Misconceptions about xenharmony: Difference between revisions

Wikispaces>guest
**Imported revision 245512791 - Original comment: **
Wikispaces>igliashon
**Imported revision 245720557 - Original comment: **
Line 1: Line 1:
<h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2>
<h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2>
This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<br>
This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<br>
: This revision was by author [[User:guest|guest]] and made on <tt>2011-08-11 17:33:41 UTC</tt>.<br>
: This revision was by author [[User:igliashon|igliashon]] and made on <tt>2011-08-12 22:58:27 UTC</tt>.<br>
: The original revision id was <tt>245512791</tt>.<br>
: The original revision id was <tt>245720557</tt>.<br>
: The revision comment was: <tt></tt><br>
: The revision comment was: <tt></tt><br>
The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.<br>
The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.<br>
Line 8: Line 8:
<div style="width:100%; max-height:400pt; overflow:auto; background-color:#f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #eaecf0; padding:0em"><pre style="margin:0px;border:none;background:none;word-wrap:break-word;white-space: pre-wrap ! important" class="old-revision-html">The field of microtonality is rife with colorful personalities and diverse perspectives, and there are many contradictory philosophies and approaches. However, the literature on microtonality in general seems to over-represent certain perspectives, and this page is intended specifically to represent some of the views that diverge from the more "mainstream" or traditional ideas about microtonality.[[toc]]
<div style="width:100%; max-height:400pt; overflow:auto; background-color:#f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #eaecf0; padding:0em"><pre style="margin:0px;border:none;background:none;word-wrap:break-word;white-space: pre-wrap ! important" class="old-revision-html">The field of microtonality is rife with colorful personalities and diverse perspectives, and there are many contradictory philosophies and approaches. However, the literature on microtonality in general seems to over-represent certain perspectives, and this page is intended specifically to represent some of the views that diverge from the more "mainstream" or traditional ideas about microtonality.[[toc]]


=Igliashon's "Five Misconceptions About Xenharmony and Microtonality"=  
=Igliashon's "Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists"=  


This section expresses the views of [[IgliashonJones|Igliashon Jones]], a guitarist and electronic music producer who has recorded several well-received albums of xenharmonic music in rock and electronica styles. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general).
This section expresses the views of [[IgliashonJones|Igliashon Jones]], a guitarist and electronic music producer who has recorded several well-received albums of xenharmonic music in rock and electronica styles. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general).
Line 14: Line 14:
**Misconception 1: "More is More"**
**Misconception 1: "More is More"**


When you begin in microtonality, usually the first thing that happens is you discover there's a huge variety of potential new consonant intervals, which are not represented in 12-TET. It's only natural to want to try out all these new intervals, but it's a mistake to begin with a humongous tuning system that approximates as many of these new intervals as possible. If you're accustomed to (and proficient in) 12-TET, you are going to have a mental melt-down if you go straight for something like 31-EDO or 41-EDO or triple-BP or something. The sheer variety of new possibilities will short-circuit your brain. The truth is that nothing you have learned in 12-TET has prepared you to juggle such a plethora of new harmonic possibilities, and you will probably try to do a million things at once--and this will sound terrible, and you will be disappointed, and you will probably lay your shiny new microtonal instrument aside and go back to what's familiar. It is better to begin small--absolutely no more than 24 notes if an equal temperament, and definitely no more than 12 if JI (since JI is so drastically different than equal temperament). You can always expand later, and you will find the novel sounds of smaller systems more accessible and more rewarding. I speak from experience, as someone who did begin immediately in 31-EDO, and have been retreating to smaller and smaller EDOs ever since, lamenting the loss of thousands of dollars and countless hours to tuning systems that looked good on paper but were disappointing and confusing to work with. If I could do it all over again, I would start at 13-EDO or 14-EDO and not read a word of theory until thoroughly accustomed to a single new system, and I've seen too many others make the same mistakes I have. Nobody in this century who has begun with 31-EDO has been satisfied enough with it to stop their exploration right there; they either move on to JI, or down to the smaller EDOs, or up to the more accurate temperaments (41, 53, 72, etc.)...or they give up on microtonality all together.
When you begin in microtonality, usually the first thing that happens is you discover there's a huge variety of potential new consonant intervals, which are not represented in 12-TET. It's only natural to want to try out all these new intervals, but it's a mistake to begin with a humongous tuning system that approximates as many of these new intervals as possible. If you're accustomed to (and proficient in) 12-TET, you are going to have a mental melt-down if you go straight for something like 31-EDO or 41-EDO or triple-BP or something. The sheer variety of new possibilities will short-circuit your brain. The truth is that nothing you have learned in 12-TET has prepared you to juggle such a plethora of new harmonic possibilities, and you will probably try to do a million things at once--and this will probably sound terrible, and you will probably be disappointed, and you will probably lay your shiny new microtonal instrument aside and go back to what's familiar. It is better to begin small--absolutely no more than 24 notes if an equal temperament, and definitely no more than 12 if JI (since JI is so drastically different than equal temperament). You can always expand later, and you will find the novel sounds of smaller systems more accessible and more immediately rewarding. I speak from experience, as someone who did begin immediately in 31-EDO, and have been retreating to smaller and smaller EDOs ever since, lamenting the loss of thousands of dollars and countless hours to tuning systems that looked good on paper but were difficult and confusing (and therefore disappointing) to work with. If I could do it all over again, I would start at 13-EDO or 14-EDO and not read a word of theory until thoroughly accustomed to a single new system. As far as I have seen, nobody in this century who has begun with 31-EDO has been satisfied enough with it to stop their exploration right there and spend the rest of their life in that one tuning; they either move on to JI, or down to the smaller EDOs, or up to the more accurate temperaments (41, 53, 72, etc.)...or they give up on microtonality all together, thinking that if the "best" system didn't work out for them, what hope is there?


It's also true that a JI system can produce a drastically larger palette of intervals than an equally-sized equal temperament. If you are hell-bent on exploring all the intervals within the 15-limit tonality diamond, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not touch 31-EDO, but go straight to the harmonic series, specifically the scale of harmonics 8-16. In one 8-note octave-repeating scale, you will find all the intervals in the 15-limit tonality diamond (which is A LOT of intervals), although most only occur at one place in the scale. You should absolutely become fluent with the sound of these intervals in this scale before you consider trying out a temperament based on them. Then bump it up to harmonics 16-32 to see what some of the even more exotic identities feel like. Then, and //only// then, are you ready to start looking at high-limit temperaments.
It's also true that a JI system can produce a drastically larger palette of intervals than an equally-sized equal temperament. If you are hell-bent on exploring all the intervals within the 15-limit tonality diamond, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not touch 31-EDO, but go straight to the harmonic series, specifically the scale of harmonics 8-16. In one 8-note octave-repeating scale, you will find all the intervals in the 15-limit tonality diamond (which is A LOT of intervals), although most only occur at one place in the scale. You should absolutely become fluent with the sound of these intervals in this scale before you consider trying out a temperament based on them. Then bump it up to harmonics 16-32 to see what some of the even more exotic identities feel like. Then, and //only// then, are you ready to start looking at high-limit temperaments. The sky's the limit once you get your sea-legs, but you **must** get those sea-legs first!


**Misconception 2: "Consonance is Rare and Therefore Important"**
**Misconception 2: "Consonance is Rare"**


Consonance is //not// rare at all. In fact it is omnipresent. It is only specifically well-tuned 5-limit consonance that is rare, and tunings that offer good approximations of the full 13-limit are very rare, but neither the 5-limit nor the full 13-limit are necessary for consonance. Almost every EDO approximates some consonant subgroup of Just Intonation with the same or greater level of accuracy that 12-TET has in the 5-limit. With a little care, all of these EDOs can be made to sound nice enough for the general public. Yes, even 10, 11, 13, and 14-EDO. In fact, even 8-EDO does a fairly passable approximation of harmonics 10:11:12:13:14 as 0-150-300-450-600 cents; it's not //great//, but it's //awesome// for such a tiny EDO--no interval is off by more than 18 cents, which is more or less as good as 12-TET.
Consonance is //not// rare at all. In fact it is omnipresent. Especially in the higher ETs, maybe 24-EDO and above, it is almost impossible to find a tuning that is not at least as capable of consonance as 12-TET. Even among the smaller EDOs, it is almost universally true that each one approximates some consonant subgroup of Just Intonation with the same or greater level of accuracy that 12-TET has in the 5-limit. With a little care, all of these EDOs can be made to sound nice enough for the tastes general public. Yes, even 10, 11, 13, and 14-EDO. In fact, even 8-EDO does a fairly passable approximation of harmonics 10:11:12:13:14 as 0-150-300-450-600 cents; it's not //great//, but it's //awesome// for such a tiny EDO--no interval is off by more than 18 cents, which is more or less as good as 12-TET.


No, consonance is ubiquitous, practically inescapable unless you insist on using ridiculous scales like 0-10-20-30-40-50-1200 cents. The strength and quality of consonance may vary from tuning to tuning, but there is //always// enough to serve effectively as contrast to the equally-ubiquitous dissonance, if only you take the time to understand what the contrast is and how to deal with it appropriately. Sometimes the most consonant harmonies look nothing like major and minor chords in 12-TET, so they can take some searching. But they are //always// there to be found if you know how to look.
No, consonance is ubiquitous, practically inescapable unless you insist on using ridiculous scales like 0-10-20-30-40-50-1300 cents repeating every 1300 cents (or something). The strength and quality of consonance may vary from tuning to tuning, but there is nearly //always// enough to serve effectively as contrast to the equally-ubiquitous dissonance, if only you take the time to understand what the contrast is and how to deal with it appropriately. Sometimes the most consonant harmonies look nothing like major and minor chords in 12-TET, so they can take some searching. But they are almost //always// there to be found if you know how to look.


I will grant that there are some people whose ears are so sensitive to the mildest bit of beating or roughness that nothing short of JI or an insanely-accurate microtemperament will do; however, a quick survey of what passes for "well-received" microtonal music reveals that in truth, such obsessiveness about intonation is rare in the general populace.
It is true that accurate approximations of the 5-limit (let alone the 7, 11, or 13-limit) are rare among small tunings. This should not be surprising, considering that the octave-equivalent 13-odd-limit tonality diamond contains 42 intervals. But consonance does not require the full 13-limit, and subgroups of the 13-limit are plentiful.


**Misconception 3: "Tunings Related to the Familiar are Easier to Learn"**
**Misconception 3: "Tunings Related to the Familiar are Easier to Learn"**


Tunings related to the familiar, like 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 31-EDO, are easy to learn--if what you want to learn is how to make familiar-sounding music! These tuning all support many of the same patterns and relationships that work in 12-TET, so at first blush it is dead-simple to apply those same patterns and make nice-sounding music. The problem is that this music will not sound a whole lot different than what you're used to. If you want to make music that doesn't just sound like a mild retuning of the same old diatonic cliches, these systems are all a greater challenge than less-familiar ones, because the strong pull of the familiar is difficult to escape from. If you are a guitarist, you will probably tune the open strings of a 19-tone guitar to something nearly identical to 12-TET standard, i.e. EADGBE. This means that all your old habits translate perfectly, and you can comfortably stay in the same muscle-memory ruts you've been digging into for years. Power chords, the minor pentatonic, the major scale, I-IV-V progressions...all of these work just the same. On the other hand, if you want to explore the less-familiar scales and temperaments supported by 19, you will find that none of them fits on the instrument as simply and intuitively as the familiar diatonic stuff. In fact, many of them are a headache to learn and will make you feel like you're 12 years old again picking up the guitar for the first time. And to be honest, they won't sound as good when you play them, because you won't be very good at playing them, and because (let's face it) those familiar chords are sweeter in sound than the new ones. So you will probably go back to writing familiar-sounding stuff, because it's more fun and sounds better--in other words, the instrument will reward you for staying in your rut and punish you for trying to break it.
Tunings related to the familiar, like 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 31-EDO, are easy to learn--if what you want to learn is how to make familiar-sounding music! These tuning all support many of the same patterns and relationships that work in 12-TET, so at first blush it is dead-simple to apply those same patterns and make nice-sounding music. The problem is that this music will not sound a whole lot different than what you're used to. If you want to make music that doesn't just sound like a mild retuning of the same old diatonic cliches, these systems are all a greater challenge than less-familiar ones, because the strong pull of the familiar is difficult to escape from. The truth is, the familiar diatonic scale is about the sweetest-sounding thing in music, as are the familiar 5-limit consonances. When an instrument gives you the choice between familiar and sweet or unfamiliar and sour, it is hard to make yourself choose the latter. Odds are you will keep coming back to those familiar patterns, because they sound nicer and are easier to play--it's as if the instrument is rewarding you for being conservative and punishing you for trying new things.


Compare this to picking up a 13-tone guitar. Everything is upside down and backwards from the word "go"; your B string is now tuned almost a tritone above the G, rather than a major 3rd above it as usual. Two fourths now yields a wide major 6th, and three yields a flat major 9th. Familiar chord-shapes and scale-patterns don't work at all, so you can't and won't use them. You also have lots of new dissonances showing up where there used to be consonances, and vice-versa, and because of this you will get excellent and immediate "feedback" from the instrument as you try out new patterns. When you find a new consonant pattern, that sets off a "reward" response in your brain, as all of a sudden this dissonant and foreign new tuning favors you with a bit of sweetness. Your old habits will wither and die very quickly, and new patterns will all but force themselves upon you--even if you have no "theoretical" idea of what you're supposed to be trying to do!--and this is the precise definition of "easy to learn".
On the other hand, if you begin with a tuning that lacks the familiar diatonic structure and the familiar 5-limit consonances, you will have no choice but to find something new. At first it may seem that the learning curve is steeper, because your old habits are being thwarted at every turn, but what is actually happening is that the tuning is teaching itself to you. When you don't find sweet sounds in the old familiar places, you have to look in new places, and they are more rewarding when you find them; being "rewarded" helps you stay motivated to continue learning. Eventually the old habits will die, new ones will take their place, and you will be effortlessly making music that sounds new and good.  


**Misconception 4: "Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener"**
**Misconception 4: "Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener"**


You know what tuning is the //most// related to the familiar? 12-TET! I don't care what the psychoacousticians say, the vast majority of people accustomed to 12-TET will prefer the sound of 12-TET to tunings which approximate the same harmonies but in "better" tune. They will think the Just major third sounds flat and dull, they will think the semitones are too wide or the minor third is too sharp or the dominant 7th isn't tense enough to create an effective resolution. You don't need to take my word for it, go forth and test this! Play people two versions of a familiar piece of music (preferably NOT rendered using your PC's built-in general MIDI sound set), but don't tell them which is which, and ask them to rate which one they like best. I've done it, and I know what the answers are.
I know how it feels at first. You've gotten your first taste of microtonality and you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but your friends, family, and fellow musicians are totally NOT sharing your enthusiasm. They are utterly failing to grasp why in the hell you would want to split off from the rest of the civilized 12-equal world and play music that "only aliens would like". So you start to have your doubts, and you start thinking that maaaaaybe instead of starting out with something wildly unfamiliar like Miracle temperament or 16-EDO, maybe you should be "easing people into it" with something like extended 7-limit Meantone or 19-EDO, even though what really got your motor running for microtonality in the first place was the really crazy-sounding new stuff. You think that if you can show people, "look, I can still play 'Smoke on the Water' or 'Moonlight Sonata', microtonality doesn't have to sound like alien music!" that this will turn their aversion into fascination and then they will eagerly join your cause.


The truth is, anyone not actively seeking out microtonal music will either not be able to hear the difference, or if they can hear it, they won't like it (unless it's "ethnically correct" microtonal music, like Indian or Arabic music). The only people looking for music in some variety of meantone or 12-tone well-temperaments are looking for the words "historically informed performance", aka the "authentic" or "early" music crowd. Those who //are// actively seeking out music that is called "microtonal" couldn't care //less// about smoother and more in-tune harmonies following the same familiar patterns. As Brian McLaren once said, "they are not shrinking violets". They want stuff that will make their brain do happy back-flips, stuff that will turn their ears inside-out. There are many ways to accomplish this, and they do not all involve chucking 5-limit harmony out the window (in fact, some of the best ways are completely //centered// on 5-limit harmony in some way or another), but the point is that if you pussy-foot around microtonality mumbling quietly about how it's "just like 12-TET, but more in tune", absolutely NO ONE will take you seriously. Not average listeners, not microtonal enthusiasts, not your fellow microtonal musicians, and most //certainly// not the average Guitar Center customer or university music student. The only way to make it as a microtonalist in this world is to go for broke, whether that means 13-EDO, 13-limit JI, 900 notes of Hemiennealimmal temperament, or somewhere in between. Pull that "familiar = good" stick out of your anus and do something //new//. Smack the world in the face with something they've never heard before, and at the very least you'll attract a handful of people who will enthusiastically beg for more. If you're good at it, you might even make an international name for yourself among the underground microtonal scene, and if you're REALLY good at it (and/or really LUCKY) you might actually break out of the sub-culture and find your way into the public-at-large.
Guess again, grasshopper. There's a big and obvious problem with this way of thinking. The truth is that people who want to listen to and/or make familiar-sounding music are not going to find anything very compelling about microtonality, because if you are going to make a new and more complicated tuning sound totally normal...what's the point of switching? It's like trying to sell ice-makers to the Inuits--why would they want to spend money for a machine that makes ice cubes when there's //snow// all around them? It's all cost and no benefit, because all they want is stuff that sounds familiar...and there's nothing more familiar than what they already have.
 
The truth is that lots and lots of people don't give two turds about microtonality, no matter what form it's in. The only way to win them over is to make music they like that is impossible to approximate with something familiar, and even then the odds of them actually becoming "converts" is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the people who //are// interested in microtonality want to hear music that sounds, well, microtonal. Sure, there are lots of ways to sound microtonal and not all microtonalists like all forms of microtonal music, but none of them want to hear music that sounds like 12-TET if you promise them something microtonal. There's nothing at all wrong with playing in 12-TET, and most microtonalists still listen to tons and tons of music in 12-TET (it's hard not to!), but you've really got to ask yourself if it's worth the trouble of refretting a guitar, or buying a retunable synth, or learning new fingerings on the bassoon (etc.), if what you really want to do is make music that doesn't actually sound much different.


**Misconception #5: "Beatless Harmonies are More Relaxing" and "12-TET Music is Fast Because it's Out of Tune"**
**Misconception #5: "Beatless Harmonies are More Relaxing" and "12-TET Music is Fast Because it's Out of Tune"**
Line 46: Line 48:
Now, as I said, there are many ways to increase the informational content of a piece of music. One of them is to decrease the concordance of the intervals, as this introduces beating and increases harmonic entropy. Another one of them is to increase the level of compositional complexity, i.e. to increase the number of pitches being heard within a given time-frame. The implications of this should be obvious: to maintain a constant level of interest, compositional complexity ought to vary inversely with harmonic concordance of intervals being heard. In other words, music that is "out of tune" will be more pleasant if it is //slower//, not faster.
Now, as I said, there are many ways to increase the informational content of a piece of music. One of them is to decrease the concordance of the intervals, as this introduces beating and increases harmonic entropy. Another one of them is to increase the level of compositional complexity, i.e. to increase the number of pitches being heard within a given time-frame. The implications of this should be obvious: to maintain a constant level of interest, compositional complexity ought to vary inversely with harmonic concordance of intervals being heard. In other words, music that is "out of tune" will be more pleasant if it is //slower//, not faster.


Now, if one looks to the meditative traditions of the world that use sound to help enhance meditation, the most common sounds are gongs, bells, and group chants (usually monophonic or even monotonic). The clear trend between all of these is "harmonic impurity", i.e. beating. Most bells produce inharmonic spectra where the overtones actually beat with one another, as do most gongs, and a room full of people chanting the same mantra or hymn will //never// be in perfect tune--there will always be some amount of beating. In modern times, the phenomenon of "binaural beating" is well-known and quite popular as a method of inducing relaxed states. One thing that is conspicuously absent from all meditative or trance-inducing sounds is beatless harmony played by pure harmonic timbres. Try this experiment for yourself: listen to 10 minutes of a Justly-tuned pipe organ sustaining a 4:5:6:7:9:11 hexad, and see just how relaxed it makes you feel! The truth is, given a static sustained harmony, one that beats is more relaxing than one that doesn't.
If one looks to the meditative traditions of the world that use sound to help enhance meditation, the most common sounds are gongs, bells, and group chants (usually monophonic or even monotonic). The clear trend between all of these is "harmonic impurity", i.e. beating. Most bells produce inharmonic spectra where the overtones actually beat with one another, as do most gongs, and a room full of people chanting the same mantra or hymn will //never// be in perfect tune--there will always be some amount of beating. In modern times, the phenomenon of "binaural beating" is well-known and quite popular as a method of inducing relaxed states. One thing that is conspicuously absent from all meditative or trance-inducing sounds is beatless harmony played by pure harmonic timbres. Try this experiment for yourself: listen to 10 minutes of a Justly-tuned pipe organ sustaining a 4:5:6:7:9:11 hexad, and see just how relaxed it makes you feel! The truth is, given a static sustained harmony, one that beats is more relaxing than one that doesn't.
 
Of course, if you want to write music with lots of melodic and harmonic complexity, then by all means, go with the more near-Just harmonies. The spectrum of musical interest is broad and deep, and the most important thing is to develop a sensitivity to the sorts of music appropriate to the tuning you're working with.
 
**Misconception #6: "You Should Listen to the Advice of Experienced Microtonalists"**
 
The world of alternative intonational practices (also know as the world of microtonality or xenharmony) is vast, and when you first enter it, it's easy to be overwhelmed and confused and maybe even terrified. Especially when there are all sorts of people and organizations making all sorts of grandiose claims about this tuning or that tuning. There is almost no consensus, and there is a TON of rhetoric, much of it based on questionable scientific studies or historical sources. In your initial confusion, it will be almost impossible to resist the siren song of someone's particular brand of microtonality, because you need to start somewhere and it's hard to figure out this stuff on your own. The rhetoric is occasionally made all the more enticing by the existence of compelling music based on the advertised tuning system; after all, if composer X could make such cool sounds with this tuning, then surely it must be a great tuning for anybody!
 
The truth is that no one is qualified to tell you what tunings to you use, because different tunings are good for different things and it's almost impossible to know what you want from a tuning when you've spent your whole life immersed in a single tuning. You will have no idea at first whether harmonic properties or melodic properties are more important, or whether you work better in equal tunings or unequal tunings, or whether you think better in terms of frequency ratios or cents or note-names, or whether you think beating and discordance are really as undesirable as some people say they are. In all probability, no matter what alternative tuning you begin with, you will find something unsatisfactory about it and seek out alternatives. There are very, very few microtonalists in the world who have picked a single tuning system and stuck with it, and just because someone has spent a lifetime trying out every tuning under the sun and finally settled on one, that does not mean you will get the same results. Tuning is a very personal choice, and can be a very deep and enlightening personal journey. Do NOT trust anyone who tells you it has to be a certain way. In fact, don't even listen to me. Every word ever written about microtonality needs to be taken with a heap of salt, including mine.
 
Now go forth, make mistakes, and learn from them!


=**Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren**=  
=**Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren**=  
Line 146: Line 158:
Musical instruments which produce harmonic series timbres are so rare and so unusual that, to a first approximation, essentially all the world's musical instruments avoid this kind of construction. There is nothing new about this conclusion: A. J. Ellis first stated in 1885 that his survey of world music showed that "The music of most of the world's cultures is not based on mathematics nor or integer ratios, but is very contingent, and arbitrary, and entirely unique to its own society." (Ellis, A. J., "On the Musical Scales Of Various Nations," //Journal of the Royal Society of the Arts//, Vol. 3, 1885, pg. 536). The mathematical acoustics of most vibrating bodies have been known to be nonlinear and to produce inharmonic partials for most vibrating objects for well over 100 years: see Lord Rayleigh's two-volume //Acoustics//, 1895, for details.</pre></div>
Musical instruments which produce harmonic series timbres are so rare and so unusual that, to a first approximation, essentially all the world's musical instruments avoid this kind of construction. There is nothing new about this conclusion: A. J. Ellis first stated in 1885 that his survey of world music showed that "The music of most of the world's cultures is not based on mathematics nor or integer ratios, but is very contingent, and arbitrary, and entirely unique to its own society." (Ellis, A. J., "On the Musical Scales Of Various Nations," //Journal of the Royal Society of the Arts//, Vol. 3, 1885, pg. 536). The mathematical acoustics of most vibrating bodies have been known to be nonlinear and to produce inharmonic partials for most vibrating objects for well over 100 years: see Lord Rayleigh's two-volume //Acoustics//, 1895, for details.</pre></div>
<h4>Original HTML content:</h4>
<h4>Original HTML content:</h4>
<div style="width:100%; max-height:400pt; overflow:auto; background-color:#f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #eaecf0; padding:0em"><pre style="margin:0px;border:none;background:none;word-wrap:break-word;width:200%;white-space: pre-wrap ! important" class="old-revision-html">&lt;html&gt;&lt;head&gt;&lt;title&gt;misconceptions about xenharmony&lt;/title&gt;&lt;/head&gt;&lt;body&gt;The field of microtonality is rife with colorful personalities and diverse perspectives, and there are many contradictory philosophies and approaches. However, the literature on microtonality in general seems to over-represent certain perspectives, and this page is intended specifically to represent some of the views that diverge from the more &amp;quot;mainstream&amp;quot; or traditional ideas about microtonality.&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:4:&amp;lt;img id=&amp;quot;wikitext@@toc@@normal&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;WikiMedia WikiMediaToc&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Table of Contents&amp;quot; src=&amp;quot;/site/embedthumbnail/toc/normal?w=225&amp;amp;h=100&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;div id="toc"&gt;&lt;h1 class="nopad"&gt;Table of Contents&lt;/h1&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:4 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:5: --&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 1em;"&gt;&lt;a href="#Igliashon's &amp;quot;Five Misconceptions About Xenharmony and Microtonality&amp;quot;"&gt;Igliashon's &amp;quot;Five Misconceptions About Xenharmony and Microtonality&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
<div style="width:100%; max-height:400pt; overflow:auto; background-color:#f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #eaecf0; padding:0em"><pre style="margin:0px;border:none;background:none;word-wrap:break-word;width:200%;white-space: pre-wrap ! important" class="old-revision-html">&lt;html&gt;&lt;head&gt;&lt;title&gt;misconceptions about xenharmony&lt;/title&gt;&lt;/head&gt;&lt;body&gt;The field of microtonality is rife with colorful personalities and diverse perspectives, and there are many contradictory philosophies and approaches. However, the literature on microtonality in general seems to over-represent certain perspectives, and this page is intended specifically to represent some of the views that diverge from the more &amp;quot;mainstream&amp;quot; or traditional ideas about microtonality.&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:4:&amp;lt;img id=&amp;quot;wikitext@@toc@@normal&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;WikiMedia WikiMediaToc&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Table of Contents&amp;quot; src=&amp;quot;/site/embedthumbnail/toc/normal?w=225&amp;amp;h=100&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;div id="toc"&gt;&lt;h1 class="nopad"&gt;Table of Contents&lt;/h1&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:4 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:5: --&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 1em;"&gt;&lt;a href="#Igliashon's &amp;quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&amp;quot;"&gt;Igliashon's &amp;quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&amp;quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:5 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:6: --&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 1em;"&gt;&lt;a href="#Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren"&gt;Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:5 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:6: --&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 1em;"&gt;&lt;a href="#Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren"&gt;Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:6 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:7: --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:6 --&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:7: --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:7 --&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:7 --&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h1 id="toc0"&gt;&lt;a name="Igliashon's &amp;quot;Five Misconceptions About Xenharmony and Microtonality&amp;quot;"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:0 --&gt;Igliashon's &amp;quot;Five Misconceptions About Xenharmony and Microtonality&amp;quot;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h1 id="toc0"&gt;&lt;a name="Igliashon's &amp;quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&amp;quot;"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:0 --&gt;Igliashon's &amp;quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&amp;quot;&lt;/h1&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
This section expresses the views of &lt;a class="wiki_link" href="/IgliashonJones"&gt;Igliashon Jones&lt;/a&gt;, a guitarist and electronic music producer who has recorded several well-received albums of xenharmonic music in rock and electronica styles. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general).&lt;br /&gt;
This section expresses the views of &lt;a class="wiki_link" href="/IgliashonJones"&gt;Igliashon Jones&lt;/a&gt;, a guitarist and electronic music producer who has recorded several well-received albums of xenharmonic music in rock and electronica styles. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general).&lt;br /&gt;
Line 157: Line 169:
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 1: &amp;quot;More is More&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 1: &amp;quot;More is More&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When you begin in microtonality, usually the first thing that happens is you discover there's a huge variety of potential new consonant intervals, which are not represented in 12-TET. It's only natural to want to try out all these new intervals, but it's a mistake to begin with a humongous tuning system that approximates as many of these new intervals as possible. If you're accustomed to (and proficient in) 12-TET, you are going to have a mental melt-down if you go straight for something like 31-EDO or 41-EDO or triple-BP or something. The sheer variety of new possibilities will short-circuit your brain. The truth is that nothing you have learned in 12-TET has prepared you to juggle such a plethora of new harmonic possibilities, and you will probably try to do a million things at once--and this will sound terrible, and you will be disappointed, and you will probably lay your shiny new microtonal instrument aside and go back to what's familiar. It is better to begin small--absolutely no more than 24 notes if an equal temperament, and definitely no more than 12 if JI (since JI is so drastically different than equal temperament). You can always expand later, and you will find the novel sounds of smaller systems more accessible and more rewarding. I speak from experience, as someone who did begin immediately in 31-EDO, and have been retreating to smaller and smaller EDOs ever since, lamenting the loss of thousands of dollars and countless hours to tuning systems that looked good on paper but were disappointing and confusing to work with. If I could do it all over again, I would start at 13-EDO or 14-EDO and not read a word of theory until thoroughly accustomed to a single new system, and I've seen too many others make the same mistakes I have. Nobody in this century who has begun with 31-EDO has been satisfied enough with it to stop their exploration right there; they either move on to JI, or down to the smaller EDOs, or up to the more accurate temperaments (41, 53, 72, etc.)...or they give up on microtonality all together.&lt;br /&gt;
When you begin in microtonality, usually the first thing that happens is you discover there's a huge variety of potential new consonant intervals, which are not represented in 12-TET. It's only natural to want to try out all these new intervals, but it's a mistake to begin with a humongous tuning system that approximates as many of these new intervals as possible. If you're accustomed to (and proficient in) 12-TET, you are going to have a mental melt-down if you go straight for something like 31-EDO or 41-EDO or triple-BP or something. The sheer variety of new possibilities will short-circuit your brain. The truth is that nothing you have learned in 12-TET has prepared you to juggle such a plethora of new harmonic possibilities, and you will probably try to do a million things at once--and this will probably sound terrible, and you will probably be disappointed, and you will probably lay your shiny new microtonal instrument aside and go back to what's familiar. It is better to begin small--absolutely no more than 24 notes if an equal temperament, and definitely no more than 12 if JI (since JI is so drastically different than equal temperament). You can always expand later, and you will find the novel sounds of smaller systems more accessible and more immediately rewarding. I speak from experience, as someone who did begin immediately in 31-EDO, and have been retreating to smaller and smaller EDOs ever since, lamenting the loss of thousands of dollars and countless hours to tuning systems that looked good on paper but were difficult and confusing (and therefore disappointing) to work with. If I could do it all over again, I would start at 13-EDO or 14-EDO and not read a word of theory until thoroughly accustomed to a single new system. As far as I have seen, nobody in this century who has begun with 31-EDO has been satisfied enough with it to stop their exploration right there and spend the rest of their life in that one tuning; they either move on to JI, or down to the smaller EDOs, or up to the more accurate temperaments (41, 53, 72, etc.)...or they give up on microtonality all together, thinking that if the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; system didn't work out for them, what hope is there?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also true that a JI system can produce a drastically larger palette of intervals than an equally-sized equal temperament. If you are hell-bent on exploring all the intervals within the 15-limit tonality diamond, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not touch 31-EDO, but go straight to the harmonic series, specifically the scale of harmonics 8-16. In one 8-note octave-repeating scale, you will find all the intervals in the 15-limit tonality diamond (which is A LOT of intervals), although most only occur at one place in the scale. You should absolutely become fluent with the sound of these intervals in this scale before you consider trying out a temperament based on them. Then bump it up to harmonics 16-32 to see what some of the even more exotic identities feel like. Then, and &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; then, are you ready to start looking at high-limit temperaments.&lt;br /&gt;
It's also true that a JI system can produce a drastically larger palette of intervals than an equally-sized equal temperament. If you are hell-bent on exploring all the intervals within the 15-limit tonality diamond, do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not touch 31-EDO, but go straight to the harmonic series, specifically the scale of harmonics 8-16. In one 8-note octave-repeating scale, you will find all the intervals in the 15-limit tonality diamond (which is A LOT of intervals), although most only occur at one place in the scale. You should absolutely become fluent with the sound of these intervals in this scale before you consider trying out a temperament based on them. Then bump it up to harmonics 16-32 to see what some of the even more exotic identities feel like. Then, and &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; then, are you ready to start looking at high-limit temperaments. The sky's the limit once you get your sea-legs, but you &lt;strong&gt;must&lt;/strong&gt; get those sea-legs first!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 2: &amp;quot;Consonance is Rare and Therefore Important&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 2: &amp;quot;Consonance is Rare&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consonance is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; rare at all. In fact it is omnipresent. It is only specifically well-tuned 5-limit consonance that is rare, and tunings that offer good approximations of the full 13-limit are very rare, but neither the 5-limit nor the full 13-limit are necessary for consonance. Almost every EDO approximates some consonant subgroup of Just Intonation with the same or greater level of accuracy that 12-TET has in the 5-limit. With a little care, all of these EDOs can be made to sound nice enough for the general public. Yes, even 10, 11, 13, and 14-EDO. In fact, even 8-EDO does a fairly passable approximation of harmonics 10:11:12:13:14 as 0-150-300-450-600 cents; it's not &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt;, but it's &lt;em&gt;awesome&lt;/em&gt; for such a tiny EDO--no interval is off by more than 18 cents, which is more or less as good as 12-TET.&lt;br /&gt;
Consonance is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; rare at all. In fact it is omnipresent. Especially in the higher ETs, maybe 24-EDO and above, it is almost impossible to find a tuning that is not at least as capable of consonance as 12-TET. Even among the smaller EDOs, it is almost universally true that each one approximates some consonant subgroup of Just Intonation with the same or greater level of accuracy that 12-TET has in the 5-limit. With a little care, all of these EDOs can be made to sound nice enough for the tastes general public. Yes, even 10, 11, 13, and 14-EDO. In fact, even 8-EDO does a fairly passable approximation of harmonics 10:11:12:13:14 as 0-150-300-450-600 cents; it's not &lt;em&gt;great&lt;/em&gt;, but it's &lt;em&gt;awesome&lt;/em&gt; for such a tiny EDO--no interval is off by more than 18 cents, which is more or less as good as 12-TET.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, consonance is ubiquitous, practically inescapable unless you insist on using ridiculous scales like 0-10-20-30-40-50-1200 cents. The strength and quality of consonance may vary from tuning to tuning, but there is &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; enough to serve effectively as contrast to the equally-ubiquitous dissonance, if only you take the time to understand what the contrast is and how to deal with it appropriately. Sometimes the most consonant harmonies look nothing like major and minor chords in 12-TET, so they can take some searching. But they are &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; there to be found if you know how to look.&lt;br /&gt;
No, consonance is ubiquitous, practically inescapable unless you insist on using ridiculous scales like 0-10-20-30-40-50-1300 cents repeating every 1300 cents (or something). The strength and quality of consonance may vary from tuning to tuning, but there is nearly &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; enough to serve effectively as contrast to the equally-ubiquitous dissonance, if only you take the time to understand what the contrast is and how to deal with it appropriately. Sometimes the most consonant harmonies look nothing like major and minor chords in 12-TET, so they can take some searching. But they are almost &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; there to be found if you know how to look.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will grant that there are some people whose ears are so sensitive to the mildest bit of beating or roughness that nothing short of JI or an insanely-accurate microtemperament will do; however, a quick survey of what passes for &amp;quot;well-received&amp;quot; microtonal music reveals that in truth, such obsessiveness about intonation is rare in the general populace.&lt;br /&gt;
It is true that accurate approximations of the 5-limit (let alone the 7, 11, or 13-limit) are rare among small tunings. This should not be surprising, considering that the octave-equivalent 13-odd-limit tonality diamond contains 42 intervals. But consonance does not require the full 13-limit, and subgroups of the 13-limit are plentiful.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 3: &amp;quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are Easier to Learn&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 3: &amp;quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are Easier to Learn&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tunings related to the familiar, like 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 31-EDO, are easy to learn--if what you want to learn is how to make familiar-sounding music! These tuning all support many of the same patterns and relationships that work in 12-TET, so at first blush it is dead-simple to apply those same patterns and make nice-sounding music. The problem is that this music will not sound a whole lot different than what you're used to. If you want to make music that doesn't just sound like a mild retuning of the same old diatonic cliches, these systems are all a greater challenge than less-familiar ones, because the strong pull of the familiar is difficult to escape from. If you are a guitarist, you will probably tune the open strings of a 19-tone guitar to something nearly identical to 12-TET standard, i.e. EADGBE. This means that all your old habits translate perfectly, and you can comfortably stay in the same muscle-memory ruts you've been digging into for years. Power chords, the minor pentatonic, the major scale, I-IV-V progressions...all of these work just the same. On the other hand, if you want to explore the less-familiar scales and temperaments supported by 19, you will find that none of them fits on the instrument as simply and intuitively as the familiar diatonic stuff. In fact, many of them are a headache to learn and will make you feel like you're 12 years old again picking up the guitar for the first time. And to be honest, they won't sound as good when you play them, because you won't be very good at playing them, and because (let's face it) those familiar chords are sweeter in sound than the new ones. So you will probably go back to writing familiar-sounding stuff, because it's more fun and sounds better--in other words, the instrument will reward you for staying in your rut and punish you for trying to break it.&lt;br /&gt;
Tunings related to the familiar, like 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, and 31-EDO, are easy to learn--if what you want to learn is how to make familiar-sounding music! These tuning all support many of the same patterns and relationships that work in 12-TET, so at first blush it is dead-simple to apply those same patterns and make nice-sounding music. The problem is that this music will not sound a whole lot different than what you're used to. If you want to make music that doesn't just sound like a mild retuning of the same old diatonic cliches, these systems are all a greater challenge than less-familiar ones, because the strong pull of the familiar is difficult to escape from. The truth is, the familiar diatonic scale is about the sweetest-sounding thing in music, as are the familiar 5-limit consonances. When an instrument gives you the choice between familiar and sweet or unfamiliar and sour, it is hard to make yourself choose the latter. Odds are you will keep coming back to those familiar patterns, because they sound nicer and are easier to play--it's as if the instrument is rewarding you for being conservative and punishing you for trying new things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compare this to picking up a 13-tone guitar. Everything is upside down and backwards from the word &amp;quot;go&amp;quot;; your B string is now tuned almost a tritone above the G, rather than a major 3rd above it as usual. Two fourths now yields a wide major 6th, and three yields a flat major 9th. Familiar chord-shapes and scale-patterns don't work at all, so you can't and won't use them. You also have lots of new dissonances showing up where there used to be consonances, and vice-versa, and because of this you will get excellent and immediate &amp;quot;feedback&amp;quot; from the instrument as you try out new patterns. When you find a new consonant pattern, that sets off a &amp;quot;reward&amp;quot; response in your brain, as all of a sudden this dissonant and foreign new tuning favors you with a bit of sweetness. Your old habits will wither and die very quickly, and new patterns will all but force themselves upon you--even if you have no &amp;quot;theoretical&amp;quot; idea of what you're supposed to be trying to do!--and this is the precise definition of &amp;quot;easy to learn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, if you begin with a tuning that lacks the familiar diatonic structure and the familiar 5-limit consonances, you will have no choice but to find something new. At first it may seem that the learning curve is steeper, because your old habits are being thwarted at every turn, but what is actually happening is that the tuning is teaching itself to you. When you don't find sweet sounds in the old familiar places, you have to look in new places, and they are more rewarding when you find them; being &amp;quot;rewarded&amp;quot; helps you stay motivated to continue learning. Eventually the old habits will die, new ones will take their place, and you will be effortlessly making music that sounds new and good. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 4: &amp;quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception 4: &amp;quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You know what tuning is the &lt;em&gt;most&lt;/em&gt; related to the familiar? 12-TET! I don't care what the psychoacousticians say, the vast majority of people accustomed to 12-TET will prefer the sound of 12-TET to tunings which approximate the same harmonies but in &amp;quot;better&amp;quot; tune. They will think the Just major third sounds flat and dull, they will think the semitones are too wide or the minor third is too sharp or the dominant 7th isn't tense enough to create an effective resolution. You don't need to take my word for it, go forth and test this! Play people two versions of a familiar piece of music (preferably NOT rendered using your PC's built-in general MIDI sound set), but don't tell them which is which, and ask them to rate which one they like best. I've done it, and I know what the answers are.&lt;br /&gt;
I know how it feels at first. You've gotten your first taste of microtonality and you think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but your friends, family, and fellow musicians are totally NOT sharing your enthusiasm. They are utterly failing to grasp why in the hell you would want to split off from the rest of the civilized 12-equal world and play music that &amp;quot;only aliens would like&amp;quot;. So you start to have your doubts, and you start thinking that maaaaaybe instead of starting out with something wildly unfamiliar like Miracle temperament or 16-EDO, maybe you should be &amp;quot;easing people into it&amp;quot; with something like extended 7-limit Meantone or 19-EDO, even though what really got your motor running for microtonality in the first place was the really crazy-sounding new stuff. You think that if you can show people, &amp;quot;look, I can still play 'Smoke on the Water' or 'Moonlight Sonata', microtonality doesn't have to sound like alien music!&amp;quot; that this will turn their aversion into fascination and then they will eagerly join your cause.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guess again, grasshopper. There's a big and obvious problem with this way of thinking. The truth is that people who want to listen to and/or make familiar-sounding music are not going to find anything very compelling about microtonality, because if you are going to make a new and more complicated tuning sound totally normal...what's the point of switching? It's like trying to sell ice-makers to the Inuits--why would they want to spend money for a machine that makes ice cubes when there's &lt;em&gt;snow&lt;/em&gt; all around them? It's all cost and no benefit, because all they want is stuff that sounds familiar...and there's nothing more familiar than what they already have.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The truth is, anyone not actively seeking out microtonal music will either not be able to hear the difference, or if they can hear it, they won't like it (unless it's &amp;quot;ethnically correct&amp;quot; microtonal music, like Indian or Arabic music). The only people looking for music in some variety of meantone or 12-tone well-temperaments are looking for the words &amp;quot;historically informed performance&amp;quot;, aka the &amp;quot;authentic&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;early&amp;quot; music crowd. Those who &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; actively seeking out music that is called &amp;quot;microtonal&amp;quot; couldn't care &lt;em&gt;less&lt;/em&gt; about smoother and more in-tune harmonies following the same familiar patterns. As Brian McLaren once said, &amp;quot;they are not shrinking violets&amp;quot;. They want stuff that will make their brain do happy back-flips, stuff that will turn their ears inside-out. There are many ways to accomplish this, and they do not all involve chucking 5-limit harmony out the window (in fact, some of the best ways are completely &lt;em&gt;centered&lt;/em&gt; on 5-limit harmony in some way or another), but the point is that if you pussy-foot around microtonality mumbling quietly about how it's &amp;quot;just like 12-TET, but more in tune&amp;quot;, absolutely NO ONE will take you seriously. Not average listeners, not microtonal enthusiasts, not your fellow microtonal musicians, and most &lt;em&gt;certainly&lt;/em&gt; not the average Guitar Center customer or university music student. The only way to make it as a microtonalist in this world is to go for broke, whether that means 13-EDO, 13-limit JI, 900 notes of Hemiennealimmal temperament, or somewhere in between. Pull that &amp;quot;familiar = good&amp;quot; stick out of your anus and do something &lt;em&gt;new&lt;/em&gt;. Smack the world in the face with something they've never heard before, and at the very least you'll attract a handful of people who will enthusiastically beg for more. If you're good at it, you might even make an international name for yourself among the underground microtonal scene, and if you're REALLY good at it (and/or really LUCKY) you might actually break out of the sub-culture and find your way into the public-at-large.&lt;br /&gt;
The truth is that lots and lots of people don't give two turds about microtonality, no matter what form it's in. The only way to win them over is to make music they like that is impossible to approximate with something familiar, and even then the odds of them actually becoming &amp;quot;converts&amp;quot; is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the people who &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; interested in microtonality want to hear music that sounds, well, microtonal. Sure, there are lots of ways to sound microtonal and not all microtonalists like all forms of microtonal music, but none of them want to hear music that sounds like 12-TET if you promise them something microtonal. There's nothing at all wrong with playing in 12-TET, and most microtonalists still listen to tons and tons of music in 12-TET (it's hard not to!), but you've really got to ask yourself if it's worth the trouble of refretting a guitar, or buying a retunable synth, or learning new fingerings on the bassoon (etc.), if what you really want to do is make music that doesn't actually sound much different.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception #5: &amp;quot;Beatless Harmonies are More Relaxing&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;12-TET Music is Fast Because it's Out of Tune&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception #5: &amp;quot;Beatless Harmonies are More Relaxing&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;12-TET Music is Fast Because it's Out of Tune&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Line 189: Line 203:
Now, as I said, there are many ways to increase the informational content of a piece of music. One of them is to decrease the concordance of the intervals, as this introduces beating and increases harmonic entropy. Another one of them is to increase the level of compositional complexity, i.e. to increase the number of pitches being heard within a given time-frame. The implications of this should be obvious: to maintain a constant level of interest, compositional complexity ought to vary inversely with harmonic concordance of intervals being heard. In other words, music that is &amp;quot;out of tune&amp;quot; will be more pleasant if it is &lt;em&gt;slower&lt;/em&gt;, not faster.&lt;br /&gt;
Now, as I said, there are many ways to increase the informational content of a piece of music. One of them is to decrease the concordance of the intervals, as this introduces beating and increases harmonic entropy. Another one of them is to increase the level of compositional complexity, i.e. to increase the number of pitches being heard within a given time-frame. The implications of this should be obvious: to maintain a constant level of interest, compositional complexity ought to vary inversely with harmonic concordance of intervals being heard. In other words, music that is &amp;quot;out of tune&amp;quot; will be more pleasant if it is &lt;em&gt;slower&lt;/em&gt;, not faster.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, if one looks to the meditative traditions of the world that use sound to help enhance meditation, the most common sounds are gongs, bells, and group chants (usually monophonic or even monotonic). The clear trend between all of these is &amp;quot;harmonic impurity&amp;quot;, i.e. beating. Most bells produce inharmonic spectra where the overtones actually beat with one another, as do most gongs, and a room full of people chanting the same mantra or hymn will &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; be in perfect tune--there will always be some amount of beating. In modern times, the phenomenon of &amp;quot;binaural beating&amp;quot; is well-known and quite popular as a method of inducing relaxed states. One thing that is conspicuously absent from all meditative or trance-inducing sounds is beatless harmony played by pure harmonic timbres. Try this experiment for yourself: listen to 10 minutes of a Justly-tuned pipe organ sustaining a 4:5:6:7:9:11 hexad, and see just how relaxed it makes you feel! The truth is, given a static sustained harmony, one that beats is more relaxing than one that doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
If one looks to the meditative traditions of the world that use sound to help enhance meditation, the most common sounds are gongs, bells, and group chants (usually monophonic or even monotonic). The clear trend between all of these is &amp;quot;harmonic impurity&amp;quot;, i.e. beating. Most bells produce inharmonic spectra where the overtones actually beat with one another, as do most gongs, and a room full of people chanting the same mantra or hymn will &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; be in perfect tune--there will always be some amount of beating. In modern times, the phenomenon of &amp;quot;binaural beating&amp;quot; is well-known and quite popular as a method of inducing relaxed states. One thing that is conspicuously absent from all meditative or trance-inducing sounds is beatless harmony played by pure harmonic timbres. Try this experiment for yourself: listen to 10 minutes of a Justly-tuned pipe organ sustaining a 4:5:6:7:9:11 hexad, and see just how relaxed it makes you feel! The truth is, given a static sustained harmony, one that beats is more relaxing than one that doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of course, if you want to write music with lots of melodic and harmonic complexity, then by all means, go with the more near-Just harmonies. The spectrum of musical interest is broad and deep, and the most important thing is to develop a sensitivity to the sorts of music appropriate to the tuning you're working with.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Misconception #6: &amp;quot;You Should Listen to the Advice of Experienced Microtonalists&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The world of alternative intonational practices (also know as the world of microtonality or xenharmony) is vast, and when you first enter it, it's easy to be overwhelmed and confused and maybe even terrified. Especially when there are all sorts of people and organizations making all sorts of grandiose claims about this tuning or that tuning. There is almost no consensus, and there is a TON of rhetoric, much of it based on questionable scientific studies or historical sources. In your initial confusion, it will be almost impossible to resist the siren song of someone's particular brand of microtonality, because you need to start somewhere and it's hard to figure out this stuff on your own. The rhetoric is occasionally made all the more enticing by the existence of compelling music based on the advertised tuning system; after all, if composer X could make such cool sounds with this tuning, then surely it must be a great tuning for anybody!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The truth is that no one is qualified to tell you what tunings to you use, because different tunings are good for different things and it's almost impossible to know what you want from a tuning when you've spent your whole life immersed in a single tuning. You will have no idea at first whether harmonic properties or melodic properties are more important, or whether you work better in equal tunings or unequal tunings, or whether you think better in terms of frequency ratios or cents or note-names, or whether you think beating and discordance are really as undesirable as some people say they are. In all probability, no matter what alternative tuning you begin with, you will find something unsatisfactory about it and seek out alternatives. There are very, very few microtonalists in the world who have picked a single tuning system and stuck with it, and just because someone has spent a lifetime trying out every tuning under the sun and finally settled on one, that does not mean you will get the same results. Tuning is a very personal choice, and can be a very deep and enlightening personal journey. Do NOT trust anyone who tells you it has to be a certain way. In fact, don't even listen to me. Every word ever written about microtonality needs to be taken with a heap of salt, including mine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now go forth, make mistakes, and learn from them!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:2:&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h1 id="toc1"&gt;&lt;a name="Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:2 --&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:2:&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h1 id="toc1"&gt;&lt;a name="Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:2 --&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;