Re: Essential reading about microtonal music

> I don't think you've demonstrated any bias, and I for one have not
> yet figured out what you are objecting to.

The bias I object to is mentioned here:

/tuning/topicId_29874.html#30337

That said, I take the point (voiced by many readers) regarding the
difficulty in seeking a "bias-less" book, and I can only reiterate
that my intention was to alert the new reader to what I feel to be a
fairly significant philosophical bias in the suggested titles (i.e.
one that treats sound purely as a physiological phenomenon). My
recommendation was not to avoid these hugely important works, but
rather to read them with an awareness that they present only one side
of the coin (albeit the more popular side). Of course to suggest
sound exists "outside the body" is speculative, but to suggest that
it _doesn't_ exist "outside the body" is _just_ as speculative. And
it is to this type of 'implicit speculation' I wished to alert the
new reader.

'Implicit speculation' is a much graver beast than anything openly
speculative. Just because the 'speculations' of the books in question
tend to hide behind demonstrable and 'verifiable' data does not make
them 'immune' to questioning. The Partch-Helmholtz view seems to me
to be a firmly closed book, closed to the possibility of there being
anything beyond the 'verifiable'. (Sure, sound 'verifiably' has a
corporeal consequence, but does that automatically mean its first
principle is corporeal?)

I think it was Paul who made the point that reading should be about
exposing oneself to as many "ideological biases" as possible, and I
now agree that this is probably a more sensible tactic than trying to
seek the perfect 'neutral' book. Thus, I make yet another suggestion
to Alex (the new reader), and that is to read Partch and Helmholtz,
but to also read the following:

Duckworth, William, et al., ed. _Sound and Light: La Monte Young
Marian Zazeela_. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1996.

Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan, ed. _The Pythagorean Sourcebook and
Library_. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press, 1987. (Revised since.)

James, Jamie. _The Music of the Spheres_. Rev. ed. London: Abacus,
1994.

Anderson, Warren D. _Music and Musicians in Ancient Greece_. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1994.

Best wishes,
Alex Carpenter
http://www.transparentmeans.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Alex Carpenter" <acarp@a...> wrote:

> The bias I object to is mentioned here:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29874.html#30337

Given that sound as heard is plainly inside the body, and as produced
and propagated outside the body, I'm afraid it made no sense to me;
it seems about as clear an example of a false dichotomy as one could
want.

Of course to suggest
> sound exists "outside the body" is speculative, but to suggest that
> it _doesn't_ exist "outside the body" is _just_ as speculative. And
> it is to this type of 'implicit speculation' I wished to alert the
> new reader.

I would call it a known fact; I get the feeling we aren't on the same
wavelength at all.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Alex Carpenter" <acarp@a...> wrote:
>
> > The bias I object to is mentioned here:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_29874.html#30337
>
> Given that sound as heard is plainly inside the body, and as
produced
> and propagated outside the body, I'm afraid it made no sense to me;
> it seems about as clear an example of a false dichotomy as one
could
> want.
>
> Of course to suggest
> > sound exists "outside the body" is speculative, but to suggest
that
> > it _doesn't_ exist "outside the body" is _just_ as speculative.
And
> > it is to this type of 'implicit speculation' I wished to alert
the
> > new reader.
>
> I would call it a known fact; I get the feeling we aren't on the
same
> wavelength at all.

Thanks for detaching my statement from the example I gave. You are
making no attempt to understand my point of view or even address the
issue at heart, which has nothing to do with how sound is heard or
propagated, but which concerns where authors have placed their
philosophical priority.
Alex

--- In tuning@y..., "Alex Carpenter" <acarp@a...> wrote:

> Thanks for detaching my statement from the example I gave.

Thanks for failing to make any attempt to clarify your statement,
despite my encouragement, both stated and implied.

You are
> making no attempt to understand my point of view or even address
the
> issue at heart, which has nothing to do with how sound is heard or
> propagated, but which concerns where authors have placed their
> philosophical priority.

It's your metaphor. It seems to me there are two possibilities for
what you regard as its purpose:

(1) Hindering communication. If this is the case, I suggest this is
not the place for Pomo games. Send it to Alan Sokal and see if he can
use it for his next article.

(2) Fostering communication. I certainly hope it is (2), because I
have little tolerance for (1). If this is the situation, it seems to
me that you are shooting the messenger. The message was, your
metaphor failed to communicate, so try again.

--- In tuning@y..., "Alex Carpenter" <acarp@a...> wrote:
> 'Implicit speculation' is a much graver beast than anything openly
> speculative. Just because the 'speculations' of the books in
question
> tend to hide behind demonstrable and 'verifiable' data does not
make
> them 'immune' to questioning. The Partch-Helmholtz view seems to me
> to be a firmly closed book, closed to the possibility of there
being
> anything beyond the 'verifiable'. (Sure, sound 'verifiably' has a
> corporeal consequence, but does that automatically mean its first
> principle is corporeal?)

Hmmm ... I discovered Helmholtz / Ellis (Ellis was as much a part of
this as Helmholtz was) in the late 1960s / early 1970s and
immediately went out and tried stuff using digital circuitry and
computers. I had been exposed to Partch by that time, but didn't know
then that his theories were built around JI. I'm in the midst of
trying to recreate some of the JI stuff I did back then and I hope to
have an MP3 or two available soon.

It isn't clear to me what you mean by "firmly closed book". In any
event, along with Helmholtz and Partch, I would add
Sethares' "Tuning, Timber, Spectrum, Scale" as essential reading!
Sethares, along with Wendy Carlos, Easley Blackwood and a few other
pioneers, took what Helmholtz and Partch did with JI and expanded it
to other forms of microtonality and xentonality. *My* bias here, as
is well known, is to electronic / computer implementations of music
in general and microtonality in particular, so it shouldn't come as
any great surprise that Sethares, Carlos and Blackwood are on my
essential reading / listening list.

Which brings up an interesting point ... shouldn't we also be
discussing an essential *listening* list?
--
Relax! Run Your Own Brain with Neuro-Semantics!
M. Edward Borasky, Neuro-Semantics Trainer

znmeb@borasky-research.net
http://www.borasky-research.net/HarryIannis.htm