TOP meantone

TOP tempering is a very recent and marvelous discovery of Paul
Erlich, which has a clear, simple theoretical basis which shows it to
be applicable to any regular temperament--equal, linear, planar, etc.
I'll be doing a lot of TOP tuning in the future, I expect, but if
anyone wants a sneak preview there is this, in TOP meantone (the 5
and 7 limit TOPs turn out to be the same, so consider it either.)

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/public_html/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets
/op50n4_1.ogg

Here is TOP meantone as a Scala scale. The idea of brightening
meantone by stretching the octaves slightly is promising in general,
and may be a good thing to apply to circulating temperaments.

! meantop.scl
TOP 5&7 limit meantone
12
!
76.156642
193.430258
310.703874
386.860515
504.134131
580.290773
697.564389
773.721031
890.994647
1008.268263
1084.424904
1201.698520

hi Gene (and paul),

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> TOP tempering is a very recent and marvelous discovery
> of Paul Erlich, which has a clear, simple theoretical basis
> which shows it to be applicable to any regular temperament
> --equal, linear, planar, etc.

i agree, and i'm very impressed too.

> I'll be doing a lot of TOP tuning in the future, I expect,
> but if anyone wants a sneak preview there is this, in
> TOP meantone (the 5 and 7 limit TOPs turn out to be the
> same, so consider it either.)
>
>
http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/public_html/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets
/op50n4_1.ogg

clicking on the link on the Yahoo web interface won't
work because it's broken (because it's too long to fit
on one line). but even after deleting the line-break
it still didn't work for me.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/public_html/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets
> /op50n4_1.ogg
>
>
>
> clicking on the link on the Yahoo web interface won't
> work because it's broken (because it's too long to fit
> on one line). but even after deleting the line-break
> it still didn't work for me.

Hmmm...let's see if this shorter link business really works:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1AE12207

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G3BE51207

hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
>
http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/public_html/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets
> > /op50n4_1.ogg
> >
> >
> >
> > clicking on the link on the Yahoo web interface won't
> > work because it's broken (because it's too long to fit
> > on one line). but even after deleting the line-break
> > it still didn't work for me.
>
> Hmmm...let's see if this shorter link business really works:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1AE12207
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?G3BE51207

not for me. all i got for both links was the
"The page cannot be displayed" error page.

the address shows up properly in the browser address
box, but i had already typed it in by hand before and
got the same error.

-monz

Quoting monz <monz@attglobal.net>:

> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/public_html/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets
> /op50n4_1.ogg
>
> clicking on the link on the Yahoo web interface won't
> work because it's broken (because it's too long to fit
> on one line). but even after deleting the line-break
> it still didn't work for me.

It appears that the "public_html" part has to come out. Once I did that things
started working.

Jay

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> not for me. all i got for both links was the
> "The page cannot be displayed" error page.

This should work:

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets/op50n4_1.ogg

(cut/paste if you need to)

What the hell does TOP stand for?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > not for me. all i got for both links was the
> > "The page cannot be displayed" error page.
>
> This should work:
>
> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets/op50n4_1.ogg
>
> (cut/paste if you need to)
>
> What the hell does TOP stand for?

Terminological Obfuscatory Perfection? ;-)

Actually Tenney-OPtimised which means the generators of the
temperament are adjusted to minimise the maximum Tenney-weighted
error. Tenney weighting means dividing the error in any n-limit
consonance by the base-2-log of the product of the two sides of its
ratio in lowest terms. Sorry you asked?

As far as I can figure, this kind of optimum is motivated by making
certain other mathematical calculations simpler, rather than by any
suggestion that this is how humans like their errors toasted. I hope
Paul will correct me if I'm wrong here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > not for me. all i got for both links was the
> > > "The page cannot be displayed" error page.
> >
> > This should work:
> >
> >
http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets/op50n4_1.og
g
> >
> > (cut/paste if you need to)
> >
> > What the hell does TOP stand for?

I guess you've been away, Jon.

> Terminological Obfuscatory Perfection? ;-)
>
> Actually Tenney-OPtimised

And Tempered Octaves, Please!

> which means the generators of the
> temperament are adjusted to minimise the maximum Tenney-weighted
> error. Tenney weighting means dividing the error in any n-limit
> consonance

Actually, *any* ratio. There is no odd-limit specified, and if you're
just specifying the commas and not the dimension, there's no prime-
limit specified either.

> by the base-2-log of the product of the two sides of its
> ratio in lowest terms. Sorry you asked?
>
> As far as I can figure, this kind of optimum is motivated by making
> certain other mathematical calculations simpler, rather than by any
> suggestion that this is how humans like their errors toasted. I hope
> Paul will correct me if I'm wrong here.

Harmonic entropy.

I know you figured, at one point, that tolerance increases with
complexity until you get to 5:4 or 6:5, and then it begins to
decrease. But I think the lower tolerances for more complex ratios
are actually reflecting the increasing difficulty of setting up
timbral/registral/durational situations where such ratios make sense
as consonances at all, and in such situations, the operative
tolerance on simpler ratios is even tighter.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > What the hell does TOP stand for?
>
> I guess you've been away, Jon.

No, I just don't read every thread. There are some that are in areas I have neither the background or interest, so I skip them. I only put the above in (and it was only a silly remark on all these acronyms and names) because I had never seen it in a direct reference (i.e. "TOP defined; film at 11:00").

But now I know and I'll write more later because... I've listened to the tuning.

Cheers,
Jon

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Here is TOP meantone as a Scala scale. The idea of brightening
> meantone by stretching the octaves slightly is promising in general

Initial comments (from a musical standpoint):

1. It is very difficult to concentrate on the tuning when you've taken a string quartet (homogenous texture) and 're-orchestrated' it as a multi-instrumental chamber work.

2. The fourth note in the piece, which is only the second pitch, is out of tune, and not a unison. It *should* be a unison. Why is it out, and how does this reflect on the rest of the piece/tuning/rendering? Is it somehow a side-effect of the stretched octaves?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> 1. It is very difficult to concentrate on the tuning when you've
taken a string quartet (homogenous texture) and 're-orchestrated' it
as a multi-instrumental chamber work.
>
> 2. The fourth note in the piece, which is only the second pitch, is
out of tune, and not a unison. It *should* be a unison. Why is it
out, and how does this reflect on the rest of the
piece/tuning/rendering? Is it somehow a side-effect of the stretched
octaves?

What you are hearing is hardly likely to have anything to do with
stretched octaves. I took a look at the midi I rendered. I find the
traditional string quartet, consisting of two oboes, a viola, and a
cello. I can't imagine why you found something strange in that. :)
The first and second oboes and the viola are playing in unison and
the cello at the octave according to the midi file, and I must
confess I don't hear anything different.

Anyone else have a comment on that?

>What you are hearing is hardly likely to have anything to do with
>stretched octaves. I took a look at the midi I rendered. I find the
>traditional string quartet, consisting of two oboes, a viola, and a
>cello. I can't imagine why you found something strange in that. :)
>The first and second oboes and the viola are playing in unison and
>the cello at the octave according to the midi file, and I must
>confess I don't hear anything different.
>
>Anyone else have a comment on that?

I do hear something here. I suspect it's in the samples. Especially
in the case of full-length samples, I reckon the pitch could be a bit
uncertain. Of course, that's how it is in real life. If you want
truly exact tuning the only option is to use a (real) synthesizer.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I do hear something here. I suspect it's in the samples.
Especially
> in the case of full-length samples, I reckon the pitch could be a
bit
> uncertain. Of course, that's how it is in real life. If you want
> truly exact tuning the only option is to use a (real) synthesizer.

Including Csound in that. Do most synths deliver good tuning these
days? They didn't used to.

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> What you are hearing is hardly likely to have anything to do with
> stretched octaves.

...and then...

> The first and second oboes and the viola are playing in unison and
> the cello at the octave according to the midi file, and I must
> confess I don't hear anything different.

Well, if there is an octave difference and it isn't in tune, isn't that *one* place to look. C'mon, the fourth note (second actual pitch) either has a vibrato as wide as a Winnebago or it is out of tune. Whether it is samples or something else, this kind of stuff invalidates any claims for a tuning.

Comments about "real world" are very dumb indeed (not your comment, Gene) because then all you've got is 'test-tube' tuning, never to be realized with the possible exception of all synthsized (and very controlled) music. Which might be ok, but the signs were pointing to a 'lot of uses' for this tuning.

Really, Gene, those notes didn't sound out to you?

I try pretty hard to keep track of all the theoretic developments that get done around here, but if musical comments like orchestration of homogenous timbres just get laughed off, I'd say it is time to consider not making musical claims for any of this! If it can all, after all the calculations are done, be conveniently swept under the rug with "works for me", then it is truly game over.

I'm still hoping for more, and would really like to believe in the benefits from all this research. Really. But with an example like the Haydn, it *doesn't* work for me, on a number of levels. When I've spent 20+ years in a relationship with a cellist, and listened to countless quartet rehearsals and concerts, it is way to much to swallow. I know, I know, it was just an example. But someday I hope these experiments really decide to take making music as a serious, dedicated priority.

Someday.

Cheers,
Jon

>> If you want
>> truly exact tuning the only option is to use a (real) synthesizer.
>
>Including Csound in that. Do most synths deliver good tuning these
>days? They didn't used to.

Any digital synth ought to.

-Carl

>Really, Gene, those notes didn't sound out to you?

Jon, what did/do you think of Herman's TOP-meantone canon?
(scroll all the way down)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > What you are hearing is hardly likely to have anything to do with
> > stretched octaves.
>
> ...and then...
>
> > The first and second oboes and the viola are playing in unison
and
> > the cello at the octave according to the midi file, and I must
> > confess I don't hear anything different.
>
> Well, if there is an octave difference and it isn't in tune, isn't
that *one* place to look.

Eh? I thought you said the *unisons* were mistuned, and that this
happened for the first time on the fourth note.

>C'mon, the fourth note (second actual pitch) either has a vibrato as
>wide as a Winnebago or it is out of tune.

Obviously, the octaves are not tuned as exact 2's, and yes, you can
hear it. If this bothers you that much, you're not going to like
meantone top, especially when only octaves are playing.

>Whether it is samples or something else, this kind of stuff
>invalidates any claims for a tuning.

If Jon Szanto doesn't like something, it is garbage and no one should
listen to it?

I didn't take to the Alaskas, which have flattened octaves, but the
sharped ones of meantop I thought gave meantone some needed juice.
Anyway, you hear things way, way, way more out of tune in your line
of work all the time. We are talking about a difference of 1.7 cents,
after all.

But your negative view is noted, and I thank you for it. I'll try not
to go hog-wild turning everything into meanpop. :)

>
> Comments about "real world" are very dumb indeed (not your comment,
Gene) because then all you've got is 'test-tube' tuning, never to be
realized with the possible exception of all synthsized (and very
controlled) music. Which might be ok, but the signs were pointing to
a 'lot of uses' for this tuning.
>
> Really, Gene, those notes didn't sound out to you?

The parallel octaves sound a little detuned, but not to an extent I
find myself not liking. Given that the 12-equal major third is *eight
times* more out of tune than these octaves, there are less precise
tunings out there, and the San Diego Symphony Orchestra is using them.

> I try pretty hard to keep track of all the theoretic developments
that get done around here, but if musical comments like orchestration
of homogenous timbres just get laughed off, I'd say it is time to
consider not making musical claims for any of this!

I liked the oboes. If you didn't, that is your privledge, but it
stops there. Claiming I committed some kind of high tuning crime by
using oboes in the place of violins is grade A bullshit. I liked it.
I'm keeping it. I am not impressed.

>If it can all, after all the calculations are done, be conveniently
>swept under the rug with "works for me", then it is truly game over.

Using oboes is a calculation?? What are you talking about?

> I'm still hoping for more, and would really like to believe in the
benefits from all this research. Really. But with an example like the
Haydn, it *doesn't* work for me, on a number of levels. When I've
spent 20+ years in a relationship with a cellist, and listened to
countless quartet rehearsals and concerts, it is way to much to
swallow.

I'm afraid I can't help your 20+ years of becoming set in your ways
and cranky about it, but there really is no law which says I must use
only strings when I render a string quartet. It's worse than that,
Jon--in this country it is *perfectly legal*, if you can believe it,
for two oboeists, a violaist and a cellist to get together and play
Haydn string quartets.

>I know, I know, it was just an example. But someday I hope these
>experiments really decide to take making music as a serious,
>dedicated priority.

Meaning your way or no way?

Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Really, Gene, those notes didn't sound out to you?
>
> Jon, what did/do you think of Herman's TOP-meantone canon?
> (scroll all the way down)

I haven't checked it out, but to be fair, I will. It isn't (godIhopenot) another of the Pachelbel things, is it? Well, I'll know soon enough...

Cheers,
Jon

>I haven't checked it out, but to be fair, I will. It isn't (godIhopenot)
>another of the Pachelbel things, is it? Well, I'll know soon enough...

Yessir, it is! %^{'=

-C.

> I didn't take to the Alaskas, which have flattened octaves,

What criteria, exactly, did you use to evaluate them? None
of them are as extreme as grail or even Werkmeister III, but
you liked the flattened-octaves Brahms and Bach cantata
MIDIs you made... ?

-Carl

Gene,

I hope that this isn't the case: that you are completely unwilling to accept a negative comment on anything that you do. I am sure that you are more than willing to accept someone pointing out a mistake in a formula. If anything that ventures into the realm of music, in all that that term encompasses, is beyond the pale of commentary, then so be it. You are writing your own rules, and you choose to not consider anything but your own set of artistic guidelines.

Maybe just state up front that you don't want any non-positive comments.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Eh? I thought you said the *unisons* were mistuned, and that this
> happened for the first time on the fourth note.

I didn't have a score, and wasn't sure that with the change in orchestration if we were doing octaves or unisons. But I *did* specify the opening notes of the piece. When Haydn wrote those notes - in octaves - I would be willing to bet he didn't expect beating, if done properly.

> Obviously, the octaves are not tuned as exact 2's, and yes, you can
> hear it. If this bothers you that much, you're not going to like
> meantone top, especially when only octaves are playing.

I'd guess so. What is it good for?

> If Jon Szanto doesn't like something, it is garbage and no one should
> listen to it?

Nononono. I am sorry if it came off like that, but you are applying this tuning to a piece that would never have beats (out-of-tune) octaves - isn't that absurd? That is similar to taking a French text and translating it to Estonian, except changing some of the words because you want to try some exotic translation engine.

> Anyway, you hear things way, way, way more out of tune in your line
> of work all the time. We are talking about a difference of 1.7 cents,
> after all.

I don't care what the measurement is: the *music* was written for notes that are in tune, and you've negated that.

> But your negative view is noted, and I thank you for it. I'll try not
> to go hog-wild turning everything into meanpop. :)

I didn't listen to a lot of the other xlations, mostly for music reasons. But your TOP meantone post got me really excited, with a tone that suggested a fertile field for a lot of music. Maybe other examples will bring that to light, but too many of the harmonies in this piece begged me to turn off WinAmp. And maybe it *is* just me. But if it is me, it might be others as well, others with less vested in all these beakers...

> The parallel octaves sound a little detuned, but not to an extent I
> find myself not liking.

If it is all subjective, then all tunings are appropriate, and none of these measures (Tenney, etc) mean anything in a musical context?

> Given that the 12-equal major third is *eight
> times* more out of tune than these octaves, there are less precise
> tunings out there, and the San Diego Symphony Orchestra is using them.

What does precision have to do with making music?

> I liked the oboes. If you didn't, that is your privledge, but it
> stops there.

I, and Haydn. I'll stick with my team, but you feel you know better.

> Claiming I committed some kind of high tuning crime by
> using oboes in the place of violins is grade A bullshit.

You really don't want a discordant opinion, do you? It is pretty straight-forward: a string quartet is a wonderful medium for listening to music in various tunings, and it is so because of the homogenous texture an timbral space that the four like-bodied instruments deliver. You *are* more than welcome to make up multi-instrument ensembles, but in your zeal to be your own man, you are overlooking some other issues - most likely unintentional, but since I give you great credit for your analytic and computative skills, it wouldn't hurt for you to give a little due to people who have spent *their* years on the planet in the arts.

> Using oboes is a calculation?? What are you talking about?

No, no, the tuning, and whether it works in a composition. If it is just "I like it" then it is pretty much a meaningless debate/discovery. Unless I'm missing something, because it sounded to me like bad Haydn instead of better Haydn.

> I'm afraid I can't help your 20+ years of becoming set in your ways
> and cranky about it

??? So steeping oneself in a medium, learning a lot about it, studying scores... this is all a waste of time, a fossilization with no redeeming qualities? And doesn't give you even a second of pause to thing "well, maybe there is something there to look at"? Then I think one of the things I've always felt is true: the list has become a place where the only value one can place is on rows of figures that can be proved or disproved.

> but there really is no law which says I must use
> only strings when I render a string quartet. It's worse than that,
> Jon--in this country it is *perfectly legal*, if you can believe it,
> for two oboeists, a violaist and a cellist to get together and play
> Haydn string quartets.

Gene, that is pretty amateurish. Of course they can, of course the probably do. You are obstinately refusing to look at the positive aspects of a string quartet *as intended*. Maybe this is good for you, I don't know...

> >I know, I know, it was just an example. But someday I hope these
> >experiments really decide to take making music as a serious,
> >dedicated priority.
>
> Meaning your way or no way?

Meaning that input from musicians, and a less jaundiced view of past musical compositions, can help create a platform for the exposure of the musical uses of all the developments you, and others, have (and will) bring to light.

Cheers,
Jon

C,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >I haven't checked it out, but to be fair, I will. It isn't (godIhopenot)
> >another of the Pachelbel things, is it? Well, I'll know soon enough...
>
> Yessir, it is! %^{'=

Ugh. Well, I did my duty, and it certainly does not make me cringe the way most of the other Canons did (Herman, if you are reading this, I *like* YOUR pieces! Just not the majority of these retunings). Since we're looking at a very small handful of harmonies, it falls into place not-badly in the Canon, unlike the Haydn, where almost everything I was listening to was a compromise to what my ear wanted to hear.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > I didn't take to the Alaskas, which have flattened octaves,
>
> What criteria, exactly, did you use to evaluate them?

I started putting Dvoark #8 into Alaska 1, and it made me unhappy.
However, that was probably the wrong Alaska to use for Dvorak, so I
should try again, and maybe with something other than Dvorak.

None
> of them are as extreme as grail or even Werkmeister III, but
> you liked the flattened-octaves Brahms and Bach cantata
> MIDIs you made... ?

I'm not following you here--grail and Werckmeister have pure octaves,
and I don't know what the point is of mentioning midi files. The TOP
tuning/zeta tuning stuff is logical. I suppose if it wasn't so damned
easy to use I might be more inclined to use it, but that just means I
should try it on something 20th century, I suppose.

What would you suggest would be a good demo for an Alaska, and which
one?

>> None of them are as extreme as grail or even Werkmeister III,
>> but you liked the flattened-octaves Brahms and Bach cantata
>> MIDIs you made... ?
>
>I'm not following you here--grail and Werckmeister have pure octaves,

By extreme I mean the variation in major 3rds. Grail is obviously
very extreme, but even the baroque circular temperaments have usually
at least one just and one Pythagorean 3rd. If you center these
extreme temperaments for each piece (assuming the piece has a center)
they'll sound better than any Alaska. Alaska 1 is the most extreme
Alaska with four 390-cent 3rds and eight 10ths about the same as in
equal temperament.

The point of the Alaska tunings was to find circulating temperaments
with no keys worse than equal temperament (Alaska 3 is the only
exception, with one Pythagorean 10th) for use on infrequently-tuned
keyboard instruments and a broad repertoire.

>and I don't know what the point is of mentioning midi files.

You did Brahms and Bach MIDIs in dominant7ths[12], which we both
liked.

>What would you suggest would be a good demo for an Alaska, and which
>one?

Pieces in a variety of keys, vs. historical temperaments fixed to
historical key centers.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> I hope that this isn't the case: that you are completely unwilling
to accept a negative comment on anything that you do.

I won't take seriously criticisms which seem petty or based on
conservative, do-nothing philosopies. If you are so ultraconvervative
you can't even accept oboes in the place of violins, it seems to me
hanging out with tuning people makes no sense. Nor do I much care for
your condescending sneer to the effect that nothing worthwhile has
been done, but you are still hoping.

> Maybe just state up front that you don't want any non-positive
comments.

I don't want petty comments about how many decimal places I use,
whether or not I can mention Harry Partch, or if people who use oboes
in the place of violins are ignorant boobs. In general I don't want
conservatism for its own knee-jerk sake. I do value your comment on
the octaves of top meantone--obviously, they bother you, and this is
a data point, and the kind of feedback we need.

> I didn't have a score, and wasn't sure that with the change in
orchestration if we were doing octaves or unisons. But I *did*
specify the opening notes of the piece. When Haydn wrote those notes -
in octaves - I would be willing to bet he didn't expect beating, if
done properly.

OK. I thought we all knew the octaves were detuned, so I wasn't
following you.

> > Obviously, the octaves are not tuned as exact 2's, and yes, you
can
> > hear it. If this bothers you that much, you're not going to like
> > meantone top, especially when only octaves are playing.
>
> I'd guess so. What is it good for?

Do you care at all about thirds and fifths, or just about octaves?
Obviously, if octaves are the only tuning consideration we tune them
pure.

> Nononono. I am sorry if it came off like that, but you are applying
this tuning to a piece that would never have beats (out-of-tune)
octaves - isn't that absurd?

No. Ultraconservatism again!

>That is similar to taking a French text and translating it to
>Estonian, except changing some of the words because you want to try
>some exotic translation engine.

Bad analogy. Night on Porcupine Mountain is a translation, but top
meantone is merely a tuning--one better, in some respects, to the
kind you prefer, but with slightly sharp octaves.

> > Anyway, you hear things way, way, way more out of tune in your
line
> > of work all the time. We are talking about a difference of 1.7
cents,
> > after all.
>
> I don't care what the measurement is: the *music* was written for
notes that are in tune, and you've negated that.

Good Lord. How can you hang out on the tuning list all this time and
say this? It was *not* written for "notes that are in tune", it was
written for string players who lived in a non-12-equal world, and
were in a position to adjust their tuning, but who probably were
flattening their fifths much more and more often than modern players
would. Who, of course, are also not playing "notes that are in tune",
whatever the hell that means. In any case if the string players are
adapting their tuning (and when Haydn and Mozart were playing in the
same quartet, it's a fair guess they were) they were not adapting it
to the approved tuning of the San Diego Symphony Orchestra.

>But if it is me, it might be others as well, others with less vested
>in all these beakers...

I was excited because I had a positive, wow!, reaction to the octave
stretching coupled with sweet sounding triads. The oboes were
supposed to bring out that dynamic.

> If it is all subjective, then all tunings are appropriate, and none
of these measures (Tenney, etc) mean anything in a musical context?

Paul seems convinced Tenney is the way to go, and I certainly have
been unable to find something better. How would you order JI
consonances within an octave, using your personal ears?

> > Given that the 12-equal major third is *eight
> > times* more out of tune than these octaves, there are less
precise
> > tunings out there, and the San Diego Symphony Orchestra is using
them.
>
> What does precision have to do with making music?

First you tell me that top meantone is garbage becasuse it isn't
precise and requires you to play notes that are not in tune, and now
you ask this. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

> > I liked the oboes. If you didn't, that is your privledge, but it
> > stops there.
>
> I, and Haydn. I'll stick with my team, but you feel you know better.

Haydn never used a computer to render music in his life. If he did,
how do you know he'd prefer the violin sound font over the oboe?

> > Claiming I committed some kind of high tuning crime by
> > using oboes in the place of violins is grade A bullshit.
>
> You really don't want a discordant opinion, do you?

You dumped on me very, very hard over the oboe business. It went way
beyond a bad review. It was practically moral condemnation, like and
old-time preacher on cards and dancing.

>It is pretty straight-forward: a string quartet is a wonderful
>medium for listening to music in various tunings, and it is so
>because of the homogenous texture an timbral space that the four
>like-bodied instruments deliver.

That's one opinion. Here's another--oboes are good for checking out
tunings, because they are rich in harmonics. So are violins, but
oboes really punch it.

Anyway, I didn't do an experiment. If you want experiments, buy a
chemistry set.

>You *are* more than welcome to make up multi-instrument ensembles,
>but in your zeal to be your own man, you are overlooking some other
>issues - most likely unintentional, but since I give you great
>credit for your analytic and computative skills, it wouldn't hurt
>for you to give a little due to people who have spent *their* years
>on the planet in the arts.

If I boil this down, it seems to be an argument from authority saying
that we should always do what Grandpa did. In other words, more of
your continual drum-beating (not that I blame you for beating on
drums, but...) for convervatism. No change. No thought. No no never
anything which resembles progress.

> > Using oboes is a calculation?? What are you talking about?
>
> No, no, the tuning, and whether it works in a composition. If it is
just "I like it" then it is pretty much a meaningless
debate/discovery. Unless I'm missing something, because it sounded to
me like bad Haydn instead of better Haydn.
>
> > I'm afraid I can't help your 20+ years of becoming set in your
ways
> > and cranky about it
>
> ??? So steeping oneself in a medium, learning a lot about it,
studying scores... this is all a waste of time, a fossilization with
no redeeming qualities?

If it is an excuse for petty carping and mindless conservatism, it's
not helping you or anyone else. Obviously, you used to be interested
in new ideas. Try to recapture the rapture.

>And doesn't give you even a second of pause to thing "well, maybe
>there is something there to look at"?

Your 30+ years means that your musical taste is better than mine? It
doesn't work that way. Musicians can have rotten taste in music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

>When I've spent 20+ years in a relationship with a cellist, and
>listened to countless quartet rehearsals and concerts, it is way to
>much to swallow.

I'm pretty sure I have more experience than you with soundfonts. I
probably have much more at this point. However, you don't need very
much experience to know a soundfont for an instrument is not the same
as the instrument. In the vastness of your wisdom and your massive
30+ years of experience, have you pondered how well string soundfonts
render string quartet music?

How much do you know about the topic, really?

>>When I've spent 20+ years in a relationship with a cellist, and
>>listened to countless quartet rehearsals and concerts, it is way to
>>much to swallow.

Not to gang up on Jon, but this is a very unmusical attitude.
Transcriptions not allowed? C'mon. Haydn on your side? None
of us can know, but every great classical composer I know of
made extensive use of transcription. It's fun!

-Carl

on 1/10/04 1:54 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>> I didn't take to the Alaskas, which have flattened octaves,
>>
>> What criteria, exactly, did you use to evaluate them?
>
> I started putting Dvoark #8 into Alaska 1, and it made me unhappy.
> However, that was probably the wrong Alaska to use for Dvorak, so I
> should try again, and maybe with something other than Dvorak.
>
> None
>> of them are as extreme as grail or even Werkmeister III, but
>> you liked the flattened-octaves Brahms and Bach cantata
>> MIDIs you made... ?
>
> I'm not following you here--grail and Werckmeister have pure octaves,
> and I don't know what the point is of mentioning midi files. The TOP
> tuning/zeta tuning stuff is logical. I suppose if it wasn't so damned
> easy to use I might be more inclined to use it, but that just means I
> should try it on something 20th century, I suppose.
>
> What would you suggest would be a good demo for an Alaska, and which
> one?

It is really fantastic with Bach's fantasia & fugue in G major for organ.
If you don't already have a midi for this, you may get to hear it anyway,
since if I can figure a way to record my organ I will upload a sound file of
it.

I don't yet have a way to capture a midi file under OS X, but that is
something I should also arrange, in which case I can deliver a MIDI of the
fantasia/fugue someday.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51422

> C,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >I haven't checked it out, but to be fair, I will. It isn't
(godIhopenot)
> > >another of the Pachelbel things, is it? Well, I'll know soon
enough...
> >
> > Yessir, it is! %^{'=
>
> Ugh. Well, I did my duty, and it certainly does not make me cringe
the way most of the other Canons did (Herman, if you are reading
this, I *like* YOUR pieces! Just not the majority of these
retunings). Since we're looking at a very small handful of harmonies,
it falls into place not-badly in the Canon, unlike the Haydn, where
almost everything I was listening to was a compromise to what my ear
wanted to hear.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***I guess when I listened to these things I *forgot* that it was the
tinklebell canon, and just was listening to the differences in the
*tunings....* That seemed to be more what the exercise was about...

J. Pehrson

Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I won't take seriously criticisms which seem petty or based on
> conservative, do-nothing philosopies. If you are so ultraconvervative
> you can't even accept oboes in the place of violins, it seems to me
> hanging out with tuning people makes no sense.

I'll answer your continued claim of conservatism right here, right now: I believe I made it clear that in choosing a piece composed for like instrumental voices for your tuning, and then changing voices, you were altering the musical terrain enough as to make hearing the tuning, in the context of the piece, less clear. It has nothing to do with conservatism, though your idea of what is acceptable in transcription appears to be *anything*.

> Nor do I much care for
> your condescending sneer to the effect that nothing worthwhile has
> been done, but you are still hoping.

I did not say that, and I look forward to music made with many of the developments you've taken part in. Especially new music.

> I don't want petty comments about how many decimal places I use,
> whether or not I can mention Harry Partch, or if people who use oboes
> in the place of violins are ignorant boobs.

Take a chill pill. I said neither of the first two, and the last is way overstated, as I've answered above. Every time you bring up Partch, which I didn't, shows an innate hostility to me. I should have learned, but you'd rather not have my comments on things. Fine.

> In general I don't want
> conservatism for its own knee-jerk sake. I do value your comment on
> the octaves of top meantone--obviously, they bother you, and this is
> a data point, and the kind of feedback we need.

No musical opinions on music then. Fine.

> No. Ultraconservatism again!

That's a laugh.

> Bad analogy. Night on Porcupine Mountain is a translation, but top
> meantone is merely a tuning

*Merely*? Does this mean that a tuning cannot ruin (or save) a piece? Or, as you constantly say, "works for me"?

> > I don't care what the measurement is: the *music* was written for
> notes that are in tune, and you've negated that.
>
> Good Lord. How can you hang out on the tuning list all this time and
> say this? It was *not* written for "notes that are in tune"

So you are saying that quartets, no matter what the time period (going all the way back to Haydn's original concerts) would have played those octaves with beats and not given it a second thought? Or are you saying that *that* particular piece survives octave beating just fine?

> they were not adapting it
> to the approved tuning of the San Diego Symphony Orchestra.

You don't need to keep bringing up the SDS, since it isn't germain. Not to mention you've probably never heard the orchestra, which is not as good as SFO, etc.

> I was excited because I had a positive, wow!, reaction to the octave
> stretching coupled with sweet sounding triads. The oboes were
> supposed to bring out that dynamic.

You might have said as much.

> > What does precision have to do with making music?
>
> First you tell me that top meantone is garbage

I did not. Is it impossible for you to respond without completely mis-stating my positions?

> Haydn never used a computer to render music in his life. If he did,
> how do you know he'd prefer the violin sound font over the oboe?

I don't. But you continue to ignore my only objection to it, which *wasn't* based on history, so it is moot.

> You dumped on me very, very hard over the oboe business. It went
> way beyond a bad review. It was practically moral condemnation,
> like and
> old-time preacher on cards and dancing.

What??? I think it is a poor choice, if taking string ensemble music in a new tuning AND at the same time altering the orchestration. Beyond that, I guess I figured you had a lot thicker skin than that, Gene, and it basically *does* mean that you don't want any disagreements, other than "data points".

> That's one opinion. Here's another--oboes are good for checking out
> tunings, because they are rich in harmonics. So are violins, but
> oboes really punch it.

