Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning no decent alt. keyboard photos in the public domain

Carl,

In your Wikipedia microtonal entry you list Johnny
Reinhard and mention "Polymicrotonally". Shouldn't
that read "Polymicrotonality"

Mark

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> George, all of your keyboards are marked
> copyrighted;
> Wendy Carlos and Wilson's keyboards the same.
>
> Can't somebody submit something for the public
> domain?
> I'm trying to improve on the photo here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
>
> -Carl
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

🔗Mark Rankin <markrankin95511@yahoo.com>

Carl,

In your Wikipedia microtonal entry under Recent
Microtonal Composers you list Johnny Reinhard and
include mention of "Polymicrotonally" (sic). I
presume you meant that to read "Polymicrotonality".

Mark

Recent Microtonal Composers
--- Mark Rankin <markrankin95511@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Carl,
>
> In your Wikipedia microtonal entry you list Johnny
> Reinhard and mention "Polymicrotonally". Shouldn't
> that read "Polymicrotonality"
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > George, all of your keyboards are marked
> > copyrighted;
> > Wendy Carlos and Wilson's keyboards the same.
> >
> > Can't somebody submit something for the public
> > domain?
> > I'm trying to improve on the photo here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers
> from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it
> out.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> George, all of your keyboards are marked copyrighted;
> Wendy Carlos and Wilson's keyboards the same.
>
> Can't somebody submit something for the public domain?
> I'm trying to improve on the photo here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
>
> -Carl

Hi Carl,

Which keyboard diagram(s) do you want to use? You have my permission
to use any of these for non-commercial purposes, and you may indicate
this by including the words "used by permission" in a caption.

Or does Wikipedia not permit any use of copyrighted material? If
that's the case, I could remove the copyright notice from either of
the two Scalatron keyboard diagrams (KbScal31.gif, KbScal5C, gif),
since I'm not really claiming to be the originator of the keyboard
geometry (Bosanquet's) or the idea of using an elongated key shape
oriented slightly diagonally (an adaptation of Erv Wilson's
hexagons), so it's essentially only the drawing for which I'm taking
credit. (All of my other keyboard diagrams illustrate my own
designs.)

Another, perhaps better, alternative is that I could take a digital
photograph of an actual Scalatron generalized keyboard and send it to
you.

--George

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> Or does Wikipedia not permit any use of copyrighted material? If
> that's the case, I could remove the copyright notice from either of
> the two Scalatron keyboard diagrams (KbScal31.gif, KbScal5C, gif),
> since I'm not really claiming to be the originator of the keyboard
> geometry (Bosanquet's) or the idea of using an elongated key shape
> oriented slightly diagonally (an adaptation of Erv Wilson's
> hexagons), so it's essentially only the drawing for which I'm
> taking credit. (All of my other keyboard diagrams illustrate my
> own designs.)

Yes, you'd have to release the drawing into the public domain.
I think it'd be great if you did... there doesn't seem to be
anything decent on the web currently. Just pick your favorite
keyboard. Check out the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music

If you're not up for it, just let me know, and I'll draw
something up.

> Another, perhaps better, alternative is that I could take a
> digital photograph of an actual Scalatron generalized keyboard
> and send it to you.

That would be fantastic! Actually, if you could do both it
would be fantastic. Put the mapping graphic on the generalized
keyboard article, and the photograph on the article above.
If you don't want to mess with wikipedia, just send them to me.

Thanks!

-Carl

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > Or does Wikipedia not permit any use of copyrighted material? If
> > that's the case, I could remove the copyright notice from either
of
> > the two Scalatron keyboard diagrams (KbScal31.gif, KbScal5C,
gif),
> > since I'm not really claiming to be the originator of the
keyboard
> > geometry (Bosanquet's) or the idea of using an elongated key shape
> > oriented slightly diagonally (an adaptation of Erv Wilson's
> > hexagons), so it's essentially only the drawing for which I'm
> > taking credit. (All of my other keyboard diagrams illustrate my
> > own designs.)
>
> Yes, you'd have to release the drawing into the public domain.
> I think it'd be great if you did... there doesn't seem to be
> anything decent on the web currently. Just pick your favorite
> keyboard.

