Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Re: can you hear philosophy?

Paul,

In the context of Gene's post it's not hard to see the polemic in a
remark like, "can you hear philosophy?"

Gene's points are well taken, but I think they somewhat miss the point
that these are simply two very different things--just intonation and
temperaments that attempt to maximize as many near just relationships
as possible. Both have their merits and their supporters, but they are
different, and how one feels about the arguments each side makes
probably has a lot to do with where one stands themselves.

When Dave Keenan coined the WAFSO just term, I wonder if he saw the
irony in it... if your soup was WAFSO being soup without the fly shit
but you theoretically couldn't taste the difference, would the
knowledge of what the fly left in the soup matter? Yes, to most humans
I think it probably would... it's the idea of it, you know. Same thing
goes for just intonationist (sic), after all, most of them are human,
and humans think and do the darndest things sometimes.

I don't think Jon missed it at all, and I don't think Gene's points
are without merit either. Sometimes it's all in the way you present a
thing though, and if only we were sometimes WAFSO agreeing to disagree
when we rolled out our arguments and personal points of view, things
might just be close enough to keeping everybody (relatively) happy.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] call for compositions (72-equal)

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > Let's say I want a scale of 5 notes, and I want those 5 notes to
be
> in
> > tune, rational pitches. I'll tune them that way.
>
> ok, let's say we're talking about 1/1 9/8 5/4 3/2 5/3.
>
> > I won't make some large
> > number temperament
>
> large number temperaments are not the issue. neither miracle, nor
> meantone, nor hemiennealimmal have any number of notes associated
> with them. just a single generating interval, and a period.
>
> > and pick 5 notes out of it that are so close to those
> > pitches that no one can tell. That seems to me laughable.
>
> that's not what gene was talking about at all. the analogy here
would
> be to take the 5 note scale above and tune it in meantone. that way
> the '5/3' and the '9/8' become consonant with one another, while all
> the consonances that were there already are preserved.
>
> this is not only not laughable, but is the basis of western tuning
> practice for most of its history (see the kyle gann link if you
wish).
>
> as a composer, you're free to take it or leave it (and by golly, i
> don't know where you get off accusing gene of assuming composer z
> will choose option b over option a), but don't you dare laugh at it.
>
> it's amazing how stupid you can paint people, jon.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> [MMM info]-------------------------------------------------------
> More music files from MMM are at http://www.microtonal.org/music/
> -------------------------------------------------------[MMM info]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > In the context of Gene's post it's not hard to see the polemic in
a
> > remark like, "can you hear philosophy?"
>
> anyway, what philosophy are we actually talking about? i'd like to
> see a coherent defense of the philosophical position we're
supposedly
> talking about.

here's one attempt i found:

http://www.transparentmeans.com/

so far it's doing nothing for me but replacing one form of elitism
with another . . . but i'm still reading . . .

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

hmmm. lost jeremy's e-mail he would want to see
http://www.transparentmeans.com/lmytam.html
and know rod would be interested in this also

paulerlich wrote:

>
>
> here's one attempt i found:
>
> http://www.transparentmeans.com/
>
> so far it's doing nothing for me but replacing one form of elitism
> with another . . . but i'm still reading . . .
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Paul,

Oh come now, it's not that difficult, is it! Here's what Jon
originally posted, and in the context of this thread, it's what's
meant by philosophy...

"The 'philosophical' point is that even if one says or agrees that
'you can't hear the difference of the note if it is within x number of
cents to the true JI ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the
difference is still there. It exists."

That's it, pretty simple... one is something that's based on a lot of
history... I mean Jon's his own man, but he was after all a member of
Harry Partch's ensembles and, as he rightly should, proudly presides
over Corporeal Meadows... so what were you expecting? I mean Gene's
none too subtly questioning the validity of his convictions, beliefs
and preferences, etc., so, why the hell wouldn't he be at least a
little perturbed?

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: [metatuning] Re: can you hear philosophy?

> --- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > In the context of Gene's post it's not hard to see the polemic in
a
> > remark like, "can you hear philosophy?"
>
> anyway, what philosophy are we actually talking about? i'd like to
> see a coherent defense of the philosophical position we're
supposedly
> talking about.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Stock for $4.
> No Minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Oh come now, it's not that difficult, is it! Here's what Jon
> originally posted, and in the context of this thread, it's what's
> meant by philosophy...
>
> "The 'philosophical' point is that even if one says or agrees that
> 'you can't hear the difference of the note if it is within x number
of
> cents to the true JI ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the
> difference is still there. It exists."
>
> That's it, pretty simple... one is something that's based on a lot
of
> history... I mean Jon's his own man, but he was after all a member
of
> Harry Partch's ensembles and, as he rightly should, proudly presides
> over Corporeal Meadows... so what were you expecting? I mean Gene's
> none too subtly questioning the validity of his convictions, beliefs
> and preferences, etc., so, why the hell wouldn't he be at least a
> little perturbed?
>
>
> take care,
>
> --Dan Stearns

i'll let gene and jon sort this out. they're both fine people. this
really shouldn't be any of my concern, except that i'm trying to
learn how best to get these sorts of ideas across . . . i suppose
casual conversation isn't usually going to do it . . . :(

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> When Dave Keenan coined the WAFSO just term, I wonder if he saw the
> irony in it... if your soup was WAFSO being soup without the fly shit
> but you theoretically couldn't taste the difference, would the
> knowledge of what the fly left in the soup matter? Yes, to most humans
> I think it probably would...

That's unfortunate, since your soup *is* at best wafso just. When the FDA decides on the maximum amount of rat shit your breakfast cereal can contain, it's because it knows there will be rat shit in your breakfast cereal, and nothing can be done about it. In the same way, perfect intonation in the sense of precise rational arithmetic is physically meaningless, and hence the desire to hear a rational number rather than an irrational one is impossible to satisfy. In the end, past a certain point, JI *must* be in your head, and hence in some sense philosophical.

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

On 2/27/02 8:58 PM, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
>> When Dave Keenan coined the WAFSO just term, I wonder if he saw the
>> irony in it... if your soup was WAFSO being soup without the fly shit
>> but you theoretically couldn't taste the difference, would the
>> knowledge of what the fly left in the soup matter? Yes, to most humans
>> I think it probably would...
>
> That's unfortunate, since your soup *is* at best wafso just. When the FDA
> decides on the maximum amount of rat shit your breakfast cereal can contain,
> it's because it knows there will be rat shit in your breakfast cereal, and
> nothing can be done about it. In the same way, perfect intonation in the sense
> of precise rational arithmetic is physically meaningless, and hence the desire
> to hear a rational number rather than an irrational one is impossible to
> satisfy. In the end, past a certain point, JI *must* be in your head, and
> hence in some sense philosophical.
>

I just got back from having a bowl of split pea soup which had a few
strangely textured items in it, I assumed garnish since it's a good
restaurant, I trust them. One got caught in my teeth. I looked at it,
talked to the manager, it turned out to be a curly piece of steel wool left
by a new dishwasher they've been having problems with.

Just to augment the philosophy thread. You're talking about fly shit as
unnoticeable. Perhaps our stomachs can handle more than that. They took
the soup off the bill.

Marc

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Gene!
The same can be said about ET, so you have approximations to approximations. La Monte has managed to create JI within a beats not detectable within a year. Normally referred to as Absolute tuning. I myself has done two pieces in such an animal. Electronically, I have 6144 which is passable yet the effect is not the same and i know it. Now if i try to figure out 22 ET as it comes out on say 768 ( a yamaha unit) well i have no idea what i am listing too.
It really depends alot on the the type of music one is doing. As i do quite a bit of work with sum and difference tones and how they occur in rooms. To do this acoustical without ANY amplification one needs an exactude that can't de compromised. In fact if you don't want such things ETs are a good way to go. In El Paso, even Brian McLaren acknowledged how the precision I use was a necessity. And I likewise acknowledge that it wasn't for his.
So beyond ET and JI, It is as much about just what it is we are going to do!

genewardsmith wrote:

> In the same way, perfect intonation in the sense of precise rational arithmetic is physically meaningless, and hence the desire to hear a rational number rather than an irrational one is impossible to satisfy. In the end, past a certain point, JI *must* be in your head, and hence in some sense philosophical.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <3C7DC8BF.C5C048F0@...>
Hey, philosophy! Well, I'll pick through the last message that came down
the pipe.

