source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 13:31:05 +0200 Subject: RE: JI vs. ET From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) >On the other hand, the closer the pitches of the context are to "ideal," the >more contrast is possible when you shoot to miss. Right? Also, couldn't >missing virtually all the time limit your vocabulary as surely as hitting >virtually all the time? Then, too, there's always the possibility of >presenting a moving target. Gets hairy, don't it? Certainly limiting your vocabulary to either is significant. ETs and JI, by all means, are both very valuable to explore. You slightly nudged one of my hot buttons, so I'll push it down the rest of the way and then *try* to restrain myself from continuing to yack about it after this message! ETs and JI can both limit your vocabulary. But limits are good. Limits stimulate rather than stiffle creativity. If you have unlimited flexibility to solve a compositional problem, then the solution will be arbitrarily easy to devise, and that's boring. When you operate within limits, you have to devise clever and exciting solutions to compositional tasks, which is much more interesting. And more fun too. >Just tune it! Cute! I like that. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 14 May 1997 14:02 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01629; Wed, 14 May 1997 14:02:01 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:02:01 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01627 Received: (qmail 15161 invoked from network); 14 May 1997 12:01:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 May 1997 12:01:51 -0000 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu