Re: Peace on the Tuning List

Hello, there, and I'd like to speak in favor of peace and tolerance on
the Tuning List.

For debates on tuning to lead at time to personal conflict is not
exactly new: consider, for example, Vicentino/Lusitano. However, I
would like to urge that good will can at once cushion the dissonance
of very substantial disagreements while encouraging more creative
theorizing, composing, and music-making, rather than less auspicious
tension at a personal level.

With musical issues, sometimes both "sides" have a point. As for
Vicentino/Lusitano, I would give a split decision. With Lusitano (and
Zarlino), I would agree that merely using the melodic interval or a
minor or major third does not of itself shift a piece from the
diatonic genus to the chromatic or enharmonic. With Vicentino, I would
emphatically agree that the chromatic and enharmonic genera
(distinguished by direct use of the small semitone and the diesis
respectively -- speaking in a context of tertian just intonation or
characteristic meantone) are musically compelling and most worthy of
cultivation, in 1551 or 1999.

Of course, I can hardly be expected to reject mathematical discussions
on the Tuning List, having engaged in them maybe more than enough. To
borrow from Chaucer (and maybe Boccaccio also): if you don't like this
tale, choose another.

Is it not possible to offer corrections to posts, by newcomers or
others, in a spirit of friendship and helpfulness? While I may feel a
bit embarrassed to have made an error, I much appreciate finding out
about it -- and sometimes even an opponent can be one's best
proofreader. Recently on Usenet, I defined a superparticular ratio as
"n+1:1" -- meaning, of course, to write "n+1:n" (where n>1). Someone
helpfully corrected this, a real service both to readers and author.

Of course, in greeting a newcomer, we want to put our best foot
forward and show that the contribution and contributor are warmly
welcome, even if there are serious differences of view going beyond a
typographical or mathematical slip of the keyboard. This seems to me a
matter of tone as much as content. A seasonable correction can be
taken as showing enough interest to read an article carefully and help
in its improvement, even if one might be ready to debate basic
premises.

When conducted civilly, impassioned debates can be very stimulating.
Sometimes it can be especially exciting to see two disputants assist
with each other's cases now and then even while maintaining their own
viewpoints. The ideal of collegial disputations is something very
attractive to me.

Finally, speaking only for myself, I'd like to argue that the variety
in English orthography is an attraction rather than flaw of this list.
In the documents of the Elizabethan period, one often may see two or
three spellings of the same word in the same document, so I have
trouble getting too excited at this kind of variation now. While I lean
myself toward conventionality in my own spelling, regretting what
would be regarded as a mistake, I would also note the often informal
and conversational nature of this list.

In short, I would like to advocate peace, diversity, friendliness in
debate, and flexibility in dealing with the range of styles and idioms
(musical and literary) encountered on this list.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

In a message dated 10/9/99 2:22:28 AM, mschulter@value.net wrote:

>I would like to advocate peace, diversity, friendliness in
>debate, and flexibility in dealing with the range of styles and idioms
>(musical and literary) encountered on this list.

BIG DITTO 'ERE...