Adieu, l'ami

 

9 billion tongues

The utility of language is a function of its indexicality. Language doesn't describe or represent; rather, it points. It constitutes next to nothing on its own. It could even be said that it is devoid of any content. There is no greater inherent meaning to be found in the most ponderous of orations than in the humblest of apostrophes. The content is always furnished - conjured, if you will - by the interpreter, in much the same fashion as it was originally furnished by the intellect of the writer or speaker.

Words, like images and in general all manner of multisensory input, inevitably come to suggest far more than they contain, and can be considered effective mainly insofar as they succeed in this capacity. The empty vessel of sign: a puff of air, the splash of ink, in time plays host to an elaborate menagerie of phenomenological fauna and flora, both real and imagined.   

Corollary: If this were not so, the meanings of words would forever be fixed, and the patterns of language rendered static and inflexible through the ages. There would be but one universal tongue.

Aragon Ballroom

 

42

(for the post on June 30)

Yet we ought to remind ourselves that the contrariwise appearance of separate things is just that: an appearance. The things in themselves are never opposed, but at all times unified into a single system, together with the perceptual apparatus, in such a way as to produce these experiential effects. That is to say, the perceived contrast between one thing and another is entirely an artifact of the cognitive process. 

The boundary between distinct entities being itself a product of neural activity, it isn't merely phenomena like color and temperature that would ultimately fail to inhere in objects. It cannot be the case that only these are internal projections of other "things" like wavelength or the statistical average of molecular motion, but nothing else is besides. Surely the persistence of objects in and of themselves as extant "items" must likewise be called into question! The totality of any thing, then, including the concept, idea or symbol of that thing, is chiefly an inhabitant of the cognitive domain.

Thus, "everything", taken at face value, is, strictly speaking, nothing at all. The world is quite literally brought into being by its inhabitants.

The straight and narrow

Just to keep the record straight, it should be noted that the first equal-tempered tuning systems were not actually developed in ancient Greece, but rather in China. Although there is little evidence that Han dynasty Taoist philosophers Liu An (劉安) and Jing Fang (京房) did more than articulate what is essentially a mathematical problem of how to divide the octave into twelve equal portions around the first and second centuries BCE, an ingenious solution to the puzzle was at last published in 1584 in a treatise written by Zhu Zai-yü (朱載堉) called A New Account of the Science of Pitch Pipes. 

Zai-yü's method was elegantly simple: Multiply the ratio corresponding to the musical interval of a perfect fifth (3:2) to obtain a new equivalent ratio, 750:500. Then, subtract 1 from the numerator, shrinking the harmonic ratio ever so slightly. When these "imperfect" intervals are stacked in a series, one on top of the next (along what musicians today call the "circle of fifths") the result is reasonably close to every degree of the 12-note equal-tempered scale, with the 13th note matching very closely with the octave; something that isn't at all possible if you stack 12 fifths having a "perfect" ratio of 3:2. (The modern derivation, incidentally, is based on roots: namely, the 12th root of 2, but such mathematical conveniences were barely understood in antiquity).    

It appears that the problem of equal temperament was for the Chinese primarily one of theoretical rather than practical importance, emerging over many centuries by way of ancient Taoist ritual rather than arising out of the demands newly encountered in the construction of workable keyboard instruments capable of being played in any key without excessive dissonance, as was the case in 17th century Europe. Chinese scholars had already established a tradition of commentary on the proper tuning of bamboo pitch pipes going back as far as 2700 BCE. These ancient scholars were mainly interested in the psycho-spiritual aspects of sound and musical pitch in relation to their unique strand of theosophical cosmology which, among other things, commemorated the passing of a year with a series of monthly ceremonies associated with specific customs, modes of behavior, colors, foods and dress, along with musical pitches which were said to represent a kind of "balance of energies" for each calendar month. The question, then, of what the correct pitches were became one of extreme importance. Consequently, although Zhu Zai-yü is now credited as the earliest inventor of twelve-tone equal temperament, Chinese music overall doesn't seem to have had very much traffic with it except in this rather scholarly, rarified context prior to the modern era.   
      
For further reading and general information on the historical development of equal-tempered tuning, see Isacoff, 2001: Temperament (Vintage Books). See also Needham & Ronan, 1978: The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 4 - Part 1 (Cambridge University Press). A more recent Chinese treatment by Hui Yu (喻輝) can also be found here. 

The genius of nature is such that no matter what extremes or particularities may arise at any moment, or indeed come to define an age, there have been and will be again contrary extremes, outright reversals of fortune and all manner of complementary and transitional shades in between. If this were not so, then moments themselves would be barely distinguishable, blurring together instead to form one great gray, undifferentiated, incomprehensible mass. 

Interview with Robert Margouleff

Another video produced by... someone else? Yes, editorial standards have been sliding around here lately as surely as they have elewhere.

But seriously, you don't want to miss this one!

No, really. It's that good. Well, the other videos were too! You should watch them also, you lazy office-chair artichoke! Why else would I have gone to the trouble of sharing them unless I thought they were actually that brain-tinglingly good?! 

Ok... sorry. Here it is:



This has been, without a doubt, one of the most fascinating and revealing conversations with a living human being (or any person living or dead) that I've witnessed in a great many years. I learned so many things I didn't know about the origins of the storied T.O.N.T.O. synthesizer and the ensuing partnership between Stevie Wonder and the Margouleff / Cecil production & engineering team -- a vitally important episode in the history of electronic music which alone would have made for essential viewing. 

But that's just for starters! 

Throw in some deep and highly personal musings on the present state and future of art and music production, loads of rare photos & archive footage, plus the odd clip from Brian De Palma's 1974 camp horror / comedy tour-de-farce Phantom of the Paradise? Altogether you have the makings of an historic event, a true meeting of minds that transcends the ages and thereby accomodates the viewer to a significant degree as well. Not to be missed by even the most casual of synth fans, and completely enjoyable for those having a more general interest as well. 

Special thanks go to Anthony Marinelli for bringing this jewel of an interview into being and for having the tact and sensitivity to discuss difficult and complex topics with such poise and clarity. Thanks also to Robert for opening up and gifting us with his legacy and with such valuable insights into the world of art, as difficult to understand as some may find them to be. And of course, thanks to Stevie for the beautiful, eternal music he's left for everyone.

The world today can only benefit from more high-level discussions like this one.