source file: mills2.txt Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:05:56 -0800 Subject: Re: Systematizing Tuning Again From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> As sometimes occurs, definitions (or lack of them in this case) can get in the way of understanding. Sorry if I didn't explain my premises well enough. Unlike Lucy's scenario, I'm not refering to a single system of tuning for every possible musical expression. Certainly each system has its own strengths and weaknesses for each sort of expression. I'm refering to systems in the sense of choosing pitches for a composition based on a clearly-recognizable (more or less consciously) set of pitch relationships. That could, for example, take the form of an equal-temperament paradigm. That as opposed to some essentially arbitrary spacing, or each appearance of what is essentially the same pitch-class taking on a somewhat different pitch with no apparent reasoning behind it. Of course I suppose that could be useful on occasion. Those occasions would - best I can tell - mostly be cases where you want the results to be confusing or hard to follow. It would perhaps be kind of like walking blindfolded on rocky terrain: You never know exactly the height of your next step! That could perhaps have an interesting musical effect. But looking up to the bigger question, I personally find value in composing music with the approach of creating a musical environment including pitch, instrumentation, and style, and then working in that environment. Many of the more exciting musical devices composer's disposal come from devising brilliant ways of "stretching the limits". Some of Stravinsky's orchestral colors are examples of that, they show insightful ways of using familiar resources to produce surprising results. That makes audiences say "wow!". Well its obviously very difficult to cleverly stretch the limits if you afford yourself no limits to start with! If your resources are infinite, then the effect is somewhat more of, "well, so what if you achieved that effect; who couldn't, given infinite resources?" Systematizing tunings can provide just such a limit to stretch, if you use it correctly. I guess people don't want to take too many axioms for granted; people seem to be more interested in clever combinations of a small number of accepted resources, than in "inventing a new particle" - justifying a new idea by just saying that it's axiomatically valid. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 19:45 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02479; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 19:47:47 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02468 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id KAA00576; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:47:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:47:44 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu