farewell

All;

I'm unsubscribing. I'm going to miss this list, but it seems Jon
and I have irreconcilable philosophical differences. It seems to
me, Jon, that you are very hasty to judge, based on surface
impressions and initial appearances. Those of us without a direct
line to God are stuck with having to think things through.

Sorry to taint the positive vibe of this list, which I used to
enjoy, but I thought I should share the behind-the-scenes censorship
that seems to be required to maintain it...

>Carl,
>
>I had to write off-list, for a specific reason: I've had a number of new
>people join MMM recently who mentioned that they liked that it was absent
>of the bickering that went on on other lists. So I won't make the mistake
>of having little spats if I can at all humanly avoid it.
>
>That said, I couldn't believe that you would respond to a persons request
>for books on composition with a curt reply to NOT read any books. Even if
>you had given a few reasons about just *why* you think that a valid
>approach, you are just sending out a vibe to someone that is going to
>turn them off.
>
>Dan Wolf is a composer, and he replied with a list that was broad in
>interest, going from true music/composition books to books that were about
>creativity in all/other realms; you aren't a composer, and your choice
>makes it look like you don't care to be one either - a curious person to
>offer advice.
>
>Sure, it's an opinion, and I am not one to get into censorship, etc. But
>I really take to heart the spirit not only with how the MMM was started,
>but also the spirit that seems to allow many of the people join. I hope
>you can understand my point, and give some thought to the way you post.
>
>Cheers,
>Jon

-Carl

It's too bad that this most gentle off-list message from Jon elicited
this response in you, Carl. I'm sure you could have addressed Jon's
haste-to-judge offlist (where it was expressed), and spared everyone,
especially yourselves, the resulting pain. We're all entitled to make
mistakes, even Jon, without having them magnified two-hundred-fold.
Ah well, I'll miss you here Carl.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> All;
>
> I'm unsubscribing. I'm going to miss this list, but it seems Jon
> and I have irreconcilable philosophical differences. It seems to
> me, Jon, that you are very hasty to judge, based on surface
> impressions and initial appearances. Those of us without a direct
> line to God are stuck with having to think things through.
>
> Sorry to taint the positive vibe of this list, which I used to
> enjoy, but I thought I should share the behind-the-scenes censorship
> that seems to be required to maintain it...
>
> >Carl,
> >
> >I had to write off-list, for a specific reason: I've had a number
of new
> >people join MMM recently who mentioned that they liked that it was
absent
> >of the bickering that went on on other lists. So I won't make the
mistake
> >of having little spats if I can at all humanly avoid it.
> >
> >That said, I couldn't believe that you would respond to a persons
request
> >for books on composition with a curt reply to NOT read any books.
Even if
> >you had given a few reasons about just *why* you think that a
valid
> >approach, you are just sending out a vibe to someone that is going
to
> >turn them off.
> >
> >Dan Wolf is a composer, and he replied with a list that was broad
in
> >interest, going from true music/composition books to books that
were about
> >creativity in all/other realms; you aren't a composer, and your
choice
> >makes it look like you don't care to be one either - a curious
person to
> >offer advice.
> >
> >Sure, it's an opinion, and I am not one to get into censorship,
etc. But
> >I really take to heart the spirit not only with how the MMM was
started,
> >but also the spirit that seems to allow many of the people join. I
hope
> >you can understand my point, and give some thought to the way you
post.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jon
>
> -Carl

aww, c'mon guys. it's just an old fashioned flame war, even as
civil as you nice microtonal folks are. I recently got into one at
another music theory group, and it turned out to be the best,
most lively and honest thread that group has seen in a while.
And i got completely humiliated in the process!

what we all need to realize, is that microntonal composers are a
very small segment of the population, a 3fraction of a
2subsegment of another 1segment (1musicians who
2compose in 3odd tunings). As such, we should realize that we
will occasionally have differences, but that they are vastly
outweighed by our similarities.

in my experience, no musician will ever be above bickering.
that's just the nature of the game. drag it out into the open! it's
something most of us struggle with, unless we're too
passive-agressive to admit it.

-just sticking my dumb nose in.
scott

And now, a mammoth reply:

1) Luring in the uninitiated: As Andrew mentioned, there are different doors for
different people. The door I used was mapping xennish scales to the same ol' MIDI
keyboard and just banging on them. However, no one had to convince me to try this;
I sought it out myself. If someone is more skeptical, they might have to be shown a
major scale in 19 to accept it. In this sort of case, the argument I always give is
Partch's (extended to xenharmonics in general), that one can achieve far greater
consonance and far greater dissonance than in 12. I am also partially partial to the
"vast array of different moods" approach, but I remain skeptical.

2) Scale aesthetics: 14 is quite happy to my ears. Especially that 7:9:11-like chord
that was pointed out - I am bedazzled. Strangely, this general question as to 14 as a
tuning is technically off-topic until I provide a musical example (I will...eventually) - I
feel the "limits" here too. Anyhow, for anyone interested in some less-than-twelve
side-by-side listening, dig "Moods," an addition at

http://www.soundclick.com/funwithxenharmonicity/

My verdict on some low temperaments after doing this: 6 can imply a lot of nice 12
stuff. I HATE playing in 7! I looooove 9...and 10. 11 I didn't give a fair chance. My
banging-on-the-keyboard favorite remains 15.

Here's something that could be discussed, but perhaps on the main tuning, that
grows out of this: we all know that "consonance" and "dissonance" are dependent on
context. A tuning has no context at all. 14 equal? What does that sound like?
Well...are you using harmonic or inharmonic timbres? Sustained or not? I would be
interested to see how far you could push context (I'm mostly thinking about note
duration) to effectively mask out-of-tuneness. An extension, I think, of Terry Riley's
quote "Western music is so fast because it is out of tune."

Jacob