source file: mills3.txt Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:47:59 +0100 Subject: The Tempered....Flute? From: Carl Lumma >Unfortunately, current instruments do not aid (as well as they might) >the advancement of the microtonal imagination: we work with >conventional designs because they are (in acoustic instrumental >terms) the best we have, and because we play them. But, in a sense, >the design of current instruments hinders the development of that >conciousness, since they demand a degree of technique which will be >unnecessary with new and specifically designed instruments for a >given system (or systems). 1. I feel that the field of instrument design is pretty stagnant. Not that it's ever been better in the past -- who cares? -- but compared to what it could be. 2. HOWEVER! Certain people seem to be making the assumption that certain woodwind and brass instruments are designed to play in 12 equal. This is not the case. (If they were, the designer's didn't do so hot). 3. There's also been talk that the virtuosi of these instruments can play them in alternate tunings, but who wants to pay for one or spend years becoming one? 4. In truth, it takes a helluva player to play them in 12 equal. And it also takes a fixed-pitch instrument for them to play along with. And even then they most often don't play in 12 equal, and why would they want to? Temperament only makes sense (if we're talking about paradigms) on fixed-pitched instruments-> that's how and why it was invented. 5. It is harder to play free-pitch instruments in equal temperaments than it is in Just Intonation, as an amazingly true general rule. And there's not many cases when you'd want an instrument designed to play temperaments. That's not to say they shouldn't exist. But certainly not as an improvement over what we've got. 6. It's just plain hard to control the intonation of woodwinds and brass at all. "Good Intonation" is the holy grail of conservatory training. 7. So why are we stuck in 12? BECAUSE OUR FIXED-PITCH INSTRUMENTS ARE STUCK IN 12. If there was a keyboard that played in JI, certain people would be amazed at the overgrowth of ensembles playing in JI. 8. Wait! According to the above, we ought to already have a number ensembles playing in JI, as long as they were made of free-pitched instruments and had good players at the helms! 9. We do. But it's crappy JI. A good fixed-pitch instrument tuned to JI could get 'em to play stuff they would never play otherwise. 10. So build me a good keyboard! Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Carl Lumma Subject: Xenharmonic? PostedDate: 19-11-97 01:35:52 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 19-11-97 01:34:27-19-11-97 01:34:27,19-11-97 01:34:36-19-11-97 01:34:36 DeliveredDate: 19-11-97 01:34:36 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256554.0003255C; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:34:21 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02322; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:35:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:35:52 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02320 Received: (qmail 20715 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1997 16:35:48 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 1997 16:35:48 -0800 Message-Id: <19971119003724046.AAA268@NIETZSCHE> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu