source file: m1343.txt Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:12:23 -0400 Subject: On a notation and tuning for Shoe Horns, Sewer Pipes, and that From: Carl Lumma >I recently enrolled in the tuning digest list. I'm interested in describing >the parameters of tuning that operate in solo unaccompanied singing. A >number of years ago, I looked at this in the songs of several women singers >from central Java, Indonesia. Now I'm looking at unaccompanied solo song >in various styles of euro-american-world music. Can anyone direct me to a >publication that gives a table of the cent values that operate in a >just-tuned scale, in comparison, say, to other scales? I have the >marvelous table called "Microtonal Music," which was "coordinated by Tui >St. George Tucker, Robert Jurgrau, and Johnny Reinhard," that appeared on >cover of Ear Magazine East 7/5 (11-1/1982-83). Have there been any >critiques of this table, or has it been superceded? >Thanks, M Hatch All attempts at describing the tuning of solo vocal music that I am aware of have resulted in meaningless nonsense because they try to use the same tuning theory that was developed for fixed-pitch instruments. Music made on free-pitched instruments is an *enirely different animal* than music made with fixed-pitch instruments, as far as tuning goes. To put it differently: Necessary for the study of free-pitched performance is a totally different type of tuning theory, something that I'd seriously doubt has never existed. This is probably because there's never been a need for musicians to describe it, and those who are motivated toward a description for academic reasons tend to miss basic concepts. They don't mind, because their theory doesn't have to do anything anyway. When somebody has a use in mind, then we'll see a useful description of free-pitched tuning: "I want to run a keyboard thru a box that re-tunes the parts like a choir would sing it", or "I want to make a computer-performed line sound like am inspired saxaphone solo." I admit these may not be the best examples, but I personally have no interest in a description of free-pitched tuning and they're the best one's I could come up with. I am sure there are much better ones out there, and more power to them and anyone interested in persuing. I am under no belief that my interests should be anyone else's. >> What about a standard notation that can accurately capture any tuning? >> (freqeuncy,volume,time) Maybe it's possible, but it couldn't work as well in any one tuning as a notation system designed just for that tuning. And besides, why bother? Apparently, there's a rumor floating around that there's this thing called "Conventional Notation". It's rigidly defined in a book somewhere, and everyone in the world who plays music is trained to read it. What's more, unlike anything else you'll ever learn, learning to read Conventional Notation doesn't encourage the developement of routines that help you with similar tasks. Instead, your ability to understand all other left-to-right-printed data becomes severely impaired. Prolonged exposure to Conventional Notation can destroy conditioned responses in laboratory rats. Interest in replacing this "Conventional Notation" is not limited to Xenharmonics. For example: http://triemme.com/top100/musiscript/home.htm Without saying a word about the MusicScript system itself, we can notice that it was designed, not because a way to notate something was needed, but just for the purpose of "replacing" something else. The value of new music shouldn't be measured on a yardstick of old music. It isn't good because it sounds different, and it isn't bad because it neglected the forms of the classical masters. Music has no worth when static, but all of it is valuable if some of it is still being written. It is not a collection, it is a form of human expression. Music of the past is an asset and a link and a million things -- all of them a study in history. Art is like food: One wouldn't trade a gourmet feast a week ago for a can of beans when he's hungry. Carl