info on Riley and Johnston pieces

I found the following on the internet
(http://www.dsv.su.se/~fk/DSP/tones.txt) -- can anyone tell us more,
especially about the tunings?

>Just intonation on the piano (or in any system restricted to 12 pitches
>per octave) is indeed severely limited in terms of harmonic mobility,
but
>there are some interesting pieces for piano in JI: Terry Riley's "The
>Harp of New Albion" is beautiful (Riley manages to increase the
effective
>number of pitches per octave in this 5-limit tuning by using the
interval
>225/128 as a convincing approximation 7/4.) Ben Johnston's "Suite for
>Microtonal Piano" uses a 19-limit tuning which transforms the piano
into
>an entirely new instrument. I was lucky enough to hear an excellent
>performance of this piece; I was floored by it, almost literally. The
>sound of complex harmonies without any beating, on the piano, is like a
>suspension of time; I nearly fell out of my chair a few times.
>Unfortunately, this piece has not been commercially recorded. Both of
>these pieces use modality to provide harmonic structure: this seems to
be
>the inevitable solution to the limitation of 12 pitches per octave.
The
>Riley piece also makes extensive use of "wolf" intervals.
[...]
>Jeff Soo

"Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com> writes:

>I found the following on the internet
>(http://www.dsv.su.se/~fk/DSP/tones.txt) -- can anyone tell us more,
>especially about the tunings?
>
>>Just intonation on the piano (or in any system restricted to 12
pitches
>>per octave) is indeed severely limited in terms of harmonic mobility,
>but
>>there are some interesting pieces for piano in JI: Terry Riley's "The

>>Harp of New Albion" is beautiful (Riley manages to increase the
>effective
>>number of pitches per octave in this 5-limit tuning by using the
>interval
>>225/128 as a convincing approximation 7/4.)

>From the liner notes:

1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/6 5/3 16/9 15/8

>>Ben Johnston's "Suite for
>>Microtonal Piano" uses a 19-limit tuning which transforms the piano
>into
>>an entirely new instrument. I was lucky enough to hear an excellent
>>performance of this piece; I was floored by it, almost literally. The

>>sound of complex harmonies without any beating, on the piano, is like
a
>>suspension of time; I nearly fell out of my chair a few times.
>>Unfortunately, this piece has not been commercially recorded.

Suite for Microtonal Piano is on
Ben Johnston: Music for Piano, Koch 3-7369-2-H1
1997

IMHO The Sonata for Microtonal Piano is a more
interesting piece.

from the liner notes:

"...there are 81 different pitches, providing a
piano with almost no consonant octaves."

I always wanted to know exactly how *this* piano is tuned!
Anybody know?

The Sonata is on the same Koch CD with the Suite.
It was also released on the New World anthology
Sound Forms for Piano in 1976, in 1995 on CD
with works by Cowell, Cage (Sonatas and Interludes)
and Nancarrow.

* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

>>Terry Riley's "The

>>Harp of New Albion" is beautiful (Riley manages to increase the
>effective
>>number of pitches per octave in this 5-limit tuning by using the
>interval
>>225/128 as a convincing approximation 7/4.)

>From the liner notes:

>1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/6 5/3 16/9 15/8

Assuming the 8/6 is really 8/5, this is just the Modern Indian Gamut
(not surprising considering Riley's background):

5/3-------5/4------15/8
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
16/9-------4/3-------1/1-------3/2-------9/8
/ \ / \ / \ /
/ \ / \ / \ /
/ \ / \ / \ /
/ \ / \ / \ /
64/45-----16/15------8/5-------6/5

Using 225/128 as 7/4 means allowing shifts of 225:224, so 5/3 can be
used as 224/135, 5/4 can be used as 56/45, 15/8 can be used as 28/15,
64/45 can be used as 10/7, 16/15 can be used as 15/7, and 8/5 can be
used as 45/28, turning a 12-function 5-limit tuning into an 18-function
7- or 9-limit tuning with a maximum error of 8 cents:

5/3-------5/4------15/8
/ \`. ,'/ \`. ,'/ \`.
/ \10/7-/---\15/7-/---\45/28
/ \ | / \ / \ |
/ \|/ \ / \|
16/9-------4/3-------1/1-------3/2-------9/8
/|\ /|\ / \ /
/ | \ / | \ / \ /
224/135----56/45-----28/15\ / \ /
`. /,' `.\ /,' `.\ / \ /
64/45-----16/15------8/5-------6/5

This can be improved by distributing the errors; e.g., in 72-tET the
225/224 approximation applies but all 7-limit intervals are off by under
3 cents and all 9-limit intervals are off by under 4 cents.

"Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

>>>Terry Riley's "The
>>>Harp of New Albion" is beautiful (Riley manages to increase the
>>effective
>>>number of pitches per octave in this 5-limit tuning by using the
>>interval
>>>225/128 as a convincing approximation 7/4.)
>
>
>>From the liner notes:
>
>>1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/6 5/3 16/9 15/8
>
>Assuming the 8/6 is really 8/5, this is just the Modern Indian Gamut
>(not surprising considering Riley's background):

You're right. The 8/6 should be an 8/5.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
>>>From the liner notes:
>
>>1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/6 5/3 16/9 15/8
>
>Assuming the 8/6 is really 8/5, this is just the Modern Indian Gamut
>(not surprising considering Riley's background):
<

Actually, in Hindustani and Karnatic musics you'll find 27/16 much more
often than 5/3. Vina frets bear this out (in order to play the 5/3, it has
to be bent up from the flat Dha). My guess is that this, at least in
Karnatic music, is due to a higher priority for consistancy between the
tetrachords. 5/3 does sometimes appear, however, in almost always striking
contexts in both traditions, typically as part of a gamaka connecting the
upper octave Sa to Dha.

Further, in most of the Karnatic ragas with # Ma, it should be 45/32 and
not 64/45. In spite of the implications of the 72 melakarta scheme, in
practice, a raga like Kalyani is tuned as if were a 9/8 disjunction from
Sa to Ri followed by two conjunct tetrachords,

One of the interesting aspects of Riley's piece is that -- please correct
me if I'm wrong about this as I haven't a copy of the recording, which
didn't do much justice to the piece -- each movement treats a different
pitch as tonic, but I believe that the 1/1 (c#) is never used. This forces
him to do some relatively subtle things.

That brings me back to a point about minimalism which ought to be made.
Many of the landmark works of early minimalism used as simple a surface
(i.e. the "notes") as possible in order to make it possible to hear
phenomena that were not normally in the perceptual domain of traditional
concert music. This required radical shifts in the ways one listened to
music. In the cases of Young or Lucier, this meant completely abandoning
the traditonal parameterization, while in the case of Tom Johnson, it meant
ignoring the semantic content of the acoustical objects. It is clear that
many listeners never made those shifts, but that is a matter of individual
preference, and one requiring the strength to go against almost everything
else presented by ones culture. (Good analogies may be found in the
reception of the visual installations of a Walter De Maria or a Robert
Irwin) I happen to find it regretable that composers certain composers
would themselves draw the consequence that their success was predicated on
the simplicity or tonality of the surface, and turn to composition that
increasingly represented those predelictions. This unhappy misreading of
theiry own early practices is sadly an oft-repeated pattern in music
history.

In agreement with Dan Wolf's post,
concerning Karnatic music,
I've always heard Ravi Shankar's #MA
as clearly 45:32.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I would have to disagree because in fact Shankars Sa is a 17/16 fellas at C#

Joseph L Monzo wrote:

> From: Joseph L Monzo <monz@juno.com>
>
> In agreement with Dan Wolf's post,
> concerning Karnatic music,
> I've always heard Ravi Shankar's #MA
> as clearly 45:32.
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have a new web site! http://www.onelist.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
>
<From: Joseph L Monzo <monz@juno.com>
<
<I've always heard Ravi Shankar's #MA
<as clearly 45:32.

I don't hear much intonational consistancy in his playing. More
interesting altogether are what the Hindustani vocalists (esp. the Drupad
and Kirana specialists) are up to, the best using several distinct pitches
at this sruti.

Daniel Wolf

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
>From: Patrick Pagano <ppagano@bellsouth.net>
>
>I would have to disagree because in fact Shankars Sa is a 17/16 fellas at
C#
<

I think you've really misunderstood something here! Like a great many
players and singers in both Indian classical traditions, but not all,
Shankar uses a pitch near our C# as his Sa. That pitch is his 1/1. When he
plays a rag with a sharpened Ma, one of the pitches he uses is a 45/32
above this 1/1.

Actually, I've run into quite a few Partchians who make the same sort of
mistake in confusing interval ratios with absolute pitches.

Recalling a few of your previous postings, Mr. Pagano, I think you ought to
think a bit more about the issue of absolute pitches. Tessitura is indeed
important, especially for voices and stretrched strings, but the frequency
numbers themselves have no biological significance, much like the time unit
used to measure them. In some settings, particularly with amplification,
it may be useful to use the key of the local electrical current, but that
gives no additional meaning to those frequencies. While some ultra- and
infra-sonic frequency bands can be used to disturb or damage organic
functions, to the best of my knowlege the only absolute audio frequency in
the central musical range that has recognized biological significance is
that which renders Carlsberg Elefant Bier undrinkable.

Oh yes
I must have misunderstood your beginning context.
If you consider it the 17/16 his 1/1 of course it is 45/32 as the Ma Tivra
though I personally might prefer the 17/12 from the 1/1. But don't forget guys
that the 27/20 the 10th sruti and the 64/45 the twelfth are close as well. so
you cannot say the he's always playing a 45/32. But again I am not sure of the
full discussion. I would have to disagree about the significance of some
particular ratios-- So Daniel your saying if I am tuned to 60hz. the bier will
Bflat hah!
Cheers
Pat

Daniel Wolf wrote:

> From: Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
> >From: Patrick Pagano <ppagano@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >I would have to disagree because in fact Shankars Sa is a 17/16 fellas at
> C#
> <
>
> I think you've really misunderstood something here! Like a great many
> players and singers in both Indian classical traditions, but not all,
> Shankar uses a pitch near our C# as his Sa. That pitch is his 1/1. When he
> plays a rag with a sharpened Ma, one of the pitches he uses is a 45/32
> above this 1/1.
>
> Actually, I've run into quite a few Partchians who make the same sort of
> mistake in confusing interval ratios with absolute pitches.
>
> Recalling a few of your previous postings, Mr. Pagano, I think you ought to
> think a bit more about the issue of absolute pitches. Tessitura is indeed
> important, especially for voices and stretrched strings, but the frequency
> numbers themselves have no biological significance, much like the time unit
> used to measure them. In some settings, particularly with amplification,
> it may be useful to use the key of the local electrical current, but that
> gives no additional meaning to those frequencies. While some ultra- and
> infra-sonic frequency bands can be used to disturb or damage organic
> functions, to the best of my knowlege the only absolute audio frequency in
> the central musical range that has recognized biological significance is
> that which renders Carlsberg Elefant Bier undrinkable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
> to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
> select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

>>>From the liner notes:
>
>>>1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/6 5/3 16/9 15/8
>

I wrote,

>>Assuming the 8/6 is really 8/5, this is just the Modern Indian Gamut
>>(not surprising considering Riley's background):

Daniel Wolf wrote,

>Actually, in Hindustani and Karnatic musics you'll find 27/16 much
more
>often than 5/3. Vina frets bear this out (in order to play the 5/3, it
has
>to be bent up from the flat Dha). My guess is that this, at least in
>Karnatic music, is due to a higher priority for consistancy between
the
>tetrachords. 5/3 does sometimes appear, however, in almost always
striking
>contexts in both traditions, typically as part of a gamaka connecting
the
>upper octave Sa to Dha.

>Further, in most of the Karnatic ragas with # Ma, it should be 45/32
and
>not 64/45. In spite of the implications of the 72 melakarta scheme,
in
>practice, a raga like Kalyani is tuned as if were a 9/8 disjunction
from
>Sa to Ri followed by two conjunct tetrachords,

Daniel, we are both correct. I meant that the lattice diagram of the two
scales has the same shape. What I neglected to mention is that the
Riley's 4/3 is the Indian 1/1. With this proviso, can we say we are in
agreement?

Daniel Wolf wrote:

>
> Recalling a few of your previous postings, Mr. Pagano, I think you ought to
> think a bit more about the issue of absolute pitches. Tessitura is indeed
> important, especially for voices and stretrched strings, but the frequency
> numbers themselves have no biological significance, much like the time unit
> used to measure them. In some settings, particularly with amplification,
> it may be useful to use the key of the local electrical current, but that
> gives no additional meaning to those frequencies. While some ultra- and
> infra-sonic frequency bands can be used to disturb or damage organic
> functions, to the best of my knowlege the only absolute audio frequency in
> the central musical range that has recognized biological significance is
> that which renders Carlsberg Elefant Bier undrinkable.

I basically agree with you here except there was a doctor (name lost at
moment) who did research on the resonant frequencies of various viruses and
achieved good results. I for one noticed that the frequency he had for well
being worked. Notes are lost.
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
>I basically agree with you here except there was a doctor (name lost at
moment) who did research on the resonant frequencies of various viruses and
achieved good results. I for one noticed that the frequency he had for well
being worked. Notes are lost.
-- Kraig Grady<

KG:

Find those notes! You could be sitting on top of a fortune in the
'wellness' business. If aroma therapy can make it, why not something with
sound? I propose that we honor Ivor Darreg and call it Darreg Acoustical
Frequency Therapy, or DAFT for short....

Seriously, though, I would not be surprised if composite waveforms were
found to have specific neurological effects, but single frequencies,
whether related to biological clocks or resonant frequencies, are probably
going to vary greatly from from individual to individual and then over
time, so we are really talking about frequency bands not single
frequencies*. I'm out of my league here, but are viruses so uniform in
size that particular strains have fixed resonance frequencies, or are
these fixed rates of oscillation of some sort?

DJW

* A good example of this is to be found on the Lovely Music recording of
Alvin Lucier's _Music for Solo Performer_, where the two performances (by
Lucier and Pauline Oliveros) have strikingly different alpha wave frequency
ranges.