Re: More on Helmholtz's claims about music

[mclaren wrote:]
[609 lines; I won't duplicate them...]

These criticisms of Helmholtz remind me of modern criticisms of Charles
Darwin: in the light of today's knowledge, what an idiot he was! He
missed this detail, that detail, and the other detail. Oh yeah, his
central thesis was right on target, but let's not focus on that, let's
trash him instead!

Not to say that Helmholtz should be deified, not to say that he didn't
miss something he might have seen even in the restricted realm of what
was available when he was alive, but still: this trashing is wholly
unjustified, IMHO.

Helmholtz hated 12-tET, and I say hooray for that! 12-tET "sucks", as
I so indelicately put in on the now defunct Practical Microtonality
list. 12-tET is the embodiment of anti-theory, for which there are
still proponents in the 21st century, it would seem. The condemnation
of 12-tET to me represents at its core the triumph of tunings that
consider the wonder of, and beauty of, consonance. In this sense,
Helmholtz, whatever his errors in detail, is a courageous man standing
against the swell of stupidity disguised as "scientific progress".

Yes, let us correct Helmholtz's errors. I'm sure Helmholtz himself
would applaud these corrections, since he was truly concerned with
beauty. Gratuitous trashings reflect more upon those who perpetrate
them than upon those to whom they are directed. History will sort it
all out, I have no doubt.

JdL