so when do I have to do all this?

So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:

1) Is there now a *firm* standard of C-G-D-A as the Blackjack tuning
standard?

This isn't going to *change* again is it?? :)

By the way... how did we get going on the F-C-G standard in the first
place. *Somebody* must have thought it was very *intuitive.* Was it
Paul??

Sometimes (not always, I admit) the *first* impression can be the
best...

2) I will need some assistance converting everything... including my
MIDI setup with the SCALA files, and various "background" materials
that I have been using continuously to compose in Blackjack

3) The question remains: is this all really worth it? Since this is
all basically a *NOTATIONAL* convenience, is it really worth all my
trouble?

This is a "bitch" believe me... I would like to believe this
conversion is absolutely essential.

Otherwise, I will have to start siding with some of the people who
claim that this list makes it impossible to compose music! :)

Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:

Boy, I'm only going to make one little question/comment, and it
refers directly to you, a composer: I could be wrong, but I don't see
anyone else doing or trying to do any serious compositional work in
Blackjack; what is to keep YOU from setting the 'standard'???

Unless there is enormous pressure otherwise, and assuming you've got
some good inspirational material, I'd think you'd just plow forward,
and let them adjust to *you*, for once!

[I realize there are a lot of elements at play, but you deserve to
carve out some ground yourself...]

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_30659.html#30662

> Joseph,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> > system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:
>
> Boy, I'm only going to make one little question/comment, and it
> refers directly to you, a composer: I could be wrong, but I don't
see anyone else doing or trying to do any serious compositional work
in Blackjack; what is to keep YOU from setting the 'standard'???
>
> Unless there is enormous pressure otherwise, and assuming you've
got some good inspirational material, I'd think you'd just plow
forward, and let them adjust to *you*, for once!
>
> [I realize there are a lot of elements at play, but you deserve to
> carve out some ground yourself...]
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hello Jon!

Thank you for this helpful comment, and, indeed, this same thought
had crossed my little pea brain as well.

Take Ezra Sim's 72-tET notation. Note that Sims came upon
the "interesting" decision to use a square root sign as an accidental
for 1/4 tones. Why? Well, since the 1/4 tone is the square root of
the semi tone, that seemed to make sense to him.

It's a terrible looking accidental (a "radical" one, pun intended),
and the best we can do in an ascii emulation is: [ or ].

But, the point is, it *STUCK* since Sims wrote music with it, and
established the standard.

Since I'm currently writing and distributing music with the F,C,G
blackjack standard, this same phenominon could apply: even if *my*
standard were not the most intellectually rigorous one, it could
*become* the standard just in usage...

Oh yes, that's more than possible.

Out of deference, though, to my friends on this list who have been
working to engineer this tuning system, I have chosen to pay
attention to the latest developments.

HOWEVER, I do know that Dave Keenan loves to "twiddle" around with
these concepts until he reaches "perfection." There's nothing wrong
with that, but if he were in the middle of composing pieces in the
Blackjack tuning, he might have a different opinion about that!

So, we'll have to see. For one thing, I don't think there really is
a firm standard on it. Oh... Jon, Allison is also composing in
Blackjack.

Most people seem to accept the C-G-D-A standard, but I don't know if
there's an "official" vote on it yet! :) Certainly I don't want to
change everything around and then find out there's been
more "tweaking" and "twiddle-twaddling" and It's been "improved" once
again!

Writing with this system, with common-tone lattices, etc., and new
chord formations is complex, and I'm just about gathering together a
sense of a certain langage that I would like to use.

It is as if one starts to develop words of a language, and then,
suddently, people want to start using a different *ALPHABET.*

In fact, in a musical sense, with the musical note names changing
that's *exactly* what *is* going on!!!!

best,

JP

Joseph,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> But, the point is, it *STUCK* since Sims wrote music with it, and
> established the standard.

Exactamente!

> Oh... Jon, Allison is also composing in Blackjack.

Yes, I remembered, but hadn't remembered Allison (Alison?) was also
involved in the _notation_ of it, as I know you are interested in
finding other performers to do the pieces.

> It is as if one starts to develop words of a language, and then,
> suddently, people want to start using a different *ALPHABET.*

Sounds like the only solution is to take drugs. :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:
>
> 1) Is there now a *firm* standard of C-G-D-A as the Blackjack tuning
> standard?

You could wait a few more days to be sure.

> This isn't going to *change* again is it?? :)

I severely doubt it. There will soon be too many resources that would
need changing. Too much inertia. We've done our best to find the best.

> By the way... how did we get going on the F-C-G standard in the
first
> place. *Somebody* must have thought it was very *intuitive.* Was
it
> Paul??

Hey I know you must be feeling very frustrated. It's understandable
that you would be looking for people to blame. But you are to be
praised for not listening to the little devil on your shoulder :-) who
says "Who cares if it isn't the best one. I've learned it now, so why
don't I just force everyone to use _my_ alphabet". However I would
encourage you _not_ to change unless you _are_ absolutely convinced
that it will be an improvement.

I remind you that, at a time when I was seriously considering the
possibility that 3 naturals might be better than 4, and spending a
considerable amount of time on the question by examining the Blackjack
subset scales in the Scala archive, you said that you couldn't
possibly argue that a system with 3 naturals was better than one with
4. You also said you would place weight only on the real-world scales,
and it turned out that there were _no_ real world scales that were
better off with FCG, and four that were better off with CGDA (a
Turkish major and minor and a Slovakian Gypsy major and minor).

> 2) I will need some assistance converting everything... including my
> MIDI setup with the SCALA files, and various "background" materials
> that I have been using continuously to compose in Blackjack

Email me everything you've got and I'll see what I can do. I've
already done the lattice and I will change Manuel's chord list to
ASCIIfied-Sims notation ASAP. Yes he did use CGDA.

There are a few ways you can go with the keyboard mapping. If you map
the middle C key to a B[ pitch you can leave all your stickers where
they are. Or we can ask the question for the keyboard mapping that we
did for the notation:

What Halberstadt keyboard mapping makes life simplest for someone
trying to learn Blackjack from scratch, given the CGDA notation
standard?

As far as actually implementing any particular mapping. I'm afraid
others may have to help you there.

As for as how you got into FCG in the first place ... I believe it was
the fact that it made mathematical sense (but not necc. musical sense)
to list the pitches starting from the one at the center of the chain
of secors, combined with the default mapping of that note to C in the
software you are using. i.e. No good reason.

> 3) The question remains: is this all really worth it? Since this
is
> all basically a *NOTATIONAL* convenience, is it really worth all my
> trouble?
>
> This is a "bitch" believe me... I would like to believe this
> conversion is absolutely essential.

No one can answer that for you. But I've given you all the facts I can
dig up on the matter. Is there anything in particular still bothering
you about whether CGDA is objectively better than CFG (on average)?

CGDA should make life with your cellist easier. And those fat chords
come out way better in CGDA (most can have 3 naturals in them under
CGDA, whereas they could have none under FCG).

> Otherwise, I will have to start siding with some of the people who
> claim that this list makes it impossible to compose music! :)

Aw, c'mon Joe. :-)

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:
>
> 1) Is there now a *firm* standard of C-G-D-A as the Blackjack
tuning
> standard?

I think you should keep things the way you have them.

> This isn't going to *change* again is it?? :)

Perhaps _someone_ will adopt G-D-A-E at some point, because of the
particular instrument they play . . . this wouldn't surprise me.
>
> By the way... how did we get going on the F-C-G standard in the
first
> place. *Somebody* must have thought it was very *intuitive.* Was
it
> Paul??

No -- but you _specifically_ wanted the scale to be symmetrical about
the note C (or at least that's how I understood you), so I went with
that.

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> > system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:
>
> Boy, I'm only going to make one little question/comment, and it
> refers directly to you, a composer: I could be wrong, but I don't
see
> anyone else doing or trying to do any serious compositional work in
> Blackjack;

Jon -- you're clearly spending long periods of time away from this
list, if you're asking this question. Alison Monteith is in the
process of building a large set of instruments for Blackjack. She
specifically wants to use A-440 as one of her pitches. There were a
_huge_ number of posts on this.

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_30659.html#30673

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > So now, before I go to all the trouble of converting my Blackjack
> > system to yet *another* system, I need to know the following:
> >
> > 1) Is there now a *firm* standard of C-G-D-A as the Blackjack
tuning standard?
>
> You could wait a few more days to be sure.
>

Well, after waking up with a headache and experiencing the death of
my "composing career" several times, I've decided to re-evaluate the
idea of making the "switchover..."

Of course, the fact that I will be writing a piece for cello argues
strongly for the C-G-D-A standard, if that *is* the standard!

I've noticed that the Keenan lattice is, essentially, the same as
Paul's, of course, with different note names, so I should be able
to "map" the progressions I've been working with to the new "key."
I'm fuzzy on whether the pitches, with the new names, will remain the
same frequency or not. Probably not, is *my* guess...

