mclaren- the final conclusion

Re: Productive and Unproductive activities, I think
I've discovered why mclaren has caused such a ruckus
lately...

Brian McLaren is interested in making music, and
believes making instruments is useless. And, he's
not content to believe this himself -- He's got to
make us believe it too.

And to do that, he's got to post on the internet, an
activity which is utterly UNproductive when it comes
to making music, but which is very well suited (highly
PROductive) when it comes to designing instruments.
That's right folks... all the theory, all the math, it
all ends up being about new instruments, and new methods
of playing instruments. And that's something that Brian
McLaren just can't get his head around.

And he can't have us getting around it either. He's
got to declare a holy war on the whole bit.

> PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES:

If you're only interested in making music, everything
mclaren listed is UNproductive, with the following
exception:

> [10] Discussions about the specific
> quirks of particular tunings backed up
> by specific musical examples.

That's about it. The only thing really involved in
making music is: making music.

What about activities that might be PROductive for
*making new instruments*? New instruments that
another person can use to make music, or that you
can use to make music after you're done making the
instrument? That involves a division of labor
principle that doesn't sit well in the stomach of
Brian McLaren. Here are some of them:

> [1] Trying to use math to discover
> something meaningful about /.../ music.

> [4] Quibbling about ratio space, or
> anything closely involved with ratio space.

(Tell it to Kraig Grady, who found a musical
universe in something given to him by a
person who spend his life doing things
closely involved with ratio space.)

> [7] Arguments about abstractions like
> alleged properties of the human brain as
> they supposedly relate to microtonal tunings.

> [9] Trying to use the psychoacoustics of
> isolated musical intervals to learn something
> musically meaningful about microtonal music.

> [10] Arguing about microtonal scales as
> abstractions rather than embodied in specific
> particular musical compositions.

> [11] Arguments about the definition of
> words or activities. EXAMPLE: Arguing over
> what "the scientific method" is, or what
> "dissonance" means.

> [12] Arguments about what allegedly does or
> allegedly does not constitute some kind of
> specific activity. EXAMPLE: "But 3-limit is/is not
> really JI!!!!" EXAMPLE: "Jazz does/does not fit
> the definition of microtonal music!!!"
> (Technically a variant of 11 above, but
> this kind of meaningless haggling has
> wasted so much time on-line that it also
> deserves its own special concentric circle
> in Dante's hell.)

> [13] Squabbling about the kinds of harmonies
> which are or are not available in various microtonal
> tunings. This proves useless since melody proves
> vastly more important in music than harmony.

---
And Now,

> PRODUCTIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD MICROTONALITY
>
> [1] Each intonation has its own unique
> musical uses
>
> [2] Each timbre/tuning combination allows
> remarkable musical possibilities
>
> [3] Each type of electronic or acoustic
> instruments offers vivid and musically
> memorable options for the xenharmonic
> composer
>
> [4] "I'm going to learn about microtonality
> by composing microtonal music"
>
> [5] Western history involves a fluctuating
> melee of musical styles from which the
> contemporary xenahrmonic composer can
> usefully draw
>
> [6] World music offers a smorgasboard of
> potentially useful musical approaches
>
> [7] Psychouacoustics and congitive psych
> and other scientific disciplines offer
> potentially valuable info on general
> limits of possible musical strategies,
> but CANNOT by themselves determine
> musically meaningful elements of
> of compositional style

Agree 100%.

> [8] When composing microtonal music,
> Western preconceptions must often
> be tossed into the dumpster

Disagree 100%.

---
Finally,

PRODUCTIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD INSTRUMENT DESIGN:

[1] There are different types of musical
scales, which lend themselves differently
to various musical techniques. Learning
about this will help us make instruments
that make it easier to write powerful music
of the whatever type we happen to fancy.

[2] The variety of timbre/tuning combinations
is infinite, but they fall into a relatively
small number of types, knowledge of which would
make our search for new musical resources much
easier, faster, and more successful.

[4] "I'm going to learn about instrument design
by yakking [or surfing] on the internet, with
intelligent and friendly people from all over
the world."

(Whoops! Brian McLaren _is_ an intelligent and
friendly person, but _not when he's on the
internet_. That's because the internet is proven
to cause people to devolve into back-stabbing,
slanderous primates, which never happens in the
real world.)

[5] "I'm going to learn about microtonality by
manipulating lists of numbers and equations
instead of composing unintelligible music on
cheap digital copies of worn-out 19th-century
western instruments."

[6] "I'm going to learn about microtonality by
studying what others in the field, such as Partch
and Helmholtz, have done."

---
-Carl Lumma
instrument builder