Re: a meantone by any other name ... (was: Paul Erlich's 'Middle Pat

i guess the best way to rebuff DJWolf would be to supply a historical use of meantone outside the boundaries he has said. so far i have seen none. Truth is not a democratic process.
Before any one starts using, it Meta meantone is taken
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> i guess the best way to rebuff DJWolf would be to supply a historical
> use of meantone outside the boundaries he has said. so far i have seen
> none. Truth is not a democratic process.
> Before any one starts using, it Meta meantone is taken

And "meta meantone" is a marvelously descriptive term, with both a
familial and specific relationship to meantone. Moreover, it is
definitely meantone-like, but does not fit into the family of
distributed syntonic comma temperaments.

djw

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> i guess the best way to rebuff DJWolf would be to supply a
> historical use of meantone outside the boundaries he has said.
> so far i have seen none.

You must not have been reading these lists for the last 15 years.

Tuning theory is among the more esoteric pursuits of humanity.
These lists are by far the biggest and longest collaborative
effort on the subject in history, even per-capita. The body of
work produced here is by far the largest and richest in
history. We can't coin a term? Or even adapt one in a sensible
way? Get right out of town.

I find it laughable that Daniel Wolf waited until 2007 to
voice his objection. Not only that, but this objection seems
to be one of his only contributions here in many years.
If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, try
studying the archives. You might learn something.

-Carl

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

> I find it laughable that Daniel Wolf waited until 2007 to
> voice his objection. Not only that, but this objection seems
> to be one of his only contributions here in many years.
> If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, try
> studying the archives. You might learn something.

I made my position clear at the time of the FAQ project, and there
was considerable discussion.

It's news to me that contributors here are valued by their volume
rather than quantity; if that's the case, maybe I should just drop
out altogether. With two kids at home and all the fuss of moving
between countries, I have, in fact, limited my particpation in recent
years to topics in which I can make a more substantial contribution
and would not be repeating past efforts, but it's my impression that
my posts get little attention one way or another.

In any case, I have been more active in promoting alterative tuning
environments publicly through my blog (this item, for example: http://
renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-alternative-tunings-can-do-
for.html ) and through lectures and articles (see Volume 22 of the
Contemporary Music Review, for example, for my 75th birthday essay
for Erv Wilson). But mostly I compose, and while my commissions are
not always for work in alternative tunings (the three recent String
Quartets can be done "both ways"), sometimes I get lucky.

djw

> It's news to me that contributors here are valued by their volume
> rather than quantity; if that's the case, maybe I should just drop
> out altogether. With two kids at home and all the fuss of moving
> between countries, I have, in fact, limited my particpation in
> recent years to topics in which I can make a more substantial
> contribution and would not be repeating past efforts, but it's
> my impression that my posts get little attention one way or
> another.

I'll say it again. The body of theoretical work produced on
this list is nothing to sneeze at. It far exceeds in scope,
quantity, and quality anything in the Grove or any other printed
reference for that matter. For someone to pop their head in,
who hasn't contributed to it and probably isn't even aware of
the majority of it, and attempt to dictate the terminology it
should use, borders on disgusting, frankly.

-Carl

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

> I find it laughable that Daniel Wolf waited until 2007 to
> voice his objection.

I think he objected earlier. However, it is late in the day. I get
tited enough changing names around to meet objections when the names
are of recent vintage, but this one is old. Of course, if you don't
know the difference between temperament and tuning as these terms have
come to be used in rgese parts, it's possibly confusing. However, I
think the cure for that is to convince people that abstract
temperaments are the important thing when discussing regular
temperament, and that fetishizing particular tunings is not helpful.

Come On Carl; stop being such an old prune!

I appreciate that we are attempting to discuss "mean" yet there's no need for you to take it literally.

Let's have some constructive ideas on what terms we should use which would accurately include all those possible "meantone-type" tunings,

which have no mathematical relationship to integer ratios e.g. Kornerup, phi etc.

i.e. Those that follow the 5L+2s pattern,

and maybe also a term to differentiate between those which do or do not use octave ratio exactly 2.0.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 12 Sep 2007, at 23:48, Carl Lumma wrote:

> > It's news to me that contributors here are valued by their volume
> > rather than quantity; if that's the case, maybe I should just drop
> > out altogether. With two kids at home and all the fuss of moving
> > between countries, I have, in fact, limited my particpation in
> > recent years to topics in which I can make a more substantial
> > contribution and would not be repeating past efforts, but it's
> > my impression that my posts get little attention one way or
> > another.
>
> I'll say it again. The body of theoretical work produced on
> this list is nothing to sneeze at. It far exceeds in scope,
> quantity, and quality anything in the Grove or any other printed
> reference for that matter. For someone to pop their head in,
> who hasn't contributed to it and probably isn't even aware of
> the majority of it, and attempt to dictate the terminology it
> should use, borders on disgusting, frankly.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> Come On Carl; stop being such an old prune!

I realize I was being one. But I really wish people
would stop to understand what it is they're criticizing.

My own contribution to tuning-math has been quite modest.
But I had the sense to try to understand it, at least.
And after several thousand annoying e-mails like this one,
I've got a 25% grasp of the subject. And a 100% grasp of
the fact that people would be better off spending ten
minutes reading the archives than popping in here once a
year to raise a stink.

I acknowledge a part of the problem is the failure of the
tuning-math community to communicate with the group. But
there are references available, including Paul's papers
(the title of this thread was, until recently, 'Paul's
XH18 paper now online'... has Daniel read it, I wonder?),
the Tonalsoft encyclopedia, my own tuning-math outline,
Graham's papers, Gene's website, etc.

Another problem is that the only two niches of weirdo this
field attracts are theory nerds such as myself, and early
music / history buffs. The latter outnumber the former,
and are particularly dangerous because they have absolutely
no sense of respect for the passage of time, let alone the
evolution of language. If it's not made of crow's quills,
these people will curse it into oblivion.

> I appreciate that we are attempting to discuss "mean" yet
> there's no need for you to take it literally.

I'm *saying* we should not take it literally!

-Carl

Posted by: "Carl Lumma"

You must not have been reading these lists for the last 15 years.

While the list feels it has the final say on issue. i find this one of the most troubling attributes of it. The list is not representative except for the few that post on it. -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

>> You must not have been reading these lists for the last 15 years.
>
> While the list feels it has the final say on issue. i find this
> one of the most troubling attributes of it.

I find the hubris of some who post here one of the
most troublesome aspects.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> I'll say it again. The body of theoretical work produced on
> this list is nothing to sneeze at. It far exceeds in scope,
> quantity, and quality anything in the Grove or any other printed
> reference for that matter. For someone to pop their head in,
> who hasn't contributed to it and probably isn't even aware of
> the majority of it, and attempt to dictate the terminology it
> should use, borders on disgusting, frankly.

That does sound conceited, but at least, the vast majority of work on alternative temperament *classes* has come from this community. And for all that time (at least 10 years) we've been calling the class to which meantone belongs "meantone". And with very little controversy. It really is too late to change now.

Naturally, as there's very little published literature on temperament classes, there aren't established names outside this community.

The word "meantone" should also be the easiest one for outsiders to get. They know what (the) meantone temperament is, so "meantone" must be the class that it belongs to. Who knows what a syntonic comma is?

Graham

I can pay an hourly rate to be arranged. Lessons on the phone (I call you at your convenient time), unless you live in Japan.

I have a very basic knowledge of tunings, physics, algebra (basic matrix theory), calculus and musical acoustics.

Need somebody who can understand and constructively (in the right order) explain me a full range of the tuning theory
developed for the last 10 years.

Contact:

Tony Salinas
tony@tonysalinas.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Another problem is that the only two niches of weirdo this
> field attracts are theory nerds such as myself, and early
> music / history buffs. The latter outnumber the former,
> and are particularly dangerous because they have absolutely
> no sense of respect for the passage of time, let alone the
> evolution of language. If it's not made of crow's quills,
> these people will curse it into oblivion.
> Good points. I would add that there are people like myself who are both theory nerds, early music types, and progressives combined.

And then there are those who are doing unique things (like Jacky Ligon) who left the list when nothing productive was left on it for them.

My complaint about this list isn't so much the narrowness or diversity per se, but how rude people in general are to each other....it really is beyond belief sometimes. It's not only unnecessary, but completely counterproductive, and a turn off to lurkers I'm sure.

-A.

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>> You must not have been reading these lists for the last 15 years.
>>> >> While the list feels it has the final say on issue. i find this
>> one of the most troubling attributes of it.
>> >
> I find the hubris of some who post here one of the
> most troublesome aspects.
> Let's be honest, that works both ways.

> >> While the list feels it has the final say on issue. i
> >> find this one of the most troubling attributes of it.
> >
> > I find the hubris of some who post here one of the
> > most troublesome aspects.
>
> Let's be honest, that works both ways.

I don't think so, and I thought about it some before I
posted that. There seem to be two grossly overgeneralized
types of posters here, which can be distinguished by how
often they ask questions. Some posters never do, whether
it's their first post or their 1000th. They may make
pronouncements, argue about what terminology should be,
or complain about what others are discussing, but they
don't seem to ask questions. Another type does ask, when
they aren't sure how someone else is using a term, or
when they want to know which scale(s) may fit a certain
desire they have, or what have you.

-Carl

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> My complaint about this list isn't so much the narrowness or diversity > per se, but how rude people in general are to each other....it really is > beyond belief sometimes. It's not only unnecessary, but completely > counterproductive, and a turn off to lurkers I'm sure.

Well, in relation to this, I'm sorry about being rude to Cameron last night. And maybe he didn't intend "soft" as an insult, as he started out in favor of neutral thirds. But some of his language does strike me as needlessly negative. Grumble, grumble, ...

Graham

Tony-
There are quite a few books on the subject and best to start there. But nothing is more important than playing as much of the material one can and find what sounds good and useful to you.
I don't think there is anybody on these list who understands what everyone else is doing. everyone has their own focus and specialties. much depends on your own musical language. Quite a few theorist have developed their work over decades, and a single one could alone take years. chances are if you started from the beginning you would find four own trail that might not be like anyone here. I can't imagine that this can be learned over the phone, it often requires too many visual aids.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Kraig,

Books with the latest about contemporary tuning theories? Published within the
last few years? I would most kindly appreciate your citations!

If so much theoretical work has been produced, I am sure there are people
also producing the pedagogical side of it! ... let see what those books you mention
have to offer!

Of course, I am happy to travel to USA if someone can offer an intensive course on tunings!
I can even arrange it here in Japan or UK if teachers are available.

Tony Salinas

On 2007/09/14, at 21:58, Kraig Grady wrote:

> Tony-
> There are quite a few books on the subject and best to start there.
> But nothing is more important than playing as much of the material one
> can and find what sounds good and useful to you.
> I don't think there is anybody on these list who understands what
> everyone else is doing. everyone has their own focus and specialties.
> much depends on your own musical language. Quite a few theorist have
> developed their work over decades, and a single one could alone take
> years. chances are if you started from the beginning you would find > four
> own trail that might not be like anyone here. I can't imagine that > this
> can be learned over the phone, it often requires too many visual aids.
> --> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/> index.html>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los > Angeles
>
>
>

Graham Breed wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
> >> My complaint about this list isn't so much the narrowness or diversity >> per se, but how rude people in general are to each other....it really is >> beyond belief sometimes. It's not only unnecessary, but completely >> counterproductive, and a turn off to lurkers I'm sure.
>> >
> Well, in relation to this, I'm sorry about being rude to > Cameron last night. And maybe he didn't intend "soft" as an > insult, as he started out in favor of neutral thirds. But > some of his language does strike me as needlessly negative. > Grumble, grumble, ...
>
>
> Graham
> Actually, Graham, my post wasn't in response to yours at all, which I skimmed, really. I was more talking about other folks recently, and the general mood of bitching back and forth which is really embarrassing.

Were it not for the chance to hear the creation of good music once in a while here (alas, too often the music is forgotten, even on MMM) I'd have quit long ago...the theory on this list is/has been summarized elsewhere, like Monzo's dictionary, and the various wikis springing up.

My vote would be for the creation of a vigilantly moderated music list where, if you're not discussing or creating a piece, you don't write a word. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be a popular place to go---I can already 'hear' the dissenters.

-A.

have you read every thing before 2000 and exhausted its possibilities. outside of6 more terms, most of the concerns are rooted in what happened before. You should look up those in Japan.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Actually up to 1995 I got hold of quite a lot but still far from what is available of course.

Since vectors, matrices and lattices became part of the tuning language I kind of lost the track.

Graham visited me in Japan and explained me about the vectors like 3/2 => [-1 1]
...So I calculated the pythagorean comma: [-19 12]
A twelfth of the pythagorean comma: [-19/12 12/12] = [-19/12 1]

So the fifth for the 1/12th-comma-meantone is: [-1 1] - [-19/12 1] = [7/12 0]

Long way around to get to the ratio 2^(7/12). In general for equal temperaments you only

need x^y where y=a/b for rational values, but no need for a second paramenter 0

Fokker uses 3 5 7 with his theory and I have seen many vectors around but not a standard

system that I could stick to. I guess for each family of tunings you stick to to a different dimension

or format...

I have found interesting shigin scores with pitch dynamics and they are amazing ... but again nothing

in libraries ... only in shigin clubs. I do my interlibrary loan from UK when I visit but not sure about

japanese text related to tunings ... I am sure there must be stuff around ... need to study another

extra couple of thousand Kanji though! :)

I do have quite a vast amount of what was published by 1995 and
On 2007/09/15, at 7:32, Kraig Grady wrote:

> have you read every thing before 2000 and exhausted its possibilities.
> outside of6 more terms, most of the concerns are rooted in what > happened
> before. You should look up those in Japan.
> --> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/> index.html>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los > Angeles
>
>
>

> My vote would be for the creation of a vigilantly moderated music
> list
> where, if you're not discussing or creating a piece, you don't write
> a
> word. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be a popular place to
> go---I can already 'hear' the dissenters.
>
> -A.
>

I'd be on it like white on rice. Heck, I'd be happy to be a moderator
on it too. So long as the criteria would be as follows:

1) You cannot join unless you have created at least one piece of
microtonal music in the last 6 months, and if you can make that piece
of music available online for the listening pleasure of other list
members.
2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month, you
will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
new music.
3) You cannot post unless it is to link to a piece of your music,
explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
already linked to, or discuss specifically a piece of music that
someone else has posted.
4) All mention of theory and/or instrument design MUST be directly
related to a specific piece of music under discussion--no talk of
tunings in general, there are already at least three other forums
where you can indulge in that.
5) Moderators must rule with an iron fist!!

But alas, I think you are right, Aaron: it would be horribly
unpopular. I've seen no evidence that there are more than a handful
of microtonalists in these online communities interested in *gasp*
focusing their energies on MAKING MUSIC. And the many many
microtonalists in the real world that DO primarily focus on making
music, have no interest in discussing it online.

But hey, if you want to give it a shot, you've got my support.

It might not be a bad idea. I'm interested and I'm in general
agreement with your suggested criteria. I would personally like a
forum where one could post experiments that went astray or unfinished
pieces when the composer could benefit from some input. I think it
could yield some insight into the creative process and help us to
refine our craft. This type of group wouldn't have to detract from
the others, but it might avoid distractions that get in the way of
actually writing music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > My vote would be for the creation of a vigilantly moderated music
> > list
> > where, if you're not discussing or creating a piece, you don't
write
> > a
> > word. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be a popular place
to
> > go---I can already 'hear' the dissenters.
> >
> > -A.
> >
>
> I'd be on it like white on rice. Heck, I'd be happy to be a
moderator
> on it too. So long as the criteria would be as follows:
>
> 1) You cannot join unless you have created at least one piece of
> microtonal music in the last 6 months, and if you can make that
piece
> of music available online for the listening pleasure of other list
> members.
> 2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month,
you
> will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
> your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
> new music.
> 3) You cannot post unless it is to link to a piece of your music,
> explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
> already linked to, or discuss specifically a piece of music that
> someone else has posted.
> 4) All mention of theory and/or instrument design MUST be directly
> related to a specific piece of music under discussion--no talk of
> tunings in general, there are already at least three other forums
> where you can indulge in that.
> 5) Moderators must rule with an iron fist!!
>
> But alas, I think you are right, Aaron: it would be horribly
> unpopular. I've seen no evidence that there are more than a handful
> of microtonalists in these online communities interested in *gasp*
> focusing their energies on MAKING MUSIC. And the many many
> microtonalists in the real world that DO primarily focus on making
> music, have no interest in discussing it online.
>
> But hey, if you want to give it a shot, you've got my support.
>

No, Igs, I don't want to give it a shot---it'll be maybe 4 members...and we might as well just privately email each other.
;)

I like your criteria, I'd love to hear what others think.

Igliashon Jones wrote:
>> My vote would be for the creation of a vigilantly moderated music >> list >> where, if you're not discussing or creating a piece, you don't write >> a >> word. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be a popular place to >> go---I can already 'hear' the dissenters.
>>
>> -A.
>>
>> >
> I'd be on it like white on rice. Heck, I'd be happy to be a moderator
> on it too. So long as the criteria would be as follows:
>
> 1) You cannot join unless you have created at least one piece of
> microtonal music in the last 6 months, and if you can make that piece
> of music available online for the listening pleasure of other list
> members. > 2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month, you
> will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
> your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
> new music.
> 3) You cannot post unless it is to link to a piece of your music,
> explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
> already linked to, or discuss specifically a piece of music that
> someone else has posted.
> 4) All mention of theory and/or instrument design MUST be directly
> related to a specific piece of music under discussion--no talk of
> tunings in general, there are already at least three other forums
> where you can indulge in that.
> 5) Moderators must rule with an iron fist!!
>
> But alas, I think you are right, Aaron: it would be horribly
> unpopular. I've seen no evidence that there are more than a handful
> of microtonalists in these online communities interested in *gasp*
> focusing their energies on MAKING MUSIC. And the many many
> microtonalists in the real world that DO primarily focus on making
> music, have no interest in discussing it online.
>
> But hey, if you want to give it a shot, you've got my support.
>

Daniel Thompson wrote:
> It might not be a bad idea. I'm interested and I'm in general > agreement with your suggested criteria. I would personally like a > forum where one could post experiments that went astray or unfinished > pieces when the composer could benefit from some input. I think it > could yield some insight into the creative process and help us to > refine our craft. This type of group wouldn't have to detract from > the others, but it might avoid distractions that get in the way of > actually writing music.
>
> Wow....ok, we have Daniel Thompson, Igs, Jon L Smith, me...who else? If we can get 10 people who would like such a strict microtonal composition only group, I think it would be fabulous!

I think this was the original intention of MMM, but MMM is too bogged down in TL 'theory' spillover, and talking about gear, and MIDI spec, and so forth. What I'm proposing would be a group for people who join with the single purpose of actually creating and discussing microtonal works of music, and that *only*. The other lists still should exist, and still serve an important purpose, but no list yet exists for music and just music (in other words, there's tuning-mathfor the hardcore theorists, but what group exists for the hardcore creators of music?) It should be *the* place the community goes to expect the latest mp3s or oggs from composers within the community (one of my gripes is having to subscribe to two groups, tuning and MMM, to make sure I miss nothing interesting in the way of audio files---it would be great to have a single place to go for that).

And yes, I think it would be a good idea to have strict moderation and control--nothing OT, even if there is a delay, it would be a better forum with much less noise.

I wouldn't start it myself with less than 10 people saying 'yea', but I'll do it with >=10.....and I wouldn't do it on Yahoo, but on Google. In fact, I'm amazed that any tuning list is still on Yahoo at all---Yahoo is just terrible.

-A.

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> I like your criteria, I'd love to hear what others think.

Well, firstly I think that bitching about the tuning list should go to metatuning. It really doesn't look good to newbies and clutters up the archives (in so far as they're useful otherwise).

Secondly, I think this might appeal to people who like to follow rules. (Like the one about meta posts going to metatuning.)

Thirdly, if people aren't busy this weekend, how about we all try and update the wiki?

Graham

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> 2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month, you
> will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
> your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
> new music.

If that's the kind of list you want, have fun with it; I won't be joining. I do music in my spare time, and I haven't had much of that recently. I also do other things in my spare time. Even when I have the time, I need to be in the right frame of mind to write. As a result, once a year is more like my pace in recent years.

We already have this list and MMM; what's wrong with posting new music to one of these lists? We could come up with a tag, like "MUSIC" in the subject header, so anyone who wants could just ignore anything that isn't MUSIC. Just a suggestion....

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
> No, Igs, I don't want to give it a shot---it'll be maybe
> 4 members...and we might as well just privately email each
> other.
> ;)
>
> I like your criteria, I'd love to hear what others think.

You like criteria that would disqualify both Igs and yourself?

You like gestapo-like moderators?

Honestly, the first time I read this, I thought it was a
joke. Sounds like the "ultimate solution", for sure.

-Carl

> I think this was the original intention of MMM, but MMM is
> too bogged down in TL 'theory' spillover, and talking about
> gear, and MIDI spec, and so forth. What I'm proposing would
> be a group for people who join with the single purpose of
> actually creating and discussing microtonal works of music,
> and that *only*.

What exactly could anyone hope to gain by such discussion?
You think you can write better music by committee?

-Carl

Herman Miller wrote:
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >> 2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month, you
>> will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
>> your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
>> new music.
>> >
> If that's the kind of list you want, have fun with it; I won't be > joining. I do music in my spare time, and I haven't had much of that > recently. I also do other things in my spare time. Even when I have the > time, I need to be in the right frame of mind to write. As a result, > once a year is more like my pace in recent years.
>
> We already have this list and MMM; what's wrong with posting new music > to one of these lists? We could come up with a tag, like "MUSIC" in the > subject header, so anyone who wants could just ignore anything that > isn't MUSIC. Just a suggestion...

Sure---and while we're at it, let's get rid of the tuning math list, andMMM, write MATH in headers for MATH related posts, MIDI or GEAR for tech related posts, and so on.... :)

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
> >> No, Igs, I don't want to give it a shot---it'll be maybe
>> 4 members...and we might as well just privately email each
>> other.
>> ;)
>>
>> I like your criteria, I'd love to hear what others think.
>> >
> You like criteria that would disqualify both Igs and yourself?
>
> You like gestapo-like moderators?
>
> Honestly, the first time I read this, I thought it was a
> joke. Sounds like the "ultimate solution", for sure.
I like what is to creation of music what tuning math is to the creation of long lists of tuning families and their properties.

Like I said elsewhere (I think in response to Kraig) I wouldn't go for a deadline for instance, but if it would cut back on off-topic noise, yes I would like 'Gestapo' moderators.

BTW, branding anything one doesn't llike a Nazi-ish is a bit of easy criticism isn't it? Would precisly wouldn'tyou like about a audio/music centric list offshoot? You have to admit, there's an awful lot of theory, maybe 70%, and about 20% noise, and maybe 10% music on these lists, and that's being generous.

-A.

Carl Lumma wrote:
>> I think this was the original intention of MMM, but MMM is
>> too bogged down in TL 'theory' spillover, and talking about
>> gear, and MIDI spec, and so forth. What I'm proposing would
>> be a group for people who join with the single purpose of
>> actually creating and discussing microtonal works of music,
>> and that *only*.
>> >
> What exactly could anyone hope to gain by such discussion?
> You think you can write better music by committee?
> Yes and no.....my point is---when's the last time actual music and composition was discussed on any list, including MMM.

We've had plenty of talk about Harmonic Entropy, a given scala file, etc. , MIDI switches, etc.

What is all this stuff for, or is it an end in itself?

People post long list of scales which cancel a given set of commas, but post *nothing* audio-wise, not even examples, of even something so simple as an example chord progression.

I'm not talking about committe composition, I'm talking about sharing ideas about music, and putting to work the tools that are being created around here.

Using tools---the fact that this is a radical concept around here is what is wrong with this list.

-A.

> Like I said elsewhere (I think in response to Kraig) I wouldn't
> go for a deadline for instance, but if it would cut back on
> off-topic noise, yes I would like 'Gestapo' moderators.

So like, I don't even understand the rules as proposed. Igs
says you can't post unless it's a link to a music file. How
do people even reply with comments?

> BTW, branding anything one doesn't llike a Nazi-ish is a bit
> of easy criticism isn't it?

Nazis are a tired analogy. I'd say it's more like Puritanism,
actually. Give me a scarlet "T" to wear.

-Carl

> We've had plenty of talk about Harmonic Entropy, a given scala
> file, etc. , MIDI switches, etc.
>
> What is all this stuff for, or is it an end in itself?

Presumably Cubase how-tos help people make music. Presumably
harmonic entropy how-tos help people make theory.
Presumably theory informs music, but that may take a generation
or two to really get going, I dunno. Fokker and Erv had
success. I guess the tuning-math crowd just sucks at getting
the word out.

> People post long list of scales which cancel a given set of
> commas, but post *nothing* audio-wise, not even examples,
> of even something so simple as an example chord progression.

I've posted tons of chord progressions and such. I have 'em
on my hard drive.

> I'm not talking about committe composition, I'm talking about
> sharing ideas about music, and putting to work the tools that
> are being created around here.

The 'hey, I think I have a better scale for you' thing hasn't
gone over too well so far.

> Using tools---the fact that this is a radical concept around
> here is what is wrong with this list.

The thing you may not be remembering is that there are very
few musicians around here. Kraig, Johnny, Neil, yourself. I
can't think of any others at the moment. I work 50 hrs/wk
at Apple, my wife works 50 hrs/wk at 23andme, we have a
2-year-old, and no friends or family in the area. We live
in a 900-sq.-ft home with no sound insulation at all. My
MIDI setup is in the bedroom where my wife sleeps, starting
at 9pm every night. I'm not sure when I'm supposed to be
making music, or doing theory. Actually I've spent more
time working on music than theory in the last 2 months.

-Carl

I don't have a problem with the existing lists, provided everyone
makes a reasonable effort to be polite. They do a good job of filling
certain needs. I think it's great that we have so many theorists.
It's just easy for other interests and needs to get overwhelmed by
long theoretical discussions. If any one wants to start a small,
private, group for discussing making music and maybe posting things
you don't want to share with the general public, then I would be
interested. A more open group may also be a good idea, but it might
be better to see if we can improve the MMM list first.

