Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: 36-tone Debussy

John A. deLaubenfels underscores an important issue for me and for many who
make a life in music. That is the appropriateness of a particualr instrument
for a piece of music. I would like to respond on this issue which is with me
every single day. Just now I am to arrange both a trombone and a saxophone
work for bassoon solo for concert premieres in Russia (and they're my
compositions).

Instruments have a certain character to them, even beyond timbre. Often an
apparent imperfection in an instrment is accounted for in the music, often
with wonderful results. Ro instance, he tempo might be slower to accoung for
the less fleet of foot. The instruments breathe in their particular way and
their is an entire universe of meaning in their sounds. The instruments
speak to me as different tribes with different individuals. My encouragement
is for them to continue to "sing" and for them not to be compromised
whimsically. There exists a clear visceral superiority that results from the
correct match of instrument to piece.

The physical instrument issue is parallel to that of intervallic relationship
as manifested in tuning. This is why the integrity of a composer's concept is
paramount to my musical involvement, and why the shifting of important
sensibilities is uncomfortable for me. Playing in a game-like fashion (like
Nintend) with different tunings and different composers is fine, but it has
no value in terms of bringing closer great masterpieces of music. I'm sure
the Harry Partch bunch would agree, Hmmn?

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> The physical instrument issue is parallel to that of intervallic relationship
> as manifested in tuning. This is why the integrity of a composer's concept is
> paramount to my musical involvement, and why the shifting of important
> sensibilities is uncomfortable for me. Playing in a game-like fashion (like
> Nintend) with different tunings and different composers is fine, but it has
> no value in terms of bringing closer great masterpieces of music. I'm sure
> the Harry Partch bunch would agree, Hmmn?

I don't think there is a Harry Partch bunch on this list. He seems to represent
as far As i can tell the extreme one can go as opposed to a foundation for
future work. So far!
But, yes on a personally level I agree.
Your examination of Ives shows an inspiration at it root, with enough
research to probably support what you hear (BTW did you hear this in Ives first
or read about it first?). When dealing with other peoples art requires and
special type of artist. with reinstrumentation you can have Ravel (Pictures at
an Expo.) or Tomita (Snowflakes are dancing)

>
>
> Johnny Reinhard
> AFMM

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

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

Johnny Reinhard wrote:

>Instruments have a certain character to them, even beyond timbre. Often an
>apparent imperfection in an instrment is accounted for in the music, often
>with wonderful results. Ro instance, he tempo might be slower to accoung for
>the less fleet of foot. The instruments breathe in their particular way and
>their is an entire universe of meaning in their sounds. The instruments
>speak to me as different tribes with different individuals. My encouragement
>is for them to continue to "sing" and for them not to be compromised
>whimsically. There exists a clear visceral superiority that results from the
>correct match of instrument to piece.

What if, upon hearing a composition for, say, solo piano, you were to
imagine that the piece would sound much better for soprano and guitar.
Perhaps the composer even had that combination in mind, but didn't play the
guitar and didn't have a soprano who could do what he wanted but did play
the piano? Or perhaps he had a market for his piano works and knew that the
composition could sell if written for the piano? In such a case, what would
be a faithful rendition? I have several such works in mind, one of which is
Debussy's "La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin" which will be on my forthcoming CD,
so you'll be able to judge for yourself. The original key of Gb is of
course not appropraite for guitar, but right next to it is the key of G
which allows the guitarist to take advantage of the open E and A bass
strings as well as the open G triad on strings 2, 3, and 4 which is so
pretty when played with harmonics. In arranging this piece for guitar and
soprano I was amazed at how little I had to change any voicings, and how so
many of the voicings are very standard for guitar. My arrangement is almost
a literal transcription (and transpositon) that occasionally omits a
doubled note.

I suspect that Debussy did have soprano and guitar in mind, and that his
publication of the work for solo piano is actually an arrangement of the
work intended for soprano and guitar. The entire basis of my conjecture is
the success of my arrangement and performance. Towards the end of the piece
it is so thrilling to hear a soprano (Raissa Dorff on my CD) repeat the
first theme an octave higher, starting on a high D after I play three
chords (Am9, D, C) that almost completely fade away by the time she starts
to sing. That's a thrill because it is risky to sing such a passage with
such minimal accompaniment, and to do so so delicately. The same passage
sounds quite pretty on the piano, but I don't think a pianist can ever
create the same sense of ease through danger that a soprano can. (Pianists,
that is exactly what I think you ought to aim at in that passage!)

Do any of you know whether Debussy played guitar, or consulted with a
guitarist in writing "La Fille..."? Could any of you provide any sort of
support for my hypothesis? I would be thrilled to learn of such evidence.
But if there is none forthcoming or even if someone proves that Debussy
detested the combination of soprano and guitar, it won't stop me from from
performing the piece that way. When you hear it on my CD I hope that you'll
understand why.

*************************************************************************

Watch for the CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by John Link's vocal quintet,
featuring original compositions as well as arrangements of instrumental
music by Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Claude Debussy, Bill Evans, Ennio and
Andrea Morricone, Modeste Mussorgsky, Erik Satie, and Earl Zindars.

*************************************************************************

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

Instrument arrangements are sort of the inverse of the issue we've been
discussing. Here instrumental character becomes the reason for a
transciption for an instrument, often in a different key.

I had a similar experience as John Link's. I recorded Ivan Wyschnegradsky's
"Meditation of 2 Themes from the Day of Existence" on bassoon though it was
penned for cello. Having heard that the original orchestral version of the
piece featuring bassoon solos on the very themes that Wyshchnegradsky was
microtonalizing, it gave me grounds for playing the 1917 feature on bassoon.

Perhaps need of Romantic literature was important (and I am playing it 4
times this April throughout Russia with pianist Joshua Pierce), and this is
all a rationalization. After all, Martine Joste is personally critical of
any transcription of Wyschnegradsky's music.

Here we are at another issue, should I perform Wyschnegradsky on an
instrument other than the ones he specified? Well then, there would be no
Wyschnegradsky at all for this can-kicking bassoonist to toot on.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗mandlixon <mandldixon@xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>

>[Johnny Reinhard, TD 421.8:]
>>Performing and repeatedly listening to a music masterpiece is always
>>enhanced by being heard in the tuning conception imagined by the
>>composer.
>
>ALWAYS? Is there no possibility of exception, ever? Even when we have
>tools now that were unavailable to the composer?
>
>Do you feel the same way about instruments? Is the experience always
>enhanced by being heard in the instruments of the period of the
>composer? Thus, no Bach piece should ever be heard on a piano of any
>sort, and Mozart piano works should be heard on the clunky keyboards
>of his day?

>JdL

I spoke with the master pianist John Lill at a recent concert - he felt convinced that people like Beethoven (he performed all the Concerti that week) looked forward to developments concerning temperaments and technical 'improvements' to pianos. We would probalby hear about as many ixed reactions in the past as we do nowadays.

Michael Hugh Dixon
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Stop waiting for web pages to load... eAcceleration has given away
>millions of copies of Webcelerator. It is the best in its category
>and its completely FREE!Our website also has lots of other free stuff
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Acc1 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

[Johnny Reinhard, TD 422.9:]
>The physical instrument issue is parallel to that of intervallic
>relationship as manifested in tuning. This is why the integrity of a
>composer's concept is paramount to my musical involvement, and why the
>shifting of important sensibilities is uncomfortable for me.

Ok...

>Playing in a game-like fashion (like Nintend) with different tunings
>and different composers is fine, but it has no value in terms of
>bringing closer great masterpieces of music.

Now that strikes me as a really silly sentence. First, by drawing the
analogy to Nintend(o), you would seem to want to cast all such games
as childish. More importantly, you state as categorical something which
any of us can only guess about. My own guess is that new tunings will,
in a short period of time, prove your speculation incorrect.

In an earlier post, you said you found "repulsive" the idea of retuning
Bach, and you were referring not to the one attempt you had actually
heard (which you separately dismissed as a "travesty"), but to any and
all tunings as yet unborn. How is that possible, other than by having a
pre-closed mind?

To say that we pay homage to great composers of the past by treating
their works with the utmost rigidity is exactly backward in my mind.
The greats themselves paid tribute to composers THEY admired by chopping
their works to little bits and recombining them in the form of theme and
variation. Can we do any less to them?

Even in its infant state, the game of adaptive retuning has drawn some
posts of delight; one list member even referred to having a deep
spiritual experience. I can say that my own ears are now hearing
the sweetest music I have ever heard in 50 years of life. Have you
listened to any of these pieces, or are you basing your judgement on
something which does not require listening?

JdL

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

>
> To say that we pay homage to great composers of the past by treating
> their works with the utmost rigidity is exactly backward in my mind.
> The greats themselves paid tribute to composers THEY admired by chopping
> their works to little bits and recombining them in the form of theme and
> variation. Can we do any less to them?

for gods sakes don't we have better things to do! If you really understand
a tuning, each tuning has its own structural possibilities that should be
explored. Maybe it would be better to endeavor to write even lesser music
exposing these possibilities, for such prospects help more and the
development in new tunings

> Even in its infant state, the game of adaptive retuning has drawn some
> posts of delight; one list member even referred to having a deep
> spiritual experience. I can say that my own ears are now hearing
> the sweetest music I have ever heard in 50 years of life. Have you
> listened to any of these pieces, or are you basing your judgement on
> something which does not require listening?

the one time Johnny visited me in L.A. I became aware that he was quite
capable of hearing and playing just about any tuning he set his mind too.

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

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

[I wrote:]
>>To say that we pay homage to great composers of the past by treating
>>their works with the utmost rigidity is exactly backward in my mind.
>>The greats themselves paid tribute to composers THEY admired by
>>chopping their works to little bits and recombining them in the form
>>of theme and variation. Can we do any less to them?

[Kraig Grady, TD 423.19:]
>for gods sakes don't we have better things to do!

Who's "we"? Each one of us decides what is important to him/her. Is
that a problem?

[Kraig:]
>If you really
>understand a tuning, each tuning has its own structural possibilities
>that should be explored. Maybe it would be better to endeavor to write
>even lesser music exposing these possibilities, for such prospects help
>more and the development in new tunings

"Maybe it would be better." For whom? For you? Then, please, YOU do
it! My focus is on what my ear likes, which, right now, is this.

[JdL:]
>>Even in its infant state, the game of adaptive retuning has drawn some
>>posts of delight; one list member even referred to having a deep
>>spiritual experience. I can say that my own ears are now hearing
>>the sweetest music I have ever heard in 50 years of life. Have you
>>listened to any of these pieces, or are you basing your judgement on
>>something which does not require listening?

[Kraig:]
>the one time Johnny visited me in L.A. I became aware that he was quite
>capable of hearing and playing just about any tuning he set his mind
>too.

Yes, I understand from all sources that Johnny has a phenomenal ear.
But is it good enough to "hear" a tuning he has not actually heard?
Such a talent, I think, would be beyond any mortal.

JdL

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

>
>
> Who's "we"? Each one of us decides what is important to him/her. Is
> that a problem?

If you are going to go around and tinker with others works don't be
surprised at resistance. I have little respect for such "activities" after
all who are you to decide such things.

>
>
> [Kraig:]
> >If you really
> >understand a tuning, each tuning has its own structural possibilities
> >that should be explored. Maybe it would be better to endeavor to write
> >even lesser music exposing these possibilities, for such prospects help
> >more and the development in new tunings
>
> "Maybe it would be better." For whom? For you?

not for the composers you are tinkering with. What an artist hears is not
something that can be figured out with the simplistic means we has at our
disposal. Look at Boomliter and Creel and you might realize that they were
just beginning to get somewhere

> [JdL:]
> >>Even in its infant state, the game of adaptive retuning has drawn some
> >>posts of delight; one list member even referred to having a deep
> >>spiritual experience.

this is probably a result of the tuning over the composition.

> I can say that my own ears are now hearing
> >>the sweetest music I have ever heard in 50 years of life.

these tunings are capable of that. If you are so aware of the composers
nuances that i think maybe you could write something as if the composers
was writing directly in that tuning. What if some artist came along and
proposed that the blues and violets developed by Fra Angelico would have
been used by the artist before him if they had it and they went around
painting over some of the blues and violets of the art works before his
time. Many would fine this an improvement.
i suggest a long lost compostion,recently found, heard for the first
time. deliberately
suppressed for its iconoclastic tuning. Such Fiction, I personally think
would show more respect for the composer. This is the opinion of a composer
as a composer and nothing else.
If one really wants to mess with others work they better be damn
cautious and be fully aware of what they are doing. Such activities can
require as much inspiration as the original.

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

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

JdL is right to honestly question, as is every one on this list. It is
exciting and daunting to respond. As to my ear, well like many composers I
can hear interval relationships in my head from which I can draw
compositions. I do not have perfect pitch. However, I have mixed and
matched tunings and can fairly imagine a 1200-TET set of intervals,
essentially.

Ives's father George says in his Essay on Music Theory: "Remember to find out
"how" the notes sound and you will find music simple altho' notation
nomenclature is very complex."

Ives Scholar Carol Baron wrote in the Essay by father Georege that "The
inadequacies of notation provoked Ives's sharpest criticism, his underlying
objection being that tonal relationships were misrepresented. Ives was
grappling with what he thought was the need for accuracy and refinement in
thematic matters. He was actually searching for a sensible way out of the
procrustean bed the diatonic system and its notation had become, when
weighted down by the responsibility of explaining chromatic developments."
(Baron "George Ives's Essay in Music Theory, 249)

An example of George Ives's really listening is his frank discussion on the
7th harmonic: "This 7th note produces what all musicians call a dissonance by
sounds in some cases to me only like a partial dissonance and is used so much
that we get used to it and treat it as if it were as much of a consonance as
our other tones."
(p. 248)

In 1969 Peter Yates, in a lecture entitled "Microtonality" presented a case
for accepting that Charles Ives moved past 12TET into what he called an
"acoustic plan," as described in the previously posted letter to his music
publishers. Yates argued that a composer needn't "be reduced to a bare 12
tones, which for lack of an acoustically correct referrent he cannot
effectively extend in the manner of Bartok, Ruggles, and Ives." Yates offers
an interesting speculation: "It is in part for this reason that Schoenberg's
composition remained ambiguously between the true emancipated dissonance of
his theory and traditional harmony."

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

[I wrote:]
>>Who's "we"? Each one of us decides what is important to him/her. Is
>>that a problem?

[Kraig Grady, TD 424.6:]
>If you are going to go around and tinker with others works don't be
>surprised at resistance. I have little respect for such "activities"
>after all who are you to decide such things.

Who am I? Just a guy, no more, no less. A guy who loves music. And,
in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to shove my tastes down anybody's
throat. We each like what we each like, and that's the way it should
be!

You are, of course, free to have little respect for whomever you wish.

[JdL:]
>>"Maybe it would be better." For whom? For you?

[Kraig:]
>not for the composers you are tinkering with.

It strikes me as very silly to make that kind of sweeping statement.

>What an artist hears is not something that can be figured out with the
>simplistic means we has at our disposal.

Maybe, maybe not.

>Look at Boomliter and Creel and you might realize that they were
>just beginning to get somewhere

I am sorry, I'm not familiar with those gentlemen.

[JdL:]
>>Even in its infant state, the game of adaptive retuning has drawn some
>>posts of delight; one list member even referred to having a deep
>>spiritual experience.

>this is probably a result of the tuning over the composition.

And the problem with that would be... ?

[Kraig:]
(specific suggestions for projects JdL might consider).
>I personally think would show more respect for the composer.

I think we show love and respect for a composer by working with their
works.

>If one really wants to mess with others work they better be damn
>cautious and be fully aware of what they are doing. Such activities
>can require as much inspiration as the original.

Caution is the antithesis of music, IMHO. I am willing to have my
tunings judged harshly by whomever does not like them, but I think it
very curious to try to stamp out the entire attempt, or to make a
judgement without hearing the thing one is judging.

I will not attempt to gauge my own level of "inspiration". But it seems
pointless to agonize over it; I'd rather just do what I am moved to do.

Kraig, can we not simply agree to have different tastes? I don't
understand why you think that "resistance" is inevitable or appropriate.
Isn't it enough to be free to like and dislike as you please, and to
grant the same to everyone else?

JdL

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

>From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
>
>
>
>"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:
>
>> Kraig, can we not simply agree to have different tastes? I don't
>> understand why you think that "resistance" is inevitable or appropriate.
>> Isn't it enough to be free to like and dislike as you please, and to
>> grant the same to everyone else?
>
>i am afraid you are not understanding my stance and maybe I am not being
>clear. How about this. As a composer I don't want other people tinkering or
>experimenting with my works, I can't imagine a composer who would.

Kraig,

You can't imagine a composer that would want to tinker with your works? Or
you can't imagine a composer who would want others to tinker with his
works?

John,

Obviously there are some individuals who don't want any tinkering or
experimenting, and it is a waste of time to attempt to convince them to
change their minds.

John Link

*************************************************************************

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

[Kraig Grady, TD 426.6:]
>i am afraid you are not understanding my stance and maybe I am not
>being clear. How about this. As a composer I don't want other people
>tinkering or experimenting with my works,

In deference to your explicitly stated wishes, I will not touch your
works in any way.

>I can't imagine a composer who would.

On what, other than pure speculation, do you base this?

[Daniel Wolf, TD 426.8:]
>I'm with you, Kraig. It's bad enough that laws have declared that
>after x years, a musical work belongs to the "public domain", although
>said public may never have given a damn in support of the composer's
>work. (If I were a painter or sculpture, at least there is a solid
>object which I can sell to whomever or keep (and hand down to my
>children) as I pleased.)

I find your analogy lacking. There is only one instance of a scuplture,
but music can be performed many times at the same time in different
places. Thus a composer's potential income before a work falls into
public domain far exceeds that of a sculptor. I have heard that Paul
McCartney, who has written at most a few dozen short songs, is buying up
large chunks of Scotland on his earnings.

(As an aside, it would seem that MANY artists have recorded McCartney's
works with a huge amount of individual artistic license, and, unless
I've missed it, he does not find this a terrible travesty).

>Even worse is the attitude by players or
>listeners that they are doing the composer such a great service by
>listening to her work that they should not have to be compensated for
>the work of producing the work. Worst of all is when players decide
>that, in return for granting the composer the service of playing the
>music, it is played only with extensive recomposition: new tunings,
>timbres, etc..

Oh, those NAUGHTY players: do they DARE inject their own musical
sensibilities into a performance? We will pummel them until they
behave! Everything must be EXACTLY as originally conceived!!

>I do believe there is a place for visionary transcription or
>recomposition: Stravinsky's Pergolesi, Partch's Yaquis or von
>Schweinitz's Mozart are all visionary. Mahler's reorchestrations of
>Schumann are better than the originals, and I will never cease to be
>amazed by Glenn Gould's Bach (piano and all). But this has got to be
>done with honesty about the nature of the re-composition, convincing
>rationale for the critique implied by the project, and enough touch of
>inspiration or virtuosity that discussion is unnecessary.

I really have to laugh at this, sorry Dan. You graciously "allow"
those who have already proven themselves in your eyes the right to have
done what they've done, but evidently, if you had been there, before
these people proved themselves (in your eyes), you would have done your
best to explain to them that they had no right to do it!

Either that, or you're saying that, if any discussion comes up, that
fact in and of itself proves the unworthiness of a project, and
presumably the person in question will cease and desist immediately
upon notification of your (or anyone's) disapproval.

At the risk of oversimplification, I would say that this attitude is at
the heart of what is wrong with "serious" music today - it's way, WAY
too rigidified. We've cast the greats into petrified stone, and we
scream at anyone who doesn't want to go along. No wonder classical
orchestras are going broke - it's like death to be at a concert; the joy
has all but been squeezed out of the music.

Sorry, guys, but I will not go along. I intend to do what I do simply
because it delights my ears (and, it would seem, not only mine alone!).
I do not say that I have found the perfect methods; there are a wealth
of refinements still to come. Between now and then, I hope to post
many works in progress, for the ears of those who have not decided in
advance that it's a sin to listen. And, on the way, I might get around
to writing a few more pieces of my own, but I'm liking retuning past
works better and better the more I do it.

Now, here's a question for the music historians of the list: did the
greats of the past (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms,
Stravinsky, ...) say anything at all about their attitude toward later
tinkering with their work? As far as I know, they all, with the
possible exception of Stravinsky, freely ripped off other works in
pursuit of their own vision, not to mention profit. I think it very
likely that they weren't hypocritical enough to demand that their own
compositions be left untouched. Am I wrong about this? If I am, it
might make a difference in what I retune.

A while back there was a controversy concerning Harry Partch and the
Kronos Quartet. Even then I tended to side with the quartet, but at
least Partch was explicit about his exacting, even rigid, tastes; can
the same be said of the above composers?

I am truly sorry if I offend anyone by my actions, but my love of music
far outweighs my concern for others' (in my view misguided)
sensibilities.

JdL

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

>
>
> On what, other than pure speculation, do you base this?

being a composer. at this point with two other composers siding with me:)

> I find your analogy lacking. There is only one instance of a scuplture,
> but music can be performed many times at the same time in different
> places. Thus a composer's potential income before a work falls into
> public domain far exceeds that of a sculptor. I have heard that Paul
> McCartney, who has written at most a few dozen short songs, is buying up
> large chunks of Scotland on his earnings.

It appears he bought some of those from other people :) carol king for one

>
>
> (As an aside, it would seem that MANY artists have recorded McCartney's
> works with a huge amount of individual artistic license, and, unless
> I've missed it, he does not find this a terrible travesty).

notice he makes them pay. and notice that none of them sound as good as the
original.
it's true of practically all covers. The best cover is Hendrix doing dylans
"All along the watchtower" a friend saw dylan play recently and his version
sounded like it was changed by Hendrixs version. Dylan is for the most part
a Dramatist, not a composer.

>
> Sorry, guys, but I will not go along. I intend to do what I do simply
> because it delights my ears (and, it would seem, not only mine alone!).
> I do not say that I have found the perfect methods; there are a wealth
> of refinements still to come. Between now and then, I hope to post
> many works in progress, for the ears of those who have not decided in
> advance that it's a sin to listen. And, on the way, I might get around
> to writing a few more pieces of my own, but I'm liking retuning past
> works better and better the more I do it.
>
> Now, here's a question for the music historians of the list: did the
> greats of the past (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms,
> Stravinsky, ...) say anything at all about their attitude toward later
> tinkering with their work? As far as I know, they all, with the
> possible exception of Stravinsky, freely ripped off other works in
> pursuit of their own vision, not to mention profit.

I believe Stravinsky complained bitterly about the changing of his music in
Fantasia and i remember he included the "blackmail" letter from Walt
himself telling him his copywrights meant nothing in the U.S.

> I think it very
> likely that they weren't hypocritical enough to demand that their own
> compositions be left untouched. Am I wrong about this? If I am, it
> might make a difference in what I retune.
>
> A while back there was a controversy concerning Harry Partch and the
> Kronos Quartet. Even then I tended to side with the quartet,

them ur thar fightin wurds, mistar

> but at
> least Partch was explicit about his exacting, even rigid, tastes; can
> the same be said of the above composers?
>
> I am truly sorry if I offend anyone by my actions, but my love of music
> far outweighs my concern for others' (in my view misguided)
> sensibilities.

Follow you vision then!!!!!!! we could go back and forth forever on this,
at least you are aware as to how a composer might think that's all!

>
>
> JdL

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

Re: 36-tone Debussy

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@xxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Clark <caccola@xxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗mandlixon <mandldixon@xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Afmmjr@xxx.xxx

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗johnlink@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jadl@xxxxxx.xxxx>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx>