I think people who supposedly can't sing in tune simply lack the
> discipline and/or the political will to assert that their music is,
> in fact, "in tune".

Absolutely. We should simply get groups of people together, have
anyone produce any sounds they like, and then tell people it's Bach
Mass in b minor.

> > Funny though that you say the "overtone series" shouldn't be a
> sort of
> > "uber-scale." So, what you just said is: Overtones should be
> thought of
> > as an over-scale.
>
> No. I don't think the harmonic series has anything to do
> with "scales", other than as a scientific curiosity. The
> entrenchment of five-limit musical thinking is just that: politics.
> And all "theory", not to say science, is generally unwholesomely
> tidy. As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> done, so to speak. For me it is, except to the extent that I love
> Western music, as an aesthetic habit and an intellectual amusement.
>

TYPO TYPO, AGH. What you said was Overtone's *SHOULDN'T* be
thought of as an over-scale. And that makes sense, but is much
more benign sounding than the "uber-scale" reference you had
originally. I left out the N'T darn it. ARG. You can see that it was
a typo because I was directly restating your original sentence, just
translating the german "uber" to the English "over."

>
> I think people who supposedly can't sing in tune simply lack the
> discipline and/or the political will to assert that their music is,
> in fact, "in tune".
>

Whatever. The question is whether they have a pitch in mind, and
whether that is what they are in fact singing. In other words,
singing in tune is the skill of knowing what pitch is aimed for
or is heard in the singer's mind, and singing that pitch. There
is no such thing as an out-of-tune pitch, if the pitch is what
was desired. But lots of people do truly lack experience and
skill in controlling their voices to successfully sing the pitch they
intend.

I agree with you and decry how many people are told they are
singing out of tune when they are perfectly fine and singing
exactly as they hear the music they want to make.

But many inexperienced singers do not have the control to
sing what they intend, and in that sense, they are out
of tune. But anyone can learn.

> The extent to which one cultural group or another defines
> intervallic beating as "bad" is purely a matter of taste, in my
> opinion, but that hasn't deterred physicists and other scholars from
> concluding that Western music and 12-tone equal temperament
> is "good". It just beats faster, and thus more
> apparently "imperceptibly", I think. And the "best" (Western?)
> classical and pop singers are just REALLY GOOD at singing (very
> deliberately) out of tune.
>
> Maybe?
>

I'm fully supportive of accepting this sort of subjectivity. I simply,
can say what I like. But even beating is a phenomena that relates
to acoustics, overtone series, etc. So it STILL plays a part. It seems
to me that you are still tending to want to write off the whole of what
some theorists are expressing. As an analogy, if I don't agree as a
whole with a particular religion or philosophy, it would be terrible
to then reject any idea that is included in it. Some ideas still have
merit. And agreeing with those doesn't in any way make you a member
of the said religion, or even a sympathizer. It simply means that you
are treating each idea on its own merits.

You went and attached a bunch of tuning ideas to my statement
that the harmonic series plays into thing prominantly. I didn't
ever say what it defined or state any of the theories you are
arguing with. And points against those theories don't do anything
to deny my assertion that acoustics and harmonics are particularly
relevant to tuning in any case.

-Aaron

> > As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> > done, so to speak.
>
> I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?
>

And you must have missed my barbershop posting. Where I'm
showing beyond any doubt that entirely tonal, harmonic music
can make extensive use of the seventh partial. ...and furthermore,
the discussions of creating new music based on this, like tonal
music as strongly centered and tonal as barbershop that
uses the 11th and above harmonics. It's totally possible.

Oh yeah, and Gene's suggestion that I create less than JI
versions, and how they introduce beating but still stay
within the overall structure.

This stuff is totally related to harmonics, and did not come to
be that way by means of theory. It evolved from woodshedding
by ear.

The only time harmonics are less significant is in purely
monophonic or near purely rhythmic music. Once you have
multiple pitched notes at once, harmonics plays into the mix.
Surely you don't decry the dumb octave as a clear product
of theory and attempts at mathematical elegance. I mean,
c'mon.

-A

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@>
wrote:
>
> > No. I don't think the harmonic series has anything to do
> > with "scales", other than as a scientific curiosity. The
> > entrenchment of five-limit musical thinking is just that:
politics.
>
> Lots of excellent music is basically five-limit.

Where did I say it there wasn't?

>
> > And all "theory", not to say science, is generally unwholesomely
> > tidy.
>
> Them dang scientists. But I blame it on the mathematicians, who
> consider nothing but unwholesomely tidy theory. It's the focus of
evil
> in the modern world.

Ah, I wish it were that simple. But scientists and rather brilliant
philosphers (and musicians!) have help a lot to gift us with the
wonders of...oh, I won't say it again. Too many people get hot
under the collar protesting their innocence of ANY complicity in it.

>
> > As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> > done, so to speak.
>
> I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?

Nope. A mere artist.

>
> > I think people who supposedly can't sing in tune simply lack the
> > discipline and/or the political will to assert that their music
is,
> > in fact, "in tune".
>
> Absolutely. We should simply get groups of people together, have
> anyone produce any sounds they like, and then tell people it's Bach
> Mass in b minor.
>

Why? Maybe we could get get them together to produce something
wonderful that hasn't been done to death. Would that be too scary?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@>
> wrote:
>
> > > No. I don't think the harmonic series has anything to do
> > > with "scales", other than as a scientific curiosity. The
> > > entrenchment of five-limit musical thinking is just that:
> politics.
>
>
> About two years ago, I read a book by a Marxist academician, in
> which this savvy gent revealed the dominance of Western diatonic
> harmony to be the vast conspiracy of American music-industry
> capitalists, who sought to enslave the masses to a banal, easily-
> digested, mass-produced (and thus, profitable) product. This vile
> cabal is actively suppressing the promulgation of the
intellectually
> superior 12-tone compositional style, in open and (I might add)
smug
> defiance of the pleading proletarian class....
>
> Hmmm. I don't think he was entirely out in left field.....

Sounds kinda fun! Who was it?

>
>
>
> > > And all "theory", not to say science, is generally
> unwholesomely
> > > tidy.
>
>
> > Them dang scientists. But I blame it on the mathematicians, who
> > consider nothing but unwholesomely tidy theory. It's the focus
of
> evil
> > in the modern world.
>
>
> Undoubtedly, Gene. These same dang scientists and evil
> mathematicians are in cahoots with the above-mentioned music-
> industry cabal. They weaken the masses' resolve to adopt the
> intellectually superior 12-tone system by the clandestine
broadcast
> of thought-controlling radio waves. Please adjust your foil hats
> accordingly.

What 12-tone system? You mean Western Music? Who needs a "cabal"
when you've got a bloodthirsty army "ready to rock"? Watch it, or
I'll point my 100W Marshall amp and unregenerate 12Tet Stratocaster
at you! I'm not kidding. ;-)

>
>
> > > As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> > > done, so to speak.
> >
> > I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?
> >
>
> Of the worst kind. He also was in league with the conspiracy,
merely
> posing as a ground-breaking, justly-intoned Monophonist.
>
>
> > > I think people who supposedly can't sing in tune simply lack
the
> > > discipline and/or the political will to assert that their
music
> is,
> > > in fact, "in tune".
>
>
> > Absolutely. We should simply get groups of people together, have
> > anyone produce any sounds they like, and then tell people it's
Bach
> > Mass in b minor.
>
>
> (Gene, your humors are showing. I couldn't be be more astonished,
> contrite, and...totally delighted! Don't hide your light under a
> bushel any more. And I'm proud to stand beside you in the noble
> fight against dang scientists and their evil mathematical
henchmen!)
>
> :)
> j
>

I'm glad to hear it, boys. You may fire when ready, Gridley.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > > As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> > > done, so to speak.
> >
> > I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?
> >
>
> And you must have missed my barbershop posting.

I'm VERY sorry I did. Is it still around? I'd love to hear it!

--Pete

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

{snip}
>
> I agree with you and decry how many people are told they are
> singing out of tune when they are perfectly fine and singing
> exactly as they hear the music they want to make.
>
> But many inexperienced singers do not have the control to
> sing what they intend, and in that sense, they are out
> of tune. But anyone can learn.
>
{snip}
>
And points against those theories don't do anything
> to deny my assertion that acoustics and harmonics are particularly
> relevant to tuning in any case.
>
> -Aaron

Solid, dog. ;-)

-P

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> About two years ago, I read a book by a Marxist academician...

There's this whole Marxist argument in favor of serialism, in that it
treats each note the same and hence is poltically better, whereas
tonality introduces hierarchical arrangements, with the tonic as king.
I don't think we need take this seriously as music theory, any more
than the corresponding thing in math which says geometry is more
politically correct than algebra. But Marxist theory has played a role
in academia and music criticism, absurd as this sounds.

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

> > Absolutely. We should simply get groups of people together, have
> > anyone produce any sounds they like, and then tell people it's Bach
> > Mass in b minor.

> Why? Maybe we could get get them together to produce something
> wonderful that hasn't been done to death. Would that be too scary?

Neither "scary" nor "wonderful" are the adjectives which spring to
mind for me. But by all means give it a try. But meanwhile, why
disparage people who do old-fashioned things like use scales and
compose music?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:

> > And you must have missed my barbershop posting.
>
> I'm VERY sorry I did. Is it still around? I'd love to hear it!

http://www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html

It's 7-limit *strict* JI.

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

> http://www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html
>
> It's 7-limit *strict* JI.

A direct link:

http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/Bye_Bye_Blues/BBB_Quartet.mp3

or

http://tinyurl.com/hh9eb

Get it while it's still available; it's pretty unique.

ene Ward Smith wrote:

"There's this whole Marxist argument in favor of serialism, in that it
treats each note the same and hence is poltically better, whereas
tonality introduces hierarchical arrangements, with the tonic as king.
I don't think we need take this seriously as music theory, any more
than the corresponding thing in math which says geometry is more
politically correct than algebra. But Marxist theory has played a role
in academia and music criticism, absurd as this sounds."

Gene,

You might be interested to know that Milton Babbitt was close to the
New York leftist intellectual scene in the 1930s and 40s (many of the
figures in the scene made the now famous transition from Marxist of
one flavor (e.g. Trotskyist) or another to present day neo-cons), but
Babbitt himself was never anything other than a democratic capitalist.
(There's even an article out there describing Babbitt essentially as
a conservative cold warrior). He did like to make fun of a political
characterization of twelve tone technique, however, and that was that
twelve-tone was democratic -- "twelve notes, twelve votes" goes the
phrase.

Inasmuch as market conditions and relationships play a role in the
questions of which music gets played and promoted and why, then I think
you would probably agree that Marx still provides some useful if not
essential tools (or at least many of the foundations for the contemporary
applications of those tools) in the study of such markets. However, the extent to
which market conditions apply to seriously non-commercial musics is
definitely debatable. I happen to think that musics outside of the market
economy provide a serious instrument for resisting those forces, but
that may just be me, and I will also vigorously defend the right of any listener
to hear whatever music they like without paying attention to the
social or political context.

DJW

Abhorrent, really, with all due respect to good ol' Marxists.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Mart 2006 Cumartesi 11:02
Subject: [tuning] Re: Presumptions

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> > About two years ago, I read a book by a Marxist academician...
>
> There's this whole Marxist argument in favor of serialism, in that it
> treats each note the same and hence is poltically better, whereas
> tonality introduces hierarchical arrangements, with the tonic as king.
> I don't think we need take this seriously as music theory, any more
> than the corresponding thing in math which says geometry is more
> politically correct than algebra. But Marxist theory has played a role
> in academia and music criticism, absurd as this sounds.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <ambassadorbob@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > As soon as you get to the seventh harmonic, tonal theory is
> > > > done, so to speak.
> > >
> > > I guess Harry Partch was an atonalist?
> > >
> >
> > And you must have missed my barbershop posting.
>
> I'm VERY sorry I did. Is it still around? I'd love to hear it!
>
> --Pete
>

http://www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html

The Bye Bye Blues one is the one I did, the one at the bottom is different.
This is totally strict to the cent harmonically JI tuned. It sounds so
aliased because of how much correction was done from poor initial
singing (meaning that the singers didn't know the music enough to
be certain what they meant to sing, I still agree that if someone
means to sing a certain way then you can't say it is out of tune).

This is meant not for listening consumption, but for educational
purposes for my chorus. So judge appropriately. It is also a first
attempt at such things, and there will be better future ones.

-Aaron

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

> This is meant not for listening consumption, but for educational
> purposes for my chorus. So judge appropriately. It is also a first
> attempt at such things, and there will be better future ones.

Well, I think an album for listening purposes would be nice; this is
because I am even more convinced after the 72-et vs JI comparison that
it creates a certain unusual sound to do this with singing voices. It
would be a pity if pitch correction software were to be used merely to
correct to 12 edo.

What is the best such software these days?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > This is meant not for listening consumption, but for educational
> > purposes for my chorus. So judge appropriately. It is also a first
> > attempt at such things, and there will be better future ones.
>
> Well, I think an album for listening purposes would be nice; this is
> because I am even more convinced after the 72-et vs JI comparison that
> it creates a certain unusual sound to do this with singing voices. It
> would be a pity if pitch correction software were to be used merely to
> correct to 12 edo.
>
> What is the best such software these days?
>

I used Melodyne. It really is the best, because not only is the interface good,
it sounds the best.

There are ways it could be streamlined, but it does everything you need it
to. The only thing that would really make it much better would be if you
could specify more than 12 notes per octave in a set scale. But regardless,
it still let's you move any note manually to any position with 1 cent accuracy.