Tuning systems and composition?

So two points, first:

What are your collective experiences with different tuning systems, scales and otherwise 12tet?

I spent all of last summer working on a piece for harpsichord that uses its own tuning system for example, exploring different microtonal shifts in intervals, etc. I think it's quite a different landscape, but it may be sort of overwhelming to work with cents and hz ratios ALONG with all the other sorts of composition elements. At least when I started I didn't know WHERE to start since there's just too many options! For example I got scala (an OSS) to work with different scales and try out all sorts of possibilities and sounds, then work with certain sets that I found interesting. But also important was that I could test it on my midi keyboard (it's REALLY bizarre to play using alternate tunings, but you get used to it after a while.)

And second:

Are you interested in using this type of stuff? What kind of use do you think you could give such freedom to control intervals/scales/tuning?

It took me a while to actually come up with ideas that used all the stuff I was learning about different octave divisions and all that jazz. I think, again, it's super hard to start "hearing" in microtonal, when you're always used to hearing 12tet.

Anyway a link to the Scala program, for those interested in trying things out:

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/

Yes, for me, this is an interesting topic. It is a vast one, as well, for the theoretical possibilities are unlimited.

Except for dealing with the theoretical side of this (as part of my interest in acoustics), some little experiments and listening to some stuff others do, I can't say I have completed anything yet. Personally, I tend to be more interested in Just Intonation than in Equal Temperament, but also in Well Temperaments and non-western tunings, such as gamelan, and then maybe experimenting with own tunings and timbres. A particular interest is the Bohlen-Pierce scale. Yeah, I have Scala, too, which is -the- tuning software. For now, I am considering using all this as a continuation of an album with a bunch of moods (ambient-like, mostly electronic / synthesized).

OK, perhaps I'll add something else tomorrow, since I'm too sleepy now - 2:20 AM here, haha.

I was interested in using different scales but not anymore, after I heard the results.

I don't plan to go outside the 12 within the next decade, i don't know how estetic you would consider my stuff, but differents tunning only set me far from that clear language I like...

There's another guy asking about these things here

I've never written a piece outside of 12eq because after experimenting with it, it sucked. I've only written ONE microtonal note in my life as far as I can remember. It was a quarter sharp on the trombone to make a chord sound in between a major and minor chord.

The title of the thread - "Tunning Systems and Composition" - shouldn't that read, "Tuning Systems and Composition"? But anyway, I generally have no interest in different tuning systems, but I respect those who do. If you're composing in an electronic medium especially, I can see why this kind of experimentation is quite important. My experience... well, that's something rather funny. In college, there was a policy that any piano preparation for a recital was to be approved by the faculty before dress rehearsal.

Apparently the story goes: a student wrote a prepared piano piece that used a different tuning system. The composer gained entry to the recital hall a few nights before dress rehearsal and re-tuned three octaves of the piano with the help of a recording engineer who brought some equipment to measure frequencies. Seriously, it's overboard, but even worse, the college billed him for the bill to retune the piano following the recital - which he disputed, obnoxiously enough, insisting he had correctly re-tuned the piano himself when it was shoddy work at best. So, the music department ended up paying for re-tuning the piano.

For live performance on live instruments, I really don't see the point of experimenting with different tuning systems from a practical standpoint - not to dash anyone's hopes or anything. Performers gripe, audience members sometimes can't aurally perceive the difference (untrained ears), and it just seems like a huge effort for the purpose of satisfying your own creative expression. Sure, there's nothing technically "wrong" with this in any way, and if the expression is truly important enough to you, by all means, press forward.

I just don't see the sense in pressing for a different tuning system on live instruments, especially those already designed for the existing 12t tuning system. I say, if you want a new tuning system, create a new orchestra of instruments built for it. The mechanics should already exist for live performers, not be imposed on them when they play instruments that require the performer to guess or meticulously prepare their instrument for each new tuning system that a composer wants to use. When the instruments exist that are built to support multiple tuning systems, I'm all for it, but I have no interest in writing works for live performance that might see one or two performances in my lifetime due to quirky tuning experimentation.

In my Classical-Revival world, I don't go outside the 12 - but I have learnt how to alter the standard of pitch and the temperament through GPO/Aria for playback, which provides a decent variety of historical options.

For most of my stuff, I lower the standard to about A=432 and use Kirnberger III temperament; they're fairly good generics that approximate what might have been in standard use, though such things varied widely depending upon the application and local custom.

For the few Neo-Baroque things I produce, I usually use A=415 and Werkmeister III (or perhaps something a hair more exotic and ancient-sounding).

A lot of authenticity purists hate Valotti temperament, but I like it for late 18th Century stuff; the triads closest to C in either direction in the circle-of-fifths all sound wonderfully in tune to me, and when you get to more exotic keys, things get funkier - which is how I think it ought to be.

Anyway, this probably isn't what you had in mind when you started this thread, but them's my thots on the subject. :P

It depends on the instrument. Retuning a piano is pretty retarded, specially with how hard it is to tune them anyway. However there are certain instruments that can play all sorts of things (strings for example) where all that matters is just practice. Not all instruments can do microtones and those that can have their own difficulties.

In reality people WILL notice a different tuning system in a concert, untrained ears or not simply because it sounds out of tune to them. It's a completely different sound and if you don't notice then you weren't paying attention. But again it depends on the usage, and how consequently a piece uses any given microtonal/tuning system.

But waiting for "new instruments" that can do it is perpetuating the 12tet centrality anyway. If more works are written with different systems and it gets performed then more performers will be able to practice that technique with bigger repertoire, it's really simple. Likewise, there ARE already lots of instruments that can do these things quite well (harpsichords are great for retuning and trying different systems for example.)

In any case these are all practical concerns, but the options remain there. I've just happened to hear a bunch of music performed that used different systems live, so that there's people out there that are willing to play this stuff is a given, if only there was more music that took advantage of other tunings or microtone intervals, etc.

Oh, I agree...I'd never try to tune my modern piano to some funky temperament. I do tune my historic keyboards to whatever temperament suits my fancy, or whatever is appropriate to what I'm playing; I'm fortunate to own a fortepiano, a small harpsichord, and a clavichord...they're my toys, and I get a kick out of experimenting with different temperaments, particularly on the clavichord.

I just don't see the sense in pressing for a different tuning system on live instruments, especially those already designed for the existing 12t tuning system. I say, if you want a new tuning system, create a new orchestra of instruments built for it. The mechanics should already exist for live performers, not be imposed on them when they play instruments that require the performer to guess or meticulously prepare their instrument for each new tuning system that a composer wants to use. When the instruments exist that are built to support multiple tuning systems, I'm all for it, but I have no interest in writing works for live performance that might see one or two performances in my lifetime due to quirky tuning experimentation.

This sounds a bit like all orchestral instruments were strictly built around 12-tone ET and anything else would be a deviation from that. In reality though, a traditional orchestra will very rarely play in equal temperament throughout, but will follow quite a range of different tuning and intonation practices, depending on the music they play, depending on the choices of the conductor, and depending on how a particular chord/passage is orchestrated.

As mentioned, sure, there -are- some instruments that are pretty much built around ET today, i.e. the piano and fretted string instruments, such as the guitar. But most other instruments allow for quite a big range of tunings and for some of them, even equal temperament never really fits: Brass instruments are built on the harmonic series in principle, and things like valves are nothing but an approximative attempt to bring them in line with other instruments - but there's no way to truly tune a trumpet or horn in equal temperament, and the tuning/intonation of the trombone depends solely on the performer anyways. Strings do have a basic tuning of fifths (or fourths), but scordature in a limited range are easily possible, and the division of the string follows no tuning system per se. Sure, woodwinds are, depending on the particular instruments, sometimes "tuned in equal temperament", but this is also often merely an approximation and for every woodwind there exist tons of different fingerings for most notes, creating a huge range of different microtonal variants and intonations. Not even to mention that there are still lots of instruments being used that were designed for ancient music, that certainly didn't work along equal temperament. (Just ask a recorder player :P)

The point is: Even 12-tone ET already requires many instrumentalists to apply little tricks and stuff to shift notes to the right position, and even 12-tone ET doesn't really conform to how most musicians actively play music (It can be really hard to get a string quartet or brass quartet, or even worse, a choir to perform music in equal temperament, because it goes totally against what those musicians are used to). So using different tuning systems really isn't much of a stretch.

I guess this is a topic I should probably throw my two cents (huh? huh?) in on.

To answer the first question in the OP, I have written a good number of works using different tunings -- whether it’s an equal temperament (7tET, 11tET, 15tET, 16tET, 18tET, 21 1/4tET, 24tET, 30tET, 36tET), a Pythagorean, Just, or "period" tuning, or just a temperament I devised specifically for the piece (or one of the MANY other types of tuning). In addition, I don't limit myself to one tuning per piece, rather explore multiple tunings together. So yes, you will find anywhere between 1 and 4+ tunings (I say 4 'cause I'm positive I've used 4 in a piece, not positive that that's the max though) in my works.

I don't have Scala, never tried to use Scala, and have no desire to. To play around with tunings, I use the H-Pi Tuning Box and the Custom Scale Editor software that works with it.

I play around with a temperament for awhile, learn its little quirks and how it inherently behaves, and then I write, trying to explore and exploit the tuning.

I never had the problem of figuring out "where to start". I had heard quarter-tones (and was really aware of what they were) for the first time in Schnittke's Piano Quintet, then I was introduced to Haba (and, subsequently, the other early 20th century Eastern European microtonalists -- Adrian Fokker, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, Henk Badings). Since so much of what I was hearing was quarter-, fifth-, and sixth-tones, my first microtonal piece juxtaposed 36tET and 24tET (I had also introduced myself to the polymicrotonal music of Johnny Reinhard). Following that I listened to more "microtonal" music. I studied it very closely, learned the history, the different kinds of tunings, different period tunings, etc.

For awhile, the tunings I choose were always equal temperaments, but after a few pieces I started expanding outside of that.

I've never had a problem picking a tuning either. There is some logical reason why I used what I used. I mean, there are a multitude of reasons I've chosen temperaments, whether to explore two different tunings that divide the whole-tone scale differently, because I found a fingering chart and decided that it was better to work from that than to force a player to do all of that work (not to say I haven't done that though :innocent:), because I wanted to juxtapose a meantone, Just, equal-tempered, and Pythagorean tuning (blah, blah, Pythagorean is a Just tuning, but whatever) on top of each other, using the pitches of a Just dominant 7th chord to link them all, in order to explore differences in interval sizes between all of the tunings, to explore the resonance of the instrument, or because the number of divisions in one tuning relates numerologically to the number of divisions in another.

So yeah, lots of different stuff explored. I've also performed improv concerts using a bunch of different tunings --altered guitars, re-tuned toy accordions, etc.

I've never had a problem with performers. I've had the initial look of shock and fear, but never a refusal to do something. Basically, it’s all about your approach to coaching the performer. If you go in and appear to not know anything about the tuning you used, they're clearly not going to want to learn it. But if you can explain to them what you used, why you used it, and how they should go about learning it, it’s usually smooth sailing. I've never had a player refuse to play a piece because it was microtonal, I've never had a player not work on the tuning. In fact, for the most part, the people I've worked with have been pretty receptive and excited to try it. When you can make it make sense to them, it’s no longer a scary, abstract thing.

To answer the second OP question: Yes, and LOTS.

To everything else:

Just to be clear, "microtonality" (or, more appropriately, xenharonic music) is not a new thing, so let’s stop talking about it as if it were (to the couple of you that this applies to). Temperaments have been changing with music since the beginning. You have Pythagorean, meantone (quarter-comma, fifth-comma, sixth-comma, seventh-comma, etc.), Just, and Well (Werkmeister, Valotti, Kirnberger, Young, etc.)temperaments being used (12tET is an invention of the early 20th/late 19th century). You have Telemann discussing 55tET and Leopold Mozart basically teaching his students to use a 55-tone Pythagorean tuning. You have keyboards being build in the Renaissance to facilitate 16-tone (and 19-tone, and 31-tone) meantone tunings (and music written that uses all of it!), you have quarter-tone pieces in the 1850s, and 31tET being discussed in the 17th century! That's not even touching on the various developments in traditional musics from around the world. So yeah, its not really "a stretch".

If you know what you're doing, performers and audiences won't "gripe" about the tuning, people will be receptive. There is WAY more microtonal music out there than you seem to think. The major problem with microtonal music is that composers are trying to write music in different tunings with a 12tET (or at least, 12-divisions-of-the-octave/more traditional Western hierarchies) mindset, and that results in not-so-good music, seeing as they're trying to impose characteristics inherent in one tuning, that aren't in the other.

Yes, I've had to work more on intonation with players than I normally would have, yes I spend as much time getting to know a temperament as I actually do writing the work, yes sometimes I have to re-tune things (guitars, harps, electric keyboards, wine glasses), and yes, it’s totally worth it.

And, just a side note here, isn't satisfying creative expression the most important thing an artist has. Like durh.

Actually as an interesting sidenote, when I have talked to such early music vocal groups such as Pomerian after their performance of new works they tell me they always are adjusting the tuning of their pitches in relation to other parts - depending on the style and content of a work. I think it is something that at a certain level there is an awareness with excellent long standing vocal groups but not so much with short lived, less experienced choral/vocal groups.

My point? We probably don't hear pure 12 tet as much as we think when you get outside of instruments whose intonation is very fixed or requires a bit of work to alter. In fact, Chopin MAY have been cognizant of this when he said roughly "as a pianist we have an advantage: we don't have to be overly concerned with controlling intonation when we play"

Actually as an interesting sidenote, when I have talked to such early music vocal groups such as Pomerian after their performance of new works they tell me they always are adjusting the tuning of their pitches in relation to other parts - depending on the style and content of a work. I think it is something that at a certain level there is an awareness with excellent long standing vocal groups but not so much with short lived, less experienced choral/vocal groups.

My point? We probably don't hear pure 12 tet as much as we think when you get outside of instruments whose intonation is very fixed or requires a bit of work to alter. In fact, Chopin MAY have been cognizant of this when he said roughly "as a pianist we have an advantage: we don't have to be overly concerned with controlling intonation when we play"

Ah! You used an argument I use a lot!

Singers naturally lean more toward the just ratios, but adjust their intonation when are accompanied by tempered piano or organ. ET is basically a characteristic of keyboard instruments as well as fretted ones (though not all).

I think it's worth noting here that the harmonic series of overtones seems to come into play here. There's a REALLY GOOD example of this in a tutorial written by Robin Hoffmann, a member of YC:

http://www.robin-hof...armonic-series/

It's difficult to talk about intonation and tuning without addressing how different instruments produce overtones that more or less produce a distinct timbre and how we address these issues in some of the music we write. I think there's a lot of discussion here about how so many different tuning systems have been used before, which is fine, but let's not forget how Woodwind and Brass instruments are somewhat better suited to our existing tuning system, at least to a point.

Sure, some extended techniques work really well on these instruments, but if we aren't rationalizing what we understand about how sound is produced now with why some instruments are better or not so better suited to a different tuning system, then we're left with a lot of great ideas for tuning systems without the instruments that could potentially justify using them in a more frequent way.

I don't know, I want to be interested in experimenting with different tuning systems, because theoretically it sounds quite fascinating. I just don't think there's a lot there for my aesthetic to really develop around at the moment. Come up with some instruments that convincingly exploit a different tuning system and I'll be all over it - it's really just more interesting to me if we're talking about creating new instruments along with these tuning systems.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with harmonic series.

And from that site AA posted:

So when you’re structuring your chords, you might want to have a look at the harmonic series in order to make them sound good.

You know when you just see one single line that defines how a person thinks, and ultimately renders whatever else they have to say worthless? That's it right there, to me.

But I digress.

I'm referring to the harmonics that sound above the fundamental pitch when instruments play a note. The combinations of these frequencies are perceivable, and as a result, should be taken into account in a tuning system. There are instruments that are generally used in an orchestra because they just happen to work well with the harmonics produced by other instruments. I believe a tuning system should take the mechanics of an instrument into account for several reasons, one of which being the way harmonics apply to the sound produced by instruments.

And I'd suggest taking a look at the two audio examples of a tone played by the oboe where the first pitch sounds with all the harmonics while the second adds them in gradually. There's some truth to this material that suggests this has an impact on tuning and intonation.

------------------------

It's quite common to look at the overtone series when constructing tertian harmony - the aesthetic is pretty clearly established now. So, "good" and "bad" in this particular case doesn't really apply to all music ever written. The context of the article deals with film music, so of course we're looking at a specific style of music, not music in general. I just think the mechanics of how sounds are produced from given instruments are worth investigating in more detail when experimenting with different kinds of tuning systems. I just thought that the audio example was pretty cool and relevant to what we're talking about.

You know when you just see one single line that defines how a person thinks, and ultimately renders whatever else they have to say worthless? That's it right there, to me.

"These are the acoustic basics on this topic, if you want to read further about the acoustic details, you should check out the very good article on Wikipedia dealing with this topic."

That's the one that did me in, I mean, aside from the fact that its just plain terrible.

@AntiaA:

First, what do extended techniques have to do with alternate tunings?

Second, who says composers don't take any of that into account when using alternate tunings? And thanks for telling us that different instruments sound different and that said tuning systems will sound different on different instruments.

Third, none of what you're saying is really relevant to the OP or to the conversation in general.

Fourth, brass = Just intonation, not 12tET. In terms of winds, clarinet tuning, for example, is an inexact 12tET that's more accurately a division of 3:1 into 19 equal parts.

@AntiaA:

First, what do extended techniques have to do with alternate tunings?

Generally, I'm referring to any technique that performers today aren't commonly required to do. But you're right, the textbook definition of "extended technique" is to perform a sound on an instrument that the instrument doesn't normally produce (blowing into a horn instead of buzzing, or something along those lines).

Second, who says composers don't take any of that into account when using alternate tunings?

I haven't said anything of the sort. What does this have to do with creating a new orchestra?

And thanks for telling us that different instruments sound different and that said tuning systems will sound different on different instruments.

You're welcome... your sarcasm is noted, but I'll be gracious.

Third, none of what you're saying is really relevant to the OP or to the conversation in general.

Still, a performer works for years to perfect their intonation in the 12tET pedagogy, and if a different tuning system was in place and that performer was building his/her intonation around that, they would learn to play their instrument different, use different fingerings, etc. I realize there are ways to do this, I accept that experimenting with different tuning systems is interesting, but FOR ME to really be more interested in doing so myself, I would want to write for instruments that were built for those different tuning systems.

I dare to say that a full orchestra playing a work written for a completely different tuning system does not appeal to me - the instrument combinations don't blend well enough for my aesthetic when we get into homophonic textures and so forth. Sure, a unison microtone between F# and G might sound just fine, but when we get into larger harmonic structures, we're talking about a plethora of overtones and harmonic issues between the instruments of the orchestra. This is before we even begin talking about performers and the effort they need to invest in accurately performing the pitches of these different tuning systems.

Why not start from the ground up, building new ensembles with instruments built with a different tuning system in mind? I fail to see how this is not a relevant opinion to add here, and I fail to see why my opinion justifies your sarcasm - see above. By the way, the OP asked whether we use/experiment with different tuning systems (if so, what were our results) and if we don't, why not. I stated my reasons.

Fourth, brass = Just intonation, not 12tET. In terms of winds, clarinet tuning, for example, is an inexact 12tET that's more accurately a division of 3:1 into 19 equal parts.

HA! Yes, Brass use Just Intonation, which is more or less why a trumpet is designed as a seven foot long brass tube that wraps around itself and is built with three different valves that shorten and lengthen the instrument, more or less. And by doing so, the pitches you reach when opening one of these valves more closely approximates 12tET than Just Intonation. The way the instrument is built has everything to do with why experimenting with different tuning systems, especially on wind instruments, becomes extremely laborious. It'd be nice if you could go back in time and tell these instrument manufacturers, "WAIT, Wait, we're not going to be using 12tET forever! Build these things differently so we can experiment with all the other tuning systems!" But we can't go back in time yet, so I'm content to wait until there are instruments built around a different tuning system.

I haven't said anything of the sort. What does this have to do with creating a new orchestra?

You did when you said, "I think it's worth noting here that the harmonic series of overtones seems to come into play here. [...]It's difficult to talk about intonation and tuning without addressing how different instruments produce overtones that more or less produce a distinct timbre and how we address these issues in some of the music we write[...]"

Still, a performer works for years to perfect their intonation in the 12tET pedagogy,

Yes, that's why when playing without a keyboard accompaniment, a string player tends to play a sharp slightly higher than a flat, or exaggerates the leading tone to create more of a "pull". And that's why this kind of intonation has been discussed by Telemann and Leopold Mozart, and is still a topic of discussion -- because players only play 12 pitches and that it. Yes, I will concede that they make these adjustments within the 12-notes-per-octave mindset, but to say performers practice their intonation to fit 12tET is just blatantly wrong.

and if a different tuning system was in place and that performer was building his/her intonation around that, they would learn to play their instrument different, use different fingerings, etc. I realize there are ways to do this, I accept that experimenting with different tuning systems is interesting, but FOR ME to really be more interested in doing so myself, I would want to write for instruments that were built for those different tuning systems.

The reason composers stopped writing for the quarter-tone clarinet (which lasted all of about 30 years) is that there were no performers. It takes much longer for a player to learn a completely new instrument than adapt their playing.

I dare to say that a full orchestra playing a work written for a completely different tuning system does not appeal to me - the instrument combinations don't blend well enough for my aesthetic when we get into homophonic textures and so forth. Sure, a unison microtone between F# and G might sound just fine, but when we get into larger harmonic structures, we're talking about a plethora of overtones and harmonic issues between the instruments of the orchestra. This is before we even begin talking about performers and the effort they need to invest in accurately performing the pitches of these different tuning systems.

Name one piece (and I would love it if it was a piece in a different temperament, not just a quarter-tone or eight-tone piece) for full orchestra that you've heard that doesn't appeal to you for that specific reason.

And, just to give you something else to mull over, Johnny Reinhard once made the point to me that when you have a 12-note cluster on the equal-tempered piano, it sounds "dissonant" because of all the clashing overtones, but when you add more and more and more pitches to it, it become more and more "consonant" because the more pitches you have the closer and closer you get to matching the overtones. So if I have 30 notes, played simultaneously in one octave, one of those pitches is going to be closer to an overtone of another pitch than in 12tET.

Why not start from the ground up, building new ensembles with instruments built with a different tuning system in mind? I fail to see how this is not a relevant opinion to add here, and I fail to see why my opinion justifies your sarcasm - see above. By the way, the OP asked whether we use/experiment with different tuning systems (if so, what were our results) and if we don't, why not. I stated my reasons.

Look, I'm not saying we can't build new instruments -- worked out for Partch (to an extent) -- I'm just saying that that's not the only option. That it’s all possible without having to invent new instruments. Plus, you encounter many more problems with that.

There is a reason that, after Partch's own ensemble, there are only really, what, two ensembles that can play his music -- Partch and Newband -- on the intended instruments. And that's why you don't see pieces for quarter-tone clarinet or for 15tET guitar ever played. And that's why two pianos are always used for Ives' Three Quarter-Tone Pieces instead of a quarter-tone piano.

Kronos popularized Johnston's 4th String Quartet, Schnittke's Piano Quintet gets a good amount of play, spectral works get programmed, and the AFMM is able to pull of any tuning thrown at them with ease on their "standard" instruments. So, yeah, reinventing every instrument is all fine and dandy, if you only want maybe one person to ever be able to play it.

HA! Yes, Brass use Just Intonation, which is more or less why a trumpet is designed as a seven foot long brass tube that wraps around itself and is built with three different valves that shorten and lengthen the instrument, more or less. And by doing so, the pitches you reach when opening one of these valves more closely approximates 12tET than Just Intonation. The way the instrument is built has everything to do with why experimenting with different tuning systems, especially on wind instruments, becomes extremely laborious. It'd be nice if you could go back in time and tell these instrument manufacturers, "WAIT, Wait, we're not going to be using 12tET forever! Build these things differently so we can experiment with all the other tuning systems!" But we can't go back in time yet, so I'm content to wait until there are instruments built around a different tuning system.

The valves only change the fundamental. Everything above that are still overtones. It’s still Just, it’s not equal-tempered; the "12tET" comes from embouchure adjustments.

I'm not trying to get you to write in different temperaments, I really couldn't care less what tuning you use in your music (plus that's less competition for me ;)), but to come in and make false claims about how its impossible, impractical, everyone will hate you, you'll never get it performed well, audiences will be confused, etc. is just ridiculous.

In fact, when I gave a pre-concert discussion/Q&A not too long ago, I was asked by the moderator a question about the tunings in my piece. I gave a very brief explanation. Once it was opened to audience questions, tons and tons of questions were about the microtones. The audience was very interested.

And then they got to hear the quartet play in 16tET and 30tET.

HA! Yes, Brass use Just Intonation, which is more or less why a trumpet is designed as a seven foot long brass tube that wraps around itself and is built with three different valves that shorten and lengthen the instrument, more or less. And by doing so, the pitches you reach when opening one of these valves more closely approximates 12tET than Just Intonation.

That's simply not true. You can choose particular fingerings to approximate 12 TET (but not for all notes), but just intervals are still what everything is built from. A trumpet or a horn is nothing but a collection of natural instruments - the valves are merely a means of switching more quickly between them than by inserting different crooks etc.

Furthermore, the valves are far than perfectly tuned in half-tones. This wouldn't even be possible with only three valves: A trumpet or horn or trombone always relies on certain valve combinations (such as 1-2, 2-3, 1-3) and the proportion values for those combinations are never really "correct". (If for example you make the first valve so long to bring the instrument a 12TET whole tone lower, i.e. 12.25% of the tube length, and the second valve a 12TET semitone, i.e. 5.95%, the combined length will be 18.29% of the tube length, and not the correct value for the 12TET minor third, 18.92%. That's about 11 cents off. Combinations of valves always produce intervals that are "smaller than the sum of their parts". That's the reason why the brass valves are usually not tuned in exact equal tempered intervals [nor just intervals], but as compromises between different tunings, so neither the combinations nor the single valves are completely out of tune. But a 1-2-3 combination will still certainly be "much too high" on any brass instrument.)

Also take into account that the valves of a brass instrument can be retuned -very- easily and quickly, without affecting the instrument much otherwise.

So even without bending tones with your lips or using your right hand in the case of the horn, you have a huge range of different intonations with brass instruments, particularly those that commonly play in a high register compared to their tube length. The fingerings and tunings that (sometimes rather badly) approximate equal temperament are not in any way "special" or "easier" than the others.

Sure, valved brass instruments often don't allow the same freedom and precision in writing quarter/sixth/eighth/etc. tones as strings or woodwinds do since their microtonal possibilities don't work along the lines of equal octave divisions, but they still -are- a lot more suited for just intervals (and many others) than equal tempered ones.

And, just to give you something else to mull over, Johnny Reinhard once made the point to me that when you have a 12-note cluster on the equal-tempered piano, it sounds "dissonant" because of all the clashing overtones, but when you add more and more and more pitches to it, it become more and more "consonant" because the more pitches you have the closer and closer you get to matching the overtones. So if I have 30 notes, played simultaneously in one octave, one of those pitches is going to be closer to an overtone of another pitch than in 12tET.

I'm not entirely convinced we're talking about the same thing. Harmonics and overtones are different. Harmonics generally refer to the characteristics that lead to the timbre of an instrument. Overtones refer to the additional tones produced from a fundamental pitch. Generally, that's the terminology I'm using.

Let's break it down. The overtone series applies to all tones, and the closest approximation we've been able to perform with relative precision in relation to the overtone series is the 12-tone tuning system as far as I'm aware. While the spacing of the tones between the octave aren't exact, they're the closest approximation to the overtones produced from the fundamental pitch.

In other words, changing the tuning system doesn't change the overtone series. We have this working against us to some extent - but it's not to say it's impossible, that everyone will hate you for doing it, that it will never get performed well, that audiences will be confused, or anything. But I haven't made those claims either, so I guess I don't need to list what I'm not saying...

I'm not trying to get you to write in different temperaments, I really couldn't care less what tuning you use in your music (plus that's less competition for me ;)), but to come in and make false claims about how its impossible, impractical, everyone will hate you, you'll never get it performed well, audiences will be confused, etc. is just ridiculous.

Or maybe I do need to list those things, because lo and behold, I'm being told I made claims I never made... :facepalm:

See, the only thing that I said was that it's impractical FOR ME and the aesthetic I want to pursue... and impractical FOR ME because the instrumentation I use has developed largely around 12tET. I'm comfortable with this tuning system. It expresses what I want to express musically. I don't need to go out and find another one at this point.

And I have heard ONE WORK written by a masters student for orchestra that used a different tuning system. The orchestra wasn't perfect, and I can give some wiggle room in that area, but by and large, I was not very impressed with the way the instruments came together. Had I known there would be this much discussion to be had with you about tuning, I would have remembered the name of the composer and the work... it wasn't a memorable work to me.

That's simply not true.

Great, here we go... let's see who else wants to re-engineer my statements to strengthen their own arguments...

You can choose particular fingerings to approximate 12 TET (but not for all notes), but just intervals are still what everything is built from. A trumpet or a horn is nothing but a collection of natural instruments - the valves are merely a means of switching more quickly between them than by inserting different crooks etc.

