dissenting viewpoint

I would just like to say that I believe the work toward the Miracle
Scale(s) paradigm is one of the MOST practical pursuits in music that
I have ever encountered.

The thread is moving toward the establishment of a new scale or
scales that could conceivably have attributes equal if not surpassing
12-tET.

In addition, most of the research has been coupled with notation
involving 72-tET which has been PROVEN as a practical system for
making music.

I am serious when I say that based upon the research of some of my
brilliant friends on this list, I could conceivably be using some of
these scales, supplanting 12-tET for the rest of my life.

What could *possibly* be more practical than that!!!???

_________ ______ ________ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> the MOST practical pursuits in music that I have ever encountered.

Works for you, and that is double-plus good!

> In addition, most of the research has been coupled with notation
> involving 72-tET which has been PROVEN as a practical system for
> making music.

Unless people aren't interested in notation, or in notation involving
72-tET, or any number of other reasons. As for proven, well, Partch's
tablature notation was 'proven' more than adequate for the
performance of his music, but I'd never transfer it to anything else -
- it just did the trick in that situation. Each person may have
different needs, even in notation.

> What could *possibly* be more practical than that!!!???

For you, maybe nothing! The point is, for some of the list, there are
other "more practical" ways of making music, and for those people I
think it is just fine to have someplace else to mingle. Everyone is
different, with differing needs and desires. It's clear this has all
been a boon to you as well as many others. With 460+ members, it's
not difficult to imagine some who have other tastes/needs/interests
that maybe *weren't* being matched well with all the research.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22748.html#22750

>
> For you, maybe nothing! The point is, for some of the list, there
are
> other "more practical" ways of making music, and for those people I
> think it is just fine to have someplace else to mingle. Everyone is
> different, with differing needs and desires. It's clear this has
all been a boon to you as well as many others. With 460+ members,
it's not difficult to imagine some who have other
tastes/needs/interests that maybe *weren't* being matched well with
all the research.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Ok Jon... your point is well taken... So now they can just go off to
Jacky's list, or to Kraig's list or to Paul's, or to Monzo's or to La
Monte Young's....

It's getting hard to keep track of all these lists! As some have
already advocated, I would urge to keep all of us together... and
just use "scroll" or the most valuable tool since the eraser
(Schoenberg's favorite tool) the "delete" key...

Just my *own* opinion, of course...

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22748.html#22750
>
> >
> > For you, maybe nothing! The point is, for some of the list, there
> are
> > other "more practical" ways of making music, and for those people I
> > think it is just fine to have someplace else to mingle. Everyone is
> > different, with differing needs and desires. It's clear this has
> all been a boon to you as well as many others. With 460+ members,
> it's not difficult to imagine some who have other
> tastes/needs/interests that maybe *weren't* being matched well with
> all the research.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> Ok Jon... your point is well taken... So now they can just go off to
> Jacky's list, or to Kraig's list or to Paul's, or to Monzo's or to La
> Monte Young's....
>
> It's getting hard to keep track of all these lists!

In Netscape and Outlook there are email filters so one
can file email automatically. So I don't have any problems
keeping track, just problems finding the time to check out
all the email from the tuning list.

db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Joe,

(...I gotta turn off the computer and go get some work done...!)
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Ok Jon... your point is well taken... So now they can just go off
> to Jacky's list, or to Kraig's list or to Paul's, or to Monzo's or
> to La Monte Young's....

If those list better match with their tastes, why not?

> It's getting hard to keep track of all these lists! As some have
> already advocated, I would urge to keep all of us together... and
> just use "scroll" or the most valuable tool since the eraser
> (Schoenberg's favorite tool) the "delete" key...

However, it is time-consuming and somewhat distracting to view digest
after digest of messages that don't speak to a particular member's
interests; not everyone has all the time in the world to spend
online. With that in mind, ALL lists evolve, just as the tuning list
has. It should not be unexpected that other groups propogate when
interests diverge.

Lists are dynamic, and are most reflective of the people who post
most often (especially unmoderated lists). As the list steers course
in one direction or another, it will appeal more and more to some
readers, less and less to others. This is natural and there is no
reason to find it detrimental or negative.

As for keeping track of lists, that is what is great about *not*
using the web interface, but an email program that filters messages.
Just my way of doing it, mind you, but certainly allows me to monitor
multiple lists a lot easier than logging in and out of the 'groups'
interface.

The more (lists), the merrier, since focus becomes (potentially)
refined.

Cheers,
Jon