User talk:Rainwarrior/Archive 1

Archive 1: 2007-2022

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks for the welcoming welcome! Rainwarrior 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Hyacinth 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales
Welcome to the project, and thanks for the nice user box! Are you on the tuning list? —Keenan Pepper 02:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've known about the tuning list, but I've never joined. I'll take a look. (The only really visible thing I've done in the internet microtonality community was write the windows MIDI tuning program called "Intun"... I should put that back up somewhere, it hasn't been available for a while.) Rainwarrior 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pipes and Drums
Good call on the bolding. Michael Dorosh 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I ended up on "Pipes and Drums" from the redirected "Pipe band", so it kind of stuck out to me that it wasn't in bold as per wikipedia's guidelines. Rainwarrior 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Links on piano tuning, absolute pitch and elsewhere
Greetings: I chimed in with just a small comment where you requested. In my opinion, we should avoid commercial links unless they happen to include really significant content that is not duplicated in the article: some of our articles turn into link farms very quickly.

And while I'm thinking of it: I'm glad you're here. A belated welcome to Wikipedia from me, a few months late: we need more people knowledgeable about music, tuning, theory, Slonimsky, and other good things. Happy editing, Antandrus  (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! - Rainwarrior 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute pitch
The histories of deleted articles are preserved for a while (or forever?). The capability may be restricted to administrators, but go to the deleted article (as if you were creating an article with the deleted title) and the edit box page will open. There should be a button near page history etc that says "View X deleted edits" (X being the number of edits in the edit history) which takes you to a page that lists all the edits (generally you choose the most recent). I suggest Deletion policy,  and Undeletion policy, but I can't find where I learned this information. Hyacinth 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's definitely a feature that is restricted to sysops, (myself, I don't actually have such a button). Thanks. - Rainwarrior 21:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bumblefoot
I've noticed your category that Bumblefoot has absolute pitch. Can you verify this with a source, please? I suggest looking at WP:Verifiable for info about this. Death2 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew this would happen. The category was a replacement for a page which was recently deleted listing persons with absolute pitch. There was originally a citation for it on that page, but I did not come up with that citation myself so I am unable to provide it (not having access to the deleted page). Ask your question at Talk:Absolute pitch, and someone may be able to answer it there. - Rainwarrior 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, he may well have a perfect pitch. But what's the point in creating the category when the list was deleted by many votes pro. Can we contact Bumblefoot and ask him :) ? Death2 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think inclusion in a category requires a verifiable source. Categories are a navigational aid, not a source of information. For example, Wikipedia is not claiming that all the members of Category:Pseudoscience are actually pseudoscience, because that would violate NPOV. The point of that category is to help people find articles about pseudoscientific theories when they can't remember their names. If someone was trying to find the article on Bumblefoot, but couldn't remember his name, only that he supposedly has perfect pitch (perhaps an unlikely situation, but possible), it would help that someone find it. It doesn't matter if he actually has perfect pitch or not. —Keenan Pepper 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The circumstances of its deletion were a bit crummy, I think. I actually agreed with the deletion beacuse I thought it should be a category instead, but it happened while I wasn't watching and all of the info was lost (sort of... sysops can get to it). What's the point of having it? Mainly to keep the Absolute pitch page from getting cluttered by a gigantic list of people who might have it. (As a category instead we will no longer have to clean up vanity entries, and the list is automatically maintainted.) - Rainwarrior 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And, yeah, if you've got the means, why not ask him? - Rainwarrior 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: IIRC / GDFL ?
I responded to your concerns about my egregious acronym usage at my talk page. Thanks. TheProject 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign languages in cadence (music)
Please see my note at Talk:Cadence (music). I haven't reinserted the German names but wait for your opinion on how to approach it. Rigadoun 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I have replied there. - Rainwarrior 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Piano tuning revisions
Good work on the revisions to Piano tuning. A definite improvement. Carboncopy 18:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd been meaning to do that for a while. - Rainwarrior 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Railsback
... and thanks for suggesting this sensible merger. Opus33 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Marking unsigned comments
Did you know there's a template, Template:Unsigned, specifically for marking unsigned comments? Use it like this: name of author. —Keenan Pepper 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks! I'll try it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainwarrior (talk • contribs).

Spinet
Thanks for watching over spinet, Rainwarrior. I think the longer article I've put up there doesn't omit anything you had included. If you can check it over for errors I would appreciate it.

Yours truly, Opus33 19:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What you've written looks good. I'll give it a full read in a moment; I just copied the stuff you had removed from the Piano page to hold it over while you were working on it. We might want to put a more prominent link on the Piano page to this new article. - Rainwarrior 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Marudubshinki running unauthorized bots
I think it's time this was dealt with. See WP:AN/I. -- SCZenz 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - Rainwarrior 20:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing List of polytonal pieces
The above article has been deleted, as requested.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - Rainwarrior 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinet image
Hi Rainwarrior, I noticed your suggestion about how to make the spinet image legal after I had already implemented a quick-and-easy suggestion from MarkBuckles. Clearly, what you propose will be the right next step to take if the quickie solution doesn't pass muster. Thanks for your help, Opus33 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've had problems with the image policy bots myself, so I hate seeing it happen to others. ;) - Rainwarrior 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tritone
Thank you for correcting me on that. It seemed like a reasonably correct legend, but then again it originated from my dad (who is like that uncle everybody has who can do that thing with the coin on his elbow, you know what I mean?) so it's probably not infallible. --Pika132


 * Discussion continued at User talk:Pika132.

Hi
Hi Rainwarrior! I just wanted to say hello since I've seen you around on several music-related articles. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I'd like to get to know more of the music editors. Thanks for your response on the Conducting talk page. I must have added that tag while I was just browsing through and forgot to come back and list examples - I just left a rather exhaustive list. Most of the issues are really rather minor, but I think it would help the article a lot to state much of the same information in a different way. Anyway, just wanted to say hello. Cheers, MarkBuckles (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! Yes, a list of things that need improvement is quite a good idea. Actually, now that you've given your reasoning for a list of things you want to change, it would be fine for you to edit the article yourself. That's a really good way to edit, actually, so when you make a lot of changes that you can't just explain in the edit summary, you leave your reasons on the talk page, that way others can understand your reasoning. (Often when someone makes changes without any explanation, they just get reverted.) - Rainwarrior 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Art and Craft
Conversation begins at User_talk:David_Sneek.

Re: Le marteau sans maître, of course there is an overlap between "art" and "craftsmanship", but I'd say "art" touches more on the aesthetic and expressive aspects, while "craft" and "craftsmanship" suggest the skill involved, the techniques that have to be mastered. French "artisanat" and "artisan" - like English artisan - refer to that; in the CD booklet of the recording Boulez made recently on Deutsche Grammophon "l'artisanat furieux" is translated as "furious handicraft". "Mad craft" would perhaps be an alternative, suggesting both the violent, frenetic side his music can have and the expertise and meticulousness with which he prepares and executes it. Fine article, by the way. David Sneek 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Conversation continues at User_talk:David_Sneek.

Boulez Sonatas
Maybe we can divide them between us. If you write about the first and second sonatas, I'll do number three. David Sneek 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Continued at User talk:David Sneek.

Hello. Congratulations for the new article. Wouldn't you like to add a "Recordings" section to it ? I actually studied with Claude Helffer who recorded all three of them. There is also a recording by Idil Biret and a few others. Good day. Baruch1677 07:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have good knowledge of the recordings of these works, please, be my guest and add it to the article. - Rainwarrior 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for your message and the invitation. I'll add the recordings soon! Baruch1677 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

TeX
Although TeX looks very good when "displayed" on Wikipedia, thus:


 * $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty 1\,dx,$$

nonetheless it often looks terrible when it is "inline", thus: $$e^x$$ (although its appearance is browser-dependent). When subscripts or superscripts are involved, it can get badly misaligned, and characters appear comically gigantic on some browsers. Hence your recent edit to homogeneous coordinates may not be an improvement. Michael Hardy 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what we had there was "R^2:(x,y) -> (x+a,y+b)", which I thought looked awful. Are you saying that it looked better that way? I would agree that wikipedia often does a poor job with inline equations (this is a problem I hope they will eventually resolve), but I am uncertain what you are suggesting as an alternative. - Rainwarrior 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion taken to User talk:Michael Hardy.

Microtonal music
Hello, Rainwarrior! I added a reference to the History section of Microtonal Music (regarding the 3mu), and somehow your signature was placed within my comments on the "Discussion" page. I thought you might want to restore it to it's appropriate location. Prof.rick 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The signature had been there before. What you did was place your new comment between the last line of my comment and my signature. The usual procedure is to produce a new comment section by clicking the + tab at the top of the page, which adds the new section at the bottom of the page. I am not sure why you chose to insert your comment to the middle, but in the future you should probably put them at the bottom to avoid these problems. - Rainwarrior 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion referenced at User talk:Prof.rick.

Sorry for misplacement!
Rainwarrior: Sorry I placed my comments before your signature. I am a newbie, and at times, quite dumb. Prof.rick 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. At least you know now, eh? - Rainwarrior 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You bet I know!
Hi, Rainwarrior! First, again I'm sorry about the misplacement of a comment. (I now know enough to use the "+" button!) Thanks for your help!

I don't know what you think of the "case" I have presented: that the 1/8 semitone (of ET) should be recognized as a viable interval. It forms the basis of major works of Carrillo, as well as many of his "disciples", such as Haba, and is also a recognized MIDI unit (known as "3mu"). If you type 3mu into your Google Search, you will find it substantiated. I think this very small interval is becoming increasing important in microtonal music of the 21st century, and is so easily expressed as the 139/138 ratio. Realizing that we define the octave in powers of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), it just seems that one of the natural directions of microtonal music should be to treat the ET semitone reciprocally (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc., NOT TO EXCLUDE other approaches to microtonal music such as the 1/3 semitone (implied by Phi...if you have questions about this one, ask me!), or division of any specific interval into any specific number of subdivisions.

