source file: mills3.txt Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:08:11 +0100 Subject: Pair-of-dimes Lost From: Carl Lumma >As for new paradigms though, I think the fact that each tuning presents >new paradigms of composition to be very interesting. But perhaps that >depends on what you mean by paradigm. I take the term to mean a set of >bounds that you put yourself into. Individuals can apply various sets of bounds to particular efforts with the intention of exploring the space created within the bounds. This is, I am almost sure, what you are saying. And, as you say, it just plain yields interesting results. Let me give an example, and Gary, if this is not what you mean, please say so: There are many ways to play the piano. Bach spent his life looking at the keyboard as a place where a simulation of independent solo voices could be run. Only within the last 100 or so years has an approach that worked with the entire possible "space" of the keyboard been invented. Both approaches give interesting results. But one might expect the Bach approach to be a subset of the modern approach. This is not the case-> It would seem that every set of limits, no matter how confining, yields unique results!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> HOWEVER! <<<<<<<<<<<<< In my recent post, "Xenharmonic?", I was using the word "paradigm" to mean a set of bounds placed over an entire field of human interest for a long period of time that's hard to change. This, it seems to me, is an embarrassment to civilization. Leafing back thru the pages of history, I often notice that 12-tone music isn't the only example of this kind of "paradigm" (that is, the broad reaching, entrenched kind)-> Take chess for example: People have spent the last 200 years figuring out all the ways to start the game (opening books). We've finally worked ourselves up to the point where a motivated modern student of chess could blow the heals off the masters of the past; Garry Kasparov is the not just the best human player alive today, he is the best human to ever play the game. But all this applies only to regular FIDE chess. There are an infinity of possible "chess variants" (see the link on my web page under Chess for an EXCELLENT reference on chess variants) that produce significant changes in the way humans look at the game -- even the slightest change to the starting position obsoletes opening study -- and thousands of them are at least as worthwhile as regular chess. There's absolutely no rational for picking FIDE chess and sticking to it so completely for the last 400 years. Maybe the reason we take so long with things is because we're just not that smart. The fields of FIDE chess are still ripe for the plucking after all these years, and, I believe, contrary to popular belief, that 12 tone equal temperament also has plenty left to offer. I've never heard a cogent reason as to why 12-tone should be exhausted. What I have heard seems to blame 12-tone for bad composition (and there seems to be an extra helping of that in the serialist camp). For the critic, I believe the vitality of 12-tone is well demonstrated by the CD and midi files available through my web site. Inversely, Xenharmonics do not guarantee interesting music, although it probably makes it much easier. In any case, I do not attempt to debate the wisdom of the collective efforts of 12 generations of our ancestors. What I do say, and hope, is that human evolution is reaching the point where we no longer need to stretch our paradigms over the entire civilization and lock in the freshness with gobs of industrial standards to have them be effective. Can you see a future in which each individual can exercise intellectual freedom without having to independently re-discover the possibility of intellectual freedom, become a carpenter, or live like a hermit? Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Aline Surman Subject: new standards PostedDate: 19-11-97 23:14:40 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 19-11-97 23:13:15-19-11-97 23:13:16,19-11-97 23:13:23-19-11-97 23:13:23 DeliveredDate: 19-11-97 23:13:23 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256554.007A0D6E; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:13:08 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03272; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:14:40 +0100 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:14:40 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03270 Received: (qmail 22204 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1997 14:14:37 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Nov 1997 14:14:37 -0800 Message-Id: <34736EFE.3BE@dnvr.uswest.net> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu