Re: the MMM/Tuning List distinction.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> I'm getting a little disturbed, however, that the Tuning List vibe
of
> math/theory issues is becoming the prevalent 'gestalt' even over
here on MMM,
> where I used to love to come for a breath of non-technical fresh
air,
> right-brained intuitive thinking, sharing of works, aesthetics, etc.

Since one topic leads to another and since the boundries are fuzzy,
trying to hermetically seal off MMM from discussions of tuning theory
won't work. The porous nature of boundries is shown in this very
posting, which really more properly belonged on metatuning, not MMM.
Some degree of tolerance for the overlap would be a good idea, I
think.

> I'd almost propose the insane (or is it--it might be a wonderful
change)
> solution of a composition-only list (I thought MMM would be that
candidate),
> a theory-only list, and a hardware/software discussion list.

This supposes that composition has nothing to do with theory and
neither has anything to do with computers, and that isn't true.

Again, I admit a problem with drawing the line, but I
> woud say as soon as the terminology of 'ennalimmeal', 'monzos'
and 'vals'
> pops up on MMM, I feel MMM is no longer MMM.

I suppose you could start a Yahoo group called nogene or something,
where any term I have coined was not allowed to be uttered by anyone,
especially me. Then again, why is it theory and evil to talk about
ennealimmal, but acceptable to talk about 5 or 19 equal? Where is the
line to be drawn between which tunings we may discuss and which
tunings we may not discuss?

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Since one topic leads to another and since the boundries are fuzzy,
> trying to hermetically seal off MMM from discussions of tuning theory
> won't work.

Hermetically seal off, true; self-control can clear up some of the fuzziness, I am sure.

> Some degree of tolerance for the overlap would be a good idea, I
> think.

Yes, a degree. But not any more than that.

> This supposes that composition has nothing to do with theory and
> neither has anything to do with computers, and that isn't true.

That doesn't mean restraint can't be employed by reasonable correspondents.

> Where is the
> line to be drawn between which tunings we may discuss and which
> tunings we may not discuss?

The 'line' pertains to not theory, but usage. There is not doubt a difficult task in store to keep a narrow but important focus on the list, and I have indicated that I will try to post specifically to that matter. In the meantime, many people seem to have forgotten the simple preamble to MMM, as stated on the home page, that was devised by myself, with help from Margo Schulter and Jacky Ligon, when we started MMM:

"Welcome to Making Microtonal Music, a forum dedicated specifically to the act of making microtonal music based on, or departing from, a rich assortment of world traditions, styles, tuning systems, and theoretical approaches. As our name suggests, our special focus is on the creation of new music, with mutual encouragement and enthusiasm as we share passages, pieces, and bits of supportive criticism or lively dialogue.

Two keynotes of our group are concreteness and civility: keeping discussions closely related to the actual creation of new music, and keeping them friendly.

Other forums provide for general discussions of philosophy, theory, and music history in various cultures; we strive to keep similar remarks reasonably related to actual new passages, pieces, or planned works. We also favor short, on-topic posts, in contrast to the longer or more "academic-style" articles welcomed in other forums.

Keeping it friendly doesn't exclude frank criticism, especially when sought, or even a free clash of ideas, so long as mutual respect between people is maintained (see our Forum Guidelines for more information). To sum up our general approach:

Respect people
Share music and enthusiasm
Exchange ideas
Create!"

Regards,
Jon