Okay, I've removed the copyright notice from the KbScal31.gif file in:
/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/
so anyone is free to use it for whatever purpose.

The labeling corresponds to a 31-tone mapping, and the key colors are
the ones used on two of the three generalized-keyboard Scalatrons
that were made in the late 1970's. Because the duplicate keys were
hard-wired to play duplicate pitches on those two instruments (which
were not capable of having more than 31 tones/octave at one time),
they were not intended to be used when the instrument was tuned to
octave divisions other than 31. Thus the key coloring used in the
outer rows is not really meaningful for most applications outside of
a 31-tone context.

The third GK Scalatron (procured by Paul Rapoport for McMaster Univ.,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) had 55 keys/octave, with no hard-wired
duplicate keys, with more colors (in an alternating 7-light 5-dark
pattern). Therefore, all of its keys could be used for any tuning
consisting of a single chain of fifths. The lack of a sufficient
number of duplicate keys for the larger divisions (41, 46, 53, and
55) that could be mapped on this instrument was remedied by my
recommendation to include a foot-operated toggle switch that
instantly shifted the tuning alternately up and down by two commas,
thereby moving pitches near the edges of the keyboard to centrally
located rows of keys (and vice versa). This instrument completely
exploited the possibilities of the Bosanquet keyboard geometry, given
the technology available at the time.

> Check out the article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
>
> If you're not up for it, just let me know, and I'll draw
> something up.

I think it would be better to use my drawing, because it shows the
details and actual dimensions of a keyboard design that was not only
manufactured, but also successfully used.

> > Another, perhaps better, alternative is that I could take a
> > digital photograph of an actual Scalatron generalized keyboard
> > and send it to you.
>
> That would be fantastic! Actually, if you could do both it
> would be fantastic.

I put a photograph, filename GenKbd.jpg, in the same folder as the
above file. I saved it using maximum compression (250 KB), but I
suspect that's still too large for your purposes. If you'll specify
a more appropriate resolution and/or file size, I'll resave the
original file (>1 MB) accordingly. (I'm thinking that 1/4 of the
existing resolution might be good.)

> Put the mapping graphic on the generalized
> keyboard article, and the photograph on the article above.
> If you don't want to mess with wikipedia, just send them to me.

Having read about the problems others in the alternative-tunings
community have experienced in attempting to make helpful
contributions to Wikipedia, I don't care to get involved with it.
Please use the diagram and photo as you see fit.

Best,

--George

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> >...
> [GS:]
> > > Another, perhaps better, alternative is that I could take a
> > > digital photograph of an actual Scalatron generalized keyboard
> > > and send it to you.
> >
> > That would be fantastic! Actually, if you could do both it
> > would be fantastic.
>
> I put a photograph, filename GenKbd.jpg, in the same folder as the
> above file. I saved it using maximum compression (250 KB), but I
> suspect that's still too large for your purposes. If you'll
specify
> a more appropriate resolution and/or file size, I'll resave the
> original file (>1 MB) accordingly. (I'm thinking that 1/4 of the
> existing resolution might be good.)

Carl, I decided that a smaller file would be more practical, so I've
replaced the photo with another that's 1/8 the original resolution,
(only 41 KB, filename GenKbd.jpg):
/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/

--George

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

George Secor wrote...

> Okay, I've removed the copyright notice from the KbScal31.gif
> file in:
> /tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/
> so anyone is free to use it for whatever purpose.

Wonderful! Thanks!!

> The labeling corresponds to a 31-tone mapping, and the key
> colors are the ones used on two of the three generalized-
> keyboard Scalatrons that were made in the late 1970's. Because
> the duplicate keys were hard-wired to play duplicate pitches
> on those two instruments (which were not capable of having
> more than 31 tones/octave at one time), they were not intended
> to be used when the instrument was tuned to octave divisions
> other than 31. Thus the key coloring used in the outer rows
> is not really meaningful for most applications outside of
> a 31-tone context.
>
> The third GK Scalatron (procured by Paul Rapoport for McMaster
> Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) had 55 keys/octave, with no
> hard-wired duplicate keys, with more colors (in an alternating
> 7-light 5-dark pattern). Therefore, all of its keys could be
> used for any tuning consisting of a single chain of fifths.
> The lack of a sufficient number of duplicate keys for the larger
> divisions (41, 46, 53, and 55) that could be mapped on this
> instrument was remedied by my recommendation to include a
> foot-operated toggle switch that instantly shifted the tuning
> alternately up and down by two commas, thereby moving pitches
> near the edges of the keyboard to centrally located rows of
> keys (and vice versa). This instrument completely exploited
> the possibilities of the Bosanquet keyboard geometry, given
> the technology available at the time.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of these differences in
Paul's instrument.

> > Check out the article:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
> >
> > If you're not up for it, just let me know, and I'll draw
> > something up.
>
> I think it would be better to use my drawing, because it shows
> the details and actual dimensions of a keyboard design that was
> not only manufactured, but also successfully used.

I agree.

> > > Another, perhaps better, alternative is that I could take a
> > > digital photograph of an actual Scalatron generalized keyboard
> > > and send it to you.
> >
> > That would be fantastic! Actually, if you could do both it
> > would be fantastic.
>
> I put a photograph, filename GenKbd.jpg, in the same folder as
> the above file. I saved it using maximum compression (250 KB),
> but I suspect that's still too large for your purposes. If
> you'll specify a more appropriate resolution and/or file size,
> I'll resave the original file (>1 MB) accordingly. (I'm
> thinking that 1/4 of the existing resolution might be good.)

Oh no, please post the original! Wikipedia would love to have
it. There will be a thumbnail in the article that links to it.
If there's not room in the Yahoo! folder, just send it to me
off-list.

Thanks!!

> Having read about the problems others in the alternative-tunings
> community have experienced in attempting to make helpful
> contributions to Wikipedia, I don't care to get involved with it.
> Please use the diagram and photo as you see fit.

No problem. Wikipedia is certainly a political process.
However, I think many of the complaints voiced here have been,
shall we say, rather more reflective of the complainers than
the encyclopedia.

-Carl

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> George Secor wrote...
> > ...
> > I put a photograph, filename GenKbd.jpg, in the same folder as
> > the above file. I saved it using maximum compression (250 KB),
> > but I suspect that's still too large for your purposes. If
> > you'll specify a more appropriate resolution and/or file size,
> > I'll resave the original file (>1 MB) accordingly. (I'm
> > thinking that 1/4 of the existing resolution might be good.)

I subsequently wrote another message saying that I'd replaced the
file with one that's even smaller (1/8 resolution), and I'll be
leaving that one (only 41 KB, filename GenKbd.jpg) permanently:
/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/

> Oh no, please post the original! Wikipedia would love to have
> it.

I doubt that you really need something that large, unless you're
thinking of making a poster. I took the picture with a 5.1M-pixel
camera, and the image fills the screen when viewed at 33% actual
size. I've temporarily put back the file I originally had there (246
KB, now named GenKbd1b.jpg), which is full resolution (with high
compression), so you can see for yourself. I don't see any point in
putting the 1.37 MB source file out there (full resolution, with
lower compression), because I was hard pressed to see any significant
differences between the two, zoomed in to 100%.

I also temporarily put a 1/4-resolution file out there (91 KB,
filename GenKbd1c.jpg), which fills about 3/4 of the screen (viewed
at 100%), so you'll have something in-between to choose from.

--George

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > I put a photograph, filename GenKbd.jpg, in the same folder as
> > > the above file. I saved it using maximum compression (250 KB),
> > > but I suspect that's still too large for your purposes. If
> > > you'll specify a more appropriate resolution and/or file size,
> > > I'll resave the original file (>1 MB) accordingly. (I'm
> > > thinking that 1/4 of the existing resolution might be good.)
>
> I subsequently wrote another message saying that I'd replaced the
> file with one that's even smaller (1/8 resolution),

I'm pretending I didn't read that. :)

> > Oh no, please post the original! Wikipedia would love to have
> > it.
>
> I doubt that you really need something that large, unless you're
> thinking of making a poster. I took the picture with a 5.1M-pixel
> camera, and the image fills the screen when viewed at 33% actual
> size. I've temporarily put back the file I originally had there
> (246 KB, now named GenKbd1b.jpg), which is full resolution (with
> high compression),

Please light jpeg only!

> so you can see for yourself. I don't see any point in
> putting the 1.37 MB source file out there (full resolution, with
> lower compression), because I was hard pressed to see any
> significant differences between the two, zoomed in to 100%.

The problem is if anyone wants to edit it in the future, the
compression artifacts are cumulative. The original can
be downsampled to any size. If you downsample it, the lost
data can't be restored.

Think of the near future where displays will be 300dpi.
Then your thumbnail will be the size of a gnat. Please
upload full size for future happiness. Thank you!

> I also temporarily put a 1/4-resolution file out there (91 KB,
> filename GenKbd1c.jpg), which fills about 3/4 of the screen (viewed
> at 100%), so you'll have something in-between to choose from.

One of my unofficial degrees is in image processing.
I used to process images for a major magazine.

-Carl

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> ...
> > > Oh no, please post the original! Wikipedia would love to have
> > > it.
> >
> > I doubt that you really need something that large, unless you're
> > thinking of making a poster. I took the picture with a 5.1M-
pixel
> > camera, and the image fills the screen when viewed at 33% actual
> > size. I've temporarily put back the file I originally had there
> > (246 KB, now named GenKbd1b.jpg), which is full resolution (with
> > high compression),
>
> Please light jpeg only!
>
> > so you can see for yourself. I don't see any point in
> > putting the 1.37 MB source file out there (full resolution, with
> > lower compression), because I was hard pressed to see any
> > significant differences between the two, zoomed in to 100%.
>
> The problem is if anyone wants to edit it in the future, the
> compression artifacts are cumulative. The original can
> be downsampled to any size. If you downsample it, the lost
> data can't be restored.
>
> Think of the near future where displays will be 300dpi.
> Then your thumbnail will be the size of a gnat. Please
> upload full size for future happiness. Thank you!

Okay, I get it now. There are actually two generations
of "originals", which I just put out there:
GenKbd1.jpg - The original jpg file as it was offloaded from the
camera.
GenKbd1a.jpg - The original file with the image brightened somewhat,
cropped very slightly (so that the options for lower resolution that
I had would result in exact 1/n-pixel conversions), then saved with
compression comparable to the original.

I intend to delete all of these (except for the smallest file) after
a few days, so get 'em while you can.

--George

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Think of the near future where displays will be 300dpi.
> > Then your thumbnail will be the size of a gnat. Please
> > upload full size for future happiness. Thank you!
>
> Okay, I get it now. There are actually two generations
> of "originals", which I just put out there:
> GenKbd1.jpg - The original jpg file as it was offloaded from the
> camera.
> GenKbd1a.jpg - The original file with the image brightened
> somewhat, cropped very slightly (so that the options for lower
> resolution that I had would result in exact 1/n-pixel conversions),
> then saved with compression comparable to the original.
>
> I intend to delete all of these (except for the smallest file) after
> a few days, so get 'em while you can.
>
> --George

Thanks a million. I promise I'll make them look wonderful.
I'll post when the changes are up.

-Carl