three years at the tuning list

I got my first computer as a gift three Christmases ago. The first
thing I did once I got the email up and running was join the tuning
list which had just relocated to Yahoo. I was psyched to finally have
immediate access to others who were interested in this topic.

It took me a long, long time to get the hang of email, the medium was
far more difficult than I ever would've anticipated. But the tuning
list was even more of a shock!

I was used to artist types. Years of trading tapes on the home taper
circuit and frequenting artists' collaborative like the Noh Place and
the WAG had given me a certain set of expectations, and I just assumed
the communal vibe would be at least somewhat similar: creativity
first. This was simply not the case. The vibe was stiff, dry and
snippily pedagogic.

Bad as that may sound, it wasn't all bad however. There was a bright
side. Amounts the dominant voices on the list were some uniquely
knowledgeable folks, and this was probably one of the only places on
the planet where some of these theoretical questions and issues, ones
I'd puzzled over on my own, were consistently addressed in a
forthright manner. Lots of no-nonsense facts that were quite useful
for anyone who was interested in the theoretical side of tuning.

The downside was obvious though--a stifling and curt atmosphere that
fostered only that which lined up favorably with the dominant posters.
The alienated outnumbered the enlightened, but so it went... each new
clash a bit more caustic than the last.

The main gripe was that the vast majority of the posts had nothing to
do with actual hands-on music making and even less to do with
microtonality in any sort of a broad, holistic sense. If you wanted
your posts to peek their heads out of the din, you'd better be sure
author it in the particular language and excessively narrow interests
of the dominant posters.

Eventually the inevitable happened and the list split off into many
disgruntled and more special interest type factions. This has helped
ease tensions and foster diversity to some degree, but I think it's
still a process that's feeling its way towards something better. It's
better, but it could be better still.

I think projects like Jack Ligon's Microtonal Activist are a step in
the right direction. Projects like these help take list contributors'
work out of the church of the converted and off to the internet masses
in digestible sized portions. I'm sorry, but the signal to noise ratio
renders the list archives all but impenetrable to anyone with anything
less than a stout streak of tuning fanaticism.

I think more work along the lines of TMA's digestible sized portions
can only help--Joe Monzo's editorial and organizational work on Paul
Erlich's Fokker periodicity blocks and harmonic entropy posts would be
another example of a fruitful collaboration that exists in a
presentable form other than the archives.

A FAQ would help... any FAQ! The last effort kind of collapsed under
the weight of its own ambitions and the usual acrimonious squabbling,
but I bet we--we being the online tuning community who'd be willing to
participate--could get it done. It would probably take an appointed
organizer though, someone who gets things done. (I like Monzo in this
capacity, but whoever.)

Then there's music. Stunning music puts all doubts to rest. Just last
night I was listening to the Tilson Thomas conducted Comedy, and with
just those comparatively limited instances of quartertones, Ives says
more about the usefulness of quartertones--and by demonstrable
extension, all non-12 tunings--than the three years worth of posts
I've read giving quartertones the back of their hand.

Effective music brushes even the sturdiest and the most sublime of
theoretical edifices aside, and it does so with alarming ease... it
steamrolls everything in its path... it clears the palate and resets
the clocks.

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

But the tuning
> list was even more of a shock!

The music people I knew were generally math-phobic and clueless about tuning issues; moreover, they were clueless about the fact that they were clueless. This list was more of a pleasant surprise than a shock--I started out with a lecure on why the 31-et and the 22-et are different in fundamental ways, and it turned out people already knew this. It doesn't sound like much, but it was quite different than anything previous experience had led me to expect.

> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> Subject: three years at the tuning list
>
> I was used to artist types. Years of trading tapes on the home taper
> circuit and frequenting artists' collaborative like the Noh Place and
> the WAG had given me a certain set of expectations, and I just assumed
> the communal vibe would be at least somewhat similar: creativity
> first. This was simply not the case. The vibe was stiff, dry and
> snippily pedagogic.

Those were obviously good circuits you were on. There are lots of
"music" circles which are the equivalent of "stiff, dry and
snippily pedagogic" to anyone who isn't a "bebop nazi", "big-hair
guitar wanker", "serialist", etc, etc...

This is true in all the arts, artist types are sometimes no less
closed minded than non-artists (sometimes moreso).

> Lots of no-nonsense facts that were quite useful
> for anyone who was interested in the theoretical side of tuning.

Bingo! I guess there are a few who have had it move their music
in new directions. Perhaps I'll be one of them, although at this
point the main change has been to my listenning habits, which is
a worthy enough change.

>
> The downside was obvious though--a stifling and curt atmosphere that
> fostered only that which lined up favorably with the dominant posters.
> The alienated outnumbered the enlightened, but so it went... each new
> clash a bit more caustic than the last.

I'll admit that the clashes that are bothersome are when those who have
paid a lot of dues in the xenharmonic business are e-ttacked by some who
have paid next to no dues in said world.

That said, some of us are more patient with these things than others.

>
> The main gripe was that the vast majority of the posts had nothing to
> do with actual hands-on music making and even less to do with
> microtonality in any sort of a broad, holistic sense.

I don't know, lists of cents could be seen as the equivalent of "try
this cool lick on this chord". However, the ease with which anyone
can generate such lists (compared to the difficulty of actually playing
with one) means that many more lists are going to be generated than
informed conversation about said lists or musical examples made from
such lists.

As far as "microtonality in any sort of a broad, holistic sense", I've
gotten the impression that no such thing exists, which is not surprising,
since I don't think you can talk about most single tunings in such a
manner. When you talk about a FAQ, I attempted to figure out why
someone would be motivated to get out of the 12tet box, and found at
least a half-dozen viewpoints represented on this list, all of which
would lead in different JI, RI, ET, overtone etc, etc, directions.

> If you wanted
> your posts to peek their heads out of the din, you'd better be sure
> author it in the particular language and excessively narrow interests
> of the dominant posters.

Or start a thread that non-dominant posters are interested in, or take
it to one of the spin-off lists.

>
> Effective music brushes even the sturdiest and the most sublime of
> theoretical edifices aside, and it does so with alarming ease... it
> steamrolls everything in its path... it clears the palate and resets
> the clocks.

Wonderfully put. I didn't want to let this post drift off into
the ozone. I see it as important as the Bob Moses article you pointed
out.

In agreement, I'd say that even "not so effective" music can have
the same effect. The best learning for me has been to take something
back to the piano and try it out. If it doesn't make music for me,
then whether it makes sense as a theory or not is a bit less
interesting. But this is true with ANY music theory, not just tuning
theory.

Similarly, there is a lot of things that are dimly related to theory
that make for good music. "Passing chords" in classical harmony
is really a punt as a theoretic term! "Side slipping" as a jazz
technique is similarly saying "what you are doing" without saying
anything about why. In an ascii environment, it becomes too compelling
to put words and numbers to that which is not able to spoken or
enumerated.

Which doesn't change anything about what this list (these lists)
can or cannot do for someone. I've had my musical frontiers expanded
whether or not I ever produce/perform work that is xenharmonic in
nature. And if I ever get appropriate music into a suitable form,
I have people I can share it with.

Bob Valentine

>
> --Dan Stearns
>

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

> Similarly, there is a lot of things that are dimly related to theory
> that make for good music. "Passing chords" in classical harmony
> is really a punt as a theoretic term!

Why do you see it that way?

> "Side slipping" as a jazz
> technique is similarly saying "what you are doing" without saying
> anything about why.

One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of why,
and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so far.
One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a thousand
hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and learning. If one
is not a musician 24 hours a day, though, one might be tempted to ask
why now and again!

> In an ascii environment, it becomes too compelling
> to put words and numbers to that which is not able to spoken or
> enumerated.
>
> Which doesn't change anything about what this list (these lists)
> can or cannot do for someone. I've had my musical frontiers expanded
> whether or not I ever produce/perform work that is xenharmonic in
> nature. And if I ever get appropriate music into a suitable form,
> I have people I can share it with.

That sounds like what this list should be all about! Personally, I
like challenging people's ideas because I want to *learn* and so that
others can learn. I desperately want to see progress in this field,
but there's so little microtonal/xenharmonic music that does anything
for me. OK, so I'm not in the higher artistic realms of some of the
people on this list. I like the Beatles, Yes, Phish, I play folk,
blues, "jazz" you might say; I like to make people feel something
with music. _The_ people, not just a few of them. And I want to hear
something new once in a while, something that stands up on its own
and isn't just a gimmick or trick.

May Santa's bag be filled with drums and microtonal guitars for all
the teenage boys and girls to play with!

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of why,
> and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
> far. One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
> thousand hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and
> learning.

I almost fainted when I saw that you, Paul, had written that. And if
that *were* the case, then the many, many megabytes of posts, going
all the way back to the Mills days, would surely have yielded
hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of music, hours of sound and
thought. But that would have been, I don't know... prosaic.

"I have read many books, but to place all those volumes on top of one
another and stand on them would not add a cubit to my stature. Their
learned terms are of little use when I attempt to seize naked
experience, which eludes all accepted ideas." - Czeslaw Milosz

Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,
Jon

(...and wishing Paul a new Novatone guitar...)

>>One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of why,
>>and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
>>far. One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
>>thousand hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and
>>learning.
>
>I almost fainted when I saw that you, Paul, had written that. And
>if that *were* the case, then the many, many megabytes of posts,
>going all the way back to the Mills days, would surely have yielded
>hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of music, hours of sound and
>thought. But that would have been, I don't know... prosaic.

If this is the case, then all those posts may yield hundreds, if
not thousands, of pieces of music.

How long before Parth uncovered Helmholtz?

>Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,

Wishing alone won't do it.

-Carl

Paul Erlich:
I desperately want to see progress in this field,
but there's so little microtonal/xenharmonic music that does anything
for me.

Bob W.
I very much agree with that, but as Paul seems to imply elsewhere, I
also feel that the potential makes it all worth it. The realization
of that potential is not always immediate, and we need to cultivate
patience. In the meantime, I agree wholeheartedly with Gene's
reaction to this list in that there are more people here who are
philosohpically in tune with me musically, if not entirely so
creatively, than I would have run into in several lifetimes at the
rate I was going before joining this list.

The world is indeed full of tuningly clueless musicians who have no
clue that they're clueless. This sea of musical ignorance around me
had given me the impression that I knew quite a bit about tuning
before I came here. After all, I had successfully evolved original
techniques that allowed me to train amateur singers in a small rural
town in the midwest to intuitivley prefer just intervals when singing
harmony. I have learned a lot since then and have a huge amount more
to learn.

I see this list as a resource that embraces the leading edge of the
ideas proliferating in this field of interest. It is a source of
great satisfaction for me to know that I can return here anytime and
reap immense treasures of musical knowledge that would be either
difficult or impossible to find elsewhere.

