source file: mills2.txt Subject: Re: Hello From: Matt Nathan I'm new to the tuning list, but not to the exploration of pitch, and wanted to say hello and that I'll be reading along. I was wondering also if anybody knows the email addresses of either of theses people: 1) Dudley Duncan 2) Glen Frantz My opinion on the wolves v. wolfs subject is this: The term "wolves" is inappropriate in a musical context. It's a special word reserved for the plural of certain animals. A comparative illustration is found in the words "lice" (insect parasites) and "louses" (dispicable persons). You wouldn't call entrenched politicians "lice". Well, maybe you would. :) The plural of wolf tone (in the context of an unwanted resonance in the body of an acoustic instrument) is wolf tones. The plural of wolf interval (in the context of the aesthetic effect caused by not having enough pitches on an instrument or in a tuning system, and misusing the closest available pitches as surrogates) is wolf intervals. If either of these plurals must be compressed into one word, the logical choice is "wolfs". Matt Nathan ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 14:01:37 -0800 From: Matt Nathan To: tuning Subject: Alois Haba Message-ID: <32AC8C41.6777@ix.netcom.com> I recently bought a CD of music by Alois Haba (dash over first a in name) thinking it would be microtonal, but it wasn't. If you're looking for the same thing, don't buy: Alois Haba complete nonets Supraphon records SU 0018-2 111 made in the Czech Republic (has nonets 1, 2, 3 and 4) ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 17:01:12 -0800 From: Heinz Bohlen To: tuning Subject: Apologies, Daniel Wolf! Message-ID: On Nov. 22, 1996, Daniel Wolf wrote: >I am curious to learn from Heinz Bohlen how his infill of the Major triad differs from that of Heinrich Schenker.< My twofold apologies, Daniel. First of all because I come across that only now, and secondly because I don't understand what the question is about. I obviously missed something. Can you explain, please? ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 03:18:42 -0500 From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:tuning@eartha.mills.edu" Subject: To Heinz Bohlen Message-ID: <199612100320_MC1-CF4-36AD@compuserve.com> I was struck by the similarity between your hypothetical construction of the diatonic scale through filling in the gaps in a Major triad and Schenker's tonal prolongation through the same mechanism. Schenker was not interested in a scale per se, but rather _tonality_ itself, and his idea is strictly dependent upon the unfolding of the material (composed into contrapuntal lines) over time. I assume that your model, is, however, one of scale construction rather than voice leading, but your short description seemed to be in the Schenkerian spirit. But then again, I may be reading too much or too little into what you have written... Daniel Wolf ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:10:37 -0800 (PST) From: Will Grant To: tuning Subject: Margie's oysters Message-ID: Margaret The Outspoken (who dislikes the Egyptian) has brought up the importance of cajones in a refreshingly cosmopolitan context. She's quite correct. Partch's problem is -- I durst not say it here ... Berio, appositely, yet also lacks these wonderful toys of the gods. He is exquisite, superb, technically profound, but -- ah, no cajones. Shostakovich, on the other hand, that wimp, that plaything of Stalin, that lily-livered, cream-faced loon, still hangs like a clock and displays real feelings. Nutty, isn't it ? It's not a technical matter at all, merely spiritual.