Kraig wrote:

> The same can be said about ET, so you have approximations to
> approximations.

Indeed, which makes it appropriate that what we're looking at now is
neither ET nor JI.

> La Monte has managed to create JI within a beats not
> detectable within a year. Normally referred to as Absolute tuning. I
> myself has done two pieces in such an animal.

This is a specialist kind of music using relatively large ratios without
common prime factors. Also infinitely slow, uses sine waves and would be
impossible to that accuracy without electronics.

> Electronically, I have
> 6144 which is passable yet the effect is not the same and i know it.

If it isn't the same, we're talking about practicality, not philosophy.
Have you submitted yourself to a blind test?

> Now if i try to figure out 22 ET as it comes out on say 768 ( a yamaha
> unit) well i have no idea what i am listing too.

You mean you don't recognise it as 22? This is similar to what Marc Jones
has been talking about.

> It really depends alot on the the type of music one is doing.

Yes!

> As i
> do quite a bit of work with sum and difference tones and how they occur
> in rooms. To do this acoustical without ANY amplification one needs an
> exactude that can't de compromised. In fact if you don't want such
> things ETs are a good way to go. In El Paso, even Brian McLaren
> acknowledged how the precision I use was a necessity. And I likewise
> acknowledge that it wasn't for his.

What about for Harry Partch's, which is where the conversation actually
started?

> So beyond ET and JI, It is as much about just what it is we are
> going to do!

I'm not sure how to parse that. What are you going to do?

Graham

🔗graham@...

🔗jdstarrett <jstarret@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

but why *should* one prefer the true ratio? because of some platonic
number mysticism? well, then i guess i could subscribe to a post-
platonic number mysticism that recognizes the ideality of irrational
numbers to justify my philosophical preference. the ideal square has
an irrational diagonal, after all.

this seems like a far less clear-cut choice than the choice between
fly s**t and no fly s**t!!!

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Paul,

I think you miss the point by taking what Jon said far too literally
and not nearly contextually enough.

If we both sing a 3/2 over a drone, with both of us full right well
understanding what just intonation means, they'll both be slightly
different pitches, but they'll both be a 3/2 locked in as well: in
other words just intonation. Understanding and endorsing this simple
way of going about things is at the root of what Jon's getting at (in
my estimation anyway), and it's very easy to contrast this with Gene's
objections which were more along the lines of, 'if this other way
enables what makes just intonation ear appealing in a way that just
intonation can't, why cling to a just intonation is just intonation
and everything else is something else position if you can't hear
philosophy?'

Problem is that you can hear philosophy... unless you can't... then
you either respect each other enough to agree to disagree, or, I guess
you assume the other bloke is somehow defective and just ain't gonna
get it!

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: [metatuning] Re: can you hear philosophy?

> --- In metatuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Oh come now, it's not that difficult, is it! Here's what Jon
> > originally posted, and in the context of this thread, it's what's
> > meant by philosophy...
> >
> > "The 'philosophical' point is that even if one says or agrees that
> > 'you can't hear the difference of the note if it is within x
number
> of
> > cents to the true JI ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the
> > difference is still there. It exists."
>
> but why *should* one prefer the true ratio? because of some platonic
> number mysticism? well, then i guess i could subscribe to a post-
> platonic number mysticism that recognizes the ideality of irrational
> numbers to justify my philosophical preference. the ideal square has
> an irrational diagonal, after all.
>
> this seems like a far less clear-cut choice than the choice between
> fly s**t and no fly s**t!!!
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> FREE COLLEGE MONEY
> CLICK HERE to search
> 600,000 scholarships!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>