> > This isn't going to *change* again is it?? :)
>
> I severely doubt it. There will soon be too many resources that
would need changing. Too much inertia. We've done our best to find
the best.
>
> > By the way... how did we get going on the F-C-G standard in the
> first place. *Somebody* must have thought it was very
*intuitive.* Was it Paul??
>
> Hey I know you must be feeling very frustrated. It's understandable
> that you would be looking for people to blame.

Actually, it wasn't so much that... I am, frankly, curious, since
sometimes the "first impressions" of something make the most sense.
Admittedly, not always.

But you are to be
> praised for not listening to the little devil on your shoulder :-)
who says "Who cares if it isn't the best one. I've learned it now, so
why don't I just force everyone to use _my_ alphabet". However I
would encourage you _not_ to change unless you _are_ absolutely
convinced that it will be an improvement.

Well, frankly, I have enough respect for the people thinking through
this stuff that I'll try to be flexible. (I guess that includes
*you,* right?)

The advantage, obviously, is the establishment of a "lingua franca"
for this scale so we're all "on the same page" so to speak.

Additionally, if my next piece is for *cello* and Blackjack, it would
be difficult for me to argue against a C-G-D-A key standard. That's
too dumb for even *me* to do...
>

> > 2) I will need some assistance converting everything... including
my
> > MIDI setup with the SCALA files, and various "background"
materials that I have been using continuously to compose in Blackjack
>
> Email me everything you've got and I'll see what I can do. I've
> already done the lattice and I will change Manuel's chord list to
> ASCIIfied-Sims notation ASAP. Yes he did use CGDA.
>

Well, that's a great help. I would urge Manuel to *also* adopt some
of the notational conventions we've been using on this list. If *I*
have to do it, why shouldn't *everybody!* :)

His list really "freaked me out" yesterday. Well, I probably could
have figured it out, but I was already upset by all the changes; it
was the proverbial "straw that broke... etc."

> There are a few ways you can go with the keyboard mapping. If you
map the middle C key to a B[ pitch you can leave all your stickers
where they are. Or we can ask the question for the keyboard mapping
that we did for the notation:
>
> What Halberstadt keyboard mapping makes life simplest for someone
> trying to learn Blackjack from scratch, given the CGDA notation
> standard?
>

So, hopefully, there will be some progress on *this* issue as well.
I understand all this takes some time.

I *believe* I can use the cents values that Manuel gave for SCALA
with the G-based Blackjack scale... I *think* I have to use the
command "Map C-linear" to keep middle C as 261Hz... I think.

Probably Manuel will help out with this stuff, if I e-mail him.

> CGDA should make life with your cellist easier. And those fat
chords come out way better in CGDA (most can have 3 naturals in them
under CGDA, whereas they could have none under FCG).
>

OK... so I'm "born again..." I'll "convert" for my next Blackjack
piece, but I may need some help setting it up.

I'm still working on an electronic piece based on the F,C,G
standard. Of course, for an electronic piece there are no notational
requirements, anyway, except in conceptualizing.

So, that means there should be a couple more weeks to straighten all
of this out.

After that, I would *really* appreciate it if the system is *fixed*
and doesn't change again...

How's *that* for a compromise?? :)

JP

Paul, please be careful, OK?

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Jon -- you're clearly spending long periods of time away from this
> list, if you're asking this question. Alison Monteith is in the
> process of building a large set of instruments for Blackjack. She
> specifically wants to use A-440 as one of her pitches. There were a
> _huge_ number of posts on this.

I get the list daily, but I don't spend all my time reading about
subjects I'm not involved in! As I told Joseph, esp. in a follow-up
post, I knew Alison was using Blackjack, but it was unclear to me
that written composition and notation were involved. I remember the
bar instruments (or do I?) and the stringed instruments esp. Of the
excerpts of Alison's music I have heard, all on guitar, they could
easily have been pieces that were improvised or played and memorized.
And I've enjoyed them.

I glad you've spent a lot of time on this, but life is full, and
a "_huge_ number of posts" on a subject that doesn't currently
involve me is not something I'll spend time on. And that is why I
phrased it as "I'm not sure about this...".

OK?

Thanks,
Jon

Hi Folks

Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with Blackjack, I have finished 5 tunable
instruments; two bowed psalteries, two zithers and a large bass mbira. I'm still struggling with
the design of a stand and support for 36 tubular steel bars but this will probably be finished by
Christmas. Oh - and I've made a 'family' of slit drums as well as some glass and metal percussion.

The psalteries have 17 strings each and will have a Blackjack 'octave plus 13 tones spread out
between them. I had contemplated a 12 tone subset but find that hard to work with. With two bows
on each psaltery I can have long sustained tetrads.

The zithers are roughly bass and tenor (48'' and 36"). They are tuned to the same hexany - if the
bass has tones 1,2,3,4,5,6, the tenor has tones 5,6,1' ,2' ,3' ,4'

The mbira or 'rumba box' will have a full Blackjack plus 5 or 6 tones.

I intend to lay out the bars in 3 sets of 12.

I've decided to adopt the C G D A notation system. I appreciate Joseph's problems in converting
and sympathise with him greatly. I'm perhaps lucky in that I make models of my compositional
sketches on a TX - 802. I just need to re - bake a tuning with Jeff Scott's L'il Miss Scale Oven
and re-write a paper strip to stick on to my Master keyboard. I'm conceptualising everything in
scale tone numbers at the moment.

The first pieces to be completed will be for soprano, counter-tenor two zithers and percussion. If
I can work up a good enough synthesised version I might put it up on my webspace. The timescale
for recording the 'live' version depends on how well my singers adapt to Blackjack melody and
harmony, but I don't intend making unreasonable demands.

BTW, I disagree with Gene. Blackjack is an excellent scale to work with. It's much more than a
scale - more like an organic musical system, at least IMHO.

Please shoot some photos and upload them to your web pages!!!

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

----- Original Message -----
From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

> Hi Folks
>
> Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with Blackjack, I
have finished 5 tunable
> instruments; two bowed psalteries, two zithers and a large bass mbira. I'm
still struggling with
> the design of a stand and support for 36 tubular steel bars but this will
probably be finished by
> Christmas. Oh - and I've made a 'family' of slit drums as well as some
glass and metal percussion.
>
> The psalteries have 17 strings each and will have a Blackjack 'octave plus
13 tones spread out
> between them. I had contemplated a 12 tone subset but find that hard to
work with. With two bows
> on each psaltery I can have long sustained tetrads.
>
> The zithers are roughly bass and tenor (48'' and 36"). They are tuned to
the same hexany - if the
> bass has tones 1,2,3,4,5,6, the tenor has tones 5,6,1' ,2' ,3' ,4'
>
> The mbira or 'rumba box' will have a full Blackjack plus 5 or 6 tones.
>
> I intend to lay out the bars in 3 sets of 12.
>
> I've decided to adopt the C G D A notation system. I appreciate Joseph's
problems in converting
> and sympathise with him greatly. I'm perhaps lucky in that I make models
of my compositional
> sketches on a TX - 802. I just need to re - bake a tuning with Jeff
Scott's L'il Miss Scale Oven
> and re-write a paper strip to stick on to my Master keyboard. I'm
conceptualising everything in
> scale tone numbers at the moment.
>
> The first pieces to be completed will be for soprano, counter-tenor two
zithers and percussion. If
> I can work up a good enough synthesised version I might put it up on my
webspace. The timescale
> for recording the 'live' version depends on how well my singers adapt to
Blackjack melody and
> harmony, but I don't intend making unreasonable demands.
>
> BTW, I disagree with Gene. Blackjack is an excellent scale to work with.
It's much more than a
> scale - more like an organic musical system, at least IMHO.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Alison!

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with
> Blackjack

...and etc. Man, that sounds exciting! We're all looking forward to
what will come from this!!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul, please be careful, OK?
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Jon -- you're clearly spending long periods of time away from
this
> > list, if you're asking this question. Alison Monteith is in the
> > process of building a large set of instruments for Blackjack. She
> > specifically wants to use A-440 as one of her pitches. There were
a
> > _huge_ number of posts on this.
>
> I get the list daily, but I don't spend all my time reading about
> subjects I'm not involved in!

And you probably shouldn't, if you have better ways to spend your
time.

> I glad you've spent a lot of time on this, but life is full, and
> a "_huge_ number of posts" on a subject that doesn't currently
> involve me is not something I'll spend time on.

Perfect. Then why jump into this subject with your
condescending "suggestions"? It's rather unnerving. I'm sure your
great wisdom would be very valuable in many circumstances, but save
it for topics you're actively following, OK?

end of discussion -- followups directed to metatuning@yahoogroups.com

David Beardsley wrote:

> Please shoot some photos and upload them to your web pages!!!
>
> * David Beardsley
> * http://biink.com
> * http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>
>
> > Hi Folks
> >
> > Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with Blackjack, I
> have finished 5 tunable
> > instruments; two bowed psalteries, two zithers and a large bass mbira. I'm
> still struggling with
> > the design of a stand and support for 36 tubular steel bars but this will
> probably be finished by
> > Christmas. Oh - and I've made a 'family' of slit drums as well as some
> glass and metal percussion.
> >

Happy to oblige. Coming up soon.

Kind regards

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Alison!
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with
> > Blackjack
>
> ...and etc. Man, that sounds exciting! We're all looking forward to
> what will come from this!!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Me too. Devoting myself to instrument building has been the most rewarding decision I've ever
taken. The hard part is to ignore all the 'successes' that my contemporaries are chalking up with
symphonic and other conventional composition while I cut, bash and measure with saw, hammer and
ruler. Old Harry has been my constant inspiration.

Best Wishes

Alison,

> Devoting myself to instrument building has been the most rewarding
> decision I've ever taken.

Good on you!

> The hard part is to ignore all the 'successes'

Perfectly put in single quotes. :)

> ...that my contemporaries are chalking up with symphonic and
> other conventional composition while I cut, bash and measure with
> saw, hammer and ruler. Old Harry has been my constant inspiration.

I love it. I am in the midst of a major set of new information to go
up on the Partch site, and if you get pics of the instruments and
would like them featured, I'd be happy to put them up on the site in
the "Show Us Your Instruments!" section. Write me offlist and we can
work out the details...

Keep going, I love all of this vicariously...

Cheers,
Jon

>Please shoot some photos and upload them to your web pages!!!

There's a virtual photo album too where list members can post photos.
There's 30 MB of space and I've put the first two photos there.
I was talking with Johnny about the 31-tone piano in Vienna lately
so I've scanned my photo of it again in higher resolution now.
So if the Files folder is getting full, we can make space by moving
pictures to the Photos folder.

Manuel

Joseph wrote:
>I would urge Manuel to *also* adopt some
>of the notational conventions we've been using on this list. If *I*
>have to do it, why shouldn't *everybody!* :)
>His list really "freaked me out" yesterday.

Well I did add Graham's decimal notation to Scala (set notation B72).
You might try using that for Blackjack. Then you only have to cope
with kind of accidental, ^ and v. This might make it easier to
remember the chords. You can look at the list by doing
set notation B72
set maxdiff 5.0
chord/match/cons

Ducking now :)

Manuel

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with
Blackjack, I have finished 5 tunable
> instruments; two bowed psalteries, two zithers and a large bass
mbira. ...

Alison--
Spectacular! Congratulations! Salivating to hear recordings of
music with these someday...

> The mbira or 'rumba box' will have a full Blackjack plus 5 or 6
tones.

And how does it sound? I'm curious-- what materials are you using
for
the "keys" and bridge? (Someday I wanna build one...)

kp

kris peck wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Just to put everyone in the picture as to what I'm doing with
> Blackjack, I have finished 5 tunable
> > instruments; two bowed psalteries, two zithers and a large bass
> mbira. ...
>
> Alison--
> Spectacular! Congratulations! Salivating to hear recordings of
> music with these someday...
>
> > The mbira or 'rumba box' will have a full Blackjack plus 5 or 6
> tones.
>
> And how does it sound? I'm curious-- what materials are you using
> for
> the "keys" and bridge? (Someday I wanna build one...)
>
> kp

I followed the design in Bart Hopkin's 'Making Simple Musical instruments' virtually to the
letter. The top is strengthened with struts underneath and a solid two piece hardwood ( I used
native Scottish hardwoods) bridge is glued on top. Two strips of steel are then glued to the two
piece bridge. The "keys" are 1/8" (or 3/16") spring tempered steel rods bent round bolts which
screw into the steel strips. Then the keys are bent upwards to give them some twang. They are fine
tuned by adjusting the length. This, the Rumba Box, is very much the Queen of mbiras.

I'm no great maker, but the designs I followed from Hopkins' book and "Sound Designs" by R. Banek
and J. Scoville were clear and easy to follow. I would recommend these for ideas on tunable
instruments. There are several books by Dennis Waring. "Making Folk Instruments In Wood" has some
mbira designs. Also check out the very last instrument at : -

http://windworld.com/emi/articles/cohen.htm

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I'm no great maker, but the designs I followed from Hopkins' book
and "Sound Designs" by R. Banek
> and J. Scoville were clear and easy to follow. I would recommend
these for ideas on tunable instruments.

Thanks for the tips. I would enthusiastically second the
recommendation for the Scoville/Banek. I do have Hopkin's general
book on musical instrument design, which is excellent but has little
in the way of specific instrument plans. I'll have to take a look at
his other books. I hope to finally free up enough time to build a
couple new instruments in 2002. Too many simmering ideas, too little
time...