Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning I deleted my post!

Er.. yes, I did that. Big deal. But, I had written a rather
vitriolic reaction to the Julia Werntz dissertation extract. My
thought was that the diss. was "dissing" whole schools of
composition, and I didn't react too favorably to that.

However, after a rather lengthy discussion with Julia herself (she
was mad about my madness)... I decided to *retract* my statement.

Well, it really *was* premature, since I had not read the entire
dissertation *nor* the article in Perspectives.

Julie insists that her viewpoint, which is *meant* to be challenging,
but not *mean spirited* as, I feel, it comes off in this extract, is
not serviced by the extract that was posted here, and she wishes that
people not read that.

The thing to read is the article in Perspectives which is written for
the "general public" and which will, supposedly, put it all into
Perspective!

So, let's get ahold of *that* one before we "blow off steam." I
already made that mistake!

Joseph

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> However, after a rather lengthy discussion with Julia herself (she
> was mad about my madness)... I decided to *retract* my statement.

Gad, Joe, you *always* do that! Stick with your thoughts!

> Well, it really *was* premature, since I had not read the entire
> dissertation *nor* the article in Perspectives.

Sure, it's no fun to shoot first and ask questions later, but... see
below.

> Julie insists that her viewpoint, which is *meant* to be
> challenging, but not *mean spirited* as, I feel, it comes off in
> this extract

I felt no mean spirit. I just found the statements ludicrous.

> not serviced by the extract that was posted here, and she wishes
> that people not read that.

Huh? It was the premise of her paper, and if one finds fault right
off the bat, what is one to think?

> The thing to read is the article in Perspectives which is written
> for the "general public" and which will, supposedly, put it all
> into Perspective!

Meaning the dis is for her professors only? Or that it would be over
our head? OK, I'm gonna get a hold of the PNM article, hopefully
tomorrow. And put this one to rest, at least from my 'perspective'.

> So, let's get ahold of *that* one before we "blow off steam." I
> already made that mistake!

I don't believe I made a mistake, so I don't have to take steam-
blowing precautions.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@aracnet.com>

Well, given that it's only 83 pages, I decided to purchase and read it. I'll
let you all know what I think when I'm done with it. I guess my frame going
into this, though, is that Harry Partch did what he did following *his*
muse, Lou Harrison following *his* muse, and I do what I do for pretty much
the same reason, given my skill set and the time I have available to devote
to composition.

That said, why am *I* a micro / xentonalist? I think for all of the reasons
Werntz cites: a desire to use existing musical materials from times and
places other than the times and places covered by the 12-tone equal tempered
scale, a belief in the *sounds* of just intonation, though not necessarily
the numerology thereof, and an "urge to add pitches ". In the end, though, I
think I align more with the psychoacoustic and xentonal schools of
composition than I do with, say, Partch. As you probably know, I used Partch
's materials for a recent piece but never wished to limit myself to that
scheme, as rich in resources as it happens to be. And I probably drifted
from my core goal, which is to create music using computers that can't be
done with more conventional technologies. I suspect a choir could execute
"When Harry Met Iannis" fairly easily, for example.

I'm moving on, as I've noted, to some more complex algorithmic composition,
and my next piece will probably be xentonal in the Sethares sense rather
than microtonal in the Partch sense. I'm trying to move from Sethares'
"weird but pleasant" music to something "alien yet hauntingly beautiful". I
fully expect to spend at least three months on this next one, and maybe
more.

-----Original Message-----
From: jpehrson2 [mailto:jpehrson@rcn.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:06 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] I deleted my post!

However, after a rather lengthy discussion with Julia herself (she
was mad about my madness)... I decided to *retract* my statement.

Well, it really *was* premature, since I had not read the entire
dissertation *nor* the article in Perspectives.

The thing to read is the article in Perspectives which is written for
the "general public" and which will, supposedly, put it all into
Perspective!

So, let's get ahold of *that* one before we "blow off steam." I
already made that mistake!

Joseph

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050324
01:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1022558777%3eM=22
6014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705032401:HM/A=1000239/R=1>

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_37078.html#37082

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > However, after a rather lengthy discussion with Julia herself
(she
> > was mad about my madness)... I decided to *retract* my statement.
>
> Gad, Joe, you *always* do that! Stick with your thoughts!
>
> > Well, it really *was* premature, since I had not read the entire
> > dissertation *nor* the article in Perspectives.
>
> Sure, it's no fun to shoot first and ask questions later, but...
see below.
>
> > Julie insists that her viewpoint, which is *meant* to be
> > challenging, but not *mean spirited* as, I feel, it comes off in
> > this extract
>
> I felt no mean spirit. I just found the statements ludicrous.
>
> > not serviced by the extract that was posted here, and she wishes
> > that people not read that.
>
> Huh? It was the premise of her paper, and if one finds fault right
> off the bat, what is one to think?
>
> > The thing to read is the article in Perspectives which is written
> > for the "general public" and which will, supposedly, put it all
> > into Perspective!
>
> Meaning the dis is for her professors only? Or that it would be
over our head? OK, I'm gonna get a hold of the PNM article, hopefully
> tomorrow. And put this one to rest, at least from my 'perspective'.
>
> > So, let's get ahold of *that* one before we "blow off steam." I
> > already made that mistake!
>
> I don't believe I made a mistake, so I don't have to take steam-
> blowing precautions.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Well, Jon, certainly you didn't make a "mistake" and given what
you read your reactions were almost *exactly* what *mine* were. It
seemed to me that she was dissing Partch, JI composers, the entire JI
school and world musics and was promoting equal temperament and the
European modernist use of microtones.

I was angry that she was setting up these divisions in an area that
*already* is such a small subset of a subset, i.e. microtonalists,
and therefore, I wrote a vitrolic post to this forum.

Now, all the *sensible* people who were actually out *enjoying*
Memorial Day rather than sitting at the computer, didn't read that.
However, shortly thereafter I received a *very* strong e-mail from
Julia herself, and I *had* been in contact with her previously.

She felt that the extract did not really portray her attitudes
correctly, but that she is actually taking an "anti-academic" stance
in the support of the kind of pitch addition/usage employed by Joe
Maneri, since his music is what the diss. is about.

So, I deleted my post to be fair. Julie says people should read the
PERSPECTIVES article carefully and *then* judge. So I will do that,
if I can get ahold of it.

She was correct in asserting that I had responded to the extract
without either reading the entire diss. *or* the article and one
could make a case for the fact that that is unfair.

If, after reading the Perspectives article, I come to the same
conclusions -- quite frankly, Jon, I can't see how my attitudes are
going to change all that much, since I thought the extract was pretty
clear :) -- I will write about it.

So, maybe I'm not even reversing my opinion. Julia is *encouraging*
discussion on the diss., and I'm prepared to do that.

So, I'm not really *reversing* just witholding judgement until I read
the Perspectives.

I'm sure Julie will be happy to have thoughtful commentary on her
diss. even if it disses the diss. At least that's the sentiment I
get from her.

Please keep in mind also, Jon, that she *was* somebody I had had
pleasant correspondence with before, so she isn't somebody that I
totally didn't know...

Joe

🔗David Beardsley <davidbeardsley@biink.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Robert Greco <robgreco@hotmail.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Greco" <robgreco@h...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37078.html#37129

Frankly, I think you should post it to the Web.

mp3.com is one alternative, and there are appearing other ones.

After you've "advertised" it sufficiently that way, and if people
like it, perhaps it could be included on a concert series, although
there aren't too many of those which cater to electronic pieces.

Or you could also assemble a CD yourself of the works, as many people
on this list have done and send it around or sell it.

best,

J. Pehrson
>