Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning more trouble with Dan

Just joking, Dan... but this *is* an interesting discussion!

My point, I think, is that there *ARE* "good" scales and "bad" scales
which may be evaluated through "theoretical" discussion. (Of course,
in combination with LISTENING)

Can you really discount that point??

Therefore, such studies are pertinent and valuable...

Of course, a creative soul can make probably a pretty good piece of
music with a rake and garbage pail (and look a little like that
American Farmer painting while doing it... who was that, Whistler??)

BUT, using a "better constructed" scale will probably lead to AT
LEAST as fine results, if not superior ones...

For example, in the case of the scale with which Paul Erlich "helped"
me (and that scale was called "Sparky," NOT "Beepy" by the way...
"Beepy" was my "Bohlen-Pierce" scale which was quite professional,
since Heinz Bohlen made it that way) I was going to use a scale that
had a rather "poor" lattice. It was "all over the place" with few
interconnections...

Now, I could have done "creative composing" with THAT scale, or with
a scale that had better sonic connectivity...

Wouldn't it make sense that there would be a greater "resonance" of
one kind or another with a scale that had better lattice connections??

So the point is, yes, one can use ANYTHING and be creative with it
and once the work is DONE, it would RUIN it to change it... but why
not use better PRIMARY materials to begin with??

P.S. Maybe you're just reacting to some peoples' scale efforts being
"dissed" on this list... I admit, sometimes it can be a little
"hostile..."

best
_____ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<My point, I think, is that there *ARE* "good" scales and "bad"
scales which may be evaluated through "theoretical" discussion. (Of
course, in combination with LISTENING) Can you really discount that
point??>>

Yes.

<<Therefore, such studies are pertinent and valuable...>>

Yes, and no, I don't think that contradicts my other yes!

<<BUT, using a "better constructed" scale will probably lead to AT
LEAST as fine results, if not superior ones...>>

$%$^&%&%!!!!%$$^$^?!

<<For example, in the case of the scale with which Paul Erlich
"helped" me (and that scale was called "Sparky," NOT "Beepy" by the
way... "Beepy" was my "Bohlen-Pierce" scale which was quite
professional, since Heinz Bohlen made it that way) I was going to use
a scale that had a rather "poor" lattice. It was "all over the place"
with few
interconnections... Now, I could have done "creative composing" with
THAT scale, or with a scale that had better sonic connectivity...
Wouldn't it make sense that there would be a greater "resonance" of
one kind or another with a scale that had better lattice
connections??>>

No.

<<So the point is, yes, one can use ANYTHING and be creative with it
and once the work is DONE, it would RUIN it to change it... but why
not use better PRIMARY materials to begin with??>>

Isn't it obvious? They're *not* the same! Sure, in some cases this way
of working is obviously valid... but as a general way of going about
things it leads to things like tunings such as say 11 or 13 or 20
equal being suspect from the get-go, and this is a crime. Well, not a
crime, but I'll hoot and holler about it like it is one, 'cause it's
damn close enough!

The bottom line here is I think a mindset one... and obviously ours
are different! But that's okay, I'll still listen to your music and
enjoy what I enjoy, and try to learn what I can from your posts and
views.

--Dan Stearns

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#19965

>
> <<So the point is, yes, one can use ANYTHING and be creative with it
> and once the work is DONE, it would RUIN it to change it... but why
> not use better PRIMARY materials to begin with??>>
>
> Isn't it obvious? They're *not* the same! Sure, in some cases this
way of working is obviously valid... but as a general way of going
about things it leads to things like tunings such as say 11 or 13 or
20 equal being suspect from the get-go, and this is a crime. Well,
not a crime, but I'll hoot and holler about it like it is one, 'cause
it's damn close enough!
>

Hi Dan!

You know, I was thinking about this walking around last night, and I
just *knew* that you would answer this discussion this way!

For the moment, I'm just thinking of nice just intonation lattices...
let's say glowing in a nice 60's black light.... pulsating and, well
need I go on...

And I envision you in the laboratory, with one of the "white coats"
on... doing your calculations with long strings of numbers and
dividing everything up into little tiny pieces... I bet you're even
dissecting mice!

What did you do with your "lava lamp??" Organic, just, mmmmmmm good.

> The bottom line here is I think a mindset one... and obviously ours
> are different! But that's okay, I'll still listen to your music and
> enjoy what I enjoy, and try to learn what I can from your posts and
> views.
>

Maybe it's different, maybe it's the same. Who knows. I'm a
pretty changable "dude," especially since I am pretty new to a
lot of this stuff! (Only really SERIOUSLY investigating it for
about ONE year!)

For the moment, I am not so interested in the "regularity" of ETs...
but I can certainly see how the emphasis on the lattices could
discourage people from the kinds of scales that are YOUR main focus.
So, yes, you are indeed correct, it is naturally a "mindset." Maybe
mine is a temporary "hallucination..." Pulsing lattices in the sky.
Yippie!

Thanks so much for your nice comments on my music and posts. I'm
flattered that you think you can "learn" something from my posts.

Hmmm... I guess I'll have to re-read them again to find out what
you're seeing there...

Best to you!

_______ _____ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Hi Joe,

How bad and how good a scale or a tuning looks on a paper is
meaningless compared to how it sounds in a music!

If I were to give advice -- a very bad idea really -- it would be
something like mess around a ton with as many different kinds of
tunings as you can, and make note of what your ear is finding
interesting and useful.

Having an instrument like the fretless guitar really opened my eyes
and ears to what sorts of things I would naturally tend towards
intonation wise if there were, relatively speaking, no boundaries.

My earliest conscious tuning experiences were done with my sister's Bb
Bundy and a Fostex X-15... and a bit later I experimented quite a bit
with manually manipulating the pitch of turntables, and much like the
fretless and the altered pitch clarinet overdubs, these pitch
experiments weren't something you could neatly lay on a lattice or
what have you. Micro explosion ground zero was so far removed from the
world of "connectivity" that it's a wonder that I ever ended up
rubbing elbows around the (neceserily reductionist) theory
neighborhood at all... 'cause I definitely come from the wrong side of
the tracks!

Interestingly, with all these early by ear only experiments, I was
never drawn to just intonation per say. I was drawn to what I saw as
new and strange notes and relationships.

I came from the curious camp. The stubborn camp too... so if so-and-so
said such-and-such was just awful and probably useless too boot, and I
didn't particularly care for so-and-so's music, well then
such-and-such was probably just what I was looking for!

Experience has taught me that tuning is a fascinating and rich topic
to work with both musically and theoretically. But my experiences have
told me that the two are pretty different branches of the same
subject... and the best I can hope for is that my interests and doings
in one more underscore than undermine my interests and doings in the
other!

I'm perfectly happy with some blear and misunderstanding, and in fact
I'm a pathetic mess if they're all run out of town, but others may
prefer clarity and prudence (or whatever). In the end I'd hope that
merit is achieved based on the usual stuff -- a solid track record of
commitment to some special end; a track record of something that's
obviously good, and difficult to refute in any other way besides 'I
don't care for it'.

The Xenharmonic Alliance compilation CD "Making Tracks" starts off
with a great little petit manifesto in which Ivor Darreg's immediately
peculiar voice is heard to say, "there are no bad tunings"...

And when it comes to music, he's right -- even if he ain't!

--Dan Stearns

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> How bad and how good a scale or a tuning looks on a paper is
> meaningless compared to how it sounds in a music!

Dan,

How refreshing to hear the voice of reason singing its Paean to Music
this morning!

Love it!

>
> If I were to give advice -- a very bad idea really -- it would be
> something like mess around a ton with as many different kinds of
> tunings as you can, and make note of what your ear is finding
> interesting and useful.

I totally agree, that this is where one's personal voice will be
found.

>
> Having an instrument like the fretless guitar really opened my eyes
> and ears to what sorts of things I would naturally tend towards
> intonation wise if there were, relatively speaking, no boundaries.

You got it goin' on in this regard for sure Dan!!!

>
> My earliest conscious tuning experiences were done with my sister's
Bb
> Bundy and a Fostex X-15... and a bit later I experimented quite a
bit
> with manually manipulating the pitch of turntables, and much like
the
> fretless and the altered pitch clarinet overdubs, these pitch
> experiments weren't something you could neatly lay on a lattice or
> what have you. Micro explosion ground zero was so far removed from
the
> world of "connectivity" that it's a wonder that I ever ended up
> rubbing elbows around the (necessarily reductionist) theory
> neighborhood at all... 'cause I definitely come from the wrong side
of
> the tracks!

I really relate to this - I'm glad I had years of private
investigation under my belt, before coming onto the internet forums.
Surely during my private probings I made mistakes, but this whole
process taught me allot about the musical applications.

>
> Interestingly, with all these early by ear only experiments, I was
> never drawn to just intonation per say. I was drawn to what I saw as
> new and strange notes and relationships.

Interesting - I began with ETs and moved to JI, now I enjoy it all.

>
> I came from the curious camp. The stubborn camp too... so if so-and-
so
> said such-and-such was just awful and probably useless too boot,
and I
> didn't particularly care for so-and-so's music, well then
> such-and-such was probably just what I was looking for!

This speaks from one who has obviously integrated the languages into
personal style, and works from personal taste too (a Margo Schulter
approach too!). I admire this approach where ever I see it, because
usually it is from the stubborn individualists that we hear the most
compelling music! Stay in the stubborn camp Dan - I'm diggin' it!

>
> Experience has taught me that tuning is a fascinating and rich topic
> to work with both musically and theoretically. But my experiences
have
> told me that the two are pretty different branches of the same
> subject... and the best I can hope for is that my interests and
doings
> in one more underscore than undermine my interests and doings in the
> other!

Underscored in bold! Living the microtonal dream!

>
> I'm perfectly happy with some blear and misunderstanding, and in
fact
> I'm a pathetic mess if they're all run out of town, but others may
> prefer clarity and prudence (or whatever). In the end I'd hope that
> merit is achieved based on the usual stuff -- a solid track record
of
> commitment to some special end; a track record of something that's
> obviously good, and difficult to refute in any other way besides 'I
> don't care for it'.

A round of applause for you here! Spoken of true musical heart!

>
> The Xenharmonic Alliance compilation CD "Making Tracks" starts off
> with a great little petit manifesto in which Ivor Darreg's
immediately
> peculiar voice is heard to say, "there are no bad tunings"...

I love that little collage - it's great!

>
> And when it comes to music, he's right -- even if he ain't!

Timeless truths emerge here again - how refreshing!

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#19985

> Hi Joe,
>
> How bad and how good a scale or a tuning looks on a paper is
> meaningless compared to how it sounds in a music!
>
> If I were to give advice -- a very bad idea really -- it would be
> something like mess around a ton with as many different kinds of
> tunings as you can, and make note of what your ear is finding
> interesting and useful.
>

Hi Dan!

I really appreciate your commentary, and I'm glad I started this
"little discussion" in the first place, since it's already been quite
fruitful and it leads me to a greater insight as to your music and
approach! A little bit of your personal history on tuning matters
helps too... I can better see, naturally, where you're "coming
from..."

It seems a little strange to me that someone with SUCH an auditory
attitude should sometimes get so involved in the mathematics of
abstract systems, but, it must be as you have said yourself, the two
things are virtually UNCONNECTED from one another.

If I am understanding you correctly, your theoretical studies and your
music are virtually SEPARATE enthusisms which have little to do with
one another except in some fortuitous circumstances...

>these pitch experiments weren't something you could neatly lay on a
lattice or what have you. Micro explosion ground zero was so far
removed from the world of "connectivity" that it's a wonder that I
ever ended up
> rubbing elbows around the (neceserily reductionist) theory
neighborhood at all... 'cause I definitely come from the wrong side of
the tracks!
>

Still, I have a question as to the value of ANY "pre-compositional"
scale investigation as an approach.

Is it not possible that theoretical investigation of scales, or MOS
properties, or whatever, could STILL be a valuable way to proceed to
limit the "unlimitless" possibilities.

From YOUR view, it seems as though such studies, unlinked to AUDITORY
evaluation are totally meaningless..

So, for example, the studies Dave Keenan and others are doing on the
17-ness an so on of scales are only meaningless games??

Is there anyone willing or interested in defending the OPPOSITE view??
that "precompositional" studies of tuning systems, connectivity, or
even pitch-class selection through pre-compositional set theory or
whatever has some value... that is BEFORE the listening process??

Is it defensible??

If not, it kind of makes me wonder what people are doing in all these
music theory graduate courses, pushing abstract sets around...

If it can't be defended, then I guess it's "game, set, match..." pun
fully intended!

Anyone else willing to take the other side?? (And let me get out of
the "line of fire" for the moment... :) )

Thanks!

________ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#19994

> I'm in Dan's corner, completely.
>
> All intervals are useable. Meaning is centered in precise
intervals. And there is meaning in all relationships. Thanks Dan.
>
>

Hi Johnny!

This is very nice, but I'm not certain it makes sense in light of the
recent 17-ish scale that you posted.

Surely, you can't claim that you devised that scale FIRST by
listening... with 17's in EVERY ratio?? Come on!

The scale was devised theoretically FIRST, and THEN you applied the
musical relationships...

Right??

______ ______ ______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#19998

> In a message dated 3/9/01 12:07:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jpehrson@r...
> writes:
>
>
> > The scale was devised theoretically FIRST, and THEN you applied
the musical relationships...
> >
> >
>
> The more one works with the material, the more the intuition kicks
in. This is not just a mere chicken and egg scenario. It's like
composing with a long range and a short range view, simultaneously.
(I have made tunings based on the relationships of major cities in
the
Netherlands, incidentally.) Now if theoretical ruminations don't
express what is desired, chuck them.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

Hi Johnny!

Major cities in the Netherlands! That's smokin'! I think we should
get Dan Stearns to hear THAT one! :)

Thanks for the clarifications as to your "evolutionary" method.

Makes cents to me!

P.S. Anybody remember Ernst Toch's "Geographical Fugue??" A little
corny, but kinda funny...

best

________ _____ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
In writing to Dan, you put the following out:

Why does it need to be defenseible (-able?)? Why would you even care
about it if *you* found value in the investigation? I have to admit,
a few days (weeks?) ago you wrote a note on one of the tunings that
(Paul?) someone put up in either diagram form, or
ratios/cents/something, and you said you were looking forward to
trying it out, that it had a lot of promise, etc., before you had
even heard it!

Do painters sit around and look at new forumlas of paints, find all
kinds of paints that they think would be really great to paint with,
and then finally start to paint? Why not just PAINT!

> If not, it kind of makes me wonder what people are doing in all
these
> music theory graduate courses, pushing abstract sets around...

I used to wonder too, but not for long. I gave up on them. Long ago,
we used to joke about Stravinsky and Schoenberg at some imaginary
Serial Music Summer Camp, where Arnie peeks over Igor's desk and
exclaims "Hey Igo! *Coooool* row, man!!"
>
> If it can't be defended, then I guess it's "game, set, match..."
pun
> fully intended!

Why? Isn't it working for you?

To each his own. The downside (or upside, if you like) is that while
we can put up the numbers to say, "No, this dyad is the more
consonant of the two", or correct a lattice that has been mistakenly
drawn -- no, the one thing we can't do is say that this composition
is better than that one, or that your piece is, prima face, going to
move an audience more than someone elses.

Write more music. Make more music. Tune more scales.

You'll find your own way...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Dawood Suleiman <shdave@hotmail.com>

Joseph Pehrson said:

>Is there anyone willing or interested in defending the OPPOSITE view??
>that "precompositional" studies of tuning systems, connectivity, or
>even pitch-class selection through pre-compositional set theory or
>whatever has some value... that is BEFORE the listening process??
>
>Is it defensible??
>
>If not, it kind of makes me wonder what people are doing in all these
>music theory graduate courses, pushing abstract sets around...
>
>If it can't be defended, then I guess it's "game, set, match..." pun
>fully intended!
>
>Anyone else willing to take the other side?? (And let me get out of
>the "line of fire" for the moment... :) )
>
>Thanks!
>
>________ _____ ____ _
>Joseph Pehrson

History is enoygh proof that precompositional studies are useful. Look at the development of the Bohlen_pierce scale. It stsarted out as a purely academic pursuit at the hands of a non-musically trained engineer and led to a scale that has great creative potential in the hands of a competent composer.

David Solomon

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<It seems a little strange to me that someone with SUCH an auditory
attitude should sometimes get so involved in the mathematics of
abstract systems, but, it must be as you have said yourself, the two
things are virtually UNCONNECTED from one another.>>

They're both aesthetic pursuits, and the fundamental tread of
creativity that runs between them is much more what I'm interested in.

I think your way overemphasizing my 'stick an ear on it' points, as
I'm not at all opposed to precompositional theory work.

Johnny Reinhard summed up my feelings here perfectly well when he
wrote: "The more one works with the material, the more the intuition
kicks in. This is not just a mere chicken and egg scenario. It's like
composing with a long range and a short range view, simultaneously."
And if the "theoretical ruminations don't express what is desired,
chuck them."

This is precisely what I meant by trying to have one's theory and
music interests underscore, rather than undermine, each other -- "the
more one works with the material, the more the intuition kicks in"...
that really does sum it up for me! And by "material", I take that to
mean the notes the relationships and how it all gets used.

So no, I'm not opposed to precompositional pruning at all (and it is
of course quite impossible to avoid anyway). But if I'm forced to
choose (usually to make a point), then yes, I'm gathering all my
precompositional clippings up and scuffling on over to Kraig Grady's
sweat lodge with a fresh batch of kindling.

Overemphasizing a point to make another point doesn't necessarily make
for a clear read, so I'm sorry if I've been unable to express my views
clearly enough here. However, and fortunately for me, a lot of others
are jumping in and doing a good job of having a say!

--Dan Stearns

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#20008

>
> I think your way overemphasizing my 'stick an ear on it' points, as
> I'm not at all opposed to precompositional theory work.
>

Hi Dan!

I don't know... you seemed to be making such a strong case against it
before!

> Johnny Reinhard summed up my feelings here perfectly well when he
> wrote: "The more one works with the material, the more the intuition
> kicks in. This is not just a mere chicken and egg scenario. It's
like composing with a long range and a short range view,
simultaneously." And if the "theoretical ruminations don't express
what is desired, chuck them."
>

Yes, truly Johnny had had *lots* of experience and, I agree, it's
reflected in this comment...

> Overemphasizing a point to make another point doesn't necessarily
make for a clear read, so I'm sorry if I've been unable to express my
views clearly enough here.

Sounds like you're "backpedaling," Dan!

________ ______ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#19965

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> <<My point, I think, is that there *ARE* "good" scales and "bad"
> scales which may be evaluated through "theoretical" discussion. (Of
> course, in combination with LISTENING) Can you really discount that
> point??>>
>
> Yes.
>

Hi Dan...

I think your first paragraph here was the source of *my* confusion.
Are you saying that "good" scales and "bad" scales *CAN* be evaluated
through "theoretical" discussion...(??)

Are you saying that you DISCOUNT that "good" scales and "bad" scales
can be evaluated through "theoretical" discussion (??)

I think you'll agree the post is vague here, correct??

I assumed the LATTER, which is why I found your subsequent post
contradictory... but perhaps it was the FORMER (??)

_______ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Mats �ljare <oljare@hotmail.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Mats Öljare" <oljare@h...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#20016

> When i started on my first orchestral piece in 1993 or 1994,i
transferred the marking dots from a Swedish atlas onto the paper.The
piece ended up as a disaster because i didn´t know anything about
instrument ranges...god those were the days.It was directly inspired
by John Cage,who used maps to create various kinds of notation.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
> MATS ÖLJARE
> http://www.angelfire.com/mo/oljare
>

Hello Mats!

Of course... John Cage's "Atlas Eclipticalis" and other pieces...

http://www.music.princeton.edu/~jwp/texts/Atlas103.html

Comments here about Petr Kotik, too..., who's an interesting guy...
_________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Hi Joe,

I think measures of "good" and "bad" like lattice connectivity,
consistency, close approximations of simple consonances (etc.), tell
such a one-sided (or overly focused) story that they do a disservice
to what's usually associated with the terms "good" and "bad"... but
when I say this I'm talking as a generalist, and when I exaggeratedly
complain about it I'm very much doing so to try and make a point.

The point as I see it is that the definitions and means that your
using to determine "good" and "bad" scales are very narrow ones...
good enough ones to be sure, but much much too narrow to be applied in
a generalist sense. Now for someone, perhaps yourself, these may be
all and more than you need, and that's fine! They're good theoretical
means to try to get at certain ends, and I use similar things all the
time.

Try to measure what I saying here against what I usually say (post)
and what I do musically and theory wise, and I think things should be
pretty clear. I'm pretty consistent with my droning and grumbling, so
there really shouldn't be too many surprises!

--Dan Stearns

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#20020

> Hi Joe,
>
> I think measures of "good" and "bad" like lattice connectivity,
> consistency, close approximations of simple consonances (etc.), tell
> such a one-sided (or overly focused) story that they do a disservice
> to what's usually associated with the terms "good" and "bad"... but
> when I say this I'm talking as a generalist, and when I
exaggeratedly complain about it I'm very much doing so to try and
make
a point.
>
> The point as I see it is that the definitions and means that your
> using to determine "good" and "bad" scales are very narrow ones...
> good enough ones to be sure, but much much too narrow to be applied
in a generalist sense. Now for someone, perhaps yourself, these may be
> all and more than you need, and that's fine! They're good
theoretical means to try to get at certain ends, and I use similar
things all the time.
>
> Try to measure what I saying here against what I usually say (post)
> and what I do musically and theory wise, and I think things should
be pretty clear. I'm pretty consistent with my droning and grumbling,
so there really shouldn't be too many surprises!
>
> --Dan Stearns

Thanks, Dan, for your "clarifications" .... Actually, I've always
admired your "open mindedness" about tuning matters on the list...

(Although generally you *do* seem to like ET's over JI's...:) Are you
sure you're not really an "R2D2" "bot" doing "auto posts" from time
to time?? :) )

Actually, I was thinking about it (not a bad idea) and I was
wondering if we could satisfy ALL parties concerned by saying that
theoretical studies IN CONJUNCTION with listening all the way along
is a reasonable way to proceed...

I BELIEVE that's what you and Johnny Reinhard were inferring...

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

__________ ________ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<Although generally you *do* seem to like ET's over JI's...>>

Not true, it's just that with a prefix like "just", just intonation
usually doesn't need much in the way of a character reference or an
ego boost... it's already just, kinda like Superman or Santa Claus,
and what more could a tuning ask for!

<<theoretical studies IN CONJUNCTION with listening all the way along
is a reasonable way to proceed... I BELIEVE that's what you and Johnny
Reinhard were inferring>>

Yeah, and if the plotting and planning doesn't match up well with the
music, chuck it. There's no shortage of possibilities. Or hey, if your
really hell-bent on the plotting and planning and it just doesn't
match up well with music, chuck music! I'm sure in this case that's
for the best... and while I'm pretty sure that I'm half-quoting some
Blakeian proverb of hell here, the bottom line is if your hell-bent
onto something, then you probably already know what to do: stick with
it, full steam ahead!

--Dan Stearns

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_19898.html#20023

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> <<Although generally you *do* seem to like ET's over JI's...>>
>
> Not true, it's just that with a prefix like "just", just intonation
> usually doesn't need much in the way of a character reference or an
> ego boost... it's already just, kinda like Superman or Santa Claus,
> and what more could a tuning ask for!
>

That's a good quote, Dan... Just Intonation as Superman and Santa
Claus... I will forward it over to the Just Intonation Network...

>
> <<theoretical studies IN CONJUNCTION with listening all the way
along is a reasonable way to proceed... I BELIEVE that's what you and
Johnny Reinhard were inferring>>
>

> Yeah, and if the plotting and planning doesn't match up well with
the music, chuck it. There's no shortage of possibilities. Or hey, if
your really hell-bent on the plotting and planning and it just doesn't
> match up well with music, chuck music!

Well, this is, of course, a radical view, and Jacky Ligon is going to
find you in a dark alley... But it does appeal to me as a good
defense of "Augenmusik" which we discussed last November... (gee, it
seems more recent... time flies on the Tuning List)

/tuning/topicId_16064.html#16064

>I'm sure in this case that's for the best... and while I'm pretty
>sure that I'm half-quoting some Blakeian proverb of hell here, the
bottom line is if your hell-bent onto something, then you probably
already know what to do: stick with it, full steam ahead!
>
> --Dan Stearns

That's it! And all the tuners are writhing in Hell, just like the
great Hieronymus Bosch painting...

(Time of Josquin...)

PARENTAL ADVISORY!

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightr.jpg

_________ ______ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson