Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: the MMM/Tuning List distinction

Hello, there, everyone, and to the recent discussion on some
guidelines for maintaining and cultivating the qualities of MMM as a
special kind of forum, I might some points and distinction that I
would like to observe myself.

Mainly I'd say that it's not so much _whether_ theory is discussed,
but _how_ it's discussed. Certainly if I devised a tuning system like
Gene's ennealimmal -- a really clever name -- I'd want to use that
name and celebrate it when discussing progressions or pieces using
it. By the way, Gene has designed another tuning with a really neat
name that I'll describe when I write a piece in it, a good incentive.

My general leaning _on MMM_ might be toward theory that more or less
immediately relates to an actual piece or example, sometimes in an
alphabetical or numerical notation (the former used in certain
medieval European treatises), but preferably in some audio format,
like the files of my 14-tET examples which Aaron Johnson has so
helpfully and graciously prepared.

In contrast, I might wisely exercise special caution about generalized
discussions that debate the merits of different tunings or categories
of tuning systems; such comparisons can easily and quickly become
invidious, at least to one or more parties involved. The result can be
threads at once rather remote from composition or improvisation or
performance, and highly contentious -- a bit different from the kind
of musicmaking focus envisioned in our guidelines.

Here are some examples of things I might seek to do or avoid in MMM,
keeping in view its specific character.

------------------------
Things I might do in MMM
------------------------

1. Telling how I came to use a tuning system such as Peppermint 24 or
20-tET, and briefly explaining what an unfamiliar or less familiar
name means (e.g. Sesquisexta, simply the Latin term for "7:6," since
this tuning has two 12-note Pythagorean chains of pure fifths at a 7:6
apart).

2. Writing some running commentary about my adventures in a given
tuning, or an amusing goof I made in counting scale steps, or a
curious historical comparison that occurred to me when playing or
improvising a given passage -- but including the passage in some form
of notation or ideally audio rendition, and exercising some moderation
as to length, in contrast to my habits in certain other forums <grin>.

3. Explaining some basic rules of counterpoint or interval progression
that I take for granted, but that lots of readers might not. For
example, I might note that an "intensive" progression involves
ascending semitonal motion, and a "remissive" progression descending
semitonal motion.

4. Communicating a bit about my interval preferences, possibly one
subtopic of "microtonal aesthetics." In understanding the allure for
me of a tuning like 14-tET, readers find it interesting to know that I
consider 429 cents "a superb major third" (or supermajor, to apply a
common term), and 942 cents a very wonderful size for an interval
(here I wasn't disappointed, as noted in one recent post).

5. Discussing timbral practices and assumptions: for example, that in
discussing 14-tET, I'm basing my comments on synthesizer registrations
chosen or designed to tone down the beating of 686-cent fifths and
514-cent fourths.

6. Offering and gratefully receiving information that might clarify
categories of tunings or performance practices discussed here, such as
Daniel Wolf's very helpful comments that my "pelog" tunings in 14-tET
of 0-1-6-8-9-14 and 0-1-3-8-9-14 might better fit the Sundanese
categories of sorog and degung. I want to get these things right, and
such information also encourages me (and possibly others) to learn
more about musical and intonational traditions, enriching our own
practices.

7. Including some humor, especially about myself.

8. Acknowledging and celebrating some of the ideas and examples I've
gotten from sister/brother list members and others.

9. Sometimes introducing "practical comparisons" of how, for example,
I might play the same basic type of progression in different tuning
systems.

10. Giving information of a kind that might help someone else use a
tuning (e.g. a Scala file), or understand the sizes of the intervals
that I'm using and discussing (e.g. cents, integer ratios, or scale
steps in an equal temperament or well-temperament).

----------------------------
Things I might not do in MMM
----------------------------

1. Getting into a long technical discussion about the fine points of
scale design and optimization of a given tuning system, especially the
kind of exposition at some length that might make a fine essay for
some other forum.

2. Taking a given interval or progression in a tuning system I'm
enjoying as the starting point for a comprehensive essay on a topic
like different interpretations of the division of the whole-tone into
"five parts" proposed by Marchettus of Padua in 1318, or the scholarly
literature as to proposed values in cents for the two 36-note per
octave tunings described by Nicola Vicentino for his archicembalo or
"superharpsichord" in 1555.

3. Presenting an elaborate discussion on 14th-century or 16th-century
European contrapuntal theory.

4. Posting an involved theoretical discussion of at least 400 lines on
medieval European consonance/dissonance theory as it relates to my
taste in tunings -- again, something fun for other forums, but which I
might better do here in a paragraph or so, surrounded by musical
examples.

5. Setting forth on a rather abstruse discussion on timbre/tuning
interactions and consonance/dissonance models -- something that might
be very relevant here if done more concisely, and linked to specific
musical examples (e.g. some of the "xentonal" music of Bill Sethares,
or a performance in 22-tET by Paul Erlich where he applied his model
of "harmonic entropy").

6. Getting into lengthly explications of fine points concerning
medieval or Renaissance genres or theoretical controversies -- yes,
for me this can be a curious form of entertainment -- which might
serve more to distract from than to spice up the musicmaking that is
our main focus. (An amusing historical anecdote, in 25 lines or less,
might be more like a touch of spice.)

7. Posting remarks where I might feel a need to be assertive that my
musical viewpoint is a bit different from some "norm," but which might
be made more _gently_ assertive, and so avoid the risk of needlessly
putting another participant on the defensive, especially when there
might not actually be any disagreement. I mention this because I once
made a comment on another list that I really regret, fortunately
received with a most noble friendliness and grace by the other person
that I would like to emulate more often.

8. Getting involved in debates about the general merits of a given
tuning system or musical style, even in "self-defense." Of course, I
might respond more obliquely by presenting a musical example that
addresses a given point, but preferably with a focus on the music,
letting people draw their own conclusions.

9. Theorizing about tunings with which I'm unfamiliar -- with two
qualifications. First, if a tuning someone else is using or inquiring
about is _almost_ identical to one I've used (e.g. 31-tET vs. 1/4-comma
meantone), I might note this fact and go from there. Secondly, for
example, if someone asks, "How can I make the 720-cent and 480-cent
fifths and fourths in 15-tET more concordant?" then I might address
this _specific_ question based on my experience with the same
intervals in 20-tET.

10. Posting a full analysis, for example, of all of the intervals
found or just ratios approximated in one of my 24-note tunings.

These are things often easier said than done -- or not done -- but
possibly sharing a bit of how I'd like to participate might give
another view in this dialogue.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

Re: the MMM/Tuning List distinction

🔗Margo Schulter <mschulter@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>