Our response to music is so subjective. Personally, I find a "phi" scale as satisfying as Lucy tuning. (Instead of expanding intervals, it "shrinks" them, ever so slightly.)

Frequencies, after all, are a continuum. Yet logical divisions seem to add "logic" to microtonal music, making it coherent and at times, even pleasing to the ears! I believe, as musicians, we have a responsibility to compose music which moves the emotions and, in turn, behaviour, toward positive paths.

I know you are a busy person, especially with your intense involvement in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I would really enjoy and appreciate you feedback on the above comments. Prof.rick 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my opinion on the 3mu is that it is quite an obscure term, and your suggested google search only turns up one page that uses it in the context of tuning. That tonalsoft article, and your mention of it are the only mentions of it I have ever seen. Furthermore, I don't see how it relates to MIDI at all, since the MIDI pitch bend is a 14-bit number usually distributed over 4 semitones, giving some 4096 divisions of the semitone. I don't know where this business of 8 comes from.


 * As for tuning by a 1/8 of a semitone, I really haven't heard of that, either. I think the Carrillo bio page deserves mention of the interval (which it has). And if we want to mention it in passing on the Microtonal music page, I don't see why shouldn't. Looking at this "history" section though, it is disturbingly sparse. I actually haven't edited the article yet myself, I don't think, but I do think it needs much improvement as to history. Where's Partch, Holder, Mersenne, Mercator, Gallileo, Tartini, Ives, etc...?


 * Okay, so that is commentary on what you have said, but are you asking me about how the page should look? I'm not sure if there is a question in there that I am not answering... but, ask again if there is. - Rainwarrior 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage suggestion - thanks
Rainwarrior, thanks for your tag usage clarification - I was mistaken in my understanding of the tag and was rather anticipating someone else using it and thus saying to them in advance "yes, you're right, but I can't find it right now". Hmm I probably have a few more to fix... Carry on. Baccyak4H 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A good thing to do with this kind of information is to bring it up on the talk page. Sometimes someone there can substantiate it for you, but in the article, it'll just get removed and forgotten. - Rainwarrior 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Second
Hi Rainwarrior, I have added a few comments to the discussion page on the Minor second Article (sections 20, 21, 22). I hope you will check them out, and consider my suggestions. I noticed that Hyacinth had placed a "To Do" list on the page, which included some archiving. (I feel that items 1 through 17 could be archived, since they pertain to Articles which no longer exist.) They also tend to make the page long and confusing for editing. Thanks, Prof.rick 00:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When you make replies, click the "edit" link next to the specific heading that you are replying under, this confines your edit to that area of the page, and makes things simpler. I don't think we should archive anything at the moment, as most of it has recent comments, and the talk page is currently under heavy use. When it calms down and the things are no longer relavant, maybe then it should be archived. (Also, these things don't pertain to articles that no longer exist, because Minor second is now all of those articles. It was merged.) - Rainwarrior 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sonata
I have lots of problems with Noetica's edits, and I consider it bad form to mix copy editting with a revert, and then have people complain about the loss of copy editting as a way of continuing the revert war. I think it best that the issues get resolved on the talk page, not mixed in with copy editting. It is also fairly clear that Noetica regards this as an edit war, not as collegial editting, and it is probably best to lower the temperature. There's no reason for the hostility in the edit summaries I've seen from Noetica. Stirling Newberry 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * reply by Rainwarrior at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry

I reverted because you took dumped gasoline on a revert war. Noetica, not I, is the one who removed material without putting anything on the talk page. I've reverted to the version where you inserted Harry (arguable but not an argument I'm going to engage in since I don't specialize in the period in question). You will also note that I already had put something on the talk page about resolving these issues - I think our edits crossed, so I will leave it at this.

Stirling Newberry 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * reply by Rainwarrior at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry

I'm going to again call for lowering the temperature accusing me of being angry, when I am not, isn't a good way to do this. This is about the content on the sonata article, and our duty to our readers to get it right. Stirling Newberry 17:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Rainwarrior. First of all, thanks: both for posting some useful advice at my page, and for looking after things conscientiously at the Sonata article. At the moment I prefer not to say anything on the Discussion page about recent edits. As things stand, I think the article has now been improved, and I am pleased to have had some part in that. I hope it will be clear, from the record that Wikipedia keeps of these things, that my edits are careful and well-intentioned, and that they usually work towards readability, accuracy, clearer style, correctness in grammar and punctuation, and general consistency in an article. If this is not the case, I am more than happy for my work to be undone! I do not currently engage in dialogue with Stirling Newberry, whose rudeness and intransigence were among my reasons for leaving Wikipedia for more than a year. I'm back now, and I very much enjoy collaborating with editors like you. – Noetica 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I note the bad faith edit ganging and personal attacks. Since the best way of dealing with these matters is to avoid them I will not edit this page in the main. I am protesting the bad faith and personal attacks, but am not in any mood to engage in an edit war unless there is some substansive issue (such as the number of movments in a Haydn sonata) at issue. You win, but under protest.

Good day.

Stirling Newberry 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I win what? What is bad faith edit ganging? In what way have I personally attacked you? This is a confusing message. - Rainwarrior 06:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I think the Sonata article is shaping up really nicely. Just one thing: I'm not sure what you find ambiguous in this sentence:


 * Both theorists argued that tonality, and hence sonata structure in tonal form, was essentially hierarchical, and that what is immediately audible is subordinate to large-scale movements of harmony.

I agree it may not be the most felicitous of constructions; I was trying not to inferfere too much with what was there. Anyway, this is just curiosity on my part, because I'm happy enough with your change, if not with the whole sentence as it now stands, as I am about to explain.

I share your concern with sequence of tenses, and I think that systematic work on it needs to be done throughout the article. For example, look at the sentence I have just quoted, which we have both already worked on: why should it have  was essentially hierarchical, rather than  is essentially hierarchical? (For that matter, why not are, since arguably the subject is plural.) We've both already made some progress with such things. I might run through the whole article with an eye on tenses and the like, sometime; but if you want to do it (with perhaps some tweaking from me, afterwards), I have not the slightest objection. – Noetica 05:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it should be is or are (I don't think it matters which). I missed that one. Anyhow, the meaning of the sentence isn't ambiguous, but reading it, the grammar becomes difficult to resolve for me, which is what I meant by ambiguous. I think it is awkward because it is not immediately clear whether the subject is "that what is immediately audible" or just "what is immediately audible". Because the former doesn't really work out in the end (once the sentence gets fully resolved in my mind), it defaults to the latter, but only after a moment's pause for me. In short, I wanted to revise its wording because I found it difficult to read. (My initial incorrect switch to "that which" from "that what" stemmed directly from this difficulty.)


 * As for the page, I'm happy with it for the moment, I think. It still has problems, but it's readable enough I think. It's in good enough form that I'd rather work on other articles for a while. I'll still be watching it though, and I'll comment if I think of anything. - Rainwarrior 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Rainwarrior. I now think I'll leave the article for a little while, too, and just be vigilant for problems that may arise in it. Note the small change I have made involving "held" and "argued", in response to your change. Perhaps the lesson for us both is that we should sometimes be more bold, and forge clear sentences from scratch, rather than tinkering with complex constructions that we come across. I sometimes hesitate to do that, because authorial feathers can get ruffled! Best wishes to you. – Noetica 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. I understand that change. English is weird for having so many synonyms. I find authors in other languages aren't often so hung up on "tiring out" words. Nevertheless, I agree with the change... this is a problem with editing a small part, sometime I lose track of the whole. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I don't mean to bother you unduly about this, but I'd like a second opinion on something at History of sonata form. As you know, I've been working on a number of the sonata-related articles, and it's been hard to achieve the kind of consensus we would like in Wikipedia work. Would you please glance at the sentence that has recently been reverted? I can't see how it is grammatical, or at all helpful to readers. We need to make these things much clearer and less bloated. Same also at Sonata form, especially with the whole awkward paragraph beginning "The term sonata form is related to sonata,...". I'd be grateful for your comments. – Noetica 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've undone the reversion and left a comment on the talk page. As for Sonata form, I agree that the wording is quite awkward of that paragraph, but right now I don't wish to take the time to read the talk page and review the edit history before I begin making edits. I'll put these pages on my to-do list. If you'd like me to comment on any particular changes (like this reversion), feel free to ask, but otherwise I'm not going to poke my nose into those pages just yet. - Rainwarrior 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These matters are somewhat delicate, and I understand your not wanting to be involved too closely in the articles in question. I myself have avoided them for a long time, having other complex areas to engage me. I may be back with more another time. Meanwhile, many thanks for your careful attention to the point that I raised. Happy editing! – Noetica 23:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more, there are continuing problems with the series of articles on sonata, sonata form, criticism and sonata form, history of sonata form, recent theory in the exegetics of postmodern views of neocolonialist acceptations concerning the history of the sonata form, etc. I see you have had a... conversation about this, in a discussion page. Frankly, I don't see how progress can be made unless someone initiates an RFC, or complains to the appropriate Wiki-authorities, or similar. I am unfamiliar with the procedures involved. Any ideas? I think I might draw all of this to the attention of an admin who is also an avid editor in music articles. Meanwhile, take a look at recent edits at Sonata form concerning the very meaning of sonata form. That whole article is steadily deteriorating. It's getting more and more laughable, if it were not a tragic waste of effort and time. – Noetica 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the following at User_talk:Antandrus:


 * == Sonata problems ==


 * Hi Antandrus. It's been a long time since we've caught up with each other. I see you're still a keen editor of music articles. I'm now approaching you in that capacity, and in your role as an admin. There have been continuing difficulties at Sonata form and History of sonata form, along with other articles addressing sonata (of which there are far too many, but that's another matter). I would be very grateful if you would review the situation, looking at those two articles and also at their talk pages. A useful conspectus of some of the issues is to be found at User_talk:Rainwarrior. As you know, I am a serious editor in these areas, and I have been patient (well, I also call a spade a spade in edit summaries). But I now need some advice from you about the best way forward. If things can't be put on a better footing, I fear that the suite of articles on musical form, in which Wikipedia has a genuine opportunity to excel, will be jeopardised. Thanks! – Noetica 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Antandrus is very wise and active as an editor and admin. If anyone can sort something out here, I think he can. – Noetica 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Czerny
He published at least 800 opus numbers (one of the most published is opus 821) - the 80 there don't even get to his first symphony I think, and the second symphony is past opus 700... - so no, not complete yet! Thanks - Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh okay. I don't know a lot about Czerny, but I figured the list was likely to be incomplete given the comment on the article page. - Rainwarrior 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies!
Whoops sorry about that. I saw someone's post on some French discussion topic asking for help with the pronunciation so I put down the pronunciation according to the orthography I saw. Apologies. - Retroviseur 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. His name is a tricky one, anyway. ;) - Rainwarrior 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

talk page - semitone
Please, I'm almost done! If I can just add another couple of lines, then I HOPE you can help me move it! Prof.rick 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

moving new semitones talk section
I've also left this message on my own talk page. I am a slow learner...I want to follow your suggestions, but I'm clueless. Is there any way to move it without having to retype it a third time?Prof.rick 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need to start a new talk page heading here if you're continuing a previous comment. Anyhow, I've responded on your talk page. - Rainwarrior 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Nimue...about the Piano article...
Hello Bradley, I just wanted to ask you about the piano article...so do you think it should be merged with pianoforte? For the life of me, even though I'm a pianist, I can't see any difference at all except what time period they started speaking funny! =P Could you please reply on my talk page? I'm usually straight off to editing rather than checking all the bits that I replied to...

Cheerio, Lady Nimue of the Lake 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Continued at User talk:Lady Nimue of the Lake

Shadow Volumes article
In response to the comments in your recent edits:

1. there is such thing as non-polygon shadow volumes, 2. w=0 doesn't work on a lot of hardware, 3. capping is required in all methods for robustness, not just depth fail.

All three of these statements are incorrect. No one draws shadow volumes in any practical situation without polygonal data, w=0 works on all hardware (if you don't understand why, then I'll explain), and capping is only necessary when using depth fail (ibid). See my Gamasutra article or my book for details. Also, why did you delete many of the facts that I added to the article? Eric Lengyel 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to this at Talk:Shadow volume, as the discussion may be of use to others who have worked on the page. - Rainwarrior 06:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fink

 * Continuing and continued at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry.

I'm thinking of the UCLA musicologist who has argued that the tropes of European Classical music have been replaced by flow and pulse to present the same "desire" towards recombination. If it is too obscure a reference then by all means take it out.

Stirling Newberry 09:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Prehistoric music
Reply to Rainwarrior's comment from User talk:Hyacinth

I don't know at this point if Bob Fink's published works are reliable. See Reliable sources and Verifiability.

As for contributions by Bob Fink himself to subjects on which he has written, they are in violation with No original research. As such his contributions of this nature may be reverted. I believe he has been pointed to the policy, but I'm not sure. If not he should be.

Continuing to promote himself, his publishing company, and books through adding original research to Wikipedia, despite repeated warnings regarding NPOV, is vandalism, and as such would be grounds for blocking under Blocking policy. If he has not been warned he should be.

So, for any action, I think you would need to show that he has been told not to add additional original research and non-NPOV self promotion, yet continues to do so. Hyacinth 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply by Rainwarrior at User talk:Hyacinth


 * If you haven't received better help and the issue hasn't been resolved:
 * Sorry I dropped the ball on this. I contacted Bob Fink and described the policies (and in looking back at our conversation I either was mistaken that you cannot cite oneself or the policy changed since we first spoke about it).
 * Please quote where he has been warned that he may be blocked OR where he has been warned his activities are vandalism. Then quote or cite an edit which breaks the policies he has been warned of after he was warned.
 * I feel that a block against him is already justified. Given how persistent he is, I would like to make the best precedence for blocking him possible. Hyacinth 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked him. Write me immediately if I should undo it. Hyacinth 16:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Microtonal music redlinks
In response to Rainwarrior's comment at User talk:Frédérick Duhautpas.

Hello Rainwarrior

Well, first I’m probably mistaken but I can’t help but finding  your tone a little bit aggressive, so I deduce I have offended you without willing it with my restoration. If so please accept my apologies. That wasn’t my intention. But there’s no need to overreact. I’m sure we can come to an agreement without that. But let me explain my point of view first. Then we may see if we can find some agreement.

Why keeping redlinks of composers you seem to doubt the significance?

Of course Redlinks names by themselves are useless…I don’t deny that. But who said I (or anyone else) wanted to keep them red forever?

Why don’t I create a page about them ?

Well, who told you I wasn’t planning to create them?. I was indeed! Do you know who filled the redlinks of composers such as Pascale Criton or Jean-Etienne Marie lately? Me…(btw anyone that can correct my English in those articles is welcome)

So I consider these redlinks are temporally. And they will be filled in time. But I do it when I can. I really was planning to fill all these red links. I don’t know all of these names but I intended to make some research about them. As for names such as Matther, Stahnke or Mandelbaum (especially these ones) I can assure you, they are important names. And I have to add Alain Bancquart and Jack Beherens as well.

No offence but I am surprised -if you’re into microtonal music and you’re Canadian- that you never heard of Bruce Matther who is by far one of the most important Canadian microtonal composers along with his disciple Jack Behrens. Because here in Europe these guys are regarded as important composers in the microtonal circle.

Moreover Matther was the disciple of microtonal Pioneer Ivan Wyschnegradsky and he writes music in direct continuation of Wyschnegradsky.

Greetings Frédérick Duhautpas 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply at Talk:Microtonal music.
 * Reply at User talk:Frédérick Duhautpas.

Semitones
Hello Rain,

I was just reviewing the article on Semitones (which we both worked on). I hadn't checked the article since it's completion. But it seems to me that (in fairness) separate sections were given to BOTH the aug1 and the m2. I can't find a m2 section now! Was it removed, or is my memory wrong? Prof.rick 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Semitones corrected (I think)
Sorry for the trouble, Rain. I think I have restored Minor Seconds section to the Semitone article by copying and pasting from History. Prof.rick 10:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

About Semitones
Hi Rain!

Thanks for checking my correction of the Semitone vandalism. I notice that Answers.com still carries the previous version, with the Minor Second section still missing. Must we do something to resolve this, or will it eventually be corrected automatically?

Another interesting point: What is the inversion of aug 8? Is it a simple interval [dim 1] or a compound interval [dim 8]? (Either answer seems to have it's pros and cons, but arriving at a definitive answer could potentially require some changes in our "table of intervals".) Please leave your views about this on my talk page.

Hope you have successfully completely your move. Best, Prof.rick 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Semitone related discussion at User talk:Prof.rick.

Chris Forster delete comment
Perhaps not that important to the deletion, but I wanted to reply to your comment. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cris_Forster_%28second_nomination%29

Apparently I was mistaken, the entire manuscript is not available online; I knew what was available online, but I thought that was the entire manuscript. Apparently there is more. It is still true that the information available online at Forster's site is not available on any other site I've found, including Joe Monzo's. How relevant that is to Forster's inclusion I don't know, but it's true. The link to the site from the Just Intonation article is still there, so I think people interested in tuning will be able to find it. That Monzo remains and Forster leaves is strange, but I guess should be rectified by more external sources on Forster.—Badmuthahubbard 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh okay. Yes I do think there is some good information there on his site. That's why I left the link to the just intonation page in the article (thought I really wish there wasn't a gigantic block at the top asking for help getting his book into print; there are more tasteful ways to do that). At this point I think enough people have made comment about him that I think he's notable, but so far it seems no one has stepped up and written a good article about him. I think a few possible sources were mentioned, but no one bothered to cite them in the article? I don't think I'd nominate it for deletion again, the first two times it was because it appeared to be an autobiography. I expect someone else would nominate it though. - Rainwarrior 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Musical notation
Hi Rain! Hope you're enjoying California! I took another look at the Musical Notation page, and it was still a disaster area! I have added some ethnic references, rewritten the lead, and re-organized the entire article. (I still think it reflects a western bias, but western notation now dominates Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Australia...so it DOES deserve a high ranking.) But section 4 seems excessive. (Really, WHO CARES about hemidemisemihemidemisemiquavers??? There is also too much focus on computer linguistics...which is not within the realm of "human reading".  I think the whole article is a bit lengthy, and could use some cuts.

Would you please (when time permits) check the article, and see if my edits at least warrant removal of the "non-worldwide" tag? Can you remove it?

Oh yes...about Musical Acoustics!!! That's more than any New Jersey court could take! I think you've presented your arguments fairly and squarely, but you've been bashed, man! We might not always agree, but I support you 100%, on the basic tenets of Wiki. Cheers, Prof.rick 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone can remove the non-worldwide tag. If you think you've solved the problem, take it out. I went over the notation article a few months ago, but I'll take a another look when I have time. - Rainwarrior 04:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Octave scale
I saw on your userpage that you were interested in fixing up Octave scale. Can you read the discussion at Talk:Octave/Archive 1 and contribute your suggestions? The treatment of this topic is scattered between several articles and not very consistent (as I'm sure you noticed and that's why you were considering working on it). Rigadoun (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look. -- Rainwarrior 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Musical notatation?
Hi Rain! Regarding the dispute at "Musical Notation", I think there has been an error of judgment. The (unregistered) user, Ocanter, has does MANY revisions, without leaving comments in the Talk Page, and with INSULTING comments in the History page. He has undone/redone the edits of various editors, working together. Please examine this page, its history, its talk pages, and try again!

WE worked together on "Semitone", and generally arrived at agreements. However, Ocanter does not seem willing to co-operate. He removes others edits and adds his own...NEVER with an explanation on the Talk Page. Look at the insults on the History Page!

Please, reconsider your call on this one! Just read the two alternative leads! Does Ocanter produce a paragraph or two, previewing the article, and enticing the reader to look further?

Also remember, this article is the process of a rewrite. (Did you see it 6 months ago?...it was a disaster area! WHY SHOULD ONE EDITOR COME ALONG, AND UNDO THE HARD WORK OF SEVERAL OTHER EDITORS, WHO HAVE DEBATED POINTS, AND COME TO RESOLUTIONS?) The article is now BIASED, in Ocanter's favour.

The "Music of Other Cultures" is only partly completed, with some deletions and additions to be made. I am getting the impression that Ocanter "owns" this article.

IF you can spare the time to study the history, the talk page, etc., you might change your mind! I learned a lot about editing from you. Does it no longer hold true?

If this dispute does not end fairly, as per my proposals on the talk page, I simply won't be bothered by this article.

I was in the midst of an editorial revision of the Lead, but ran into an editorial conflict. I will try to post it again. I think, if you read it, you will find it provides a much wider preview of the article, a reasonable compromise between Ocanter's views and my own.

(Or are you, like Ocanter, "a match the dot to the key" kind of musician???)

Goodwill, and asking for a second call. Prof.rick 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) PS: Your "call" comes as a real disappointment to many editors, who have worked very hard on this (yet incomplete} article.


 * I did read the two alternative leads, and I commented on that. If you look at Ocanter's edits, he hasn't "undone" much at all; and I don't know what you mean by "Ocanter's favour", nor do I know what "dot to the key" means, but I don't think it's relevant. When I looked at the changes made to the page, I thought Ocanter's changes were sound, though I didn't think his edit comments were. What followed, however, was your complete reversion of everything he had just done. While his edits had made alterations to some things you had recently added, he did not just revert your entire effort point blank, as you did to him. He read over the entire article and changed only the things he thought were improper, and this is very evident from the edit history. Your reversion did not do this; you took offense to his rude comments and wiped away all of his work on the article. Now, I don't think who did what is relevant; if you want to talk about the actual content of the article, we can do that, and I have commented on the specific changes I supported on the talk page.


 * Finally, if you want both parties to take a break for a week, you have to be willing to actually take that break yourself. If you say "lets take a break", and then revert the page an hour later, you're not actually taking any break, are you? Also, you refer several times to "other editors". You should ask them to comment on the talk page instead of claiming that they agree with you. No one will pay attention if you attempt to speak for them. - Rainwarrior 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

よこできました
I really enjoy the work that you put out toward enhancing the Classical Music articles of Wikipedia. Just letting you know a user appreciates it. Keep it up. z ε n .ıl  08:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * どうもありがとう! - Rainwarrior 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick Pritchard Article
Hey Rainwarrior,

I think the views you have expressed on the above autobiography have been very fair. You have at least provided opportunities for the article to remain, and offered valuable suggestions. I also recognize that you are highly dedicated to your duties as a Wikipedian, including the "patrol" of autobiographies.

It seems that I fall into the "gray area" of notability. I will not be offended if the article is deleted (although some world-famous musicians whom I have trained may be disappointed). If the article is deleted, one of them may submit a re-write.

Hope your move is now fully complete, and you are comfortably settled in your new location.

Cheers, Prof.rick 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you don't take personal offense. It certainly isn't intended as a personal gesture. I feel that autobiographies of any kind on Wikipedia need to pass a deletion review. It's not really appropriate to be writing an article about one's self. That sort of thing belongs on a personal website. Now, if you can find sources that substantiate your notability, then we certainly should have an article about you, but I would still suggest that you refrain from trying to write that article. You may think that you can write about yourself in a neutral way, but I don't think it's possible to do so. With proper sources, however, the knowledge that can be used for the basis of an article about you can be subject to scrutiny by independent editors. Without sources, this can't be done. How else can we verify the truth of what you say about yourself?