It is up to each of us individually to apply this knowledge in
creative and aesthetically rewarding ways. If we fail to do so, we
have no one but ourselves to blame. If others fail to do it, let us
not point our fingers until we have done it. Even then, the finger
should be aimed to spread our success, to teach and uplift and never
to shoot down.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> > Similarly, there is a lot of things that are dimly related to
theory
> > that make for good music. "Passing chords" in classical harmony
> > is really a punt as a theoretic term!
>
> Why do you see it that way?
>
> > "Side slipping" as a jazz
> > technique is similarly saying "what you are doing" without saying
> > anything about why.
>
> One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of why,
> and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
far.
> One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
thousand
> hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and learning. If
one
> is not a musician 24 hours a day, though, one might be tempted to
ask
> why now and again!
>
> > In an ascii environment, it becomes too compelling
> > to put words and numbers to that which is not able to spoken or
> > enumerated.
> >
> > Which doesn't change anything about what this list (these lists)
> > can or cannot do for someone. I've had my musical frontiers
expanded
> > whether or not I ever produce/perform work that is xenharmonic in
> > nature. And if I ever get appropriate music into a suitable form,
> > I have people I can share it with.
>
> That sounds like what this list should be all about! Personally, I
> like challenging people's ideas because I want to *learn* and so
that
> others can learn. I desperately want to see progress in this field,
> but there's so little microtonal/xenharmonic music that does
anything
> for me. OK, so I'm not in the higher artistic realms of some of the
> people on this list. I like the Beatles, Yes, Phish, I play folk,
> blues, "jazz" you might say; I like to make people feel something
> with music. _The_ people, not just a few of them. And I want to
hear
> something new once in a while, something that stands up on its own
> and isn't just a gimmick or trick.
>
> May Santa's bag be filled with drums and microtonal guitars for all
> the teenage boys and girls to play with!

Hi Bob,

"In the meantime, I agree wholeheartedly with Gene's reaction to this
list in that there are more people here who are philosohpically in
tune with me musically, if not entirely so creatively, than I would
have run into in several lifetimes at the rate I was going before
joining this list."

Funny, my reaction was a 100% polar opposite. But then again, despite
my own obvious interests in tuning, I really do place little value in
tuning knowledge in the grand scheme of things. In fact, I have days
where I feel it's probably the single most overrated musical dimension
of all--usually days I've spent too much time here.

It's fun, and even interesting on occasion, but every last bit of it
is pretty trivial compared to the goosebumps I get from music
regardless of how it's tuned.

I, like many others here, could easily be called a tuning geek--I'm
into it, no apologies necessary. But let's keep things in perspective!

Emotionally resonant, unique to an individual, imaginative... if art's
got these going on, then I'll worry about skillful and tasteful, and
tactful, and refined, and all the rest of it. Otherwise, I just don't
give a you know what.

In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships is
like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> Paul Erlich:
> I desperately want to see progress in this field,
> but there's so little microtonal/xenharmonic music that does
anything
> for me.
>
> Bob W.
> I very much agree with that, but as Paul seems to imply elsewhere, I
> also feel that the potential makes it all worth it. The realization
> of that potential is not always immediate, and we need to cultivate
> patience. In the meantime, I agree wholeheartedly with Gene's
> reaction to this list in that there are more people here who are
> philosohpically in tune with me musically, if not entirely so
> creatively, than I would have run into in several lifetimes at the
> rate I was going before joining this list.
>
> The world is indeed full of tuningly clueless musicians who have no
> clue that they're clueless. This sea of musical ignorance around me
> had given me the impression that I knew quite a bit about tuning
> before I came here. After all, I had successfully evolved original
> techniques that allowed me to train amateur singers in a small rural
> town in the midwest to intuitivley prefer just intervals when
singing
> harmony. I have learned a lot since then and have a huge amount more
> to learn.
>
> I see this list as a resource that embraces the leading edge of the
> ideas proliferating in this field of interest. It is a source of
> great satisfaction for me to know that I can return here anytime and
> reap immense treasures of musical knowledge that would be either
> difficult or impossible to find elsewhere.
>
> It is up to each of us individually to apply this knowledge in
> creative and aesthetically rewarding ways. If we fail to do so, we
> have no one but ourselves to blame. If others fail to do it, let us
> not point our fingers until we have done it. Even then, the finger
> should be aimed to spread our success, to teach and uplift and never
> to shoot down.
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> >
> > > Similarly, there is a lot of things that are dimly related to
> theory
> > > that make for good music. "Passing chords" in classical harmony
> > > is really a punt as a theoretic term!
> >
> > Why do you see it that way?
> >
> > > "Side slipping" as a jazz
> > > technique is similarly saying "what you are doing" without
saying
> > > anything about why.
> >
> > One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of why,
> > and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
> far.
> > One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
> thousand
> > hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and learning. If
> one
> > is not a musician 24 hours a day, though, one might be tempted to
> ask
> > why now and again!
> >
> > > In an ascii environment, it becomes too compelling
> > > to put words and numbers to that which is not able to spoken or
> > > enumerated.
> > >
> > > Which doesn't change anything about what this list (these lists)
> > > can or cannot do for someone. I've had my musical frontiers
> expanded
> > > whether or not I ever produce/perform work that is xenharmonic
in
> > > nature. And if I ever get appropriate music into a suitable
form,
> > > I have people I can share it with.
> >
> > That sounds like what this list should be all about! Personally, I
> > like challenging people's ideas because I want to *learn* and so
> that
> > others can learn. I desperately want to see progress in this
field,
> > but there's so little microtonal/xenharmonic music that does
> anything
> > for me. OK, so I'm not in the higher artistic realms of some of
the
> > people on this list. I like the Beatles, Yes, Phish, I play folk,
> > blues, "jazz" you might say; I like to make people feel something
> > with music. _The_ people, not just a few of them. And I want to
> hear
> > something new once in a while, something that stands up on its own
> > and isn't just a gimmick or trick.
> >
> > May Santa's bag be filled with drums and microtonal guitars for
all
> > the teenage boys and girls to play with!
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships is
> like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!

This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and falsifiability. If I give a counter-example (Bach is glaringly obvious, but there are many more) you can simply say that that person was one of the uniquely gifted ones. Of course, you statement can easily be reversed, with the same problem: "In all but the uniquely gifted, a lack of interest in formal relationships is an invitation to drown in meandering mush. Help me, I'm sinking ... sinking ... choke, gasp, gone!"

Try composing a fugue or something in sonata form and see if it actually croaks you some time. I bet it won't, any more than writing a sonnet will forever dry up the wells of a poet's inspiration.

Gene,

Of course I'm exaggerating in the direction of my beliefs. That's a
given, and not something I'm exactly trying to be coy with in this
case... but it shouldn't be too difficult to read between the lines
either.

But I disagree with you anyway. I think formal relations are an
element apart from what's important, and I think the pile of those
that are coasting is much higher on the side of formal relationships
than it is on the side of those who have little but their emotions and
their creativity to hang anything on.

This was Ives argument for the amateur, and it's one that he's often
hung with as well--witness Carter, Bernstein, Boulez, et al. You've
got to be able to read between the lines if arguments like this are to
have any relevant meaning.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships
is
> > like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!
>
> This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and falsifiability.
If I give a counter-example (Bach is glaringly obvious, but there are
many more) you can simply say that that person was one of the uniquely
gifted ones. Of course, you statement can easily be reversed, with the
same problem: "In all but the uniquely gifted, a lack of interest in
formal relationships is an invitation to drown in meandering mush.
Help me, I'm sinking ... sinking ... choke, gasp, gone!"
>
> Try composing a fugue or something in sonata form and see if it
actually croaks you some time. I bet it won't, any more than writing a
sonnet will forever dry up the wells of a poet's inspiration.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships
is
> > like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!
>
> This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
falsifiability. If I give a counter-example (Bach is glaringly
obvious, but there are many more) you can simply say that that person
was one of the uniquely gifted ones. Of course, you statement can
easily be reversed, with the same problem: "In all but the uniquely
gifted, a lack of interest in formal relationships is an invitation
to drown in meandering mush. Help me, I'm sinking ... sinking ...
choke, gasp, gone!"
>
> Try composing a fugue or something in sonata form and see if it
actually croaks you some time. I bet it won't, any more than writing
a sonnet will forever dry up the wells of a poet's inspiration.

Bob W.:
Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself. The minute
you start anything, there are self-imposed limits implied in the
choices already made, whether intuitive or conscious.

I agree with much of what Dan has said, however, especially about the
relative importance of the magic that makes music musical versus nit-
picking tuning issues. But I thought we had made that clear already,
since in my post to which Dan was replying both Paul E. and I were
represented as not finding that much microtonal music that actually
did much for us aesthetically.

I, for one, would love nothing more than to see that change. With
some luck and a lot of work, maybe I will be in a position to help
that happen some day. If not, others will, I'm quite confident. It's
just a matter of time. The trend is there, even if modest at this
point, and I have a sense of manifest destiny with regard to the
growth of interest I believe I see in the subject.

The early music movement is a highly significant factor, I feel. From
there, new music that exploits a vastly expanded tonal pallette
offering a much greater range of self-imposed, limiting choices and
therefore of new compositional possibilities with increased
freedom of choice is a reasonable if not inevitable evolutionary
consequence.

After all, our freedom lies in choosing our limits. A block of stone
can be carved into almost any shape, but once we start, we have
already limited our possibilites and the further we go, the fewer
options we have. Our freedom lies both in the choice of limits and in
our ability to predict their conseqences. If we despise those limits,
our work is undone from the outset. Despising limits is a poor excuse
for not being creative. It is also a poor way to live. Even our
social freedoms are predicated on intelligently self-imposed
individual limits.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> I think the pile of those
> that are coasting is much higher on the side of formal relationships
> than it is on the side of those who have little but their emotions
and
> their creativity to hang anything on.

The pile of those that are coasting? What does that mean?

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> This was Ives argument for the amateur, and it's one that he's often
> hung with as well--witness Carter, Bernstein, Boulez, et al.

I think the whole Ives-as-amatuer thing is overblown. The man had a degree in music, specializing in composition, from Yale. His teacher, Horatio Parker, was a product of the Munich Conservatory and also taught Roger Sessions, who is regarded as a quintessential
non-amatuer. His first symphony shows that this training sank in, though it is also notable for Ives's quirky originality.

It's largely a matter of calling anyone an "amatuer" who doesn't do things in the usual way.

Bob,

If I despise anything, it's the results of limit loving. The blind
spots, and narrowness that results... the over reliance on formal
relations... the laziness that accepts that as music.

