Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Keeper of the FAQ

Thanks for the invitations to be the depository for the FAQ. I am frankly, from
temperament, not suited to the task, and live in a time zone that makes things
awkward with a majority of the list in North America. Volunteers?

However, I would like to invite some others to write FAQs. If you are totally
unwilling to do it yourself, can you help find someone who could?

Specifically:

Paul Erlich -- how about GRAPHING TECHNIQUES, CONSISTANCY, PERIODICITY BLOCKS,
CPS, ENTROPY (I think you have "gentle introductions" on several of these, n'est
pas?)
Paul Hahn (are you with us?) -- HAHN'S DIAMETER
John Chalmers -- TETRACHORDS, MOS
Dave Keenan -- CONSONANCE-DISSONANCE MEASURES, and a bit more broadly-drawn JUST
INTONATION
John Szanto - PARTCH, PARTCH PERFORMANCE AUTHENTICITY
John de Laubenfels -- ADAPTIVE TUNING
Margo Schulter -- WHAT IS PYTHAGOREAN TUNING?
Johnny Reinhard -- PERFORMING WITH CENTS (as opposed to for pennies), MANDELBAUM
Ed Foote -- WHAT IS A WELL TEMPERAMENT?
Jeff Scott -- QUARTERTONES; NON-JUST, NON-EQUAL TUNINGS
Heinz Bohlen -- THE PIERCE-BOHLEN TUNINGS
DJWolf -- NOTATION, HOW ARE GAMELAN TUNED?, TANAKA*, HARRISON (as theorist),
INTONATIONAL PUNS
Kraig Grady -- WILSON, REED ORGANS
Joseph Monzo -- HABA, HOW ARE "BLUES" INTERVALS TUNED?
Can someone reach Carl Lumma for -- HOW IS "BARBERSHOP" MUSIC MUSIC TUNED?
Dan Stearns -- MIXING ALTERNATIVE TUNINGS
John Starrett -- HOW TO REFRET A GUITAR
Robert C. Valentine -- HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS ARE THERE TO APPROACH ALTERNATIVE
TUNINGS?
Herman Miller -- WHAT IS AN EQUAL TEMPERAMENT?
Stephen Soderberg -- SET THEORY AND ALTERNATIVE TUNINGS
Ibo Ortgies -- KEYBOARDS
Gary Morrison -- TET, CET, EDO

Now, who will volunteer, or be roped into volunteering, for any of the
following:

IS THE DOMINANT SEVENTH A REPRESENTATION OF 4:5:6:7 OR A DISSONANCE?
HOW DO CHOIRS/ORCHESRAS/STRING QUARTETS TUNE?
WHAT RECORDINGS ARE AVAILABLE IN HISTORICAL TUNINGS?
TUNING METALLOPHONES
HOW TO MAKE A MONOCHORD
SYNTHESIZERS
TUNING SOFTWARE

HELMHOLTZ,
BOSANQUET,
WYSCHNEGRADSKY,
NOVARO,
YASSER,
FOKKER,
CHALMERS

DJW

* If there are any list members in Japan who could do Tanaka, I'd be very
pleased to yield on this one.

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

Maybe Bill Alves, Dante and Prent and I can conspire for Csound JI
cheers

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Keeper of the FAQ

> Thanks for the invitations to be the depository for the FAQ. I am
frankly, from
> temperament, not suited to the task, and live in a time zone that makes
things
> awkward with a majority of the list in North America. Volunteers?
>
> However, I would like to invite some others to write FAQs. If you are
totally
> unwilling to do it yourself, can you help find someone who could?
>
> Specifically:
>
> Paul Erlich -- how about GRAPHING TECHNIQUES, CONSISTANCY, PERIODICITY
BLOCKS,
> CPS, ENTROPY (I think you have "gentle introductions" on several of these,
n'est
> pas?)
> Paul Hahn (are you with us?) -- HAHN'S DIAMETER
> John Chalmers -- TETRACHORDS, MOS
> Dave Keenan -- CONSONANCE-DISSONANCE MEASURES, and a bit more
broadly-drawn JUST
> INTONATION
> John Szanto - PARTCH, PARTCH PERFORMANCE AUTHENTICITY
> John de Laubenfels -- ADAPTIVE TUNING
> Margo Schulter -- WHAT IS PYTHAGOREAN TUNING?
> Johnny Reinhard -- PERFORMING WITH CENTS (as opposed to for pennies),
MANDELBAUM
> Ed Foote -- WHAT IS A WELL TEMPERAMENT?
> Jeff Scott -- QUARTERTONES; NON-JUST, NON-EQUAL TUNINGS
> Heinz Bohlen -- THE PIERCE-BOHLEN TUNINGS
> DJWolf -- NOTATION, HOW ARE GAMELAN TUNED?, TANAKA*, HARRISON (as
theorist),
> INTONATIONAL PUNS
> Kraig Grady -- WILSON, REED ORGANS
> Joseph Monzo -- HABA, HOW ARE "BLUES" INTERVALS TUNED?
> Can someone reach Carl Lumma for -- HOW IS "BARBERSHOP" MUSIC MUSIC TUNED?
> Dan Stearns -- MIXING ALTERNATIVE TUNINGS
> John Starrett -- HOW TO REFRET A GUITAR
> Robert C. Valentine -- HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS ARE THERE TO APPROACH
ALTERNATIVE
> TUNINGS?
> Herman Miller -- WHAT IS AN EQUAL TEMPERAMENT?
> Stephen Soderberg -- SET THEORY AND ALTERNATIVE TUNINGS
> Ibo Ortgies -- KEYBOARDS
> Gary Morrison -- TET, CET, EDO
>
> Now, who will volunteer, or be roped into volunteering, for any of the
> following:
>
>
> IS THE DOMINANT SEVENTH A REPRESENTATION OF 4:5:6:7 OR A DISSONANCE?
> HOW DO CHOIRS/ORCHESRAS/STRING QUARTETS TUNE?
> WHAT RECORDINGS ARE AVAILABLE IN HISTORICAL TUNINGS?
> TUNING METALLOPHONES
> HOW TO MAKE A MONOCHORD
> SYNTHESIZERS
> TUNING SOFTWARE
>
> HELMHOLTZ,
> BOSANQUET,
> WYSCHNEGRADSKY,
> NOVARO,
> YASSER,
> FOKKER,
> CHALMERS
>
> DJW
>
> * If there are any list members in Japan who could do Tanaka, I'd be very
> pleased to yield on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Please everyone, chill down. There is no friction simply because there is
disagreement. Our Internet society allows us to disagree.

FAQ is supposed to mean Frequently Asked Questions. I do not see the list
of topics in any way reflecting this. Perhaps we want something different
from a FAQ so that we can push our favorite thread topics. In that case, I
would suggest including Werckmeister, Bach's Tuning, Polymicrotonality (as
opposed to mixing (alternative tunings), the AFMM, etc.

No one would ask questions on these topics, nor would they read through
lengthy and "opinionated" or "biased" or "ideological" positions. Any hint
of impropriety will throw sludge on the topic. If we are attempting an
exhaustive encyclopedia, we will fail. Perhaps as short an answer without
giving an incomplete meaning. All attempts at pushing a view have to be
curtailed. In this difficult subject involvement, we ought not hurry. In
fact, we should not finalize any faster than needed to hold the line on
misunderstanding due to any FAQ produced.

About the meantone response, is it necessary to say that quarter-comma
meantone is the usual? It is not the usual in every geographical area in
every time period. The first meantone was not exactly 1/4 comma (Pietro
Aaron).

Could we explain the roots of the word "meantone" as in identical whole tones
in a finite number of keys with only 12 keys per octave at the top of the
answer, explaining all the while the tie in with the word "temperament"?

It is a great opportunity for any of us to spend our valuable time on joint
purpose. Sometimes it is just not possible. Some of us are naturally
extroverted and it is easier to fill bandwidth with words. Music is not
about words. Even more so it is not numbers and math. Music is
traditionally the ultimate ineffable experience, though this contrasts with
some of the more glib on this list.

I don't think the FAQ is the place to plug anything. Preferences are always
made to dead people. Living people are a delicate commodity. If you mention
only Ligeti and Leedy is clearly the result of stylistic preferences, as well
as based on physical familiarity with the music. What about Wendy Carlos
using 1/5th comma meantone? What about how 31-tone music is modern 1/4 comma
meantone...or is this a debate? Less is more, IMHO.

Perhaps we could have a primary writer, keeping it short, and then single
sentence add ons by others who sign their name to their even shorter
contributions.

Johnny Reinhard

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>

Johnny Reinhard wrote:

"Please everyone, chill down. There is no friction simply because there is
disagreement. Our Internet society allows us to disagree."

Having read the posts, I have found only good, constructive criticism for the
Meantone atiem that I wrote, with the exception of your, as yet unsubstantiated
critique and Kraig Grady's misgivings about a text that had not even been
drafted yet.

"FAQ is supposed to mean Frequently Asked Questions. I do not see the list
of topics in any way reflecting this. Perhaps we want something different
from a FAQ so that we can push our favorite thread topics. In that case, I
would suggest including Werckmeister, Bach's Tuning, Polymicrotonality (as
opposed to mixing (alternative tunings), the AFMM, etc."

I think the list of topics is a pretty fair one, and a chance to sum up for
newcomers discussions that have taken place on the list for years. For years, I
have gotten off-list postings asking for guidance about one topic or another,
and this list reflects that experience. I do find that the list often bogs down
with having to start from scratch, so this seems like a reasonable approach. I
have deliberately not pushed topics favored by individuals, including my own
favorites (you won't find a word about Gamelan Selonding, for example), I have
included topics that interest me not at all (Blues, Haba) and have sought out
the most encompassing terminology, thus "mixing alternative tunings" rather than
"polymicrotonality". Neither have I included articles on particular performers,
organizations, or composers, only a list of theorists, some of whom are also
composers. And need I repeat that my list was only that, a list off the top of
my head, with an open invitation to revision, addition, or comment?

"No one would ask questions on these topics, nor would they read through
lengthy and "opinionated" or "biased" or "ideological" positions."

I have indeed been posed exactly these questions. Please let me know where my
draft was opinionated, biased, or ideological.

"Any hint of impropriety will throw sludge on the topic."

This doesn't deserve a response.

"If we are attempting an exhaustive encyclopedia, we will fail. Perhaps as
short an answer without giving an incomplete meaning."

I think my draft satisfies this.

"All attempts at pushing a view have to be curtailed. In this difficult subject
involvement, we ought not hurry. In fact, we should not finalize any faster
than needed to hold the line on misunderstanding due to any FAQ produced."

There have now been a few drafts submitted, and I expect they'll be beaten about
sufficiently before anyone talks about finalizing.

"About the meantone response, is it necessary to say that quarter-comma
meantone is the usual? It is not the usual in every geographical area in every
time period."

Please read my draft. I believe I used the past tense properly, and that my
characterization of quarter-comma MT as standard is true. Further, to quote
Barber: "Strictly, there is only one meantone temperament." And by that he means
quarter-comma MT, where the wholetones are indeed, means.

"The first meantone was not exactly 1/4 comma (Pietro Aaron)."

Aron's tuning description can be reasonable read as an eleven tone quarter-comma
MT, albeit with limited precision other than (a paraphrase): make C-E "sonorous
and just", make the fifth C-G "a little flat", flatter G-D similarly, and tune A
so that D-A and A-E are equal. Then tune the fifths Eb-Bb-F-C exactly the same
as the previous fifths. Then tune F# and C# as pure thirds to D and A. I
realise that this limited precision is problematic, but not enough so to keep
this from being an adequate, non-numerical decription of the MT principle.

"Could we explain the roots of the word "meantone" as in identical whole tones
in a finite number of keys with only 12 keys per octave at the top of the
answer, explaining all the while the tie in with the word "temperament"?"

No, the top of my article is suffiently clear. And no, MT was never a
temperament limited by design to only 12 tones per octave.

"It is a great opportunity for any of us to spend our valuable time on joint
purpose. Sometimes it is just not possible. Some of us are naturally
extroverted and it is easier to fill bandwidth with words. Music is not
about words. Even more so it is not numbers and math. Music is
traditionally the ultimate ineffable experience, though this contrasts with
some of the more glib on this list."

Come on. When you want to be glib (e.g. on Schoenberg's row forms and his brush
strokes), you are. You have derived tunings of your own on numerical grounds
(i.e. the presence of a given prime number in the ratio). So I guess that you'd
like a Reinhard exception: We go with facts or consensus except when Johnny
Reinhard disagrees.

"I don't think the FAQ is the place to plug anything. Preferences are always
made to dead people. Living people are a delicate commodity. If you mention
only Ligeti and Leedy is clearly the result of stylistic preferences, as well
as based on physical familiarity with the music. What about Wendy Carlos
using 1/5th comma meantone? What about how 31-tone music is modern 1/4 comma
meantone...or is this a debate? Less is more, IMHO. "

Ligeti (certainly not my favorite composer, even less my favorite person) and
Leedy are included on the grounds that they have published works explicitly in
quarter-comma MT, taking advantages of features unique to MT (for the record,
Ligeti's _Passacaglia Ungharese_ features the pure thirds, while the pieces in
Leedy's _Harpsichord Book_ use a variety of atributes among them the black-key
slendro approximation in "Lou Harrison's Round"). To my knowledge, Leedy has
also published the only article (in PNM) specifically on the use of MT in
contemporary music. I have composed an entire opera in fifth-comma, and have
deliberately not included it; I have never heard the Carlos, so have not
included that.

The question of whether 31-tone is modern quarter-comma MT, or even, as Fokker
had it, a form of JI is definitely a debate, into the potential fisticuffs
thereof I shall not gladly walk.*

"Perhaps we could have a primary writer, keeping it short, and then single
sentence add ons by others who sign their name to their even shorter
contributions."

No objection.

There. I've just spent the better part of my afternoon answering your post
point-by-point. In compiling my list of topics, I specifically went out of my
way to avoid conflict with you over terms like "microtone". Unfortunately, I
have the real impression that I could have spent those hours composing a paean
to the glorious and unmatched achievements of the AFMM and polymicrotonality and
you'd have still been ticked at me...

Daniel Wolf

* I can't believe that I actually wrote than sentence.

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Johnny Reinhard:]
>Please everyone, chill down. There is no friction simply because there
>is disagreement. Our Internet society allows us to disagree.

Who is not chilled?

>FAQ is supposed to mean Frequently Asked Questions. I do not see the
>list of topics in any way reflecting this.

Then please give us _your_ list of suggested FAQ's.

>Perhaps we want something different from a FAQ so that we can push our
>favorite thread topics.

Always a possible pitfall. Which particular topics you think fit this
description?

>In that case, I would suggest including Werckmeister, Bach's Tuning,
>Polymicrotonality (as opposed to mixing (alternative tunings), the
>AFMM, etc.

Well, what's wrong with having these in a FAQ? Anyone who wants to get
seriously into tuning issues and options might well want to know about
such topics. Will you volunteer to write them up?

>No one would ask questions on these topics, nor would they read through
>lengthy and "opinionated" or "biased" or "ideological" positions. Any
>hint of impropriety will throw sludge on the topic. If we are
>attempting an exhaustive encyclopedia, we will fail. Perhaps as short
>an answer without giving an incomplete meaning. All attempts at
>pushing a view have to be curtailed. In this difficult subject
>involvement, we ought not hurry. In fact, we should not finalize any
>faster than needed to hold the line on misunderstanding due to any FAQ
>produced.

I agree that we need not rush into any "final" wording for FAQ's. But
this paragraph seems to be rich in generalities and lean in specifics.
Please give more details about what you're saying. In particular,
please illustrate how "short" you think a definition can get without
being "incomplete" (I don't find Daniel Wolf's meantone def'n to be
excessively wordy, for example).

>About the meantone response, is it necessary to say that quarter-comma
>meantone is the usual? It is not the usual in every geographical area
>in every time period. The first meantone was not exactly 1/4 comma
>(Pietro Aaron).

At last, a specific request! Daniel Wolf, any objection to making a
modification to your writeup?

>Could we explain the roots of the word "meantone" as in identical whole
>tones in a finite number of keys with only 12 keys per octave at the
>top of the answer, explaining all the while the tie in with the word
>"temperament"?

Dan?

>It is a great opportunity for any of us to spend our valuable time on
>joint purpose. Sometimes it is just not possible. Some of us are
>naturally extroverted and it is easier to fill bandwidth with words.
>Music is not about words. Even more so it is not numbers and math.
>Music is traditionally the ultimate ineffable experience, though this
>contrasts with some of the more glib on this list.

Music is not about words, true, but this list is about words, no? Words
can hint at the tools necessary to make great music; the rest is up to
inspired individuals. A FAQ must be made up of words, limited though
they may be to convey what we desire to convey.

>I don't think the FAQ is the place to plug anything.

Like what, specifically?

>Preferences are always made to dead people.

>Living people are a delicate commodity. If you mention only Ligeti and
>Leedy is clearly the result of stylistic preferences, as well as based
>on physical familiarity with the music. What about Wendy Carlos using
>1/5th comma meantone? What about how 31-tone music is modern 1/4
>comma meantone...or is this a debate? Less is more, IMHO.

I'm not sure anyone is against mentioning Wendy Carlos - is this what
you're implying? And saying "Less is more" is not very helpful, IMHO,
unless you tell us what _you_ think would be ideal.

>Perhaps we could have a primary writer, keeping it short, and then
>single sentence add ons by others who sign their name to their even
>shorter contributions.

What "primary writer" would you recommend? Single sentence add-ons?
I don't think much of value could be said in one sentence. But perhaps
I'm wrong - please illustrate with specific examples.

JdL

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Dear Daniel Wolf,

Please do not personalize my comments. I mean them as abstract reactions to
what I have seen. Thank you for indicating again "And need I repeat that my
list was only that, a list off the top of my head, with an open invitation to
revision, addition, or comment?" That's all I was doing. I never mentioned
your name.

I would invite the inclusion of Gamelan Selonding, for example. Yet you are
not responding in such a way to invite "comment" let alone addition, or
revision ("No, the top of my article is sufficiently clear"). You wrote a
single essay, and others are encouraged to write them as well. Is there no
opportunity to discuss methodology? I hope not.

It was of great interest to read why you chose certain things. Your reason
to leave out your own meantone-tuned opera was similar to that of Walther
(who was certainly deserving of being included in his Lexikon, but chose not
to mention himself in his monumental work.

Perhaps we need to depersonalize the dabates. Daniel, you didn't need to
clarify that Ligeti was "not my favorite composer, even less my favorite
person." And with all reported glibness, you needn't invent "a Reinhard
exception: We go with facts or consensus except when Johnny Reinhard
disagrees." My experiences can be valuable to this discussion even though
I'm like Cheney from Wyoming with 1 vote. (You saw how that changed with the
Bush election. :)

My objections need to be examined as does that of everyone who posts on this
list. Intimidation works many ways, overt and subtle and invisible, and it
needs to be weeded out, but not by being silenced. My concern remains that
we could create problems we as yet do not foresee with a FAQ growing on
automatic. Thank you Daniel Wolf for your good natured engagement. Please
try to believe that I mean what I am saying.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

To JdL: I will try to give examples as time permits. After just finishing a
part for me to rehearse Partch's Dark Brother, I have to set up for 3 bassoon
lessons. Boy, do I need to clean up, what with the paper cuttings, scotch
tapes scraps, and general mayhem accumulated through the week. (glib
enough?...just kidding).

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Daniel Wolf wrote,

<<If you are totally unwilling to do it yourself, can you help find
someone who could?>>

I think the FAQ idea is a good one, but I personally have the wrong,
err, mindset/writing-reasoning style to contribute what I think would
be anything of much good for someone new to the subject... and I think
that's who the heart of such a FAQ should be directed at...

So that said, here are some very simple "frequently asked questions"
that come right to my mind.

1) WHAT IS MICROTONALITY? (or, WHAT IS MICROTONAL MUSIC?)

I know, I know... but it's as frequently asked a question as I know
of, and as long as it covers the two basic camps in an easily
understandable, to-the-point way, then I couldn't see it being any
sort of a real big problem! This could also be a way to frame 'there's
more than quartertones' or whatever needs to be said in that regard.

2) HOW DID TWELVE-TONE EQUAL TEMPERMENT ACHIEVE ITS PREDOMINANT
STATUS -- OR DID IT?

This, or something like it, could be used to both chronicle the
history (and yes, address questions like 'what tuning did Bach use',
etc.), as well as shed light on 12-tET in a wider, more global
perspective...

3) WHAT'S WITH ALL THE MATH?

This could be a way to quickly go over some of the basics and briefly
shed some light on the Pythagorean/Helmholtz type duality that so
often seems to shadow tuning related issues... especially the
theoretical end.

4) WHERE CAN I HEAR MICROTONAL MUSIC?

Some simple (i.e., jazz, classical, world, and whatever else needs to
be listed without hopelessly dissipating a positive impact)
categorized internet links and discography lists would probably be the
best way to handle this type of a question... ? It's one I hear a lot.

Again, I think the FAQ idea is a good one. And Paul Erlich, Daniel
Wolf and Margo Schulter all strike me as good candidates to draft or
organize and edit something that's technically sound as well as easily
understandable... so hopefully everybody can agree on something in the
end, even if it takes a while.

--Dan Stearns

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

As you all know, I'm no longer receiving e-mail from this list. But
I'm checking the Web to check up on the development of the FAQ -- so
keep FAQ in the subject line of all relevant messages.

Johnny wrote,

> FAQ is supposed to mean Frequently Asked Questions. I do not see
the list
> of topics in any way reflecting this.

> No one would ask questions on these topics, nor would they read
through
> lengthy and "opinionated" or "biased" or "ideological" positions.
Any hint
> of impropriety will throw sludge on the topic. If we are
attempting an
> exhaustive encyclopedia, we will fail. Perhaps as short an answer
without
> giving an incomplete meaning. All attempts at pushing a view have
to be
> curtailed.

These comments flabbergasted me. I don't see where any of it came
from, I've seen myriad questioners on this list asking for
clarification on these very topics, and disagree with the suggestion
that anyone's trying to push their agenda through this FAQ. Notice
how helpful many people found the very first attempt at a FAQ entry
by Daniel Wolf -- clearly this was an area in need of clarification
for many! Anyway, no harm in trying to anticipate new questions that
might be asked in the future.

Another FAQ topic I'll suggest, given how often the newbie questions
come up:

SUBHARMONICS

> In this difficult subject involvement, we ought not hurry. In
> fact, we should not finalize any faster than needed to hold the
line on
> misunderstanding due to any FAQ produced.

>
> About the meantone response, is it necessary to say that quarter-
comma
> meantone is the usual? It is not the usual in every geographical
area in
> every time period.

Who said it was?

> The first meantone was not exactly 1/4 comma (Pietro
> Aaron).

Do you know _exactly_ what Aron's tuning was?

> Could we explain the roots of the word "meantone" as in identical
whole tones

Makes sense, as long as you're sure to clarify that you mean "major
seconds" and explain why they're different from, say, diminished
thirds.

> in a finite number of keys with only 12 keys per octave at the top
of the
> answer, explaining all the while the tie in with the
word "temperament"?

There is absolutely no reason to invoke 12 keys per octave. And I
think if you leave "whole tones" in there, it can be confusing, since
Norbert Newbie might walk over to his Korg, dial up a meantone
tuning, and notice that the whole tone from F# to G# is smaller than
the whole tone from G# to Bb.
>
> It is a great opportunity for any of us to spend our valuable time
on joint
> purpose. Sometimes it is just not possible. Some of us are
naturally
> extroverted and it is easier to fill bandwidth with words.

I see nothing but positive, collaborative effort so far. Why the
negativity?
>
> I don't think the FAQ is the place to plug anything.

I don't think you'll get any argument there!

> Preferences are always
> made to dead people. Living people are a delicate commodity. If
you mention
> only Ligeti and Leedy is clearly the result of stylistic
preferences, as well
> as based on physical familiarity with the music. What about Wendy
Carlos
> using 1/5th comma meantone? What about how 31-tone music is modern
1/4 comma
> meantone...or is this a debate? Less is more, IMHO.

Johnny, clearly you will have a great deal to contribute to this FAQ.
Naturally, all your suggestions will be considered by everyone, and,
unless there are sound objections, will be included in the final
result. Why not just make your contributions, and leave out the venom?
>
> Perhaps we could have a primary writer, keeping it short, and then
single
> sentence add ons by others who sign their name to their even
shorter
> contributions.

I see nothing wrong with the collaborative process as it is evolving
now -- each topic has a primary writer, and we all make our
contributions and criticisms and throw them around a bit, until the
writer comes up with something satisfactory to everyone. There could
be dozens of contributors for a given topic, but no need to weigh
down the FAQ with our names.

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> Why don't you go ahead and we can all
> chime in with comments.

No. You won't find a word from me in this FAQ on anything the
slightest bit controversial, unless someone else gleans it from the
archives or my website.

All I've ever wanted was to help others sharpen their tuning tools and
ideas while having mine sharpened in return. But in recent months, and
as recently as this week, I have been accused (both directly and by
implication) of staking out territory and squashing creativity. So I
hope you will understand that I am a little sensitive about this at
present.

Enough about me.
------------------------------------------------------------------

We need a FAQ editor NOW!

If someone has to go back through the archives to put together a FAQ
it will never happen.

Someone should be collecting FAQ contributions (including the Q's that
don't yet have A's, and including multiple A's for the same Q) AS THEY
COME IN and putting them into a single plain ASCII document and
arranging them into some kind of order EACH DAY. Unless someone keeps
up with this, it will be much too hard later.

Paul Erlich, Daniel Wolf and Margo Schulter have all been nominated as
FAQ editor (did I miss anyone else?). Daniel has declined, Paul has
accepted.

Margo, would you like to edit the FAQ?

Paul, since you have volunteered, please act as editor pro tem and
start collecting the contributions (if you aren't already).

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> > Why don't you go ahead and we can all
> > chime in with comments.
>
> No. You won't find a word from me in this FAQ on anything the
> slightest bit controversial, unless someone else gleans it from the
> archives or my website.

Dave, I don't understand your attitude here. What's controversial? We
can go over Helmholtz, Sethares, and my measures; mention Tenney's
and Kraig Grady's and Daniel Wolf's but point out that they don't
work if the numbers are too high; and include any other measures
people might want to see. Who could disagree?

Perhaps the debate over JI has clouded you to the point of view of
the opposing camp: they're not claiming the high-integer ratios are
especially _consonant_, they're just claiming that they're JI!
>
> All I've ever wanted was to help others sharpen their tuning tools
and
> ideas while having mine sharpened in return. But in recent months,
and
> as recently as this week, I have been accused (both directly and by
> implication) of staking out territory and squashing creativity. So
I
> hope you will understand that I am a little sensitive about this at
> present.

Ah, well in that case we'll all have to take a few deep breaths
first . . . I still can't imagine any of the people you suggested
writing a FAQ on this subject.
>
> Paul, since you have volunteered, please act as editor pro tem and
> start collecting the contributions (if you aren't already).

Hmm . . . well if Kraig Grady doesn't have any outstanding
objections, will everyone please send me, IN PRIVATE E-MAIL, the
latest revision of their FAQs.

Better yet, let's start a FAQ folder in the "Files" section of the
website.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Paul,

I expect one reason why you haven't received any FAQs yet is that many are in early draft
stage.

So, why not maintain the FAQ as a list of urls instead? Then one can keep updating ones
drafts in response to anyone's comments, without having to keep re-sending it to you.

Perhaps combined with a tree control
This one is free and very good, and only 18 Kb, so quick to load.
http://www.spyc.de/spyc_intern/webmaster/javamenu/tree.htm

I've been trying it out for the FTS home page on disk, and will probably use it for
that as well in fact.

More tree controls:
http://javaboutique.internet.com/navigation/tree.html

............................................................

I think a web site for final drafts of the FAQ may possibly be better than the files
folder of the tuning list, if you are able to organise one.

One could use the files folder just as a kind of in-tray, with entries deleted as they
are moved to the web site.

The in-tray would mainly be used by those who don't have a web site of their own - they
could place their drafts in the in-tray, and then after discussing them on the TL first,
ask you to move it onto the web site when it is finished.

Again, the draft FAQ could include a url for the draft solution, this time pointing to
a particular file in the tuning group FAQ in-tray folder.

The nice thing about doing it that way is that one can then easily add / remove / edit
ones entries on-line in the tuning list web site.

Contributors with many FAQ solutions could make new sub folders of the in-tray.

............................................................

I'd like to suggest a few guiding rules for the keeper of the FAQ (for discussion of
course!).

I think it is a good idea to have a FAQ and a Best of the TL section.

For the best of the TL:

I think the keeper of the FAQ should restrict themselves to ordering the solutions and
writing the connecting text. Plus, see no objection at all to the keeper also writing some
of the solutions, and if it's you, hope you would!

The keeper could re-write drafts for those who don't feel quite fluent enough in English
it to write the final draft themselves. But. I'd suggest, only on request. Will be nice to
have answers in a variety of styles.

The keeper could also re-write drafts if the author has interesting viewpoints, but is
unable to express them in an easy to read order, or feels that he / she needs some
assistance, again on the request of the author!

I'd say that applies to spelling and grammar as well.

If one thinks about it, the "approved" grammars and spellings are really just particular
colloquial spellings / grammars, e.g. from particular geographical locations, that have
come to be rather widely accepted.

Is ther any logicl reson t cal ths speln wrng?

I thnk not - it is very logical. Leaves out all vowels that are very short, or unvoiced,
and doubled letters or lightly voiced consonants. Would be easy to read once one
got into it, and save on screen space, and paper!

And you won't never find a gramatical mistake in this sentence, I says.

Those could just as easily have been the "established" conventions.

Only when the grammar or spelling introduces genuine confusion, then one could comment on
it to the author of the FAQ without prior request, and ask them if they'd like to change
it.

Just what I happen to think about it.

............................................................

For the FAQ,

I think same rules apply. I think the only role of the Keeper is to choose
which entries are best to use, provide the connecting text, and edit them if requested
by the author.

Of course one can comment if one can't understand what is being said; and if one
has a nice idea that might improve the layout, one can suggest it as something
to consider.

Again, that is just an idea / suggestion, to open it to discussion.

At any rate, I think this aspect of it should be discussed early on, to lay to rest any
anxieties from anyone who might wonder if their entry is going to be edited, and if so,
how much of that will occur.

I think it will soon become pretty clear to any reader of the FAQ that the entries are
from a number of authors, and unedited.

One imagines that only the very best entries will make their way to the introductory page,
and there the choice of keeper is a significant one. But, I think you'd be a good and
fair keeper for it, as good as anyone could be.

Hope you'll have a Recreational Maths / Music section in the Best of the TL though!

I think you'd be an ideal choice for keeper of the FAQ, as you have a very clear head, and
would be able to find a good arrangement in which the later entries only use terms that
have already been introduced.

Quite a challenge to do, as like as not...

Robert

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_19257.html#19561

> I'd say that applies to spelling and grammar as well.
>
> If one thinks about it, the "approved" grammars and spellings are
really just particular colloquial spellings / grammars, e.g. from
particular geographical locations, that have
> come to be rather widely accepted.
>
> Is ther any logicl reson t cal ths speln wrng?
>
> I thnk not - it is very logical. Leaves out all vowels that are
very short, or unvoiced, and doubled letters or lightly voiced
consonants. Would be easy to read once one got into it, and save on
screen space, and paper!
>
> And you won't never find a gramatical mistake in this sentence, I
says.
>
> Those could just as easily have been the "established" conventions.
>
> Only when the grammar or spelling introduces genuine confusion,
then one could comment on it to the author of the FAQ without prior
request, and ask them if they'd like to change it.
>

Wow. This is great, Robert! I NEVER thought I would find a "logical"
defense of some of the, er, "peculiar" practices I have seen on this
list! But here it is!

Frankly, I think you are correct... and I also think some of the, er,
"peculiarities" of some of our posters (including MYSELF as a big
caveat) is what gives this list its "character."

There are many different personalities on this list, and different
ways of thinking about the same subject! That ADDS to the "richness"
of the list, not DETRACTS, in my opinion!

If we all had to do things in the same "standard," regimented way, I
think it would be quite bland...

Very interesting comments!

Best,

______ _____ ____ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

The above, like anything from true science, could be wrong, but it
could be right, too. We're still testing...

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Joseph, and John,

John, I second you for the post of Keeper of the FAQ!

I could help with setting things up so that it works fairly automatically,
and with the html.

I'd suggest doing it in such a way that anyone can
add a new folder to the FAQ tree, or add links anywhere in it,
connecting text etc.

This makes it like a document that can be edited by everyone, which
is more of the original concept of the WWW actually.

That would make it much easier to maintain, but not so well structured.

However one could then have a smaller beginning FAQ which someone could take
on responsibility for organising, by selecting urls from the complete FAQ
for an introductory tree.

Or perhaps a few, for the main subjects.

So the question then would be, how to set up the FAQ tree in such a way that
anyone can edit it or add to it.

Here's a first idea - it will work, be reasonably maintenance free, and can
be converted to other formats later:

See the database section:
/tuning/database
I've added a new database "FAQ tree".

Anyone can add / delete entries or export the whole table, or import
records, or delete the whole table (see later for the reason for that).

It's probably slightly faster to use the "Import Records", especially if you have
several records to add at once.

However you can also just use "Add Record" and fill in the fields.

It's probably best if none of the text uses the character ';'.

If you need one, then do it as $z, and if you need to write
$z in the description (don't imagine that anyone will), double
up the dollar sign as $$z.

This is just for the titles, folder names and urls in the tree, so I think
perhaps it isn't too restrictive to have to use $z if one does ever
need a semicolon.

I'll explain why that is in a minute.

Here is how it works with "Import Records".

-------------Adding entries or folders------------

If you just want to add a new folder, with nothing in it yet, you give
the parent folder, and the folder, all on one line:

main; Calculations
Calculations; Cents to from ratios

You can use :,; or tab as the delimiter when entering data.

Now to add a new entry to a folder, you give them in this order.

Calculations; Cents to from ratios; Cents to ratios and back again; Converting cents to
ratios and back; homepage.ntlworld.com/robertwalker/tree/cents_to_from_ratios.htm; Robert
Walker

Again, they have to be all on one line.

i.e
parent folder;folder;short title;title;url;author

The url can optionally leave out the http:// part.

There's an optional last field called "anything else you want to add".

The database also accepts entries in quotes like this:
"Calculations";"Cents to from ratios"

(e.g. because you are exporting them from your own database program).

---------------Why its best not to use ";" in entries--------------------------

Here we need a work around for an eccentricity of the system,
as the data is exported in comma delimited format as
"Calculations","Cents to from ratios"

So far, fine, but if one of the entries has a comma in it, even within the
quotes, it gets broken up when the table is re-entered.

Calculations; Cents, to from ratios
will be exported as
"Calculations","Cents, to from ratios"
and re-imported as
Calculations; Cents,; to from ratios

However, that's probably not a major problem.

If one wants to export the entire table, and then re-import it,
thing to do when re-importing is to use tab or ; as the delimiter.

Clearly , is ruled out. : might also be needed in titles,
but main reason for that is that if someone cuts and pastes
a url into the url field, it may well include the http:// part

; is a less often used character, especially for titles.

Tabs would be fine, but maybe not everyone will want to use them.

Reason is that they mightn't be using a database program at all, or
may have a simple one that only has comma delimited format,
and one can't do a search and replace of "," by "\t" in, say,
Wordpad (where \t here means the tab character)

-----------------------re-arranging the whole tree----------------------

If anyone wants to re-arrange the whole tree, they can export it, delete
the tree, then re-make it with the same column headings (the exported
tree has the column headings in it.

Presumably we'd have some discussion of that for major changes.

An example of when one might want to do that: perhaps one wants
to change the name of one of the sub folders. To do that one
would export the tree, do a search and replace of, say,
"Cents, to from ratios" by some preferred title, then re-make the
tree.

To make re-arranging the tree a bit easier, I'd write a little
program that reads the data, and makes a system of folders on your
hard disk exactly matching the structure of the tree, with the lists
of urls for each folder as a text file in each.

Then to re-arrange the tree, one would just move the folders around
in Explorer.

Then I'd do another little program that would read the directory
structure and make it back into the url tree.

That's just for Windows, but anyone with a Mac / Linux could do the
same thing easily - just find a friendly programamer to write a program
to do it for you, if you aren't sure how to write one yourself.

I suggest that anyone who needs to re-arrange the whole tree creates
a new dummy database called

"FAQ tree is about to be re-arranged, please suspend adding urls for
the moment"
in the database folder

Then and wait a little while before re-arranging it, in case someone
is in the middle of adding data to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Then I'd also do another little program that would read the database
and convert it into the text file for the tree control.

Since it is all database, then one could export it in any other format
too, e.g. to make a web site from it with some preferred navigation
system.

Eventually hopefully there will be a special web page for each folder
in the tree which will introduce it, and organise its contents.
- perhaps listed first in the tree control.

To mark an entry as the introductory one for the folder, prefix the url in
the url field with []

I've added a copy of the section of this message describing how to add
new entries to the tree, under a new section "info", which I suggest
we use for anything to do with how the tree itself works.

Robert

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi John,

> I get dizzy just reading Robert's posts on the subject, but will
try
> to understand more of what he's saying by going to his example
place.
> Robert, you don't want to volunteer to be FAQ-man?

Sorry about that.

I'll trim what I say to be easier to read; one doesn't need all
the details at once, or even ever - I can just write a program
that will take care of most of them (and then forget about them
myself too!).

However hopefully will be easier with an example tree to look at.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robertwalker/tree/tree.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robertwalker/site_ex/tree.htm

Do you run Windows - I can't remember if you've said. It will make
it
easier if you do.

If this idea seems interesting, I'd start by writing the part to
make
the tree from the database, and to make the web site from the
database.

Then look into ways of making it easier to re-organise the tree.

Should be pretty easy to use - click on it and let it run.

You won't even need to navigate to the tuning site to download the
database, as the program can just use the url one enters to export
the database.
/tuning/database?exportData=1&tbl=4

I'm not sure if day to day organising of the FAQ is quite the sort
of thing
I'd be good at.

As Joseph says, not knowing much about the subject doesn't
seem to be much of a problem, as we are all learning in one way or
another,
but it's just not really my kind of thing somehow.

So I'm very glad you've volunteered!

We'll have to wait and see if there are any other candidates of
course,
- only a few members of the TL have said anything yet.

Thanks for suggesting me.

Robert

Re: [tuning] Keeper of the FAQ

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

🔗prentrodgers@home.com