The Endless Paul and Jerry Show

Look boys:

I'm all for the back-and-forth nature of the medium, but sometimes people
of sound body and mind have to agree to disagree.

(or at least agree to realize that they are talking past each other)

[or take it off-list??]

But what iced the cake for me was Paul writing the following:

>It is therefore of great interest to me to understand
>tuning as it works for you, and to help put a quantitative underpinning to
>the things you hear.

[explitive deleted] Nonsense! (I took the last one directly from "Paul
Erlich's Guide to Effective Communication") -- Dear Paul, some of us in
this world don't want things to have "a quantitative underpinning" (well, I
like to know that a given plumbing fixture will work with my sink, but
that's another topic). If that is the *only* way you can understand music,
or at least some subset of music, then I actually feel sorry for you.

But I *do* believe that you *do* feel music more on a gut level as well
(you better feel klezmer that way, buddy), and I sure wish you could just
let it affect you in that manner, let it affect others in that manner, and
quit trying to put everything in measurable compartments.

I realize I'm probably *way* out of line here, but this thing has been
going on with no sense of resolution for a looooong time now. Over and over
and over. For me, "let us give to nuts and bolts the standardization of
thread that we have come to expect, but let us give to music -- magic, to
man -- magic."

Notice: I said "For me"; YMMV.

Respectfully,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows: A Yahoo! Internet Life
jszanto@adnc.com : "New, Notable & Fun" site for February 2000
{the Park Ranger} : http://www.corporeal.com/
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

Jon wrote,

>But I *do* believe that you *do* feel music more on a gut level as well
>(you better feel klezmer that way, buddy), and I sure wish you could just
>let it affect you in that manner, let it affect others in that manner, and
>quit trying to put everything in measurable compartments.

Well, I don't let the attempt at quantification interfere with my feeling
and playing of music on a gut level, and as a musician I'd happily live
without the former. The bends I use when playing the blues have nothing to
do with ratios and that's fine with me. But think about the many points in
history where quantification led to musical progress -- the Renaissance,
Werckmeister, Partch . . . As a mathematician/physicist, my mind is
naturally drawn to such questions, and it would seem to be a great benefit
to Jerry's cause to be able to put numbers on what he's hearing so that
scholars of the future won't have to play a guessing game when reading his
books.

John Szanto exasperatedly posted:
>
> Look boys:
>
> I'm all for the back-and-forth nature of the medium, but sometimes people
> of sound body and mind have to agree to disagree.

That phase comes when both parties are satisfied that they have understood
the other. We are not quite there yet, but I sense we are close.
>
> (or at least agree to realize that they are talking past each other)

The way one finds out they are "talking past each other" is to challenge and
question. I think we have been doing that rather successfully recently. At
very least, it is a demonstration on how to be both honestly brutal and
mutually respectful at the same time. The world could use more of that.
>
> [or take it off-list??]

You may have noticed that more members are getting into the conversation.
That's what the List is all about. If you have no interest in this thread,
Jon, use your down-arrow (or delete) when you see the topic.
>
> But what iced the cake for me was Paul writing the following:
>
>>It is therefore of great interest to me to understand
>>tuning as it works for you, and to help put a quantitative underpinning to
>>the things you hear.
>
> [explitive deleted] Nonsense! (I took the last one directly from "Paul
> Erlich's Guide to Effective Communication") -- Dear Paul, some of us in
> this world don't want things to have "a quantitative underpinning" (well, I
> like to know that a given plumbing fixture will work with my sink, but
> that's another topic). If that is the *only* way you can understand music,
> or at least some subset of music, then I actually feel sorry for you.

Jon, I joined the List to do just that: to find an objective description for
what I have observed in "real life" and its mysteries. Ironically, I am very
close to leaving having learned that there is little chance that the "high
third" can be quantified in a reasonable manner. Is that a positive thing?
It is to me! Is that progress? Yes, it is. Is that what this List is all
about?????? Your answer, please..............
>
> But I *do* believe that you *do* feel music more on a gut level as well
> (you better feel klezmer that way, buddy), and I sure wish you could just
> let it affect you in that manner, let it affect others in that manner, and
> quit trying to put everything in measurable compartments.

One's concern for understanding human perception has no relationship to
one's appreciation for the emotional effects of artistic expression. We now
know why apples fall from trees, but that doesn't detract from the beauty of
the tree itself, not to mention a well-shaped apple.
>
> I realize I'm probably *way* out of line here,

Honest expressions of frustration are never out of line, Jon. We all have
been there (see my recent posts). But fortunately, we wake up the next
morning and realize how really silly it all was. Perhaps you will, too.

> but this thing has been
> going on with no sense of resolution for a looooong time now. Over and over
> and over.

I apologize for the extraneous (and perhaps detracting) side issues that
have been personally enjoyable but not of interest to all (and perhaps Paul
would join me on that). On the other hand, one never knows what off-hand
comment will generate a breakthrough. It's all part of the process of
discovery. Remember, this is not a finished "book," its the banging out of
the basic ideas that perhaps will at some point find their way into a more
"polite" presentation.

> For me, "let us give to nuts and bolts the standardization of
> thread that we have come to expect, but let us give to music -- magic, to
> man -- magic."

Right on, brother!
>
> Notice: I said "For me"; YMMV.

Duly noted.

Thanks for your bold honesty, Jon.

Jerry