source file: mills3.txt
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:40:10 +0100

Subject: Re: Tuning Standards?

From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)

I think Fred Kohler's comments spurred partly by Gregg Gibson's ideas
are perhaps them most astute yet!

>There is a
>lot of disagreement as to how to do so.  I think a lot of this has to do
>with personal taste. ...
>Sometimes people will take opinions ultimately based on personal taste and
>build elaborate theories as to why theirs is best.
>Is ther a way for a multiplicity of tunings to co-exist in a way that
>performers from different camps can play together or is there a need for a
>"standard" tuning for practical reasons such as instrument manufacturing and
>performance?

   I personally think that there's a great deal of need for microtonalists
to do three things:
1.  Explore new tuning possibilities actively.
       Some of us have lamented how many theorists and how few practical
       musicians there were in the field.  I think that what matters the most
       is activity.  As Neil H. has pointed out, there are some theorists out
       there (Erv Wilson for example) who come up with some very insightful
       ideas for composers and performers to turn into musical reality.
2.  Discuss them, and compare their qualities, and our experiences with them.
       Though most of us agree that there should be no one single standard
       tuning in the future, some ideas relating to new tunings are more
       powerful than others.  I for one have come up with a fair number of
       dumb ideas along with the good ones.  The only ways to find out which
       of them are hot and which are not, are discussion and experimentation.
3.  Specialize in what we have the most talent for.
       Many of us, and I'm certainly among them, are sometimes guilty of trying
       to do too many pieces of the pie.  There's probably only so much value
       in, for example, Erv Wilson working to become a gig-a-day performer.
       That would take a lot of time away from his idea-spinning talents.
       Conversely, although Neil Haverstick could conceptually put his guitar
       down for couple months to devise a new tuning theory, that would be at
       the regrettable loss of two-months-worth of pure microtonal-music magic!


SMTPOriginator:  tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From:  mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) 
Subject:  Re: TUNING digest 1278
PostedDate:  27-12-97 03:40:49
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:  27-12-97 03:38:38-27-12-97 03:38:39,27-12-97 03:38:06-27-12-97 03:38:06
DeliveredDate:  27-12-97 03:38:06
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 C125657A.000E8179; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:40:22 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA26098; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:40:49 +0100
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:40:49 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA26095
Received: (qmail 17927 invoked from network); 26 Dec 1997 18:40:24 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 26 Dec 1997 18:40:24 -0800
Message-Id: <v01541103b0c9bc6d77d0@[207.207.2.137]>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu