Alois Haba

I recently bought a CD of music by Alois Haba (dash over first a in
name) thinking it would be microtonal, but it wasn't. If you're looking
for the same thing, don't buy:

Alois Haba
complete nonets
Supraphon records
SU 0018-2 111
made in the Czech Republic

(has nonets 1, 2, 3 and 4)

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:14 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00420; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:48:50 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA00418
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id NAA16739; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:48:45 -0800
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:48:45 -0800
Message-Id: <32AC88E7.4383@ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

I'm new to the tuning list, but not to the exploration of pitch, and wanted to say hello and that I'll be
reading along.

I was wondering also if anybody knows the email addresses of either of theses people:
1) Dudley Duncan
2) Glen Frantz

My opinion on the wolves v. wolfs subject is this:

The term "wolves" is inappropriate in a musical context. It's a special word reserved for the plural of
certain animals. A comparative illustration is found in the words "lice" (insect parasites) and "louses"
(dispicable persons). You wouldn't call entrenched politicians "lice". Well, maybe you would. :)

The plural of wolf tone (in the context of an unwanted resonance in the body of an acoustic instrument) is
wolf tones. The plural of wolf interval (in the context of the aesthetic effect caused by not having enough
pitches on an instrument or in a tuning system, and misusing the closest available pitches as surrogates) is
wolf intervals. If either of these plurals must be compressed into one word, the logical choice is "wolfs".

Matt Nathan

------------------------------

Topic No. 2

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 14:01:37 -0800
From: Matt Nathan
To: tuning
Subject: Alois Haba
Message-ID: <32AC8C41.6777@ix.netcom.com>

I recently bought a CD of music by Alois Haba (dash over first a in
name) thinking it would be microtonal, but it wasn't. If you're looking
for the same thing, don't buy:

Alois Haba
complete nonets
Supraphon records
SU 0018-2 111
made in the Czech Republic

(has nonets 1, 2, 3 and 4)

------------------------------

Topic No. 3

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 17:01:12 -0800
From: Heinz Bohlen
To: tuning
Subject: Apologies, Daniel Wolf!
Message-ID:

On Nov. 22, 1996, Daniel Wolf wrote:

>I am curious to learn from Heinz Bohlen how his infill of the Major triad
differs from that of Heinrich Schenker.<

My twofold apologies, Daniel. First of all because I come across that only
now, and secondly because I don't understand what the question is
about. I obviously missed something. Can you explain, please?

------------------------------

Topic No. 4

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 03:18:42 -0500
From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:tuning@eartha.mills.edu"
Subject: To Heinz Bohlen
Message-ID: <199612100320_MC1-CF4-36AD@compuserve.com>

I was struck by the similarity between your hypothetical construction of
the diatonic scale through filling in the gaps in a Major triad and
Schenker's tonal prolongation through the same mechanism. Schenker was not
interested in a scale per se, but rather _tonality_ itself, and his idea is
strictly dependent upon the unfolding of the material (composed into
contrapuntal lines) over time. I assume that your model, is, however, one
of scale construction rather than voice leading, but your short description
seemed to be in the Schenkerian spirit. But then again, I may be reading
too much or too little into what you have written...

Daniel Wolf

------------------------------

Topic No. 5

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:10:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Will Grant
To: tuning
Subject: Margie's oysters
Message-ID:



Margaret The Outspoken (who dislikes the Egyptian)
has brought up the importance of cajones in a
refreshingly cosmopolitan context. She's
quite correct.

Partch's problem is -- I durst not say it here ...

Berio, appositely, yet also lacks these wonderful
toys of the gods. He is exquisite, superb, technically
profound, but -- ah, no cajones.

Shostakovich, on the other hand, that wimp, that
plaything of Stalin, that lily-livered, cream-faced
loon, still hangs like a clock and displays real feelings.

Nutty, isn't it ? It's not a technical matter at all,
merely spiritual.