We should probably give more thought to how we present our music and
ourselves to the general public. It's easy to see how people could be
turned off by the lists, especially if they only have a casual
interest. I have often considered the possibilities of having a
community microtonal blog that is primarily for the general public.
The posts could be limited to descriptions and links to music. This
would make it easy for the public to access new microtonal music
without wading through long theoretical debates.

I would be willing to start such a blog if there is enough interest
from other composers. I'm also happy to support that kind of effort
if someone else wants to take control of the project.

> I would be willing to start such a blog if there is enough interest
> from other composers. I'm also happy to support that kind of effort
> if someone else wants to take control of the project.

Kyle Gann's blog has been pretty successful, I think. A bunch
of people making music each having a blog and then putting
eachother on their blog rolls would be fantastic. Kind of like
the modern-day version of what Gene was suggesting with a web
ring.

Another thing to look at is the site micromusic.net, which has
nothing to do with microtonal music. Rather, it was a big
player in the '8-bit music' phenomenon, which has now gone
mainstream. It's a good model I think.

If you have an interest in doing something new for microtonal
music, don't make it another discussion list.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > My vote would be for the creation of a vigilantly moderated music
> > list
> > where, if you're not discussing or creating a piece, you don't
write
> > a
> > word. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be a popular place
to
> > go---I can already 'hear' the dissenters.
> >
> > -A.
> >
>
> I'd be on it like white on rice. Heck, I'd be happy to be a
moderator
> on it too. So long as the criteria would be as follows:
>
> 1) You cannot join unless you have created at least one piece of
> microtonal music in the last 6 months, and if you can make that
piece
> of music available online for the listening pleasure of other list
> members.
> 2) If you do not post a new piece of music at least once a month,
you
> will be warned. If you fail to post a new piece within a month of
> your warning, you will be barred the ability to post UNTIL you have
> new music.
> 3) You cannot post unless it is to link to a piece of your music,
> explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
> already linked to, or discuss specifically a piece of music that
> someone else has posted.
> 4) All mention of theory and/or instrument design MUST be directly
> related to a specific piece of music under discussion--no talk of
> tunings in general, there are already at least three other forums
> where you can indulge in that.
> 5) Moderators must rule with an iron fist!!
>
> But alas, I think you are right, Aaron: it would be horribly
> unpopular. I've seen no evidence that there are more than a handful
> of microtonalists in these online communities interested in *gasp*
> focusing their energies on MAKING MUSIC. And the many many
> microtonalists in the real world that DO primarily focus on making
> music, have no interest in discussing it online.
>
> But hey, if you want to give it a shot, you've got my support.
>

***These rules seem a little "Draconian," don't you think? Or is
this, perhaps, the Abu Graib tuning list?? :)

I think Szanto's MMM has worked well over the years, although I admit
I haven't even had time to be much over there of late...

People tend to comment, at least on *my* music, but sometimes they do
it by *private* email. (Maybe they don't want other people to know
they like my music... ! :)

Seriously, though... the lack of commentary may just be people being
cautious of other people's reactions, incredibly as that may seem for
an Internet list... rather than just saying, por ejemplo, "it sucks"

J. Pehrson

> Seriously, though... the lack of commentary may just be people being
> cautious of other people's reactions, incredibly as that may seem for
> an Internet list... rather than just saying, por ejemplo, "it sucks"
>
> J. Pehrson
>

***Or... in some cases, maybe they could be *jealous*... too ;)

However, starting new lists or posting places is probably not going to
change these basic human behaviors... IMHO...

J. Pehrson

> So like, I don't even understand the rules as proposed. Igs
> says you can't post unless it's a link to a music file. How
> do people even reply with comments?

Read it again, Carl:

"3) You cannot post unless:
it is to link to a piece of your music,
explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
already linked to,
or discuss specifically a piece of music that
someone else has posted."

That is basically saying all posts must be DIRECTLY related to a piece
of music that has been posted.

> You like criteria that would disqualify both Igs and yourself?

Actually, Carl, that criteria WOULDN'T disqualify myself. Don't
assume that every time I finish a piece of microtonal music that I
rush to these lists to parade it for y'all. Fact of the matter is I'm
sitting on at least an hours' worth of material that I have no
interest in sharing with these communities...because sharing it has
long seemed a pointless exercise.

> You like gestapo-like moderators?

Actually, I do. At least as an alternative to, er, NO moderators.
Forums are supposed to have "topics", and forum members--as has been
clearly evidenced in countless forums--are notoriously bad at
maintaining focus on the standard topics.

I do not see why everyone is so critical of this idea: so the forum is
restrictive. So what? Y'all still have MMM, the Tuning List, and the
Tuning-Math List to go blather away about whatever you want. The
whole POINT of the list is to be restrictive!!

If y'all read more carefully, you'd have noticed that everyone gets at
least TWO months to make a new piece of music under my proposal, they
just get a "warning" (or a nudge, if you'd like to think of it that
way) after a month, and if they still haven't posted a new piece at
the end of the SECOND month, they simply have their posting privileges
TEMPORARILY restricted until they have new music.

Think of it as incentive to keep creating. Honestly, is ONE piece of
music every TWO MONTHS that difficult of a goal?

> > So like, I don't even understand the rules as proposed. Igs
> > says you can't post unless it's a link to a music file. How
> > do people even reply with comments?
>
> Read it again, Carl:
>
> "3) You cannot post unless:
> it is to link to a piece of your music,
> explain or otherwise discuss a piece of your music that you have
> already linked to,
> or discuss specifically a piece of music that
> someone else has posted."
>
> That is basically saying all posts must be DIRECTLY related
> to a piece of music that has been posted.

That's a very slippery slope. You'll immediately have
arguments about what's related and what's not.

-Carl

> > You like criteria that would disqualify both Igs and yourself?
>
> Actually, Carl, that criteria WOULDN'T disqualify myself. Don't
> assume that every time I finish a piece of microtonal music that
> I rush to these lists to parade it for y'all. Fact of the matter
> is I'm sitting on at least an hours' worth of material that I
> have no interest in sharing with these communities...because
> sharing it has long seemed a pointless exercise.

That's too bad. What did you expect to gain from it? I've
given you positive feedback every time you've posted music.

Criteria is plural, by the way.

-Carl

OK enough talk about the group
I.Jones. Time to do it.
One only knows the result of the experiment by doing it.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > My complaint about this list isn't so much the narrowness or
>diversity
> > per se, but how rude people in general are to each other....it
>really is
> > beyond belief sometimes. It's not only unnecessary, but
>completely
> > counterproductive, and a turn off to lurkers I'm sure.
>
> Well, in relation to this, I'm sorry about being rude to
> Cameron last night. And maybe he didn't intend "soft" as an
> insult, as he started out in favor of neutral thirds. But
> some of his language does strike me as needlessly negative.
> Grumble, grumble, ...
>
>
> Graham
>

Eh, you weren't rude- the only true rudeness that goes on here is
never, afaik, addressed, and probably not even noticed by very many.

Of course I didn't mean "soft" as an insult, it's one the main
ingredient things musical things I work on every day ("njega").

Anyway, I enjoy this list a great deal and anything negative here is
only laughs out in the hardworld. I wouldn't take it as a very good
sign to be "taken seriously" (in Gene's words) very much in
cyberland LOL.

-Cameron Bobro

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> I do not see why everyone is so critical of this idea: so the forum is
> restrictive. So what? Y'all still have MMM, the Tuning List, and the
> Tuning-Math List to go blather away about whatever you want. The
> whole POINT of the list is to be restrictive!!

Too restrictive. It shuts out anyone with an interest in the subject unless they contribute frequently. I think most of us are here because of an interest in music. We might not all be super-prolific writers; some of us may only be listeners, but the subject interests us. Some of us even try to contribute some bits of music from time to time. But you can't expect everyone to have the amount of time it takes to contribute new music frequently. Especially when working with unfamiliar new tuning systems! I still haven't quite got the hang of most of the tunings I like to use.... Lots of tedious trial and error....

What gets me is that if you've all got that much music, why aren't you discussing it on this list or MMM? Isn't that one of the main topics of these lists? I don't see anyone complain that there's too much music on the list. It may not always get as many comments as pointless arguments about which temperament a particular composer really had in mind, but in the end, the music is what all these ideas are trying to support. If most of what little music we do get here goes off to some list that most of us here will be unable to contribute to by the nature of the list, it will be our loss. But you're welcome to give it a try and see how it comes out.

> If y'all read more carefully, you'd have noticed that everyone gets at
> least TWO months to make a new piece of music under my proposal, they
> just get a "warning" (or a nudge, if you'd like to think of it that
> way) after a month, and if they still haven't posted a new piece at
> the end of the SECOND month, they simply have their posting privileges
> TEMPORARILY restricted until they have new music.
> > Think of it as incentive to keep creating. Honestly, is ONE piece of
> music every TWO MONTHS that difficult of a goal?

If you have to ask the question, you must be very lucky to have that much time on your hands, or else you're a professional composer. Is a list that is friendly to lurkers and casual writers that difficult of a goal?