Re: [crazy_music] John deLaubenfels' public lies

Hey Brian,

Not much time to respond to this one... using up all of mine
to respond your other post about Schoenberg. Please be patient
while I put that one together.

> From: <xed@...>
> To: <crazy_music@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:37 AM
> Subject: [crazy_music] John deLaubenfels' public lies
>
>

> For Helmholtz's central thesis, that musical dissonance is a
> matter of auditory physiology and can be explained by beats, is
> clearly and audibly false.
> I have uploaded a short segment of a 41-limit just intonation
> tone cluster composition that shows how clearly and how obviously
> false Helmholtz's central thesis was. My composition contains
> massive gargantuan numbers of beats -- colossal numbers of beats in
> the range Helmholtz proscribed... Yet this remains one of my most
> popular compositions ever, judging by listener reaction.
> So much for Helmholtz's foolish and provably false "central
> thesis" that beats are responsible for musical dissonance.

So you're saying "popular = not dissonant"?

Come on, Brian. The popularity of your composition says
nothing whatsoever about Helmholtz's thesis on dissonance.
How do you even connect the two? I'm pretty sure that *you've*
noticed by now that a *lot* of people really love highly
dissonant music... you and I both included in that group.

Just because listeners *like* dissonance doesn't mean that
it's no longer dissonance... or does it? The terms "consonance"
and "dissonance" have already proven so slippery that I think
at this point it's futile to argue about them.

(And these varying conceptions of "dissonance" and the
resulting misunderstanding at the root of my last response to
you, regarding Schoenberg. You'll see more on that soon.)

> Once Stravinsky produced those tone clusters in "Rite of Spring," no one
> could un-write 'em. Once Ussachevksy & Luening produced their first
> tape pieces in 1953, no one could un-record 'em...despite the best
> efforts of the John deLaubenfelses of the world.

Brian, your points here about tone clusters and tape pieces are true
and well-noted, but I really think you've got a vast misunderstanding
of what deLaubenfels is doing. And besides, he *always* points out
that his work is based on his own personal preferences which may
not necessarily hold for other people. You're taking his work out
of context by implying that he is seeking general overarching
principles which "should" apply to all music, and given his
statements to the contrary, that's unfair.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

First of all, there is one thing I want to acknowledge. I would've
said this straight to you (mclaren) in private e-mail long ago, but you
cleverly blocked me from ever e-mailing you again, apparently because
your blocking program detected words you had leveled at me, and thought
that I was applying them to you. But, in any case: it _is_ true that
at least one person on the PM list, before its demise, used very harsh
words against you, after one of your, uhhh, passionate posts.
"Character assassination", if you will.

I get the feeling that those words are burned in your mind.

Are you as vividly aware of the words _you_ wrote? Surely you can see
that this other person's clumsy attempts to insult are not of the same
caliber as your own? In put-downs, you are a master. And you are not
shy about invoking your talent, on PM or here (or anywhere?). One time,
please try reading one of your own posts as if it had been written by
someone else, against you. We all are capable of hurting, you know; you
aren't the only mortal.

Now, as to a bit of what you wrote:

>Accordingly, we need not take seriously anything John deLaubenfels says
>from now on.

What a cop-out! It sounds to me as if you're setting yourself up for
rationalizing the idea that you never need listen to my work (since,
apparently, you already "know" it is wrong-headed). Hey, for that, one
needs no excuse: just blow it off if you want to. Let others talk about
it; you need never join in unless you choose to.

>Why are you using the internet, deLaubenfels?

Unlike you, I _love_ the internet. Don't tell me you've forgotten your
own condemnation of it?

>Has deLaubenfels even listened to one (1) of the compositions
>mentioned above?

No, I'm not able to download .mp3's from Yahoo: with my slow dial-up
connection, Yahoo cuts off the download after a few minutes, only
partway into the file. If you would like to mail me a CD, I _will_
listen to it and offer my honest reaction, either on-list or off.

>Straight out of central casting, here comes this relic from the
>Victorian era who gives us the absolutely cliched classic Victorian
>musical party line, parrotting every single 19th century acoustic fairy
>tale and every single long-disproven antique Victorian old wive's tale
>dredged up from those kicky wacky 19th century music textbooks.

I think that perhaps you're confused. I like JI; the Victorians liked
12-tET, no? I _do_ like diatonic music; is that a sin in your book?

>John deLaubenfels has finally claimed the brass ring.

No, that honor most certainly belongs to _you_. Is this how you want
to be remembered after you're gone? None of us can take back the
hateful and hurtful things we've already said (and I've said my share),
but we have full choice of how we will conduct ourselves in the future.

JdL