Maybe I'm wrong, and music is something else altogether (I've always
half expected that anyway), but this is what I'm always yelling
about--one of the results of the thing rather than the thing itself.
Limits aren't the problem unless they are. They are.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> >
> > > In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships
> is
> > > like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!
> >
> > This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
> falsifiability. If I give a counter-example (Bach is glaringly
> obvious, but there are many more) you can simply say that that
person
> was one of the uniquely gifted ones. Of course, you statement can
> easily be reversed, with the same problem: "In all but the uniquely
> gifted, a lack of interest in formal relationships is an invitation
> to drown in meandering mush. Help me, I'm sinking ... sinking ...
> choke, gasp, gone!"
> >
> > Try composing a fugue or something in sonata form and see if it
> actually croaks you some time. I bet it won't, any more than writing
> a sonnet will forever dry up the wells of a poet's inspiration.
>
> Bob W.:
> Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
> choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself. The minute
> you start anything, there are self-imposed limits implied in the
> choices already made, whether intuitive or conscious.
>
> I agree with much of what Dan has said, however, especially about
the
> relative importance of the magic that makes music musical versus
nit-
> picking tuning issues. But I thought we had made that clear already,
> since in my post to which Dan was replying both Paul E. and I were
> represented as not finding that much microtonal music that actually
> did much for us aesthetically.
>
> I, for one, would love nothing more than to see that change. With
> some luck and a lot of work, maybe I will be in a position to help
> that happen some day. If not, others will, I'm quite confident. It's
> just a matter of time. The trend is there, even if modest at this
> point, and I have a sense of manifest destiny with regard to the
> growth of interest I believe I see in the subject.
>
> The early music movement is a highly significant factor, I feel.
From
> there, new music that exploits a vastly expanded tonal pallette
> offering a much greater range of self-imposed, limiting choices and
> therefore of new compositional possibilities with increased
> freedom of choice is a reasonable if not inevitable evolutionary
> consequence.
>
> After all, our freedom lies in choosing our limits. A block of stone
> can be carved into almost any shape, but once we start, we have
> already limited our possibilites and the further we go, the fewer
> options we have. Our freedom lies both in the choice of limits and
in
> our ability to predict their conseqences. If we despise those
limits,
> our work is undone from the outset. Despising limits is a poor
excuse
> for not being creative. It is also a poor way to live. Even our
> social freedoms are predicated on intelligently self-imposed
> individual limits.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

Gene,

I think it's more than that. Ives mercilessly heckled many established
ways of going about things in the Memos, and not the least of those
was his talismanic-like conviction that the amateur had it all over
the pro. He respected roughness and saw it for what it was and what it
wasn't, and that's more than I can say for a lot of people both then
and now!

People like Carter and Boulez were well aware of Ives' background when
they looped amateur around his neck. When these guys say an amateur,
they mean an incompetent.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 1:18 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > This was Ives argument for the amateur, and it's one that he's
often
> > hung with as well--witness Carter, Bernstein, Boulez, et al.
>
> I think the whole Ives-as-amatuer thing is overblown. The man had a
degree in music, specializing in composition, from Yale. His teacher,
Horatio Parker, was a product of the Munich Conservatory and also
taught Roger Sessions, who is regarded as a quintessential
> non-amatuer. His first symphony shows that this training sank in,
though it is also notable for Ives's quirky originality.
>
> It's largely a matter of calling anyone an "amatuer" who doesn't do
things in the usual way.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> If I despise anything, it's the results of limit loving. The blind
> spots, and narrowness that results... the over reliance on formal
> relations... the laziness that accepts that as music.

Personally, I like my music to have lots of freedom in it,
particularly if I'm playing it. I improvised my way though my
Microthon compositions and Stretch performances (only the chord
progressions, and sometimes "heads", were pre-determined). When
improvising, I like to express myself with, and build upon, the wacky
noises that result from manipulating my guitar in unpredicable ways.
I have to inject a bit of experimentation, a bit of randomness, in
order to keep it fresh and interesting for me and for the listener.
The next time I play, I might use what I learned in a previous round
of experimenting, and eventually that will become predictable -- so I
keep experimenting!

But that doesn't mean I play without knowing what I'm doing! That
kind of "freedom" does nothing for me.

Paul,

That all depends upon what you mean by knowing what your doing! You
remind me of those videos they used to sell at the music
store--"improvise for hours and never hit a wrong note".

I never met a wrong note.

good luck to you,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:28 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > If I despise anything, it's the results of limit loving. The blind
> > spots, and narrowness that results... the over reliance on formal
> > relations... the laziness that accepts that as music.
>
> Personally, I like my music to have lots of freedom in it,
> particularly if I'm playing it. I improvised my way though my
> Microthon compositions and Stretch performances (only the chord
> progressions, and sometimes "heads", were pre-determined). When
> improvising, I like to express myself with, and build upon, the
wacky
> noises that result from manipulating my guitar in unpredicable ways.
> I have to inject a bit of experimentation, a bit of randomness, in
> order to keep it fresh and interesting for me and for the listener.
> The next time I play, I might use what I learned in a previous round
> of experimenting, and eventually that will become predictable -- so
I
> keep experimenting!
>
> But that doesn't mean I play without knowing what I'm doing! That
> kind of "freedom" does nothing for me.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> That all depends upon what you mean by knowing what your doing!

I mean that, no matter how far "out" I go, I can imagine in my head a
way of musically "coming back to earth", and then translate that
imagination into reality. If I make mistakes in doing so, and I hope
that I sometimes will (since if not, it means I'm not playing with
enough abandon), I then incorporate _that_ into my plan. If I simply
make lots of noises with no plan of where it's all going, then that's
not music to me -- it's *sound*, but it's not *organized sound*.

> You
> remind me of those videos they used to sell at the music
> store--"improvise for hours and never hit a wrong note".

I'm very sorry to hear that. It's really ironic, I guess, if you take
a look at the dense mathematical jargon in many of _your_ posts, and
then experience the "wild man" that I become on stage at least every
Tuesday night, that you should be thinking of me in this way.

> good luck to you,

Same to you and happy holidays.

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> If this is the case, then all those posts may yield hundreds, if
> not thousands, of pieces of music.

Well, we're waiting. The amount of music certainly has not gone up
appreciably with the growth in numbers; this may be due to the
changing nature of the list, it's perceived mission, and who ends up
finding it of value.

> How long before Parth uncovered Helmholtz?

Not even a close parallel. A young man of little means at a time when
there was so little known about the issues, so difficult to come by;
contrasted with the ease of global access and near-immediate
collaboracy in this enviornment. Not to mention decades of progress
and growth in the field, though it is still a back-water (or small
bay or inlet at best).

More to the point: Partch discovered Helmholtz's book in 1923; "The
years from 1925 to 1928 were spent in experiment with systems of just
intonation and notation, and in the composition of music to
demonstrate them." (Partch to Vivian Perlis)

> >Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,
>
> Wishing alone won't do it.

That's why I started a list focused on creating music with the
resources learned here and elsewhere. My (above) wishes were sincere,
hoping that each may find an experience worthy of joy and enrichment,
partly due to the nature of the season.

Regards,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> I very much agree with that, but as Paul seems to imply elsewhere,
> I also feel that the potential makes it all worth it.

Problem is, most people just sit on their potential. And most
musicians are moved by music.

> The world is indeed full of tuningly clueless musicians who have no
> clue that they're clueless.

I hate to see that repeated, since it is so intolerant. The world is
also full of musically clueless mathematicians, who tinker on little
keyboards or guitars or ... in spite of a complete lack of any talent
or taste. But they are welcome to do it, and I'm not going to make
fun of them.

> It is up to each of us individually to apply this knowledge in
> creative and aesthetically rewarding ways. If we fail to do so, we
> have no one but ourselves to blame.

Exactly.

> If others fail to do it, let us not point our fingers until we have
> done it. Even then, the finger should be aimed to spread our
> success, to teach and uplift and never to shoot down.

And exactly again.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
> falsifiability. If I give a counter-example...

Oh good: more logic. Gene, you are one consistent person!

Regards,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
> choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.

Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that inspires me
and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not only
ignore limits but break them asunder.

I understand that some scenarios might require limitations, but to
espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of that
creation.

IMNSHO.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I mean that, no matter how far "out" I go, I can imagine in my head
> a way of musically "coming back to earth", and then translate that
> imagination into reality. [snip] If I simply
> make lots of noises with no plan of where it's all going, then
> that's not music to me -- it's *sound*, but it's not *organized
> sound*.

"Me protests thou doest think too much."
- Shakespeare William

Nonetheless, I wait for the day when the *real* "Wild Man Paul" comes
out of the closet! :)

Cheers,
Jon

>How long before Parth uncovered Helmholtz?
>
>Not even a close parallel. A young man of little means at a time
>when there was so little known about the issues, so difficult to
>come by; contrasted with the ease of global access and near-
>immediate collaboracy in this enviornment. Not to mention decades
>of progress and growth in the field, though it is still a back-
>water (or small bay or inlet at best).

Jon, I think you missed my analogy. The theory was done years
before the right person came along and made music with it.

Another example would be Erv Wilson's stuff, done in the 60's,
just being put to music by Grady, Poole, and Hobbs in the last
15 (and especially 5) years.

>>>Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,
>>
>> Wishing alone won't do it.
>
>That's why I started a list focused on creating music with the
>resources learned here and elsewhere. My (above) wishes were
>sincere, hoping that each may find an experience worthy of joy
>and enrichment, partly due to the nature of the season.

That's a start. But posting on a list isn't making music.
And I also meant that theory is part of it. Wishing for
an understanding of new scales, or randomly composing in new
scales, won't yield good music. You have to put the time
in to learn this stuff, and before that, somebody's got to
put the time in to discovering it. It's hard work, Jon, and
we're all very fortunate to know folks who are up to the task.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I hate to see that repeated, since it is so intolerant. The world is
> also full of musically clueless mathematicians, who tinker on little
> keyboards or guitars or ...

Do you know any mathematicians, musically clueless or otherwise?

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Oh good: more logic. Gene, you are one consistent person!

I consistently fail to see confusion or ignorace as a virtue, certainly.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that inspires me
> and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not only
> ignore limits but break them asunder.

Can you give some examples?

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> Jon, I think you missed my analogy. The theory was done years
> before the right person came along and made music with it.

Yes, good point. One would think, however, that the continuation of
those ideas, having both been utilized as well as amplified (not just
by Partch, so it doesn't get so specific) would still be yielding
fruit. Most of the time, on this list, the music gets drowned out.
But that's how this list seems to have evolved.

> That's a start. But posting on a list isn't making music.

Now I think you've missed the point (and probably because you are
recent to the MMM list): it serves as a focus group for those who
want to put the numbers into action. People have shared ideas about
the instruments necessary, recording equip and ideas, players, etc.
And the bottom line has been the creation of many new pieces, and
those have been posted either on personal/workplace/educational
sites, mp3.com, and the files area there.

To be both certain and fair, there was a brief period where a good
number of pieces got put up on mp3.com by John Starret for this
group, under the tuning punks banner. And music coming to fruition
need not ever take a back seat to any other musical endeavor.

> It's hard work, Jon, and we're all very fortunate to know folks who
> are up to the task.

Never meant to impune the work being done, for I am thankful for it.
And the list has helped me learn at least as much about the research
as the endgame. I just like to keep, every so often, remembering that
all this mixing of paints needs to wind up on a canvas some day...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Do you know any mathematicians, musically clueless or otherwise?

Yep. In fact, I worked with one closely for nearly four years in a
software development project, and he has remained one of my closest
friends. He loves music, but doesn't dabble.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> I consistently fail to see confusion or ignorace as a virtue,
certainly.

