Re: [tuning] Minor second definition sh/could include flat second [bII]

Hi Charles,

> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:54 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Minor second definition sh/could include flat second
[bII]
>
>
> Hi Monz;
> I have been checking your definitions and have a suggested addition to
> the minor second entry.
> To only call this a minor second assumes that it is only used in music
> which can be described as having a minor (or Major?) tonality. This
> excludes all scales lacking a third, which usually determines whether it
> is Major or minor.

Hmmm... OK, I'll put in bII (actually I thought it was already in there).
So then what other names would you give it?

> Why did you write the sourcecode links with targets, (like a pornosite)?
> It fills my browser with webpages in the background, which I then have
> to close, before it overloads and freezes or crashes my Netscape or Opera.

Sorry about that.

A few others have complained about this before too. But it's
my feeling that if a tuning newbie is studying this stuff and
is really hopelessly lost in the terminology, it helps to have
the secondary links open in a separate window so that they may
be consulted as needed while reading and trying to understand
the definition in the primary window.

Of course, I'm expecting that the reader will *close* those
secondary windows when s/he is finished with them. Really, this
is nowhere near as bad as those really intrusive porno and
commercial sites that keep opening new windows every time you
close one... I'm certainly not writing *that* into my HTML.

To the HTML hotshots out there: is it possible to allow the
user to choose whether or not these links open a new window?
(similar to the way some webpages allow you to choose "frames/
no frames"?)

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

monz wrote:

> A few others have complained about this before too. But it's
> my feeling that if a tuning newbie is studying this stuff and
> is really hopelessly lost in the terminology, it helps to have
> the secondary links open in a separate window so that they may
> be consulted as needed while reading and trying to understand
> the definition in the primary window.

Usability studies show that most web users know how to use the back
button, but many get confused when new windows open up.

> To the HTML hotshots out there: is it possible to allow the
> user to choose whether or not these links open a new window?
> (similar to the way some webpages allow you to choose "frames/
> no frames"?)

The user can always choose a new window from the right click menu. Except
for those Apple things, I don't know how they work.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Charles,
>
>
>
> > From: Charles Lucy <lucy@h...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:54 AM
> > Subject: [tuning] Minor second definition sh/could include flat
second
> [bII]
> >
> >
> > Hi Monz;
> > I have been checking your definitions and have a suggested
addition to
> > the minor second entry.
> > To only call this a minor second assumes that it is only used
in music
> > which can be described as having a minor (or Major?)
tonality. This
> > excludes all scales lacking a third, which usually determines
whether it
> > is Major or minor.

This is a very anachronistic argument, and I posted a rebuttal,
but it hasn't appeared yet . . . let's see if it makes it . . .

> Hmmm... OK, I'll put in bII (actually I thought it was already in
>there).

Flat second would seem far worse than minor second based on
the very objections Charles Lucy gave . . . it's flat compared with
what? Compared with the pitches in the modern major tonality!

"It was exciting for me to read that George (Charles's Dad) wanted to call
the first
chromatic interval, a C-Db, a "First"! The "Second" would be indicated by a
C to a C#. George Ives, as quoted in Carol K. Baron's article in American
Music (Fall 1992) was critical of conventional nomenclature. This included
all the usual culprits, the interval names, the written notation, the octave.
George said that "If" one uses the notation for real sounds learned, then it
could be used more effectively. It seems to me that his son took up the
challenge. This is likely the origin for Charles's positioning of Db
(George's hypothetical single space) being lower in pitch than a C# (George's
hypothetical second space). Charles decided to take his father's suggestion
to heart, bringing it to its natural conclusion as important sound structures
for the fertile imagination of his experimental genre."

[a selection from my upcoming book "The Ives Universe"] George Ives didn't
like the present day nomenclature either.

Johnny Reinhard

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:50 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Minor second definition sh/could include flat second
[bII]
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting--what would
> > >
> > > 1--10/9--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--15/8
> > >
> > > be called by these various authors, I wonder?
> >
> > I was talking about terminological distinctions in the naming of
> > _intervals_. As for entire modes, you'll occasionally find some names
> > given, for example this one is often referred to as "Redfield" or
> > something like that.
>
> Thanks--you've given me the name of the fellow who started
> me on this scale business, by coming up with the above,
> and then saying you could have seven modes of this, as
> well as seven modes of diatonic. I was pretty impressed,
> but of course all I knew was what Redfield had told me.

Thanks, Paul! Jan Haluska (in the addendum to my "diatonic"
definition which you've found problematic) mentions "Redfield
scales", and I always wondered what they were!

This particular scale was the one given by Rameau as his
reference diatonic major scale, in _Traite de l'Harmonie_, 1722.
Considering the huge influence that book had on European
music and theory, I'd say that scale merits some investigation.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com