Re: [tuning] Re: Carl

In a message dated 3/8/02 6:34:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, carl@lumma.org
writes:

> The 45-minutes of a guy making metal-sraping noises,
> however, is stuck in all our minds for eternity.
>

No idea what you mean. Who?

> Johnny, I bid you no ill will. You played marvelously
> on many occasions... most memorable for me was the
> (non-quartertone) Wyschnegradsky piece at the 2000
> AFMM concert. I told you afterwards how well I thought
> it came off.

Carl, really, we are fine as people. It's about the facts. For example, the
Wyschnegradsky piece DID have plenty of quartertones and sixthtones (which of
course included notated thirdtones) throughout. Only the piano had no
quartertones. Could it be you didn't notice them because they were played so
naturally?

> I haven't heard your ensemble do the things you claim
> it does. Now you know. Can you live with this?
>
Yes, and now you can temper your wilder assumptions until you have. It's the
same thing as researching a book.

> You thought my piece didn't belong in your program, at
> best. Now I know. I can live with it.
>
>

And not because it was a BAD piece. It was a fine short composition, only it
was completely out of tune. And you were its director, regardless of what
fate put in front of you. You were the one who had the info to pull it as it
was not ready. That is a level of professionalism that is obviously new to
you.

What is most important for me to express to you is that we all have different
things running around in our noodles and should be extra careful in making
repeated public criticisms based entirely on assumptions.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>>The 45-minutes of a guy making metal-scraping noises,
>>however, is stuck in all our minds for eternity.
>
>No idea what you mean. Who?

There were a couple of numbers I considered noise. The
Cage for prepared piano was what I was referring to.

>Carl, really, we are fine as people. It's about the facts. For
>example, the Wyschnegradsky piece DID have plenty of quartertones
>and sixthtones (which of course included notated thirdtones)
>throughout. Only the piano had no quartertones. Could it be you
>didn't notice them because they were played so naturally?

Possibly. We may be speaking of a different piece, too. This
was at the end of the 2000 concert, at the Quaker (IIRC) school.
After you said you were worried about programming a 12-tone work,
but thought it was so great a work, and all music is microtonal
anyway, that you included it. I agreed. Maybe you were just
referring to the piano.

>And you were its director, regardless of what fate put in front of you.
>You were the one who had the info to pull it as it was not ready. That
>is a level of professionalism that is obviously new to you.

That was new to me, you bet! It was my first public performance.
Since I have given two more with much better (5-limit) results.

I stand by my remarks, which may be incorrect but are based on easily
a books-worth of research.

-Carl

Please, you have been asked before, please, could you please give the name
of the person you are quoting. I want to follow what you are saying but just
have to give up all too often. Others are quite good at referencing the
quotes they are responding to.

Hopefully, this will not be too difficult. Johnny

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> Please, you have been asked before, please, could you please give
> the name of the person you are quoting. I want to follow what you
> are saying but just have to give up all too often. Others are
> quite good at referencing the quotes they are responding to.
>
> Hopefully, this will not be too difficult. Johnny

Geez, I thought I was doing much better at that. I'll redouble
my efforts. -Carl

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Please, you have been asked before, please, could
> you please give the name of the person you are quoting.
> I want to follow what you are saying but just
> have to give up all too often. Others are quite
> good at referencing the quotes they are responding to.
>
> Hopefully, this will not be too difficult. Johnny

I second that, and double the emphasis Johnny used.

It drives me crazy when i try to follow a discussion
in which you're involved, in which i haven't completely
read every post, and i have no idea who wrote what
you're quoting.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
> I second that, and double the emphasis Johnny used.

Well, it is insensitive, it is arrogant, but mainly it is plainly
lazy. If Carl really cared about communication, he would take the
handful of nanoseconds to allow the quoted material to be attributed.
After all these years, with constant reminders, we ALL know that he is
a tech god, and is light years ahead of anyone else on these lists
with anything relating to hard- or software. He certainly knows how to
massage list correspondence.

Which is all to say: Carl, could you include the quote attribution?
Thanks ever so much.

Love,
Jon

> Which is all to say: Carl, could you include the quote attribution?
> Thanks ever so much.

I'll make a special exception for you.

-Carl

> I'll make a special exception for you.

:) My god, look at the time I posted - I must have been nuts!
Actually, I had been out at a new music club, spur of the moment call
from friends, and had a grand old time, including probably just 1/2 a
glass too much of a nice Zinfandel.

So, while I really wish you would attribute quotes (and it was JR that
brought it up, not me), I really do apologize for the snarky tone of
the post I made last night (early this morn, really). Sorry.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
> > I'll make a special exception for you.
>
> :) My god, look at the time I posted - I must have been nuts!
> Actually, I had been out at a new music club, spur of the moment call
> from friends, and had a grand old time, including probably just 1/2 a
> glass too much of a nice Zinfandel.
>
> So, while I really wish you would attribute quotes (and it was
> JR that brought it up, not me), I really do apologize for the
> snarky tone of the post I made last night (early this morn,
> really). Sorry.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Ok, ok, I've had a few of those myself lately.

-Carl

Carl,

I'm ditto with Johnny on this one. Down with
anonymous quotes. You're generally a thorough writer
- I hope this is just an oversight.

Mark

--- Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Please, you have been asked before, please, could
> you please give the name
> of the person you are quoting. I want to follow
> what you are saying but just
> have to give up all too often. Others are quite
> good at referencing the
> quotes they are responding to.
>
> Hopefully, this will not be too difficult. Johnny
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's
> new at http://www.aol.com
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

Carl,

the Harmonic Series 12 to 24 scale is now my favorite just scale and I'm going to put it on my website. I'm going to give credit to you for finding it (i.e. finding the best scale that fits my 24 Limit criterion). I'm going to call it "Rainbow JI". Is this okay with you?

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> the Harmonic Series 12 to 24 scale is now my favorite just
> scale and I'm going to put it on my website. I'm going to give
> credit to you for finding it (i.e. finding the best scale that
> fits my 24 Limit criterion). I'm going to call it "Rainbow JI".
> Is this okay with you?

Call it whatever you like, but such scales go back before me.
Denny Genovese called it "mode 12".

-Carl