Good, we are in agreement. Of course, I also try to use a little
courtesy when referring to people I might consider 'ignorant', rather
than just shooting my mouth off about it...

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Can you give some examples?

Yes, but not tonight.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Good, we are in agreement. Of course, I also try to use a little
> courtesy when referring to people I might consider 'ignorant', rather
> than just shooting my mouth off about it...

Shooting off one's mouth--does that include suggesting that people whose work you don't know are incompetent drones?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Good, we are in agreement. Of course, I also try to use a little
> > courtesy when referring to people I might consider 'ignorant',
rather
> > than just shooting my mouth off about it...
>
> Shooting off one's mouth--does that include suggesting that people
> whose work you don't know are incompetent drones?

It's time to take this over to metatuning@yahoogroups.com -- it's
exactly what metatuning is for. This is the place to talk about
tuning.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Shooting off one's mouth--does that include suggesting that people
whose work you don't know are incompetent drones?

Yes, I'm sure it would; beyond that, I don't know what you are
referring to. If you want to take this up privately, you have my
email address.

There is nothing wrong with logic, and I don't think artists should
have any quibble with it. The most integrated human being is both a
scientist and an artist, a person who knows how to coordinate both
sides of the brain. Bach comes to mind. I really get tired of reason-
phobia in the name of an "artistic" orientation. It's totally bogus.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
> > falsifiability. If I give a counter-example...
>
> Oh good: more logic. Gene, you are one consistent person!
>
> Regards,
> Jon

There is nothing wrong with logic, and I don't think artists should
have any quibble with it. The most integrated human being is both a
scientist and an artist, a person who knows how to coordinate both
sides of the brain. Bach comes to mind. I really get tired of reason-
phobia in the name of an "artistic" orientation. It's totally bogus.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
> > falsifiability. If I give a counter-example...
>
> Oh good: more logic. Gene, you are one consistent person!
>
> Regards,
> Jon

So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability to
IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you don't
like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my analgoy
with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do anything,
you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think John Cage
rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is music.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
> > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
>
> Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that inspires
me
> and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not
only
> ignore limits but break them asunder.
>
> I understand that some scenarios might require limitations, but to
> espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of that
> creation.
>
> IMNSHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Bob,

Depending on context, I for one would prefer "rolling a phono
cartridge down a staircase with the amp on" over Bach, absolutely.
Bach is Bach, and it's incredibly wonderful, but it doesn't say
everything there is to say. Far, far from it.

Personally I try not to dismiss things out of hand. In my own music
I'm very concerned with structure and how things can be put together,
but there's enough elbow room in there for both Bach and Cage. Not all
music is like this of course, but not all music isn't either.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability to
> IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you don't
> like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my analgoy
> with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do anything,
> you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think John
Cage
> rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is music.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
> > > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
> >
> > Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that inspires
> me
> > and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not
> only
> > ignore limits but break them asunder.
> >
> > I understand that some scenarios might require limitations, but to
> > espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of that
> > creation.
> >
> > IMNSHO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

>>So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability
>>to IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues.

Sorry to kibitz, but you're referring to the account of Bach's
visist to King Fredderick (sp?). Probably exaggerated. In
fact I think the number of voices in that fugue goes up from
three to six as the story gets retold. I forget exactly now;
been years since I read about it.

He could improvise fugues, though -- an ability that a few people
in any generation probably have. And there's some case that Bach
was the best ever.

>>If you don't like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you
>>read my analgoy with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute
>>you do anything, you have defined some limits for yourself,
>>unless you think John Cage rolling a phono cartridge down a
>>staircase with the amp on is music.

That's just as limiting as anything Bach worked with, even in
principle, and in fact is much more limiting as far as what you
actually get out of the process.

Interesting thing about limits is, they often to lead to surprising
results. For example, you might expect harpsichord music to be a
subset of piano music, since with a few exceptions, the mechanical
feature set of a harpsichord is a subset of the piano's. But
harpsichord music is completely unique, and would likely never
occur to composers unless they had been forced to work with its
limitations.

-Carl

Who defined the most limits for himself? Bach improvising fugues on
the spot or Cage rolling a phono cartridge down the stairs with the
amp on? Who had the most REAL freedom of expression?

If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy listening, but
you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think you
actually prefer that in ANY context. Any one who really hears
Bach is filled with a sense of ecstatic musical bliss that stirs the
depths of his/her soul at almost every little turn or he/she is deaf
to Bach.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Depending on context, I for one would prefer "rolling a phono
> cartridge down a staircase with the amp on" over Bach, absolutely.
> Bach is Bach, and it's incredibly wonderful, but it doesn't say
> everything there is to say. Far, far from it.
>
> Personally I try not to dismiss things out of hand. In my own music
> I'm very concerned with structure and how things can be put
together,
> but there's enough elbow room in there for both Bach and Cage. Not
all
> music is like this of course, but not all music isn't either.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
>
>
> > So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability
to
> > IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you don't
> > like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my analgoy
> > with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do anything,
> > you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think John
> Cage
> > rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is
music.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is
in
> > > > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
> > >
> > > Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that
inspires
> > me
> > > and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not
> > only
> > > ignore limits but break them asunder.
> > >
> > > I understand that some scenarios might require limitations, but
to
> > > espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of
that
> > > creation.
> > >
> > > IMNSHO.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jon
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> group.
> > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> hold for the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> digest mode.
> > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

Excellent points, Carl! I say some of the same things an a later post
I wrote before reading this one.

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> >>So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability
> >>to IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues.
>
> Sorry to kibitz, but you're referring to the account of Bach's
> visist to King Fredderick (sp?). Probably exaggerated. In
> fact I think the number of voices in that fugue goes up from
> three to six as the story gets retold. I forget exactly now;
> been years since I read about it.
>
> He could improvise fugues, though -- an ability that a few people
> in any generation probably have. And there's some case that Bach
> was the best ever.
>
> >>If you don't like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you
> >>read my analgoy with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute
> >>you do anything, you have defined some limits for yourself,
> >>unless you think John Cage rolling a phono cartridge down a
> >>staircase with the amp on is music.
>
> That's just as limiting as anything Bach worked with, even in
> principle, and in fact is much more limiting as far as what you
> actually get out of the process.
>
> Interesting thing about limits is, they often to lead to surprising
> results. For example, you might expect harpsichord music to be a
> subset of piano music, since with a few exceptions, the mechanical
> feature set of a harpsichord is a subset of the piano's. But
> harpsichord music is completely unique, and would likely never
> occur to composers unless they had been forced to work with its
> limitations.
>
> -Carl

Paul,

I think these kinds of inflexible distinctions are wholly unnecessary
when it comes to art. Sound, organized sound, in, out, it's all a
slippery slope if you ask me--for example, you'd be hard pressed to
find a more organized sound than hardcore serialism, but not too many
folks who make the kinds of arguments you do are rushing to defend the
serialists musicality.

Anyway, within the range of things that I'm drawn towards, I'm
interested in people who've found their own unique way, and from there
I'm interested in what it is that they've got to say, or how they've
gone about it. Usually they end up contradicting one another, but what
the heck, that's part of the beauty of it all... the amazing range of
possibilities. It's a wondrous thing.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > That all depends upon what you mean by knowing what your doing!
>
> I mean that, no matter how far "out" I go, I can imagine in my head
a
> way of musically "coming back to earth", and then translate that
> imagination into reality. If I make mistakes in doing so, and I hope
> that I sometimes will (since if not, it means I'm not playing with
> enough abandon), I then incorporate _that_ into my plan. If I simply
> make lots of noises with no plan of where it's all going, then
that's
> not music to me -- it's *sound*, but it's not *organized sound*.
>
> > You
> > remind me of those videos they used to sell at the music
> > store--"improvise for hours and never hit a wrong note".
>
> I'm very sorry to hear that. It's really ironic, I guess, if you
take
> a look at the dense mathematical jargon in many of _your_ posts, and
> then experience the "wild man" that I become on stage at least every
> Tuesday night, that you should be thinking of me in this way.
>
> > good luck to you,
>
> Same to you and happy holidays.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I think these kinds of inflexible distinctions are wholly
unnecessary
> when it comes to art. Sound, organized sound, in, out, it's all a
> slippery slope if you ask me--for example, you'd be hard pressed to
> find a more organized sound than hardcore serialism, but not too
many
> folks who make the kinds of arguments you do are rushing to defend
the
> serialists musicality.

You might be surprised if you look at the arguments within some avant-
garde circles. I don't know, I'm not a big fan of serialism anyway.

I've participated in my share of totally disorganized sound, when my
friends wished to explore that direction -- that MAD DUXX video
should demonstrate that. What I've found is that such an environment
gives me less of an opportunity to learn about music than a context
in which an overall musical _entity_ is allowed to emerge and to
_guide_ the musicians, rather than the musicians being guided by
their own fidgety sense of "freedom". Also audiences are almost
infinitely more willing to receive any sort of sound that flaunts
their expectations when it forms some sort of _pattern_ -- if not a
stereotypical tension/release pattern, then at least some permutation
of repetition and variation that is neither too predicable nor too
unpredictable. The ideal situation for me is when such an entity and
such pattern begins to emerge spontaneously, and the musician(s)
involved are sensitive enough to build upon it in real time,
submerging their own egos into becoming part of a living organism
that exists in a superpersonal, cultural realm, the lines between the
performer and the listener blurred . . . well, at least that's what
it's about for me.

> Anyway, within the range of things that I'm drawn towards, I'm
> interested in people who've found their own unique way, and from
there
> I'm interested in what it is that they've got to say, or how they've
> gone about it. Usually they end up contradicting one another, but
what
> the heck, that's part of the beauty of it all... the amazing range
of
> possibilities. It's a wondrous thing.

Agreed!

Bob,

Surely you're a smart enough guy to realize how much this resembles a
rabid sports fan rooting for the home team? It's charming in its own
way, but I think your love of Bach is distorting your sense of reason!

Believe it or not, there are more than one way to go about things.
We've talked about Art Tatum off-list, so I know that you admire him
as well. You're not going to get from Tatum what you get from Bach and
vice versa, and all you have to do is stretch this line of reasoning a
wee bit to see that Bach didn't say it all. It's hysterics to think
otherwise. Charming, but hysterical!

All manner of sounds can be used effectively, i.e., musically. This
has been proven time and time again, and I don't think it's any more
difficult than thinking of orchestration and instrument color
stretched to certain extremes. These things have been going on for
quite some time, and it's folly to think that they're just shock value
tricks of the inept and the uninspired.

Great music will be great music forever, but that doesn't mean it's
the only music forever! It's a big world, and there's a lot of
astonishing music out there.

When I was younger I was an absolutely voracious listener, and I tried
to get as much in my ears as I could. I spent every spare cent I had
on records, went to every show I could get to, I spent countless hours
in the record library of my local public radio station... when I think
back over the years I realize that I've been touched by so much music
that it's just ridiculous.

My wife hosted a weekly world music program, Music of the Whole Earth.
Much of this music was as alien to the sensibilities as any I'd ever
heard, made John Cage sound tame by comparison. Bach was great, a real
giant. But he inhabits only a tinny tiny sliver of the music making
world, and his solutions are not everyone's and not for everyone.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:08 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> Who defined the most limits for himself? Bach improvising fugues on
> the spot or Cage rolling a phono cartridge down the stairs with the
> amp on? Who had the most REAL freedom of expression?
>
> If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy listening,
but
> you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think you
> actually prefer that in ANY context. Any one who really hears
> Bach is filled with a sense of ecstatic musical bliss that stirs the
> depths of his/her soul at almost every little turn or he/she is deaf
> to Bach.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > Depending on context, I for one would prefer "rolling a phono
> > cartridge down a staircase with the amp on" over Bach, absolutely.
> > Bach is Bach, and it's incredibly wonderful, but it doesn't say
> > everything there is to say. Far, far from it.
> >
> > Personally I try not to dismiss things out of hand. In my own
music
> > I'm very concerned with structure and how things can be put
> together,
> > but there's enough elbow room in there for both Bach and Cage. Not
> all
> > music is like this of course, but not all music isn't either.
> >
> > --Dan Stearns
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
> >
> >
> > > So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability
> to
> > > IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you
don't
> > > like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my
analgoy
> > > with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do
anything,
> > > you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think John
> > Cage
> > > rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is
> music.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > > > > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is
> in
> > > > > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
> > > >
> > > > Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that
> inspires
> > > me
> > > > and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that
not
> > > only
> > > > ignore limits but break them asunder.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that some scenarios might require limitations,
but
> to
> > > > espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of
> that
> > > > creation.
> > > >
> > > > IMNSHO.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> > group.
> > > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> > hold for the tuning group.
> > > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> > digest mode.
> > > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> > individual emails.
> > > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

Paul Erlich earlier:
I've participated in my share of totally disorganized sound, when my
friends wished to explore that direction -- that MAD DUXX video
should demonstrate that. What I've found is that such an environment
gives me less of an opportunity to learn about music than a context
in which an overall musical _entity_ is allowed to emerge and to
_guide_ the musicians, rather than the musicians being guided by
their own fidgety sense of "freedom". Also audiences are almost
infinitely more willing to receive any sort of sound that flaunts
their expectations when it forms some sort of _pattern_ -- if not a
stereotypical tension/release pattern, then at least some permutation
of repetition and variation that is neither too predicable nor too
unpredictable. The ideal situation for me is when such an entity and
such pattern begins to emerge spontaneously, and the musician(s)
involved are sensitive enough to build upon it in real time,
submerging their own egos into becoming part of a living organism
that exists in a superpersonal, cultural realm, the lines between the
performer and the listener blurred . . . well, at least that's what
it's about for me.

Bob:
Wonderfully well expressed, Paul. My sentiments exactly!

How did anything I said below imply that I listen only to Bach or
think that he "said it all"? How can you read more than a few of my
posts and not know that my tastes are extremely eclectic? I don't
understand where you're coming from with this, Dan. What I said below
is EXACTLY how I react viscerally to Bach. It truly represents my
deep pleasure upon hearing his work.

It certainly has nothing to do with anyone's "home team", whatever
that is. I don't even do that with sports. I enjoy great plays no
matter which team it is. A lot of sports people think I'm weird
because I don't get excited about any particular team. I just love
consummate athletic skill when I see it.

Does it bother you that I like Bach so much? Does that imply to you
that I can't enjoy anything else? On the contrary, it better prepares
me to understand music in general. Every deep musical experience sets
us up for deeper appreciation of the musical value of anything else
good in music.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Surely you're a smart enough guy to realize how much this resembles
a
> rabid sports fan rooting for the home team? It's charming in its own
> way, but I think your love of Bach is distorting your sense of
reason!
>
> Believe it or not, there are more than one way to go about things.
> We've talked about Art Tatum off-list, so I know that you admire him
> as well. You're not going to get from Tatum what you get from Bach
and
> vice versa, and all you have to do is stretch this line of
reasoning a
> wee bit to see that Bach didn't say it all. It's hysterics to think
> otherwise. Charming, but hysterical!
>
> All manner of sounds can be used effectively, i.e., musically. This
> has been proven time and time again, and I don't think it's any more
> difficult than thinking of orchestration and instrument color
> stretched to certain extremes. These things have been going on for
> quite some time, and it's folly to think that they're just shock
value
> tricks of the inept and the uninspired.
>
> Great music will be great music forever, but that doesn't mean it's
> the only music forever! It's a big world, and there's a lot of
> astonishing music out there.
>
> When I was younger I was an absolutely voracious listener, and I
tried
> to get as much in my ears as I could. I spent every spare cent I had
> on records, went to every show I could get to, I spent countless
hours
> in the record library of my local public radio station... when I
think
> back over the years I realize that I've been touched by so much
music
> that it's just ridiculous.
>
> My wife hosted a weekly world music program, Music of the Whole
Earth.
> Much of this music was as alien to the sensibilities as any I'd ever
> heard, made John Cage sound tame by comparison. Bach was great, a
real
> giant. But he inhabits only a tinny tiny sliver of the music making
> world, and his solutions are not everyone's and not for everyone.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:08 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
>
>
> > Who defined the most limits for himself? Bach improvising fugues
on
> > the spot or Cage rolling a phono cartridge down the stairs with
the
> > amp on? Who had the most REAL freedom of expression?
> >
> > If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy listening,
> but
> > you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think
you
> > actually prefer that in ANY context. Any one who really hears
> > Bach is filled with a sense of ecstatic musical bliss that stirs
the
> > depths of his/her soul at almost every little turn or he/she is
deaf
> > to Bach.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Depending on context, I for one would prefer "rolling a phono
> > > cartridge down a staircase with the amp on" over Bach,
absolutely.
> > > Bach is Bach, and it's incredibly wonderful, but it doesn't say
> > > everything there is to say. Far, far from it.
> > >
> > > Personally I try not to dismiss things out of hand. In my own
> music
> > > I'm very concerned with structure and how things can be put
> > together,
> > > but there's enough elbow room in there for both Bach and Cage.
Not
> > all
> > > music is like this of course, but not all music isn't either.
> > >
> > > --Dan Stearns
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> > > To: <tuning@y...>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM
> > > Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
> > >
> > >
> > > > So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing
ability
> > to
> > > > IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you
> don't
> > > > like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my
> analgoy
> > > > with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do
> anything,
> > > > you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think
John
> > > Cage
> > > > rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is
> > music.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
wrote:
> > > > > > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity
is
> > in
> > > > > > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that
> > inspires
> > > > me
> > > > > and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that
> not
> > > > only
> > > > > ignore limits but break them asunder.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that some scenarios might require limitations,
> but
> > to
> > > > > espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of
> > that
> > > > > creation.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMNSHO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > > > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> > > group.
> > > > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> > > hold for the tuning group.
> > > > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> > > digest mode.
> > > > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> > > individual emails.
> > > > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> group.
> > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> hold for the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> digest mode.
> > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

Bob,

Hyperbole is fairly easy to throw around. I said that I found working
beyond limits and extending forms and means more satisfying. What you
wrote back was

>So I suppose Bach stinks, even though...

No, I don't think Bach stinks. I enjoy his music as much as the other
musics that please me and bring me a greater experience on this
world. *Nothing* I said implied Bach's creations were not of great
value, and neither does someone like Dan prefering another composer,
no matter how radical in your views. If, indeed, your study and
listening of Bach, as a maker of deep music, prepares you for a
broader experience of other musics, can't that same phenomenon occur
for another person, stimulated by another composer? Of course it can.
In fact, as you say:

> Every deep musical experience sets us up for deeper appreciation of
> the musical value of anything else good in music.

And that must certainly vary according to the listener, as to
what "deep" and "musical value" mean.

If anyone wants to extol the virtues of working within limits, that
is certainly their right. I tend to look at it as "thinking inside
the box", or "coloring within the lines". That I prefer less safe
expressions neither indicates a distaste for less exploratory paths,
nor does it denigrate those that find them superior.

Respectfully,
Jon

Bob,

You wrote:

"If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy listening, but
you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think you
actually prefer that in ANY context."

Read it carefully. I bit my tongue as regards its close-mindedness and
its telling my what I will and won't do, and tried to offer an
alternative--a broad, relevant context for the "that" in your "you'll
never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think you actually
prefer that in ANY context".

You don't see it, fine. I'm willing to agree to disagree and let my
words and music stand for my point of view.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> How did anything I said below imply that I listen only to Bach or
> think that he "said it all"? How can you read more than a few of my
> posts and not know that my tastes are extremely eclectic? I don't
> understand where you're coming from with this, Dan. What I said
below
> is EXACTLY how I react viscerally to Bach. It truly represents my
> deep pleasure upon hearing his work.
>
> It certainly has nothing to do with anyone's "home team", whatever
> that is. I don't even do that with sports. I enjoy great plays no
> matter which team it is. A lot of sports people think I'm weird
> because I don't get excited about any particular team. I just love
> consummate athletic skill when I see it.
>
> Does it bother you that I like Bach so much? Does that imply to you
> that I can't enjoy anything else? On the contrary, it better
prepares
> me to understand music in general. Every deep musical experience
sets
> us up for deeper appreciation of the musical value of anything else
> good in music.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > Surely you're a smart enough guy to realize how much this
resembles
> a
> > rabid sports fan rooting for the home team? It's charming in its
own
> > way, but I think your love of Bach is distorting your sense of
> reason!
> >
> > Believe it or not, there are more than one way to go about things.
> > We've talked about Art Tatum off-list, so I know that you admire
him
> > as well. You're not going to get from Tatum what you get from Bach
> and
> > vice versa, and all you have to do is stretch this line of
> reasoning a
> > wee bit to see that Bach didn't say it all. It's hysterics to
think
> > otherwise. Charming, but hysterical!
> >
> > All manner of sounds can be used effectively, i.e., musically.
This
> > has been proven time and time again, and I don't think it's any
more
> > difficult than thinking of orchestration and instrument color
> > stretched to certain extremes. These things have been going on for
> > quite some time, and it's folly to think that they're just shock
> value
> > tricks of the inept and the uninspired.
> >
> > Great music will be great music forever, but that doesn't mean
it's
> > the only music forever! It's a big world, and there's a lot of
> > astonishing music out there.
> >
> > When I was younger I was an absolutely voracious listener, and I
> tried
> > to get as much in my ears as I could. I spent every spare cent I
had
> > on records, went to every show I could get to, I spent countless
> hours
> > in the record library of my local public radio station... when I
> think
> > back over the years I realize that I've been touched by so much
> music
> > that it's just ridiculous.
> >
> > My wife hosted a weekly world music program, Music of the Whole
> Earth.
> > Much of this music was as alien to the sensibilities as any I'd
ever
> > heard, made John Cage sound tame by comparison. Bach was great, a
> real
> > giant. But he inhabits only a tinny tiny sliver of the music
making
> > world, and his solutions are not everyone's and not for everyone.
> >
> > --Dan Stearns
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:08 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
> >
> >
> > > Who defined the most limits for himself? Bach improvising fugues
> on
> > > the spot or Cage rolling a phono cartridge down the stairs with
> the
> > > amp on? Who had the most REAL freedom of expression?
> > >
> > > If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy
listening,
> > but
> > > you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think
> you
> > > actually prefer that in ANY context. Any one who really hears
> > > Bach is filled with a sense of ecstatic musical bliss that stirs
> the
> > > depths of his/her soul at almost every little turn or he/she is
> deaf
> > > to Bach.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Depending on context, I for one would prefer "rolling a phono
> > > > cartridge down a staircase with the amp on" over Bach,
> absolutely.
> > > > Bach is Bach, and it's incredibly wonderful, but it doesn't
say
> > > > everything there is to say. Far, far from it.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I try not to dismiss things out of hand. In my own
> > music
> > > > I'm very concerned with structure and how things can be put
> > > together,
> > > > but there's enough elbow room in there for both Bach and Cage.
> Not
> > > all
> > > > music is like this of course, but not all music isn't either.
> > > >
> > > > --Dan Stearns
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> > > > To: <tuning@y...>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:12 AM
> > > > Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing
> ability
> > > to
> > > > > IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you
> > don't
> > > > > like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my
> > analgoy
> > > > > with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do
> > anything,
> > > > > you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think
> John
> > > > Cage
> > > > > rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on
is
> > > music.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > > > > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of
creativity
> is
> > > in
> > > > > > > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that
> > > inspires
> > > > > me
> > > > > > and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works
that
> > not
> > > > > only
> > > > > > ignore limits but break them asunder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that some scenarios might require
limitations,
> > but
> > > to
> > > > > > espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death
of
> > > that
> > > > > > creation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMNSHO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > > > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > > > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > > > > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> > > > group.
> > > > > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> > > > hold for the tuning group.
> > > > > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> > > > digest mode.
> > > > > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> > > > individual emails.
> > > > > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > > Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> > group.
> > > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> > hold for the tuning group.
> > > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> > digest mode.
> > > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> > individual emails.
> > > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

