Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Will I ever achieve cult status?

I've been flamed to a crisp by Kraig Grady, who worships at the alter
of Erv Wilson, by X. J. Scott, whose diety seems to be Ivor Darreg,
and by Jon Szanto, who is a Harry Partchian. In taking a look at
these three, I find the following characteristics:

(1) They are all theoreticians or composer/theoreticians or
theoretician/composers.

(2) Both Partch and Darreg had beards. I've never met Erv, but it
wouldn't suprise me.

Now, as a bearded theoretican/composer, I am left to wonder. Do I get
attacked because people don't put me in the same category as their
preferred diety, or because they do? Am I some kind of demonic
theoretician, trying to steer people from the One True Path, or am I
not recognized as a significant theorist at all? Do Paul, Graham or
Dave ever have this problem, and if so, do they have beards?

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>Do Paul, Graham or Dave ever have this problem, and if so,
>do they have beards?

Actually, John deLaubenfels got quite a bit of trouble for
retuning the Classics, and he does have a beard...

http://personalpages.bellsouth.net/j/d/jdelaub/fragMan.jpg

This picture of Dave shows a beard...

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/DK.JPG

...but he may escape by not releasing music. The only pic
I know of Graham shows no beard...

http://x31eq.com/pics/me.jpg

Paul has kept a beard-like thing when I've seen him, and
he's certainly had trouble (look at the description of
this group, for example).

All three sonic artsers have beards, esp. Denny Genovese...

http://sonic-arts.org/ensemble.jpg

Let's not forget Norman Henry...

http://lumma.org/stuff/Norman.jpg

...David Canright...

http://www.redshift.com/~dcanright/davsob.gif

...or the venerable David Doty (left)...

http://www.izzies-sf.org/assets/images/116DotyHudsonJonas.jpg

I myself got back from a hiking trip last week, and haven't
bothered to shave. I'm surprised how well my beard is growing
in this time.

I have not seen Erv with a beard.

But, now that I think about it, prominent microtonalists have
more beards than any group I can think of.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Gene,

Since you had neither the acumen or the class to write me privately about the following, I'll write online. This seems to be the way you want to go.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I've been flamed to a crisp by Kraig Grady, who worships at the alter
> of Erv Wilson, by X. J. Scott, whose diety seems to be Ivor Darreg,
> and by Jon Szanto, who is a Harry Partchian.

I've already deleted a couple of versions of my reply, because I'm trying to be semi-reasonable. For instance, your trivialization of my relationship with Partch (who, for those of us who knew him, was "Harry") is really a personal insult. It won't matter to you, I am sure; that, right there, is just one area where you differ from him. And he wasn't always bearded.

> Do I get
> attacked because people don't put me in the same category as their
> preferred diety, or because they do?

Your megalomania dial must be set to "11". What is pretty astonishing is that what you characterize as "attacks" seems to pretty much boil down to someone disagreeing with you, and refusing to toe the GWS line. The tuning list has become a place of sheep, for the few that still read (I guess). Not much of a range of voices or views, and that is why I'm just not interested anymore. Gene, you've done a great job (along with Carl, and some help from a few others) of chasing away a lot of good people.

It's looking like it may be a small cult. But it could grow in the future - it is possibly something you may want to look into on your web sit.

> Am I some kind of demonic
> theoretician, trying to steer people from the One True Path, or
> am I not recognized as a significant theorist at all?

I don't think you meant that seriously (geez, I got in trouble from you once before for *that* line!), but I'd have the intelligence of a dirt clod if I couldn't recognize at least that much: from all I can tell, and an awful lot of it is either over my head or beyond my interest, you are one of the handful of very weighty and significant tuning theorists to have come down the pike. I very much hope, for your sake and for those that would find it of interest and benefit, that you'll devote a significant amount of time in preparing some of your theoretical work into a cogent documentation, and publish via your web site.

And, very seriously, I would hope you would work with a music editor or some interested reader who stands a bit apart from the mathematical world that you comfortably inhabit, and allow them to assist you in the written manner of the documentation. Your way of describing things is not well suited to lay people, or even to many who have a passing knowledge of these issues, and I think you are a big enough person to accept help from someone. If your papers stay completely in the realm of the technical, you may never reach an audience that you seem to wish to.

> Do Paul, Graham or
> Dave ever have this problem, and if so, do they have beards?

The beard rarely seems to be the problem. It seems to be more a lack of charm or grace.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Hello Gene!
Have i really picked on you that much, i can think of a few instances.
Basically one time in particular when i thought you were pushing something
down someone throat. I think your mathemathical mind has a lot to offer , if
you could apply it to something else besides endless ET's and near ET
matches. Erv does not have a beard and i imagine if you two were in the same
room some good things would come out of it. Your language is overly
mathematical for my true evaluation of everything you do. And basically i
feew l you will probably do something that will pertain to my own path
I am basically a composer who works in a FEW tunings because i wish to
really know my material. I don't come up with alot of theroretical scales
and my post of Erv Work is mainly to prevent others from wasting their time
reinventing the wheel.
Somehow i knew you had a beard.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> I've been flamed to a crisp by Kraig Grady,

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>and by Jon Szanto, who is a Harry Partchian.
>
>I've already deleted a couple of versions of my reply,
>because I'm trying to be semi-reasonable. For instance,
>your trivialization of my relationship with Partch

C'mon, Gene's post wasn't that bad.

>(who, for those of us who knew him, was "Harry") is
>really a personal insult. It won't matter to you, I
>am sure; that, right there, is just one area where
>you differ from him.

Wow, maybe you are a Partch cultist.

>Gene, you've done a great job (along with Carl, and some
>help from a few others) of chasing away a lot of good people.

Is it really like that?

>I don't think you meant that seriously (geez, I got in
>trouble from you once before for *that* line!),

I don't know when you got in trouble for that line, but it
seems you take Gene far more seriously than he is.

>I very much hope, for your sake and for those that would find
>it of interest and benefit, that you'll devote a significant
>amount of time in preparing some of your theoretical work into
>a cogent documentation, and publish via your web site.

Well, I'll second that. You should see what Gene calls
"well documented" maple code!

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> C'mon, Gene's post wasn't that bad.

I wasn't asking you, Carl. I also take it in context of previous exchanges with Gene.

> Wow, maybe you are a Partch cultist.

No, I just knew him as a person - like so many of my friends - who had a warm and congenial spirit in addition to whatever his theoretical skills. It is quite probable that I won't ever feel the way about Gene that I do about Harry, or a myriad of other of my friends, none of whom have established cults.

> Is it really like that?

As a matter of fact, yes.

> I don't know when you got in trouble for that line, but it
> seems you take Gene far more seriously than he is.

No, he was quite taken aback that I wouldn't take him 'seriously'. And told me so in no uncertain terms.

> Well, I'll second that. You should see what Gene calls
> "well documented" maple code!

I'll pass. And that from a guy who not only did QA on software for a few years, but sought out and wrote the author of "Code Complete" because I was almost in tears at how beautifully he covered the subject of documentation.

Well, maybe not in tears... :)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>

> But, now that I think about it, prominent microtonalists have
> more beards than any group I can think of.

I've had a beard for years, but I recently retired the moustache.
Now I have a soul patch with a bit of an extension below it,
and I'll have to update the photos on my website. ;)

I've never known Jon Catler or Meredith Borden to have beards.
Same for Rod Poole. Brad Catler I seem to remember having some
unique facial hair, although I may be wrong.

La Monte Young seems to have had one for decades,
Terry Riley changes his quite a bit. I don't think I've
ever seen Joe Pehrson with a beard.

Call for a thread on hair next, maybe it's the hair....if it's hair,
there must be a tet to match.

* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

> ...but he may escape by not releasing music. The only pic
> I know of Graham shows no beard...
> > http://x31eq.com/pics/me.jpg

I do have a beard, and had it when that picture was taken. The tendency for it to get lost in the shadow under my chin shows that it isn't a very big one. Robert Walker OTOH has a mightily impressive beard -- the kind of thing a small bird could happily nest in. The identity of another bearded UK microtonalist may surprise you, but I'm sworn to secrecy...

> But, now that I think about it, prominent microtonalists have
> more beards than any group I can think of.

UNIX hackers?

Graham

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i believe gene brought it to this forum

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > I wasn't asking you, Carl.
>
> Yes you were -- you posted it to a public discussion forum.
>
> -C.
>
>
> 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/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>

/metatuning/topicId_5097.html#5101

wrote:
> Hello Gene!
> Have i really picked on you that much, i can think of a few
instances.
> Basically one time in particular when i thought you were pushing
something
> down someone throat. I think your mathemathical mind has a lot to
offer , if
> you could apply it to something else besides endless ET's and near
ET
> matches. Erv does not have a beard and i imagine if you two were in
the same
> room some good things would come out of it. Your language is overly
> mathematical for my true evaluation of everything you do. And
basically i
> feew l you will probably do something that will pertain to my own
path
> I am basically a composer who works in a FEW tunings because i
wish to
> really know my material. I don't come up with alot of theroretical
scales
> and my post of Erv Work is mainly to prevent others from wasting
their time
> reinventing the wheel.
> Somehow i knew you had a beard.
>

***I agree wholeheartedly with Kraig's idea of sticking with only a
*few* tunings. I'm sticking with Blackjack myself. Blackjack is, of
course, not an ET, even though it can be described by 72-tET, which
is one of the very few ETs that Kraig seems to remotely tolerate...

I've had trouble growing a decent beard over the years, but my chest
is pretty hairy, so I'm thankful for that much...

J. Pehrson

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>***I agree wholeheartedly with Kraig's idea of sticking with
>only a *few* tunings. I'm sticking with Blackjack myself.

Yeah, these things are so powerful, it would take many
lifetimes to really master them.

>Blackjack is, of course, not an ET, even though it can be
>described by 72-tET, which is one of the very few ETs that
>Kraig seems to remotely tolerate...

It's a simple fact that any scale can be represented as
closely as you like by an ET. Cents are, of course,
1200-et. Kraig et al seem to have some weird mystical
fear of ETs. Don't fall for it!

Gene's given plenty of scales as ratios, if Kraig would
only open his Heart and Receive Them.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I've already deleted a couple of versions of my reply, because I'm
trying to be semi-reasonable. For instance, your trivialization of my
relationship with Partch (who, for those of us who knew him,
was "Harry") is really a personal insult.

Jon, you are proving my point and then some. You can't win this one,
so I suggest you get over it. Unless you were lovers (in which case I
apologize for any insensitivity) you don't have the right to try to
force your relationship with "Harry" onto any comments people may
make about Partch. It's simply silly.

> Your megalomania dial must be set to "11".

Given what you say below about my theoretical work being "weighty and
significant" (and thanks for that), aren't you contradicting
yourself?

>What is pretty astonishing is that what you characterize
as "attacks" seems to pretty much boil down to someone disagreeing
with you, and refusing to toe the GWS line.

No, I mean irrational rantings where people lose it completely and
spittle flies from their lips. Your own eyeballs start to rotate at
times when the sacred words "Harry Partch" are uttered, and Kraig and
Scott are even more over the line. I have a small tolerance for
irrationality, which is my problem.

>The tuning list has become a place of sheep, for the few that still
read (I guess). Not much of a range of voices or views, and that is
why I'm just not interested anymore. Gene, you've done a great job
(along with Carl, and some help from a few others) of chasing away a
lot of good people.

Good for me. How did I manage that--I hadn't noticed? I did see you
leave in a minute and a huff after I posted something, but you've
been telling people you were hanging by a thread anyway.

> It's looking like it may be a small cult.

I have a cult?? Wonders will never cease.

> And, very seriously, I would hope you would work with a music
editor or some interested reader who stands a bit apart from the
mathematical world that you comfortably inhabit, and allow them to
assist you in the written manner of the documentation. Your way of
describing things is not well suited to lay people, or even to many
who have a passing knowledge of these issues, and I think you are a
big enough person to accept help from someone.

I'd be happy if someone could translate what I write from math into
English, but who is going to volunteer?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Hello Gene!

Hi Kraig.

> Have i really picked on you that much,

Not much, but when you do it's a doozy.

I think your mathemathical mind has a lot to offer , if
> you could apply it to something else besides endless ET's and near
ET
> matches.

Do you think, for some reason, I do this more than Erv?

> Somehow i knew you had a beard.

Somehow I knew that also. Keep on composing, and don't let me bug
you.:)

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Dear Carl!
What i like and dislike is based on how the sound strikes me. true i am
mystically bent but Et could fit into some notion of all tones are created
equal. Tunings are something one interacst with and i enjoy them putting up
with their own inclinations, like conversing with a friend you enjoy the
subtlies as you watch them lean this way or that. I started working with ETs
and wanted to stay with them. the sound finally pushed me away toward what i
like.
We all hear the way we do and it takes a long time i think ( maybe i am
just slow) to really realize just what it is i wanted to start with. At 50,
i have a fairly good idea. such things impress upon ourselves by what type
of subsets we extract from a given tuning. my advice is to follow this train
where it leads you. theory be damned for so often we do things we didn't
realize was an acting factor till we can look at it, here theory can be
brought back in to tell us possibly why we did what we did or why we wanted
to. Gene hears differently than i do and i am glad he is investigated the
directions he is. I on the other hand have little interest in others using
the tunings i do, i fact it might make me feel crowded.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >***I agree wholeheartedly with Kraig's idea of sticking with
> >only a *few* tunings. I'm sticking with Blackjack myself.
>
> Yeah, these things are so powerful, it would take many
> lifetimes to really master them.
>
> >Blackjack is, of course, not an ET, even though it can be
> >described by 72-tET, which is one of the very few ETs that
> >Kraig seems to remotely tolerate...
>
> It's a simple fact that any scale can be represented as
> closely as you like by an ET. Cents are, of course,
> 1200-et. Kraig et al seem to have some weird mystical
> fear of ETs. Don't fall for it!
>
> Gene's given plenty of scales as ratios, if Kraig would
> only open his Heart and Receive Them.
>
> -Carl
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Jon, you are proving my point and then some. You can't win this
> one, so I suggest you get over it.

And that is pretty much what it seems to be with you: arguements that are either won or lost, 0 or 1. And what you prefer is that

a. you are right
b. no one questions you

Especially if the questions aren't on the proof of a thoerem or calculation, but something in a more grey area - like musical matters.

Not to mention suggesting *I* get over it. Maybe you need to open your eyes and open your heart to your words and your actions.

> Unless you were lovers (in which case I
> apologize for any insensitivity) you don't have the right to try to
> force your relationship with "Harry" onto any comments people may
> make about Partch. It's simply silly.

Well, once again you can take a relationship, trivialize it, and tell me that I am simply silly. You are saying that if I did not have physical relations with a person then our relationship, and my understanding of them, is neither sufficient nor important enough for me to care about what some poor fool utters about them, and more to the point, care enough to say something. What you want is for everyone to simply shut up and let you go your merry way.

Perfect for sheep.

> > Your megalomania dial must be set to "11".
>
> Given what you say below about my theoretical work being "weighty and
> significant" (and thanks for that), aren't you contradicting
> yourself?

One can have a healthy respect for one's own attribute and contributions without expecting complete subservience from the masses.

> No, I mean irrational rantings where people lose it completely and
> spittle flies from their lips. Your own eyeballs start to rotate at
> times when the sacred words "Harry Partch" are uttered

Gad, you can be such a sensitive person! Your grasp of human nature, and how to effectively communicate are unparalleled. In other words, your way of discussing this is to keep needling about Partch, looking for more rants. Well, Gene, your idea of irrationality is simply my way of putting passionate ideas to voice and word. It is messy, it is inexact, but it is about how I feel and what I know.

It is much easier for you, I imagine, to stay in that world of calculations and tunings, and probably why rendered versions of music, with the human interaction drained from them, pleases you just fine. I don't know for sure, and I've gone beyond caring (I think).

The bottom line is you don't ever show the same degree of courtesy, or the same effort to understand another, as what I have tried to do with you. It is simply "you're not looking at it my way, so you need to get over it". Bullshit.

> Good for me. How did I manage that--I hadn't noticed?

Because you don't care to look or notice.

> I'd be happy if someone could translate what I write from math into
> English, but who is going to volunteer?

I would not have a clue.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Well, once again you can take a relationship, trivialize it, and
tell me that I am simply silly. You are saying that if I did not have
physical relations with a person then our relationship, and my
understanding of them, is neither sufficient nor important enough for
me to care about what some poor fool utters about them, and more to
the point, care enough to say something. What you want is for
everyone to simply shut up and let you go your merry way.

I am saying that unless it was something more than friendship, you
have no right to get into people's face whenever the name "Harry
Partch" is mentioned. I had a friend in high school who is now very
famous indeed. If I acted like you everytime someone spoke his name
in a less than reverential tone, (something which happens fairly
regularly--my old pal truly is very famous) I would be constantly
playing the fool. I have no doubt that your friendship with Harry was
both closer and longer than mine with my high school bud, but I did
call him by his diminutive, spent lots and lots of time in his
company, and all that blah. It does not give me any rights whatsoever
to get in people's face.

> Perfect for sheep.

Baaa.

> > > Your megalomania dial must be set to "11".
> >
> > Given what you say below about my theoretical work being "weighty
and
> > significant" (and thanks for that), aren't you contradicting
> > yourself?
>
> One can have a healthy respect for one's own attribute and
contributions without expecting complete subservience from the masses.

It seems to me the masses spend a lot of time kicking my butt.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I am saying that unless it was something more than friendship, you
> have no right to get into people's face whenever the name "Harry
> Partch" is mentioned.

My 'right' is an ongoing relationship with what he created and what he believed in. If I see people, either willfully or through sheer ignorance, misappropriating his ideas or portraying his work in a false light, I have every right to speak to that matter. If you don't like it, frankly, tough shit.

> I would be constantly playing the fool.

And there again you show that you have no respect for my thoughts on the matter, much as you show no respect to people who come to the table carrying musical tools as opposed to mathematical tools.

Disrespectful. That is what I was looking for earlier in the evening... You find it so difficult to show any respect to non-scientific... contributors.

> It seems to me the masses spend a lot of time kicking my butt.

These days it may only be me. And you have all the physicists and mathematicians on your side, and I don't see anyone lining up behind me. But drawing lines in the sand and choosing sides is, or should be, beneath both of us.

I am going to take a little time to think about what to do. I don't doubt there will be more messages dribble in, but I'm going to have to resist the urge to answer unless I feel really attacked. I've lost a great deal, if not all faith, in the tuning community I've been a part of for many years. It isn't a pleasant set of thoughts, but it is a pretty big world out there, and maybe it is time I realized my priorities.

Regards,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > I have a small tolerance for irrationality, which is my
> > problem.
>
>I really think you are projecting something divorced from
>reality. broad accusations are the height of irrationality

I'd heard, maybe in the movies, about people who believe
things they know to be false. I didn't believe anyone
could actually do it in real life. But I've seen it enough
now (not necessarily anyone here) to finally admit that it
must be happening. So I don't think Gene's projecting. I
think there really are willfully irrational people out there.
And they should be studied, to see if any useful substances
can be extracted from them.

-Carl

Will I ever achieve cult status?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>