As part of my researches this morning, I ran across a couple of articles about the reasons composers explore and use alternate tunings.
The first one I link to here is by Kyle Gann, composer and music critic (former?) for The Village Voice.
I like this very much. I'm basically in his camp.
http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html
The thing is, what seems do-able or practical vs. far-fetched can change depending on a lot of contingent things, such as the availability of software or good inexpensive generalized keyboards. Lil' Miss Scale Oven has certainly changed my life.
Here's another link to an entirely different perspective, by "Chuckles McGee".
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/mi...out+xenharmony
I include it to show the diversity of opinion and taste. However, I have very little sympathy for or interest in his points.
Which is to say, I'm not that interested in "common misconceptions" or the learning process, or psychoacoustic tests done on average listeners.
I think like Kyle Gann -- from the perspective of a composer who does this stuff all the time.
Controversy, journalism, social issues, school, shocking the bourgeoisie, reaching the masses, common misconceptions -- none of these need to interest a composer. A composer merely has to be honest with himself, herself.
There was another frank exchange of views in the xenharmonic pages that was also revealing. I'll dig it up later and link to it. Again, I have little sympathy for one perspective, but his points are interesting.
When I say I have little sympathy, I speak as someone who is on a journey, who is saying, essentially: "No time for that! That doesn't apply to me. That's just about rhetoric and argument and justification."