Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2009

On 4/12/02 2:48 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:15:01 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Retuned high third demo
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, the distance I moved the voices in order to match
> the new C
>> is of no import, Paul. Did you have something in mind?
>>
>> Jerry
>
> i thought you shifted the pitch *during* the example! sorry if i
> misconstrued.
>
> does this have any bearing on what francois found or the intervals
> therein?

Not really. It just offers a better aural impression of what the women were
singing in relation to a more accurate "check" pitch.

File it under "for whatever it's worth."

Jerry

On 4/12/02 2:48 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:18:35 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe our communication difficulties have
>>> more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as Bob and
>>> Paul maintain).
>>
>> i'm going to get to back to this logic stuff with you in private e-
>> mail, when i get a chance. the logic issue is completely independent
>> of the values issue -- the values could be exactly reversed and the
>> logic problem would remain exactly as it is.
>
> Bob comments:
> For those on this list who do not know, Jerry, Paul, and I have had
> extensive offline communications concerning this issue. What little I
> have posted online here for the tuning list in the meantime, since
> starting offline discussions, only reflects my attempt to address and
> hopefully eliminate the self-contradictions and inconsistencies that
> since then we have unfortunately been unable to work out even
> offline. I have given up trying.
>
> I had posted online my understanding of what Jerry has been trying to
> say, and Jerry confirmed it. Jerry has never produced an assessment
> of my views that even comes close, as I've previously stated. Now I
> don't even know if that understanding is actually a correct
> reflection of what Jerry thinks, because since then there have been
> serious contradicions and/or changes(?), I can't be sure which.
>
> Even so, both Paul and I have been told that our attempts to correct
> logical contradictions and fallacies are just a blind defense of our
> own positions (Paul's and my perspectives are not identical, as most
> of you know). Well, if there is any merit in Jerry's position,
> whatever it is, or even anything else new and independent of Jerry's
> position, maybe just a new way of looking at high thirds (the real
> ones Jerry proposes, that can be measured by frequency), I would be
> the among the first to want to know about and understand the
> phenomenon.
>
> As Paul has stated above, none of this has anything to do with my
> position. It has everything to do with untenable "logical" leaps and
> indecipherable self-contradictions. This is on top of being told I
> was simply stuck in a hardened position and that the attempts to
> correct logical contradictions, inconsistencies and fallacies are
> just an intensely defensive attempt to discredit Jerry's ideas. This
> has remained true in spite of restricting myself along with Paul to
> multiple attempts to establish coherent communications and lines of
> reasoning independent of "positions" or perceptions.
>
> It has become totally clear to me that I can say or do absolutely
> nothing to separate logic and substance or to disabuse Jerry of his
> assessment of my motivations, so I have confined myself to responding
> to new Jerries as they are posted with an honest description of my
> own perceptions.
>
Fair enough, Bob. Your statement here is pretty much what I understood you
to say during our off-list exchanges. And, if you don't mind, I'll be
pleased just to leave this right here.

The real value to me is your interest in the possibility to learn something
about this mysterious high third business. As I have said in an earlier post
today, your contributions have already contributed to a very important
observation for me. I'm pleased that you will continue to respond to any
upcoming aural examples.

Just don't try to "fix" my logic, please. As far as I'm concerned, it's
doing just fine.

Respectfully,

Jerry