Michael Harrison's Revelation Tuning

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 21 Feb 2004 8:45 am

This looks like a pretty radical idea:
http://michaelharrison.com/harmonic-tunings.html

Has anyone here heard his music?

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 21 Feb 2004 9:59 am

Unfortunately the audio files are .ram files.

Back in the Stone Age, those guys sure went to a lot of trouble to hear custom tunings. A custom-built Boesendorfer indeed!. Even a cheap piano would be a ton of trouble if you have to tune it for every piece.

Nowadays you just push a button and hear any tuning system that you like. You could even change it almost continuously during a performance. Or you could set up a tuning that works well in one key, and move a metal bar around to transpose it, or get in the cracks, as you play.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 21 Feb 2004 1:34 pm

Using dissonances in music to get a pensive or throbbing feel (like phase-shifting) is nothing new, but I feel it's very limiting. One piece might sound good with this method of tuning, while another just sounds too far out-of-tune to be pleasing to our western ears. It's my own opinion that music should, and does, get better (more in tune) as we get more civilized. Some foreign music (usually from underdeveloped countries) is filled with dissonances and harsh intervals, and extremely unnerving to me.

So, what some might term as "avant guard" (including most microtonal compositions) comes across to me only as archaic and primitive. Nice, maybe for a few minutes of diversion, but almost unlistenable for longer periods.[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 21 February 2004 at 01:35 PM.]

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 21 Feb 2004 1:41 pm

A dear friend of mine going back to junior high and high school is Carl Lieberman, who makes his living as a piano mechanic and tuner and does a lot of work in studios in Hollywood. He allows as how there are over 200 different ways to tune a piano, depending on whether the player is playing modern classical, baroque, Bach, Beethoven, jazz, etc.

Kind of makes me want to go back to the Jeff Newman chart, just for simplicity's sake!

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 21 Feb 2004 3:50 pm

"It's my own opinion that music should, and does, get better (more in tune) as we get more civilized. Some foreign music (usually from underdeveloped countries) is filled with dissonances and harsh intervals, and extremely unnerving to me."

i think it's a mistake to equate tuning with civilization. in fact, if you went all the way with that idea then it would make sense that the more civilized and educated (education being necessary to civilize) you were the more you would desire tuning that is mathematically correct which our western tempered scale surely is not.
sounds that you find unnerving would be based on your personal judgement i would say and not on the state of civilization that produces those sounds. and i agree with you in that i don't usually find this type of material interesting for a long period of time but i would hesitate to say that the music i find interesting is better, more in tune, or more civilized than something from a culture different from mine.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 21 Feb 2004 7:14 pm

There is a lot of microtonal music that doesn't sound wierd or dissonant. Lou Harrison, for example, was often very melodic. A select few of Terry Riley's compositions are positively sublime in their unexpected harmonies.

And then there's Buddy Emmons' black album.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 21 Feb 2004 8:24 pm

Well, as long as we are getting philosophical and academic about this, cultural anthropologists have a concept called "cultural relativism." This is not an absolute (as some ignorant political ideologues have incorrectly assumed), but is an attitude one must cultivate in order to learn openly about other cultures. In terms of music it is the idea that a professional musician playing all his life will develop his musical ideas, skills and sophistication to approximately the same level in each culture. In other words a top professional country musician will be just as skilled and sophisticated in his own genre, as a classical musician in his.

A corollary to this is that there is a similar level of complexity, novelty and nuance in one musical genre as another (how'm I doin' with these big words, Bill Hankey?). But new and casual listeners will not be able to hear it. They will invariably claim it all sounds the same, and they get tired of it quickly. I have heard people who only listen to pop or country say that about classical music, and people who listen to classical music say that about country music. And country fans say that about blues, and vice versus. Everyone says that about musical genres they are unfamiliar with. Yet those dedicated to each of these genres, and who listen to it constantly, hear the complexities and nuances. It does not all sound the same to them. How else could they listen to it constantly? The more you listen, the more you hear. We call that an "acquired taste."

This doesn't mean you should take the time to acquire a taste for every kind of music there is. We don't live forever. But when you experience this familiarization with one or more kinds of music that are new to yourself, it instills a reluctance to criticize unfamiliar genres as being primitive and lacking in innovation and complexity.

That being said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Donny. He's been around the block a few times, and seems to be a pretty sophisticated guy musically. Cultural relativism is merely an attitude one tries to adopt to learn about other cultures with openess, without immediately comparing everything to your own culture. At the end of the day, a couple of bushmen sitting around a campfire playing diddely bows, may not be anywhere close to the musical level of the first chair violinist of the New York Philharmonic, or Buddy Emmons.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 21 Feb 2004 9:25 pm

To my ear the most in tune music in the world is Indian music. It far surpasses even our classical music when it comes to the nuance and subtlety of expression that can gotten from intonation and phrasing. It is more advanced melodically also. The strong thing about western music is harmony. Interestingly enough it is because of our use of harmony that our tuning system has such major flaws.

On the pedalsteel side of things if you want to improve your intonation do what the Indian guys do.
Play real slow along to drones.

Donny, I think you might be mistaken about our civilization being advanced. Have you been to the mall lately ?

Bob

Recluse · Post by **Recluse** » 22 Feb 2004 9:59 am

The samples seem to lack the warmth of ET

Certanly a unique sound.
Steve Bailey

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 22 Feb 2004 12:25 pm

[quote]the more you would desire tuning that is mathematically correct{/quote]

Orville, I'm not one of the people who delve into the mathematical intricacies of music. For me, it's the sound and feeling, and not some "mathematic perfection" equation that I strive for. I could care less about "cents" and other mathematical measures as long as it sounds good. Nonetheless, I still believe that music and tuning abilities get better with the degree of civilization, and that this improvement has more to do with seeking purity of sound than it does with the ability to make scientific calculations. Also, I am certain that standards, and the ability to transcribe music in some fashion, are tantamount to advancing it.

As to the strictly tuning part of this controversy, civilization is what gives us standards, and any tuning "system" must have standards. Our western-civilized ears have settled that the twelve-tone scale is optimum, not for it's mathematical preciseness, but merely because it's simple, and sounds good. Put simply, we have (collectively) decided we don't need 151 notes per octave. We do with content and structure what others (more primitive) do with tonality.

In underdeveloped countries, there are no real "standards". A pitchfork is probably "hi-tech" to them. Every musician decides what he himself likes, and he builds the instruments and structures his music accordingly. He doesn't have to worry about someone else (with the possible exception of his children) playing his instruments, or how his instruments might combine with the instruments of others far away. He is an island unto himself, musically. Though there is no real proof, there is strong conjecture that primitive music doesn't change (advance?) much, even over many hundreds of years, and I am inclined to agree.

I've never heard Aboriginees doing Beethoven.

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 22 Feb 2004 2:14 pm

Western civilization hasn't necessarily made music better in my opinion. The tempered tuning system is a series on increasing comprimises. Bob Brozman has an interesting essay about rhythm and western culture on his site: http://www.bobbrozman.com/tip_rhythm.html

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 22 Feb 2004 6:06 pm

When I speak of music, it's more as a listener, and not a player. My own playing skills are quite limited, but my listening skills are more well-honed and much broader. As I've said before, I'm not afraid to make a differentiation between good music and bad music. Both exist, and if we can't define "bad music", we certainly have no right to call anything "good music".

Western civilization hasn't necessarily made music better in my opinion.

Andy, I have no problem with that statement, if that is how you truly feel. I feel the opposite though, and prefer westernized music (from the great European classical composers, to that of most modern-day composers) to that of any tribal societies such as Africa and the Middle East. I find polyrhythms interesting, but they feel "played out" after a short exposure...to me, anyway. It's the old "being different for the sake of difference" mentality. Also, I can't help feeling that primitive polyrhythms developed, to some extent, by (primitive?) man's great desire to simply be heard. Playing "off the beat" is an easy way to get noticed, isn't it? (I don't know if Mr. Brozman ever contemplated this idea, though!)

I enjoy these discussions, and am not out to change anyone's opinions, merely to express my own.

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 22 Feb 2004 6:35 pm

I don't have any particular axe to grind here, Donny, just pointing out an alternative view. I have wide ranging tases and can appreciate all kinds of music but I too generally prefer to play and listen to music with a western harmonic component. Where I differ is in claiming that western music is inherently on a higher plane. It's merely more developed harmonically. A given piece of music from another culture may or may not be better/more sophisticated/emotionally deeper/rhythmically challenging than a given piece of music based on western ideals. That's my opinion. Your opinion is equally valid.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 22 Feb 2004 11:21 pm

Donny,
There is a very deep and much older than ours tradition of musical structure and tunings in a number of what you might call primative cultures. If you took the time to study them you would find that in many ways they are far more advanced than we are. Also you are mistaken in your concept that our tuning was invented because it sounded good. It has always been a compromise that was invented out of a practical nessesity because of the desire of western composers to modulate.

Its fine to like one sort of music more than another but to attach a cultural superiority to it shows a lack of awareness. Its like when young rock guys think I'm stupid because I listen to Tubb and play the steel. If they can't hear the beauty and depth of it its there loss. They can feel superior all they want but we all know they are not.

As far as the advanced culture thing goes maybe you haven't been to a mall in a while. Try watching tv ! That should take care of any of your misconceptions about how advanced we are.

Bob

Greg Vincent · Post by **Greg Vincent** » 23 Feb 2004 10:24 am

Does more complicated = more advanced?

The audio files on this site are interesting, but ultimately sound like someone playing an out-of-tune piano. Try and listen without wincing --it's kinda painful.

Maybe that's the point?[This message was edited by Greg Vincent on 23 February 2004 at 10:36 AM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 23 Feb 2004 1:23 pm

I think Bob Brozman has an important point. European musicians and composers, right down to white country and rock players consider many notes and complex harmonies to be the height of skill and innovation, and the opposite of boring. Others consider polyrythmns to be the height of skill and innovation. The former consider the polyrythmns with sparce notes (e.g., the pentatonic scale) and simple harmonies (e.g. modals and drones) tiresome (as Donny complains), while the latter consider the European complex harmonies and simple beats boring, and not fun to dance to. European and African Americans put the two together to give us jazz, rock'n'roll, and rythmn & blues (including hip hop). These genres have by far become the most popular forms of music on earth.

Popularity is not the same as sophistication. However, the listening public does have a type of sophistication that is not easily fooled. Difference merely for the sake of difference is not enough. Neither is the same old thing enough (at least not for long). There has to be a catchy blend of the familiar and the new. If you think that is simple and unsophisticated, then why aren't you wealthy from a string of hits. Even those few who come up with a hit, often have difficulty repeating it.

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 23 Feb 2004 7:25 pm

"I'm not afraid to make a differentiation between good music and bad music."

my point on this issue is that there is, in fact, no such thing as bad music or good music. there is no universal panel that has or can decree what is good or bad about music. music simply "is". the differentiation you are making should read more like "this is music i like" or " this is music i don't like" or "this is music i don't understand" or " this is music i understand". as you point out later in your post, you are only stating your opinion. well, in decreeing certain music good or bad, you are also stating only your opinion. there is no universally agreed upon good or bad music.

"I've never heard Aboriginees doing Beethoven."

well, i've never heard doc sevrinson play mississippi john hurt. i've never heard ravi shankar play burt bacharach. i've never heard chopin playing oscar peterson. so what? this statement is not only superfluous but, also considering your previous paragraph on your opinion of "primitive" culture, borders on racism.

Andy Greatrix · Post by **Andy Greatrix** » 23 Feb 2004 11:20 pm

Music is not a race;Races are for horses.
Therefore I try to avoid horseracism.
Please forgive me.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 24 Feb 2004 9:36 am

So...now I'm a "musical racist"?

Der schteel guitar ist der ultimate! It vill destroy all other instruments, it vill crush der voodvinds und der brass, und it vill take it's place as ruler of der musical vorld!

There...that that's a musical racist!

Seriously, I just get slightly upset when something simple and different comes is discovered, and someone says..."That's GREAT! Nobody's ever played like that before!" Give me a break. I sometimes get the impression that some people would literally swoon if my cat walked down the keyboard, and played heretofore unplayed intervals and harmonies.

Well, I thought about my previous post, and the references to "primitive music", and music improving as we get more "civilized". I've had a couple of emails, and one reader pointed out that most far-eastern cultures (Japan, China, Indonesia) have substantial civilizations, but their music still sounds simple, primitive, and generally lacking any real sophistication (i.e. limited instrumentation, simplistic scales, and harmonically devoid). So, what conclusions can we draw? Maybe the societies that have the most diverse backgrounds have the most "sophistiated" music, and those that have the least diversification have music that doesn't really progress much? After all, don't we all judge progress as change and improvement? Has far-eastern music progressed (changed?) much in the past century? Has the music of the American Indian changed that much? How 'bout Country, or Jazz?

Really, I have a broad musical palate, and even when confronted with musical styles I don't particullarly like, I can tell whether the singer or player is accomplished or not. I'm not amazed when I hear something that's different that's not really very "good", and I'm not afraid to say "That's good", or "That's bad". But some people are. I have no "professional" qualifications, but I have been a serious "listener" for well over half a century. (My record and CD collection will vouch for that.)

So, you can certainly tell me that something is "novel", "quaint", "innovative", or "new". But don't expect me to agree that it's "great". My standards may well be different than yours.

Chopin-great
Michael Harrison-not great

Emmons-great
Garcia-not great

Yup, I'm hard to fool.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 24 Feb 2004 12:14 pm

Donny,

I'm glad you have such a positive self image but you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to music outside of your own cultural references.

Bob

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 24 Feb 2004 12:32 pm

Emmons-apples
Garcia-oranges

i appreciate your right to your opinion, but it seems from your posts that you equate harmonic development with "sophistication" and "good". music has more elements than harmony and my own opinion is that they are all equally useful and important and the different ways they are used in different cultures is very interesting and some of it i like, some i don't like. i never listen to opera (harmonically advanced using your criteria) but i listen to a lot of delta blues (often uses only one chord or no chords, just melody and rhythm). would i then say opera is bad and delta blues are good? if i thought the way you seem to, that would be the logical conclusion.
no one can tell you what to think is "great" or not. i just think a more correct and "civilized" way of stating what we both acknowledge is an opinion is to say "i like that" or " i don't care for that" which clearly shows it is an opinion rather that " this is good music" or "this is bad music" which infers qualities that have been judged by someone other than yourself unless you think that your pronouncements should be regarded as definitive.
one last bit on the garcia/emmons line. garcia was a rock guitarist who dabbled with steel while buddy has devoted his career to it. obviously their skills cannot be compared. yet garcia managed to record a couple of steel solos that will live in the history of music long after you and i are gone. what is the "greater" accomplishment?

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 24 Feb 2004 12:34 pm

ooops, typo! i meant to say...

"...would i then say opera is good and delta blues are bad? if i thought the way you seem to..."

Andy Greatrix · Post by **Andy Greatrix** » 24 Feb 2004 12:50 pm

I like music that gives me goose bumps.
What kind of music that does that to me
may not be the same as your preference.
Debating what music is better or more advanced seems to be a waste of time.
It's similar to "My God is better than your God".

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 24 Feb 2004 2:59 pm

"Good" is a subjective term based upon past experience.

Okay, let's skip music for a moment. Is there good and bad in anything? Where's your passion! Do you "sit on the fence on" other topics as well? Let's see...

There's good people...and bad people. There's good painting...and bad painting. There's good guitars...and bad guitars. There's good food....and bad food.
There's good cars...and bad cars.
There's good movies...and bad movies.
There's good singers...and bad singers.

But all music is good!?

Bullhockey. Nope. Sorry. It don't work that way. Saying..."everything is good" is, in effect, saying..."nothing is good".

When a piano sounds out-of-tune (not only to me, but to most listeners) that's bad...isn't it? You can call it a "new mode of tuning", call it "a revolutionary scale theory", call it "unique overtoning", but it's still "bad", to me anyway. But maybe...not to some of you, huh?

Well, there is a light at the end of the tunnel! I feel renewed. Unlike Wagner, or the much more contemporary Gilbert and Sullivan, I've never written an opera. But if I did, there'd be some of you who would think it was "good", right?

I've never played delta blues, either. But it's nice to know that...if I did...it too, would be good (to some people).

And Bobby...

There is a lot of microtonal music that doesn't sound wierd or dissonant.

...then I'd probably say it's "good". (Maybe you would too!)

Thanks guys. I feel much better now.

(P.S. I Like Blind Lemon. (Who doesn't?) Scarlatti? Brilliant composer and musician, but I never liked his opera.)

Orville Johnson · Post by **Orville Johnson** » 24 Feb 2004 3:50 pm

..."Good" is a subjective term"...
"But all music is good!?"

i don't believe anyone so far has said all music is good. i know what i said is that all music "is". by that i mean that there is no universal or agreed upon standard by which we can judge music from vastly differing cultural environments so all we can do is make our own personal judgements (opinions) about them. often we will find people offering opinions formed in ignorance of the nuances and conventions of the musical forms they opine upon. these kinds of opinions are worthless. bt the people are still entitled to have them.
but telling people who choose to be more judicious in their statements that they're "sitting on the fence" or lacking "passion" is just hanging more ignorance out for all to see.