Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning apology and threading

Dear list,

Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with many
thanks to Carl for his past services? I feel the list needs a bit
tidying up and scholarly discipline to favour quality, non-repetitive
and non-circular posts. If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I
promise to be extra careful with the subject lines!

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 21, 2010, at 12:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Howdy folks;
>
> I want to apologize to the list for the flurry of posts
> between Mike and I in the wee hours last night (at least,
> Pacific time). In the future we'll take that kind of
> thing offlist.
>
> I also wanted to call attention to the threading here.
> We've been very lazy about subject lines and threads.
> And for our readers who actually have lives :) that makes
> it harder to focus in on the content that interests them.
>
> It's easy to fight back! Simply remember these three
> principles:
>
> 1. Don't be shy with the "post" link on the left. That
> starts a new thread.
>
> 2. If you find the discussion has strayed from what it
> was when the subject line was created, change the subject.
> You can put the old subject is a (was: ...) if you want.
>
> 3. If you find yourself in a rapid exchange with one
> other person, don't be afraid to reply offlist.
>
> I've been guilty of all these, so this is as much to help
> me remember as anything else.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Oz>"Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with many
thanks to Carl for his past services?"
IMVHO, this is a rather harsh and ultimately unproductive remark. Carl went
on a bit but, instead of playing high and mighty and running the line of "I can
get away with anything b/c I'm the moderator", he apologized and, if anything,
he should be commended for his action there. That is, rather than turned on
and being told "you made a mistake, so goodbye...so you admitted it honestly;
maybe you shouldn't have...".

>"I feel the list needs a bit tidying up and scholarly discipline to favour
>quality, non-repetitive and non-circular posts."
But who has the power to define quality and what is/isn't circular? Lord
knows we have had enough instances on this list where two experts are calling
each others' theories circular. :-D

The other issue has to do with "scholarly-ness". For sure this list lacks
from time to time in displaying topics with PHD-level academic formality that
would keep up with, for example, Ozan/"your" own work or the work of someone
like Margo or Carl.

Then again the Tuning list advertises itself as being open to "anyone
interested in tuning", which would include people like myself, Chris, Sevish,
Rick Ballan, and several others who aren't tuning PHD's and may or may not
"even" have or be working on college level music degrees.

I wish the list were separated into
1) Tuning-papers for working on academic-level publications
2) Tuning-general for those who are simply interested in micro-tuning and
anything that goes too far into theory to post on the MMM list (which is how I
found about this list in the first place, someone said "Mike, this level of
theory belongs on the tuning list".

That way we could avoid things like PHD's calling "mere" music hobbyists
"dumb and pointless" simply because they aren't on the same level and/or
non-PHD's complaining that academic papers are "a lot of overly-complex talk and
very little actual music (IE isn't it amazing someone can say my theories have
nothing to do with tuning and then say they love a song I made based on those
theories?!)".

All in all...I figure something like a split would mean less fighting over
content and wasting space complaining about who does/doesn't "deserve to
post". Honestly, I think the mere fact we have people complaining many people
honestly interested in tuning shouldn't have the freedom to post shows this is a
problem we need to resolve.

>"If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I promise to be extra careful
>with the subject lines!"
I am happy Carl broke the ice on this issue, because I've fallen into that
hole as well. After having so many people de-rail my own topics and not take
them seriously (and trying to post new topics based on my take on other people's
quote only to have them be ignored), I figured why bother keeping strict
standards for my replies to other people's threads. But hey, if other people
are willing to take this seriously, so am I!

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Michael,

The style of your quoting is not facilitating the task of the reader.
I personally reply this once to you in order to re-clarify what hasalready been clarified by myself several times before.

The conundrum you, Mike, Marcel, Igs and the lot who got tugged along
into the whirlpool of TRULY unproductive roundabouts keep at has
become a matter of grave concern to me. A continous spout of 30 posts
or more a day that lead nowhere in particular - argument for the sake
of argument per se - and are far from abiding to proper netiquette is
stealing the precious time and mailbox space of a thousand subscribers
among whom are professionals who have long since reverted to utter
silence...

I state this as a concern to the list as a whole, for I have my
filters in force whenever the need for them arises.

My eyes search for highly informative and novelty messages (and even
harangue and entertainment) from Johnny Reinhard, Paul Poletti, Brad
Lehman, Andreas Sparschuh, Charles Lucy, Jacques Dudon, Graham Breed, Aaron Andrew Hunt, George Secor, Dave Keenan, Herman Miller, Shaahin
Mohajeri, Joe Monzo (in no particular order, and apologies to those
whom I neglected to mention)... most of whom virtually dissappeared
into oblivion while a few linger on. And the ones who once rocked this
platform with their dumbfounding knowledge on matters such as Gene
Ward Smith, Daniel Forro and Carl Lumma have succumbed to this
horrific intellectual indolence.

The primary mandate of the Alternate Tuning List is to EXCHANGE
ideas... for which one must have the inclination and/or foreknowledge
on pertinent subjects to GRASP an idea. Go read again the Group
Description. Does it say "anyone interested in tuning"? Back when we
had good common sense, we used to jettison such people who incessantly
throwed at us yarnspins on 12-EDO. The scourge has returned today
under the hood of a "makeshift JI hobbyism".

When I first approached this list many years ago, I did not barge in
like an elephant with grandiose pretensions and a knack for
relativizing wholesome things to twist topics. I tried to learn and
understand from my elders and betters in humility. Granted, my early
excitement did sometimes get the better of me, I tried nevertheless to
approach the science of tuning from a methodical perspective and with
a practicable goal and specific focus. Back then, when I once could
not resist the urge to name a comma I calculated after myself, I was
chastised to remember that it is others who rightly name things after
you and render you any recognition if you are indeed worthy of it.
That was then...

Who has the power here? Obviously the common mentality and good sense
that dominates the list. I truly wish it is not anymore the slipshod
undisciplined pretentious attitude that has blown like a scourge for
the past year hereabouts. And if need be, measures should be taken to
keep such a devastating, crippling, mass-inducing habit in check.

I have noticed with great dismay that Carl is very much slipping in
moderation. No personal offence inteded to him! It's a simple matter
to get carried away in the wake of such carefree anarchistic trends as
we face today. And he is a family man with distractions of his own. As
such, I strongly believe a change of office is in order.

