A non-political post: music on tuning

Gang,

I thought I would just mention something non-political for a moment.

In the last couple of days, on the main tuning list, two people posted msgs about new music (Herman Miller and Prent Rodgers). PR got precisely zero comments, HM got a handful of msgs, all of which were about nonclemature, terms, usage, etc. Of the essentially 700 members (on 'paper' at least) on that list, _no_one_ was interested enough in the music to even remark about it one way or another.

(Yes, I am aware of the discussion on MMM about PR, but even there it was only a few people, who most certainly are tuning members, but that is also out of only 200 people).

It is a truly rhetorical question, but does anyone on the tuning list, save for a ridiculously small number of people, actually like music? I note that no one, including people who most certainly must live in the greater (or lesser) Los Angeles area saw fit to attend and comment on any of the Microthon concerts so far, nor the recent Anaphorian productions.

I am getting to be just about out of steam with the energy of this segment of the world. The lack of focus on music has been derided in the past, usually in a bombastic and exagerated manner. But with the exception of a flurry of activity from time to time on MMM, it appears that music making, and music listening, is pretty much dead in the water in the online microtonal world.

Maybe I'm catching it at a wrong time, but I don't think so. I've got time during the next six weeks to work on some music, so I won't be carping without creating. But I'm starting to feel like a sucker, and life is too short for that.

I'd love to be completely erroneous about this.

Cheers,
Jon

Hey Jonathan!
I admit that allot of time i try to download music links late at night cause i still have a dial up connection. sometimes i fail to comment the next day. Possibly it is my age , but much prefer to listen to an actual CD of music , even if it is a CDr as i do not have my computer hooked up to good speakers and at least a Cd i can crank up , put on repeat, what have you.
I happen to miss Bill Alves concert due to my own rehearsals and Schnieder's concert included the premiere of his harmonic canon built by Hackelman ( who is now living in the house next to Erv) I was quite struck by the volume of it, which from memory seemed to be louder than the original (but not as good as Forster's of course). John S has a good feel for the instrument too and was able to
get add some other really hot shot percussion players
The partch was great and they are doing it again next week and i have heard Castor and Pollux so many times with Erin playing it that It is hard for me to comment on it. I believe he has plans for the cloud chamber bowls next. ( it turns out that these bowls now cost $500 each so if every one on the tuning list sends him 10, he will be in good shape.

I have been meaning to comment on one of the high points of the concert which was an extract form a large work called

Pattern of Plants
Mamoru Fujieda
It is released as
Tzadik TZ 7025

This was some of the most beautiful microtonal music i have heard and went out and bought it the next day. Even though i enjoyed the live better, i find this really important microtonal music in that it is truly unique voice. Why this 7 year old CD has not be mentioned repeatedly before is a unforgivable. It probably has but missed it.

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Gang,
>
> I thought I would just mention something non-political for a moment.
>
> In the last couple of days, on the main tuning list, two people posted msgs about new music (Herman Miller and Prent Rodgers). PR got precisely zero comments, HM got a handful of msgs, all of which were about nonclemature, terms, usage, etc. Of the essentially 700 members (on 'paper' at least) on that list, _no_one_ was interested enough in the music to even remark about it one way or another.
>
> (Yes, I am aware of the discussion on MMM about PR, but even there it was only a few people, who most certainly are tuning members, but that is also out of only 200 people).
>
> It is a truly rhetorical question, but does anyone on the tuning list, save for a ridiculously small number of people, actually like music? I note that no one, including people who most certainly must live in the greater (or lesser) Los Angeles area saw fit to attend and comment on any of the Microthon concerts so far, nor the recent Anaphorian productions.
>
> I am getting to be just about out of steam with the energy of this segment of the world. The lack of focus on music has been derided in the past, usually in a bombastic and exagerated manner. But with the exception of a flurry of activity from time to time on MMM, it appears that music making, and music listening, is pretty much dead in the water in the online microtonal world.
>
> Maybe I'm catching it at a wrong time, but I don't think so. I've got time during the next six weeks to work on some music, so I won't be carping without creating. But I'm starting to feel like a sucker, and life is too short for that.
>
> I'd love to be completely erroneous about this.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gang,
>
> I thought I would just mention something non-political for a moment.
>
> In the last couple of days, on the main tuning list, two people
>posted msgs about new music (Herman Miller and Prent Rodgers). PR
>got precisely zero comments, HM got a handful of msgs, all of which
>were about nonclemature, terms, usage, etc. Of the essentially 700
>members (on 'paper' at least) on that list, _no_one_ was interested
>enough in the music to even remark about it one way or another.

I did, but I guess it was after you posted this. I didn't see this
post of yours -- honest! It's also lucky that I was able to actually
listen to the music on the computer here, which is not always
possible for me.

I'm surprised no one else commented. But then again, what *has* been
posted to the tuning list lately? Virtually nothing.

> It is a truly rhetorical question, but does anyone on the tuning
>list, save for a ridiculously small number of people, actually like
>music?

I'm glad it's rhetorical, because it's absurd.

>I note that no one, including people who most certainly must live in
>the greater (or lesser) Los Angeles area saw fit to attend and
>comment on any of the Microthon concerts so far,

The only Microthons I'm aware of took place in NY in 1999 and 2000.
What did I miss?

> I am getting to be just about out of steam with the energy of this
>segment of the world. The lack of focus on music has been derided in
>the past, usually in a bombastic and exagerated manner. But with the
>exception of a flurry of activity from time to time on MMM, it
>appears that music making, and music listening, is pretty much dead
>in the water in the online microtonal world.

Maybe you're right. I happen to think you're looking at it through a
skewed lens, and I and others have been trying to point this out to
you for years, but apparently to no avail. Certain things are easy to
discuss and debate online. The ineffabilities of music appreciation
and music-making are not. I, for one, have been accused of
prioritizing theory above practice, of being a non-musician, etc. on
these lists. Anyone who knows me in "real life", including the dozens
of fine musicians (check out Ann Feeney and Chris Chandler, for
example) I just got to know the last two weeks at the Kerrville Folk
Festival, would laugh out loud at such accusations. The fact is (and
I'm sure this applies to a great many of the other members) that
there's a great wide world of music making out there, much of it
microtonal if anyone cares to measure it, and this goes on just fine
without any internet discussion lists. But if you want to discuss
this or that aspect of microtonal theory, chances are you won't find
many people in your home town to have such conversations over coffee
with. It's a very rarefied field and the kind of thing these lists
are ideal, if not unique, for. Music making and listening -- at least
at this point in time -- can and does go on with little to no reason
to show itself on any of these discussion groups. IMO.

> Maybe I'm catching it at a wrong time, but I don't think so. I've
>got time during the next six weeks to work on some music, so I won't
>be carping without creating. But I'm starting to feel like a sucker,
>and life is too short for that.

A sucker? How?

Paul,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> I did, but I guess it was after you posted this. I didn't see this
> post of yours -- honest!

Oh, I know, you were out of town (doing music) - you get a free
pass. :)

> I'm surprised no one else commented. But then again, what *has*
been
> posted to the tuning list lately? Virtually nothing.

1. You shouldn't have been surprised.
2. Even when volume ebbs, the focus remains pretty much the same.

> I'm glad it's rhetorical, because it's absurd.

No it isn't (absurd). It is embarassing how a group that is
(supposedly) 700 members strong can neglect music by one of the few
people that regularly contributes to a body of microtonal
compositions.

> The only Microthons I'm aware of took place in NY in 1999 and 2000.
> What did I miss?

Sorry, wrong term, though I'm sure you could figure it out:
Micro*Fest*. At least three concerts so far in the last few weeks,
including Bill Alves' group, and Kraig Grady's Anaphorian shadow play
of a couple weeks ago.

> Maybe you're right. I happen to think you're looking at it through
> a skewed lens

I'm observing what goes on. And I contrast this lack of interest in
the music with what I see on other music lists, not simply because it
is a Szantonian position, but because it is what will keep any of
this microtonal stuff in the niche-like realm it has pretty much
always inhabited.

> I, for one, have been accused of prioritizing theory above practice

Do note that I would not be including you, as you frequently comment
on new pieces.

> A sucker? How?

For thinking that applying positive energy and trying to increase
resources could possibly take some of that theoretic and research-
oriented interest and channel it into fruition in music.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> but because it is what will keep any of
> this microtonal stuff in the niche-like realm it has pretty much
> always inhabited.

Microtonal stuff is everywhere. Ray Bonneville's set at Kerrville's
main stage was largely free of any 12-equal shackles whatsoever. His
slide guitar, harmonica, and voice were completely free to go
wherever they wanted, pitch-wise, and they went. Listening to rap
artist Nas in the car, you'd have to be tone deaf (as one of our
correspondents is fond of saying) to miss all the microtonality.

> > A sucker? How?
>
> For thinking that applying positive energy and trying to increase
> resources could possibly take some of that theoretic and research-
> oriented interest and channel it into fruition in music.

I sincerely hope you won't give up on your selfless efforts. But I
don't see how the "sucker" label could possibly fit. Who suckered you
into what? Maybe you need to let go of some kind of expectation.

When music is good and ready to speak, it will speak. Real music says
something, and the real musician is compelled to get it said. Trying
to get it to speak prematurely is going to get us nothing more
than "music" with nothing to say. Anyhow, the theoretic and research-
oriented interest in *tuning* is necessarily very far from leading to
actual creation of music, just as any theoretic and research-oriented
interest in color theory is very far away from leading to actual
painting. The kind of "fruition" you're working towards is a worthy
goal, but it's far from being that simple. Could it in fact be a
better thing for the art if the true impetus to create comes from an
artist's own soul, and is not imposed or expected from without? In
other words, I think the best kind of "ListMom" would give her kids
lots of toys and let them play, without expecting any mature,
artistic results for 5, 10, 15 years . . . I don't know, sorry for
rambling . . .

Paul,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Microtonal stuff is everywhere.

Intentional microtonality. What you point out isn't understood as
non12, simply decoration.

> Maybe you need to let go of some kind of expectation.

Yeah, I shouldn't want things to be better than they are. Set my
standards lower. That should work.

> Trying
> to get it to speak prematurely is going to get us nothing more
> than "music" with nothing to say.

It isn't premature - it has been 30 years since Harry Partch died,
for goodness sake (just pulling a convenient reference out). Things
could be absolutely blooming, and there is no reason why an online
tuning community couldn't be a shining catalyst for a world of newly
created art. I've seen it happen in other places. But it isn't wanted
here.

> Anyhow, the theoretic and research-
> oriented interest in *tuning* is necessarily very far from leading
to
> actual creation of music.

And the more ingrained that is, the less important any consideration
of music becomes. It needn't be fostered, or attended to. One simply
can turn away from the hall, venues, and loudspeakers, and turn back
to the pursuit of tunings, pristine and unencumbered by sound.

I, too, am rambling...

Cheers,
Jon

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

> It isn't premature - it has been 30 years since Harry Partch died,
> for goodness sake (just pulling a convenient reference out). Things
> could be absolutely blooming, and there is no reason why an online
> tuning community couldn't be a shining catalyst for a world of newly
> created art. I've seen it happen in other places. But it isn't wanted
> here.

There's been lots of new music created by denizens of these fora--it
is coming at a much faster rate than 30 years ago.

> > Anyhow, the theoretic and research-
> > oriented interest in *tuning* is necessarily very far from leading
> to
> > actual creation of music.
>
> And the more ingrained that is, the less important any consideration
> of music becomes.

Yeah, that's right. Tuning theorists are destrutive of music. Paul
destroys it all the time with his 22-et axe, and I nuke it with my
out-of-tune 12-equal music.

It needn't be fostered, or attended to. One simply
> can turn away from the hall, venues, and loudspeakers, and turn back
> to the pursuit of tunings, pristine and unencumbered by sound.
>
> I, too, am rambling...

Ramble away, but try to make sense.

Hi Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> There's been lots of new music created by denizens of these fora--it
> is coming at a much faster rate than 30 years ago.

"Lots" is a pretty relative term. In the same time period that I've
been watching recently, on and in other fora I've seen a lot more
music. But since want me to "make sense" (see below), just scan back
over the tuning messages you probably have covering the last year or
two or three. Count up those that deal with a new piece of music and
discussion thereof, and count the others. It is something one can
certainly ignore, just as the music can be ignored.

> Yeah, that's right. Tuning theorists are destrutive of music. Paul
> destroys it all the time with his 22-et axe, and I nuke it with my
> out-of-tune 12-equal music.

