Tunings, part 3: Truth in Tunings

 

While working on a new tuning for the 24-string today, a thought occurred to me.  I think that each intervalic tuning that I've created must have, for the tuning to work as intended, its own truth.  

The tuning on which I was working isn't really intended as an entirely new tuning; at least not right now.  It's more of a honing-in on the previously-mentioned truth accomplished by adjusting one interval in the tuning.  More than that; e.g., two or more intervals, warrants cataloging it as an entirely new tuning.  That said, it could very easily spawn an entire new tuning; it is too early to know.

What is meant by truth in tuning?  I think I intend it to refer to how well a tuning works; in most cases, a tuning either is what I had in my mind, or it is not.  If it's not, it doesn't ever become "a tuning," and by that I mean it is never added to my lexicon and repository of dozens of unique tunings.  

I think that truth in this usage refers to three components: 

1. The tuning meeting or fulfilling the original intent.
2. The overall resonance established by the tuning.
3. The intervalic cohesion, or integrity, between courses.

Meeting or fulfilling the original intent is sometimes difficult.  To create a new tuning, I am usually hearing it in my head before I make it concrete by putting an instrument in that new tuning.  In most cases, I can get the tuning to be exactly what I'm hearing.  In a few rare instances, it is much more difficult, as if there are notes that I'm hearing that don't exist in the physical plane.  I'm not referring to quarter-tones or micro-tones; I'm remaining well within the established chromatic scale.  If I can't create the notes in the tuning that I'm hearing internally, then the tuning collapses and can't be used.  Again, this is very rare, but it has occurred.

To define intervalic integrity between or across courses refers to maintaining the linear direction across courses.  For example, when moving to an adjacent course that is lower in pitch, I want both intervals of that course to drop in pitch.  If I move from the 3rd course to the 4th course, and I hear one of the intervals of the 4th course rising instead of dropping, then there is no intervalic integrity.  To put it another way: the pitch-direction across courses must be maintained and consistent. 

However, there are some tunings that I've used extensively that do not have intervalic integrity.  They're still tunings that I like very much and have used on various recordings and tours.  The issue of intervalic integrity is relatively new; I first noticed it during an August 2021 recording session.  Which is an odd time and place to first notice this issue.  

It may be that a lack of intervalic integrity is acceptable in certain settings or project directions, but not all.

As for the resonance established by the tuning, this could also be defined as the atmosphere of, or the environment created by, the tuning.  I'm still learning about this element, but I notice it when I have a tuning that was designed for and an intended to be in a specific register.  Taking one tuning that was designed for a specific register and transposing it into a different register; for example, a tuning created for the B register and transposing it into the G# register can alter the tuning's resonance.  

When the tuning's resonance is compromised, it seems to break the tuning.  The impact here is that the original effect of the tuning; it's atmosphere and complexity, is either greatly diminished or missing altogether.  I've alluded to this in a previous blog post.  Now I believe that if a registral shift breaks the tuning, this is part of the truth of that tuning.  If the truth is compromised, that tuning is, for my aesthetics, not usable; at least in the non-original register.

These discoveries are manifold and ongoing.  I'll continue to post here as these discoveries reveal themselves.

-kk