QUOTE (Amy Reusch @ Sep 17 2009, 10:31 AM)

he claimed hear a 1000 microtones. (between pitches? between whole tones? out of my league here )..
Yes, between the ordinary 12 tones, which proceed in half-tones. Between a whole tone is one of these pitches, making three within any single whole tone. 1000 microtone would be between a half- or semi-tone, so that would be the reference point, although you'd just double that for a whole tone, which is like C to D, a semitone is E to F (no 'black keys' in between, as it were.) Well, we can all 'sense 1000 microtones', I guess, very vaguely, this is probably a sort of idiot savant who can actually hear specifically 1000 pitches between two pitches of the chromatic scale. As I had mentioned when talking about Partch, these microtones that he could hear (many more than the usual Western scales, but certainly not anything like our carilloneur), often just sound to us as though the instruments are 'out of tune', because we are used to the diatonic scales and traditional tuning.
QUOTE
I was thinking that if ...well... if there were subtle slight microtonal differences in tones played together, whether that wouldn't make for a fuller tone, sort of like a stringed instrument's vibrato, and whether with the carrilon deep in Tchaikovsky's sense of what he liked in music, whether he would have used instrumentation that would have mimicked this. (now what on earth I was thinking might happen with a piano, is just typical of my fuzzy thinking...).
Still, different composers seem to have affinitis for different tonalities... I was just wondering what makes them tick.... there are only so many notes on the scale, and yet Tchaikovsky is so different from say Bach... it's more than just rhythmic motifs, isn't it?
Oh yes, much more than rhythmic, it's not rigorour counterpoint for one thing, just brushing past that which is the case in fugues, but harmonically different also--but then the progressions undergo evolution even by the time of Haydn and Mozart, not to mention Beethoven; then Chopin and Schumann and Wagner and Debussy, on up to Schoenberg's discovery...but PITCHWISE it is the same. What you quoted about the 1812 Overture would probably mean that the carillon itself had the microtones, just because that's its nature, but it would be limited to the carillon itself for the microtonal effects. At least I think so, not 100% sure because Mel mentions microtonal carillon effects in Mussorgsky and Stravinsky, but were these written into the rest of the instrumentation, the other instruments that are the strings, brass, winds, etc., so I'm not sure whether he means that a carillon is also itself used in these scores.
You have to do tuning in such a way to get the carillon effect literally, because when instruments are out of tune, you really are hearing microtones. It is probably possible to get something that approaches microtonal effects in harmonic choices and progressions, with some dissonances that are unexpected within the style even if they are not literally microtones. That could be what you are hearing, but then there's a lot of brooding music in Tchaikovsky too, and the deep romanticism would necessarily attract him to things like the carillon. But it's still primarily cosmopolitan music, like Liszt is 'Hungarian', but not quite as 'folk-oriented' as Bartok, who is much later. But it would definitely have its own 'Russianness' to it, in the same way all that French influence at the imperial courts is unmistakable, but even though it has not been always synthesized into a new kind of esthetic that is more 'its own' outside the cosmopolitanism, it is still
arranged differently, because it's not possible to duplicate another culture in an alien one--you can do it superficially, but no further. I'm thinking right now of an exhibition I saw at the Met, I think last year, of some of these imperial treasures, which look very French-volupte, but the emphasis is more on the opulence rather than the subtleties (just a basic parallel example.)