Coleman 11

[Ron Nossaman]

> "Pity", "more fun" and "forward" are all terms of arrogance and presupposes 
>a superiority that exists only in the mind of the individual and their terms 
>of acceptance or rejection of ideas/sounds be they ET vs HT or Ravel vs 
>Chopin. 
>My view. :-)
>Jim Bryant (FL)

I've got to agree with Jim here on all counts. If ET (one temperament) was
the great entrenched mindless monolith it's made out to be, there wouldn't
be so MUCH interest and traffic on the List about the apparently endless
variations of, uh, alternative temperaments. All that traffic being, by my
count, in spite of the vitriol and self induced emotional baggage.
Enthusiasm is one thing, but claiming progress over something that isn't
generally acknowledged to be broken is something else again. If the
temperament variants were the long awaited answer to an acknowledged
problem, or set of problems, they could reasonably be called a "better"
approach. As it is, alternative temperaments are just another way to do the
same thing that ET does - to organize a tuning into some sort of rational
system. None of the available temperaments is the enemy, just as none is
the answer in all cases. Each may elicit a desired blend of glandular
secretions and endorphins in the listening audience under specific
circumstances, without necessarily being the ultimate end-all for any
occasion. Nearly anything new, different, unfamiliar, or exotic, will
always draw the momentary attention of a number of people. A certain
percentage will find something that speaks to them in this latest iteration
of change and embrace it wholeheartedly. Others won't be all that
interested, and still others, as well as some from each of the first two
groups, will chase off in full cry after the next "New Thing" that
supercedes it. The historical temperaments were each once the ET of their
times - the entrenched monolith within their individual sphere of
influence. Why is it that old approaches that were replaced by later
iterations of "truth" and "currently in vogue" seem to achieve a patina of
latent reverence when they are re-discovered? They didn't  necessarily die
from a lack of validity in the first place did they? They were often just
"fashioned" into oblivion and may still be as good as when they were put on
the shelf, but that doesn't make them the ANSWER. Resurrect anything you
find to be valuable, by all means. Enjoy it and share it around as much as
you like, but don't try to sell it as "new and improved". We've all seen
too many instances of that kind of packaging already.

Don't need a flame suit. I rely on scar tissue these days.

Ron N