Jon, damned or darned, replies...

Dear Joe,

When people are on a first name basis and then they are called out in public by last name, it is commonly considered a very confrontational and hostile act. I don't think you really meant it that way, but we've certainly had enough good communications, esp. recently, that you could give me the benefit of the doubt and spare the attitude. That said, let's move on to the meat of your beef.

>Jon... that was terrifically annoying and seemingly insulting to a lot of >people.

I gather you took it that way (annoying). I also notice you are the only one (so far, instead of a lot of people; I was really talking about a small number of people, as you'll see...). You seem to be very defensive about composition, which I don't really understand, because you make a living at it, have many performances and a presence, and whatever I might say is of little importance. But, as I said, you have somewhat misread my intent OR I did not make myself clear, the latter of which happens often (to my chagrin).

>I will be anxious to see how you manage to "backpedal" out of _this_ one!

I won't even try, because I meant what I said. What I *will* do is clarify my words, which needs to happen. Second draft, if you will.

> > As a prelude, one of the most valuable lessons for me from this
> > tuning list, if not *the* most, has been the acceptance and
> > understanding that people can view what they call "the creation of
> > music" in very, very different ways and methodologies. It is the
> > passionate and sincere beliefs and devoted and hard work that has
> > convinced me, not the output, because frequently there is little or
> > none.

My entire point of this paragraph was this: I have come, over the period of 6+ years on the list, to learn to value the writings, research, and activities of those people actively involved in the more non-compositional/playing aspects of the tuning community. I still sometimes have a problem, as do others, with the long posts of lattices, or vectors, or any number of these type of posts and work, BUT I have come to see just how important they *can* be. I am glad it continues.

And the second half of the para gave why and how I came to see this: through the devotion that these people work with, how much it means to them. I was not convinced by their compositions or performances, because many of these people don't actively play or compose. But the zeal and dogged determination, along with some occasional and very well-thought-out reasons for this kind of work (especially Paul Erlich and Dave Keenan in this regard have opened my eyes to the intrinsic value of the 'research', if you will) -- this has swayed me where music didn't.

So, then you replied:

>Szanto, I feel you are seriously "out of line" with this statement. Since >one of your favorite "pastimes" on this list is telling *other* people >when or if they are "out of line" I believe I will return your kind favor >by this reply.

Since you misunderstood my point, we're a bit out of water, but then again, what exactly is out of line -- disagreeing about the validity/worthiness/listenability of some music?

>A quick glance at the Tuning Punks pages might be instructive.

"Waiter, one crow pie!" Look, Joe, you really need to be careful when you make statements like this!! I don't know how much might have been added in the last month, but everything prior to that on the tuning punks site, as far as mp3 files, is sitting right here in a directory on my hard drive, including a couple of custom playlists that I made up of my favorite selections.

I'd ask you in the future to not presume what I *haven't* investigated unless you know for sure, OK?

Now, you go on to name a large number of people that don't, for the most part, fall into the category of people I was talking about! If you would think back to the germination of this thread, it came from GZ, who was whining plaintively (that is a compliment) about the stacks of numbers, and was rebutted pretty well by CB, who employs more of a "clean room" approach (another compliment). But when I said there was little or no output, I'll give an example or two: Paul Erlich, who must have the record for bytes posted, has only posted a couple of pieces that I've ever heard; Dave Keenan, I can only remember the tumbling dekany spreadsheet composition. But I see, in other ways (and maybe in days to come _with_music_), that they are making valuable contributions in this area -- convincing me by their work in non-performance/non-compositional mode. There are strides being made, I am sure of it, *even if* I don't have proof of it by actual music at this time.

That was my point.

I don't know that it would serve any purpose for me to go down your list of the people you mentioned, whose music has been exposed to the list. For one thing, the people I was really thinking about aren't even noted!!! And some of the people that you mentioned, that I like a lot, are also people who have spoken out against the over-reliance on numerical/mathematical constructs and other items as the sole basis for making music (or that's how they see it).

And I am aware of all of them (I think Rick M is the only one that I might not have heard) and am aware of the manner of their music-making. And the funny thing is that there are more people on your list that I *do* like their music than I *don't*.

But here is where I not only don't back pedal, but down shift and start careening forward. Firstly, it does appear that virtually any piece of music connected with this tuning group is boffo by your standards, and the one time that I saw you write something that was even the teeniest bit negative (about Warren Burt's algorithmic stuff in NYC), you beat a hasty retreat (which is fine, I guess, as you explained about not wanting to be a 'reviewer'). So you either like almost any piece that walks in the door, are afraid to have someone think you didn't like a particular piece of music (and when I say "didn't like", I simply mean that it wasn't a beneficial moment for you, not that you think it is a steaming pile of doo), or really treat this all as Marketing or Public Relations, in hope to not offend a future contact, colleague, or opportunity.

And that is all perfectly fine with me, because it is your taste, and your life as a composer, and I am happy however you want to live it and whatever you want to listen to.

Me? I listen to a lot of music, in a lot of styles, from a lot of places. And play a lot, too. So do many, many people on this list. I happen to have vivid and specific tastes, and I don't like everything. And I certainly don't like everything microtonal, and don't like everything that has been created by list members. Why, on this great green Earth, is that either heresy, insulting, or incomprehensible?

Uninformed, spiteful, mindless criticism is a bad and dark thing; I hope I don't appear to be such a critic. Knowledgeable, impassioned, and involved criticism can serve as a healthful catalyst; I could only aspire, I suppose, to this type of writing, even if in an informal format. To read the critical columns of Kenneth Tynan is to chart the course of English theater in the 20th century; G. B. Shaw certainly gives an insight into other arts of the times. I am as far from them as I am from any great composer (in my composing), but I most definitely do value their contributions, prickly and upsetting as they may have been at the time.

I value the hard work, the heart and soul (when applicable), and sheer moxie of the good men and women that ply the microtonal trade, that make music that is out of the realm of the 12-tET monolith. I also recognize that a certain portion of it is flawed, fails the task, and I wouldn't play it for loved ones and friends. Just like the big music world *outside* of microtonal music, there is good and bad, and a lot in between. I don't, and won't, apologize for liking some pieces and not others.

Anyone who makes music, I would think, knows that they can't please and appeal to everyone else in the world. This is a good thing. I happen to be very critical, of my own performance, of my composing (such as it is), and in other areas; I am as hard on myself as I might seem to be on others. When Paul or anyone else finds a flaw in a calculation, no one gets all huffy and says that they are out of line for correcting something, or even when they disagree over a methodology. Yet it seems that, for you, it is not allowable for someone to not like a piece of music. Or a group of pieces. I can't buy it.

To finish, I didn't word that paragraph as well as I could have, but it was directly in response to Chris, and not a generalized statement. Since you took it as such, out of context, I've tried to explain in a broader sense what lies behind and around that sentiment. You'll probably still dislike that I would even broach the topic of worthy/not-worthy music publicly; that I can't help. I would *hope* that you see that I speak only of my own tastes and views, and all others are welcome to have theirs.

After all, it's a big world.

Regards,
Jon

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/
NOTE:
If your reply bounces, try --> jonszanto@yahoo.com