The JI as religion controversy

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> Statements like this is what keeps the argument going. When the
issue of it being
> religious is brought into the picture, what follows is a witchunt. (
as usual ,
> there are no witches)

Who is doing the hunting?

> as a point of reference 19 sounds absolutely terrible to my ear. i
have already
> stated how i have actually used instruments in 31.

Claiming that 19 verges on JI simply because it has excellent minor
thirds does not make a lot of sense to me, and I agree that 31 sounds
better, to me, than 19--though I don't find 19 terrible.

As meantone systems, 19 is close to 1/3-comma, and 31 to 1/4-comma.
The difference is audible and significant. It makes sense to take
fractions of a comma and subtract them from the fifth, and compare the
resulting systems to 5-limit JI and to each other. Where I bail out
and agree that the distinction has become conceptual is when it is
assumed this is always the case with JI vs temperament comparisons.

The atomic temperament is 12 EDO plus adjustments by a tempered
schisma. Just as with meantone and the fifth+Didymus comma, we can
take the schisma of 32805/32768 and sharpen it by a fraction of the
atom of Kirnberger. Since this process looks just like what we do in
the case of meantone, it is tempting to put it into the same
conceptual box, and wonder about the difference between 1/11-atom
atomic temperament, the minimax 3/32-atom atomic temperament, the rms
value of 43/456-atom temperament, and of the difference between all of
these and just intonation. But this makes no sense, since all of the
above, and 0-atom atomic for that matter, sound the exactly the same.
It's when people *still* want to make a big deal out the difference
that I might become frustrated and claim the argument had turned
religious--especially if passionate denunciations follow. Passionate
denunciations make no sense, really, unless there is something more
than tuning at stake.

Gene,

First off, thanks for immediately moving this to metatuning, I really
appreciate it. I hope Aaron will read this (he seems to be here
frequently).

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > Statements like this is what keeps the argument going. When the
> issue of it being
> > religious is brought into the picture, what follows is a
witchunt. (
> as usual ,
> > there are no witches)
>
> Who is doing the hunting?

I believe Kraig's point is clear, or at the very least it was clear
to me: all it takes for matters of opinion to become conflated into
unhelpful confrontational noise is the mention of "religion". This is
made all the worse when Aaron inserts his own personal preference
against any religion. None of this is helpful in the least.

> The atomic temperament is 12 EDO plus adjustments by a tempered
> schisma. Just as with meantone and the fifth+Didymus comma, we can
> take the schisma of 32805/32768 and sharpen it by a fraction of the
> atom of Kirnberger. Since this process looks just like what we do in
> the case of meantone, it is tempting to put it into the same
> conceptual box, and wonder about the difference between 1/11-atom
> atomic temperament, the minimax 3/32-atom atomic temperament, the
rms
> value of 43/456-atom temperament, and of the difference between all
of
> these and just intonation.

I would be curious, *really* curious, as to how many people you think
can follow and completely understand the above descriptory passage
(gad, is "descriptory" a word?).

> It's when people *still* want to make a big deal out the difference
> that I might become frustrated and claim the argument had turned
> religious--especially if passionate denunciations follow. Passionate
> denunciations make no sense, really, unless there is something more
> than tuning at stake.

Is art passionate? Is it possible for the creation of music or music-
like structures could be considered by some as "more [important] than
tuning"?

I guess I still find it hard, if not impossible, to understand why
many people in the tuning community simply cannot conceive of an
individual having personal reasons for choosing their
creative/constructional materials, and leave it at that. No one
should have to validate their choice of a tuning. No one should have
to - unless asked for, or implied as such - listen to numerous
suggestions of what tuning they could/should have used.

The number and use of tunings is infinite. I can see, and am always
interested in, the appropriate use of a tuning (or set of tunings)
for a music that is of those tunings (historical precedents,
cultural/traditional usage, philosophical choices). If two, or three,
or many tunings end up having no aural difference in their end
result, it may seem that it is not important which of those tunings a
composer would use. But I happen to believe that the choice of a
tuning has more in it than simply what it will sound like in the end.
If it embodies one system of methodology as opposed to another, and
the composer feels some kinship, inspiration, creative energy, from
that system, they should be free to utilize it and not face a
constant barrage of what it could/should have been.

I think the constant reiteration of this topic - what many would call
the tuning wars - is possibly defined as one of the many small cells
of activity that lie at the intersection of art and science.

And lastly, I'm really weary of this. It is a big energy drain, and
it sends more people away than it draws in. I think it is one of the
biggest, if not *the* biggest, failures of the online microtonal
community. I find it all very unfortunate.

Regards,
Jon

On Sunday 13 June 2004 12:57 pm, Jon Szanto wrote:
> Gene,
>
> First off, thanks for immediately moving this to metatuning, I really
> appreciate it. I hope Aaron will read this (he seems to be here
> frequently).

> I believe Kraig's point is clear, or at the very least it was clear
> to me: all it takes for matters of opinion to become conflated into
> unhelpful confrontational noise is the mention of "religion". This is
> made all the worse when Aaron inserts his own personal preference
> against any religion. None of this is helpful in the least.

Well, now that were in metatuning, I can speak freely on this matter.
Try to read the text below as non-inflammatory. Sometimes email text is
ambiguous. I mean all below in the gentlest tone of voice.

I believe Kraig is acting kind-of-paranoid, or at least painting himself as a
victim, about my simply expressing that in *my opinion* that the JI vs. ET
controversy becomes meaningless enough at a given level as to resemble a
faith based belief system (aka a religion). These ideas have been well
illustrated by Gene, Paul, George Secor, Margo Schulter, etc. To intimate
that I or anyone else is starting a witchunt is downright absurd.

Since when is it a crime to mention one's opinion? Certainly, by applying the
same standards, one might say Kraig is guilty of partaking in 'unhelpful
confrontational noise' by stating his opinion of 19-tet as sounding horrible,
knowing full well that I happen to write in and like 19-tet. Yet you, Jon,
decided to come down on his side by instead swiping at me for, shame on me,
mentioning religion?

Why is it ok for one person to express a pro-JI position and swipe at 19-tet,
while another (myself) states an opinion about how fuzzy the boundary between
JI and ET's can become, and about how, in his view, it is a religious
argument, he's now not-so-subtlely accused of conducting a 'witchunt'?

I had no idea that there was a JI bias in MMM or metatuning, and that
exploring and defending the view that all tunings are useful and interesting,
and that expressing the opinion that the boundary between JI and ETs was
fuzzy was illegal. Had I known, I would have written the lists off.
Thankfully, it seems that the majority opinion appears to be healthy and
open-minded, and backs up what I'm saying, at least, in my understanding, the
above people hold those views.

So---Jon, what's your beef with me mentioning religion?

If your view is that feelings are likely to be offended by the negative
mention of religion in MMM because some members might be 'believers', or
object to being called zealots, why then are swipes at 19-tet and accusations
of witchunts considered fair play? Let's say, for whatever reason, I made
19-tet my 'religion'. Let's say I only write in 19-tet. Wouldn't you censure
a negative swipe at it, being completely unbiased?

Finally, I just don't give a shit who 'attacks' 19-tet and why. I like it. And
I'm sure if Kraig or anyone else felt I was attacking JI--- (and I'm most
certainly not, being a lover of JI---I only question the attitude of what I
perceive to be the close-mindedness and the erroneous sweeping claims that
it is a panacea for all Western musics ills that *sometimes* accompanies it)
---then they should not have to bow to my opinions any more than I should to
theirs. And, they have the *right* to their opinions. And I also defend it.
But I also demand my right to state my opinion(s). Where's the beef with
that? I didn't swipe at anyone personally, did I?

On the other hand, I feel that I was likened to a Salem, MA 17th century
judge. And you are implicitely condoning that, saying yes to Kraig's
statements, while rebuking me. If you ask me, it reveals *your* bias more
than anything.

But whatever. Who cares. I think that's great--you can have your biases, and
I'll have mine, and we can still get along, no? And I still like Kraig
plenty, both as a fellow musician and a microtonal mailing list personality.
And I very much like you plenty, Jon !!! And everyone else on these lists. I
don't hold a grudge about these kinds of exchanges, because I find it
extremely silly, and I also find that email tone is hard to read. And I tend
(now) to read them with the positive tone when in doubt.

And I find the value of the list as a resource too high to really take
seriously any ruffled feathers I very occasionally may feel. And if I did
feel that a line was crossed, I would mention it and that would work itself
out or it wouldn't...and life would go on.

Basically, do we not have the right to respectfully disagree with each other?

> I would be curious, *really* curious, as to how many people you think
> can follow and completely understand the above descriptory passage
> (gad, is "descriptory" a word?).

Besides the point. Clarification is always possibly forthcoming, no?

> Is art passionate? Is it possible for the creation of music or music-
> like structures could be considered by some as "more [important] than
> tuning"?

Yes. By individuals like you and me. ;)

> I guess I still find it hard, if not impossible, to understand why
> many people in the tuning community simply cannot conceive of an
> individual having personal reasons for choosing their
> creative/constructional materials, and leave it at that. No one
> should have to validate their choice of a tuning. No one should have
> to - unless asked for, or implied as such - listen to numerous
> suggestions of what tuning they could/should have used.

It's a tuning list. Let's leave the vibrant aesthetic back-and-forth intact
please. If people are offending each other, let them work it out with each
other, or not. I don't feel I have to please Kraig Grady and henceforth never
write in 19-tet. Nor do I feel I have to set JI as an anti-technique, since I
certainly use it myself, including Kraig's tuning ! My whole point was
*against* the tuning wars, because I think the distinctions eventually become
*meaningless* aurally.....don't you see?

I do realize that sometimes being anti-war is perceived by some who are
implicated by that stance as starting a war. I don't know what can be done
about that. Yes, in a way it's starting a war of words. But to me, it's
simply a dialectic--a path to truth. Surely we don't want to subvert that?

> The number and use of tunings is infinite. I can see, and am always
> interested in, the appropriate use of a tuning (or set of tunings)
> for a music that is of those tunings (historical precedents,
> cultural/traditional usage, philosophical choices). If two, or three,
> or many tunings end up having no aural difference in their end
> result, it may seem that it is not important which of those tunings a
> composer would use. But I happen to believe that the choice of a
> tuning has more in it than simply what it will sound like in the end.
> If it embodies one system of methodology as opposed to another, and
> the composer feels some kinship, inspiration, creative energy, from
> that system, they should be free to utilize it and not face a
> constant barrage of what it could/should have been.

Do you feel I am somehow disagreeing with that? I'd like you to cite a time I
ever suggest someone ever write in a different tuning system than the one
they chose. I feel the tuning system and the piece are an organic alloy
anyway.

> I think the constant reiteration of this topic - what many would call
> the tuning wars - is possibly defined as one of the many small cells
> of activity that lie at the intersection of art and science.

Yes, and that's a great thing, why should we destroy it?

> And lastly, I'm really weary of this. It is a big energy drain, and
> it sends more people away than it draws in. I think it is one of the
> biggest, if not *the* biggest, failures of the online microtonal
> community. I find it all very unfortunate.

I just don't understand how you can dismiss open active vibrant exchange of
ideas as a 'failure'. That I find unfortunate.

Warm Regards,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Aaron,

Right off the bat, you have spent a long time in preparing/posting
this response, and I appreciate that you do it in the intention of
clearing the air and getting the issues clear. I will answer as best
as possible, though I may not do it point by point.

There is _one_ thing that I would like you to consider: the longevity
of the tuning list(s). The issue that you speak of has a very, very
long history, probably back to the inception of the original Mills
College tuning list. Naturally, you are neither responsible for this
nor should you consider yourself the singular focus for this
particular thread. What I _would_ like you to understand is that the
near-constant (in the long view) bickering between different schools
of tuning thought have been a long source of noise on the lists, and
has caused a good number of people to turn away. It is *especially*
in this light that I have written, and hope that we will find a good
ending result.

I'll try to answer some of the questions you posed aloud, as well as
any other thoughts that come into my head.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> ...my simply expressing that in *my opinion* that the JI vs. ET
> controversy becomes meaningless enough at a given level as to
resemble a
> faith based belief system (aka a religion).

Exactly. And what would you say to members who might actually believe
in a religion, or not think that religion is a bad thing? When we
talk about respect, I believe we should respect the beliefs of
another in spite of how they appear to us. I would also hope you can
see that by injecting even the impression of "religion", you took the
scenario to another level. If it is meaningless, one might as well
not even address it.

But, again, as I mentioned in my prelude, a fair amount of this is
past ill behavior on the lists, and there have been many parties left
without good feelings. It is in this regard that I particularly hoped
that MMM could be free of the putting down of other viewpoints.

> To intimate
> that I or anyone else is starting a witchunt is downright absurd.

And, to a third party, it carries no more absurdity than claiming
that (some) people who utilize JI do so with a religious bent.

> Since when is it a crime to mention one's opinion?

I welcome opinions, and merely hope that civility isn't fractured in
the process.

> Certainly, by applying the
> same standards, one might say Kraig is guilty of partaking
in 'unhelpful
> confrontational noise' by stating his opinion of 19-tet as sounding
horrible,
> knowing full well that I happen to write in and like 19-tet. Yet
you, Jon,
> decided to come down on his side by instead swiping at me for,
shame on me,
> mentioning religion?

I believe my post was made before Kraigs. Yes, he reacted that way,
not helpful, but also in reaction. You haven't seen the many times
Kraig has had to deal with the JI/ET paradox. Lastly, I guess I do
see a distinction between someone not liking the sound of a tuning
and another not liking proponents of a tuning themselves.

> Why is it ok for one person to express a pro-JI position and swipe
at 19-tet,
> while another (myself) states an opinion about how fuzzy the
boundary between
> JI and ET's can become, and about how, in his view, it is a
religious
> argument, he's now not-so-subtlely accused of conducting
a 'witchunt'?

It is all in the terms of religion. Also, esp. since we're here on
meta, and both you and KG have been going at it lately, your views on
religion have been very clearly stated. We/I know that you hold
institutional religions in very low repute (I'll let you fine-tune it
how you like), and as the moderator and originator of MMM, I have to
keep in mind that comparing this or that to religion, esp. when using
religion perjoritively, comes dangerously close to turning off and
turning away members of the list.

> So---Jon, what's your beef with me mentioning religion?

Answered above, maybe out of order! :)

> If your view is that feelings are likely to be offended by the
negative
> mention of religion in MMM because some members might
be 'believers', or
> object to being called zealots, why then are swipes at 19-tet and
accusations
> of witchunts considered fair play?

I didn't say they were, I also see them as a reaction of hurt, and I
think that you - knowing you as an intelligent and reasoning person -
can find ways to frame opinions and arguments that don't cross a line
into attacks of a personal nature.

> Let's say I only write in 19-tet. Wouldn't you censure
> a negative swipe at it, being completely unbiased?

I honestly hope I would, or be called out on my lack of action. I
have to work __very__ hard in my position (because I certainly have
viewpoints of my own) to be as impartial as I humanly can. I am happy
to own up to my failures, and take pointers on where I've mis-stepped.

> But I also demand my right to state my opinion(s). Where's the beef
with
> that? I didn't swipe at anyone personally, did I?

I hope all my preceding commentary gives you some reason to
understand why Kraig may have responded that way; I know whenever I
see topics veering into JI/ET-type debates, I practicly cringe. I
hate what is coming next.

> On the other hand, I feel that I was likened to a Salem, MA 17th
century
> judge. And you are implicitely condoning that, saying yes to
Kraig's
> statements, while rebuking me. If you ask me, it reveals *your*
bias more
> than anything.

I saw Kraig's comment as a reaction to your initial posting, and what
I was trying to do was focus on the kind of thing that can start the
whole snowball. Had there been 10, 20 posts after that I couldn't see
the value of pursuing each one. And I posted my note with that in
mind. I can see where you perceive a bias on my side, and I'm sorry
for that - I will try to be more universal in this in (maybe) the
future.

But having watched nearly a decade of this sniping, I have grown
weary of it. Bias? Yes, I do have my own, and my particular take has
been that on these tuning lists, JI-based musics have taken the brunt
of the criticisms. Sometimes there are histories to these issues that
affect some people more than others.

I just wish it would stop, I really do.

> ...and I also find that email tone is hard to read. And I tend
> (now) to read them with the positive tone when in doubt.

Something we could all try harder with, yours truly included.

> And if I did
> feel that a line was crossed, I would mention it and that would
work itself
> out or it wouldn't...and life would go on.

I'm hoping two things:

1. that things work out and life goes on
2. that we can all learn to discuss many tunings without putting down
any of the others.

> Basically, do we not have the right to respectfully disagree with
each other?

*Respectfully*. To me, that means respecting another's viewpoint
enough to not ridicule it. And, Hell's bells, I've fucked up even in
that regard before!

> It's a tuning list.

MMM is dedicated to music that happens to be microtonal. It must be a
place that is open to any microtonal music (whether I like it or
not), and not a forum for debating merits of tuning *in and of
themselves*.

> Let's leave the vibrant aesthetic back-and-forth intact
> please. If people are offending each other, let them work it out
with each
> other, or not.

I agree with the former. I am quite uncomfortable with the latter,
because history on other tuning lists has shown that offensive
opinionating has caused good people, good musicians who make
wonderful music, to leave. I think we can foster creativity, share
knowledge, be supportive - all without offense.

> My whole point was
> *against* the tuning wars, because I think the distinctions
eventually become
> *meaningless* aurally.....don't you see?

I had always thought you *felt* that way, but your JI/religion
statement was a problem.

> Do you feel I am somehow disagreeing with that?

(regarding personal choice in tuning) Wellll, you aren't coming
across real supportive of someone singularly devoted to JI!

> I'd like you to cite a time I
> ever suggest someone ever write in a different tuning system than
the one
> they chose.

In these matters I was speaking more broadly on these confrontational
tuning issues - it was not directed at you, nor do I believe you in
the least to be of that mindset.

> I just don't understand how you can dismiss open active vibrant
exchange of
> ideas as a 'failure'.

When it is done in a non-judegmental, civil manner, it can only help.
I hope you can see what I saw as "unfortunate" was the manner that
you described a particular style of advocacy, and in light of the
history of these lists, how one must step back and be mindful of the
issues that may extend just beyond the edge of one's opinion.

Very best to you, as you are one of my spots of inspiration,
Jon

Jon,

Thanks for your replies. Maybe as this thread develops, I can address all the
points you've brought up, which are valid and good points.

Briefly, for me, the JI/ET is an *internal* stuggle as well as an external
one. For me, debating the aesthetic merits/weakness of one over the other is
as much internal to myself as it is, say me 'vs.' pick your JI-only-guy (and
in reality, it's not a true war, but an aesthetic one)

I find I can see both sides of the argument, and am attracted to the 'third
way' as a result. It's where I am on my artistic 'journey' for lack of a
better word, and excuse the bad cliche....I think the noise on the list(s)
for years about this very issue if anything is proof that it's an almost
universal aesthetic struggle. The evidence for this point is overwhelming.

My intention with the comment about religion was to state a blunt opinion. I
take your point about it potentially hurting someone, or making someone feel
implicated by it. I realize that with my comments about religion on other
threads this can be taken as a negative. Therefore I formally retract that
contentious statement.

But I stand by the idea, worthy of exploration, that the 'third way' is a path
worth exploring. And that boundaries being burst open can be enlightening.
Too many of our public debates are polarized in binary fashion. We humans
love the idea of a simple, manageable idea.

IMO, humanity must transcend B&W and learn color, or at the very least, shades
of gray. Therefore, I'm suspicious of panacea-scenarios, the sorts of which
all sorts of tuning-enthusiasts make, JI or ET and neither alike.

Meta-conversation:

About religion again: even we atheists are religious--we worship the idea of a
godless universe and the beauty of that idea, as well as the abolishment of
the view that all that is not of one's own religion is 'otherness' that
traditional organized religion tends to so commonly inspire. I would say that
atheists/agnostics/freethinkers are *intensely* reigious people, just not in
the way that the Falwells and Robertsons and popes feel they can easily
control and manipulate politically.

So sometimes, when an comment such as the one I made re:religion hurts as a
thorn, it's a good idea to look for the rose that is attached to it, up a
ways on the stem.

Sometimes a quest for truth involves pain, and means saying and hearing things
that are painful. Like the saying goes 'some things are just true whether you
believe them or not'. ;) That goes for everyone, me included. We are never
our own best mirrors, our 'enemies' do a much better job.

Best, and peace to you, Jon
Aaron.

On Sunday 13 June 2004 11:15 pm, Jon Szanto wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Right off the bat, you have spent a long time in preparing/posting
> this response, and I appreciate that you do it in the intention of
> clearing the air and getting the issues clear. I will answer as best
> as possible, though I may not do it point by point.
>
> There is _one_ thing that I would like you to consider: the longevity
> of the tuning list(s). The issue that you speak of has a very, very
> long history, probably back to the inception of the original Mills
> College tuning list. Naturally, you are neither responsible for this
> nor should you consider yourself the singular focus for this
> particular thread. What I _would_ like you to understand is that the
> near-constant (in the long view) bickering between different schools
> of tuning thought have been a long source of noise on the lists, and
> has caused a good number of people to turn away. It is *especially*
> in this light that I have written, and hope that we will find a good
> ending result.
>
> I'll try to answer some of the questions you posed aloud, as well as
> any other thoughts that come into my head.
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > ...my simply expressing that in *my opinion* that the JI vs. ET
> > controversy becomes meaningless enough at a given level as to
>
> resemble a
>
> > faith based belief system (aka a religion).
>
> Exactly. And what would you say to members who might actually believe
> in a religion, or not think that religion is a bad thing? When we
> talk about respect, I believe we should respect the beliefs of
> another in spite of how they appear to us. I would also hope you can
> see that by injecting even the impression of "religion", you took the
> scenario to another level. If it is meaningless, one might as well
> not even address it.
>
> But, again, as I mentioned in my prelude, a fair amount of this is
> past ill behavior on the lists, and there have been many parties left
> without good feelings. It is in this regard that I particularly hoped
> that MMM could be free of the putting down of other viewpoints.
>
> > To intimate
> > that I or anyone else is starting a witchunt is downright absurd.
>
> And, to a third party, it carries no more absurdity than claiming
> that (some) people who utilize JI do so with a religious bent.
>
> > Since when is it a crime to mention one's opinion?
>
> I welcome opinions, and merely hope that civility isn't fractured in
> the process.
>
> > Certainly, by applying the
> > same standards, one might say Kraig is guilty of partaking
>
> in 'unhelpful
>
> > confrontational noise' by stating his opinion of 19-tet as sounding
>
> horrible,
>
> > knowing full well that I happen to write in and like 19-tet. Yet
>
> you, Jon,
>
> > decided to come down on his side by instead swiping at me for,
>
> shame on me,
>
> > mentioning religion?
>
> I believe my post was made before Kraigs. Yes, he reacted that way,
> not helpful, but also in reaction. You haven't seen the many times
> Kraig has had to deal with the JI/ET paradox. Lastly, I guess I do
> see a distinction between someone not liking the sound of a tuning
> and another not liking proponents of a tuning themselves.
>
> > Why is it ok for one person to express a pro-JI position and swipe
>
> at 19-tet,
>
> > while another (myself) states an opinion about how fuzzy the
>
> boundary between
>
> > JI and ET's can become, and about how, in his view, it is a
>
> religious
>
> > argument, he's now not-so-subtlely accused of conducting
>
> a 'witchunt'?
>
> It is all in the terms of religion. Also, esp. since we're here on
> meta, and both you and KG have been going at it lately, your views on
> religion have been very clearly stated. We/I know that you hold
> institutional religions in very low repute (I'll let you fine-tune it
> how you like), and as the moderator and originator of MMM, I have to
> keep in mind that comparing this or that to religion, esp. when using
> religion perjoritively, comes dangerously close to turning off and
> turning away members of the list.
>
> > So---Jon, what's your beef with me mentioning religion?
>
> Answered above, maybe out of order! :)
>
> > If your view is that feelings are likely to be offended by the
>
> negative
>
> > mention of religion in MMM because some members might
>
> be 'believers', or
>
> > object to being called zealots, why then are swipes at 19-tet and
>
> accusations
>
> > of witchunts considered fair play?
>
> I didn't say they were, I also see them as a reaction of hurt, and I
> think that you - knowing you as an intelligent and reasoning person -
> can find ways to frame opinions and arguments that don't cross a line
> into attacks of a personal nature.
>
> > Let's say I only write in 19-tet. Wouldn't you censure
> > a negative swipe at it, being completely unbiased?
>
> I honestly hope I would, or be called out on my lack of action. I
> have to work __very__ hard in my position (because I certainly have
> viewpoints of my own) to be as impartial as I humanly can. I am happy
> to own up to my failures, and take pointers on where I've mis-stepped.
>
> > But I also demand my right to state my opinion(s). Where's the beef
>
> with
>
> > that? I didn't swipe at anyone personally, did I?
>
> I hope all my preceding commentary gives you some reason to
> understand why Kraig may have responded that way; I know whenever I
> see topics veering into JI/ET-type debates, I practicly cringe. I
> hate what is coming next.
>
> > On the other hand, I feel that I was likened to a Salem, MA 17th
>
> century
>
> > judge. And you are implicitely condoning that, saying yes to
>
> Kraig's
>
> > statements, while rebuking me. If you ask me, it reveals *your*
>
> bias more
>
> > than anything.
>
> I saw Kraig's comment as a reaction to your initial posting, and what
> I was trying to do was focus on the kind of thing that can start the
> whole snowball. Had there been 10, 20 posts after that I couldn't see
> the value of pursuing each one. And I posted my note with that in
> mind. I can see where you perceive a bias on my side, and I'm sorry
> for that - I will try to be more universal in this in (maybe) the
> future.
>
> But having watched nearly a decade of this sniping, I have grown
> weary of it. Bias? Yes, I do have my own, and my particular take has
> been that on these tuning lists, JI-based musics have taken the brunt
> of the criticisms. Sometimes there are histories to these issues that
> affect some people more than others.
>
> I just wish it would stop, I really do.
>
> > ...and I also find that email tone is hard to read. And I tend
> > (now) to read them with the positive tone when in doubt.
>
> Something we could all try harder with, yours truly included.
>
> > And if I did
> > feel that a line was crossed, I would mention it and that would
>
> work itself
>
> > out or it wouldn't...and life would go on.
>
> I'm hoping two things:
>
> 1. that things work out and life goes on
> 2. that we can all learn to discuss many tunings without putting down
> any of the others.
>
> > Basically, do we not have the right to respectfully disagree with
>
> each other?
>
> *Respectfully*. To me, that means respecting another's viewpoint
> enough to not ridicule it. And, Hell's bells, I've fucked up even in
> that regard before!
>
> > It's a tuning list.
>
> MMM is dedicated to music that happens to be microtonal. It must be a
> place that is open to any microtonal music (whether I like it or
> not), and not a forum for debating merits of tuning *in and of
> themselves*.
>
> > Let's leave the vibrant aesthetic back-and-forth intact
> > please. If people are offending each other, let them work it out
>
> with each
>
> > other, or not.
>
> I agree with the former. I am quite uncomfortable with the latter,
> because history on other tuning lists has shown that offensive
> opinionating has caused good people, good musicians who make
> wonderful music, to leave. I think we can foster creativity, share
> knowledge, be supportive - all without offense.
>
> > My whole point was
> > *against* the tuning wars, because I think the distinctions
>
> eventually become
>
> > *meaningless* aurally.....don't you see?
>
> I had always thought you *felt* that way, but your JI/religion
> statement was a problem.
>
> > Do you feel I am somehow disagreeing with that?
>
> (regarding personal choice in tuning) Wellll, you aren't coming
> across real supportive of someone singularly devoted to JI!
>
> > I'd like you to cite a time I
> > ever suggest someone ever write in a different tuning system than
>
> the one
>
> > they chose.
>
> In these matters I was speaking more broadly on these confrontational
> tuning issues - it was not directed at you, nor do I believe you in
> the least to be of that mindset.
>
> > I just don't understand how you can dismiss open active vibrant
>
> exchange of
>
> > ideas as a 'failure'.
>
> When it is done in a non-judegmental, civil manner, it can only help.
> I hope you can see what I saw as "unfortunate" was the manner that
> you described a particular style of advocacy, and in light of the
> history of these lists, how one must step back and be mindful of the
> issues that may extend just beyond the edge of one's opinion.
>
> Very best to you, as you are one of my spots of inspiration,
> 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
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

OK i have to comment on statements about myself

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> I believe Kraig is acting kind-of-paranoid, or at least painting himself as a
> victim, about my simply expressing that in *my opinion* that the JI vs. ET
> controversy becomes meaningless enough at a given level as to resemble a
> faith based belief system (aka a religion).

the only time religion is mentioned, it is in the context of JI. But it is more
than paranoid. I recently had material turned down by a label because of the
'religion' on my site. and like your own comment. religion was the source of much
evil. of course i could not find what they were referring to .
I have yet to here anyone refer to ET as refer to religious. Possibly you missed
Julie Wertz book which expressed similar 'religious" ideas about JI.

> I had no idea that there was a JI bias in MMM or metatuning,

There is no bias for JI on any of the list because those who practice it (BTW
what i do might not pass the test for JI from some of them) have been driven off
the lists. This is a fact, not a paranoid opinion.

> (and I'm most
> certainly not, being a lover of JI---I only question the attitude of what I
> perceive to be the close-mindedness and the erroneous sweeping claims that
> it is a panacea for all Western musics ills that *sometimes* accompanies it)

I am quite aware of the arguments (many originate with McLaren, who writes some
good music in ETs) and out of the discussion I stated why even the same intervals
( as Gene would say for all practical purposes) are different if we think about
them differently. Dan Wolf mentioned the poeticness that JI had for him ( even
though it appears he does allot of ET work also)
This has nothing at all to being open minded, I posted an ET piece recently
and there are some JI pieces i don't care for at all.

>
>
>

-- -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,
Thanks for your comments.....I'm curious about one.

On Monday 14 June 2004 12:19 am, kraig grady wrote:

> This has nothing at all to being open minded, I posted an ET piece
> recently and there are some JI pieces i don't care for at all.

where was this post? did I miss it? i want to hear !

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

this was not clear. i posted a comment about someone else ET piece.

pardon my last post

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> Kraig,
> Thanks for your comments.....I'm curious about one.
>
> On Monday 14 June 2004 12:19 am, kraig grady wrote:
>
> > This has nothing at all to being open minded, I posted an ET piece
> > recently and there are some JI pieces i don't care for at all.
>
> where was this post? did I miss it? i want to hear !
>
> Best,
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>

-- -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:

> Exactly. And what would you say to members who might actually believe
> in a religion, or not think that religion is a bad thing? When we
> talk about respect, I believe we should respect the beliefs of
> another in spite of how they appear to us.

Do you think talking about witch hunts and Salem judges is respectful?

> > To intimate
> > that I or anyone else is starting a witchunt is downright absurd.
>
> And, to a third party, it carries no more absurdity than claiming
> that (some) people who utilize JI do so with a religious bent.

Yes it does--"witchhunt" is an outright attack.

> I believe my post was made before Kraigs. Yes, he reacted that way,
> not helpful, but also in reaction. You haven't seen the many times
> Kraig has had to deal with the JI/ET paradox.

"Deal with" and flaming people to cinders need not be the same.

> > Let's say I only write in 19-tet. Wouldn't you censure
> > a negative swipe at it, being completely unbiased?
>
> I honestly hope I would, or be called out on my lack of action.

I think you would, so Aaron can take comfort. I'm basing this on the
response to my comments on 5 and 14 equal. Of course, *my* belief is
that a person's opinion of how a tuning system sounds should be
stateable. How can we carry on a reasoned dialog on aesthetic
questions if we can't, from time to time, say we don't like something?

> But having watched nearly a decade of this sniping, I have grown
> weary of it. Bias? Yes, I do have my own, and my particular take has
> been that on these tuning lists, JI-based musics have taken the brunt
> of the criticisms.

This is simply not true so far as I can see. I've been subjected to
nasty attacks for mentioning microtempering, discussion of which
surely ought to be allowed. I don't like that and I don't respect it.
I think that is beyond the bounds of civilized discussion, and you
should not condone it.

> *Respectfully*. To me, that means respecting another's viewpoint
> enough to not ridicule it. And, Hell's bells, I've fucked up even in
> that regard before!

Respect needs to come from both sides.

> I agree with the former. I am quite uncomfortable with the latter,
> because history on other tuning lists has shown that offensive
> opinionating has caused good people, good musicians who make
> wonderful music, to leave.

Would that include people being dumped on by JI-only proponents?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> I am quite aware of the arguments (many originate with McLaren, who
writes some
> good music in ETs) and out of the discussion I stated why even the
same intervals
> ( as Gene would say for all practical purposes) are different if we
think about
> them differently.

This is a good point, but it really applies more to the composer than
anyone else, does it not?

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> Do you think talking about witch hunts and Salem judges is
respectful?

Not especially. If you would follow the entire thread, including my
reply to Aaron, you'll see I've addressed that.

> Yes it does--"witchhunt" is an outright attack.

As, I am sure, Kraig felt attacked. As I said, his response to Aaron
came out of a place of hurt. Sort of like your comments to me, a
couple msgs back, about music on the main tuning list.

> "Deal with" and flaming people to cinders need not be the same.

Some day, some bright day, you'll hold your own posts up to the
light. It is incredible what you perceive in other people's postings
as "flaming people to cinders" and blithely ignore words from your
own fingertips that are as hurtful. Anyone who would know the history
of the tuning list(s), the music of Kraig Grady, and the interminable
JI/ET/other tuning debate could at least *see* why someone would
react in a similar manner.

I have a very small text file, small since I didn't want to take up a
lot of time, with some prime Gene-isms. Most of them directed at me.
They look pretty raw in the light of day, probably no worse than
stuff I've typed in low points of my control and ebbs in my better
nature. You can pick sides if you like, but I don't think you have
any higher moral ground than anyone else around here.

> Of course, *my* belief is
> that a person's opinion of how a tuning system sounds should be
> stateable. How can we carry on a reasoned dialog on aesthetic
> questions if we can't, from time to time, say we don't like
something?

That last question is a deep pool, and one I don't have a good answer
for, but it is really, really important to me. And I can only answer,
at this moment, from a personal perspective:

The more I don't like something (but feel I should comment on it),
the more I am extraordinarily careful HOW I say it. If we look for
people to read messages assuming the best of intentions, then I
honestly believe the caring nature will come through. And I'll make
this very to-the-point: there is music posted on MMM that doesn't
move me, or excite me, or turns me off, or whatever - it isn't my cup
of tea. Still, as the moderator, I feel if no one else *I* had better
take an effort to listen and comment! I feel a real responsibility
for having started the list, and as well feel badly about my nearly
*zero* contributions.

This makes it Really Hard when I don't care for something! And so I
spend more time listening and thinking about the pieces that don't
grab me right off the bat, so that the act of sharing the music is
still validated and acknowledged, and any little gleaning of postive
criticism can be offered. On the flip side, I sometimes hold back on
things I really dig, so that I don't appear (more than must be
apparant) to have dead-set favorites. Fairness is an extraordinary
balancing act.

As to your statement "*my* belief is that a person's opinion of how a
tuning system sounds should be stateable": that may be your belief,
but you can't force it on someone. Opinions may very well, and
appropriately, lie in areas that are ineffable and opaque; you may
not like that opinion, but I don't think they have a need to justify
it, at least if it applies to their own work.

> This is simply not true so far as I can see.

You haven't been here nearly as long, and you haven't been on the
receiving end in nearly the same way as someone like Kraig (in this
instance). To an extent, it goes both ways, but KG is right in one
respect: the bulk of negativity has usually flowed ET -> JI.

> Respect needs to come from both sides.

You have mentioned that on numerous occasions.

> Would that include people being dumped on by JI-only proponents?

Certainly.

Cheers,
Jon

On Monday 14 June 2004 01:57 am, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Of course, *my* belief is
> that a person's opinion of how a tuning system sounds should be
> stateable. How can we carry on a reasoned dialog on aesthetic
> questions if we can't, from time to time, say we don't like something?

I 100% agree with this, which is why I wouldn't try to silence Kraig's
comments about 19-tet.

I'm not so sure if I started saying I hated the sound of JI, or that it
sounded terrible to my ears, I would be subject to a
protected-free-speech-status around here, however.

I'd like to think I'm wrong.

Take comfort, I have better things to do than test my little theory,
however. ;)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

There's a Buddhist idea: embrace what you despise. We could all learn from
that.

-Aaron.

On Monday 14 June 2004 02:25 am, Jon Szanto wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
>
> wrote:
> > Do you think talking about witch hunts and Salem judges is
>
> respectful?
>
> Not especially. If you would follow the entire thread, including my
> reply to Aaron, you'll see I've addressed that.
>
> > Yes it does--"witchhunt" is an outright attack.
>
> As, I am sure, Kraig felt attacked. As I said, his response to Aaron
> came out of a place of hurt. Sort of like your comments to me, a
> couple msgs back, about music on the main tuning list.
>
> > "Deal with" and flaming people to cinders need not be the same.
>
> Some day, some bright day, you'll hold your own posts up to the
> light. It is incredible what you perceive in other people's postings
> as "flaming people to cinders" and blithely ignore words from your
> own fingertips that are as hurtful. Anyone who would know the history
> of the tuning list(s), the music of Kraig Grady, and the interminable
> JI/ET/other tuning debate could at least *see* why someone would
> react in a similar manner.
>
> I have a very small text file, small since I didn't want to take up a
> lot of time, with some prime Gene-isms. Most of them directed at me.
> They look pretty raw in the light of day, probably no worse than
> stuff I've typed in low points of my control and ebbs in my better
> nature. You can pick sides if you like, but I don't think you have
> any higher moral ground than anyone else around here.
>
> > Of course, *my* belief is
> > that a person's opinion of how a tuning system sounds should be
> > stateable. How can we carry on a reasoned dialog on aesthetic
> > questions if we can't, from time to time, say we don't like
>
> something?
>
> That last question is a deep pool, and one I don't have a good answer
> for, but it is really, really important to me. And I can only answer,
> at this moment, from a personal perspective:
>
> The more I don't like something (but feel I should comment on it),
> the more I am extraordinarily careful HOW I say it. If we look for
> people to read messages assuming the best of intentions, then I
> honestly believe the caring nature will come through. And I'll make
> this very to-the-point: there is music posted on MMM that doesn't
> move me, or excite me, or turns me off, or whatever - it isn't my cup
> of tea. Still, as the moderator, I feel if no one else *I* had better
> take an effort to listen and comment! I feel a real responsibility
> for having started the list, and as well feel badly about my nearly
> *zero* contributions.
>
> This makes it Really Hard when I don't care for something! And so I
> spend more time listening and thinking about the pieces that don't
> grab me right off the bat, so that the act of sharing the music is
> still validated and acknowledged, and any little gleaning of postive
> criticism can be offered. On the flip side, I sometimes hold back on
> things I really dig, so that I don't appear (more than must be
> apparant) to have dead-set favorites. Fairness is an extraordinary
> balancing act.
>
> As to your statement "*my* belief is that a person's opinion of how a
> tuning system sounds should be stateable": that may be your belief,
> but you can't force it on someone. Opinions may very well, and
> appropriately, lie in areas that are ineffable and opaque; you may
> not like that opinion, but I don't think they have a need to justify
> it, at least if it applies to their own work.
>
> > This is simply not true so far as I can see.
>
> You haven't been here nearly as long, and you haven't been on the
> receiving end in nearly the same way as someone like Kraig (in this
> instance). To an extent, it goes both ways, but KG is right in one
> respect: the bulk of negativity has usually flowed ET -> JI.
>
> > Respect needs to come from both sides.
>
> You have mentioned that on numerous occasions.
>
> > Would that include people being dumped on by JI-only proponents?
>
> Certainly.
>
> 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
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

I would assume that they would be the ones to apply different tunings.?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>
>
> This is a good point, but it really applies more to the composer than
> anyone else, does it not?
>
>

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

this would be the most valid argument against it

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
> I'm not so sure if I started saying I hated the sound of JI, or that it
> sounded terrible to my ears, I would be subject to a
> protected-free-speech-status around here, however.
>
>

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

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying one shouldn't be able to say 'I hate the
sound of JI?'

Can you please clarify. Pithyness doesn't always count for much clarity...

-Aaron.

On Monday 14 June 2004 10:04 am, kraig grady wrote:
> this would be the most valid argument against it
>
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > I'm not so sure if I started saying I hated the sound of JI, or that it
> > sounded terrible to my ears, I would be subject to a
> > protected-free-speech-status around here, however.
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

don't always assume such a stance which is how this got stated in the first
place.

That if one did not like the sound of JI , that would be the most valid argument
against it
(one using it)

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying one shouldn't be able to say 'I hate the
> sound of JI?'
>
> Can you please clarify. Pithyness doesn't always count for much clarity...
>
> -Aaron.
>
>

-- -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:

> I have a very small text file, small since I didn't want to take up a
> lot of time, with some prime Gene-isms. Most of them directed at me.

You know what they say in grade school--"you started it". Don't start
pushing and calling names in the lunch line unless you want to get
your own back. Both you and Kraig attacked me out of the clear blue
sky with ABSOLUTELY no provocation. Zero. None. Nada. My moral failing
is that I don't forget these things very easily, but I didn't start
the shoving in the lunch line in either case. You should be aware,
with your age and experience, that some people do remember--can't seem
to help but remember, foolish and counterproductive as that is--the
things you would rather forget.

Still, as the moderator, I feel if no one else *I* had better
> take an effort to listen and comment! I feel a real responsibility
> for having started the list, and as well feel badly about my nearly
> *zero* contributions.

I'm not sure if negative comments are very helpful unless it is
directed at someone you know can do things you'd like a lot better.
That means when I criticize someone's music, it means I care enough to
take the chance. That also means I hardly ever say something negative
about someone's music, and why my comments about 5-equal were the
exception rather than the rule. My impression is that you have a
similar philosophy; if so, the fact that you direct a lot of criticism
my may would be a left-handed compliment.

> As to your statement "*my* belief is that a person's opinion of how a
> tuning system sounds should be stateable": that may be your belief,
> but you can't force it on someone.

I can act on it, and I absolutely reserve the right to do my own thinking.

> You haven't been here nearly as long, and you haven't been on the
> receiving end in nearly the same way as someone like Kraig (in this
> instance). To an extent, it goes both ways, but KG is right in one
> respect: the bulk of negativity has usually flowed ET -> JI.

Maybe when McL was around; it hardly is true now.

> Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying one shouldn't be able
> to say 'I hate the sound of JI?'

Yes, one shouldn't say that, because it is
meaningless (on its own). It should be considered
a troll.

Post specific examples of what you don't like.

(I know this was only a hypothetical, Aaron.)

-Carl

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

> I'm not so sure if I started saying I hated the sound of JI, or that it
> sounded terrible to my ears, I would be subject to a
> protected-free-speech-status around here, however.

Actually I think I like tunings like 99, 130, or 140 best--just enough
off to give a little sparkle, but still with a JI feel. So sue me.

as in when?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

Both you and Kraig attacked me out of the clear blue

> sky with ABSOLUTELY no provocation. Zero.

-- -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, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> as in when?

As in when I politely mentioned ennealimmal temperament and you
pitched a fit and grew insulting.

I don't remember. but since it still bothers you can i apologize and we
can move on.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > as in when?
>
> As in when I politely mentioned ennealimmal temperament and you
> pitched a fit and grew insulting.
>
>

-- -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,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I don't remember. but since it still bothers you can i apologize
and we
> can move on.

I don't know that it will do any good. I've apologized to Gene, both
publicly and privately, on a number of occasions and he still brings
it up.

Gene, I can see that you don't forget. Do you have the ability to
forgive?

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Kraig,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > I don't remember. but since it still bothers you can i apologize
> and we
> > can move on.
>
> I don't know that it will do any good. I've apologized to Gene, both
> publicly and privately, on a number of occasions and he still brings
> it up.

I bring it up because the same damned thing keeps happening. You will
not let go of it.

> Gene, I can see that you don't forget. Do you have the ability to
> forgive?

Neither you nor Kraig seems to have forgiven whatever horrible trauma
(McL?) this all goes back to, probably before my time. Why not do so?
When you do, formerly innocent bystanders might not keep being dumped
on, and the war which started long before either Aaron or I showed up
could be put to rest.

I don't think i have had harsh words with you in quite some time.
I think that aaron has been quite confrontational on this.
attributes as 'close minded ness etc.' are not quite what one would call
innocent drop of words.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>
>
> Neither you nor Kraig seems to have forgiven whatever horrible trauma
> (McL?) this all goes back to, probably before my time. Why not do so?
> When you do, formerly innocent bystanders might not keep being dumped
> on, and the war which started long before either Aaron or I showed up
> could be put to rest.
>
> -

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

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 01:35 am, kraig grady wrote:
> I don't think i have had harsh words with you in quite some time.
> I think that aaron has been quite confrontational on this.
> attributes as 'close minded ness etc.' are not quite what one would call
> innocent drop of words.

Forgive me for coming off as confrontational. I thought this was a place where
we could all challenge each others assumptions in relative safety.

As I see it, dismissing Temperaments that Gene describes as being Virtually JI
is 'close minded'. As is dismissing any tuning that on paper has intervals
which poorly approximate JI.

But that's ok....we all have closed minds. Let's own them, and respectfully
discuss our different ideas, and grow. We should say 'that's not for me' or
'I don't prefer that kind of sound' instead of 'this sounds terrible'.

It's simple human psychology really: don't expect people to consider your
feelings when you haven't considered theirs !!

I never meant to piss anyone off, and I'm sorry if I did.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com