various comments

First, Erlich mentioned, quite rightly, that I am subject to the same
criticisms that I give to everyone else. No problem there; I have always
felt criticism is a useful tool to progress as artists, and I have had my
share. I come from a very hard school of learning; my teachers did not
believe in being polite, but they were fair. When I began studying
jazz/theory in 1976, I recall a gig I did where both of my teachers came
to the job, sat there for several hours, and took a whole page of notes
on my playing...I was petrified, and embarrassed, because I knew they
were going to let me have it the next day, and they did. Not one of the
notes was favorable; the whole page involved things I was doing wrong,
and was expected to improve on...so, I worked very hard to get better,
and I did. I saw my teacher, George Keith, play one of the most
astonishing solos once (alto sax) on a jam session...I will never forget
it, because it was flabbergasting, and he is a real undiscovered genius.
He was a very difficult teacher, but he expected the best from you. He
told me a story once of jamming with a well known bop player, and getting
cut so bad that he went home crying. He said he went back, every time the
guy came to town, and it took him 9 years before he could hang with him;
but he did it. So, criticism, to me, is fine...I draw the line at
personal attacks, because it is NOT a personal issue. My allegiance is to
the art of music, and nothing more.
Also, my CD has been out for several years now, and I knew full well,
as I sent it around the world for reviews, that it was/is fair game for
any and all comments...for the most part, it's done OK, but a few critics
really slammed it (and some of them did get personal, which is
unexcuseable). Well, boo hoo for me...I survived, and learned some things
as well. When I criticize, it is never meant to hurt on a personal level;
but, we're humans with feelings, so feelings do get involved. If one
is critical out of a desire to get the best possible out of someone,
that's OK by me. If one is critical out of spite, jealousy, or anger,
it's nonsense, and has no place anywhere, in my opinion. My feelings
about poor microtonal music are genuine and heartfelt. I want to hear
great music, and I especially feel that in the field of microtonality, we
need all the great music we can get. So, if my criticisms are not
appreciated, that is not surprising. All I can say is, I am much harder
on myself that I will ever be with anyone else; I will also be as honest
as possible.
As far as Will Grant's comments about where are we going, I can say
that I want to produce music that speaks from deep and profound places,
and that will last the years. That's not so easy to do, and I have no
idea if I will achieve that goal. I do know, again, that it takes a lot
of very hard work, practice, and some sort of intuitive knowledge about
which way to achieve said goal. I feel blessed that I have no problem
with seeing the path I want to follow. Will said that someone told him to
"be yourself"...that's the only advice I could give, either. If one does
not know what that means, it's time to find out where the barriers are
inside, and try to integrate them. And, it is extremely difficult, and I
feel for anyone who walks that path.
In closing, I remember my teacher George telling me, over and over,
to analyze Bach, as well as Charley Parker...I have done so, and also
analyze any and all music I encounter, to see what makes it tick. By
doing this for 21 years, I have received many valuable insights about the
structure of music, and the art of composition. We are always our own
teachers, and the art of analyzation is the greatest tool I know for
learning...also very difficult. I have found, as a teacher, that most
folks want the answers handed to them...well, that makes one weak and
unoriginal. By doing it the hard way, we learn to take control of our own
artistic destiny..that is, and will continue to be, my path...Hstick

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 18 May 1997 23:09 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05007; Sun, 18 May 1997 23:09:49 +0200
Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 23:09:49 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05005
Received: (qmail 4435 invoked from network); 18 May 1997 21:09:45 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 18 May 1997 21:09:45 -0000
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

David wrote,

>I use a table in a Word Perfect for Windows doc to do the calculations for
me
>on each scale. WP doesn't do log-base2, only base ten or natural logs,
but I
>found that multiplying any base10 log by 3986.313713865... will produce
the
>corresponding base 2 log. Oh, goody. So here is the line from my Formula
>Bar for line 2 of the table, which calculates C# (or as I like to call it,
>2b):

>-3986.313713865*LOG(C2/B2) [. . .]

Well, this last number converts from base ten to base two, and then
multiplies by 1200 to convert from octaves to cents. So this number is
simply

log(10)/log(2)*1200

where the logs can be to any base, so you can use base-ten logs if that's
all Word Perfect can handle.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 20 May 1997 19:01 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06187; Tue, 20 May 1997 19:01:50 +0200
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 19:01:50 +0200
Message-Id: <9705201701.AA06187@ns.ezh.nl>
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06291
Received: (qmail 18095 invoked from network); 20 May 1997 17:01:45 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 20 May 1997 17:01:45 -0000
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

>>-3986.313713865*LOG(C2/B2) [. . .]
>Well, this last number converts from base ten to base two, and then
>multiplies by 1200 to convert from octaves to cents.

To emphasize the point more strongly, I'd have stated it "this number
NOT ONLY converts from base ten to base two, BUT ALSO multiplies by 1200 to
convert from octaves to cents".

The number ONLY to convert from base 10 to base 2 (which describes a
frequency multiplier as a number of octaves between the two pitches) is the
reciprocal of the base-10 log of 2, which is roughly 3.322.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 23 May 1997 11:11 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08330; Fri, 23 May 1997 11:11:10 +0200
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:11:10 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08332
Received: (qmail 16267 invoked from network); 23 May 1997 09:11:07 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 23 May 1997 09:11:07 -0000
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu