listen to mother nature

[Gerald Eskelin:]
>Unlike singers, string players learn their craft in isolation, away
from the influence of keyboards, where they are much more likely to
"listen to mother nature."

This is a favorite quote (well more like a slogan of the indomitable
really) of mine from Charles Ives _MEMOS_. I believe it shows one mans
heartfelt frustrations with "mother nature" as a limiting, "easiest to
acquire" notion, one that is often and easily flung round the
imaginations neck - "opus contra naturam":

"Any art or habit of life, if it is limited chronically to a few
processes that are the easiest to acquire (and for that reason are
said to be some natural laws), must at some time, quite probably,
become so weakened that it is neither a part of art nor a part of
life. Nature has bigger things than even-vibration-ratios for man to
learn how to use. Consonance is a relative thing (just a nice name for
a nice habit). It is a natural enough part of music, but not the
whole, or the only one. The simplest ratios, often called perfect
consonances, have been used for so long and so constantly that not
only music, but also musicians and audiences, have become more or less
soft... If they hear anything but do-me-soh or a near cousin, they
have to be carried out on a stretcher."

The wrap-up of his odd (eccentric even by Ivesian standards!) postlude
to _114 SONGS_ culminates in a similar call to occasionally pass the
door of physiology, "to walk in a cave, on all fours," to "try to
scale mountains that are not.":

"Some of the songs in this book, particularly among the latter ones,
cannot be sung,--and if they could perhaps might prefer, if they had a
say, to remain as they are,--that is, "in the leaf,"--and that they
will remain in this peaceful state is more than presumable. An excuse
(if none of the above are good enough) for their existence, which
suggests itself at this point, is that a song has a *few* rights the
same as other ordinary citizens. If it feels like walking along the
left hand side of the street--passing the door of physiology or
sitting on the curb, why not let it? If it feels like kicking over an
ash can, a poet's castle, or the prosodic law, will you stop it? Must
it always be a polite triad, a "breve gaudium," a yellow ribbon to
match the voice? Should it not be free at times from the dominion of
the thorax, the diaphragm, the ear and other points of interest? If it
wants to beat around in the valley, to throw stones up the pyramids,
or to sleep in the park, should it not have some immunity from a
Nemesis, a Rameses, or a policeman? Should it not have a chance to
sing to itself, if it can sing?--to enjoy itself, without making a
bow, if it can't make a bow?--to swim around in any ocean, if it can
swim, without having to swallow "hook and bait" or being sunk by an
operatic greyhound? If it happens to feel like flying where humans can
not fly,--to sing what cannot be sung--to walk in a cave, on all
fours,--or to tighten up its girth in blind hope and faith, and try to
scale mountains that are not--Who shall stop it!

--In short, must a song
always be a song!"

My own personal feeling about this is that one of the great
liberation's of an expanded intonational palette is having so many
multiple interpretations of something as well-thumbed as say the major
triad... to my ways of working and thinking, this was exactly why I
was initially so fired up about the possibilities of "microtonality" -
it seemed to really bode well for the possibilities of music...

I really don't see any reason why a strict fidelity to "aural
instincts" would yield the same tuning results in one *musical
paradigm* (composer, style, instrument types and combinations, etc.,
etc.) as they would in another. What listening "to mother nature"
yields for one, might not be what she yields for another... or at
least based on my own experience, that's the way it would seem to me.

Dan

Dan Stearns posted a thoughtful and interesting comment on " 'mother nature'
as a limiting, 'easiest to
acquire' notion," which concluded:

> My own personal feeling about this is that one of the great
> liberation's of an expanded intonational palette is having so many
> multiple interpretations of something as well-thumbed as say the major
> triad... to my ways of working and thinking, this was exactly why I
> was initially so fired up about the possibilities of "microtonality" -
> it seemed to really bode well for the possibilities of music...
>
> I really don't see any reason why a strict fidelity to "aural
> instincts" would yield the same tuning results in one *musical
> paradigm* (composer, style, instrument types and combinations, etc.,
> etc.) as they would in another. What listening "to mother nature"
> yields for one, might not be what she yields for another... or at
> least based on my own experience, that's the way it would seem to me.

As is the often the benefit of honest dialogue, this response to my posts
regarding "mother nature" shines a strong light on what I am _not talking
about. One of the important principles of art is deviation from a norm. I
wholeheartedly agree with Dan that the excitement of microtonality may well
be an example of that principle. Painters are not limited to the use of red,
yellow and blue to create their art, yet it may be of valuable to know
something about those "primary colors" and how that relates to the
perception of color in general.

My interest in discovering what is "natural" has to do with my role as an
educator. For example, during my half century of music teaching I have
observed hundreds of music students struggling to learn to recognize
intervals, chords, etc. by playing them on the piano. For the past ten years
or so, I have encouraged students to train their ears by singing intervals
and chords to a sounding "root." The difference in progress has been quite
remarkable. My working conclusion, therefore, is that "listening to mother
nature" is a good place to start when it comes to training ears.

During the past thirty years, I have encouraged my choral singers (both
amateur and professional) to seek the "best tuning" of the pitches they sing
in relation to a sounding chord. For about fifteen years, I hosted a weekly
"workshop" in which excellent singers listened carefully for optimum tuning.
As a result, I think I know quite a lot about how singers go about doing
that and about what the results sound like. What I don't know much about is
_why certain choices are made (the "high third," for example). That is why
I'm here participating on the List. So it is very important for List members
to understand both what I am saying (in the context of my quest) and what I
am not saying.

Your post has helped me to clarify that, I believe.

Many thanks,

Jerry

Dan and Gerald1
A generalization! In the East the the arts venture further in nature, in the
west the motion is to move outside! Earth gods and Godesses as opposed to Sky
God and godesses. Enough of the sky gods, they sacrifice the earth for the vast
unseen!

Gerald Eskelin wrote:

> From: "Gerald Eskelin" <stg3music@earthlink.net>
>
> Dan Stearns posted a thoughtful and interesting comment on " 'mother nature'
> as a limiting, 'easiest to
> acquire' notion," which concluded:
>
> > My own personal feeling about this is that one of the great
> > liberation's of an expanded intonational palette is having so many
> > multiple interpretations of something as well-thumbed as say the major
> > triad... to my ways of working and thinking, this was exactly why I
> > was initially so fired up about the possibilities of "microtonality" -
> > it seemed to really bode well for the possibilities of music...
> >
> > I really don't see any reason why a strict fidelity to "aural
> > instincts" would yield the same tuning results in one *musical
> > paradigm* (composer, style, instrument types and combinations, etc.,
> > etc.) as they would in another. What listening "to mother nature"
> > yields for one, might not be what she yields for another... or at
> > least based on my own experience, that's the way it would seem to me.
>
> As is the often the benefit of honest dialogue, this response to my posts
> regarding "mother nature" shines a strong light on what I am _not talking
> about. One of the important principles of art is deviation from a norm. I
> wholeheartedly agree with Dan that the excitement of microtonality may well
> be an example of that principle. Painters are not limited to the use of red,
> yellow and blue to create their art, yet it may be of valuable to know
> something about those "primary colors" and how that relates to the
> perception of color in general.
>
> My interest in discovering what is "natural" has to do with my role as an
> educator. For example, during my half century of music teaching I have
> observed hundreds of music students struggling to learn to recognize
> intervals, chords, etc. by playing them on the piano. For the past ten years
> or so, I have encouraged students to train their ears by singing intervals
> and chords to a sounding "root." The difference in progress has been quite
> remarkable. My working conclusion, therefore, is that "listening to mother
> nature" is a good place to start when it comes to training ears.
>
> During the past thirty years, I have encouraged my choral singers (both
> amateur and professional) to seek the "best tuning" of the pitches they sing
> in relation to a sounding chord. For about fifteen years, I hosted a weekly
> "workshop" in which excellent singers listened carefully for optimum tuning.
> As a result, I think I know quite a lot about how singers go about doing
> that and about what the results sound like. What I don't know much about is
> _why certain choices are made (the "high third," for example). That is why
> I'm here participating on the List. So it is very important for List members
> to understand both what I am saying (in the context of my quest) and what I
> am not saying.
>
> Your post has helped me to clarify that, I believe.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Jerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shop the web for great deals. Save on Computers,
> electronics, Home furnishings and more.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1559/0/_/239029/_/951071022/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

[Gerald Eskelin:]
>Painters are not limited to the use of red, yellow and blue to create
their art, yet it may be of valuable to know something about those
"primary colors" and how that relates to the perception of color in
general.

I like that analogy, and I know that I do try to keep myself open to
what I can make happen out on the edge of my own ear, and what I can
learn from knowledgeable folks whose musical experience, orientation,
and interests are often times very different from mine.

>My interest in discovering what is "natural" has to do with my role
as an educator. For example, during my half century of music teaching
I have observed hundreds of music students struggling to learn to
recognize intervals, chords, etc. by playing them on the piano. For
the past ten years or so, I have encouraged students to train their
ears by singing intervals and chords to a sounding "root." The
difference in progress has been quite remarkable. My working
conclusion, therefore, is that "listening to mother nature" is a good
place to start when it comes to training ears.

Sure, and this makes a lot of sense, and it has obviously worked very
well for you. However, I would think that the point at which "training
ears" and art diverge (I'm hedging at using the word "music" here just
because I think it's possible that it's literal meaning may not have a
lot to do with "art," and I'm trying to draw a distinction right
there) is a matter of some speculation... and just perhaps, given a
particular situation, that training ears to listen to mother nature
(and all the 'ideology' that would be apt to go along with that
process of learning) might not be the best solution when one is
tackling another paradigm - say the tempering that is brought about by
meantone (this would be an example that is also within the bounds of
this thread, as I remember you questioning whether meantone wasn't
just "an inadequate "stopgap" temperament")... I guess this is sort of
like an analogy of the early inventors who are trying to emulate
nature in an attempt to master flight (where emulating nature -- i.e.,
birds -- just wasn't the best model/mindset for the particular job at
hand).

>For about fifteen years, I hosted a weekly "workshop" in which
excellent singers listened carefully for optimum tuning.

That sounds like great fun, and boy, I can think of some examples that
I'd just love to see what happens to with this approach... I really
think this is a very interesting musical approach and ongoing avenue
for empirical experimentation!

>So it is very important for List members to understand both what I am
saying (in the context of my quest) and what I am not saying.

Well it's always good (I think) to get a better idea of what different
people are saying and *why* here, so thank you for your further
explanations along these lines.

Dan

[Kraig Grady:]
> A generalization! In the East the the arts venture further in
nature, in the west the motion is to move outside! Earth gods and
Godesses as opposed to Sky God and godesses. Enough of the sky gods,
they sacrifice the earth for the vast unseen!

Hey Kraig, have you ever read theoretical physicist, F. David Peat's
"Lighting the Seventh Fire"? I think you'd really like it, I did (I
think this book might've since been reissued as "Blackfoot
Physics")... But I should also say that I always seem to have been
disposed ("naturally" enough it would seem, or at least without much
coercion that I'm aware of) to abstraction, ambiguous blear, and
whatever I can (or can't) cobble together from "the vast unseen" -
microtones certainly included... (Hmm, I guess the chances are pretty
good then that I haven't a hope of ever amounting to much of a
corporealist!)

Dan

[Kraig Grady:]
> A generalization! In the East the the arts venture further in
nature, in the west the motion is to move outside! Earth gods and
Godesses as opposed to Sky God and godesses. Enough of the sky gods,
they sacrifice the earth for the vast unseen!

Hey Kraig, have you ever read theoretical physicist, F. David Peat's
"Lighting the Seventh Fire"? I think you'd really like it, I did (I
think this book might've since been reissued as "Blackfoot
Physics")... But I should also say that I always seem to have been
disposed ("naturally" enough it would seem, or at least without much
coercion that I'm aware of) to abstraction, ambiguous blear, and
whatever I can (or can't) cobble together from "the vast unseen" -
microtones certainly included... (Hmm, I guess the chances are pretty
good then that I haven't a hope of ever amounting to much of a
corporealist!)

Dan

"D.Stearns" wrote:

> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Dan!
First I think that abstraction is not ambiguous. Abstraction can be a
very precise generalization in order to convey a very precise idea. all
realistic paintings are abstractions in that they take a single point in
the action to represent the whole action. The whole action is not there.
The man holds the ax up high and we see the act of chopping wood. This is
abstraction. I believe this type of abstraction is the kind we both love!
It is more like a reduction to an essence. It could be that Partch too
confused the two. Nietzsche likewise saw the Dionysian and Apollian
tendencys as oppisites. The greeks understood that they were brothers. My
comment was an attack on the tendency of lets say wasting Billions looking
for life in near absolute zero ice on Jupiters moon in order to avoid
facing the not only the problems but the mysteries right in front of us.
The sky gods say this method will solve it. I don't think so!

> But I should also say that I always seem to have been
> disposed ("naturally" enough it would seem, or at least without much
> coercion that I'm aware of) to abstraction, ambiguous blear, and
> whatever I can (or can't) cobble together from "the vast unseen" -
> microtones certainly included... (Hmm, I guess the chances are pretty
> good then that I haven't a hope of ever amounting to much of a
> corporealist!)
>
> Dan

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

[Kraig Grady:]
>First I think that abstraction is not ambiguous.

I understand your point, but I doubt most would agree.

>Abstraction can be a very precise generalization in order to convey a
very precise idea.

I'm totally with you on, "Abstraction can be a very precise
generalization," couldn't agree more... but the "to convey a very
precise idea" has really seldom been my experience (in music anyway).

> It is more like a reduction to an essence.

Maybe so, but after thirty some odd years of banging my head against
the wall, I sincerely doubt that everybody agrees what that essence is
(or those essences are)... or maybe they just don't agree with me!
Anyway, the classic definition of abstraction that most fires me up
would have to be:

"insufficiently factual"

I feel most at home when I have some confident way to interface with
the by and large ineffable, and music has had to sort of translate all
that into something concrete for me - a precise generalization...
that's a very good way to put it I think... but now I am surely
starting to ramble, and what is hard enough to even attempt to explain
under the very best of circumstances is only going to totally
disappear if I keep babbling away like this... so I digress!

Dan

"D.Stearns" wrote:

> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
>
> [Kraig Grady:]
> >First I think that abstraction is not ambiguous.
>
> I understand your point, but I doubt most would agree.

I am not alone!
I refer to the works of Rudolf Arnheim, (prof of Pychology of art,
stanford at one time)
"Artistic Abstraction, then , is not a selective reproduction or a
rearrangement of a model-precept, but the representation of some of its
structual characteristics in organized form"
or here is a quote of
Samuel Johnson! Abstraction may simply indicate "a smaller quanity
containing the virtue or power of a greater"

Like dreams, we have a condensation of many forces into a who;le!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

[Kraig Grady:]
>I am not alone!

No, I'm sure your not, and while I actually think that we agree more
than we disagree here, I'll just say that I've seldom had a dream or
heard an instrumental music that struck me as being any good (or that
struck me as having any real depth), that didn't also have some
healthy degree of ambiguous elbow room.

Dan