brief comment

A few days ago, there was a short exchange between Szanto and Erlich,
regarding a number of tunings; Paul had commented on the tunings, and
Jon had wondered if Paul had ever actually listened to them, to which
Paul replied that he had, in fact, listened to some of them, and knew
what they sounded like. My comment is this (and this is not directed at
Paul, it's a general thought I've had for a while): to know a tuning, I
believe, means a lot more than just playing the scale and listening to
it. I think it means working with it, composing a number of songs in it,
and seeing the deeper potentials of it. Just look at the amazing variety
of music composed in 12 eq over the last few hundred years. I'm sure
some tunings will yield more than others over the long haul, depending
on the depth and complexity of the tuning; I can forsee composing in 34
for the rest of my life, not to mention 31 and 19 ( and many other eq
temps). And, when we get into pure tunings, who knows where the limits
are? No biggie, it's just a point that I think is worth
considering...Hstick

Neil,

I agree with all that you say, and mainly that to know a tuning is to
*work* with it, to live with it. That said, I also want to make clear
that I was merely curious as to whether Paul had dabbled with at
least some of these tunings, and not that I was implying he *hadn't*,
or painting anyone as merely a cataloger.

I am somewhat in the middle ground on this issue, at least
intellectually: I am glad for all the work, past and present, that
has been done to discover a myriad of tunings. Only by an ongoing
search will we find those tunings, not yet used, that may lead to
transcendant music. And yet - valuable as that search is - when the
rubber meets the road, no one (recently) has phrased it any better
than Dan Stearns in that interview posted yesterday:

"...because when it comes right down to it I'm much more interested
in what someone does as opposed to what they did it with."

No shit.

Cheers,
Jon
--- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:
> A few days ago, there was a short exchange between Szanto and
Erlich,
> regarding a number of tunings; Paul had commented on the tunings,
and
> Jon had wondered if Paul had ever actually listened to them, to
which
> Paul replied that he had, in fact, listened to some of them, and
knew
> what they sounded like. My comment is this (and this is not
directed at
> Paul, it's a general thought I've had for a while): to know a
tuning, I
> believe, means a lot more than just playing the scale and listening
to
> it. I think it means working with it, composing a number of songs
in it,
> and seeing the deeper potentials of it. Just look at the amazing
variety
> of music composed in 12 eq over the last few hundred years. I'm sure
> some tunings will yield more than others over the long haul,
depending
> on the depth and complexity of the tuning; I can forsee composing
in 34
> for the rest of my life, not to mention 31 and 19 ( and many other
eq
> temps). And, when we get into pure tunings, who knows where the
limits
> are? No biggie, it's just a point that I think is worth
> considering...Hstick

--- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31142.html#31142

> A few days ago, there was a short exchange between Szanto and
Erlich, regarding a number of tunings; Paul had commented on the
tunings, and Jon had wondered if Paul had ever actually listened to
them, to which Paul replied that he had, in fact, listened to some of
them, and knew what they sounded like. My comment is this (and this
is not directed at Paul, it's a general thought I've had for a
while): to know a tuning, I believe, means a lot more than just
playing the scale and listening to it. I think it means working with
it, composing a number of songs in it, and seeing the deeper
potentials of it. Just look at the amazing variety of music composed
in 12 eq over the last few hundred years. I'm sure some tunings will
yield more than others over the long haul, depending on the depth and
complexity of the tuning; I can forsee composing in 34 for the rest
of my life, not to mention 31 and 19 ( and many other eq
> temps). And, when we get into pure tunings, who knows where the
limits are? No biggie, it's just a point that I think is worth
> considering...Hstick

This is an extremely valuable comment by Neil Haverstick and, in
fact, is part of the reason that I was so "freaked out" when Dave
Keenan came in and changed the basic "key" of our Blackjack scale.

No offense to Dave... I think he was trying to do the right thing by
developing a "standardization" but since I was already trying to
compose and hear Blackjack, as well as using the keyboard and
devising progressions with it, the theoretical changes really messed
me around for a while.

Lets hope the Blackjack standard is now *really* the standard, so
some of us can "get on with it" and learn how to write with the scale!

Just bitchin'

JP

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> No offense to Dave...

I imagine he didn't take it as such...

> I think he was trying to do the right thing by
> developing a "standardization" but since I was already trying to
> compose and hear Blackjack, as well as using the keyboard and
> devising progressions with it, the theoretical changes really
> messed me around for a while.

Well, there is a 'dark' side to standardization. Someone once said:

"Let us give to nuts and bolts the standardization of thread that we
have come to expect, but let us give to music - magic, to man -
magic."

Hardly pragmatic, yet frequently inspirational.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:
> This is an extremely valuable comment by Neil Haverstick and, in
> fact, is part of the reason that I was so "freaked out" when Dave
> Keenan came in and changed the basic "key" of our Blackjack scale.

I'm sorry you were freaked out. Yes. Neil's comment helps me
understand more how you must have felt.

But I want to ensure we don't propagate a misconception here that _I_
chose the standard key. I merely started and helped facilitate the
process that led to the change. The actual standard key was a
consensus decision by a number of people, including Joseph Pehrson
and myself. I was still digging for stuff that might show an advantage
for 3 naturals, right up to the end.

> No offense to Dave...

None taken.

> Lets hope the Blackjack standard is now *really* the standard, so
> some of us can "get on with it" and learn how to write with the
scale!
>
> Just bitchin'

Sure go ahead, get it off your chest. :-)
Burn me in effigy. Or should that be in effceegy. :-)

Sorry I bitched about you not using the standard the other day. Just
getting grumpy in my old age. ;-)

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31142.html#31214

> > This is an extremely valuable comment by Neil Haverstick and, in
> > fact, is part of the reason that I was so "freaked out" when Dave
> > Keenan came in and changed the basic "key" of our Blackjack scale.
>
> I'm sorry you were freaked out. Yes. Neil's comment helps me
> understand more how you must have felt.
>

> But I want to ensure we don't propagate a misconception here that
_I_ chose the standard key. I merely started and helped facilitate
the process that led to the change. The actual standard key was a
> consensus decision by a number of people, including Joseph Pehrson
> and myself. I was still digging for stuff that might show an
advantage for 3 naturals, right up to the end.

Hi Dave!

But don't forget Alison. *She's* the one that wanted an A natural in
it for tuning purposes!

Actually, the more I think about it, for *traditional* reasons,
that's a very good idea... to have an A440 in it. And, of course,
a "C."

And, of course, *four* naturals, rather than *three.*

Of course, the fact that my next piece is going to be for *cello*
helped "encourage" me a bit toward the C-G-D-A standard... :)

But, I basically *agree* with you about standards.

I guess the problem was that you dropped "out of the picture" for a
few months, and some of us got started composing in Blackjack...

That's what happened. Then when you came back, things got changed
around. So, most probably, it would have been better to set the
standard a little bit earlier... And you shouldn't go off like that,
leaving us here to suffer at lower voltage...

> > No offense to Dave...
>
> None taken.
>
> > Lets hope the Blackjack standard is now *really* the standard, so
> > some of us can "get on with it" and learn how to write with the
> scale!
> >
> > Just bitchin'
>
> Sure go ahead, get it off your chest. :-)
> Burn me in effigy. Or should that be in effceegy. :-)
>

That's fine Dave. I got over it.

> Sorry I bitched about you not using the standard the other day.
Just getting grumpy in my old age. ;-)

Well... actually, I *agreed* with you about that one. Why go through
all the anxiety of changing around to form a standard and then not
*use* the standard.

It was *my* error in that case, so it seems...

I truly believe we appreciate all your hard work with this!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> But don't forget Alison. *She's* the one that wanted an A natural
> in it for tuning purposes!

Hey yeah! She asked the question that started it. Let's blame her. :-)

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > But don't forget Alison. *She's* the one that wanted an A natural
> > in it for tuning purposes!
>
> Hey yeah! She asked the question that started it. Let's blame her. :-)

Guilty as charged. : - )

Best Wishes

>

Hi Neil,

I agree with everything you said in this message.

In the spirit of Jon Szanto, let me ask you a question.

You've talked about, and made music in, two or three tuning systems.
Is this because

(a) you heard lots of songs in these tuning systems that knocked your
socks off;

(b) you wrote songs in dozens of tuning systems and found your true
voice only in these two or three;

(c) you or someone you know decided that, on a _theoretical_ basis,
these two or three seemed like the best ones to try out

?

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> In the spirit of Jon Szanto, let me ask you a question.

I just wanted to thank Paul for making me part of the 'spirit
world'! :)

Cheers,
Jon