Re: [tuning] Re: More Understanding-to Julia.2

And hello again to you, Julia.

> Hi again.
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> However, I could not (and should not) be quoted third hand to the
> > Internet. If I spoke to them about you it was about composition, not the
>
> > paper.
> >
>
> Well, actually I was responding more to something you yourself posted on
> Metatuning, in which you describe informing Mat, it seems, of some sort of
>
> intolerance on my part.
> /metatuning/topicId_2475.html#2475
> (Joe Pehrson and Paul Erlich had been saying repeatedly that Metatuning was
> the
> place to go with this dialogue, so I checked it out, though I didn't find
> much.) Joe
> Maneri knows my article inside-out, and Mat has had his own copy if it for
> a long
> time, though who knows if he's read it. He has known me and my approach for
>
> years, so it's just the same. We can let this issue go, though, if you
> wish.
>

I wrote: "I told him of Julia's 72-tone bias and the division she
is perceived to be drawing between JI and exotic tunings....and the further
fracturing of 12 ET. He was glad to be told (as I said to him, so he
wouldn't be blindsided). He knew nothing of this but told me squarely that
he does not share this view."

Here I wrote of tongue-in-cheek of a 72 bias to the son of the major US
proponent.
Julia, you have not been clear. Otherwise, there would not be a "perception"
that you are intolerant. I hope to speak with them soon (Christine and Mat).

> >And I think the usage by PNM is paramount to what is gained by you.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The sum value of the PNM
> essay is
> nothing more than how it has served *me*?
>

You are serving PNM more than you may realize. More on this for private
communication.

> > Truly, I have avoided theory all my life as a career. After 4
> postgraduate
> > years at Columbia in ethnomusicology and theory, I was supposed to move
> > exclusively to theory. Ethno kicked me out, but theory was unsatisfying.
>
> > Composition and Performance are my favorites. Theory took the gut joy
> out of
> > playing. Composing is independent of theory. Besides, theories that are
>
> > based on style are ipso-facto biased.
>
> I share these sentiments, more or less. My Ph.D. is actually in Composition
> and
> Theory, but I've never had the heart of a theorist (which may be one reason
> I was
> never drawn to JI or other tuning fields).

Julia, I think it is mainly life experience. You never were seduced by the
beautiful sounds that are just. As for my polymicrotonal material, I don't
think you have heard any of it. Nor an AFMM concert. I'm not sure you know
much outside the University experience.

Theory for me is useless unless it can > help us figure out how to compose our
> own music, or help us understand the music
> of others. In other words, I'd say that theory *is* about how music is
> composed,
> put together, and nothing more, for me.

This is fine with me.

> There seems to be an impression that I am advising avoiding fifths, thirds,
> etc.
> (12-note ET or "almost-just"). What I actually wrote in PNM (see page 189)
> about
> this was advice to try to de-emphasize *all* of the familiar, traditional
> intervals of
> 12-note ET. All of them. (Some of you guys ought to like that!) My exact
> words:
> "A concerted effort to *avoid* emphasis of the traditional intervals is
> based, of
> course, not on some presumed criteria regarding the quality of certain
> relationships [no "synaesthesia" here], but rather upon the need simply to
> experience the new relationships, to become familiar with them and give
> them
> musical relevance." Isn't that pretty benign?
>

The question that seems to be shaping up is whether to hear music in
relationship to something that is being avoided, or listening to new
intervals based on ridding old habits. Doesn't the music give the new
relationships relevance? How did your paper improve upon that relevance?

> I never would have stated that I, or Joe, or Mat - I didn't even discuss Mat
> in the
> essay - compose or play without "low number superparticular," as you put
> it.
> (Octaves, fifths, thirds.) We just use different shades of them. A major
> third
> augmented by 33 cents, for example, has a delicious flavor, and so on. At
> the same time, the interrelatedness of different, even parallel, musical
> traditions isn't the same thing as their having the same demands. (Joe has
> never been much of a
> rocker, or a minimalist, by the way.) And under whose guidance do you think
> I
> came to these ideas (like the ones I mention above on p189 of PNM)? Joe's,
> of
> course. He was my teacher for ten years!
>
> -Julia
>

Yes, I know you studied with Joe. He's an old friend. What I am responding
to now is the perception that you are missing a perspective that your article
is more PNM than it is AFMM.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

> Julia, you have not been clear. Otherwise, there would not be a "perception"
> that you are intolerant.

If you had read the paper carefully - which you say you haven't - you would know
that I have been crystal clear about my position. The writing is dense, and unless
one reads it carefully - and if one comes at it with strong preconceptions about
what I *might* be saying - one can get the wrong impression, which has happened
with a few of the Tuning List members, and has *not* happened with other
members. I was aware, when writing, that I would not have the luxury of knowing
that all readers would take my words at face value - the way they are intended. But
I was unable to write any other way than clear and straight-forward. I did write a
page or so to acknowledge the beautiful work of some composers, such as Ezra
Sims, Ben Johnston, Manfred Stahnke, etc., and in that section stated my belief that
it's possible to make good music with JI. But I judged that adding *further*
paragraphs here and there to reassure the reader of my good intentions would
have added unecessary bulk to an already wordy paper, though perhaps this was a
misjudgement, after all.

> Julia, I think it is mainly life experience. You never were seduced by the
> beautiful sounds that are just. As for my polymicrotonal material, I don't
> think you have heard any of it. Nor an AFMM concert. I'm not sure you know
> much outside the University experience.

Johnny Reinhard, where on Earth did these remarks come from? You certainly
know nothing at all about me and my life experience. Are you basing this on the
mere fact that I completed a Ph.D.? Are you in the habit of accusing all people with
Ph.D.'s of "not knowing much outside the university experience"? Maybe in the
future you'll at the very least wait until you get to know something about people
before you engage in the sport of hurtful public statements about their characters.
I'm trying to figure out what motivates you to say such things.

By the way, I've been to two AFMM concerts, and have heard your music on these
concerts. And, no, I was never seduced by just intonation. I was seduced, and
continue to be seduced, by the sound of new intervals in general.

Doesn't the music give the new
> relationships relevance? How did your paper improve upon that relevance?

Yes, of course the music gives the new relationships relevance. That is what I was
writing about in Part 2, in case you ever wish to read it. And of course I never
intended for the *paper* to give them relevance.

What I am responding
> to now is the perception that you are missing a perspective that your article
> is more PNM than it is AFMM.

I was never concerned with "being PNM" or "being AFMM," whatever these labels
symbolize to you.

Hi Julia,

The results of the list, as contrasting as they seem to be, is do your
communications. Some of it was in a paper, some in an abstract, some on the
List. Everyone had different time to spend on the product. Clearly, we are
bewildered about what you are in fact are saying. I don't have the time to
spend on this paper, unfortunately. But if there is this much confusion on
my part, or so many others, than your writing can be clearer.

> > Julia, I think it is mainly life experience. You never were seduced by
> the
> > beautiful sounds that are just. As for my polymicrotonal material, I
> don't
> > think you have heard any of it. Nor an AFMM concert. I'm not sure you
> know
> > much outside the University experience.
>
> Johnny Reinhard, where on Earth did these remarks come from? You certainly
> know nothing at all about me and my life experience. Are you basing this
> on the
> mere fact that I completed a Ph.D.? Are you in the habit of accusing all
> people with
> Ph.D.'s of "not knowing much outside the university experience"? Maybe in
> the
> future you'll at the very least wait until you get to know something about
> people
> before you engage in the sport of hurtful public statements about their
> characters.
> I'm trying to figure out what motivates you to say such things.
>

I am saying nothing negative about your character. And I have nothing
against people who have a PhD. In fact, I am hurt that you think I am
engaging in sport that is hurtful. Aren't you wildly exaggerating here?

What I am saying (in this imperfect medium) is that unless you are drawing
distinctions between things, I am not sure why or what you are saying. Yes,
I recognize that people just finishing many years of University in a single
town tend to be a bit less understanding of all that is. I thought that was
a given. Do you disagree? Will you in 20 years?

> By the way, I've been to two AFMM concerts, and have heard your music on
> these
> concerts. And, no, I was never seduced by just intonation. I was seduced,
> and
> continue to be seduced, by the sound of new intervals in general.
>
>

I believe this statement stands for itself and needs no more commentary on
part.

best, Johnny Reinhard