Multiplicity of lists

I've not tried following the digest form, but there are certainly a vast number of messages posted to the main list, most by only about a dozen of the 460+ members. Should there be a separation based on interests in tempered scales vs. just intonation, or among the 19 tet vs. 24 tet vs.72 tet? Can those interested in pentatonic scales have much in common with those interested in Partch's 43 tone scale? Are there some only interested in live performances vs. those interested only in CD's vs. those who want mp3 snippets online? Are those interested in historic intonations really separate from those interested in potential future scales that have never been proposed or used before? Will there ever be a unified tuning theory which will explain the advantages and disadvantages of equal temperaments and just intonations each in terms of the other? Is theory really separate from practice?
Do we not need to form a united front against the almost overwhelming omnipresence of 12 tet? Can we afford to either squabble among ourselves or become divided and diluted into smaller and smaller "denominations", as has happened with the Christian churches?

--- In tuning@y..., "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@d...> wrote:
> Is theory really separate from practice?

For me, it never should be. The goal is always practical music
making. But the more fully you develop theory, the more easily you'll
be able to apply it to practical questions. And the more practical
questions there are to feed the theory, the more useful the theory
will become. Theory is only there to aid music-making!

On the other hand division causes variety.

"John F. Sprague" wrote:

> Can we afford to either squabble among ourselves or become divided and diluted into smaller and smaller "denominations", as has happened with the Christian churches?

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

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

[Kraig said:]

>On the other hand division causes variety.

>> "John F. Sprague" wrote: Can we afford to either squabble among
>> ourselves or become divided and diluted into smaller and
>> smaller "denominations", as has happened with the Christian
>> churches?

Wow Kraig, that is a good point. You immediately
made me think of the biodiversity of Madagascar
and Australia.

I think Kraig's right. I'm on both lists. I think
the new list serves a purpose. There really is a
massive volume of posting on this list and it is
of very high quality. I never see the 'How ya doin?'
'How _you_ doin?' 'Doin' great!' inanity of some
other lists, or the make-money-fast deluge. It is
a normal and positive development that tuning is
becoming of interest to enough people and work in
the field hos grown to the point that we are ready
to move on.

---- BEGIN OFF TOPIC ----

As far as the church angle brought up by John goes,
I think it is a good thing there are so many sects.
They are not really divisive enemies of each other.
In Christian theology, all the saved are members of
ONE church REGARDLESS of the sign on the door. The
term church refers to the body of believers, not
to the name of an incorporated nonprofit institution
or to a brick building.

Different churches serve different people's spiritual
emotional and social needs depending on where they
are and what they need at different parts of their
lives. Sure, there will be those that can find
counterexamples and cast inflammatory trolls, but
the point is that separation does not necessarily
equal divisiveness.

Ever try to propagate perennials such as Irises
or Tarragon? You -divide- the roots and replant
and then you have TWICE as many plants and each
one is stronger and more vibrant than the one you
split, sort of reborn!

There are some churches who have studied the
issue of stagnation and death in the spiritual
lives of their congregations. The problem often
arises in churches that have become static and
too big. By breaking up the congregation into
'small faith communities' of about 8-12 people,
they have seen INCREDIBLE results in the lives
of their members in so far as they suddenly
stop sitting on their butts and listening and
have started to take charge and make their
faith real.

---- END OFF TOPIC ----

I refuse to believe that the microtonal movement
or whatever is is is so weak and fragile that it
will fall apart in disarray because an attempt
at healthy growth has been made.

The sheer volume of posts in this groups really
DOES prevent the 'silent 400' of the members
from saying anything. They read the posts and
are so confused and overwhelmed they don't
know where to start or who to turn to or what
is going on. That is not because there is anything
wrong with what is being said, it's just because
there is too much of it and it is overwhelming.
And maybe it is a style they don't jive with.
Why not allow them to form their own small groups?
Those small groups will develop and divide into
other small groups and the number of people
involved in microtonality and composing and
performing microtonal music can only _increase_.

I really can not see any down side to this.
It's not like someone posted "I hate all of
you and you are wrong about everything and
I am starting my own group to show you all
how wrong you are." That's not it at all! Just
chill out, dudes and let it flow. This is a
sign that the -group-, meaning all microtonalists,
is growing and developing. That's a good thing!

- Jeff

Just wanted to say hello to everyone who J. Scott was referring to
here:

"The sheer volume of posts in this groups really
DOES prevent the 'silent 400' of the members
from saying anything. They read the posts and
are so confused and overwhelmed they don't
know where to start or who to turn to or what
is going on. That is not because there is anything
wrong with what is being said, it's just because
there is too much of it and it is overwhelming."

I'd just like to encourage all of you who fall into the above
category to say hello, introduce yourselves, and ask any questions
you may wish to, in order to combat this situation. Many of us will
be more than willing to listen and talk about whatever interests
_you_, what instruments (acoustic or electronic) you may play already
or may be interested in learning to use for microtonality, de-mystify
the various terminologies and ideas that are being thrown around, etc.

This is an open forum so everyone who feels inclined should post! We
can all benefit from more ideas and more voices!

Love to all,
Paul

Here is some music I made using the 3-9-11 progression of the
Erlich/Keenan that perhaps some of you may enjoy listening too. I
find the sadness of this progression almost unworldly, and plan to
spend more time playing with it.

http://www.elucida.com/Nada.html

I used Dave Keenans Crib sheet and Paul Erlichs colored interval
spreadsheet (thanks to Monz also) to pick the ratios. I literally
picked a row and took one red, one green and one blue, then balanced
it with a white on the same row. Its not rocket science but it was
very helpful to me. Also thanks to Kraig Grady's web site where I
read about "toad" dekany and realized that following that pattern
would be a good way to learn all these progressions.

This is a conversation Paul and I have been having off list. He was
puzzled, like others on this list, that some of us really value this
group yet also wanted a second group. So here's my own individual
reply, and then his answer.

Paul wrote:
As the only person who's ever been referred to as the Tuning Police,
I have to express my deep sorrow at reading this judgment.

And I replied:

The last thing in the world I want to do is create ill feelings, yet
I can sense your genuine puzzlement at what seems to be a logical
contradiction. Yet it isn't (I know this is being to sound very
female:-)). I was going to write this to the list but let me bounce
it off you first.

I think Jackie should have called his list the irrational
microtonalalist, or microtuning for numerologists. My delight in a
second list is I can be confused, silly, totally irrational and
illogical, even mystical, and still be on topic. That is important
to me because the source of my creativity is irrational, and refuses
to be tied into any rational schemata. That is what
I mean when I say I part ways with the theorists - that even though I
arrived at the result irrationally (ie by mistake) I still liked it
and kept
it. It seemed very funny to me that after the fact it fit its way
back into being 3-9-11, although I have a feeling you could probably
tell me how whatI thought was 3-5-11 actually morphed to 3-9-11:-)

That irrational is mysterious, even infuriating. And while it just
won't cooperate with what logic or theory dictates should happen, it
also withers under the glare of a strong analytical mind. I know
because I have one of those minds too, amd I know well how to mortify
creativity into hiding. I've done it many times, or let it be done
to me under the guise of teaching. That is
what I meant by the Tuning Police - not you specifically but the
whole idea of an authority figure. Its more an unspoken assumption
than a role that any one person fits.

I truly do appreciate you and your genius. Its just my inner imp
needs to play, and if I don't let it play with other similarly
confused, unconditional irrational numerologists, I dry up the
wellspring of my creativity.

So I love having a whole new tuning to explore, and learn. The
tuning I use at any given moment comes from an intuition that it
would be a fruitful place to explore(and wait to you hear about how I
get the numbers for my rthyms), and right now my intuition tells me
blackjack is hot for me!

Anyway these are some thoughts that hopefully will be helpful to
you. I look at all of this discussion as really a converstion
between left brain,right brain, or yin and yang. You need both to
make a cycle work, and all of us have both, just in varying
quantities.

And here is Paul's reply:

If he had done that, I'd have very little to contribute, except my
usual
7/12 and 10/22 Kabbalah stuff.If the list were called "the irrational
microtonalalist", then yes, of
course. But it would seem that you could still be on topic and be
this way
on the tuning list. No "Tuning Police" is going to arrest you!

So perhaps the result you arrived at was rational all along, and
though the
numbers weren't what you thought they were, the fact that you used a
certain
set of numbers in a certain way is relevant to how the music came
out, and
maybe you only could have used numbers in that way in a certain
tuning or a
certain class of tunings. That's what I'd like to help you figure
out.Ah . . . I think that's different. Again, "Tuning Police" was
only used to refer to me, specifically. And I'm just about the most
anti-authoritarian person you'll meet
I agree completely, and any thoughts on how to facilitate this
conversation
are most welcome.

Splitting left from right doesn't seem to me to be such a
way.

Mary again:
You know you are correct. Its been done before and doesn't work.
Yet I'm not sure what the best solution is.

Any one else have some thoughts on this dialogue?

Mary

--- In tuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:
> My delight in a
> second list is I can be confused, silly, totally irrational and
> illogical, even mystical, and still be on topic. That is important
> to me because the source of my creativity is irrational, and
refuses to be tied into any rational schemata. That is what
> I mean when I say I part ways with the theorists - that even though
I arrived at the result irrationally (ie by mistake) I still liked it
> and kept it.
>
> That irrational is mysterious, even infuriating. And while it
just won't cooperate with what logic or theory dictates should
happen, it also withers under the glare of a strong analytical mind.
I know because I have one of those minds too, amd I know well how to
mortify creativity into hiding. I've done it many times, or let it
be done to me under the guise of teaching.
>
> Its just my inner imp
> needs to play, and if I don't let it play with other similarly
> confused, unconditional irrational numerologists, I dry up the
> wellspring of my creativity.
>
> So I love having a whole new tuning to explore, and learn. The
> tuning I use at any given moment comes from an intuition that it
> would be a fruitful place to explore
>
> Anyway these are some thoughts that hopefully will be helpful to
> you. I look at all of this discussion as really a converstion
> between left brain,right brain, or yin and yang. You need both to
> make a cycle work, and all of us have both, just in varying
> quantities.

Mary,

Everything you have said here is like purest distilled poetry to me,
and resonates as deeply as text possibly can - to the core of my very
being. This is so beautiful, and spoken of true creative heart. This
*is* the very essence of why I do Microtonal Music, and the Creative
Spirit that I so enjoy nurturing in myself and others. This is the
wellspring and the soul of all meaningful creation and creative work.
May I suggest that you never compromise this in yourself, and feel
always free to share your penetrating insights into the creative
spirit with all. This is so *REAL* - so genuine!

Thanks so much for this baring of soul,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:
> Here is some music I made using the 3-9-11 progression of the
> Erlich/Keenan that perhaps some of you may enjoy listening too. I
> find the sadness of this progression almost unworldly, and plan to
> spend more time playing with it.
>
> http://www.elucida.com/Nada.html

That's beautiful Mary. Do you think the mournfulness comes from the
way you have used the 33 cent inflections? I have no idea. I don't
have an ear for this sort of thing at all. I can't "hear the numbers"
like some.

> I used Dave Keenans Crib sheet and Paul Erlichs colored interval
> spreadsheet (thanks to Monz also) to pick the ratios.

Could someone post that URL again. I lost it.

> I literally
> picked a row and took one red, one green and one blue, then balanced
> it with a white on the same row. Its not rocket science but it was
> very helpful to me. Also thanks to Kraig Grady's web site where I
> read about "toad" dekany

And this URL too?

-- Dave Keenan

. Do you think the mournfulness comes from the
> way you have used the 33 cent inflections? I have no idea. I don't
> have an ear for this sort of thing at all. I can't "hear the
numbers"
> like some.

I don't know. I thought maybe it was the 11 limit (or are we saying
the same thing?)
>
> > I used Dave Keenans Crib sheet and Paul Erlichs colored interval
> > spreadsheet (thanks to Monz also) to pick the ratios.
>
> Could someone post that URL again. I lost it.

/tuning/topicId_22386.html#22480
.
Also thanks to Kraig Grady's web site where I
> > read about "toad" dekany
>
> And this URL too?

http://www.anaphoria.com/cps.PDF

peace,
Mary

--- In tuning@y..., nanom3@h... wrote:
> I don't know. I thought maybe it was the 11 limit (or are we saying
> the same thing?)

I think the 11-limit in general is too vast to be categorised as
either mournful or not. Maybe we'd best not analyse it, in case it
kills your creativity.

It would be interesting to give Blackjack (or failing that, one of its
good 12-tone subsets) to an intuitive musician, who knows absolutely
nothing of the theory, and just ask them to see what they can make of
it.

Thanks for the URLs.

What do you think of "intuitive-microtonality" as the name for the new
list?

nanom3!
It would be nice to have a real player version for those w/o DSL lines or 20 minutes for
download. Really want to hear it!
I assume you are talking about the toad pattern of erv's through the eikosany?
Anyway i tend to dive into as many versions of such things as possible to get familiar with
whatever tuning i use.

nanom3@home.com wrote:

> Here is some music I made using the 3-9-11 progression of the
> Erlich/Keenan that perhaps some of you may enjoy listening too. I
> find the sadness of this progression almost unworldly, and plan to
> spend more time playing with it.
>
> http://www.elucida.com/Nada.html
>
> I used Dave Keenans Crib sheet and Paul Erlichs colored interval
> spreadsheet (thanks to Monz also) to pick the ratios. I literally
> picked a row and took one red, one green and one blue, then balanced
> it with a white on the same row. Its not rocket science but it was
> very helpful to me. Also thanks to Kraig Grady's web site where I
> read about "toad" dekany and realized that following that pattern
> would be a good way to learn all these progressions.

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

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

> What do you think of "intuitive-microtonality" as the name for the
new
> list?

Well I liked Irrational because it was a play on ratio.
In general any name that reflects its polarity as rightbrain, yin etc
is fine with me. Of course it could be Psychic MicroTuning Shamans:-
)

Mary!
I have always found the second pattern more useful and is the pattern used in the Anaphoria
for performances of the Creation of the Worlds.

nanom3@home.com wrote:

>
> .
> Also thanks to Kraig Grady's web site where I
> > > read about "toad" dekany
> >
> > And this URL too?
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/cps.PDF
>

-- 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:
> nanom3!
> It would be nice to have a real player version for those w/o
DSL lines or 20 minutes for
> download. Really want to hear it!

Yikes. I thought keeping it under a minute (928mb) was being helpful
for those without DSL. My problem with Real Player is , for various
reasons, none of which I really feel like investigating, it only
seems to work on one computer in the house, an old MAC. I did , in
response to several requests, really cut down the picture file size,
so I suppose I could just make a lofi version which would cut the
time in half. Thats not a big deal and thanks for the suggestion.
>
I assume you are talking about the toad pattern of erv's through the
eikosany?

Yes reading more carefully I see that the toad is composed of two
dekany's. In any case I've only done one of the possible twenty.
> Anyway i tend to dive into as many versions of such things as
possible to get familiar with
> whatever tuning i use.

Very good advice.

Oh and while I have your attention Jackie thought you might know the
answer to this question. Since time is inversely related to
frequency, shouldn't be a corresponding just rthym? Do the golden
horagrams have anything to do with that relationship?

What about splitting into 4 lists along the lines of Jung's Functions so we would have:
Analytical- microtonality
Sensational- microtonality
Emotional- microtonality
Intuitive- microtonality

nanom3@home.com wrote:

> > What do you think of "intuitive-microtonality" as the name for the
> new
> > list?
>
> Well I liked Irrational because it was a play on ratio.
> In general any name that reflects its polarity as rightbrain, yin etc
> is fine with me. Of course it could be Psychic MicroTuning Shamans:-
> )
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

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

Mary!
Not sure what you are asking here!

nanom3@home.com wrote:

> Oh and while I have your attention Jackie thought you might know the
> answer to this question. Since time is inversely related to
> frequency, shouldn't be a corresponding just rthym? Do the golden
> horagrams have anything to do with that relationship?

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

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

I agree that your points are very well taken. The analogy between music and religion was apparently not an appropriate one and was something of an afterthought on my part, not thought through.
I hope that an increasing number of lists will not cause us to lose track of each other's work.
There is certainly a great deal of variety on this list already, but that is not a complaint or an intent to discourage even more. Smaller groups concentrating more intently with less to divert them may well become more productive in their special fields of interest.

>>> xjscott@earthlink.net 05/14/01 07:17PM >>>
[Kraig said:]

>On the other hand division causes variety.

>> "John F. Sprague" wrote: Can we afford to either squabble among
>> ourselves or become divided and diluted into smaller and
>> smaller "denominations", as has happened with the Christian
>> churches?

Wow Kraig, that is a good point. You immediately
made me think of the biodiversity of Madagascar
and Australia.

I think Kraig's right. I'm on both lists. I think
the new list serves a purpose. There really is a
massive volume of posting on this list and it is
of very high quality. I never see the 'How ya doin?'
'How _you_ doin?' 'Doin' great!' inanity of some
other lists, or the make-money-fast deluge. It is
a normal and positive development that tuning is
becoming of interest to enough people and work in
the field has grown to the point that we are ready
to move on.

---- BEGIN OFF TOPIC ----

As far as the church angle brought up by John goes,
I think it is a good thing there are so many sects.
They are not really divisive enemies of each other.
In Christian theology, all the saved are members of
ONE church REGARDLESS of the sign on the door. The
term church refers to the body of believers, not
to the name of an incorporated nonprofit institution
or to a brick building.

Different churches serve different people's spiritual
emotional and social needs depending on where they
are and what they need at different parts of their
lives. Sure, there will be those that can find
counterexamples and cast inflammatory trolls, but
the point is that separation does not necessarily
equal divisiveness.

Ever try to propagate perennials such as Irises
or Tarragon? You -divide- the roots and replant
and then you have TWICE as many plants and each
one is stronger and more vibrant than the one you
split, sort of reborn!

There are some churches who have studied the
issue of stagnation and death in the spiritual
lives of their congregations. The problem often
arises in churches that have become static and
too big. By breaking up the congregation into
'small faith communities' of about 8-12 people,
they have seen INCREDIBLE results in the lives
of their members in so far as they suddenly
stop sitting on their butts and listening and
have started to take charge and make their
faith real.

---- END OFF TOPIC ----

I refuse to believe that the microtonal movement
or whatever is so weak and fragile that it
will fall apart in disarray because an attempt
at healthy growth has been made.

The sheer volume of posts in this groups really
DOES prevent the 'silent 400' of the members
from saying anything. They read the posts and
are so confused and overwhelmed they don't
know where to start or who to turn to or what
is going on. That is not because there is anything
wrong with what is being said, it's just because
there is too much of it and it is overwhelming.
And maybe it is a style they don't jive with.
Why not allow them to form their own small groups?
Those small groups will develop and divide into
other small groups and the number of people
involved in microtonality and composing and
performing microtonal music can only _increase_.

I really can not see any down side to this.
It's not like someone posted "I hate all of
you and you are wrong about everything and
I am starting my own group to show you all
how wrong you are." That's not it at all! Just
chill out, dudes and let it flow. This is a
sign that the -group-, meaning all microtonalists,
is growing and developing. That's a good thing!

- Jeff

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hello all! I’ve only recently subscribed to this list, and though I wouldn't
say I'm a lurker, I haven't spoken up very often. For anyone who doesn’t
know me, here’s some info:

Name: Aaron Hunt

Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Occupations: Composer, inventor, teacher, theorist,
percussionist, organist, violist, organ tuner,
graphic designer, sound engineer, cartoonist,
author, BASIC programmer, juice-drinker,
blah blah blah...

Education: BM in music composition from Eastern
Illinois University, 1994

MM in composition from the Conservatory of
Music at the University of Cincinnati, 1996

MM Thesis: “Diatonic Inversional Theory,” a treatise
codifying inverse canonic processes and 14
pieces of music using inverse canons
exclusively.

Compositional trends: 2 major threads;
contrapuntal processes and tuning

Some fun work: 1) multiple simultaneous
inverse canons.

2) 12-ET as a specific form of just
intonation, based on primary rather
than incidental ratios. Composing
with pitch collections based on
combination tone compatibility.

Favorite research: New notation systems
Infinite Pitch Instruments

Personal quote: "I'm just happy to be here, and wanna help out the ball
club."

until later,
I remain,

Aaron

John F. Sprague wrote:

> Can we afford to either squabble among ourselves or become divided and diluted into smaller and smaller "denominations", as has happened with the Christian churches?

Good one! As long as there are several of us subscribed to both lists, it's not a totally accurate analogy. But there sure is a danger of it, and that's a striking example.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

> --- In tuning@y..., "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@d...> wrote:
>> Is theory really separate from practice?

Yeah they're different temperaments.
They're close though.

Mary! This is very very impressive. Pardon the delay on posting this!

nanom3@home.com wrote:

> Here is some music I made using the 3-9-11 progression of the
> Erlich/Keenan that perhaps some of you may enjoy listening too. I
> find the sadness of this progression almost unworldly, and plan to
> spend more time playing with it.
>
> http://www.elucida.com/Nada.html
>
>

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

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

> I hope that an increasing number of lists will not cause us to lose track of each other's work.
> There is certainly a great deal of variety on this list already, but that is not a complaint or an intent to discourage even more.

What follows is my own personal opinion only, although I know of at least six others with a similar opinion. Please understand that what follows is not directed at anybody in particular on the tuning list.

I personally hold a lot more enthusiasm for the new practicalmicrotonality list than for the existing tuning list.

Something like a year ago, I attempted briefly to form an adjunct HTML-message list or newsgroup whereby we could routinely exchange actual musical snippets and real graphical drawings (such as of scores). I got a great deal of resistance to the idea of putting music
into a list supposedly about music (e.g., "I'm stuck on a University-owned ASCII terminal, so I can't see HTML messages or listen to MP3 files," "such messages take too long to download," "they'd clog up too much disk space," "I have to write up formal justifications to
get our SysAdmins to enable us to access a new Newsgroup").

OK, so I calmly resigned to the idea that list members just aren't ready - either because of their heavily-theoretical interests or because of technological problems - to work in music. At this point, I have an Email filter that picks out several key words from
Tuning-list mail, and I read only those messages. The rest - probably 95% - I chuck without even reading.

I hope now that the practicalmicrotonality list is evidence that people are starting to realize that practical music in ASCII-only environment isn't very meaningful. As I said in the liner notes to the first Xenharmonic Alliance CD, "discussing music in a text-only
medium is like buying and opening a new album and finding, instead of the CD, a slip of paper with the inscription, '3 movements, key of Eb, 152 authentic cadences, 97 plagal cadences, 21 deceptive cadences, and 16 modulations'"

Now don't get me wrong though, I do understand the value of Music Theory. Theory can help performers and composers find patterns and possibilities that aren't apparent by experimentation alone. That is meaningful Theory, but the vast majority of what I've seen on the
tuning list is at least one - more often two or three - steps of nonpractice beyond that:

* Microtonal music: Actual music snippets, scores, etc. Virtually no tuning-list messages are of this nature.
* Theorizing about music: Suggesting chord progression possibilities or melodic effects (for example) that people could use to make music (essentially the usual meaning of Theory). Only a handful of tuning-list messages are of this nature.
* Theorizing about Music Theory: Mathematical frameworks (e.g., lattices) in which to construct a system of Theory by which you could find chord progressions or melodic effects from which you could make music. A fair percentage of tuning-list messages are of this
nature.
* Theorizing about the theory of Music Theory: A lot of tuning-list traffic is in this category (e.g., harmonic entropy, when it's more appropriate to use odd vs. prime limits, or tetrahedral vs. cubic lattices).

We shall have to see how much more toward the practical end the practicalmicrotonality list gets, but if it succeeds in being more practical, I'll start paying even less attention to this tuning list than I do now. You folks are welcome to continue talking about theory
of theory of theory, but I personally am not interested beyond making actual music and the Theory of making music.

Gary, I copied you directly on this message, since I don't know what keywords you use to filter out what you perceive to be noise.

First let me express my gratitude to you for helping me, four years ago when I first joined this list, understand the value of non-just tunings. Your posts, and your promotion of 88-CET, helped me get passed my JI-only mindset to appreciate the beauty of all kinds of
temperaments, tunings, and scales.

Gary Morrison wrote:

> OK, so I calmly resigned to the idea that list members just aren't ready - either because of their heavily-theoretical interests or because of technological problems - to work in music.

That's not really fair, is it? Most of the "math guys" *do* "work in music." They supplement their music making by collectively educating themselves (and us) about how music works (that's what music theory should be, IMO). Consequently, they end up making better music
than they would have otherwise.

A few are interested only in the math and the theory, and don't consider themselves musicians. It's not that they aren't "ready" - it's not their gift, not their interest. But in pursuing their gifts and interests, they strengthen the musicians' understanding of music -
and thereby our position from which to make better music.

If some cannot participate in exchanging non-text material over the web, that doesn't mean they're not ready to make and share music.

> I hope now that the practicalmicrotonality list is evidence that people are starting to realize that practical music in ASCII-only environment isn't very meaningful.

Well, around 30 of us have chosen to tune in to that forum - about 7 percent. At least one person is there who is not here. So there's that possible advantage. But no one ever forbade anyone from posting anything here that has been posted there. Granted, you're a lot
less likely to get your mistakes corrected and your faulty logic straightened out there than here. To me, that's a drawback of that list and a great service of this one.

Perhaps it will be nice to have a separate forum where we can concentrate on application rather than theory, staying in a more right-brained frame of mind while sharing and listening. That can't replace the work done on this forum, however. I like Paul's idea of splitting
off the heavy theory/math threads instead of the other stuff (I hesitate to say "practical stuff" because of the inevitable practical consequences of theory). Maybe the harmonic entropy list could be transformed into a general heavy thread list - kind of a parallel track
for trains of greater weight than this list wishes to support for very long. What do you fellow H. E.ers think of that idea?

> Now don't get me wrong though, I do understand the value of Music Theory. Theory can help performers and composers find patterns and possibilities that aren't apparent by experimentation alone. That is meaningful Theory, but the vast majority of what I've seen on the
> tuning list is at least one - more often two or three - steps of nonpractice beyond that:
>
> * Microtonal music: Actual music snippets, scores, etc. Virtually no tuning-list messages are of this nature.

There have been many in recent months. Perhaps you inadvertently filtered them out? And there has been a higher concentration of them on the harmonic entropy list than on the tuning list, if you include diagrams and other visual representations of musical intervals.

> * Theorizing about music: Suggesting chord progression possibilities or melodic effects (for example) that people could use to make music (essentially the usual meaning of Theory).

After joining this list and beginning to understand how and why musical scales work - what you call theory of theory of theory - I was enraged that I had been cheated of this understanding in the supposed music theory courses I had in college. I actually wrote the Dean of
the School of Fine Arts to ask him why I had to wait 10 years after graduating from his school with a B. Mus. to find out what I went there to learn. (His answer was weak and really amounted to a non-answer.)

> * Theorizing about Music Theory: Mathematical frameworks (e.g., lattices) in which to construct a system of Theory by which you could find chord progressions or melodic effects from which you could make music. A fair percentage of tuning-list messages are of this
> nature.

Of course. A lattice diagram describing a set of pitches from which tunings can be taken, and a list of some of those tunings, and descriptions of them, are *not* theorizing about music theory. They are discussions about tuning. That's what we're here to discuss, as I
understand it. Not music nor music theory, per se, but tuning. They're intimately related, but not equivalent.

> * Theorizing about the theory of Music Theory: A lot of tuning-list traffic is in this category (e.g., harmonic entropy, when it's more appropriate to use odd vs. prime limits, or tetrahedral vs. cubic lattices).

I don't think these are valid distinctions. When I first grasped the idea of harmonic entropy, it was as if a veil was drawn aside. Immediately, I began to get more practical, musical use out of a wider variety of scales. I began to be able to visualize more of what was
happening in my musical perception when intervals are sounded. I began to see value and beauty in scales I had discounted previously. I never would have expected to find much of interest in the scales of Wilson's Golden Horagrams of the Scale Tree without first
encountering harmonic entropy. I have now written a number of pieces of music in them (MIDI files forthcoming when the web site about it is launched.) I have already shared some of these with a couple of people in off list discussions and have had very positive feedback.
Sound theory begets musical application.

And what of odd vs. prime limits, or tetrahedral vs. cubic lattices? Those ideas are central to certain discussions about tuning, aren't they? Build a better lattice and the world will beat a path to your web site. Well, maybe not but you get the idea. A better means of
latticing intervals helps all of us who take the time to understand it. For that matter, a variety of different ways helps us, too.

> You folks are welcome to continue talking about theory
> of theory of theory, but I personally am not interested beyond making actual music and the Theory of making music.

Thanks. I'm very hopeful that we will. But there is no distinction between the heavy threads on this list and the theory of making music. The former is a subset of the latter.

Wish you had posted more about your tuning ideas and how they were involved in your music making. I missed seeing your name in the list as frequently as it appeared back around 1997.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

--- In tuning@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
> Granted, you're a lot less likely to get your mistakes corrected
and your faulty logic straightened out there than here. To me,
that's a drawback of that list > and a great service of this one.

Ah - my dear sweet, and Spiritual Brother David - let me speak to you
of the voice of the Angels:

Mistakes, Faulty Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Error, Glitch, Chaos,
Dissonance, Consonance, Amorphous Clouds of Unpredictability,
Randomosity, Freedom, Turmoils of Sound Complexity, Murky Layers of
Unapproved of Sound, Howling Wolves, Birds in Song, Clusters, Rivers
Flowing, Unchained Streams of Inexactness, Disorder, Chance,
Shambles, Happy Accidents, Disorganization, Adventure, Outsideness, -
Freedom - Freedom - FREEDOM!!!

How may we "correct" all of the above musical possibilities, which I,
and many I know have embraced as their most important wellspring of
creative energy and purpose? Who among us represents the "authority"
of all that is right? Who is to say that "faulty logic"
and "mistakes" have not created some of the most beautiful and
lasting moments in musical composition and improvisation that have
ever been known? Will someone reveal who the "Master" of all that
is "correct" is - so that I may build a shrine in their name? I did
not know that his Holy Presence had arrived - please guide me.

Ever see "Brave Heart"? That's me! I will scream out the NAME OF
FREEDOM with my last dying breath - even as they disembowel me with
Medieval Torture implements. FREEDOM - I will adore this word and
live by what *I* know to be *my* truth even under threat of
annihilation. FREEDOM from what is *thought to be and purported to
be* the final truth. FREEDOM which unchains the Creative Spirit to
access the unknown levels and hidden potentials of the Human Sprit -
is the I.V. I want dripping the Blood of Life and Creativity into my
spirit every day I live. This I will cultivate as my Tree of Life in
the Center of the Hoop - till the day I die, and see beyond the
shackles of the body and ego consciousness.

"Faulty Logic" - "Mistakes"? These are metaphors for Unchained
Creative FREEDOM - unapproved - unauthorized - unruly - Feral; it
will never be chained or contained - else it will lose the magic that
makes all beauty we know.

I could if I had the time, type up a list of known musicians and
composers, which would probably add about 2 megs of data to this
group as examples, but I think everyone has their own list, so I
won't burden you with that. And another comment is this - there are a
plenty of competent mathematicians who have came to the PMG. I feel
certain if they see gross distortions of mathematical reality going
on, they will surely help out their ignorant Brother Man. It's a
Spirit of Community about music creation we seek anyhow - don't
really think we're lacking in the way you may be implying. Besides
that - aren't we welcome to ask questions here if need be? I hope so -
I still love you all! Still subscribed here - yes me.

Love you Brother David - and thanks for speaking your heart (that
does really mean allot to me), but let me say one more thing before I
am totally disemboweled with Medieval torture instruments:

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!
!!!!

Love y'all,

Jacky Ligon

"David J. Finnamore" wrote:

> That's not really fair, is it? Most of the "math guys" *do* "work in music." They supplement their music making by collectively educating themselves (and us) about how music works (that's what music theory should be, IMO).

I meant over the tuning list, not unrelated to the list.

>
>
> But in pursuing their gifts and interests, they strengthen the musicians' understanding of music -
> and thereby our position from which to make better music.

What percentage of tuning-list messages would you estimate have lit
light bulbs in list members' heads resulting in a new composition? And
what percentage of tuning-list subscribers would you estimate have had
that experience?

>
>
> If some cannot participate in exchanging non-text material over the web, that doesn't mean they're not ready to make and share music.

Again, I meant over the list.

>
>
> Granted, you're a lot
> less likely to get your mistakes corrected and your faulty logic straightened out there than here. To me, that's a drawback of that list and a great service of this one.

Definitely. The tuning list is a great place for microtonal theory.

>
>
> Perhaps it will be nice to have a separate forum where we can concentrate on application rather than theory, staying in a more right-brained frame of mind while sharing and listening.

Definitely. I'm not suggesting abolishing the tuning list. I believe
that that was largely Jacky's goal for practicalmicrotonality.

>
>
> There have been many in recent months. Perhaps you inadvertently filtered them out?

If so, then probably yes. Needle in a haystack.

>
>
> Not music nor music theory, per se, but tuning. They're intimately related, but not equivalent.

Alright, there's another possible distinction to capitalize on between
the two lists.

>
>
> I don't think these are valid distinctions. When I first grasped the idea of harmonic entropy, it was as if a veil was drawn aside.

I'm delighted for you.

Now, would anybody like to illustrate harmonic entropy via some MP3 files?

If not, that's fine too, because that's not what the tuning list is
about, or at least not as long as it's stuck in ASCIIland. Meanwhile,
I'll wait for the readers' digest version of harmonic entropy. Maybe
I'll find it interesting if it weren't buried in 600 Email messages
over two months.

My first contribution to the practicalmicrotonality list said, in
extreme oversummarization, that that list could very easily turn into
another copy of the tuning list (in which I'd probably unsubscribe
both). To be successful, practicalmicrotonality has to be very heavy HTML
links and attachments, and very light on ASCII text.

>
>
> Wish you had posted more about your tuning ideas and how they were involved in your music making. I missed seeing your name in the list as frequently as it appeared back around 1997.

Thanks. A lot of that relates to the fact that I've been working
loony-toony hours at my day job. Part of my enthusiasm for getting real
in music is the positive reflection of my frustration over having
planned to postpone my microtonal-composition efforts for a couple years
to improve my performance skills on the WX-11, and being still at it (on
saxophones) 6 years later...

Graham and those of like mind: this post contains some more
introspection. Might want to skip it.

Jacky, you're a stitch! When you get on a roll, your writing is
beautiful. It oozes with the same swelling, exhuberant energy that
pulses through your music. It's a wonderful thing. Contagious and
exhilarating.

So about glitches. I like glitches. I have whole DATs full of the
output of audio programs that crashed or freaked out and began doing
unexpected things. Very cool sounding if you have a perverse side.
Makes good sampler material. I'll send you a CD of some of it next
month when my life gets unpacked (I'm moving into a new house
nearby). Remind me.

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> "Faulty Logic" - "Mistakes"? These are metaphors for Unchained
> Creative FREEDOM - unapproved - unauthorized - unruly - Feral; it
> will never be chained or contained - else it will lose the magic
that
> makes all beauty we know.

I'm not sure whether we really disagree or are only talking about
different things. It's true that happy accidents can be fortuitous,
and they're fun to experience. They can add magic to a performance
or recording and open our minds to things we wouldn't otherwise
discover.

But all mistakes are not created equal. The mistakes I'm talking
about are not helpful. They interfere with good music making. Say a
guitarist reads the wrong line on a chart and plays the wrong chord.
Sometimes it sounds really cool. But 99% of the time it sucks real
bad, so you punch over it.

Here's a small example of a tuning related mistake of the kind I
mean. Say I want to explore mutually prime frequency relationships.
Ignorantly or inadvertently, I include 33 in my data set. I might
make some good music with the primes 3 through 37 plus the composite
33. But my short-term goal has not been achieved. I still cannot be
certain that I have a clear idea about what it should sound like
uncorrupted by the interrelationships of composite numbered
frequencies. If someone catches my error and points it out to me
before I get too far, they have saved me some time and frustration.
The have helped me.

If freedom meant the absence of restrictions, why would you practice
your instruments at all? You know that you must discipline yourself
first; only then can you excercise freedom within those bounds, and
explore the areas beyond them productively. If you want to write
well, you study what other writers have done. First you emulate.
Only after a lot of practice do you begin to develop your own style -
your own "truth" as it were (maybe better to say, the various facets
of truth that you have learned to reflect). This is the case in all
fields of human endeavor. If you want to learn quickly and well, you
submit yourself to those who know more than you do. You allow them
to correct you. Those who are willing to teach and correct you
without requiring payment from you are a rare blessing - maybe a
blessing in disguise!

> there are a
> plenty of competent mathematicians who have came to the PMG. I feel
> certain if they see gross distortions of mathematical reality going
> on, they will surely help out their ignorant Brother Man.

Well, I hope it shakes out that way. Maybe everyone's just a little
gun shy the first few days. That's understandable in the current
climate of abundant, joyful, personal expression. (I agree that's a
good thing. I feel energized by it.)

> let me say one more thing before I
> am totally disemboweled with Medieval torture instruments:
>
>
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!
> !!!!

OK, just that final word, and then off to the rack with you! }:->

Your bud,

David F.

-You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.-

--- In tuning@y..., Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22765.html#23179

> "David J. Finnamore" wrote:
>
> > That's not really fair, is it? Most of the "math guys"
*do* "work in music." They supplement their music making by
collectively educating themselves (and us) about how music works
(that's what music theory should be, IMO).
>
> I meant over the tuning list, not unrelated to the list.
>
> >
> >
> > But in pursuing their gifts and interests, they strengthen the
musicians' understanding of music -
> > and thereby our position from which to make better music.
>
> What percentage of tuning-list messages would you estimate have lit
> light bulbs in list members' heads resulting in a new composition?
And what percentage of tuning-list subscribers would you estimate
have had that experience?
>

I would say that every composition I have written within the last
year has been influenced by the tuning list and inspired by it.

It was about 4 new electronic pieces and one piece for viola and
electronics... probably about as much music as I "used" to compose
anyway...
>
> >
> > I don't think these are valid distinctions. When I first grasped
the idea of harmonic entropy, it was as if a veil was drawn aside.
>
> I'm delighted for you.
>
> Now, would anybody like to illustrate harmonic entropy via some MP3
files?
>

Perhaps you have never seen this, but I developed an entire webpage
to this concrete study:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html

> If not, that's fine too, because that's not what the tuning list is
> about, or at least not as long as it's stuck in ASCIIland.

It hasn't been for the last year, Gary. Where have you been??
There's been a LOT of multimedia on it.

Meanwhile,
> I'll wait for the readers' digest version of harmonic entropy.

This has also been done, Gary. Check Monzo's pages in his dictionary
entries... try "blackjack," for instance.

>
> My first contribution to the practicalmicrotonality list said, in
> extreme oversummarization, that that list could very easily turn
into
> another copy of the tuning list (in which I'd probably unsubscribe>
both). To be successful, practicalmicrotonality has to be very heavy
HTMLlinks and attachments, and very light on ASCII text.
>

My guess is that our initial Tuning List will have more of
these "interactive" elements. Anybody care to keep track of this
prediction??

________ _______ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Gary Morrison wrote:

> Now don't get me wrong though, I do understand the value of Music Theory. Theory can help performers and composers find patterns and possibilities that aren't apparent by experimentation alone. That is meaningful Theory, but the vast majority of what I've seen on the
> tuning list is at least one - more often two or three - steps of nonpractice beyond that:
>
> * Microtonal music: Actual music snippets, scores, etc. Virtually no tuning-list messages are of this nature.
>

I for one would like to see more scores. This is one of the only ways to project the music outside the confines of our cosy little community to a performance environment. Perhaps the files section, though all sorts of copyright issues usually surface.

Best Wishes.

> I would say that every composition I have written within the last
> year has been influenced by the tuning list and inspired by it.

I'm glad, but I think you're much more the exception than the rule. With a few very impressive
and notable exceptions (e.g., Neil Haverstick), tuning list members as a whole haven't produced a
lot of actual music.

Now, to be fair, I'll readily admit that I haven't written any significant compositions either in
this past five years or so. That, however, is not because I'm off in a theoretical world, but
because I've been spending my time on improving my performance capabilities rather than on
composition (and working a lot at my day job).

>
>
> > If not, that's fine too, because that's not what the tuning list is
> > about, or at least not as long as it's stuck in ASCIIland.
> It hasn't been for the last year, Gary. Where have you been??

>From about 4 to 2.5 years ago, my numbness to the tuning list for its lack of clear applicability
to actual music, was about at the novocane level. Since then it rose to about the laughing gas
level. As of about 1.5 years ago, when I gave up on scanning over the titles myself, and just
relegated that to an Email filter. At that time at least, it consisted of about 100 100-line
(average) messages per day, which is about 50 times as much haystack as I have time to go through
looking for the actually musically-applicable needle.

Now, since some of you think that there is some actual music on the list now, I'll conduct an
experiment and read it much more closely over the course of the next week, hoping to see evidence
of that. Given the fact that Jacky Ligon and others concluded that there is a need for a
practical list, I'm not predicting very much success, but I promise that I'll keep an open mind to
that possibility.

>
>
> > I'll wait for the readers' digest version of harmonic entropy.
> This has also been done, Gary. Check Monzo's pages in his dictionary
> entries... try "blackjack," for instance.

Alright.

Here's a thought though: I think you'll find more interest among musicians if you name your
future theories something more musical. Somehow it just seems like Email with a title like
"Behavior of 'charmed' antiquarks with -1/2 spin in the quantum theory of music" is going to get
the attention of a lot more quantum physicists than of musicians!

I appreciate your efforts to find analogies between music and other disciplines, but after I get
home from doing science and technology all day, I'm looking forward to doing something expressive
with music. When I see messages about "harmonic entropy" I have a tendency to say, "oh great,
what kind of mathematical construction with no apparent connection to musical expression are they
trying to make me spend the only three non-work/non-sleep/non-housework hours of the day on,
now?!"

>
>
> My guess is that our initial Tuning List will have more of
> these "interactive" elements. Anybody care to keep track of this
> prediction??

"Initial"?

> > Meanwhile,
> > I'll wait for the readers' digest version of harmonic entropy.
> This has also been done, Gary. Check Monzo's pages in his dictionary
> entries... try "blackjack," for instance.

Or more directly, http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/harmentr.htm

Gary Morrison wrote:

> I appreciate your efforts to find analogies between music and other disciplines, but after I get
> home from doing science and technology all day, I'm looking forward to doing something expressive
> with music. When I see messages about "harmonic entropy" I have a tendency to say, "oh great,
> what kind of mathematical construction with no apparent connection to musical expression are they
> trying to make me spend the only three non-work/non-sleep/non-housework hours of the day on,
> now?!"

Alright folks, on reflection, I'm willing to admit to the possibility that I just don't have enough
time in my day to read enough of the tuning list to make a meaningful judgement as to how musical it
is at this point in time. I'm glad that you folks at least believe that you're making music, and if
indeed you are, then thanks for doing so. Bear in mind though that there's a lot of people who gave
up on the list concluding that that's not the case.

Also, I'll set up my mail filters to alert me to things that look like a CD-release notice, and try
very hard to increase my tuning-list-reading budget for the next week and see if what you folks say
is in fact so.

--- In tuning@y..., Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22765.html#23334

> Also, I'll set up my mail filters to alert me to things
> that look like a CD-release notice, and try very hard to
> increase my tuning-list-reading budget for the next week
> and see if what you folks say is in fact so.

Hi Gary, and welcome "back" to the tuning list.

This is the second time I've seen you saying that you're
going to give the tuning list a closer look over the next
week. Please allow me to offer a suggestion:

I feel that there's been a lot of fallout recently over
Paul being banned from the other list, and I'd bet that
there will be a lot less activity on this list right now
because of it. I'm just about ready to take a vacation myself.

So my suggestion is to go back, rather than forward, and
try to read everything that's been posted since April 29.

A few weeks before that Joe Pehrson had been asking about
Ben Johnston's notation, after having been exposed to it
at Microfest. Paul and I began a series of responses
explaining why we preferred HEWM notation (look here
<http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/hewm.htm> if not
familiar) and 72-EDO (== 72-tET) notation to Johnston's.

Joe became so interested in 72-EDO that Paul began finding
useful subsets of it for Joe, and this led to the discovery
by Paul and Dave Keenan (with helping hand from Graham
Breed) of a family of tunings that are subsets of 72-EDO,
and which approximate so many JI systems so well that we
call them MIRACLE (an acronym... look here:
<http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/miracle.htm>.)

I got excited about this and began writing webpages about
it and now have devised a practical way to put it on a
computer keyboard. Graham has also devised a brand-new
"decimal" notation for it which suits its properties well.
And in the midst of all this, there were a few actual musical
examples created, including Mary's terrific pieces that
are referenced here and on the other list.

All this has just happened in the last 3 weeks. I suggest
you concentrate your search there if your time is so limited.

Hope that helps readjust your views of the value of
this list.

In greatest sincerity,

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22765.html#23093

> Now don't get me wrong though, I do understand the value of Music
Theory. Theory can help performers and composers find patterns and
possibilities that aren't apparent by experimentation alone. That is
meaningful Theory, but the vast majority of what I've seen on the
> tuning list is at least one - more often two or three - steps of
nonpractice beyond that:
>
> * Microtonal music: Actual music snippets, scores, etc.
Virtually no tuning-list messages are of this nature.
> * Theorizing about music: Suggesting chord progression
possibilities or melodic effects (for example) that people could use
to make music (essentially the usual meaning of Theory). Only a
handful of tuning-list messages are of this nature.

Gary, I beg your pardon, but I don't see how you can say all this
about this list. You must not be reading many of the posts.

We have just received a chord progression from Graham Breed in a
new "miracle" tuning, and within the last year there have been
multimedia links up the kazoo!

Even TWO years ago, we had great progressions regarding drift of
various intervals in just intonation.

These ALL had audio files. In fact, much of this work has been done
by Joe Monzo, so I see your post as really belittling his work...

Sorry...

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> Gary, I beg your pardon, but I don't see how you can say all this
> about this list. You must not be reading many of the posts.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I said most of what I said earlier based upon what the tuning list
was like about 1.5 years ago when I grew numb to the whole thing. I therefore resolved that I'll
look over the list over the course of the next week and reassess how much practical value has come
of it in recent times. I'm hoping that I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Also, bear in mind that I never suggested that the tuning list was worthless or should be shut
down or anything like that. I only opined that it wasn't resulting in much actual music, and thus
that the separate "practicalmicrotonality" list has value.