Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Confused Xenophonia

>HOWEVER, could someone please fill me in a little on the EDO, tET situation
>from the viewpoint of TEMPERAMENT??
>
>It seems that some people were saying that all equal-division scales of the
>octave could be considered "tempered?" Is this right??

Actually, I believe the issue was that a term besides tET is needed to
refer to tunings that are equal divisions of the octave, but are not being
used as a temperament -- that is, not being used to approximate JI (or some
other set of special intervals).

EDO is one popular solution. I suggested "x-cent equal" (as in 100-cent
equal), or "xth root of n tuning" (as in 12th root of 2). Another idea is
to simply substitute "tuning" for "temperament" in tET (12-tone equal
tuning), or omit the last "T" completely (12-tone equal).

>I'm assuming all our "common" ones like 19-tET and 31-tET are tempered since
>they are vainly trying to approximate just intonation. Are there others that
>are clearly NOT to be considered attempting that aim?

Some would say that 19 and 31 are only temperaments if you use them that
way. Others might say that JI is such a fundamental part of human hearing
that these tunings will be heard in terms of JI no matter how they are
used; a dissonant jumble would indistinguishable from a dissonant jumble in
any other tuning.

-Carl

🔗alves@xxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

>Actually, I believe the issue was that a term besides tET is needed to
>refer to tunings that are equal divisions of the octave, but are not being
>used as a temperament -- that is, not being used to approximate JI (or some
>other set of special intervals).

Whether an interval is used as an approximation to JI or arrived at by some
other means ultimately depends on the intentions of the composer and the
musical context and is not always very clear. One cannot tell simply by
looking at the divisions. For this reason I see nothing wrong with
continuing with the traditional (certainly not "bizarre" as one
correspondent characterized it) definition of a tempered interval as one
defined by an irrational ratio.

While I'm at it, some people have made the claim that, to the "person on
the street," microtonality means any music different from 12TET. I must
say, this is not my experience. When teaching students who only vaguely
know of any alternatives to 12TET, I have found that they nearly invariably
assume that "microtonality" refers to very small intervals, i.e. smaller
than a semitone. It makes sense: "micro" in every other word they're
familiar with means "very small," so why not here? It would be like trying
to convince them that "micromanage" should refer to any unusual management
style.

When I introduce other tuning systems like meantone or JI without very
small intervals, they really don't know what to call it, other than "other
tunings." When one of my students refers to Arabian or Iranian music as
"microtonal," on questioning, it is because of microtonal pitch inflections
and ornamentation, not the neutral third. With all respect to the
interesting title of Johnny's radio show, it would NEVER occur to them, or
to my colleagues in the music department, to call Bach "microtonal," even
if they knew he was not using 12TET. I see no reason to try to convince
them otherwise.

I'm also uncomfortable with "xenharmonic" because it highlights the
"strangeness" of the difference, which may have been something Darreg,
McLaren, and others prize, but to me is not necessarily a musical priority.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ken Wauchope's "allotonal," which to me
is much better, though still requires explanation to those the
non-cognoscenti. I will probably go on using "other tuning systems" or
"alternate tunings," and the whole EDO, UDI, NDO, FBI, CIA, MOUSE has left
me in confusion.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

[Carl Lumma:]
Another idea is to simply substitute "tuning" for "temperament" in tET
(12-tone equal tuning), or omit the last "T" completely (12-tone
equal).

For quite awhile I've been using just "e" (i.e., 12e, etc.) which I
guess could also be seen as taking this 'acronym pruning' one step
further (it's also just a lot quicker to write when your repeatedly
citing it), but for others I guess there would be some question as to
whether or not this is clear (or 'attractive') enough...

>Some would say that 19 and 31 are only temperaments if you use them
that way. Others might say that JI is such a fundamental part of
human hearing that these tunings will be heard in terms of JI no
matter how they are used; a dissonant jumble would indistinguishable
from a dissonant jumble in any other tuning.

I think that 5 & 7e are good examples of equal divisions that are
pretty easy to get in your ear (so to speak) just as they are (more or
less). And while I often use JI comparative means to look at and
describe tunings like 20e (and whatnot), I'm also convinced that equal
divisions can be seen as having a recognizable (i.e., distinguishable
from simple ratios) sound all their own, and that that sound is
sometimes not best see in JI comparative terms... And while I might
not want to be put to a "tune 'em by ear test," that doesn't mean that
I can't 'hear them.'

Generally speaking, it has been my experience that I really only tend
to hear them (distinct sounding fractions of an octave) as
'distortions' of simple ratios in an analytical (or isolated) tuning
context, and that when I hear them in an integrated musical context
they often strike me in any of a number of ways... But then again the
basic premise of an expanded and musically contextual intonation --
where more "out of tune" might or might not be just as good or useful
as more "in tune" -- was what led me stumbling into microtonality in
the first place; "into" microtonality and not necessarily "out of"
12e... in other words I intuitively knew that I wanted more 'colors,'
but this was not necessarily impelled by a 'psychoacoustic' or aural
dissatisfaction with those of 12e. But I know for others, it was
indeed more of fundamental desire (or need) to sing or play or be "in
tune" that led them away from twelve tone equal temperament... It's
always seemed interesting to me to contemplate how much these things
effect the ways we go about describing and (even more so) using what
we hear.

Dan

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>I'm assuming all our "common" ones like 19-tET and 31-tET are tempered
since
>they are vainly trying to approximate just intonation. Are there others
that
>are clearly NOT to be considered attempting that aim?

I might put Balzano's 20- (and 30-, 42-, etc) tone equal divisions of the
octave into that category (read his paper). Also Goldsmith's 16-equal. BOth
Goldsmith and Balzano saw totally non-JI-related properties of the major
scale and 12-equal as important, and extrapolated from there. But they
forgot that the octave is a JI interval too! Since the octave is a JI
interval, the only example I can think of that is clearly trying to avoid
all JI implications is John Chowning's tuning in Stria. Chowning bases the
tuning on the Golden Ratio, which is the irrational number hardest to
approximate with fractions of any given level of complexity, and divides it
into 9 equal parts. Still, many approximate JI intervals happen to be found
in his tuning, including a near-octave of 1203 cents! (I don't know; maybe
he chose 9 equal parts so he _would_ get that near-octave. Anyone know?)

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

In a message dated 1/4/00 1:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu writes:

<< When one of my students refers to Arabian or Iranian music as
"microtonal," on questioning, it is because of microtonal pitch inflections
and ornamentation, not the neutral third. With all respect to the
interesting title of Johnny's radio show, it would NEVER occur to them, or
to my colleagues in the music department, to call Bach "microtonal," even
if they knew he was not using 12TET. I see no reason to try to convince
them otherwise. >>

As the professor, you produce the new concepts for your students. If you
persist in thinking of microtonal intervals as -_only_ tiny intervals, you
miss a bigger picture, and you deprive your students. If the students do not
know how to label a neutral third, it is because you have not taught them.
The words microtone and microtonal and microtonality are fairly recent terms
with limited communicability.

Each word is a concept and we certainly do not share these concepts. That is
why you have lost interest in the discussion on precise nomenclature. And in
that, I agree with you.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗Bill Alves <alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu>

>From: Afmmjr@aol.com
>
>As the professor, you produce the new concepts for your students. If you
>persist in thinking of microtonal intervals as -_only_ tiny intervals, you
>miss a bigger picture, and you deprive your students. If the students do not
>know how to label a neutral third, it is because you have not taught them.
>The words microtone and microtonal and microtonality are fairly recent terms
>with limited communicability.

Johnny,

I don't think I'm "depriving" my students by prefering a different (and
more intuitive I believe) terminology than that which you prefer. By
calling non-12TET systems "alternate tunings" (or simply "non-12TET
tunings") instead of "microtonal" ones, the bigger picture is still there,
minus the confusion. As a teacher, I have no problem with providing
students with new or more precise definitions of terms they may imprecisely
use in general conversation -- "song," "rhythm," "key" -- but, to me,
"microtone" already has a definition that developed historically via
Carillo and others and that students intuitively grasp. I see no reason to
presume to change that. "Polytonality," "serialism," and "aleatory" are
also recent terms, but they have no less an accepted definition for that.
And by the way, I never said that my students were unable to label a
neutral third. I said that their use of the word "microtonal" did not refer
to the neutral third, but to other, sub-semitonal intervals. I would not
teach them that the neutral third is a microtone, but rather that it is
another interval that cannot be found in 12TET.

Bill

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Bill, it appears we have a different conceptual basis for the material we've
been talking about on the list. My concept is no less intuitive to me than
yours is to you.

Firstly, your preference for the 12TET model as the basis for theoretical
discussion is at odds with my inability to find a single model for
measurement. Even the overtone series is but a single possibility.
Determined to have a meaning that is cross-cultural requires a different
approach. I do use 1200TET as a tool for measuring, but not as a theoretical
essence for tuning.

Secondly, I am challenging the perception that you have that Carrillo coined
the terms in question. Carrillo's "thirteenth sound" is a violinist's
left-hand index finger on the nut of the violin's G-string, producing a pitch
a 16th tone higher than the open G. This new pitch for violinist Carrillo
opened the flood gates of his 96TET ideal. I am appealing to all on this
list to find any evidence at all connecting Carrillo with "micro" prefixed
terms. While is incremental approach to composition might seem to amplify a
"tiny" tone affection, students listening to this are no more opened up to
the storehouse of new intervals with profound affects.

Previously, I spoke of an evolution for the term "microtonal," and some have
dismissed it fairly out of hand. Though I had also though, and published,
that Carrillo coined these terms, I am admitting I think I was wrong. I hope
the list can assist in tracing the true etymology of the term. I believe
Ezra Sims recanted on his early Harvard article as well (through faintly
remembered early conversations we held).

In an attempt to explain my concept of the evolving term, I offer the
following chart.

1. The term microtone is a new, foreign pitch, small in size, placed between
the diesis of a culturally-accepted system of tuning. It originates from the
early meaning of "enharmonic" before its meaning was reduced to an identity.

2. Once the accurate measurement can be made of the tiniest of intervals, by
extension, each diesis of a culturally-accepted system of tuning, can have
its microtones. When measuring between any designated microtone and any
other conventional tone, a microtonal interval is established. The meaning
has now evolved to include all musical tones that are not part of convention.

3. When a cultural model is used for measurement, than it is not possible to
communicate with musicians using different tone relationships. A traveling
musician soon realizes that there are different musical realities in
different cultures. In order to communicate on a theoretical level, cognates
are welcome. Even in France, the term "just intonation" is a false congnate.
"L'intonation juste" means accurate 12TET.

4. As perhaps anticipated by Varese, there is a continuum of sound and
points can be set anywhere on the line of pitch frequency. There is no need
for moralizing about which are the "real" ones or the "legitimate" ones. All
musical tone relationships have legitimacy, especially in light of the fact
that absolute pitch is an illusion. Pitch standardizing, diverse throughout
the world, means no single pitch has any specific name, except in its
relationship to a standard.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗alves@xxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

>Bill, it appears we have a different conceptual basis for the material we've
>been talking about on the list. My concept is no less intuitive to me than
>yours is to you.

I have no doubt of that, but my post concerned mainly what was intuitive to
my students and other musicians of my acquaintance.
>
>Firstly, your preference for the 12TET model as the basis for theoretical
>discussion is at odds with my inability to find a single model for
>measurement.

I am sensitive to the ways in which terminology can help build the walls of
a ghetto, as in "ethnomusicology," and yet I still use "ethnomusicology"
and "non-Western" because, not it is often necessary as a practical matter
to reference things other than the expected norm. Nevertheless, whenever
possible, I speak of the ideal of treating musical systems of all cultures
on equal footing, just as it should be with pitch systems. So, while I do
use "alternate tuning" when I need to express to my students or to those
who hear my work that this music differs from the standard they are used
to, I do look forward to the utopia in which such distinctions are
unnecessary.

However, I am curious about your own use of "microtonality." It seems that
you were using the reviewers you quoted to back up your own definition, and
yet they were making the same "preference for the 12TET model" that you
deplore:

"'Microtonal music' means any kind of music that
ventures beyond the fixed 12 notes of the conventional chromatic scale."

"The term microtone simply refers to the notes
that exist between the 12 pitches that somewhat arbitrarily divide the
standard octave."

(Actually the quote of Kozinn seems to back up the definition I prefer.)

These definitions seem to be that "microtonality" refers to anything other
than 12TET, which is the same thing as my "alternate tunings," reference to
the 12TET model and all. At other times, I seem to recall that you have
included 12TET in "microtonality," which, to repeat Dan Wolf, means that
the term loses all meaning. So, which is it? Does your definition of
"microtonality" exclude 12TET (in which case, the above quotes don't really
support your definition and you are also using 12TET as a model) or does it
include 12TET (in which case one might as well call it the "American
Festival of Pitched Music")?
>
>Secondly, I am challenging the perception that you have that Carrillo coined
>the terms in question.

