Groven Piano Project and other nightmares....

There is almost no way to say this without being taken to task for it,
but IMHO something like the GPP is the *worst* possible solution to the
problem of "microtonal pianos". I applaud the effort but the result can
only be a microtonal masochist's wet dream -- in addition to being both
highly exclusive and prohibitively expensive. Also, if it's to be
limited to one and only one microtuning (Groven's 36-tone temperament)
or must be re-tuned to accommodate another scale -- what's the point?

I think that all of us here can agree that dividing a >12 tone scale
(17, 19, 24 or what have you) between two pianos is inelegant at best
and clumsy at worst; but at least it has the virtue of being accessable
to composers and performers, and is relatively inexpensive. (This is no
slight to either Jacob Barton or Aaron Johnson and their respective
2-piano microtonal projects -- I am gratefully participating in both!)
To add a third or fourth piano compounds any and all inefficiencies,
computer-assisted or not.

I keep coming back to this same point: to make any headway into
mainstream musical thought, the production of smaller intervals or
alternate tunings must be as inexpensive and low-tech as possible. It's
easier to make a 36-tone guitar for musicians than a 36-tone,
3-pianos-from-1-keyboard-plus-computer Frankenstein. To make acoustic
microtonality available only via costly or over-mechanized hardware is
self-defeating.

If one's music requires software and synthesis soft/hardware to be
adequately conceived and performed, then that's one way forward. If one
wants to extend smaller intervals and alternate tunings into the live
world of acoustic instruments, simplicity of means is the method
demanded.

Touching on the theme of pianoforte-centricity and its mania:

http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_20724.asp
<http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_20724.asp>

http://www.societymusictheory.org:16080/html/events/abstracts/smt-98.abs\
tracts/code.html
<http://www.societymusictheory.org:16080/html/events/abstracts/smt-98.ab\
stracts/code.html>

Best,

jls

Gigantic and highly impractical instruments have been around for a
long time: pipe organs.

An instrument such as I describe can easily be compared to these.
They have never been cheap, and they have always been monstrous in
mechanical terms, whether tracker or electric action. Today a new one
easily costs a million dollars, and some cost many millions. Of course
today pipe organs also increasingly get replaced by digital instruments.
The quality of the sounds coming from these keeps getting
better, but the most realistic I've heard (a Walker digital) is still in the
$100,000 range, and still doesn't match the real thing. Justification for
the great costs associated with organs has something to do with the fact
that they have (or have had at least in the past) a central function as a part
of Christian worship.

If you choose one small numbered ET or whatever tuning for such an
instrument other than 12, there is just no way to justify the cost. But
would you be happy with the ability to play any and all intervals within
1/2 a JND? Still play your 12 tone music. Play all historical tunings.
Play any ET, JI, whatever. It plays everything. This is the basic idea driving
the Tonal Plexus. It can already do this with digital sounds. I'm describing
an acoustic version. It's insane, but possible. A more realistic idea is a
something along the lines of the digital pianos and organs now being
built, which do sound better than ever, but still not real.

What makes the Walker instruments sound so real is not just the high quality
samples, but the amplification and speaker systems which are installed within
standard organ chambers. There are a LOT of speakers pumping out a
lot of acoustical power. The main problem with older digital instruments was
not mainly that the sounds weren't convincing, but rather that 2 puny speakers
cannot move enough air in any way remotely similar to the phenomenon of
acoustically sounding pipes.

I recently tried out a lot of digital pianos. They all sounded... like digital pianos.
None of them sounds like a real piano. And some of them were almost as
expensive as a small acoustic baby grand!

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
>
> There is almost no way to say this without being taken to task for it,
> but IMHO something like the GPP is the *worst* possible solution to the
> problem of "microtonal pianos". I applaud the effort but the result can
> only be a microtonal masochist's wet dream -- in addition to being both
> highly exclusive and prohibitively expensive. Also, if it's to be
> limited to one and only one microtuning (Groven's 36-tone temperament)
> or must be re-tuned to accommodate another scale -- what's the point?
>
> I think that all of us here can agree that dividing a >12 tone scale
> (17, 19, 24 or what have you) between two pianos is inelegant at best
> and clumsy at worst; but at least it has the virtue of being accessable
> to composers and performers, and is relatively inexpensive. (This is no
> slight to either Jacob Barton or Aaron Johnson and their respective
> 2-piano microtonal projects -- I am gratefully participating in both!)
> To add a third or fourth piano compounds any and all inefficiencies,
> computer-assisted or not.
>
> I keep coming back to this same point: to make any headway into
> mainstream musical thought, the production of smaller intervals or
> alternate tunings must be as inexpensive and low-tech as possible. It's
> easier to make a 36-tone guitar for musicians than a 36-tone,
> 3-pianos-from-1-keyboard-plus-computer Frankenstein. To make acoustic
> microtonality available only via costly or over-mechanized hardware is
> self-defeating.
>
> If one's music requires software and synthesis soft/hardware to be
> adequately conceived and performed, then that's one way forward. If one
> wants to extend smaller intervals and alternate tunings into the live
> world of acoustic instruments, simplicity of means is the method
> demanded.
>
> Touching on the theme of pianoforte-centricity and its mania:
>
> http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_20724.asp
> <http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_20724.asp>
>
> http://www.societymusictheory.org:16080/html/events/abstracts/smt-98.abs\
> tracts/code.html
> <http://www.societymusictheory.org:16080/html/events/abstracts/smt-98.ab\
> stracts/code.html>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> jls
>

> Touching on the theme of pianoforte-centricity and its mania:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ys76nj

Funny, that was written by the guy who spearheaded the
Groven piano project!

I didn't know 5000 Fingers was by Seuss! I'll have to
check that out.

-Carl

Hey Jon, remember that my project for an auto-tunable piano is still awaiting recognition by sponsors. Replacing the pin-blocks by an advanced design will assure maximum and instantaneous tuning precision for an unlimited number of scales and temperaments.

Oz.
----- Original Message -----
From: J.Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 13 Nisan 2007 Cuma 21:46
Subject: [tuning] Groven Piano Project and other nightmares....

There is almost no way to say this without being taken to task for it, but IMHO something like the GPP is the *worst* possible solution to the problem of "microtonal pianos". I applaud the effort but the result can only be a microtonal masochist's wet dream -- in addition to being both highly exclusive and prohibitively expensive. Also, if it's to be limited to one and only one microtuning (Groven's 36-tone temperament) or must be re-tuned to accommodate another scale -- what's the point?

I think that all of us here can agree that dividing a >12 tone scale (17, 19, 24 or what have you) between two pianos is inelegant at best and clumsy at worst; but at least it has the virtue of being accessable to composers and performers, and is relatively inexpensive. (This is no slight to either Jacob Barton or Aaron Johnson and their respective 2-piano microtonal projects -- I am gratefully participating in both!) To add a third or fourth piano compounds any and all inefficiencies, computer-assisted or not.

I keep coming back to this same point: to make any headway into mainstream musical thought, the production of smaller intervals or alternate tunings must be as inexpensive and low-tech as possible. It's easier to make a 36-tone guitar for musicians than a 36-tone, 3-pianos-from-1-keyboard-plus-computer Frankenstein. To make acoustic microtonality available only via costly or over-mechanized hardware is self-defeating.

If one's music requires software and synthesis soft/hardware to be adequately conceived and performed, then that's one way forward. If one wants to extend smaller intervals and alternate tunings into the live world of acoustic instruments, simplicity of means is the method demanded.

Touching on the theme of pianoforte-centricity and its mania:

http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_20724.asp

http://www.societymusictheory.org:16080/html/events/abstracts/smt-98.abstracts/code.html

Best,

jls