My concern has never been about PhD titles and ranks. It's always been
an issue of clarity, understandability, proper conduct and unambiguous
purpose when sending messages to everyone. Thus, seperation of the
"tuning kindergarten" and "microtonal academy" indeed appears to be a
good notion on your part! This should be immediately put into effect
on a plausible change of moderator.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 21, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Michael wrote:

>
>
> Oz>"Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with many
> thanks to Carl for his past services?"
> IMVHO, this is a rather harsh and ultimately unproductive
> remark. Carl went on a bit but, instead of playing high and mighty
> and running the line of "I can get away with anything b/c I'm the
> moderator", he apologized and, if anything, he should be commended
> for his action there. That is, rather than turned on and being> told "you made a mistake, so goodbye...so you admitted it honestly;
> maybe you shouldn't have...".
>
> >"I feel the list needs a bit tidying up and scholarly discipline
> to favour quality, non-repetitive and non-circular posts."
> But who has the power to define quality and what is/isn't
> circular? Lord knows we have had enough instances on this list
> where two experts are calling each others' theories circular. :-D
>
> The other issue has to do with "scholarly-ness". For sure this
> list lacks from time to time in displaying topics with PHD-level
> academic formality that would keep up with, for example, Ozan/"your"
> own work or the work of someone like Margo or Carl.
>
> Then again the Tuning list advertises itself as being open to
> "anyone interested in tuning", which would include people like
> myself, Chris, Sevish, Rick Ballan, and several others who aren't
> tuning PHD's and may or may not "even" have or be working on college
> level music degrees.
>
> I wish the list were separated into
> 1) Tuning-papers for working on academic-level publications
> 2) Tuning-general for those who are simply interested in micro-
> tuning and anything that goes too far into theory to post on the MMM
> list (which is how I found about this list in the first place,
> someone said "Mike, this level of theory belongs on the tuning list".
>
> That way we could avoid things like PHD's calling "mere" music
> hobbyists "dumb and pointless" simply because they aren't on the
> same level and/or non-PHD's complaining that academic papers are "a
> lot of overly-complex talk and very little actual music (IE isn't it
> amazing someone can say my theories have nothing to do with tuning
> and then say they love a song I made based on those theories?!)".
>
> All in all...I figure something like a split would mean less
> fighting over content and wasting space complaining about who does/
> doesn't "deserve to post". Honestly, I think the mere fact we have
> people complaining many people honestly interested in tuning
> shouldn't have the freedom to post shows this is a problem we need
> to resolve.
>
> >"If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I promise to be extra
> careful with the subject lines!"
> I am happy Carl broke the ice on this issue, because I've fallen
> into that hole as well. After having so many people de-rail my own
> topics and not take them seriously (and trying to post new topics
> based on my take on other people's quote only to have them be
> ignored), I figured why bother keeping strict standards for my
> replies to other people's threads. But hey, if other people are
> willing to take this seriously, so am I!
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me> The other issue has to do with "scholarly-ness". For sure this list
lacks from time to time in displaying topics with PHD-level academic formality
that would keep up with, for example, Ozan/"your" own work or the work of
someone like Margo or Carl.
>
> Then again the Tuning list advertises itself as being open to "anyone
>interested in tuning", which would include people like myself, Chris, Sevish,
>Rick Ballan, and several others who aren't tuning PHD's and may or may not
>"even" have or be working on college level music degrees.

MikeB>"I'm a 22 year old guy with a "Music Engineering" undergraduate degree.
Paul Erlich is 30-something and has an undergrad physics degree. Please stop
making this argument. It makes my head hurt."
I think you're taking my point as too far an absolute. Funny fact: I'm an
MSIS/MBA...probably about the weirdest major of anyone here with regards to
music though I have dabbled in DSP in a couple of my programming courses for
electives.
My point is if Ozan (or anyone, for that matter) by chance expects everyone
to voice themselves in the exact same mind-frame as a pure tuning major, it's a
ridiculous standard. Your example of Paul Erlich is actually dead-on because
"even" he doesn't meet the bizarre "tuning PHD holder" standard as a physics
major...and yet he's done as much for tuning as just about anyone.

Me> I wish the list were separated into
> 1) Tuning-papers for working on academic-level publications
> 2) Tuning-general for those who are simply interested in micro-tuning and
>anything that goes too far into theory to post on the MMM list (which is how I
>found about this list in the first place, someone said "Mike, this level of
>theory belongs on the tuning list".

MikeB>"I'd be open to that. That way rapid-fire exchanges could happen without
anyone feeling guilty."
Thank you...and that "rapid-fire exchanges could happen without anyone
feeling guilty" is precisely the point. With or without a specialized music
degree, focus on ethnic vs. historical vs. computational education
background...we should all be able to find a place we can voice ourselves
without fear.

>"Or maybe we should just be more diligent in taking things to tuning-math, which
>has recently been completely dead."
Good idea! The question then, to me, becomes what exactly falls under tuning
math.
Is something such as "I think I see a pattern in the way certain ratios sound
and so have a few people I've tested" tuning-math or just tuning?
I'm tempted to say most of what I work on is based on consonance (partly
subjective, partly inferring to past research) and not concordance (more based
on direct signal processing theory with a tad of psychology thrown in).

The latter seems to say "this is a subject academic papers could be written
about"...so I suspect the tuning-math list would be an appropriate place for
those who discussion that's "scientifically backed" to a degree it could qualify
in an academic journal. And even then I also agree with what your last post
appears to infer; that if only certain very narrow sub-topics of academic theory
IE "ethnic scales" count to those people as "real tuning discussion"...then they
are likely going to be unsatisfied no matter what accommodations can be made
realistically.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Ozan,

Firstly, fair enough, the list advertisement/wording has been changed. It
did used to say anyone interested in tunings, but no longer does. However, it
does say:
"This mailing list is intended for exchanging ideas relevant to
alternate musical tunings: just intonation; paratactical tunings; experimental
instrument design; non-standard equal temperaments....etc." -tuning list
advertisement/intro

And, what Mike B has been discussing about major/minor-ness is very closely
related to both Just Intonation and alternative Temperament...thus being quite
on topic whether you find it useful or not. (note: I realize you even write off
on-topic JI discussion as being "makeshift JI")

>"A continous spout of 30 posts or more a day that lead nowhere in particular"
Unless we're talking about something as objective as the history of tuning
or math behind an existing theory, a lot of what we describe is debate. Since
music is partly subjective such debate is inevitable: even under a strict topic
like JI some people are going to say their ears gravitate toward different
answers and dish out examples until there's a clear winner.

>"Charles Lucy, Jacques Dudon, Graham Breed, Aaron Andrew Hunt, George Secor,
>Dave Keenan, Herman Miller, Shaahin Mohajeri, Joe Monzo"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what these people seem to have in common (in
general) in their discussion style is they typically talk about things already
done in tuning rather than, say, create and debate new tunings or new ways of
interpreting old tunings.
They generally seem to avoid heavy debate and, if they post anything new,
they just say "try this" and then don't follow up often to debate the solution's
subjective qualities. Which is fine but, to me, it seems obvious debate has its
place as that's how many new theories are formed...which, if they do well,
become part of not-so-debatable history.

>"I did not barge in like an elephant with grandiose pretensions and a knack for
>relativizing wholesome things to twist topics."
That seems to imply that in order to make something new you have to
completely disregard or disrespect something older. Which, of course, isn't the
case at all: hence why I'm very careful to state anything I write here as a new
"alternative" and NOT a "substitute/replacement". The only people I've really
seen here who seem to say their ideas are a replacement for something are
Charles Lucy and Marcel. If you by chance think people like myself or Mike B or
Igs aren't humble toward experts in the field, that just shows you aren't
reading us well at all.

>"Back then, when I once could not resist the urge to name a comma I calculated
>after myself, I was chastised to remember that it is others who rightly name
>things after you and render you any recognition if you are indeed worthy of it."
Interesting example. Thing is...I don't see Mike B, Igs, myself...going
around naming parts of tuning theory after ourselves either. I occasionally try
to name a tuning with my own name if I can't find it in the Scala archive...and
even then my next step is always to check my scale against this list to see if
anyone in history has already made the scale (and to give credit if they
have!) And hey, if I run into an existing scale by virtue of my own
calculation (especially if it's a famous one by, say, Partch or
Ptolemy)...doesn't that to some extent serve as to say I'm on the right track?
:-D

>"I truly wish it is not anymore the slipshod undisciplined pretentious
attitude"
Examples? You give the impression that you think any sort of debate not
based directly on tuning history (including debate on the feeling of music and
psycho-acoustics) automatically qualifies as "undisciplined pretentious
attitude".
I, for one, may not be a PHD, but I'm surely not an undisciplined...and
neither are the many people you complain about virtually all of who have college
degrees,VERY hard working attitudes, and honest intent to make progress: be it
through long debates or simply reviewing historical tuning facts and
terminology.

>"The scourge has returned today under the hood of a "makeshift JI hobbyism"."
I guess you could say people like Sevish, Igs, and I would be stuffed under
that umbrella. And yet, I've seen you make very positive comments on all of our
works, many of which are based on our own takes on JI. In fact, Sevish is
probably my favorite artist on here...with Igs not far at all behind and on a
level with what compositions I've heard from you.
My point: if it (these theories and debate you consider "pointless" and
"undisciplined") constantly results in relatively good music (and isn't that the
ultimate point of music theory in the end of the day?)...what on earth do you
think is so makeshift/'temporary'/'cheap' about it?!

>"My concern has never been about PhD titles and ranks. It's always been an issue
>of clarity, understandability, proper conduct and unambiguous purpose when
>sending messages to everyone. Thus, seperation of the "tuning kindergarten" and
>"microtonal academy" indeed appears to be a good notion on your part!"

But you see, my poiny is it's not a matter of better or worse (Kindergarten
vs. Academy?! :-S ), but a matter of more vs. less academically applicable
styles of viewing music theory.

An easy example of this is something like The Beatles or one of the many
legendary bands of the past with little to no formal academic training compared
to an academic standard like Beethoven who was formally trained from early
childhood. If you made a group with "The Beatles", you may well spend a lot of
time speculating and debating about how motifs can be mixed and the goal
emotions, while in the "Beethoven" group, you may talk about specific
mathematical patterns in the motifs.
The "Beethoven" group may write a great paper while the "Beatles" group may
inspire a new popular band like "Nirvana" that focuses on twisting the Beatles'
techniques in new ways...both are admirable goals in music.
That's not saying either is better, but just that the focus is different.

>"This should be immediately put into effect on a plausible change of
moderator."
I definitely agree with the separation of list idea, but not with the idea
of splitting the list into better or worse...but rather less academically
focused vs. more academically focused.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

A change of moderator? Really?

Perhaps you would have us request the services of Marcel DeVelde. I'm sure he'd do a much better job than Carl's been doing.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with many
> thanks to Carl for his past services? I feel the list needs a bit
> tidying up and scholarly discipline to favour quality, non-repetitive
> and non-circular posts. If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I
> promise to be extra careful with the subject lines!
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> â© â© â©
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 12:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Howdy folks;
> >
> > I want to apologize to the list for the flurry of posts
> > between Mike and I in the wee hours last night (at least,
> > Pacific time). In the future we'll take that kind of
> > thing offlist.
> >
> > I also wanted to call attention to the threading here.
> > We've been very lazy about subject lines and threads.
> > And for our readers who actually have lives :) that makes
> > it harder to focus in on the content that interests them.
> >
> > It's easy to fight back! Simply remember these three
> > principles:
> >
> > 1. Don't be shy with the "post" link on the left. That
> > starts a new thread.
> >
> > 2. If you find the discussion has strayed from what it
> > was when the subject line was created, change the subject.
> > You can put the old subject is a (was: ...) if you want.
> >
> > 3. If you find yourself in a rapid exchange with one
> > other person, don't be afraid to reply offlist.
> >
> > I've been guilty of all these, so this is as much to help
> > me remember as anything else.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

Dr. Yarman,
With all due respect, I must remind you that this is not a scholarly academic journal, it is an internet forum open to the public. I for one agree with you that posts here are often excessive, frequently unproductive, and occasionally completely annoying. But as this is a public forum, and one of the only places on the internet where a person can come to learn about and discuss tuning, I do not feel it is in the public interest to enforce heavy moderation of the list. This is not the "Maqamat" list, or the "Circulating Temperaments" list, or the "Neo-Medieval Music" list; it is simply the "Tuning" list. Presumably, it was created to have a broad mission and to be open to the public for a good reason. If you feel that this list is too "open" to unqualified or unrefined people, I encourage you to form a more exclusive list, tailored to your high standards, and invite to it all those whom you admire or respect--those whose voices you feel have been lost in the flood from us "amateurs". If these others share your disdain for this list, surely they will follow you to a more exclusive and focused forum--perhaps you can make it invite-only?

Surely, this approach will yield more satisfying results than petitioning the one authority on this list to relinquish his status on behalf of a silent--but allegedly-disapproving--majority.

Respectfully,

-Igliashon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> The style of your quoting is not facilitating the task of the reader.
> I personally reply this once to you in order to re-clarify what has
> already been clarified by myself several times before.
>
> The conundrum you, Mike, Marcel, Igs and the lot who got tugged along
> into the whirlpool of TRULY unproductive roundabouts keep at has
> become a matter of grave concern to me. A continous spout of 30 posts
> or more a day that lead nowhere in particular - argument for the sake
> of argument per se - and are far from abiding to proper netiquette is
> stealing the precious time and mailbox space of a thousand subscribers
> among whom are professionals who have long since reverted to utter
> silence...
>
> I state this as a concern to the list as a whole, for I have my
> filters in force whenever the need for them arises.
>
> My eyes search for highly informative and novelty messages (and even
> harangue and entertainment) from Johnny Reinhard, Paul Poletti, Brad
> Lehman, Andreas Sparschuh, Charles Lucy, Jacques Dudon, Graham Breed,
> Aaron Andrew Hunt, George Secor, Dave Keenan, Herman Miller, Shaahin
> Mohajeri, Joe Monzo (in no particular order, and apologies to those
> whom I neglected to mention)... most of whom virtually dissappeared
> into oblivion while a few linger on. And the ones who once rocked this
> platform with their dumbfounding knowledge on matters such as Gene
> Ward Smith, Daniel Forro and Carl Lumma have succumbed to this
> horrific intellectual indolence.
>
> The primary mandate of the Alternate Tuning List is to EXCHANGE
> ideas... for which one must have the inclination and/or foreknowledge
> on pertinent subjects to GRASP an idea. Go read again the Group
> Description. Does it say "anyone interested in tuning"? Back when we
> had good common sense, we used to jettison such people who incessantly
> throwed at us yarnspins on 12-EDO. The scourge has returned today
> under the hood of a "makeshift JI hobbyism".
>
> When I first approached this list many years ago, I did not barge in
> like an elephant with grandiose pretensions and a knack for
> relativizing wholesome things to twist topics. I tried to learn and
> understand from my elders and betters in humility. Granted, my early
> excitement did sometimes get the better of me, I tried nevertheless to
> approach the science of tuning from a methodical perspective and with
> a practicable goal and specific focus. Back then, when I once could
> not resist the urge to name a comma I calculated after myself, I was
> chastised to remember that it is others who rightly name things after
> you and render you any recognition if you are indeed worthy of it.
> That was then...
>
> Who has the power here? Obviously the common mentality and good sense
> that dominates the list. I truly wish it is not anymore the slipshod
> undisciplined pretentious attitude that has blown like a scourge for
> the past year hereabouts. And if need be, measures should be taken to
> keep such a devastating, crippling, mass-inducing habit in check.
>
> I have noticed with great dismay that Carl is very much slipping in
> moderation. No personal offence inteded to him! It's a simple matter
> to get carried away in the wake of such carefree anarchistic trends as
> we face today. And he is a family man with distractions of his own. As
> such, I strongly believe a change of office is in order.
>
> My concern has never been about PhD titles and ranks. It's always been
> an issue of clarity, understandability, proper conduct and unambiguous
> purpose when sending messages to everyone. Thus, seperation of the
> "tuning kindergarten" and "microtonal academy" indeed appears to be a
> good notion on your part! This should be immediately put into effect
> on a plausible change of moderator.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> â© â© â©
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 21, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Michael wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oz>"Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with many
> > thanks to Carl for his past services?"
> > IMVHO, this is a rather harsh and ultimately unproductive
> > remark. Carl went on a bit but, instead of playing high and mighty
> > and running the line of "I can get away with anything b/c I'm the
> > moderator", he apologized and, if anything, he should be commended
> > for his action there. That is, rather than turned on and being
> > told "you made a mistake, so goodbye...so you admitted it honestly;
> > maybe you shouldn't have...".
> >
> > >"I feel the list needs a bit tidying up and scholarly discipline
> > to favour quality, non-repetitive and non-circular posts."
> > But who has the power to define quality and what is/isn't
> > circular? Lord knows we have had enough instances on this list
> > where two experts are calling each others' theories circular. :-D
> >
> > The other issue has to do with "scholarly-ness". For sure this
> > list lacks from time to time in displaying topics with PHD-level
> > academic formality that would keep up with, for example, Ozan/"your"
> > own work or the work of someone like Margo or Carl.
> >
> > Then again the Tuning list advertises itself as being open to
> > "anyone interested in tuning", which would include people like
> > myself, Chris, Sevish, Rick Ballan, and several others who aren't
> > tuning PHD's and may or may not "even" have or be working on college
> > level music degrees.
> >
> > I wish the list were separated into
> > 1) Tuning-papers for working on academic-level publications
> > 2) Tuning-general for those who are simply interested in micro-
> > tuning and anything that goes too far into theory to post on the MMM
> > list (which is how I found about this list in the first place,
> > someone said "Mike, this level of theory belongs on the tuning list".
> >
> > That way we could avoid things like PHD's calling "mere" music
> > hobbyists "dumb and pointless" simply because they aren't on the
> > same level and/or non-PHD's complaining that academic papers are "a
> > lot of overly-complex talk and very little actual music (IE isn't it
> > amazing someone can say my theories have nothing to do with tuning
> > and then say they love a song I made based on those theories?!)".
> >
> > All in all...I figure something like a split would mean less
> > fighting over content and wasting space complaining about who does/
> > doesn't "deserve to post". Honestly, I think the mere fact we have
> > people complaining many people honestly interested in tuning
> > shouldn't have the freedom to post shows this is a problem we need
> > to resolve.
> >
> > >"If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I promise to be extra
> > careful with the subject lines!"
> > I am happy Carl broke the ice on this issue, because I've fallen
> > into that hole as well. After having so many people de-rail my own
> > topics and not take them seriously (and trying to post new topics
> > based on my take on other people's quote only to have them be
> > ignored), I figured why bother keeping strict standards for my
> > replies to other people's threads. But hey, if other people are
> > willing to take this seriously, so am I!
> >
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Ozan,

> A continous spout of 30 posts or more a day that lead nowhere
> in particular - argument for the sake of argument per se -

We're nowhere near our highest message volume (May 2001).
People complained then too, saying nothing was coming of it,
but something certainly did. Actually the complaints were
so intense, separate lists were set up to handle them.

> And the ones who once rocked this platform with their
> dumbfounding knowledge on matters such as Gene Ward Smith,
> Daniel Forro and Carl Lumma have succumbed to this horrific
> intellectual indolence.

I also long for the glory days... which for me were over
before you joined. Maybe these will be Mike's glory days.
2006 was about the time when the people you say you miss
were active... well, we are all four years older now.
We're different people living in a different world. We can
only make the best of it.

> Back when we had good common sense, we used to jettison
> such people who incessantly throwed at us yarnspins on
> 12-EDO.

We never jettisoned anyone back then. Only lately have I
experimented with more active moderation. But it hasn't
done much good. A policy's success depends upon the portion
of people who approve of it. Last time we discussed active
moderation, the consensus was clearly against it (I was in
favor). So I don't think a stronger policy would have the
desired effect.

> When I first approached this list many years ago, I did not
> barge in like an elephant with grandiose pretensions

I know I did, in 1997. Fortunately for me those posts were
not archived! And let's be honest... I remember your posts
about revolutionizing maqam music with extended JI polyphony,
an automatic piano tuning apparatus, and frequent back and
forth with Gene as you were working on scales for your thesis.
At times I know Gene and I felt we were going around in
circles, because your requirements seemed to change often.
Please understand, I think of you as a well-adjusted person,
and I would not say the same for every name you mentioned.
I am only trying to give some perspective.

> I have noticed with great dismay that Carl is very much
> slipping in moderation.

For the record, we have 3 moderators plus one list owner:
Gene Ward Smith, David Bowen, myself, and Mark Nowitzky.
We didn't used to have moderators. When we created them,
I suggested they voluntarily rotate in and out of service.
To my knowledge, I'm the only one who's given it up and
remained an active poster -- twice to date. Perhaps I
will do it again. Are you volunteering?

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗robert <robertthomasmartin@...>

Dear Ozan. You are still welcome to join microtonal google at:
http://groups.google.com/group/microtonal
Where your expertise will be carefully considered.
Our group is a well-behaved bunch which is mostly interested in information rather than discourse.
I don't see any reason why you cannot belong to many groups. Why put all your eggs in one basket at the tuning group? You should spread yourself around and let more people benefit from your experiential wisdom concerning Turkish music.

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Hello Carl,

Have you forgotten the one incident we had with a hobo (Bill Flavel)
who used to post scales or whatnot in 12-EDO and nothing else, who
eventually got banned?

We have each our share of absurd posts ranging from tribalist back-to-
nature sentiments to "evils" of infant circumcision, notwithstanding
poetry & prose as well as declaration of our world views regarding
religion, politics, economics, etc... all of which have little or
nothing to do with tuning here... Guilty as charged, no?

But really, this is not about glory days. It is about an institution
for me; like Oxford or Julliard. I wish to see tuning list return to
it's respectable stature in regards the world of alternate tunings. Au
contraire, it seems spiralling out of control down the chute of
mundane wannabe theorisms on 4:5:6s and majornesses & minornesses.

I witness my shortcomings and occasional impatience as a firstcomer,
but you will surely recognize that English is not my mother tongue
that I may express myself wholly at one go. Therefore lies the
explanation of my seemingly alternating demands in the face of maqam
tuning debates of yonder years.

To answer your question: I certainly should not volunteer for
moderation not only for lack of time and patience, but due to my
"dictatorial idealism" which would definitely put everyone off.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 21, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Hi Ozan,
>
>> A continous spout of 30 posts or more a day that lead nowhere
>> in particular - argument for the sake of argument per se -
>
> We're nowhere near our highest message volume (May 2001).
> People complained then too, saying nothing was coming of it,
> but something certainly did. Actually the complaints were
> so intense, separate lists were set up to handle them.
>
>> And the ones who once rocked this platform with their
>> dumbfounding knowledge on matters such as Gene Ward Smith,
>> Daniel Forro and Carl Lumma have succumbed to this horrific
>> intellectual indolence.
>
> I also long for the glory days... which for me were over
> before you joined. Maybe these will be Mike's glory days.
> 2006 was about the time when the people you say you miss
> were active... well, we are all four years older now.
> We're different people living in a different world. We can
> only make the best of it.
>
>> Back when we had good common sense, we used to jettison
>> such people who incessantly throwed at us yarnspins on
>> 12-EDO.
>
> We never jettisoned anyone back then. Only lately have I
> experimented with more active moderation. But it hasn't
> done much good. A policy's success depends upon the portion
> of people who approve of it. Last time we discussed active
> moderation, the consensus was clearly against it (I was in
> favor). So I don't think a stronger policy would have the
> desired effect.
>
>> When I first approached this list many years ago, I did not
>> barge in like an elephant with grandiose pretensions
>
> I know I did, in 1997. Fortunately for me those posts were
> not archived! And let's be honest... I remember your posts
> about revolutionizing maqam music with extended JI polyphony,
> an automatic piano tuning apparatus, and frequent back and
> forth with Gene as you were working on scales for your thesis.
> At times I know Gene and I felt we were going around in
> circles, because your requirements seemed to change often.
> Please understand, I think of you as a well-adjusted person,
> and I would not say the same for every name you mentioned.
> I am only trying to give some perspective.
>
>> I have noticed with great dismay that Carl is very much
>> slipping in moderation.
>
> For the record, we have 3 moderators plus one list owner:
> Gene Ward Smith, David Bowen, myself, and Mark Nowitzky.
> We didn't used to have moderators. When we created them,
> I suggested they voluntarily rotate in and out of service.
> To my knowledge, I'm the only one who's given it up and
> remained an active poster -- twice to date. Perhaps I
> will do it again. Are you volunteering?
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

My dear Igs,

I am not a topic-exclusivist and welcome any theoretical/practicable
input from as far as Yakutsk to the Andes; provided that the posters
have the sufficient intellectual curiosity and method to tackle them;
Ph.D. or no Ph.D.

And believe it or not, forums open to public are well-receiving of a
dose of healthy moderation - which I fear is quite amiss here for a
long time.

Why should we, in like respect to you (and admiration of your
achievements), take our leave when instead it should be you and your
comrades who should consider retreating to an all-exclusive "JI hobbyists club" of your own? The tuning list was never about
"amateurs", unless they were to come here to gain some insight into
the already amassed wisdom. Such is my perspective of things as
someone who (not in the least ironically) has 2500 posts to his name.
The list should be preserved as the institution it is; not abandoned
to juvenile delinquents who run amok with every peremptory fancy and
notion that pops into their heads.

Let's find the middle ground here, why don't we? I shall attempt to
lower my "high standarts" while you and your pals curb down the sheer
volume of suffocating merry-go-round posts. What say?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:42 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> Dr. Yarman,
> With all due respect, I must remind you that this is not a scholarly
> academic journal, it is an internet forum open to the public. I for
> one agree with you that posts here are often excessive, frequently
> unproductive, and occasionally completely annoying. But as this is
> a public forum, and one of the only places on the internet where a
> person can come to learn about and discuss tuning, I do not feel it
> is in the public interest to enforce heavy moderation of the list.
> This is not the "Maqamat" list, or the "Circulating Temperaments"
> list, or the "Neo-Medieval Music" list; it is simply the "Tuning" > list. Presumably, it was created to have a broad mission and to be
> open to the public for a good reason. If you feel that this list is
> too "open" to unqualified or unrefined people, I encourage you to
> form a more exclusive list, tailored to your high standards, and
> invite to it all those whom you admire or respect--those whose
> voices you feel have been lost in the flood from us "amateurs". If
> these others share your disdain for this list, surely they will
> follow you to a more exclusive and focused forum--perhaps you can
> make it invite-only?
>
> Surely, this approach will yield more satisfying results than
> petitioning the one authority on this list to relinquish his status
> on behalf of a silent--but allegedly-disapproving--majority.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -Igliashon
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> The style of your quoting is not facilitating the task of the reader.
>> I personally reply this once to you in order to re-clarify what has
>> already been clarified by myself several times before.
>>
>> The conundrum you, Mike, Marcel, Igs and the lot who got tugged along
>> into the whirlpool of TRULY unproductive roundabouts keep at has
>> become a matter of grave concern to me. A continous spout of 30 posts
>> or more a day that lead nowhere in particular - argument for the sake
>> of argument per se - and are far from abiding to proper netiquette is
>> stealing the precious time and mailbox space of a thousand
>> subscribers
>> among whom are professionals who have long since reverted to utter
>> silence...
>>
>> I state this as a concern to the list as a whole, for I have my
>> filters in force whenever the need for them arises.
>>
>> My eyes search for highly informative and novelty messages (and even
>> harangue and entertainment) from Johnny Reinhard, Paul Poletti, Brad
>> Lehman, Andreas Sparschuh, Charles Lucy, Jacques Dudon, Graham Breed,
>> Aaron Andrew Hunt, George Secor, Dave Keenan, Herman Miller, Shaahin
>> Mohajeri, Joe Monzo (in no particular order, and apologies to those
>> whom I neglected to mention)... most of whom virtually dissappeared
>> into oblivion while a few linger on. And the ones who once rocked
>> this
>> platform with their dumbfounding knowledge on matters such as Gene
>> Ward Smith, Daniel Forro and Carl Lumma have succumbed to this
>> horrific intellectual indolence.
>>
>> The primary mandate of the Alternate Tuning List is to EXCHANGE
>> ideas... for which one must have the inclination and/or foreknowledge
>> on pertinent subjects to GRASP an idea. Go read again the Group
>> Description. Does it say "anyone interested in tuning"? Back when we
>> had good common sense, we used to jettison such people who
>> incessantly
>> throwed at us yarnspins on 12-EDO. The scourge has returned today
>> under the hood of a "makeshift JI hobbyism".
>>
>> When I first approached this list many years ago, I did not barge in
>> like an elephant with grandiose pretensions and a knack for
>> relativizing wholesome things to twist topics. I tried to learn and
>> understand from my elders and betters in humility. Granted, my early
>> excitement did sometimes get the better of me, I tried nevertheless
>> to
>> approach the science of tuning from a methodical perspective and with
>> a practicable goal and specific focus. Back then, when I once could
>> not resist the urge to name a comma I calculated after myself, I was
>> chastised to remember that it is others who rightly name things after
>> you and render you any recognition if you are indeed worthy of it.
>> That was then...
>>
>> Who has the power here? Obviously the common mentality and good sense
>> that dominates the list. I truly wish it is not anymore the slipshod
>> undisciplined pretentious attitude that has blown like a scourge for
>> the past year hereabouts. And if need be, measures should be taken to
>> keep such a devastating, crippling, mass-inducing habit in check.
>>
>> I have noticed with great dismay that Carl is very much slipping in
>> moderation. No personal offence inteded to him! It's a simple matter
>> to get carried away in the wake of such carefree anarchistic trends
>> as
>> we face today. And he is a family man with distractions of his own.
>> As
>> such, I strongly believe a change of office is in order.
>>
>> My concern has never been about PhD titles and ranks. It's always
>> been
>> an issue of clarity, understandability, proper conduct and
>> unambiguous
>> purpose when sending messages to everyone. Thus, seperation of the
>> "tuning kindergarten" and "microtonal academy" indeed appears to be a
>> good notion on your part! This should be immediately put into effect
>> on a plausible change of moderator.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> âœ© âœ© âœ©
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Michael wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oz>"Could I suggest a change of moderator at this juncture, with
>>> many
>>> thanks to Carl for his past services?"
>>> IMVHO, this is a rather harsh and ultimately unproductive
>>> remark. Carl went on a bit but, instead of playing high and mighty
>>> and running the line of "I can get away with anything b/c I'm the
>>> moderator", he apologized and, if anything, he should be commended
>>> for his action there. That is, rather than turned on and being
>>> told "you made a mistake, so goodbye...so you admitted it honestly;
>>> maybe you shouldn't have...".
>>>
>>>> "I feel the list needs a bit tidying up and scholarly discipline
>>> to favour quality, non-repetitive and non-circular posts."
>>> But who has the power to define quality and what is/isn't
>>> circular? Lord knows we have had enough instances on this list
>>> where two experts are calling each others' theories circular. :-D
>>>
>>> The other issue has to do with "scholarly-ness". For sure this
>>> list lacks from time to time in displaying topics with PHD-level
>>> academic formality that would keep up with, for example, Ozan/"your"
>>> own work or the work of someone like Margo or Carl.
>>>
>>> Then again the Tuning list advertises itself as being open to
>>> "anyone interested in tuning", which would include people like
>>> myself, Chris, Sevish, Rick Ballan, and several others who aren't
>>> tuning PHD's and may or may not "even" have or be working on college
>>> level music degrees.
>>>
>>> I wish the list were separated into
>>> 1) Tuning-papers for working on academic-level publications
>>> 2) Tuning-general for those who are simply interested in micro-
>>> tuning and anything that goes too far into theory to post on the MMM
>>> list (which is how I found about this list in the first place,
>>> someone said "Mike, this level of theory belongs on the tuning
>>> list".
>>>
>>> That way we could avoid things like PHD's calling "mere" music
>>> hobbyists "dumb and pointless" simply because they aren't on the
>>> same level and/or non-PHD's complaining that academic papers are "a
>>> lot of overly-complex talk and very little actual music (IE isn't it
>>> amazing someone can say my theories have nothing to do with tuning
>>> and then say they love a song I made based on those theories?!)".
>>>
>>> All in all...I figure something like a split would mean less
>>> fighting over content and wasting space complaining about who does/
>>> doesn't "deserve to post". Honestly, I think the mere fact we have
>>> people complaining many people honestly interested in tuning
>>> shouldn't have the freedom to post shows this is a problem we need
>>> to resolve.
>>>
>>>> "If I feel TL rises to a worthy level again, I promise to be extra
>>> careful with the subject lines!"
>>> I am happy Carl broke the ice on this issue, because I've fallen
>>> into that hole as well. After having so many people de-rail my own
>>> topics and not take them seriously (and trying to post new topics
>>> based on my take on other people's quote only to have them be
>>> ignored), I figured why bother keeping strict standards for my
>>> replies to other people's threads. But hey, if other people are
>>> willing to take this seriously, so am I!
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Chris wrote:

> just for the record
> I'm finding this tread more detrimental, off topic, and
> lacking in any microtonal information then the ones
> complained about. Just the opinion of one list member.

There is always some overhead on operations. We used to have
metatuning for this but it was abandoned and is now a spam
bucket, so it's OK by me if some metadiscussion happens here.

My understanding is that the list community has indeed shrunk
since the glory days, even as microtonal music has expanded,
with the reason that microtonal music used to be SO tiny that
the market could only support a single outlet -- these lists.
Essentially, there is now competition (like ning and NOM and
LMSO) and more than that, enough knowledge in the culture at
large that people can just do things on their own.

I mean heck, when I started I had to *build a slide guitar*
just so I could audition intervals efficiently! Scala was
a DOS program with no MIDI or audio I/O. You retuned synths
(those few that supported retuning) by connecting them to a
PC over a serial port and using the patch editor. If you
wanted to use an electronic tuner to tune your piano, you got
12-ET. If you wanted a non-12 guitar, you couldn't message
Ron Sword on facebook or buy one ready-made from Jon Catler.
If you wanted to know what "meantone" was, you could not look
it up in 2 seconds on wikipedia -- you went to the library
and got the wrong answer, or asked Paul Erlich here and got
the right one. You could not buy a 98-key generalized MIDI
keyboard for $500 ($10,000 was more like it) or download one
to your iPad for $5. You could not read the collected work
of Erv Wilson at the Wilson Archives, you had to mail him a
letter and hope he found time to write you back.

So instead of the 12+ lists associated with this community,
there is now just this list and MMM (and MMM only
sporadically). But NOM and LMSO are kvraudio are different
communities with their own microtonal intelligence. We lost
the JI Network but we gained Untwelve, OddMusic, and
UK MicroFest.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

Dr. Yarman:
While it is reassuring to know that I have not tried your patience sufficiently that you've seen fit to filter my posts, I do not appreciate being referred to as a "JI hobbyist", nor do I appreciate the implication that I am a juvenile delinquent. I am certainly no expert, but it is my understanding that we are all somewhat of "hobbyists" here, as I am unaware of any professional organizations or academic institutions dedicated to or overtly supportive of the art and science of alternative intonational theories (with the possible exception of the field of ethnomusicology).

I agree that the volume of posts has recently been excessive, and I have certainly done my best to avoid responding unless my opinion was solicited, or if I felt I had something essential to add to the topic. I duly accept your criticism that the volume of posts should be kept to a minimum, and that some of us would do well to contain our enthusiasm at discovering what may seem like a novel and potentially-important theory. I will continue my best efforts to avoid unfocused or irrelevant posts.

However, the topic of the discussion that has been occurring recently is quite plainly relevant to the list, even if the manner of discourse has been lacking in composure. The prospect of identifying a causative connection between specific psychoacoustic phenomena and specific psychological/emotional states strikes me as a fascinating and relevant topic to the field of tuning, especially for those interested in alternative bases of tonality. While Mike B.'s posts on the matter (and my replies to them, as well as Carl's) reached great heights of prolixity, his attitude was always one of seeking the "collective wisdom" of the list, always saying "I have experienced this phenomenon, and I have developed this hypothesis, but I request your feedback and criticism." In short, while his exuberance may have been excessive, neither his attitude nor the subject-matter defy your desired criteria. Mike B. certainly has sufficient intellectual curiousity, and with the help of the seasoned veterans of the list, he may indeed discover the method necessary to proceed with his investigation into the nature of "minorness".

