19

It's a hoot to watch the theoretical discussion and descriptions of 19 eq and it's properties by folks who haven't really dug in and composed with it. I barely recognize the tuning from what everybody is saying about it, and I've been composing and recording in it for almost 18 years. To really understand any tuning, one needs to have hands on experience with it, I feel...write some pieces, not just one or two little tuning studies...but get to know a tuning from living with it, playing it, and HEARING what it sounds like in various situations. Heck, look at all the incredibly diverse applications of 12 eq over the years...country, classical, flamenco, jazz, blues, whatever. I've found 19 to be a lot of fun, and I'm sure there are things I'll be discovering for years to come. I guess the thing is that I approach tunings from a musicians perspective, not a theoretical one...and yes, the line is vague at times, as I too like the theory behind tunings, and have started creating my own on the fretless guitar.
But, you cannot understand a tuning system from paper, I don't care how intelligent someone is...and most folks here are certainly smart folks. Retune a keyboard, refret a guitar, and take a few years (or more) to actually live with a tuning...then you might be able to talk about it from real life experience, namely the compositions you've created...that, in the long run, is why I am into non 12 tunings in the first place. And after all these years, I'm just getting started...even with 19...best....HHH
myspace.com/microstick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> It's a hoot to watch the theoretical discussion and
descriptions of 19 eq and it's properties by folks who haven't really
dug in and composed with it. I barely recognize the tuning from what
everybody is saying about it, and I've been composing and recording in
it for almost 18 years.

Are you usre you are not passing up an opportunity here to learn
things about one of your favorite tunings you don't know? Have you
tried organizing 19 by negri, hanson and magic as well as meantone? If
so, what people are saying should make sense in terms of your own
experience.

> To really understand any tuning, one needs to have hands on
experience with it, I feel...write some pieces, not just one or two
little tuning studies...but get to know a tuning from living with it,
playing it, and HEARING what it sounds like in various situations.

There's a lot of truth in what you say--but a lot of untruth also.
Experience is limited to what one has experienced; if you don't take
the trouble to experience different ways of using 19, you won't know
about them, whether you use it for 18 years or 80.

> Heck, look at all the incredibly diverse applications of 12 eq over
> the years...country, classical, flamenco, jazz, blues, whatever.

Well, that's kind of my point. If all you do with 12 is use it as a
meantone tuning, you end up never using it as an octatonic scale
tuning, and end up thinking you understand 12-et completly when you
don't. That's like using it for classical but not jazz in a way.

> But, you cannot understand a tuning system from paper, I don't
care how intelligent someone is...and most folks here are certainly
smart folks.

I've worked with more tuning systems than just about anyone on this
list, and the *first* thing I always do, before writing a note or
listening to a scale, is try to understand it on paper. People do have
different ways of working and composing.

Neil,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
> It's a hoot to watch ...

Isn't it, though? Rock on, Neil, we've got your back. And FZ knew it
all along, though he made it even broader:

"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not
truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST!"

(from "Joe's Garage")

Cheers,
Jon (who, nonetheless, is always learning...)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Jon (who, nonetheless, is always learning...)

It seems to me that ridiculing Herman and me doesn't suggest you have
much interest in learning. What have you done in 19-et, by the way?

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
> It seems to me that ridiculing Herman and me doesn't suggest you have
> much interest in learning. What have you done in 19-et, by the way?

Hey, I wasn't ridiculing anyone! Neil and I go way back on the lists,
and come (in certain ways) from a very same place, and I was just
giving him some friendly agreement. And I was certainly talking in
generalities, not about 19 specifically.

Besides, if I'm interested in learning, aren't there any people
besides you and Herman? :)

As for 19, I've only done some sketches, confirming that it isn't a
tuning I have any fondness for (based predominantly on listening to
other music in 19). About the only piece I ever really liked a lot was
Aaron's "Juggler", but I think he could have written just as
interesting a piece in other tunings.

Seriously, no ridicule.

Cheers,
Jon

just a thought with no one particular in mind, but to my mind music is
an art where the ultimate success is tied much more closely to the
imagination than it is to any mechanistically developed skill or
physical particular of its construction... so in other words, your
skills and tools only have to be good enough to execute the contents
of your imagination, and I'll admit there's a lot of elbowroom in that
caveat, HOWEVER, your imagination has to be good enough to "say
something",and NO tuning is going to intrinsically help or hinder you
too much here.

http://www.myspace.com/danstearns

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> > It seems to me that ridiculing Herman and me doesn't suggest you have
> > much interest in learning. What have you done in 19-et, by the way?
>
> Hey, I wasn't ridiculing anyone! Neil and I go way back on the lists,
> and come (in certain ways) from a very same place, and I was just
> giving him some friendly agreement. And I was certainly talking in
> generalities, not about 19 specifically.
>
> Besides, if I'm interested in learning, aren't there any people
> besides you and Herman? :)
>
> As for 19, I've only done some sketches, confirming that it isn't a
> tuning I have any fondness for (based predominantly on listening to
> other music in 19). About the only piece I ever really liked a lot was
> Aaron's "Juggler", but I think he could have written just as
> interesting a piece in other tunings.
>
> Seriously, no ridicule.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Hey, I wasn't ridiculing anyone! Neil and I go way back on the lists,
> and come (in certain ways) from a very same place, and I was just
> giving him some friendly agreement. And I was certainly talking in
> generalities, not about 19 specifically.

Sorry if I leapt to a conclusion. I wish (specific to 19) that Neil
would say something specific about what his experience has taught him
about such things as scales, chords, and chord progressions in 19.

> Besides, if I'm interested in learning, aren't there any people
> besides you and Herman? :)

My point was that just to blow off, say, keemun as a 19 system merely
on the grounds that you've never used it doesn't make sense. What
would make sense would be to explain why you've never used it (eg,
minor thirds are too small an interval to tune the strings of a guitar
by, and major sixths too large, or something like that) or to say
you've tried it and didn't like it.

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> Sorry if I leapt to a conclusion.

NP!

> I wish (specific to 19) that Neil
> would say something specific about what his experience has taught him
> about such things as scales, chords, and chord progressions in 19.

Then you aren't aware that Neil has actually written a book on 19
(which I haven't seen) entitled "19 Tones: A New Beginning" -

http://www.microstick.net/custom2.html

> My point was that just to blow off, say, keemun as a 19 system ...

Well, I don't think Neil is really "blowing off" people, but that his
explorations go in a different direction and method than research and
study. I'd never say you blow off experiential information gathering
just because you don't go out and play concerts with other live
musicians. As you so well put it, we all approach these matters
differently. I don't expect Neil to sit down with Matlab first, and I
don't expect you to grab a guitar and start improvising at a local
coffeehouse.

Though the results might be interesting! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Though the results might be interesting! :)

The results would be horrible.

daniel_anthony_stearns wrote:
> just a thought with no one particular in mind, but to my mind music is
> an art where the ultimate success is tied much more closely to the
> imagination than it is to any mechanistically developed skill or
> physical particular of its construction... so in other words, your
> skills and tools only have to be good enough to execute the contents
> of your imagination, and I'll admit there's a lot of elbowroom in that
> caveat, HOWEVER, your imagination has to be good enough to "say
> something",and NO tuning is going to intrinsically help or hinder you
> too much here.
> > http://www.myspace.com/danstearns

In general I suppose that's more or less right. Still, I've tried some tunings that are just hard to get anything useful out of, and others that seemed just perfect for some melody that I thought of years ago and didn't have the right tuning for it. And those haven't always been the sorts of tunings you'd expect to be useful; recently I found that "gorgo" temperament (an obscure 7-limit regular temperament) works well with a theme I was having trouble finding a good tuning for. So while imagination is a key part of the whole process, finding the "right" tuning for a piece can involve other factors. There are some ideas that just don't work in one tuning or another, while other ideas might be less tuning-specific.

horrible's the new good
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>
> > Though the results might be interesting! :)
>
> The results would be horrible.
>

actually i agree (and seeing as how i like your music i ,i agree more!)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> daniel_anthony_stearns wrote:
> > just a thought with no one particular in mind, but to my mind music is
> > an art where the ultimate success is tied much more closely to the
> > imagination than it is to any mechanistically developed skill or
> > physical particular of its construction... so in other words, your
> > skills and tools only have to be good enough to execute the contents
> > of your imagination, and I'll admit there's a lot of elbowroom in that
> > caveat, HOWEVER, your imagination has to be good enough to "say
> > something",and NO tuning is going to intrinsically help or hinder you
> > too much here.
> >
> > http://www.myspace.com/danstearns
>
> In general I suppose that's more or less right. Still, I've tried some
> tunings that are just hard to get anything useful out of, and others
> that seemed just perfect for some melody that I thought of years ago
and
> didn't have the right tuning for it. And those haven't always been the
> sorts of tunings you'd expect to be useful; recently I found that
> "gorgo" temperament (an obscure 7-limit regular temperament) works well
> with a theme I was having trouble finding a good tuning for. So while
> imagination is a key part of the whole process, finding the "right"
> tuning for a piece can involve other factors. There are some ideas that
> just don't work in one tuning or another, while other ideas might be
> less tuning-specific.
>

daniel_anthony_stearns schrieb:
> horrible's the new good
> if it's loud enough

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Though the results might be interesting! :)
>>> >> The results would be horrible.
>>
>>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>
> > Though the results might be interesting! :)
>
> The results would be horrible

Hey, being bad at math never cuts me any slack around here! I think
you are underestimating the risk/reward ratio - sometimes making music
isn't about being fabulous, but about making music.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> In general I suppose that's more or less right. Still, I've tried some
> tunings that are just hard to get anything useful out of, and others
> that seemed just perfect for some melody that I thought of years ago
and
> didn't have the right tuning for it. And those haven't always been the
> sorts of tunings you'd expect to be useful; recently I found that
> "gorgo" temperament (an obscure 7-limit regular temperament) works well
> with a theme I was having trouble finding a good tuning for.

You have an amazing ability to squeeze musical life out of things
which look fairly useless. Gorgo, in case anyone wants to know, is the
16&21 temperament, and features very, very flat fifths. It tempers out
1029/1024, so that three 8/7s make up a 3/2, and so far that puts it
in good company (eg, miracle.) Then it screws up by tempering out
36/35 also, like 12-et.

But Herman cooks with flat fifths.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Hey, being bad at math never cuts me any slack around here! I think
> you are underestimating the risk/reward ratio - sometimes making music
> isn't about being fabulous, but about making music.

When I was in high school orchestra, the conductor seated me in the
first chair of the second violins. This was not, as he pointed out,
because I played well, but because I *looked* like I knew what I was
doing. He appreciated the fact that even though I couldn't play the
notes as written, I could fake it and play something which fit.

So, it's all relative. But I am a very digitally challenged person. I
really cannot do anything which requires manual dexterity, and
shouldn't have been in the orchestra at all. The trouble is, they give
this test, and if the test shows you have a good ear, they tell your
parents you would make a good string player. This, of course, is baloney.

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> When I was in high school orchestra ...

That's a great story! I can almost hear Ricardo Montalban (as
channeled by Billy Crystal): "It is better to look good than to play
good!"

> So, it's all relative. But I am a very digitally challenged person. I
> really cannot do anything which requires manual dexterity

Sounds like you're a perfect candidate for a choir - barbershop,
maybe? Anyhow, don't let life go by without the joy of making music in
real time with other humans. It is, as the damn commercials say,
priceless.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> That's a great story! I can almost hear Ricardo Montalban (as
> channeled by Billy Crystal): "It is better to look good than to play
> good!"

It's left me with a deep respect for the Perlmans. Changs and Hahns of
the world, who can actually play this amazing instrument.