Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic [tuning] [MMM] Beethoven's Drei Equale no1 in JI update

Ugh sorry.
Upon listening better I didn't like what I heard at all.
Tired ears I guess.

Rethought about modulations, saw the error I made, and made a new version.
It's allmost completely in Dm now, with 2 very short trips to Am, and the
ending in Gm which feels very sad now :( .. which it should :)

Replaced old files so old link still works
DE1_(JI).mp3<http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/DE1_%28JI%29.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1>
Make sure you empty your cache though.

Marcel
www.develde.net

New Drei Equale no1 tuning:
>
> DE1_(JI).mp3<http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/DE1_%28JI%29.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1>
>
> Learned a bit more about modulations this night and think I've got them all
> in the right places now :)
> Starts in Dm, then Am, Dm again, Am again, Dm again, Am again, and then
> finishes in Dm.
>
> Beautifull microtones in this one.
> Also several chords which sound very much like 7 limit chords but are
> infact 5 limit chords using 75/64 or 225/128.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
>
>

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

I hesitate to say this, but it's been in my mind to say for a while. I don't mean any of this personally, Marcel, but I do mean it.

In my opinion, retuning a composer's work just strikes me as disrespectful and condescending. I think that in the great majority of cases, a composer who works in 12EDO or other historical temperaments does so with a full understanding of what they are doing, and does so on the basis of working within the qualities and limitations of that tuning scheme, just as composers who employ variant tunings are exploring the qualities and limitations inherent in their chosen scheme.

In my view, it makes as much sense to retune Beethoven or Bach to JI as it does to retune Partch or Ben Johnston in pick-a-number-EDO; that is, it makes no sense at all and implies that the composer was not enlightened enough didn't know what she was going.

When I use 12EDO, it's because I choose to do so; likewise JI or something else.

Can't we simply respect the composer's choices?

- Dave

On 2/7/2010 2:40 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
> New Drei Equale no1 tuning:
>
> DE1_(JI).mp3<http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/DE1_%28JI%29.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1>
>
> Learned a bit more about modulations this night and think I've got them all
> in the right places now :)
> Starts in Dm, then Am, Dm again, Am again, Dm again, Am again, and then
> finishes in Dm.
>
> Beautifull microtones in this one.
> Also several chords which sound very much like 7 limit chords but are infact
> 5 limit chords using 75/64 or 225/128.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
--
http://mysterybear.net
http://twitter.com/DaveSeidel
http://www.myspace.com/DaveSeidel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Dave S. wrote:

>I hesitate to say this, but it's been in my mind to say for a while.
>I don't mean any of this personally, Marcel, but I do mean it.
>
>In my opinion, retuning a composer's work just strikes me as
>disrespectful and condescending. I think that in the great majority
>of cases, a composer who works in 12EDO or other historical
>temperaments does so with a full understanding of what they are doing,
[snip]
>
>Can't we simply respect the composer's choices?

To be fair, I don't agree with this viewpoint. Intonation is
partly within the realm of the composer, and partly within the
realm of the performer. This piece was written for trombone
quartet, not piano. Beethoven probably didn't think explicitly
about the tuning at all. I don't know how many pitch classes
are used, but I doubt all 12 are. Meanwhile, we believe chamber
ensembles naturally tend to perform common-practice music in
adaptive JI, which is what Marcel is trying to perform this
piece in (despite failing miserably). My objection was over
his constant revisions of his efforts, going on for months,
late-night posts retracted in the morning, all over this one
very short piece.

-Carl

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

Whoops, the third paragraph from the bottom should have read:

"In my view, it makes as much sense to retune Beethoven or Bach to JI as it does to retune Partch or Ben Johnston in pick-a-number-EDO; that is, it makes no sense at all and implies that the composer was not
enlightened enough to know what she was going."

Also, I should add that (again, in my opinion), there are two exceptions where it makes sense to retune another composer's work:

1. The composer is still alive, and consents.
2. The music comes from an historical period where different tunings/temperament might have reasonably been used, and the performer decides to use a tuning appropriate to the period.

- Dave

On 2/7/2010 12:32 PM, Dave Seidel wrote:
> that is,
> it makes no sense at all and implies that the composer was not
> enlightened enough didn't know what she was going.

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

Fair enough. I posted an emendation of my original post just before I saw your response, and I think you'll see that our positions are not so different.

- Dave

On 2/7/2010 12:46 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> To be fair, I don't agree with this viewpoint. Intonation is
> partly within the realm of the composer, and partly within the
> realm of the performer. This piece was written for trombone
> quartet, not piano. Beethoven probably didn't think explicitly
> about the tuning at all. I don't know how many pitch classes
> are used, but I doubt all 12 are. Meanwhile, we believe chamber
> ensembles naturally tend to perform common-practice music in
> adaptive JI, which is what Marcel is trying to perform this
> piece in (despite failing miserably). My objection was over
> his constant revisions of his efforts, going on for months,
> late-night posts retracted in the morning, all over this one
> very short piece.
>
> -Carl

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

At 09:48 AM 2/7/2010, Dave wrote:
>Whoops, the third paragraph from the bottom should have read:
>
>"In my view, it makes as much sense to retune Beethoven or Bach to JI as
>it does to retune Partch or Ben Johnston in pick-a-number-EDO; that is,
>it makes no sense at all and implies that the composer was not
>enlightened enough to know what she was going."

Partch and Johnston are a bit different because they explicitly
(and in Partch's case, vehemently) specify intonation. This is
really the essence of the microtonal movement -- composers are
going to assert more control over intonation. This idea simply
didn't exist before the 20th century.* Bach is the only other
composer I know of to prescribe intonation, actually, and his
prescription was quite brief and loose.

-Carl

* There actually was an obscure group thinking about intonation
in the so-called "musica reservata" period. They did write a few
fragments in 5-limit JI, with comma inflections. Vicentino's
Madonna, il Poco Dolce is the only complete piece I know of.

🔗hpiinstruments <aaronhunt@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

First of all.
Drei Equale was indeed written for trombone quartet.
So no 12tet intended by Beethoven for sure, as he was not deaf yet when he
wrote this.
Besides this, there is some evidence that Beethoven didn't use 12tet on his
Fortepiano either.
And orchestras etc don't play in 12tet either.

But all of this doesn't matter as JI is in my opinion at the basis of music.
All other ways to play it is out of tune.
And besides, any composer who has ever lived had NO IDEA how to do JI !!
So to say composers were all informed and all knowledgable and then chose to
specifically use 12tet is nonsense.
12tet and all the other out of tune temperings are practical considerations,
and a result of lack of knowledge.
If anybody here sees it not "right" to retune existing music to any other
tuning, too bad for you.
I do see it as fit so I'll continue to do so.

But seriously.. are you crazy??
Retuning existing music is perfect to learn more about JI.
And to learn more about JI is to learn more about music.
And after having learned more about music one can compose truly good and
novel music.
All of the people on these lists compose complete utter rubbish!!!!
In all my time on this list I've never heard anything even resembling good
music pass by.
I've heard some funny out of tune things sometimes, that's it.
So to comment negatively on my research / retuning as an act is missing the
point completely.

As for how the Beethoven tuning sounds.
I prefer it a great great deal over 12tet.
But am I sure yet it is in correct JI. No not yet, so I will continue till I
am sure.
JI is incredibly complex when it comes to a piece like this.
I know how to tune simple things.
See my harmonic permutation algorithm output. It is 100% in perfect tune. To
tune it any other way would be beyond stupid.
And I know how to tune slightly more complex things for sure
Like this little part by Bach for instance:
In C major:
C (1/1) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) -> tonic chord
E (5/4) - | - | - |
G (3/2) - | - | - D (9/2)
G (3/4) - B (15/4) - D (9/2) - G (6/1) -> V chord
D (9/8) - A (10/3) - | - | -> II Chord
F (4/3) - | - | - F (16/3)
A (5/3) - | - | - E (5/1)
A (5/6) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) - A (20/3) -> A minor tonic chord

I know for sure the above is correct.
It is something that was previously seen as an impossible comma problem.

But to say Drei Equale is a simple little piece and I'm (quoting Carl)
"failing miserably" to put it in JI is completely ignorant.
Even adapitive-ji you said Carl? I'm not doing adaptive-ji you know this.
And please.. adaptive-ji is such a completely stupid (and bad sounding, see
lasso example for instance on my website) concept, you must know somewhere
it isn't correct.
But just because you gave up on true JI because you couldn't do it doesn't
mean everybody else should give up.
And to comment like that on me who is actually trying hard to figure out
JI.. I mean what have you been doing tuning wise lately Carl? Have you
retuned anything lately? Made any music lately? I don't think so. And if you
think you can do better, you know there's �100,- in it for you if you indeed
do. Till then please be quiet and let me work.

Marcel

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

Marcel,

It is unfortunate you are intolerate of music that isn't a rehash of what was done centuries ago. And I honestly do not think the tuning list is a place for prejudice and intolerance.

I withdraw my support for your contest because I dislike intolerance. Though honestly, you have already destroyed any value it had long before the message below was authored.

And I agree with Carl. Stop torturing Ludwig. Yan.

Chris
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:27:24
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] [MMM] Beethoven's Drei Equale no1 in JI update

I know for sure the above is correct.
It is something that was previously seen as an impossible comma problem.

But to say Drei Equale is a simple little piece and I'm (quoting Carl)
"failing miserably" to put it in JI is completely ignorant.
Even adapitive-ji you said Carl? I'm not doing adaptive-ji you know this.
And please.. adaptive-ji is such a completely stupid (and bad sounding, see
lasso example for instance on my website) concept, you must know somewhere
it isn't correct.
But just because you gave up on true JI because you couldn't do it doesn't
mean everybody else should give up.
And to comment like that on me who is actually trying hard to figure out
JI.. I mean what have you been doing tuning wise lately Carl? Have you
retuned anything lately? Made any music lately? I don't think so. And if you
think you can do better, you know there's €100,- in it for you if you indeed
do. Till then please be quiet and let me work.

Marcel

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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

I think the discussion about "respecting the composer's wishes" by
refraining from retuning an existing piece is pretty silly - people can do
whatever they want - but as for this:

> All of the people on these lists compose complete utter rubbish!!!!
> In all my time on this list I've never heard anything even resembling good
> music pass by.
> I've heard some funny out of tune things sometimes, that's it.

It's times like this that I feel compelled to evoke the immortal words of
Kraig Grady, from a quote directed originally at myself and Carl:

*you impotent bullies*
>
> neither of you have any right to say any thing about anybody. you are
> both the lowest scum i have ever ran accross on the intrnet.
> you have done nothing and you have nothing to say and are incapable of
> understandingc anything.

I think that about says it all.

-Mike

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

@ Ozan: With all due respect...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> I am trying very hard not to think it appropriate to suggest your
> removal from the list.

A couple of times you have taken me to task for calling out Marcel in very strong terms, asking for me for tolerance and understanding. And now somehow you've been bothered enough that you actually want him removed from the list.

This list doesn't work that way, or at least it never has. People are free to voice their opinions, no matter how sage or stupid. Marcel has *once again* stepped over the line, but one can either call him out on it in public, or ignore him. But we've never removed a list member, and simply being a bore and an asshole doesn't rank very high in my Book of Internet Offenses. People like that are *everywhere*.

@Marcel: no, dear man, there have been quite a number of fine pieces that have come out of these lists. Some of them were here before your time, and some just happen to fall outside your microscopically small wedge of what you consider worthwhile music. Go back to your tuning experiments, and stop being a twit.

Fractionally,
Jon

P.S. My word, once again I'm reminded of the absence of Gene Ward Smith. Gene, if you happen to still read the lists, whatever rancor you might have brought to the table was of the highest quality, and is missed. I hope you are well.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Jon:

Tolerance is not without its limits. Nor is understanding endless. But
that does not mean to say people have the license to retaliate using
insults at whatever displeases them. Thinking the latter morally
superior to the reaching of the end of one's tether is a sign of
faulty reasoning at best.

This is all beside the point of course... My patience has come to a
final having read Marcel's latest belittling remarks toward the
musical endeavours of other worthy souls. Not only has his better-
than-thou attidue hit a fever pitch with the latest barrage of self-
glorified generalizing accusations, but more importantly, I feel he
has become an indefatigable burden with his constantly pestering and
never-concluding thought gymnastics on the "ultimate JI theory".

I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a tell-
tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How much
longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric? How
much more must one suffer trivialities?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 8, 2010, at 5:25 AM, jonszanto wrote:

> @ Ozan: With all due respect...
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> wrote:
>> I am trying very hard not to think it appropriate to suggest your
>> removal from the list.
>
> A couple of times you have taken me to task for calling out Marcel
> in very strong terms, asking for me for tolerance and understanding.
> And now somehow you've been bothered enough that you actually want
> him removed from the list.
>
> This list doesn't work that way, or at least it never has. People
> are free to voice their opinions, no matter how sage or stupid.
> Marcel has *once again* stepped over the line, but one can either
> call him out on it in public, or ignore him. But we've never removed
> a list member, and simply being a bore and an asshole doesn't rank
> very high in my Book of Internet Offenses. People like that are
> *everywhere*.
>
> @Marcel: no, dear man, there have been quite a number of fine pieces
> that have come out of these lists. Some of them were here before
> your time, and some just happen to fall outside your microscopically
> small wedge of what you consider worthwhile music. Go back to your
> tuning experiments, and stop being a twit.
>
> Fractionally,
> Jon
>
> P.S. My word, once again I'm reminded of the absence of Gene Ward> Smith. Gene, if you happen to still read the lists, whatever rancor
> you might have brought to the table was of the highest quality, and
> is missed. I hope you are well.
>

🔗prentrodgers <prentrodgers@...>

Marcel,
Tone down the rhetoric if you please. And why do you use 9/8 in this passage. See the asterisked section below:

C (1/1) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) -> tonic chord
E (5/4) - | - | - |
G (3/2) - | - | - D (9/2)
G (3/4) - B (15/4) - D (9/2) - G (6/1) -> V chord
* why 9/8 and not 10/9?
D (9/8) - A (10/3) - | - | -> II Chord
*
F (4/3) - | - | - F (16/3)
A (5/3) - | - | - E (5/1)
A (5/6) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) - A (20/3) -> A minor tonic chord

To my ears a D (10/9) would be more harmonious with the 10/3, which reduces to 5/3. 9/8 to 5/3 is a ratio of 27/16, while 10/9 to 5/3 is a 4/3. Compare a sheep to a wolf. You could slide the 9/8 to a 10/9 as an alternative.

Right now I'm working on retuning some old hymns in just, and working on ideas much like what Marcel is doing. It is a nice way to learn about harmony and the challenges that arise. I've tried many approaches lately to deal with the commas and contradictions that come up. And who knows how such music has changed since it was written in the 16th century. Perhaps Beethoven is too recent and too great a composer to do this to.

Prent Rodgers

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> First of all.
> Drei Equale was indeed written for trombone quartet.
> So no 12tet intended by Beethoven for sure, as he was not deaf yet when he
> wrote this.
> But seriously.. are you crazy??
> Retuning existing music is perfect to learn more about JI.
> And to learn more about JI is to learn more about music.
> And after having learned more about music one can compose truly good and
> novel music.
> All of the people on these lists compose complete utter rubbish!!!!
> In all my time on this list I've never heard anything even resembling good
> music pass by.
> I've heard some funny out of tune things sometimes, that's it.
> So to comment negatively on my research / retuning as an act is missing the
> point completely.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

And one more thing... I've had it with people flaunting swear words
about. It is no joy to read such pollution. Please desist from
uttering abusive remarks out of respect for other members.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 8, 2010, at 5:25 AM, jonszanto wrote:

> @ Ozan: With all due respect...
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> wrote:
>> I am trying very hard not to think it appropriate to suggest your
>> removal from the list.
>
> A couple of times you have taken me to task for calling out Marcel
> in very strong terms, asking for me for tolerance and understanding.
> And now somehow you've been bothered enough that you actually want
> him removed from the list.
>
> This list doesn't work that way, or at least it never has. People
> are free to voice their opinions, no matter how sage or stupid.
> Marcel has *once again* stepped over the line, but one can either
> call him out on it in public, or ignore him. But we've never removed
> a list member, and simply being a bore and an asshole doesn't rank
> very high in my Book of Internet Offenses. People like that are
> *everywhere*.
>
> @Marcel: no, dear man, there have been quite a number of fine pieces
> that have come out of these lists. Some of them were here before
> your time, and some just happen to fall outside your microscopically
> small wedge of what you consider worthwhile music. Go back to your
> tuning experiments, and stop being a twit.
>
> Fractionally,
> Jon
>
> P.S. My word, once again I'm reminded of the absence of Gene Ward
> Smith. Gene, if you happen to still read the lists, whatever rancor
> you might have brought to the table was of the highest quality, and
> is missed. I hope you are well.
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Prent!

Marcel,
> Tone down the rhetoric if you please.
>
First of all thanks for a normal reply.
The rhetoric was a little over the top yes.
But it was in no means ment as condensending as Ozan thinks.
I posted the music and expect a reply like yours.
For people to simply say that they don't like it it sounds out of tune, or
that they like it it sounds in tune, or ask why did you tune this and this
like that etc.
Instead I get replies that I see as condensending towards me, like Marcel
please stop beethoven is angry, etc etc.
I got mad.
Btw as my remark that all music posted here isn't very good, is offcourse a
matter of taste.
And I have high and personal standards, it's not ment personal to anybody,
and it's not that I'm saying that I do any better. I have not composed
anything.
But yes, the way I said that was a little over the top. But so is the way
I'm treated here by many people.

> And why do you use 9/8 in this passage. See the asterisked section below:
>
>
> C (1/1) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) -> tonic chord
> E (5/4) - | - | - |
> G (3/2) - | - | - D (9/2)
> G (3/4) - B (15/4) - D (9/2) - G (6/1) -> V chord
> * why 9/8 and not 10/9?
>
> D (9/8) - A (10/3) - | - | -> II Chord
> *
> F (4/3) - | - | - F (16/3)
> A (5/3) - | - | - E (5/1)
> A (5/6) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) - A (20/3) -> A minor tonic chord
>
> To my ears a D (10/9) would be more harmonious with the 10/3, which reduces
> to 5/3. 9/8 to 5/3 is a ratio of 27/16, while 10/9 to 5/3 is a 4/3. Compare
> a sheep to a wolf. You could slide the 9/8 to a 10/9 as an alternative.
>

All the "|" marks indicate a held note.
So it can also be written like this:
C (1/1) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) -> tonic chord
E (5/4) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - E (5/1)
G (3/2) - G (3/1) - C (4/1) - D (9/2)
G (3/4) - B (15/4) - D (9/2) - G (6/1) -> V chord
D (9/8) - A (10/3) - D (9/2) - G (6/1) -> II Chord
F (4/3) - A (10/3) - D (9/2) - F (16/3)
A (5/3) - A (10/3) - D (9/2) - E (5/1)
A (5/6) - C (4/1) - E (5/1) - A (20/3) -> A minor tonic chord

As you can see, 10/9 will give an out of tune souble octave with 9/2.

Other theoritcal options would be to do a comma shift, which sounds terrible
to me and makes no sense to me in a bigger sense.
Yet another would be to tune some parts pythagorean, but this would have a
domino effect making it almost completely pythagorean, sound terrible, and
makes no sense to me in a bigger sense.
Other option would be some sort of adaptive-ji (which isn't really JI), it
also sounds terrible, and also makes no sense in a bigger sense.
Other option would be to make it slide as a whole by making A 27/8, sounds
terrible, and the above example can be looped making the pitch slide more
and more, and it makes no sense in the bigger picture.

And the above example in JI sounds 100% correct to me.
I've learned to listen to it.
When I got into JI in the beginning I expected every fifth/fourth to be 3/2
or 4/3 and learned to listen for this in order to tell if something is in
tune.
I had to re-train my ears to accept things like 9/8 4/3 5/3 but this went
with surprising ease and I think it's a beautifull chord now.
Try listening to the individual notes and follow their melodies to start
hearing it.

I've developed some theory for JI and tonica and modulations.
Basically it sais that major mode is 1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2
25/16 5/3 225/128 15/8 2/1
And minor mode is the same scale but with the tonic on 5/3.
If there is no modulation (which is sometimes hard to define forJI in common
practice music as there are easily small parts that modulate shortly then
return which is not seen as a modulation in normal music theory), then this
is a fixed scale.

> Right now I'm working on retuning some old hymns in just, and working on
> ideas much like what Marcel is doing. It is a nice way to learn about
> harmony and the challenges that arise. I've tried many approaches lately to
> deal with the commas and contradictions that come up. And who knows how such
> music has changed since it was written in the 16th century.

Ok great :)
Really looking forward to the results!
If you'd like another eye/ear to look at them aswell feel free to mail me
offlist.

> Perhaps Beethoven is too recent and too great a composer to do this to.
>
> Prent Rodgers

I personally think all music is JI. Even atonal music etc.
And I feel/hope I'm getting close to a full understanding of the Beethoven.
It really is a great testbed for JI theory.
But time will tell.

Kind regards,
Marcel

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent developments?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:

> Ozan,
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> wrote:
>> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a tell-
>> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
>> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How much
>> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric? How
>> much more must one suffer trivialities?
>
> Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit sooner
> than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
> probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
> own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground otherwise.
>
> Best,
> Jon
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

It is highly inappropriate.

-Mike

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
> Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent developments?
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:
>
> > Ozan,
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> > wrote:
> >> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a tell-
> >> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
> >> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How much
> >> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric? How
> >> much more must one suffer trivialities?
> >
> > Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit sooner
> > than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
> > probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
> > own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground otherwise.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
>
>

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Oz,

May I suggest rather you "kill file" Marcel instead of making Carl do
something permanent. Your spam assasin or other such software for your mail
box should be able to flag a message from Marcel and toss it into the trash
without ever reaching your inbox. If you are really lucky any replies to
Marcel as well. It will be as if Marcel does not exist.

Obvious some people, like Prent, still find value in what he says.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Then pray tell us why? Is MMM a place where we need to constantly hear
someone screaming at us at the top of their lungs that all the music
put forth here other than their own fractional manipulations is utter
drivel? Or a place to pursue endlessly a self-aggrandized and deified
JI utopia through the belittling of every other pathway to microtonal
music-making?

If not through the blatant insults, then by sheer lack of deference to
his peers and such open display of incessant affrontery and narrow-
minded bigotry against the simplest of criticisms must Marcel de Velde
be considered for removal from this gathering. His almost religious
devotion to his mission, so piffling in the eyes of the majority, is
not simply a nuisance anymore, but has reached the obsessive heights
of hindering people of solid background in microtonality from the joy
of contributing new musics to this haven.

Freedom of speech should not be equalled with a freedom to denigrate
members of society or wasting their time with never-ending torturous
banalities.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:21 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> It is highly inappropriate.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman
> <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
>> Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent developments?
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:
>>
>>> Ozan,
>>>
>>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic
>>> %40yahoogroups.com>,
>> Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a
>>>> tell-
>>>> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
>>>> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How much
>>>> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric?
>>>> How
>>>> much more must one suffer trivialities?
>>>
>>> Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit sooner
>>> than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
>>> probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
>>> own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> Then pray tell us why? Is MMM a place where we need to constantly hear
> someone screaming at us at the top of their lungs that all the music
> put forth here other than their own fractional manipulations is utter
> drivel? Or a place to pursue endlessly a self-aggrandized and deified
> JI utopia through the belittling of every other pathway to microtonal
> music-making?

I believe Marcel has apologized for his statements, saying that they
made in anger as a reaction to everyone being condescending to him.
I'm not going to speak for him.

> If not through the blatant insults, then by sheer lack of deference to
> his peers and such open display of incessant affrontery and narrow-
> minded bigotry against the simplest of criticisms must Marcel de Velde
> be considered for removal from this gathering. His almost religious
> devotion to his mission, so piffling in the eyes of the majority, is
> not simply a nuisance anymore, but has reached the obsessive heights
> of hindering people of solid background in microtonality from the joy
> of contributing new musics to this haven.

How is he hindering everyone? He's just a nut in his own way. What
about Charles Lucy, who thinks that we're all nuts for believing in JI
to begin with? Should he be given the ax as well?

> Freedom of speech should not be equalled with a freedom to denigrate
> members of society or wasting their time with never-ending torturous
> banalities.

The first part of your sentence would seem to apply to the second part.

-Mike

> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:21 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> > It is highly inappropriate.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman
> > <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
> >> Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent developments?
> >>
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >> ✩ ✩ ✩
> >> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ozan,
> >>>
> >>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic
> >>> %40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a
> >>>> tell-
> >>>> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
> >>>> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How much
> >>>> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric?
> >>>> How
> >>>> much more must one suffer trivialities?
> >>>
> >>> Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit sooner
> >>> than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
> >>> probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
> >>> own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground
> >>> otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Mike,

This is not the first time Marcel de Velde has lost track of all sense
and reverted to vilifications after facing a few criticisms. I fear
this will go on and on with him constantly ridiculing himself in a
moment of rage and presenting apology after apology when things again
cool down just like happened many times in the past. This mode of
behaviour has become a vicious cycle. He has been taken seriously
enough that people responded to him in the past, that his so-called
theories have been evaluated by interested parties and general
opinions have been formed on that basis. There is nothing else to be
gained down this road. He likes what he hears at one time, jumps up
and down with glee, only to discover moments later that he made errors
and begins to re-formulate again already known ratios, scales and
chord progressions as his new best. This sickly routine does not stop,
but grinds its way agonizingly into hundreds of peoples' mailboxes day
after day. And when some members actually fail to "appreciate" him or
his efforts, he retorts in his usual way, reviling all partiesregardless of their position in the matter ad infinitum.

This is a hindrance to everyone in this society... that the pursuit of
microtonality is reduced to a frivolous child's play... that all
progress in Just Intonation is halted and sacrificed to numerology...
that members are constantly harassed by such a debilitating barrage of
jejune insouciance.

Is it now an unfair criticism to state that Marcel should be prevented
from wasting our time with perpetual gruelling banalities?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>> Then pray tell us why? Is MMM a place where we need to constantly
>> hear
>> someone screaming at us at the top of their lungs that all the music
>> put forth here other than their own fractional manipulations is utter
>> drivel? Or a place to pursue endlessly a self-aggrandized and deified
>> JI utopia through the belittling of every other pathway to microtonal
>> music-making?
>
> I believe Marcel has apologized for his statements, saying that they
> made in anger as a reaction to everyone being condescending to him.
> I'm not going to speak for him.
>
>> If not through the blatant insults, then by sheer lack of deference
>> to
>> his peers and such open display of incessant affrontery and narrow-
>> minded bigotry against the simplest of criticisms must Marcel de
>> Velde
>> be considered for removal from this gathering. His almost religious
>> devotion to his mission, so piffling in the eyes of the majority, is
>> not simply a nuisance anymore, but has reached the obsessive heights
>> of hindering people of solid background in microtonality from the joy
>> of contributing new musics to this haven.
>
> How is he hindering everyone? He's just a nut in his own way. What
> about Charles Lucy, who thinks that we're all nuts for believing in JI
> to begin with? Should he be given the ax as well?
>
>> Freedom of speech should not be equalled with a freedom to denigrate
>> members of society or wasting their time with never-ending torturous
>> banalities.
>
> The first part of your sentence would seem to apply to the second
> part.
>
> -Mike
>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:21 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>>
>>> It is highly inappropriate.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman
>>> <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
>>>> Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent
>>>> developments?
>>>>
>>>> Oz.
>>>>
>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ozan,
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic
>>>>> %40yahoogroups.com>,
>>>> Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a
>>>>>> tell-
>>>>>> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
>>>>>> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric?
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> much more must one suffer trivialities?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit
>>>>> sooner
>>>>> than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
>>>>> probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
>>>>> own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Oz..

I should know better than to reply to this but I'll do so anyhow.
I've sent ONE message with negative content (in reply to other negative and
nontopic and unrequested content messages)
You've sent many messages with much stronger negative words and an intended
condensending tone.
How do you think people feel about getting these kinds of messages in their
mailbox? ;)
If you have anything bad to say to me please do so offlist.
It wasnt my intention to get this thread so offlist again and even though I
don't see myself as the main person responsible for this I still feel bad
about it.

Marcel

> This is not the first time Marcel de Velde has lost track of all sense
> and reverted to vilifications after facing a few criticisms. I fear
> this will go on and on with him constantly ridiculing himself in a
> moment of rage and presenting apology after apology when things again
> cool down just like happened many times in the past. This mode of
> behaviour has become a vicious cycle. He has been taken seriously
> enough that people responded to him in the past, that his so-called
> theories have been evaluated by interested parties and general
> opinions have been formed on that basis. There is nothing else to be
> gained down this road. He likes what he hears at one time, jumps up
> and down with glee, only to discover moments later that he made errors
> and begins to re-formulate again already known ratios, scales and
> chord progressions as his new best. This sickly routine does not stop,
> but grinds its way agonizingly into hundreds of peoples' mailboxes day
> after day. And when some members actually fail to "appreciate" him or
> his efforts, he retorts in his usual way, reviling all parties
> regardless of their position in the matter ad infinitum.
>
> This is a hindrance to everyone in this society... that the pursuit of
> microtonality is reduced to a frivolous child's play... that all
> progress in Just Intonation is halted and sacrificed to numerology...
> that members are constantly harassed by such a debilitating barrage of
> jejune insouciance.
>
> Is it now an unfair criticism to state that Marcel should be prevented
> from wasting our time with perpetual gruelling banalities?

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> This is a hindrance to everyone in this society... that the pursuit of
> microtonality is reduced to a frivolous child's play... that all
> progress in Just Intonation is halted and sacrificed to numerology...
> that members are constantly harassed by such a debilitating barrage of
> jejune insouciance.
>
> Is it now an unfair criticism to state that Marcel should be prevented
> from wasting our time with perpetual gruelling banalities?
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

Yes. The stuff that he's contributing is relevant to the subject
matter of the list. The fact that it doesn't suit your particular
interest, or that you personally find it to be repetitive and boring,
doesn't mean it warrants censoring.

-Mike

>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> >> Then pray tell us why? Is MMM a place where we need to constantly
> >> hear
> >> someone screaming at us at the top of their lungs that all the music
> >> put forth here other than their own fractional manipulations is utter
> >> drivel? Or a place to pursue endlessly a self-aggrandized and deified
> >> JI utopia through the belittling of every other pathway to microtonal
> >> music-making?
> >
> > I believe Marcel has apologized for his statements, saying that they
> > made in anger as a reaction to everyone being condescending to him.
> > I'm not going to speak for him.
> >
> >> If not through the blatant insults, then by sheer lack of deference
> >> to
> >> his peers and such open display of incessant affrontery and narrow-
> >> minded bigotry against the simplest of criticisms must Marcel de
> >> Velde
> >> be considered for removal from this gathering. His almost religious
> >> devotion to his mission, so piffling in the eyes of the majority, is
> >> not simply a nuisance anymore, but has reached the obsessive heights
> >> of hindering people of solid background in microtonality from the joy
> >> of contributing new musics to this haven.
> >
> > How is he hindering everyone? He's just a nut in his own way. What
> > about Charles Lucy, who thinks that we're all nuts for believing in JI
> > to begin with? Should he be given the ax as well?
> >
> >> Freedom of speech should not be equalled with a freedom to denigrate
> >> members of society or wasting their time with never-ending torturous
> >> banalities.
> >
> > The first part of your sentence would seem to apply to the second
> > part.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >> Cordially,
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >> ✩ ✩ ✩
> >> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>
> >> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:21 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is highly inappropriate.
> >>>
> >>> -Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Ozan Yarman
> >>> <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you agree that it is not inappropriate to think of suggesting
> >>>> Marcel de Velde's removal from MMM based on the recent
> >>>> developments?
> >>>>
> >>>> Oz.
> >>>>
> >>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
> >>>> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:02 PM, jonszanto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ozan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic
> >>>>> %40yahoogroups.com>,
> >>>> Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I tire of reading his posts in goodwill hoping there might be a
> >>>>>> tell-
> >>>>>> tale glimmer of novelty or deep insight. I know I am not alone in
> >>>>>> being bored to wit's end in breasting Marcel's fussilades. How
> >>>>>> much
> >>>>>> longer must one bear with the onslaught of inconclusive rhetoric?
> >>>>>> How
> >>>>>> much more must one suffer trivialities?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, the only difference is that I reached that point a bit
> >>>>> sooner
> >>>>> than you did, and I tend to be more blunt (or, as most would
> >>>>> probably say, crude) than you. Of course, the latter part is to my
> >>>>> own detriment, but we are standing on fairly similar ground
> >>>>> otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Jon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <jmagnusj@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Magnus wrote:

>I recently had a re-listen to Gene's Choraled piece. I did not
>appreciate it much the first time I heard it. I found it interesting,
>but also dizzying and nauseating. When I listened to it again this
>time around, I found it lovely. Apparently there was method to the
>madness, and my ear could now hear it :). If this experience is
>generalizable, then most people will hear nonsense when they are first
>exposed to microtonal music, but with enough exposure, they will start
>understanding and even appreciate it. If it was a natural part of the
>culture. this process might even be effortless? Just a thought.

It's not effortless. Most people seem to listen to a limited
number of genres. Everybody claims to listen to everything, but
when you get into it, it's everything indie or everything techno
etc. In the classical world there's the early music faction,
and the atonalists. I think these divisions are caused by learning
requirements for each instrument, and each form -- there's a hump
you have to get over before you can extract information and
appreciate what you're hearing. I don't actually think microtonalism
faces unusual hurdles here, though certainly some experienced
musicians have negative reactions. I thought 7-limit piano sounded
badly out of tune when I first heard it.

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> I recently had a re-listen to Gene's Choraled piece. I did not
> appreciate it much the first time I heard it. I found it interesting,
> but also dizzying and nauseating. When I listened to it again this
> time around, I found it lovely. Apparently there was method to the
> madness, and my ear could now hear it :). If this experience is
> generalizable, then most people will hear nonsense when they are first
> exposed to microtonal music, but with enough exposure, they will start
> understanding and even appreciate it. If it was a natural part of the
> culture. this process might even be effortless? Just a thought.

I have noticed the same thing. I had a hypothesis about this process
corresponding to a "strengthening" of the periodicity mechanism of the
brain a while ago, but who knows if it's right. Nonetheless, I think
that there is an "art" to creating music that is just familiar enough
for the listener to grasp it, but just different enough for it to be
interesting.

So I think that the first person to really perfect that "art" with
microtonal music will be the first guy to make it mainstream.

So the race is on, gentlemen!

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Most people seem to listen to a limited number of genres. Everybody claims to listen to everything, but
when you get into it, it's everything indie or everything techno etc."

Funny thing is, I still see Magnus's point. And it's not just for micro-tonal. I used to mostly listen to very complex non-repetitive shred rock and metal including Satriani and Metallica, the latter of which has strong classical roots, listened to some alt rock, and I hated techno.
However after that I lived in Europe for 4 years and my ear started to hear and enjoy all the subtle timbres and effects tricks and gained ability to analyze and appreciate the complexity in some of the breaks and back-beats rather than just focusing on the repetitive "boom-hiss-boom-hiss" parts. Before you know it I was into drum and bass because it elaborated on the creativity in rhythm and break-beats from techno and got into trip-hop for similar reasons, which led me to appreciate certain hip-hop songs and see the parallels to drum and bass beats (which are often double-time hip-hop beats). Meanwhile the appreciation of timbre got me into ambient.music and chill-out and appreciation for the energy of techno got me into Goa trance. At the same time the soul vocals and tone-bending of house, a slower kind of techno, led me toward even genres such as country music (Darius Rucker) and gave me a new appreciation for 1/4 tone blues even after shred
had rendered it "too slow" for me before. Now I actually listen to mostly shred rock and virtually any type of electronica including the older 80's electronica and Herbie Hancock, but can honestly say there is no genre I know of I haven't heard at least a few great songs in except the noise, gabber, and rap-metal genres.

In general I'd say of genres, including micro-tonality if you want to call it one...is that people need time to learn to "separate the wheat from the chaff" when listening to new types of music.

>"I don't actually think microtonalism faces unusual hurdles here, though certainly some experienced
musicians have negative reactions."
I compare my first reaction to micro-tonalism to my early experiences of hearing techno...all I heard at first was a bunch of notes seeming in stuck the middle of transitions/portamentos between the tones I knew with more beating that seemed a bit out of control yet not contributing to the energy of the music. Later on I started the interpret that beating as being arranged, lending greatly to the energy of the music, and even making transitions between lighter and darker sounding chord smoother.

To make micro-tonal music successful across the board I think we should be careful not to move too quickly in how we introduce it. An easy example is showing how JI intervals can purify existing music before introducing scale with interval classes that simply don't exist in the standard 7-tone diatonic subsets of JI and things like Wilson's MOS scales and 22TET and beyond into more experimental scales.

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