Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1144

> From: "shreeswifty" <ppagano@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: The rationalist

<snip>
> >From my own personal experience, I play and
> > write better music when I do not have a scaffolding of
> > theory or other distractions around it.
>
> But John is this because you shift from "non-thinking"
> into a learned language ...tuning.. that guides your freedom?

Very likely. I let my fingers do the walking. Just saying
that my approach is nonverbal and non analytic.

<snip>
>
> because while some may see the old twelve tone system as bondage another
> might be implementing a completely different value system for
> that same 12 tone system without the need to be "freed" to the use of more
> and more tones.

Oh yes, that is indeed possible.

> I just feel queasy when others want to decide proper and adequate terms when
> describing music.
> I think guising it as a FAQ is a cute idea but for it to truly be a communal
> effort i think that ALL members should answer ALL questions
> and then Vote on appropriate terms, otherwise regardless of tenure, age or
> experience there shall be imbalance.
>
> And that is my rationale--balance between theory and music
> terms are good to discuss, teach and revise.
> Music frequently dispenses the need for terms.
>
> my 2 hertz
>
> pagano

I wasn't addressing the FAQ consciously, but I don't think I
would be competent to judge those articles dealing with
terms and structures with which I have no familiarity.

--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html

> I wasn't addressing the FAQ consciously, but I don't think I
> would be competent to judge those articles dealing with
> terms and structures with which I have no familiarity.

Did not mean to put words into your mouth
And i guess terms and structures that have no familiarity to the individual
could be simply left blank.

thanks for chatting Mr starret so few anwer my annoying posts

cher

Pat