Practical Microtonality

Dearest friends on the Alternative Tuning Theory List,

Today, I have started a new Yahoo group called Practical
Microtonality, and any and all who are interested in the below
description are welcome to join this open forum which promises to be
quite allot of fun! I have placed this new group under the
category "For Musicians", for obvious reasons.

Practical Microtonality:

The theme of this group is about making Microtonal Music. Microtonal
Music, being that which is concerned with issues of pitch in music
making, outside of the constraints epitomized by the standardized
western 12 tone equal temperament tuning, pervading the world of
music today. Every possible kind of Microtonal Tuning is welcome:
Just Intonation, Non-Just Non-Equal, Non-12 Equal Temperaments,
Xenharmonics, Xentonality, Non-Octave Tunings, Ethnic, Found and
Invented scales - anything that leads toward the active creation of
new works of Microtonal Music. Participants of the "Practical
Microtonality" group, work together here based on the powerful
philosophy of the late Ivor Darreg, that: "There are no bad scales".
We gather here to share ideas about the *creation* of Microtonal
Music, where all persons, employing all means of Microtonal Music
production, both Acoustic and Electronic, are on an equal level.

The criteria for joining is that you are either actively making
Microtonal Music, or else you have some serious future interest in
this activity. There are no leaders here, only people who are
interested in sharing their personal experience in the joyous and
beautiful act of Microtonal Music creation. Compositional techniques,
theoretical ideas which lead to the realization of living, breathing
Microtonal Music and open sharing of actual music are the further
themes of our group. People that are involved in this group are here
to help, and share in our common ground, to achieve the ultimate ends
of getting Microtonal Music recorded, and made available to both
Microtonalists and interested listeners alike, and come together in
an open spirit of sharing for all who are interested in this
wonderful pursuit.

Our Motto is "Keeping it Real".

You may join the Practical Microtonality group here:

/practicalmicrotonality

Very Best, and I hope to see all who are interested in this theme
over there!

Jacky Ligon

Hello friends!

I want to post a short message to say kind thanks to those that have
shown depth and understanding about the formation of the Practical
Microtonality group, and to those who may have feelings and opinions
that are at odds with it, I offer these words of explanation, comfort
and encouragement:

We didn't start the Practical Microtonality group to cause a rift
here, or any kind of separation from this list. In fact, as you can
see, I have remained subscribed. I still get my digests, and I still
read them, and I will likely still post with about the same frequency
that I have in the past. And another fact is that, all but a few
(except for some who have never subscribed to this list) *still
remain members here*.

This is to be seen as nothing more than and *extension* of this
tuning theory list - nothing more - nothing less. We are just around
the corner - and *all of us* are on Yahoo. As one wise member has
pointed out today, others have did similar things in order to focus
in on more specialized facets of tuning theory, and development.

The last thing I ever wanted or intended, was to cause any kind of
bad feelings between anyone here. Only to do what others have done,
and create and environment in which we may focus on our specialized
area of microtonal music. Anyone is free to come and go as they
please, and I have opted to do both. And I would like to gently say
that this does not represent separation - absolutely not - by any
stretch of the imagination, other than what may be manufactured in
one's own mind. I have learned greatly from many here, and I'm
honored, blessed and deeply appreciative from the sharing that many
have shown to me.

One thing I would greatly like to clarify, is that this Practical
Microtonality group, is not *my* group. This is something that many
have long had a desire to have, and again is to be seen as nothing
more than an extension of this list, where we may focus on our
specialized area of microtonality, without having to break to flow of
important activity here. It is the group for *all* who join it, who
enjoy the focus on the theme of its specialized topic, and it will be
made what it will be from the content that all of them provide there.
So *my* list, it is not.

If I have in any way whatsoever offended or confused persons as to my
intent, I wish to openly and public offer you my humblest apologies,
and offer to you, that you may write to me privately about your
concerns and I'll be happy to clarify - but truth is, I'm saying it
here - there is no ambiguity in my words. There was a specialized
need to be filled, and I'm not the only one with this special need.

Eternal friend of the Tuning List,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> Dearest friends on the Alternative Tuning Theory List,
>
>
> Today, I have started a new Yahoo group called Practical
> Microtonality, and any and all who are interested in the below
> description are welcome to join this open forum which promises to
be
> quite allot of fun! I have placed this new group under the
> category "For Musicians", for obvious reasons.
>
> Practical Microtonality:
>
> The theme of this group is about making Microtonal Music.
Microtonal
> Music, being that which is concerned with issues of pitch in music
> making, outside of the constraints epitomized by the standardized
> western 12 tone equal temperament tuning, pervading the world of
> music today. Every possible kind of Microtonal Tuning is welcome:
> Just Intonation, Non-Just Non-Equal, Non-12 Equal Temperaments,
> Xenharmonics, Xentonality, Non-Octave Tunings, Ethnic, Found and
> Invented scales - anything that leads toward the active creation of
> new works of Microtonal Music. Participants of the "Practical
> Microtonality" group, work together here based on the powerful
> philosophy of the late Ivor Darreg, that: "There are no bad
scales".
> We gather here to share ideas about the *creation* of Microtonal
> Music, where all persons, employing all means of Microtonal Music
> production, both Acoustic and Electronic, are on an equal level.
>
> The criteria for joining is that you are either actively making
> Microtonal Music, or else you have some serious future interest in
> this activity. There are no leaders here, only people who are
> interested in sharing their personal experience in the joyous and
> beautiful act of Microtonal Music creation. Compositional
techniques,
> theoretical ideas which lead to the realization of living,
breathing
> Microtonal Music and open sharing of actual music are the further
> themes of our group. People that are involved in this group are
here
> to help, and share in our common ground, to achieve the ultimate
ends
> of getting Microtonal Music recorded, and made available to both
> Microtonalists and interested listeners alike, and come together in
> an open spirit of sharing for all who are interested in this
> wonderful pursuit.
>
> Our Motto is "Keeping it Real".
>
>
> You may join the Practical Microtonality group here:
>
> /practicalmicrotonality
>
>
>
> Very Best, and I hope to see all who are interested in this theme
> over there!
>
> Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
Jacky,

I don't have a problem with the new list. But I agree with Mary that
the name is wrong. I think it is impossible for folks _not_ to draw
the conclusion, from that name, that the original tuning list is only
intended to be theoretical. I certainly don't want folks to think
that.

Mary has apparently well-understood what you hope the new list will be
like, and has suggested the name "irrational-microtonality" However, I
think that might make some people think you are not interested in
strict JI, or that you are all insane :-).

How about "intuitive-microtonality"?

It's easy to change the name of a list (particularly at this early
stage). I've done it myself.

I'm quite happy to start a separate "miracle-tuning" group, but I
haven't heard many opinions either way on the value of this. Would
this remove the desire for an intuitive-microtonality group. I doubt
it.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> Jacky,
>
> I don't have a problem with the new list. But I agree with Mary
that
> the name is wrong. I think it is impossible for folks _not_ to draw
> the conclusion, from that name, that the original tuning list is
only
> intended to be theoretical. I certainly don't want folks to think
> that.

Dave,

Thanks for your usually kind and courteous suggestions, but let's
take a look at something here from the home page of our beloved
Alternative Tuning List:

Description Category: Songwriting
Welcome to the Alternate Tunings Mailing List.
(Originally based at Mills College in Oakland, California, USA.)
(AKA "The Tuning List", "The Tuning Group".)

This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings;
experimental musical instrument design; non-standard equal
temperaments; MIDI tuning system exclusive specs; concert postings;
gamelan tunings and other non-western tunings; historical tunings;
the experimental tunings of Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Martin
Bartlett, James Tenney, and so on; software reports; recordings;
books; research sources, etcetera.

Now, besides the category for "songwriting", which I distinctly
remember many here having a problem with, and was "forced" onto this
list because there was no other appropriate category to choose from
when we came to Yahoo, do you or anybody else here detect the
word "MUSIC" or "MUSIC MAKING" anywhere in the body of this text(?):

This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings;
experimental musical instrument design; non-standard equal
temperaments; MIDI tuning system exclusive specs; concert postings;
gamelan tunings and other non-western tunings; historical tunings;
the experimental tunings of Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Martin
Bartlett, James Tenney, and so on; software reports; recordings;
books; research sources, etcetera.

Especially focus attention on this first part:
"This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate tunings"

CASE CLOSED.

> you are all insane :-).

I think we've established this fact, but my doctors have fired me as
a patient long ago - it's hopeless.

> I'm quite happy to start a separate "miracle-tuning" group, but I
> haven't heard many opinions either way on the value of this. Would
> this remove the desire for an intuitive-microtonality group. I
doubt
> it.

I live for unchained freedom - read: TOTALLY UNCHAINED FREEDOM. Don't
know any other way - it's just built into my genes, or something
perhaps deeper than that. I recommend that anyone do whatever gives
there lives the most freedom and joy, during this brief time here.

Like one of my favorite authors, Joseph Campbell used to say: "FOLLOW
YOUR BLISS". I take the master literally, and try to live it every
day of my life.

Kindest Blessings and Boundless Bliss to you and all,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> Thanks for your usually kind and courteous suggestions, but let's
> take a look at something here from the home page of our beloved
> Alternative Tuning List:
...
> This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
> alternate tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings;
> experimental musical instrument design; non-standard equal
> temperaments; MIDI tuning system exclusive specs; concert postings;
> gamelan tunings and other non-western tunings; historical tunings;
> the experimental tunings of Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Martin
> Bartlett, James Tenney, and so on; software reports; recordings;
> books; research sources, etcetera.

It is clearly talking about musical tunings, so the word music would
be somewhat redundant. e.g. "Recordings" are obviously intended to be
recordings of music.

"Ideas" can be about theory _or_ practice. I see some very practical
things in there such as "experimental musical instrument design",
"MIDI tuning system exclusive specs" and especially "recordings".

If you don't like "intuitive-microtonality" how about
"microtonal-music-making" or some such, as a name for the new list?
It's the implications of the word "Practical" that I think some are
finding offensive, even though you didn't intend it as such. Now that
this has been pointed out, couldn't you please give some thought to a
different name?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> > Thanks for your usually kind and courteous suggestions,

> It's the implications of the word "Practical" that I think some are
> finding offensive, even though you didn't intend it as such. Now
that this has been pointed out, couldn't you please give some thought
to a different name?
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

Dave,

Being that we all adore math and formula, let's look at some really
simple numbers here:

4 = Total # of people who have voiced difference about
this "Practical Microtonality" group (actually you are the only one
who has directly said anything to me about the theme and name, but
here we won't unduly reduce the numbers).

459 = The total membership of The Alternative Tuning group.

4/459 = 0.00871459694989106753812636165577342 %

0.00871459694989106753812636165577342 % = The percentage of people on
The Alternative Tuning group who have voiced difference about
this "Practical Microtonality" group.

I would hardly say this represents anything remotely resembling a
consensus here.

The answer to this question could hardly be more clear.

Just in case this post was overlooked or disregarded by the
0.00871459694989106753812636165577342 %,
I give you the link again:

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#22773

Please accept my humblest apologies,

JL

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> > It's the implications of the word "Practical" that I think some
are
> > finding offensive, even though you didn't intend it as such. Now
> that this has been pointed out, couldn't you please give some
thought
> to a different name?
> >
> > Regards,
> > -- Dave Keenan
>
> Dave,
>
> Being that we all adore math and formula, let's look at some really
> simple numbers here:
>
> 4 = Total # of people who have voiced difference about
> this "Practical Microtonality" group (actually you are the only one
> who has directly said anything to me about the theme and name,

Didn't Mary also express a desire for a different name?

> but
> here we won't unduly reduce the numbers).
>
> 459 = The total membership of The Alternative Tuning group.
>
> 4/459 = 0.00871459694989106753812636165577342 %
>
> 0.00871459694989106753812636165577342 % = The percentage of people
on
> The Alternative Tuning group who have voiced difference about
> this "Practical Microtonality" group.

Of course the number who have voiced approval of its name is even
less. The other 454, for all we know, don't care. And I will now
join their number.

I wish you luck. But you shouldn't be surprised if folks now doubt the
sincerity of
> /tuning/topicId_22707.html#22773

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

[Dave Keenan wrote:]
>I wish you luck. But you shouldn't be surprised if folks now doubt the
>sincerity of /tuning/topicId_22707.html#22773

Well, Dave, I hear you saying that _you_ doubt the sincerity of that
post. I, on the other hand, feel very strongly that Jackie emanates
warmth and sincerity at all times, certainly including that post.

Can we all shake hands now and put this little squabble behind us?

JdL

[I wrote:]
>Jackie

Sorry, Jacky. You'd think I could get a 5-letter name right!

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> I, on the other hand, feel very strongly that Jacky emanates
> warmth and sincerity at all times, certainly including that post.
>
> JdL

God bless you John A. deLaubenfels! And thank you for your kindness
and understanding here.

Folks - I'm just a simple person, and in my simple way of looking at
things, I just see us as all being in a big house, where we are
working on the same big project, with different facets of the total
research effort, going on in separate rooms.

Again, it has never been my desire to draw members here away with
this, just to recognize that there are specialized facets of what we
are all doing, which may be nurtured in other rooms of the big
communal house.

It saddens me to become a source of strife for some, and it is not my
intention to cause divisions amongst our ranks. How else more can I
bare my heart on these things, other than how I have already? Please
feel free to let me know, if I have omitted any subtlety, that can
help all to recognize that I mean no harm to anyone here.

Best,

Jacky Ligon

Jacky
is this a moderated list or No??
i think Kraigs NEW JI list did not hurt this list, so i would not worry
i think mostly we would lament you posting less to this list and miss out on
some of your great ideas
but please send me the imfo regarding the list....
I have been out of town and missed the initiation of this other list so
please re-update me if you have time :-)
cheers

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> Can we all shake hands now and put this little squabble behind us?

OK.

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

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#22796

> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

> It's easy to change the name of a list (particularly at this early
> stage). I've done it myself.
>
> I'm quite happy to start a separate "miracle-tuning" group, but I
> haven't heard many opinions either way on the value of this. Would
> this remove the desire for an intuitive-microtonality group. I
doubt
> it.
>
> -- Dave Keenan

Well, since you asked, I am personally opposed to ANY splinters of
the list from the "left" or "right" wings :) even the ones that have
already taken place...

_________ ______ _______ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#22803

> Like one of my favorite authors, Joseph Campbell used to
say: "FOLLOW
> YOUR BLISS". I take the master literally, and try to live it every
> day of my life.
>
> Kindest Blessings and Boundless Bliss to you and all,
>
> Jacky Ligon

Yeah, well the fact of the matter is that the "splinterers" are
IMPINGING on our "freedom and joy..."

I have enough trouble getting thoroughly through THIS list BEFORE I
will go and read "Harmonic Entropy" or "Practical Microtonality."
Maybe I won't get to them at all.

So I am being "deprived" of the scope of BOTH the more theoretical
and the more practical. We are left with the "middle of the road..."

Pooh.

_________ ______ _____ __
Joseph Pehrson

[Jacky wrote:]
>>Like one of my favorite authors, Joseph Campbell used to say: "FOLLOW
>>YOUR BLISS". I take the master literally, and try to live it every
>>day of my life.

Oh yeah. I love him too!

>>Kindest Blessings and Boundless Bliss to you and all,

>>Jacky Ligon

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>Yeah, well the fact of the matter is that the "splinterers" are
>IMPINGING on our "freedom and joy..."

>I have enough trouble getting thoroughly through THIS list BEFORE I
>will go and read "Harmonic Entropy" or "Practical Microtonality."
>Maybe I won't get to them at all.

Please forgive me for saying this so directly, but, Joseph, you are
talking nonsense.

The creation of the new list reduces the number of posts needed on the
old list. In the rare case where a post is duplicated on both lists,
that fact is immediately apparent, and skipping the duplicated message
takes only a moment.

When I read the posts on the new list, it is immediately obvious to me
that there is a visceral, joyous sense of release there. Clearly, many
people find something about the tuning list oppressive in some way.
The new list is a vital antidote, and does not deserve to be
guilt-tripped.

>So I am being "deprived" of the scope of BOTH the more theoretical
>and the more practical. We are left with the "middle of the road..."

>Pooh.

You are not being deprived unless you choose to be.

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#23106

> [Jacky wrote:]
> >>Like one of my favorite authors, Joseph Campbell used to
say: "FOLLOW
> >>YOUR BLISS". I take the master literally, and try to live it
every
> >>day of my life.
>
> Oh yeah. I love him too!
>
> >>Kindest Blessings and Boundless Bliss to you and all,
>
> >>Jacky Ligon
>
> [Joseph Pehrson:]
> >Yeah, well the fact of the matter is that the "splinterers" are
> >IMPINGING on our "freedom and joy..."
>
> >I have enough trouble getting thoroughly through THIS list BEFORE
I
> >will go and read "Harmonic Entropy" or "Practical Microtonality."
> >Maybe I won't get to them at all.
>
> Please forgive me for saying this so directly, but, Joseph, you are
> talking nonsense.
>
> The creation of the new list reduces the number of posts needed on
the
> old list. In the rare case where a post is duplicated on both
lists,
> that fact is immediately apparent, and skipping the duplicated
message
> takes only a moment.
>
> When I read the posts on the new list, it is immediately obvious to
me
> that there is a visceral, joyous sense of release there. Clearly,
many
> people find something about the tuning list oppressive in some way.
> The new list is a vital antidote, and does not deserve to be
> guilt-tripped.
>
> >So I am being "deprived" of the scope of BOTH the more theoretical
> >and the more practical. We are left with the "middle of the
road..."
>
> >Pooh.
>
> You are not being deprived unless you choose to be.
>
> JdL

Well, it's only *my* opinion... but your post hasn't changed it any...

_________ ______ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
/tuning/topicId_22707.html#23107

> Well, it's only *my* opinion... but your post hasn't changed it
any...
>
> _________ ______ _______ ____
> Joseph Pehrson

And, what's more... most of the "splintering" takes place when people
are enthusiastic about a subject... be it the more theoretical or the
more practical.

And the reason people get impatient??: people are only interested in
their *own* little worlds and have no toleration for other people.

pooh

_____________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph!
Many people have different basic assumptions and taste. This list has it own that from the
beginning i found uncomfortable and basically without a common place of meeting. That after
working in this area for over 25 years you would think is strange.
Well as this list is comfortable for your world view you have no reason to be impatient. It
seems the lack of toleration is for other list.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>
> And, what's more... most of the "splintering" takes place when people
> are enthusiastic about a subject... be it the more theoretical or the
> more practical.
>
> And the reason people get impatient??: people are only interested in
> their *own* little worlds and have no toleration for other people.
>
> pooh

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

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

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#23110

> Joseph!
> Many people have different basic assumptions and taste. This
list has it own that from the
> beginning i found uncomfortable and basically without a common
place of meeting. That after
> working in this area for over 25 years you would think is strange.

OK... as you know, Kraig, I take what you say seriously...

Hmmm... then there is something about this list that I am just not
perceiving. Maybe it's because I'm in the middle of it, and it
doesn't bother me particularly.

I guess some people see it differently... so I'll have to accept
that... I'm just a little "miffed" that so many of my xenharmonic
friends are going over to "right wing" or "left wing" lists, and I
doubt I'll have time to enjoy their posts!!!!

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

> The creation of the new list reduces the number of posts needed on the
> old list.

Overall I agree, but there is one mitigating factor, that being that a lot of people have quit the
tuning list because of it being too theoretical and not practical enough. Those people may come
back to live on the practicalmicrotonality list, thereby raising the overall total number of
messages.

I feel an amazing sense of
Freedom - Freedom - FREEDOM!!!
now that the tuning list
no longer has to pretend to be PRACTICAL.
I am free to follow my own aesthetic
and wander freely
in the platonic realms of pure mathematics.
No longer having to constantly justify these
excursions with reference to actual music.
No longer feeling that I have to explain their
purpose, or heaven-forbid, how to USE them.
----------------------------------------------
OK guys. You know I'm joking.

Please don't quote this out of context, e.g. without the "I'm joking".

I have decided _not_ to start a separate miracle-tuning list. I think
that once Joseph Pehrson has caught up, the volume of miracle-related
theory posts will fall to a dull background murmer. I hope however
that there will be more comparisons of folks' actual experience of
trying to use these scales, and more .mid's and .mp3's of pieces using
them. Those from Mary and Graham/Monz have been fabulous. Did I miss
someone?

I will have some more practical advice about using miracle in other
threads.

I feel a bit bad about _not_ starting the new group because Robert
Walker spent a lot of time making some great software that would have
let us start the new group with all the miracle posts from the old
group. However this software may still be used to make an archive of
these posts on my web site. If any author of a miracle-related post
objects to their posts being duplicated in this way please let me
know.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

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

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#23174

> I feel an amazing sense of
> Freedom - Freedom - FREEDOM!!!
> now that the tuning list
> no longer has to pretend to be PRACTICAL.
> I am free to follow my own aesthetic
> and wander freely
> in the platonic realms of pure mathematics.
> No longer having to constantly justify these
> excursions with reference to actual music.
> No longer feeling that I have to explain their
> purpose, or heaven-forbid, how to USE them.
> ----------------------------------------------
> OK guys. You know I'm joking.
>
> Please don't quote this out of context, e.g. without the "I'm
joking".
>
> I have decided _not_ to start a separate miracle-tuning list. I
think
> that once Joseph Pehrson has caught up, the volume of miracle-
related
> theory posts will fall to a dull background murmer.

I have to re-think my objections to all the different lists. Maybe
John deLaubenfels was right and they do all serve a purpose... and
the attitudes are quite different on all of them...

My error... I think John was thinking clearly here and not me...

Well, the new list seems to be inspiring Kraig Grady to quote from
Joyce and it seems to be inspiring some artistic work...

However, I still think it's a little unfair that Paul Erlich has been
banned... if that is indeed the case.

Personally, I would rather be over here where at least my bad math
gets corrected, rather than someplace where it just gets turned
into "artistic" ascii text, regardless of how decorative... (!!)

_________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> I have to re-think my objections to all the different lists. Maybe
> John deLaubenfels was right and they do all serve a purpose... and
> the attitudes are quite different on all of them...
>
> My error... I think John was thinking clearly here and not me...
>
> Well, the new list seems to be inspiring Kraig Grady to quote from
> Joyce and it seems to be inspiring some artistic work...

It started off okay, then got into a Meta discussion and then went quiet.

> However, I still think it's a little unfair that Paul Erlich has been
> banned... if that is indeed the case.

Obviously, Jacky had to be able to veto potential members so we don't get
authority figures on the list. Imagine if somebody came along and gave us
counter-intuitive "objective" facts. 1+1=2? Only if it aids my
creativity! So, Jacky has total control over the membership to stop this
happening.

> Personally, I would rather be over here where at least my bad math
> gets corrected, rather than someplace where it just gets turned
> into "artistic" ascii text, regardless of how decorative... (!!)

That's because you only think with the cerebral part of your brain.

I've been trying to set up a "Meta Tuning" group to discuss this and
related groups. But I keep getting errors, so I'll have to float this
proposal here.

How about we set up a group covering mathematical applications to music?
It could cover some of the things people object to on this list, along
with the things that veer off-topic, 12-tone theory stochastic music.

Any takers?

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> How about we set up a group covering mathematical applications to
music?
> It could cover some of the things people object to on this list,
along
> with the things that veer off-topic, 12-tone theory stochastic
music.
>
> Any takers?

Hmm. A "mathematics-of-music" group? It makes more sense than a
separate harmonic entropy group and a separate miracle tuning group.
One would certainly be allowed to discuss harmonic entropy in such a
group, so why not just get Paul to rename and rededicate the HE group.
Trouble is we might never get around to explaining anything (back on
the tuning list) in terms non-mathematicians can understand, and we
might not have non-mathematicians asking us good questions (or telling
us what fools we are) to keep us down to earth. But hey, I'd try to
remind us to do those things. I don't much care either way. I'd be on
both lists.

-- Dave Keenan

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

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#23203

> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> > How about we set up a group covering mathematical applications to
> music?
> > It could cover some of the things people object to on this list,
> along
> > with the things that veer off-topic, 12-tone theory stochastic
> music.
> >
> > Any takers?
>
> Hmm. A "mathematics-of-music" group? It makes more sense than a
> separate harmonic entropy group and a separate miracle tuning
group.
> One would certainly be allowed to discuss harmonic entropy in such
a
> group, so why not just get Paul to rename and rededicate the HE
group.
> Trouble is we might never get around to explaining anything (back
on
> the tuning list) in terms non-mathematicians can understand, and we
> might not have non-mathematicians asking us good questions (or
telling
> us what fools we are) to keep us down to earth. But hey, I'd try to
> remind us to do those things. I don't much care either way. I'd be
on
> both lists.
>
> -- Dave Keenan

This is exactly the problem. The original Tuning List was so strong
and exciting because of the RANGE of posts. This is
getting "diluted" through so many different lists. And, also,
the "cross fertilization" between different approches and different
kinds of people will not be happening.

But, I'm apparently "outvoted..." so I have to make the best of it...

________ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

Hi everyone,

Just to say here how much I appreciate the tuning group as a
mathematician.

Though there are many connections between maths and music, as
we see, it must be rather rare for mathematicians, composers,
sound engineers and so forth to work together as we do in this
list.

Supposing things continue to expand as they do, then it will just be
impractical to post everything to the same list. But, hope
we continue to make sure there is _a_ list where everyone can
meet and share things and work on things together.

Some of us will be travelling over mountain ranges and visiting
strange and unusual countries there. But there will be traders
and caravan routes, and people coming back as well who
would never have visited the tuning list as their first
microtonal stopping point.

Could be mathematicians from a mathematical list who would have
found the TL to have not quite enough mathematical content to
their tastes - may seem mathematical to us, but there is not so
much in the way of theorems and proofs - a mathematical list
might have many more in the way of Pierre Lamonthe's posts,
and others on the list able to read and understand them
readily.

Could be composers from the practicalmicrotonality list
we have already, who find their creativity needs a
forum in which they can say things that are more poetic
and in the realm of imagination and so forth - such
things can be said on the TL of course, and are, but it
is nice to have a list where that can go on in an
unrestrained fashion.

Could be programmers from programming lists for that matter,
trying to figure out best ways of programming for microtonal
music.

Or theorists working on the theory of the theory of the theory
of microtonal music, to as many realms of abstraction as they
like.

Or a lattice group maybe, devoted entirely to musical geometry.

I'm sure we'll all be the richer for this when it happens, in
it's own time.

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22707.html#22936
>
>
> It saddens me to become a source of strife for some, and it is not
my intention to cause divisions amongst our ranks. How else more can
I bare my heart on these things, other than how I have already?
Please feel free to let me know, if I have omitted any subtlety, that
can help all to recognize that I mean no harm to anyone here.
>
> Best,
>
> Jacky Ligon

If it is indeed true that Paul Erlich has been rudely excluded from
the "Practical Microtonality" list then, indeed, I believe
a "subtlety" is missing.

How about just saying to Paul: "We want our own little group with
our own conventions so please don't post here and correct us" rather
than putting up a wall..

But, I guess that "subtlety" eluded you...

__________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Hi Paul,

I think it would be nice to see you in the practicalmicrotonality
group.

I wonder if you might find it hard going at first - nearly everything
you post here would be regarded as off-topic.

But, who is to say, maybe we'd get a surprise and find that you
are interested in working in this imagination type realm too, and
able to do so, in the right context? I'm sure you have plenty in
the way of imagination and it is just a matter of whether it can
work in this kind of somewhat not easy to rationalise fashion.

I think anything can be looked at in a sharp analytic fashion,
and I don't think there is anything wrong with that as such.
It is something genuine and valuable.

However, sometimes if one does that too strongly all the time
certain things don't flourish too well, and it needs to be
relaxed at times, or needs a place where it can be relaxed.
That's been my own experience anyway (being somewhat
analytically minded myself too).

If there is a ban, I vote to have it lifted immediately.

I can't imagine any reason for such a ban except poss.
to protect from the excessively analytical approach. But
you wouldn't be able to post in that way on the
practicalmicrotonality group anyway as it would be off topic.

After all, if you were to post to practicalmicrotonality
in the way you do here, you would _then_ be off topic and
that then would be a reason for others to ask you to
restrain, or eventually, in that situation one could
understand someone (not you I don't think) might need
to be banned if they didn't get the message.

But not immediately, without a try out, surely!

Maybe there is some kind of mistake. The group was
off-line for a while because of something at Yahoo's end,
and couldn't be accessed by anyone. Could it be
connected with that?

I'd be interested to hear what you would post there, as it would
need to be unlike just about anything you've said on the TL
except perhaps, two or three posts.

I can remember very little you've posted directly relating
to pieces in progress or plans for pieces you want to
compose, at least, not while I've been on the TL.

I remember one post you did about a daydream you had that
seemed to me to deal somewhat with the area of practical
microtonality, and could well be the seed of future
compositions! Also, maybe the sort of thing you'd
post about in the practicalmicrotonality group.

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., robertinventor@h... wrote:

> But, who is to say, maybe we'd get a surprise and find that you
> are interested in working in this imagination type realm too, and
> able to do so, in the right context?

Although my left brain is what most of you are familiar with, my right brain is even more important
-- I believe it's involved greatly in the act of improvisation, which is what most of my music is
based on.

> I'm sure you have plenty in
> the way of imagination and it is just a matter of whether it can
> work in this kind of somewhat not easy to rationalise fashion.

Imagination is the very being of creativity and thus of music. What I don't get is why the group is
called "practical"? Lots of imagination also goes into the tuning stuff I post but I don't bother
trying to post the very non-verbal imagination part -- I go straight to the stuff that can be
communicated unambiguously and immediately used by a composer. You see, I try to be
_practical_.
>
> I can't imagine any reason for such a ban except poss.
> to protect from the excessively analytical approach. But
> you wouldn't be able to post in that way on the
> practicalmicrotonality group anyway as it would be off topic.

It would be off-topic indeed, although the name "practical" would indicate otherwise.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what you would post there, as it would
> need to be unlike just about anything you've said on the TL
> except perhaps, two or three posts.

I could spend a lot of time fishing around in the metaphorical and emotional parts of my psyche,
but what's "practical" about that? I prefer to communicate that through musical improvisation than
through words. Words don't appeal to me at all, I don't like verbalizing, English was my worst
subject . . . I can deal with music and with numbers.

> I can remember very little you've posted directly relating
> to pieces in progress or plans for pieces you want to
> compose, at least, not while I've been on the TL.

I did post on keyboard mappings and such while I was preparing music for the Microthon (a bit
of which you may have heard last night -- thanks Johnny!) I was trying to approach it from a
practical standpoint, so that others could try out the keyboard mappings and see relatively
easily how they worked.
>
> I remember one post you did about a daydream

Perhaps I was talking about the music that comes to me in states of half-asleep paralysis
(frightening!) I go into sometimes. It's full-blown, orchestral or piano or rock band music,
sometimes microtonal, always far beyond anything I could achieve in full consciousness.

> you had that
> seemed to me to deal somewhat with the area of practical
> microtonality,

The only practical part would be to figure out how to go into my brain and record this music!

So, does practical really mean impractical?

Anyway, this meta-stuff should really be off-list.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> This is exactly the problem. The original Tuning List was so strong
> and exciting because of the RANGE of posts. This is
> getting "diluted" through so many different lists. And, also,
> the "cross fertilization" between different approches and different
> kinds of people will not be happening.

I no longer support any splitting off of math related topics. In fact,
now that the "practical" folk have their own list, they can't complain
if we bring Harmonic Entropy discussions back to _this_ list.

About spamming and filibustering. Forget it Joseph. Just ignore it, as
Paul is. Let us remain noble in the face of perceived attack.

Of course it's no _accident_ that Paul is banned. Gimme a break. And I
couldn't care less whether I'm banned or not. I'm not even going to
bother to find out.

Let's just get on with the purpose of _this_ list.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

I think it's unfortunate the way things have gone down.

Is there any doubt that there was a deep sense of disenchantment
amongst some folks about the dominant tenor of this list?

I don't see how. But I think banning Paul in advance was a bad idea --
real bad.

--Dan Stearns

Dave Keenan wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > This is exactly the problem. The original Tuning List was so strong
> > and exciting because of the RANGE of posts. This is
> > getting "diluted" through so many different lists. And, also,
> > the "cross fertilization" between different approches and different
> > kinds of people will not be happening.
>
> I no longer support any splitting off of math related topics. In fact,
> now that the "practical" folk have their own list, they can't complain
> if we bring Harmonic Entropy discussions back to _this_ list.

Please don't.

> About spamming and filibustering. Forget it Joseph. Just ignore it, as
> Paul is. Let us remain noble in the face of perceived attack.

There was no attack. Someone left and started his own list. Big deal.
Get on with yer lives.

--
* 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

--- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> There was no attack. Someone left and started his own list. Big
deal.
> Get on with yer lives.

Go, David B.!! Common sense is a wonderful thing.

David F.