Then why wasn't it an oboe quartet?

> Anyway, I didn't do an experiment. If you want experiments, buy a
> chemistry set.

Haha. Very clever. It was a total experiment, Gene.

> If I boil this down, it seems to be an argument from authority saying
> that we should always do what Grandpa did.

You stopped listening a long time ago...

> No change. No thought. No no never anything which resembles
> progress.

And your response is to root through the compositions of the past, suck them into your computer, apply samples and tunings to them and come out the other end as The Next Great Thing.

No, I don't think you feel that way, but all I view in these tuning experiments is potential gleanings of music that might be composed. And it seems that 99% of the activity around this community is unconcerned with creating NEW music. That would be progress and change.

> Your 30+ years means that your musical taste is better than mine?
> It doesn't work that way. Musicians can have rotten taste in music.

You've got it easy, Gene. You don't have to ever once admit a musical fallacy, because anything outside of a spreadsheet is simply a matter of taste.

Real easy.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> However, you don't need very much experience to know a soundfont
> for an instrument is not the same as the instrument.

No kidding.

> In the vastness of your wisdom and your massive
> 30+ years of experience, have you pondered how well string
> soundfonts render string quartet music?

Your anger still causes you to miss my point. But why is it that they don't render well? Because there is so much more to the *music* then simply playing _a_ sound. Articulations, phrasing, colors, etc.

All lost in these midi/rendered versions.

> How much do you know about the topic, really?

About sampling? A pretty fair amount, actually.

Cheers,
Jon

Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Not to gang up on Jon

That's ok, I have full pads on! :)

> but this is a very unmusical attitude. Transcriptions not allowed?
> Haydn on your side? None of us can know

For craps sake, was I THAT unclear? I didn't object to the act of transcription on a historical or puritanical basis, but simply that he had mixed unlike instruments in a score that was composed for like instruments, and I felt that made it difficult to ascertain the value of the tuning. That's all.

If I had an opinion on the _musicality_ of such a judgement, I'd be the first to admit that it was simply one person's opinion.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>When I've spent 20+ years in a relationship with a cellist, and
> >>listened to countless quartet rehearsals and concerts, it is way
to
> >>much to swallow.
>
> Not to gang up on Jon, but this is a very unmusical attitude.
> Transcriptions not allowed? C'mon. Haydn on your side? None
> of us can know, but every great classical composer I know of
> made extensive use of transcription. It's fun!

Haydn wrote *lots* of stuff for mechanical clocks. He wasn't a stick
in the mud.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> It is really fantastic with Bach's fantasia & fugue in G major for
organ.
> If you don't already have a midi for this, you may get to hear it
anyway,
> since if I can figure a way to record my organ I will upload a
sound file of
> it.

Sounds good!

Is it better than what simply tuning to zeta or top for 12-et? With
the Alaskas, I find a solution to a tuning problem I don't seem to
have--what to do when the composer uses a yes yes no yes yes no yes
yes no yes yes no pattern around a cicle of fifths.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Haydn wrote *lots* of stuff for mechanical clocks. He wasn't a stick
> in the mud.

You're missing the point. Again.

BTW, mixed ensembles are a wonderful thing. One need only look to the Mozart flute quartets, and especially the clarinet quartet (which is a paragon of writing for a single wind offset (and taking advantage of the differences) from the string quartet) to see the fertile ground that chamber music of this manner can make available.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I'll answer your continued claim of conservatism right here, right
now: I believe I made it clear that in choosing a piece composed for
like instrumental voices for your tuning, and then changing voices,
you were altering the musical terrain enough as to make hearing the
tuning, in the context of the piece, less clear.

And if I had used a violin (or fiddle, don't forget midi instrument
110 which I sometimes use) font instead of an oboe font you think I
would not have changed the voices? A violin font IS NOT a violin. I'm
sorry you don't seem to understand that, it should be obvious.

>It has nothing to do with conservatism, though your idea of what is
>acceptable in transcription appears to be *anything*.

That's not actually true, but your idea seems to be that you
personally know cellists, and therefore using any soundfont not
labled "cello" for a cello part when creating an electronic version
is an abominaton. It all leaves me to wonder where you draw the line--
are synth cello fonts OK, or verboten?

> Take a chill pill. I said neither of the first two, and the last is
way overstated, as I've answered above. Every time you bring up
Partch, which I didn't, shows an innate hostility to me.

That you say that shows you still haven't learned Partch is not your
personal property. You don't own the man, his memory, his writings,
his music, or his influence. GET OVER IT!

> *Merely*? Does this mean that a tuning cannot ruin (or save) a
piece? Or, as you constantly say, "works for me"?

No, I'm saying a tuning does not change the piece into another piece.
When you do that, as in the case of Porcupine Mountain does, it
should be called something else.

> > > I don't care what the measurement is: the *music* was written
for
> > notes that are in tune, and you've negated that.
> >
> > Good Lord. How can you hang out on the tuning list all this time
and
> > say this? It was *not* written for "notes that are in tune"
>
> So you are saying that quartets, no matter what the time period
(going all the way back to Haydn's original concerts) would have
played those octaves with beats and not given it a second thought?

No; why would they? They were not trained to stretch octaves.
However, they *were* trained to flatten fifths, and would have
happily played fifths with beats. That seems to leave you without a
discernable point. "Notes that are in tune" still sounds like the
kind of vague mush someone who knew exactly nothing about tuning
would come up with; I presume you know more than that so you should
be able to formulate your objection intelligently and in a way which
does not also cover meantone or 12-equal.

> > I was excited because I had a positive, wow!, reaction to the
octave
> > stretching coupled with sweet sounding triads. The oboes were
> > supposed to bring out that dynamic.
>
> You might have said as much.

Why?

> What??? I think it is a poor choice, if taking string ensemble
music in a new tuning AND at the same time altering the orchestration.

Using soundfonts alters the orchestration. Can you possibly get it
into your head that a soundfont violin is not an actual violin?

> No, I don't think you feel that way, but all I view in these tuning
experiments is potential gleanings of music that might be composed.
And it seems that 99% of the activity around this community is
unconcerned with creating NEW music. That would be progress and
change.

And I write a lot more of it than you seem to.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> For craps sake, was I THAT unclear? I didn't object to the act of
transcription on a historical or puritanical basis, but simply that
he had mixed unlike instruments in a score that was composed for like
instruments, and I felt that made it difficult to ascertain the value
of the tuning. That's all.

That was clearly not all, or you would not have reponded in utter
contempt and derision. There's a right way and a wrong way to do
these things:

Right way: Gene, I think it would have been better not to use the
oboe fonts for the violin parts, and here are my reasons.

Wrong way: I have 30+ years of experience as a percussionist, and
some of my friends play the cello. Therefore, my opinions about
anything remotely related to music are correct. Only an ignorant boob
with no taste in or knowledge of music would commit an abomination
like using oboe soundfonts in a string quartet rendering. Fix it,
Buster!

> If I had an opinion on the _musicality_ of such a judgement, I'd be
the first to admit that it was simply one person's opinion.

You kicked my musicality all around the room, sneered at me, and now
you say you didn't express an opinion?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > I'll answer your continued claim of conservatism right here, right
> now: I believe I made it clear that in choosing a piece composed for
> like instrumental voices for your tuning, and then changing voices,
> you were altering the musical terrain enough as to make hearing the
> tuning, in the context of the piece, less clear.
>
> And if I had used a violin (or fiddle, don't forget midi instrument
> 110 which I sometimes use) font instead of an oboe font you think I
> would not have changed the voices? A violin font IS NOT a violin.

Duh.

> I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that, it should be obvious.

How can I make this more clear: was there not a way to reproduce this piece with four like voices, so that the tuning could be heard in one timbre? That is all I have been talking about.

> That's not actually true, but your idea seems to be that you
> personally know cellists, and therefore using any soundfont not
> labled "cello" for a cello part when creating an electronic version
> is an abominaton. It all leaves me to wonder where you draw the line--
> are synth cello fonts OK, or verboten?

You have completely misconstued my statements. And abomination is not a word I used either - why you want to make me sound more vehement than I am about this, I have no idea.

> That you say that shows you still haven't learned Partch is not
> your personal property. You don't own the man, his memory, his
> writings, his music, or his influence. GET OVER IT!

Again, what does this have to do with the current discussion? Nothing.

> No, I'm saying a tuning does not change the piece into another
> piece. When you do that, as in the case of Porcupine Mountain
> does, it should be called something else.

I see the distinction.

> > So you are saying that quartets, no matter what the time period
> (going all the way back to Haydn's original concerts) would have
> played those octaves with beats and not given it a second thought?

> No; why would they? They were not trained to stretch octaves.

Then meantone with stretched octaves isn't a good choice for this? Or is it that "you should listen to this piece, now that the octaves are stretched and we can hear beating"? What I notice is that entire opening phrase, which consists of unisons and octaves, seems to have differing qualities of 'beating' on many of the pitches. It doesn't make sense to me that the tuning is changing per octave/unison, so is it vibrato in the font?

> "Notes that are in tune" still sounds like the
> kind of vague mush someone who knew exactly nothing about tuning
> would come up with

That is a good point - if I had (or will have in the future) more time to sit down with a score, and maybe the midi file (I've already filed meantop.scl in my archive) I could be more clear.

> > > I was excited because I had a positive, wow!, reaction to the
> octave
> > > stretching coupled with sweet sounding triads. The oboes were
> > > supposed to bring out that dynamic.
> >
> > You might have said as much.
>
> Why?

Because you already had expectations built in by your own listening, and you made 'musical' choices based upon the tuning. More information is always better than less.

> Using soundfonts alters the orchestration. Can you possibly get it
> into your head that a soundfont violin is not an actual violin?

Yeah, Gene, I probably understand that in a bigger sense than you do, but yes, that is abundantly clear. And beside the point.

> And I write a lot more of it than you seem to.

*Seem to.* You've based a lot of your objections to my thoughts from the standpoint of someone who does *not* know all the areas of music I have been, and continue to be, involved in. Calling me archconservative is very, very far from the mark, but I doubt you are interested in any more background. Especially since you feel that the *only* thing that can come from a life of studying music is calcification, and that musicians have worse taste in music than non-musicians. I find that unfortunate.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> That was clearly not all, or you would not have reponded in utter
> contempt and derision. There's a right way and a wrong way to do
> these things:

Go back to my original post, which contained only two points:

> 1. It is very difficult to concentrate on the tuning when you've
taken a string quartet (homogenous texture) and 're-orchestrated' it
as a multi-instrumental chamber work.
>
> 2. The fourth note in the piece, which is only the second pitch, is
out of tune, and not a unison. It *should* be a unison. Why is it
out, and how does this reflect on the rest of the
piece/tuning/rendering? Is it somehow a side-effect of the stretched
octaves?

That's it. I don't see anyone kicking you. I don't see any of the egregious verbiage that you want to attribute. At the end of my first response, I put the following:

> But with an example like the Haydn, it *doesn't* work for me, on a number of levels.

Notice: I said "for me"! You have already admitted that when you try out various tunings, some work for you and others don't. Where is the foul that I have committed?

> Wrong way: I have 30+ years of experience as a percussionist, and
> some of my friends play the cello. Therefore, my opinions about
> anything remotely related to music are correct. Only an ignorant boob
> with no taste in or knowledge of music would commit an abomination
> like using oboe soundfonts in a string quartet rendering. Fix it,
> Buster!

See above - you are taking things way out of context. I tried to phrase my initial comments in as benign a way as possible, and you felt you had been attacked.

> > If I had an opinion on the _musicality_ of such a judgement, I'd be
> the first to admit that it was simply one person's opinion.
>
> You kicked my musicality all around the room, sneered at me, and
> now you say you didn't express an opinion?

I did express one, and made it clear that it didn't work for me. I did not kick you or your musicality around the room, or sneer. In fact, I got worse than I 'didn't give'.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> How can I make this more clear: was there not a way to reproduce
this piece with four like voices, so that the tuning could be heard
in one timbre? That is all I have been talking about.

Of course there is. You never asked that I do that, politely or
otherwise, you simply snarled at me. If you asked, the way other
people ask, you might find a more positive response.

You seem to be under the impression I am producing tuning experiments
for the list. This is *not* the main reason I do these retunings. The
reason I do so many of them because I am producing the kinds of
things I like to listen to, so I can listen to them. Your comment
that I do too much of this is typical. What makes it your damned
business?

Some of these I don't like and dump. Others I put on CDs and listen
to, but I don't necessarily upload a corresponding ogg file to my web
site. Sometimes, however, I do that. When it embodies a new idea,
such as top meantone, I am especially likely to alert the tuning list.

> You have completely misconstued my statements. And abomination is
not a word I used either - why you want to make me sound more
vehement than I am about this, I have no idea.

When I made a joke about the traditional string quartet consisting of
two oboes, a viola, and a cello you went ballisic and made it a
matter of personal attack.

> Then meantone with stretched octaves isn't a good choice for this?
Or is it that "you should listen to this piece, now that the octaves
are stretched and we can hear beating"? What I notice is that entire
opening phrase, which consists of unisons and octaves, seems to have
differing qualities of 'beating' on many of the pitches. It doesn't
make sense to me that the tuning is changing per octave/unison, so is
it vibrato in the font?

The beating will change as the pitch changes, of course, but sound
fonts can be pretty strange and sometimes simply out of tune. I one I
used seems OK to me but maybe I'm missing something.

> > Using soundfonts alters the orchestration. Can you possibly get
it
> > into your head that a soundfont violin is not an actual violin?
>
> Yeah, Gene, I probably understand that in a bigger sense than you
do, but yes, that is abundantly clear. And beside the point.

Sure Jon. You know way, way more about music than anyone on this list.
We are all in awe of you and hang on your every word.

Can you possibly try to get over yourself?

>Especially since you feel that the *only* thing that can come from a
life of studying music is calcification, and that musicians have
worse taste in music than non-musicians. I find that unfortunate.

Did I say that? No. Honesty is the best policy. If I lived in England
I could hire a London solicitor and sue you, but alas we both live in
California.

Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this) thread to save grief on the list.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > That was clearly not all, or you would not have reponded in utter
> > contempt and derision. There's a right way and a wrong way to do
> > these things:
>
> Go back to my original post, which contained only two points:

Here's what you said in one post:

{{I try pretty hard to keep track of all the theoretic developments
that get done around here, but if musical comments like orchestration
of homogenous timbres just get laughed off, I'd say it is time to
consider not making musical claims for any of this!}}

In other words, people who don't fall into line with your wishes or
desires are not even producing music.

{If it can all, after all the calculations are done, be
conveniently swept under the rug with "works for me", then it is
truly game over.}

Those rotten people who calculate things have no right to claim to
have any taste or judgment, or to exercise it in any connection.

{I'm still hoping for more, and would really like to believe in the
benefits from all this research. Really.}

Everything you people have done up till now is garbage. I'm still
waiting.

{But with an example like the Haydn, it *doesn't* work for me, on a
number of levels. When I've spent 20+ years in a relationship with
a cellist, and listened to countless quartet rehearsals and concerts,
it is way to much to swallow.}

My wife plays the cello, so it's no wonder I don't like your oboe
soundfonts for the violin. It's my way or the highway, Buster. You
listen to the music I like, or no music at all.

{I know, I know, it was just an example. But someday I hope
these experiments really decide to take making music as a serious,
dedicated priority.}

What you have done does not please Me, and therefore is crap.

>Is it better than what simply tuning to zeta or top for 12-et? With
>the Alaskas, I find a solution to a tuning problem I don't seem to
>have--what to do when the composer uses a yes yes no yes yes no yes
>yes no yes yes no pattern around a cicle of fifths.

The problem is that zeta is very close to 12, so the difference is
very subtle. The whole thesis of the circulating temperament folks
seems to be that some-better-some-worse is somehow better, and you
can think of Alaska as testing that vs. zeta if you like.

I've been pushing Alaska 5, which was designed for new music, but
here are the 3rds patterns for all of the Alaska tunings.

Alaska1 C-G-D-A good; rest near-equal
Alaska2 " " but less extreme
Alaska3 F-C-G-D-A good; C# bad; rest near-equal
Alaska4 F-C-G-D-A-E-B good; rest near-equal
Alaska5 F-C, D-A, B-F# and G#-D# good; Bb, G, E, C# near-equal
Alaska6 " "

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Alaska1 C-G-D-A good; rest near-equal
> Alaska2 " " but less extreme
> Alaska3 F-C-G-D-A good; C# bad; rest near-equal
> Alaska4 F-C-G-D-A-E-B good; rest near-equal
> Alaska5 F-C, D-A, B-F# and G#-D# good; Bb, G, E, C# near-equal
> Alaska6 " "

I must take back what I said about the Alaskas, Alaska 1-4 look good.
Alaska 4 could be particularly useful, though with octaves four cents
flat it would be certain to drive Jon nuts. It might drive me nuts
too but certainly I must try it.

>> Alaska1 C-G-D-A good; rest near-equal
>> Alaska2 " " but less extreme
>> Alaska3 F-C-G-D-A good; C# bad; rest near-equal
>> Alaska4 F-C-G-D-A-E-B good; rest near-equal
>> Alaska5 F-C, D-A, B-F# and G#-D# good; Bb, G, E, C# near-equal
>> Alaska6 " "
>
>I must take back what I said about the Alaskas, Alaska 1-4 look good.
>Alaska 4 could be particularly useful, though with octaves four cents
>flat it would be certain to drive Jon nuts. It might drive me nuts
>too but certainly I must try it.

If you wanna be sure to have the latest versions of these scl files,
I've just put them in the files section of this list. They haven't
changed in a good while, but there was some shuffling around in the
very beginning.

-Carl

Gene,

When you say "in other words", you completely misrepresent both what I wrote and what I intended. You inflame every thought, and exagerate every phrase. You don't even use the "common sense" you claim is lacking on the list. So be it.

Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> When you say "in other words", you completely misrepresent both
what I wrote and what I intended.

I could hardly have done so as egregiously as your translation of
"Some non-musicians have better taste than some musicians" to the
claim "All non-musicians have better taste than all musicians".

In a message dated 2004:01:10 06:21:42 PM, gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

>Haydn wrote *lots* of stuff for mechanical clocks. He wasn't a stick
>in the mud.

And Mozart played with dice...in more ways than one, too...

-|-|--|---|-----|--------|-------------|
Hanuman Zhang, heeding the Call(ing) to Divine Chaos & Creation

_NADA BRAHMA_ < Sanskrit > "sound = Godhead"

"You breathe redemption, motive, power, You're elemental, super-collider
yeah tenn0!, You are air and earth, fire and ocean, You are Word, You are
tenn0 tenn0!" - mortal "tenn0"

_LILA_ < Sanskrit >
1. the universe is what happens when God wants to play - Divine Play -
the play of the Divine in its Cosmic Dance, whimsy - like a child playing alone
God the Cosmic Dancer - whose routine is all creatures and all worlds - the
Cosmos flows - a world from the tireless unending resistless stream of God's
energy that _is_ Lila
2. joyous exercise of spontaneity involved in the art of creation this is
also Lila

"A constellation is basially a conical chunk of stars with the apex at Earth

with an arbitrary space angle." - Andreas Johansson

"...divine chaos ...rumors of chaos have been known to enhance the
...vision.... for the godhead manifests no more of its reality than the limited
grammar of each person's imagination and conceptual system can handle. A second
advantage is suggested by William James in _Varieties of Religious Experience_.
James affirms the possibilty of many gods, mostly because he takes seriously
his multiverse theory of personal monads, each one of us experiencing a
unique... revelation. An orderly monistic and monotheistic system, he fears, might
succumb to a craving for logical coherence, and trim away some of the mystery,
rich indeterminancy, and tragic ambiguity in a complete numinous experience.
For some temperaments, the ambivalent gentleness and savagery of fate can be
imagined effectively in a godhead split into personified attributes, sometimes
at war, sometimes in shifting alliance." - Vernon Ruland, _Eight Sacred
Horizons: The Religious Imagination East and West_

"We bow to the _satvika_ Shiva
Whose _angika_ is the body
Whose _vachika_ is the entire language
Whose _aharya_ is the moon and the stars"

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this) thread to save
grief on the list.

Hey Gene,

Great job of moderation you're doing.

And isn't it neat how, according to Lumma's theory, moderators can be
as belligerant as they like, as long as they are not wearing their
moderator hat at the time.

>> Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this) thread to save
>> grief on the list.
>
>Hey Gene,
>
>Great job of moderation you're doing.
>
>And isn't it neat how, according to Lumma's theory, moderators can be
>as belligerant as they like, as long as they are not wearing their
>moderator hat at the time.

Don't bother replying, Gene. I'm going to be axing anything further
on this.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this) thread to save
> grief on the list.
>
> Hey Gene,
>
> Great job of moderation you're doing.

Did you want me to delete Jon's posts, my posts, your posts, or all
three?

hi Dave, Gene, and Jon,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this)
> > thread to save grief on the list.

thank you! i was going to post about 12 hours ago asking
both of you to continue this privately, but didn't in hopes
that it would die down on its own.

> Hey Gene,
>
> Great job of moderation you're doing.
>
> And isn't it neat how, according to Lumma's theory,
> moderators can be as belligerant as they like, as long
> as they are not wearing their moderator hat at the time.

thanks for pointing that out, Dave. i had forgotten that
Gene is a moderator while i was pressing "Next message"
past these diatribes.

there was potentially some interesting discussion in
this exchange, and i followed it for a while, but eventually
the belligerence of both of you against each other wore
me out and from then on i skipped past it. at least you
could have changed the subject line to "Gene-Jon flames"
or some such.

-monz

on 1/10/04 10:23 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> It is really fantastic with Bach's fantasia & fugue in G major for
> organ.
>> If you don't already have a midi for this, you may get to hear it
> anyway,
>> since if I can figure a way to record my organ I will upload a
> sound file of
>> it.
>
> Sounds good!
>
> Is it better than what simply tuning to zeta or top for 12-et?

I've only tried 60 or so temperaments, sorry. I never heard of top until a
couple days ago. Send me scala format for zeta and top-12-et and I'll try
them. This will be interesting.

> With
> the Alaskas, I find a solution to a tuning problem I don't seem to
> have--what to do when the composer uses a yes yes no yes yes no yes
> yes no yes yes no pattern around a cicle of fifths.

I have to admit not following you there. I'm not familiar with yes/no music
theory. Actually my tuning theory is much better than my music theory, and
that is (so far) not saying much. Since you had a total of 12 yes/no's I
don't see how the pattern you came up with would ocurr if you meant that
"no" is a wolf.

I like Alaska 1 for reasons that are possibly unrelated to the reason it was
created. The sweetness of the good 3:4:5's which occur in several keys
combines wonderfully with the octave-beat to create what is for me an
amazing and unique experience. Finally it is important that Alaska
functions very much like a well-temperament, while being slightly better in
the bad keys. Mind you my taste for the wolf is less generous than yours,
and I don't even like a WT wolf, usually, something which most people don't
even "call" a wolf.

-Kurt

on 1/10/04 6:47 PM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> hi Dave, Gene, and Jon,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>>
>>> Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this)
>>> thread to save grief on the list.
>
>
> thank you! i was going to post about 12 hours ago asking
> both of you to continue this privately, but didn't in hopes
> that it would die down on its own.
>
>
>> Hey Gene,
>>
>> Great job of moderation you're doing.
>>
>> And isn't it neat how, according to Lumma's theory,
>> moderators can be as belligerant as they like, as long
>> as they are not wearing their moderator hat at the time.

Personally I don't expect a moderator to moderate their own ordinary posts
as a "moderator". I hope everyone (including moderators) moderates
themselves as a poster. When doing "ordinary" posting I would expect a
moderator to behave exactly how they would have behaved not being a
moderator.

If we want moderators to follow higher standards as posters than everyone
else maybe that is a good thing, but then we should somehow have an
agreement to that effect. The best way to implement this might be for each
moderator to state their policies regarding their own behavior as ordinary
posters, and to ask others whether that is acceptable, and if the consensus
is no, then they can resign as moderator. Otherwise criticising a
moderator's ordinary postings on the basis of a presumed value judgement due
to their also being a moderator is of less value, as I see it, but of course
still valid as a personal opinion.

My preference is this: please criticize a moderators post by exactly the
same standards as any other person's post. If moderators can be expected to
be impeccable in their personal posting policies (nice alliteration) then
the same should be expected of everyone else. And thus I don't *expect* it,
but hope for it, and will feel free to offer feedback toward that end, to
moderators postings the same as for everyone else.

Opinion: I can see how it happenned between Gene and Jon. I can see that
as an almost inevitable consequence of their individual propensities. I
think neither person's "original" mistake is as problmatic as the final
consequence. However I believe each person has something to learn from how
their words were heard by another.

-Kurt

>
>
>
> thanks for pointing that out, Dave. i had forgotten that
> Gene is a moderator while i was pressing "Next message"
> past these diatribes.
>
>
> there was potentially some interesting discussion in
> this exchange, and i followed it for a while, but eventually
> the belligerence of both of you against each other wore
> me out and from then on i skipped past it. at least you
> could have changed the subject line to "Gene-Jon flames"
> or some such.
>
>
>
> -monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> Personally I don't expect a moderator to moderate their own ordinary
posts
> as a "moderator". I hope everyone (including moderators) moderates
> themselves as a poster. When doing "ordinary" posting I would expect a
> moderator to behave exactly how they would have behaved not being a
> moderator.

My culture embodies a principle that when there is unequal power in a
relationship, then the person with the greater power is expected to
curb certain of their natural propensities in regard to those of
lesser power, whether they are on the job or off. I suspect yours does
too.

e.g. Teachers are expected to turn the other cheek more often in
regard to either insults or entreaties from their students (even adult
students) whether inside or outside school, the same between adults
and children in general, also police and ordinary citizens. Claims by
the power-holder that they would have done the same thing if they were
not in that unequal-power relationship cut no ice. And claims that
they would never misuse their power against the other, and even the
fact that they never have, likewise are considered irrelevant.

I'm arguing that we adopt this principle on the tuning lists and not
accept moderators who do not accept it. Although I don't know what we
can do about it if we so decide.

-- Dave Keenan

P.S.

I could claim that both Carl and Gene have become _more_ belligerent
since they gained moderator powers. But it would be as difficult to
prove that as it would for them to prove _their_ claim that they
haven't changed. Which seems to me to point up why they would be smart
to make every effort to be obviously _less_ belligerent and not lay
themselves open to such accusations in the first place.

This is not to say that they can't express the same opinions, only
that they might be more careful how they go about it. And they might
try harder than usual to put the best reading possible on the apparent
attitute of posters opposed to their views.

And yes, of course, ideally we should _all_ do this.

> -- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> e.g. Teachers are expected to turn the other cheek more often in
> regard to either insults or entreaties from their students (even
adult
> students) whether inside or outside school, the same between adults
> and children in general, also police and ordinary citizens. Claims
by
> the power-holder that they would have done the same thing if they
were
> not in that unequal-power relationship cut no ice.

Professors here are not expected to put up with abuse from students.
In any case, moderators are human, and subject to headache,
toothache, and a desire not to be dissed.

> I'm arguing that we adopt this principle on the tuning lists and not
> accept moderators who do not accept it.

You talk as if the group were doing the moderators a favor by letting
them moderate, but I notice you won't volunteer, and Carl is talking
of quitting. If the moderators become targets, where do you think
that will lead?

Although I don't know what we
> can do about it if we so decide.

We've got a group owner.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> You talk as if the group were doing the moderators a favor by letting
> them moderate,

You've got a good point there.

> but I notice you won't volunteer,

If the list is switched to automatically moderate new members, then I
will volunteer.

> and Carl is talking
> of quitting. If the moderators become targets, where do you think
> that will lead?

So don't make yourselves targets.

> Although I don't know what we
> > can do about it if we so decide.
>
> We've got a group owner.

Who doesn't answer his email.

>My culture embodies a principle that when there is unequal power in
>a relationship, then the person with the greater power is expected
>to curb certain of their natural propensities in regard to those of
>lesser power, whether they are on the job or off. I suspect yours
>does too.

For reasons I'll probably never go into (because you and I are about
as diametrically-opposed on ethics as it's possible to be), I reject
just about every facet of the above. But ignoring philosophy for a
moment, for practical reasons it is not a good idea to depend on
altruistic leadership. Having checks, such as multiple moderators,
is better.

>I'm arguing that we adopt this principle on the tuning lists and not
>accept moderators who do not accept it. Although I don't know what we
>can do about it if we so decide.

Ugh. Hasn't it occurred to you that measuring this kind of thing is
asking for a disaster? And furthermore, you seem to be inciting a
democracy, which is truly repugnant. Oh, I give up.

Anyway, I was saving my next post for the weekday, when more people
would see it. But I guess I'd better go ahead and send it now.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51510

> there was potentially some interesting discussion in
> this exchange, and i followed it for a while, but eventually
> the belligerence of both of you against each other wore
> me out and from then on i skipped past it. at least you
> could have changed the subject line to "Gene-Jon flames"
> or some such.
>
>
>
> -monz

***I was just thinking that they *must* have something better to do
on a nice Saturday afternoon.... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > > not for me. all i got for both links was the
> > > > "The page cannot be displayed" error page.
> > >
> > > This should work:
> > >
> > >
>
http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/ogg/composers/haydn/quartets/op50n4_1.og
> g
> > >
> > > (cut/paste if you need to)
> > >
> > > What the hell does TOP stand for?
>
> I guess you've been away, Jon.
>
> > Terminological Obfuscatory Perfection? ;-)
> >
> > Actually Tenney-OPtimised
>
> And Tempered Octaves, Please!
>
> > which means the generators of the
> > temperament are adjusted to minimise the maximum Tenney-weighted
> > error. Tenney weighting means dividing the error in any n-limit
> > consonance
>
> Actually, *any* ratio. There is no odd-limit specified, and if
you're
> just specifying the commas and not the dimension, there's no prime-
> limit specified either.
>
> > by the base-2-log

Actually, any base will give the same result.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51530

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > You talk as if the group were doing the moderators a favor by
letting
> > them moderate,
>
> You've got a good point there.
>
> > but I notice you won't volunteer,
>
> If the list is switched to automatically moderate new members, then
I
> will volunteer.
>
> > and Carl is talking
> > of quitting. If the moderators become targets, where do you think
> > that will lead?
>
> So don't make yourselves targets.
>
> > Although I don't know what we
> > > can do about it if we so decide.
> >
> > We've got a group owner.
>
> Who doesn't answer his email.

***I'm sure there would be plenty of people around here who
would "moderate..." I wouldn't mind it myself, except I wouldn't do
much except maybe delete pornography...

J. Pehrson

Sorry to barge in without being fully caught up, Gene and Jon, but as
of Saturday morning's posts, it occurs to me that the two of you may
be referring to different things. There's no way a less-than-1-Hz
beating of the octaves is what's responsible for Jon's "winnebago-
sized vibrato" impression, is there? Eventually, I'll need to get
an .ogg player and hear it for myself.

> > Maybe just state up front that you don't want any non-positive
> comments.
>
> I don't want petty comments about how many decimal places I use,
> whether or not I can mention Harry Partch, or if people who use
oboes
> in the place of violins are ignorant boobs. In general I don't want
> conservatism for its own knee-jerk sake. I do value your comment on
> the octaves of top meantone--obviously, they bother you, and this
is
> a data point, and the kind of feedback we need.

I still suspect Jon was objecting to something else.

> > If it is all subjective, then all tunings are appropriate, and
none
> of these measures (Tenney, etc) mean anything in a musical context?
>
> Paul seems convinced Tenney is the way to go,

Maybe only this month, but's so darn similar to so many
other "optimal" options, that its theoretical simplicity makes it a
nice "exemplary" candidate for a paper, it seems . . .

> > > I liked the oboes. If you didn't, that is your privledge, but
it
> > > stops there.
> >
> > I, and Haydn. I'll stick with my team, but you feel you know
better.
>
> Haydn never used a computer to render music in his life. If he did,
> how do you know he'd prefer the violin sound font over the oboe?

I think Jon's experience makes his hunch count for an awful lot here.
It's pretty well accepted among experienced orchestrators that
consonance *within* instrumental groups is more important than
consonance *between* instrumental groups, for example -- though
that's not really the issue here . . .

> > > Claiming I committed some kind of high tuning crime by
> > > using oboes in the place of violins is grade A bullshit.
> >
> > You really don't want a discordant opinion, do you?
>
> You dumped on me very, very hard over the oboe business. It went
way
> beyond a bad review. It was practically moral condemnation, like
and
> old-time preacher on cards and dancing.

You must have no idea how you come off to many tuning participants,
Gene. And maybe to some of your math students too? I don't know . . .
maybe something to think about. Or alteratively, get yourself
a "tough skin" when wading into tuning territory, since in effect you
practically demand it of everyone else . . .

(sorry for the off-topicality of this, there was some in the original
message, but I guess metatuning is really the place . . .)

> Anyway, I didn't do an experiment. If you want experiments, buy a
> chemistry set.

Hmm . . . I'm kind of *glad* that I probably won't have time to catch
up on this thread tonight . . . :(

> >And doesn't give you even a second of pause to thing "well, maybe
> >there is something there to look at"?
>
> Your 30+ years means that your musical taste is better than mine?
It
> doesn't work that way. Musicians can have rotten taste in music.

There's no accounting for taste. Among Jon's favorites, many of which
he's been kind enough to purchase and send to me for no reason other
than the goodness of his heart, my rating ranges from 2 to 9 on a
scale of 1 to 10. Yet still, couldn't there have been a
more 'rational' reaction to this, Gene -- such as stopping for a
moment to think what unique musical effects a composer might be
exploiting when writing for a homogeneous musical group -- instead of
firing off some painful (if not intentionally so, though it seemed to
be) invective which should be intellectually below you?

Hopefully Kurt has shared or will share his thoughts too . . . his
success in "moderating" Peter Sault, such as it was, was
impressive . . .

Paul, Jon, Gene,

on 1/11/04 4:28 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

> I think Jon's experience makes his hunch count for an awful lot here.
> It's pretty well accepted among experienced orchestrators that
> consonance *within* instrumental groups is more important than
> consonance *between* instrumental groups, for example -- though
> that's not really the issue here . . .
>
>>>> Claiming I committed some kind of high tuning crime by
>>>> using oboes in the place of violins is grade A bullshit.
>>>
>>> You really don't want a discordant opinion, do you?
>>
>> You dumped on me very, very hard over the oboe business. It went
> way
>> beyond a bad review. It was practically moral condemnation, like
> and
>> old-time preacher on cards and dancing.
>
> You must have no idea how you come off to many tuning participants,
> Gene. And maybe to some of your math students too? I don't know . . .
> maybe something to think about. Or alteratively, get yourself
> a "tough skin" when wading into tuning territory, since in effect you
> practically demand it of everyone else . . .
>
> (sorry for the off-topicality of this, there was some in the original
> message, but I guess metatuning is really the place . . .)
>
>> Anyway, I didn't do an experiment. If you want experiments, buy a
>> chemistry set.
>
> Hmm . . . I'm kind of *glad* that I probably won't have time to catch
> up on this thread tonight . . . :(
>
>>> And doesn't give you even a second of pause to thing "well, maybe
>>> there is something there to look at"?
>>
>> Your 30+ years means that your musical taste is better than mine?
> It
>> doesn't work that way. Musicians can have rotten taste in music.
>
> There's no accounting for taste. Among Jon's favorites, many of which
> he's been kind enough to purchase and send to me for no reason other
> than the goodness of his heart, my rating ranges from 2 to 9 on a
> scale of 1 to 10. Yet still, couldn't there have been a
> more 'rational' reaction to this, Gene -- such as stopping for a
> moment to think what unique musical effects a composer might be
> exploiting when writing for a homogeneous musical group -- instead of
> firing off some painful (if not intentionally so, though it seemed to
> be) invective which should be intellectually below you?
>
> Hopefully Kurt has shared or will share his thoughts too . . . his
> success in "moderating" Peter Sault, such as it was, was
> impressive . . .

Yes, well I've semi-retired, or at least I have been taking a break. That
experience wore on me. Or more to the point, it demanded so much of me that
I can't necessarily offer anything like that on a continual basis.

That and other recent experiences have demonstrated to me that my own
clarity is not something that is with me all the time. I can be just as off
as anybody else, unless I am making quite a point of not doing that.

I appreciate what you [Paul] said to Gene, and agree in general, however I
would have avoided saying "intellectually below you" since the whole
above/below thing is an idea that invites more problems than it solves. I
also suspect that there is another side to this and that Jon could have
something to learn by understanding better what people might hear in what he
says, regardless of what he believes is his intention. At least it seems
clear to me that Gene heard something that Jon did not intend, but I suspect
that was not *entirely* Gene's doing. In looking at what Gene apparently
heard in Jon I could get a tentative sense of what hit Gene the wrong way,
i.e that Jon might have been slightly off-hand or less than careful, but
even more to the point I suspect Jon is not fully aware of the differences
of communication styles that exist between the culture *he* is used to from
what some others may be used to. I also think Jon has more fire than Gene,
and by habit, less of a damper. And I also do not think it is Jon's
exclusive responsibility to be aware of any of that. Rather if we have any
difficulties with the communication it is our responsibility to elucidate
this. To attack back when we perceive we are being attacked does not help.
So I'd say if you feel attacked (or insulted, or whatever) and you give the
person back what you believe they "deserve" you have just put yourself in a
position of not learning anything. Then, having received what he "deserves"
you have just invited the other person to join you in not really learning
anything.

It is a rare day when, after being attacked, someone reflects deeply and
then apologises. The missing ingredient in that description is the
difference between "being attacked" which sounds to be objective, and
"feeling attacked" or something to that effect which acknowledges more
possibility. Until someone can acknowledge that there is a difference
between what they experienced of someone's action and that person's own
experience of what they did, then the potential for someone learning
something (and therefore the potential for resolution) is pretty much locked
out.

I have *never* seen a situation in which both sides did not have something
to learn. I think neither Gene nor Jon fully acknowledged such a
possibility. If you want to help someone learn something *with* you it
takes an entirely different approach to have something like success. I
think many or even most people have never seen such success, because their
pride has never allowed it. So let's all try something different because
what we have tried so far did not work.

Sometimes after a fight people feel relieved and come back and "kiss and
make up", but this does not happen so much whan a friendship was not already
established. Either way the memory of all the pain that was created in the
relationship makes it much harder to heal and much more unconfortable to
continue since every moment with the person feels like a reminder of pain.
It is much easier if the cycle is stopped before it is started. Better late
than never, but it takes much more courage to endure a relationship after a
battle than if there had been no battle at all. However everyone involved
still has the choice of whether to continue to make it worse or not, and it
is really fruitful practice to go through something difficult willingly.

That's just a perspective, just my take on it *today* based on my *memory*
of the interaction, and it is always my intention to avoid pretending to be
authorative about anything, so if you believe I have missed the mark please
let me know.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***I'm sure there would be plenty of people around here who
> would "moderate..." I wouldn't mind it myself, except I wouldn't
do
> much except maybe delete pornography...

Carl and I have been attacked for not doing more than that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> I think Jon's experience makes his hunch count for an awful lot
here.
> It's pretty well accepted among experienced orchestrators that
> consonance *within* instrumental groups is more important than
> consonance *between* instrumental groups, for example -- though
> that's not really the issue here . . .

More important for what? I think a major problem has been that Jon
was assuming he was listening to a tuning experiment, and not music.

> There's no accounting for taste. Among Jon's favorites, many of
which
> he's been kind enough to purchase and send to me for no reason
other
> than the goodness of his heart, my rating ranges from 2 to 9 on a
> scale of 1 to 10. Yet still, couldn't there have been a
> more 'rational' reaction to this, Gene -- such as stopping for a
> moment to think what unique musical effects a composer might be
> exploiting when writing for a homogeneous musical group -- instead
of
> firing off some painful (if not intentionally so, though it seemed
to
> be) invective which should be intellectually below you?

You haven't listened to it, and you already assume I am wrong. Is
this rational?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

In looking at what Gene apparently
> heard in Jon I could get a tentative sense of what hit Gene the
wrong way,
> i.e that Jon might have been slightly off-hand or less than
careful, but
> even more to the point I suspect Jon is not fully aware of the
differences
> of communication styles that exist between the culture *he* is used
to from
> what some others may be used to.

In reviewing it myself, it struck me that while I was always talking
about music, Jon was perhaps concerned with tuning experiments. I may
have taken a criticism of an experiment as a comment about music.
However, much of the time he was clearly talking about music, even to
the extent of claiming Haydn prefers always using violin soundfonts
for violins.

> It is a rare day when, after being attacked, someone reflects
deeply and
> then apologises.

I realize I was not at my best. I did have headache and toothache to
contend with.

They've made a musical out of the Jerry Springer Show. Maybe this
group could be next.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51609

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***I'm sure there would be plenty of people around here who
> > would "moderate..." I wouldn't mind it myself, except I wouldn't
> do
> > much except maybe delete pornography...
>
> Carl and I have been attacked for not doing more than that.

***Well, I might have also said a mild word the other day in the
midst of a couple of altercating parties... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51610

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > I think Jon's experience makes his hunch count for an awful lot
> here.
> > It's pretty well accepted among experienced orchestrators that
> > consonance *within* instrumental groups is more important than
> > consonance *between* instrumental groups, for example -- though
> > that's not really the issue here . . .
>
> More important for what? I think a major problem has been that Jon
> was assuming he was listening to a tuning experiment, and not music.
>
> > There's no accounting for taste. Among Jon's favorites, many of
> which
> > he's been kind enough to purchase and send to me for no reason
> other
> > than the goodness of his heart, my rating ranges from 2 to 9 on a
> > scale of 1 to 10. Yet still, couldn't there have been a
> > more 'rational' reaction to this, Gene -- such as stopping for a
> > moment to think what unique musical effects a composer might be
> > exploiting when writing for a homogeneous musical group --
instead
> of
> > firing off some painful (if not intentionally so, though it
seemed
> to
> > be) invective which should be intellectually below you?
>
> You haven't listened to it, and you already assume I am wrong. Is
> this rational?

***One problem, I believe is the .ogg format. The mp3 is still
the "lingua franca" of the web. Even the well known and flexible
MusicMatch doesn't play and convert .oggs.

At the moment I have no interest in playing .oggs. Maybe that will
change, but until people make my listening experience relatively
convenient and broadly accessible, I will tend to ignore it...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> At the moment I have no interest in playing .oggs. Maybe that will
> change, but until people make my listening experience relatively
> convenient and broadly accessible, I will tend to ignore it...

If your software can't play the standard formats, which includes ogg,
why not get decent software? It's free.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > > Replied off-list. End of (my participation in this) thread to
save
> > grief on the list.
> >
> > Hey Gene,
> >
> > Great job of moderation you're doing.
>
> Did you want me to delete Jon's posts, my posts, your posts, or all
> three?

I'm way behind, guys, but it occurs to me that "moderator" implies
acting with "moderation". Typically, in moderated discussions, the
moderator keeps his or her head above the emotions of the discussion
participants, and keeps things moving in a focused way.

But no one ever wanted this to be a moderated list. It's merely a
spam-gets-deleted list, hopefully. So while I'd love as much as
anyone for Gene to tone it down, it's unfair to hold him to a higher
standard just because he's now capable of deleting spam . . . maybe?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> But no one ever wanted this to be a moderated list. It's merely a
> spam-gets-deleted list, hopefully.

If people want it to be a moderated list, I am capable of adopting
the solemn, above-it-all persona and quiet ruthlessness it requires.
Until then, expect me to be human, and kindly do not bait me, or I
will get pissed off quite publically.

It seems to me that before we ask our moderators to enforce the rules, we
need to get some agreement as to what they are. Spam, especially porn spam
is out, but that seems to be the only one we've agreed to. From the comments
on the Jon/Gene discussion, it looks like there is some sentiment for a rule
that would ban "personal attacks", but I think we need a little more
agreement as to where the limits (either odd or prime) are before we ask the
moderators to enforce them and we start criticizing them when they fail to
do so.

David Bowen

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "David Bowen" <dmb0317@f...> wrote:

From the comments
> on the Jon/Gene discussion, it looks like there is some sentiment
for a rule
> that would ban "personal attacks", but I think we need a little more
> agreement as to where the limits (either odd or prime) are before
we ask the
> moderators to enforce them and we start criticizing them when they
fail to
> do so.

My assumption has been that heated on-topic discussions are allowed,
and that off-topic discussions can be told to move elsewhere even if
they are very tame. Under that system, arguments about oboes or the
naming of planar temperaments are on-topic, while discussions of the
policies of John Ashcroft or the nature of the face on Mars would not
be, even if carried on very decorously.

>It seems to me that before we ask our moderators to enforce the rules,
>we need to get some agreement as to what they are. Spam, especially porn
>spam is out, but that seems to be the only one we've agreed to. From the
>comments on the Jon/Gene discussion, it looks like there is some sentiment
>for a rule that would ban "personal attacks", but I think we need a little
>more agreement as to where the limits (either odd or prime) are before we
>ask the moderators to enforce them and we start criticizing them when they
>fail to do so.
>
>David Bowen

Hi David,

Quoted below is the policy that, after much carful thought, I have
adopted. I think each moderator should be free to some extent to
implement his or her own policy. But I think the following is a very
good policy both for what it is, and what it isn't...

>My policy is: any posts that have zero music content are subject to
>deletion without warning or fanfare. Posts containing excessive
>profanity are subject to deletion without warning or fanfare. With
>the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
>violation is egregious, like the "imbroglio" or whatever thread has
>clearly become.
>
>Posters who repeatedly have me worrying about having to delete their
>posts are subject to moderation and/or removal from the list. With
>the understanding that the policy will not be actioned unless the
>violation is egregious, as Brian McLaren's was, and as Peter's is
>becoming.
>
>Moderation will always be subjective. The way you hedge against it
>is to have multiple moderators, and for the moderator torches to be
>passed periodically.

You can see that there have been many zero-music-content posts since
I adopted this policy which I have not deleted. I've even posted
some of them myself. That's because...

() Some of them weren't "egregious" in my eyes.

() Sometimes it's better to ignore something if you want it to go
away. Responding with action brings attention and can inflate the
problem, anger people involved, etc.

() I don't want the list to become completely stuffy and academic.

-Carl

on 1/12/04 10:20 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "David Bowen" <dmb0317@f...> wrote:
>
> From the comments
>> on the Jon/Gene discussion, it looks like there is some sentiment
> for a rule
>> that would ban "personal attacks", but I think we need a little more
>> agreement as to where the limits (either odd or prime) are before
> we ask the
>> moderators to enforce them and we start criticizing them when they
> fail to
>> do so.
>
> My assumption has been that heated on-topic discussions are allowed,
> and that off-topic discussions can be told to move elsewhere even if
> they are very tame. Under that system, arguments about oboes or the
> naming of planar temperaments are on-topic, while discussions of the
> policies of John Ashcroft or the nature of the face on Mars would not
> be, even if carried on very decorously.

Yes, and when in doubt I would recommend that the moderators should let
things through rather than block them. And in spite of the fact that we
can't create a "democracy" here it is fine if other people chime in with
their opinions about dialogs that should be ceased, changed, or moved
elsewhere. If people have to chime in this should not be taken to indicate
a failure on the part of the moderators. Rather to me this is essential to
a good balance in which moderators are not taking too much power.

Still, though "heated" on-topic discussions can be fine, the wrong kind of
heat (taking the form of personal insults, etc.) is itself off-topic,
regardless of what other material may be embedded in the insults.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51649

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "David Bowen" <dmb0317@f...> wrote:
>
> From the comments
> > on the Jon/Gene discussion, it looks like there is some sentiment
> for a rule
> > that would ban "personal attacks", but I think we need a little
more
> > agreement as to where the limits (either odd or prime) are before
> we ask the
> > moderators to enforce them and we start criticizing them when
they
> fail to
> > do so.
>
> My assumption has been that heated on-topic discussions are
allowed,
> and that off-topic discussions can be told to move elsewhere even
if
> they are very tame. Under that system, arguments about oboes or the
> naming of planar temperaments are on-topic, while discussions of
the
> policies of John Ashcroft or the nature of the face on Mars would
not
> be, even if carried on very decorously.

***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's escapade
went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of a "mean spirited"
discussion... Just my opinion...

JP

on 12/1/04 15:29, Gene Ward Smith at gwsmith@svpal.org wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
>> But no one ever wanted this to be a moderated list. It's merely a
>> spam-gets-deleted list, hopefully.
>
> If people want it to be a moderated list, I am capable of adopting
> the solemn, above-it-all persona and quiet ruthlessness it requires.
> Until then, expect me to be human, and kindly do not bait me, or I
> will get pissed off quite publically.
>
>
>

Spelling!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's
escapade
> went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of a "mean
spirited"
> discussion... Just my opinion...

Would you be offering this opinion if I wasn't the moderator?

>> ***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's
>> escapade went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of
>> a "mean spirited" discussion... Just my opinion...
>
> Would you be offering this opinion if I wasn't the moderator?

Indeed. There have been many battles far hotter (in my eyes)
in the past... between Johnny and myself, Jon and Johnny,
Paul and a few people (going way back), etc. But now that
Gene's a moderator, whoa, look out.

-Carl

on 1/13/04 1:36 AM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>>> ***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's
>>> escapade went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of
>>> a "mean spirited" discussion... Just my opinion...
>>
>> Would you be offering this opinion if I wasn't the moderator?
>
>
> Indeed. There have been many battles far hotter (in my eyes)
> in the past... between Johnny and myself, Jon and Johnny,
> Paul and a few people (going way back), etc. But now that
> Gene's a moderator, whoa, look out.
>
> -Carl

My discomfort with those posts had nothing to do with Gene being a
moderator. Whether I would have said something about that also had nothing
to do with Gene being a moderator. I say things sometimes and sometimes I
don't. It depends on the day and how energetic or worn out I am. In this
case I might not have said anything if Paul hadn't invited me to. I felt
like saying something, yet also felt at a loss for some reason and would not
have approached it without invitation.

I'm also not pretending to speak for JP or anyone else.

-Kurt

>In this
>case I might not have said anything if Paul hadn't invited me to.

I'm not blaming individuals necessarily. The fact that this
happened suggests community effects may be at work. But it
doesn't matter. There have been huuuge flame wars on this list
and with the exception of Sault or McLaren, nobody ever says
a word.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51711

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's
> escapade
> > went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of a "mean
> spirited"
> > discussion... Just my opinion...
>
> Would you be offering this opinion if I wasn't the moderator?

***Hi Gene,

I wasn't even thinking about you being a moderator. In fact, I
forgot about it, since you and Carl, thankfully, don't "moderate"
much... I just saw a couple of cats scratching each other's eyes out
and figured there must be something more fun to do on a Saturday
afternoon... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51717

> on 1/13/04 1:36 AM, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> >>> ***Yes, basically I agree, but I also think that Saturday's
> >>> escapade went *past* a spirited discussion into the realm of
> >>> a "mean spirited" discussion... Just my opinion...
> >>
> >> Would you be offering this opinion if I wasn't the moderator?
> >
> >
> > Indeed. There have been many battles far hotter (in my eyes)
> > in the past... between Johnny and myself, Jon and Johnny,
> > Paul and a few people (going way back), etc. But now that
> > Gene's a moderator, whoa, look out.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> My discomfort with those posts had nothing to do with Gene being a
> moderator. Whether I would have said something about that also had
nothing
> to do with Gene being a moderator. I say things sometimes and
sometimes I
> don't. It depends on the day and how energetic or worn out I am.
In this
> case I might not have said anything if Paul hadn't invited me to.
I felt
> like saying something, yet also felt at a loss for some reason and
would not
> have approached it without invitation.
>
> I'm also not pretending to speak for JP or anyone else.
>
> -Kurt

***Well, personally, I felt it was somewhat of a waste of my time to
get into it, as I felt it was probably a waste of the two combatant's
time combatting... so I didn't say anything, but didn't find it fun
to read. (Some people might enjoy reading that kind of thing,
though... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_51325.html#51718

> >In this
> >case I might not have said anything if Paul hadn't invited me to.
>
> I'm not blaming individuals necessarily. The fact that this
> happened suggests community effects may be at work. But it
> doesn't matter. There have been huuuge flame wars on this list
> and with the exception of Sault or McLaren, nobody ever says
> a word.
>
> -Carl

***Right, so maybe there is a distinction between "normal" flames
that happen between people (maybe some of them should be left alone)
and obviously pathological cases that need to be treated differently
or blocked...

JP