Re: Re: More Understanding-to Julia.2 (Reinhard's & others' comments)

Hello Johnny !

On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 02:56 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>> Re Julia's Perspective article, it is naive. It is difficult >> for anyone to
>> publish a theory of music that is not naive. Paul could try >> to measure on a
>> scale of naivete for theory manifestos. I am sure that Julia >> meant well,
>> believing that of most human beings. But she does not share >> the musical
>> languages that others are fluent with. My musical life >> flourishes with
>> improvisation and composition, with performance and >> production. It is a rich
>> and fascinating world we share and there are a myriad of >> perspectives. How
>> can one rule one superior to another? Isn't this like >> cultural hegemony?
>

On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 02:24 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Afmmjr@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Re: More Understanding-to Julia.2

> Julia, you have not been clear.

Like crystal, actually.

> Otherwise, there would not be a "perception"
> that you are intolerant.

I'm quite certain it is respondents here who have been intolerant.

> And I think the usage by PNM is paramount to what is gained by you.

You should clarify what you mean by this statement that can be interpreted to be ungracious, to put it lightly.

> Clearly, we are
> bewildered about what you are in fact are saying.

Hmm, I've understood her quite well. Paul E. appears to have as well.

> I don't have the time to
> spend on this paper, unfortunately.

I doubt it would make a difference, unfortunately.

> But if there is this much confusion on
> my part, or so many others, than your writing can be clearer.

Perhaps in hindsight and with deference to the language and terminology used on this forum, a slight tweaking of semantics *might* help. But if an idiot savant like me can adjust my thinking cap enough to grasp her ideas very clearly as is, I have my doubts.

> In fact, I am hurt that you think I am
> engaging in sport that is hurtful. Aren't you wildly > exaggerating here?

I don't think she's exaggerating. Personally, if I were in her shoes, with her credentials, I'd be a lot more forthright in my response to you.

> 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

You're not criticising what you don't even understand, are you ?

I'm sure (I hope !) you didn't mean it to come out that way, but I found most of your responses to Julia hovering between pompous and patronising. The low points of the entire we-
don't-understand-Julia-she-must-be-an-idiot thread.

In all modesty I could boil down what she says into between one and three sentences. I've tried to explain in a couple of posts (at least), so has Paul E., and so has Julia herself.

The most bizarre bits here have been people saying that Julia's choice of 72-ED2:1 is wrong. As Kraig pointed out, the pudding proves otherwise. I'm sure some of you found it radical (dangerous ?) where she suggests that the selection of scale/tonal system/tuning is not important. Recently wasn't there similar lunacy with people telling Alison she's using the wrong scale/tuning/tonal system ?

Sincerely,
Joel

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:

> Recently wasn't
> there similar lunacy with people telling Alison she's using the
> wrong scale/tuning/tonal system ?

to the best of my understanding, no one did any such thing. but i
agree with the rest of your points in this post, joel.

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:

> The most bizarre bits here have been people saying that Julia's
> choice of 72-ED2:1 is wrong.

Are you talking to me? :)

All I've said is that *if* certain claims which have been made on this list about her musical intentions are true, then 72-et is far from an optimal choice, and certainly a curious one.

> Recently wasn't
> there similar lunacy with people telling Alison she's using the
> wrong scale/tuning/tonal system ?

I have no idea, but if so, so what? If you lay down certain criteria for a scale or tuning system, you open the door to considerations of how that can be optimally accomplished. It's tuning theory, and this is a tuning list.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38602.html#38608

> I have no idea, but if so, so what? If you lay down certain
criteria for a scale or tuning system, you open the door to
considerations of how that can be optimally accomplished. It's tuning
theory, and this is a tuning list.

***I think, from a compositional standpoint, there seem to be certain
scales that are suited to certain kinds of pieces and compositional
approaches. Ivor Darreg, who of course had *lots* of experience in
such matters, seems to suggest this when he says that certain tunings
have certain *moods...*

J. Pehrson