Re: [tuning] Re: Making music (in case you're interested)

In-Reply-To: <9evf31+u212@...>
Jon Szanto wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > I suppose, in retrospect, that we really should have created
> > a MIRACLE list a month ago before all this happened. That
> > would have kept the volume of posts here down to "normal",
> > and everyone who was not interested in the MIRACLE tunings
> > would have been spared the barrage of information they didn't
> > care about.
>
> Hindsight is 20/20, but this was all asked for in advance and during;
> those requests were treated as if from philistines and dolts, and now
> the list is splintered. May we live in interesting times...

Jon, I've searched all the posts containing your name and "miracle" and I
can't find any of what you say. Please provide evidence.

As for "in advance" that's plain silly. How could you have known in
advance that the discovery was going to be made?

Graham

----- Original Message -----
From: <graham@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <gbreed@...>; <JSZANTO@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:28 AM
Subject: [metatuning] Re: [tuning] Re: Making music (in case you're
interested)

> In-Reply-To: <9evf31+u212@...>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > Hindsight is 20/20, but this was all asked for in advance and during;
> > those requests were treated as if from philistines and dolts, and now
> > the list is splintered. May we live in interesting times...
>
> Jon, I've searched all the posts containing your name and "miracle" and I
> can't find any of what you say. Please provide evidence.
>
> As for "in advance" that's plain silly. How could you have known in
> advance that the discovery was going to be made?
>
>
> Graham

At the risk of offending someone (whomever it may be),
I'll jump back in here. Graham, I'm certain that I understood
Jon's reply in the way he meant it: many other subscribers to
the tuning list did ask those participating to move the MIRACLE
discussion to a separte list. I don't have citations right
now, but I definitely remember this.

And by "in advance", I'm sure Jon meant in advance of the
splintering off of all these other tuning lists.

BTW, muchas gracias for moving this thread to this list,
which is where I realized I should have posted it after I
pushed "send".

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Monzo wrote:

> At the risk of offending someone (whomever it may be),
> I'll jump back in here. Graham, I'm certain that I understood
> Jon's reply in the way he meant it: many other subscribers to
> the tuning list did ask those participating to move the MIRACLE
> discussion to a separte list. I don't have citations right
> now, but I definitely remember this.

I don't remember this. Jon suggested we stop thinking about it
altogether, and Paul politely refused. Nobody said to move to a new
list until after Jacky had forked off, by which time it would have
been pointless because we were in the "presentation" stage.

Another thing that may have been forgotten. When the discussion was
really hot, the Yahoo server was really slow. That meant we couldn't
even predict the volume over the *previous* few hours! It also meant
multiple posts swelled that volume, and it would have been very
difficult to negotiate a new list.

> And by "in advance", I'm sure Jon meant in advance of the
> splintering off of all these other tuning lists.

Oh, that's okay. But that would still be during the discussion. And
I don't remember it happening.

Graham

----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Breed <graham@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:27 AM
Subject: [metatuning] [tuning] Re: Making music (in case you're interested)

> I don't remember this. Jon suggested we stop thinking about it
> altogether, and Paul politely refused. Nobody said to move to a new
> list until after Jacky had forked off, by which time it would have
> been pointless because we were in the "presentation" stage.

OK, I certainly could be misremembering (it's happened before! ;-) ).
I'm not about to take the time to look this up, so I'll just concede
to you. No big deal.

> Another thing that may have been forgotten. When the discussion was
> really hot, the Yahoo server was really slow. That meant we couldn't
> even predict the volume over the *previous* few hours! It also meant
> multiple posts swelled that volume, and it would have been very
> difficult to negotiate a new list.

Yes, that's a very good point.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Graham!

Aw, heck!! I didn't know you were posting this on *another* list! I
thought you were just writing me!

Crap...

I'll post the reply I sent to the first msg, which we both agreed
pretty well cleared up my issues:

Hi Graham,

{you wrote...}
Jon, I've searched all the posts containing your name and "miracle"
and I can't find any of what you say. Please provide evidence. As
for "in advance" that's plain silly. How could you have known in
advance that the discovery was going to be made?

I was using Joe's speaking of the MIRACLE postings as a parallel to
the general splintering of the list along the math/music lines, and
not the specific one-topic issue. Sorry that I didn't make the
referential aspect more clear. I don't think that the disenchantment
was over one area (such as MIRACLE) specifically, but a general trend.

As for in advance, I meant in advance of the splitting, i.e. for
quite a while before the sad divide that Joe refers to there were a
few little debates on the subject, and in general many of the people
asking for more of a ... I don't know, more practical? more music-
centric? view tended to get thumped by the theorists.

All in all, pretty silly. Could have been avoided by a little self-
moderating, in that many posts could have easily gone between
correspondents, but sometimes these things happen, and the basic
debate has been pretty well put to rest. My only point was that
anyone watching the path that was being taken could have seen the
split coming in advance. I view all of this with no animosity or
vitriol, as I realize each person finds value in very different
aspects of our general interest area, but I also do find the topic of
tuning big enough to support separate forums.

But sorry for the vagueness of the post, it was a bit late...

Regards,
Jon

OK, that said, I am really curious about the following:

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> Jon suggested we stop thinking about it altogether, and Paul
> politely refused.

I can't for a MINUTE (that's not a new set of scales) imagine myself
asking anyone to do that. It is inconceivable to me. If it ocurred at
sometime during the hours of 1:00 am - 5:00 am, which were hours I
was actually putting in on the HP Centennial, I suppose sleep
deprivation and a 2nd dram of Mortlach 16 year old might account for
it.

If -- IF! -- there is documentation that I EVER asked someone to stop
thinking about something, let me see it, and I will publically recant
it.

I might clarify, I might modify, but I think every single person
here, and everywhere, should follow their muses and their intellects.
If not, we are no better than lumps of ... fat.

Hope that clears up even more stuff. I don't intend on reading this
more than once or twice, so you folks just notify me personally if
you want to trash me here, and I'll send you a note about it. I
doubt 'meta' means speaking of people not in attendence...

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

> OK, that said, I am really curious about the following:
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> > Jon suggested we stop thinking about it altogether, and Paul
> > politely refused.
>
> I can't for a MINUTE (that's not a new set of scales) imagine
myself
> asking anyone to do that. It is inconceivable to me. If it ocurred
at
> sometime during the hours of 1:00 am - 5:00 am, which were hours I
> was actually putting in on the HP Centennial, I suppose sleep
> deprivation and a 2nd dram of Mortlach 16 year old might account
for
> it.

I was thinking of this message:

</tuning/topicId_21894.html#21902>

Sorry if it was an incorrect summary.

> If -- IF! -- there is documentation that I EVER asked someone to
stop
> thinking about something, let me see it, and I will publically
recant
> it.
>
> I might clarify, I might modify, but I think every single person
> here, and everywhere, should follow their muses and their
intellects.
> If not, we are no better than lumps of ... fat.

That's understood.

> Hope that clears up even more stuff. I don't intend on reading this
> more than once or twice, so you folks just notify me personally if
> you want to trash me here, and I'll send you a note about it. I
> doubt 'meta' means speaking of people not in attendence...

I don't think you were being "trashed". I CC-ed you the original
message, and pointed out it was posted here in my reply. I didn't
know at that stage you weren't reading the list. (It is open, so you
can't tell.) Sorry I can't CC this to you, but the web interface
doesn't allow it.

Graham

[Jon Szanto wrote:]
>I can't for a MINUTE (that's not a new set of scales) imagine myself
>asking anyone to do that.

It most certainly _is_ a new set of scales:

Multiple
Infinitesmally
Nuanced
Universal
Tuning
Entities

And I'm preparing, even as we speak, 1000 posts about it for the tuning
list.

JdL

Graham,

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> I was thinking of this message:
>
> </tuning/topicId_21894.html#21902>
>
> Sorry if it was an incorrect summary.

Yeah, Graham, that's pretty incorrect! I just hoped a nudge and a
wink would get Paul, et al, away from the computer kbd and over to
the guitar or keyboard, etc. I _never_ advocated stopping
investigation, and certainly not putting a stop to the thought
process.

C'mon -- you can summarize more accurately than that!

> Sorry I can't CC this to you, but the web interface
> doesn't allow it.

OK, no big deal. I think (and hope) we're done with this. Time to
move on, OK?

Cheers,
Jon

JdL,
--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> And I'm preparing, even as we speak, 1000 posts about it for the
> tuning list.

A filter is now set up in advance for those posts...

:)

Cheers,
Jon