source file: mills2.txt Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 20:07:13 -0800 Subject: Why? From: Gary Morrison My last post was about two "bad attitudes" toward a new tuning borrowed from scientific pursuit, and then a list of questions to ask yourself about a new tuning - in a sense, scrutinizing your attitude toward it. After I sent that post, I imagined somebody reading it and asking me, "Are you suggesting that I need to scientifically PROVE that a tuning is 'valid' before I use it? What's the point? Isn't music supposed to be fun?!" If we communicated with each other with nothing but the music itself, then perhaps there's not a whole lot of point in asking, for example, whether others' impressions of a tuning match yours. Each performance would be just what it is to each of us. But the fact of the matter is that we communicate at the level of concepts and ideas as well. Concepts and ideas, whether we like it or not, are based upon generalization. The idea, for example, that an authentic cadence produces a sense of finality, is a useful generalization based upon typical usage over many years. It's useful because it can give composers a possibility to work from. When you're working at the level of ideas, there is often value in stepping back and examining your basis for drawing the generalized conclusion that your ideas are based upon. In one of my Nova videos, a marine biologist said, "science is a just set of rules we follow to keep us from lying to each other". To that I add, "to each other, yes, but also to ourselves as well". So, no, I'm not suggesting that we need to prove a tuning's validity. My list of questions was simply to suggest ways to keep from lying to ourselves and others when we pass on ideas to help guide our fellow tuners through a new domain. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:23 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA30113; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:23:24 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA30111 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id IAA22749; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:21:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:21:04 -0800 Message-Id: <332BF5A2.70BA@dial.pipex.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu