Re: FX

Dan,

Love ya, guy. Your comments are always welcome, thanks.

Let it be known that I come down firmly on the side of the artist's
vision of her/his work at all times, though from my own perspective as
an artist -- and as an audience member as well --I might look askance at
the methods and results. I do gently poke a finger into the side of my
fellow composers, now and again.

All artists know there's a fine and difficult line to be walked -- a
true razor's edge -- between their artistic vision and the public
perception of that vision. If I am unconcerned with the public and don't
give a fig for their opinion, or their ability to absorb what my art is
trying to say or the methods I use, then I can compose just about
anything I want to my heart's content; but who's listening to it, aside
from (perhaps) a tiny clique of enthusiasts? It's a bit ironic for me to
desire artistic acceptance while composing music that drives people
away. And I'm speaking here in the widest terms possible, to include
music of any kind at all -- classical, popular or what have you.

(On the other hand, concerning myself *only* with public opinion and
taste probably makes me a panderer and a pimp.)

There's also another line to walk -- that between information and noise.
When you have a vision that contains a good deal of complexity, it
borders on "noise" to those who haven't had time to sort it out. Art has
always been about "information", about communicating a message or vision
-- even if the message doesn't require words, but emotions.

Many of the tunings discussed and used here on the list are acoustically
complex, and their xenharmonies even more so. I've ever only wanted to
remind my friends to mix a little sugar with all that medicine, to have
a bit of consideration for the unaccustomed ears of the audience (a
hypothetical or potential audience beyond we few).

Making "inroads into the public consciousness" is about finding ways to
open the ears of society to new tunings. I can be as iconoclastic as I
please, but stooping to write an enjoyable piece in a less complex
tuning once in a while, goes a long way to preparing more and more
people for tunings that are more and more complex.

I've called myself a "classical" sort of guy, and so I am. But the
"classical" music crowd is even more conservative about these things
than even the general public; so I write compositions with tunings in
sundry JIs, Pythagorean or some other suitable equal-temperaments like
19.

Daniel Thompson wrote his "Study" for organ in 12 of 26-ET, yet
generated favorable responses from some rather staid members of the
Delian Society -- but his "Study" used a style and progressions familiar
to his audience, thus softening them up for the "kill" (so to speak).
His "Nocturne" in 17-ET will make a similar impression, and I hope to
have a really nice rendition for him shortly.

(BTW guys, I posted a new rendition of his "Study" at my ZeBox page a
while back, which was thoroughly ignored while the rest of you plotted
anarchic acts in celebration of MMM Month. Now that you have your Marx
Bros. antics out of your systems, do go back and have a listen.)

Essentially, I can (and do) respect both artists and their particular
visions; but I won't lie and say I like something when I don't. You'll
remember, Dan, that when I first wrote to you off-list I said I found
most of your music too complex and dissonant for me to absorband enjoy;
yet I have heard some other works of yours that were haunting and
strange in a most beautiful way, and have said so. (I'm not above doing
the "wild thing" either, as our recent collaboration attests.) I
understand that your visions -- and the visions of others -- will
include works that I can't follow, and I have no problem at all with
that.

Humorous note: Here at MMM, I'm thought too traditionalist, while at the
Delians' list I'm a radical "microtonalist" who's talents(?) are best
suited to composing music for dolphins. That's funny.

Best,

jls