more comments from Julie Werntz (for Jon Szanto)

(Note that I said
"genocidal IN SPIRIT.") It's a reaction, not only to him, but to the many
who make these statements. (David Doty at the JI Network website, under
"What is Just Intonation," Horst-Peter Hesse, and others.) Their line is
more-or-less: "The masses never did like atonal music anyway, and we have an
scientific explanation why. Atonal composers [and many of them of course
include all the tonal composers who have ever written for 12-note ET] deny
us what 'nature' has intended for us to hear. What they do is unatural and
not legitimate."

You don't say this, but many of them do, like Stamm.

I suspect many of them are reacting to the veneer of elitism that so
frequently seems to permeate the world of the atonal composers (the
successful ones), or to frustration and resentment over their inability to
enjoy or understand atonal music. But what they are doing with these
statements - trying to use "scientific" arguments to prove generations of
artists wrong, to invalidate their art - feels inhuman, sort-of fascistic to
me. (In addition to being simply a bogus argument. You'll read more about
this view in my essay.) Like a musical eugenics, somehow, or something.

------- End of forwarded message -------

Paul,

I have to say that the two quotes you sent are so completely out-of-
context that I can't make heads or tails of them. I only know Julie
Werntz from your recent discussions on-list with 72 and Maneri/NEC
(am I remembering correctly?). Stamms - don't know. Hesse - only
Hermann.

My word! People like JI; other people like other tunings. "genocidal
IN SPIRIT"?

Either I need more of the context of the paper/quotes to see just how
they figure Doty and other JI proponants do it *to the detrimant*
(sp?) of others, or some other explanation.

Either that, or people have been completely ineffective at producing
the only thing that would trump a "JI is Supreme" card, which is a
large body of music (not papers, not dissertations, etc.) that would
give listeners a choice, and one that would undeniably be chosen as
non-JI.

If you have other examples to send me, fine. If they revolve around
1/1, David Doty, or anything related to that particular small pocket
of the world, thanks but you can hold off: I've read many of the 1/1
issues, just as I have perused the Xenharmonicon issues, and I don't
see the attack-oriented nature that you (and apparantly others) seem
to. My only guess, since I don't care about one particular tuning one
way or another, is that people just aren't confident in what they can
produce. Or something similar. I can't explain it any other way.

Thanks for attempting to focus the situation. If for some reason I
should know more about the music and/or performance of Ms. Werntz,
please fill me in.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> Stamms - don't know.

Hans-Andre Stamm. Look him up on the internet -- he created a microtonal JI pipe organ
and plays his wonderful microtonal compositions on it. I love them. Julie didn't and found
his pro-JI, anti-atonality remarks all too familiar, and all too hurtful.

> Either I need more of the context of the paper/quotes to see just how
> they figure Doty and other JI proponants do it *to the detrimant*
> (sp?) of others, or some other explanation.

All the arguments, found in Partch, Doty, and others, that JI is "natural" and hence non-JI
music is fundamentally "wrong" or "flawed" or something . . . in Stamm's case, the
statement that 50's and 60's academic music was a dead end . . . you can see how some
people might be hurt by such statements. Using arguments wrapped in "science" to
marginalize someone or some group . . . that reminded her of eugenics. Personally, I
disagreed with her reaction . . . but it was her reaction.
>
> Either that, or people have been completely ineffective at producing
> the only thing that would trump a "JI is Supreme" card, which is a
> large body of music (not papers, not dissertations, etc.) that would
> give listeners a choice, and one that would undeniably be chosen as
> non-JI.

Huh? What are you saying?
>
> I've read many of the 1/1
> issues, just as I have perused the Xenharmonicon issues, and I don't
> see the attack-oriented nature that you (and apparantly others) seem
> to.

I don't -- I was simply forwarding Julie's remarks on the subject. She's reluctant to join
the list because (surprise!) of the large volume.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Hans-Andre Stamm. Look him up on the internet -- he created a
> microtonal JI pipe organ and plays his wonderful microtonal
> compositions on it. I love them.

I might too. But is he anything more than *just another guy out
there*?

> Julie didn't and found his pro-JI, anti-atonality remarks all too
> familiar, and all too hurtful.

Wait. Mixing in the anti-atonality stuff is only going to serve to
muddy the waters. I want to keep on-point.

> All the arguments, found in Partch

Who did his research how long ago? When there wasn't the current body
of evidence and arguements?

> Doty, and others, that JI is "natural" and hence non-JI
> music is fundamentally "wrong" or "flawed" or something

Not speaking for Doty, but anyone who bothered to read Partch any
farther then his sections on intonation would realize that if he
believed in anything it was for each person to find their own path.
Taken in historical context, yes, he railed against _an_
establishment -- that of 12tET -- but he didn't start a school, he
didn't train others, he never counselled (actively) composition
students. He just did his own thing, and would, if he were alive,
counsel Jule to do the exact same thing: find her own way.

> . . . in Stamm's case, the statement that 50's and 60's academic
> music was a dead end . . . you can see how some people might be
> hurt by such statements.

At this point in time? All she'd have to do is look at the body
of "academic music" composed and performed to this point vs. any form
of recent JI (or non-12tET, for that matter!) -- who is the clear
winner? Heck, she could laugh the guy off if she wanted to!

> Using arguments wrapped in "science" to marginalize someone or some
> group . . . that reminded her of eugenics. Personally, I
> disagreed with her reaction . . . but it was her reaction.

Well, it is too big a stretch for my tastes, and killing people is
way too far an analogy than someone's purported support/non-support
of a tuning system.

About composing non-JI music:
> Huh? What are you saying?

I'm just saying that if they (I hate saying "they", but I mean ET or
non-JI opinions like Julie's) feel the scientific arguments don't
wash, and feel steam-rollered by JI and it's adherents (sp?), then a
good body of convincing pieces would suit their 'cause' more than
papers refuting the science. But some people, I'll admit, might be
more swayed by papers than by music -- an age-old discussion we've
had here. I imagine your writings would go a long way in this regard,
and I myself imagine that the ideas of intervals within a few cents
are close enough for human use in approximating *exact* JI intervals,
etc.

But Julie (and others) could simply plug along, ignore the JI
philistines and bullies, and compile a compelling group of musics
that would stand any "scientific" arguement on it's (r)ear.

> I don't -- I was simply forwarding Julie's remarks on the subject.
> She's reluctant to join the list because (surprise!) of the large
> volume.

OK, I understand. But I think Julie (not knowing her at all) should
just go on doing what she is compelled to. Let us all be honest: no
one today, in any form of music, is having to buck the tide the way
many of the people that we draw from did. No one is rioting at
premieres the way they did for Stravinski, because they don't care;
no one is villifying Schoenberg and Webern and Varese, because their
mode of atonality/serialism/etc has now been absorbed into the
mainstream, at least in terms of no one putting up a fuss. (I bring
in these people, in the classical realm, so that I don't have to rely
*solely* on Partch, because people already think I'm monophonic in
this way, and he is obviously JI-centric).

But even though she might not like Partch, he didn't have any of the
support all of us have: tools to work with, mailing lists to discuss,
at least a semblance of instruments and instrumentalists to work
with, a concert audience willing to accept something outside the
boundaries of people sitting in chairs, playing music at an audience.

He just read stuff, figured out what worked for him, wrote the music,
made the instruments, got concerts and presentations, etc etc ad
nauseum for people (like you and me) who know. He, and the others
like him, had reason to whine. But instead (or at the same time) he
went out and *did* it, all the while incurring the wrath and apathy
of an uncomprehending (is that a word) public and musical
establishment.

He's just one example, and the one I know best. If he had written in
129EDO and the rest of the story was the same, he'd still be a good
example, because the point is not the tuning, it's what you do with
it.

Best,
Jon

Hi Jon.

Julie Werntz is a composer and is co-director of the Boston Microtonal Society. If you'd like to
correspond with her, I'd encourage you to e-mail her directly. If you aren't able to get her e-mail
address from the posts so far, e-mail me off-list and I'll give it to you.

Best,
Paul

Paul!
Hmmmmm. I thought the fascist were the ones forcing us into following serialism as the one true
way. Boulez's comments ranks with Stalin in my book.
Why? because they could teach it and thereby secure their roles as "specialist" in charging
large amounts of money for something that probable cannot be taught. At least this way :)
Now McL has pointed out that the human mind can only follow 9 pitches max. Would 9 tone rows
be any better, i don't think so.

paul@stretch-music.com wrote:

> I suspect many of them are reacting to the veneer of elitism that so
> frequently seems to permeate the world of the atonal composers (the
> successful ones), or to frustration and resentment over their inability to
> enjoy or understand atonal music. But what they are doing with these
> statements - trying to use "scientific" arguments to prove generations of
> artists wrong, to invalidate their art - feels inhuman, sort-of fascistic to
> me. (In addition to being simply a bogus argument. You'll read more about
> this view in my essay.) Like a musical eugenics, somehow, or something.

-- 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:
> Paul!
> Hmmmmm. I thought the fascist were the ones forcing us into following serialism as the one
true
> way.

Tell Julie. These comments were not mine but hers.

> Boulez's comments ranks with Stalin in my book.
> Why? because they could teach it and thereby secure their roles as "specialist" in charging
> large amounts of money for something that probable cannot be taught. At least this way :)
> Now McL has pointed out that the human mind can only follow 9 pitches max. Would 9
tone rows
> be any better, i don't think so.

See my comments to Jon Szanto. Feel free to contact Julie and share your responses to her,
with her.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Julie Werntz is a composer and is co-director of the Boston
> Microtonal Society...

That's great, thanks, I'll write you off-list.