Re: Digest Number 433

> From: "D.Stearns"
<snip> But beyond that, "the perfectly reasonable
> assumption that these great composers might have liked his new tool,"
> seems to me no different than saying that it's a perfectly reasonable
> assumption that they may not have...

Yes, why not. But I tend to think that intelligent people will at least
try a new tool if it gives them some additional ability they currently
lack.

> And my own opinion is that if these are supposed to be taken as
> striking "art" on it's own, then there is something distressingly akin
> to "colorization" about the whole process... I mean these are not
> rearrangements (or even arrangements outside of whatever's been done
> before they got to JdL's program for that matter), they're just
> retunings - one size fits all... and it just seems (to me anyway) that
> it would be a much better (or prudent) idea to present the retunings
> of the existing material as experiments in seeing what seems to work
> and what could use some tweaking, rather than an impossible to say
> (and obviously disagreeable to many) assumption that these great
> composers might have liked this.

I am not saying that I know what the greats would have liked. If one does
not like listening to DeLaubenfels retunings then one is not so compelled.
Why all the uproar? I am completely mystified. A guy writes some tuning
software, retunes some MIDI files, says it sounds great to him, and people
jump all over him. Huh???

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
> The major omission here is of course meantone temperament.
> Western composers of the "early" (c.900-1680) and "common practice"
> (c.1680-1900) eras did not write music in just intonation, with the possible
> exception of a brief "schismatic" period in the 1400s. There were three
> major tuning paradigms for Western music: Pythagorean, meantone, and 12-tone
> circulating (ultimately ET), in that order. If one wishes to view this as an
> "evolution", equal temperament should really be compared with meantone,
> which is what it "evolved" from (although 12-equal had been present on lutes
> since the Pythagorean era, so that's another somewhat relevant comparison).
> One should, of course, compare each _consonant interval_ in ET with the JI
> version of that interval, but to me what is usually done, comparing an
> entire _scale_ of 7 or 12 tones in ET with one in JI, is musically
> irrelevant and misleading.

Yes, Paul I actually know this, and I left meantone out in my haste to
finish my post. Thanks for pointing out my omission, and for the
additional detail.

> From: johnlink@con2.com (John Link)
>
> Well, I have plans for extended solos in the middle of some Chopin
> nocturnes that I've arranged for soprano and guitar or SATB and guitar. I
> believe that they'll be great Chopin. I bet that NO one will be expecting
> to hear what I plan to do, and I hope that they will be pleasantly
> surprised. Maybe some people will even say: "That's the way Chopin ought to
> be played!". (That's what *I* think.)

Oh, you are in BIG trouble!! Cool daddy-o.

> From: Paul Hahn <Paul-Hahn@library.wustl.edu>
>
> See also Keith Jarrett, who has done renditions of classical standards
> that incorporate jazz improvisations into otherwise "straight"
> performances.

Oh yeah. We have heard it. Thanks Paul.

> From: johnlink@con2.com (John Link)

> > What an unexpectedly (to me) contentious issue this thread of
> >faithfulness to the composer's wishes is! Now that I've said more than my
> >share I will shut up after this: If we all had computers with software
> >that would allow us to compose and record, even perform whatever was in
> >our heads...
>
> What? Do you really think that a computer-generated sequence of sounds is
> in the same category as live performance by human beings? I've heard
> musicians complain about the work they lose because of DJ's playing
> recorded music, but do we now have *composers* who want to remove the human
> element entirely from performance?

Oh no, no, no. I am just saying that the capability now exists to build
any sound or sequence of sounds whatsoever (with csound for instance), and
that if a composer wished, given enough time and skill, she could make a
recording of anything she could imagine. I view live performance as a
necessity.

John Starrett, not shutting up like he promised.

[John Starrett:]
> I am not saying that I know what the greats would have liked.

No, me neither.

>If one does not like listening to DeLaubenfels retunings then one is
not so compelled.

Absolutely, I agree... and trust me, I'm not exactly foaming at the
mouth to get in there with my bulk eraser (ah, I mean delete button I
guess, well you know what I mean!) or anything either. And I think
that the more sophisticated (or perhaps something like contextually
sensitive) the program becomes, the better and better it's all going
to be... JdL has said several times himself that these are preliminary
steps, and I believe that this (at it's core) is good and heartfelt
work that many people (who's tuning interest line up or overlap with
it) could really benefit from.

>Why all the uproar? I am completely mystified. A guy writes some
tuning software, retunes some MIDI files, says it sounds great to him,
and people jump all over him. Huh???

Well I think that the "veiled" -- and I have not even the slightest
doubt *UNINTENDED* -- message of "it sounds great to him" has been
that it ("it" being someone else's music) didn't sound good enough to
begin with... and whether this is fair to JdL or not, it apparently
has struck a raw nerve in many... and I guess I'd have to say I'm one
of those that can understand this. (But I think I've also made it
pretty clear why I believe using these familiar pieces is a good idea
in an educational and experimental sense.)

Dan

>From: John Starrett <jstarret@math.cudenver.edu>
>
>> From: johnlink@con2.com (John Link)
>>
>> Well, I have plans for extended solos in the middle of some Chopin
>> nocturnes that I've arranged for soprano and guitar or SATB and guitar. I
>> believe that they'll be great Chopin. I bet that NO one will be expecting
>> to hear what I plan to do, and I hope that they will be pleasantly
>> surprised. Maybe some people will even say: "That's the way Chopin ought to
>> be played!". (That's what *I* think.)
>
>Oh, you are in BIG trouble!! Cool daddy-o.

I presume that means that you expect I'll get plenty of grief before the
performance even happens, but that you like the idea. This one won't be on
the forthcoming CD, but I intend to have it on the next one.

>> Do you really think that a computer-generated sequence of sounds is
>> in the same category as live performance by human beings? I've heard
>> musicians complain about the work they lose because of DJ's playing
>> recorded music, but do we now have *composers* who want to remove the human
>> element entirely from performance?
>
>Oh no, no, no. I am just saying that the capability now exists to build
>any sound or sequence of sounds whatsoever (with csound for instance), and
>that if a composer wished, given enough time and skill, she could make a
>recording of anything she could imagine. I view live performance as a
>necessity.

I thought that you would say something like that, and understand that you
were making a point not about the usefulness of performers but about our
ability to know what some composer intended. I hesitated to write what I
did for that reason, but went ahead anyway.

>John Starrett, not shutting up like he promised.

Sorry if I dragged you back into this.

John Link

****************************************************************************

Watch for the CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by John Link's vocal quintet,
featuring original compositions as well as arrangements of instrumental
music by Brahe and Taylor, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Claude Debussy, Bill
Evans, Ennio and Andrea Morricone, Modeste Mussorgsky, Erik Satie, and Earl
Zindars.

****************************************************************************