Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Ambissonance

But intervals and chords don't exist "as they are", "an sich", as some pure ideal theoretical abstract entities. They are used in quite concrete music situation in the work, and every work has some historical and cultural background and concrete position. Therefore it's impossible to identify and mathematically evaluate them as pure dissonances or consonances.

If so then all intervals or chords are ambisonant because their identification as consonance/dissonance depend strongly on compositional, historical, cultural and educational (listener's personal music knowledge and listening experience, even his/her emotional state) context :-) And also on tuning.

For example: major ninth or major seventh definitely aren't consonant, but Scriabin used paralel movement in these interval for a melody in such harmonic context that it can be received as consonance (Etudes op. 65/1 + 2).
Or opposite - perfect fourths and fifths in the context when they sound dissonantly when mixed with chords of triadic structure (Etude op. 65/3).

Major seventh was considered dissonance in the Classicism, used in final cadence - for example C-D-F-B (or C-F-G-B) resolved to C-E-G-C. But jazz 7maj chords are now very consonant chords in the comparison with much more dissonant chords, and this chord is used even as a final chord.

Or tritones can be very dissonant, but when used as a part of whole tone scale, or in Lydian scale or as a simulation of 7th or 11th harmonic they sound consonant.

Also even very dissonant music can be well accepted as a part of multimedia (film, incidental music) but will be not accepted as autonome music work... Which probably have some link to psychoacoustics.

Daniel Forro

On 24 Jan 2010, at 4:18 AM, c_ml_forster wrote:

>
> Ambissonance: from the Greek "amphi-" as in
> amphibian, and from the Latin "ambi-" as in
> ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean `on
> both sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two
> prefixes mean `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the
> musical experience of ambissonance, the source
> that inspires new ways to hear, and then new ways
> to tune and to compose.
>
> Ambissonance is the experience of hearing with
> awe; hearing the familiar for the first time, with the
> sudden realization that what is heard is neither a
> consonance nor a dissonance.
>
> Ambissonance is the experience of theory and
> practice combined, yet also of theory and practice
> transcended. Eventually, even after many years,
> ambissonance may resolve to consonance, or to
> dissonance.
>
> Ambissonance: I can identify it as a mathematical
> ratio, and I can identify it as a musical interval, but I
> also know that what I am hearing I do not
> completely understand, hence the experience of
> awe.
>
> Cris Forster
>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...>

🔗hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...>

Dear Chris (and Jacque),

Chris, I like this term 'ambissonance' a lot, and I wonder
if you are coining it here or if it has been published
somewhere, because I here confess my ignorance not
having not seen it before. I would like to incorporate it
into my writings and if you have a citation that would be
great.

I have used the term 'ambi' for many years to describe intervals
which others call 'neutral', which incidentally you mentioned,
Jacque, the 'neutral 3rd' I don't ever call it that but instead I
call it an 'ambi-third' because it can sound major or minor
depending on how it is used. Those who would disagree, put
it in a musical context and find out!

I like your openness, and I agree the sense of wonder
is a gift of being, not to be missed. The wise try hard to
become again like children.

Cheers,
AAH
=====

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
> I like this word "ambissonance", besides that it is easy to
> understand in french (though I never heard it before), because it
> supports some very musical ideas and I feel in resonance with the way
> you express it.
> My experience is that music opens a plurality of listening levels :
> fundamentals, overtones, difference tones, and even rhythms, which,
> when united, awake sensations of harmony.
> I know also that in order to link these different levels of
> listening, what we think and sense in music as single tones would
> often need to be, on the physical level, double, or triple or more.
> Tempered solutions do not change this fact, and only add more versions.
> These (for me) would all be "ambisonances".
> Just one simple example : in a diatonic major scale in C, the note
> A. How many sides it has ?
>
> In addition, I think that musicians unconsciously have a taste for
> ambiguous tones.
> The neutral third is an example, among so many.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Jacques
>
>
> > Ambissonance: from the Greek "amphi-" as in
> > amphibian, and from the Latin "ambi-" as in
> > ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean `on
> > both sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two
> > prefixes mean `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the
> > musical experience of ambissonance, the source
> > that inspires new ways to hear, and then new ways
> > to tune and to compose.
> >
> > Ambissonance is the experience of hearing with
> > awe; hearing the familiar for the first time, with the
> > sudden realization that what is heard is neither a
> > consonance nor a dissonance.
> >
> > Ambissonance is the experience of theory and
> > practice combined, yet also of theory and practice
> > transcended. Eventually, even after many years,
> > ambissonance may resolve to consonance, or to
> > dissonance.
> >
> > Ambissonance: I can identify it as a mathematical
> > ratio, and I can identify it as a musical interval, but I
> > also know that what I am hearing I do not
> > completely understand, hence the experience of
> > awe.
> >
> > Cris Forster
>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

Daniel,

Everything you said in your first few paragraphs is sensible, but your last paragraph unfortunately wanders into a pseudoscientific bog. Many people do not accept "very dissonant music" in autonomous art music, but many others do. I've performed for audiences of over a thousand people in festivals devoted to contemporary art music. Nobody was forcing the people to be there; they were coming of their own accord.

Most of these festivals are in Europe, but Europeans aren't wired any differently than Americans are. Culture and a lack of stable funding and infrastructure for new music in America limit public exposure to it. None of the standard Introduction to Music textbooks I've seen or taught from touches any of the harmonically adventurous trends in new music of the last forty years or so. People are unlikely to hear any of this music in a symphony or chamber concert in America. Most orchestras are in financial trouble and have given up completely on programming any adventurous new music. If they try, and a few dozen prominent patrons start shouting how much they hate new music, then the orchestra might go bankrupt.

Even with sufficient exposure to "dissonant" new music, many people will not like the music. But others will. This very fact lessens dramatically the likelihood that a scientific explanation can be found for the first group's violent dislike of the music. Unless, that is, the first group possesses a different genetic structure than the second group--let's call it the Rush Limbaugh gene--that causes them to shout in rage when they hear something they don't like.

yours,

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 1/24/10, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:

From: Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 10:41 AM

But intervals and chords don't exist "as they are", "an sich", as

some pure ideal theoretical abstract entities. They are used in

quite concrete music situation in the work, and every work has some

historical and cultural background and concrete position. Therefore

it's impossible to identify and mathematically evaluate them as pure

dissonances or consonances.

If so then all intervals or chords are ambisonant because their

identification as consonance/dissonan ce depend strongly on

compositional, historical, cultural and educational (listener's

personal music knowledge and listening experience, even his/her

emotional state) context :-) And also on tuning.

For example: major ninth or major seventh definitely aren't

consonant, but Scriabin used paralel movement in these interval for

a melody in such harmonic context that it can be received as

consonance (Etudes op. 65/1 + 2).

Or opposite - perfect fourths and fifths in the context when they

sound dissonantly when mixed with chords of triadic structure (Etude

op. 65/3).

Major seventh was considered dissonance in the Classicism, used in

final cadence - for example C-D-F-B (or C-F-G-B) resolved to C-E-G-C.

But jazz 7maj chords are now very consonant chords in the comparison

with much more dissonant chords, and this chord is used even as a

final chord.

Or tritones can be very dissonant, but when used as a part of whole

tone scale, or in Lydian scale or as a simulation of 7th or 11th

harmonic they sound consonant.

Also even very dissonant music can be well accepted as a part of

multimedia (film, incidental music) but will be not accepted as

autonome music work... Which probably have some link to psychoacoustics.

Daniel Forro

On 24 Jan 2010, at 4:18 AM, c_ml_forster wrote:

> Ambissonance: from the Greek "amphi-" as in

> amphibian, and from the Latin "ambi-" as in

> ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean `on

> both sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two

> prefixes mean `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the

> musical experience of ambissonance, the source

> that inspires new ways to hear, and then new ways

> to tune and to compose.

> Ambissonance is the experience of hearing with

> awe; hearing the familiar for the first time, with the

> sudden realization that what is heard is neither a

> consonance nor a dissonance.

> Ambissonance is the experience of theory and

> practice combined, yet also of theory and practice

> transcended. Eventually, even after many years,

> ambissonance may resolve to consonance, or to

> dissonance.

> Ambissonance: I can identify it as a mathematical

> ratio, and I can identify it as a musical interval, but I

> also know that what I am hearing I do not

> completely understand, hence the experience of

> awe.

> Cris Forster

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

well said, sir.

nothing to add of my own, just applauding.

On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Cox Franklin wrote:

>
> Daniel,
>
> Everything you said in your first few paragraphs is sensible, but
> your last paragraph unfortunately wanders into a pseudoscientific
> bog. Many people do not accept "very dissonant music" in autonomous
> art music, but many others do. I've performed for audiences of over
> a thousand people in festivals devoted to contemporary art music.
> Nobody was forcing the people to be there; they were coming of their
> own accord.
>
> Most of these festivals are in Europe, but Europeans aren't wired
> any differently than Americans are. Culture and a lack of stable
> funding and infrastructure for new music in America limit public
> exposure to it. None of the standard Introduction to Music textbooks
> I've seen or taught from touches any of the harmonically
> adventurous trends in new music of the last forty years or so.
> People are unlikely to hear any of this music in a symphony or > chamber concert in America. Most orchestras are in financial trouble
> and have given up completely on programming any adventurous new
> music. If they try, and a few dozen prominent patrons start
> shouting how much they hate new music, then the orchestra might go
> bankrupt.
>
> Even with sufficient exposure to "dissonant" new music, many people
> will not like the music. But others will. This very fact lessens
> dramatically the likelihood that a scientific explanation can be
> found for the first group's violent dislike of the music. Unless,
> that is, the first group possesses a different genetic structure
> than the second group--let's call it the Rush Limbaugh gene--that
> causes them to shout in rage when they hear something they don't like.
>
> yours,
>
> Franklin
>
>
>
> Dr. Franklin Cox
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> (937) 767-1165
> franklincox@...
>
> --- On Sun, 1/24/10, Daniel Forró <dan.for@tiscali.cz> wrote:
>
> From: Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Ambissonance
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 10:41 AM
>
>
> But intervals and chords don't exist "as they are", "an sich", as
> some pure ideal theoretical abstract entities. They are used in
> quite concrete music situation in the work, and every work has some
> historical and cultural background and concrete position. Therefore
> it's impossible to identify and mathematically evaluate them as pure
> dissonances or consonances.
>
> If so then all intervals or chords are ambisonant because their
> identification as consonance/dissonan ce depend strongly on
> compositional, historical, cultural and educational (listener's
> personal music knowledge and listening experience, even his/her
> emotional state) context :-) And also on tuning.
>
> For example: major ninth or major seventh definitely aren't
> consonant, but Scriabin used paralel movement in these interval for
> a melody in such harmonic context that it can be received as
> consonance (Etudes op. 65/1 + 2).
> Or opposite - perfect fourths and fifths in the context when they
> sound dissonantly when mixed with chords of triadic structure (Etude
> op. 65/3).
>
> Major seventh was considered dissonance in the Classicism, used in
> final cadence - for example C-D-F-B (or C-F-G-B) resolved to C-E-G-C.
> But jazz 7maj chords are now very consonant chords in the comparison
> with much more dissonant chords, and this chord is used even as a
> final chord.
>
> Or tritones can be very dissonant, but when used as a part of whole
> tone scale, or in Lydian scale or as a simulation of 7th or 11th
> harmonic they sound consonant.
>
> Also even very dissonant music can be well accepted as a part of
> multimedia (film, incidental music) but will be not accepted as
> autonome music work... Which probably have some link to
> psychoacoustics.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 24 Jan 2010, at 4:18 AM, c_ml_forster wrote:
>
> >
> > Ambissonance: from the Greek "amphi-" as in
> > amphibian, and from the Latin "ambi-" as in
> > ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean `on
> > both sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two
> > prefixes mean `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the
> > musical experience of ambissonance, the source
> > that inspires new ways to hear, and then new ways
> > to tune and to compose.
> >
> > Ambissonance is the experience of hearing with
> > awe; hearing the familiar for the first time, with the
> > sudden realization that what is heard is neither a
> > consonance nor a dissonance.
> >
> > Ambissonance is the experience of theory and
> > practice combined, yet also of theory and practice
> > transcended. Eventually, even after many years,
> > ambissonance may resolve to consonance, or to
> > dissonance.
> >
> > Ambissonance: I can identify it as a mathematical
> > ratio, and I can identify it as a musical interval, but I
> > also know that what I am hearing I do not
> > completely understand, hence the experience of
> > awe.
> >
> > Cris Forster
> >
>
>
>
>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

I can't see any variance in my and your statements, they are
compatible, you've just added something more to it. My experience is
the same as yours in my music life as multistyle composer and
performer of consonant or dissonant music :-).

Don't ask me about situation in accepting contemporary music
generally (consonant or dissonant) here in Japan. As everywhere in
the world, people expect only entertainment from the music. Music is
not art for them, they don't even know there can be a spiritual (and
intellectual) experience from it. But I think the main problem is in
bad education.

Yes, there are people hungry for new exciting experience in their life, be it anything (including music - and I don't mean superficial
or snobish hunger for fugitive fashions), and the other who are
satisfied with what they experienced before and want just to repeat
the same feelings. Maybe disliking/liking of some music is not
genetically based, but this basic attitude to the more adventurous
life style is. Mankind would be more far in the science and art if
the first group prevails.
But I believe that people can get used to dissonant new music, but
they must hear it since the early age, and it's connected with the
other education as well. It has something to do with the tolerance to
something unusual, it's a part of general attitude to the life. An
open-minded person with a lot of interests will accept something
unknown or different than their previous experience without
prejudices and bias. For example microtonal music :-)

Maybe I have used term "psychoacoustics" in a different sense here. I
wanted to say rather something like music psychology, or sociology.

Daniel Forró

On 25 Jan 2010, at 6:41 AM, Cox Franklin wrote:

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> But intervals and chords don't exist "as they are", "an sich",
> as some pure ideal theoretical abstract entities. They are
> used in quite concrete music situation in the work, and every
> work has some historical and cultural background and concrete
> position. Therefore it's impossible to identify and
> mathematically evaluate them as pure dissonances or consonances.

I don't agree. Psychoacoustic consonance is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for musical consonance. As such, it
explains something about harmony. And the theory of regular
temperament shows how scales are related to harmony.

> If so then all intervals or chords are ambisonant

Psychoacoustics research shows this is not the case.

> For example: major ninth or major seventh definitely aren't
> consonant,

In isolation we can quantify their consonance according to
their generalized Tenney height, i.e. in JI, 8:10:12:15 gives
(14400)^1/4 = 10.954. To evaluate tempered versions of the
chord we assume the 10.954 value goes up in proportion to the
average dyadic error (in cents) of the tuning.

> Major seventh was considered dissonance in the Classicism,
> used in final cadence - for example C-D-F-B (or C-F-G-B)
> resolved to C-E-G-C.

Yes, it was a "musical dissonance" in these forms.

> But jazz 7maj chords are now very consonant chords in the
> comparison with much more dissonant chords, and this chord
> is used even as a final chord.

Yes. And we can end on even more dissonant chords if we put
even MORE dissonant chords in the middle. The dissonance
we're talking about here is psychoacoustic dissonance. It's
the basis of musical contrasts.

The more dissonant your final chord is, the less contrast
there can be in your musical form, since there's nothing
'worse' to put in the middle. The available spectrum or
palette is determined in advance by the physiology of the
human hearing system, as understood through psychoacoustics.

> Or tritones can be very dissonant, but when used as a part
> of whole tone scale, or in Lydian scale or as a simulation of
> 7th or 11th harmonic they sound consonant.

The first two contexts may have to do with musical form but
the last has to do with the psychoacoustic fact that a 5:7
tritone in isolation is more dissonant than a 4:5:7 triad,
simply because it looks less like a harmonic series than
a 4:5:7 triad.

> Also even very dissonant music can be well accepted as a part
> of multimedia (film, incidental music) but will be not accepted
> as autonome music work... Which probably have some link to
> psychoacoustics.

Yes, this is an interesting observation. I have also found
it can be accepted in concert better than from a recording.

-Carl

🔗John Moriarty <JlMoriart@...>

In response to the concept of a neutral third, I would like to point you
towards a blog posting of mine. It addresses the ambiguous functions of
intervals who's widths represent more than one diatonic function across the
Syntonic Temperament. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_temperament) It
contains an audio example of 7 equal divisions of the octave where the major
and minor third land on the same width (about 342.86 cents). One would at
first think that the function will be ambiguous but, as I've found, one will
very strongly hear this third as major or minor simply depending on the
musical context. I also have a short excerpt of a piece of mine in 5-edo
that seems to function as if it had the full diatonic gamut at its disposal.
This is because each interval in 5-edo was functioning differently depending
on the musical context. This is comparable to how in 12-edo the minor third
and augmented second are the same width, yet we very clearly comprehend one
or the other at separate times depending on, once again, the musical
context. Here is the full post:
http://xenharmonic.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harmonicdiatonic-function I
realize this is not a concrete double blind study, but listening to the
audio examples yourself will, I think, make the point that the only thing
that makes an interval ambiguous is a lack of musical context and/or timbre.
John Moriarty --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hpiinstruments" <aaronhunt@...>
wrote: > > Dear Chris (and Jacque), > > Chris, I like this term
'ambissonance' a lot, and I wonder > if you are coining it here or if it has
been published > somewhere, because I here confess my ignorance not > having
not seen it before. I would like to incorporate it > into my writings and if
you have a citation that would be > great. > > I have used the term 'ambi'
for many years to describe intervals > which others call 'neutral', which
incidentally you mentioned, > Jacque, the 'neutral 3rd' I don't ever call it
that but instead I > call it an 'ambi-third' because it can sound major or
minor > depending on how it is used. Those who would disagree, put > it in a
musical context and find out! > > I like your openness, and I agree the
sense of wonder > is a gift of being, not to be missed. The wise try hard to
> become again like children. > > Cheers, > AAH > ===== > > --- In
tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris,
> > I like this word "ambissonance", besides that it is easy to > >
understand in french (though I never heard it before), because it > >
supports some very musical ideas and I feel in resonance with the way > >
you express it. > > My experience is that music opens a plurality of
listening levels : > > fundamentals, overtones, difference tones, and even
rhythms, which, > > when united, awake sensations of harmony. > > I know
also that in order to link these different levels of > > listening, what we
think and sense in music as single tones would > > often need to be, on the
physical level, double, or triple or more. > > Tempered solutions do not
change this fact, and only add more versions. > > These (for me) would all
be "ambisonances". > > Just one simple example : in a diatonic major scale
in C, the note > > A. How many sides it has ? > > > > In addition, I think
that musicians unconsciously have a taste for > > ambiguous tones. > > The
neutral third is an example, among so many. > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Jacques > > > > > > >
Ambissonance: from the Greek "amphi-" as in > > > amphibian, and from the
Latin "ambi-" as in > > > ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean
`on > > > both sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two > > > prefixes
mean `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the > > > musical experience of
ambissonance, the source > > > that inspires new ways to hear, and then new
ways > > > to tune and to compose. > > > > > > Ambissonance is the
experience of hearing with > > > awe; hearing the familiar for the first
time, with the > > > sudden realization that what is heard is neither a > >
> consonance nor a dissonance. > > > > > > Ambissonance is the experience of
theory and > > > practice combined, yet also of theory and practice > > >
transcended. Eventually, even after many years, > > > ambissonance may
resolve to consonance, or to > > > dissonance. > > > > > > Ambissonance: I
can identify it as a mathematical > > > ratio, and I can identify it as a
musical interval, but I > > > also know that what I am hearing I do not > >
> completely understand, hence the experience of > > > awe. > > > > > > Cris
Forster > > >

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

A very interesting and valid demonstration as to the elimination of
the so-called "ambissonance" of a chord.

For what it matters, I believe every interval or chord would be
"ambissonant" in a solitary, isolated instance. They could mean
anything without the proper context and acclimatization of the sensor.

How often have we assumed in error that there could be such a thing as
an absolute common psycho-acoustical sensation for all the cultures of
the world that has been assigned the peculiar dipolar axis called
"accordance"?

We must never disregard the musical context when theorizing about the
degree of consonance (or concordance if you prefer).

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:20 AM, John Moriarty wrote:

>
>
> In response to the concept of a neutral third, I would like to point
> you towards a blog posting of mine. It addresses the ambiguous
> functions of intervals who's widths represent more than one diatonic
> function across the Syntonic Temperament. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_temperament
> ) It contains an audio example of 7 equal divisions of the octave
> where the major and minor third land on the same width (about 342.86
> cents). One would at first think that the function will be ambiguous
> but, as I've found, one will very strongly hear this third as major
> or minor simply depending on the musical context. I also have a
> short excerpt of a piece of mine in 5-edo that seems to function as
> if it had the full diatonic gamut at its disposal. This is because
> each interval in 5-edo was functioning differently depending on the
> musical context. This is comparable to how in 12-edo the minor third
> and augmented second are the same width, yet we very clearly
> comprehend one or the other at separate times depending on, once
> again, the musical context. Here is the full post: http://xenharmonic.ning.com/profiles/blogs/harmonicdiatonic-function
> I realize this is not a concrete double blind study, but listening
> to the audio examples yourself will, I think, make the point that
> the only thing that makes an interval ambiguous is a lack of musical
> context and/or timbre. John Moriarty --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
> "hpiinstruments" <aaronhunt@...> wrote: > > Dear Chris (and
> Jacque), > > Chris, I like this term 'ambissonance' a lot, and I
> wonder > if you are coining it here or if it has been published >
> somewhere, because I here confess my ignorance not > having not seen
> it before. I would like to incorporate it > into my writings and if> you have a citation that would be > great. > > I have used the term
> 'ambi' for many years to describe intervals > which others call
> 'neutral', which incidentally you mentioned, > Jacque, the 'neutral
> 3rd' I don't ever call it that but instead I > call it an 'ambi-
> third' because it can sound major or minor > depending on how it is
> used. Those who would disagree, put > it in a musical context and
> find out! > > I like your openness, and I agree the sense of wonder
> > is a gift of being, not to be missed. The wise try hard to >
> become again like children. > > Cheers, > AAH > ===== > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com
> , Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > I like
> this word "ambissonance", besides that it is easy to > > understand
> in french (though I never heard it before), because it > > supports
> some very musical ideas and I feel in resonance with the way > >
> you express it. > > My experience is that music opens a plurality of
> listening levels : > > fundamentals, overtones, difference tones,
> and even rhythms, which, > > when united, awake sensations of
> harmony. > > I know also that in order to link these different
> levels of > > listening, what we think and sense in music as single
> tones would > > often need to be, on the physical level, double, or
> triple or more. > > Tempered solutions do not change this fact, and
> only add more versions. > > These (for me) would all be
> "ambisonances". > > Just one simple example : in a diatonic major > scale in C, the note > > A. How many sides it has ? > > > > In
> addition, I think that musicians unconsciously have a taste for > >
> ambiguous tones. > > The neutral third is an example, among so many.
> > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - > > Jacques > > > > > > > Ambissonance: from the Greek
> "amphi-" as in > > > amphibian, and from the Latin "ambi-" as in > >
> > ambidextrous, these two prefixes literally mean `on > > > both
> sides'. Then for me, figuratively, these two > > > prefixes mean
> `partaking of two worlds'. Hence, the > > > musical experience of
> ambissonance, the source > > > that inspires new ways to hear, and
> then new ways > > > to tune and to compose. > > > > > > Ambissonance
> is the experience of hearing with > > > awe; hearing the familiar
> for the first time, with the > > > sudden realization that what is
> heard is neither a > > > consonance nor a dissonance. > > > > > >
> Ambissonance is the experience of theory and > > > practice> combined, yet also of theory and practice > > > transcended.
> Eventually, even after many years, > > > ambissonance may resolve to
> consonance, or to > > > dissonance. > > > > > > Ambissonance: I can
> identify it as a mathematical > > > ratio, and I can identify it as
> a musical interval, but I > > > also know that what I am hearing I
> do not > > > completely understand, hence the experience of > > >
> awe. > > > > > > Cris Forster > > >
>
>
>
>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

Daniel,

perhaps we are closer than appeared at first. I hope I'm not pushing my point too hard with this response; the issue is important for me.

I am suspicious of all attempts to essentialize and then "biologize" cultural factors and matters of personal taste. One always ends up claiming that some music is "natural" to mankind's biological system, which ends up meaning that other music is not. What appears natural to the researcher is almost without exception the music of the researcher's own culture (and/or social class)--no surprises there. One can relativize this essentialism, leaving each culture with its own "hard-wired" tastes, but this leads to absurdities, as it can't explain rapid mixing of cultures and would overdrive natural selection to an absurd degree.

Or one can fudge the facts and say that all music (except that of which I don't approve) shares the same characteristic of the music that I think is "natural" to mankind--this is more or less the tactic of my former teacher, Fred Lerdahl. He started with common practice western music, found properties in it similar to the properties of language, and has been finding these elements in the music of various cultures, but not finding them in works of modern western art music. This is not in itself problematic, but when he started to speak of human universals in this regard, I had to part company: certain characteristics are universal to all the world's music except contemporary art music written by composers such as Boulez. It seems on the surface absurd to discover deep similarities between performances of ritualistic music (i.e., participatory music-making that cannot even be considered a piece in the same sense as Classical art music) and Debussy,
for example, but none between Debussy and Boulez, a highly sophisticated musician deeply influenced by Debussy.

Boulez isn't necessarily my favorite composer, but that is because of my tastes in music. It irritates me whenever people try to convert their tastes into laws for others by the scientistic route, because someone will always come along (call him Richard Taruskin) and use these "findings" to club some composer or type of music he or she doesn't like (I'm thinking of his attacks on Martino and Babbitt). Both science and pseudo-science share the same jargon and appear to a casual observer objectively true to an equal degree.

Another problem with all these arguments is that they can't explain variance of tastes within cultures; one would expect out of genetic hard-wiring more uniformity than actually appears. Yet various people within any culture, even within any social group, disagree about the pieces they all know. The simple fact is that the appreciation of art forms such as music are far more influenced by social factors, education, and individual peculiarities and ideals than by biological factors. And even the biological factors can be over-rated: some people with biologically-given talents in music become successful businessmen and never learn much about music, whereas less naturally gifted people can become fine musicians.

We can all listen to a justly-tuned triad and agree that it is consonant, and there may well be a biological hard-wiring that attracts us to it (as discussed in This is Your Brain on Music). But the step from acknowledging this to making universalized aesthetic judgments is a big one; one might love the sound of the major chord but believe that it is not that useful in creating an interesting piece of music of the sort one wants to write. Or another way of looking at it: composers in the Renaissance almost without exception used major and minor triads. Yet some of these composers are very boring, some--such as Josquin, perhpas my favorite--are viscerally exciting. The difference can't lie in the presence or absence of major and minor triads. It also can't lie in the presence or absence of syntactic structures (cadences, etc.) shared by all composers.

I have no problem with people making claims and theories concerning their tastes and defending them openly and honestly. My main fear is that scientism tends to claim an absolute authority than it doesn't deserve.

best

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 1/25/10, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:

From: Daniel Forró <dan.for@tiscali.cz>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 12:38 AM

I can't see any variance in my and your statements, they are

compatible, you've just added something more to it. My experience is

the same as yours in my music life as multistyle composer and

performer of consonant or dissonant music :-).

Don't ask me about situation in accepting contemporary music

generally (consonant or dissonant) here in Japan. As everywhere in

the world, people expect only entertainment from the music. Music is

not art for them, they don't even know there can be a spiritual (and

intellectual) experience from it. But I think the main problem is in

bad education.

