Frog Peak Web, Rankin

I recently checked out Frog Peak Music's new WEB page at
http://www.sover.net/~frogpeak/. I have to use Lynx, which
prevents me from enjoying the graphics and color, but even
so, it is most impressive. I urge all of you with WEB access
to visit it ASAP.

It's a wonderful resource for microtonal music, Gamelan, and other
types of experimental and non-traditional musics, so check it out.

FPM's philosophy and mission is best expressed in its own words:

"Frog Peak Music is dedicated to exploring innovative
technologies
and aesthetics of publication and distribution, and committed
to the idea of availability over promotion. Member artists
determine which of their own works are included in Frog Peak
Music, and how they are included. Frog Peak Music perpetuates
and evolves the historical role of experimental independent
publishing in the United States. By doing so, it engenders a
hospitable publication environment for its members, and provides
an example of some of the ways that artists might control their
own work in a non-commercial, non-hierarchical fashion, erasing
distinctions between artist and publisher."

The site contains a complete catalogue of books, scores, recordings
and journals, including Balungan (published by the American Gamelan
Institute), and, all modesty aside, Xenharmonikon and "Divisions of
the Tetrachord." Back issues of Peter Garland's Soundings and the
Lingua Press books are also available. (I've mentioned only a very few
of the items available)

Featured artists include Warren Burt, Ivor Darreg, Carter Scholz,
Lou Harrison, Phil Burk, Martin Bartlett, Ann LaBerge, Larry Polansky,
Dan Wolf, Gayle Young and many, many others. (Pace Brian, there
is even an Ivor Darreg subpage.)


To change the subject:

Mark Rankin called me last night to enquire if there was some way he
could post an "ad" or notice to some WEB or internet site. He sells kits
for converting 12-tet guitars (or other fretted instruments) to
Interchangeable Fretboard instruments and he also sells extra custom
fretboards. Anyway, does anyone know of such a site or list and its
location? Mark is also a JI performer and music theory bibliophile/
bibliomane.

--John



Received: from eartha.mills.edu [144.91.3.20] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 07:20 +0100
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id WAA13005; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:20:54 -0700
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:20:54 -0700
Message-Id: <199606050519.XAA19219@freenet.uchsc.EDU>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Neil H. asks:
> ...come to think of it, has anyone
> out there done any research on Native American music?

Sorry to zoom in on a small detail of your message, but I know only Susan
Rawcliff who's investigated and expounded upon native American ceramic
instruments.


Received: from eartha.mills.edu [144.91.3.20] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 06:24 +0100
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id VAA28069; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:24:53 -0700
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:24:53 -0700
Message-Id: <960606041700_71670.2576_HHB27-11@CompuServe.COM>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Haverstick here...first of all, I've always loved the harmonica and
thought it was very underated as an instrument...I've played for 26
years with a great harmonica player in Denver named Clay Kirkland (who
does have a killer CD available...which just happens to include a
certain microtonal guitarist playing some 12 tone blues/rock). Great
to have Pat on this forum...

Second, I've just been thinking of my old mentor in Kansas City, Ed Toler,
and remembering how he used to refer to his concept of playing as "10,000
Monkeys chattering at 10,000 typewriters"...well, that's how I am appro-
aching the tuning thing. I believe there can be an infinite number of
intervals and ways to use them. Another teacher of mine, George Keith,
always said to avoid becoming attached to any single concept of music;
he advised studying many different ways of expressing music, and draw
from them what suits you. I took that advice, so terms such as semitone,
scale, intervals, and whatever can all have myriad meanings, always
depending on the kind of EFFECT you are trying to create with the musical
tools at hand. So, with hundreds of billions of galaxies and stars
flying around out there, how many musical concepts could possibly exist?
To me, this is not idle thought...maybe the sounds of these scales are
floating around in the Universe, and perhaps some of these sounds can
be picked up by us...and, maybe there are sounds we will never hear, but
which could drive another order of beings into ecstasy.

I've long called my concept the Form Of No Forms, and this certainly
extends to tuning theory as well. All of the opinions I see on this
forum are noted and examined, and then eventually will filter into my
music somehow. I think the time is absolutely right for a new approach
to music, an approach wherein tunings are no big deal, and people may
actually move between tunings in a commonplace way. As the father of
a 7 year old girl, I see how powerful it can be to bring up a child
in the arts...to Neela, talk of music and tunings is commonplace; and,
I will never teach her that there are only 12 tones in music. So, I
believe that if we are persistent in trying to reach folks about the
brainwashing we all were given regarding music theory, we can change
it...it's really not too hard for people to understand...Hstick

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Chalmers
To: tuning
Subject: Long post from McLaren
Message-ID:

From: mclaren
Subject: The fracas on the tuning forum
circa digest 702
--
More than one correspondent has noted the hullabuloo
around tuning digest 702.
John Chalmers incorrectly pointed out my "major error,"
in a post itself seriously in error--my factual statement
that "Xenharmonikon is published and vetted outside
of academia" *was* factual, *is* factual, and *will be*
factual for the foreseeable future. Then Paul Rapoport
chimed in, advising that "We need fewer hurricanes
from the Northwest" when apprised of the gross
inadequacy of his bibliographies As will be shown in
a series of upcoming posts, "inadequate" does not even
*begin* to describe Paul Rapoport's bibliographies.
Then we heard in rapid succession from Paul Erlich,
who demonstrated a lack of understanding of the
difference between entropy and randomness (the two
are *not* identical, especially when dealing with
information). And finally Greg Taylor chimed in--
of him no more need be said.
Whew!
That's a Mount Everest of misinformation.
So you'll pardon me if it takes a while to refute all
the nonsense, half-truths, gross errors, and outright
falsities.
Microtonality is difficult enough for newcomers, without
making it *more* difficult for them by feeding them
a bunch of errors--especially when those errors
are made by folks who purport to "correct" my
posts.
But the real issue here isn't so much errors, as
attitudes.
The words "crank" and "ravings" played a prominent
part in the posts around digest 702.
Even allowing for the natural excess of the flame warrior,
such language is inappropriate to this forum. Paul Erlich
has been a prime mover in using this silly kind of language,
along with Gregory Taylor, and frankly it's embarrassing.
This kind of flame-war rhetoric doesn't belong on this
forum.
I've perused 700+ posts since the start of this forum, and
so far none of them can be fairly described as the work
of "cranks."
Moreover, not one subscriber has struck me as "raving,"
although various folks (again, notably Paul Erlich and
Gregory Taylor) do occasionally get their facts mixed up.
So the real question is:
Why is such violent and bizarre language used by
a handful of folks to describe my posts?
What emotions can I have stirred in otherwise
normal, well-adjusted, intelligent people to
cause them to post such wild accusations?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, here's the answer--
My posts have struck terror into the hearts of
the musical 12-ton-equal-tempered cognitive
elite (and their toadies) because the 12-TET
establishment is ready to collapse.
And guess what?
People with power (and their toadies) know something
that the rest of us tend to forget--
They know that small ideas have a way of
becoming large ones.
People in power go berserk when they encounter
even 1 dissenting voice...
--Because they know that order which is imposed
by oppression and by the crushing of dissent is a
very fragile kind of order indeed.
And this describes perfectly the state of America's
concert halls and conservatories.
One or two otherwise sensible forum subscribers have
tried to paint me as a "crank" for saying this.
They have described my statements in this regard as
"ravings."
Aside from the question of whether or not my
statements make sense (which you would not
expect from the "ravings" of a "crank"), let's
ask whether my opinions are in the minority...
Am I all alone in describing the way that the
12-TET Alice Tully Hall Lincoln Center
Juilliard Converatory establishment
oppresses people who try to step out the
sacred 12 tones...?
Here is what microtonalist Pauline Oliveros
has to say on the subject:
"An important issue is the marginalization
of our music. As far as the establishment is
concerned, we don't exist. We can do anything
we want, in the margins. But as soon as we
want to bring it before a larger audience,
we don't exist. And that, to me, is
censorship." [Oliveros, Pauline, "Discussion One,"
Ear Magazine, 1991, pg. 22]
If my statements constitute the "ravings" of
a "crank," then Pauline Oliveros must be
raving as well. Pauline Oliveros must also
be a crank.
In Tuning Digest 686, I pointed out that the
exhaustion of 12-TET theory had led to
a situation in which "As readers of [Perspectives
of New Music] well know, the once-respected
magazine has in the last few years descended
into a frenzied downward spiral of gibberish
which staggers the imagination and inspires
both terror and pity. Terror, for the reputations
of the people who contributed to the infamous
1993 'Complexity' issue of PNM; and pity for
anyone who misguidedly paid money to read
this swill. Now, 'swill' might seem like a harsh
word.
"Perhaps.
"Perhaps not.
"You can judge for yourself." - mclaren
These, allegedly, were the "ravings" of a
"crank."
Purportedly, this was an example of my
"invective."
How about a second opinion?
How about seeing what microtonalist
Trevor Wishart has to say on the subject?
"In its constant search for new modes of
expression, the Western classical music
tradition was...constrained by its very
concentration upon relationships of a
limited set of thus notatable `pitches,'
to extend the notatable field of harmonic
relationships to the limit. The final step
into a 12-tone and thence 'integral' serial
technique, rather than being a 'liberation'
from this restricted set tonality, must be
seen in historical perspective as the final
total capitulation to the finitistic permut-
ational dictates of a rationalized analytic
notation system, and the gateway to much
sterile rational formalism..." [Wishart,
Trevor, "Musical Writing, Musical Speaking,"
in "Whose Music? A Sociology Of Musical
Language," Ed. J. Shepherd, P. Virden,
G. Vulliamy and T. Wishart, Latimer, London,
1977]
Sounds like Trevor Wishart is saying the
same thing I'm saying. So now when
Trevor Wishart speaks, *he* must be
"raving" too. He must also be a "crank."
And what else have I said to cause such
fear and loathing?
Let's see...
In a number of tuning digests, I've
pointed out the obvious fact that John Cage's
"music" is a con job produced by an
untalented con artist--stunts devoid of musical
value, obsessed with theory, exuding the
bitter taste of mud dragged up from the
bottom of an intonationally dry well.
When they heard these statements, a remarkable
number of otherwise sensible folks raised their
voices in a shrill chorus, decrying my statement
of the obvious as the "ravings" of a "crank."
Thus, when Edward Fox writes in The Wire
Magazine:
"..."There are a lot of good reasons for listening
to [Morton Feldman's] music. For one, Feldman
was not a musical ideologue or a conceptualist.
In this he was very different from Cage, whose
music was almost entirely theoretical and based
on a cult of the personality of Cage. Much of
Cage is unlistenable now as a result. You can
*listen* to Feldman." [Fox, Edward, "Annihilated
Angel," The Wire, Issue 134, April 1995, pg. 38]
..Well, when Edward Fox speaks, he must be
spouting the "ravings" of a "crank."
And when TIME magazine writes in its obituary
of John Cage that "Finally there is the not at
all negligible matter of how the music sounds.
A common philistine criticism of avant-garde
art used to be that small children banging on
pots and pans or flinging paint at a canvas could
have produced exactly the same effect. In Cage's
case, at least, this is very probably true... A
concert of Cage's noises is, by and large, as
much of a room emptier as it was when the
work was new; Cage may be the first important
artist whose work one wants neither to hear
nor see." [Walsh, Michael, "Sounds of Silence,'
Time, November 1 1993, pg. 88]
..Well, clearly, when TIME magazine writes
such things we must realize that *these* also
are the "ravings" of a "crank."
What is wrong with this picture, ladies and
gentlemen?
Do you get a sour taste in your mouth whenever
anyone who dares to disagree is labelled
a "crank" and described as "raving"?
I sure do.
That kind of logic smells bad--especially on
discussion thread which consistently maintains
the high standards of this one.
No, that kind of logic just doesn't parse.
For one thing, isn't it peculiar how many "cranks" are
"raving" exactly in the same manner?
And isn't it odd how much the so-called musical
cognitive elite (whose cognitive faculties are
in doubt) have to lose if they admit the obvious,
and agree that con artists like Cage have in
fact driven audiences away from concerts of
This is a most curious epidemic of madness--
huge numbers of people seem to have gone
insane, all at once. And we're *all* making the same
cogent argument--the emperor's got no clothes.
Modernism is dead. Contemporary 12-TET academic
music has become obsessed with theory to the
exclusion of all else, elevating words above
mere sounds...
But then, I forget--these are the "ravings" of a
"crank."
In that case, when Ingram Marshall writes
"Modernism is an obsession with theory; it is
an obsession with both the object and idea
of art as self-referential. Modernism begins
probably with Schoenberg and ends with, say,
Boulez and Cage." [Marshall, Ingram, "MODERNISM--
Forget it!" Soundings 11, 1981, pg. 74]
..Then Ingram Marshall must be "raving"--he must
also be a "crank."
And when Derek B. Scott writes in The Musical
Quarterly that "Schoenberg went so far as to
say: 'Nearly all the works nowadays generally
acclaimed...met, when still new, with a cold
or even hostile reception.' (..) Time and again
we are told of the existence of modern
masterpieces that lovers of music have
perversely refused to take to their hearts, but
that the day will surely come when these works
receive their just recognition. However, the
question being asked now is, when indeed will
that day come? One reads calmly Wilfrid Mellers'
assurance in 1968 that "Pli Selon Pli" 'will
establish itself as a crucial masterpiece of our
time.' Yet, Slonimsky's law of the forty-year
gap between the arrival of a masterpiece and its
general acceptance already has had to be doubled
in the case of Erwartung, the work Robert Craft
thought Schoenberg's masterpiece. This creates
a paradox for those who see longevity as a valuer
of 'great art,' for while The Mikado manages to
survive despite high-minded scorn, Erwartung
survives largely as a result of special pleading."
[Scott, Derek B. "Music and Sociology for the 1990s:
A Changing Critical Perspective," Musical Quarterly,
Vol. 74, No. 3, 1990, pg. 389]
..Then, clearly, these are *also* the "ravings" of a
"crank."
And when in the same article Scott points out
"It has taken a long time for a theory of musical
relativism to gain ground. A major reason for the
delay has been the amount of time consumed in the
futile search for an underlying coherent theory by
which modernism could be rationally explained and
understood when there should have been a recognition
that modernism had distingrated into irrationality,
failure, and irrelevance." [Scott, Derek B. "Music and
Sociology for the 1990s: A Changing Critical
Perspective," Musical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 3, 1990,
pg. 389]
..Then we must ask an uncomfortable question--
Can *all* these people be "cranks"?
Can so many cogent voices pointing out that modernism
is dead, 12-TET is exhausted, and it's time to move
on to something else... can *all* these people be
This is not a trivial issue.
It doesn't have to do with me or with the lynch mob
that tried to string me up around digest 702 so
much as with the future of music.
The issue is important, ladies and gentlemen, and
I shall continue to bring it up again and *again*
and AGAIN on this tuning forum, because it is by
no means certain that microtonality represents
the future of music.
We know modernism is dead... We know that composers
like Cage and Boulez killed 12-TET with a tidal wave
of narcissism, nihilism, and self-indulgence (to use
the exact words of the New York Times--presumably
the "ravings" of yet more "cranks")...
But there are *many* paths away from modernism. One
path leads to microtonal expansion of melodic and harmonic
resources...others lead to a contraction--even
a reactionary impoverishment of melodic and harmonic
resources.
Thus, when Scott states "Throughout the 1980s criticism
was mounting from the political right and left, from
sociologists, ethnomusicologists and anthropologists.
The feeling that Western 'art music' was in crisis
pervaded many of the decade's articles: the title, for
example, of Michael Kowalski's article "The Exhaustion
of Western Art Mustic" speaks for itself... (..) It became
pointless to debate whether Boulez, Cage or Tippett
represented the way ahead for high culture since, to echo
a well-known song, those taking the high road had been
overtaken by those taking the low raod. Even among the
middle classes and the 'educated'--and among 'serious'
musicians--attention has been drifting away from
contemporary high culture to popular culture. The
attention which a television arts program would have
given to a major new work by Tippett in the 1970s
was more likely to be directed toward a new album
by Elvis Costello in the 1980s." [Scott, Derek B. "Music and
Sociology for the 1990s: A Changing Critical
Perspective," Musical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 3, 1990,
pg. 390] ...When he writes these words, there it is.
It's right on the table.
Here's the crux of the dilemma, ladies and gentlemen.
Charlatans like Cage and Boulez have so throroughly
alienated audiences by miring 12-TET music in
a tarpit of masturbatory theory, that to many people
nowadays "serious" music means "meaningless idiocy
and endless theoretical claptrap."
There is *still* a chance to reclaim the dwindling
audience for modern music, but we're *not* going
to do it by remarking on the glamour of the
naked emperor's new clothes.
There's a good chance to revive modern music
even after the hatchet job performed on it by
Cage and Boulez and Babbitt and Ferneyhough--
the surge in popularity of Partch's music *proves*
that. The popularity of the "Bang On A Can"
concerts (which include a substantial share of
non-12 music, from Arnold Dreyblatt's just intonation
"orchestra of excited strings" to Julia Wolfe's "Steam"
for Harry Partch's instruments and amplified flute, to
Annie Gosfield's 24-TET "The Manufacture of Tangled
Ivory") demonstrate that in spades.
People *will* come to listen to serious modern
music--unless we drive them away.
People *will* still listen to serious modern
music, as long as we don't insult their intelligence...
as the otherwise sensible Paul Erlich has insulted
*your* intelligence by trying to get you to believe
that I'm a "crank."
Music is going through a tectonic upheaval right now--
modernism is dead and in the process of collapsing...
but nothing has yet arrived to take its place.
If we don't insult our audience's intelligence,
microtonality might well be what comes out of
this tectonic upheaval.
But there's no guarantee.
And so when people like the otherwise credible Paul Erlich
try to paint me as a "crank," or as mentally ill, or as
an amusing but fundamentally ignorant know-nothing,
it's simply foolish--what I'm saying makes too
much sense. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is not a horse with
legs, as they say at Belmont Park.
This pony won't run.
The average person on the street knows that
what I'm saying is *exactly* true--modern music
ran into a rut, fell into a ditch, and lost touch
with both audiences *and* real passion,
real emotion, real fist-in-the-gut impact.
And that's why this issue is so terribly important
to this tuning forum.
We have a window of opportunity here--a limited
one. It won't last long.
And if we microtonalists make the same mistake
the modernists made, and if we spiral down into
a dizzy abyss of sterile theory and obfuscatory
gibberish as James Boros has done, then microtonality
won't cut it.
People will turn away. They'll listen to pop
rock, or rap, or some other kind of music...
They'll listen to music which lacks
the complexity and sophistication
of "serious" music, but which *doesn't* insult
their intelligence the way the productions of
Babbitt and Cage and Boulez did--they will
listen, instead, to music which *DOES* have
some real emotional impact.
So when a handful of otherwise reasonable folks
try to paint me as a "raving" "crank," they are setting
a very specific course for the musical future.
"Theory ueber alles!" is their watchword. "To hell
with what the music sounds like, let's have some
more diagrams!"
That's their message.
I contend that it's time to admit modernism is
dead.
I say it's time to admit that theory and diagrams
and equations have driven out consideration of
what a piece of music actually
*sounds* like.
I say it's time to start over again. Throw out
modernism, throw out the 12-TET Forte/Rahn/
Babbitt pitch class matrix cliches, get
back to the acoustics and psychoacoustics of
music and sound--and renew "serious" Western
music by expanding its melodic and harmonic
resources xenharmonically.
Decide for yourself--are these the "ravings"
of a "crank"?
Think carefully. On your decision may rest the
future of serious contemporary Western music.
--mclaren

Haverstick here...first, if anyone can help me on this topic, I would
greatly appreciate it. A while back, I sent a DAT tape of Ivor Darreg's
guitar Prelude to McLaren to be included on the "19 for the '90's"
project. My next CD is going to be all acoustic (19 and 34 eq), and I
would like to have Ivor's piece on there...I've written McLaren to see
about getting the Dat back, because I do not have the time to relearn the
Prelude again, but have not heard from him. If a list member can help to
locate McLaren, and see about this DAT getting back to me, I would be in
your debt.

The old saw about certain music being appropriate or inappropriate on
different axes is a discussion without any resolution, other than
strictly personal opinion. Myself, I feel that it is a total non issue. I
really enjoy hearing other interpretations of music, the more the
merrier. Music does not "belong" to any one person...once created, it
should be freely enjoyed, and if this means reinterpreted, fine with me
(sure, copyrights ensure that those who created the work get their
financial due, which is honorable). We are only the channel; music comes
from beyond this physical realm, and is a gift and blessing for those to
whom the gift is given...Hstick

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:19 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05404; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:20:06 +0200
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:20:06 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03083
Received: (qmail 15740 invoked from network); 5 Jul 1997 19:20:01 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 5 Jul 1997 19:20:01 -0000
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

The other day, someone mentioned that Jack Douthett and another
fellow had written a paper on tunings...I just talked to Jack, and he
wanted me to find out who the co author was. Since I forgot, could the
person who put the post on let me know? Thanks.
Also, I totally agree with Reinhard that if "microtonality" had been
taught in our schools all along, it would be much more accepted now. I
have found, in fact, that once you let people know that there even IS
such a thing as other tunings, the rest isn't so hard. Here in Denver,
many folks are aware, in a friendly and curious way, about what we're up
to...perhaps they aren't going to get retuned axes, but there's a lively
interest in the subject. That's partly because we have gone out of our
way to let people know that there are, indeed, more than 12 equally tuned
notes in an octave...once that is done, it's not so bad...Hstick


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Carl Lumma
Subject: The Tempered....Flute?
PostedDate: 19-11-97 00:47:59
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 00:46:35-19-11-97 00:46:35,19-11-97 00:46:44-19-11-97 00:46:44
DeliveredDate: 19-11-97 00:46:44
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 C1256553.00829954; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:46:29 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02305; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:47:59 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:47:59 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02303
Received: (qmail 12456 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1997 15:47:56 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 18 Nov 1997 15:47:56 -0800
Message-Id: <19971118234950859.AAA176@NIETZSCHE>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

> Also, I totally agree with Reinhard that if "microtonality" had been
>taught in our schools all along, it would be much more accepted now.

Hmmm... Sounds like a good reason to try to come up with a series of
scripts with "flashy" demos for showing off in public schools. That is to
say as a special guest of a typical elementary-school music class.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
Subject: Re: Xenharmonic?
PostedDate: 19-11-97 10:59:29
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 10:58:05-19-11-97 10:58:06,19-11-97 10:58:13-19-11-97 10:58:14
DeliveredDate: 19-11-97 10:58:14
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 C1256554.0036BEB5; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:57:57 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02680; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:59:29 +0100
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:59:29 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02678
Received: (qmail 18972 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1997 01:59:16 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 1997 01:59:16 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

As far as listening to one's own music...absolutely. What could
possibly be wrong with that? Once it is created, it is either good or
bad, just like anyone else's stuff. To be totally honest when you listen
to it is the issue, to me. If it's good, enjoy it...if it's not so good,
admit it, and then learn from it and fix it. I have been composing for
almost 30 years, and I like some of my stuff more than I do other works.
Are the ones I like good music? That's a mighty subjective experience;
even if a piece is "good" technically, say, and shows a mastery of one's
instrument, does that mean the feeling level is profound? Or, that
someone else will even feel it the same way you did? In Coltrane's
biography, there are quotes about his music from 2 heavy duty folks which
are presented right next to each other...the 2 people feel exactly
opposite about Coltrane's music...that's what I mean.
I respect some people's music that I might not necessarily like to
listen to...Mozart is a good example. No doubt he was a great genius, but
much of his music does absolutely nothing for me. To find good music that
you also like is wonderful...if your own creations happen to be high
quality, I say accept it as a gift, and be grateful that, for some
reason, this marvelous art of music expresses itself through your
voice...Hstick


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: John Chalmers
Subject: Boston Microtonal Society's Newsletter
PostedDate: 25-11-97 10:36:17
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: 25-11-97 10:34:41-25-11-97 10:34:41,25-11-97 10:34:43-25-11-97 10:34:43
DeliveredDate: 25-11-97 10:34:43
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 C125655A.00349C0C; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:34:38 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00501; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:36:17 +0100
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:36:17 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA00499
Received: (qmail 23423 invoked from network); 24 Nov 1997 16:36:11 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 24 Nov 1997 16:36:11 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

>If it's good, enjoy it...if it's not so good,
>admit it, and then learn from it and fix it.

That of course is what might be called the "practical side" of listening
to your own music - giving yourself opportunities improve it. Of course
it's often difficult to evaluate your own music, kind of like editing your
own writing. In part that's because you were so involved in its production
that you (or I anyway) sometimes the stones on the path to the final result
are so memorable that it's hard to focus attention on the final result.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: "Patrick Ozzard-Low"
Subject: Woodwinds again...
PostedDate: 25-11-97 14:53:09
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: 25-11-97 14:51:37-25-11-97 14:51:37,25-11-97 14:51:38-25-11-97 14:51:38
DeliveredDate: 25-11-97 14:51:38
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 C125655A.004C21CA; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:51:33 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01862; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:53:09 +0100
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:53:09 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01860
Received: (qmail 6209 invoked from network); 25 Nov 1997 05:53:00 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 25 Nov 1997 05:53:00 -0800
Message-Id: <199711251348.NAA12748@imail.norfolk.gov.uk>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

As always, I continually realize what a hoot this forum is...I am
constantly learning and challenging my own beliefs...there's some mighty
smart and perceptive folks here, so I am grateful. As far as what Mr.
Gibson said about musicians writing for the masses, and not for the
exceptionally acute listeners...Gregg, when I write, I try and follow my
inner voice, the gift I have been given, whatever that may be. I am not
trying to write for anyone, although after a piece is conceived, I may
then try and decide if it is appropriate for one group or another. There
are some of my pieces that I would not play in a blues bar, for instance,
because they are inappropriate for that group of folks, at that time.
When I write using 34 tone equal temperament, I am aware that the
"masses' may not relate to it so well, but is that because of the
cultural training we all receive, or what? I feel that if a piece is good
and real, than the tuning is not the main issue...it's the end result. I
see no reason why the "masses," whoever they are, cannot like music in
any tuning, as long as the piece itself is valid. Which gets into some
interesting areas...are we writing music to try and please the largest
number of people possible (and from which culture, by the way...a large
group of Turkish folks may well relate totally differently to a
particular piece than a bunch of people from Alabama, I think), or are we
writing music that we feel needs to be written because we hear it that
way? Which musicians did you mean, anyway, when you said that "they"
write for the masses?
Also, again on the issue of hearing teensy intervals, and are they
musically valid... I am sure that training is the issue here, not can we
hear small intervals. Of course we can...the old saw about people using
only 10% of their brains is very applicable in this case. I am confident
that, if people were brought up with the concept of intervals smaller
than 12 equal, we would find that most people could hear intervals
smaller than 12, 19, or whatever. Gregg, I would suggest that you look
into the music of Joe Manieri, for one...he uses 72 equal, and even
teaches this system, and claims that folks have little trouble with it,
once they are exposed to it. I also recommend listening to Johnny
Reinhard's string quartet, "Cosmic Rays, " which has comma intervals
throughout...I can hear them, and I am sure that anyone could, if given
the proper training and exposure...I am presently writing a 34 tone piece
that uses the comma interval (one 34 tone step, in this case) as the
primary interval of the piece, and have played it for several
folks...everyone can hear it, and I personally think it is essential to
the piece, and has a real haunting sort of effect. Why you believe what
you do is a mystery to me at this point; it is far removed from many of
the "microtonalists" I have gotten to know so far, but perhaps future
discussions will make your position clearer...Hstick PS...also, to
dismiss tunings because they are "useless" reminds me of Duke Ellington's
comments about music in general...there's only two kinds of music, good
or bad. A tuning is useful if you write something good in it...HHH


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: gbreed@cix.compulink.co.uk (Graham Breed)
Subject: equal temperaments and pitch classes
PostedDate: 11-12-97 18:27:19
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: 11-12-97 18:25:27-11-12-97 18:25:27,11-12-97 18:25:11-11-12-97 18:25:12
DeliveredDate: 11-12-97 18:25:12
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 C125656A.005FB31F; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:27:14 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA13054; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:27:19 +0100
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:27:19 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA13047
Received: (qmail 14895 invoked from network); 11 Dec 1997 09:27:09 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 11 Dec 1997 09:27:09 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Paul Erlich asked for ordering info for my new CD...my PO Box is
150271 Lakewood, Co. 80215 it's $10 plus $2 shipping costs...N.
Haverstick


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Johnny Reinhard
Subject: Re: interdimensional connections
PostedDate: 30-12-97 18:20:13
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: 30-12-97 18:17:57-30-12-97 18:17:58,30-12-97 18:17:21-30-12-97 18:17:22
DeliveredDate: 30-12-97 18:17:22
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 C125657D.005F028C; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:19:42 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA27749; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:20:13 +0100
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:20:13 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA28198
Received: (qmail 12141 invoked from network); 30 Dec 1997 09:20:09 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 30 Dec 1997 09:20:09 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

A few items...again, in regard to the Buzz system...it's the 12 tone
eq system which is screwed; until they fix that, it doesn't matter what
you do to the intonation. It is indeed frustrating that this is pased off
to many musicians as a real breakthrough...
There is an interesting article in the June 1998 issue of Inside Kung
Fu about the use of sound in the Hung Ga system...they associate the 5
tones of Chinese music with other Chinese philosophies, and relate them
to the practice of their martial art...
For anyone in the Denver/Boulder area, Junko Shigeta (koto) and I
will be on radio station KGNU Monday, June 8, from 7-8 PM, on their
Cabaret show. Junko is a marvelous musician, and very open minded. We are
doing some traditional Japanese music, and some microtonal compositions
too (19 and 34 eq). I am also starting to play my fretless acoustic on
the traditional stuff, which will allow me to perfectly match her
pitches, many of which are definitely not 12 eq...although a lot of them
do match up pretty well. One interesting discovery for me was that in one
of our pieces, her major 3rd is sharp even to the 12 eq 3rd; maybe it's
Pythagorean? Does anyone know? (plus, it sounds right on her koto).I
believe there is a fellow on line here who plays koto...your opinion
would be welcome...Hstick