You can make this personal if you want (though, darn it, I wish you
wouldn't), but I already made it clear to Paul that he was an
exception, and I've made that same sentiment clear to you on a number
of occasions. Absolutely irrespective of how any one person may feel
about your compositions, you remain one of the few and prolific
members of the online community. So there is absolutely no need to
take umbrage, and no explanation for overlooking the converse: the
dearth of music and interest thereof.

The *only* person that even commented on the lack of interest in a
piece by Prent, and the utter lack of any mention of live concerts of
microtonal music in the Los Angeles area, from a group that is
apparantly near 700 in number, shows very well the priority.

> Ramble away, but try to make sense.

It makes sense if you care.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> "Lots" is a pretty relative term. In the same time period that I've
> been watching recently, on and in other fora I've seen a lot more
> music. But since want me to "make sense" (see below), just scan back
> over the tuning messages you probably have covering the last year or
> two or three. Count up those that deal with a new piece of music and
> discussion thereof, and count the others. It is something one can
> certainly ignore, just as the music can be ignored.

This makes some sense as a complaint for MMM, but hardly for the other
lists.

> You can make this personal if you want (though, darn it, I wish you
> wouldn't), but I already made it clear to Paul that he was an
> exception, and I've made that same sentiment clear to you on a number
> of occasions. Absolutely irrespective of how any one person may feel
> about your compositions, you remain one of the few and prolific
> members of the online community. So there is absolutely no need to
> take umbrage, and no explanation for overlooking the converse: the
> dearth of music and interest thereof.

But you aren't drawing any conclusions from this. You want to support
a claim that tuning theory is inimical to music, and the theory runs
aground on the shoals of fact.

> The *only* person that even commented on the lack of interest in a
> piece by Prent, and the utter lack of any mention of live concerts of
> microtonal music in the Los Angeles area, from a group that is
> apparantly near 700 in number, shows very well the priority.

Yes, well, I pointed out that people seemed to be burned out when I
remarked that no one had commented on my Bodiacious Breed piece except
Graham. I seem to recall you did not take that very seriously then,
and said you'd not commented yourself merely because the stylizing was
too crude, and you didn't want to be negative. I still think there are
signs of burnout, and that includes *both* theory and practice.

> > Ramble away, but try to make sense.
>
> It makes sense if you care.

Caring is not enough.

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> This makes some sense as a complaint for MMM, but hardly for the
other
> lists.

In this you aren't just wrong, it is indicative of an attitude. To
not put too fine a point on it, MMM was created (after a short-lived
list with a similar agenda) to put a focus on the creation and
sharing of microtonal music. There wouldn't have ever been a need for
it if the original tuning list had cared about music. You joined a
couple of years ago and have insisted that it is a theory list, which
was a restriction that, oddly enough, only tuning theorists seemed to
want.

Since it makes "some sense", should we take your statement that you
actually prefer the other lists to be free of music?

> But you aren't drawing any conclusions from this.

Hey, I most certainly am. I thought it was obvious, and not recent,
either.

> You want to support
> a claim that tuning theory is inimical to music, and the theory runs
> aground on the shoals of fact.

*No*, that the tuning list is not conducive to the fostering of
music, and that there must be something about the people - out of the
vast number - that choose to post, and the manner that they do it,
that has a reductive effect on the desire to compose/share/listen to
music.

I understand the need, and the nature, of developments in our
understanding of tuning. What I don't understand is why it is so
often proudly implied that music is a poor afterthought to the theory.

> I seem to recall you did not take that very seriously then...

I apologize if I appeared to not take it seriously, because I don't
think there is anything quite as naked as sharing something one
creates. And my comments to you may have been badly attempting to
cover other contingencies, as I recall that came during a
particularly harrowing period for me (personally).

> > It makes sense if you care.
>
> Caring is not enough.

Meaning that you have to care enough to think about what I am saying.
This may be one of the cases where we won't come to any agreement,
which is fine. Besides, if you cared you could always say "that
doesn't make sense to me".

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > Microtonal stuff is everywhere.
>
> Intentional microtonality. What you point out isn't understood as
> non12, simply decoration.

I beg to differ. In the strongest of terms! Any "understanding" of
deep blues music, as presented by Ray Bonneville for example, as "12
with decoration", is a badly Eurocentric and awfully
shallow "understanding" indeed. This is the kind of analysis that,
when it works its way into our schools, leads 99% of musicians to
come out tacitly assuming that 12-equal is the "natural" tuning.
Truly tragic, and not something I'm pleased to see you buying into,
Jon!

But my highest regards to you anyway, Jon. Now, I'm off to Spain for
a week . . .

> > Maybe you need to let go of some kind of expectation.
>
> Yeah, I shouldn't want things to be better than they are. Set my
> standards lower. That should work.

Never mind.

> > Trying
> > to get it to speak prematurely is going to get us nothing more
> > than "music" with nothing to say.
>
> It isn't premature - it has been 30 years since Harry Partch died,
> for goodness sake (just pulling a convenient reference out). Things
> could be absolutely blooming, and there is no reason why an online
> tuning community couldn't be a shining catalyst for a world of
newly
> created art. I've seen it happen in other places. But it isn't
wanted
> here.

It isn't *wanted*???? Are you *sure* this is how everyone -- or even
ANYONE -- feels?

> > Anyhow, the theoretic and research-
> > oriented interest in *tuning* is necessarily very far from
leading
> to
> > actual creation of music.
>
> And the more ingrained that is, the less important any
consideration
> of music becomes.

Huh?

> I, too, am rambling...

Oh, well that explains it :)

Have a great week!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > This makes some sense as a complaint for MMM, but hardly for the
> other
> > lists.
>
> In this you aren't just wrong, it is indicative of an attitude.

Blame it on Mark Nowitzky. He described it as a theory list--a list
for exchanging ideas. Blame it also on Jon Szanto--he had created
another group, with an explicitly different purpose.

> Since it makes "some sense", should we take your statement that you
> actually prefer the other lists to be free of music?

No. Even tuning-math gets some from time to time.

> *No*, that the tuning list is not conducive to the fostering of
> music, and that there must be something about the people - out of the
> vast number - that choose to post, and the manner that they do it,
> that has a reductive effect on the desire to compose/share/listen to
> music.

Most people there are posting neither words nor music. Why blame the
ones who are? This is that negativity thing you've got going
again--someone makes a contribution, so flame them.

> I apologize if I appeared to not take it seriously, because I don't
> think there is anything quite as naked as sharing something one
> creates. And my comments to you may have been badly attempting to
> cover other contingencies, as I recall that came during a
> particularly harrowing period for me (personally).

Sorry to hear that. :(

Paul,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> I beg to differ. In the strongest of terms! Any "understanding" of
> deep blues music, as presented by Ray Bonneville for example,
as "12
> with decoration", is a badly Eurocentric and awfully
> shallow "understanding" indeed. This is the kind of analysis that,
> when it works its way into our schools, leads 99% of musicians to
> come out tacitly assuming that 12-equal is the "natural" tuning.
> Truly tragic, and not something I'm pleased to see you buying into,
> Jon!

I think we are probably viewing it similarly, Paul. I don't know Ray
Bonneville at all, and would look forward to hearing it. I am well
aware that the roots of blues is based not on European values but
African ones, both spiritually and intonationally. But do you refer
to blues as microtonal or xenharmonic music? When blues is
accompanied by a traditional guitar, do we consider it's intonation
practically straining to escape the prison cell of the 12tet
fretting, or are the pulls of the strings and vocal lines
embellishments to 12tet tuning?

If the only point was that there is microtonal music in the world, I
couldn't agree more.

> Now, I'm off to Spain for a week . . .

Aw, man, what fun. Have a great time (and be safe...)!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why it is so
> often proudly implied that music is a poor afterthought to the
>theory.

???
Proudly implied?
By whom?

this has been contested in that it is documented that there was a oriental
circus that went through the areas of the blues origin that it is believed
might have had an influence on the string playing. It would explain why
much shamisen music sounds so blues like.

Likewise the native american drumming in the parks in New orleans is
believed to have influence upon the beat one find in early dixieland. I
have heard very little african music that resembles this beat.

Jon Szanto wrote:

> I am well
> aware that the roots of blues is based not on European values but
> African ones, both spiritually and intonationally.
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>

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

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > Gene,
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> > > This makes some sense as a complaint for MMM, but hardly for
the
> > other
> > > lists.
> >
> > In this you aren't just wrong, it is indicative of an attitude.
>
> Blame it on Mark Nowitzky. He described it as a theory list--a list
> for exchanging ideas.

The decription was there, sent to each new subscriber on the Mills
tuning list, long before Mark copied it over onto its current
incarnation. He's hardly to blame.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > I beg to differ. In the strongest of terms! Any "understanding"
of
> > deep blues music, as presented by Ray Bonneville for example,
> as "12
> > with decoration", is a badly Eurocentric and awfully
> > shallow "understanding" indeed. This is the kind of analysis
that,
> > when it works its way into our schools, leads 99% of musicians to
> > come out tacitly assuming that 12-equal is the "natural" tuning.
> > Truly tragic, and not something I'm pleased to see you buying
into,
> > Jon!
>
> I think we are probably viewing it similarly, Paul. I don't know
Ray
> Bonneville at all, and would look forward to hearing it. I am well
> aware that the roots of blues is based not on European values but
> African ones, both spiritually and intonationally. But do you refer
> to blues as microtonal or xenharmonic music?

I don't care much for labels. All I know is that sometimes it's far
more microtonal or xenharmonic than music that explicitly goes under
those names. Just because it's part of an "oral" tradition, rather
than proceeding from some precisely pre-defined tuning system,
shouldn't make it less worthy of consideration.

> When blues is
> accompanied by a traditional guitar,

In this case, it was a slide guitar, tuned very close to an open JI
chord, and stopped by a slide without any constraint to be on or near
a fret -- the frets are largely irrelevant here. When fretted notes
were used, they usually occured against a chord with slide positioned
significantly *away* from a fret.

> Likewise the native american drumming in the parks in New
> orleans is believed to have influence upon the beat one
> find in early dixieland.

I've read this also. Well, not with dixieland per se.

Clearly jazz and its kin are best considered *American*
musics.

-Carl

Paul,

Hey, I thought you were leaving for Spain?! I stopped writing as soon
as I saw that!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> I don't care much for labels.

Like "the middle path"? :)

> All I know is that sometimes it's far
> more microtonal or xenharmonic than music that explicitly goes
under
> those names.

Than _some_ music? Certainly not _all_? And this music gets neither
discussed nor studied (except for Monz!) on the list. I'm not trying
to label it, any more than saying the tuning list is about
alternative tunings and music.

> Just because it's part of an "oral" tradition, rather
> than proceeding from some precisely pre-defined tuning system,
> shouldn't make it less worthy of consideration.

Gad no! You have completely miscontrued my thoughts. Don't forget,
*I'm* the one lamenting the lack of music on the list.

> In this case, it was a slide guitar...

Right, I assumed as much. This kind of blues I am familiar with (not
to mention a lot of blues players in the SW).

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > Likewise the native american drumming in the parks in New
> > orleans is believed to have influence upon the beat one
> > find in early dixieland.
>
> I've read this also. Well, not with dixieland per se.

I think what I refered to was the initial roots of the blues, which I
have come to understand came from the work songs sung in the fields.
Being that the slaves were not allowed instruments, I would imagine
the drumming came later, but the vocal inflections, carried with them
as well as their voices, began to shape what became the blues.

This isn't even remotely my field of expertise, so I defer mostly.

> Clearly jazz and its kin are best considered *American*
> musics.

Clearly *jazz*. I guess the blues is probably mostly from this soil
as well. But if we do have one music we can truly claim, it's jazz.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> > Blame it on Mark Nowitzky. He described it as a theory list--a list
> > for exchanging ideas.
>
> The decription was there, sent to each new subscriber on the Mills
> tuning list, long before Mark copied it over onto its current
> incarnation. He's hardly to blame.

If the list is and always has been primarily a theory list, what is
Jon's point? Jon?

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> If the list is and always has been primarily a theory list, what is
> Jon's point? Jon?

Read the introduction, as posted on the home page:

"This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate musical tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings;
experimental instrument design; non-standard equal temperaments; MIDI
tuning-system specs; concert postings; gamelan tunings and other non-
western tunings; historical tunings; the experimental tunings of
Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Martin Bartlett, James Tenney, and so on;
software reports; recordings; books; research sources, etcetera."

Please note two words that do not appear anywhere in the
above: "theory" and "music". Both are "relevant to alternate musical
tunings" (but do note that it says _musical_ tunings), and I think
that the ultimate tuning-oriented list would favor both.

Cheers,
Jon