Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning various...

A few random comments from an infrequent contributor...

"too much theory/math":
I think the problem is not that there is too much theory. Obviously music
theory is the very core of what the tuning list should be all about. The
problem seems to be more the huge mass of mathematical speculation that has
little to do with music. It's theory, but what kind of theory? All those
nifty concepts may be fun to theorize about, but have you used them
musically? Some of the more abstract stuff might be best accompanied by
some comments on how "x concept" sounds to you, what effect it has, how it
might be used. If you are unwilling or unable to demonstrate your pet
theories in some kind of musical context it says volumes about their actual
usefulness.

I also thought it was odd that Kraig Grady held up Erv Wilson as an example
of clear explanation and simple language. I have found his stuff to be
extremely difficult reading; very cryptic, vague, technical, abstract,
specialized terminology, etc. The people who fully understand Wilson's
writings must be a very small "Elite", indeed! Of course Kraig has the
unfair advantage of personal contact. I have spent a lot of time staring
blankly at statements such as "When the tetrachordal scale begins to exert
inertia along its linear series of Fourths, and the Fourths are variable in
size--but the closing Fourth is invariable--a pattern of variable linear
modulations and/or parallel variable linear modes occurs, based on the
extrapolation of the generating segment of 6 Fourths by its repetition..."
Of course with a lot of time and patience, his work is also an extremely
rewarding and fascinating read, and does slowly become clearer with
re-readings. As others have said, his work is incredibly dense with
information. An overdue thanks to Kraig for posting up his work on the
Anaphoria page! (Is there more coming or is that about it?)

Juxtaposition Ezine/NetRadio:
Just to comment again on David Beardsley's internet radio show... I checked
out the archives this week. (Streaming has never worked well for me. My
dialup connection at home tends to produce garbled noise, and my network
connection at work, well... one word: firewall. So it's nice to see this
stuff archived for downloading.) Cool! I've been listening to it all week
at work. Very pleased to finally be able to hear part of the Well-Tuned
Piano (which I have given up on ever owning), and Beauty in the Beast
(soon-to-be-re-released?). Also good to hear Jon Hassell! I've been
listening to him for years, since long before I knew anything about
microtonality. These days I realize his radical use of pitch is a large
part of what I have always found so incredibly haunting. If there is any
musician who deserves the description "unearthly" it's Hassell!

list feuding and netiquette:
For your own sake before clicking "send" it is good to keep in mind that
some 300-400 people have to wade through this stuff and that your
embarrassing moments are being archived for posterity. Of course watching
others have childish arguments in public does have a certain perverse
fascination, like watching certain talk shows.

Kris Peck
faithful reader, infrequent contributor

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Kris Peck wrote:

> I also thought it was odd that Kraig Grady held up Erv Wilson as an example
> of clear explanation and simple language. I have found his stuff to be
> extremely difficult reading; very cryptic, vague, technical, abstract,
> specialized terminology, etc. The people who fully understand Wilson's
> writings must be a very small "Elite", indeed! Of course Kraig has the
> unfair advantage of personal contact. I have spent a lot of time staring
> blankly at statements such as "When the tetrachordal scale begins to exert
> inertia along its linear series of Fourths, and the Fourths are variable in
> size--but the closing Fourth is invariable--a pattern of variable linear
> modulations and/or parallel variable linear modes occurs, based on the
> extrapolation of the generating segment of 6 Fourths by its repetition..."

This is definitely one of his most poetic excursions. I really believe that
the examples makes it pretty clear . http://www.anaphoria.com/purvi.html .
The last statement should help also. Wilson perfers to have the main punch of
his papers in the diagrams. (this is all in my opinion). The statement conveys
that Wilson hears that urge in tetrachord scales to modulate to develop
themselves. Just as other scales develop by cycle of 5ths.Both have happened
in the mid-east and his knowledge of this might be the fountainhead behind it.
He is quite conservative in his speculation in that much of his work is based
on historical examples and practice.Here though he shows a novel way to
modulate with only changing one tone at a time into different but related
scales. Notice how closely everything is related though. He shows actual
scales analogs (Todi, Purvi, and Marwa and how these scales can be modulated
one to the other and/or the way they might have developed by it "inertia" in a
culture that doesn't modulate. Using modulated versions of a scale for
different ragas! I think once you get one, most of the others fall into place.
I admit that i am a bit slower with somethings. Sometimes the concepts I grasp
and lose.

>
> Of course with a lot of time and patience, his work is also an extremely
> rewarding and fascinating read, and does slowly become clearer with
> re-readings. As others have said, his work is incredibly dense with
> information. An overdue thanks to Kraig for posting up his work on the
> Anaphoria page! (Is there more coming or is that about it?)

There is alot more coming! Some he is sitting on for a variety of reasons.
Some of what is put up is due to personal communications he has with others
and wishes to give them a quick access. If a certain thread occurs on this
list in which I know he has relevant papers on I suggest he put them up.
Somethings are buried deep in piles, others I think he finds to elementry,
like his diamond diagrams, but I'll work on them. Once again if you don't
understand something ask and I will try to explain what I know about it.We
should encourage a situation where we all can admit what we don't know or
understand! I don't get alot of the ideas or understand why people are doing
some of the things they are doing. I just ask those which seem to might bare
some fruit. Sometimes, when I am asked, it helps me get things clearer in my
own mind.

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

🔗hmiller@xx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

> the examples makes it pretty clear .
> http://www.anaphoria.com/purvi.html .

I looked at this page which is supposed to make things clear, and frankly, I
don't get it, and I can hardly even SEE it!

I understand what ratios are, and how they work, but what are these little
"linear position" numbers, -6, -4, -2, 0, -5, -3, -1, -6? What's a variable
fourth? Is it a collection of ratios which resemble 500 cents? Why if we
are talking in EXACT ratios are we concerned with APPROXIMATIONS?

I think the chart on the lower right of the link probably is very important,
but why are all the ratios repeated? It goes through a complete cycle, then
goes through another one! Why two? Why do the ratios express relationships
BETWEEN the notes of the "scale" and not ratios from some common "tonic" or
fundamental? Can you even call it a scale, expressed as it is, spanning
multiple octaves?

The instruments look beautiful, the way he has declared his own country
really gives an otherworldly feel, like ethnomusicology in space, and it's
obvious that there is something there. I just would appreciate an
INTRODUCTION to the EXPLANATION of what is going on here. An
oversimplification would be perfect. It sounds from the list that I might
not be the only person to appreciate a life preserver in this sea of foreign
concepts.

Thanks.

---
Glen Peterson
30 Elm Street
North Andover, MA 01845
(978) 975-1527

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Glen Peterson wrote:

> From: "Glen Peterson" <Glen@OrganicDesign.org>
>
> > the examples makes it pretty clear .
> > http://www.anaphoria.com/purvi.html .
>
> I looked at this page which is supposed to make things clear, and frankly, I
> don't get it, and I can hardly even SEE it!
>
> I understand what ratios are, and how they work, but what are these little
> "linear position" numbers, -6, -4, -2, 0, -5, -3, -1, -6? What's a variable
> fourth?

In the enharmonic scale all the "4ths" are different sizes hence varible. These
numbers show the a chain of these different (varible) fourths

> Is it a collection of ratios which resemble 500 cents? Why if we
> are talking in EXACT ratios are we concerned with APPROXIMATIONS?
>
> I think the chart on the lower right of the link probably is very important,
> but why are all the ratios repeated?

He is going through a cycle with one note is being changed at a time. By reaped
the ratios you can see how the cycle changes.

> It goes through a complete cycle, then
> goes through another one! Why two?

because after it goes though the cycle we find our self starting on a new tonal
degree!

> Why do the ratios express relationships
> BETWEEN the notes of the "scale" and not ratios from some common "tonic" or
> fundamental?

It would be harder to see the relationships. This way of using ratios is just
as common as Partch's >in fact, the greeks used this method more from what I
remember. Anyway no tonic is implied nor should it be. He is giving us scales
not telling us how to use them!

> Can you even call it a scale, expressed as it is, spanning
> multiple octaves?

sure the Greeks and Persians have. Although the tetrachords would repeat in the
octives there were cases where a 9/8 was inserted at the bottom . Also cases of
3 indentical tetrachords in a row without disjunctions I believe was around
two.

>
>
> The instruments look beautiful, the way he has declared his own country
> really gives an otherworldly feel, like ethnomusicology in space, and it's
> obvious that there is something there.

Wilson work is rightly regarred in Anaphoria. But he has made no comment as to
recognizing it or not recognizing it.

> I just would appreciate an
> INTRODUCTION to the EXPLANATION of what is going on here. An
> oversimplification would be perfect.

It is best thought of as "Visionary Geography"

> It sounds from the list that I might
> not be the only person to appreciate a life preserver in this sea of foreign
> concepts.

BTW I Have wanted to build a Trumpa Marina in EMI years ago. Was that you!!!!

>
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---
> Glen Peterson
> 30 Elm Street
> North Andover, MA 01845
> (978) 975-1527
>
>

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

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@OrganicDesign.org>

> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> > From: "Glen Peterson" <Glen@OrganicDesign.org>
> what are these little
> > "linear position" numbers, -6, -4, -2, 0, -5, -3, -1, -6?
> > What's a variable fourth?
> In the enharmonic scale all the "4ths" are different sizes
> hence varible. These
> numbers show the a chain of these different (varible) fourths
> He is going through a cycle with one note is being changed at
> a time. By reaped
> the ratios you can see how the cycle changes.

Aaah the Rosetta stone! I get it! So what do all these negative whole
numbers represent? Cycles of the tetrachordal scale below some kind of
reference point?

> It is best thought of as "Visionary Geography"

Thank you! He dreams it up, and we all marvel at it. Works for me. I'm
marveling! D*&n those instruments are beautiful, and they look
geographical, as their names imply. Even in pictures they SPEAK to me!
What a wonderful blend of fact and mythology! H.P. Lovecraft would be
PROUD!

> BTW I Have wanted to build a Trumpa Marina in EMI years ago.
> Was that you!!!!

No, my Tromba article appeared in Experimental Musical Instruments a few
months ago, in the very last issue. But since you obviously looked at my
web page carefully enough to find the Tromba section, that means that you
probably found the Tromba blueprints to help you in your endeavor!

http://www.organicdesign.org/Glen/Instruments/Tromba/MFA_tromba_ref.html

I will gladly give all the free advice you desire. (and then some!)

While I'm at it, could someone please tell me what MOS stands for? Does
this list have a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) somewhere?

Thank you for the explanations and everyone else's patience as I get up to
speed with these discussions.

---
Glen Peterson
30 Elm Street North Andover, MA 01845
(978) 975-1527

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

> >what are these little
> > "linear position" numbers, -6, -4, -2, 0, -5, -3, -1, -6?
>
> These numbers show the a chain of these different (variable) fourths

So, why are all the numbers negative? What does 0 represent? He labeled
the scale degrees with these numbers but he labeled them -6, -4, -2,
0, -5, -3, -1, -6. Does it work like a raga? Are you supposed to play the
scale in a certain order, not necessarily like the western Ascending and
Descending scales? Are they note numbers like serialism? Do they represent
note numbers in some kind of equal tempered approximation? Are they related
to Pascal's triangle?

ALSO:

I have read the definition from Monzo's dictionary regarding MOS (Moment Of
Symmetry), and I still don't get it. I need to see an example, then I'll
get it.

"The process of producing a scale of melodic integrity by the superposition
of a single interval (generator)."

So, equal temperaments would all qualify? Plus a succession of fourths
would qualify? How about a succession of variable fourths?

"Those points where there are only 2 different size intervals are called
moments of symmetry."

So, If I made a scale by dividing the octave into a fourth and a fifth, I've
done it. Why a special name for this incredibly basic and obvious action?
It's like having different words for tying both your shoes, or tying just
one. Why should I care about this?

"This cycle has the property that any occurrence of an interval will always
be subtended by the same number of steps."

So, if I divide my fifth into 2 thirds, my octave is in 3 pieces and the MOS
police will take me away? What if I divide it into a third and a sixth?
That plays by these rules, except that it's already divided into a fifth and
a fourth. But the fifth and fourth are now each subdivided into 2 non-equal
parts creating 2 new MOS. And the point is...?

---
Glen Peterson
30 Elm Street
North Andover, MA 01845
(978) 975-1527

> > I think the chart on the lower right of the link probably
> is very important,
> > but why are all the ratios repeated?
>
> He is going through a cycle with one note is being changed at
> a time. By reaped
> the ratios you can see how the cycle changes.
>
> > It goes through a complete cycle, then
> > goes through another one! Why two?
>
> because after it goes though the cycle we find our self
> starting on a new tonal
> degree!
>
> > Why do the ratios express relationships
> > BETWEEN the notes of the "scale" and not ratios from some
> common "tonic" or
> > fundamental?
>
> It would be harder to see the relationships. This way of
> using ratios is just
> as common as Partch's >in fact, the greeks used this method
> more from what I
> remember. Anyway no tonic is implied nor should it be. He is
> giving us scales
> not telling us how to use them!
>
> > Can you even call it a scale, expressed as it is, spanning
> > multiple octaves?
>
> sure the Greeks and Persians have. Although the tetrachords
> would repeat in the
> octives there were cases where a 9/8 was inserted at the
> bottom . Also cases of
> 3 indentical tetrachords in a row without disjunctions I
> believe was around
> two.
>
> >
> >
> > The instruments look beautiful, the way he has declared his
> own country
> > really gives an otherworldly feel, like ethnomusicology in
> space, and it's
> > obvious that there is something there.
>
> Wilson work is rightly regarred in Anaphoria. But he has made
> no comment as to
> recognizing it or not recognizing it.
>
> > I just would appreciate an
> > INTRODUCTION to the EXPLANATION of what is going on here. An
> > oversimplification would be perfect.
>
> It is best thought of as "Visionary Geography"
>
> > It sounds from the list that I might
> > not be the only person to appreciate a life preserver in
> this sea of foreign
> > concepts.
>
> BTW I Have wanted to build a Trumpa Marina in EMI years ago.
> Was that you!!!!
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > ---
> > Glen Peterson
> > 30 Elm Street
> > North Andover, MA 01845
> > (978) 975-1527
> >
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> How do you enter ONElist�s WEEKLY DRAWING for $100?
> By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to
> http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 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.
>
>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

[Kris Peck:]
> "too much theory/math": I think the problem is not that there is too
much theory. Obviously music theory is the very core of what the
tuning list should be all about. The problem seems to be more the
huge mass of mathematical speculation that has little to do with
music. It's theory, but what kind of theory?

IMO, something along the lines of 'tuning theory...' with an isolated
emphasis on that one specific component of music -- which may or may
not actually have (or appear to have) a whole hell of a lot to do with
"music."

>All those nifty concepts may be fun to theorize about, but have you
used them musically?

Some of the contributors have flatly stated that they are not
musicians (Dave Keenan I believe is one), so I, for one, tend to
regard this material on it's own 'merit' (i.e., the quality, or
artistry of it's presentation, etc.), but of course something like
this may really fire one (tuning interested) person up and also leave
the next (tuning interested person) totally cold.

>Some of the more abstract stuff might be best accompanied by some
comments on how "x concept" sounds to you, what effect it has, how it
might be used.

Well put, and I certainly agree (especially "how it might be used").

>If you are unwilling or unable to demonstrate your pet theories in
some kind of musical context it says volumes about their actual
usefulness.

"...critics say that if we limit ourselves in this way, we will know
so infinitesimally little about the total musical mind that it may be
of doubtful value. The answer to that is that such humiliation is true
but wholesome." [Carl E. Seashore, Psychology of Music, pg.306]

Dan

🔗David J. Finnamore <dfin@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Glen Peterson wrote:
>
> > the examples makes it pretty clear .
> > http://www.anaphoria.com/purvi.html .
>
> I looked at this page which is supposed to make things clear, and frankly, I
> don't get it, and I can hardly even SEE it!
[snip]
> obvious that there is something there. I just would appreciate an
> INTRODUCTION to the EXPLANATION of what is going on here. An
> oversimplification would be perfect.

Yes, I too am quite bewildered by Kraig's site and would
like to have some background info. It the whole Anaphoria
thing completely fantastical? Is there anyone else (real)
who participates in it? What's the point? Are you trying
to prove Shakespeare wrong when he said, "No man is an
island"? :-)

I read Kraig's web site and most of his list posts with
bemusement but with precious little understanding. Don't
get me wrong, I don't hold anything against him personally,
it's just that his E. E. Cummings-esque fractured grammar,
incomplete and misspelled words, sentence fragments, and
nearly random punctuation leave me pretty much in the dark
on what he's talking about most of the time. I work with
some creative geniuses whose written and even spoken
communication are very much like Kraig's, so I assume that
he must also be an exceptionally bright and visionary
individual. I imagine he has some really interesting things
to say, and wish that I could follow him at all.

> It sounds from the list that I might
> not be the only person to appreciate a life preserver in this sea of foreign
> concepts.

Am I right in taking this as a reference not just to Kraig's
site but to the list as a whole? There's no getting around
it, this is a huge, many-faceted, complicated, and esoteric
subject. To make it worse, it's mostly subjective, as
well. It simply takes a long time to get a grasp on the
full range of topics and become familiar with the common
concepts and jargon. Rush Limbaugh says it takes six weeks
of listening to understand what his radio show is about; I'd
say it takes at least six months of reading posts, books,
and web pages, to understand most of what this list is
about.

When I first joined, for instance, there was a protracted,
heated discussion involving the definition of "comma" that
just about drove me crazy because I didn't have enough
background to have the foggiest idea what they were talking
about. If the same discussion were held today (and no doubt
it will be sometime soon :-) I would follow it quite well.
Patience is a virtue. I think newbies should glean what
they can, ask about what they don't quite follow, and simply
ignore what goes completely over their heads. Soon enough
it will begin to become clearer, and you can go back and
re-read some of the heavier posts. Some things will remain
a mystery to some of us, and that's OK, too.

OTOH, Kraig's request that we use less jargon and more plain
speak probably has some merit (including for himself).
We've all got our own unique background, set of assumptions,
and interests. More of us would probably do well to leave
footnotes and links directing others to resources that give
some background for we're trying to communicate.

In summary, readers should be patient, do some off-list
research, and ask some questions; posters should try to
articulate as clearly as possible what they want to
communicate, thinking about it from the point of view of the
uninitiated where appropriate, and should proofread each
post before sending. There's a saying in Nashville that a
good song is not written, it's re-written. The same
rule-of-thumb applies to mailing list posts.

David Finnamore

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Glen Peterson wrote:

> From: "Glen Peterson" <Glen@OrganicDesign.org>
>
> > >what are these little
> > > "linear position" numbers, -6, -4, -2, 0, -5, -3, -1, -6?
> >
> > These numbers show the a chain of these different (variable) fourths
>
> So, why are all the numbers negative?

they don't have to be. He could have started with all positives.

> What does 0 represent?

the starting point of his chain

> He labeled
> the scale degrees with these numbers but he labeled them -6, -4, -2,
> 0, -5, -3, -1, -6. Does it work like a raga? Are you supposed to play the
> scale in a certain order, not necessarily like the western Ascending and
> Descending scales?

> Are they note numbers like serialism?

no way

> Do they represent
> note numbers in some kind of equal tempered approximation? Are they related
> to Pascal's triangle?

not that I am aware of

>
>
> ALSO:
>
> I have read the definition from Monzo's dictionary regarding MOS (Moment Of
> Symmetry), and I still don't get it. I need to see an example, then I'll
> get it.
>
> "The process of producing a scale of melodic integrity by the superposition
> of a single interval (generator)."
>
> So, equal temperaments would all qualify?

yes

> Plus a succession of fourths
> would qualify?

at certain points

> How about a succession of variable fourths?

sometimes

>
>
> "Those points where there are only 2 different size intervals are called
> moments of symmetry."
>
> So, If I made a scale by dividing the octave into a fourth and a fifth, I've
> done it. Why a special name for this incredibly basic and obvious action?

that only a starting point keep going and see what you get!

>
>
> "This cycle has the property that any occurrence of an interval will always
> be subtended by the same number of steps."
>
> So, if I divide my fifth into 2 thirds, my octave is in 3 pieces and the MOS
> police will take me away?

expl;ain

> What if I divide it into a third and a sixth?

you can start there to

>
> That plays by these rules, except that it's already divided into a fifth and
> a fourth. But the fifth and fourth are now each subdivided into 2 non-equal
> parts creating 2 new MOS. And the point is...

thats like saying I have a 19 tone guitar and you say I can have 31 but I can't
because i already have this 19. The point is!

I think you need to look at http://www.anaphoria.com/mos.html there are
examples there. These are not so much rules but guidlines that seem to produce
very convincing scales.

>
>
> ---
>

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

David!
Sorry about my english and sorry i lose you and others, not much I can do
about that, but i am trying and please point out where you lose me. More comments
below!

"David J. Finnamore" wrote:>

>
> I just would appreciate an
> > INTRODUCTION to the EXPLANATION of what is going on here. An
> > oversimplification would be perfect.
>
> Yes, I too am quite bewildered by Kraig's site and would
> like to have some background info. It the whole Anaphoria
> thing completely fantastical?

In what sense! Mircea Eliade, the father of modern anthropology, did much in the
acceptance of Myth as real,(along with Jung). He was able to change many in his
field to revise there attitudes. He takes the stand that the existence of a
people proves that there Myths are real. In the case, The existence of the music
from Anaphoria proves that it is real!
On another level. The existence of Countries is outmoded when the true
structure of our world in Multinational Corp.

> Is there anyone else (real)
> who participates in it?

Of course! The performers, musical and of the shadow theater.

> What's the point?

maybe to----
1.To satisfy those in hunger for the celebration of mystery Perhaps
2. create a maze for others enjoyment,and/or bring out subconscious projections
of the viewer/listener
3. To acknowledge experiences in the guise of Fiction (see P.K. Dick's Exegesis)
4. To comment on the ability to lie on the internet! as a comment on media in
general
5. To give a voice to being a stranger here
6. To find out more about it myself
7. To dream and share a dream
8. As a advertising ploy and attention
9. To do every thing I can to tear down the prisons constructed under the
pretense of civilization subversion
10. To attract like minds
11. none of the above

Why ?

> Are you trying
> to prove Shakespeare wrong when he said, "No man is an
> island"? :-)

Since Anaphoria is a Island of Foreigners, there is nothing Isolationist about
it. It is also not as most people think, A Utopia, It is a place with real
problems seeking real solutions.

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

🔗David J. Finnamore <dfin@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Kraig Grady wrote:

> David!
> Sorry about my english and sorry i lose you and others

Don't worry about it. After reading your reasons for the
mythological theme of your web site, I think your style of
writing may actually help accomplish your stated goals. In
a word, as I understand it, you wish to blur the distinction
between fantasy and reality, a distinction which you
evidently hold to be harmful or, at best, arbitrary.

> The existence of the music
> from Anaphoria proves that it is real!

Made by the cool-looking instruments in the pictures?!
Where may it be heard? Real Audio and/or mp3 examples would
be delightful.

I surely am glad you have all that cool stuff up there to
discover. I think I'm less confused about it than I was
before (is that a good thing?). Thanks.

David Finnamore

various...

🔗Kris Peck <kpeck@xxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗hmiller@xx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@OrganicDesign.org>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Glen Peterson <Glen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗D.Stearns <stearns@xxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗David J. Finnamore <dfin@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗David J. Finnamore <dfin@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>