Why?

Whenever I mention our work and ambitions here on these lists to my
friends, they always ask the same few questions: Does it really sound
different? And the implied question is Why would you go to all of that
trouble.

Well, I'm not the world's best orator, and I can never really come up
with the right words to placate my ever-so-pragmatic friends.
Honestly, when you're talking about the difference between
Werckmeister and Vallotti-Young, I can't tell the difference at all,
but I never tell them that. But today i was going over the question
and I thought to myself: Do you really need to hear the difference
between a 5/4 third and a 400c third? The analogy of painting sprang
to mind recently: If painters were limited to the same 12 brushes,
you could tell. You maybe couldn't see that this painter used a
horsehair brush for the first time in 150 years, but you could tell
that he was conscious of his materials in a different way.

It's almost a Sapir-Whorf thing, the idea that the material has a
direct effect on the art. Certainly most people can tell the
difference between an oil and a watercolor painting, but even if the
casual observer can't tell the difference between two consistencies of
acryllic doesn't mean that the painter wasn't influenced by these
choices.

Piet Mondrion, I've been told, doesn't capture well in prints because
he was so accutely aware of his materials. The yellow square,
contrairy to what I had thought, was not perfectly smooth but rather
lumped on all unevenly. Just being aware of the material you're using,
how it feels and what makes it different from other materials, is
enough to change the composing process.

Or am I completely off base? How would you answer my friends?

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

Tristan,

I'd optimally like to post a much more thought-out response, but I
think it is important to send something straight away: it isn't about
talking, is it? It is about the music, and you have to be able to play
it or perform it for them, and let them experience the difference. It
*can't* be something that is just talked about. That is the biggest
downfall and failure of the tunings lists - when it is all talk and
numbers, it convinces no one (outside of those already in the cult).

I'll try to write more cogently in the a.m. But this is an important
question, always lurking in the nether regions of the tuning list -
and not adequately addressed!

Cheers,
Jon

often i can 'feel' the difference more than i can hear it.
intervals are not s only 'quantities' , but also "qualities"
a just 5/4 is more peaceful, 440c more awake.
these two intervals are not mistaken in Indian music.
It is true that often the difference between one temperament and another is probably only something one might perceive over a long period.
But these long periods do happen and shouldn't be ignored.
Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> Whenever I mention our work and ambitions here on these lists to my
> friends, they always ask the same few questions: Does it really sound
> different? And the implied question is Why would you go to all of that
> trouble.
>
> Well, I'm not the world's best orator, and I can never really come up
> with the right words to placate my ever-so-pragmatic friends.
> Honestly, when you're talking about the difference between
> Werckmeister and Vallotti-Young, I can't tell the difference at all,
> but I never tell them that. But today i was going over the question
> and I thought to myself: Do you really need to hear the difference
> between a 5/4 third and a 400c third? The analogy of painting sprang
> to mind recently: If painters were limited to the same 12 brushes,
> you could tell. You maybe couldn't see that this painter used a
> horsehair brush for the first time in 150 years, but you could tell
> that he was conscious of his materials in a different way.
>
> It's almost a Sapir-Whorf thing, the idea that the material has a
> direct effect on the art. Certainly most people can tell the
> difference between an oil and a watercolor painting, but even if the
> casual observer can't tell the difference between two consistencies of
> acryllic doesn't mean that the painter wasn't influenced by these
> choices.
>
> Piet Mondrion, I've been told, doesn't capture well in prints because
> he was so accutely aware of his materials. The yellow square,
> contrairy to what I had thought, was not perfectly smooth but rather
> lumped on all unevenly. Just being aware of the material you're using,
> how it feels and what makes it different from other materials, is
> enough to change the composing process.
>
> Or am I completely off base? How would you answer my friends?
>
> --TRISTAN
> (http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles