2 Paul on metatuning

Paul,

You replied to the following:

> [Jon] I first started a real long reply to this, and then I thought
> "oh, hell, there's enough noise as it is". DBD has just put out one
> more opinion, and if the mathematical work he seems to be
> talking 'against' has any validity at all, you and everyone else
> have nothing to worry about.

with:

> i don't think it even exists!

What is "it"?

> [Jon] There are plenty of voices on all sides of the issue, and no
> side is losing.

> [Paul] everyone is losing when they stop talking to each other and
> instead rely on a bunch of lies for their information. which, my
> nose tells me, is going on, at least a little bit, in this article.

Lies?

> i guess you didn't understand my reply at all, and i'd be happy to
> end it here unless you're unsatisfied

Yeah, I am a bit unsatisfied, so maybe you'd clarify the following from your original post:

> it and looks to me mostly like an attempt to get on the
> "nutty professor"'s good side

Why? I don't have empirical evidence, but from the time I've hung out with DBD he didn't seem to apprecitate BM or his histrionics.

> maybe i'm getting this all wrong, but it looks to me like a lot
> of people shriveled in fear after the "professor"'s big rampage
> last year, and are looking to "point fingers" or "offer advice"
> so as to appear "above" his criticisms.

You have *got* to be kidding! If you are going to say something like this, who would you be referring to? "a lot of people" - indeed! I know you too well (I think!) to let you paint with this broad a brush! As you said to Joe: it must be the heat.

> it's really too bad this has happened, it's put somewhat of a
> damper on the development of ideas through cooperation that
> characterized the best days in the field (think of when erv wilson
> was hanging out with harry partch)

I think that the developments on the list in the last couple of years have been very significant, and there has been more cooperation between the math-tuning-related correspondents than I've witnessed before. All the micro-temperments, the blackjack/miracle stuff, the notation project(s), etc. As for another aspect of tuning, I think help has been found for people creating instruments, utilizing software, etc.

> everyone's pointing fingers at everyone else, crying "you're not
> listening, you're not playing your instrument, you're not
> composing, i'm the true musician here" in a state of
> mutual suspicion and fear, and in attempt to validate one's own
> position as "expert" without condescending to understand some
> newer developments.

I can only say that your phraseology seems to encompass as much mutual suspicion and fear as you seem to want to point out. These are old, old arguments, between practicality and research, the possible vs. the immediately do-able. The dedicated, pure-science researchers vs. the "Romantic anti-Intellectualists" (to borrow Gene's phrase); the practising musicians playing "bully the nerd" (your phrase).

So old and tired. And we still can't get past it.

> but i'm glad to see that some of the "old school" folks, like
> george secor in particular,
> haven't been affected by all this, and are involved in the free
> exchange of ideas

I've been fortunate to have good commentaries from (and to) George off the list. I don't think he is particularly taken aback by any of the noise, other than the distractions.

> mutual edification, and constructive development that are the
> best aspects of xenharmonic research, whether on the pages of
> 1/1 or on this here list.

Is that *all* the list is for, research? Or is this your particular spin/desire/purpose?

> now it seems fashionable instead to simply jump on a theory-bashing
> bandwagon, and to call
> that an "argument" or an "article"

Theory bashing *bandwagon*? No more valid than a "theory promotion bandwagon"! I'm not going to say that every post that has been critical of pure tuning research has been well-reasoned, proper, collegial, or even coherent. But bandwagon seems right up there with "right-wing conspiracy" or "left-wing coalition" (or any other demagoguery) [ouch, spell-checker, please!]

> we should aspire to do better.

Always.

> maybe i'm completely mistaken about the "political" motives behind
> this article, and if
> so, i offer my deepest apologies to the author.

Not worth checking out first?

> those of us who are frequently moved to make music, will do so ...
> some (say, jon szanto) will naturally gravitate toward the
> spontaneous side of the music-making,
> making use of whatever "found" resources they make come across (in
> the pages of 1/1 or in a set of
> discarded but resonant trash-can covers)

Oh, Paul, picking out one piece and painting me with it!? :)

A. what does it have to do with 1/1, unless for some reason you want to make an alliance between me and 1/1?

B. I never use trash-can covers - that would be the group "Stomp". But, yes, for some projects I've used found objects, and in those projects I've also tuned scales to differing tunings I found compatible and appropriate. I just didn't type up the ratios/cents and post them.

> each person offers the best of what she/he has to offer, and i
> don't think it's productive to
> try to force anyone to work in a direction at odds to their natural
> inclinations or well-considered path.

I completely agree with you, and/but I offer this one comment: 'forcing' someone sounds exactly like what Alison Monteith was feeling when people, especially Gene, kept up a harangue about 'why don't you use such-and-such et'. You have proffered that it was simply a misunderstanding, but I have written you directly about these issues and what you seem to refuse to see is how someone on the receiving end views it. Alison seemed *very much* to have a "well-considered path", and that didn't seem to stop the chorus of people (but short of a bandwagon) attempting to find a 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'.

I am FIRMLY behind you, or anyone else, who actively promotes an environment where people are free to go in the direction they want to, bolstered by the knowledge *shared* in a group setting.

Cheers,
Jon

Paul,

Your reply is too long and detailed for me to answer tonight - I've got a ton of music to prepare for rehearsals tomorrow in the a.m. I'll try to respond in an appropriate amount of time...

Cheers,
Jon