Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning 2 Paul, etc.

Paul

>--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>the mathematical work he seems to be talking 'against'. though he doesn't >provide a single example (or maybe *since* he doesn't provide a single >example), i suspect he may be referring to alleged mathematical work >referred to by the "N.P.", which was completely invented by same and never >actually existed.

OK, I'll just stop right there: I read Doty's message as the topic being very generalist in nature, about a predilection for the mathematical inquiries and researches to become, or certainly approach, an end in themselves. That researching the tunings becomes further and further removed from the music that could/would be made by the tunings, creating a pursuit of 'pure tuning research' akin to 'pure math', and with relationships to 'recreational math'.

So, as I say, I read it as very general in nature, and something reflecting on what even a casual observer could note if they lurked on the list for a couple of weeks. I don't find any of this new, and the subject has been raised before by others. However, I in no way read *into* his message the things *you* did. Did I read things *out* of it? I don't think so, but each of us is different.

>my hunch rests upon a certain pattern of catch-phrases that i have >observed being propagated around since the "rampage". i went out on a limb >talking about it, and took quite a risk in doing so, but wouldn't have if >i didn't feel rather confident (based on real evidence) that there was a >high probablity my hunch was correct.

Nonetheless, I saw none of these 'catch phrases'; it didn't even occur to me. Whether you are unaware or have simply forgotten, I have been the subject of bitter abuse by the same source that you are indicating, and more so, in person and very personal. I have read a fair amount of his postings and am familiar with the style. I have also had occasion to correspond with David Doty, and have met and talked with him on a couple of occasions. He does not - at all - strike me as a petty or ill-spirited person, and to somehow connect these two people together may very well reflect biases and inferences on your part that simply don't verify in the actuality.

I also find it odd (but possibly understandable) that you, normally a paragon of copious background material, would speak in such a manner bolstered only by the "high probability" of your "hunch".

>oh yes. if my hunch is correct, and he is relying on "N.P."'s accounts >(and reacting with cowardice to his own having been dumped upon by "N.P"), >then yes, lies.

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact the Doty is a member of the tuning group, and certainly must peruse the postings. You know, as well as I, that there have been numerous occasions where I have indicated my thoughts on something, only to have you say 'you are completely misunderstanding such-and-such' or reading things into something that aren't there, and similar properties. I have a hard time figuring, save for high humidity and temperatures, someone like yourself painting another as a coward and a liar on nothing more than "hunches". And he could certainly have just put the essay in 1/1, instead of posting it to the list, an action I wouldn't ascribe to cowardly action.

>no one does, especially those of us like DBD who have been slandered by BM.

Get in line pal, I got the venom before you ever did!

>but i did notice a tendency to react to all that with finger-pointing: >"oh, i'm not the bad one, sure BM has a point, but the bad one really is . >. . . . "

I have *no* idea what that refers to.

>but after the rampage, i did notice a rather large wave of this kind of >aloof finger-pointing and advice giving

Again, I don't know what you are referencing. Outside of the general discussions that regarded what I will simply call "research v. practice" (and, please, if there is a (are) more acceptable term(s) for the polar extremes of the discussion, feel free to insert them...), the only other thing I noticed was a drop in attendance, and I feel we've lost some good people in the last couple of years.

>particularly on the "splinter" lists. i'm not going to name names, but the >level of discourse did seem to go down a notch.

I've been on the list since Mills. The waves have come and gone, washed up and down; life is rarely ever the quietude that one finds in one's own study.

>you bet! but the train seemed to run off the tracks a bit since the >"rampage" -- there's been more of a tendency to try to distance oneself >from this or that perceived "nonsense" . . .

I attribute that to some members leaving, and others joining on. The dynamics of the list(s) have certainly changed, but I think you are ignoring or diminishing a more obvious reason: the members of the band are different - the music doesn't sound the same any more, even when they play the old songs.

> > I can only say that your phraseology seems to encompass as much
> > mutual suspicion and fear as you seem to want to point out.
>
>oh well! i sure don't feel any . . .

That's all well and good, but I remind you that you yourself frequently attribute these kind of motivations and characteristics to others, including myself, without ever asking "I wonder if maybe they 'don't feel any'". If that is a reasonable response to such attributions, I'll remember it in the future.

> > So old and tired. And we still can't get past it.
> it's just that in this case, i found it disingenuous.

As you say, two wrongs don't...

> > 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?

>. . . you really seem to be flying off on tangents here, and missing the >main point . . .

This is classic Erlich, I have to say: *I* (Jon) am missing the main point. It couldn't possibly by you, could it? You have read all manner of behind-the-scenes nefarious agendas into a post, I read it as a more generalist message, and the only way out is that *I* am whacked.

> > Theory bashing *bandwagon*? No more valid than a "theory promotion
> >bandwagon"!
>
>care to elaborate on what you mean here?

Only that when this kind of topic comes up, there are usually pretty equal number of voices on both sides of the coin. For each "too much math" whiner, there is the parallel "Romantic anti-Intellectual!" screed. Witness the flurry of posts the other day on meta, led off by Graham I believe.

>well, it's a trend, if you like that word better. BM used to spout ...
[snip]
>. . . but i just ignored the whole thing, and didn't let it get to me at >all. (ok, maybe a little, and maybe that's why it's poking its head out >now -- but that's the end of it)

I have to say that it appears it has affected you a lot deeper than you realize. I could write you offlist about this so as to not make a couple of issues public, but I don't think you are honoring some of the deeper issues at work, and whether or not they affect your reading of some of this.

I'll look again at my viewpoints, as well, but this last 1.5 years I've pretty much exhausted myself going and self-educating on issues that others, including yourself, have indicated I should better understand to have a healthier view of many of my 'colleagues'. I seriously doubt much, if any, similar effort has been made by others. That's not a pat on the back for myself, I'm just tired of "you must be misunderstanding such-and-such"; I'm not an insensitive or undereducated clod.

> i don't -- i used your name as an *example*, and 1/1 as an *example*.

Maybe, in light of the subject matter at hand, an *unfortunate* pairing?

>i have no need to rehash that with you, but since you've obviously made >your mind about that, let me just close the lid (ahem) on this with the >old platitude, true as ever: "two wrongs don't make one right"

Of course. I'm guessing, as you usually mean, that I am once again wrong, and that by "made up your mind" simply means that I didn't end up agreeing with you, and that you made no attempt to see the situation in another light, including that of the 'injured party'. Dialogue and understanding are, as ever, a two-way street.

One thing I find curious in your relationships - even casual ones such as ours and others that come up in correspondence - is that you seem unwilling to give "the benefit of the doubt". But maybe this is just as Dan Stearns has recently mentioned: that much of this wouldn't happen face-to-face. I don't know, and I'd like to think that. But I, too, am tired of simply being dismissed.

This reply can't solve anything, and I don't know what could on these basic issues. All of that is fairly irrelevant to my respect for your work and knowledge, and that respect - for now - carries me forward.

Regards,
Jon

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020702201939.00a13ec0@...>
Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> Only that when this kind of topic comes up, there are usually pretty
> equal number of voices on both sides of the coin. For each "too much
> math" whiner, there is the parallel "Romantic anti-Intellectual!"
> screed. Witness the flurry of posts the other day on meta, led off by
> Graham I believe.

Hello!

Yes, I directed it to metatuning, but the thread started with a message
that mixed pro-musical platitudes with vague references to theorists and
playground insults. I didn't notice any insults being thrown back at
musicians who aren't interested in theory. So there may be an equal
number of voices, but there isn't an equal amount of venom. Which is
precisely what I objected to in that original post -- read it again to see
what I mean.

The "romantic anti-intellectualism" quote is from
</tuning/topicId_37350.html#37383> which may be a bit
argumentative, but isn't really a "screed". It prompted a "prosaic and
pedantic pro-intellectualism" reply as well. And the whole thread
disappeared in a puff of smoke, for which I blame the failure for either
party to define "subjective".

Oh, and to be really prosaic and pedantic, "romantic anti-intellectualism"
is somewhat less histrionic than "Romantic anti-Intellectual!"

It also lead to this comment which I drafted a reply to, but didn't send
because the flames had died down of their own accord by then and I didn't
want to reignite them.

"""
If a person can't communicate information in a manner that other people
can understand, will tolerate, or even deign to read, then they aren't
going to be broadening many horizons. We all chose how to illuminate our
lives, Carl, and sometimes avoiding such behavior is worth more than the
information that *might* have been transferred.
"""

As nobody else replied either, it's a good example of a "too much
math" whiner without a parallel "Romantic anti-Intellectual!"
screed. Until now, of course ;)

> One thing I find curious in your relationships - even casual ones such
> as ours and others that come up in correspondence - is that you seem
> unwilling to give "the benefit of the doubt". But maybe this is just as
> Dan Stearns has recently mentioned: that much of this wouldn't happen
> face-to-face. I don't know, and I'd like to think that. But I, too, am
> tired of simply being dismissed.

I can't speak for others, but I behave much better online than
face-to-face.

Graham

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul
>
> >--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >the mathematical work he seems to be talking 'against'. though he
doesn't
> >provide a single example (or maybe *since* he doesn't provide a
single
> >example), i suspect he may be referring to alleged mathematical
work
> >referred to by the "N.P.", which was completely invented by same
and never
> >actually existed.
>
> OK, I'll just stop right there: I read Doty's message as the topic
being
> very generalist in nature, about a predilection for the
mathematical
> inquiries and researches to become, or certainly approach, an end
in
> themselves. That researching the tunings becomes further and
further
> removed from the music that could/would be made by the tunings,
creating a
> pursuit of 'pure tuning research' akin to 'pure math', and with
> relationships to 'recreational math'.

yup!

> So, as I say, I read it as very general in nature, and something
reflecting
> on what even a casual observer could note if they lurked on the
list for a
> couple of weeks. I don't find any of this new, and the subject has
been
> raised before by others. However, I in no way read *into* his
message the
> things *you* did. Did I read things *out* of it? I don't think so,
but each
> of us is different.

well, i got a little *crazy*. that's for sure!

> Nonetheless, I saw none of these 'catch phrases';

you just have to take my word for it as a friend. they were there,
and that's it -- i have no desire to go into it further. i went way
off the handle as to their significance.

> I also find it odd (but possibly understandable) that you, normally
a
> paragon of copious background material, would speak in such a
manner
> bolstered only by the "high probability" of your "hunch".

i have no need to go into all the "gossip" and catalogue it in a
rigorous fashion. can you imagine a bigger waste of time?

>and a liar

i never said or implied doty was a liar.

> > > 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?
>
> >. . . you really seem to be flying off on tangents here, and
missing the
> >main point . . .
>
> This is classic Erlich, I have to say: *I* (Jon) am missing the
main point.
> It couldn't possibly by you, could it? You have read all manner of
> behind-the-scenes nefarious agendas into a post, I read it as a
more
> generalist message, and the only way out is that *I* am whacked.

no, i was the one whacked about that. but you did go on a tangent
there, didn't you?
>
> > i don't -- i used your name as an *example*, and 1/1 as an
*example*.
>
> Maybe, in light of the subject matter at hand, an *unfortunate*
pairing?

why is that? i have very high respect for both your music and for 1/1.

> >i have no need to rehash that with you, but since you've obviously
made
> >your mind about that, let me just close the lid (ahem) on this
with the
> >old platitude, true as ever: "two wrongs don't make one right"
>
> Of course. I'm guessing, as you usually mean, that I am once again
> wrong,

nope, not at all. i guess i continue to fail to express myself
clearly. what i meant was that someone (you say) did wrong to alison;
let's assume that's true. then there's my post, which (in my
insanity) attempted to point out another wrong done my someone else.
that's two wrongs, neither committed by you.

so, sorry about the "madness", apologies to david and to you, and
let's keep trying to communicate better.

anyhow, you've been holding your tongue for some time now, what do
you have to say about the werntz pnm article which you so graciously
sent me?

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> well, i got a little *crazy*. that's for sure!

That may be the *first* time I've seen you admit such a thing! But many of us have been there before...

> > Nonetheless, I saw none of these 'catch phrases';
>
> you just have to take my word for it as a friend. they were there,
> and that's it -- i have no desire to go into it further. i went way
> off the handle as to their significance.

Oh, I don't doubt you might have read something into it. What I was trying to get across is that you were, most likely, the *only* one to see something like that. I can't imagine anyone taking the essay in that particular direction.

> i have no need to go into all the "gossip" and catalogue it in a
> rigorous fashion. can you imagine a bigger waste of time?

My "Fourth of July Pops" rehearsal this morning? :)

> i never said or implied doty was a liar.

Yes, my mis-reading of your point. Sorry.

> no, i was the one whacked about that. but you did go on a tangent
> there, didn't you?

Um, only in either trying to illuminate a point, or because your message was unclear (to me).

> why is that? i have very high respect for both your music and
> for 1/1.

Wow. I thought we were both getting dissed. Ah, hell, it was late...

> nope, not at all. i guess i continue to fail to express myself
> clearly. what i meant was that someone (you say) did wrong to
> alison;
> let's assume that's true. then there's my post, which (in my
> insanity) attempted to point out another wrong done my someone
> else. that's two wrongs, neither committed by you.

Ahhh, OK. I usually think of that phrase being applied to the same party (or a very related party) committing both wrongs, so I certainly didn't follow you. Maybe the opacity is in my brain!

> so, sorry about the "madness", apologies to david and to you, and
> let's keep trying to communicate better.

Totally accepted, no harm done, and I'll work as hard as anyone to be clear as well.

> anyhow, you've been holding your tongue for some time now, what do
> you have to say about the werntz pnm article which you so
> graciously sent me?

Ha ha! You gotta be kidding!!! Seriously, I could add only a little at this point - you and a couple of others covered a lot of what I would have said; the basic gist of "the second part would have been so much stronger without the first" is along these lines, as I mostly took issue with the first.

If I can write both succinctly and cogently about it I will; if not, it may very well come off like Julia-bashing, which would suit no purpose at all, and I don't think she deserves a bashing, no matter how much I might disagree on some of the points.

Cheers,
Jon

2 Paul, etc.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗graham@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@...>