I never expressed a perception that Carillo coined the terms in question. I
merely said that our use of the term has historically come via Carillo and
others, meaning that most of the alternate tuning experiments in the first
half or so of the twentieth century have involved intervals smaller than a
semitone, and "microtonality" was coined (by whom I don't know) to describe
this trend.

By the way, a "microphone" does not make a "small" sound louder. That's the
job of the amplifier. A microphone responds to "tiny sounds" and transduces
them.

Lastly, I don't wish to denigrate or make light of other's well-thought
uses of terms and inventions of new ones, and I apologize if I've given
that impression. Johnny is free, as is anyone on the list, to use terms in
ways they think are best for communicating their ideas. My responses are
merely my defense of my own preferences -- as well as defenses to the
impressions that I haven't taught my students well, that I prefer to take
12TET as a single model, and that I think that Carillo invented the term
"microtonality." While I cannot here further defend the quality of my
teaching, I hope I have cleared up the rest.

Bill

🔗Can Akkoc <akkoc@xxxx.xxxx>

At 20:40 1/4/00 EST, you wrote:
>From: Afmmjr@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 1/4/00 1:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu writes:
>
><< When one of my students refers to Arabian or Iranian music as
> "microtonal," on questioning, it is because of microtonal pitch inflections
> and ornamentation, not the neutral third. With all respect to the
> interesting title of Johnny's radio show, it would NEVER occur to them, or
> to my colleagues in the music department, to call Bach "microtonal," even
> if they knew he was not using 12TET. I see no reason to try to convince
> them otherwise. >>
>
>As the professor, you produce the new concepts for your students. If you
>persist in thinking of microtonal intervals as -_only_ tiny intervals, you
>miss a bigger picture, and you deprive your students. If the students do
not
>know how to label a neutral third, it is because you have not taught them.
>The words microtone and microtonal and microtonality are fairly recent terms
>with limited communicability.
>
>Each word is a concept and we certainly do not share these concepts. That
is
>why you have lost interest in the discussion on precise nomenclature. And
in
>that, I agree with you.
>
>Johnny Reinhard
>AFMM
>
############################################################################

I have been making measurements (pitch tracking) on improvisations (taksim)
made by master musicians of traditional Turkish music. My findings include
'smears' of sizes 60-80 cents clustered around a finite set of 'anchor'
sounds forming the underlying modal scale. I find it hard to dismiss such
deviations as 'ornamentation'. Instead, I truly believe, such dispersions
are part of a grand dynamic temperament with its own stochastic patterns
and 'laws'.

Happy new year!!!
Dr. Can Akkoc
Alabama School of Mathematics and Science
1255 Dauphin Street
Mobile, AL 36604
USA

Phone: (334) 441-2126
Fax: (334) 441-3290
Web: http://199.20.31.100/GIFT/

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

Bill, sorry to make you feel so defensive when I speak straight from the hip
about the term microtonality. My intention in printing the quotes was to
demonstrate that at least in this part of the world, the limited definition
of "microtone" relegated only to an interval smaller than a semitone has been
superseded in the northeast USA.

The journalists themselves are not microtonalists, nor are they even
musicians (as it's part of their job description). They are reiterating what
I have said, that the power of microtonal music comes as much or more from
the larger intervals that are distinctive, than it does from the tiny
ant-like relationships.

These quotes reflect a cultural definition of microtonal music, though
clearly my culture is the New York megalopolis. I am a native New Yorker,
not too common actually among musicians practicing here (as a matter of fact).

Now, as a practicing microtonalist (performer, composer, producer, writer,
educator, et al.) I have an insight other than a newspaper critic. I can
conceive of a tolerance for all the different approaches, much as you have.
Ethnomusicology started as "Comparative Musicology" in Germany. It soon was
recognized as no more than "them compared to us," and was then idealized
further into Ethnomusicology. It still certainly falls short as a term, but
that is a discussion in itself.

In striving to achieve a cross-cultural perspective, I idealize that _all
music_ is microtonal. It is achieved through the simple process of
extension, used everywhere on this list. Just as any note from any note is
sensible, so all are sensible, comparable only to a scripted model. It could
be any model and need not require reference.

The term does not lose meaning when the musics connected by the term receive
concerts, previously unavailable or exceedingly rare.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Confused Xenophonia

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@xxx.xxxx>

🔗alves@xxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Bill Alves <alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗alves@xxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗Can Akkoc <akkoc@xxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx