Erv Wilson

[kalleaho]

I dare you to watch this!

http://www.thesonicsky.com/

[Ogg Vorbis]

I dare you to watch this!

http://www.thesonicsky.com/

Well I sat through the whole 20 minutes there. Kind of a lot of overstatement and hyperbole.

The thing I hear in this description is typical of the mid-twentieth century musical research from Harry Partch to Gordon Mumma to George Crumb, etc. and that is a confusion between syntax and content. The assumption was (is?) that if we could free ourselves of the shackles of conventional temperament (or rhythm, timbre or form) then we would instantly have access to whole other levels of expression and experience.

To make an analogy with language, it's not the words we use which elevate normal speech to poetry, it's the semantic structures which USE or drive syntax. If we could "free ourselves from the shackles of conventional linguistic phonemes and morphemes" would we instantly have access to higher levels of poetry? Nope, sorry.

In my composition class, one day we had an assignment to use a limited set of pitches to produce a whole work. We had to use no more than five pitches from the ET set and generate a work of sizable length. The product not only became one of my favorite pieces from my student years. but the lessons were incredibly valuable, which was 1) More vocabulary does not equal more compositional possibility (in fact if often means less) and 2) Musical semantics transcends vocabulary, it is not dependent upon it.

So for all the "cool" and "interesting" and "new" possibilities that someone thinks up, it always comes back down to the familiar situation of having something to say...

On the other hand, I think studies of vocabulary has its place. It's important to realize that tunings, rhythms, timbres and forms are not static, but DO reside in an open, dynamic and rich state in the infinite soup of possibility. It's great to explore and research, but to me the question always is the same, can I make good MUSIC out of it?

[kalleaho]

Yes, there are barriers to instantly "getting" any microtonal tuning system. One of them is categorical perception that makes us hear new intervals as out-of-tune versions of the conventional ones.

But some things are instantly audible, like chords made from or approximating the lower members of the harmonic series. Partch called these otonalities. 12-tone equal temperament poorly approximates ratios beyond the 5-limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)

There is value in limiting your basic materials, but you could also limit yourself to something else than the same old 12-tone equal temperament.

[Ogg Vorbis]

There is value in limiting your basic materials, but you could also limit yourself to something else than the same old 12-tone equal temperament.

I absolutely agree with that.

But ET is not the enemy of innovative, quality, emerging new music. It's simply a set of paints on the pallet, if you will.

I guess I run the risk of sounding like a reactionary or conservative by saying this, but I believe that we do not have a vocabulary deficit today. A composer has access to more sonic and formal possibility than at any other time in history. And there are audiences who are readily accepting of these new vocabularies.

If vocabulary were necessary to produce great quality, then there should be timeless works of art produced every second of every day.

The challenge for me as a composer is to pick up a set of tunings, timbres, forms, etc and to get them to form an exciting, new and enduring product. I believe that this can be done with ANY set of colors on your pallet.

[kalleaho]

But ET is not the enemy of innovative, quality, emerging new music. It's simply a set of paints on the pallet, if you will.

I think so too. Personally, my approach to microtonality or "xenharmonics" is "what else is there?", not some radical "12-equal forbidden".

BTW, there are some tuning systems that more or less work instantly. For example, 19-tone equal temperament contains the diatonic and chromatic scales, arguably rendered better (both purer harmonies and closer correspondence to our notation which is based on meantone temperament) than in 12-equal. But it also has new modulations and quirks like a fourth that can be divided exactly in half, exploited by Easley Blackwood.

P.S. There are musical examples in the Sonic Sky page and more will be added.

[tapper mike]

got to take this to harvey.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I think so too. Personally, my approach to microtonality or "xenharmonics" is "what else is there?", not some radical "12-equal forbidden".

I appreciate how you put that. Makes sense. I love the approach of Giacinto Scelsi, who brings microtonal inflection to composition to very great effect. I say inflection because he creates a sonority and then uses microtonal changes to dynamically "modulate" the sonority fluidly and constantly.

Seems like electronic producers and composers would love to learn from him because they are already used to creating dynamic modulations to sound via filters, envelops, delays, granular sample manipulations, etc.

[jancivil]

IME both 'equal temperament' and 'microtonality' are often misnomers. The latter term sounds exotic, which it can be but exists alongside ET in every violinists etc practice.

ET gives some bogus intervals. There are non-exotics reasons to exceed it. Sometimes I think it's lost on someone that approaches everything from a piano, they've just gotten used to intervals that, to me, if I dwell on it, or work with it, find out-of-tune. I would go further than 'poorly approximates [] beyond the five limit', it approximates five limit or 'just' intervals to such a point of compromise I find myself addressing it with pitch bend often.

For example (speaking of five-limit), here is a so-called 'microtonal' system of 22 tones, which functions to give 3:2 fifths or 4:3 fourths from any point, via the syntonic comma, 81:80 to produce alternates for ten of the tones (we are taking a tone as tonic, it's inviolate as is the P5 from it as our premise is limited to one tonic):

1:1; 256:243 or 16:15; 10:9 or 9:8; 32:27 or 6:5; 5:4 or 81:64; 4:3 or 27:20; 45:32 or 64:45; {3:2}; 128:81 or 8:5; 5:3 or 27:16; 16:9 or 9:5; 15:8 or 243:128; {2:1}.

You won't get that really perfect fifth from any given point in twelve tones. But there's nothing new here; you would have 22 note names if you like... but it's not to get more vocabulary artificially but just to get something less jarring to someone that prefers that concordance to ET's outcome.

I wouldn't much want a keyboard built on it, but scripting it for Kontakt with switches is an idea...

[jancivil]

Kind of a lot of overstatement and hyperbole.

I found a lecture with the intent of opening up possiblities with the intent of getting things you can't get with 12 notes on a piano.

the guy does wax kind of poetic about this Erv which he admires a lot.

[kalleaho]

IME both 'equal temperament' and 'microtonality' are often misnomers. The latter term sounds exotic, which it can be but exists alongside ET in every violinists etc practice.

ET gives some bogus intervals. There are non-exotics reasons to exceed it. Sometimes I think it's lost on someone that approaches everything from a piano, they've just gotten used to intervals that, to me, if I dwell on it, or work with it, find out-of-tune. I would go further than 'poorly approximates [] beyond the five limit', it approximates five limit or 'just' intervals to such a point of compromise I find myself addressing it with pitch bend often.

Players of flexible pitch instruments adjust the intonation of harmonies in context but the melodic intervals are tempered. This is sometimes called "adaptive tuning".

You won't get that really perfect fifth from any given point in twelve tones. But there's nothing new here; you would have 22 note names if you like... but it's not to get more vocabulary artificially but just to get something less jarring to someone that prefers that concordance to ET's outcome.

But the perfect fifth of 12-equal is only 2 cents flat! The problematic intervals are the thirds and sixths, the major third for example is 14 cents sharp if the ideal is the pure 5:4.

Anyway, I find that the actual intonation is a "production value", more like an effect than an essential feature of the music. The meat is in the musical "geometry", what commas (very small intervals) are tempered out or not tempered out. For example, all Western common practice music and our musical notation assumes that the syntonic comma 81:80 is "tempered out", that is, four fifths = the major third (+two octaves). Moreover, some of our music assumes enharmonic equivalence but some doesn't, and so on.

Of course the most noticeable thing for the listener in truly microtonal/xenharmonic music are the new interval relationships, either melodic (for example neutral seconds) or harmonic (ratios or their approximations involving 11 or 13 should prove particularly striking).

[jancivil]

P5 from any given point is the point of those ratios/that comma. Piano tuners have shown me that they test fifths by beating, so the 1.96¢ isn't anything necessarily.

(as per thirds, I'm well aware; on a guitar a tuning that gives an open G major that intones what I want gives an open E major I can't live with; so I am tempering differently from the outset; by cents neither is very good)

I am aware through experience that players adapt in harmony, in concert with other players. I run against that with the deficiency of samples in harmony all the time, in orchestration.


"but the melodic intervals are tempered" is a problem for me. If you are suggesting that ET is preferred I can't agree. Why would it be?

I am an electric *lead* guitarist first and it doesn't apply to me, I bend or vibrate notes in a line often to get something ET doesn't do, and it certainly doesn't apply to what is done in Indian music. It's anathema.

That system is Alain Danielou's theoretical idea of 22 Śrutis in Indian music, a purely melodic music with no "harmony", other than the drone which is usually Tonic/Fifth. The desirablity of just fifths from any point is structural, Ragas are based in that relationship, a 'dominant' and 'subdominant', plateau points in the line (by definition P5 or P4 apart), should have that 'purity'.

IE: something on the order of the pythagorean M3 (81:64) is sharper still than ET's but the idea of that is first of all a melodic intonation for an emotive effect, and the theoretical idea of that comma is to describe the desirability, formally, of the availability of a 3:2 above that, 243:128. For melody; it could of course apply to harmony, and if I had scripting skills I would investigate it.

these are essential features for somebody... a piano is not useful there. Many believe the 'sruti box' or harmonium is a defilement from the west.

[kalleaho]

"but the melodic intervals are tempered" is a problem for me. If you are suggesting that ET is preferred I disagree. Why would it be?

I mean that they inflect the pitches according to harmonic context but they have to use tempered melodic intervals. Why? Because if you play melodic intervals as pure ratios, then progressions like I-IV-ii-V-I will shift the tonic by a syntonic comma. Go up a 4:3, down a 6:5, then up a 4:3 again, down a 3:2 and you end up at 80/81, not at 1/1. I predict that if we measured the averages of the inflected notes for a modern string quartet, the notes would form something very close to ET. This is because the players are taught 12 positions within an octave. Also, if the music assumes enharmonic equivalence then it is even more likely.

[jancivil]

well, that only shows why there is the theory I cited, as per melodic purposes!

violinists intone by ear. I am asking you to show a good reason for a preference for the piano's notes; I don't know of one... exception = that the ET fifth is close enough for rock and roll, but it's there with open strings on a fiddle anyway, and it's probably better than ET. NB: I can detect by ear deviations finer than one cent.

if we are assuming enharmonics, there are more than 12 pitches on paper.

In practice: A leading tone type of effect tends to be intoned sharper. A descending semitone tends to be intoned flatter. That's not theory, that's what happens. 12 tone ET is out the window.

[kalleaho]

violinists intone by ear.

Sure, but the initial position before they adjust the tuning according to the harmonic context comes from muscle memory.

I am asking you to show a good reason for a preference for the piano's notes; I don't know of one... exception = that the ET fifth is close enough for rock and roll, but it's there with open strings on a fiddle anyway, and it's probably better than ET. NB: I can detect by ear deviations finer than one cent.

I'm saying chords are intoned pure or close to pure but the intervals between non-simultaneous notes cannot be pure.

I'm pretty sure you can't detect that fine deviations in melodic intervals. With harmonic intervals, sure! At least with tones held long enough.

if we are assuming enharmonics, there are more than 12 pitches on paper.

Enharmonic *equivalence* means that C# is the same note acoustically as Db and so on. Much of the romantic repertoire requires this. For example, some modulations won't work without it.

In practice: A leading tone type of effect tends to be intoned sharper. A descending semitone tends to be intoned flatter. That's not theory, that's what happens. 12 tone ET is out the window.

Yes, that happens but it doesn't really show that the average places of the 12 notes in enharmonically equivalent music will significantly depart from ET. But I don't really know, you don't really know, I don't really care.

[tapper mike]

Jan,
One thing they only shed small lite on is the microzone.

Microzones can be tuned to not only all of Erv Wilsons "fractal scales" it can be tuned to any standard tuning method. The button keys are individually tuneable. As well if you wish to restrict yourself to a 12 tone system you can play the instrument like a chromotone


Or an Axis 64