sorry i don't know a lot about this

Well yes maybe Gary is right to have pointed out that I must be the one
to reply to this....

>can anyone recommend
>introductory reading material
>about japanese tuning systems?
>
>thank you
>
>--
>Erich Neuwirth
>Computer Supported Didactics Working Group, University of
>Vienna

I'm a Japanese guy enjoying this list...but..excuse me Erich...if you are
looking for something written in English and is microtunig-oriented...I
have no idea. The only one that I could find at a music book-store give
us a very rough info on this topic..that one just points oout the scale
in the western diatonic way...and is written in hard Japanese.

Maybe some could be found at the academic area...but I didn't study in
those field and have to ask somebody to make sure if that kind of
introductory really exists...

I'll keep this theme in my mind and will tell you if I could run into any
useful info.....sorry for my delay....I now only have time to open my
mailbox twice a week.

BUYO-BUYO-IGOR
gianthead@bigfoot.com
http://www.dtinet.or.jp/~buyobuyo



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DA.000712E9; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 03:17:15 +0200

>I think Neil is just trolling for flames. Poke an insult at
>the list to see if he can get people pissed off and maybe start a
>flame war.

I guess only Neil can answer to his intentions, but I personally have
never gotten the feeling that he's trying to upset anybody. I think he's
just trying to say:
1. Sure, theory is valuable, but what ultimately matters is music.
2. Practice before you publish. People will think microtonality is a bunch of
idle mathematical chatter if the music we publish based upon those ideas is
boring, even if for reasons unrelated to its microtonality.



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DA.00071141; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 03:17:11 +0200

>Neil, music theory is done by theorists. Some of them may also play and
>compose music, but they should be no more required to produce music you
>like than you should be required to produce coherent theories.

I'll agree with that up to a point. I'd certainly agree if producing
good musical theories and producing good music were both equal end-results.


I enjoy theorizing as much as the next tuning-lister, but I have to
agree with Neil that a beautiful theory is an incomplete end-result, and
that beautiful music produced upon a beautiful theory is the completed
end-result.



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DB.0026401B; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:57:47 +0200

Why do people have such a problem with theory that doesn't lead to
practice? Theory is fun! We aren't doing anyone any harm, so
why not leave us be?

In particular, Jo Hainline said that "the purpose of theoretical
science is to make better science." What does "better science"
mean? Better experiments? Better technologies? And where does
this leave Pure Maths? Would all the theoretical work done on
Nuclear Physics have been less justified if it hadn't produced
the H-bomb? I hate to be controversial, but I think that the
opposite is true.


Apologies if I'm asking too many questions today.



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DB.00280FAE; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:17:34 +0200

>Why do people have such a problem with theory that doesn't lead to
>practice? Theory is fun! We aren't doing anyone any harm, so
>why not leave us be?

That's certainly a valid concern.

My response to that is that if theory doesn't lead to music, it may as
well just be abstract math. There's nothing wrong with abstract math of
course, but that's not the subject of the tuning list.



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DB.003167FE; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:59:38 +0200

>>Why do people have such a problem with theory that doesn't lead to
>>practice? Theory is fun!
> My response to that is that if theory doesn't lead to music, it may as well
>just be abstract math.

I should acknowledge that I do realize that just because a theorist
doesn't have the time, resources, training, or whatever, to put his
theories into musical practice doesn't mean that that line of theorizing is
pointless, or uninteresting musically. I suspect that Neil too would agree
with that, since he's expressed a lot of excitement for the ideas that Erv
Wilson and others have provided for his musical practice.

So go ahead and theorize; I'll even pitch in too! But I think that
it's important for theorists to acknowledge that although a really cool
theory is commendable in itself, what ultmately matters is cool music
coming from that theory. I think it's also important to encourage theorists
to try out their theories for themselves. Go ahead - have some fun with
the sounds your theories have predicted!

Let me also encourage pure theorists out there, when presenting a
theory, to also speculate to practical performers about possible ways to
use that idea in practical music.



$AdditionalHeaders: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C12564DB.0052D112; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:04:34 +0200