PROCESS ALERT: Process and content issues

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Since I have been nominated, but as far as I know not yet elected
or appointed, for the office of "list mom," I'm writing simply in
my capacity as a member over some period of time.

There are some danger signals of serious problems, which
transcend any differences in theory or practice. I'll address
first some basic issues of civility, and then some musical
considerations that can promote civility as well as mutual
understanding.

-----------------------
1. Process and civility
-----------------------

From a number of years of experience with certain music groups on
Usenet, I know some danger signs of a situation which can
diminish or even eclipse a group's usefulness:

(a) People post allegations about offlist activity by a
member not related to the purpose or substance of the
group. One tactic I've seen on Usenet is simply
pointing out that someone posts to newsgroups somehow
considered "improper" or "disreputable." This is an
excellent way to move a group off-topic and promote
conflict, rather than the charter or agenda of the
group.

(b) Exchanges focus much more on personal conflicts of a
very negative emotional quality than on the meeting or
clarification of ideas.

Something is very wrong when these things happen. Whatever the
differences, breakthroughs, or even outright mistakes involved,
we need to address them in a more collegial way than this.

------------------------------------------
2. Context counts -- "optimal" is relative
------------------------------------------

One thing I have experienced: people, who may be very musically
sophisticated in the styles they are focusing on and
mathematically astute, who make mistaken assumptions about the
styles of others.

An experience maybe back in the epoch of 2000-2002 may serve as
an example. I was using some kind of system with two 12-note
Pythagorean chains, and was told that with such a tuning, I "had
to" be using "7-limit" harmony, evidently meaning "2-3-5-7" in a
Partchian sense. Actually I was using mainly 2-3 or 2-3-7, not
surprising given my stylistic agenda, but not necessarily what
someone else would do with the same tuning.

To evaluate an "optimal" maqam tuning -- possibly quite different
from a given flavor of Arab practice than for a typical Turkish
practice, and different again for the Persian dastgah system --
one had better know these systems very well, or at least be
prepared to learn, before seeking to judge what is "optimal."

This doesn't rule out lots of critical thinking and even bold
factual or conceptual challenges, but they should ideally have
some sense of proportionality and total context.

And anyone might well choose a good system for a given purpose,
while leaving it open if a yet better one might be out there.

Specifically, comparing Ozan's 79/80-MOS with any EDO of
comparable size seems to me a good preliminary exercise, but not
exactly going to the real question of "optimization" with a
similarly-sized set, which also have to be non-EDO (maybe an EDO
subset) to have a comparable resolution.

Now _that_ might be very educational, most so if we learn a lot
about maqam music and specific conventions of Turkish music in
the early 21st century addressed by the 79/80-MOS and maybe
better addressed by some system not quite yet considered of
comparable size.

I've addressed some of the preliminaries (72-EDO, etc.) in a
message to Graham I'm about to post, and thank him for some
comments leading me in this direction. And my goal is to be
collegial, and even exercise some critical thinking (for example,
on the limitations of 41-EDO as a maqam tuning, whatever the
considerable countervailing advantages may be). But just take a
look at George Secor's 41-HTT (secor41htt.scl), and we have an
exciting alternative to evaluate, or possibly a not inconsiderable
starting point for creative iterations!

Well, that's it, for the moment -- a bit more complicated than
unsubscribing, but also hopefully a bit more constructive,

Peace,

Margo
mschulter@...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:

> An experience maybe back in the epoch of 2000-2002 may serve as
> an example. I was using some kind of system with two 12-note
> Pythagorean chains, and was told that with such a tuning, I "had
> to" be using "7-limit" harmony, evidently meaning "2-3-5-7" in a
> Partchian sense. Actually I was using mainly 2-3 or 2-3-7, not
> surprising given my stylistic agenda, but not necessarily what
> someone else would do with the same tuning.

2-3-7 is a subset of 2-3-5-7, and hence there is a clear sense in which the person saying this was correct. Presumably you got that sorted out quickly enough?

> To evaluate an "optimal" maqam tuning -- possibly quite different
> from a given flavor of Arab practice than for a typical Turkish
> practice, and different again for the Persian dastgah system --
> one had better know these systems very well, or at least be
> prepared to learn, before seeking to judge what is "optimal."

Since I introduced the dreaded word "optimal", I'd better reply. And my reply, briefly, is "no". You need know nothing about the subject; all you need is that someone who does know about the subject has supplied a list of necessary and sufficient conditions, or at least necessary conditions, in very specific numerical form.

The most obvious sort of necessary condition to start out with would be a list of intervals like your Jz0, Jz1, and so forth, only precisely defined. If you could say "let C be a set of disjoint closed (alt, open) intervals of real numbers; any tuning system satisfying our desirability condition must contain at least one note in each of these intervals" then you have a necessary condition which would suffice to eliminate, or not, numerous possible candidates. You wouldn't need to argue if 41 or 72 or 159 or any other edo would work if you could eliminate it off the bat. Moreover, it would be possible to find the smallest edo satisfying the necessary condition, and that could then be examined for suitability by the expert on examining suitability, presumably the one who supplied the necessary conditions in the first place.

Of course, there will be an element of arbitrariness in choosing C, but that's just because there is an element of arbitrariness in the whole project which cannot be eliminated. Still, lines can be drawn and in my opinion should be, so that we know what the hell we are talking about.

Dear Margo,

Much thanks again in trying to establish a healthy dose of "relativism" in tuning and temperament in the case of Maqam music. Shall I untiringly iterate that so many options will work for Maqam music, but that my 79-tone approach maximizes additional criteria observed/prioritized by me?

So tired am I being consigned to the role of victimhood, that I think it best to reply with jovial cynicism to any attempts - in goodwill or else - at faultfinding and lampooning the material I authored. For the greater amusement of tuning list, what say?

But really, I believe the need for you to take the place of our "appointed moderator" will soon enough arise.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Margo Schulter wrote:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> Since I have been nominated, but as far as I know not yet elected
> or appointed, for the office of "list mom," I'm writing simply in
> my capacity as a member over some period of time.
>
> There are some danger signals of serious problems, which
> transcend any differences in theory or practice. I'll address
> first some basic issues of civility, and then some musical
> considerations that can promote civility as well as mutual
> understanding.
>
>
> -----------------------
> 1. Process and civility
> -----------------------
>
> > From a number of years of experience with certain music groups on
> Usenet, I know some danger signs of a situation which can
> diminish or even eclipse a group's usefulness:
>
> (a) People post allegations about offlist activity by a
> member not related to the purpose or substance of the
> group. One tactic I've seen on Usenet is simply
> pointing out that someone posts to newsgroups somehow
> considered "improper" or "disreputable." This is an
> excellent way to move a group off-topic and promote
> conflict, rather than the charter or agenda of the
> group.
>
> (b) Exchanges focus much more on personal conflicts of a
> very negative emotional quality than on the meeting or
> clarification of ideas.
>
> Something is very wrong when these things happen. Whatever the
> differences, breakthroughs, or even outright mistakes involved,
> we need to address them in a more collegial way than this.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> 2. Context counts -- "optimal" is relative
> ------------------------------------------
>
> One thing I have experienced: people, who may be very musically
> sophisticated in the styles they are focusing on and
> mathematically astute, who make mistaken assumptions about the
> styles of others.
>
> An experience maybe back in the epoch of 2000-2002 may serve as
> an example. I was using some kind of system with two 12-note
> Pythagorean chains, and was told that with such a tuning, I "had
> to" be using "7-limit" harmony, evidently meaning "2-3-5-7" in a
> Partchian sense. Actually I was using mainly 2-3 or 2-3-7, not
> surprising given my stylistic agenda, but not necessarily what
> someone else would do with the same tuning.
>
> To evaluate an "optimal" maqam tuning -- possibly quite different
> from a given flavor of Arab practice than for a typical Turkish
> practice, and different again for the Persian dastgah system --
> one had better know these systems very well, or at least be
> prepared to learn, before seeking to judge what is "optimal."
>
> This doesn't rule out lots of critical thinking and even bold
> factual or conceptual challenges, but they should ideally have
> some sense of proportionality and total context.
>
> And anyone might well choose a good system for a given purpose,
> while leaving it open if a yet better one might be out there.
>
> Specifically, comparing Ozan's 79/80-MOS with any EDO of
> comparable size seems to me a good preliminary exercise, but not
> exactly going to the real question of "optimization" with a
> similarly-sized set, which also have to be non-EDO (maybe an EDO
> subset) to have a comparable resolution.
>
> Now _that_ might be very educational, most so if we learn a lot
> about maqam music and specific conventions of Turkish music in
> the early 21st century addressed by the 79/80-MOS and maybe
> better addressed by some system not quite yet considered of
> comparable size.
>
> I've addressed some of the preliminaries (72-EDO, etc.) in a
> message to Graham I'm about to post, and thank him for some
> comments leading me in this direction. And my goal is to be
> collegial, and even exercise some critical thinking (for example,
> on the limitations of 41-EDO as a maqam tuning, whatever the
> considerable countervailing advantages may be). But just take a
> look at George Secor's 41-HTT (secor41htt.scl), and we have an
> exciting alternative to evaluate, or possibly a not inconsiderable
> starting point for creative iterations!
>
> Well, that's it, for the moment -- a bit more complicated than
> unsubscribing, but also hopefully a bit more constructive,
>
> Peace,
>
> Margo
> mschulter@...
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

> From a number of years of experience with certain music groups on
> Usenet, I know some danger signs of a situation . . .

Here's something I've noticed in my many years experience with
the usenet, mailing lists, and web forums: making a series of
rude, inflammatory, grandiose posts over a period of two months
on a mailing list and then taunting the moderator will tend to
result in removal from said mailing list.

-Carl

I am surprised i missed this or were not on the list as this is the method La Monte Young has used to develop more than one tuning, that is using 7 but not 5. It might have been from observation of Tony Conrad, i am not sure. Rod Poole also omited 5 in order to allow space for 7s in his tuning as time progressed. I personally might call this 7 limit, but i don't think that would imply that the 5 woul d have to be used.
Regardless it shows the problem with the 'terminology'.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:

>
> An experience maybe back in the epoch of 2000-2002 may serve as
> an example. I was using some kind of system with two 12-note
> Pythagorean chains, and was told that with such a tuning, I "had
> to" be using "7-limit" harmony, evidently meaning "2-3-5-7" in a
> Partchian sense. Actually I was using mainly 2-3 or 2-3-7, not
> surprising given my stylistic agenda, but not necessarily what
> someone else would do with the same tuning.
onstructive,
>
> Peace,
>
> Margo
> mschulter@...
>