Yes, but these instruments aren't tuned to specifications for this large variety of tuning systems. We had horns in F and in C and so forth, not some microtonal key. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Furthermore, the valves are far than perfectly tuned in half-tones. This wouldn't even be possible with only three valves: A trumpet or horn or trombone always relies on certain valve combinations (such as 1-2, 2-3, 1-3) and the proportion values for those combinations are never really "correct". (If for example you make the first valve so long to bring the instrument a 12TET whole tone lower, i.e. 12.25% of the tube length, and the second valve a 12TET semitone, i.e. 5.95%, the combined length will be 18.29% of the tube length, and not the correct value for the 12TET minor third, 18.92%. That's about 11 cents off. Combinations of valves always produce intervals that are "smaller than the sum of their parts". That's the reason why the brass valves are usually not tuned in exact equal tempered intervals [nor just intervals], but as compromises between different tunings, so neither the combinations nor the single valves are completely out of tune. But a 1-2-3 combination will still certainly be "much too high" on any brass instrument.)

:facepalm:

The tuning of these instruments and the placement of the valves aren't meant to perfectly tune half-tones... in fact, I'm saying just the opposite. There are only 12 tones in the 12tET, and our instruments have evolved in the period of common practice to help players perform these notes more accurately. They haven't been designed to help performers play 15t, 18t, or 30t...

Also take into account that the valves of a brass instrument can be retuned -very- easily and quickly, without affecting the instrument much otherwise.

Great, so let's just re-tune all the valves... we're still talking about working against the overtone series and the mechanics of sound. Of course, if you interpret that as "don't do it," then so be it - I'm not saying "don't do it." I bring up the overtone series and harmonics as something else that's an issue for me. Maybe I could have said this more clearly, but I think everyone's getting the wrong idea about me here. I'm not interested in experimenting with different tuning systems because of the reasons I've stated. I would be interested in experimenting with different tuning systems if instruments were built better for experimenting with different tuning systems. Any interpretation beyond these statements is straw and a misrepresentation of my position.

I'm not entirely convinced we're talking about the same thing. Harmonics and overtones are different. Harmonics generally refer to the characteristics that lead to the timbre of an instrument. Overtones refer to the additional tones produced from a fundamental pitch. Generally, that's the terminology I'm using.

You're confusing me there. Overtones are partials of a whole instrumental tone. They have frequencies of multiples of the frequency of the fundamental. They, next to some other things, lead to the timbre of an instrument. They may be more or less harmonic, but they are still overtones in all cases.

Let's break it down. The overtone series applies to all tones, and the closest approximation we've been able to perform with relative precision in relation to the overtone series is the 12-tone tuning system as far as I'm aware. While the spacing of the tones between the octave aren't exact, they're the closest approximation to the overtones produced from the fundamental pitch.

The closest approximation to the harmonic series is the harmonic series. Anything other than that is merely a compromise between several different, often conflicting goals. Yes, 12-tone ET gives some intervals that are close to just intervals (i.e. the ones from the harmonic series), but it's by far not the "closest approximation". Call it a "fairly good one", if you want.

Yes, but these instruments aren't tuned to specifications for this large variety of tuning systems. We had horns in F and in C and so forth, not some microtonal key. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's totally irrelevant, if we're talking about intervallic buildups within a given tuning system/scale whatever. You can call a "C" whatever frequency you like, and historically the differences between what was called a C varied a lot more than a semitone. So sure, we had all kinds of keys inbetween, they simply weren't called like that. You can perfectly well leave away all valves of a horn and only play it as a natural horn. Then you'll have a perfectly functional instrument that has nothing to do with 12TET. Or you can add some valves at your leisure. Sure: The valve system -was- built for a 12-tone chromaticism (but -not- for equal temperament), but just restricting the instruments to that means denying tons of aspects that have always been part of the instrument and still are readily available to every player. The valve system didn't take any notes away from the natural series the instruments were originally based on - it merely added some 12-tone stuff on top.

The tuning of these instruments and the placement of the valves aren't meant to perfectly tune half-tones... in fact, I'm saying just the opposite. There are only 12 tones in the 12tET, and our instruments have evolved in the period of common practice to help players perform these notes more accurately. They haven't been designed to help performers play 15t, 18t, or 30t...

I don't think I even talked about 15tone or whatever. Even just talking about different 12 tone tunings would suffice for the sake of this argument. (Even though, as mentioned, a more idiomatic tuning for a brass instrument would not use equal octave divisions, but get narrower on top.)

Yes, the instruments gained the abilities to approximate 12TET more closely than they used to. But they didn't lose their ability to approximate just intonation or a great number of other things in that process. They still have all of that.

Great, so let's just re-tune all the valves... we're still talking about working against the overtone series and the mechanics of sound.

And by "working against the overtone series" we'd be doing exactly what you talked about all the time before, i.e. the development of these instruments up to today. Adding valves to the trumpet and horn to give them a 12-tone chromaticism is nothing but working against the limits their inherent focus on the harmonic series places upon them. It is exactly this historical development you were talking about that led us away from the more "natural" mechanics of sound towards several artificial compromise solutions of today (such as 12TET). There's nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with going again in slightly different directions.

But it should at least be obvious that what concerns brass instruments any attempt to bring them closer to 12TET is a step AWAY from the harmonic series those instruments naturally embody. There's a reason spectralists use microtones heavily and don't really tend to write in 12TET...

Okay, I'm not interested enough in this topic to continue carrying on a senseless debate about "why" I don't find tuning system experimentation appealing to my aesthetic.

Seriously, this is a great deal of hyper-technicality being thrown in my face as though my personal choice to not experiment with tuning systems has no basis. So, allow me to clarify:

http://en.wikipedia....ies_%28music%29

I think this can convey my point pretty well. One thing to point out:

The second harmonic (or first overtone), twice the frequency of the fundamental, sounds an octave higher; the third harmonic, three times the frequency of the fundamental, sounds a perfect fifth above the second. The fourth harmonic vibrates at four times the frequency of the fundamental and sounds a perfect fourth above the third (two octaves above the fundamental). Double the harmonic number means double the frequency (which sounds an octave higher).

The 12t system didn't come about just because people like it... the 12t system is the closest (I should add - audible) approximation to the series of overtones produced by a fundamental pitch, and the whole tonal system that forms around this also approximates this series. It's pretty difficult to make the case for other tuning systems given how closely this tuning system audibly approximates how sound actually results when a pitch is performed on an instrument. I happen to find this appealing to my aesthetic, so I'm content with it.

That being said, those who don't are free to do what they want. But let's not keep up the charade that the mechanics of sound -DON'T- have an impact on these tuning systems or the live instruments that produce these sounds - which are being built to more accurately approximate the overtone series, not to expand to different tuning systems. I disagree with the way instruments have catered more to the overtone series to than any other system, at least to some degree, but I see the reasons why it's done, too.

I totally support the idea that composers should have the freedom to experiment with different tuning systems if they cannot find a way to express themselves with the 12t system, but I simply don't bother experimenting with them myself because I like 12t tuning and most instruments today are built with 12t tuning in mind.

What else do I need to say, people?

But it should at least be obvious that what concerns brass instruments any attempt to bring them closer to 12TET is a step AWAY from the harmonic series those instruments naturally embody. There's a reason spectralists use microtones heavily and don't really tend to write in 12TET... -Gardener

Ugh... now you're twisting terminology around a bit. This is why we make the distinction between harmonics and overtones, because the timbre of an instrument and the pitch/tone it produces are arguably different when we discuss them - even though we're talking specifically about frequencies that result. When we're talking about tuning systems, you're facing two issues: 1) the mechanics of sound - aka the overtone series and 2) the harmonics of the instruments being used in the alternative tuning system. In short, any tuning system that doesn't somehow account for the overtone series and the harmonics of the instruments using that system is not accounting for the mechanics of sound. That's a problem I don't have any intention of trying to experiment/troubleshoot my way through. I accept that these mechanics exist, that the tuning system we have accounts for these mechanics as best it can, and that's all I need to express myself.

Also, you speak about the overtone series as an "imposition" on a horn or trumpet, a hurdle to overcome. I view this differently. The overtone series and the 12t system we use as a result (yes, I believe this is largely the reason we even use a 12t chromatic system at all) is an absolute of sound mechanics. We do our best to take all these random variables of sound and organize them around how sound works - which isn't really a "good" or "bad" thing. This is just how we've managed to create sound and music, not for purely "dumb-luck" reasons (I always found the logic of this argument utterly horrendous), but rather because we've become more informed about the mechanics of sound. So, there's no "imposition" here. It is... what it is, I guess.

Notice I was never arguing with you about why you find other tuning systems appealing or not, or whether anyone should use them or not. I don't care in the least whether you like them or use them.

I was merely arguing the technical errors in your posts. So if you're not interested in "hyper-technicalities being thrown in your face" then simply stop bringing up incorrect information.

I see now that it's futile. You seem to read neither the links you are putting up to prove your point, nor what other people such as charliep and I are posting. And what you -do- seem to read in our posts really has nothing to do with what we said at all. Where the hell did I ever say the overtone series was a hurdle to overcome?

I will cease correcting your points. If you want to insist on your strange and often wrong ideas, be my guest. (I just hope other people reading this thread will take it with a grain of salt and not "learn" too much from it.)

Okay, I'm not interested enough in this topic to continue carrying on a senseless debate about "why" I don't find tuning system experimentation appealing to my aesthetic.

Nobody is asking you to write music you don't want to write, quite the opposite. Quit acting like a victim.

Alas

I'm not trying to get you to write in different temperaments, I really couldn't care less what tuning you use in your music (plus that's less competition for me ;)), but to come in and make false claims about how its impossible, impractical, everyone will hate you, you'll never get it performed well, audiences will be confused, etc. is just ridiculous.

Notice I was never arguing with you about why you find other tuning systems appealing or not, or whether anyone should use them or not. I don't care in the least whether you like them or use them.

So eh.