I duly admit that previous discussions in which I have participated have indeed been "merry-go-rounds" of irrelevance. I have since learned my lesson that in many cases, it is better to simply ignore someone than to try--repeatedly and unsuccessfully--to correct their mistaken impression, or to call them out on their irrelevant "contribution". Also, I encourage you to note that most of us "juvenile delinquents" have acknowledged and apologized for the excessive nature of our recent posts, and pledged to reduce them in the future.

It is my sincere hope that as the message count returns to normal, you may again find the space and freedom you desire, so that you may again find the list useful for your purposes.

And let us all give thanks that our benighted moderator has shown the good sense to banish a true bane to our field from this list (though I'm sure the members of MMM are not so thankful).

Let us now end this irrelevant discussion, content that compromise has been reached (given that you have my pledge to keep the post-count down and the focus and relevance up).

Respectfully,

-Igliashon

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Much obliged Igs, I thank you for your careful consideration.

Appreciatively,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:00 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> Dr. Yarman:
> While it is reassuring to know that I have not tried your patience
> sufficiently that you've seen fit to filter my posts, I do not
> appreciate being referred to as a "JI hobbyist", nor do I appreciate
> the implication that I am a juvenile delinquent. I am certainly no
> expert, but it is my understanding that we are all somewhat of
> "hobbyists" here, as I am unaware of any professional organizations
> or academic institutions dedicated to or overtly supportive of the
> art and science of alternative intonational theories (with the
> possible exception of the field of ethnomusicology).
>
> I agree that the volume of posts has recently been excessive, and I
> have certainly done my best to avoid responding unless my opinion
> was solicited, or if I felt I had something essential to add to the
> topic. I duly accept your criticism that the volume of posts should
> be kept to a minimum, and that some of us would do well to contain
> our enthusiasm at discovering what may seem like a novel and
> potentially-important theory. I will continue my best efforts to
> avoid unfocused or irrelevant posts.
>
> However, the topic of the discussion that has been occurring
> recently is quite plainly relevant to the list, even if the manner
> of discourse has been lacking in composure. The prospect of
> identifying a causative connection between specific psychoacoustic
> phenomena and specific psychological/emotional states strikes me as
> a fascinating and relevant topic to the field of tuning, especially
> for those interested in alternative bases of tonality. While Mike
> B.'s posts on the matter (and my replies to them, as well as Carl's)
> reached great heights of prolixity, his attitude was always one of
> seeking the "collective wisdom" of the list, always saying "I have
> experienced this phenomenon, and I have developed this hypothesis,
> but I request your feedback and criticism." In short, while his
> exuberance may have been excessive, neither his attitude nor the
> subject-matter defy your desired criteria. Mike B. certainly has
> sufficient intellectual curiousity, and with the help of the
> seasoned veterans of the list, he may indeed discover the method
> necessary to proceed with his investigation into the nature of
> "minorness".
>
> I duly admit that previous discussions in which I have participated
> have indeed been "merry-go-rounds" of irrelevance. I have since
> learned my lesson that in many cases, it is better to simply ignore
> someone than to try--repeatedly and unsuccessfully--to correct their
> mistaken impression, or to call them out on their irrelevant
> "contribution". Also, I encourage you to note that most of us
> "juvenile delinquents" have acknowledged and apologized for the
> excessive nature of our recent posts, and pledged to reduce them in
> the future.
>
> It is my sincere hope that as the message count returns to normal,
> you may again find the space and freedom you desire, so that you may
> again find the list useful for your purposes.
>
> And let us all give thanks that our benighted moderator has shown
> the good sense to banish a true bane to our field from this list
> (though I'm sure the members of MMM are not so thankful).
>
> Let us now end this irrelevant discussion, content that compromise
> has been reached (given that you have my pledge to keep the post-
> count down and the focus and relevance up).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> -Igliashon
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>" Dr. Yarman:
While it is reassuring to know that I have not tried your patience sufficiently
that you've seen fit to filter my posts, I do not appreciate being referred to
as a "JI hobbyist", nor do I appreciate the implication that I am a juvenile
delinquent."
Ditto for me in the past. A side note, must of us are not just focused on JI,
and at least also have a foot in temperament. Many others also have a foot in
psychoacoustics and several more in sound programming...and I'll be if you can
call someone with interest in many of such things a "juvenile": that's about so
likely as having a high schooler in a math competition club not learn basic
algebra along the way or be serious about math.

>"While Mike B.'s posts on the matter (and my replies to them, as well as Carl's)
>reached great heights of prolixity, his attitude was always one of seeking the
>"collective wisdom" of the list, always saying "I have experienced this
>phenomenon, and I have developed this hypothesis, but I request your feedback
>and criticism."
Exactly! Same holds for so many of us...stating a lot of "maybes", but always
in search of a definitive answer...even if the process and answer is not
immediate.

>"And let us all give thanks that our benighted moderator has shown the good
>sense to banish a true bane to our field from this list (though I'm sure the
>members of MMM are not so thankful)."
Oh man...since when should we celebrate such a thing...aren't we supposed to
be trying to increase public interest in tuning?!

There are people on this list I often think go too far in "giving an answer
and not asking for or accepting constructive criticism" about things...but is it
really that hard for people on this list to simply ignore such people if you
don't like their comments and act like an adult about it? Doing otherwise is
like a company saying "I won't hire you" and then going to nearly every company
in the city and telling them what they "think" is wrong with that person (as
if...if that person is wrong for them that person must also be wrong for
everyone else).
Even if there were a "Kindergartner" or true "Troll" on the list, surely
that person would lose interest if he saw his responses not being reacted to
and/or given a slight brush off statement like "I'm simply not interested in
responding to this" and no more. If no one truly is interested...the person
won't get a response and will eventually leave or at least post much less
often. Enough with the "Holy Wars" on this, there's nothing Holy about them...