"I didn't bring up the term religion here..."

Hopefully this will be seen as a little levity ... ;-)

> 2823 From: dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@u...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 5:14pm
> Subject: Re: A comparison of Partch's scale in RI and Hemiennealimmal
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > ... I conclude that a great deal is gained by tempering in
> > this way, and nothing significant is conceded in terms of
> > quality of intonation. Of course, 72-et would do much better
> > yet, but then some concessions will have been made.
>
>
> I totally agree. With the discovery of microtemperaments like this, an
> insistence on strict RI starts to look more like a religion than an
> informed decision.

> 2827 From: clumma <carl@l...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:56pm
> Subject: Re: A top 20 11-limit superparticularly generated linear
temperament list
>
>
> I agree. But there's something else that's starting to look like
> a religion -- the insistence on re-casting everyone else's scale
> choices in terms of temperament. ...

> 2828 From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@j...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:02pm
> Subject: Re: A top 20 11-limit superparticularly generated linear
temperament list
>
>
>
> Hmmm? What's "religious" about looking at the mathematics of
> someone's scale?

> 2841 From: clumma <carl@l...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 4:07pm
> Subject: Re: A top 20 11-limit superparticularly generated linear
temperament list
>
>
> I didn't bring up the term religion here, and bringing up religion
> is a very religious thing to do. Yes, numerology has many traits
> in common with some religions, and numerology has seeped in to RI.
> But there are other traits of religion, including the re-casting of
> history into one's own perspective.

Hmmm ... guess it's time for me to stir up a little trouble ... ;-)

Erv Wilson, 1974, "Bosanquet -- A Bridge -- A Doorway to Dialog",
Xenharmonik�n 2 <http://www.anaphoria.com/xen2.PDF> :

>> " ... We've
>> always had the Fifth or the Third on some kind of borrowing system that
>> takes from Peter to payu Paul. In the positive systems -- and FOR THE
FIRST
>> TIME IN _WESTERN_ HISTORY we have both the Fifth and the Third, both
>> Pythagorean and Just. But instead of borrowing from 3 to pay 5, in
linear
>> temperaments (especially 41 approximations) we now borrow from 5 to pay
>> 7 and 11, _far lesser apostles_.

(all emphases Wilson's)

:-P

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> Hopefully this will be seen as a little levity ... ;-)

Pretty good. :)

Why is music, even here, so rife with arch-conservativism? In other fields you seem to be able to express a thought without people jumping you, but here even the radicals are conservatives.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Why is music, even here, so rife with arch-conservativism? In other
fields you seem to be able to express a thought without people
jumping you, but here even the radicals are conservatives.

That's pretty good. When I posted something about artists pushing the
envelope, you replied back that things were better in the 18th
century! That's pretty "radical conservative" in my book!

But this is one area that I can well agree on: the tuning community,
those that stick around at least, are some of the most musically
conservative I've come across. And it has *always* befuddled me, but
since music is personal choice, I just let it go.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning-math@y..., "jonszanto" <jonszanto@y...> wrote:

> That's pretty good. When I posted something about artists pushing the
> envelope, you replied back that things were better in the 18th
> century! That's pretty "radical conservative" in my book!

What I meant by arch-conservative is the tendency to mug anyone who does not maintain an attitude of worshipful awe towards Those Who Have Gone Before. My fields are math and philosophy, and it doesn't work like that there. Why is music different, even among the reformers? Why are the reformers so very few, come to that?

> But this is one area that I can well agree on: the tuning community,
> those that stick around at least, are some of the most musically
> conservative I've come across. And it has *always* befuddled me, but
> since music is personal choice, I just let it go.

I would think that they would be *less* conservative than the mainstream, since they are willing, even eager, to try something different. As for letting it go, I am not going to let go of my right to think my own thoughts, even if the Spanish Inquistion breaks in with their dreaded Comfy Chair and Dish Rack.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> What I meant by arch-conservative is the tendency to mug anyone who
does not maintain an attitude of worshipful awe towards Those Who
Have Gone Before.

Then you applied the term to a different area - I was referring to
the arch-conservative musical tastes espoused by many. As
for 'mugging' people, you state your case in no less colorful terms
than the muggers. But...

> My fields are math and philosophy, and it doesn't work like that
there. Why is music different, even among the reformers?

Because it is different? Because it is an art, or a different art?
There are more than enough similarities between music and math for a
hundred lifetimes, but I myself cherish some of the differences, and
I don't happen to want to squash them into the same experiential box.

> Why are the reformers so very few, come to that?

*That* I wouldn't hazard a guess. But then again, as in the first
question, it depends on what you call a 'reformer'. If only tuning
changes, and people just write old wine in new intonations, I
(myself) hardly call that reform.

> I would think that they would be *less* conservative than the
mainstream, since they are willing, even eager, to try something
different.

Oh hell, I thought so too. But I've found very, very little thinking
outside in these areas - the only thing they think about is alternate
tuning, not alternate music.

> As for letting it go, I am not going to let go of my right to think
my own thoughts, even if the Spanish Inquistion breaks in with their
dreaded Comfy Chair and Dish Rack.

LOL! What, no "spam spam spam spam..."? No, you need to have your own
thoughts. Which is why I still support the right of any composer to
choose whatever intonation they want, even in the light of someone
saying "but you know, you can do that and *more* in this tuning over
here...". Even choosing a religion can be an informed choice, no?

Anyhow, what is all this but a bunch of opinions "blowing in the
wind"... :)

(see, I listened!)

Cheers,
Jon

>What I meant by arch-conservative is the tendency to mug anyone
>who does not maintain an attitude of worshipful awe towards Those
>Who Have Gone Before.

Gene, I certainly didn't mean to jump on you, Dave, or anyone
else. And I don't see anything in my post that worships Those
Who Have Gone Before. Did I miss something?

>My fields are math and philosophy, and it doesn't work like that
>there. Why is music different, even among the reformers? Why are
>the reformers so very few, come to that?

Monz posted an excellent answer over on metatuning (I think),
which should cover the general case.

More specifically, many of us, notably David Doty, and to some
extent Paul and myself, feel that music was confused in the
last century. It had seen the end of its resources, but did
not know how to expand them. It tried anyway, but wound up
pushing out the wrong stuff, and got gibberish. In a sense,
these composer/theorists want to return to 1900 and try again.

>I would think that they would be *less* conservative than the
>mainstream, since they are willing, even eager, to try something
>different. As for letting it go, I am not going to let go of my
>right to think my own thoughts, even if the Spanish Inquistion
>breaks in with their dreaded Comfy Chair and Dish Rack.

Gene, who has tried to take away your free thought? My point
was simply that though every tuning may be considered a
temperament, that it _must be_ requires an added assumption --
namely, that chords/notes matters to everyone in every situation.
That assumption may or may not be founded, but until there's a
rigorous proof, it deserves to be on the table.

There have been many people who have come to the list, full of
the enthusiasm of sharing their ideas, only to be told (or so
they thought), in a language that requires considerable expertise
outside of music to even enter discussion, that their tuning was
worthless. In one case, a person was so discouraged that he
stopped work on his instrument, and on alternate tunings, until
another fellow who had been in the same situation talked him out
of it.

I personally can't imagine how that would happen from what I've
seen on the list, but I was raised in an academic environment,
etc., etc. And please don't think it was the mention of Partch
that set this off -- I've been harping on this point for years.
Unlike the self-appointed Partch experts around here, I take
Harry's artistic vision seriously -- which is to say, I refuse to
make him into a diety (even though I think he is every bit as
worthy of this as Mozart or others who have been deified).

-Carl

Damn, Carl!

Everything in your post was wonderful, and then...

--- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> Unlike the self-appointed Partch experts around here, I take
> Harry's artistic vision seriously

1. Who are the self-appointed Partch experts? If you mean me, I
certainly will never apologize for having worked with him, performed
his music for many years, and continue study of his aesthetic.

2. Are you *seriously* believing I take his "artistic vision"
capriciously?

> -- which is to say, I refuse to
> make him into a diety (even though I think he is every bit as
> worthy of this as Mozart or others who have been deified).

A refusal I make as well. That said, I stand ready to refute ideas
that are clearly contrary to his writings, words, and experiences. He
welcomed the investigation, and might well have enjoyed a lot of what
is going on. But there is a whole hell of a lot that he would have
had no use for. Just ask anyone who knew him or has spent *real*
effort trying to understand his "artistic vision". Most of the time
it's just people studying ratios and peg-legged brides...

Cheers,
Jon (who hopes, knowing you're in the Bay area, that you'll come over
to the Partch Centennial on Feb. 2 at SJSU...)

--- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> Gene, I certainly didn't mean to jump on you, Dave, or anyone
> else. And I don't see anything in my post that worships Those
> Who Have Gone Before. Did I miss something?

I had the impression you were saying that someone's choice of tuning was so sanctified by tradition that pointing out that using the apparant standard of what constitutes "JI" in that particular context allows for a great many more "JI" consonances than strict RI would allow was a "relgious" remark. This struck me as a continuation of a trend of thought I am finding increasingly tiresome.

> More specifically, many of us, notably David Doty, and to some
> extent Paul and myself, feel that music was confused in the
> last century. It had seen the end of its resources, but did
> not know how to expand them. It tried anyway, but wound up
> pushing out the wrong stuff, and got gibberish. In a sense,
> these composer/theorists want to return to 1900 and try again.

That's interesting, because I've never said anything nearly so harsh, and yet I'm the one characterized as arrogant.

> Gene, who has tried to take away your free thought? My point
> was simply that though every tuning may be considered a
> temperament, that it _must be_ requires an added assumption --
> namely, that chords/notes matters to everyone in every situation.

I was applying Partch's standards, to the best of my recollection, to his scale. What's the problem?

> That assumption may or may not be founded, but until there's a
> rigorous proof, it deserves to be on the table.

"Rigorous proof" in this context makes no sense. I hope *that* isn't arrogant or out of bounds.

> There have been many people who have come to the list, full of
> the enthusiasm of sharing their ideas, only to be told (or so
> they thought), in a language that requires considerable expertise
> outside of music to even enter discussion, that their tuning was
> worthless.

I've seen some things which suggested that to me, I admit. On the other hand, it can be discouraging even to hear that your tuning has been thought of before, or that here is another tuning which seems to do what you want to do, only better.

Jon (and all);

I've replied on metatuning.

Thanks,

-C.

>>More specifically, many of us, notably David Doty, and to some
>>extent Paul and myself, feel that music was confused in the
>>last century. It had seen the end of its resources, but did
>>not know how to expand them. It tried anyway, but wound up
>>pushing out the wrong stuff, and got gibberish. In a sense,
>>these composer/theorists want to return to 1900 and try again.
>
>That's interesting, because I've never said anything nearly so
>harsh, and yet I'm the one characterized as arrogant.

I don't think you're arrogant at all, Gene. Man sakes alive,
what is it coming to?

To paraphrase Doty, 'this resulted in music which the vast
majority of people find unlistenable' ... 'because it ignores
the design of the hearing system'. You can read it for yourself
over on the Just Intonation Network website (it's the first
chapter of the Primer).

Paul and I certainly have a far weaker view.

>>Gene, who has tried to take away your free thought? My point
>>was simply that though every tuning may be considered a
>>temperament, that it _must be_ requires an added assumption --
>>namely, that chords/notes matters to everyone in every situation.
>
>I was applying Partch's standards, to the best of my recollection,
>to his scale. What's the problem?

I don't know.

>>That assumption may or may not be founded, but until there's a
>>rigorous proof, it deserves to be on the table.
>
>"Rigorous proof" in this context makes no sense. I hope *that*
>isn't arrogant or out of bounds.

Of course. I was speaking figuratively. Do you disagree?

>I've seen some things which suggested that to me, I admit.

It used to be much, much worse.

>On the other hand, it can be discouraging even to hear that your
>tuning has been thought of before, or that here is another tuning
>which seems to do what you want to do, only better.

As I say, I have a hard time seeing where they're coming from.
With the exception of my point, above, which I check in to make
every once in a while.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> >>That assumption may or may not be founded, but until there's a
> >>rigorous proof, it deserves to be on the table.
> >
> >"Rigorous proof" in this context makes no sense. I hope *that*
> >isn't arrogant or out of bounds.
>
> Of course. I was speaking figuratively. Do you disagree?

Considering I've used methods which only work in RI, why would I?