Pair-of-dimes Lost

>As for new paradigms though, I think the fact that each tuning presents
>new paradigms of composition to be very interesting. But perhaps that
>depends on what you mean by paradigm. I take the term to mean a set of
>bounds that you put yourself into.

Individuals can apply various sets of bounds to particular efforts with the
intention of exploring the space created within the bounds. This is, I am
almost sure, what you are saying. And, as you say, it just plain yields
interesting results. Let me give an example, and Gary, if this is not what
you mean, please say so:

There are many ways to play the piano. Bach spent his life looking at the
keyboard as a place where a simulation of independent solo voices could be
run. Only within the last 100 or so years has an approach that worked with
the entire possible "space" of the keyboard been invented. Both approaches
give interesting results.

But one might expect the Bach approach to be a subset of the modern
approach. This is not the case-> It would seem that every set of limits,
no matter how confining, yields unique results!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>> HOWEVER! <<<<<<<<<<<<<

In my recent post, "Xenharmonic?", I was using the word "paradigm" to mean a
set of bounds placed over an entire field of human interest for a long
period of time that's hard to change. This, it seems to me, is an
embarrassment to civilization.

Leafing back thru the pages of history, I often notice that 12-tone music
isn't the only example of this kind of "paradigm" (that is, the broad
reaching, entrenched kind)-> Take chess for example:

People have spent the last 200 years figuring out all the ways to start the
game (opening books). We've finally worked ourselves up to the point where
a motivated modern student of chess could blow the heals off the masters of
the past; Garry Kasparov is the not just the best human player alive today,
he is the best human to ever play the game.

But all this applies only to regular FIDE chess. There are an infinity of
possible "chess variants" (see the link on my web page under Chess for an
EXCELLENT reference on chess variants) that produce significant changes in
the way humans look at the game -- even the slightest change to the starting
position obsoletes opening study -- and thousands of them are at least as
worthwhile as regular chess. There's absolutely no rational for picking
FIDE chess and sticking to it so completely for the last 400 years.

Maybe the reason we take so long with things is because we're just not that
smart. The fields of FIDE chess are still ripe for the plucking after all
these years, and, I believe, contrary to popular belief, that 12 tone equal
temperament also has plenty left to offer.

I've never heard a cogent reason as to why 12-tone should be exhausted.
What I have heard seems to blame 12-tone for bad composition (and there
seems to be an extra helping of that in the serialist camp). For the
critic, I believe the vitality of 12-tone is well demonstrated by the CD and
midi files available through my web site. Inversely, Xenharmonics do not
guarantee interesting music, although it probably makes it much easier.

In any case, I do not attempt to debate the wisdom of the collective efforts
of 12 generations of our ancestors. What I do say, and hope, is that human
evolution is reaching the point where we no longer need to stretch our
paradigms over the entire civilization and lock in the freshness with gobs
of industrial standards to have them be effective. Can you see a future in
which each individual can exercise intellectual freedom without having to
independently re-discover the possibility of intellectual freedom, become a
carpenter, or live like a hermit?

Carl


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Aline Surman
Subject: new standards
PostedDate: 19-11-97 23:14:40
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 19-11-97 23:13:15-19-11-97 23:13:16,19-11-97 23:13:23-19-11-97 23:13:23
DeliveredDate: 19-11-97 23:13:23
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256554.007A0D6E; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:13:08 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03272; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:14:40 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:14:40 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03270
Received: (qmail 22204 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1997 14:14:37 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 1997 14:14:37 -0800
Message-Id: <34736EFE.3BE@dnvr.uswest.net>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu