last thoughts on the Werntz thing

My final post regarding the criticisms of Julia Werntz' ideas.

Something from Julia Werntz is quoted or referred to and is interpreted in way that is disagreed with. Fine. It would have been nice if those who disagreed simply said so, pointing out if they would what they disagreed with. But the tone and spirit that has characterised the language of the 'critiques' have been a (disappointing) surprise to me. Every attempt by Julia herself, or by others to explain or defend her ideas have been struck down with an off-hand 'no you're wrong, we're right' response.

Personally, I merely wanted to express that *I* do not interpret any of it in the way that it largely has been, *I* have had no trouble understanding what she says, and *I* totally agree with all of it. I even like her music on the PNM site. Her ideas parallel some of my own thoughts, have sparked new ones, and they work for me. *I* find nothing 'wrong' with her ideas nor do I think she should have ever left any part of them out. I did try to offer some explanation as delicately as possible that *I* did not share the criticisms and on the contrary felt that these criticisms appeared to *me* to be a result of misconstruction, as well as an obvious bias/prejudice on the part of the critics in question.

Am I suggesting everyone should have agreed with her ? No. Could there have been more mutual respect, goodwill, and friendship shown ? yes. Not to mention leaving room for the possibility that not all disagree with Werntz.

Joe Pehrson comment, '...her approach is interesting and I never have seen it expressed in quite this way...'. That's part of what I like about it. I love thought processes that run in odd ways, often contrary to the tide. There are many thoughts and ideas I have that I'd love to share and discuss in a forum such as this. But I post very little of what I'd like to. Yes when I do, some good does come of it. Comments, critiques, and discussions with some of you have been fun and very useful. It is also extremely gratifying to be in company such as this.

Margo often presents wonderful new takes on things along with a healthy helping of new ideas. Nanotempering, nuancing, combinatorial intonation, are just some of the things I've found intellectually exciting. I also happen to think she's the most intelligently tactful person here. That's a compliment, btw.

As far as 'Just Intonation' goes, I consider Julia to be accurate in her comment that there is a common perception of JI being pushed as 'what humans are meant to be hearing in their music' and that it seeks to show everyone else the error of their ways. As for David Doty's post to Julia, well, it did two things for me. First it supports what Julia says, and second, Doty used such a broad and schizophrenic brush it begs the question, what is JI ?

Having observed this list for a few years I can reasonably predict the responses of certain people to certain buttons being pushed. One can as well pretty much tell when a post is *not* going to get much of a response. I knew what would probably happen when I posted the link to Julia's dissertation abstract. I just did not imagine it would go on for so long, or get so out of hand.

Did I think any defence of Werntz' ideas would be welcome or taken affably ? No. So, why didn't I just keep my mouth shut ? Someone had to say something to make it known there not everyone thinks the ideas expressed by Werntz are pure invention, naive, wrong, anti-science, misguided, rubbish, deluded, lacking education, fictions, profoundly lacking understanding, denounces anyone or anything, or tells anyone what they ought to be doing. Those by the way, are a sampling of the language that has characterised these 'critiques'.

I'll end with a couple of quotes :

Julia Werntz, '...musicians ought to be left to find the appropriate materials for their art on their own, based on their cultural background, their chosen musical influences, and their imagination.'.

David Cope (from the preface to New Directions in Music), ' Whether one agrees or disagrees with the concepts, philosophies, and resultant sound activities and/or silences discussed herein is simply beside the point. These musics *do* exist and to avoid either their manifestations or significance is simply playing ostrich.'.

Tchau for now.

Sincerely,
Joel

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

/tuning/topicId_38642.html#38642

> Having observed this list for a few years I can reasonably
> predict the responses of certain people to certain buttons being
> pushed. One can as well pretty much tell when a post is *not*
> going to get much of a response. I knew what would probably
> happen when I posted the link to Julia's dissertation abstract.
> I just did not imagine it would go on for so long, or get so out
> of hand.
>

***Hello Joel!

This is funny, because it's been such a long time since the original
posted link that I *forgot* that *you* were the one to start all this
off!

Well, as I've expressed before, the whole thing has been a
rewarding "trip" ("what a long, strange trip, it's been...??") but I
have to say most of us have gotten something out of it, whether we
use 72-tET for its just approximations, avoid the same, or write in
just intonation.

As long as we can keep our emotions *somewhat* in check, and write
with some kind of collegiality (not necessarily academiciality...) I
believe we can all learn something from this forum.

I know *I* have...

Thanks again!

Joe Pehrson