Coleman 11

[JIMRPT@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/15/2000 8:03:34 AM, Ed wrote:

<<"The whole evolution took place among a wide variety of 
tuning systems, and the debate over them was near constant.  The writings of 
the debaters is our historical record.  This is contrasted to the ET era, in 
which there was only one style, and no debate over its worth.  I see a 
profound difference here.">>

Ed;
 It's raining and I don't feel like working so let me respond to this para in 
a devils advocate kinda mode...OK?

"<<"The whole evolution took place among a wide variety of 
tuning systems,">>

first with "evolution" being; ""1. A gradual process in which something 
changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."" Exactly 
what was "evolving" if it were not a matter of perception? If there were a... 
"wide variety of tuning systems".... wouldn't each have had its advocates and 
detractors?  Did this make any of the advocates 'wrong' or 'right' simply 
because their particular perception led them to champion one system over anoth
er?

second with "and the debate over them was near constant." This is/was true 
'if' you were in the circle of debate...rather like living in a diamond mine, 
where diamonds were so plentiful that they were a nusiance, you would not be 
able to understand why others might value diamonds as something other than 
slingshot ammunition.

 If there were one clear "better" system during this debate wouldn't it have 
become predominant over all others? Did 'one' become predominant? Does the 
fact of becoming predominant needfully signify a state of "betterness"?
 
 Is calling the little black thingee between F and G on a piano keyboard F#, 
rather than G flat, "better", or would it be a simple matter of perception 
due to its intended use? Is a system that tunes this same black thingee in 
such a manner that when perceived, in context with the whole, as being a 
'bright lilting' sound "better" than one where under the same circumstances 
this thingee is a 'dark forboding' entity?

<<"The writings of the debaters is our historical record.">>
  Yes without a doubt but hasn't there been much more written in the last one 
hundred years about temperament then in the previous one hundred years?  
Aren't 'most' of the writings slanted to a certain viewpoint? Isn't a 
perception of 'rightness' relayed by an authors perceived sincerity?  Can all 
these past, present and future writers be "right" or 'wrong'?  
 If all of the writers can't be "right" then how do we judge who not to 
follow?....... perhaps more importantly who to follow? 

<<"This is contrasted to the ET era, in  which there was only one style, and 
no debate over its worth.">>

 My perception is quite different since I can never remember a time when the 
debate over ET vs the 'world' was not raging in one form or another in my 
circle of tech-hoodness. Having been taught ET and several "alternate" :-) 
tuning methods at the same time there has always been the option there for 
me.  This is rather akin to not liking Andy Warhols work, which I find little 
use for. I however will be happy to purchase one of his paintings for resale 
to someone whose perception of the obviously at one time "avant garde" artist 
is different.  Andy is no longer with us and his work is no longer considered 
as "avant garde" as it once was, not because Andy is gone, but because his 
work/style has become more the norm and other 'different', as opposed to 
"better" or worse, styles are now the present "avant garde".

<<"I see a profound difference here.">>
  Yes undoubtably you do...but can you see the forest for looking at one 
tree? If we offer ourselves as all things to all persons can we be anything 
to anyone?  Rather would it be "better" to offer only that part of us to 
others as their perception allows them to see?  
  Or we 'could' help them to 'perceive' differently, couldn't we?  In the end 
isn't that what you are speaking of?  If so, can ones perception of a certain 
temperament be "better" than anothers?

"We believe to be that which we perceive.
We perceive more easily that which we believe,or wish to.
Our perceptions and our beliefs form our reality.
Therefor, perception is our reality, a reality
that is not needfully true to any but ourselves." 
Faintly Dull

On a rainy, lazy day In Jax.......
Jim Bryant (FL)