What is a microtonalist? A musical tuning practitioner?

I am typing the word microtonalist in Word and the
spelling is wrong (as many of the terms of this list
of course!).

I have found lists of microtonalists but not a definition,
This is very confusing when the word microtonalist
is not clearly defined.

My first draft based on the people that have
been included on those lists would be:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Microtonalist – a musical tuning practitioner,
developing the work at the least through one
of the following disciplines: postulating theory,
developing musical instruments, and composing.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Of course devising the theory includes notation!

As for teaching, tuning instruments, programming, and other
disciplines I would say that it depends if this is done together
with one of the 3 disciplines previously at some extent.

Not sure either how this term would apply to early tunings
and their composers. Certainly not to most of the instrument
makers who only had to think about 12 pitches in most of the
cases (without having to be involved with the theory.

Tony Salinas

J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:
> I am typing the word microtonalist in Word and the
> spelling is wrong (as many of the terms of this list
> of course!).
> > I have found lists of microtonalists but not a definition,
> This is very confusing when the word microtonalist
> is not clearly defined.

Google helpfully suggests you search for "microtonalism" instead ... and then fails to provide a definition for that either. For "microtonal" it gives "Any tuning system which employs pitches unplayable on a traditional piano" from http://www.best-classicalmusic.com

Maybe it's because even people who don't object to being called microtonalists don't particularly care about the definition.

One thing I've been pondering is that the regular mapping paradigm could be contrasted with a "microtonal paradigm". In the latter, a piece of music is written for a specific tuning. It assumes you think about the tuning before you start writing music. The more common approach is that tuning's a detail you sort out for the performance (or even don't think about at all).

With that sleight of hand, I can join the troupe of microtonalists who don't like being called microtonalists.

> My first draft based on the people that have
> been included on those lists would be:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Microtonalist � a musical tuning practitioner,
> developing the work at the least through one
> of the following disciplines: postulating theory,
> developing musical instruments, and composing.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

Not performers? And why not shorten it to "somebody involved with microtonality"? That makes it default to the definition of "microtonality". Whatever that might be.

> Of course devising the theory includes notation!
> > As for teaching, tuning instruments, programming, and other
> disciplines I would say that it depends if this is done together
> with one of the 3 disciplines previously at some extent.

Surely a teacher who advocated microtonality would count as a microtonalist. If you mean theorists, composers, or instrument builders, it's easier to say "microtonal theorist", "microtonal composer", or "builder of microtonal instruments" anyway. Why do we need this word "microtonalist" enough to care about it?

> Not sure either how this term would apply to early tunings
> and their composers. Certainly not to most of the instrument
> makers who only had to think about 12 pitches in most of the
> cases (without having to be involved with the theory.

Vicentino was certainly a microtonalist because he wrote music that depended on the extra notes being there. Another example is that Purcell wrote a passage in a "bad" key (F# major?) for a meantone instrument as a special effect. That would count for me, but it's surprisingly unusual. For all the people using meantone harpsichords, none of them seemed to find the 7-limit intervals. (Huygens advocated them in theory.)

Graham

Hi Graham,

Performers are at the end of the music production change
so they are microtonalists indeed thanks!

So to simplify we could say:

Microtonalist.- A microtonal music practitioner.

That's it! 3 words ... and that also includes anybody involved
with microtonality.

Then we need to define microtonal music.

mmm...Notes not included in the traditional piano ...that is OK
to explain to my neighbours that my piano is not out of tune,
how about:

Microtonal music.- Music produced with pitches not included
in the standard tuning system (for the considered historical period
and musical tradition)

So for a Western classical or contemporary music practitioner,
music produced on an early tuning would be considered
microtonal as well as Gamelan.

> Vicentino was certainly a microtonalist because he wrote music that
> depended on the extra notes being there.

The microtonal cause in the XVI century existed to provide enharmonic
notes rather than to play intervals substantially smaller than 100
cents,
just look at Vicentino's Archicembalo's layout! ... This obviously makes
the definition more complex when extended to the early period.

Tony Salinas
-------------------------------------------------------
On 2007/12/16, at 15:28, Graham Breed wrote:

> J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:
>> I am typing the word microtonalist in Word and the
>> spelling is wrong (as many of the terms of this list
>> of course!).
>>
>> I have found lists of microtonalists but not a definition,
>> This is very confusing when the word microtonalist
>> is not clearly defined.
>
> Google helpfully suggests you search for "microtonalism"
> instead ... and
> then fails to provide a definition for that either. For
> "microtonal" it
> gives "Any tuning system which employs pitches unplayable on a
> traditional piano" from http://www.best-classicalmusic.com
>
> Maybe it's because even people who don't object to being called
> microtonalists don't particularly care about the definition.
>
> One thing I've been pondering is that the regular mapping paradigm
> could
> be contrasted with a "microtonal paradigm". In the latter, a piece of
> music is written for a specific tuning. It assumes you think about
> the
> tuning before you start writing music. The more common approach is
> that
> tuning's a detail you sort out for the performance (or even don't
> think
> about at all).
>
> With that sleight of hand, I can join the troupe of microtonalists who
> don't like being called microtonalists.
>
>> My first draft based on the people that have
>> been included on those lists would be:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Microtonalist – a musical tuning practitioner,
>> developing the work at the least through one
>> of the following disciplines: postulating theory,
>> developing musical instruments, and composing.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not performers? And why not shorten it to "somebody involved with
> microtonality"? That makes it default to the definition of
> "microtonality". Whatever that might be.
>
>> Of course devising the theory includes notation!
>>
>> As for teaching, tuning instruments, programming, and other
>> disciplines I would say that it depends if this is done together
>> with one of the 3 disciplines previously at some extent.
>
> Surely a teacher who advocated microtonality would count as a
> microtonalist. If you mean theorists, composers, or instrument
> builders, it's easier to say "microtonal theorist", "microtonal
> composer", or "builder of microtonal instruments" anyway. Why do we
> need this word "microtonalist" enough to care about it?
>
>> Not sure either how this term would apply to early tunings
>> and their composers. Certainly not to most of the instrument
>> makers who only had to think about 12 pitches in most of the
>> cases (without having to be involved with the theory.
> Another example is that
> Purcell wrote a passage in a "bad" key (F# major?) for a meantone
> instrument as a special effect. That would count for me, but it's
> surprisingly unusual. For all the people using meantone harpsichords,
> none of them seemed to find the 7-limit intervals. (Huygens advocated
> them in theory.)
>
>
> Graham
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

A musical tuning practitioner or theoretician, an instrument tuner,
maybe not necessarily a composer...??:

It is interesting that this should come up, since I was thinking
about this in the context of the recent death of Stockhausen and the
gradual "end" of the "Fifties School" of post-war composers.

These were the composers whom my "classmates" and I at that time,
considering myself presently as "being of a certain age" venerated as
young students.

They all wrote microtonal music, but nobody talked about it,
specifically, or called it such: Stockhausen, Berio, Earle Brown,
Cage, Ligeti, Xenakis, many others.

These were all "microtonal" composers, but pitch really wasn't
separated from revolutionary concepts of form, sound and meter-
pulse. And, electronic music was frequently derived from *noise* and
so much the better for it. That wasn't, necessarily "microtonal."

So, I would say the terminology probably doesn't mean that much,
except, perhaps, to point a spotlight on a few people who have
developed a *SYSTEMATIC* microtonality: Partch, Ben Johnston,
possibly Lou Harrison... although even he I think of as just a "good
ol' composer" and not necessarily a "microtonalist."

Why would such spotlighting be useful? Well, I suppose if a person
wanted to develop his/her craft specifically in the parameter of
*pitch* or wanted to communicate with similarly-minded people about
the topic, such as on this list.

In such case, as in calling this useful list "microtonal", it could
be helpful.

But, in the global sense, as far as music composition is concerned, I
don't think it really is all that important...

Joseph Pehrson
P.S. I take it these comments are nothing particularly revolutionary
or revelatory...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:
> > I am typing the word microtonalist in Word and the
> > spelling is wrong (as many of the terms of this list
> > of course!).
> >
> > I have found lists of microtonalists but not a definition,
> > This is very confusing when the word microtonalist
> > is not clearly defined.
>
> Google helpfully suggests you search for "microtonalism"
instead ... and
> then fails to provide a definition for that either.
For "microtonal" it
> gives "Any tuning system which employs pitches unplayable on a
> traditional piano" from http://www.best-classicalmusic.com
>
> Maybe it's because even people who don't object to being called
> microtonalists don't particularly care about the definition.
>
> One thing I've been pondering is that the regular mapping paradigm
could
> be contrasted with a "microtonal paradigm". In the latter, a piece
of
> music is written for a specific tuning. It assumes you think about
the
> tuning before you start writing music. The more common approach is
that
> tuning's a detail you sort out for the performance (or even don't
think
> about at all).
>
> With that sleight of hand, I can join the troupe of microtonalists
who
> don't like being called microtonalists.
>
> > My first draft based on the people that have
> > been included on those lists would be:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Microtonalist – a musical tuning practitioner,
> > developing the work at the least through one
> > of the following disciplines: postulating theory,
> > developing musical instruments, and composing.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not performers? And why not shorten it to "somebody involved with
> microtonality"? That makes it default to the definition of
> "microtonality". Whatever that might be.
>
> > Of course devising the theory includes notation!
> >
> > As for teaching, tuning instruments, programming, and other
> > disciplines I would say that it depends if this is done together
> > with one of the 3 disciplines previously at some extent.
>
> Surely a teacher who advocated microtonality would count as a
> microtonalist. If you mean theorists, composers, or instrument
> builders, it's easier to say "microtonal theorist", "microtonal
> composer", or "builder of microtonal instruments" anyway. Why do
we
> need this word "microtonalist" enough to care about it?
>
> > Not sure either how this term would apply to early tunings
> > and their composers. Certainly not to most of the instrument
> > makers who only had to think about 12 pitches in most of the
> > cases (without having to be involved with the theory.
>
> Vicentino was certainly a microtonalist because he wrote music that
> depended on the extra notes being there. Another example is that
> Purcell wrote a passage in a "bad" key (F# major?) for a meantone
> instrument as a special effect. That would count for me, but it's
> surprisingly unusual. For all the people using meantone
harpsichords,
> none of them seemed to find the 7-limit intervals. (Huygens
advocated
> them in theory.)
>
>
> Graham
>

Hi Joseph,

I was just ckecking if there was around a definition of
microtonalist to justify the lists of microtonalists on the
web pages. I have not com acrross yet such thing on
an article or book so I guess there is no standard definition.

Stockhausen seems to be there listed among microtonal pioneers
indeed.

So what you suggested is that a microtonal composer who happens
to use

On 2007/12/17, at 13:17, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>
>
> They all wrote microtonal music, but nobody talked about it,
> specifically, or called it such: Stockhausen, Berio, Earle Brown,
> Cage, Ligeti, Xenakis, many others.
>
Well they are the first composers that introduced me to microtonality
when I wasn't aware of its dimensions because they happen to be
in the school text books (Never came accross an intentionally
microtonal Cage
...though people's noises might be when all the musicians do not play!).
Yeah! I would appreciate which piece by Cage were you thinking of,
and maybe you can challenge my latest definition of microtonalist:

Microtonalist .- A person involved with microtonal music

Microtonal music.- Music using pitches which are not included in the
standard tuning
of the considered musical tradition and historical period.

Gamelan musicians do not have such concept of a foreign pitch
to their musical tradition, well octaves might be strange sounding
intervals for them but I am sure they are well aware.

Early tunings coexisted in Western music without having one of them
as the standard tuning system (for a quite a while), so around that time
19 and 31 might have been microtonal but not most of the tunings
using 12 pitches per octave of that period.

Tony Salinas

>
>
> These were all "microtonal" composers, but pitch really wasn't
> separated from revolutionary concepts of form, sound and meter-
> pulse. And, electronic music was frequently derived from *noise* and
> so much the better for it. That wasn't, necessarily "microtonal."
>
> So, I would say the terminology probably doesn't mean that much,
> except, perhaps, to point a spotlight on a few people who have
> developed a *SYSTEMATIC* microtonality: Partch, Ben Johnston,
> possibly Lou Harrison... although even he I think of as just a "good
> ol' composer" and not necessarily a "microtonalist."
>
> Why would such spotlighting be useful? Well, I suppose if a person
> wanted to develop his/her craft specifically in the parameter of
> *pitch* or wanted to communicate with similarly-minded people about
> the topic, such as on this list.
>
> In such case, as in calling this useful list "microtonal", it could
> be helpful.
>
> But, in the global sense, as far as music composition is concerned, I
> don't think it really is all that important...
>
> Joseph Pehrson
> P.S. I take it these comments are nothing particularly revolutionary
> or revelatory...
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >
> > J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:
> > > I am typing the word microtonalist in Word and the
> > > spelling is wrong (as many of the terms of this list
> > > of course!).
> > >
> > > I have found lists of microtonalists but not a definition,
> > > This is very confusing when the word microtonalist
> > > is not clearly defined.
> >
> > Google helpfully suggests you search for "microtonalism"
> instead ... and
> > then fails to provide a definition for that either.
> For "microtonal" it
> > gives "Any tuning system which employs pitches unplayable on a
> > traditional piano" from http://www.best-classicalmusic.com
> >
> > Maybe it's because even people who don't object to being called
> > microtonalists don't particularly care about the definition.
> >
> > One thing I've been pondering is that the regular mapping paradigm
> could
> > be contrasted with a "microtonal paradigm". In the latter, a piece
> of
> > music is written for a specific tuning. It assumes you think about
> the
> > tuning before you start writing music. The more common approach is
> that
> > tuning's a detail you sort out for the performance (or even don't
> think
> > about at all).
> >
> > With that sleight of hand, I can join the troupe of microtonalists
> who
> > don't like being called microtonalists.
> >
> > > My first draft based on the people that have
> > > been included on those lists would be:
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Microtonalist – a musical tuning practitioner,
> > > developing the work at the least through one
> > > of the following disciplines: postulating theory,
> > > developing musical instruments, and composing.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Not performers? And why not shorten it to "somebody involved with
> > microtonality"? That makes it default to the definition of
> > "microtonality". Whatever that might be.
> >
> > > Of course devising the theory includes notation!
> > >
> > > As for teaching, tuning instruments, programming, and other
> > > disciplines I would say that it depends if this is done together
> > > with one of the 3 disciplines previously at some extent.
> >
> > Surely a teacher who advocated microtonality would count as a
> > microtonalist. If you mean theorists, composers, or instrument
> > builders, it's easier to say "microtonal theorist", "microtonal
> > composer", or "builder of microtonal instruments" anyway. Why do
> we
> > need this word "microtonalist" enough to care about it?
> >
> > > Not sure either how this term would apply to early tunings
> > > and their composers. Certainly not to most of the instrument
> > > makers who only had to think about 12 pitches in most of the
> > > cases (without having to be involved with the theory.
> >
> > Vicentino was certainly a microtonalist because he wrote music that
> > depended on the extra notes being there. Another example is that
> > Purcell wrote a passage in a "bad" key (F# major?) for a meantone
> > instrument as a special effect. That would count for me, but it's
> > surprisingly unusual. For all the people using meantone
> harpsichords,
> > none of them seemed to find the 7-limit intervals. (Huygens
> advocated
> > them in theory.)
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.A.Martin Salinas" <tony@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I was just ckecking if there was around a definition of
> microtonalist to justify the lists of microtonalists on the
> web pages. I have not com acrross yet such thing on
> an article or book so I guess there is no standard definition.
>
> Stockhausen seems to be there listed among microtonal pioneers
> indeed.
>
> Well they are the first composers that introduced me to
microtonality
> when I wasn't aware of its dimensions because they happen to be
> in the school text books (Never came accross an intentionally
> microtonal Cage
> ...though people's noises might be when all the musicians do not
play!).
> Yeah! I would appreciate which piece by Cage were you thinking of,
> and maybe you can challenge my latest definition of microtonalist:
>

***I'm not really an expert on Cage, Tony, but yes, surely pieces
like the 4' 33" come to mind as ultimate "sound" or "non-periodic"
wave pieces. I believe some of the very late Cage pieces actually
use systematic microtonality, but I don't have time to do the
research on that right at the moment...

> Microtonalist .- A person involved with microtonal music
>
> Microtonal music.- Music using pitches which are not included in
the
> standard tuning
> of the considered musical tradition and historical period.
>

***Well, this gets a little tricky, Tony. For one thing, "micro"
means "small..." Therefore, huge intervals that fell outside of
a "tradition" would probably not apply here...

I would more opt for the more "classic" definition used, as I recall,
by Johnny Reinhard and many others, that microtonality is any scale
or set of pitches/frequencies that are not in the set of 12-tempered
pitches of 12-equal temperament, as made manifest on the contemporary
piano keyboard. It consists of "small intervals," *between* these
pitches, in the classic case, or might be expanded to include any
sounds or frequencies that lie outside the well-defined 12-equal
pitch set...

I really don't think you can have a definition called "microtonal"
that changes throughout history without reference to one
*standard*... 12-equal. It's kind of like setting all clocks to or
away from Greenwich...

just some ideas...

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.A.Martin Salinas" <tony@...> wrote:

> Microtonal music.- Music using pitches which are not included in the
> standard tuning
> of the considered musical tradition and historical period.

I think microtonal music should be defined in terms of intervals, not
pitches. Shifting 12-equal by a quartertone doesn't make it sound
microtonal except for people with absolute pitch perhaps.

Kalle Aho

The term microtonalist once meant more than it means now.and often
this meant different things in different areas.
It was a movement or attitude that Pitch still had a place in music
and that through pitch developments were maybe the most important. It
was possibly a bit reactionary against all the talk about all the
parameters being equal etc. Which I am sorry to say seems to have
failed. It also ventured into the area that through pitch new
structural possibilities as well as new coloristic and emotional
qualities.
In the pursuit was the implication that how new materials in the
visual arts would lead to new types of music, new scales would also
have to be treated differently.
Cage did not consider himself a microtonalist.
He responded to Erv Wilson once that he was not interested in pitch.
So he possibly saw the term the same way. So historically the term
did not mean the use of microtones but an attitude toward it.
Stockhausen, Xenakis Boulez were to Partch the great enemy regardless
if they used microtones are not. It was the attitude toward microtones
that mattered, once upon a time.

>

Hi Joseph,

Nice and refreshing ideas! Thanks!

For instance let's talk about the smallest interval of a tuning system.
If it is smaller than the one of the tuning system of the considered
musical tradition, I would say that the music on that tuning system
is microtonal.

On the contrary, if that interval happens to be wider than the one
of the standard tuning system, then you can indeed call the music
macrotonal (I would!). And then, the music in the 12-equal temperament
would be macrotonal for classic arab musicians and Thai traditional
music would be macrotonal to Western music in general.

The only thing is that, for example, if LucyTuning was the standard tuning system,
then most of the tuning systems in use would be macrotonal! haha! end of microtonality!
just a joke! but not that joke, microtonality has almost been abolished
by the AFMM which has taken the interval of a cent as the smallest standard
interval. I have been listening the Pitch CD collection and it is amazing how
precisely the 1200-equal temperament bassoon can play with the 31-equal temperament
macrotonal guitar. Hurray Johnny!

Can you see how things can be reversed? ... but I think, that to avoid confusion
I'd rather stick to the term microtonal to define strictly intervals which are not in
the standard tuning system whether they are smaller or in all kind of sizes, or
tunings containing at the least one interval that is not in the standard tuning.

I would say Greenwich is the standard with its 24 pitches at this time in the history
of music and the minutes and seconds are microtonal positions.

Cheers!

Tony Salinas

Hi Kraig,

Not being involved yet! with electroacoustic music I think in terms of what instruments
can sustain and change: volume, pitch, rhythm, and timbre (please remind me
if I forgot something else!)

Cage succeeded without putting much attention to pitch, and Harry Partch
focussing mainly on pitch, but what makes them great composers is their
exploration of timbre and sound spectrum.

I think that Partch's attitude and obsession about tunings is what opened
him the doors to his magic world of sound. For Xenakis it was his mathematics
steeming from architecture (I am only guessing, since not much I
have understood yet from Formalized Music) which made him special.
Every great composer has an obsession (at the least) and a secret,
for Partch microtonality was his obsession and his secret were his original
set of instruments. I can imagine how Partch felt about people
who saved the time of making the instruments and tuning so many notes,
and viceversa, the people who save that time to do other clever things.

Thanks Kraig for your ideas!

I would say that Partch wast microtonalist and Colon Nancarrow
the ultimate microrhythmist.

Tony Salinas

On 2007/12/18, at 20:02, banaphshu wrote:

> The term microtonalist once meant more than it means now.and often
> this meant different things in different areas.
> It was a movement or attitude that Pitch still had a place in music
> and that through pitch developments were maybe the most important. It
> was possibly a bit reactionary against all the talk about all the
> parameters being equal etc. Which I am sorry to say seems to have
> failed. It also ventured into the area that through pitch new
> structural possibilities as well as new coloristic and emotional
> qualities.
> In the pursuit was the implication that how new materials in the
> visual arts would lead to new types of music, new scales would also
> have to be treated differently.
> Cage did not consider himself a microtonalist.
> He responded to Erv Wilson once that he was not interested in pitch.
> So he possibly saw the term the same way. So historically the term
> did not mean the use of microtones but an attitude toward it.
> Stockhausen, Xenakis Boulez were to Partch the great enemy regardless
> if they used microtones are not. It was the attitude toward microtones
> that mattered, once upon a time.
>
> >
>
>
>

Thanks for the interesting clarifications, Kraig!

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> The term microtonalist once meant more than it means now.and often
> this meant different things in different areas.
> It was a movement or attitude that Pitch still had a place in music
> and that through pitch developments were maybe the most important.
It
> was possibly a bit reactionary against all the talk about all the
> parameters being equal etc. Which I am sorry to say seems to have
> failed. It also ventured into the area that through pitch new
> structural possibilities as well as new coloristic and emotional
> qualities.
> In the pursuit was the implication that how new materials in the
> visual arts would lead to new types of music, new scales would also
> have to be treated differently.
> Cage did not consider himself a microtonalist.
> He responded to Erv Wilson once that he was not interested in
pitch.
> So he possibly saw the term the same way. So historically the term
> did not mean the use of microtones but an attitude toward it.
> Stockhausen, Xenakis Boulez were to Partch the great enemy
regardless
> if they used microtones are not. It was the attitude toward
microtones
> that mattered, once upon a time.
>
> >
>

Back to this one...

J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:

>> Vicentino was certainly a microtonalist because he wrote music that >> depended on the extra notes being there.
> > The microtonal cause in the XVI century existed to provide enharmonic
> notes rather than to play intervals substantially smaller than 100 cents,
> just look at Vicentino's Archicembalo's layout! ... This obviously makes
> the definition more complex when extended to the early period.

If you look at Vicentino's treatise, you'll see he wrote out a full 24 note scale. Whatever the archicembalo was designed for, this is clearly microtonal thinking to me. He did use small melodic intervals in his enharmonic music. It's also a fact that the adapted enharmonic scale didn't catch on, and so remains an isolated experiment.

Graham