Misconceptions about xenharmony: Difference between revisions
Wikispaces>mbattaglia1 **Imported revision 391133412 - Original comment: Reverted to Aug 12, 2011 10:58 pm: revert** |
Wikispaces>mbattaglia1 **Imported revision 391133546 - 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:mbattaglia1|mbattaglia1]] and made on <tt>2012-12-11 00: | : This revision was by author [[User:mbattaglia1|mbattaglia1]] and made on <tt>2012-12-11 00:33:11 UTC</tt>.<br> | ||
: The original revision id was <tt> | : The original revision id was <tt>391133546</tt>.<br> | ||
: The revision comment was: <tt> | : 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> | ||
<h4>Original Wikitext content:</h4> | <h4>Original Wikitext 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;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]] | ||
= | =Chuckles McGee's "Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists"= | ||
This section expresses the views of | This section expresses the views of Chuckles McGee, a famous clown with a bright red shining nose. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general). | ||
**Misconception 1: "More is More"** | **Misconception 1: "More is More"** | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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. | 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"** | ||
| Line 158: | 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"><html><head><title>misconceptions about xenharmony</title></head><body>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 &quot;mainstream&quot; or traditional ideas about microtonality.<!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:4:&lt;img id=&quot;wikitext@@toc@@normal&quot; class=&quot;WikiMedia WikiMediaToc&quot; title=&quot;Table of Contents&quot; src=&quot;/site/embedthumbnail/toc/normal?w=225&amp;h=100&quot;/&gt; --><div id="toc"><h1 class="nopad">Table of Contents</h1><!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:4 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:5: --><div style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="# | <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"><html><head><title>misconceptions about xenharmony</title></head><body>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 &quot;mainstream&quot; or traditional ideas about microtonality.<!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:4:&lt;img id=&quot;wikitext@@toc@@normal&quot; class=&quot;WikiMedia WikiMediaToc&quot; title=&quot;Table of Contents&quot; src=&quot;/site/embedthumbnail/toc/normal?w=225&amp;h=100&quot;/&gt; --><div id="toc"><h1 class="nopad">Table of Contents</h1><!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:4 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:5: --><div style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#Chuckles McGee's &quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&quot;">Chuckles McGee's &quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&quot;</a></div> | ||
<!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:5 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:6: --><div style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren">Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren</a></div> | <!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:5 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:6: --><div style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren">Myths and Facts about Xenharmonics by mclaren</a></div> | ||
<!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:6 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:7: --></div> | <!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:6 --><!-- ws:start:WikiTextTocRule:7: --></div> | ||
<!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:7 --><br /> | <!-- ws:end:WikiTextTocRule:7 --><br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:&lt;h1&gt; --><h1 id="toc0"><a name=" | <!-- ws:start:WikiTextHeadingRule:0:&lt;h1&gt; --><h1 id="toc0"><a name="Chuckles McGee's &quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&quot;"></a><!-- ws:end:WikiTextHeadingRule:0 -->Chuckles McGee's &quot;Six Misconceptions of Novice Microtonalists&quot;</h1> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
This section expresses the views of | This section expresses the views of Chuckles McGee, a famous clown with a bright red shining nose. He is an outspoken advocate for many relatively-discordant tunings (and for the importance of discord in general).<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Misconception 1: &quot;More is More&quot;</strong><br /> | <strong>Misconception 1: &quot;More is More&quot;</strong><br /> | ||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
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.<br /> | 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.<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
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 &quot;rewarded&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. <br /> | 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 &quot;rewarded&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.<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Misconception 4: &quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener&quot;</strong><br /> | <strong>Misconception 4: &quot;Tunings Related to the Familiar are More Appealing to the 'Average' Listener&quot;</strong><br /> | ||