The Theory-Practice Split

Hello Guys,

I'm very happy to find out about MakingMicroMusic, which went for
almost three years before I heard of it, and I praised the
environment over there to Jon (though I realize that it's not just
"his" list) even before people there/here made some nice comments
about me, so Jon will vouch that I am not simply responding to
compliments. I must add, though, and to both lists, that I am a
little disappointed to be casually told that the "practical" side of
tuning has moved over t/here now, as though that were a predictable
and perfectly unobjectionable development with no ramifications. I
have a few thoughts about the change that I feel moved to share, with
no offense intended to anyone, and I hope none will be taken.

Some years ago my predecessors at Bard renamed the music department
the "Making Music Program" (shades of MMM!) in defiance of the
administration's attempts to turn it into a history/theory
department. Only last week I fought off yet another attempt to make
theory and history central, and to relegate the performance and
composition faculty to basically adjunct status. Institutions
endemically tend toward a gradual shift from art to theory. It's
difficult to pinpoint how this happens, though not hard to find
excuses for. Art is a demanding mistress, and artists have little
time for organization (or continual e-mail postings). Organization of
hierarchies and structures requires the same kind of analytical mind
that theorists must have by definition, and they take to it like
ducks to water. Theory and history can always prove themselves with
arguments and facts, and always seem so respectable; artists can
never prove what they're doing, and are always so vulnerable. The
great stone walls of theory always get built eventually, and the
tender seedlings of art get trampled underfoot in the process. And as
stone walls multiply, the wilderness of the mind that art both needs
and represents gets pushed further away from the city.

And so, when the great composers who taught in academia in the '70s
(like Johnston, Martirano, Feldman) retired, the status-conscious
departments of the '80s replaced them with theorists. _Perspectives
of New Music_ was begun by composers, Ben Boretz and J.K. Randall,
and for the last several years has been edited by a consortium of
theorists. Of course, one notices that when the theorists came, the
Midwestern university music departments died as hotbeds of
experimental musical activity. _Perspectives_ ceased to be an
exciting journal of new ideas when the theorists took over. Not that
I have anything against theory (hell, I'm the only member of the
music faculty who carries a pocket calculator, and even *uses* it in
class), but without the unpredictable, irrational spark of
creativity, theory tends to lie there on the table like the patient
that didn't pull through. On the other other side, artists need
theory, too - though, in my view, not very much of it, just a dash
here and there to push their work forward, not enough to straitjacket
it.

If the tuning list had split into just intonation versus various
equal temperaments, I would have thought, "Well, that seems
unnecessary, but not harmful: each of those areas of inquiry can
continue independently of the other." But a split between theory and
practical creativity doesn't strike me as so innocent - especially
because it suggests that the tuning list is subject to the same
forces that operate in academia and other inherently conservative
institutions. If we here, of all places, can't understand that theory
and creativity are an interconnected yin and yang, needing each other
to remain lively, who on the planet will? For god's sake, how can
artistic creativity keep any meaningful foothold in society when it
can't even keep a foothold in the *tuning list*?

Just a thought. I'm too much of a southerner to play Abraham Lincoln.
I'll secede with MMM, and I already find more of interest over t/here
than I have on the tuning list in recent months. But perhaps that in
itself shows how much the tuning list has to lose. I'm afraid, in
short, that at MMM I won't find the occasional glimpses of bizarre
theory that fire my imagination - and that the tuning list, without
art-talk, will become impenetrable.

Cheers,

Kyle Gann

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

Welcome Kyle!

Two very brief thoughts, related to each other:

1. I always point people, whom I have a strong belief that they have *not* come from the tuning list, to *check out* the tuning list, as to not miss that background.

2. I would look forward to the day that MMM is unnecessary. I am, however (in addition to my messy, chaotic, emotional artistic side) a pragmatic person.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
>
> But a split between theory and
> practical creativity doesn't strike me as so innocent - especially
> because it suggests that the tuning list is subject to the same
> forces that operate in academia and other inherently conservative
> institutions. If we here, of all places, can't understand that
> theory and creativity are an interconnected yin and yang, needing
> each other to remain lively, who on the planet will? For god's
> sake, how can artistic creativity keep any meaningful foothold in
> society when it can't even keep a foothold in the *tuning list*?
>
> Just a thought. I'm too much of a southerner to play Abraham
> Lincoln. I'll secede with MMM, and I already find more of interest
> over t/here than I have on the tuning list in recent months. But
> perhaps that in itself shows how much the tuning list has to lose.
> I'm afraid, in short, that at MMM I won't find the occasional
> glimpses of bizarre theory that fire my imagination - and that the
> tuning list, without art-talk, will become impenetrable.
>

Well, I am not that familiar with the history, but one argument to
split a group (and, in any case, an important effect) is often the
amount of traffic.

But yes - the theory/practice question is a kind of never ending
story... I, for my part, do not consider it a good idea to see
theory and practice as adversaries, or even to play them out against
each other. They are both useful and necessary - you just need to
know the appropriate place of each. An artist who lets his or her
creativity be buried under theory will, from my part, fall under
suspicion of not having understood something about this
appropriateness and will not get much of my pity.
--
Hans Straub
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub

Hey Kyle... Glad to see you here...

> I must add, though, and to both lists, that I am a
> little disappointed to be casually told that the "practical" side of
> tuning has moved over t/here now, as though that were a predictable
> and perfectly unobjectionable development with no ramifications.

I've looked upon the split as not so much one between theory and practice
as between (A) a nasty name-calling environment full of endless pointless
theorizing with a dash of occasional pointers to musical examples, and (B)
an environment of people who just wanted to share the non-12 music they're
actually working on, with a dash of methods & tunings.

The tuning list already was, for me, mostly impenetrable and largely
irrelevant numerology. I only stuck around there because it was the "only
game in town" for microtonal people. Here, at least, people post pointers
to music and talk about methods (rather than endless spews of lattices &
ratios). I'm not saying there's *nothing* of interest there, just largely
of no interest to me, even if many of the people are good people. (E.g., I
miss Margo.)

I'm confident that there's enough cross-membership that anything of real
importance will eventually make it over here. And I poke my head in over
there via the web interface once in a blue moon to see if anything's new...

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

> But a split between theory and
> practical creativity doesn't strike me as so innocent - especially
> because it suggests that the tuning list is subject to the same
> forces that operate in academia and other inherently conservative
> institutions. If we here, of all places, can't understand that
theory
> and creativity are an interconnected yin and yang, needing each
other
> to remain lively, who on the planet will? For god's sake, how can
> artistic creativity keep any meaningful foothold in society when it
> can't even keep a foothold in the *tuning list*?

I don't know, Kyle. I sympathize with you strongly about this yin and
yang, and never saw it any other way.

There was never a single suggestion that practical creativity was off-
topic on the tuning list. There was never a complaint on the tuning
list that someone there was posting too much about practice and not
enough about theory. What happened, I think, was that some theorists
were overly zealous in their desire to *explain* theory to people who
didn't want to think about it, to *discuss* theory with people who
didn't really want to go deeper than mere numerology, and to *apply*
theory to this or that idea when the originator of the idea would
have been happier had it gone unanalyzed. However, not one of the
overly zealous theorists, nor anyone else on the tuning list, ever
explicitly discouraged, meant to discourage, or wanted to discourage,
any amount of posting on practical matters, sharing of music, etc. It
might have been more of the "walls" effect you were mentioning. As a
professional musician in many genres, I know it well, but
unfortunately it's a lot more apparent when you're the victim than
when you're the unintentional perpetrator.

Meanwhile, before the creation of the MakeMicroMusic list, two theory
threads had already been willfully driven off the tuning list -- one
led to the creation of the harmonic entropy list, and the other led
to the creation of the tuning-math list. As I recall, the
MakeMicroMusic list was one of two resurrections of the short-lived
Practical Microtonality list. The initial formation of the PM list
came a surprise to many of us because there was never any indication
that anyone on the tuning list wouldn't have welcomed *more* posting
on practical matters, sharing of music, etc. And in fact the latter
have always been and continue to be part and parcel of the tuning
list, though not always in the proportion everyone would have liked.

There are a lot of myths about what the tuning list was like in
the "good old days". It's easy enough to see for yourself -- go to

http://www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/ftp/tuning/list/archive/

and pick a folder at random. This is ancient history, before I even
joined. Note the McLaren posts and how they're often the most
mathematical of them all.

>> But a split between theory and
>> practical creativity doesn't strike me as so innocent - especially
>> because it suggests that the tuning list is subject to the same
>> forces that operate in academia and other inherently conservative
>> institutions.

I personally like the vibe on MMM. And I agree about the theory/
practice split. In fact, I agree so much that I don't even see the
point to discussing practice, really. Methods, instruments, passing
comments, sure. As I say, I like what's been happening on MMM. But
generating any amount of verbiage about artistic matters is for me
a far greater mistake than generating verbiage about theory.

Art doesn't succumb to the tools of language, in my experience.
In fact I think language is generally overused... at least, that's
one of the main themes of the Tao te Ching, of which I'm a big fan.
Theory just happens to be cut out for talk and math, and mailing
lists just happen to be ideal for talk and math.

My only gripe about MMM is the number of threads which are cross-
posted to tuning, present thread included.

-Carl

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>There was never a single suggestion that practical creativity was >off-topic on the tuning list.

You are correct: the problem was/is far more attitudinal than implemental.

>What happened, I think, was that some theorists were overly zealous in >their desire to *explain* theory to people who didn't want to think about >it, to *discuss* theory with people who didn't really want to go deeper >than mere numerology, and to *apply* theory to this or that idea when the >originator of the idea would have been happier had it gone unanalyzed.

In each of the above 3 instances, the 'theory' angle is couched in superiority - "didn't want to think", "mere numerology", happier with ignorance. Is it remotely possible for you to see it in this light?

>However, not one of the overly zealous theorists, nor anyone else on the >tuning list, ever explicitly discouraged, meant to discourage, or wanted >to discourage,
>any amount of posting on practical matters, sharing of music, etc.

I believe Rick put it fairly well: many people simply didn't want to sit through thousands of words on theoretical matters. If anything, it may have partly been a by-product of theory-spew! :)

>I know it well, but unfortunately it's a lot more apparent when you're the >victim than when you're the unintentional perpetrator.

Well, there you go. I wish more people could realize that, and open their sensitivities to this perspective. On both sides...

>Meanwhile, before the creation of the MakeMicroMusic list, two theory >threads had already been willfully driven off the tuning list -- one led >to the creation of the harmonic entropy list, and the other led to the >creation of the tuning-math list.

This is interesting, because I've long rebelled at the thought that tuning and microtonal music HAS to be thought of as a niche. I truly believe that, with advances in the understanding of the physics of sound, the tools we have at our disposal, and the unbelievably broad palette of what we can call 'music', this world - tuning - is very much large enough to support differing interest groups *without* it being a priori a negative or combative or competitive situation.

I still read tuning. I continue to urge people to go their for the kind of information they will find there.

>The initial formation of the PM list came a surprise to many of us because >there was never any indication that anyone on the tuning list wouldn't >have welcomed *more* posting on practical matters, sharing of music, etc.

If anyone is interested, they might investigate how and what surprises them.

>And in fact the latter have always been and continue to be part and parcel >of the tuning list, though not always in the proportion everyone would >have liked.

Like infinitesimal. That's life.

It can all work. These are just multiple parts of a journey.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >There was never a single suggestion that practical creativity was
> >off-topic on the tuning list.
>
> You are correct: the problem was/is far more attitudinal than
implemental.
>
> >What happened, I think, was that some theorists were overly
zealous in
> >their desire to *explain* theory to people who didn't want to
think about
> >it, to *discuss* theory with people who didn't really want to go
deeper
> >than mere numerology, and to *apply* theory to this or that idea
when the
> >originator of the idea would have been happier had it gone
unanalyzed.
>
> In each of the above 3 instances, the 'theory' angle is couched in
> superiority

Couched in superiority? <gulp>

> - "didn't want to think", "mere numerology", happier with
> ignorance. Is it remotely possible for you to see it in this light?

Jon.

I said "overly zealous", which indicates that I was *criticizing*
these actions, not defending them.

You are incorrect that I couched at least two of these in
superiority. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it as a fellow
human being -- is it remotely possible that I am one? ;)

Thinking about theory is not superior to not thinking about it, and I
didn't intend to imply that it was. Those who didn't want to think
about theory had every right not to think about theory, and were in
no way inferior to those who did.

Analyzing is not superior to leaving unanalyzed. I didn't mean to
imply that it was. The creative mind, it's often said (with good
reason), is stymied by analysis, unless the analysis occurs very far
away from the creativity.

But yes, I do believe that in some cases, when one is intentionally
using numbers in the first place to shape one's tuning materials, as
for example in JI or temperament, quantitative reasoning can be more
useful than unreasoned numerical manipulation. I also believe that
quantitative considerations that make contact with the realities of
how we hear can be more useful than those that derive from other
sources. Those skilled and knowledgeable in these areas feel a
compulsion to share their knowledge and reasoning so as to benefit,
and further the endeavors of, others. The goal is to help along, in
any way they can, the creation of microtonal music.

Often this works fine -- sometimes, brilliantly. But often, the
result is negative. There are various reasons for this. And this
can't helped by the usually dry tone of those doing the offering.

Nevertheless, I respect and have always respected anyone's right to
use "mere" numerology for musical ends -- I have no problem with
that. Once this intention is made clear, I don't bother this person
with quantitative reasoning or psychoacoustical touchstones anymore,
because I know these won't be matters of interest.

Is it remotely possible for me to see why someone would perceive the
above as being "couched in superiority"? Yes, it is. But after all
the time you and I have spend working through these things, I had
hoped that someone wouldn't be you.

I accept full responsibility, though. In my daily "real-world" life I
receive continual, unexpected praise for me ability to make everyone
feel comfortable and to relate to each of them on their own terms.
The evidence is overwhelming, at this point, that this skill often
does not translate onto the internet. Something about the written
word vs. a combination of speech and body language, I suppose.

> >However, not one of the overly zealous theorists, nor anyone else
on the
> >tuning list, ever explicitly discouraged, meant to discourage, or
wanted
> >to discourage,
> >any amount of posting on practical matters, sharing of music, etc.
>
> I believe Rick put it fairly well: many people simply didn't want
to sit
> through thousands of words on theoretical matters.

I wish Rick had put it "remotely" that well. But yes.

> >I know it well, but unfortunately it's a lot more apparent when
you're the
> >victim than when you're the unintentional perpetrator.
>
> Well, there you go. I wish more people could realize that, and open
their
> sensitivities to this perspective. On both sides...

So do I.

> >Meanwhile, before the creation of the MakeMicroMusic list, two
theory
> >threads had already been willfully driven off the tuning list --
one led
> >to the creation of the harmonic entropy list, and the other led to
the
> >creation of the tuning-math list.
>
> This is interesting, because I've long rebelled at the thought that
tuning
> and microtonal music HAS to be thought of as a niche. I truly
believe that,
> with advances in the understanding of the physics of sound, the
tools we
> have at our disposal, and the unbelievably broad palette of what we
can
> call 'music', this world - tuning - is very much large enough to
support
> differing interest groups *without* it being a priori a negative or
> combative or competitive situation.

Sure. I share that view. Not sure what it has to do with the
precedent.

> I still read tuning. I continue to urge people to go their for the
kind of
> information they will find there.

And the kind of people they will meet. Aaron and I had a Yahoo
messenger chat yesterday that left me with a warm feeling, and
excitement for what the future of our relationship will bring. Just
because someone happened to choose to sign up for the tuning list
doesn't mean they'd be a bad person to get to know . . .

> >The initial formation of the PM list came a surprise to many of us
because
> >there was never any indication that anyone on the tuning list
wouldn't
> >have welcomed *more* posting on practical matters, sharing of
music, etc.
>
> If anyone is interested, they might investigate how and what
surprises them.

I'm not sure what to take from that statement.

Back to real life (I hope),
Paul

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

> The tuning list already was, for me, mostly impenetrable and
largely
> irrelevant numerology.

I think it would be wise not to assume that Brian McLaren's
assessments are accurate. As the Woolly-Headed Numerologist himself,
I can assure you that this so-called numerology does, in fact,
connect to real music. Partly because I also compose, I have no time
for the mythology which says that theory and practice have no
connection. I do recognize, however, that if I'm going to be harassed
for wanting to talk about tuning theory, the existence of tuning-math
is a practical help.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> But
> generating any amount of verbiage about artistic matters is for me
> a far greater mistake than generating verbiage about theory.

Where is the line between artistic matters and something which can
fruitfully be discussed?

Hi Gene --

> > The tuning list already was, for me, mostly impenetrable and
> largely irrelevant numerology.
>
> I think it would be wise not to assume that Brian McLaren's
> assessments are accurate.

Let me clarify. Though I used the term "numerology" (since I had just been
reading some posts elsewhere), I was not referring to McLaren, or to you,
or to anyone else in particular. What I meant is that to me long
discussions of lattices, periodicity, harmonic entropy, and such things
aren't of much interest. I.e., much of that mathematical universe is
irrelevant to my personal artistic interest and purposes.

So I feel more at home here than on some other lists.

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

> Let me clarify. Though I used the term "numerology" (since I had
just been
> reading some posts elsewhere), I was not referring to McLaren, or
to you,
> or to anyone else in particular. What I meant is that to me long
> discussions of lattices, periodicity, harmonic entropy, and such
things
> aren't of much interest. I.e., much of that mathematical universe
is
> irrelevant to my personal artistic interest and purposes.

Numerology is, however, not a very polite word to use in connection
with real mathematics; if you want to avoid being tarred with
McLaren's brush I'd avoid it.

Hi there,

I'm still new to the subject of tuning, and I don't post very often to this
list. However, I thought I'd give my perspective. The internet has been a
fantastic tool for learning about what's happening in microtonality. I
joined "MMM" a few months ago, then "tuning". After a little while, I
unsubscribed from "tuning" and continued reading "MMM." That's how I plan
to keep it.

There were four things that turned me off about "tuning."

1. Too much! I'd get dozens of emails a day. I couldn't keep up with that.
2. A lot of it made very little sense to me.
3. A lot of it seemed to have little or nothing to do with real MUSIC.
4. Arguments. There's a difference between debating and arguing. People on
"tuning" argued. It was annoying.

MMM is pleasant. People here support one another. They share music, not
numbers. I can keep up with it. For me, it's a good fit.

That's my perspective.

Peace,
Andrew

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Gene,

> Numerology is, however, not a very polite word to use in connection
> with real mathematics; if you want to avoid being tarred with
> McLaren's brush I'd avoid it.

Please, Gene, I don't want to get into an argument about such terminology.
I don't blame you for feeling darn prickly over some of the posts
elsewhere, but I'm not criticizing anything.

The point is that I wasn't very interested in the discussions. If people
want to talk about those things, they're welcome to do so, I'm not going to
fault anyone for the harmless pleasures they enjoy. It wasn't my cup o'
tea, so I came over here.

Rick

OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name that tuning!"

Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any feedback or
anything, just dropping something into the mix.

http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)

(Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)

Cheers,

Rick

Hi, All (MMM list only - I've migrated),

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses, and many of them help me
understand why things have happened the way they have. I don't
contribute to the tuning list often but I rarely go three days
without perusing it. I had noticed almost nothing but arcane number
talk for the past several months, which always happened from time to
time, but I didn't realize that others were thinking of the change as
a permanent one. A few replies to specific points:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> All you need to do to heal the split is to have your email program send all
> the email from the various tuning groups into one folder called....
> "tuning". Voila- no more split. If you instead read the groups at the
> website, well, then you must be a glutton for Yahoo advert punishment.
>
> Dante

That's true to a point - but what I thought was fertile about the
tuning list was the way it swerved wildly back and forth between
theory and composition/performance, so that each interpenetrated the
other, a thread about numbers bleeding into one about a compositional
issue and vice versa. That's what I'm going to miss, the friction
between them, the occasional irruptions of creative insight in the
midst of number theory. A group of theory wonks just comparing cent
tables won't be nearly so interesting to look into.

> 2. I would look forward to the day that MMM is unnecessary. I am, however
> (in addition to my messy, chaotic, emotional artistic side) a
>pragmatic person.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I too am pragmatic - almost to a fault, I think, the result of having
been a feckless visionary in my youth. And so I'm here.

> I've looked upon the split as not so much one between theory and practice
> as between (A) a nasty name-calling environment full of endless pointless
> theorizing with a dash of occasional pointers to musical examples, and (B)
> an environment of people who just wanted to share the non-12 music they're
> actually working on, with a dash of methods & tunings.
>
> Rick

This is helpful - and is the way I will hereafter look at it.

> There was never a single suggestion that practical creativity was off-
> topic on the tuning list. There was never a complaint on the tuning
> list that someone there was posting too much about practice and not
> enough about theory.

I'm sure this is true. But I did feel this week just a little, though
it probably wasn't meant this way, like I had wandered into the
tuning list for the first time in months and was told, "Oh, your kind
has to go down the road to this other list now." Like dropping into
your old neighborhood bar and the clientele has changed, and the
officious doorman points his thumb at the little bar down on the
other side of the tracks where your friends are now. But if, as Rick
promises, I can post here now without being flamed, I'll eventually
realize we've all traded up. :^)

Cheers, and raising a glass to our new home,

Kyle

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

>> But
>> generating any amount of verbiage about artistic matters is for me
>> a far greater mistake than generating verbiage about theory.
>
>Where is the line between artistic matters and something which can
>fruitfully be discussed?

