Neil deals, 19's dissed, music trumps.

Long thread, so a new start, with commentaries to the various correspondents, starting with the good Sir Neil H., who wrote:

"First, and I'm afraid this may get overlooked from time to time, the TUNING doesn't matter one bit; the MUSIC does."

Well! Wow! And of course, it completely mirrors my sentiments. Read on below for someone elses commentary on this, as well as the things that can pin us in...

Then Pete mentioned the following:

"I have a lot of admiration for the folks who really know their tuning jargon, but that doesn't make them good (or bad!) composers."

Right, and it is good you added the (or bad!), because it is completely OK for us to breach this subject occasionally. In fact, if we really care about music, we HAVE to discuss it in some way. Anyone who wants to sweep under the rug the effectiveness of a created music, it's ability to satisfy some need, is skirting the most important issue. I've been discussing this a bit over on tuning with Graham Breed.

"And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that we can still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people- wouldn't expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't think."

Probably right, as he always suggested that everyone explore on their own rather than copy someone else. And, probably more to the point, to discover new things for themselves and utilize them, rather than (for instance) a cadre of acolytes aping the 43-tone diamond with marimbas and canons, all in emulation of Partch. As he said, he didn't want to replace one monolith with another.

Yahya eloquently chimed in:

"... and I agree with everything he said except for one thing, and that's where he quotes Shorter as saying that "nobody is composing their asses off anymore"."

Yes, same here: it is hard to judge, especially in such a fragmented endeavor as microtonal composing/performance, how much activity is going on. There is actually quite a bit that gets done outside of the various fora - I hope no one is under the misunderstanding that everything microtonal revolves around the tuning list and it's children. Far from it.

And even on a somewhat tangential note, good gravy: all one need do is check out what John Maxwell Hobbs has done in the last year - one piece of music Every Single Day (as posted recently on the list). Can anyone else claim even a piece a week, or 12 pieces in a year? I sure can't, but that doesn't mean others aren't out there, stoking the fires of creativity.

Lastly, let's take note of one of Prent's last posts: he is working on music that is taking somewhere around 6 months to get all the pieces of the puzzle in place - hardly the scenario for bulk composition!

"Please let's keep focussed on the making of micro tuned music, and sharing useful info about the process, as well as sharing the music too."

I always try to keep that focus, and actually feel guilty for the small output of recent months. Maybe it will be better as personal life calms down, but I certainly would like to hear more from our members as well.

"The most exciting thing I find on this forum is the new and different music you guys are making."

Agreed.

So, finally, back to Neil:

"... I am always delighted to hear what folks are up to as composers, and I would always encourage folks to write and perform as much as possible, because we need to actually hear real music in other systems, not just chat about it...or so I believe."

You aren't the only one to believe it! Take a listen to this short clip, especially the last bit (it is less than 1mb):

http://www.microtonal.org/hold/scraps_of_paper.mp3

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Jon,

Thanks mucho for that link to Partch's voice!

Having said what I said (about beginners), I have to wonder how fair
or unfair, and perhaps ruinous it is, because EVERYONE thinks
they're a professional critic these days, to apply standards of
Western high-art composition to ANY other kind of music. Just for
example, I mean. I could call myself a "conservative", too, because
of how many of my models of excellence (read: "heroes"?) are quite
old, highly disciplined/trained, "esoteric", etc.

One could ask what IS the blues? Is it jazz for extremely drunken
idiots, or a another sublime expression? (A lot of GREAT jazz
musicians weren't what we call "sober", and there's elitist "art-
ification" of jazz, too, from within and without...) Perhaps it's
both, then, depending whose records you're listening to, and THEN
we're off on the all the socio-political and "economic" questions of
how we have "blues" and "jazz" records to listen to, in the first
place. And why the patrimony of Western "art music" (!) is both
(fiercely/brutally?) entrenched, and possibly endangered. [I use
those as examples because of their having been so much fodder for
microtonalist (and other) discourse. (smile)]

Anyway, I hope the point is to keep people making more music, with
more different instruments, acoustic (!) OR electric, TUNINGS, more
points of view of what is musical, engaging, informative,
challenging, interesting, fun, &c.

The worst thing I see happening in these forums is the perpetuation
of censorious, coercive, and paternalistic proscriptions as to what
is musical (or artistic/scientific!) and what is not, and the
ungenerous pretensions of folks who can't or won't 'step out on
stage', so to speak.

Just a jot, really, about the-world-at-large-as-I-see-it...

Saludos,

Pete

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
> "And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that
we can still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all
people- wouldn't expect you to read it _before_ you started making
music, I don't think."
>
> Probably right, as he always suggested that everyone explore on
their own rather than copy someone else. And, probably more to the
point, to discover new things for themselves and utilize them, rather
than (for instance) a cadre of acolytes aping the 43-tone diamond
with marimbas and canons, all in emulation of Partch. As he said, he
didn't want to replace one monolith with another.
>

***Sorry, Jon... I see you already answered this. I should learn to
read backwards. Perhaps then I could master Arabic??

Well, so I will amend my comment to say that it seems that Partch
*himself* felt that he needed to do some research and background
before he started his original work.

I guess he wouldn't expect others to do that, but then I have no idea
what he expected of others, or even if he cared about that...

(I know he didn't like Cage much... :)

J. Pehrson