fissiparous is disasterous

Really, I feel that all the "splitting up" that has been going on
weakens all the lists.

The only list that has had any REAL excitement is this 'ol list right
here. Why... Well, for one thing there are now 455 members, as
opposed to 35 or even 9 on the other lists. That's an audience.

Maybe not everybody posts, but of the 450+, maybe 100 read the list
regularly. Of that number, maybe 30 people post a lot...

Virtually ALL the other "spinoff" lists are relatively inactive.
Harmonic Entropy started with the "big bang..." but soon tapered off
to a dull thud.

Kraig Grady's list, terrific as we think Grady is, gets a post about
every month, if we're lucky.

"Practicalmicrotonality" started with a roar, but Jacky Ligon has
been the only recent poster to it...

The new "tuning-math" list must have at LEAST 5 posts. Two of them
were by ME and, naturally, they had no math in them...

And the "meta-list??" Need we even speak about a list that's about
lists?? Only a handful of posts.

How I long for the good 'ol Harmonic Entropy or Miracle days, when
waves upon waves of beautiful and intriguing posts hit the shore...

That doesn't happen anyplace else... and that's why I would
advocate "keeping it all together..."

How about the "delete" key or the "scroll bar."

VERY useful tools...

_______ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

J. Pehrson wrote:

> Really, I feel that all the "splitting up" that has been going on
> weakens all the lists.

Yeah, I have to agree. I joined the "practical" list early, mainly
because the long math stuff and lattice diagrams on this list just bore me
stiff. Fine, I can live with hitting delete until something interesting
(to me) comes up. What I can't abide is all the cat fights!!! This list
has recently experienced the stupidest bunch of long-running fights.
Sheesh. I guess it's because us microtonalists are so passionate that we
get worked up into rabid frenzies and have to vent at each other!?
Whatsamatter?? No wonder the world thinks we're a fanatic _cult_!

Anyway, I think the microtonal community is just too small to split off
into little corners of 10 or 15, and I hope that people just get on with
tuning and stick to this list. Maybe people could learn to put hints in
the subject line, like "MATH" or "PERF" (for performance) or something... I
don't want to subscribe to 3 or 4 lists just to get a broad overview of
what's current in the "microtonal" or "tuning" community. And I don't want
to subscribe to _one_ list that's all fighting and meta-posts.

Having said that... Here's my a "practical" tidbit of the day... The show
I wrote some music for opened successfully here last Friday
(http://www.cltc.org, Midsummer Night's Dream). I paced nervously for
hours beforehand, but I don't think anyone noticed having all that
12-out-of-17 tET poured into their ears. Nyaa hah ha!!

Rick

Joseph!
If other lists have shorter or even sporadic use, i think that is fine. nothing is permanent
in this universe anyway. actually i have had quite a few new members in the last few days.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> Virtually ALL the other "spinoff" lists are relatively inactive.
> Harmonic Entropy started with the "big bang..." but soon tapered off
> to a dull thud.

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

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

I came back to my office after the weekend to find 470 emails waiting for
me -- not all from the tuning list(s), but certainly most. I was especially
disappointed to have to wade through unnecessary venom when I so love the
sense of community that these lists have created. Therefore, I feel that,
to get anything done here, I'm going to have to switch my membership to
"no-email" -- that is, I'll try to check in on the yahoo website from time
to time, but in the unlikely event anyone wants a timely response from me
personally, a direct email CC would probably be best. This switch is not
out of protest but practicality.

Even so, I think that both the periodic complaints about "too much math" as
well as the dismissive replies they sometimes get miss the point.
Inasmuchas math is a method for manipulating symbols according to fixed
rules and it is often useful to describe aspects of music symbolically,
*all* music can be said to be "mathematical," but that doesn't really say
anything. What I see instead is a different model for making music.

A recent post in the "miracle" thread seemed to imply that the "theorists"
on the list were a kind of research and development division that create
constructs that composers can then put to creative use. Certainly that's
one approach, one that has been used to great success by theorists and
composers that I greatly admire, including Partch, Wilson, Schulter and
many others. However, a great deal depends on the desiderata that these
theorists are aiming for. Often their goals -- sometimes taken so
frustratingly for granted as to be left unspoken -- don't really interest
me at all.

But if it was just a difference of goals -- aiming for optimizing certain
tetrads instead of smoothness or some such thing -- I would probably just
be piping in with my own "math." Instead, I think it's more of a difference
of approach.

When I write a piece of music, it usually doesn't occur to me to first have
a useful, overarching scale system and then see what can be done with it.
Instead, I tend to try to create a scale (or series of scales or pitch sets
or what have you) that fit the idea for the individual piece -- especially
when I'm working with computers. In the same way, I usually create the
rhythmic patterns, the tonal structure, the timbres and so on at the same
time. Proportionally, there seem to be few posts to consider the role of a
tuning in the overall context of a particular piece -- how it best fits
what the composer is trying to express.

I know there are other perspectives. Kraig Grady recently reminded us on
the list that one can only really begin to know the potential of a tuning
system after years of working with it, as he has with the eikosony. Though
I respect that approach (and recently defended it in the face of Brian
McLaren's snarling attacks), I guess I lack Kraig's perseverance.

This is not to say that I haven't gotten great ideas and deep insights from
learning about things like CPSs, MOSs, lattices, and the like, but,
frankly, reading much of the minutiae of scale construction on this list
(and the metaposts like this it generates) leaves me feeling that I'm
wasting time that I should be spending composing (and the many other things
that I should be doing). So for the time being, goodbye and happy tuning!

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I couldn't agree with you any more Joseph. I also worry about how new
comers may perceive this list if they come in during the in-fighting. All
of these new lists are confusing... especially since I do not see any reason
for having a practical microtonal list. Whatever is posted here ot there is
microtonal oriented. Why can't they coexist here. If you don't want math,
don't read it. If you don't want 'practical' tuning information don't read
it. I'm on both lists currently and nothing astoundingly different has come
out of the new list. What is the difference? What is the purpose? Heck, I
use the delete key for 50% of all listserv messages that I get, no offense
to anybody, but I often have no understanding of what is being talked about.
What is the point if many of us will subscribed to both lists. I am sure
that insightful things may be said on both lists that neither list will want
to miss.

Sorry to continue discussing the subject,

Steven Kallstrom

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

> Really, I feel that all the "splitting up" that has been going on
> weakens all the lists.
and
>
> How about the "delete" key or the "scroll bar."
>
> VERY useful tools...

OK, one more thing. Since no one else has mentioned it, I thought I should
call everyone's attention to the last event of MicroFest 2001 in Southern
California,

THE HARRY PARTCH CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

at UCLA this Saturday, May 26. This all-day event will include:

10-12 AM demonstrations of the instruments, including "Instrument Petting Zoo"

1-6 PM Speakers, including Bob Gilmore, Philip Blackburn, Danlee Mitchell,
and films, including Delusion of the Fury and The Dreamer that Remains.
There will also be an exhibit of photos, scores, and LPs, including Betty
Freeman's personal photos.

8-10 PM Harry Partch The Early Years -- concert performed by Just Strings,
including Barstow, December 1942, excerpts from Li Po and Bitter Music, and
the West Coast Premiere of Polyphonic Recidivism on a Japanese Theme.

Tickets are $25, $10 for students and seniors.
for the concert only, tickets are $15, $5 for students and seniors.

All events are at Schoenberg Hall at UCLA. Tickets are available from the
UCLA Ticket Office at (310)825-2101.

This event has been organized by John Schneider of Just Strings and
sponsored by MicroFest and UCLArts.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bill,

Well put. Post when you have new music (or a recording of the
string/gamelan stuff!).

Cheers,
Jon

Bill,

--- In tuning@y..., Bill Alves <ALVES@O...> wrote:
> OK, one more thing. Since no one else has mentioned it, I thought I
> should call everyone's attention to the last event of MicroFest
> 2001 in Southern California,
>
> THE HARRY PARTCH CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

Heck, beat me to the punch! I just got back from a rehearsal for our
presentation in the morning, so I'll have some other details later
this evening. But it looks to be a fun day, with a lot of insight
from people who really know their stuff. Should be a fair amount of
Harry's spirit as well, at least if the old ensemble members have
their say...

Cheers,
Jon

On 5/21/01 9:46 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> Really, I feel that all the "splitting up" that has been going on
> weakens all the lists.
>
> The only list that has had any REAL excitement is this 'ol list right
> here. Why... Well, for one thing there are now 455 members, as
> opposed to 35 or even 9 on the other lists. That's an audience.
>
> Maybe not everybody posts, but of the 450+, maybe 100 read the list
> regularly. Of that number, maybe 30 people post a lot...
>
> Virtually ALL the other "spinoff" lists are relatively inactive.
> Harmonic Entropy started with the "big bang..." but soon tapered off
> to a dull thud.

The tuning list has received frequent and severe trauma.
Since it's not yet seven years old, it's still a child.
In that sense, these family fights are a form of child abuse.

So the emergence of these semi-autonomous,
yet relatively inactive auxiliary lists
might indicate that the Tuning List now has
Multiple Personality Disorder...