Yes, there are people hungry for new exciting experience in their

life, be it anything (including music - and I don't mean superficial

or snobish hunger for fugitive fashions), and the other who are

satisfied with what they experienced before and want just to repeat

the same feelings. Maybe disliking/liking of some music is not

genetically based, but this basic attitude to the more adventurous

life style is. Mankind would be more far in the science and art if

the first group prevails.

But I believe that people can get used to dissonant new music, but

they must hear it since the early age, and it's connected with the

other education as well. It has something to do with the tolerance to

something unusual, it's a part of general attitude to the life. An

open-minded person with a lot of interests will accept something

unknown or different than their previous experience without

prejudices and bias. For example microtonal music :-)

Maybe I have used term "psychoacoustics" in a different sense here. I

wanted to say rather something like music psychology, or sociology.

Daniel Forró

On 25 Jan 2010, at 6:41 AM, Cox Franklin wrote:

> Daniel,

> Everything you said in your first few paragraphs is sensible, but

> your last paragraph unfortunately wanders into a pseudoscientific

> bog. Many people do not accept "very dissonant music" in autonomous

> art music, but many others do. I've performed for audiences of over

> a thousand people in festivals devoted to contemporary art music.

> Nobody was forcing the people to be there; they were coming of

> their own accord.

> Most of these festivals are in Europe, but Europeans aren't wired

> any differently than Americans are. Culture and a lack of stable

> funding and infrastructure for new music in America limit public

> exposure to it. None of the standard Introduction to Music

> textbooks I've seen or taught from touches any of the harmonically

> adventurous trends in new music of the last forty years or so.

> People are unlikely to hear any of this music in a symphony or

> chamber concert in America. Most orchestras are in financial

> trouble and have given up completely on programming any adventurous

> new music. If they try, and a few dozen prominent patrons start

> shouting how much they hate new music, then the orchestra might go

> bankrupt.

> Even with sufficient exposure to "dissonant" new music, many people

> will not like the music. But others will. This very fact lessens

> dramatically the likelihood that a scientific explanation can be

> found for the first group's violent dislike of the music. Unless,

> that is, the first group possesses a different genetic structure

> than the second group--let's call it the Rush Limbaugh gene--that

> causes them to shout in rage when they hear something they don't like.

> yours,

> Franklin

> Dr. Franklin Cox

> 1107 Xenia Ave.

> Yellow Springs, OH 45387

> (937) 767-1165

> franklincox@ yahoo.com

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Well spoken.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Cox Franklin wrote:

>
>
> Daniel,
>
> perhaps we are closer than appeared at first. I hope I'm not pushing
> my point too hard with this response; the issue is important for me.
>
> I am suspicious of all attempts to essentialize and then "biologize"
> cultural factors and matters of personal taste. One always ends up
> claiming that some music is "natural" to mankind's biological
> system, which ends up meaning that other music is not. What appears
> natural to the researcher is almost without exception the music of
> the researcher's own culture (and/or social class)--no surprises
> there. One can relativize this essentialism, leaving each culture
> with its own "hard-wired" tastes, but this leads to absurdities, as
> it can't explain rapid mixing of cultures and would overdrive
> natural selection to an absurd degree.
>
> Or one can fudge the facts and say that all music (except that of
> which I don't approve) shares the same characteristic of the music
> that I think is "natural" to mankind--this is more or less the
> tactic of my former teacher, Fred Lerdahl. He started with common
> practice western music, found properties in it similar to the
> properties of language, and has been finding these elements in the
> music of various cultures, but not finding them in works of modern
> western art music. This is not in itself problematic, but when he
> started to speak of human universals in this regard, I had to part
> company: certain characteristics are universal to all the world's
> music except contemporary art music written by composers such as
> Boulez. It seems on the surface absurd to discover deep
> similarities between performances of ritualistic music (i.e.,
> participatory music-making that cannot even be considered a piece in
> the same sense as Classical art music) and Debussy, for example, but
> none between Debussy and Boulez, a highly sophisticated musician
> deeply influenced by Debussy.
>
> Boulez isn't necessarily my favorite composer, but that is because
> of my tastes in music. It irritates me whenever people try to
> convert their tastes into laws for others by the scientistic route,
> because someone will always come along (call him Richard Taruskin)
> and use these "findings" to club some composer or type of music he
> or she doesn't like (I'm thinking of his attacks on Martino and
> Babbitt). Both science and pseudo-science share the same jargon and
> appear to a casual observer objectively true to an equal degree.
>
> Another problem with all these arguments is that they can't explain
> variance of tastes within cultures; one would expect out of genetic
> hard-wiring more uniformity than actually appears. Yet various
> people within any culture, even within any social group, disagree
> about the pieces they all know. The simple fact is that the
> appreciation of art forms such as music are far more influenced by
> social factors, education, and individual peculiarities and ideals
> than by biological factors. And even the biological factors can be
> over-rated: some people with biologically-given talents in music
> become successful businessmen and never learn much about music,
> whereas less naturally gifted people can become fine musicians.
>
> We can all listen to a justly-tuned triad and agree that it is
> consonant, and there may well be a biological hard-wiring that
> attracts us to it (as discussed in This is Your Brain on Music). But
> the step from acknowledging this to making universalized aesthetic
> judgments is a big one; one might love the sound of the major chord
> but believe that it is not that useful in creating an interesting
> piece of music of the sort one wants to write. Or another way of
> looking at it: composers in the Renaissance almost without exception
> used major and minor triads. Yet some of these composers are very
> boring, some--such as Josquin, perhpas my favorite--are viscerally
> exciting. The difference can't lie in the presence or absence of
> major and minor triads. It also can't lie in the presence or absence > of syntactic structures (cadences, etc.) shared by all composers.
>
> I have no problem with people making claims and theories concerning
> their tastes and defending them openly and honestly. My main fear is
> that scientism tends to claim an absolute authority than it doesn't
> deserve.
>
> best
>
> Franklin
>
>
> Dr. Franklin Cox
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> (937) 767-1165
> franklincox@...
>
> --- On Mon, 1/25/10, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> From: Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Ambissonance
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 12:38 AM
>
> I can't see any variance in my and your statements, they are
> compatible, you've just added something more to it. My experience is
> the same as yours in my music life as multistyle composer and
> performer of consonant or dissonant music :-).
>
> Don't ask me about situation in accepting contemporary music
> generally (consonant or dissonant) here in Japan. As everywhere in
> the world, people expect only entertainment from the music. Music is
> not art for them, they don't even know there can be a spiritual (and
> intellectual) experience from it. But I think the main problem is in
> bad education.
>
> Yes, there are people hungry for new exciting experience in their
> life, be it anything (including music - and I don't mean superficial
> or snobish hunger for fugitive fashions), and the other who are
> satisfied with what they experienced before and want just to repeat
> the same feelings. Maybe disliking/liking of some music is not
> genetically based, but this basic attitude to the more adventurous
> life style is. Mankind would be more far in the science and art if
> the first group prevails.
> But I believe that people can get used to dissonant new music, but
> they must hear it since the early age, and it's connected with the
> other education as well. It has something to do with the tolerance to
> something unusual, it's a part of general attitude to the life. An
> open-minded person with a lot of interests will accept something
> unknown or different than their previous experience without
> prejudices and bias. For example microtonal music :-)
>
> Maybe I have used term "psychoacoustics" in a different sense here. I
> wanted to say rather something like music psychology, or sociology.
>
> Daniel Forró
>
> On 25 Jan 2010, at 6:41 AM, Cox Franklin wrote:
>
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Everything you said in your first few paragraphs is sensible, but
> > your last paragraph unfortunately wanders into a pseudoscientific
> > bog. Many people do not accept "very dissonant music" in autonomous
> > art music, but many others do. I've performed for audiences of over
> > a thousand people in festivals devoted to contemporary art music.
> > Nobody was forcing the people to be there; they were coming of
> > their own accord.
> >
> > Most of these festivals are in Europe, but Europeans aren't wired
> > any differently than Americans are. Culture and a lack of stable
> > funding and infrastructure for new music in America limit public
> > exposure to it. None of the standard Introduction to Music
> > textbooks I've seen or taught from touches any of the harmonically
> > adventurous trends in new music of the last forty years or so.
> > People are unlikely to hear any of this music in a symphony or
> > chamber concert in America. Most orchestras are in financial
> > trouble and have given up completely on programming any adventurous
> > new music. If they try, and a few dozen prominent patrons start
> > shouting how much they hate new music, then the orchestra might go
> > bankrupt.
> >
> > Even with sufficient exposure to "dissonant" new music, many people
> > will not like the music. But others will. This very fact lessens
> > dramatically the likelihood that a scientific explanation can be
> > found for the first group's violent dislike of the music. Unless,
> > that is, the first group possesses a different genetic structure
> > than the second group--let's call it the Rush Limbaugh gene--that
> > causes them to shout in rage when they hear something they don't
> like.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> > Franklin
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Franklin Cox
> > 1107 Xenia Ave.
> > Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> > (937) 767-1165
> > franklincox@ yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> In response to points made by Franklin and Daniel.
>
> If I may, I wonder if the expectation of contemporary classical
> music (and xenharmonic classical music too) to be embraced by the
> masses is realistic.
>
> My point is was the public of the 1500's humming Palestrina or
> tavern songs?

In the late 1500s, popular and academic music in England were
very closely aligned. Middle class people were expected to
be able to sing madrigals (and did, in taverns and elsewhere).

Palestrina was primarily a church composer, but like all
composers of the day his secular madrigals were based on
common song. The Italian secular madrigals I've heard are a
bit less pornographic than the Tudor ones, but they're still
primarily about love.

> And wasn't Stephen Foster in the 1800's preferred by the general
> public over Wagner?

In America yes, in Europe no. Wagner was a rock star there.

> And since music was generally played at home or by "uneducated"
> minstrels, as opposed to listening to a recording, technical
> simplicity was probably valued.

In 19th century Europe, music was often played in the home,
but it was often Beethoven or Mozart being played from
manuscript by the young lady of the house. Among poorer
people, probably music was more often improvised. We still
have a direct lineage to this in our folk music today, and
through efforts such as Beethoven's settings of Irish songs.

The avante garde also has a long history, dating back at
least to the Notre Dame school in the Ars Nova. They were
probably just as insular as the serialists of the 20th
century.

> What I am saying is I do not think that "cultured" music was
> ever "the" popular music and perhaps we should stop lamenting
> for something that isn't real.

I think the division between popular, experimental, and
academic music has probably shifted over time, from low points
like the late Tudor period in England to high points like
the 1950s in the United States. Today I see the primary
driving force as recording technology. On one hand, it has
drastically reduced the average musical skill of the population,
since one does not need any musical skill to hear and enjoy
music. This has worked to increase the separation between
popular and academic forms. On the other hand, the ability of
musicians to cheaply publish recordings has since the 1990s
resulted in a popularization of experimental forms not seen
since the prog rock era. No matter how weird your stuff is,
you can find an audience in today's market. It's extremely
competitive and you won't make much money, but weirdness isn't
going to stop you.

-Carl

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

thank you very much for the considered reply Carl!

Your point about 1990's - really if I can say - is internet distribution -
cassette albums of local bands used to be common in record stores.

I don't understand your intention when you cite low and high points - which
means what?

"I think the division between popular, experimental, and
academic music has probably shifted over time, from low points
like the late Tudor period in England to high points like
the 1950s in the United States."

ok - then taking what you said about the divide between classical and
popular music as gospel, especially Wagner,
then what in your opinion happened? Wagner is complex, pretty dissonant, and
a stretch (from what I've read) to rationalize in terms of common practice
tonality. (And I'd think really hard to play at home on the piano)

Are we to say that the 20th century is an age of dissonance for its own sake
and that fact alone lost the audience?

I think though my points about what people expect (taking from many
discussions with lots of different people) for today's pop music I think is
still accurate. Main stream pop is exceeding conservative musically.

Again,

Thanks,

Chris

> The avante garde also has a long history, dating back at
> least to the Notre Dame school in the Ars Nova. They were
> probably just as insular as the serialists of the 20th
> century.
>
>
> > What I am saying is I do not think that "cultured" music was
> > ever "the" popular music and perhaps we should stop lamenting
> > for something that isn't real.
>
> I think the division between popular, experimental, and
> academic music has probably shifted over time, from low points
> like the late Tudor period in England to high points like
> the 1950s in the United States. Today I see the primary
> driving force as recording technology. On one hand, it has
> drastically reduced the average musical skill of the population,
> since one does not need any musical skill to hear and enjoy
> music. This has worked to increase the separation between
> popular and academic forms. On the other hand, the ability of
> musicians to cheaply publish recordings has since the 1990s
> resulted in a popularization of experimental forms not seen
> since the prog rock era. No matter how weird your stuff is,
> you can find an audience in today's market. It's extremely
> competitive and you won't make much money, but weirdness isn't
> going to stop you.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...>

--- Aaron Hunt wrote :

> I have used the term 'ambi' for many years to describe intervals
> which others call 'neutral', which incidentally you mentioned,
> Jacque, the 'neutral 3rd' I don't ever call it that but instead I
> call it an 'ambi-third' because it can sound major or minor
> depending on how it is used.

Aaron,
If I generalize, what you describe is :
"One same note that can sound like one note or another one, depending
on how it is used" :
That's a very precise phenomena, that everyone (at least any
musician) may be able to perceive indeed.
It reminds me of these clever images, where you can see two different
personnages depending on the distance, or your psychism.
It's perhaps different from what Chris expressed in his message at
first as "ambissonance", and also of my first interpretation (as
related to harmonic coïncidences), but not contradictory and I think
your proposition is simpler, and essential.
Could we say for example such ambisonances can be found as well
between :
- commas and semitones,
- semitones and tones (I discussed of that recently about the
difference between 12/11 and 11/10),
- tones and minor thirds (ever present in Slendro, where variations
of only a few cents may eventually sound like semitones)
- minor thirds and major thirds,
- major thirds and fourths,
- fifths and minor sixths (I love those !), etc.
If this is the case, any interval or chord is not at all inevitably
"ambissonant".
These phenomenas of double aspects may appear only in short ranges of
intervals, that can be more or less precisely defined. I would risk
myself to say that for example "neutral thirds" or "ambi"-thirds as
you say have a range of only less than a comma (there are 17 cents
between 39/32 and 16/13, which I already consider as "not as neutral"
as 11/9 or 27/22, which resume to 7 cents).
These spots are not always in the middle of most common notes around.
The sensible zone between sensation of a wholetone and a minor third
is for me, much closer to 8/7 than to 7/6.
And once you integrate one of those points, finer others may appear.
With a more common practice of neutral thirds, you may find
ambissonances between neutral sixths and major sixths, and so on.
Of course again these zones can only be relative to musical contexts,
to your culture and your evolution.
Rarely two beings hear the same things (and it's nice if they can
exchange about it...).
One dimension in music listening or making we don't consider enough
is what I call our "thought of the sound", in the present. It's one
thing our listening cannot be dissociated from, at anytime.
Everyone has experimented that when the music stops, sound remains in
your head, and I've seen several concerts where people at the end of
the music could only stay silent.
Therefore, because we have already sounds around us and in our head,
that change all the time, we never listen the same way to one same
piece of music. And it's nice that we all have our own transcendental
ambissonance zones and other intimate mysteries that keep our minds
open.
- - - - - - -
Jacques

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Chris,

> I don't understand your intention when you cite low and high
> points - which means what?

Points of low or high separation between academic and popular
music. England circa 1600, everybody was singing the same stuff.
U.S. circa 1955, we had R&B vs. serialism.

I don't know if the balance between different approaches to
music ever really changed, or if it's just my limited knowledge
of history. But it's fun to think about.

> what in your opinion happened? Wagner is complex, pretty
> dissonant, and a stretch (from what I've read) to rationalize
> in terms of common practice tonality.

Well I don't agree with that - he breaks some rules but his
music is very tonal.

I think a lot of it is just aging. We can see it with jazz.
It's become embalmed, it's really more a classical form now,
but it started as a popular one. Or we might talk about the
way grassroots movements like punk, grunge, and indie were
commercialized. I'm reminded of a Futurama episode where Fry
is listening to rap, and his friends enter and ask him why
he's holed up listening to "classical music"...

> Are we to say that the 20th century is an age of dissonance for
> its own sake and that fact alone lost the audience?

Atonal music / serialism was never popular, and has been
getting less popular ever since. Yes it was a major force
in academic music in the 20th century, but it amounts to a
fly turd on the windowsill of 20th century music as a whole.

> Main stream pop is exceeding conservative musically.

Yes, but it's also not all that popular today, either.
Christina Aguilera was apparently the last pop star, rap is
dead, indie has wound down... we're in musical purgatory at
the moment. And if the level of music presence in community
events I see around the bay area is typical, probably music
will die out altogether in another 50 years.

Hell, I don't even see people listening to recordings. The
iPod is supposed to be the thing now right? No wait, it's
the iPhone now. But that's ok, it's got an iPod inside it.
And everyone I know has an iPhone. But I've never seen one
of them use the iPod function. I've had an iPhone for 3 years
and I think I've used it to play music 5 times.

Maybe my friends and I are just getting older, and only young
people listen to music. That's possible I suppose, I dunno.

Where I'm from in PA, everybody learned basic music skills.
Involvement in school choir and band programs was high. People
took piano lessons. People were in bands. People sang in
church. The dead heads had drum circles. The local band,
founded 1906, played every year at the 4th of July festival.
Halloween parades, football games, and so on, all featured
music prominently. More importantly, if you went up to a guy
on the street and sang a pitch, he could match it. Gallop
should start doing this every year - I'd be curious if any
trend is observed.

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

"Atonal music / serialism was never popular, and has been

getting less popular ever since. Yes it was a major force

in academic music in the 20th century, but it amounts to a

fly turd on the windowsill of 20th century music as a whole."

It's funny to constantly read accusations against composers or atonal/serial music of exclusivity and bias, made by people joyously trumpeting the end of atonal/serial music, as though they were irritated that such a thing exists in the world. One could certainly conclude that this indicates an attitude of exclusivity and bias--against atonal/serial music.

Atonal (or, better, "post-tonal" or "pantonal," Schoenberg's favorite term; Shoenberg hated the term "atonal," which he considered nonsensical) actually did intrigue audiences, especially in the 19-teens and 20's, and there was widespread interest and support for the music of the 2nd Viennese school throughout Schoenberg's life. There is currently a large infrastructure for new music in Europe, most of it outside the academy; this includes regular concert series, performances by symphony orchestras, opera performances, and so forth.

It might interest you to know that Berg and Webern never taught in a university, Schoenberg only began teaching in an academy in his 50's, Ives and Ruggles never taught in a university, nor did Varese or Wyschnegradsky, and so forth.

It is hard to find many major composers of the first part of the 20th century who were not influenced by Schoenberg and his school in some way, but this was not owing to academic training, which was in general biased against Schoenberg and the "atonalists." Do you really think that Berg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese, Ruggles, etc., were "academic composers"? Do you really consider all of these composers insignificant? I believe you are talking solely about post-WWII composition in America, but even then your statement is not accurate. There are thousands of composers today writing post-tonal music, and there are networks and festivals throughout the world for this music. Many of these composers are doing most of their compositional work outside the academy. In fact, in my experience, the biases within the academy against adventurous music--such as microtonal music--are usually severe. It has been very hard to get hired as a composer in a
university if one writes music in 1/4 tones and with complex rhythms, especially if the music is not considered positive and affirming. Some people continue to write this difficult music anyway. I don't want their careers and this music to be eliminated, so I have to differ with you in the strongest possible terms.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 1/25/10, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 9:19 PM

Hi Chris,

> I don't understand your intention when you cite low and high

> points - which means what?

Points of low or high separation between academic and popular

music. England circa 1600, everybody was singing the same stuff.

U.S. circa 1955, we had R&B vs. serialism.

I don't know if the balance between different approaches to

music ever really changed, or if it's just my limited knowledge

of history. But it's fun to think about.

> what in your opinion happened? Wagner is complex, pretty

> dissonant, and a stretch (from what I've read) to rationalize

> in terms of common practice tonality.

Well I don't agree with that - he breaks some rules but his

music is very tonal.

I think a lot of it is just aging. We can see it with jazz.

It's become embalmed, it's really more a classical form now,

but it started as a popular one. Or we might talk about the

way grassroots movements like punk, grunge, and indie were

commercialized. I'm reminded of a Futurama episode where Fry

is listening to rap, and his friends enter and ask him why

he's holed up listening to "classical music"...

> Are we to say that the 20th century is an age of dissonance for

> its own sake and that fact alone lost the audience?

Atonal music / serialism was never popular, and has been

getting less popular ever since. Yes it was a major force

in academic music in the 20th century, but it amounts to a

fly turd on the windowsill of 20th century music as a whole.

> Main stream pop is exceeding conservative musically.

Yes, but it's also not all that popular today, either.

Christina Aguilera was apparently the last pop star, rap is

dead, indie has wound down... we're in musical purgatory at

the moment. And if the level of music presence in community

events I see around the bay area is typical, probably music

will die out altogether in another 50 years.

Hell, I don't even see people listening to recordings. The

iPod is supposed to be the thing now right? No wait, it's

the iPhone now. But that's ok, it's got an iPod inside it.

And everyone I know has an iPhone. But I've never seen one

of them use the iPod function. I've had an iPhone for 3 years

and I think I've used it to play music 5 times.

Maybe my friends and I are just getting older, and only young

people listen to music. That's possible I suppose, I dunno.

Where I'm from in PA, everybody learned basic music skills.

Involvement in school choir and band programs was high. People

took piano lessons. People were in bands. People sang in

church. The dead heads had drum circles. The local band,

founded 1906, played every year at the 4th of July festival.

Halloween parades, football games, and so on, all featured

music prominently. More importantly, if you went up to a guy

on the street and sang a pitch, he could match it. Gallop

should start doing this every year - I'd be curious if any

trend is observed.

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

Marcel,
>
> I think to be fair:
>
> 1. There is nothing wrong with people whose fancy is playing with different
> tuning schemes - someone has to do it for the rest of us. For instance I've
> valued Michael S.' interaction in new tunings to try.
>

Yes ok I agree.
It's just that one person writes only a romantisized story with a name. And
everybody starts dreaming again about their dreams of breaking new musical
grounds. And the image it conjures up to me is people putting more weird
intervals on their keyboards and improvizing with those scales to make more
weird sounding music that has no public (most people would think it sounds
horribly out of tune) and goes nowhere.
But that's ok too, offcourse who am I to judge.
So I'm sorry for putting things like this down. But somehow also felt the
urge to show the nonsense side of it since nobody else was :)

> 2. I find it ironic in that my impression is that you have great affection
> for silly ratios as long as they are called "JI" regardless of the audio
> results (to my very humble ears).
>

I must disagree :)
I think the audio results are the most important thing and I try to use
theory to achieve this.
But I can understand the stupid midi sound and way of playing make things
sound horrible no matter the tuning, and that wolf fourths/fifths are
something hard to get used to after having learned to listen for them and
avoid them on tuning list etc.
I'm working on a new rendering that'll sound very nice, I'll post it in
about a week, have to wait for something in the mail before I can make it.

>
> 3. You've talked about JI theories - are they on your blog?
>

I don't really have a blog yet (though am going to make one soon)
And no they're not on my website. They will be somewhere in the future
though. Only it's going to be a loong story and there are a few more things
I wish to get clear first.
The website I have now is www.develde.net and only the drei equale and
computer algo output are on there.
Btw I find it crazy nobody has replied to the new tuning of the drei equale,
it's perfect. After a more than a year of work it's done.
First time a piece this complex is in JI and it's posted on the tuning list
yet nobody hears it is correct.. unbelievable.

>
> 4. A new (non-12 edo emulating) tuning system, by definition, would lack a
> harmonic theory along the lines of common practice. And common practice
> isn't so much a theory as a collection of empirical rules cataloged with
> explanations made after the fact by observing hundreds of years of
> compositions. So I fail to understand you point.
>

Not nessecarily so.
A JI system for instance could potentially explain 12tet music and explain
new music theory for non 12tet emulation scales in one go.
And if there isn't truly good thought behind the tuning system and how it
works melodically and harmonically, then why even bother?
It's like tuning some almost random pitches and then improvising with those,
what's the point besides it beeing a bit of fun.

But in any case. Why wouldn't a new tuning system produce right sounding
results that appeal to a large public and sound "right".
Probably most famous example is wendy carlos and beauty in the beast? Now
that's not very famous nor are the tuning systems used theirin very good for
making lots of serious music in, more of a gimmic.

Marcel

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

Marcel,
I think you need a bit of a reality check. Your theoretical skills are clearly very weak, as is evident from your confusion about the key center for the Drei Equale (you were confusing the scale you used for your realization with the tonality of piece, which wasn't written for JI).It also appears as though you know much about the history of JI or about other composers' music. Do you know Ben Johnston's music? He's been writing fantastically complex pieces in extended just intonation for the last four decades. Do you know of Plainsound.org, the collective of composers working in JI?
How can you claim that your etude is the "First time a piece this complex is in JI"? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of pieces written in JI or transcriptions of older music in JI. For example, for my performances of Bach suites in extended JI, I've made transcriptions of the first three suites in JI so that I can practice with them. The Drei Equale is actually a fairly simply piece to do in JI--why are you making such inflated claims?
I really take offense at your consigning of all the music whose sound you don't like under the rubric of "crap"; perhaps this reveals the presence of the "Rush Limbaugh gene" I've mentioned earlier. There are many types of music in the world that a very much different from each other. Learn to live with it.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 1/25/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re:Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 11:49 PM

Hi Chris,

Marcel,

I think to be fair:

1. There is nothing wrong with people whose fancy is playing with different tuning schemes - someone has to do it for the rest of us. For instance I've valued Michael S.' interaction in new tunings to try.

Yes ok I agree.
It's just that one person writes only a romantisized story with a name. And everybody starts dreaming again about their dreams of breaking new musical grounds. And the image it conjures up to me is people putting more weird intervals on their keyboards and improvizing with those scales to make more weird sounding music that has no public (most people would think it sounds horribly out of tune) and goes nowhere.

But that's ok too, offcourse who am I to judge.
So I'm sorry for putting things like this down. But somehow also felt the urge to show the nonsense side of it since nobody else was :)

2. I find it ironic in that my impression is that you have great affection for silly ratios as long as they are called "JI" regardless of the audio results (to my very humble ears).

I must disagree :)
I think the audio results are the most important thing and I try to use theory to achieve this.
But I can understand the stupid midi sound and way of playing make things sound horrible no matter the tuning, and that wolf fourths/fifths are something hard to get used to after having learned to listen for them and avoid them on tuning list etc.

I'm working on a new rendering that'll sound very nice, I'll post it in about a week, have to wait for something in the mail before I can make it.

3. You've talked about JI theories - are they on your blog?

The website I have now is www.develde. net and only the drei equale and computer algo output are on there.
Btw I find it crazy nobody has replied to the new tuning of the drei equale, it's perfect. After a more than a year of work it's done.

First time a piece this complex is in JI and it's posted on the tuning list yet nobody hears it is correct.. unbelievable.

4. A new (non-12 edo emulating) tuning system, by definition, would lack a harmonic theory along the lines of common practice. And common practice isn't so much a theory as a collection of empirical rules cataloged with explanations made after the fact by observing hundreds of years of compositions. So I fail to understand you point.

It's like tuning some almost random pitches and then improvising with those, what's the point besides it beeing a bit of fun.

But in any case. Why wouldn't a new tuning system produce right sounding results that appeal to a large public and sound "right".

Probably most famous example is wendy carlos and beauty in the beast? Now that's not very famous nor are the tuning systems used theirin very good for making lots of serious music in, more of a gimmic.

Marcel

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Franklin,

Marcel,
>
> I think you need a bit of a reality check. Your theoretical skills are
> clearly very weak, as is evident from your confusion about the key center
> for the Drei Equale (you were confusing the scale you used for your
> realization with the tonality of piece, which wasn't written for JI).
>

No I was not confusing.
My JI system has something that is best described as tonality, and often
agrees for the largest part with the normal meaning of tonality in simple
compositions.
Drei equale does not agree with beeing in D minor. I belief this is clearly
an area where normal music theory is lacking and wrong in this case.
Long story to explain further, but no I don't agree with what you're saying.
And if you'd look into the piece a bit deeper then you'd also see for
yourself that normal music theory doesn't much know what to make of drei
equale in any case.
To say it does is nonsense. Yes sure you can write wrong things on paper and
it may or may not later be found to be wrong, but in JI you can't get away
with such things as the results are audible.

> It also appears as though you know much about the history of JI or about
> other composers' music. Do you know Ben Johnston's music? He's been writing
> fantastically complex pieces in extended just intonation for the last four
> decades. Do you know of Plainsound.org, the collective of composers
> working in JI?
>

Yes I do know about the history of JI.
And I'm very well aware of what untill now has been called JI is very very
flawed.
I'm trying to do things according to the true meaning of the name, Just
Intonation, that is to tune perfectly in tune.
To tune perfectly in tune does not mean that every fifth is 3/2, on of the
many errors of what has mainly become to be known as JI.
For those that don't see my system as JI I've called my system Tonal-JI just
to stop the argument about names, but my system is pure and correct JI.

I also know Ben Johnston's music. I like it.
But it's not very complex in my opinion, and also not in tune, though
sometimes he gets close in my opinion (because of good ears and writing
pieces that work in a single tonality it seems to me)

I wasn't aware of plainsound.org
Thanks for the link!

> How can you claim that your etude is the "First time a piece this complex
> is in JI"? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of pieces written in JI
> or transcriptions of older music in JI. For example, for my performances of
> Bach suites in extended JI, I've made transcriptions of the first three
> suites in JI so that I can practice with them. The Drei Equale is actually
> a fairly simply piece to do in JI--why are you making such inflated claims?
>
>

Yes and I belief just about all those thousands of pieces in JI are wrong.
The ones that are right are only of very simple music and a very lucky to be
right. More of a coincidence than otherwise.
And extended JI is a joke, sorry.
Please enter the contest and tune drei equale better than me and you win
€100,- if it's as simple as you say.

> I really take offense at your consigning of all the music whose sound you
> don't like under the rubric of "crap"; perhaps this reveals the presence of
> the "Rush Limbaugh gene" I've mentioned earlier. There are many types of
> music in the world that a very much different from each other. Learn to
> live with it.
>
> Franklin
>

No I will not learn to live with seeing things like 12tet as "correct" and
in tune.
Neither do I see a correct system in any of the other tuning systems in use
in the world.
My driving force is that there's something to be done.

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:

> It's funny to constantly read accusations against composers or
> atonal/serial music of exclusivity and bias, made by people
> joyously trumpeting the end of atonal/serial music, as though
> they were irritated that such a thing exists in the world.

I don't think I said all that. On the other hand, it is pretty
hard to deny the decades of pretentious claims, number games,
and academic circle jerking practiced by the school now calling
itself musical "set theory".

>One could certainly conclude that this indicates an attitude
>of exclusivity and bias--against atonal/serial music.

Oh please.

> It might interest you to know that Berg and Webern never taught
> in a university, Schoenberg only began teaching in an academy
> in his 50's, Ives and Ruggles never taught in a university, nor
> did Varese or Wyschnegradsky, and so forth.

Ives and Varese are serialists now?

> It is hard to find many major composers of the first part of
> the 20th century who were not influenced by Schoenberg and
> his school in some way,

I think neoclassicists like Prokofiev, Milhaud, and Stravinsky
were doing just fine.

>Do you really think that Berg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese,
>Ruggles, etc., were "academic composers"?

Um, no. I think they were musicians of a dying popular form,
dwarfed by the emerging popular form (American music). The
dying form responded to its increasing obsolesce by resorting
to a kind of extremism.

>Do you really consider all of these composers insignificant?

Do you consider Louie Armstrong, Scott Joplin, Ray Charles,
the Beatles, or Radiohead insignificant?

>I believe you are talking solely about post-WWII composition
>in America,

I was talking? Chris asked about the divergence between
popular and formal musical forms over time, and I said that
Western ensemble music after 1920 is an example of a form
that is quite separate from contemporary popular forms, as
compared to other points in history, where I speculate there
was less separation.

>There are thousands of composers today writing post-tonal
>music, and there are networks and festivals throughout the
>world for this music. Many of these composers are doing most
>of their compositional work outside the academy.

...But with the support of European governments, right?
And c'mon, we both know that exported disco (called techno)
is the most popular music there. ;)

-Carl

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

So, Marcel, is your plan to get control and eliminate all the music you don't like?
I would suggest that you use another term than "tonality." This term has a fairly clear and stable meaning, with a long history. You don't get to simply make up new meanings for words.
You throw around the terms "wrong" and "right" with great assurance. Saying something is "right" doesn't make it right, no matter how often or how loudly you say it. In the long run, your work--not your judgments--needs to convince other people. And if you're certain that everyone in the world besides you is doing everything wrong, you're not likely to convince too many people.
Strength of will is a wonderful quality, but so is tolerance.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re:Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 12:33 AM

Hi Franklin,

Long story to explain further, but no I don't agree with what you're saying. And if you'd look into the piece a bit deeper then you'd also see for yourself that normal music theory doesn't much know what to make of drei equale in any case.

To say it does is nonsense. Yes sure you can write wrong things on paper and it may or may not later be found to be wrong, but in JI you can't get away with such things as the results are audible.

It also appears as though you know much about the history of JI or about other composers' music. Do you know Ben Johnston's music? He's been writing fantastically complex pieces in extended just intonation for the last four decades. Do you know of Plainsound. org, the collective of composers working in JI?

To tune perfectly in tune does not mean that every fifth is 3/2, on of the many errors of what has mainly become to be known as JI.
For those that don't see my system as JI I've called my system Tonal-JI just to stop the argument about names, but my system is pure and correct JI.

I also know Ben Johnston's music. I like it.
But it's not very complex in my opinion, and also not in tune, though sometimes he gets close in my opinion (because of good ears and writing pieces that work in a single tonality it seems to me)

I wasn't aware of plainsound.org
Thanks for the link!

How can you claim that your etude is the "First time a piece this complex is in JI"? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of pieces written in JI or transcriptions of older music in JI. For example, for my performances of Bach suites in extended JI, I've made transcriptions of the first three suites in JI so that I can practice with them. The Drei Equale is actually a fairly simply piece to do in JI--why are you making such inflated claims?

Yes and I belief just about all those thousands of pieces in JI are wrong.
The ones that are right are only of very simple music and a very lucky to be right. More of a coincidence than otherwise.

And extended JI is a joke, sorry.
Please enter the contest and tune drei equale better than me and you win €100,- if it's as simple as you say.

I really take offense at your consigning of all the music whose sound you don't like
under the rubric of "crap"; perhaps this reveals the presence of the "Rush Limbaugh gene" I've mentioned earlier. There are many types of music in the world that a very much different from each other. Learn to live with it.

Franklin
No I will not learn to live with seeing things like 12tet as "correct" and in tune.

Neither do I see a correct system in any of the other tuning systems in use in the world.
My driving force is that there's something to be done.

Marcel

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

Carl,
You're the one who lumped atonalists together with serialists. Stravinsky was strongly influenced by Schoenberg, as was Milhaud. In fact, practically every major composer in this period responded to the challenge of Schoenberg's music and ideas; even if they didn't like the music, they took the challenge seriously.
So it appears you have a Hegelian theory of music in which history is a one-way train progressing from outmoded forms (Western art music) to the new dominant form, American popular music. Anyone who doesn't jump on the train is obsolescent. It's odd, I thought the musical populists were complaining about the serialists using the model of progress to marginalize them; apparently now the populists have taken over the train.
I love Louis Armstrong and many other popular artists; I am not, however, trying to do the same thing as they are. I think we need to have a wide range of very different musics in the world.
Your argument appears to be that if government offer support to the musical life of a country, the music that is produced is illegitimate...is that right? Does that makes the music of all Medieval and Renaissance composers, almost all Baroque composers, most Classical composers, many Romantic composers, and most modern composers illegitimate? It's an interesting theory, but, if I may say so, a bit daffy.
For your information, there are hundreds of composers writing experimental and avant-garde music in the United States as well, without government support.
"On the other hand, it is pretty hard to deny the decades of pretentious claims, number games, and academic circle jerking practiced by the school now calling itself musical "set theory"."

These is a pretty strong blanket condemnation of a field you don't like. There are serious problems in set theory as a theory of analysis, but it does offer a useful labeling system. There is a fair amount of excellent music composed using basic elements of set theory. It would be worthwhile having a fruitful discussion of the pros and cons of set theory, but to judge from the tenor of your paragraph, this probably isn't possible with you.

Yours,
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 12:38 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

> It's funny to constantly read accusations against composers or

> atonal/serial music of exclusivity and bias, made by people

> joyously trumpeting the end of atonal/serial music, as though

> they were irritated that such a thing exists in the world.

I don't think I said all that. On the other hand, it is pretty

hard to deny the decades of pretentious claims, number games,

and academic circle jerking practiced by the school now calling

itself musical "set theory".

>One could certainly conclude that this indicates an attitude

>of exclusivity and bias--against atonal/serial music.

Oh please.

> It might interest you to know that Berg and Webern never taught

> in a university, Schoenberg only began teaching in an academy

> in his 50's, Ives and Ruggles never taught in a university, nor

> did Varese or Wyschnegradsky, and so forth.

Ives and Varese are serialists now?

> It is hard to find many major composers of the first part of

> the 20th century who were not influenced by Schoenberg and

> his school in some way,

I think neoclassicists like Prokofiev, Milhaud, and Stravinsky

were doing just fine.

>Do you really think that Berg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese,

>Ruggles, etc., were "academic composers"?

Um, no. I think they were musicians of a dying popular form,

dwarfed by the emerging popular form (American music). The

dying form responded to its increasing obsolesce by resorting

to a kind of extremism.

>Do you really consider all of these composers insignificant?

Do you consider Louie Armstrong, Scott Joplin, Ray Charles,

the Beatles, or Radiohead insignificant?

>I believe you are talking solely about post-WWII composition

>in America,

I was talking? Chris asked about the divergence between

popular and formal musical forms over time, and I said that

Western ensemble music after 1920 is an example of a form

that is quite separate from contemporary popular forms, as

compared to other points in history, where I speculate there

was less separation.

>There are thousands of composers today writing post-tonal

>music, and there are networks and festivals throughout the

>world for this music. Many of these composers are doing most

>of their compositional work outside the academy.

...But with the support of European governments, right?

And c'mon, we both know that exported disco (called techno)

is the most popular music there. ;)

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Franklin,

I would suggest that you use another term than "tonality." This term has a
> fairly clear and stable meaning, with a long history. You don't get to
> simply make up new meanings for words.
>

I allready did in later on in the thread you're referring to.
I've called it JI-tonic and JI-tonality to avoid name confusion.

> You throw around the terms "wrong" and "right" with great assurance.
> Saying something is "right" doesn't make it right, no matter how often or
> how loudly you say it.
>

True about the "right".
Though about the "wrong" I'm not simply saying it because I'm the sole
person who's ears find it wrong.
Most people will find it wrong, but equally important there are fundamental
logical problems in many tuning systems, like normal JI that can't even do a
I-vi-ii-V progression etc.

In the long run, your work--not your judgments--needs to convince other
> people. And if you're certain that everyone in the world besides you is
> doing everything wrong, you're not likely to convince too many people.
>

I don't see the 2 things beeing related.
But if my calling the tuning systems in use now as wrong, makes my own
tuning system wrong to you by default then so be it.
I agree completely that my work will need to convince people and I'm
confident that it'll do so in a matter of 1 to 2 weeks after making proper
renderings that are more clear to the ear. And convince people both on
tuning lists etc, aswell as convince general public ears (especially general
public ears)

>
> Strength of will is a wonderful quality, but so is tolerance.
>

Yes agreed. And I am tolerant.
Did not mean to be not tolerant. Merely pointing out my opinion, and
hopefully make people aware of if nothing else a vision of that perfection
is something that may be reached in tuning and things like that. And hope
that this will contribute to more productive work by people.
Negative comments ment to be constructive.
Though I admit I was somehow a bit grumpy. Don't really know why other than
the reasons I allready explained.
But anyhow I didn't mean this discussion to start :)

One more thing, I'll put it in this same message so there won't be two.
Something positive :)
I must say I fully agree with Carl on what he said the previous messages in
this thread!!
Glad he said them and not me though I wished to write thesame things, if I'd
written them the english wouldn't have been as clear to read lol.
(expect for one minor thing about music maybe dissapearing in 50 years,
it'll become more an internet/new media and concert/club/pub thing it seem
to me)

Marcel

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Just few quick thoughts about this. Sorry to use some terminology which could be considered marxistic, for sure I'm not marxist but we must consider economical-political situation in the society even when talking about the art.

I don't think dividing music into "popular" and "academic" types is quite exact. Music has some role, function in society, therefore it's rather connected to different layers, classes in the society. If we accept such sociological attitude, then there's a slightly different picture of music history.

First there was church music as a mainstream for long centuries in the history of European music, and this situation was changed slowly when Reformation started and Catholic church (and nobility which supported the Church from political and economical point of view as Church also supported the nobility - both milked the common working classes) started to have less influence, and also economical situation started to change from feudalism to capitalism. Bourgeoisie supported secular music - concert music or opera. It doesn't mean they supported avantguard music...
Church music also changed during 1000 years from its original avantguard position to the role of tradition's guardian, and became conservative and repeating the similar style and certain patterns and cliches (they tried to change this so late as in the second half of 19th century). But it had always high standard of performance and lot of excellent composers and performers were involved in it, some of them solely, later only partly besides the secular works. In old times this music was performed by professionals (also monks), much later amateur musicians performed it (remember Bach's complains about the quality of his church orchestra).

Then there was court music for nobility - mainly for the purpose of entertainment (dance parties, background table music for eating or music before sleep - Bach's Goldberg variations are good example even for such musicotherapeutic role of music}, but we can find here also beginning of pure "concert music", music just for listening. Composed and performed by professional musicians - trouvers, troubadours, minnesangers (who travelled), and some musicians had music as job at the court. Some courts, or castles or nobility families had even their own orchestras which disappeared in the beginning of 19. century when after the French revolution nobility started to lose their power as social class, and couldn't afford to employ orchestras. Bach, Haydn and Mozart still worked in such orchestras as court musicians and composers, I remember also excellent Czech composer Jan Ladislav Dusik who was employed by Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia still in 1806 as his personal composer, musician and music teacher.
We can find here also some very avantguard and bizarre manneuristic styles, like Ars subtilior or Italian chromatic madrigal, very far from common music of those times. Composers of such music were "sponsored" by educated nobility class, so sometimes even such unusual things could occur and find listeners (which is rather questionable).

Then there was composed "popular", secular music for common people - mainly dance music. As they had to work, there was not much time left to the entertainment and enjoying music in their life, only at some local festivals or dance parties. It was also performed by professional musicians, often they were city employees.
Of course also anonyme folklore music started as a part of daily life of common classes - ceremonial (wedding, funerals, births...), work, dance... This music was mainly vocal, songs with lyrics. Dance music was mainly instrumental, as well as some work music (pastoral shepherds flute music for example). Anybody could make such music, it became an organic part of daily life.

Another possibility to hear music was military music, marches etc.

Something like "concert music" for masses didn't existed. Music always served to some purpose, working classes had no time and opportunity to enjoy just listening to music. But even common people could hear high quality church music in the biggest churches (of course not in some small village church). Much later general public could visit the opera or concert halls and pay for listening the music.

Music was not yet printed those times. This was a big limiting factor, as media were always very important for spreading the culture. After 15. century music could be printed.

So even in Middle age there was a gap in the music style between "high" (church and court secular) and popular music, I mean not only in their social role and target group, but also from purely musical point of view. The only common element were scales, but even here I feel difference in use. Meanwhile church music preferred to use Aeolian, Phrygian or such "sad" and serious modes, secular and folklore music used Dorian, Ionian, Mixolydian or Lydian modes. Also intervallic structure is slightly different.

Dispite the fact that "contemporary" music was generally accepted from "contemporary" listeners until Baroque, a gap between music for educated higher classes and common masses started to be more visible in the end of 18th century. It doesn't mean that educated classes always wanted only complex deep avantguard brain-storming music, of course not - they expected also entertainment from music. Even Mozart's piano concerts, divertimentos and operas could be considered as contemporary pop-music (and his concerts were visited, people could hear professionally made music only there or in the church thanks to non-existence of recording media, or they can try to play it from printed scores, but also level of difficulty came up). He has more complex and interesting and deeper and artistic and experimental and avantguard music in his piano sonatas, string quartets or late symphonies. Even such man of genius was accepted by Viennese society mainly as a pianist and music teacher.

Interesting fact in the history of music is that some composers were aware of a difference between "high" and "popular" music and tried to connect both worlds - remember popular secular song "L'homme arme" used in the Church music, or some early using of folklore quotations (Neusiedler, ... Bach. Mozart, csardas in Haydn and Beethoven works etc.). This attempts continue until now.

On 26 Jan 2010, at 3:05 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> In the late 1500s, popular and academic music in England were
> very closely aligned.
>

I don't think so. And why England?

> Middle class people were expected to
> be able to sing madrigals (and did, in taverns and elsewhere).
>
> Palestrina was primarily a church composer, but like all
> composers of the day his secular madrigals were based on
> common song.
>
Not only secualr madrigals. It was commmon those times to use secular popular songs with liturgical text even in the Church music (remember L'homme arme song).

> The Italian secular madrigals I've heard are a
> bit less pornographic than the Tudor ones, but they're still
> primarily about love.
>
> In America yes, in Europe no. Wagner was a rock star there.
>

Not totally true, common masses had Strauss and Offenbach...
>
> > And since music was generally played at home or by "uneducated"
> > minstrels,
>
Minstrels, trouvers, troubadours, minnesangers were educated professional musicians of those times.

> as opposed to listening to a recording, technical
> > simplicity was probably valued.
>
> In 19th century Europe, music was often played in the home,
>
Yes, it was fashionable in bourgeois society class, especially 4 hand performing. Mainly piano music, lot of middle class families could afford grand piano. Hence lot of arrangements, paraphrases and medleys of symphonies, operas etc. But also songs were popular (Lieder, Couplets - popular music of those times before recording media started). Piano music and piano performing was popular, but as the level of piano performing was high (especially composers who were pianists - Mozart, Dusik, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Smetana, Debussy, Skriabin...) it was clear that such music can be performed well only by educated professionals. Also this increase in music complexity could be one reason why common people can't play classical music, and even are not interested to listen to it when it became even more complex and dissonant during 20th century,
> but it was often Beethoven or Mozart being played from
> manuscript by the young lady of the house.
>
Why from manuscript? It was possible to buy printed scores. And see above - this music is not so easy to be performed by amateurs and hobby musicians. But for sure in their times the general level of music education was higher so probably more people than today could perform it.
> Among poorer
> people, probably music was more often improvised.
>

Can be said about the instrumental music (that's a base of folklore). Or because they couldn't afford to buy expensive professionally made musical instruments, they used simple hand made ones. Or they could make vocal music without instruments.

> We still
> have a direct lineage to this in our folk music today, and
> through efforts such as Beethoven's settings of Irish songs.
>
> The avante garde also has a long history, dating back at
> least to the Notre Dame school in the Ars Nova. They were
> probably just as insular as the serialists of the 20th
> century.
>
> > What I am saying is I do not think that "cultured" music was
> > ever "the" popular music and perhaps we should stop lamenting
> > for something that isn't real.
>
> I think the division between popular, experimental, and
> academic music has probably shifted over time, from low points
> like the late Tudor period in England to high points like
> the 1950s in the United States.
>
Yes, and this division was probably not linear, there could be some periods when it was more near. Good example is Mozart - some of his opera arias were taken by common masses and become very popular shortly after the first performance, even sung in the pubs and on the street, but again were forgotten (like today's popsongs). Or take American minimal music (Glass, Reich, Adams...) - there's nothing which would prevent such music to become popular.
> Today I see the primary
> driving force as recording technology. On one hand, it has
> drastically reduced the average musical skill of the population,
> since one does not need any musical skill to hear and enjoy
> music. This has worked to increase the separation between
> popular and academic forms.
>
This is true only partly IMHO. I would accuse mainly the education system, and change of music (and generally role of art in the society), also changed preferences. Of course recording media supported this. But still there's a lot of printed music scores and who wants to make music actively, can do it so easily nowadays. Also thanks to modern instruments like portable keyboards. I was against them long years, but soon I started to understand problem is not in their existence, but in their bad use. So we are again back to education.

But I wouldn't see things so negative. Lot of young people still study music, maybe not violine or trumpet, OK, they use synthesizers or PK's, so still there's some hope for music culture.

> On the other hand, the ability of
> musicians to cheaply publish recordings has since the 1990s
> resulted in a popularization of experimental forms not seen
> since the prog rock era. No matter how weird your stuff is,
> you can find an audience in today's market. It's extremely
> competitive and you won't make much money, but weirdness isn't
> going to stop you.
>
> -Carl
>

Fortunately.

Daniel Forro

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 26 Jan 2010, at 6:19 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > what in your opinion happened? Wagner is complex, pretty
> > dissonant, and a stretch (from what I've read) to rationalize
> > in terms of common practice tonality.
>
> Well I don't agree with that - he breaks some rules but his
> music is very tonal.
>
>
Yes but he came to the border of tonality in certain sense in Tristan, this is a peak of Western tonal music tradition, after him music had to find new ways. Besides his monumental concept of Gesamtkunstwerk, his Teutonic ubermensch attitude and megalomania is not for everybody - common people had Strauss and Offenbach in his times. But even such opposite type like Debussy learned from him (and quoted him in Goliwogg's Cakewalk from Children's Corner). [Understand well - I have nothing against his music and like some.]

> I think a lot of it is just aging. We can see it with jazz.
> It's become embalmed, it's really more a classical form now,
> but it started as a popular one.
>
Not at all, it's just a kind of popular music. It has different role in the society, targeted public etc. Yes, there are people who like both classical music and jazz, but it doesn't mean jazz became classical form.

> Or we might talk about the
> way grassroots movements like punk, grunge, and indie were
> commercialized.
>
Only thanks to the media, not thanks to its musical or artistic quality.
>
> > Are we to say that the 20th century is an age of dissonance for
> > its own sake and that fact alone lost the audience?
>
> Atonal music / serialism was never popular, and has been
> getting less popular ever since. Yes it was a major force
> in academic music in the 20th century, but it amounts to a
> fly turd on the windowsill of 20th century music as a whole.
>
Unfortunately I feel the same. Not music for everybody's taste, and one of the peak but also cul-de-sacs of Western music. Therefore some reaction came and new styles appeared (Minimalism, New Simplicity, World Music....).
But it's here and for sure it has its position, listeners, composers and performers (including me). What I really like on our times is this plurality and coexistence of many styles and their crossfades, mixes and syntheses. All have right and reason for existence if there's at least one creator and one listener (it can beeven one person only).
> > Main stream pop is exceeding conservative musically.
>
It was always so. Thanks to it it is a mainstream :-)
> Yes, but it's also not all that popular today, either.
> Christina Aguilera was apparently the last pop star, rap is
> dead, indie has wound down... we're in musical purgatory at
> the moment.
>
Yes, but pop music mainstream was in certain sense always behind the art music mainstream, with little innovations to general development of music culture.
> And if the level of music presence in community
> events I see around the bay area is typical, probably music
> will die out altogether in another 50 years.
>
>
I wouldn't be so pessimistic concerning this, there will be always some kind of music people will enjoy. Question is only what kind.

> Hell, I don't even see people listening to recordings. The
> iPod is supposed to be the thing now right? No wait, it's
> the iPhone now. But that's ok, it's got an iPod inside it.
> And everyone I know has an iPhone. But I've never seen one
> of them use the iPod function. I've had an iPhone for 3 years
> and I think I've used it to play music 5 times.
>
I have no explanation for this phenomenon...
> Maybe my friends and I are just getting older, and only young
> people listen to music. That's possible I suppose, I dunno.
>
Yes. Generally - who has time to stop anything and just listen to music? Probably only young people, or old people. We poor workers and employees in active age must make some money to feed our families.
Besides, there''s a lot of music (or better said music noise) and generally noise level everywhere and people are tired from it.
Besides, me as a music professional, I have enough music in my life being composer and performer and whatever else connected with music, so I don't need to listen so much. My brain is always full of music, mine or somebody's else.

> Where I'm from in PA, everybody learned basic music skills.
>
Yes, it's scientifically proofed music has very positive effect in general education. Unfortunately not every Ministry of Education heard about it.
> Involvement in school choir and band programs was high. People
> took piano lessons. People were in bands. People sang in
> church. The dead heads had drum circles. The local band,
> founded 1906, played every year at the 4th of July festival.
> Halloween parades, football games, and so on, all featured
> music prominently. More importantly, if you went up to a guy
> on the street and sang a pitch, he could match it. Gallop
> should start doing this every year - I'd be curious if any
> trend is observed.
>
> -Carl
>
This still exists, situation is not so tragical, but probably less in the comparison with my younger days in 60's and 70's. There's some shift but people still want to hear music, some study it and perform actively as hobby musicians and can enjoy it.

Daniel Forro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
> You're the one who lumped atonalists together with serialists.

The terminology isn't standardized.

> Stravinsky was strongly influenced by Schoenberg, as was
> Milhaud. In fact, practically every major composer in this
> period responded to the challenge of Schoenberg's music and
> ideas; even if they didn't like the music, they took the
> challenge seriously.

My cat was also influenced by Schoenberg.

> So it appears you have a Hegelian theory of music in which
> history is a one-way train progressing from outmoded
> forms (Western art music) to the new dominant form, American
> popular music. Anyone who doesn't jump on the train is
> obsolescent.

Didn't say that, and I hardly see any resemblance to Hegel
here, and it's no any pet theory of mine, just a narrative
I put together in response to Chris' post.

> It's odd, I thought the musical populists were complaining
> about the serialists using the model of progress to
> marginalize them; apparently now the populists have taken
> over the train.

Hardly.

> I love Louis Armstrong and many other popular artists; I am
> not, however, trying to do the same thing as they are. I
> think we need to have a wide range of very different musics
> in the world.

Those who know me know I agree. You're jumping to conclusions.

> Your argument appears to be that if government offer support
> to the musical life of a country, the music that is produced
> is illegitimate...is that right?

No.

> Does that makes the music of all Medieval and Renaissance
> composers, almost all Baroque composers, most Classical
> composers, many Romantic composers, and most modern composers
> illegitimate?

Actually the early music scene is quite vibrant on its own
merits. In fact no music receives gov't support in the U.S.
and as you probably know, we have the best orchestras in
the world (though they can no longer be described as vibrant).
The best chamber ensembles come from Europe, but they make
their living touring and selling albums here. Speaking of
which, Europe Galante did a nice show on Saturday I was going
to post about... nearly perfect 5-limit intonation throughout.
Though Biondi looks tired, frankly.

> It's an interesting theory, but, if I may say so, a bit daffy.

You may, but nobody will take you seriously unless you
back it up.

> For your information, there are hundreds of composers writing
> experimental and avant-garde music in the United States as
> well, without government support.

Yes, I was one (for about a year when I was 19).

> These is a pretty strong blanket condemnation of a field you
> don't like.

You're welcome to defend it. We've got lots of practice here
demonstrating that it's baloney. Where by we, I apparently
mean me, since I'm the last of the older members still reading
the list it seems.

> There are serious problems in set theory as a theory of analysis,

You mean like making zero testable predictions? That certainly
is a problem for any theory.

> but it does offer a useful labeling system.

We've demonstrated that approximately 90% of results from this
field depend on numerology involving 12-ET, and fall apart
when applied to other tuning systems that nonetheless sound
very similar. But go ahead, let's hear about the labels.

> There is a fair amount of excellent music composed using basic
> elements of set theory.

No doubt. But it almost certainly owes nothing to the theory.

> It would be worthwhile having a fruitful discussion of the
> pros and cons of set theory, but to judge from the tenor of
> your paragraph, this probably isn't possible with you.

We've spit out Agmon and Tymoczko (among others), and given
Jon Wild a pass because he secretly doesn't believe a word
of it. So by all means. After your post on scientific
relativism it should be a blast.

-Carl

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 26 Jan 2010, at 8:22 AM, Cox Franklin wrote:

>
> "Atonal music / serialism was never popular, and has been
> getting less popular ever since. Yes it was a major force
> in academic music in the 20th century, but it amounts to a
> fly turd on the windowsill of 20th century music as a whole."
>
> It's funny to constantly read accusations against composers or > atonal/serial music of exclusivity and bias, made by people > joyously trumpeting the end of atonal/serial music, as though they > were irritated that such a thing exists in the world. One could > certainly conclude that this indicates an attitude of exclusivity > and bias--against atonal/serial music.
>
I wouldn't also called "atonal music/serialism" academic music. But I think its time is 50 years over, it was just one of the styles of 20th century music so we can consider it as a historical music. Of course it's still living and performed and it has its listeners. And for sure some composers still try to find some new ways in serialism - my teacher Pinos invented interesting intervallic method and found with the help of computer all 12tone all-intervallic series, I try "tonal serialism" or "serial tonality"...

> Atonal (or, better, "post-tonal" or "pantonal," Schoenberg's > favorite term; Shoenberg hated the term "atonal," which he > considered nonsensical) actually did intrigue audiences, > especially in the 19-teens and 20's, and there was widespread > interest and support for the music of the 2nd Viennese school > throughout Schoenberg's life. There is currently a large > infrastructure for new music in Europe, most of it outside the > academy; this includes regular concert series, performances by > symphony orchestras, opera performances, and so forth.
>
I don't think this music is performed as it would deserve, it's not so often on the concert programs.

> It might interest you to know that Berg and Webern never taught in > a university, Schoenberg only began teaching in an academy in his > 50's, Ives and Ruggles never taught in a university, nor did Varese > or Wyschnegradsky, and so forth.
>
Yes, Schonberg was excellent teacher, but as far as I know he taught mainly traditional music theory, composition, harmony, counterpoint and analysis - not his dodecaphony or atonal music. It's enough clear from his theoretical textbooks.
> It is hard to find many major composers of the first part of the > 20th century who were not influenced by Schoenberg and his school > in some way, but this was not owing to academic training, which > was in general biased against Schoenberg and the "atonalists." Do > you really think that Berg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Varese, Ruggles, > etc., were "academic composers"? Do you really consider all of > these composers insignificant? I believe you are talking solely > about post-WWII composition in America, but even then your > statement is not accurate. There are thousands of composers today > writing post-tonal music, and there are networks and festivals > throughout the world for this music. Many of these composers are > doing most of their compositional work outside the academy. In > fact, in my experience, the biases within the academy against > adventurous music--such as microtonal music--are usually severe. It > has been very hard to get hired as a composer in a university if > one writes music in 1/4 tones and with complex rhythms, especially > if the music is not considered positive and affirming. Some people > continue to write this difficult music anyway. I don't want their > careers and this music to be eliminated, so I have to differ with > you in the strongest possible terms.
>
>
> Dr. Franklin Cox
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> (937) 767-1165
> franklincox@...
>

I think also that Music Academies, Conservatories or Music universities are rather conservative in their taste what contemporary music is. I'm talking from personal experience. It was not prohibited to write more avantguard (or even less avantguard) music than what was considered mainstream but it was not quite welcomed. One of reasons why I finished my teaching job at the Academy of Music.

Daniel Forro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Daniel wrote:

> > but it was often Beethoven or Mozart being played from
> > manuscript by the young lady of the house.
>
> Why from manuscript? It was possible to buy printed scores.

By "manuscript" I meant generically sheet music, a.k.a.
through-composed music.

> And see bove - this music is not so easy to be performed
> by amateurs and hobby musicians.

I'm well aware of, for instance, pushback from Beethoven's
publishers when he went too far. But the average young lady
in the drawing room was more fascicle than you seem to
acknowledge, and Europe's young lady class was quite large
already. But nothing on America of the 1920s, when every
home had a piano and every young middle-class woman could
play the $0.05 scores of the day, if not some Joplin rags
or even Chopin as well.

> This is true only partly IMHO. I would accuse mainly the education
> system, and change of music (and generally role of art in the
> society), also changed preferences. Of course recording media
> supported this. But still there's a lot of printed music scores
> and who wants to make music actively, can do it so easily
> nowadays.

The point is that there is no need to do so. Humans have a
basic need for music. If it cannot be met without creating the
music oneself, that is a big deal. This necessity, along with
the predominance of monophonic instruments (or one may say, the
expense of polyphonic ones) is a primary reason music notation
was invented in the first place. And notation allowed esoteric
music to develop, creating the divide between popular and
'academic' forms.

Audio recording has caused a sharp decline in the ability to
read music notation. Not only among the public, but also among
musicians. In fact, most musicians no longer use notation
at all. American music is an entire pillar built on musicians
passing along techniques through recordings. Many jazz
guitarists would learn tunes through one another's recordings.
Art Tatum learned by feeling a player piano. etc.

Prog rock was the first avant garde genre not to use music
notation. Well ok, maybe bebop, but let's continue: it was
multitrack recording that made this possible. In hindsight
we can see the advent of multitrack studio recording causing
the progressive rock movement, starting with the Beatles and
their 4-track. It enabled complexity to be built up without
the use of notation.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

Marcel,

when you assign entire genres of music the label "crap," then you are not being tolerant. You and Carl do not differentiate successful or unsuccessful pieces in any given modern style, but rather consign it all to perdition.

It would be much wiser to preface your opinions with phrases such as
"in my opnion," or "as I perceive it," rather than saying "it is
(expletive)." The latter is a rather incoherent opinion--akin to a belch--masked as a quasi-objective statement. There is really nothing to say in response to such a gesture.

I doubt that either of you has heard much of the more recent microtonal, "complex" music by younger composers influenced by composers such as Ferneyhough, Xenakis, and Carter. Some of this music is powerful, some not, but I suspect either of you would listen about 30 seconds to any of it before asserting that it "is" some sort of fecal material. Perhaps the continued existence of such music would drive Carl into a rage, I don't know. But I cherish some of this music, and I don't want the possibility of writing music this way to disappear.

I don't think it's at all impossible to support this support this sort of noisy,"ugly" music at the same time as I support and record Ben Johnston's music or perform Elliott Carter's music or perform Bach in extended just intonation. There are many types of music out there, and probably the least interesting way of distinguishing them is the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the sound. As I indicated earlier, all Renaissance music, if performed well, is sonically beautiful, but some is dreadfully boring and some is thrilling. Some noisy microtonal complex music is galvanizing, some is tedious. For me, the way the composer shapes the listening experience is far more interesting than making a snap judgment based on my subjective reaction to the "sound" of the piece.

yours,

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re:Ambissonance
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 1:09 AM

Hi Franklin,

I would suggest that you use another term than "tonality." This term has a fairly clear and stable meaning, with a long history. You don't get to simply make up new meanings for words.

I allready did in later on in the thread you're referring to.
I've called it JI-tonic and JI-tonality to avoid name confusion.

You throw around the terms "wrong" and "right" with great assurance. Saying something is "right" doesn't make it right, no matter how often or how loudly you say it.

True about the "right".
Though about the "wrong" I'm not simply saying it because I'm the sole person who's ears find it wrong.
Most people will find it wrong, but equally important there are fundamental logical problems in many tuning systems, like normal JI that can't even do a I-vi-ii-V progression etc.

In the long run, your work--not your judgments--needs to convince other people. And if you're certain that everyone in the world besides you is doing everything wrong, you're not likely to convince too many people.

I don't see the 2 things beeing related.
But if my calling the tuning systems in use now as wrong, makes my own tuning system wrong to you by default then so be it.
I agree completely that my work will need to convince people and I'm confident that it'll do so in a matter of 1 to 2 weeks after making proper renderings that are more clear to the ear. And convince people both on tuning lists etc, aswell as convince general public ears (especially general public ears)

Strength of will is a wonderful quality, but so is tolerance.

Negative comments ment to be constructive.
Though I admit I was somehow a bit grumpy. Don't really know why other than the reasons I allready explained.
But anyhow I didn't mean this discussion to start :)

(expect for one minor thing about music maybe dissapearing in 50 years, it'll become more an internet/new media and concert/club/ pub thing it seem to me)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Franklin,

Marcel,
>
> when you assign entire genres of music the label "crap," then you are not
> being tolerant. You and Carl do not differentiate successful or
> unsuccessful pieces in any given modern style, but rather consign it all to
> perdition.
>
> It would be much wiser to preface your opinions with phrases such as "in my
> opnion," or "as I perceive it," rather than saying "it is (expletive)." The
> latter is a rather incoherent opinion--akin to a belch--masked as a
> quasi-objective statement. There is really nothing to say in response to
> such a gesture.
>

I agree to a large degree.
I'm trying to do just that on the list atleast.
But usually when I say something, I see it as my opinion, as it is me who's
saying it.

Btw, you yourself are guilty aswell it seems to me, as your statements about
me not knowing anything about tonic and all those other things you said, you
said them in a general sense aswell, not preceeded by "I think" or "it is my
opinion that" or something like that ;-)

So while I agree that it's best to talk in such a manner atleast on this
list, it's easily forgetten it seems to me :)

> I doubt that either of you has heard much of the more recent microtonal,
> "complex" music by younger composers influenced by composers such as
> Ferneyhough, Xenakis, and Carter. Some of this music is powerful, some not,
> but I suspect either of you would listen about 30 seconds to any of it
> before asserting that it "is" some sort of fecal material. Perhaps the
> continued existence of such music would drive Carl into a rage, I don't
> know. But I cherish some of this music, and I don't want the possibility of
> writing music this way to disappear.
>

Xenakis and Carter I do know.
I've listened a lot to this kind of music, but no longer do so.
It is my opinion that this music is simply less musically interesting, and
most often not even that pleasant to listen to and bores fast for me etc.

>
> I don't think it's at all impossible to support this support this sort of
> noisy,"ugly" music at the same time as I support and record Ben Johnston's
> music or perform Elliott Carter's music or perform Bach in extended just
> intonation. There are many types of music out there, and probably the least
> interesting way of distinguishing them is the "beauty" or "ugliness" of the
> sound. As I indicated earlier, all Renaissance music, if performed well, is
> sonically beautiful, but some is dreadfully boring and some is thrilling.
> Some noisy microtonal complex music is galvanizing, some is tedious. For
> me, the way the composer shapes the listening experience is far more
> interesting than making a snap judgment based on my subjective reaction to
> the "sound" of the piece.
>
> yours,
>
> Franklin

I do however think that there could likely be made a case for some music
beeing more musical, and more musically interesting and rich etc.
But this is a discussion I'm not willing to really get into as it'll spell
trouble with a zillion different opinions haha.

One more thing.
You did not take back or respond to my response to the things you said about
my JI, and tonic etc.

Let me show you a example chord progression:

C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)
C (1/1) - Ab (8/5) - C (2/1) - Eb (12/5)
Db (16/15) - " - " - "
Eb (6/5) - G (3/2) - Bb (9/5) - Eb (12/5)
Bb (9/10) - F (4/3) - Bb (9/5) - Db (32/15)
Db (16/15) - " - " - "
F (4/3) - F (4/3) - A (5/3) - C (2/1)
C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)
B (15/16) - D (9/8) - G (3/2) - B (15/8)
" - E (5/4) - " - "
" - F (4/3) - " - "
C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)

Now I'd like to ask you which tonic this is in.
And if you'd tune it any other way. (good luck with extended JI)

If you agree this is tuned correctly and is in the tonic of C, then you in
my opinion must agree to my tuning of drei equale and the fact that the
beginning is not in D minor but in JI-tonic of E because otherwise it would
be very very inconsistent.

Hope you take a serious look at this example, as it has the potential to
teach a lot.

Marcel
www.develde.net

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

> Actually the early music scene is quite vibrant on its own
merits.

> Jazz is widely considered to be a dead form. I won't debate it.

>"Sorry to detach sentences from their context but if jazz is dead, how
can early music scene be vibrant? Are the criteria for being dead
somehow different? "

Hmm....
If jazz is dead, so must be classical, avant-garde, micro-tonal, or anything else most non-academics would not know a fair deal about.
IMVHO, virtually all genres (minus avant-garde and (sadly) micro-tonal) are vibrant....so long as people are using chords, techniques...derived from genres like jazz and classical they are dead, just evolving into the ultimate modernized abstract genre, which is that of the art of music. Modern music is actually fairly non-genre-based in many ways: you hear classical excerpts even in things like hip-hop and often jazz chord progressions and brass leads in underground dance music and electronica backgrounds, filters, and flanger effects scattered through modern rock music.

There are a few genres which remain "pure", like folk and bluegrass...but most genres rip off techniques and attitudes from each other left and right...and, IMVHO, there's nothing wrong with that; it's just evolution.
As a side note I'm a huge supporter of what musicians like Sevish(mostly drum&bass)/Neil-Haverstick(rock)/Marcus-Satellite(dance&ambient) are doing, which is combine microtonal flare to existing genres in the same way classical and jazz flare is often applied to modern genres and not using an "us vs. them" mentallity about it all. Sneak a bit of micro-tonallity into an otherwise familiar sounding work and let other artists evolve the degree in which micro-tonallity is used...until at least a good deal of it becomes "accepted as normal".

________________________________
From: Kalle <kalleaho@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 8:02:43 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Ambissonance

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

> Actually the early music scene is quite vibrant on its own
merits.

> Jazz is widely considered to be a dead form. I won't debate it.

Sorry to detach sentences from their context but if jazz is dead, how
can early music scene be vibrant? Are the criteria for being dead
somehow different?

Kalle Aho

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 26 Jan 2010, at 12:44 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> The point is that there is no need to do so. Humans have a
> basic need for music. If it cannot be met without creating the
> music oneself, that is a big deal. This necessity, along with
> the predominance of monophonic instruments (or one may say, the
> expense of polyphonic ones) is a primary reason music notation
> was invented in the first place.
>
Also different other ways how to write music, for example
tablatures... or figured bass, or chord signs... or graphical scores...
> And notation allowed esoteric
> music to develop, creating the divide between popular and
> 'academic' forms.
>
I wouldn't evaluate role of notation so highly. Yes, it's important,
it enabled fixing of performed music, but anyway it's not quite exact
picture of performed music, so it can be even limiting or at least
distorting factor. I take it just as a way how to write down music.
How it could help in the composition? Composer can work just with the
sound in his imagination, with pitches, rhythms and timbres, and
later just write down a finished work on the paper (Mozart, Schönberg
and many others).

Besides composers of both main styles - art music and popular music -
can use improvisation as well as notation. Dividing line is not in
the knowledge of the standard notation.
> Audio recording has caused a sharp decline in the ability to
> read music notation. Not only among the public, but also among
> musicians. In fact, most musicians no longer use notation
> at all. American music is an entire pillar built on musicians
> passing along techniques through recordings. Many jazz
> guitarists would learn tunes through one another's recordings.
> Art Tatum learned by feeling a player piano. etc.
>

That can be true, but despite my classical education in music when I
have no problem with scores, sight-reading and similar, I started
slowly to think it's maybe not so important to know this all. There
are more possible ways how to study music, and listening is one of
them. I have worked with blind musicians, pretty good, they can't
work with standard scores, so they had alternative ways how to learn
music. They were used to their methods and didn't need scores.
And for the performing score isn't necesssary at all, without looking
into the score musician can better concentrate on the controlling the instrument.
>
> Prog rock was the first avant garde genre not to use music
> notation.
>
What's so avant-garde in prog rock in your opinion? Or maybe you have
just some different definition of "avant-garde" or "prog rock" than me.
Yes, it's more complex music than mainstream pop, in some cases. Therefore I don't think it was created by uneducated amateur
musicians without knowledge of notation and some music theory.

> Well ok, maybe bebop, but let's continue: it was multitrack
> recording that made this possible. In hindsight
>
> we can see the advent of multitrack studio recording causing
> the progressive rock movement, starting with the Beatles and
> their 4-track. It enabled complexity to be built up without
> the use of notation.
>
> -Carl
>

And for sure there's nothing wrong with such attitude to making
music. It's just another way how to do it. It's a proof that absence
of knowledge of standard music notation not necessarily has bad
results. Multitrack recording together with improvising ability and
general creativity is a strong weapon in doing music. Besides music
is not only exact pitch selected from 12tone system and exact simple
rhythm, or harmony or polyphony. There's much more possibilities, and
lot of them is difficult if not impossible to describe in the
standard notation.

So maybe knowledge of notation slowly disappears, but some new ways
of making music were created. It's just a development. Let's watch
what it will bring in the future.

Daniel Forro

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:

> I wouldn't evaluate role of notation so highly. Y
...
> How it could help in the composition?

Seriously?

> Composer can work just with the sound in his imagination,
> with pitches, rhythms and timbres, and later just write down
> a finished work on the paper (Mozart, Schönberg and many
> others).

There isn't such a thing as composers without notation.
The skill to imagine before writing is gained through lots
of practice with writing, and in a culture of music based
on generations of writing->playing->listening->writing...
Without this feedback loop, music would have evolved
very differently.

I suppose the analogy is in oral traditions vs. literature.
How do Beowulf and the Odyssey compare to later forms?
Wait, that's a topic for another list. :)

> > Prog rock was the first avant garde genre not to use music
> > notation.
>
> What's so avant-garde in prog rock in your opinion? Or maybe
> you have just some different definition of "avant-garde" or
> "prog rock" than me.

Maybe so. Howabout "the first experimental genre"?

> Yes, it's more complex music than mainstream pop, in some cases.
> Therefore I don't think it was created by uneducated amateur
> musicians without knowledge of notation and some music theory.

Steve Howe for example can't read music. Rick Wakeman can,
though probably he can't sightread at the same level he plays.
I don't know how much music training Emerson and Fripp had.
But I do know that notation was not used at any point in the
creation of the big Yes tunes... they were made in the studio,
built up with a multitrack recorder.

> And for sure there's nothing wrong with such attitude to making
> music.

No, of course not!

> It's just another way how to do it. It's a proof that absence
> of knowledge of standard music notation not necessarily has bad
> results. Multitrack recording together with improvising ability
> and general creativity is a strong weapon in doing music.

Absolutely!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jan 2010, at 12:51 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > Jazz is widely considered to be a dead form. I won't debate it.
>
> You say something so provocative, and close the discussion about
> it?

Ok, sorry. I am hardly the first person to say it! And this
is not the list. Jazz died at some point in the 1960s, probably
around 1968 when Miles' last acoustic group split up.

> Hm... Well, there's maybe not to see some marcant shift in the
> style since fusion times in 70's,

Fusion is the first attempt to extend jazz that really couldn't
be considered jazz any longer. All musical forms go through
this cycle of discovery, exploration, and finally they reach a
point when nothing can be added without fundamentally changing
them somehow. Coleman's Free Jazz is generally considered the
first signs that this point had been reached.

> > I would strongly disagree, as I find very important innovations
> > in all three genres mentioned.
>
> I'm not specialist in those styles, maybe I have prejudices or am
> biased. Could you point me please somewhere, write some names and
> show some concrete examples of innovations? Whole popular music in
> my opinion didn't bring too much new ideas into the world of
> music, generally, in the comparison with experimental classical
> (or as you wrote "academic") music.

The innovations won't be in theory, like the introduction of
triads in the Renaissance or the tonal style in the Baroque.
Our tuning system prevents this -- which is presumably why we're
on this mailing list. And I haven't thought much about how
to put it into words, but here goes

punk - transformed folk forms into an aggressive electric style

grunge - essentially a completely free form in terms of what
you can play (Pixies, later Nirvana)

indie - again brought back experimental freedom in popular
music, characteristic vocal style, blends elements of classic
rock (guitar tone and riffs), sparse drumming, and achieved
more subtlety and profundity in lyrics than did either punk
or grunge

(The three forms are actually very closely related, and also
all involved very distinct movements in clothing fashion... in
fact the Sex Pistols got started in a clothing store.)

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

I guess Marcel would be serving up some pretty scary stuff if it wasn't all hopelessly so infantile,or maybe that level of naivete multiplied by a "cause" actually makes it scarier?
I dunno?
in any event, microtonalist, and especially Just Intonationist <sic>, should take note of how foolish this all sounds---and that's whether you agree, half-agree or totally disagree with Marcel---in the wider context of art of creativity and the imagination
sure it's all rather predictable and all too familiar----kind of like fishing in a barrel for a used car salesman who's read too many self-help books, only worse....
but if you ever for a second wondered why i, or even people half-somewhat like myself,so seldom participate in these forums anymore,look no further

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Franklin,
>
>
> Marcel,
> >
> > I think you need a bit of a reality check. Your theoretical skills are
> > clearly very weak, as is evident from your confusion about the key center
> > for the Drei Equale (you were confusing the scale you used for your
> > realization with the tonality of piece, which wasn't written for JI).
> >
>
> No I was not confusing.
> My JI system has something that is best described as tonality, and often
> agrees for the largest part with the normal meaning of tonality in simple
> compositions.
> Drei equale does not agree with beeing in D minor. I belief this is clearly
> an area where normal music theory is lacking and wrong in this case.
> Long story to explain further, but no I don't agree with what you're saying.
> And if you'd look into the piece a bit deeper then you'd also see for
> yourself that normal music theory doesn't much know what to make of drei
> equale in any case.
> To say it does is nonsense. Yes sure you can write wrong things on paper and
> it may or may not later be found to be wrong, but in JI you can't get away
> with such things as the results are audible.
>
>
>
> > It also appears as though you know much about the history of JI or about
> > other composers' music. Do you know Ben Johnston's music? He's been writing
> > fantastically complex pieces in extended just intonation for the last four
> > decades. Do you know of Plainsound.org, the collective of composers
> > working in JI?
> >
>
> Yes I do know about the history of JI.
> And I'm very well aware of what untill now has been called JI is very very
> flawed.
> I'm trying to do things according to the true meaning of the name, Just
> Intonation, that is to tune perfectly in tune.
> To tune perfectly in tune does not mean that every fifth is 3/2, on of the
> many errors of what has mainly become to be known as JI.
> For those that don't see my system as JI I've called my system Tonal-JI just
> to stop the argument about names, but my system is pure and correct JI.
>
> I also know Ben Johnston's music. I like it.
> But it's not very complex in my opinion, and also not in tune, though
> sometimes he gets close in my opinion (because of good ears and writing
> pieces that work in a single tonality it seems to me)
>
> I wasn't aware of plainsound.org
> Thanks for the link!
>
>
> > How can you claim that your etude is the "First time a piece this complex
> > is in JI"? There must be hundreds, if not thousands of pieces written in JI
> > or transcriptions of older music in JI. For example, for my performances of
> > Bach suites in extended JI, I've made transcriptions of the first three
> > suites in JI so that I can practice with them. The Drei Equale is actually
> > a fairly simply piece to do in JI--why are you making such inflated claims?
> >
> >
>
> Yes and I belief just about all those thousands of pieces in JI are wrong.
> The ones that are right are only of very simple music and a very lucky to be
> right. More of a coincidence than otherwise.
> And extended JI is a joke, sorry.
> Please enter the contest and tune drei equale better than me and you win
> 100,- if it's as simple as you say.
>
>
> > I really take offense at your consigning of all the music whose sound you
> > don't like under the rubric of "crap"; perhaps this reveals the presence of
> > the "Rush Limbaugh gene" I've mentioned earlier. There are many types of
> > music in the world that a very much different from each other. Learn to
> > live with it.
> >
> > Franklin
> >
>
> No I will not learn to live with seeing things like 12tet as "correct" and
> in tune.
> Neither do I see a correct system in any of the other tuning systems in use
> in the world.
> My driving force is that there's something to be done.
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Ok I had a few more insights into tonic.
And I should come up with a completely new name for what I've been calling
tonic up till now.
With my new understanding of tonic however, that fits both the normal use of
tonic and the JI use of it, I can say the following about the Drei Equale
piece:

It begins in A minor
Modulates to D minor in measure 15.3
Modulates to A minor again in measure 29
And finally modulates again to D minor in measure 35.3 and stays in D minor
till the end.

Btw, the minor key allways has a 27/20 fourth. And it can have a 5/4 major
third anytime it wants, it's very natural.

So the beginning:
D (27/20) - A (2/1) - D (27/10) - F (16/5)
D (27/20) - A (2/1) - D (27/10) - F (16/5)
D (8/5) - A (2/1) - D (27/10) - F (16/5)
A (2/1) - A (2/1) - C# (5/4) - E (3/2)
etc, rest of the beginning also in A minor (not D minor)

As you can also hear, the resting of the beginning is on A.
And one can just as wel play C (6/5) instead of C# (5/4) to play natural
minor.

I'm sure Beethoven was well aware the beginning is in A minor.
But since it has portions both in A minor and in D minor, and it ends in D
minor, he just wrote 1 b (I don't know the english name) in the score.

Marcel

On 26 January 2010 18:03, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
> I do however think that there could likely be made a case for some music
> beeing more musical, and more musically interesting and rich etc.
> But this is a discussion I'm not willing to really get into as it'll spell
> trouble with a zillion different opinions haha.
>
>
> One more thing.
> You did not take back or respond to my response to the things you said
> about my JI, and tonic etc.
>
> Let me show you a example chord progression:
>
> C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)
> C (1/1) - Ab (8/5) - C (2/1) - Eb (12/5)
> Db (16/15) - " - " - "
> Eb (6/5) - G (3/2) - Bb (9/5) - Eb (12/5)
> Bb (9/10) - F (4/3) - Bb (9/5) - Db (32/15)
> Db (16/15) - " - " - "
> F (4/3) - F (4/3) - A (5/3) - C (2/1)
> C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)
> B (15/16) - D (9/8) - G (3/2) - B (15/8)
> " - E (5/4) - " - "
> " - F (4/3) - " - "
> C (1/1) - E (5/4) - G (3/2) - C (2/1)
>
> Now I'd like to ask you which tonic this is in.
> And if you'd tune it any other way. (good luck with extended JI)
>
> If you agree this is tuned correctly and is in the tonic of C, then you in
> my opinion must agree to my tuning of drei equale and the fact that the
> beginning is not in D minor but in JI-tonic of E because otherwise it would
> be very very inconsistent.

btw please forget my previous stupid example, it's nonsense and modulates.

Ambissonance

🔗c_ml_forster <cris.forster@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...>

🔗hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗John Moriarty <JlMoriart@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>