I judge this, for myself, on an issue-by-issue basis. It's a very
personal sort of judgement.

-Carl

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>Numerology is, however, not a very polite word to use in connection >with real mathematics; if you want to avoid being tarred with >McLaren's brush I'd avoid it.
>
Exactly.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

Rick McGowan wrote:

>OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name that tuning!"
>
>Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any feedback or >anything, just dropping something into the mix.
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)
>
>(Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)
>
Sounds great to me!

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

>>OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name
>>that tuning!"
>>
>>Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any feedback
>>or anything, just dropping something into the mix.
>>
>> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)
>>
>>(Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)
>>
>Sounds great to me!

Same here. Bravo!

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

> OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name
>that tuning!"

Sounds a lot like 17-equal to me.

> Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any
feedback or
> anything, just dropping something into the mix.
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)
>
> (Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rick

Thanks, Rick. I enjoyed listening to that (and torturing my office-
mates with it)!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

> > There was never a single suggestion that practical creativity
was off-
> > topic on the tuning list. There was never a complaint on the
tuning
> > list that someone there was posting too much about practice and
not
> > enough about theory.
>
> I'm sure this is true. But I did feel this week just a little,
though
> it probably wasn't meant this way, like I had wandered into the
> tuning list for the first time in months and was told, "Oh, your
kind
> has to go down the road to this other list now." Like dropping into
> your old neighborhood bar and the clientele has changed, and the
> officious doorman points his thumb at the little bar down on the
> other side of the tracks where your friends are now. But if, as
Rick
> promises, I can post here now without being flamed, I'll eventually
> realize we've all traded up. :^)
>
> Cheers, and raising a glass to our new home,
>
> Kyle
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm sorry this happened to you, Kyle, but as long as there's an
internet forum where you feel comfortable, I suppose we have reason
to celebrate. To be sure, your question about microtonal ear training
might well have garnered some useful responses on the tuning list,
seeing as it supposedly has many times more members than this one.
But this community is rich and growing, and if it can maintain this
level of civility, then the benefits you may gain from moving may
outweigh the costs (sorry, I'm doing my taxes now). So welcome to
your new home! (And if anyone's keeping score of McLaren's lies, what
he's claiming -- on metatuning -- that I said about the tuning list's
superiority, is yet another lie.)

On Tuesday 13 April 2004 08:56 pm, Rick McGowan wrote:
> OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name that
> tuning!"
>
> Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any feedback or
> anything, just dropping something into the mix.
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)
>
> (Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rick

Rick-

That was delicious! I like how sparse and moody it was, and how it took its
time. What tuning was it? It sounded like the thirds were out in a neutral
way, but the minor third sounded ok, but slightly flat of 12-equal. Someone
esle said 17-tet, and I'm inclined to agree. Tell me if I'm right or wrong!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

>
> That was delicious! I like how sparse and moody it was, and how it took its
> time. What tuning was it? It sounded like the thirds were out in a neutral
> way, but the minor third sounded ok, but slightly flat of 12-equal. Someone
> esle said 17-tet, and I'm inclined to agree. Tell me if I'm right or wrong!
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com

This can't be 17, can it? The fourths and seconds just don't sound like it to me.
Assuming an ET, I'd guess something with a few more steps. 22?

Jacob

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>(Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)

Thanks - you are continuing to grow in the 'arrangement' areas of your pieces, and I second the comments about this one having more space, and using more time to develop.

Gad, and I bet you're still putting stuff into notation and playing it, right? :)

Cheers,
Jon

Thanks to all who have listened. Jon noted,

> ... I second the comments about this one having more space, and
> using more time to develop.

It's just differently purposed; intended to be slow and spacious.

> Gad, and I bet you're still putting stuff into notation and playing it,
> right? :)

Yes, as usual this is fully notated in Finale...

Several people guessed at the tuning... It's not an ET, but actually
Carlos harmonic scale, using mostly a "minor mode" pitch set.

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> Thanks to all who have listened. Jon noted,
>
> > ... I second the comments about this one having more space, and
> > using more time to develop.
>
> It's just differently purposed; intended to be slow and spacious.
>
> > Gad, and I bet you're still putting stuff into notation and
playing it,
> > right? :)
>
> Yes, as usual this is fully notated in Finale...

Wow. Put this score and the piece up on a website somewhere -- they'd
make an impressive package.

> Several people guessed at the tuning... It's not an ET, but
actually
> Carlos harmonic scale, using mostly a "minor mode" pitch set.
>
> Rick

Ah . . . that explains the near-12-equal minor third, as well as why
you kept using a neutral sixth (I was wondering about that -- it
sounded kinda Arabic & cool). I also noticed that the major second
*below* the tonic sounded like the 7th harmonic (7/8), which made me
think 22-equal, but nothing else in the scale sounded like 22-equal
so I assumed I had heard that wrong.

Rick McGowan wrote:

>Several people guessed at the tuning... It's not an ET, but actually >Carlos harmonic scale, using mostly a "minor mode" pitch set.
>
No wonder it sounded so good to me, I been working with
the harmonic series for years. I didn't even try to guess the tuning,
I should be working. ;)

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

Paul Erlich wrote:

>Ah . . . that explains the near-12-equal minor third, as well as why >you kept using a neutral sixth (I was wondering about that -- it >sounded kinda Arabic & cool). >
13th harmonic

>I also noticed that the major second >*below* the tonic sounded like the 7th harmonic (7/8), >
7/4

>which made me >think 22-equal, but nothing else in the scale sounded like 22-equal >so I assumed I had heard that wrong.
>
8/7

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >Ah . . . that explains the near-12-equal minor third, as well as
why
> >you kept using a neutral sixth (I was wondering about that -- it
> >sounded kinda Arabic & cool).
> >
> 13th harmonic

Exactly.

> >I also noticed that the major second
> >*below* the tonic sounded like the 7th harmonic (7/8),
> >
> 7/4

I called it 7/8 because it was below the tonic -- an octave below a
harmonic seventh above the tonic.

> >which made me
> >think 22-equal, but nothing else in the scale sounded like 22-
equal
> >so I assumed I had heard that wrong.
> >
> 8/7

Rick may correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the scale had a 9/8,
not an 8/7 (one reason it sounded more like 17-equal than 22-equal to
me). This is making for a good ear-training exercise for all of us!

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>(one reason it sounded more like 17-equal than 22-equal to me). This is >making for a good ear-training exercise for all of us!

Yeah, well I don't know whether to be ecstatic :) or depressed :( about how good yours and David's listening acuity is!

Cheers,
Jon

Jon,

> I didn't mean to use the comment as a "better than"

Right... No problem. I didn't interpret it as "better than". Perhaps "more
to your taste", or "different than" some other stuff that I've passed
around.

For scale info (ratios) go here:
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/scales.html
(halfway down the page)

Cheers,
Rick

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>Paul,
>
>{you wrote...}
> >
>>(one reason it sounded more like 17-equal than 22-equal to me). This is >>making for a good ear-training exercise for all of us!
>> >>
>
>Yeah, well I don't know whether to be ecstatic :) or depressed :( about how >good yours and David's listening acuity is!
>

It sounded like home and I missed the bit about guessing the tuning!

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_5998.html#6014

> OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name
that tuning!"
>
> Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any
feedback or
> anything, just dropping something into the mix.
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)
>
> (Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rick

***Hi Rick!

"Not asking for any feedback or anything..." (??) Does that mean you
don't *mind* feeback or...??

Anyway... I think some of the sounds are pretty nice and the
mood... I particularly like where the big just (if that's what they
are) chords come in...

For my personal taste, there seems quite a bit of reliance on "single
line" music, and I couldn't help but think what would happen if you
had a couple of independent lines going on at the same time. You
might want to try that...

And then again, you might not... :)

best to you!

Joe Pehrson

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:56:31 -0700 Rick wrote

> OK... I haven't posted anything for a while so let's play "name that tuning!"

> Here's something I'm still working on... Not asking for any feedback or
> anything, just dropping something into the mix.

> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/temp/cath2.mp3 (4.47MB)

> (Get it while it's hot, I'll delete it in a few days.)

Could you leave it there till about Tuesday 20th please Rick?

I listen to most music posts but I'm away at the moment and the
downloads are very slow over mobile (cellular) phone.

Thanks for your post regarding Midicode Synthesizer.

Peter
www.midicode.com