It's fine if some of you don't know what ~tone~ is.
Why should you? No big deal. But why start all this
talk about it being so ~subjective/relative~ and a
~matter of taste~. 

Because something is hard to define does not at all
mean that it is subjective. ~Color Vision~ is hard to
define [there are two oppossing theories accepted as
stop-gap ~facts~], but they aren't subjective or
relative [though one or both might be wrong]. We just
haven't developed the constructs to measure or
quantify it [and I don't care much, personally, if we
ever do- but don't spoil the chase]. 

Tone is real [as real as anything else, often called
~real~: air pressure, speed limit, lack of sleep]. 
It's not like; ~groove~, ~smart~, ~good musician~ or
It's is, in principal, measurable, and everyone can,
in a progressive, linear fashion, improve theirs. It
still will vary in quality, quanity and degree. All of
which will be open to argument and debate.

Aside from the fact that all perception is essentially
second-hand, ~tone~ has as little to do with ~opinion~
as does ~who won last weeks game?~
Paul Delay does indeed have nice tone. By any
definition. And I don't need to have a handle on the
final definition to say that. 

Again; the definition, and the construct for
~measuring~ it are not yet developed- that doesn't
make it subjective or up for grabs. One man's ~Tone~
is NOT another man's car-alarm at 3 a.m~. 

Scuse my tone. Getting vexed scrolling thru the votes
[I didn't even know there was an election] for not
discussing it because it's so dang relative.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.