more thoughts about the term 'microtonal'

'microtonal'....

1) It's the term where most of the outside world would already know
what you mean. You can describe in more detail you aims and means,
such as increasing consonance, etc. (since anyone negatively
prejudiced by the term is invariably afraid of 'modern dissonances' etc.)

2) How many software or hardware products do you think will adopt
another term? you see a music product 'MicroVST', you immediately get
a sense of what it's about---allowing or enabling tuning capabilities.
Even if a small community adopted a new term, it's highly unlikely
that the standard terminology will go away. We will only be muddying
the waters. End of story.

3) Why drive people away with more invented elitist terms like the
awful 'Xentonality'? I think 99% of people would respond to that term
like you were a snob, a weirdo, or a sideshow turnoff. All these are
bad for this community. Plus, like I said, I *strongly* disagree that
all microtonalists are interested solely in strange novelty, or making
provocative new sounds. This leaves out historical tunings which may
or may not sound strange to modern ears, or folks who might write in
traditional ways in, say 31-eq, for the increased beauty of
consonance. Granted, the term 'microtonal' still unfortunately carries
baggage in that case, but I still think it's better than forcing the
issue on the wider public with a spanking new neologism.

4) When you think about the 'micro' part is spot-on. It's accurately
describing the search for accuracy of pitch. To be accurate about
pitch and it's musical effects, you are concerned by definition with
the smallest inflections, even if you are dealing with larger steps
(e.g. 7-equal), b/c you seek to locate these pitches on a continuum,
which means you are being sensitive to micro-changes in pitch. It
doesn't have to be at all about referencing 12-equal, although that's
often helpful to bring up, b/c it's a de-facto tuning standard that
people are swimming in al the time.

Any comments?

-A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@dividebypi.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 05 Mart 2007 Pazartesi 20:02
Subject: [tuning] more thoughts about the term 'microtonal'

>
> 'microtonal'....
>
> 1) It's the term where most of the outside world would already know
> what you mean. You can describe in more detail you aims and means,
> such as increasing consonance, etc. (since anyone negatively
> prejudiced by the term is invariably afraid of 'modern dissonances' etc.)
>

Why should microtonal specifically tend to focus on a "relativistically
invariant" gestalt of consonance? Why adopt snobbish classicism to appease
the masses? For all we know, prejudiced people will think Maqam Music to be
"out of tune" no matter how much "13-limit consonance" one might try to
ascribe to the genre. There is no need to promote populism on the alternate
tuning list, and no need to ingratiate die-hard twelve-toners out there.

> 2) How many software or hardware products do you think will adopt
> another term? you see a music product 'MicroVST', you immediately get
> a sense of what it's about---allowing or enabling tuning capabilities.
> Even if a small community adopted a new term, it's highly unlikely
> that the standard terminology will go away. We will only be muddying
> the waters. End of story.
>

We can still propose alternative terms such as "Xen-tuned" or
"non-equidodecaphonal" music!

> 3) Why drive people away with more invented elitist terms like the
> awful 'Xentonality'? I think 99% of people would respond to that term
> like you were a snob, a weirdo, or a sideshow turnoff. All these are
> bad for this community.

Bad for economy too.

Plus, like I said, I *strongly* disagree that
> all microtonalists are interested solely in strange novelty, or making
> provocative new sounds.

Someone is likely to get provoked no matter how hard we try.

This leaves out historical tunings which may
> or may not sound strange to modern ears, or folks who might write in
> traditional ways in, say 31-eq, for the increased beauty of
> consonance. Granted, the term 'microtonal' still unfortunately carries
> baggage in that case, but I still think it's better than forcing the
> issue on the wider public with a spanking new neologism.
>

Unless usage of steps way smaller or larger than the (quasi-)equal semitone
are in question, what good reason do we have in preferring the term
"microtonal"? As a case in point, a 31-tET rendering of existing Baroque
music surely is not microtonal!

> 4) When you think about the 'micro' part is spot-on. It's accurately
> describing the search for accuracy of pitch.

No! Tuning is. Micro focuses on fixed steps smaller than either the semitone
or the whole tone (viz. in between the first and the latter), accuracy of
pitch is a secondary issue for microtonality IMHO.

To be accurate about
> pitch and it's musical effects, you are concerned by definition with
> the smallest inflections, even if you are dealing with larger steps
> (e.g. 7-equal), b/c you seek to locate these pitches on a continuum,
> which means you are being sensitive to micro-changes in pitch.

I was thinking, rather, that in microtonality, one starts with a predefined
system of tuning where there are "quarter-tones" and "middle seconds" that
don't change in size. Utilization of such steps makes the music microtonal,
not the tuning itself if it lets you compose with semitones and wholetones
alone. 7 and 9 equal are valid exceptions, where there are no tones or
semitones in the classical sense, and one is forced to use a "middle second"
interval as the smallest step.

It
> doesn't have to be at all about referencing 12-equal, although that's
> often helpful to bring up, b/c it's a de-facto tuning standard that
> people are swimming in al the time.
>

I will insist that microtonal is music based on distinctive "quarter-tone"
or "middle second" steps between the prime and semitone & semitone and whole
tone. 31, 43, 53, or 55 are not any more microtonal if those steps are not
used, but remain tuning systems/temperaments available for microtonality
nonetheless.

> Any comments?
>
> -A.
>
>
>

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:

> Any comments?

I like the name of my web site. If people think the contents are weirdo
snob stuff because of the name, they perhaps come better prepared.

AKJ wrote:

> 'microtonal'....
>
> 1) It's the term where most of the outside world would already know
> what you mean.

Who are you hanging with? Nobody I've ever talked to has
the slightest idea what it means. Even in this community,
several people don't seem to understand (or have some
objection to) the approach of Paul E, Dave K, George S,
Graham B, Gene S, Herman M, et al (we should have a name
for it).

> 2) How many software or hardware products do you think will adopt
> another term?

Why do we need a term. Any synth or score editor worth
a damn ought to fully generalize its elements. A notation
editor that assumes a 5-line staff, for example, necessarily
sucks rocks, microtonal music or no.

> 3) Why drive people away with more invented elitist terms like the
> awful 'Xentonality'? I think 99% of people would respond to that
> term like you were a snob, a weirdo, or a sideshow turnoff.

But the term "microtonal" gets you in like Flynt?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> Who are you hanging with? Nobody I've ever talked to has
> the slightest idea what it means. Even in this community,
> several people don't seem to understand (or have some
> objection to) the approach of Paul E, Dave K, George S,
> Graham B, Gene S, Herman M, et al (we should have a name
> for it).

"New tuning paradigm". "The middle way".

> > Who are you hanging with? Nobody I've ever talked to has
> > the slightest idea what it means. Even in this community,
> > several people don't seem to understand (or have some
> > objection to) the approach of Paul E, Dave K, George S,
> > Graham B, Gene S, Herman M, et al (we should have a name
> > for it).
>
> "New tuning paradigm". "The middle way".

The Middle Way is a good one. -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> AKJ wrote:
>
> > 'microtonal'....
> >
> > 1) It's the term where most of the outside world would already know
> > what you mean.
>
> Who are you hanging with?

I should say that most musicians (and some non-musicians) I've talked
to know what it means, even if they are ignorant of the detailed theory.

> Nobody I've ever talked to has
> the slightest idea what it means. Even in this community,
> several people don't seem to understand (or have some
> objection to) the approach of Paul E, Dave K, George S,
> Graham B, Gene S, Herman M, et al (we should have a name
> for it).

Who objects to anything any of those people do? Sure, not everyone
likes every piece, but aside from JI fundamentalists, the whole list
is made up of people who are discussing these things!

> > 2) How many software or hardware products do you think will adopt
> > another term?
>
> Why do we need a term.

We don't.

> Any synth or score editor worth
> a damn ought to fully generalize its elements.

Right, and usually, you'd look for 'microtonal capable' in the specs.

> > 3) Why drive people away with more invented elitist terms like the
> > awful 'Xentonality'? I think 99% of people would respond to that
> > term like you were a snob, a weirdo, or a sideshow turnoff.
>
> But the term "microtonal" gets you in like Flynt?

I wouldn't say 'in', but it's less presumptuous. I guess I'm just
saying neologisms are in general to be avoided.

you mean 'in like Flynn'--referring to Errol Flynn, who was a ladies'
man....

-Aa.

> > Nobody I've ever talked to has
> > the slightest idea what it means. Even in this community,
> > several people don't seem to understand (or have some
> > objection to) the approach of Paul E, Dave K, George S,
> > Graham B, Gene S, Herman M, et al (we should have a name
> > for it).
>
> Who objects to anything any of those people do?

You well know that there's been huge battles on these lists
over it.

> but aside from JI fundamentalists, the whole list
> is made up of people who are discussing these things!

There are however many (> 100) people reading this list.
I just named 6 of them that understand the Middle Way,
not including myself and monz and maybe 2-3 others I've
forgotten.

> > Any synth or score editor worth
> > a damn ought to fully generalize its elements.
>
> Right, and usually, you'd look for 'microtonal capable'
> in the specs.

I wouldn't. Sibelius and Notion (among many others) claim
this, but what they offer is 1. nothing I'm interested in
and 2. very weak s*** by any standard.

> you mean 'in like Flynn'--referring to Errol Flynn, who was
> a ladies' man....

The version I got was that it was Flynt, as in Larry Flynt.
But it looks like you may be right.

-Carl