Practice exceeds theory by centuries

Theory has done well in the development of western music. That is because of it theoretical
roots whether Sumarian, Egyptian or Indus Valley. unfortunately there is a great bulk of music on
the globe, as highly develop, anything but lame, that theory has failed to make any progress in
the least bit of understanding. Even with western music, to my ear their is all types of
intonational practices that have develop over the centuries that occur only under special
conditions. These being non statistical, and almost non- repeatable are excluded from the theory.
The theorist and mathematicians have to listen to the artist first throwing out their favorite
artifacts of their calculators thinking they are making a contribution. Their purpose is an
intellectual imperialism that underneath it all has nothing but contempt for the artist and their
methods and most of all intuition.

Now if Partch failed to exploit the diamond , let me point out that none his critics have
even taken step one of what they should have learned in Tuning first grade of possibly looking at
a two diamonds a 3/2 apart. The reason for this is although there are great musical possibilities
of such a thing they are not mathematically interesting on a math level. Guess what we are
interested in musical possibilities and the rules on this side of the fence are different.

Stand aside, you are standing in my light

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

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

Hi Kraig,

<<Stand aside, you are standing in my light>>

Ah, like the voice of an angel!

thanks,

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> The theorist and mathematicians have to listen to the artist first
throwing out their favorite
> artifacts of their calculators thinking they are making a
contribution. Their purpose is an
> intellectual imperialism that underneath it all has nothing but
contempt for the artist and their
> methods and most of all intuition.

Would you like to give one example of such a perpetrator
of "intellectual imperialism"? Me, I'm completely in the service of
the artist, both the artist inside me and others on this list, such
as Joseph. Meanwhile, we've seen you ridicule the tuning practices of
entire subcultures because they did not conform to your theoretical
preconceptions.
>
> Now if Partch failed to exploit the diamond , let me point out
that none his critics have
> even taken step one of what they should have learned in Tuning
first grade of possibly looking at
> a two diamonds a 3/2 apart.

Speak for yourself. This is one of the first chunks of the lattice
that one sees when expanding one's scope in the lattice (which is
basically what many of us theorists are engaged in.

> The reason for this is although there are great musical
possibilities
> of such a thing they are not mathematically interesting on a math
level.

Again, speak for yourself.

> Guess what we are
> interested in musical possibilities and the rules on this side of
the fence are different.

Or maybe they are quite the same but you have a craw in your side
that prevents you from seeing alternative approaches coming from
outside your "school" as valuable.
>
> Stand aside, you are standing in my light
>
I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
???
Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> Theory has done well in the development of western music.

By the way I agree with your subject line but not so much with this
statement. The field of developing new tuning systems only a tiny
piece of the field of music as a whole. In the former, theory can be
quite useful, in narrowing the field of infinite possibilities down
to a manageable list. In the latter, theory has barely scratched the
tip of the iceberg of even the most primitive music of any culture.

Paul!
I wasn't directing this to those who it does not apply. How you thought this referred to you i
have no idea in context of my references.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Meanwhile, we've seen you ridicule the tuning practices of
> entire subcultures because they did not conform to your theoretical
> preconceptions.

Where do you get that! what is a subculture. I Can only imagine you see to as my rejection of 24
Et in its use in Mediterranean pop music. I can only say that this viewpoint is almost universally
supported by the finer of Persian And mid east musicians

> Speak for yourself. This is one of the first chunks of the lattice
> that one sees when expanding one's scope in the lattice (which is
> basically what many of us theorists are engaged in.

yet it has never been mentioned.

> Or maybe they are quite the same but you have a craw in your side
> that prevents you from seeing alternative approaches coming from
> outside your "school" as valuable.

What alternative is being presented except alot of complex numbers that has no relations to music.
once again i was not referring to you, was i
Paul when people say the diamond is nothing and then they throw out some mathematical generator,
like this isn't obvious already in the scale tree, I take issue. The problem is Paul is that
people trash others whole work when they have no concept of what a composers needs to do music.
Now more than one person has used the diamond, yet these people throw out this mathematical crap
that is supposed to make me bow down because they know more math. That is intellectual imperialism
in that they are trying to set themselves up as superior.
Your own work is developed out of examine the seven limit tetrad and i recognizes it as being
based on musical practice.

>
> >
> > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> >
> I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> ???
> Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.

I am very sad at what you consider progress Paul!

>

-- 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:
>
> Theory has done well in the development of western music. That
is because of it theoretical
> roots whether Sumarian, Egyptian or Indus Valley. unfortunately
there is a great bulk of music on
> the globe, as highly develop, anything but lame, that theory has
failed to make any progress in
> the least bit of understanding.

Bob:
No argument with your subject line, but quite a bit with the stuff
that follows. I'll leave that, though, to the others who have already
eloquently presented their counterarguments. However, it should be
noted that even in Babylonia theorists had practical input into the
structure of musical resources and certainly the Greeks did, too.

I never meant to imply that music could not exist without theory.
However, rich harmonic possibilities evolved only with the help of
rather profound and coherently interrelated insights into the
structural aspects of musical resources that are collectively called
theory. This is mostly applicable to tuning theory, which, as I
understand it, is the central theme of this list and a major
motivation for subscribing to it.

BobWendell@technet-inc.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Theory has done well in the development of western music. That
> is because of it theoretical
> > roots whether Sumarian, Egyptian or Indus Valley. unfortunately
> there is a great bulk of music on
> > the globe, as highly develop, anything but lame, that theory has
> failed to make any progress in
> > the least bit of understanding.
>
> Bob:
> No argument with your subject line, but quite a bit with the stuff
> that follows. I'll leave that, though, to the others who have already
> eloquently presented their counterarguments. However, it should be
> noted that even in Babylonia theorists had practical input into the
> structure of musical resources and certainly the Greeks did, too.

That is what i was saying. theory has worked well in these cultures because it was there in the
beginning!
I do not find name calling and accusations eloquent arguments. I am sad to see that you do.

>
>
> I never meant to imply that music could not exist without theory.
> However, rich harmonic possibilities evolved only with the help of
> rather profound and coherently interrelated insights into the
> structural aspects of musical resources that are collectively called
> theory. This is mostly applicable to tuning theory, which, as I
> understand it, is the central theme of this list and a major
> motivation for subscribing to it.
>
>

-- 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..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> >
> I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> ???
> Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.

It was Archimedes' attitude, and got him killed, greatly to the
annoynace of General Marcellus. I hope this doesn't mean he's taking
the Roman soldier's side in this. :)

Close!
the reference is to diogenes, to alexander the great

genewardsmith@juno.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> > >
> > I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> > ???
> > Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.
>
> It was Archimedes' attitude, and got him killed, greatly to the
> annoynace of General Marcellus. I hope this doesn't mean he's taking
> the Roman soldier's side in this. :)

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

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

Bob,

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> This is mostly applicable to tuning theory, which, as I
> understand it, is the central theme of this list and a major
> motivation for subscribing to it.

Take a look at the Home page for this list, and see if the
word "theory" is present in the description. I welcome the theory
that is presented on this list, but to say that it is the central
theme puts someone else's spin on a list that, at one time, revolved
around music as well.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Paul!
> I wasn't directing this to those who it does not apply. How you
thought this referred to you i
> have no idea in context of my references.

Well then who did it refer to? Who are the "intellectual
imperialists"?

>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, we've seen you ridicule the tuning practices of
> > entire subcultures because they did not conform to your
theoretical
> > preconceptions.
>
> Where do you get that! what is a subculture. I Can only imagine you
see to as my rejection of 24
> Et in its use in Mediterranean pop music. I can only say that this
viewpoint is almost universally
> supported by the finer of Persian And mid east musicians

I can only say that the finer of middle-eastern musicians I've spoken
to, corresponded with, and played music with, use a tuning far closer
to 24-tET than to the 17-tone medieval Arabic tuning to which Wilson
likes to refer. And my own ear, when listening to examples from the
thousands of Middle Eastern CDs (art, not pop) in a friend's
collection, must agree.

> > Speak for yourself. This is one of the first chunks of the lattice
> > that one sees when expanding one's scope in the lattice (which is
> > basically what many of us theorists are engaged in.
>
> yet it has never been mentioned.