It's becoming clear to me that we're talking about two different
things. Thinking outside the box in no way implies lack of limits.
You cannot carve a stone without creating limits for yourself at the
very first cut. That piece is gone and you can't call it back, but
you don't have to imitate Michelanglo's style (even if any of us
could) but may do something cubist or impressionistic or something
astoundingly new and revolutionary.

All of these choices are choices among certain kinds of limits. You
can never avoid limits. Your freedom exists SOLELY in your choice of
which ones to impose on yourself. Learn to love limits, because if
you don't master them, they will master you and you will have ZERO
freedom.

Love,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Hyperbole is fairly easy to throw around. I said that I found
working
> beyond limits and extending forms and means more satisfying. What
you
> wrote back was
>
> >So I suppose Bach stinks, even though...
>
> No, I don't think Bach stinks. I enjoy his music as much as the
other
> musics that please me and bring me a greater experience on this
> world. *Nothing* I said implied Bach's creations were not of great
> value, and neither does someone like Dan prefering another
composer,
> no matter how radical in your views. If, indeed, your study and
> listening of Bach, as a maker of deep music, prepares you for a
> broader experience of other musics, can't that same phenomenon
occur
> for another person, stimulated by another composer? Of course it
can.
> In fact, as you say:
>
> > Every deep musical experience sets us up for deeper appreciation
of
> > the musical value of anything else good in music.
>
> And that must certainly vary according to the listener, as to
> what "deep" and "musical value" mean.
>
> If anyone wants to extol the virtues of working within limits, that
> is certainly their right. I tend to look at it as "thinking inside
> the box", or "coloring within the lines". That I prefer less safe
> expressions neither indicates a distaste for less exploratory
paths,
> nor does it denigrate those that find them superior.
>
> Respectfully,
> Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

>That I prefer less safe
> expressions neither indicates a distaste for less exploratory paths,
> nor does it denigrate those that find them superior.

Is Bach more "safe" than Cage? I think the idea that we should pat ourselves on the back for liking what is not "safe" makes no sense. Why not like things because they are *good*, safe or not safe?

The last century does not convince me that the quest for originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea; I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves. In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all supposed to have gotten over modernism.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Is Bach more "safe" than Cage?

I was referring to the attitude of working within or without limits
(limits that are imagined or not). I was not contrasting two specific
composers, but if - and that is a moderately large 'if' - I were to
do so, I think it is safe to say that Bach is safer than Cage, for
no other reason than in an indeterminate score you have a greater
chance of not creating a compelling experience than one that is pre-
determined.

And, lest anyone read more ideas into what I have written than
intended, I am not a big Cage fan; of his music, I generally prefer
his work up to and including the prepared piano works. But he does
fall into my category of people who, while not my favorites
for 'experiencing' (i.e. listening to, seeing their plays, reading
their prose), he is also one of those that I am very glad lived and
developed his ideas and ideals.

> I think the idea that we should pat ourselves on the back for
> liking what is not "safe" makes no sense. Why not like things
> because they are *good*, safe or not safe?

Please, Gene, try not to misread me (and I'll try to be as clear as I
can, in the bargain!). I am not asking you to be self-congratulatory,
but I am offering my viewpoint. It is my feeling that our arts, and
therefore our lives, are enriched the most by the art that strives to
break boundaries. It is maybe an idealogical position, to be sure,
but (for me) everytime the idea of working within limits, obeying the
rules, toeing the line ... it may be semantic usage, but I think it
generates a mindset that is less likely to look to new frontiers.

And - to be patently clear - I like things when they are good,
and much music I love dearly is *not* always pushing the envelope. It
is not an 'either/or' situation, and it is not the case that non-
questing works fail to find favor with my inner self. It is simply
that I believe, very fervently, in the search beyond limits, in
however that word may be applied.

> The last century does not convince me that the quest for
> originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea

Good, you have your parameters set, and that is perfectly fine.
Again, I did *not* say "at all costs". You once said:

> "No apologies--deciding in advance that something is "useless" is
> *not* the way research should be done"

I feel the same way about creativity in the arts, or in life, for
that matter.

You also said:

> "There is something here we don't understand, and it could make a
> difference even to the relentlessly and prosaically "practical"--if
> that is what music is supposed to be."

I find artists, authors, painters - creators - who look in new
directions and exploring the edges of the possible to be doing just
that: looking for understanding. You imply that your research, your
reason for investigation, is going beyond the merely practical and
commonplace musical practice. If people want to make music that
affects others deeply, how can you impune their motives at the same
time you diminish an interest in creative solutions to making art?

I realize the two quotes from you do *not* come from this particular
topic, but they indicate an investigatory fervor in research that
finds an opposite aesthetic in the application of that research (i.e.
to make music). If this is so far out of context as to be
meaningless, please ignore and accept my apologies.

> I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when anyone
> felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves.

You are welcome to that thought; I find repeating the past is not the
answer for me, and I think little good comes of it.

> In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all supposed to
> have gotten over modernism.

I have rarely, if ever, done what "we are all supposed to" do.

Respectfully,
Jon

Gene,

I don't think too many folks like things because they're bad... sure,
some people play off of shocking or offending people, but I think it's
a slim minority that would let that be the main impetus of their art.

When it comes to art, I really do think most people are trying to do
something good. However, getting people to agree (or even meet in the
middle) on what's good and what's not is another story altogether!

I think you're right that modernism did overemphasize originality, but
again, I think anyone who did anything of interest had more on the
ball than that.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:54 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> >That I prefer less safe
> > expressions neither indicates a distaste for less exploratory
paths,
> > nor does it denigrate those that find them superior.
>
> Is Bach more "safe" than Cage? I think the idea that we should pat
ourselves on the back for liking what is not "safe" makes no sense.
Why not like things because they are *good*, safe or not safe?
>
> The last century does not convince me that the quest for originality
at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea; I think on the whole
the 18th century was healthier, when anyone felt free to copy anyone
else or to repeat themselves. In any case its the 21st century now,
and we are all supposed to have gotten over modernism.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I was referring to the attitude of working within or without limits
> (limits that are imagined or not). I was not contrasting two specific
> composers, but if - and that is a moderately large 'if' - I were to
> do so, I think it is safe to say that Bach is safer than Cage, for
> no other reason than in an indeterminate score you have a greater
> chance of not creating a compelling experience than one that is pre-
> determined.

I think HPSCD is almost as safe as it gets, but 4'33" is the ultimate--what would a bad performance be? HPSCHD is almost completely static, and hence almost completely safe.

>The last century does not convince me that the quest for
>originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
>I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when
>anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves.
>In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all
>supposed to have gotten over modernism.

Questions like this seem to me so distant from art that I
have a hard time thinking about them carefully.

-Carl

C'mon, Gene!

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> I think HPSCD is almost as safe as it gets, but 4'33" is the
> ultimate--what would a bad performance be? HPSCHD is almost
> completely static, and hence almost completely safe.

Remember: I didn't choose the duality of Bach/Cage, Bob Wendell did.
And if I say (if forced to) which is safer, and I posit Bach, then a
reasonable take on that would be to consider the composer's oevre,
and not focus on one or two pieces. Minuet in G, or something like
that, from the AMB book would not only be safer ("gee, everybody
understands that *this* is music"), but less likely to get hostile
threats from the audience! :)

Best,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31914

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of
why,
> > and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
> > far. One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
> > thousand hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and
> > learning.
>
> I almost fainted when I saw that you, Paul, had written that. And
if
> that *were* the case, then the many, many megabytes of posts, going
> all the way back to the Mills days, would surely have yielded
> hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of music, hours of sound and
> thought. But that would have been, I don't know... prosaic.
>
> "I have read many books, but to place all those volumes on top of
one
> another and stand on them would not add a cubit to my stature.
Their
> learned terms are of little use when I attempt to seize naked
> experience, which eludes all accepted ideas." - Czeslaw Milosz
>
> Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,
> Jon
>
> (...and wishing Paul a new Novatone guitar...)

Hello Jon and others...

Well, the "moral" of this story might be that "a little theory goes a
long way..." but, surely that doesn't mean that even *one page* of
Paul's or Gene's theories couldn't be great inspiration for *many*
microtonal composers.

Why hasn't the music resulted?? Well, perhaps enough "real"
composers haven't been "gently introduced" to such topics and such
pages of theoretical ideas.

That by no means should suggest that the theories themselves
shouldn't live on in their own ways in whatever voluminous
manifestations they wish to find themselves!

I did my *own* part in introducing "general" composers to some
microtonal theory at the recent meeting of the American Composers
Forum over the Holidays, and, I believe, if we really want more
composers and performers to use these ideas we have to "gently
introduce" them to the ideas.

However, this is an *entirely* separate endeavor from the
separate "lives" of theory... which I believe should be let to "live
and let live..." in its own way...

best to you,

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31921

> >>One can keep asking why and keep asking why to the answers of
why,
> >>and go on and on. But to a musician, theory only needs to go so
> >>far. One page of theory can inspire, and be enough theory for, a
> >>thousand hours of visceral/ineffable experience, feeling, and
> >>learning.
> >
> >I almost fainted when I saw that you, Paul, had written that. And
> >if that *were* the case, then the many, many megabytes of posts,
> >going all the way back to the Mills days, would surely have yielded
> >hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of music, hours of sound and
> >thought. But that would have been, I don't know... prosaic.
>
> If this is the case, then all those posts may yield hundreds, if
> not thousands, of pieces of music.
>
> How long before Parth uncovered Helmholtz?
>
> >Wishing all on the list something of meaning, depth, and value,
>
> Wishing alone won't do it.
>
> -Carl

[oh... the below is by no means targeted at Jon Szanto...(I don't
want to try *that* again :) ) but is only a general discussion)]

I agree entirely, Carl, and, in fact, I believe it is the
*responsibility* of some of us, who are conditioned for it,
to "spread the word" so to speak and to try to get some of the new
microtonal *theories* out into the general musical world.

Of course, we all have different *roles* in this. Some of us are by
nature and training, theorists. That point needs emphasis. Frankly,
I, personally, don't have the math background to do some of this
work, although I surely appreciate it!

Then there are others who are more suited to try to *adapt* ideas in
the practical realm of music and musicians.

That's why I believe, personally, it is wise to figure out ways to
make xenharmonic theory less *arcane* to general musicians.

72-tET notation, to me, is one such way... in the "common practice"
method we have developed.

It is not, necessarily, the responsibility of the *theoreticians* on
this list to develop the *practical* manifestations, but *SOMEBODY's
gotta do it!*

Personally, I have always found that Paul Erlich has presented ideas
in clear, concise manners with almost *no* intentional obfuscation
(something I can't always say for everybody :) ) and, if asked, Paul
will always figure out ways to integrate theoretical ideas into
practical music making.

This is not "sing Paul praise day" since Paul is surely not Santa
Claus, but I would just like to point out this aspect of Paul's
efforts on this list that is sometimes overlooked..

Merry Christmas 2002 early....

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31926

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > In all but the uniquely gifted, the love of formal relationships
is
> > like a noose around imaginations neck... choke, gasp, gone!
>
> This recalls to my mind the discussion of Popper and
falsifiability. If I give a counter-example (Bach is glaringly
obvious, but there are many more) you can simply say that that person
was one of the uniquely gifted ones. Of course, you statement can
easily be reversed, with the same problem: "In all but the uniquely
gifted, a lack of interest in formal relationships is an invitation
to drown in meandering mush. Help me, I'm sinking ... sinking ...
choke, gasp, gone!"
>
> Try composing a fugue or something in sonata form and see if it
actually croaks you some time. I bet it won't, any more than writing
a sonnet will forever dry up the wells of a poet's inspiration.

This is an interesting post, Gene... and, personally, I like formal
constraints and structure in my music. Some composers disagree and
find them an impediment, but there are *many, many* *great* artists
throughout history, as we all know, who have embraced restriction and
formalism. T.S. Elliot and Stravinsky come to mind, but I don't have
the citations with me at the moment...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31933

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> > This was Ives argument for the amateur, and it's one that he's
often
> > hung with as well--witness Carter, Bernstein, Boulez, et al.
>
> I think the whole Ives-as-amatuer thing is overblown. The man had a
degree in music, specializing in composition, from Yale. His teacher,
Horatio Parker, was a product of the Munich Conservatory and also
taught Roger Sessions, who is regarded as a quintessential
> non-amatuer. His first symphony shows that this training sank in,
though it is also notable for Ives's quirky originality.
>
> It's largely a matter of calling anyone an "amatuer" who doesn't do
things in the usual way.

I would also like to add that Ives was an incredible pianist and
organist, who held a church job as choir director for many years in
New Haven. Probably most people know that.

He actually played the entire _Concord Sonata_ for friends and for
anybody who has tried to do that, the extent of his chops are very
evident!

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31945

> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
> > Yes! Good points, Gene. Bravo! A major part of creativity is in
> > choosing what limits one wishes to impose upon oneself.
>
> Gag. Bob, really?!? The art, the writing, the music that inspires
me
> and consoles me and nourishes me *most* are those works that not
only
> ignore limits but break them asunder.
>
> I understand that some scenarios might require limitations, but to
> espouse that as a "major part of creativity" is the death of that
> creation.
>
> IMNSHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Didn't Harry Partch work very hard to establish very definite limits
for himself? A tuning system in just intonation with 43 pitches to
the octave? That's a limit if I ever heard of one... (I guess up to
the 11th limit?? :) )

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31966

> So I suppose Bach stinks, even though he had the amazing ability to
> IMPROVISE fugues on the spot, even six-voice fugues. If you don't
> like Bach, then our discussion is futile. Did you read my analgoy
> with sculpture? Limtis are inevitable. The minute you do anything,
> you have defined some limits for yourself, unless you think John
Cage
> rolling a phono cartridge down a staircase with the amp on is
music.
>
>

Hello Bob!

Sounds like you're not a John Cage fan. Well, in any case, Cage
*consistently* thought of limits in his music, even though the common
perception of his work is that of "anything goes."

Most of his pieces are like elaborately constructed games of one kind
or another. He even goes to elaborate lengths, using the I-Ching and
other methods to arrive at "pure" chance.

One could easily make a case that there are *many* limits in Cage's
music and, indeed, that's the way he constructed his pieces....

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31980

> Who defined the most limits for himself? Bach improvising fugues on
> the spot or Cage rolling a phono cartridge down the stairs with
the
> amp on? Who had the most REAL freedom of expression?
>
> If you really do prefer the cartridge over Bach, happy listening,
but
> you'll never know the bliss of really hearing Bach if you think you
> actually prefer that in ANY context. Any one who really hears
> Bach is filled with a sense of ecstatic musical bliss that stirs
the
> depths of his/her soul at almost every little turn or he/she is
deaf
> to Bach.
>

How about Bach through a guitar amp??

[Sorry, couldn't resist... :) )

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#31984

> Paul,
>
> I think these kinds of inflexible distinctions are wholly
unnecessary
> when it comes to art. Sound, organized sound, in, out, it's all a
> slippery slope if you ask me--for example, you'd be hard pressed to
> find a more organized sound than hardcore serialism, but not too
many
> folks who make the kinds of arguments you do are rushing to defend
the
> serialists musicality.
>

Hello Dan!

Actually this post lead to what I thought might be an interesting
thought.

Is it possible that serialism is really *not* "organized sound...?"
Could that be part of the problem?

Could the results of serialism really be going *against* the overtone
series and "sound organization" that we intrinsically *expect* of
music.

Was that one of the "problems" with it??

Just some ideas "inspired" by your post...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#32084

> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > I was referring to the attitude of working within or without
limits
> > (limits that are imagined or not). I was not contrasting two
specific
> > composers, but if - and that is a moderately large 'if' - I were
to
> > do so, I think it is safe to say that Bach is safer than Cage,
for
> > no other reason than in an indeterminate score you have a greater
> > chance of not creating a compelling experience than one that is
pre-
> > determined.
>
> I think HPSCD is almost as safe as it gets, but 4'33" is the
ultimate--what would a bad performance be? HPSCHD is almost
completely static, and hence almost completely safe.

Hi Gene!

A bad performance of 4'33" would be one where the audience wasn't
attentively listening...

JP

I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be perceived
as "so distant" from it? A huge component of mainstream 20th century
aesthetics seems to have been expressible, if I may crudely sum it
up, in the following ideas:

"If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
expressive genius, if they are content to work within traditional,
established paradigms, are of little value."

This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart as of little
worth artistically, since unlike Beethoven and others, they were
quite conventional stylistically, content to refine to the utmost the
established traditions of their day. I think the pendulum needs to
swing back a bit in this direction from the extreme indulgences of
the last century, and is, I believe, doing so. In the long run, there
needs to be a healthy balance between innovation and consolidation,
otherwise we end up with chaos as art and coherent artistic
expression, no matter how brilliant, eschewed as something abhorrent.

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> >The last century does not convince me that the quest for
> >originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
> >I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when
> >anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves.
> >In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all
> >supposed to have gotten over modernism.
>
> Questions like this seem to me so distant from art that I
> have a hard time thinking about them carefully.
>
> -Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#32165

> I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be perceived
> as "so distant" from it? A huge component of mainstream 20th
century
> aesthetics seems to have been expressible, if I may crudely sum it
> up, in the following ideas:
>
> "If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
> artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
> expressive genius, if they are content to work within traditional,
> established paradigms, are of little value."
>
> This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart as of little
> worth artistically, since unlike Beethoven and others, they were
> quite conventional stylistically, content to refine to the utmost
the
> established traditions of their day. I think the pendulum needs to
> swing back a bit in this direction from the extreme indulgences of
> the last century, and is, I believe, doing so. In the long run,
there
> needs to be a healthy balance between innovation and consolidation,
> otherwise we end up with chaos as art and coherent artistic
> expression, no matter how brilliant, eschewed as something
abhorrent.
>

I agree, Bob, that this is the latest trend and a *very* important
discussion regarding directions in composition.

I rather wonder if the "new hilarity" of recent music will be at all
affected by Sept. 11. Not that I really *want* it to be, but I'm
just wondering if the wackiest and funniest piece will still always
be considered "superior" in coming months and years...

Dunno...

Happy New Year..

Joe Pehrson

I'm not sure the music you refer to is art music. I'm not very
interested in most pop composition, since I think most (please note
that I said "most") commercially successful music is roughly
equivalent to commercial "live studio" wrestling in terms of any
abiding merit.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_31872.html#32165
>
> > I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be
perceived
> > as "so distant" from it? A huge component of mainstream 20th
> century
> > aesthetics seems to have been expressible, if I may crudely sum
it
> > up, in the following ideas:
> >
> > "If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
> > artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
> > expressive genius, if they are content to work within
traditional,
> > established paradigms, are of little value."
> >
> > This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart as of little
> > worth artistically, since unlike Beethoven and others, they were
> > quite conventional stylistically, content to refine to the utmost
> the
> > established traditions of their day. I think the pendulum needs
to
> > swing back a bit in this direction from the extreme indulgences
of
> > the last century, and is, I believe, doing so. In the long run,
> there
> > needs to be a healthy balance between innovation and
consolidation,
> > otherwise we end up with chaos as art and coherent artistic
> > expression, no matter how brilliant, eschewed as something
> abhorrent.
> >
>
> I agree, Bob, that this is the latest trend and a *very* important
> discussion regarding directions in composition.
>
> I rather wonder if the "new hilarity" of recent music will be at
all
> affected by Sept. 11. Not that I really *want* it to be, but I'm
> just wondering if the wackiest and funniest piece will still always
> be considered "superior" in coming months and years...
>
> Dunno...
>
> Happy New Year..
>
> Joe Pehrson

Perhaps there should be an official arts' czar... you know, someone
who knows for sure where coherency ends and chaos begins... someone
who knows who's been naughty and who's been nice... what's art and
what's professional wrestling... what's professional wrestling and
what's noise... who's really hearing Bach and who's incapable of
hearing Bach--Britney too.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 10:56 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list

> I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be perceived
> as "so distant" from it? A huge component of mainstream 20th century
> aesthetics seems to have been expressible, if I may crudely sum it
> up, in the following ideas:
>
> "If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
> artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
> expressive genius, if they are content to work within traditional,
> established paradigms, are of little value."
>
> This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart as of little
> worth artistically, since unlike Beethoven and others, they were
> quite conventional stylistically, content to refine to the utmost
the
> established traditions of their day. I think the pendulum needs to
> swing back a bit in this direction from the extreme indulgences of
> the last century, and is, I believe, doing so. In the long run,
there
> needs to be a healthy balance between innovation and consolidation,
> otherwise we end up with chaos as art and coherent artistic
> expression, no matter how brilliant, eschewed as something
abhorrent.
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> > >The last century does not convince me that the quest for
> > >originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
> > >I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when
> > >anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves.
> > >In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all
> > >supposed to have gotten over modernism.
> >
> > Questions like this seem to me so distant from art that I
> > have a hard time thinking about them carefully.
> >
> > -Carl
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/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/
>
>

>>>The last century does not convince me that the quest for
>>>originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;

I enjoy the music and art of the last century tremendously, and
think of it as the perfect continuation of previous centuries.

>>>I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier,
>>>when anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat
>>>themselves.

I don't think they would have looked at it this way. Sure,
Scarlatti and Vivaldi made their living by turning out pop
and pedagogical tunes, but both were also on the cutting edge
of music. We all copy, and we all innovate.

It is true that increasing capitalism led, around the turn of
the 19th century, to globalization, the possibility of the
free-lance musician, and the first meta-ethnic music.
Beethoven is the name usually mentioned here, with good reason.
We can't go back to the innocence of cultural music, and there
is something special about it (for me, Persian and Indian
chamber music, 17th-century Italian music, early jazz have a
sort of magic that may be due in part to this innocence). But
this is just a detail. What makes music one of the highest
expressions of being human has nothing to do with considerations
on this level. I think I'm listening for the same thing in
Stravinsky as I am in Pandolfi. What's to say our most avant
garde won't appear ecletic in the future?

>>>In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all
>>>supposed to have gotten over modernism.
>>
>>Questions like this seem to me so distant from art that I
>>have a hard time thinking about them carefully.
>
>I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be
>perceived as "so distant" from it?

I don't think it's central to art at all. I think it's something
people think about afterwards. Henry Cowell asks, 'The maxim
of the Romantic period is self-expression, I don't understand --
how can you keep it out?'

>A huge component of mainstream 20th century aesthetics seems to
>have been expressible, if I may crudely sum it up, in the
>following ideas:
>
>"If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
>artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
>expressive genius, if they are content to work within traditional,
>established paradigms, are of little value."
>
>This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart

I couldn't disagree more. Bach's keyboard music isn't even in
the style of his time. He took the German toccata (then almost
dead) and made something, which when transcribed for string
quartet, could have been composed yesterday. He did one-offs in
the French and Italian styles -- which sound nothing like French
or Italian music -- they sound like Bach. His chamber music is
in the style of his time, but it doesn't sound right either.
Listen to Handel, Telemann, or any of the other German chamber
music of Bach's time... the Brandenberg concerti seem like the LSD
version to me. Not that Handel or Telemann would have been
excluded by this maxim of 20th-century art, either.

Mozart revolutionized the orchestra, and I am told, the opera.
Much of his music seems plainly Viennese to our ears, but compare
his keyboard sonatas with those of Clementi. There's a kind of
_clarity_.

I don't think great music _can_ really be in a style -- if it's
great, it has to be different from the non-great stuff!

>In the long run, there needs to be a healthy balance between
>innovation and consolidation, otherwise we end up with chaos as
>art and coherent artistic expression, no matter how brilliant,
>eschewed as something abhorrent.

One could argue that the history of music is searching out a
solution space for interesting musical tools, much like the
history of chess is seaching out the solution space for the best
openings. In this view the most interesting music would use and
extend the tools of the day. I'm not sure I buy this argument,
but in any case, I see healthy amounts of both innovation and
consolidation all around me in the musical world.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> >>>The last century does not convince me that the quest for
> >>>originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
>
> I enjoy the music and art of the last century tremendously, and
> think of it as the perfect continuation of previous centuries.

Do you enjoy the aspect of originality at all costs, or the aspect of the continuation of previous centuries? It seems to me that Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Nielsen, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Britten, Rachmaninov, Puccini, Hindemith, and many more are clearly in the second camp, and arguably even the Second Viennese School. I think the somewhat more conservative camp is the most likely to endure.

> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> Subject: Re: Re: three years at the tuning list
>
> Perhaps there should be an official arts' czar... you know, someone
> who knows for sure where coherency ends and chaos begins... someone
> who knows who's been naughty and who's been nice... what's art and
> what's professional wrestling... what's professional wrestling and
> what's noise... who's really hearing Bach and who's incapable of
> hearing Bach--Britney too.

I think this czar is the NEA. All the controversys in NEA
funding etc created a lot of press, made some people a bit of
notoriety and money, but were of dubious value to promoting a new
art that was non-sensationalist. Of course, sensationalism is just
the way art (like everything else) "works best" in a capitalist
society.

I also think we are in the middle of
a change in arts funding that is not necessarily going to be good
for artists who can't deal with a day job. Jazz friends, who used
to do quite well in Europe due to its more liberal art funding,
have seen the bottom fall out there as Europe becomes andother
'lean, mean capitalist machine'.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with artists having
day jobs. There may be slightly less art, (which no-one will
notice since there is so much), but the artists can do what they
want rather than what they have to to make fame and glory (whether
that is "Hit me baby one more time" or "Piss Christ").

And Charles Ives didn't have a problem wth it either, God bless him!

Bob Valentine

>
> --Dan Stearns

>>>The last century does not convince me that the quest for
>>>originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
>>
>>I enjoy the music and art of the last century tremendously, and
>>think of it as the perfect continuation of previous centuries.
>
>Do you enjoy the aspect of originality at all costs, or the aspect
>of the continuation of previous centuries?

I don't think either item factors into my enjoyment of the music,
even if I did accept the first one as true.

>It seems to me that Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams,
>Nielsen, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Britten, Rachmaninov, Puccini,
>Hindemith, and many more are clearly in the second camp, and
>arguably even the Second Viennese School.

Who does that leave in the originality at any cost dept.?

>I think the somewhat more conservative camp is the most likely to
>endure.

Certainly Stravinsky, Shostakovitch, and Prokofiev will endure.
I heard a stunning Vaughan Williams piece on KDFC the other night
(variations on a theme by Tallis), and I once attended a concert
of of a choral fantasy by him, but this accounts for my only
exposure to Vaughan Williams. I have no exposure to Puccini. I
have never cared much for Sibelius or Hindemith. I love Nielsen
but almost consider him a 19th-century composer. I can't get an
objective view of Rach; I see him as brilliant within the confines
of the piano instrumentation, but probably not remarkable otherwise.
I have no idea who or what the Second Viennese School is, but I
have heard little Webern or Berg that excites me. Schoenberg, on
the other hand, was an unbelievable composer, though the more atonal
of his stuff can be annoying after a while.

Honeggar, Partch, Cowell, Nancarrow are some of my favs, with
honorable mention to Barber, Bernstein, Kabalevsky, Ginastera, and
probably more I'm forgetting. Which of these is original, or
not? It doesn't make sense.

-Carl

Everyone is ultimately their own final authority on these
issues...for better or for worse. No one can change that, so there's
no point in trying. However, ideally we should be able to cross-
fertilize and influence each other positively by sharing our ideas
and perceptions.

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Perhaps there should be an official arts' czar... you know, someone
> who knows for sure where coherency ends and chaos begins... someone
> who knows who's been naughty and who's been nice... what's art and
> what's professional wrestling... what's professional wrestling and
> what's noise... who's really hearing Bach and who's incapable of
> hearing Bach--Britney too.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 10:56 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: three years at the tuning list
>
>
> > I don't understand! How can an issue so central to art be
perceived
> > as "so distant" from it? A huge component of mainstream 20th
century
> > aesthetics seems to have been expressible, if I may crudely sum it
> > up, in the following ideas:
> >
> > "If it's not new and evolutionary, it has little aesthetic or
> > artistic merit. Innovation is everything. Craftsmanship and
> > expressive genius, if they are content to work within traditional,
> > established paradigms, are of little value."
> >
> > This thinking would have thrown out Bach and Mozart as of little
> > worth artistically, since unlike Beethoven and others, they were
> > quite conventional stylistically, content to refine to the utmost
> the
> > established traditions of their day. I think the pendulum needs to
> > swing back a bit in this direction from the extreme indulgences of
> > the last century, and is, I believe, doing so. In the long run,
> there
> > needs to be a healthy balance between innovation and
consolidation,
> > otherwise we end up with chaos as art and coherent artistic
> > expression, no matter how brilliant, eschewed as something
> abhorrent.
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> > > >The last century does not convince me that the quest for
> > > >originality at all costs, and safety last, is a good idea;
> > > >I think on the whole the 18th century was healthier, when
> > > >anyone felt free to copy anyone else or to repeat themselves.
> > > >In any case its the 21st century now, and we are all
> > > >supposed to have gotten over modernism.
> > >
> > > Questions like this seem to me so distant from art that I
> > > have a hard time thinking about them carefully.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
> Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> > Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> > Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> > Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/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@y... - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@y... - unsubscribe from the tuning
> group.
> > tuning-nomail@y... - put your email message delivery on
> hold for the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@y... - change your subscription to daily
> digest mode.
> > tuning-normal@y... - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> > tuning-help@y... - receive general help information.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#32180

> I'm not sure the music you refer to is art music. I'm not very
> interested in most pop composition, since I think most (please note
> that I said "most") commercially successful music is roughly
> equivalent to commercial "live studio" wrestling in terms of any
> abiding merit.
>

Hi Bob!

Have you heard of the group "Bang on a Can" in New York??

JP

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Have you heard of the group "Bang on a Can" in New York??

To be totally anal and pedanticly (sp?) clear about it, shouldn't
that be "Have you heard of the 'Bang on a Can' Festival in New York,
and/or the off-shoot group 'Bang on a Can All-Stars'?"

And, hopefully, good listeners would be aware of them, as well as
Icebreaker, the Paul Dresher Group, California E.A.R Unit, etc...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31872.html#32253

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Have you heard of the group "Bang on a Can" in New York??
>
> To be totally anal and pedanticly (sp?) clear about it, shouldn't
> that be "Have you heard of the 'Bang on a Can' Festival in New
York,
> and/or the off-shoot group 'Bang on a Can All-Stars'?"
>
> And, hopefully, good listeners would be aware of them, as well as
> Icebreaker, the Paul Dresher Group, California E.A.R Unit, etc...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon!

Well, by the nature of his posts, it wasn't clear the Bob Wendell had
heard of this kind of music going on... and these developments are
quite important in the current art scene, as you attest, whether
people like them or not!

best,

Joe