Re: [tuning] Multiple Lists (was Tuning-notation)

In a message dated 2/18/02 3:05:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tuning@orphonsoul.com writes:

> On 2/18/02 2:54 AM, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > I vote nay. There are too many lists as it is, and it makes people (or at
> > least me) miss things.
>
>

I agree. Competition between lists, as with competition between tunings, is
not healthy for us and for music, IMHO. For this reason I write only to the
main List (using Metatuning for overflow of the non-tuning related).
Sometimes, I check things on different lists. Everything I find appears to
fit quite well on the main List. What drew me to the List (at McLaren's
urging...who was never on it!) was a central location for Microtonal
information. There have been personality quirks to deal with, but other than
a rampage of people using false names for a short period of time, everyone on
this list is well meaning and trying to advance the knowledge and the musical
experiences of its correspondents. Rather than a different list, a different
subject heading would be more appropriate., IMHO.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Competition between lists, as with competition between tunings, is
> not healthy for us and for music, IMHO.

The issue of multiple lists has been debated much in the past. There
are varying viewpoints, from the one like Johnny's, which favors one
list, and spanning all the way to multiple-list viewpoints.

I don't believe that people set up lists in a competitive spirit, and
such 'competition' is in the eyes of the reader. What maybe people
have a hard time comprehending is that the subject of tuning, and
it's many (now) related areas (musicological tuning, active making of
microtonal music, theoretical interests, concert promotion, etc.) is
now such a big area as to warrant more than one list.

There will always be areas or topics so niche-oriented that all
important facets can be directed to one list, and then there are
topics that would be laughable to consider having only one place to
go. I would suggest simply that, in the 6-7 years of the tuning list
(s) existence, the field has grown from the former to (approaching)
the latter.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 2/18/02 11:14:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Competition between lists, as with competition between tunings, is
> > not healthy for us and for music, IMHO.
>
> The issue of multiple lists has been debated much in the past. There
> are varying viewpoints, from the one like Johnny's, which favors one
> list, and spanning all the way to multiple-list viewpoints.
>
> I don't believe that people set up lists in a competitive spirit, and
> such 'competition' is in the eyes of the reader.

Ah, so there is competition in my eyes but no one else. When people are
directed to different lists, as Jon does, then information gets divided and
split off. Why shouldn't JI people not share with the bigger family? How
does what I do have any less to do with practical microtonal composition and
performance?

> have a hard time comprehending is that the subject of
> tuning, and it's many (now) related areas (musicological tuning, active
> making of
> microtonal music, theoretical interests, concert promotion, etc.) is
> now such a big area as to warrant more than one list.
>

Ah, now I am less comprehending...all the above are certainly in my interest.
Even though there are some things that interest me less (like lots of
numbers) I wouldn't want to do without it. Why would anyone else risk losing
something important that comes down the pike? The microtonal community used
to be splintered off and we have come a long way to communicating with each
other. This magnitude of different lists is retro.

> There will always be areas or topics so niche-oriented that all
> important facets can be directed to one list, and then there are
> topics that would be laughable to consider having only one place to
> go. I would suggest simply that, in the 6-7 years of the tuning list
> (s) existence, the field has grown from the former to (approaching)
> the latter.
>
> Cheers,
>

What is not laughable is the creation of cliques within the microtonal
community. Whether one is against them intellectually or not, they are
furthered by the split of lists. This is taking "micro" too far (the
"splitting" I mean).

Even the recent polling of people toward the "ideologies" of JI was peculiar
to me. Since I use JI all the time, it strikes me odd that I am never
thought of as using JI. Why should new pigeon holes and rapid
compartmentalizing put microtonal interests in a straight jacket. (and hey,
I am not overly emotional about this...I'm just a passionate guy).

Speaking about people on lists where people are not on them might become a
problem. Why couldn't a group interested in a topic, say 3-5 persons, simply
just tie there names together in a mailing? Surely this is being done on
some level. We don't have the mental or technological resources any longer
to keep up with the microtonal world, let alone the technological and
mathematical worlds. Hey, I am only a musician that wants to see the good
trends continue. Isn't that practical?

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

You brought up a topic which had been discussed at great length
before. When I addressed the issues, I addressed them in general
terms. You are *not* the only one to think of it as competitive, so
you needn't take a personal offense.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Ah, so there is competition in my eyes but no one else.

See above; it was not an accusation, but I did not start a list as a
competition, nor did Paul Erlich (in tuning-math), and meta is
certainly a steam valve and not another 'sport'.

> When people are directed to different lists, as Jon does, then
> information gets divided and split off.

Or when Paul does to the math, etc. Yes, it does, and the only reason
is that the subject area - tuning - has grown large enough to support
lists dedicated to some subset of the information that is of
particular interest to an audience. What you don't seem to realize
(or acknowledge, maybe) is that the vast majority of those members on
the other lists still belong to tuning, so they aren't missing out.
And if you are concerned about a smaller subject area, you can simply
join and read if you don't feel like participating.

> Why shouldn't JI people not share with the bigger family?

Is there a JI list somewhere I don't know about?

> How does what I do have any less to do with practical microtonal
> composition and performance?

Who said it does?

> Ah, now I am less comprehending...

Only if the shoe fits, but I did not direct it personally, only that
this is the same arguement that others had before. Tell someone that
you want to find a mailing list on "programming" and ask them if
there is one list that will give you information you need. Of course
not - there would be dozens, hundreds of lists, as the subject is
large and diverse, with more than enough interest to satisfy many
smaller sub-groups.

And, when well-done, many members of these more tightly focused
groups will tell you that finding something that speaks more
specifically to their needs is valuable indeed. This doesn't stop
people from sharing/reading in the larger arena, but also allows them
to use their time more wisely and not have to delve into a lot of
posts that aren't in their area of current interest.

> Even though there are some things that interest me less (like lots
> of numbers) I wouldn't want to do without it. Why would anyone
> else risk losing something important that comes down the pike?

Well, I would just say that is a reasonable and personal response,
and I don't have a problem with it. The fact is that others may not
feel that way, and *don't* want to deal with posts that aren't
germain to their work or interest.

> This magnitude of different lists is retro.

It's a big world. We can all still communicate. And if microtonality
ever becomes bigger than the little corner it is now, it won't be
able to maintain a "one-stop shopping" scenario.

> What is not laughable is the creation of cliques within the
> microtonal community.

I was not aware that was what was happening. Certainly the people I
work and correspond with don't feel that way. In fact, my sense is
that for people participating in some of the other groups (and let's
be realistic: we're only talking about 3 or 4 groups) have a sense of
freedom of expression that isn't supported by the 'one group'
paradigm. The people at tuning-math can - and do - work tirelessly on
new areas, free from listening to carping (from people like me!)
about the preponderance of numerical activity. And at MMM, there are
a number of people who really *do* work on current
composing/performing/recording that maybe involves gear talk, or
recording procedures, etc., that is just a tad outside of the tuning-
centric theme of the main list.

Maybe clique can be used in a non-perjorative manner? I don't know,
because I have known it as a somewhat degrading term, but if a focus
group, with a clear mission, is a clique then so be it.

> Speaking about people on lists where people are not on them might
> become a problem.

I have no idea that this relates to.

> Why couldn't a group interested in a topic, say 3-5 persons, simply
> just tie there names together in a mailing?

I'm sure they do. MMM currently has nearly 80 members (who obviously
enjoy being there for *some* reason) and a mailing list would not be
feasible. In fact, Yahoo groups are nothing more than a mailing list
with a web-interface front end.

> We don't have the mental or technological resources any longer
> to keep up with the microtonal world

You're giving up to easily. Others aren't: check out Jacky
Ligon's "The Microtonal Activist" - http://tma.asgarddesign.net/ (if
you haven't already) - I'd wager he thinks just the opposite, that we
have new-found opportunities to enlarge the audience and the
knowledge.

> Hey, I am only a musician that wants to see the good trends
> continue. Isn't that practical?

Absolutely. And you're more that "only a musician", so don't sell
yourself short!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
> Trying to publish what we do on the web so that folks can make
> better sense of it, is the very purpose of TMA.

And there you go: he reads the lists, *and* he publishes. The word
_will_ get out...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Competition between lists, as with competition between
tunings, is
> > not healthy for us and for music, IMHO.
>
> The issue of multiple lists has been debated much in the past.
There
> are varying viewpoints, from the one like Johnny's, which favors
one
> list, and spanning all the way to multiple-list viewpoints.
>
> I don't believe that people set up lists in a competitive spirit,
and
> such 'competition' is in the eyes of the reader. What maybe
people
> have a hard time comprehending is that the subject of tuning,
and
> it's many (now) related areas (musicological tuning, active
making of
> microtonal music, theoretical interests, concert promotion, etc.)
is
> now such a big area as to warrant more than one list.

i was skeptical about this viewpoint at first, but now it appears
clear to me that many, if not most, list members are
overwhelmed by the volume here. in the interest of promoting
diversity and inclusiveness, splitting by category now seems like
an excellent idea. each person is free to subscribe to whatever
areas they're interested in. competition is not an issue at all -- i
can't think of one example where there has been any form of
competition between the spin-off lists that exist so far (though i
avoided most of the nonsense on crazy-music).

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/18/02 11:14:18 AM Eastern Standard
Time,
> JSZANTO@A... writes:
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > Competition between lists, as with competition between
tunings, is
> > > not healthy for us and for music, IMHO.
> >
> > The issue of multiple lists has been debated much in the
past. There
> > are varying viewpoints, from the one like Johnny's, which
favors one
> > list, and spanning all the way to multiple-list viewpoints.
> >
> > I don't believe that people set up lists in a competitive spirit,
and
> > such 'competition' is in the eyes of the reader.
>
> Ah, so there is competition in my eyes but no one else. When
people are
> directed to different lists, as Jon does, then information gets
divided and
> split off.

this is only done for the benefit of those who do not have the time
or interest to be involved in all the discussions.

> Why shouldn't JI people not share with the bigger family?

there is no separate list for JI -- at least none that have been
active for the past year or so.

> How
> does what I do have any less to do with practical microtonal
composition and
> performance?

you, of all people, should be subscribed to makemicromusic,
johnny. there are people there who can't be bothered to read this
list, and vice versa -- it's not so hard to read both. i bet marc
jones could set it up for you so that it all still appeared to be one
list.

> Speaking about people on lists where people are not on them
might become a
> problem.

i think most of us have been victims of that during the
crazy-music debacle, but i haven't seen a single instance of that
kind of unethical behavior since then. if you're concerned about
being misrepresented, you could ask marc to set up your
mailbox to only show messages where your name is mentioned.

again, my sole interest in this is to see that more people
participate in their field of interest, that more voices get heard. i'm
subscribed to many lists on tuning and on other subjects, many
with more members that this list, but the volume here is by far
the highest. i seem to be getting the message from some of the
'lurkers' that the flood of information is largely unmanageable for
them. why must it be so?

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
> > Trying to publish what we do on the web so that folks can make
> > better sense of it, is the very purpose of TMA.
>
> And there you go: he reads the lists, *and* he publishes. The word
> _will_ get out...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I'll give you a little personal window into the power of web
publishing. The way I found out about this big happy family on the
ATL, was when I contacted Master Monz and thanked him for something
I'd read on his web site. Before that - I didn't even know y'all
existed!

See - Master Monz has had it going on for a long time. And what a
wonderful resource he has created!

Thanks again Master Monz. You the Man - and The Master!

J:L

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> i seem to be getting the message from some of the 'lurkers' that
> the flood of information is largely unmanageable for them.
> why must it be so?

It needn't be, which is why the "focus group" lists have been a boon
rather than a bane. And you are correct: the only time I cross-post
(and it appears similar behavior from you and others) is to alert
people on the main list of some developments elsewhere they might be
interested in.

Cheers,
Jon

On 2/18/02 3:10 PM, "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> you, of all people, should be subscribed to makemicromusic,
> johnny. there are people there who can't be bothered to read this
> list, and vice versa -- it's not so hard to read both. i bet marc
> jones could set it up for you so that it all still appeared to be one
> list.
>
> you could ask marc to set up your
> mailbox to only show messages where your name is mentioned.
>

Johnny if you haven't noticed gets his email at AOL, which creates an
immediate answer for both situations.

1. Yes 2. No

AOL is the easiest place to read multiple lists. You go to the Yahoo group
website and make sure your membership is set on "Individual emails".

But... AOL is just that. A one-mailbox dumping ground:

First of all, hitting "Reply" to any message would send it back to where it
came from. If you chose to only *post* to one list with new material, of
course that's your perogative.

Otherwise, when a message comes in from a different group, you can click on
the icon to add it to your address book. Then you can post to any group you
want to by auto-addressing your mail through the address book.

So. It doesn't really make sense to object to a multiplicity of lists if
people decide to post to different lists and they all wind up in one
mailbox.

Marc

P.S. Oh by the way, why isn't any of this being referred to metatuning?
I've been out of the loop awhile, I thought meta was for discussion of the
appropriate use of lists? It seems to have a lot of news and such in it,
which I thought tuning gossip was for? I'd thought there would eventually
congeal a place where people would talk about anything and *then* if it
turned into tuning topics, it would go *back* to tuning.

On 2/18/02 10:10 AM, "Afmmjr@aol.com" <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> There have been personality quirks to deal with, but other than
> a rampage of people using false names for a short period of time, everyone on
> this list is well meaning and trying to advance the knowledge and the musical
> experiences of its correspondents.

Personally I think if personality quirks and false names can advance
knowledge of musical experiences... Umm... Nah never mind.

('x')

Marc,

My simpathies to Johnny, and anyone else (including my father) who
have to deal with AOL email! (I've recently found out that you can't
change the print font size for AOL mail, which isn't very kind to
senior citizens...)

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
> P.S. Oh by the way, why isn't any of this being referred to
> metatuning?

It sometimes takes just a moment to see how long a thread will go
before someone suggests "let's take it to metatuning". A topic that
initially addresses a group concern may start here, and move. It is
probably a good time to do that, so I'll post any replies there from
now on.

> I've been out of the loop awhile, I thought meta was for discussion
> of the appropriate use of lists?

Most all of the lists have gone fallow (but still exist), with tuning-
math, makemicromusic, and metatuning being the most active external
lists. Meta seems to have evolved into 1. the place to go to not
annoy the main list, and 2. the place for tuning list people to post
other stuff not about tuning.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> i seem to be getting the message from some of the
> 'lurkers' that the flood of information is largely unmanageable for
> them. why must it be so?

I don't understand why you see splitting off more and more lists as a
_solution_ to that! I think these folk just need to learn more
information management skills.

I find that split lists just makes it _harder_ to find the things I'm
interested in. My information management involves using the web
interface to search for keywords and to browse the titles and authors
of messages. Most email readers can do similar things if you get it by
email but this is more difficult to set up. When using the web, the
more groups there are, the more different places I have to go to and
repeat the same searches.

I was quite annoyed that a Miracle tuning group was set up with no
consultation. I think the need for a separate group for that has long
passed and I will not be visiting or contributing to it in future.

And why wasn't this discussion on meta-tuning (or is that
meta_underscore_tuning or tuning-hyphen-meta). Oh I suppose it is
by now, but I never remember to read _it_ either.

I think that meta-tuning (if people would use it), tuning-math and
make-micro-music are the only splits so far that may have been
worthwhile.

Anyway, I'm heavily into addiction mode at present and need to go cold
turkey on all the lists for a while. Bye.

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

> I think that meta-tuning (if people would use it), tuning-math and
> make-micro-music are the only splits so far that may have been
> worthwhile.

I agree, and I wish the other lists would dry up and blow away.

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

/tuning/topicId_34400.html#34425

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > i seem to be getting the message from some of the 'lurkers' that
> > the flood of information is largely unmanageable for them.
> > why must it be so?
>
> It needn't be, which is why the "focus group" lists have been a
boon
> rather than a bane. And you are correct: the only time I cross-post
> (and it appears similar behavior from you and others) is to alert
> people on the main list of some developments elsewhere they might
be
> interested in.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Actually, maybe all we need is a few ALERTS! on this main list
just saying go to such and such a list to find out about some bit
development, etc... (with a link)

JP