What is microtonal music: Difference between revisions

<h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2>

This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<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>

<h4>Original Wikitext content:</h4>

While microtonal music may not be easy to define, most people know it when they hear it.

By holding each of these definitions in our hand and turning it over in the light, we can see each separate facet of what makes music microtonal. The first definition, by Johnny Reinhard, seems as first glance entirely inadequate, since it does not define. A definition must eo ipso separate what is defined from what is not, and so Reinhard's description of microtonality would superficially appear useless. If all music is microtonal, then microtonal music has no distinguishing features. But if we look closer, we catch sight of a deeper meaning in Reinhard's gnostic oxymoron. What Johnny is probably getting at is the fact that while all music adheres in theory to a rigid set of restricted pitches, in actual practice real musicians in the real world typically bend these pitches for expressive purposes. A fine example can be found in Sinead O'Connor's song "Nothing Compares 2 U," in which she unmistakably intones melodic intervals much smaller than a semitone. This adds great plangency and pathos to the music, and she is obviously not signing in the conventional Western tuning. Or again, consider the Javanese gamelan. One gamelan is likely to use narrower pitches where another gamelan uses wider ones -- yet both gamelans ostensibly use the same tuning. Once again, we have an example in which pitch is warped for expressive purposes, yet not recognized on paper as doing so. This reminds to avoid the error of scriptism: i.e., concentrating on how music is notated, rather than how it sounds.

Grove's definition harks back to the era of the quartertone composers, which ran from roughly the 1920s through the 1940s. During this period much was made of the quartertone tuning but it failed to garner a following. As Ivor Darreg has pointed out, splitting the semitone in half merely leaves you with two independent circles of 12 fifths each, and consequently you have not left the sound-world of conventional Western music behind by going to 24 equal (quartertones). The major and minor triads in 24 equal sound (and in fact are) absolutely identical to those in 12, as is the major and minor melodic mode in 24. As the fad for quartertones faded, and new ensembles featuring american gamelans have become popular since the 1940s, the definition of "microtonal" as automatically meaning "intervals smaller than a semitone" has come to seem antiquated. Withal, Grove's definition retains some historical importance insofar as it reminds us of the fad for quartertones in the early half of the 20th century. Indeed, the quartertone fad resurfaces periodically throughout history. As Ezra Sims notes in his article on microtonality, one 17th century musician remarked "I hear much talk of quartertones, though few compose in them." So quartertones go back a long ways. This reminds us that "microtonal" music is nothing new -- it's always been with us throughout Western music. Nowadays the only difference is that technology has advanced to the point where any composer can switch on a laptop, fire up a softsynth, and get any microtonal tuning with effortless ease -- and, as a result, a whole lot of composers are doing so. (Thus the need for this wiki page.)

Perhaps the most popular term other than "microtonal" is "xenharmonic."

**Xenharmonic** is a term coined by the late Ivor Darreg, from Greek //xenos// "strange, foreign" + //harmonikos// "sound, harmonic" to classify music in tunings that are definitely aurally distinct from the typical twelve tone equal tuning.

<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;what is microtonal music&lt;/title&gt;&lt;/head&gt;&lt;body&gt;&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:&amp;lt;h3&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h3 id="toc0"&gt;&lt;a name="x--What is microtonal music?"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:0 --&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What is microtonal music?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;

While microtonal music may not be easy to define, most people know it when they hear it.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

By holding each of these definitions in our hand and turning it over in the light, we can see each separate facet of what makes music microtonal. The first definition, by Johnny Reinhard, seems as first glance entirely inadequate, since it does not define. A definition must eo ipso separate what is defined from what is not, and so Reinhard's description of microtonality would superficially appear useless. If all music is microtonal, then microtonal music has no distinguishing features. But if we look closer, we catch sight of a deeper meaning in Reinhard's gnostic oxymoron. What Johnny is probably getting at is the fact that while all music adheres in theory to a rigid set of restricted pitches, in actual practice real musicians in the real world typically bend these pitches for expressive purposes. A fine example can be found in Sinead O'Connor's song &amp;quot;Nothing Compares 2 U,&amp;quot; in which she unmistakably intones melodic intervals much smaller than a semitone. This adds great plangency and pathos to the music, and she is obviously not signing in the conventional Western tuning. Or again, consider the Javanese gamelan. One gamelan is likely to use narrower pitches where another gamelan uses wider ones -- yet both gamelans ostensibly use the same tuning. Once again, we have an example in which pitch is warped for expressive purposes, yet not recognized on paper as doing so. This reminds to avoid the error of scriptism: i.e., concentrating on how music is notated, rather than how it sounds.&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

Grove's definition harks back to the era of the quartertone composers, which ran from roughly the 1920s through the 1940s. During this period much was made of the quartertone tuning but it failed to garner a following. As Ivor Darreg has pointed out, splitting the semitone in half merely leaves you with two independent circles of 12 fifths each, and consequently you have not left the sound-world of conventional Western music behind by going to 24 equal (quartertones). The major and minor triads in 24 equal sound (and in fact are) absolutely identical to those in 12, as is the major and minor melodic mode in 24. As the fad for quartertones faded, and new ensembles featuring american gamelans have become popular since the 1940s, the definition of &amp;quot;microtonal&amp;quot; as automatically meaning &amp;quot;intervals smaller than a semitone&amp;quot; has come to seem antiquated. Withal, Grove's definition retains some historical importance insofar as it reminds us of the fad for quartertones in the early half of the 20th century. Indeed, the quartertone fad resurfaces periodically throughout history. As Ezra Sims notes in his article on microtonality, one 17th century musician remarked &amp;quot;I hear much talk of quartertones, though few compose in them.&amp;quot; So quartertones go back a long ways. This reminds us that &amp;quot;microtonal&amp;quot; music is nothing new -- it's always been with us throughout Western music. Nowadays the only difference is that technology has advanced to the point where any composer can switch on a laptop, fire up a softsynth, and get any microtonal tuning with effortless ease -- and, as a result, a whole lot of composers are doing so. (Thus the need for this wiki page.)&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:2:&amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;h2 id="toc1"&gt;&lt;a name="x-What is xenharmonic music?"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:2 --&gt;What is xenharmonic music?&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;br /&gt;

Unfortunately, &amp;quot;microtonal&amp;quot; implies that you're using tiny intervals when you may not be, and &amp;quot;xenharmonic&amp;quot; has been called &amp;quot;so...negative.&amp;quot; However, we must recall that in the original Greek, &lt;em&gt;xenos&lt;/em&gt; can also mean &amp;quot;hospitable&amp;quot; -- a fact of which Ivor never tired of reminding those who objected to the term &amp;quot;xenharmonic.&amp;quot; He pointed out &amp;quot;xenharmonic can also mean `hospitable to different tones.'&amp;quot; Ivor also suggested the term &lt;strong&gt;&amp;quot;neoteric&amp;quot;&lt;/strong&gt; music earlier on, circa the late 1950s. One objection to this term is that it means &amp;quot;recent in origin,&amp;quot; while many audibly microtonal tunings, like the Greek enharmonic genus, are anything BUT recent in origin!&lt;br /&gt;