The Theory-Practice Split

Hello Guys,

I'm very happy to find out about MakingMicroMusic, which went for almost three years before I heard of it, and I praised the environment over there to Jon (though I realize that it's not just "his" list) even before people there/here made some nice comments about me, so Jon will vouch that I am not simply responding to compliments. I must add, though, and to both lists, that I am a little disappointed to be casually told that the "practical" side of tuning has moved over t/here now, as though that were a predictable and perfectly unobjectionable development with no ramifications. I have a few thoughts about the change that I feel moved to share, with no offense intended to anyone, and I hope none will be taken.

Some years ago my predecessors at Bard renamed the music department the "Making Music Program" (shades of MMM!) in defiance of the administration's attempts to turn it into a history/theory department. Only last week I fought off yet another attempt to make theory and history central, and to relegate the performance and composition faculty to basically adjunct status. Institutions endemically tend toward a gradual shift from art to theory. It's difficult to pinpoint how this happens, though not hard to find excuses for. Art is a demanding mistress, and artists have little time for organization (or continual e-mail postings). Organization of hierarchies and structures requires the same kind of analytical mind that theorists must have by definition, and they take to it like ducks to water. Theory and history can always prove themselves with arguments and facts, and always seem so respectable; artists can never prove what they're doing, and are always so vulnerable. The great stone walls of theory always get built eventually, and the tender seedlings of art get trampled underfoot in the process. And as stone walls multiply, the wilderness of the mind that art both needs and represents gets pushed further away from the city.

And so, when the great composers who taught in academia in the '70s (like Johnston, Martirano, Feldman) retired, the status-conscious departments of the '80s replaced them with theorists. _Perspectives of New Music_ was begun by composers, Ben Boretz and J.K. Randall, and for the last several years has been edited by a consortium of theorists. Of course, one notices that when the theorists came, the Midwestern university music departments died as hotbeds of experimental musical activity. _Perspectives_ ceased to be an exciting journal of new ideas when the theorists took over. Not that I have anything against theory (hell, I'm the only member of the music faculty who carries a pocket calculator, and even *uses* it in class), but without the unpredictable, irrational spark of creativity, theory tends to lie there on the table like the patient that didn't pull through. On the other other side, artists need theory, too - though, in my view, not very much of it, just a dash here and there to push their work forward, not enough to straitjacket it.

If the tuning list had split into just intonation versus various equal temperaments, I would have thought, "Well, that seems unnecessary, but not harmful: each of those areas of inquiry can continue independently of the other." But a split between theory and practical creativity doesn't strike me as so innocent - especially because it suggests that the tuning list is subject to the same forces that operate in academia and other inherently conservative institutions. If we here, of all places, can't understand that theory and creativity are an interconnected yin and yang, needing each other to remain lively, who on the planet will? For god's sake, how can artistic creativity keep any meaningful foothold in society when it can't even keep a foothold in the *tuning list*?

Just a thought. I'm too much of a southerner to play Abraham Lincoln. I'll secede with MMM, and I already find more of interest over t/here than I have on the tuning list in recent months. But perhaps that in itself shows how much the tuning list has to lose. I'm afraid, in short, that at MMM I won't find the occasional glimpses of bizarre theory that fire my imagination - and that the tuning list, without art-talk, will become impenetrable.

Cheers,

Kyle Gann

In a message dated 4/13/04 10:38:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kgann@earthlink.net writes:

> artists can never prove what they're doing, and are always so vulnerable.

Kyle's post resonates for me. I practice microtonality every day of my life
and have not migrated to MMM. The emphasis on electronic music and technology
in general is of less interest to me than that of acoustic directions.

Unfortunately, I think the problem is more of a "people" problem than a
subject area problem. Flaming on this list is endemic. Sometimes I think that
people that could meet and share a meal or a drink would never treat each other
as some have done on this list. Sometimes I feel that I don't belong on any of
these lists, except maybe Metatuning.

In today's world, the music industry lies dead. Academics have killed
whatever still moves. The musicians I know are in survival mode. It's a hard
environment to compose a symphony.

I don't expect any radical changes. People have made their decisions
already. Lines have been drawn and would have to be crossed. Of course, I thank the
many that have, and continue, to support the AFMM's microtonal work, and my
work in particular. The List has been very valuable to me in years past. It
may be a resource to newbies and to the intellectual pursuers of "what ifs" in
sound. But for those making real microtonal music, it is all too often a
detour.

At least there is an occasional post of practical interest.

best, Johnny Reinhard

All you need to do to heal the split is to have your email program send all
the email from the various tuning groups into one folder called....
"tuning". Voila- no more split. If you instead read the groups at the
website, well, then you must be a glutton for Yahoo advert punishment.

Dante

>All you need to do to heal the split is to have your email program
>send all the email from the various tuning groups into one folder
>called.... "tuning". Voila- no more split. If you instead read the
>groups at the website, well, then you must be a glutton for Yahoo
>advert punishment.

I used to do that, but people would get annoyed at me for mixing
up which threads happened on which list. So I now filter them
into individual mailboxes.

The only feature I miss from the web interface is "up thread",
which my mail client doesn't have. But with a gig of storage and
powerful features like this (so I've heard), Gmail might be the
way to go.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53122.html#53122

I must add, though, and to both lists, that I am a
> little disappointed to be casually told that the "practical" side
of
> tuning has moved over t/here now, as though that were a
predictable
> and perfectly unobjectionable development with no ramifications.

***Personally, and for the record, I *always* objected to the
splitting up of the lists (and this includes tuning *MATH* which was
not mentioned...) The only reasonable split, for me was
*metatuning* which had off topic stuff, and I guess that has some
validity (although I didn't really mind a bit of off topic stuff
either... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> Institutions endemically tend toward a gradual shift from art to
theory.

This is too sweeping; I think it really depends on the institution.

Also, schools with small programs churning out music
educators are likely to sideline not only theory and composition
but also performance, in favor of more music education courses.
How's that for practical!

Regards,
Aaron Hunt

Hello,

May be the split of lists was not so much because of a topic split
(theory against practice) but more because of the volume of messages?
and this is both the volume on particular topics that are not fully
worked out and the volume of messages by people who respond to almost
every single topic.

I wish that the lists would come back to one list, but only if all
will agree to restraint. In case of not fully worked out topics, to
take the discussion of detail off the list, but to report back with
major results, and also self restraint about the number of messages.

I am willing to close the SpecMus list if this would help.

Bernath Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_53122.html#53122
>
> I must add, though, and to both lists, that I am a
> > little disappointed to be casually told that the "practical" side
> of
> > tuning has moved over t/here now, as though that were a
> predictable
> > and perfectly unobjectionable development with no ramifications.
>
> ***Personally, and for the record, I *always* objected to the
> splitting up of the lists (and this includes tuning *MATH* which
was
> not mentioned...) The only reasonable split, for me was
> *metatuning* which had off topic stuff, and I guess that has some
> validity (although I didn't really mind a bit of off topic stuff
> either... :)
>
> JP

While having only one big list would solve the one major problem- cross
posting - it is also true as Carl mentioned that lists have "vibes" of their
own. The SpecMus list in particular seems to be off in another world far
from the other lists, so really I say "let a hundred lists bloom, let a
hundred approaches to tuning contend". Subscribe to one, subscribe to all,
subscribe to none. I mean, what could be more fun (and appropriate) than
having McLaren lurking on a list called "crazy music", making occasional
gorilla-war forays to rant about tuning on the metatuning list!

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alternativetuning [mailto:alternativetuning@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:30 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: The Theory-Practice Split
>
>
> Hello,
>
> May be the split of lists was not so much because of a topic split
> (theory against practice) but more because of the volume of messages?
> and this is both the volume on particular topics that are not fully
> worked out and the volume of messages by people who respond to almost
> every single topic.
>
> I wish that the lists would come back to one list, but only if all
> will agree to restraint. In case of not fully worked out topics, to
> take the discussion of detail off the list, but to report back with
> major results, and also self restraint about the number of messages.
>
> I am willing to close the SpecMus list if this would help.
>
> Bernath Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_53122.html#53123

> Unfortunately, I think the problem is more of a "people" problem
than a
> subject area problem. Flaming on this list is endemic. Sometimes
I think that
> people that could meet and share a meal or a drink would never
treat each other
> as some have done on this list. Sometimes I feel that I don't
belong on any of
> these lists, except maybe Metatuning.
>

***Hi Johnny...

Yes, and gratefully there hasn't been any flaming going on over
*there...* :)

JP