New Theory: Harmonic Atrophy

Harmonic Atrophy: A rare neurosis affecting microtonalists,
manifesting in a complete lack of interest in actual music making,
and instead fetishing over charts, lattice and esoteric formula. The
neurosis usually terminates in complete atrophication of the desire
to create music, and the only know cure being a doctor prescribed
therapeutic regiment of musical practice, sometimes lasting many
years, but often results in no improvement in the patients thus
studied. Sufferers of the disorder "Harmonia Atrophia", can be a
sorry lot, as they are prone to endless and consensusless argument
and disagreement, resulting in getting no music written. The ancient
Greek theorist Petrifyticus (6th cen.bce.), was stricken with the
disease, and had to practice the Aulos for 30 years to recover from
the malady. He is mostly remembered for his famous axiom "If you
don't use it - you lose it".

}: )

Hi Jacky. I know you're talking about me and despite your smiley face, I
take it as an attack -- since others with the same argument have been quite
virulent toward me in the past. All I can say in my defense is that I do
spend many hours a day playing actual music, and if it's mostly in 12-tET
for now, remember that I'm the same age Partch was when he burned his early
12-tET scores. Anytime you're in Boston, let me know and I'll entertain you
with music. Tonight I'll be sitting in with a jazz/funk outfit called the
Board of Education, at the Middle East, Cambridge, MA.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Hi Jacky. I know you're talking about me and despite your smiley
face, I
> take it as an attack -- since others with the same argument have
been quite
> virulent toward me in the past.

No - my smiley face was for real. No offence/virulence indended -
honestly!

All I can say in my defense is that I do
> spend many hours a day playing actual music, and if it's mostly in
12-tET
> for now, remember that I'm the same age Partch was when he burned
his early
> 12-tET scores. Anytime you're in Boston, let me know and I'll
entertain you
> with music. Tonight I'll be sitting in with a jazz/funk outfit
called the
> Board of Education, at the Middle East, Cambridge, MA.

Oh, yes - I remember well you mentioning your band recently. I would
indeed be delighted to experience your music live. I've been eargerly
awaiting your new MP3s. Lighten up dude - was only making a joke. It
is not my practice to attack anyone - but on occasion I may play the
court jester!

Hey, believe it or not, I still play my 12 tET guitar too - the best
neck I've played is on my Gibson SG Custom.

}: )

I wrote,

>> Hi Jacky. I know you're talking about me and despite your smiley
face, I
>> take it as an attack -- since others with the same argument have
been quite
>> virulent toward me in the past.

Jacky wrote,

>No - my smiley face was for real. No offence/virulence indended -
honestly!

Okay, sorry I got defensive. It's just that before you joined this list,
there were those who made the same argument and at the same time accused me
of lying about my life. That was painful. OK, I have one more fetishistic
post for today and then it's off to prepare some 22-tET music for the
Microthon.

>Hey, believe it or not, I still play my 12 tET guitar too - the best
>neck I've played is on my Gibson SG Custom.

Will they ever make a lightweight guitar that sounds like a Gibson Les Paul
Custom????

People are so unconscious in their projections... all I can make of these
recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists" is that they are made by
those who wish they could understand what was going on theoretically, but
cannot.

Its the same reason why, in socialist revolutions, the first thing they do
is kill all the intellectuals. Not becuase intellectuals are dangerous in
any way, but purely out of what Nietzsche called "resentissment". Or in this
case, theres nothing that makes someone with a slow brain feel worse about
themselves than seeing someone with a fast brain doing their thing.

As to the ongoing theoretical explorations here, it's obvious that they are
in the great tradition that stretches back to Archytas Plato Euclid Ptolomy
and many others. Why this should irritate some people to the extent it does
is beyond me (unless what I mentioned above is what its all about).

Those who complain here would have us believe that they are concerned about
the theorist's souls, that they are not getting enough nourishment on their
diet of dry numbers. How compassionate of them to be so concerned about
their fellow humans! No I think the complaints say more about the
complainers' self-esteem problems than about the purported objects of their
discontent.

Dante

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Rosati" <dante@p...> wrote:
> People are so unconscious in their projections... all I can make
of these
> recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists" is that they are
made by
> those who wish they could understand what was going on
theoretically, but
> cannot.

Who - me? Oh - ok. Never thought I was attacking.

>
> Its the same reason why, in socialist revolutions, the first thing
they do
> is kill all the intellectuals.

Oh, you mean like Bastille Day! One of my favorite holidays!

Not becuase intellectuals are dangerous in
> any way, but purely out of what Nietzsche called "resentissment".
Or in this
> case, theres nothing that makes someone with a slow brain feel
worse about
> themselves than seeing someone with a fast brain doing their thing.

Don't quite get it - perhaps a little slower?

>
> As to the ongoing theoretical explorations here, it's obvious that
they are
> in the great tradition that stretches back to Archytas Plato Euclid
Ptolomy
> and many others. Why this should irritate some people to the extent
it does
> is beyond me (unless what I mentioned above is what its all about).

I revere this lineage as well my dear friend.

>
> Those who complain here would have us believe that they are
concerned about
> the theorist's souls, that they are not getting enough nourishment
on their
> diet of dry numbers. How compassionate of them to be so concerned
about
> their fellow humans! No I think the complaints say more about the
> complainers' self-esteem problems than about the purported objects
of their
> discontent.

Nope, just a little mischevious perhaps. Hope we haven't forgotten
how to laugh here on occasion. Forgive if I unintentionally tickled a
sensitive spot, as I do have nothing but the deepest respect for all
you guys. Even with my slow brain, I can somewhat keep up with the
goings on.

J

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Rosati" <dante@p...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13206

> People are so unconscious in their projections... all I can make
of these recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists" is that
they are made by those who wish they could understand what was going
on theoretically, but cannot.

This is the smartist thing I have seen on this list in a long time
Dante! I can see you've been to hell and back thinking about this!

YES. Just because people are trying to find an "ultimate background"
to music doesn't mean they should be villified. I maintain it's done
by the "middlebrows"... just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify anything
they don't understand. That's why intellectuals in this country are
so despised.... I hate to see this attitude even permeating this
list.

I agree, some of the detailed discussion can be taken "off list" to
good effect... but the general attack on the mind around here is
intolerable.

I also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT
it... unlike the cretins.

What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method for
determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance. There
can be NOTHING more important! It reminds me a little bit of the
work that Iannis Xenakis... whom I've had the good fortune to get to
know a little bit... has been doing... creating a new music out of
primary elements that are being investigated anew!

>
> Its the same reason why, in socialist revolutions, the first thing
they do is kill all the intellectuals. Not becuase intellectuals are
dangerous in any way, but purely out of what Nietzsche called
"resentissment". Or in this case, theres nothing that makes someone
with a slow brain feel worse about themselves than seeing someone
with a fast brain doing their thing.
>
You're right... and it takes a bit of "self awareness" and
magnaminity to realize that one's self is not always the center of
the universe or that maybe one's talents are not even the greatest in
the universe. You have to live a few years to come to this... We do
what we can with what we've got... but to deprecate talented
others...
reprehensible!

> As to the ongoing theoretical explorations here, it's obvious that
they are in the great tradition that stretches back to Archytas Plato
Euclid Ptolomy and many others.

You are a smart man, Dante! You come from HEAVEN, not from Hell!

Why this should irritate some people to the extent it does
> is beyond me (unless what I mentioned above is what its all about).

You said it, man. You spelled out the reason right there. I would
think that some people would be "ashamed" about it...

>
> Those who complain here would have us believe that they are
concerned about the theorist's souls, that they are not getting
enough nourishment on their diet of dry numbers. How compassionate of
them to be so concerned about their fellow humans!

You're right, Dante! It's a poor and yellow smoke screen!

No I think the complaints say more about the complainers' self-esteem
problems than about the purported objects of their discontent.
>
> Dante

You are so right, and you expressed it better than I could, and I can
be good with words...

You're over at Juilliard, right?? It's nice to see that there are a
few good musicians with BRAINS in the world!

GO DANTE GO! GO DANTE GO! GO DANTE GO!
________________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
>
> YES. Just because people are trying to find an "ultimate
background"
> to music doesn't mean they should be villified. I maintain it's
done
> by the "middlebrows"... just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify
anything
> they don't understand. That's why intellectuals in this country
are
> so despised.... I hate to see this attitude even permeating this
> list.

No intellectual despisation here kind Joseph.

>
> I also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT
> it... unlike the cretins.

Sorry for being a slow brained cretin.

>
> What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method
for
> determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance.
There
> can be NOTHING more important! It reminds me a little bit of the
> work that Iannis Xenakis... whom I've had the good fortune to get
to
> know a little bit... has been doing... creating a new music out of
> primary elements that are being investigated anew!

Agreed!

> >
> You're right... and it takes a bit of "self awareness" and
> magnaminity to realize that one's self is not always the center of
> the universe or that maybe one's talents are not even the greatest
in
> the universe. You have to live a few years to come to this... We
do
> what we can with what we've got... but to deprecate talented
> others...
> reprehensible!

Never was my intention.

>
> You said it, man. You spelled out the reason right there. I would
> think that some people would be "ashamed" about it...

Yes I am now.

>
> You are so right, and you expressed it better than I could, and I
can
> be good with words...
>
> You're over at Juilliard, right?? It's nice to see that there are a
> few good musicians with BRAINS in the world!
>

Much more of a rise than intended.

Dear Joseph P (and Dante, by reference),

You've asked on many occasions if I "was mad yet". And I am certain that you meant it in a very light-hearted way, which I appreciated and think I understood correctly. And I wasn't getting mad.

However, things are starting to get a little crazy, very unintentionally I would say, so let me mention the following:

First, Dante posted:

> > People are so unconscious in their projections... all I can make
>of these recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists" is that
>they are made by those who wish they could understand what was going
>on theoretically, but cannot.

Dante, I am sorry, but you appear to be just as "unconscious in your projections" as you accuse others (I imagine that I'm a prime provocateur). What theory I am interested in, I understand quite well; any theories that I "wish" to understand, I follow up on and learn. Thanks for both assuming and presuming about that which you don't know for sure.

{Joe}
>YES. Just because people are trying to find an "ultimate background"
>to music doesn't mean they should be villified. I maintain it's done
>by the "middlebrows"... just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify anything
>they don't understand. That's why intellectuals in this country are
>so despised.... I hate to see this attitude even permeating this
>list.

Hey, Joe, all I was doing, in my original post, was to wonder aloud whether all the massive number-crunching being done around here lately would lead to any musical epiphanies. I also wondered aloud as to whether there was an upswing in substantial gains to the world of music in the last x number of years by virtue of all this. And at wondering aloud, I've found out a good number of things to investigate, after sorting through the attitudes.

I speak for myself: I went out of my way (as I always try to do) to *not* slam those who are 'hot on the trail'. If anything, I appreciate academia and scholasticism when it is taken to the nth degree, all the t's dotted and the eyes crossed (hmmm, Neil is probably hating me now <g>). But Joe, I didn't vilify your pursuit, and I don't despise the effort, and it isn't particularly fun to be considered "middlebrow" -- I always shave between my eyes.

{Joe}
>but the general attack on the mind around here is intolerable.

If I ever thought that were happening, I'd be complaining too.

{Joe}
>I also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT it... >unlike the cretins.

Uncalled for, don't you think?

{Joe}
>What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method for
>determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance. There
>can be NOTHING more important!

Well, Joe, the second statement could certainly be different for lots of people, it's just that there is apparently nothing more important to *you*.

But I want to say something here as well: it has taken time, and it has been only through a lot of give and take, but I for one have become very impressed by Paul in his dogged pursuit of some of these subjects. If at times we (the list) have had problems, it has almost always been a misunderstanding in tone. I remember very well a point when, after lots of posts, lots of confusion, and lots of bickering, Paul posted a three-part series that helped a great number of people on the subject, in a manner that was patient and time-consuming. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have done it; in spite of the fact that most of this kind of work is something I won't be partaking of, I can, and do, appreciate his enthusiasm, focus, and desire to share.

From all I can tell, it (Paul's work, and others) *does* look to be the bedrock of a better understanding of a number of key concepts. I only hope that Paul can take a little time away from the work-in-progress and post most of this on one, dedicated website, so that we could point interested parties in that direction, instead of a paper here, a .jpg there, etc. It seems too important to be scattered about.

I don't know how I could make the preceding statement of support more clear than this.

{Dante}
>Or in this case, theres nothing that makes someone with a slow brain feel >worse about themselves than seeing someone with a fast brain doing their thing.

Wow.

{Joe}
>but to deprecate talented others... reprehensible!

I concur. Now everyone be sure they live by the rules they espouse, OK?

{Dante}
> > Those who complain here would have us believe that they are concerned > about the theorist's souls, that they are not getting enough nourishment > on their diet of dry numbers. How compassionate of them to be so > concerned about their fellow humans!

I'm slow, I'll admit, but that's sarcasm, right? No, that was not my concern, because a lot of these cases, especially those involving outright (and utterly misplaced) hostility makes me actually not give a flying fuck. I'll save my compassion for people that are actually in dire straits, not intelligent folk who can very well fend for themselves.

{Joe}
>You're over at Juilliard, right?? It's nice to see that there are a
>few good musicians with BRAINS in the world!

So, at the end of this bit: Joe, I suppose if this kind of stuff *were* to make me mad, a statement like that would. I am surprised at these words from you, and hope that it was a heat-of-the-moment reply. In any case, if you consider me or some of the others posting along these lines to be nothing more than Neanderthals, there really isn't anything I can do about it. Or care to, actually.

But I _hope_ you'll feel differently on reflection.

Sincerely,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify anything they don't understand.
That's why intellectuals in this country are so despised.... I hate
to see this attitude even permeating this list.

Well I don't think C. Chapman's objections were so unreasonable! If
there's going to be a lot of quick and essentially trivial back and
forth (and I mean "trivial" in the big list sense), it might be better
taken off-list. Though if it's relevant in a general sense, let it fly
I say, and if that means one person posts 300 times a day so be it!

> but the general attack on the mind around here is intolerable. I
also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT
it... unlike the cretins.

It's a diverse group, and if a disproportionate amount of the info
seems to be leaving others out, the occasional gripe is probably them
just reminding everyone of that diversity. "Cretins"? Come on Joe...
you've got to know that stuff like that's just going to fan unwanted
flames!

> What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method for
determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance. There
can be NOTHING more important!

Well, I can think of a few things! <please insert smile like object
here> Look I said it before, if Paul's got 600 posts a day to post,
I'm cool with that, and Paul does a LOT of important things around
here... but, it's a big group of people here and opinions on the
importance of this and that will vary. I don't think anyone really
said anything -- in seriousness; Jacky's post was largely in fun, and
not at all different from my "microtonal junkie" post of a few days
back -- that was all that irksome.

It's a big group, we can work it out.

- dan

I was only wondering about possible reasons for anyone to complain about
someone else's interest in tuning theory. Noone is brought to this list at
gunpoint, you have to go out of your way to subscribe. Whats more, there is
no limit to the number of posts each day, so noone is excluded from posting
whatever they want in the way of discussion. So why, if a number of members
are interested in exploring the mathematical dimensions of
psycho/physio/acoustic tuning theory, are there always others who feel
compelled to criticise this? Not criticise particular findings of this
investigation, but rather criticise the activity itself, as if there was
something wrong with it?

I don't recall any tuning theorists saying that writing and playing music
was a waste of time, so why do those less inclined to theory feel the need
to say that tuning theory is a waste of time? Isn't there enough room in the
world, and time in the day, for both?

In light of this, all I can come up with is that some must feel intimidated
by the discussions. Perhaps understandable, given the level of rigor that is
being attempted. Apparently, some who are so intimidated feel the need to
lash out at that which they either do not understand, or do not "approve"
of, for some reason. There can be do denying that, on more than one
occasion, various members have aired their grievances in such a way that
seems completely inappropriate considering what it is that they are lashing
out against. All I can figure is that they are lashing out against
themselves in some way, some perceived lack in themselves, and projecting
onto a bunch of folks who are minding their own business pursuing their own
interests at noone's expense.

I don't understand anything about topology, but I don't go and find the
"Topology List" and then insult the people having a discussion there by
saying they are arrogant geeks with their heads in the clouds! Give me a
fucking break!!!!!!!!!!!

Dante

--- In tuning@egroups.com, jacky_ekstasis@y... wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13222

Man, Jacky... Wow! Dante really brings out the "devil" in me.
Wowzer! I didn't even know that happened! It was an immediate
reflex! Isn't that "wild." I'd better learn a bit more about my
subconscious. Hello Freud! I think it was the language.

Dante just had me typing away, like my fingers were being directed by
the devil himself. It was intense!

Pardon me, for everybody who unintentionally got caught in this
"devilry!"

As for *YOU* Jacky dear... you were just being funny. I know. It's
amazing that you got caught up in this too!

As for Jon... well, I probably have been a little bit more irritated
with him than I let on.... but we'll work it out.

We're all a lovely cuddley bunch here... sweet, warm and fuzzy... so
we'll all work this thing out.

Pardonnez moi to everybody who got flamed in this... Wow. Wasn't
that an amazing reaction to Dante! That devil Dante!!! :)

...Besides, I've since had dinner.
__________ ____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13237

Hi Jon!

Well, I suppose by now everyone is blaming me for the departure of
both Kraig Grady and Jacky Ligon from this list.

Let it be said that Kraig couldn't seem to tolerate any opinions
other than his own, and it looks like Jacky fell into the same "camp."

Are all "just intonation" enthusiasts like this??

Now as for *YOU* Jon... yes, well you have made me a bit irritated,
but not hostile. Dante "got my goat" a bit, and I responded,
probably too quickly... It was a curious reflex, and reflex it was...
so maybe people are seeing more of the "real" me than I would usually
like them to. (Gee, it's dark in here...)

> Dear Joseph P (and Dante, by reference),
>
> You've asked on many occasions if I "was mad yet". And I am certain
that you meant it in a very light-hearted way, which I appreciated

Jon, really... I value everybody on this list, and I would wish that
people would remain. However, does that mean that *ANY* kind of
behaviour should be tolerated without comment??

Look... face it... after a long time of not posting, you come on the
list "swinging," insinuating that people are not composing because
they are studying the dreaded H.E., making it so bad that we feel
that we shouldn't even speak about it!

In addition, and this was the dark part... you insinuated that some
of us, if not all, were untalented composers. Now was that very
nice, Jon?

The only *really* valuable thing that came of this was Christopher
Chapman who suggested that Erlich and I communicate *off list* about
some of these extended matters. That's all there was to it! That's
all that anybody needed to do.

But I think you "encouraged" Jacky to make his/er little "joke" about
the "Harmonic Atrophy" which was not really as funny as s(he) thought
it should be, and that got Dante going.

I was really only commenting on Dante... that devil!

And now Jacky is furious with, I guess me and everybody and everybody
left the list. Isn't that a little childish over such a small
disagreement... They must not have wanted to be here in the first
place...

Now, regarding Dante's comments... you should speak with Dante.. not
with me. I was only agreeing with him in the very most general
sense... sure some people could be implicated... but I was frankly
surprised that Jacky immediately thought it applied to he/r. Well,
if the "shoe fits," but that wasn't even my intention.

>
> {Joe}
> >YES. Just because people are trying to find an "ultimate
background" to music doesn't mean they should be villified. I
maintain it's done by the "middlebrows"... just like middlebrows
ALWAYS villify anything they don't understand. That's why
intellectuals in this country are so despised.... I hate to see this
attitude even permeating this list.
>

> Hey, Joe, all I was doing, in my original post, was to wonder aloud
whether all the massive number-crunching being done around here
lately would lead to any musical epiphanies. I also wondered aloud
as to whether there was an upswing in substantial gains to the world
of music in the last x number of years by virtue of all this. And at
wondering aloud, I've found out a good number of things to
investigate, after sorting through the attitudes.
>

Yeah, but go back to your post, and you will find that it was quite
deprecatory and sinister... even implying poor compositional skills
by members of this list. It was the *ATTITUDE* that got people
going, not your questioning.... Your questioning was fine and
appropriate!

> I speak for myself: I went out of my way (as I always try to do) to
*not* slam those who are 'hot on the trail'.

It didn't seem like it... you seemed to criticize every number you
couldn't immediately understand on the screen.

If anything, I appreciate academia and scholasticism when it is taken
to the nth degree, all the t's dotted and the eyes crossed (hmmm,
Neil is probably hating me now <g>).

Yeah? I just got a new pair of spectacles myself..

But Joe, I didn't vilify your pursuit, and I don't despise the
effort, and it isn't particularly fun to be considered "middlebrow"
--
I always shave between my eyes.
>

Well, that's good, Jon, since it's where the "third eye" should be,
right?? I think you were taking my reaction to Dante a bit
personally... Maybe I was also a bit out of line... I had a VERY
pregnant reaction to Dante...

> {Joe}
> >but the general attack on the mind around here is intolerable.
>

> If I ever thought that were happening, I'd be complaining too.
>

I know, Jon, and you don't go "running off" the minute somebody
disagrees with you!

> {Joe}
> >I also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I
RESPECT it... unlike the cretins.
>
> Uncalled for, don't you think?
>

Yes, I meant a couldn't see though the "curtains" and mistyped... the
devil made me do it.

> {Joe}
> >What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method
for determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance.
There can be NOTHING more important!
>
> Well, Joe, the second statement could certainly be different for
lots of people, it's just that there is apparently nothing more
important to *you*.
>

You're right, and, in fact, my dinner was more important.

> But I want to say something here as well: it has taken time, and it
has been only through a lot of give and take, but I for one have
become very impressed by Paul in his dogged pursuit of some of these
subjects.

If at times we (the list) have had problems, it has almost always
been a misunderstanding in tone.

I agree. I go for "warm and fuzzy" myself...

I remember very well a point when, after
lots of posts, lots of confusion, and lots of bickering, Paul posted
a three-part series that helped a great number of people on the
subject, in a manner that was patient and time-consuming. If he
didn't care,he wouldn't have done it;

Yes, so why not just ask for help rather than complaining about
"numbers on the screen..."

in spite of the fact that most of this kind of work is
something I won't be partaking of, I can, and do, appreciate his
enthusiasm, focus, and desire to share.
>

Come on, Jon. Read your original posts. It didn't come off like
this at all. This is "revisionism."

> From all I can tell, it (Paul's work, and others) *does* look to
be the bedrock of a better understanding of a number of key concepts.
I only hope that Paul can take a little time away from the
work-in-progress and post most of this on one, dedicated website, so
that we could point interested parties in that direction, instead of
a paper here, a .jpg there, etc.

Yeah, this would be great. If I could learn enough of it, I would
even like to write a legible "Dummies Guide to Entropy." Certainly I
would be well qualified to do it...

It seems too important to be scattered about.
>
> I don't know how I could make the preceding statement of support
more clear than this.
>

> {Dante}
> >Or in this case, theres nothing that makes someone with a slow
brain feel worse about themselves than seeing someone with a fast
brain doing their thing.
>
> Wow.
>

There goes that nasty devil again!

> {Joe}
> >but to deprecate talented others... reprehensible!
>
> I concur. Now everyone be sure they live by the rules they espouse,
OK?

Yep... I will accept overstatement here. Devil again.

>
> {Dante}
> > > Those who complain here would have us believe that they are
concerned about the theorist's souls, that they are not getting
enough nourishment on their diet of dry numbers. How compassionate of
them to be so concerned about their fellow humans!
>
> I'm slow, I'll admit, but that's sarcasm, right?

It's was clever and pretty well-written, and had me writhing on the
floor with devil-convulsions.

No, that was not my concern, because a lot of these cases, especially
those involving outright (and utterly misplaced) hostility makes me
actually not give a flying fuck.

Actually, that's now a word, according to the New Yorker...

> I'll save my compassion for people that are actually in dire
straits, not intelligent folk who can very well fend for themselves.
>

Makes sense

> {Joe}
> >You're over at Juilliard, right?? It's nice to see that there are a
> >few good musicians with BRAINS in the world!
>
> So, at the end of this bit: Joe, I suppose if this kind of stuff
*were* to make me mad, a statement like that would. I am surprised at
these words from you, and hope that it was a heat-of-the-moment reply.

I'm sorry... my underwear was showing. I forgot the *mask* that I
need to wear if I partake in the "shadow play" over at Anaphoria...

In any case, if you consider me or some of the others posting along
these lines to be nothing more than Neanderthals, there really isn't
anything I can do about it. Or care to, actually.
>
> But I _hope_ you'll feel differently on reflection.
>

I'm still "warm and fuzzy," particularly "fuzzy"... I don't know
about you...

________ ___ __ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13239

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> > just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify anything they don't
understand.That's why intellectuals in this country are so
despised.... I hate to see this attitude even permeating this list.
>

> Well I don't think C. Chapman's objections were so unreasonable! If
> there's going to be a lot of quick and essentially trivial back and
> forth (and I mean "trivial" in the big list sense), it might be
better taken off-list.

Yes, and that was the only important thing to come from all this
emotional diddle-daddle. And, in fact, Erlich and I *DID* take our
further experiment refinements off list in response.

Why all the emotionalism was necessary for such a simple "operation"
is really beyond me...

Maybe like you have said... it's the nature of the medium.

Though if it's relevant in a general sense, let it fly
> I say, and if that means one person posts 300 times a day so be it!
>
>
> > but the general attack on the mind around here is intolerable. I
> also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT
> it... unlike the cretins.
>
> It's a diverse group, and if a disproportionate amount of the info
> seems to be leaving others out, the occasional gripe is probably
them just reminding everyone of that diversity. "Cretins"? Come on
Joe...you've got to know that stuff like that's just going to fan
unwanted flames!
>

That *was* an error, and I admit it... a quick flame that came from
the Devil Dante.

>
> > What Paul has been doing is extremely important... it's a method
for determining in a scientific way a groundwork for concordance.
There can be NOTHING more important!
>
> Well, I can think of a few things! <please insert smile like object
> here>

It was a dumb remark...so what...

Look I said it before, if Paul's got 600 posts a day to post,
> I'm cool with that, and Paul does a LOT of important things around
> here... but, it's a big group of people here and opinions on the
> importance of this and that will vary. I don't think anyone really
> said anything -- in seriousness;

Jacky's post was largely in fun, and not at all different from my
"microtonal junkie" post of a few days back -- that was all that
irksome.

Yes, and that's why I *too* was rather amazed at the reactions...
maybe it was just the way things "built" from one thing to another...
dunno.

Probably we should all apologize. I have. But I will again: mea
culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa..

>
> It's a big group, we can work it out.
>
>
> - dan

I'm a big, warm, fuzzy teddy bear. I don't know about you...
______________ __ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> I'm a big, warm, fuzzy teddy bear. I don't know about you...

Kinda cold and craggly actually. I'm rereading one of my all-time
faves at the moment, "Letters From The Earth", and the following bit
kind of sums it all up for me, well today anyway...

"This is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting.
There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the
other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is
insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best
he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is
unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a
sarcasm."

-d

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13253

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> > I'm a big, warm, fuzzy teddy bear. I don't know about you...
>
> Kinda cold and craggly actually. I'm rereading one of my all-time
> faves at the moment, "Letters From The Earth", and the following bit
> kind of sums it all up for me, well today anyway...
>
> "This is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting.
> There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane,
the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself
is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very
best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is
> unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he
is a sarcasm."
>
>
> -d

It's true, Dan... We're strange and pathetic, and I will include
myself first and foremost...
___________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

List,

I will reply to Dante off-list, to try to repair the signal-to-noise ratio...

Sorry for the crap,
Jon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan M. Szanto | Don't give me a hard time, or
jszanto@adnc.com | I'll tell your Mommy about that
http://corporeal.com | magazine under your mattress.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13221
>
> Just because people are trying to find an "ultimate background"
> to music doesn't mean they should be villified. I maintain it's
> done by the "middlebrows"... just like middlebrows ALWAYS villify
> anything they don't understand. That's why intellectuals in this
> country are so despised.... I hate to see this attitude even
> permeating this list.

Jeez, what's going on around here??!! Just a few days ago I
sent a post extolling the wonderful multiplicity of perspectives
on this list, and now (again) people are at each other's
throats because of differences of opinion!

I'm particularly upset that Jacky Ligon quit the list, because
it was me who goaded him into subscribing in the first place.
And check the archives: for the first month or so, he was really
glad he joined! Then when the argument that caused Kraig to
leave flared up, Jacky (rightly or wrongly) perceived an
'attitude' toward JI around here that made him uncomfortable.
A few more days, a hilarious allegory that was misperceived
as an 'attack', and now he's gone too.

> I agree, some of the detailed discussion can be taken "off list"
> to good effect...

Talk about chicken! Joe, you're the only other person I know of
on this list besides me who has continually stressed the importance
of posting detailed stuff TO THE LIST so that others could
benefit... now you're backtracking?

> ... but the general attack on the mind around here is intolerable.

> I also can't understand a LOT of this stuff, but at least I RESPECT
> it... unlike the cretins.
>
> What Paul has been doing is extremely important...

When I first joined this list, I too (like many others) thought
I had invented an impressive new music-theory, and right away
set about 'educating' everyone here. It didn't take too long
for Paul Erlich to put me in my place.

But as I've said here many times, I admire Paul's ability with
math and, even more so, with logic. We've often had debates,
sometimes about concepts very dear to my heart (and brain),
and in the end I had to agree with him. But far from discouraging
me, I tried hard to maintain an open mind, and in the end
benefitted greatly from the interaction and the new understanding
I've attained.

Since then I've gotten to know Paul personally, and he's a very
cool guy (even tho he doesn't always come across that way in email).
I don't necessarily mean to single out Paul, but he's the one
person here who's been the bane of my existence on the list.
But that's a good thing!

Point is: can't we all be grown-ups around here? Let's all try
to act at least as mature as 13-year-old Keenan Pepper!

And keep ALL the heavy theoretical discussions ON LIST! Anyone
who's not interested can simply skip it or press the 'delete'
button... or is that too difficult?...

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> From all I can tell, it (Paul's work, and others) *does* look to
be the
> bedrock of a better understanding of a number of key concepts. I
only hope
> that Paul can take a little time away from the work-in-progress and
post
> most of this on one, dedicated website, so that we could point
interested
> parties in that direction, instead of a paper here, a .jpg there,
etc. It
> seems too important to be scattered about.
>
> I don't know how I could make the preceding statement of support
more clear
> than this.

Thanks, Jon, I truly appreciate the support. My reason for posting
such things here is to
get feedback from the many bright musicians here, who may have seen
or heard things
from a different perspective than I ever have. That way, when I do go
off on my own and
write a website or book, I not be speaking as an inhabitant of a
private little world. Many
people here have helped develop my ideas immensely, and I value all
the criticism my
ideas get (though I wish more people criticized them, or at least
prodded me to put the
ideas in a form they can understand, when they don't understand them).

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Rosati" <dante@p...> wrote:
> People are so unconscious in their projections...
> all I can make of these
> recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists"
> is that they are made by
> those who wish they could understand what was going on
> theoretically, but cannot.

I understand what harmonic entropy is (a way of calculating
consonance and dissonance), I just don't have any use for it
and...I would rather be making music.

David Beardsley

I hope this message goes through, my email
has been down since last night and this egroups
way of posting a message is a bit clumsy. Yet
another example of what works for some people
doesn't work for me.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Rosati" <dante@p...> wrote:
> People are so unconscious in their projections...
> all I can make of these
> recent (and recurring) attacks on the "theorists"
> is that they are made by
> those who wish they could understand what was going on
> theoretically, but cannot.

I understand what harmonic entropy is (a way of calculating
consonance and dissonance), I just don't have any use for it
and...I would rather be making music.

David Beardsley

I hope this message goes through, my email
has been down since last night and this egroups
way of posting a message is a bit clumsy. Yet
another example of what works for some people
doesn't work for me.