Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Theory and Practice

The following is an extended paraphrase from an offlist exchange:

It's been my constant frustration in music that many gifted practitioners have
what could be called "theory anxiety". It's as if they are deeply afraid that a
bit of technical explanation will somehow take away the magic of music-making,
rather than deepen the experience.

Paradoxically, it is often the same musicians who come up with and insist upon
the most patent nonsense (i.e. a recent post wanted to claim some correspondance
between the 127th partial and the 127th power of 2). Sadly, this can have the
effect of reducing the magic, by applying a facile explanation. One gets
frustrated immediately, but you just don't know whether to call the writer on
the bit of nonsense and risk a flame war, or to ignore the postings, much as a
member of the opposition might deal with the current resident in the White
House: this, too, shall pass. It's a hard choice because not getting it right
seems to me to be disrespectful of if not irresponsible to the music that one
loves. Moreover, this can be distracting to someone who is encountering such
theory for the first time.

Recently, on this list, we've had vivid examples of how deeply some musicians
personalize a bit of theory or a definition. Upon encountering an alternative
definition, they feel threatened, sometimes without realizing that their own
definition is either exclusionary of others or so general as to be meaningless.
Composers, especially, work in isolation and that breeds a kind of myopia
(myauria?), but the very function of a community, like this list, is to open
eyes and ears, not to close them.

As the old saying goes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". An example:
Within the tuning community there are many who know Partch's _Genesis_ by
chapter, verse, and line. For some of these literalists, this turns into a form
of doctrinal knowledge where any form of deviation from Partch's practice is no
longer to be considered "just intonation". That means, 1/1 must equal 392Hz,
all harmonies must be derived from the diamond etc.. Clearly, if one actually
_reads_ Partch, rather than memorizes him, one would come to other conclusions,
realizing that Partch intended his "monophony" to be _an_ example, not _the_
example of a functioning JI. With the publication of the first edition of
_Genesis_, Partch's work as a theorist largely ended. It must be acknowledged
that his theoretical work in _Genesis_ is often teasingly incomplete (for
example, the derivation of the "one-footed bride"; to my knowledge, Paul Ehrlich
is the only scholar who has examined this closely, taking Partch seriously as a
theorist, yet for the very act of taking Partch seriously, he has been taken to
task by the literalists), and that his subsequent compositional achievement goes
far beyond the ideas presented in _Genesis_. A failure to deal with these
themes would, in effect, restrict the approach to Partch's music through 1972 to
a theoretical project completed in 1947.

I envy someone like Kraig Grady who has the wonderful opportunity in his own web
pages to invent an indigenous (if fictionally so) theory of music from whatever
set of first principles he may choose or find. But on the alternative tuning
list, his role changes, to something like that of an ethnologist coming back
from the field, with a responsibility to describe what he has heard or seen in a
common language. This may mean as little as running your postings through a
spelling and grammar checker to get the English right (I cannot emphasize this
enough to Americans: the smallest fault in spelling or grammar can render an
entire text incomprehensible to someone who only reads English as a second
language, and often for native speakers as well!). But it also means that if
one intends to innnovate within a theoretical tradition, that one has the
responsibility to command the language of that tradition.

I'll be blunt on two matters of opinion: The first is that some gifted musicians
are not theorists. This may be because they simply do not abstract their musical
experience into words, or because their verbal skills are not up to it. This in
no means diminishes my estimation of their musical skills, and in fact, there
are many days when I wish, as a musician, that I were less reflective, less
articulate about music. The second is that music theory is a large structure
into which one enters at the foundations. However, theorists are busily working
away at both the frontiers of the discipline and at foundations themselves. For
this reason, I have serious misgivings about the functioning of a list that
tries to serve both total beginners and the more advanced. I had thought of the
FAQ as a place where the dialogue and results of past years on the list could be
encapsultated, so that new list members can better follow the discussion rather
a primer for absolute beginners in tuning theory. I believe that there are
other sources for beginners in tuning theory, but the theoretical achievements
of the list are not readily accessible. It is an understatement to say that the
alternative tuning list has gone far beyond any other place of research in our
field (compare the newest Grove or MGG), but these researches are largely
inaccessible in over-dense archives. This desperately needs to be remedied.

I am an optimist, in that I believe one can have discourse about music that
approaches music's magic with dignity. My mentor as an undergraduate was a
classicist (N.O.Brown), who once delivered a Phi Beta Kappa address at Columbia
entitled "Apocalypse: The Place of Mystery in the Life of the Mind". In it,
Brown gives an example from the old Tibetan College of Magical Ritual. One of
the courses taught at this institution was on "Inner Heat". As a final exam,
the students in this course were required to sit naked on a frozen lake next to
a pile of frozen shirts. As a measurement of their ability to generate "inner
heat", the students were required to wear and dry as many of these shirts as
possible. Okay, mystery, totally unexplicable. But totally demonstrable. Brown
wrote: "Where the power is real, the test is real, and the grading system
dumbfoundingly objective. I say no more..."

Best regards,

DJW

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Daniel Wolf wrote:

>
> I envy someone like Kraig Grady who has the wonderful opportunity in
> his own web
> pages to invent an indigenous (if fictionally so) theory of music from
> whatever
> set of first principles he may choose or find. But on the alternative
> tuning
> list, his role changes, to something like that of an ethnologist
> coming back
> from the field, with a responsibility to describe what he has heard or
> seen in a
> common language.

I do not see my web pages as an exposition of a theory of music and for
the most part see my post as not any theory at all. I make observations
as to why i have trouble with certain ideas put forth on this list. The
above is a compliment but feel it does not apply. the bottom i take and
it does apply.

> This may mean as little as running your postings through a
> spelling and grammar checker to get the English right (I cannot
> emphasize this
> enough to Americans:

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Daniel Wolf wrote,

<<It's been my constant frustration in music that many gifted
practitioners have what could be called "theory anxiety". It's as if
they are deeply afraid that a bit of technical explanation will
somehow take away the magic of music-making, rather than deepen the
experience.>>

What a well thought out post... just a personal aside on this "theory
anxiety" point.

Though I mostly agree with Daniel's view here, I have to admit that
certain experiences in my life apparently have been 'compromised' by
poking my 'intellect' at them too much. And as such, I've acquired a
hearty dose of sympathy for the "somehow take away the magic" idea...
it's obviously a big and tangled subject, and one that's tough for me
to endorse (the idea that your intellect can compromise certain things
that is), but I think, no, I know, it's not entirely without merit
either...

<<I envy someone like Kraig Grady who has the wonderful opportunity in
his own web pages to invent an indigenous (if fictionally so) theory
of music from whatever set of first principles he may choose or find.
But on the alternative tuning list, his role changes, to something
like that of an ethnologist coming back from the field, with a
responsibility to describe what he has heard or seen in a common
language. This may mean as little as running your postings through a
spelling and grammar checker to get the English right>>

No amount of spell checking or grammar checking is going to turn a
"Kraig Grady" post into a "Daniel Wolf" post! But hell, that's okay --
in fact, in this day and age, I respect a bleep the spell checker
attitude! Honestly though, I don't think it would make much of a
difference, and if it isn't something that someone just does, trying
to get them to do so in this way seems to me, err, well mildly
offensive I guess... but, that's just my opinion.

<<I had thought of the FAQ as a place where the dialogue and results
of past years on the list could be encapsultated,>>

Interesting, this is certainly different from what I thought the FAQ
was to be... but I think that your absolutely right, that it would be
great to have a nice meaty encapsulated view of the big tuning list
threads and ideas in some easily accessible, edited format. I still
think the FAQ could do both though if it assumes a certain prior
knowledge of the very basics... ?

--Dan Stearns

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

"D.Stearns" wrote:
>
> Daniel Wolf wrote,

> <<I envy someone like Kraig Grady who has the wonderful opportunity in
> his own web pages to invent an indigenous (if fictionally so) theory
> of music from whatever set of first principles he may choose or find.
> But on the alternative tuning list, his role changes, to something
> like that of an ethnologist coming back from the field, with a
> responsibility to describe what he has heard or seen in a common
> language. This may mean as little as running your postings through a
> spelling and grammar checker to get the English right>>
>
> No amount of spell checking or grammar checking is going to turn a
> "Kraig Grady" post into a "Daniel Wolf" post! But hell, that's okay --
> in fact, in this day and age, I respect a bleep the spell checker
> attitude! Honestly though, I don't think it would make much of a
> difference, and if it isn't something that someone just does, trying
> to get them to do so in this way seems to me, err, well mildly
> offensive I guess... but, that's just my opinion.

I'd say that bashing some one for their spelling or English usage
errors is very bad net etiquette. It's even off topic.

And........I asked that the FAQ be keep simple, but almost
nobody heard me!

--
* 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
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

--- In tuning@y..., "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:
> [It is my opinion] that music theory is a large
structure
> into which one enters at the foundations. However, theorists are
busily working
> away at both the frontiers of the discipline and at foundations
themselves. For
> this reason, I have serious misgivings about the functioning of a
list that
> tries to serve both total beginners and the more advanced. I had
thought of the
> FAQ as a place where the dialogue and results of past years on the
list could be
> encapsultated, so that new list members can better follow the
discussion rather
> a primer for absolute beginners in tuning theory. I believe that
there are
> other sources for beginners in tuning theory, but the theoretical
achievements
> of the list are not readily accessible. It is an understatement to
say that the
> alternative tuning list has gone far beyond any other place of
research in our
> field (compare the newest Grove or MGG), but these researches are
largely
> inaccessible in over-dense archives. This desperately needs to be
remedied.

Aha! I see now that we have very different ideas of what a FAQ is.

What you are proposing is indeed an extremely worthy project but I
think of it more as a "Best of" the tuning list or "New results from
the tuning list".

As evidenced by Sarn Ursell's recent post, seconded by Alison
Monteith, there is also a need for a tuning list primer. If anyone can
point to a _single_ book or website that would serve that function on
its own, please let us know what it is.

I have several times had people consulting me by email with basic
tuning or math questions. Others have reported the same experience. I
personally don't mind that when it is only one at a time, but it does
take time and I would be happier if I could direct them to a _single_
document to read on the basics, after which they would still be
welcome to ask me questions.

To underscore the difference between these two documents:

Graham Breed has already written an excellent FAQ-like answer to the
Question "What is JI?". I eagerly await Margo's answer, but I expect
it will be a much longer and more detailed 'Best of the list' type
answer.

Daniel Wolf's excellent answer re meantone, is I feel much too
detailed for a FAQ, since, for a newbie, it might raise as many
questions as it answers.

I think the list can, and must, serve both "total beginners" and the
more advanced. I think of the list as the epitome of Ivan Illich's
"learning exchange". Rarely is anyone a "total" beginner, most newbies
have something new to offer (even if it is only a new perspective on
something old), they often arrive at the list as an expert in
_something_, while being totally ignorant (but eager to learn) in
other areas. That likely describes myself when I joined the list.
(Wait a minute, it describes me still now!)

I am interested in cooperating on both projects (and I recognise that
the boundary between them is rather fuzzy) but I don't want to work on
a "Best of" until we have a "back to basics" FAQ.

How do others feel about this?

-- Dave Keenan

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

To help those who may be suffering from "Theory anxiety":

Richard Feynman (who was an amateur musician and artist as well as a
professional physicist) wrote the following:

" Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere
globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and
feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens
stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can
catch one - million - year - old light. A vast pattern - of which I am
a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not
do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more
marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why
do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who
can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense
spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? "
--- Footnote in The Feynman Lectures on Physics

Many mathematicians and scientists have found their way to the
mystical (but beyond the merely magical), by _doing_ maths or science,
not in spite of it.

I'm using here Ken Wilber's usage where "magical" refers to the
pre-rational (which denies the rational) and "mystical" refers to the
trans-rational (which goes beyond but includes the rational (and the
magical)). Many people confuse the two.

For more Feynman quotes in a similar vein, and a couple from another
well-known genius, see
http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~barkana/feynman.html

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Dear Dave,

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> To help those who may be suffering from "Theory anxiety":

Do we really *need* help? :)

> Richard Feynman (who was an amateur musician and artist as
> well as a professional physicist) wrote the following:
>
> " Poets say science takes away from the beauty ...

...and the rest, well put. I've loved Richard Feynman ever since I
saw a piece on him years ago, and have all of the 'popular' books
on/by the man. It is a personal, and very appropriate, way of viewing
life and the cosmos -- as it was for him, it is for many.

But not all.

------------------------------------------
From Frances Mayes "Under The Tuscan Sun":

"One spring when I studied cooking with Simone Beck at her house in
Provence, she said some things I never forgot. Another student, a
caterer and cooking teacher, kept asking Simca for the technique for
everything. She had a notebook and furiously wrote down every word
Simca said. The other four of us were mainly interested in eating
what we'd prepared. When she asked one time too many, Simca said
crisply, "There *is* no technique, there is just the way to do it.
Now, are we going to measure or are we going to cook?"
------------------------------------------

To each his/her own. There are more important things on the list, I
imagine, but I thought about Daniel's post during the entire matinee
of Gounod's "Faust" that I played today. I almost forgot to come in
at one point, so it obviously struck a nerve!

So, maybe more later; we'll see how the waters are over the next
couple of days on the list...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19407.html#19421

Feynman:

For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past
imagined it.

Why do the poets of the present not speak of it?

Hello Dave...

Sorry, missed this sentence. Not true, though. Many artists DO work
from a scientific approach. We were just speaking about this the
other day at an American Composer Forum New York meeting as a
friend/acquaintance of mine, Charlie Griffin, has recently set some
scientific texts.

It's all the rage right now...

If you are interested, his piece is at:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1223/1223295.html

These particular words are based upon "chaos theory," but there are
several other songs, each based upon a different scientific concept.

This piece is called "Love's Discrete Nonlinearity..."

The very well-known American composer John Harbison has made similar
scientific settings.

Many composers feel art must keep pace with science and are working
with the "full store" of our current knowledge (or trying to)...

_________ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> ... It is a personal, and very appropriate, way of
viewing
> life and the cosmos -- as it was for him, it is for many.
>
> But not all.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> ... When she asked one time too many, Simca said
> crisply, "There *is* no technique, there is just the way to do it.
> Now, are we going to measure or are we going to cook?"
> ------------------------------------------
>
> To each his/her own.

Thanks Jon,

A very good point. This is what I imagine the great scientist/mystics
saying:

Yes, there is a price to be paid for rationality, but it's worth it.
The magical identifications of childhood seem so attractive sometimes,
compared to the rational, so concerned as it is with syntax. But there
are levels of growth beyond the rational that are even better, and you
get to keep your rationality too, although you will no longer
exclusively identify with it. To be a healthy mystic you must first be
a healthy rational, that doesn't mean you have to be a math genius, it
only means you need to develop a healthy ego.

Our current culture makes it very easy to confuse the pre-rational and
the trans-rational. But here's a serious reason to distinguish
them, human sacrifice was a product of magical thinking, not rational
and not mystical.

Unfortunately folk like Feynman and Sagan, (but not Einstein) threw
the mystical baby out with the magical bathwater.

> There are more important things on the list, I
> imagine, but ...

Maintenance of group harmony is very important to me. And surely
"harmony" is on-topic. ;-)

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Mr. Dave,

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> A very good point. This is what I imagine the great
> scientist/mystics saying:

Dave, Dave, Dave: why not try thinking about what a pure lunatic
shaman might say? You've already got the "rationals" wired! :)

> Yes, there is a price to be paid for rationality, but it's
> worth it.

Fine. Van Gogh was hardly rational -- was his a 'price' worth paying?
I don't know, but what a poorer world we would have without his
irrational visions. (And, yes, I realize I am stretching the
metaphor/boundaries a bit...)

> But here's a serious reason to distinguish them, human sacrifice
> was a product of magical thinking, not rational and not mystical.

It is also a product of the modern capital punishment ethic.

> Unfortunately folk like Feynman and Sagan, (but not Einstein) threw
> the mystical baby out with the magical bathwater.

Yeah, I always liked Feynman best when he was beating on one of those
conga drums. But I'd never mistake him for an artist, notwithstanding
that he certainly didn't aspire as such.

> Maintenance of group harmony is very important to me. And surely
> "harmony" is on-topic. ;-)

Absolutely, and that includes some very pungent dissonances, the kind
that can only be found outside of 12-tet. Both the rational and
irrational members of this group have enhanced my knowledge and
understanding, but no one has come up with a suitable arguement
(yourself included) for me to go closer to the rational and further
from the magical.

Unlike your hypothesis, in my case, the price is definitely *not*
worth it.

Bestest,
Jon

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> Dave, Dave, Dave: why not try thinking about what a pure lunatic
> shaman might say?

Jon,

You're gonna have to help me out. That aspect of my self is waaaay
tooo heavily repressed. :) But maybe after a few joints. ...

<several loud sucking noises later> ... I expect (s)he'd tell us all
to go take a flying fuck at the moon. :)

> You've already got the "rationals" wired! :)

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with this usage of "wired" or which
rationals you are referring to.

>> But here's a serious reason to distinguish them, human sacrifice
>> was a product of magical thinking, not rational and not mystical.
>
> It is also a product of the modern capital punishment ethic.

Which is a vestige of magical thinking. It doesn't exist in my country
and doesn't look like ever coming back.

> Both the rational and
> irrational members of this group have enhanced my knowledge and
> understanding, but no one has come up with a suitable arguement
> (yourself included) for me to go closer to the rational and further
> from the magical.

I haven't given an argument for it and of course this list is not the
place, but an extremely accessible starting point is Ken Wilber's book
'No boundary', a popular version of his more academic 'Spectrum of
Consciousness'.

Or (despite his confusion of mysticism with magic) Carl Sagan's 'This
demon haunted world'.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Dave,

This will be brief, we're (I'm) pretty OT at this point!

{you wrote...}
>You're gonna have to help me out.

My hourly rates are too high.

> > You've already got the "rationals" wired! :)
>
>I'm sorry I'm not familiar with this usage of "wired" or which
>rationals you are referring to.

Sorry for the slang. I only meant that you understand and are comfortable with the scientific angle of looking at life and the world. *Non*-theory-anxiety, if you will.

>It [capital punishment] doesn't exist in my country and doesn't look like >ever coming back.

It is a shame on ours.

> > but no one has come up with a suitable arguement (yourself included) for
> > me to go closer to the rational and further from the magical.

Well, I thought that was what you were attempting with this thread: a guide book for the Theory Anxietals. Either that or you were explaining that particular way of looking at things strictly as an academic exercise. :)

>an extremely accessible starting point is Ken Wilber's book 'No boundary'

I will, honestly, take a look at that.

>Or (despite his confusion of mysticism with magic) Carl Sagan's 'This
>demon haunted world'.

I'll pass, thanks...

It's been good batting this one around. I expect to see you at the ruins at midnight, in loincloth. No slide rules allowed <grin>.

Cheers,
Jon

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

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<Many composers feel art must keep pace with science and are working
with the "full store" of our current knowledge (or trying to)...>>

Well, in a certain sense of Feynman's point, Dave's own work on
something like the tumbling dekany can be seen as one of music's many
analogues to something on the order of the photographs of Lennart
Nilsson, or even more so, the algorithmic computer art of someone like
Harvard physicist Eric Heller.

Even armed with a pretty good understanding of the algorithm in
question, I've never really totally warmed to this particular type of
a science meets art hybrid... actually, I often like it well enough,
but only to a certain point... and then it's a steep drop-off in the
"sustained meaningfulness" to "that's very nice" ratio. (I guess I'm
too often too much reminded of Christopher Bailey's bit about "it
works" and the toilet...)

But that's just me, and I'm sure that it's no doubt quite something
different for other folks! Think I'll toss News From Babel's "Dark
Matter" in for a listen or two right now...

--Dan Stearns

Re: [tuning] Theory and Practice

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com