Re: [tuning] Re: Re: More Understanding-to Julia.2 (Reinhard's & others' comm...

In a message dated 7/12/02 3:40:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joelrodrigues@mac.com writes:

>
> 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.

This is a serious philosophical statement. It tells you from what point of
view I am writing from. It is at both Julia and Paul's invitation that I
responded at all.

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?
> >

Well, I agree I hammed it up a bit here. But what I wanted to get across is
that
Julia is not IN JI: she is outside it looking at it. I was comparing style
music to my credo of interstylisticism. A theory of a style of music is
often naive.

> On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 02:24 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Afmmjr@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Re: More Understanding-to Julia.2
>
> > 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.

PNM has political reasons for what it does. I have a personal history with
them over many years. It crossed my mind that Julia's article might reflect
their own philosophy. Sorry if my philosophy evades you. It is neither out
of malice or of the right/wrong context. I have a different perspective on
things. This should be understandable for I have just barely gotten a handle
on yours. :)

> > 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.

Paul you seem to have a lot invested in this. Are you from Boston, too?

> > I don't have the time to
> > spend on this paper, unfortunately.
>
> I doubt it would make a difference, unfortunately.

Joel, please teach us about graciousness...

> > 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.
>

Joel, please, a short lesson in being forthright? It would be most
appreciated. Frankly, I believe I deserve the right to disagree with
published writings. Academic learn how to handle this. In Julia's work I
found things I read about JI that spelled unfamiliarity with the material.
I'm sorry if I did not pray that the alter of current theoretical trend, but
I dissent.

> > 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 ?

Joel, thanks for corroborating my intuition not to get involved with this
thread. Sorry, Julia, it could not be pristine.

> 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.

snif snif
you may be challenging me for the mantle.

rather appear pompous on this internet list of microtonalists then to
criticize negatively.

> 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.
>

Joel, I am trying not to portray too much sarcasm. If you want to write me
further privately or on metatuning, that'll be fine. But I want to stick to
music.

best, Johnny Reinhard

On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at 03:30 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:45:19 EDT
> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/12/02 3:40:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> joelrodrigues@mac.com writes:
>
>>> I don't have the time to
>>> spend on this paper, unfortunately.
>>
>> I doubt it would make a difference, unfortunately.
>
> Joel, please teach us about graciousness...

My doubts about it not making a difference were said in all seriousness, not in jest, nor to be sarcastic. The negativity in the criticisms of Julia Werntz have past the point of no return. I also never intended any insult or hurtfulness toward you. I sincerely feel I made a fair comment on your posts about Julia.

As far as lessons in graciousness, read Julia's responses to this forum. Read Margo's posts referring to Julia. That is graciousness. Then look at the nature of the posts from other quarters. If one were to simply list the names she's been called, it is disgraceful.

One. Just one lone voice saying he agrees with Julia and disagrees with your critiques, and look at the reaction.

Sincerely,
Joel

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

> As far as lessons in graciousness, read Julia's responses to
> this forum.

I don't think her personal attack on me was any lesson in graciousness. She interpreted something I said as a claim she didn't understand her subject matter and went ballistic. I'll admit (now) I suspect that to be so, but it isn't what I said. Going personal is not a way to discuss the matter in question, so I suppose I err here also, but I think canonizing Julia makes about as much sense as canonizing me. We're both prickly--and so are you, Joel, come to that.