Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Finally! JI Music is up.

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Eric T Knechtges" <knechtge@m...>
wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks to the folks who suggested soundclick.com for posting
> music -- it
> > appears to be up and running!
> >
> > So, if you all have a few minutes, check out my two pieces at
> > http://www.sounclick.com/TritoneMSU
>
> Try
>
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/tritonemsumusic.htm
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6bena

***Thanks, Gene. I was wondering what I was doing "wrong..."

These examples should be over on MakeMicroMusic, which is were this
kind of stuff is...

I particularly enjoyed the processing on "smooth ride," although it
seems more like a teaser than a "real piece..."

I didn't get the point of the chorale...

J. Pehrson

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54654

> >***Hi Carl,
> >
> >My personal feeling is that if you are going to be working in a
new
> >tuning system, one should create chorales that reflect the
principles
> >and ideas of that tuning system, not try to graft Bach or some
music
> >designed for another system onto it...
>
> This is just the melody, not the harmony, so I think this is
> sort of a misplaced objection.
>

***Huh? Whyso? It sound like he trying to *squeeze* as much of the
traditional diatonic 12-tET harmonies into it as possible... (??)

> The harmony is certainly reflects the ideals of the diamond, to
> me. In fact it sounds a lot like Partch's chromelodeon parts in
> oedipus and elsewhere.
>

***Well, it's great you enjoy this experiement and I like the JI
chords myself, but I think we might keep in mind the Partch's
chorales are totally original and not "reorchestrations" of one kind
or another, I believe...

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>>>My personal feeling is that if you are going to be working in a
>>>new tuning system, one should create chorales that reflect the
>>>principles and ideas of that tuning system, not try to graft
>>>Bach or some music designed for another system onto it...
>>
>>This is just the melody, not the harmony, so I think this is
>>sort of a misplaced objection.
>
>***Huh? Whyso? It sound like he trying to *squeeze* as much of
>the traditional diatonic 12-tET harmonies into it as possible... (??)

I dunno, it doesn't sound that way to me. The chord progression is
certainly similar, but... maybe I'm easy to please when it comes
to progressions in the diamond.

>>The harmony is certainly reflects the ideals of the diamond, to
>>me. In fact it sounds a lot like Partch's chromelodeon parts in
>>oedipus and elsewhere.
>
>***Well, it's great you enjoy this experiement and I like the JI
>chords myself, but I think we might keep in mind the Partch's
>chorales are totally original and not "reorchestrations" of one kind
>or another, I believe...

Partch often talked about and demonstrated common chord prgressions
in the monophonic fabric. While I'm not aware of any direct
transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
the present chorale.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Partch often talked about and demonstrated common chord prgressions
> in the monophonic fabric.

"Often" is a loaded word: most people today (in tuning circles) know
him from Genesis and a couple of recordings done on intonation. These
are snapshots that get repeated play, but Partch didn't do these demos
much after he got composing in earnest. In the first decade of his
work he would sometimes preface concerts with small demonstrations,
but he had grown long-tired of this and wished to compose and let the
music speak for itself. The tuning community puts a lot of stock in
the "Quarter-Saw Section..." taped lecture that he did for an ASUC
conference (an apt acronym if ever there was one) that he did in 1967.
Yet that was his first real exposition on tunings that he had done
since the publication of Genesis in the 40's.

> transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
> reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
> the present chorale.

That doesn't speak well of either intonational world.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> Partch often talked about and demonstrated common chord prgressions
>> in the monophonic fabric.
>
>"Often" is a loaded word: most people today (in tuning circles) know
>him from Genesis and a couple of recordings done on intonation. These
>are snapshots that get repeated play, but Partch didn't do these demos
>much after he got composing in earnest.

The class he taught at UCSD doesn't count?

>> transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
>> reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
>> the present chorale.
>
>That doesn't speak well of either intonational world.

That comment is neither positive or negative of either world.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54664

>
> >> transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
> >> reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
> >> the present chorale.
> >
> >That doesn't speak well of either intonational world.
>
> That comment is neither positive or negative of either world.
>
> -Carl

***Hi Carl,

Yes, I can see that now... but wouldn't you say that music that is
designed for a particular system, uses the peculiarities and
resources of that particular system, and is *original* to that system
is of greater interest than *transcriptions* that attempt to
shoehorn, with various degrees of accuracy, music written for one
system into another??

You're allowed to say "no" and probably will.... :)

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> The class he taught at UCSD doesn't count?

Those classes were in 1967, and it was one of Harry's worst
experiences, which he readily talked about. He did demonstrations as
part of those classes, which he felt compelled to do, and some of this
material is what formed the basis for "Quarter-Saw...".

Yeah, sure, it counts. But since he pretty much discounted the
efficacy of those sessions (in spite of the fact that for those who
experienced them, they were rather important), I don't put a lot of
stock in them. Especially saying he "often" did this or that. What he
"often" did was disparage those kinds of academic settings!

> >> transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
> >> reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
> >> the present chorale.
> >
> >That doesn't speak well of either intonational world.
>
> That comment is neither positive or negative of either world.

Let me try to be a little less whatever:

1. I don't find the "present chorale" to seem to have any over-riding
"accuracy". I actually found the resting points somewhat arbitrary and
unconvincing, and the resolutions not particularly strong.

2. Reversing course from JI into 12tet serves neither JI nor 12 in an
especially flattering way: 12 suffers from showing it's out of tune
quality, while pigeon-holing JI into mimicing the progression of a JI
piece is like polishing a turd.

BUT!

I liked the other piece quite a bit, and look forward to more pieces
in the genre of "Smooth". I think the chorale has a great deal of
validity as a learning exercise for the composer himself, but I don't
find it of much more value than that. And I whole-heartedly agree with
JP that - excepting 'exercises' and similar such as this one - looking
backward in this manner doesn't interest me at all. The expanding
world of microtonality can encompass a lot of areas; why would anyone
want to live in the past? (no answer needed)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>***Hi Carl,
>
>Yes, I can see that now... but wouldn't you say that music that is
>designed for a particular system, uses the peculiarities and
>resources of that particular system, and is *original* to that system
>is of greater interest than *transcriptions* that attempt to
>shoehorn, with various degrees of accuracy, music written for one
>system into another??
>
>You're allowed to say "no" and probably will.... :)

No, I absolutely agree!

(Though I do find transcriptions interesting
as well -- some of John deLaubenfels' early stuff for example,
I got a kick out of hearing familiar pieces sort of warping
around, due to the detempering of various commas.)

However in this case, aside from the fact that the melody is
familiar, I can't really imagine a piece of music that makes
more "natural" use of the diamond **within the chorale form**.

I mean, are you saying one shouldn't write chorales in the diamond?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> The class he taught at UCSD doesn't count?
>
>Those classes were in 1967, and it was one of Harry's worst
>experiences, which he readily talked about. He did demonstrations as
>part of those classes, which he felt compelled to do, and some of this
>material is what formed the basis for "Quarter-Saw...".
>
>Yeah, sure, it counts. But since he pretty much discounted the
>efficacy of those sessions (in spite of the fact that for those who
>experienced them, they were rather important), I don't put a lot of
>stock in them. Especially saying he "often" did this or that. What he
>"often" did was disparage those kinds of academic settings!

I don't know what you mean by stock. It's clear that thinking
about chord progressions and harmonization of melodies in the
diamond was a part of Partch's theory and practice.

>> >> transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
>> >> reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
>> >> the present chorale.
>> >
>> >That doesn't speak well of either intonational world.
>>
>> That comment is neither positive or negative of either world.
>
>Let me try to be a little less whatever:
>
>1. I don't find the "present chorale" to seem to have any over-riding
>"accuracy". I actually found the resting points somewhat arbitrary and
>unconvincing, and the resolutions not particularly strong.
>
>2. Reversing course from JI into 12tet serves neither JI nor 12 in an
>especially flattering way: 12 suffers from showing it's out of tune
>quality, while pigeon-holing JI into mimicing the progression of a JI
>piece is like polishing a turd.

I think you TOTALLY and comprehensively misunderstood what I was
trying to say here, Jon. I was just trying to say that anything
can be viewed as a transcription in 12-tET, if you want.

>And I whole-heartedly agree with
>JP that - excepting 'exercises' and similar such as this one - looking
>backward in this manner doesn't interest me at all. The expanding
>world of microtonality can encompass a lot of areas; why would anyone
>want to live in the past? (no answer needed)

Why would anyone rule out an entire musical form, such as
the chorale? Maybe *you're* not interested in chorales, fine.
But nobody should bother with chorales?

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by stock.

I mean that you placed emphasis on him doing something "often", which
must you must have intended to give weight to it ("to have faith in"
is one dictionary description). I'm pointing out that it wasn't an
activity he engaged in "often".

> It's clear that thinking
> about chord progressions and harmonization of melodies in the
> diamond was a part of Partch's theory and practice.

I don't have a big disagreement with that, though Partch is one of
those individuals who so completely synthesized his materials -
everything seemed to spring internally - that he didn't generate his
output with a lot of exercises and studies, which I can attest to
having worked with his archives, both printed and audio. The largest
example of such would be "...Petals...", which ended up being so much
of the material of "Delusion...".

> I think you TOTALLY and comprehensively misunderstood what I was
> trying to say here, Jon. I was just trying to say that anything
> can be viewed as a transcription in 12-tET, if you want.

Then I still don't understand what you are saying, so please clarify
your statement: do you mean like Colin McPhee's transcriptions of
gamelan music in 12tet?

> Why would anyone rule out an entire musical form, such as
> the chorale? Maybe *you're* not interested in chorales, fine.
> But nobody should bother with chorales?

I think people can do whatever they please, and usually do. How
important those things are, in some larger picture, is another matter.
One I don't think we need to get into on a tuning list.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> It's clear that thinking
>> about chord progressions and harmonization of melodies in the
>> diamond was a part of Partch's theory and practice.
>
>I don't have a big disagreement with that, though Partch is one of
>those individuals who so completely synthesized his materials -
>everything seemed to spring internally

Agreed absolutely. This is always the impression I have had
of his art, and indeed of all great artists.

>> I think you TOTALLY and comprehensively misunderstood what I was
>> trying to say here, Jon. I was just trying to say that anything
>> can be viewed as a transcription in 12-tET, if you want.
>
>Then I still don't understand what you are saying, so please clarify
>your statement: do you mean like Colin McPhee's transcriptions of
>gamelan music in 12tet?

I'm not familiar with that work. I don't mean any work *in
particular*, but rather in principle, saying something sounds
like it arose in 12-tET can mean different things. Anything
can sound like that, to some people. When it comes to chorales,
to me, Eric's piece is as about *far* from sounding like that
as possible for a chorale in the 11-limit diamond. Get it?

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54667

> >***Hi Carl,
> >
> >Yes, I can see that now... but wouldn't you say that music that is
> >designed for a particular system, uses the peculiarities and
> >resources of that particular system, and is *original* to that
system
> >is of greater interest than *transcriptions* that attempt to
> >shoehorn, with various degrees of accuracy, music written for one
> >system into another??
> >
> >You're allowed to say "no" and probably will.... :)
>
> No, I absolutely agree!
>
> (Though I do find transcriptions interesting
> as well -- some of John deLaubenfels' early stuff for example,
> I got a kick out of hearing familiar pieces sort of warping
> around, due to the detempering of various commas.)
>
> However in this case, aside from the fact that the melody is
> familiar, I can't really imagine a piece of music that makes
> more "natural" use of the diamond **within the chorale form**.
>
> I mean, are you saying one shouldn't write chorales in the diamond?
>
> -Carl

***Certainly as "exercises," yes, of course! They could be very
valuable in the study of tuning systems. And I agree that it is
quite interesting...

But my impression was that the composer of this chorale was intending
to show it as some kind of "composition..."

If I'm wrong in that, then my apologies...

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> >Yes, I can see that now... but wouldn't you say that music that is
>> >designed for a particular system, uses the peculiarities and
>> >resources of that particular system, and is *original* to that
>> >system is of greater interest than *transcriptions* that attempt
>> >to shoehorn, with various degrees of accuracy, music written for
>> >one system into another??
>>
>> // I absolutely agree!
>>
>> (Though I do find transcriptions interesting
>> as well -- some of John deLaubenfels' early stuff for example,
>> I got a kick out of hearing familiar pieces sort of warping
>> around, due to the detempering of various commas.)
>>
>> However in this case, aside from the fact that the melody is
>> familiar, I can't really imagine a piece of music that makes
>> more "natural" use of the diamond **within the chorale form**.
>>
>> I mean, are you saying one shouldn't write chorales in the diamond?
>
>***Certainly as "exercises," yes, of course! They could be very
>valuable in the study of tuning systems. And I agree that it is
>quite interesting...
>
>But my impression was that the composer of this chorale was
>intending to show it as some kind of "composition..."
>
>If I'm wrong in that, then my apologies...

See this is where we differ. I love chorales, and I love the
diamond. So chorales in the diamond are bound to please me!

The art of harmonizing existing tunes is the very bedrock of
the chorale form.

Personally, I like all musical forms. I think people who shrnub
their noses at some are really missing out.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> I was just trying to say that anything
> >> can be viewed as a transcription in 12-tET, if you want.
>
> I'm not familiar with that work.

He was an early ethnomusicologist who studied the musics of Java and
Bali, notating a bunch of it in 12tet, doing piano reductions. He also
composed, using this material as either source or inspiration; I
believe his most well-known piece in this fashion is "Tabu-Tabuhan",
for 2 pianos, percussion, and orchestra.

> I don't mean any work *in
> particular*, but rather in principle, saying something sounds
> like it arose in 12-tET can mean different things.

Sure.

> Anything can sound like that, to some people.

Uh, yeah, but around here? I figure we're better than that! :)

> When it comes to chorales,
> to me, Eric's piece is as about *far* from sounding like that
> as possible for a chorale in the 11-limit diamond. Get it?

Sure. Doesn't remotely resemble your original statement, but at least
now we're talking: that chorale sounds nothing like a 12tet chorale.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54672

> >> >Yes, I can see that now... but wouldn't you say that music that
is
> >> >designed for a particular system, uses the peculiarities and
> >> >resources of that particular system, and is *original* to that
> >> >system is of greater interest than *transcriptions* that attempt
> >> >to shoehorn, with various degrees of accuracy, music written for
> >> >one system into another??
> >>
> >> // I absolutely agree!
> >>
> >> (Though I do find transcriptions interesting
> >> as well -- some of John deLaubenfels' early stuff for example,
> >> I got a kick out of hearing familiar pieces sort of warping
> >> around, due to the detempering of various commas.)
> >>
> >> However in this case, aside from the fact that the melody is
> >> familiar, I can't really imagine a piece of music that makes
> >> more "natural" use of the diamond **within the chorale form**.
> >>
> >> I mean, are you saying one shouldn't write chorales in the
diamond?
> >
> >***Certainly as "exercises," yes, of course! They could be very
> >valuable in the study of tuning systems. And I agree that it is
> >quite interesting...
> >
> >But my impression was that the composer of this chorale was
> >intending to show it as some kind of "composition..."
> >
> >If I'm wrong in that, then my apologies...
>
> See this is where we differ. I love chorales, and I love the
> diamond. So chorales in the diamond are bound to please me!
>
> The art of harmonizing existing tunes is the very bedrock of
> the chorale form.
>
> Personally, I like all musical forms. I think people who shrnub
> their noses at some are really missing out.
>
> -Carl

***Well, I don't mean to be "elitist" (heaven forbid! :) but when
somebody trys to pawn off a theory exercise as an original
composition, I'm bound to "complain" about it... :)

As a "quotation," a Bach passage in a regular or altered tuning in
the context of a larger, original work would seem quite different to
me: like the Bach chorales in George Crumb's _Ancient Voices of
Children_. Those are in "altered tuning" as well. At least that's
what the toy piano sound like to me... :)

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> When it comes to chorales, to me, Eric's piece is as about
>> *far* from sounding like [music that arose in 12-tET]
>> as possible for a chorale in the 11-limit diamond. Get it?
>
>Sure. Doesn't remotely resemble your original statement, but at least
>now we're talking: that chorale sounds nothing like a 12tet chorale.

Was this my original statement...

>Partch often talked about and demonstrated common chord prgressions
>in the monophonic fabric. While I'm not aware of any direct
>transcriptions like this, many of his chord progressions could be
>reverse engineered into 12-tET with the same sort of accuracy as
>the present chorale.

...?

To me, these say basically the same thing.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54678

> >> See this is where we differ. I love chorales, and I love the
> >> diamond. So chorales in the diamond are bound to please me!
> >>
> >> The art of harmonizing existing tunes is the very bedrock of
> >> the chorale form.
> >>
> >> Personally, I like all musical forms. I think people who shrnub
> >> their noses at some are really missing out.
> >
> >***Well, I don't mean to be "elitist" (heaven forbid! :) but when
> >somebody trys to pawn off a theory exercise as an original
> >composition, I'm bound to "complain" about it... :)
>
> So was Bach pawning off theory exercises as compositions when he
> wrote chorales?
>
> -Carl

***My understanding is that, historically, Bach was pretty much
*forced* to write chorales, so that the Protestant congregations
could sing something simple in between the other more elaborate
selections...

Don't get me wrong... I enjoy Back chorales. Do you own a copy of
Riemenschneider?? I do... :)

But, be that as it may, the composer in question did not write his
*own* original chorale, but "borrowed" a tune by Bach, so that's not
an "original" chorale in my book...

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

From: "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

> And I whole-heartedly agree with
> JP that - excepting 'exercises' and similar such as this one - looking
> backward in this manner doesn't interest me at all. The expanding
> world of microtonality can encompass a lot of areas; why would anyone
> want to live in the past? (no answer needed)

Hahahahhh, let me laugh a bit. OK, "no answer needed" does not mean "no
answer allowed", if you excuse. And I hope to be allowed to take one simple
answer for this purpose. If someone decides to "live in the past" (as you
put it), he doesn't need to have a particular reason for this. He just likes
it, just wants, nothing more. It's a well-known matter that it is possible,
if needed, to "forbide" to do something, but noone can forbide you to like
something. For example: Recently I've posted a quasi-meantone scale here.
Again, you could say: "Rational intervals are for making JI, not for
simulating meantone. Why would anyone want to use a material in a different
way than it was originally meant for?" I just like the sound that comes out,
I love it. Moreover, such a scale can be tuned quite well with no other
"tuning devices" than your own ears. There is no meantone with at least one
beatless major or minor triad. And what's bad about solving this with a
quasi-meantone tuning? And to prove the point, the one particular scale I've
sent even contains a 7-limit tetrad which is played as Bb-D-F-G#. And this
is another matter - noone can stop me promoting the 7/4 factor in the
function of an augmented sixth.
Some more comments?
Petr

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Petr,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@w...> wrote:
> Hahahahhh, let me laugh a bit.

Of course - it is healthy!

> OK, "no answer needed" does not mean "no
> answer allowed", if you excuse.

No problem - I actually meant that for Carl, as this is a topic we've
discussed before. And, along with your further commentary, I can only
offer my views: I am happy with any path that a person chooses. The
only time I happen to bring up the topic of "creating new music that
is old music in new tunings" around here is in relation to the
furtherance of new intonational resources. In this regard, I happen to
think it is a less fruitful path than music that is truly new;
however, there are stalwart defenders of this other way of exploring
tuning, and I simply wish them well.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>***My understanding is that, historically, Bach was pretty much
>*forced* to write chorales, so that the Protestant congregations
>could sing something simple in between the other more elaborate
>selections...

Does that mean he didn't like them? I tend to think he liked
them...

>Don't get me wrong... I enjoy Back chorales. Do you own a copy of
>Riemenschneider?? I do... :)

Don't know what that is. But I've sang Bach chorales, and
played them in brass choirs. And some of the hymns I grew up
with are not-too-simplified versions of these.

>But, be that as it may, the composer in question did not write his
>*own* original chorale, but "borrowed" a tune by Bach, so that's not
>an "original" chorale in my book...

The majority of Bach chorales were written on tunes by Praetorius,
folk tunes, tunes that had been in the church, etc. etc.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54691

> >***My understanding is that, historically, Bach was pretty much
> >*forced* to write chorales, so that the Protestant congregations
> >could sing something simple in between the other more elaborate
> >selections...
>
> Does that mean he didn't like them? I tend to think he liked
> them...
>
> >Don't get me wrong... I enjoy Back chorales. Do you own a copy of
> >Riemenschneider?? I do... :)
>
> Don't know what that is. But I've sang Bach chorales, and
> played them in brass choirs. And some of the hymns I grew up
> with are not-too-simplified versions of these.
>
> >But, be that as it may, the composer in question did not write his
> >*own* original chorale, but "borrowed" a tune by Bach, so that's
not
> >an "original" chorale in my book...
>
> The majority of Bach chorales were written on tunes by Praetorius,
> folk tunes, tunes that had been in the church, etc. etc.
>
> -Carl

***The Albert Riemenschneider is the "official" compilation of Bach
Chorales that most everybody who has ever attended a conservatory or
music school probably has in their library...

It's published by G. Schirmer...

I suggest you might want to consider a copy if you are seriously
interested in Bach Chorales, as you seem to be:

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/

It comes up right away. Just search Riemenschneider (spelling it
correctly, hopefully...)

It's just $12.95...

See you at the ol' Chorale!

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>***The Albert Riemenschneider is the "official" compilation of Bach
>Chorales that most everybody who has ever attended a conservatory or
>music school probably has in their library...
>
>It's published by G. Schirmer...
>
>I suggest you might want to consider a copy if you are seriously
>interested in Bach Chorales, as you seem to be:
>
>http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/
>
>It comes up right away. Just search Riemenschneider (spelling it
>correctly, hopefully...)
>
>It's just $12.95...
>
>See you at the ol' Chorale!

Thanks JP!! I just ordered a copy. My friends and I are doing
a singing group on Sundays now. If you ever want to hear what
happens when a bunch of grad students and one tuning nutcase get
together and sing evangelical chorales... er, you should come
for a visit!

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
In this regard, I happen to
> think it is a less fruitful path than music that is truly new;
> however, there are stalwart defenders of this other way of exploring
> tuning, and I simply wish them well.

The quest for novelty at any price is why most people have stopped
listening. Bach probably just thought he was a master craftsman of
music; Haydn found he could please himself by also pleasing the
Esterhazys, and Mozart was always on the lookout for a big hit. Then
Beethoven came along and people (starting with Schubert!) began to be
worried about being a Great Original Genius in the cosmic mold of
Beethoven--the Romantic conception of the lone genius. This worked
fine, though you will note the final talley of opus numbers is
dropping, and the number of compositions people withdraw is rising.
But I think it starts to be a problem later on, when people wanted to
prove how daring and original they were by composing like Schoenberg
or Webern, only not as well.

Music, really, was in a better state of health in the 18th century
when composers did not have these notions knocking around in their
bean, and had to please weathly patrons or mass audiences rather than
prize or grant committes, or their academic collegues.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> The quest for novelty at any price is why most people have stopped
> listening.

Complete bunk. "Most people" haven't stopped listening, they're
listening more, but they just don't listen to the kind of music you like.

> Music, really, was in a better state of health in the 18th century

The world has changed, and you can't live in the past. Well, I guess
you could try. But, like I said, the great part is you can make
whatever kind of music you want. I'll meet you 10, 20 years down the
road and we'll see what the impact has been...

Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > The quest for novelty at any price is why most people have stopped
> > listening.
>
> Complete bunk. "Most people" haven't stopped listening, they're
> listening more, but they just don't listen to the kind of music you
like.

They are listening to music which does not give a rat's ass about
demonstrating its profoundly intellectual originality. In any case, I
don't think novelty is best achieved by a quest for it. You knew Harry
Partch. Did he want to be novel, or to write music which suited him?
I'd guess the latter myself.

> > Music, really, was in a better state of health in the 18th century
>
> The world has changed, and you can't live in the past. Well, I guess
> you could try. But, like I said, the great part is you can make
> whatever kind of music you want.

What music can you point to which is worth anything where the
motivation was to be now and novel? WHO CARES?? The desire to be a
brilliant, orginal genius has nothing to do with *music*. If you want
to feed your ego, there are better ways.

I'll meet you 10, 20 years down the
> road and we'll see what the impact has been...

Self-consciously now, novel music is not likely to have much of an
impact. Music people care about has a better chance. By putting
forward a criterion other than "is it good?" you hardly make it likely
that anyone will care about it. Why should they? Even the composer
wasn't trying for his best, after all, pretty much by definition.

Anyway, history has a way of catching up with all of these concerns
over novelty. Who cares anymore if Brahms was old-fashioned, or for
that matter if Bach was old-fashioned? What does it matter to us,
*now*, that Berlioz or Liszt or Ives were cutting-edge? Who thinks the
savage critical attacks on Rachmaninov for being old-fashioned make
any sense, one hundred years later? It's the good music which endures;
noveties as an end in themselves are best left in toy stores.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> Somehow you want to look at my viewpoint in only one and very narrow
> way, and you choose your own term for it: "novelty". Since you don't
> care to take seriously any consideration for an alternate viewpoint, I
> don't see any need to respond to your assumptions of what I believe.

If your alternative viewpoint is something other than relentless
negativity, it could be valuable; but if you want to make a valuable
point you need to try harder. All can hear from where I am is that you
think people who are composing microtonal music are producing crap,
and may as well quit. Do you have any idea how discouraging that is,
particularly since it is a blanket judgment which does not really say
*why* it is crap? It's like listening to a sermon from a Calvinist on sin.

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54693

> >***The Albert Riemenschneider is the "official" compilation of
Bach
> >Chorales that most everybody who has ever attended a conservatory
or
> >music school probably has in their library...
> >
> >It's published by G. Schirmer...
> >
> >I suggest you might want to consider a copy if you are seriously
> >interested in Bach Chorales, as you seem to be:
> >
> >http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/
> >
> >It comes up right away. Just search Riemenschneider (spelling it
> >correctly, hopefully...)
> >
> >It's just $12.95...
> >
> >See you at the ol' Chorale!
>
> Thanks JP!! I just ordered a copy. My friends and I are doing
> a singing group on Sundays now. If you ever want to hear what
> happens when a bunch of grad students and one tuning nutcase get
> together and sing evangelical chorales... er, you should come
> for a visit!
>
> -Carl

###That sounds great, Carl! I'll have to plan a trip to California
soon... (I assume you're still there...) I enjoyed my last trip for
the Claremont Microfest in 2001...

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> if you want to make a valuable point you need to try harder.

Other people get it.

> All can hear from where I am is that you
> think people who are composing microtonal music are producing crap,
> and may as well quit.

The key phrase is "All can hear", which I assume left out "I" as the
second word. And your hearing is colored by your attitude, case in
point being the subject header: I specifically said I *liked* the
second piece, "Smooth", and wasn't moved by the first. In essence,
your statement isn't close to correct, as I think a good number of
people, some on these lists, are making good, substantial music.

> Do you have any idea how discouraging that is,
> particularly since it is a blanket judgment which does not really say
> *why* it is crap? It's like listening to a sermon from a Calvinist
on sin.

Maybe you are a sinner, but you seem to be hearing a different sermon.

Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54702

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r>
>
> > > >***Well, I don't mean to be "elitist" (heaven forbid! :) but
when
> > > >somebody trys to pawn off a theory exercise as an original
> > > >composition, I'm bound to "complain" about it... :)
>
> How do you know which ideas come from a theory exercise and which
don't?
> What do you consider a theory exercise then and what do you not?
> Petr

***Hi Petr,

Quite frankly, I think I can tell the difference between a
theoretical exercise and a musical composition. I think the *intent*
is in the way the material is varied and developed. An exercise is
more circumscribed, since it has limited aims.

And, according to the composer of the piece recently cited that
started this thread, it *was* an exercise after all, so I was
apparently pretty much correct in my assessment...

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54704

<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > >***My understanding is that, historically, Bach was pretty much
> > >*forced* to write chorales, so that the Protestant congregations
> > >could sing something simple in between the other more elaborate
> > >selections...
> >
>
> I believe that Bach's chorale "arrangements" are artistic
compositions
> from his cantatas, meant for a trained choir, not the congregation.
> They are different to the much simpler ordinary arrangements that
> would have been used by the congregation found in the Evangelische
> singing book. Bach had made figure-bass for 60 songs in one singing
> book, but that is also different to the cantata chorales.
>
> Gabor

***Hello Gabor!

Well, quite possibly I don't know what I'm talking about... :)

Thanks for the correction.

However, it would seem that the "drive for simplicity" in these
chorales might be related to, possibly, pressures toward
congregational singing, even if Bach's efforts were more "art song
chorales" than the more common ones...

Would that not be a reasonable supposition??

Thanks!

Joseph

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/04 3:17 PM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> Petr,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@w...> wrote:
>> Hahahahhh, let me laugh a bit.
>
> Of course - it is healthy!
>
>> OK, "no answer needed" does not mean "no
>> answer allowed", if you excuse.
>
> No problem - I actually meant that for Carl, as this is a topic we've
> discussed before. And, along with your further commentary, I can only
> offer my views: I am happy with any path that a person chooses. The
> only time I happen to bring up the topic of "creating new music that
> is old music in new tunings" around here is in relation to the
> furtherance of new intonational resources. In this regard, I happen to
> think it is a less fruitful path than music that is truly new;

Even though I'm basically in agreement, I just feel compelled to offer the
reminder here that nothing is "truly new", and that if it was it would
probably be unrecognizable, not very meaningful.

We are always in dialog with the past. And I think this is why we create.
The present that is coming out of us (the new, the future) is in response to
the present that went into us (the old, the past). It is what we receive
that we respond to. This creates a relationship, a dialog. This happens in
time, over time, because of time, thanks to time.

What better thing for the future to be a *response* to (as opposed to a
*repeat* of), than the past? And so as we are in dialog, asking questions,
some of those questions take the form of little "experiments" (e.g. old
music in new tunings) and others take the form of "compositions". If were
were anything more than .01% conscious of exactly how were were moved to
create a "new" piece of music then we would be in a position to compare and
contrast "experiments" with "compositions", but I think we are not in fact
*very* conscious. We know what we are conscious of, but we hardly know the
vastness of what we are not conscious of, and it is the latter that accounts
for most of what we produce, I would say. And so what is really "new"? New
might be defined as something whose relationship to the old is something we
are not conscious of!

So I'd be curious then, in light of this, how would you describe what you
are most interested in? I wonder if it is actually similar to me: I'm
interested in what is in some sense a new approach to relating to what is
here (which is what is left by what has passed). The sense that newness
relates to something "unconscious" is interesting because this also means it
involves something previously unknown to consciousness, so the emphasis can
be shifted from "the unconscious" to "the unknown". Engagement with the
unknown is of course the way for new things to become known. The curious
thing is still how much of what was unknown has actually existed for a long
time. This is true of unconscious motives that we become conscious of.
Likewise it may be true of the unfolding of musical understanding. In some
sense the unfolding succession of newer things also touches on progressively
more ancient things. So perhaps the "end" of what we do is to reach back to
the "beginning" of things, ever closer. We want to know our nature.

> however, there are stalwart defenders of this other way of exploring
> tuning, and I simply wish them well.

Yes, and I do a bit of that "other way" myself. Just because I am really
moved to, because the questions that come from inside me (for unknown
reasons) take that form. So we each have our interests, and our responses
are best in respone to those given interests. And I think this is what you
were saying anyway, and I just wanted to say it in another way.

-Kurt

> Cheers,
> Jon

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/04 9:51 PM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> The quest for novelty at any price is why most people have stopped
>> listening.
>
> Complete bunk. "Most people" haven't stopped listening, they're
> listening more, but they just don't listen to the kind of music you like.
>
>> Music, really, was in a better state of health in the 18th century
>
> The world has changed, and you can't live in the past. Well, I guess
> you could try. But, like I said, the great part is you can make
> whatever kind of music you want. I'll meet you 10, 20 years down the
> road and we'll see what the impact has been...

10 or 20 years may be too early to know the impact of much. There is
something like the butterfly effect in history, and I think though the
opposite effect has not been named it is also true: large things come to
nothing in time. So largeness of apparent impact at a given time is only
one gauge for impact, and being interested in that kind of impact represents
a *particular* kind of interest, a particular focus.

So is your goal more to be conscious of that level of impact, or more to do
what you are moved to do, regardless of any measurement of impact? It can
also be that you are *moved* to have impact, and there is nothing wrong with
that either. Yet will you judge yourself later by the impact you have had,
or will you remember to what degree you responded in each moment with your
truest response of that moment?

-Kurt

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

> > >***My understanding is that, historically, Bach was pretty much
> > >*forced* to write chorales, so that the Protestant congregations
> > >could sing something simple in between the other more elaborate
> > >selections...
>
> I believe that Bach's chorale "arrangements" are artistic
> compositions from his cantatas, meant for a trained choir,
> not the congregation. They are different to the much simpler
> ordinary arrangements that would have been used by the
> congregation found in the Evangelische singing book. Bach
> had made figure-bass for 60 songs in one singing book, but
> that is also different to the cantata chorales.

Thanks for chiming in, Gabor.

In fact, now that I think about it, the Cantatas often
contain chorales, some of which our choir sang independently.
Joseph, perhaps you can check if thees are in the
Riemenschneider book...

BWV 56 Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen
Chorale: Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder

BWV 65 Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen
Chorale: Ei nun, mein Gott, so fall ich dir

BWV 140 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme
Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen

...there are more examples I can't recall at the moment.

-Carl

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> >> > >***Well, I don't mean to be "elitist" (heaven forbid! :)
>> >> > >but when somebody trys to pawn off a theory exercise as
>> >> > >an original composition, I'm bound to "complain" about
>> >> > >it... :)
>> >
>> >How do you know which ideas come from a theory exercise and
>> >which don't? What do you consider a theory exercise then
>> >and what do you not?
>> >Petr
>>
>> Indeed, even if Bach hated writing chorales, I still like
>> listening to them.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>Oh, that question was not calling to you, Carl. In fact, it was
>originally meant for the author of the first sentence, which,
>I believe, is someone else. Or am I wrong?

That was Joseph Pehrson. I was just agreeing with you.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_54642.html#54731
> In fact, now that I think about it, the Cantatas often
> contain chorales, some of which our choir sang independently.
> Joseph, perhaps you can check if thees are in the
> Riemenschneider book...
>
> BWV 56 Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen
> Chorale: Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder
>
> BWV 65 Sie werden aus Saba alle kommen
> Chorale: Ei nun, mein Gott, so fall ich dir
>
> BWV 140 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme
> Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen
>
> ...there are more examples I can't recall at the moment.
>
> -Carl

***Hmmm. These three are *not* in the Riemenschneider book... for
whatever reason... There are 371 *other* ones though... :)

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/04 8:34 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> In this regard, I happen to
>> think it is a less fruitful path than music that is truly new;
>> however, there are stalwart defenders of this other way of exploring
>> tuning, and I simply wish them well.
>
> The quest for novelty at any price is why most people have stopped
> listening.

Yes, but you are assuming that what you mean by novelty is what Jon means by
"truly new". I get than Jon is into "truly new" (whatever he really means
by that) not just as a superficial choice, but as something that has some
depth and importance to him.

Nonetheless, kind of disregarding that it was sort of an argument againt
Jon's point, I found what you wrote here very interesting. I read it you
might say "in its own space". Likewise I'm trying to understand Jon's
interest "in its own space" and I hope Jon has the time to clarify this at
some point.

To this I would also say: what do you think these people were going
through? I'll bet some who followed other "originals" were really seeking
originality in the only role model they could find that was meaningful to
them. No doubt some others had not much to offer, were in the wrong field
perhaps, and were just involved in a trend.

Anyway, even when people are busy hurting each other do you realize that
everybody is yearning for something? I think if you remembered Jon was
yearning for something in his quest for "new" you would might be more likely
to ask him questions to learn (and help him clarify) what he means by "truly
new", what he feals about it, rather than instantly following the surface
trail of connecting his "truly new" with your "novelty at any price".

And I suspect that if Jon were able to read what you wrote "in its own
space" realizing it has potentially very little to do with him and what he
is about (which in fact it doesn't), and so felt no need to defend, then he
might also agree with some of what you say here.

I know that it is kind of "the thing to do" in these forums sometimes to
respond to things as they appear on the surface. That somehow has become an
accepted thing, even a way of science. Yet I think we could also remember
more the humanity of others. I'm just looking at this one incident, not at
any whole history of Gene and Jon. You might find justification for your
actions in your histories, but this also is just a distraction.

-Kurt

> Bach probably just thought he was a master craftsman of
> music; Haydn found he could please himself by also pleasing the
> Esterhazys, and Mozart was always on the lookout for a big hit. Then
> Beethoven came along and people (starting with Schubert!) began to be
> worried about being a Great Original Genius in the cosmic mold of
> Beethoven--the Romantic conception of the lone genius. This worked
> fine, though you will note the final talley of opus numbers is
> dropping, and the number of compositions people withdraw is rising.
> But I think it starts to be a problem later on, when people wanted to
> prove how daring and original they were by composing like Schoenberg
> or Webern, only not as well.
>
> Music, really, was in a better state of health in the 18th century
> when composers did not have these notions knocking around in their
> bean, and had to please weathly patrons or mass audiences rather than
> prize or grant committes, or their academic collegues.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

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

> To this I would also say: what do you think these people were going
> through? I'll bet some who followed other "originals" were really
seeking
> originality in the only role model they could find that was
meaningful to
> them.

I don't think they were seeking originality so much as seeking
excellence; and I think putting excellence in second place is a
mistake, since if you don't value it you are unlikely to achieve it.
Beethoven wrote "stolen from Mozart!" on an early piece, and clearly
did not intend to simply ape Mozart; but he *learned* from him.
Beethoven was trying (unless he was writing potboilers for money, like
Wellington's Victory) to write as *excellently* as he could manage to
write. When Schubert and Brahms and other complained of the difficulty
of writing anything in the wake of Beethoven, they were hardly saying
they had a problem finding an original voice of their own; they were
speaking of the aim towards excellence. Excelsior!

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
> > To this I would also say: what do you think these people were
going
> > through? I'll bet some who followed other "originals" were
really seeking
> > originality in the only role model they could find that was
meaningful to
> > them.
>
> I don't think they were seeking originality so much as seeking
> excellence; and I think putting excellence in second place is a
> mistake, since if you don't value it you are unlikely to achieve it.
> Beethoven wrote "stolen from Mozart!" on an early piece, and clearly
> did not intend to simply ape Mozart; but he *learned* from him.
> Beethoven was trying (unless he was writing potboilers for money,
like
> Wellington's Victory) to write as *excellently* as he could manage
to
> write. When Schubert and Brahms and other complained of the
difficulty
> of writing anything in the wake of Beethoven, they were hardly
saying
> they had a problem finding an original voice of their own; they were
> speaking of the aim towards excellence. Excelsior!

As long as I'm not trying to earn a living as a composer, I would
rather write one carefully polished "gem" than 50 mediocre
compositions. Taking the effort to pay attention to many levels of
detail ultimately pays off in the end, particularly if it's something
in a style that might eventually end up paying money.

Music that would appeal to a wider audience does not necessarily have
to be "crap" -- it all depends on what you put into it. (One of
these days I hope to finish a couple of microtonal compositions of
this sort that I've started -- hopefully soon. :-)

--George

Finally! JI Music is up.

🔗Eric T Knechtges <knechtge@msu.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@worldonline.cz>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>