For Julia Werntz -- PNM article enriches my music

Hello, there, Julia Werntz and everyone.

Thank you for most courteous reply to my previous "sisterly response,"
and I am happily able now to participate in a more informed dialogue,
having found and read your PNM article. I'm pleased to say that your
discussion of small melodic steps gave me the idea for a delightful
exercise for exploring step sizes that I tried today and love -- what
a gift!

That in itself was more than enough reason to read your article; I
realize that also I was discovering something about how another
musician and theorist views the universe of sound and composition,
always an enriching process that also may help me view my own
experience in better perspective.

There is a humorous story to tell which may demonstrate my
fallibilities, but first I would like to affirm a most important
point.

In the circumstances of last week, as I now realize, I could have and
should have indeed posted an article affirming friendship and
hospitality, and maybe sharing some of _my_ views, but carefully
avoiding and indeed renouncing any attempt to address _your_ views,
even by possible inference, until I had had a chance to read your
article.

Expressing my appreciation for your understanding of my good intent, I
must nevertheless say that if I had followed this wise counsel -- as
someone who should appreciate the value of going to primary sources --
I could have communicated my message of friendship while also offering
an example of better judgement.

Evidently you sensed my own mixed feelings on this in my earlier
article, and I'm pleased to say that we're in total agreement. Reading
my first post over again, I realize that I could have said everything
that I wanted to while affirming the importance of not judging a book
or journal article by its cover -- or by secondhand reviews, whatever
their merits.

Now for the humorous story. Last week, I went to the library and less
than flawlessly did a search for "Perspectives _in_ New Music,"
concluding that they didn't subscribe, and so it might be awhile
before I could get and read your article.

This week, however, I tried again with the correct "Perspectives _of_
New Music_ -- and yesterday found the issue with your article right
there on the shelf, waiting to be read.

For now, I'll address three quick points, warmly inviting further
dialogue on or off the list.

First, I consider the article an eloquent statement of your approach
to composition, and of the process of reasoning and selection of
materials which has brought you to where you are, with some
fascinating analysis of the music of Joe Manieri -- I loved that story
of the piece inspired by a medieval author also named Manieri from a
different part of the world!

Secondly, I realized something which neatly fits in with an
observation you make in one of your responses I saw today: your
remarks aren't intended to apply to "pre-equal-temperament" musics of
Western Europe, or to other world musics based on a range of tuning
systems.

This may explain why, as someone who follows traditions of early
European music, I find that the kinds of categories that you discuss
might not really map my conceptual world of musicmaking and tunings
very closely.

We can discuss this more, and I hope that such a dialogue might at
once promote friendship and understanding, and promote a richer
appreciation of the kind of pluralism to which we can all contribute
in our own special ways.

Finally, both your article and that by Bill Alves in the same issue
reminded me that my approach to counterpoint and consonance/dissonance
could give me a very different outlook on categorizing tunings than
someone coming from another kind of outlook might have.

There is much more to say about your article, but first I should get
some rest and take a bit of time to consider how best to communicate
my excitement.

Thank you for staying with this dialogue, for so graciously responding
to my earlier post, and for understanding my friendly intentions.

Simply by writing your article, you have already given me a precious
gift to enrich my musicmaking. Any opportunity to "compare notes" with
you, in this forum or elsewhere, would be an extra delight -- not a
"debate," but a kind of celebration of parallels and divergences, in
which some surprising common ground might emerge.

Thank you again for your patience, understanding, and generosity in
adding some important conceptual pitches to the gamut of our list.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

> fascinating analysis of the music of Joe Manieri

btw, that's spelled "Maneri".

Thanks, Margo. I feel almost spoiled by your letter.

I am happy if my essay can be this thought-provoking, whether it prompts readers
to consider this very different side of microtonality or to reaffirm their belief in
their chosen path (e.g. just intonation and other pure tuning methods).

Here's to more "comparing of notes."

-Julie