I'm sorry

I had no intention of dragging Dave Keenan into the ugly exchange between
Patrick and myself. I selfishly quoted him (anonymously) to defend my
position in an unnecessarily rude stance which I had taken. This was wrong
and rather sociopathic on my part. I hurt many friendships in my childhood
with similar behavior, and apparently I haven't grown up yet. I'm so sorry
for what I've done. Dave has been the most impressive contributor to this
list for some time now, consistenly surprising us with valuable ideas,
indulging in in-depth studies with no material reward, and most recently
presenting a totally unprecendented analysis of kleismatic temperament. The
richness he has added to our forum is immeasurable. Clearly if anyone is
deserving of crawling under a rock it is me. My insolence will be
immortalized in the archives for all net-surfers to see.

To my great dismay, Dave has announced his unsubscription from this list.
Recently, we learned that Neil Haverstick unsubscribed because he was turned
off by the mathematical discussions. I would like to remedy both situations.
Those of you who are mathematically inclined, let us beseech Dave
(d.keenan@uq.net.au) to join us in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the
heavy quantitative discusssions are moved off the original list, many people
who would otherwise be turned off, including the rare breed of musicians
dedicated to playing microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around. There
is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all think?

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> I would like to remedy both situations.
> Those of you who are mathematically inclined, let us beseech Dave
> (d.keenan@uq.net.au) to join us in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the
> heavy quantitative discusssions are moved off the original list, many people
> who would otherwise be turned off, including the rare breed of musicians
> dedicated to playing microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around. There
> is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all think?

No. We don't need a separatist movement on this list,
it's been tried before.

What we do need is less of the cocky attitude from the
folks who dominate this forum. Pat replys to a correction from
Dan Wolf about a chord and notes that it's nice chord.
Paul Erlich cops the Miles Davis attitude: "So What?"

I gave up trying to find the reference in my TD archives,
but I seem to remember that sometime this year,
a list newbe who posted a scale of ratios and a list member
responded with a response of how it had errors. I can't find it,
but is that any way to treat a new comer to the list?
It may be the invented terminology of the list, but how's
the newbe supposed to know?

I'd also like to find the ref where Joe Mozo wrote off
Genesis of a Music as beginners material - if I didn't
dream it, I'd love to quote it.

When I first got on this list years ago, my first post
was met with a negative comment. It concerned
tuning a EMu Proteus module " Doesn't that belong in a
hardware group?". Like my question didn't belong here???

So the list is typical of the net. It used to have the
feel of an academic forum, where posts were met with
a bit of respect (with a few exceptions)
- but that all changed when we went to onelist.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n N e t R a d i o
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Paul, Dave, And Pat!
Many of us have had our demons get the best of us. Lets move on for God
Sake. Segragation I don't think is the solution. We are all in this world
together for this brief time so we better get use to it! Let us Loiter together
and know one another!

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

>
>
> To my great dismay, Dave has announced his unsubscription from this list.
> Recently, we learned that Neil Haverstick unsubscribed because he was turned
> off by the mathematical discussions. I would like to remedy both situations.
> Those of you who are mathematically inclined, let us beseech Dave
> (d.keenan@uq.net.au) to join us in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the
> heavy quantitative discusssions are moved off the original list, many people
> who would otherwise be turned off, including the rare breed of musicians
> dedicated to playing microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around. There
> is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all think?
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

That's it for me!
Dave O'Fallon

The enthusiasm displayed by everyone on the list has been a source of
inspiration to me ever since I upgraded my computer in March and got online.
Especially since I've been very far away from music being swamped by mundane
matters. So only if it wouldn't dampen enthusiam, I think moving the
mathematical discussion off the list has merit. For me, the mathematics on
tuning@onelist can get overwhelming especially with all the cryptic bantering
and misc. emails re corrections.

To give you my perspective, Juilliard did not offer one mathematics course
while I was going there. So I'm working with a 12th grade math education.
Perhaps a distillation of a separate discussion (as it relates to historic
tunings and practical music composition problems) would bridge the two
discussions.

I can go either way. It might be a fun experiment to get less email about more
practical matters. However, I say this and I may not be around my computer for
a few weeks to take a trip back east to make arrangements for my daughters
wedding.
RT

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> I had no intention of dragging Dave Keenan into the ugly exchange between
> Patrick and myself. I selfishly quoted him (anonymously) to defend my
> position in an unnecessarily rude stance which I had taken. This was wrong
> and rather sociopathic on my part. I hurt many friendships in my childhood
> with similar behavior, and apparently I haven't grown up yet. I'm so sorry
> for what I've done. Dave has been the most impressive contributor to this
> list for some time now, consistenly surprising us with valuable ideas,
> indulging in in-depth studies with no material reward, and most recently
> presenting a totally unprecendented analysis of kleismatic temperament. The
> richness he has added to our forum is immeasurable. Clearly if anyone is
> deserving of crawling under a rock it is me. My insolence will be
> immortalized in the archives for all net-surfers to see.
>
> To my great dismay, Dave has announced his unsubscription from this list.
> Recently, we learned that Neil Haverstick unsubscribed because he was turned
> off by the mathematical discussions. I would like to remedy both situations.
> Those of you who are mathematically inclined, let us beseech Dave
> (d.keenan@uq.net.au) to join us in a separate, math-oriented forum. If the
> heavy quantitative discusssions are moved off the original list, many people
> who would otherwise be turned off, including the rare breed of musicians
> dedicated to playing microtonally, might be enticed to "stick" around. There
> is certainly enough room on the internet for all of us. What do y'all think?
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Congrats to our GROW TO GIVE winners, ZENtertainment & ROTInews!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Check out ONElist's latest program, FRIENDS & FAMILY. See homepage.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

As Dave Beardsley stated, fragmenting this List into several
more specialized ones has been suggested and tried before, with
little success. I agree completely with Dan Stearns that it is
the responsiblity of those who want to see non-theoretical issues
discussed in *this* forum to send in the contributions themselves!

I argued here before that one of the beautiful things about
freedom of the press (including internet Lists) is that everything
pertaining to a topic can be available to those who are interested,
while stuff that one finds to be of no interest can be easily
skipped over. Is it really that difficult or painful for those
of you who don't want to read complicated theory to simply move
your scroll-bar down past the stuff you aren't interested in?
Come on now, really.

I already miss Neil Haverstick's postings, which addressed aspects
of microtonality that us theory-heads often overlook, and now
I'm really going to miss Dave Keenan's thought-provoking, albeit
mathematically complex, insights. Can't we all be adults here,
and remain civil enough to not offend members into unsubscribing?

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.