One could mention each stage in the expansion process and go on
forever. More interesting is to note where the near equivalencies
occur, as these allow you to generate CS scales or periodicity blocks
or whatever you want to call them.
>
> > Or maybe they are quite the same but you have a craw in your side
> > that prevents you from seeing alternative approaches coming from
> > outside your "school" as valuable.
>
> What alternative is being presented except alot of complex numbers
that has no relations to music.

Where do you see this? If that's all you see, perhaps you should step
back and try to understand the musical meaning of what's being
presented. Ask questions and perhaps they will be answered. This
would be far more productive than hurtling accusations
of "imperialism" or whatnot from a distance.

> once again i was not referring to you, was i

So to whom?

> Paul when people say the diamond is nothing and then they throw out
some mathematical generator,
> like this isn't obvious already in the scale tree, I take issue.

Show me one example of this?

>The problem is Paul is that
> people trash others whole work when they have no concept of what a
composers needs to do music.

Again, example, please.

> Now more than one person has used the diamond, yet these people
throw out this mathematical crap
> that is supposed to make me bow down because they know more math.

Supposed to make you bow down???

> That is intellectual imperialism
> in that they are trying to set themselves up as superior.

I don't see anyone trying to set themselves up as superior. We can
argue about superiority of methods, concepts, etc. -- you yourself
have done plenty of that, my friend.

> Your own work is developed out of examine the seven limit
tetrad and i recognizes it as being
> based on musical practice.

There's so much more to it, especially now. It may take years to put
together a decent presentation of the latest developments, and trying
out the musical possibilities suggested could easily occupy the rest
of my life.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> > >
> > I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> > ???
> > Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.
>
> I am very sad at what you consider progress Paul!

What I considered progress, and was referring to here, was the
overcoming of communication difficulties (which were due to
undeserved mistrust), I thought we had achieved. If overcoming
communication difficulties makes you very sad, then I'm very, very,
very sad.

Hi Paul, Gene, Kraig and everybody,

It's unwise to butt into someone else's argument. Born stubborn and
stupid, everything I'm about to write is unwise...

I think Kraig was directly referring to Gene in this case. I took his
quote from this afternoon to mean, 'you don't think there's anything
there, fine, but get the hell out of my way so I can get on with it
will ya!'

When Gene says things like 'well that's perfectly obvious because
_________' (fill in the blank with what's perfectly obvious to Gene),
it's often at the least abrasive... I mean if it were perfectly
obvious to the person posting, then they probably would've missed it!

Anyway, this sort of thing can seem a little condescending. Especially
when there's no attempt made by the person to whom it actually is
perfectly obvious to walk those to whom it's not through it.

Is it Gene's responsibility to be polite or teacherly or whatever it
is that I or someone else might prefer? Hell no, of course not. But
there's sometimes consequences. Things happen, like the present
thread, and these things usually happen for a reason.

If Gene, or anybody else, gives a crap about having their ideas go out
to their target audience here, the microtonal community who might
actually use them, they may want to consider the presentation aspect a
bit.

I know Gene's got a lot to offer and I personally would like to
understand some of Gene's posts a bit better. But there's little or no
explanatory text and a lot of prior math knowledge is often
presumed... combine that with an abrasive attitude and the questions I
might like to ask I shelf. I've got other things I have to bang my
head against, I don't need to look for anymore.

Anyway, we're never all going to see eye to eye, and disagreements are
a natural enough part of group like this... sometimes they even help.
Besides, it's only tuning, right?

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:35 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Practice exceeds theory by centuries

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Paul!
> > I wasn't directing this to those who it does not apply. How
you
> thought this referred to you i
> > have no idea in context of my references.
>
> Well then who did it refer to? Who are the "intellectual
> imperialists"?
>
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > Meanwhile, we've seen you ridicule the tuning practices of
> > > entire subcultures because they did not conform to your
> theoretical
> > > preconceptions.
> >
> > Where do you get that! what is a subculture. I Can only imagine
you
> see to as my rejection of 24
> > Et in its use in Mediterranean pop music. I can only say that this
> viewpoint is almost universally
> > supported by the finer of Persian And mid east musicians
>
> I can only say that the finer of middle-eastern musicians I've
spoken
> to, corresponded with, and played music with, use a tuning far
closer
> to 24-tET than to the 17-tone medieval Arabic tuning to which Wilson
> likes to refer. And my own ear, when listening to examples from the
> thousands of Middle Eastern CDs (art, not pop) in a friend's
> collection, must agree.
>
> > > Speak for yourself. This is one of the first chunks of the
lattice
> > > that one sees when expanding one's scope in the lattice (which
is
> > > basically what many of us theorists are engaged in.
> >
> > yet it has never been mentioned.
>
> One could mention each stage in the expansion process and go on
> forever. More interesting is to note where the near equivalencies
> occur, as these allow you to generate CS scales or periodicity
blocks
> or whatever you want to call them.
> >
> > > Or maybe they are quite the same but you have a craw in your
side
> > > that prevents you from seeing alternative approaches coming from
> > > outside your "school" as valuable.
> >
> > What alternative is being presented except alot of complex numbers
> that has no relations to music.
>
> Where do you see this? If that's all you see, perhaps you should
step
> back and try to understand the musical meaning of what's being
> presented. Ask questions and perhaps they will be answered. This
> would be far more productive than hurtling accusations
> of "imperialism" or whatnot from a distance.
>
> > once again i was not referring to you, was i
>
> So to whom?
>
> > Paul when people say the diamond is nothing and then they throw
out
> some mathematical generator,
> > like this isn't obvious already in the scale tree, I take issue.
>
> Show me one example of this?
>
> >The problem is Paul is that
> > people trash others whole work when they have no concept of what a
> composers needs to do music.
>
> Again, example, please.
>
> > Now more than one person has used the diamond, yet these people
> throw out this mathematical crap
> > that is supposed to make me bow down because they know more math.
>
> Supposed to make you bow down???
>
> > That is intellectual imperialism
> > in that they are trying to set themselves up as superior.
>
> I don't see anyone trying to set themselves up as superior. We can
> argue about superiority of methods, concepts, etc. -- you yourself
> have done plenty of that, my friend.
>
> > Your own work is developed out of examine the seven limit
> tetrad and i recognizes it as being
> > based on musical practice.
>
> There's so much more to it, especially now. It may take years to put
> together a decent presentation of the latest developments, and
trying
> out the musical possibilities suggested could easily occupy the rest
> of my life.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> > > >
> > > I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> > > ???
> > > Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.
> >
> > I am very sad at what you consider progress Paul!
>
> What I considered progress, and was referring to here, was the
> overcoming of communication difficulties (which were due to
> undeserved mistrust), I thought we had achieved. If overcoming
> communication difficulties makes you very sad, then I'm very, very,
> very sad.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ltH6zA/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi, Dan,
My freebie account doesn't seem to want to let this naif delete what he doesn't want to get to into specifics about, there's my apology for waste of space, in any case:
I agree with you in Principle--which I've lately been warned against--but I think it's necessary to let these things be aired, even in their most belligerent--not to say rude! aspects. If the discussion degenerates into name-calling and back-biting, that only betrays the inability of the conversants to retreat out of compassion for the others' sensitivities. These guys are Rockin'! Let 'em go at it!
Yours,
Pete
"D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET> wrote: Hi Paul, Gene, Kraig and everybody,

It's unwise to butt into someone else's argument. Born stubborn and
stupid, everything I'm about to write is unwise...

I think Kraig was directly referring to Gene in this case. I took his
quote from this afternoon to mean, 'you don't think there's anything
there, fine, but get the hell out of my way so I can get on with it
will ya!'

When Gene says things like 'well that's perfectly obvious because
_________' (fill in the blank with what's perfectly obvious to Gene),
it's often at the least abrasive... I mean if it were perfectly
obvious to the person posting, then they probably would've missed it!

Anyway, this sort of thing can seem a little condescending. Especially
when there's no attempt made by the person to whom it actually is
perfectly obvious to walk those to whom it's not through it.

Is it Gene's responsibility to be polite or teacherly or whatever it
is that I or someone else might prefer? Hell no, of course not. But
there's sometimes consequences. Things happen, like the present
thread, and these things usually happen for a reason.

If Gene, or anybody else, gives a crap about having their ideas go out
to their target audience here, the microtonal community who might
actually use them, they may want to consider the presentation aspect a
bit.

I know Gene's got a lot to offer and I personally would like to
understand some of Gene's posts a bit better. But there's little or no
explanatory text and a lot of prior math knowledge is often
presumed... combine that with an abrasive attitude and the questions I
might like to ask I shelf. I've got other things I have to bang my
head against, I don't need to look for anymore.

Anyway, we're never all going to see eye to eye, and disagreements are
a natural enough part of group like this... sometimes they even help.
Besides, it's only tuning, right?

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:35 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Practice exceeds theory by centuries

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Paul!
> > I wasn't directing this to those who it does not apply. How
you
> thought this referred to you i
> > have no idea in context of my references.
>
> Well then who did it refer to? Who are the "intellectual
> imperialists"?
>
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > Meanwhile, we've seen you ridicule the tuning practices of
> > > entire subcultures because they did not conform to your
> theoretical
> > > preconceptions.
> >
> > Where do you get that! what is a subculture. I Can only imagine
you
> see to as my rejection of 24
> > Et in its use in Mediterranean pop music. I can only say that this
> viewpoint is almost universally
> > supported by the finer of Persian And mid east musicians
>
> I can only say that the finer of middle-eastern musicians I've
spoken
> to, corresponded with, and played music with, use a tuning far
closer
> to 24-tET than to the 17-tone medieval Arabic tuning to which Wilson
> likes to refer. And my own ear, when listening to examples from the
> thousands of Middle Eastern CDs (art, not pop) in a friend's
> collection, must agree.
>
> > > Speak for yourself. This is one of the first chunks of the
lattice
> > > that one sees when expanding one's scope in the lattice (which
is
> > > basically what many of us theorists are engaged in.
> >
> > yet it has never been mentioned.
>
> One could mention each stage in the expansion process and go on
> forever. More interesting is to note where the near equivalencies
> occur, as these allow you to generate CS scales or periodicity
blocks
> or whatever you want to call them.
> >
> > > Or maybe they are quite the same but you have a craw in your
side
> > > that prevents you from seeing alternative approaches coming from
> > > outside your "school" as valuable.
> >
> > What alternative is being presented except alot of complex numbers
> that has no relations to music.
>
> Where do you see this? If that's all you see, perhaps you should
step
> back and try to understand the musical meaning of what's being
> presented. Ask questions and perhaps they will be answered. This
> would be far more productive than hurtling accusations
> of "imperialism" or whatnot from a distance.
>
> > once again i was not referring to you, was i
>
> So to whom?
>
> > Paul when people say the diamond is nothing and then they throw
out
> some mathematical generator,
> > like this isn't obvious already in the scale tree, I take issue.
>
> Show me one example of this?
>
> >The problem is Paul is that
> > people trash others whole work when they have no concept of what a
> composers needs to do music.
>
> Again, example, please.
>
> > Now more than one person has used the diamond, yet these people
> throw out this mathematical crap
> > that is supposed to make me bow down because they know more math.
>
> Supposed to make you bow down???
>
> > That is intellectual imperialism
> > in that they are trying to set themselves up as superior.
>
> I don't see anyone trying to set themselves up as superior. We can
> argue about superiority of methods, concepts, etc. -- you yourself
> have done plenty of that, my friend.
>
> > Your own work is developed out of examine the seven limit
> tetrad and i recognizes it as being
> > based on musical practice.
>
> There's so much more to it, especially now. It may take years to put
> together a decent presentation of the latest developments, and
trying
> out the musical possibilities suggested could easily occupy the rest
> of my life.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Stand aside, you are standing in my light
> > > >
> > > I guess that sums up your attitude pretty well.
> > > ???
> > > Very sad, I thought we had made a great deal of progress, Kraig.
> >
> > I am very sad at what you consider progress Paul!
>
> What I considered progress, and was referring to here, was the
> overcoming of communication difficulties (which were due to
> undeserved mistrust), I thought we had achieved. If overcoming
> communication difficulties makes you very sad, then I'm very, very,
> very sad.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
> Refill any ink cartridge for less!
> Includes black and color ink.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ltH6zA/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.