Allegory and Goodbye

Today I used what to me was a little humorous allegory to make a
point about an observation (misconstrued by some) that I have made
about this list from the very beginning: There is very little to
glean here about actual music making. I didn't set out 15 years ago
in my microtonal journey, to come to rest here at the foot of Mount
Hubris, where such high-brow and "middle-brow" art/mathematical
snobbery and arrogance thwarts the very spirit of community and music
making; which is so sorely missing in this forum. The reek of
Academic aloofness here does not inspire good music, but only serves
to sour the stomach and relationships. It's not too hard to notice an
enormous list of historical figures that have contributed to the
majority of all meaningful art and science, that were completely
outside of the "accepted" academic circles of art, thought and
science - try the entire Non-Western world, Copernicus, to Coltrane
to Zappa. Westerners look at the World through their judging pair of
Western Glasses, which are smudged over by centuries of Hubris, and
pass their skewed Western conclusions onto everything in site in the
name of academic authority, and from within a cozy framework of
intellectual necrophilia. This I find beyond repugnant. I find
outside of this forum something that you may have forgotten
about "The Real World Of Music Creation" - into which I will shortly
retire to it's lovely paradisal gardens. I've made it 15 years
without one iota of help from the likes of the Hubris Kings - never
needed you - never will. Hey Kings - I invite you to gaze down on us
mere mortals, and "slow brained cretins" through your arrogant
hateful and judging eyes, and check out the cool music that's being
made while you guys play your little Glass Bead Game! We've been
doing this since pre-history! You just came along thousands of years
later and tried to get your name attached to it. No need for the
arrogant stamp of approval from the Hubris Kings of Academia! There's
so many of you guys littering the shoulder of the real highway of
music like so much road-kill, that we stopped keeping count centuries
ago. Ah, the grounds of the Tuning List are fertile for growing a
huge harvest of Shoenberg's, Milton Babbitts and Pierre Boulez'. My
time here has underscored something that I have known for years -
namely that the fundamental pitch relationships are only a facet of
real music making. Hear this simple truth.

Joseph wrote:
... and it takes a bit of "self awareness" and
magnanimity 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.

This is truly the mirror to hold in front of one's own face, and this
is my challenge to what will soon be my former fellow listers,
because I really feel sorrow for those that feel that here at the
foot of Mount Hubris is any center of anything good about creating a
meaningful body of microtonal work. It is a hallucination at work
here - perpetuated by a mob instinct, and carried out by the
lame "yes-men", who Kiss Ass and Kow-Tow to every mathematical whim
and mood of the moment. This isn't about music, this equates more
with the effort to find the North West Passage - or the rush to the
U.S. West during the 1800s, to "stake out your territory" - as well
as having a fertile ground for narrow minded games of petty one-
upmanship. Well allot of folks died in the process from their hubris,
and some have ice bergs and lands named after them - and guess what
(?) - who gives a shit! And with these my parting words, I now
permanently take my leave from the Halls Of The Hubris Kings - and
leave you with this - get the Soul of Music Creation happening here,
or there won't be many left but you Kings.

Jacky

Jacky,

In lieu of the fact that you previously seemed genuinely psyched to be
here, and regularly contributed interesting music and posts, I hope
you'll somehow reconsider... I realize you just burned the bridge
about as well as one can burn a bridge (if your going to burn a bridge
folks, that's the way to do it; whew...). But I think things have been
blown WAY out of proportion, and gotten waaaay out of hand... emotions
are just running high, and it really ain't all that bad!

Oh well, I don't know... so damn much for working things out I guess.
A pretty sour day at the ol' tuning list today I'd have to say.

- dan

From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

>... and it really ain't all that bad!

Yes, it really is getting that bad. I've received nearly 100 posts from this
list since my student posted about the Mode Room in Java yesterday. There have
been all kinds of posts about what to post about, and long posts replying
to other long posts and whatnot. But in all these posts (which would have
probably taken about 3 or 4 hours to read and digest, if I hadn't merely
skimmed most of them so I could get to class this morning) not a single
poster has replied to my student, who was trying to get some suggestions for
what to include in the project before his proposal deadline in just a few
days.

I should point out that I wrote my dissertation on tuning theory, I'm not
against theory, but some people just go on and on without really saying
anything useful to the list as a whole. Here's an example:

>>[... long quote from somebody's post ...]

> what?

>>[... another long quote from somebody's post ...]

> please explain this ...

These personal messages could really be dialogues between the 2 parties

that all of us don't have to wade through in order to find posts with

actual content.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best,

Lydia Ayers

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Lydia Ayers <LAYERS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13250

not a
single poster has replied to my student, who was trying to get some
suggestions for what to include in the project before his proposal
deadline in just a few days.
>
I wanted very much to respond to the student, but, frankly, I have
*NO* idea what should or should not be included in such a "mode"
room... and some of the people who were the most informative and
interested... like Daniel Wolf, are no longer on the list...
__________ ___ __ _ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, jacky_ekstasis@y... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13231

> ago. Ah, the grounds of the Tuning List are fertile for growing a
> huge harvest of Shoenberg's, Milton Babbitts and Pierre Boulez'. My
> time here has underscored something that I have known for years -
> namely that the fundamental pitch relationships are only a facet of
> real music making. Hear this simple truth.
>

Schoenberg is spelled SCHOENBERG, or SCHONBERG with an umlaut on the
"o" if you have the character...
________ ____ __ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

I'm sorry that Jacky Ligon has left; I hope he changes his mind. We
all get very frustrated at times, so Jacky, please don't feel alone!

I do want to respond to one point, though.

[Jacky:]
> My time here has underscored something that I have known for years -
> namely that the fundamental pitch relationships are only a facet of
> real music making.

Coincidentally, this facet of music making is the purpose of the tuning
list!

>Hear this simple truth.

Jacky, I think everyone on this list DOES realize this simple truth! I
don't know of a single person who does not intend to use the knowledge
exchanged on this list for making real music, or helping others do so.

JdL

I'm writing this for the following reasons:
A. to be generally annoying.
B. to post the following completely random and meaningless figures:

546965186421464346546+1681684636264684614561151557357651616649.1209898049
065.03208.2340621093429494294262.3.13.62492688459549594594549+54+9+454+4+
05185464264246494961.1146792461.46.461.4614612462461.461.4614612791237679
.6677612.761.46761276776284649476367357462132626883421551554549223652697.
`2353459001809809138501703091238413248081304-12039-481-2304--013848333274
i90u490138u4132809804549-59455615156516550=5-4802948508243508945945904584
84354913459459247harmonic entropy can kiss my patootie2349154616165168415
243452345248487346245484574412332232233278247`234787359123909845348594545
41894894734574549998745455529597412379459974794276.47.09.0641060469467475
90809438593485013485213540504950945-29345-09240-540-504040043004004044222
156375673534568998340910394513451-39-134-95-013459-1345004000404044244044
349934932949095940-995943545485984581945894354351345945485849414914143141
9890894812340124nq82319324812341234`423423099549599341500..12355484689898

(This message contained no smiley-faces.)

For what it's worth, I liked Jackie's post and I found it funny. (So I'm CCing him in case he really did leave the list. I started this yesterday, then had a mail crash...)

I personally find 90% of the math & lattice discussion totally boring, but I hit the delete button. Some people have snooty attitudes, or at least come off that way. That's not new. Takes all kinds. Hit the delete button...

But Lydia was right... It's just beyond the pale to have all of these long quotes from previous messages followed by uninformative one-liners directed at the poster. It's also annoying to read post after post of pure banter between two or three people who are working out details of a mathematical theory... But I can live with it as long as it's about tuning. Hopefully the result will be interesting and relevant to the 300 people who watched it evolve.

The real annoyance for me is the way these meta-discussions about appropriate topics for the list flare into major events involving titanic emotional eruptions... It happens on all mail lists from time to time.

I really liked Paul Erlich's concise post on the difference between Farey and Tenney series calculations. More of that sort of thing would be nice. Thanks.

The grand prize for best e-mail etiquette and closest adherance to list-topicality has to go to <wild-applause> Margo Schulter </wild-applause>.

Rick

[For the sake of clarity: This is
written to Jacky Ekstasis and Carbon
Copied to the Tuning List]

Jacky,

Really sorry to see you go, especially
with such hard feelings. I hope that
much of what you said was blowing off
emotional steam and not meant
literally. I must say that I found some
of it perplexing. For example, "the
very spirit of community and music
making; which is so sorely missing in
this forum," and a reference to "The
reek of Academic aloofness." I've been
following the List for over three
years. I have yet to smell the reek of
academic aloofness. In fact, my feeling
has been, right from the start, "Ah,
finally a place where I feel at home."
The sense of community is precisely what
has made me stay so long. For the
record, I'm no ivory tower type. I work
in the trenches, writing and recording
commercial music, song demos, and indie
records in Nashville, TN. I have no
advanced degree, only a Bachelor of
Music degree in Church Music. The
extent of my math education is Algebra
II in high school. The Tuning List is a
haven for people like me, who went to
school in hopes of learning how music
worked, but came away with little more
than a head knowledge of Western
traditions.

There are some of us musicians who feel
compelled to discover as much as we can
about how music works. Others don't
care at all - they make music
instinctively; theory disinterests
them. I record both kinds of musicians
every week. Often, I see some of each
on a single session. I know some of
each kind who are great, good, mediocre,
and poor, in terms of both skill and raw
talent, and in terms of ability to write
and/or perform music. I have observed
no particular bias one way or the other,
as to how level of theoretical interest
corresponds to quality of musical
output. I value both kinds of musicians
very highly.

You may be one of those who are not
particularly interested in how music
works - you just want to make it. If
so, then in all honesty the Tuning List
is probably not the best use of your
time. That doesn't make you inferior,
wrong, nor "small brained." But neither
does that mean that the List is a waste
of time for those of us who must try to
find out.

From time to time, especially when the
discussions become intensely
mathematical, someone will suggest that
we all stop studying and start making
music. Think about the ramifications of
that suggestion for the Tuning List for
a moment. How in the world is a
text-based discussion list supposed to
make music?! It's an alluring
suggestion at first sight, but it's
really quite preposterous. It's a bit
like suggesting that auto engineers
could get more done by driving around
than by sitting at their drawing
boards. Certainly, auto engineers
should drive cars that they have
designed as often as is feasible, and
music theoreticians should compose music
with their theories as they develop.
But one cannot design a better car
simply by driving, and one cannot
advance music theory simply by
composing. And rather obviously, one
cannot make music by writing and reading
posts on a discussion list. One can,
however, help himself and others to come
to a deeper understanding and
appreciation of music. One can also
quickly discover ways of making music
that he would otherwise have overlooked,
however many years he practiced and
performed. My own ability to pinpoint a
tuning problem in the midst of a
recording session, and to make a
relevant suggestion about how to correct
it, has been immeasurably increased by
my studies in conjunction with the
List. People stare at me like I'm a
magician or something, sometimes.

Jacky, what would you have the Tuning
List to be? A volley of subjective
opinions about how music sounds and how
to play it? If that's what you want,
then you would be well advised to find
or start a list that fits that
description, and to name it
appropriately. I submit that most of
the Tuning List subscribers would not
find such a list interesting for very
long. If the List were to be reduced to
that, it would die, IMHO; I, for one,
would lose interest in it in less than a
week. It's nice to get little
interjections about it now and then, as
I myself have made - and I have enjoyed
yours, too. But the purpose of the
Tuning List is, by definition, to
discuss matters of tuning as they relate
to the making of music, not to discuss
the making of music itself; nor to make
music, which is not a feasible objective
for a discussion list. Since tuning is
a purely mathematical field, charts,
graphs, diagrams, formulae, and lists of
generated figures constitute the
clearest, most succinct, and therefore
most valuable means of carrying on the
discussion at hand. (The List is also,
of course, a place to announce
performances of microtonal music and to
discuss the meaning and purpose of
composing microtonal music.)

The work being done on the List right
now seems to be really coming to a
head. The contributions of people such
as Paul Erlich, Dan Stearns, Graham
Breed, Wilson-via-Grady, Joe Monzo, John
deLaubenfels, Keenan Pepper, and Joe
Pehrson have been vectoring together for
some time now. Things are starting to
gel into some genuinely important
developments. Who are these people?
Are they ivory tower musicians? AFAIK,
none holds a full time job in either
music or academia. (Please, forgive me
for leaving out some important
contributors, as I'm sure I have done!
I only offer these names as
representative for the purpose of making
a point.)

In fact, who are the professional
musicians and music teachers on the
list? Some (not all!) of them are the
very same people who suggest from time
to time that the math is overwhelming
the music making! Seldom do they
advance any of the heavy music theory
posts that stir up occasional negative
reactions. What I'm driving at is that
you may have pinned your complaints on
the wrong people. This is not in any way
a backhanded insult on the pros and
teachers. All have made valuable
contributions to the List, just not
typically of the sort against which you
reacted.

Lastly, I think that your final reaction
was against the harsh statements of only
one or two people. I don't believe that
the List as a whole condemns you nor
your point of view. I'm quite certain
that those who routinely post the
"heavy" stuff held no animosity towards
you prior to your parting post. (One
could hardly blame them if they do now,
but they probably don't. They probably
feel sad to lose you, as do I.) I wish
you well, and hope that you find a
musical home on or off the web, one that
suits your particular interests and to
which you can participate comfortably as
a community member.

Sincerely,

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://members.xoom.com/dfinn.1
--

David F., you expressed my thoughts and feelings on
this better than I ever could have, and I appreciate the
effort that went into the note. If Jacky does reply,
please tell him/her I feel the same way and was hurt to
see him/her leave in the way (s)he did. I hope we can
all come to some sort of understanding in this often
very difficult medium.

I also did not understand Kraig's reasons for leaving
and will try to get in touch with him. If it is as David B.
said, that he was upset that people were reinventing
the wheel, well you have to reinvent it if you lost the
instruction manual . . . and anyway, I also prefer people
discovering important concepts for themselves rather
then learning them second hand -- you'll understand
them at least as well the first way.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> I also did not understand Kraig's reasons for leaving
> and will try to get in touch with him. If it is as David B.
> said, that he was upset that people were reinventing
> the wheel, well you have to reinvent it if you lost the
> instruction manual . . .

The Just Intonation Primer by David Doty can be purchased
from the Just Intonation Network at:

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/

You also might want to check out Harry Partchs Genesis of a Music.

good night,
db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

[Paul E:]
>>I also did not understand Kraig's reasons for leaving
>>and will try to get in touch with him. If it is as David B.
>>said, that he was upset that people were reinventing
>>the wheel, well you have to reinvent it if you lost the
>>instruction manual . . .

[David B:]
>The Just Intonation Primer by David Doty can be purchased
>from the Just Intonation Network at:

>http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/

>You also might want to check out Harry Partchs Genesis of a Music.

David, I know you know that Paul is familiar with those works! Not
everyone on the list is, however, and shall we forbid any postings on
topics that could be found in those, or other, books? That seems silly
to me.

I'm a big believer in "reinventing the wheel", because it's the perfect
preparation for pushing knowledge beyond where any "wheel" has yet gone.
Besides, the wheel that is already invented may be a wagon wheel, with
chrome-moly and other important refinements yet to come.

Fellow listers: don't like the content of many of the posts? Do two
things, please!

. Use the page-down key freely; we all have different interests.

. Compose and send more posts on the subjects that interest YOU.

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13367

>
> Fellow listers: don't like the content of many of the posts? Do
two
> things, please!
>
> . Use the page-down key freely; we all have different interests.
>
> . Compose and send more posts on the subjects that interest YOU.
>
> JdL

Don't John summarize it well, though... Maybe the *real* problem is
"posts about posts." Perhaps they should be "verboten." Ach-choo!
<smiley thing>
___________ ___ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David Beardsley <
xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > I also did not understand Kraig's reasons for leaving
> > and will try to get in touch with him. If it is as David B.
> > said, that he was upset that people were reinventing
> > the wheel, well you have to reinvent it if you lost the
> > instruction manual . . .
>
> The Just Intonation Primer by David Doty can be purchased
> from the Just Intonation Network at:
>
> http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/
>
> You also might want to check out Harry Partchs Genesis of a Music.
>
> good night,
> db

David -- weren't you saying that in reference to
Wilson's papers?

Paul Erlich wrote:

> David -- weren't you saying that in reference to
> Wilson's papers?

Kraig Grady left the list during thread called
"JI and integer ratios -- large and small"

Go back and check the archives. See message
12527 and then his next 12545 and last post:12546.

db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13345
>
> David F., you expressed my thoughts and feelings on
> this better than I ever could have, and I appreciate the
> effort that went into the note. If Jacky does reply,
> please tell him/her I feel the same way and was hurt to
> see him/her leave in the way (s)he did. I hope we can
> all come to some sort of understanding in this often
> very difficult medium.

To everyone on the list:

Former list-member Jacky Ligon (the name that goes with the
jacky ekstasis email address) is a man.

There must be something about spelling his name 'Jacky' instead
of 'Jackie' that makes it seem feminine. He wrote to me privately
for the first time at the beginning of this year, and I too
thought he was a woman until I asked.

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

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/13345
>
> ... anyway, I also prefer people
> discovering important concepts for themselves rather
> then learning them second hand -- you'll understand
> them at least as well the first way.

And often a whole lot better.

I'm glad you like to use this approach, Paul. It's only because
I accepted your challenge to find the other triadic proportions
in your Voronoi diagram (rather than placidly reading them in
a post, had you provided them) that I understand a little of
what you did there.

And it's also a big part of the reason why I understand Erv's
work better after having redone Kraig's scans into my own webpages.
Actually typing every word Erv wrote forced me to examine
everything I read. That's a big part of the reason why I
encouraged others to do the same; it was only partly because
of my respect for the integrity of Erv's own presentation.

And last but not least, I 'reinvented the wheel' big-time
when I independently started making my own lattice-diagrams.
In some ways, I'm sorry that I didn't already know about the
work of Fokker and Wilson, because it would have saved me a
*lot* of work and brainstorming. But in a lot of ways, I'm
glad it happened that way, because if I had simply read
Fokker's and Wilson's work before my mind was prepared to
understand all the ramifications, I'm certain it would have
had only a tiny fraction of the impact that it actually has
had, since now I see how my work fits into a 'tradition' begun
by them.

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