Charles Ives "intent"

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
><

One more short post in response to the discussion about Ives going on
between Johnny Reinhard and Daniel Sterns --

Let us hypothesize for a moment that all the Ives tuning "innovations" take
place in individual contexts as Daniel Sterns seems to suggest...

In this view, placing Ives in an overall "alternate tuning" paradigm could
be historically inaccurate.

HOWEVER, if one were looking at the matter from the perspective of Ives'
overall INTENT rather than performance practice, one could agree easily
with Johnny Reinhard on the matter...

Let us for a moment postulate that perhaps Ives never had the opportunity,
because of practical considerations, to fully realize some of the
implications in his compositional thinking...

This would mean by "stretching" his thinking or ideas to include a
"universal paradigm" (as he himself is stretching intervals in localized
instances!) we are really "finishing" Ives in a theoretical sense.

Maybe some of these implications are simply things he didn't get to, and
could be clearly extrapolated from the directions in which he was going.

So, by this argument, one is perhaps not only "finishing" the Universe
Symphony, but also "finishing" Ives implied tuning theory! -- this is
perhaps not historically verifiable, but is certainly a very interesting
interpretation (which is probably why Sterns wants to hear it himself!!).

All this would lead to the view that Charles Ives is fundamentally a
microtonal composer, in all his works, not just the "experimental" ones --
an idea I wouldn't have accepted initially, but which seems to be gaining
more and more credence the more I think about it...

Besides, it means lots more Charles Ives pieces can be performed on AFMM
concerts, and I'm all for that one!

Joseph Pehrson
AFMM board secretary

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>Maybe some of these implications are simply things he didn't get to,
and could be clearly extrapolated from the directions in which he was
going.

"Clearly" is really the tough part here. My personal opinion (based
only on my own understanding and intuitive feel of what I've seen so
far) is that I sincerely doubt that the evidence (as it stands) could
really be called much more than an educated guess - and not that
that's chopped liver mind you(!), but it is definitely different from
saying that this was Ives' intent.

Ives left a lot of implications in the "things he didn't get to" by
way of the things that he actually did get to, and I guess that the
question here is whether it's really the best idea to present this as
Ives' own intent, or as an extrapolated reading of what only *might*
have been his intent... As far as I'm concerned these are tough and
tangled issues, and on the one hand I like Johnny's approach of
rolling up his sleeves and diving right in and getting things done,
but I also question why it is (based on what's been presented) that
this has to be heralded as something like "Ives intent" and not simply
as Johnny's (keen) read on what might have been. Maybe these are just
differences in temperament and really amount to little more than a
different spin on the semantics of the presentation, I don't know...
but I do think that ideas like this are pretty hard to shake if they
start to accumulate a certain kind of momentum and that it is probably
wise (or perhaps respectful, though I suppose there's an argument that
goes the other way) to error on the side of caution... and I really
see no reason why that kind of caution should in anyway impede (or
diminish) the overall endeavor here.

>So, by this argument, one is perhaps not only "finishing" the
Universe Symphony, but also "finishing" Ives implied tuning theory! --
this is perhaps not historically verifiable, but is certainly a very
interesting interpretation (which is probably why Sterns wants to hear
it himself!!).

Well I'm actually totally against the idea of "finishing" Ives'
"implied tuning theory" based on what's I've seen, heard, or read so
far.{1} But at the same time I really am all for (even selfishly)
interesting interpretations, as I really do love the music and would
like to see more (and not less) of it.

>All this would lead to the view that Charles Ives is fundamentally a
microtonal composer, in all his works, not just the "experimental"
ones --

That seems like an awfully big leap to me.

>an idea I wouldn't have accepted initially, but which seems to be
gaining more and more credence the more I think about it...

The more I've thought about it the more I seem to like the idea also
but the less I believe that it will be "proven" to be so, as he
himself just seems to have left as much to nay-say it by as he did to
extrapolate it from... But never say never: Has the (often mentioned)
technical plan of the _Memos_, "see typewritten copy sent to Bellamann
of technical plan etc. of Sonata, with tone-vibration tables
etc.)--the difference in its overtonal beats (actually measured
vibrationally)," ever turned up anywhere, or does anybody know whether
it was ever published or more thoroughly cited elsewhere?

Dan
_____________________
{1} Same goes for the Universe as well. To my mind the Universe has
got to be at least as all encompassing, stunning, and "Ivesian" as the
Fourth, and (again, to my mind) those are some mighty big shoes to
fill... It was with that sense of expectation that I rushed into the
Austin version, and that same unjustified and no doubt unrealistically
distorted sense of expectation also threw me into a sullen week long
funk after hearing it (once I came to see it as Larry Austin and not
Charles Ives, everything settled into a better perspective). I add
this not as any sort of cautionary note or whatnot -- because I'm
pretty sure that my own Ives influences probably wouldn't seem up to
par to me if it weren't for the fact that it is me listening to me(!)
either -- I just include it as it's the way it went down... Is it a
better idea to finish Charles Ives' Universe Symphony or to let the
implications of the "things he didn't get to" resonate the best one
can in their own work... I guess that's for each to say and everyone
else to critique!

Dear Dan,

I will try to respond to you as gently as I know how because I am coming to
understand your position with greater clarity. It has helped me focus as
well, though Intonation will only be a single chapter in my latest project.
Today Joe Pehrson and I spoke and if I can remember some of the points, they
might make a bit more sense to the subject.

1. Like a movie you haven't seen, you can't critique what I did to finish
the "Universe Symphony" because you have never experienced it. And that's
why I'm writing a book to explain how it was done.
2. I am only a single person that has stated his views. If you respond to
every single post with the same response, that no one has "proved" one
thing or another, all I can do is agree. I will work to tie it all
together like a great trial lawyer. Maybe you'll even wish me luck.
3. There is a lot of falsity and cover up associated with Ives and my work
is in the opposite direction. A different interpretation is exactly what
is needed. Catch your breath and let the evidence unravel, or have I been
too slow to post?
4. There is an intuitive level to why I believe so strongly in the
interpretation of Ives thinking in extended Pythagorean. It comes from
concentration on performing many different works of Ives, gradually
noticing how the sounds are intesified by the intonation honoring the
implications I have outlined. It's not enough by itself to intuit a
truth, but it is a step on the way of being sure.
5. Charles Ives had no control with intonation in his performances. He
could barely get a performance and didn't hear most of his mature work.
How do you imagine he could ask for intonation subtlety? It was only for
prosperity, in the published scores that he put his foot down. He
anticipated that people will make sense of his sketches. His vocabulary is
antiquated and idiosyncratic but it does makes sense, subject to
interpretation.
6. Again, this is why I write a book: Austin's version was Austin, but why
should that have any bearing on my work at all? None, there's nothing in
common, at least nothing noticeable.

Dan, and all those that want certitude, stay tuned and give me a little
breathing room and I'll give it a try. (Joe Monzo - I will get to the
eighthtones soon..I'm doing finals right now...should be able to clarify
soon. BTW, The use of eighthtones in the "Unverse Symphony" is a whole 12
seconds.)

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>1. Like a movie you haven't seen, you can't critique what I did to
finish the "Universe Symphony" because you have never experienced it.

Any personal experience references to the Universe I made only
pertained to what I have heard: the Larry Austin version... Any
general references ("to my mind the Universe has got to be at least as
all encompassing, stunning, and "Ivesian" as the Fourth," etc.) were
*not* critiques of something I haven't even heard - they were my own
(opinionated) opinions which I of course wouldn't expect everyone to
agree with... I just rolled them out there while the topic was rolling
by.

>And that's why I'm writing a book to explain how it was done . . .
Maybe you'll even wish me luck.

Of course, and in fact I have felt more than a little obligated to
temper just about every "negative" objection I have with some aspect
of the respect that I actually do have for the endeavor...

>3. There is a lot of falsity and cover up associated with Ives and my
work is in the opposite direction. A different interpretation is
exactly what is needed.

Different from mine? I'm not really sure I understand this...

>Catch your breath and let the evidence unravel, or have I been too
slow to post?

Again I'm not sure I get what your getting at. (Do I appear to be
gasping, have I said anything about speeding up the process?) If your
just asking for some elbowroom to properly formulate and present all
that your doing I can certainly understand that, but I am after all
just responding to (or commenting on) posts that appear here on the
TD.

>6. Again, this is why I write a book: Austin's version was Austin,
but why should that have any bearing on my work at all? None,
there's nothing in common, at least nothing noticeable.

Again, I didn't say word one about your version, and if it somehow
appeared so - my apologies. Even saying what little ("negative") I did
(about Austin's) was uncomfortable, it's just not something I like or
am at all comfortable doing... probably shouldn't of in fact.

>Dan, and all those that want certitude, stay tuned and give me a
little breathing room and I'll give it a try.

I'm not so sure I "want certitude" at all... but in the context that
it's being presented (i.e., Ives own intent), I feel somewhat of a
responsibility to ask these questions (especially as they're almost
exclusively responses to posts that are being aired in the open forum
of the TD), but it is my sincere hope that this can be done without it
acquiring an acrimonious (and counterproductive) atmosphere of
negativity.

Dan

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Ives really wanted a particular
tuning, but I have real problems with the following argument:

Johnny Reinhard wrote:
>5. Charles Ives had no control with intonation in his performances. He
>could barely get a performance and didn't hear most of his mature work.
>How do you imagine he could ask for intonation subtlety? It was only for
>prosperity, in the published scores that he put his foot down.

Here is a composer who asked that a pair of pianos be tuned a quarter step
apart, who asked that a board be cut for proper performance of clusters,
who asked that an instrumentalist walk around the auditorium, who required
multiple conductors, who frequently wrote pieces of fiendish difficulty --
even by today's standards, unplayable to many by the standards of his day.
If there ever was a composer who was uncompromising, who refused to dilute
his vision for the sake of playability, Charles Ives was it! I cannot
believe that he would not ask the piano to be retuned for performances of
the Concord if it was central to his artistic vision.

It could be that the various bits in the Memos and other sources that
Johnny mentions show another side to the argument, but it may also be that
Ives saw Pythagorean basis of scales in theory but accepted temperament in
practice. One can notate something one way because of a theoretical
underpinning without having it reflect actual practice or sound. For
example, if a chromatic piece of the late Baroque has both a D# and an Eb
notated within it, should we conclude that the composer must have wanted
split keys or at least saw them as an ideal? Not necessarily -- the
spelling of accidentals can also depend on the preferred spelling of the
chord (by thirds) and the melodic motion (avoiding augmented/diminished
intervals). We shouldn't assume a tuning preference based on that evidence
alone.

I don't think the case is closed on Ives's tuning, and I am very interested
to see a publication with all of the evidence laid out. Also, I would
definitely like to hear performances in the proposed tunings.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dear Bill Alves,

Did you ever hear about how Bela Bartok was forced by Yehudi Menuhin to
remove the thirdtones and quartertones from Bartok's solo violin Presto?
Poor Bartok, dying in Asheville, NC was intimidated enough at the end of his
career to change his music by denuding it of an extended technique that
Menuhin was unwilling to navigate. It was published sans microtones.
Charles Ives was much more disrespected.

Ives was called deficient by William Austin in his influential book "20th
Century Music," and called unprofessional by The New York Times because he
made money outside of music making. When he is not declared a crank, or a
manic-depressive, or homoerotic (Stuart Feder), he's a liar (Maynard
Solomon).

Aaron Copland determined that Ives's worst compositional problem is that he
couldn't edit himself. This problem was due, in Copland's published
estimation, to his having no relationships with other musicians and so did
not have the necessary feedback for which to make editing determinations.
Past Ives Society President J. Peter Burkholder consider most all scholarship
on Ives before 1974 revisionist, while some serious musicologists consider
the Ives Society an "Anti-Ives Society."

With a legacy such as this, I am working to research the full subject. It
was never my intention to becomes a Charles Ives specialist. I had thought
for sure that, except for a few pieces with notated quartertones, Ives's
music was conventional in conception. Obviously, I now feel differently.

I do not think Ives, the man who did indeed make a lot of things happen
through money and persistance (not necessarily in that order) had the
opportunity to get his subtle tuning ideas across to other people. Yes, the
Concord Sonata is intended for a 12-TET piano in the short term. But the
Idea goes beyond that, thanks to Ives's explicit memos, and is now perfectly
realizeable. This is a case of the composer asking for assistance after he
is gone. And recent AFMM performances follow his careful instructions
clearly to make a difference. The intonation difference is subtle, but
musicians are sensitive to an improvement when comparing a
conventionally-tuned performance of the "Unanswered Question" with the AFMM
performance of 10/11/99.

I ask you to consider, or reconsider, the "Concord" from a semantic point of
view. Ives was making portraits of individuals that were all
"transcendental" thinkers and had lived in historic Concord. These are deep
individuals that students continue to struggle with...Emerson, Thoreau. So
Ives does a psycho-portraiture and requires a deeper meaning in the music
through the intonation so as to discern and underscore the greater meaning
that Ives hopes to imbue in his subjects. The music is made all that more
profound for its intonational aspirations.

An interesting Concordism is the flute tune in the Thoreau, said to be a
further tribute to the philosopher, who also played flute, and may have
actually initiated the entire music project. On a CD there's no problem, but
live? Did Kirkpatrick use a flute in his famous early performance? I don't
think so. Anyone know otherwise?

Now everyone does it. Pianist Paul Kim is performing the "Concord" this
Friday at New York's Third Street Music School Settlement (235 E. 11th
Street) at 7:30 P.M., admission free. He's a colleague at C.W. Post, with a
brilliant reputation. This is my first chance to hear him. His young son
Matthew is playing the flute solo.

When it came to discussing intonation, Charles Ives might as well have spoken
a different language to musicians. They barely spoke to him and they usually
didn't like his music. His few interactions with conductors were practically
all failures (Slonimsky and Harrison the exceptions). I think the issue of
intonation was a more private concern (a family predilection and a secret),
perhaps like his spirtual beliefs. It is only now that material is coming
forward, just like with Harry Partch.

I do believe that when all of Ives's consistant comments about intonation are
matched up with performances of his music, his music will be perceived as all
the more awesome. Ives's mind was awesome and his music bears this out
independently of what anyone could ever write about him. He is the
proverbial man ahead of his time. I bet he realized it.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

[Bill Alves:]
>One can notate something one way because of a theoretical
underpinning without having it reflect actual practice or sound.

I think a lot of the late song (or at least those marked with a later
dating) are just calling out for a real analytical analysis along
these lines... and while I feel I have the passion and the patience
for the job, I also totally lack a background (i.e., no musical
education) that would make me a reasonable candidate for the it... I
think that it would take not only someone who has the want and the
drive to do so, but also someone who has an open understanding of (and
knowledge about) the tuning issues and a sturdy orthodox analytical
background (and it would of course help if they were also fairly
conversant and comfortable with Ives' musical language).

>For example, if a chromatic piece of the late Baroque has both a D#
and an Eb notated within it, should we conclude that the composer must
have wanted split keys or at least saw them as an ideal? Not
necessarily -- the spelling of accidentals can also depend on the
preferred spelling of the chord (by thirds) and the melodic motion
(avoiding augmented/diminished intervals).

I agree, and I feel that there is a lot just waiting to be analyzed
along similar lines with Ives, and the songs seem to me a really good
(and largely bite-sized) place to start weighing some of his
notational tendencies and some of their possible implications.

Dan

> [Bill Alves, TD 431.20]
> it may also be that Ives saw Pythagorean basis of scales
> in theory but accepted temperament in practice. One can notate
> something one way because of a theoretical underpinning without
> having it reflect actual practice or sound. <... snip...>
> We shouldn't assume a tuning preference based on that evidence
> alone.

> [Johnny Reinhard, TD 431.21]
> I ask you to consider, or reconsider, the "Concord" from
> a semantic point of view. Ives was making portraits of
> individuals that were all "transcendental" thinkers and had
> lived in historic Concord.

I was struck by how these two comments went together. Far
from defending his own perspective, Johnny's statement (IMO)
provides support for Bill's argument.

Ives's admiration for the American trascendendtalist philosphers
indicates to me that he might believe that he could have his
music played by 12-tET instruments, and still imbue it with
some sense of a multiplicity of different intontations,
notating it in the usual meantone-based notation (basically
a 21-tone [naturals, sharps and flats] to 35-tone [including
double-sharps and double-flats] system).

> [Johnny Reinhard, TD 431.21]
> Yes, the Concord Sonata is intended for a 12-TET piano in the
> short term. But the Idea goes beyond that, thanks to Ives's
> explicit memos, and is now perfectly realizeable. This is a
> case of the composer asking for assistance after he is gone.

Johnny is correct here: Ives did do precisely that. I don't
have the citation, but I did read it in the library, where he
talks about the possibilities of the future realization of the
_Universe Symphony_.

This is the opposite pole from the opinions expressed by those
here who do not want their compositions to be tampered with
by others. Ives explicity stated his wish that someone would
expand and continue (I hesitate to use the word 'finish', because
of Ives's conception of things) his compositions and smaller
ideas that had not yet even become compositions.

(Interestingly, I've been involved in this very same discussion
over on the Mahler List, because of the many differing opinions
over the 'completion' of Mahler's 10th symphony, left fully
sketched but unfinished when he died.)

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.