Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1999

On 4/4/02 9:04 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 04:27:40 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
>> Perhaps someone would measure the frequencies on my "amusing" high-
> third
>> demos. (Measure *between* the wobbles, of course.) That might be
> helpful in
>> making the decision whether or not to go any further with high-third
>> jerries.
>
> Bob Wendell:
> I assume "amusing" is a reference to my use of that word in an
> earlier post. "Amusing", if you go back and read my post and refrain
> from divorcing the word from context, describes my enjoyment of
> the "almost irrestible attraction" that a clean, just 4:5 third has
> for the ear. It refers to that and nothing more. You also did this
> with "naive" when I used it to refer to experimental subjects in a
> well-known study of pitch/frequency correlation.

Bob, your overall *glee* in finding fault with the demos was unmistakable.

As you may remember, I complimented you when you *withdrew* the "naïve"
reference. Evidently, you now have some regret in that regard. Is that
because Paul later defended that choice of words.
>
> I ask that you please read with context in mind and refrain from
> automatically applying to yourself adjectives you find disagreeable,
> without any thought to their actual targets, just because I
> challenge your position.

You are welcome to challenge my "position" any time. That's how I learn.
Evidently, you feel I should not challenge yours. I assumed that challenging
is important to progress in the process of intellectual exchange. Am I
wrong?

>I also beg you to refrain from subtle and
> prejudicial polemics in our threads such as the reference to my use
> of "amusing". If you felt insulted by my honest depiction of my
> perceptions, then I feel that discourages the clear, honest statement
> of opinions, something you have said you value.

Bob, I read your comment in the "context" of your continually bitter
responses to my questioning your statements.
>
> If your ideas have real merit, then it is unnecessary to resort to
> any tactics aimed at discrediting challenges to them.

True. However, it is often necessary to offer clarifications when
"challenges" appear to be off the mark. Why do you take my attempts at
clarification to be "tactics"?

> Instead I
> suggest using clear reasoning.

I try. But then I happen to be imperfect. Perhaps you could help me, since
your reasoning is apparently beyond questioning.

> I have responded to your position by
> stating my understanding of it for you succinctly in easy-to-
> understand steps, and as requested, you confirmed with no
> reservations whatsoever that my understanding was indeed accurate.

That is correct. And you have done an accurate job of restating most of my
concerns here.
>
> So far you have failed to respond in kind. I have only received
> responses characterized by defensive distortions of my positions. No
> description of yours relating to my position has come close to
> anything I could confirm as accurate.

That may simply be because I don't understand your "position." I didn't know
you had one. Perhaps you could state it.

You have offered your opinions and reported your perceptions regarding the
jerries. Is that what you mean by "position"?
>
> Paul understands my position so well he was actually able to very
> effectively answer as if he were I in responding to one of your posts
> step by step. He did an accurate, absolutely stellar job. I couldn't
> have done it better myself. You, on the other hand, even with
> plentiful corrective input from both Paul and me, have consistently
> distorted my position, with all kinds of projections concerning my
> motives and supposed desire to coerce you and others into my way of
> thinking. So far, the more we try to correct you understading of my
> position, the more entangled it gets...endlessly.

By the phrase "corrective input" do you mean "clarification of your point of
view"? Or, do you mean "ideas that Jerry should swallow uncritically simply
because you and/or Paul stated them"? Your answer here should be
enlightening.

Bob, we have hashed through this bickering off-list for a few days now. You
asked me to "refrain from any further intimations or direct
statements of my [your] having waffled or changed positions on what I [you]
originally heard." I agreed to do that. Now you drag this wrangling to the
list. What does that accomplish? This is not a contest to see who "wins."
It's an exchange of ideas that might help to shed light on the "high third,"
an observation I have made for many decades. That's it. No ego. No
predetermined "position." Just honest inquiry with the help of folks who
know something about pitch relations and perceptual anomalies.

If my *questions* regarding your reported perceptions appeared to be
personal challenges, I apologize. When I suggested you were waffling, it was
because it appeared to me that you *were*.
>
> I have clearly stated your position, which in spite of my clarity
> concerning what it is, frankly makes no sense to me.

Interesting that you can state my thinking in your own terms yet can't
understand it. Sorry it's still a mystery to you. In some ways, it's still a
mystery to me as well, if that makes you feel any better. By the way, I have
no "position." What we learn here we learn. That's it.

Also, even my report of hearing singers commonly use the high third is
subject to "correction." Who knows? The *whole thing* may be an illusion.
That's what I'm here to try to find out. In that regard, the frequency
analysis of the "baby choir" demo seems to show that the sung pitches are in
fact real frequencies. I guess we can't just blow that away as "illusion."

> I ask you to
> make a similarly honest and forthright attempt to understand my
> postion; not to agreee with it, but to simply demonstrate to me that
> you understand it clearly. If you attempt this till you get it right,
> I will confirm its accuracy for you.

As you said of my "position," it makes no sense to me. I cannot say that
about yours because I don't know that you have stated a position. You have
reported perceptions, quoted studies and evidently drawn your own
conclusions about them. I have spent hours with you reflecting my
impressions and asking for clarifications. What more can I do?
>
> Only after you've done this can we have a reliable platform from
> which to conduct further communications. I ask that any such further
> communications be free of accusations of alledged ulterior motives
> and that you accept my statements concerning my perceptions at face
> value wihtout questioning my integrity in describing them. You don't
> have to agree with them, but only accept them as my honestly
> described perceptions.

As I said off-list, your honesty was never in question. That's *your*
impression, not mine. The only things I questioned had to do with what I
suspected might not actually relate to the facts. I think I have an
obligation to voice those questions order to discover whether my suspicions
(not your honesty) are accurate or not.
>
> I also ask that if you're not capable of responding without logical
> flaws in your conclusions and responses regarding either your
> perceptions or our communications with each other, that you at least
> remain open to corrections to those flaws when we point them out,
> rather than simply resorting to disparaging polemics and doubts
> concerning the integrity of our motives.

Noting that you appear to have changed your report after talking with Paul
is not a "disparaging polemic." It simply notes that you in fact *did*. You
confirmed this to Joe. When I attempted to discuss it you took it as
offensive. If my "style" appeared antagonistic, I apologize. I'm not the
first one on this list to come off that way, not will I be the last. (Which
doesn't make it right, however.)
>
> Please respond step by step with clear, well-reasoned statements and
> questions. This will provide a simple format that allows quick, well-
> placed responses that correct any misperceptions and logical flaws
> without getting buried in unproductive rhetoric.

I don't think I have the time to go over every post we have made and try to
sort out the communication problem. In any case, my extensive efforts
off-list seems to have made no dent. Why would further attempts be any more
successful.
>
> These are the only conditions under which I agree to spend my
> precious time in further discussion in this particular thread. Thank
> you in advance for your cooperation, Jerry.

Sorry not to accommodate you on this, Bob. I've done what I can to clarify
my thoughts. I'm afraid it'll just have to rest there.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bob

Likewise,

Jerry

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1999

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗katsuda <KATSUDA@NET.EMAIL.NE.JP>