Daniel Wolf's post, getting personal

Listen, I shouldn't have to be writing this post, but I feel it's necessary, and here's why. To make things clear, I am on the tuning lists to chat about tuning, music, and related issues...and that's all I'm here for. If I happen to strike up a personal friendship with someone in the process, that's a bonus, and I have indeed met some wonderful folks here, and I'm grateful for that. On the other hand, occasionally someone will take issue with something I've said about tuning or music, and rather than stay on the subject at hand, they tend to cross a line, and make it into something more personal...and THAT I will not tolerate, in any way, shape, or fashion.

I have very strong feelings about my privacy and personal relationships...for example, if I should ever say something about someone in a personal way, call them a name or whatever, then by all means, they have a right to be angry and let me know about it, I can accept that. But, when I am just talking about music/tuning, and they choose to go beyond the subject, and start commenting on my personal character because they see some sort of need in themselves to do that, again, that is NOT why I am here.

A couple of weeks ago, a gentleman on the forum sent me a personal email about something I said on the list...but, I felt he stepped over the line, and started interfering in my personal life, and I told him so. Well, Daniel Wolf, I believe, is on the verge of doing the same sort of thing, and I want it to stop now. Mr. Wolf, I saw your post in my box today, but I did not open it. In light of your post here a couple of days ago, which was not very friendly, I was not interested in letting you into my home in that fashion. If you have something to say to me about tuning/music, by all means, say it...but, do it here. Let me say that, at my advanced age, I am not interested in wasting my time on meaningless debates/arguments...I consider every minute of my time precious at this stage of my life, and I have pretty much weeded most of the people out of my life that I don't want to deal with. I also realize that, when someone is chatting on a forum such as this, that they are not in control of everyone else, and there may well be people here who I would never care to meet in real life...again, no problem.

Out side of music, I have other passionate interests, and one is martial arts. I studied for many years with some heavyweight maestros, some of who are still close personal friends. And, one important lesson I learned was respect for others. These teachers were unfailingly polite and peaceful with others, and most of the time you would never have guessed they were such dangerous people. But, if you chose to insult them, especially for no good reason, there's a good chance you would be in some serious trouble. There are people on this (and I am sure other) list who seem to delight in occasionally starting a ruckus for no good reason, and I certainly can't stop them. But, I can say that I don't want them in my life, and I don't want them posting me at home...it's no different than if they came to my front door, and started dissing me. I have a saying...the aggressor is always wrong. And, we all have a right to defend ourselves against unwanted aggression. If someone opens the door to a conflict, then they shouldn't be surprised if the person they are dissing gets pissed, and throws it back at them.

Anyway, as I said, I shouldn't have had to write this. But, over the years on these forums, I've seen folks say things that were totally inappropriate to others...and I think that needs to stop. Since it's happened to me twice now in a couple of weeks, I'm here to say: keep your comments to music and tuning, don't call names, and don't post me personally unless you come with friendship in your heart. And don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I am not interested in whatever personal issues anyone here has. If you don't like me personally, no biggie, I don't expect everybody to. But,
we don't have to air our personal views to others, especially on a forum such as this...and, this should be the last time I have to talk about this...I'd rather discuss tuning and music...best...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Neil,

We've got your back. I'm sending you something off-list, as well. Stay strong...

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Neil,

>And don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I am not
>interested in whatever personal issues anyone here has.

Developing understanding in a conversation is hard (and harder
when it comes to e-mail), and I think requires a two-way street.

>I am not interested in wasting my time on meaningless
>debates/arguments...I consider every minute of my time precious
>at this stage of my life,

I read this statement to say that you refuse any responsibility
for remarks you have made that may have put people off.

>it's no different than if they came to my front door, and
>started dissing me.

If you didn't read Daniel's off-list message, how do you know
he was dissing you?

-Carl

I did not want to continue this online, and wrote a civil response to
Neil's post offline. If he chooses not to read that message, fine,
but I wish to make it clear that I was not saying anything unfair,
but pleading for a bit more measure on his part. I won't waste
bandwidth with the whole thing, but here's the sum of it:

*****

Neil wrote:

"I thought I would share my thoughts on that subject...which is
exactly what I did. And, I do, indeed, hope everyone here who makes
music, or talks about the theory involved, will try and do their best
to do what they do with a great deal of soul...why not?"

I answered:

Why not make a simple act of goodwill and assume that those on this
list are doing precisely that?

******

A final comment, and this is personal:

Everyone I have encountered in this community appears to have a deep
a serious committment to making music in one way or another, and
there are many paths towards that end. Some like to work
intuitively, others look deep into the toolbox of music theory, some
are highly experienced, others are just beginners, some compose or
improvise generating hours and hours of music, others work for hours
and hours and end up keeping only minutes or even seconds of their
work, some concentrate on a single tuning, others have voracious
appetites for ever new tuning adventures. Not one of these paths
guarantees either success or failure, even if one of us could come up
with a definition of success of failure that anyone else would agree
upon. We all come to the alternative tuning community with our own
ears, our own musical autobiographies, our own tastes and
preferences, and the likelihood of finding agreement on aesthetic
matters is mighty small. If we get into the business of aesthetic
critiques here, I guarantee that we will inevitably have bad
feelings. I don't know what's in anyone's soul, or if they even
possess such a thing, and I don't particularly want to know in a
context like this: that would breach an intimate sphere that deserves
better than ascii-coded words. But a forum like this is a perfect
place for talking about the nuts and bolts of music-making -- finding
pitches, mapping routes among them, and figuring out how to get
voices, instruments, machines, to make them sound. Talking about
those nuts and bolts is a long, hard, struggle with words and
numbers, all of them provisional, but it is a sign of deep respect
and engagement for our common interest, and that should be
acknowledged.

Some years back, I was playing in the gamelan accompanying an all-
night shadow play, high up in the mountains in Wonosari, in Java. It
started suddenly to rain, and my row of instruments was on the ground
without a roof. Soon I was squatting cross-legged and waiste-deep in
a flood of muddy water, struggling to hold onto my mallet, a lone six-
foot-floor blonde yankee on the wrong side of the planet, playing the
accompaniment to a battle between the leather figures of a noble hero
and demon. One voice in my head said: "What the hell am I doing
here?" Another answered quickly: "Is there any place on earth you'd
rather be?"

We all carry on a balancing act between the rational and something
very much other than the rational, and you never know what your
potential will be to go to extremes in one direction or the other,
but that potential is always with us, every one of us.

Daniel Wolf

>I have a saying...the aggressor is always wrong.

In practice, the problem with this is that deciding
who is the aggressor often leads to fighting.

>But, if you chose to insult them, especially for no
>good reason, there's a good chance you would be in
>some serious trouble.

Sounds like a recipe for fighting.

-Carl

i am going to put two more cents into this situation. One is that i took Daniel post as defending in part all those works that are not easily comprehensible, although often is so by it creators.
I like wise find allot a music soulless.
But this includes allot of blues artist as well, and have to admit , personally the genre produces much in the way of enlightenment to myself at all.
In high School i would play nothing else, and was a formable step in my development. I was downright obsessive with it
Much work which i found useless in my youth i no find some of my favorites and speak to my soul while other wells seem to have gone dry.
Unlike the spirit which is impersonal and universal , the soul is by its very nature personal and subjective and lives so much in our own valleys of existence.
The soul is allot more than just living through ones depression or hardship.
It is often say an expression of say, of fearlessness to go where others fail to touch upon. Bartok is a good example of this and personally i find Xenakis in this corner, although i am sure there are those that might be bewildered by such a work as 'La legende d'Eear'.
My life is far removed from say Robert Johnson's and only by a dishonesty to myself could i find my self saying the same things as him. I seriously doubt , if alive today he would have little use of the forms he did 100 years ago.
I find Zappa soulless, as 'progressive' as he is.
I have no idea who he really is and was from his music, he seems to hide among his own pseudo-outlandishness which strike me as either obvious or shallow.
at best acrobatic . Stevie Ray Vaughn and Winston Marsalis are even lower on the totem pole.
All to illustrate how subjective soul is and am glad there are people out there that can find some use in it.
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Different strokes for different folks, I guess, Kraig. By the way, I
couldn't help but smile at your mention of 'souless' and 'Robert
Johnson' in the same post.

I don't know Neil or Daniel, but I hope you guys work this out. I'm
sure you both bring soul to your work.

Regards, Robin

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:
>
>
> i am going to put two more cents into this situation. One is that i
took
> Daniel post as defending in part all those works that are not
easily
> comprehensible, although often is so by it creators.
> I like wise find allot a music soulless.
> But this includes allot of blues artist as well, and have to
admit ,
> personally the genre produces much in the way of enlightenment to
myself
> at all.
> In high School i would play nothing else, and was a formable step
in my
> development. I was downright obsessive with it
> Much work which i found useless in my youth i no find some of my
> favorites and speak to my soul while other wells seem to have gone
dry.
> Unlike the spirit which is impersonal and universal , the soul is
by
> its very nature personal and subjective and lives so much in our
own
> valleys of existence.
> The soul is allot more than just living through ones depression or
> hardship.
> It is often say an expression of say, of fearlessness to go where
> others fail to touch upon. Bartok is a good example of this and
> personally i find Xenakis in this corner, although i am sure there
are
> those that might be bewildered by such a work as 'La legende
d'Eear'.
> My life is far removed from say Robert Johnson's and only by a
> dishonesty to myself could i find my self saying the same things as
him.
> I seriously doubt , if alive today he would have little use of the
forms
> he did 100 years ago.
> I find Zappa soulless, as 'progressive' as he is.
> I have no idea who he really is and was from his music, he seems
to
> hide among his own pseudo-outlandishness which strike me as either
> obvious or shallow.
> at best acrobatic . Stevie Ray Vaughn and Winston Marsalis are even
> lower on the totem pole.
> All to illustrate how subjective soul is and am glad there are
people
> out there that can find some use in it.
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
<http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los
Angeles
>

just to be clear. i don't find Robert Johnston soulless, he had too much impact on me for that.
yes the soul is all about different strokes.

Robin Perry wrote:
> Different strokes for different folks, I guess, Kraig. By the way, I > couldn't help but smile at your mention of 'souless' and 'Robert > Johnson' in the same post.
>
> I don't know Neil or Daniel, but I hope you guys work this out. I'm > sure you both bring soul to your work.
>
> Regards, Robin
>
>
>
> >
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hey,

I must make a confession. I love and respect the persons and music of
Neil, Kraig, etc., everybody here who would talk about music in terms
of soul, etc.---but really I find discussions about 'soul' in music
distracting. I guess I think the best things about music and great
music in particular don't need or deserve labels. That said, it is
sometimes fun trying, so carry on. But I just thought I'd share this
personal note:

I'm not a believer in metaphysics. Or religion. Or spirituality in its
various New Age incarnations. And I don't believe in the human soul.
Or any 'soul'...what is it? That said, I am open to being wrong. The
truth is, I find the idea of the existence of the 'soul' kind of
aesthetically unappealing. Not only does it not ring true for me when
I look into the nature of things, I don't even find it beautiful to
*want* thing to be that way.

But, I don't think any of us knows the truest bottom nature of reality
to say. However, I think love, passion, depth, etc. are all possible
without a 'spirit' or 'soul', whatever they mean. The 'soul' camp
insists that none of these things are possible without 'soul', but to
me, that's like saying ethics is not possible without 'God', it's
utter nonsense. To me, the basic story of the physics and reality of
the evolution of the universe and the beings within it are a powerful
enough 'myth' for me. I mean, watching a documentary like
'Microcosmos' and seeing how insects have this little universe and
society going on is more a trip for me than any typical way people
connect to the 'One'. This is not a swipe at those who get their
groove on going to Church or sitting and touching crystals or going to
Mosques or Temples or Ashrams or whatever, but I *am* saying I don't
think I'll ever understand *that* way of thinking, ever. In fact, it
gets more alien to me all the time.

Also, I think I at the same time have *some* understanding of what
Neil means by 'soul'. I definately have had moving experiences of
music that defy intellect and tap into a very real primal place. So, I
feel like I am in the middle camp, and I wonder why we have to split
so much between brain hemisphere points-of-view. I like intuition
*and* I like intellect. I am not convinced yet by any side that argues
only for on or the other.

Anyway, my two cents. BTW, Kraig---I'm glad you mentioned Xenakis,
esp. 'Legende d'Er'. One of my favorite pieces, and Xenakis is an
example of an apparantly intellectual composer, if you believe the
press, and it's somewhat justified to label him that way, given the
mathematical, highly rational descriptions he gives for his
compositional processes; however for me, his music hits a very primal
space in me---I mean a really beautiful, ancient feeling wells up in
me hearing that piece. So I think that there *is* a space where the
division between heart and head doesn't matter....

Best,
Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
>
> i am going to put two more cents into this situation. One is that i
took
> Daniel post as defending in part all those works that are not easily
> comprehensible, although often is so by it creators.
> I like wise find allot a music soulless.
> But this includes allot of blues artist as well, and have to admit ,
> personally the genre produces much in the way of enlightenment to
myself
> at all.
> In high School i would play nothing else, and was a formable step
in my
> development. I was downright obsessive with it
> Much work which i found useless in my youth i no find some of my
> favorites and speak to my soul while other wells seem to have gone dry.
> Unlike the spirit which is impersonal and universal , the soul is by
> its very nature personal and subjective and lives so much in our own
> valleys of existence.
> The soul is allot more than just living through ones depression or
> hardship.
> It is often say an expression of say, of fearlessness to go where
> others fail to touch upon. Bartok is a good example of this and
> personally i find Xenakis in this corner, although i am sure there are
> those that might be bewildered by such a work as 'La legende d'Eear'.
> My life is far removed from say Robert Johnson's and only by a
> dishonesty to myself could i find my self saying the same things as
him.
> I seriously doubt , if alive today he would have little use of the
forms
> he did 100 years ago.
> I find Zappa soulless, as 'progressive' as he is.
> I have no idea who he really is and was from his music, he seems to
> hide among his own pseudo-outlandishness which strike me as either
> obvious or shallow.
> at best acrobatic . Stevie Ray Vaughn and Winston Marsalis are even
> lower on the totem pole.
> All to illustrate how subjective soul is and am glad there are people
> out there that can find some use in it.
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
<http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

there is a big difference between soul and spirit.
Soul can is used under the term Psyche also.
It can refer to nothing but that which feels, intuits, and even intellectualizes. . It is a Psychological term that has nothing to do with religion.
the word only is found 6 times in the Bible and it 's existence was removed at the council of Trent.
If we choose to deny it existence, one might have to dismiss all of Phenomenology.

It is my understanding that Xenakis abandoned much of his mathematical basis of music by the late 80's.
I find it hard to believe being taken in front of a firing squad only to be exiled at the last minute or having half you face blown off would not have at least an equal effect upon his music language. he could have stayed with Mathematics or even architecture , but choose music which which in it self might be telling us something. Or that his use of math might be his way of trying to embrace the 'random acts' he one could see as being victimized by. He is silent on the subject as far as i know, andmaybe only music was the only way he could discuss it.
I admit this might or might not be speculation,

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I must make a confession. I love and respect the persons and music of
> Neil, Kraig, etc., everybody here who would talk about music in terms
> of soul, etc.---but really I find discussions about 'soul' in music
> distracting. I guess I think the best things about music and great
> music in particular don't need or deserve labels. That said, it is
> sometimes fun trying, so carry on. But I just thought I'd share this
> personal note:
>
> I'm not a believer in metaphysics. Or religion. Or spirituality in its
> various New Age incarnations. And I don't believe in the human soul.
> Or any 'soul'...what is it? That said, I am open to being wrong. The
> truth is, I find the idea of the existence of the 'soul' kind of
> aesthetically unappealing. Not only does it not ring true for me when
> I look into the nature of things, I don't even find it beautiful to
> *want* thing to be that way.
>
> But, I don't think any of us knows the truest bottom nature of reality
> to say. However, I think love, passion, depth, etc. are all possible
> without a 'spirit' or 'soul', whatever they mean. The 'soul' camp
> insists that none of these things are possible without 'soul', but to
> me, that's like saying ethics is not possible without 'God', it's
> utter nonsense. To me, the basic story of the physics and reality of
> the evolution of the universe and the beings within it are a powerful
> enough 'myth' for me. I mean, watching a documentary like
> 'Microcosmos' and seeing how insects have this little universe and
> society going on is more a trip for me than any typical way people
> connect to the 'One'. This is not a swipe at those who get their
> groove on going to Church or sitting and touching crystals or going to
> Mosques or Temples or Ashrams or whatever, but I *am* saying I don't
> think I'll ever understand *that* way of thinking, ever. In fact, it
> gets more alien to me all the time.
>
> Also, I think I at the same time have *some* understanding of what
> Neil means by 'soul'. I definately have had moving experiences of
> music that defy intellect and tap into a very real primal place. So, I
> feel like I am in the middle camp, and I wonder why we have to split
> so much between brain hemisphere points-of-view. I like intuition
> *and* I like intellect. I am not convinced yet by any side that argues
> only for on or the other.
>
> Anyway, my two cents. BTW, Kraig---I'm glad you mentioned Xenakis,
> esp. 'Legende d'Er'. One of my favorite pieces, and Xenakis is an
> example of an apparantly intellectual composer, if you believe the
> press, and it's somewhat justified to label him that way, given the
> mathematical, highly rational descriptions he gives for his
> compositional processes; however for me, his music hits a very primal
> space in me---I mean a really beautiful, ancient feeling wells up in
> me hearing that piece. So I think that there *is* a space where the
> division between heart and head doesn't matter....
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> i am going to put two more cents into this situation. One is that i
>> > took > >> Daniel post as defending in part all those works that are not easily >> comprehensible, although often is so by it creators.
>> I like wise find allot a music soulless.
>> But this includes allot of blues artist as well, and have to admit , >> personally the genre produces much in the way of enlightenment to
>> > myself > >> at all.
>> In high School i would play nothing else, and was a formable step
>> > in my > >> development. I was downright obsessive with it
>> Much work which i found useless in my youth i no find some of my >> favorites and speak to my soul while other wells seem to have gone dry.
>> Unlike the spirit which is impersonal and universal , the soul is by >> its very nature personal and subjective and lives so much in our own >> valleys of existence.
>> The soul is allot more than just living through ones depression or >> hardship.
>> It is often say an expression of say, of fearlessness to go where >> others fail to touch upon. Bartok is a good example of this and >> personally i find Xenakis in this corner, although i am sure there are >> those that might be bewildered by such a work as 'La legende d'Eear'.
>> My life is far removed from say Robert Johnson's and only by a >> dishonesty to myself could i find my self saying the same things as
>> > him. > >> I seriously doubt , if alive today he would have little use of the
>> > forms > >> he did 100 years ago.
>> I find Zappa soulless, as 'progressive' as he is.
>> I have no idea who he really is and was from his music, he seems to >> hide among his own pseudo-outlandishness which strike me as either >> obvious or shallow.
>> at best acrobatic . Stevie Ray Vaughn and Winston Marsalis are even >> lower on the totem pole.
>> All to illustrate how subjective soul is and am glad there are people >> out there that can find some use in it.
>> >> >>> >>> >> -- >> Kraig Grady
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>> > <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
> >> The Wandering Medicine Show
>> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>>
>> >
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles