Re: [tuning] what's what

In a message dated 6/11/01 1:53:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET writes:

> Sorry to see the Johnny Reinhard accurate to the cent parlor trick
> thread tumble into an armed one side versus another type blowout. And
> I know I said I'd shut up on this one already, but this is the only
> thread I have the desire to excavate out of the 300 plus post deep
> pile at the moment...
>

It's too bad you haven't read the others on this topic. If you had, you
might have noticed how I have outlined that there is no accurate test. I
hear melodic intervals in my head and then I produce them aloud. What is so
darn difficult in understanding that?

> From where I stand, and this has been my gripe right along because as
> I've already said in what I've heard the musical results are plenty
> accurate enough, Johnny appears to want his cake and eat it too.
> Arguing both sides of the argument as it were.
>
There are different brains on this list, at least they work differently. To
frame what I have said on this thread (and this thread only) as science is
foolish. What I have offered is that of an informant, a practitioner in
professionally performing microtonal music. Call me on the telephone and I
will sing for you a 7/4 or 5/4 accurate to the cent. Will you be able to
determine the accuracy? Does it matter to me? No...chewing my
cake...because nothing has changed for me in these posts. Only younger
microtonalists grasping at the facts.

> Whatever, would somebody who's equipped, competent, and driven to do
> so -- preferably without an agenda -- run some measurements and just
> see what there is to see alright already!
>

I might say "where are the studies" that are supposed to determine what I am
able to hear. Studies of musicians or a general public? Studies of people
with perfect pitch? Studies of microtonal virtuosi?

Dan, you should know better when we discussed Ives's tuning on the list. You
had a gripe until I sent you the unpublished material. Then you reversed
yourself, but could not explain any better than I could with internet
mailings. Similarly, if I have been accurate in years of playing and I tell
you what I am hearing, don't you think it looks naive to me for the argument
to appear artificially, outside of the context of music?

> Johnny's accomplishments, reputation (et al) shouldn't be in doubt.
> However, as he's also the one who keeps bring this rather provocative
> 'I play 1200-tet accurately to the cent' topic back every now and
> again, I also see no reason to shout-down or belittle anyone who might
> honestly question that or someone who might be interested in running
> some measurements to see just what's what.
>

I thank those that know my work and have supported my statements. I note
that no one that has met me and heard me has questioned my veracity, only
newbies. Now there are some that like the ruckus and rumble of argument in
the form of belittling. I am not allowing for that by sticking to my guns
because I have the inside track: it is my head after all.

> Then again, there always JdL's new list...
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

Yes, there is a splintering of lists which I think is unfortunate. I intend
to remain with this one list. If there is something that I should know
about, or needs to be forwarded to me, I hope that it is done. I suspected
that the FAQ work would lead to this fracturing. If we could use folders and
subfolders, instead of entirely different lists, we could be better organized
for mutual comfort. IMO, Practical Microtonality is an oxymoron. I've made
the impractical quite practical FOR ME, but it is clearly difficult to share
without firsthand experiences (in person). Too bad it is so difficult to
imagine being in my shoes. I admit it's a lot easier for me and think it
pathetic to smear someone's life experience because of my "claims" to hearing
a cent accurately and being able to perform it so.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Y>es, there is a splintering of lists which I think is >unfortunate. I intend
>to remain with this one list. If there is something >that I should know
>about, or needs to be forwarded to me, I hope that it >is done. I suspected
>that the FAQ work would lead to this fracturing. If >we could use folders and
>subfolders, instead of entirely different lists, we >could be better organized
>for mutual comfort. IMO, Practical Microtonality is >an oxymoron. I've made
>the impractical quite practical FOR ME, but it is >clearly difficult to share
>without firsthand experiences (in person). Too bad it >is so difficult to
>imagine being in my shoes. I admit it's a lot easier >for me and think it
>pathetic to smear someone's life experience because of >my "claims" to hearing
>a cent accurately and being able to perform it so.

>Best, Johnny Reinhard

Well you have the right to believe whatever you would like to believe as do we all. If you want to continue to make claims and not bring forth evidence to the table then thats ok too. I'm also not trying to smear you. That would be a real waste of my time. I am just looking for real evidence to honest questions and that is it. With that said while you are out making claims I will be looking for real evidence on these matters, and I dont just mean in your isolated claim of 1 cent, ... whether you want to believe it or not.

And thats really all I have to say about this topic, assuming people dont try to smear me for another round because I ask a queston...

Cheers,

Andy

Johnny,

I'm sure you've carefully *not* responded to any of my posts because
you feel that I have asked questions for wrong or mean-spirited
reasons. That was not my intent, and I worked carefully to frame the
questions as objectively as possible, certainly as objectively as you
put forth the claims. I note today that you write:

> To frame what I have said on this thread (and this thread only) as
> science is foolish.

Two things:

1. "foolish" is the exact word I once used that you *excoriated* me
for, saying that to use it was to show you great disrespect. Et tu?

2. I would hardly, nor would others, call measuring frequency either
unscientific or foolish, maybe just not applicable in this case.

> I might say "where are the studies" that are supposed to determine
> what I am able to hear.

...and then...

> ...if I have been accurate in years of playing and I tell
> you what I am hearing, don't you think it looks naive to me
> for the argument to appear artificially, outside of the context
> of music?

No one can measure what you hear (this must be what you meant
by "intent" in your previous posts), but they can certainly measure
what actually comes out of your bassoon or voice, and to an audience
that is what is important. And I believe a couple of people have
suggested analyzing a performce of yours, even your own music
performed by yourself. I would hardly call that "outside of the
context of music".

Dan said:

> Johnny's accomplishments, reputation (et al) shouldn't be in doubt.

To which I heartily agree! Many people on the list owe him big time,
and he has changed the concert scene, for the positive, for
microtonal music for a long time now.

> However, as he's also the one who keeps bring this rather
> provocative 'I play 1200-tet accurately to the cent' topic
> back every now and again, I also see no reason to shout-down
> or belittle anyone who might honestly question that or someone
> who might be interested in running some measurements to see just
> what's what.

Again, agreed.

> I note that no one that has met me and heard me has questioned my
> veracity, only newbies.

Well, I think my first posts to the tuning list were in Fall of 1996,
after being involved with microtones since 1971, so I am not in the
newbie camp. You've also heard support, but being a concert promoter
and organizer raises the issue as to whether people might not want to
upset you, lest they lose favor. Very understandable, in light of the
somewhat limited opportunities for concertizing in this area of
music. Thankfully, you've always had a "big tent" that includes a lot
of performers.

> IMO, Practical Microtonality is an oxymoron. I've made the
> impractical quite practical FOR ME, but it is clearly difficult
> to share without firsthand experiences (in person).

No, it is important for beginners in this field, and if you would (or
could) look at it from someone else's perspective besides yourself,
you would clearly be of great help to even more people. If someone
has to come to you and experience your 'you'-ness, then maybe a PM
list is a good idea, where others have the ability to share other
ways of making the music with microtones practical. Or, as people do,
they share here.

As you say, it *is* difficult to imagine being in your shoes. And
maybe difficult for you to imagine other peoples 'shoe'-ness.

Regards,
Jon

[Dan Stearns wrote:]
>>Then again, there always JdL's new list...

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Yes, there is a splintering of lists which I think is unfortunate

Would you prefer that I invite Brian ("flaming") McLaren to join the
tuning list?

[Johnny:]
>I suspected that the FAQ work would lead to this fracturing.

??? What??? What possible connection can you imagine there is between
the (very uncompleted) FAQ and new lists forming?

JdL

In a message dated 6/11/01 7:16:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JoJoBuBu@aol.com
writes:

> . I'm also not trying to smear you. That would be a real waste of my time. I
> am just looking for real evidence to honest questions and that is it. With
> that said while you are out making claims I will be looking for real
> evidence on these matters, and I don't just mean in your isolated claim of
> 1 cent, ... whether you want to believe it or not.
>
>

Andy, good luck in your researches in life. I'll be out here doing
microtonal music, too. I believe you.

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

<<I hear melodic intervals in my head and then I produce them aloud.
What is so darn difficult in understanding that?>>

Nothing, that sounds totally reasonable and what could possibly be
controversial about it... only thing is you say you can do this with
accuracy to one cent at the drop of a hat (parlor trick style), and
that any free pitch instrument (save the bass drum and the fretless
guitar apparently) is likewise endowed with this grand blessing! And
that unfortunately is quite a different claim I think.

<<I might say "where are the studies" that are supposed to determine
what I am able to hear.>>

The way I see it either you do or you don't (play accurate to the
cent). I've heard you play. It's good, you're good, and hallelujah for
all that, because that's the only important stuff anyway... But,

My only points have been about what you've said; the specific claims
as they were. And as I've said I think they're an exaggeration that
tends to give the wrong impression... the way I see it, the whole deal
hinges on your oft repeated claim of '1200 tet, accurate to the cent'.
Either it's true or it's false, but not both! If that parlor trick
type claim weren't part of this whole thread I wouldn't much give a
damn -- the AFMM and you hardly need "defend" yourselves, it's silly.

<<Dan, you should know better when we discussed Ives's tuning on the
list. You had a gripe until I sent you the unpublished material.
Then you reversed yourself, but could not explain any better than I
could with internet mailings.>>

That all sounds good, but it's not exactly the way I'd frame it. But
the analogy of all things in their proper context does make sense
here. Because in the case your published Ives material the points of
yours that I saw as "evidential exaggerations" were both toned down
from what they were on the list and only a very small part of the
whole presentation.

So if this is the same sort of case here, well that would make sense!
But parlor trick type "boasts" (or whatever you'd want to call them)
don't leave a lot of wiggling room and can really only have two
probable outcomes:

1) What they say is true and we have the eighth wonder of the world,
Johnny -- the amazing robot ear and hand man -- Reinhard.

2) What they say it's false, and we have no '1200 tet, accurate to the
cent', only Johnny Reinhard of the garden-variety amazing type.

Okay, that's enough stroking of the Reinhard ego for one day from
me... let specific claims be measured the best they can be measured
and that'll be that to whatever extent "that" is... let the claim
maker be heard, because there's got to be more important things than
just the claim itself to say, and I think that's what he's trying to
do anyway... ?

--Dan Stearns

In a message dated 6/11/01 8:13:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jdl@adaptune.com
writes:

> ??? What??? What possible connection can you imagine there is between
> the (very uncompleted) FAQ and new lists forming?
>
>

John, you shouldn't be too surprised. I did post an objection early on.
Sorry, if my opinion offends. I just thought, and still think, that we were
headed for new, uncharted territory as a list due to natural expansion. I
admit that there were great efforts made to be fair in the FAQs and they are
certainly benign on the face of it. But it did define our amazing
differences in definitions. It showed up what some take for granted and
others truly glean.

Somehow there is too much information for a typical list of this nature, open
and tolerant, if a bit acidic. Dan's last post showed that he hadn't
followed the thread, as admitted. This is more serious than a poor FAQ. But
the younger ones, mistrustful of legend, are ready to reinvent the universe
at the drop of a pin.

The FAQ underscores the territoriality that people feel but rarely speak. It
freezes things so that a line is drawn in the sand. It is like a supreme
court justices decision which is a split decision. It would seem like the
cause to inspire splintering. That's just my take.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/11/01 8:53:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> As you say, it *is* difficult to imagine being in your shoes. And
> maybe difficult for you to imagine other peoples 'shoe'-ness.
>
>

Mainly, I agree with you on this last go around. I guess you'd be surprised
about I love talking about the pedagogy of learning the specific way a
student learns before teaching the entire class new material. But before you
over-read my academic metaphor, I said I AGREE with most all of what you
said. Unglaublich!

It is of interest to see how differently people perceive and surely, it's
important to correctly interpret where they are coming from. Andy is only
trying to be sure about something he heard about. Really, the only way I
could vocalize Harry Partch without perfect pitch is because I CAN hear at a
cent. Once again, there are others who can learn to do this. I hope to
write more on learning how to hear with more discrimination. :)

I guess it all comes down to playing perfect intervals on the bassoon for
someone. It can't be done if the player cannot first hear the intervals in
his inner mind. But then, it's not a problem. For the nth time: Analyzing
my compositions will not help in the search for certitude (please, no, the
fear, the dread that my tone deaf ability will be found out).

I have a whole performing philosophy for music that sometimes involves using
a mental pitch grid from which to relate to in where I place notes. Keep in
mind that notes enter on different parts of different partials. The tongue
can block off any number of different articulatives.

The best way to learn to hear in a similar fashion to the way I hear (and I
was a bad student with Cs) is to keep the opening interval of a microtonal
motive (or melodic pattern). I remember the ascending neutral third by
recalling an old world's fair automobile car which outlines the 350 cent
third. I have Catler's tune "Hey Sailor" for the 7/4 and tricesimoprimal
tones, in general. Quartertones, which I consider big, are easy to do, and
work in bebop fashion in improv. When different tunings give different
vocabulary, they can be combined so that most all sensible interval are
represented. This is the origin of my assertion that ALL intervals are
microtonal, preferring not to focus too hard on conventional 12-tET for
meaning.

Hope this helps.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

<<Dan's last post showed that he hadn't followed the thread, as
admitted. This is more serious than a poor FAQ.>>

Hey now... what I actually said was that out of the 300 plus posts
that arrived between Saturday morning and Monday morning that was the
*only* thread I followed, hence my comments and reentry into the fray!

You know, from having to get in your own pet peeve about "a poor FAQ"
to all the other condescending "the younger ones" type quips, I'm
beginning get the uneasy feeling that supporting you = yes sir, and
anything less = attacking you or showing one's greenhorned naivete...

I knew I should've stayed out of this!

--Dan Stearns

In a message dated 6/11/2001 11:20:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Afmmjr@aol.com writes:

> Andy, good luck in your researches in life. I'll be out here doing
> microtonal music, too. I believe you.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

Yes and good luck to you as well.

Cheers,
Andy

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> Would you prefer that I invite Brian ("flaming") McLaren to join the
> tuning list?
>

So now, Massa, this is invitation-only? mcl.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

...blah, blah...

Am I the only one who can't make heads or tails out of what Afmmjr
writes? Try letting someone else read what you write before you post
it. mcl.

--- In tuning@y..., "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@y...> wrote:
> Am I the only one who can't make heads or tails out of what Afmmjr
> writes?

No.

> Try letting someone else read what you write before you post it.

"Hey honey, look at this: the pot's calling the kettle black!"

From: "Silly Ms. Comma Pump" <commapump@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 12, 2001 7:43 am
Subject: Re: what's what

--- In tuning@y..., "Silly Ms. Comma Pump" <commapump@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@y...> wrote:

So the new trend now is to come up with a really stupid
Yahoo name?

--- In tuning@y..., obnoxious_snot_covered_faggot@y... wrote:
> From: "Silly Ms. Comma Pump" <commapump@y...>
> Date: Tue Jun 12, 2001 7:43 am
> Subject: Re: what's what
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Silly Ms. Comma Pump" <commapump@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "The Clever Mr. Zill" <zenharmonic@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> So the new trend now is to come up with a really stupid
> Yahoo name?

Speak for yourself. "Mr. Zill" was applied to me on several lists, so
I took it on rather than argue the point. And on the road, a Yahoo!
address works well. mcl.