An interesting document.

This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math group and the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two groups with just one message.

This is the message to the tuning-math group:

SO SORRY:
This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in any tuning that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you are genuine mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All that you are succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? You are already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going to ban me? Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so insensitive of the real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you are doing.
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But from the tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.

Robert,

I have no clue as to what provoked this response from you. I feel I am
missing something here.

Chris

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, robert <robertthomasmartin@...>wrote:

>
>
> This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math group and
> the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two groups with
> just one message.
>
> This is the message to the tuning-math group:
>
> SO SORRY:
> This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine
> musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in any tuning
> that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you are genuine
> mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All that you are
> succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. You should
> be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? You are
> already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going to ban me?
> Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented
> musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. You
> should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so insensitive of the
> real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you are doing.
> "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
>
> Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But from the
> tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.
>
>
>

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

Hi Robert,

This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math group and
> the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two groups with
> just one message.
>
> This is the message to the tuning-math group:
>
> SO SORRY:
> This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine
> musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in any tuning
> that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you are genuine
> mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All that you are
> succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. You should
> be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? You are
> already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going to ban me?
> Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented
> musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. You
> should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so insensitive of the
> real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you are doing.
> "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
>
> Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But from the
> tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.
>

Welcome to the club :)
I got banned too on the tuning list.
Carl decided to moderate me, and when I complained to him about it offlist
he banned me from the tuning list because he didn't like me complaining
about being moderated.
He's a total asshole, worst choice possible for moderator of the tuning
list, and more people left the list because of him.
I've thought about complaining to the list owner about him, but didn't
bother in the end.
Though if you feel like doing that, you can add my name in your support.

Btw I agree completely everything you say in the message that got you
banned.

-Marcel

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

Beg you pardon, maybe I'm wrong, but is this group about making microtonal music or some club of broken hearts? You can solve similar problems with your mother, priest or psychoanalyst, not here please. I suppose we all are adult, mature and socially healthy people. That's also the main reason why we produce microtonal music :-)

Daniel Forro

On 26 Oct 2010, at 8:02 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math > group and
>> the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two >> groups with
>> just one message.
>>
>> This is the message to the tuning-math group:
>>
>> SO SORRY:
>> This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine
>> musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in >> any tuning
>> that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you >> are genuine
>> mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All >> that you are
>> succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. >> You should
>> be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? >> You are
>> already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going >> to ban me?
>> Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented
>> musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, >> pathetic. You
>> should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so >> insensitive of the
>> real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you >> are doing.
>> "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
>>
>> Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But >> from the
>> tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.
>>
>
> Welcome to the club :)
> I got banned too on the tuning list.
> Carl decided to moderate me, and when I complained to him about it > offlist
> he banned me from the tuning list because he didn't like me > complaining
> about being moderated.
> He's a total asshole, worst choice possible for moderator of the > tuning
> list, and more people left the list because of him.
> I've thought about complaining to the list owner about him, but didn't
> bother in the end.
> Though if you feel like doing that, you can add my name in your > support.
>
> Btw I agree completely everything you say in the message that got you
> banned.
>
> -Marcel

Robert, you're a good guy and all (I presume) and I respect your efforts to
create a repository of tuning texts, but come on: did you actually go on
the tuning-MATH list to complain that they were talking about tuning-MATH???

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, robert <robertthomasmartin@...>wrote:

>
>
> This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math group and
> the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two groups with
> just one message.
>
> This is the message to the tuning-math group:
>
> SO SORRY:
> This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine
> musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in any tuning
> that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you are genuine
> mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All that you are
> succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. You should
> be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? You are
> already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going to ban me?
> Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented
> musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. You
> should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so insensitive of the
> real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you are doing.
> "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
>
> Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But from the
> tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.
>
>
>

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

Hi Dante,

Robert, you're a good guy and all (I presume) and I respect your efforts to
> create a repository of tuning texts, but come on: did you actually go on
> the tuning-MATH list to complain that they were talking about
> tuning-MATH???
>

Well I can understand Robert.
I've read some of the recent tuning math there, and have to say it has very
little to do with tuning music.
It's like they're completely lost.
And the math they're doing seems completely detached from any musical
application, yet they're doing it in a way that they radiate (atleast Carl)
"oh look how advanced tuning things we're doing" while having consistently
put down for years other list users tuning ideas / methods while referencing
the kind of nonsense they're doing now on tuning math. (again I mean mainly
Carl)
So I can understand some people feel the urge to comment on that.
(and Robert tried to help them before he made the comment if I'm correct?)

-Marcel

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

What I mean is:
I think Robert sees correctly that what they're doing now on tuning math is
create even more tuning math nonsense that will have no practical
application for anybody.
The result of this is that they will confuse in the future, even more people
who are genuinely interesting in microtuning.
As if there's not enough nonsense written in tuning land already.

Feeling about it in that way, you could say he almost has the obligation to
speak out about it.
Yet sadly, instead of being able to take any criticism, they banned him from
tuning math (which is pathetic to do), but not only that, they banned him
from the main tuning list as well! That is indeed gross abuse of power..
If I was a tuning list member I'd leave in protest.

-Marcel

Hi Dante,
>
>
> Robert, you're a good guy and all (I presume) and I respect your efforts to
>> create a repository of tuning texts, but come on: did you actually go on
>> the tuning-MATH list to complain that they were talking about
>> tuning-MATH???
>>
>
> Well I can understand Robert.
> I've read some of the recent tuning math there, and have to say it has very
> little to do with tuning music.
> It's like they're completely lost.
> And the math they're doing seems completely detached from any musical
> application, yet they're doing it in a way that they radiate (atleast Carl)
> "oh look how advanced tuning things we're doing" while having consistently
> put down for years other list users tuning ideas / methods while referencing
> the kind of nonsense they're doing now on tuning math. (again I mean mainly
> Carl)
> So I can understand some people feel the urge to comment on that.
> (and Robert tried to help them before he made the comment if I'm correct?)
>
> -Marcel
>

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

I have to say I am starting to lose my patience (and it takes a lot for that). Both Robert's so-called "interesting document" as well as your statement below contain gross insults. Is it REALLY so difficult to behave A LITTLE decently?!

(And, please do not e-mail on this subject; I REALLY do not feel like writing the same things again and again.)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> What I mean is:
> I think Robert sees correctly that what they're doing now on tuning math is
> create even more tuning math nonsense that will have no practical
> application for anybody.
> The result of this is that they will confuse in the future, even more people
> who are genuinely interesting in microtuning.
> As if there's not enough nonsense written in tuning land already.
>
> Feeling about it in that way, you could say he almost has the obligation to
> speak out about it.
> Yet sadly, instead of being able to take any criticism, they banned him from
> tuning math (which is pathetic to do), but not only that, they banned him
> from the main tuning list as well! That is indeed gross abuse of power..
> If I was a tuning list member I'd leave in protest.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
> Hi Dante,
> >
> >
> > Robert, you're a good guy and all (I presume) and I respect your efforts to
> >> create a repository of tuning texts, but come on: did you actually go on
> >> the tuning-MATH list to complain that they were talking about
> >> tuning-MATH???
> >>
> >
> > Well I can understand Robert.
> > I've read some of the recent tuning math there, and have to say it has very
> > little to do with tuning music.
> > It's like they're completely lost.
> > And the math they're doing seems completely detached from any musical
> > application, yet they're doing it in a way that they radiate (atleast Carl)
> > "oh look how advanced tuning things we're doing" while having consistently
> > put down for years other list users tuning ideas / methods while referencing
> > the kind of nonsense they're doing now on tuning math. (again I mean mainly
> > Carl)
> > So I can understand some people feel the urge to comment on that.
> > (and Robert tried to help them before he made the comment if I'm correct?)
> >
> > -Marcel
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Marcel>"What I mean is:
I think Robert sees correctly that what they're doing now on tuning math is
create even more tuning math nonsense that will have no practical application
for anybody.
The result of this is that they will confuse in the future, even more people
who are genuinely interesting in microtuning."

Indeed! Even worse, there are certain "experts" on the list who list their
subjective views as objective and then insist they are the only right views
because they can be fit into a mathematical equation. Such people say things
akin to "Harmonic Entropy is exponentially more valuable than other theories
and, if you disagree, you need to do more reading or better train your ears!" or
"Maqam music does not have any true 11-limit content because it contains ratios
that are a few cents (IE virtually inaudibly) off 11-limit"...and then have
frustration fits over it...all while often providing no musical or sound-based
examples. Sometime people who do post sound-based examples on the tuning list
are even flagged as being off-topic and/or put instantly under moderation!

> And the math they're doing seems completely detached from any musical
> application, yet they're doing it in a way that they radiate (atleast Carl)
"oh look how advanced tuning things we're doing" while having consistently
> put down for years other list users tuning ideas / methods while referencing
> the kind of nonsense they're doing now on tuning math. (again I mean mainly
> Carl)

Marcel, it's obviously not just you Carl seems to annoy for the sake of
annoying. IMVHO, there is nothing wrong with talking about math in music, so
long as people do not use it as a tool to smack aspiring microtonalists in the
face and say "If you don't agree with this theory, it shows you are
dumb/uneducated or unable to learn microtonallity well and should give up trying
to make or understand microtonal scales" (paraphrased).

Carl (and maybe 1 other or so on the tuning list) has actually made said
statement to me and, for my successful IE well received scales, said "that
doesn't mean you have learned anything...monkeys can make good scales!" and said
similar about my music IE "you can make good microtonal music yet have no reason
to be respected for knowledge of microtonallity. Sure, he claimed the context
was "good composition can take place under even a terrible scale"...but, come
on, can you believe that?
This is coming from myself as someone who has been on the list for years and
makes at least one new, rather complex, composition per month IE I put forth
tremendous effort rather Carl credits it or not.

Right now, in fact, I'm working on my Untwelve competition entry...but I'm
positive if it places in the competition (according to his past actions), Carl
will try his utmost to claim I cheated somehow and spew out some long
explanation about how many tuning-theory mistakes I "made" and how I'm "ruining
the art". Same goes for Cameron, was has receive similar accusations from Carl
and yet, IMVHO, is a much better composer and scale-creator/user. And Marcel
was actually thrown off the tuning list for his "false math" and claims that it
could be very useful...meanwhile myself, Igs, Cameron, Chris, Mike B, and
several others finally agree his version of Beethoven's Drei Equili, retuned
using his theory, sounds significantly better than 12TET and 5-limit JI and
likely on par with, if not beating, the historic favorite 31TET and 1/4 comma
meantone tunings. Yes, Marcel's work is also based on math...but it at least
has strong musical examples and tries for something new rather than somewhat
blindly forcing conformity to "proven theories" as if virtually nothing new is
possible in microtonallity.
----------------------------------------
I swear, the last thing we aspiring microtonalists need is to put forth huge
honest effort and have people claim our effort is useless and carry a
only-one-way-can-be-right mentallity about music in general. Tuning math and
tuning, even, are seperate topics...yet people on the tuning list often get
criticized for not talking about tuning math! There is a new list called
"Tuning Research" ran by Mike B. which I highly recommend because it, like the
tuning list, contains a lot of experts but, unlike the tuning list, is very open
to musical examples and math that don't fit some sort of pre-decided/biased mold
and does not involve loads of flaming. This list is good as well...at least for
those lucky moments where we have full, inspired songs to post.

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

To top it off....Robert (who got thrown off both lists for simply and
honestly saying "you guys are using to much math and so little musical example,
it's likely to confuse people") is a leading musician and programmer in this
field....yet Carl still does not respect him.
Eventually I see a split. Those interested in breaking new ground in music will
turn to the tuning-research group....and those with finished songs or noting
compositional patterns in other micro-tonalists' work will go here.

Eventually I believe even the highly academic members of the tuning list,
who bear little mercy toward insulting anything on those lists that fails to
meet their standard of "PHD quality writing" will probably break off and form
their own site to share papers because, guess what, Carl has flamed off at them
to (yes, he even alluded to Ozan, a PHD Ethnomusicologists, that he taught Ozan
knew little about the subject he wrote his ENTIRE thesis on (Maqams)!).

The thing is, the Tuning list is HUGE...and people (me included) often still
go there because, amidst the sea of non-responding or hostile members, there are
a good few optimistic and open-minded experts there you won't find anywhere else
who give you fair credit when you listen to them and can help you learn
generously. As those people trickle off, though, I predict the Tuning list will
fade and Carl will be left in a corner running the groups, alone, still blaming
others for their supposed lack of effort/education/ability-to-listen-to-him.

The best thing I think we CAN do to get/keep microtonal effort focussed on
music and accesible and inviting to people just starting it, along with
experienced musicians...is simply to make songs and sound samples people like
and programs and instruments that help musicians more easily and
cost-effectively approach making microtonal music. It would be fantastic, IMVHO,
if professors in music schools lobbied to make a course in creating microtonal
scales and composing in them an elective for all music majors (similar to
creative writing as an English elective). If we can get out of people's minds
that microtonalism is some one-track-minded unbearably complex overly-academic
idea with few listenableexamples, it will be a great accomplishment.

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

Dante>"Robert, you're a good guy and all (I presume) and I respect your efforts
to
create a repository of tuning texts, but come on: did you actually go on
the tuning-MATH list to complain that they were talking about tuning-MATH???"

Agreed (Robert), this could REALLY easily come off the wrong way.
I get the impression your point was "it's not a problem that you are using
Tuning Math...but I have issue with your going on about it without supplementing
it with practical musical examples".
If you said it like I just did and still got thrown off the tuning-math list,
though, I think it would be pretty clear it was most likely the list moderator,
and not yourself, carrying the attitude problem.

To clear it up as well
A) I think the issue of tuning math on the Tuning List, even in Robert's
full-force wording, is understand-able
B) I think the issue of tuning math on the Tuning Math List was rather
overstated by Robert considering it IS a designated math list, though I do see
his point

-Michael

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

I personally think that this document is very funny and I have to laugh every time I read it. But thankyou for all the interesting and varied comments. They are very enlightening.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "robert" <robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> This is the message which got me banned from both the tuning-math group and the tuning group. This might be a first---being banned from two groups with just one message.
>
> This is the message to the tuning-math group:
>
> SO SORRY:
> This group is totally divorced from musical reality. I am a genuine musician who can read, write and play music. I can improvise in any tuning that I can imagine. What on earth are you going on about? If you are genuine mathematicians then what on earth are you trying to prove? All that you are succeeding in doing is muddying the waters for genuine musicians. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And you Carl: What are you going to do? You are already moderating my messages in the tuning group. Are you going to ban me? Big deal if you do. This group appears to be the refuge of untalented musicians who happen to be mathematicians. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But perhaps you are so insensitive of the real issues of microtonal music that you are ignorant of what you are doing.
> "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
>
> Well, you guessed it, I got banned from the tuning-math group. But from the tuning group too! This appears to be a gross abuse of power.
>