 * Thanks for asking about my recent move, I am mostly settled in and very much enjoying my new job (making computer games). - Rainwarrior 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic
Hi Rainwarrior. Good to see you around the place, working on improving Wikipedia's coverage of musical topics. Thanks for the new redirects and changes connected with Diatonic and chromatic. May I hope that you will assist in developing that article, and in the rather tricky business of sorting out Wikipedia's use of these terms? –Noetica 07:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on my list of things to do, though it might take me a little while to get around to it. I left some suggestions at the talk page for some possible material. A real diatonic/chromatic page has been a long time coming, and I'm glad it's finally been started. - Rainwarrior 07:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning up Diminished seventh on this point. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally like the re-orgaizing you have done at Diatonic and chromatic, but there is a problem. You have:
 * "In equal temperament, there is no difference between the tuning of a diatonic interval and its chromatic equivalent."
 * The problem is that diatonic interval, as you use it here, is not defined! The reader who read up to this point conscientiously will not be able to understand; nor is the matter necessarily resolvable by what follows. You see? I'll leave it to you to sort this out for now, if you like. It's your special area. I'll keep adding to the long footnote explaining the many vicissitudes of the term diatonic interval.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the disambiguity that exists involving the minor scales does not apply outside of equal temperaments, I was just about to write a talk page comment about this, actually. - Rainwarrior 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you restored your annotation about the redirection from Chromatic. Sorry I didn't notice the deletion myself; I would certainly have restored it. Meanwhile, I think the section on tuning still needs "another pass-over", as you put it. I intend to wait for you to do this, but let me just reiterate my current concern, as I have now distilled it. I'm not sure that the section shows its own motivation. Is there a separate justification for the terms diatonic and chromatic, which arises from non-equal temperaments (generally); or does the section rather make observations about consequences of a distinction already made on other grounds?
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "its own motivation". In the context of tuning, diatonic and chromatic intervals has a meaning that denotes interval size. The terms also line up with other usage (this is how they got their name), but that's not the "tuning" part of it. - Rainwarrior 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. In brief, my concern was this: what are we really saying in that section? What is the intention behind that section? Are we saying something about the differences in "sound" between diatonic and chromatic intervals in non-ET tunings, accepting that such intervals are already well defined in some other way? That's what I had thought you meant at first. I'm still not sure what the intention is! We both worked to get the first paragraph into its present form:
 * "In equal temperament, there is no difference between the tuning of intervals that are enharmonically equivalent. For example, the notes F and E♯ represent exactly the same pitch, so the diatonic interval C-F (a perfect fourth) sounds exactly the same as its enharmonic equivalent – the chromatic interval C-E♯ (an augmented third). In systems other than equal temperament, however, there is often a sound difference between intervals that are enharmonically equivalent, and these alternatives may be labeled as diatonic or chromatic intervals."
 * And I follow the logic of this paragraph now, until I encounter the last part: "...and these alternatives may be labeled as diatonic or chromatic intervals." Are we saying that in any pair of enharmonically equivalent intervals, the sound differs (true, even for the tritone), and for this reason one of the pair is called diatonic and the other chromatic (not true: remember the tritone)? No, that can't be right. So try this instead: Are we saying that in any pair of enharmonically equivalent intervals, one of the pair is called diatonic and the other chromatic for good reasons that are independent of the matter of tuning (not true: remember the tritone), and it so happens, and we point it out as a matter of interest here, that the sound of any interval and its enharmonic interval is different?
 * Can you see the problem? There may be more: but that's where it starts for me, so I'll leave it there for now, and wait for your answer.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 05:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the terms "chromatic" and "diatonic" have a life of their own here. It's not just that there's a distinction and that this distinction lines up with the usual interval distinction, it's that these terms are used in tuning texts to refer to the two different types of intervals in meantone and pythagorean tuning systems. There is such a thing as a "pythagorean chromatic semitone" or a "meantone augmented second", and they have an well established meaning (in terms of a precise interval width). It isn't useful to label the two types of tritone for several reasons, 1. its interval span is exactly one half of the circle of fifths (thus going over the break or not the same number of fifths are used), 2. they are octave inversions of eachother, and 3. they both appear in the diatonic scale (relating to our "regular" meaning). - Rainwarrior 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rainwarrior. Do you still think that the section needs clarifying? I'm sure you can see that I am still not perfectly happy with it. Can you see why, more or less? I'm sure it's an important section, and that I'm not alone in wanting it to be the best it can be. There are other things to add to the article, also. Myself, I'm somewhat weary of it all, as you will understand I think. I look forward to your further contributions; I have learned from those you have made so far.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does need clarifying. You can work with it if you'd like. I just haven't had time the last few days to get to it, it might be a little while before I will get to it, but I definitely will. - Rainwarrior 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note...
About all of your valuable Absolute Pitch debate info. Benchilada 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

half diminished scale
Hello, Rainwarrior. We have come to both agreements and disagreements in the past (isn't that how Wikipedia works?). Can I ask you to take a look at the article, "Half diminished scale"? If you start by examining its history/origins, you will understand why it was tagged "Unwikified". I did a little editing, and the tag was removed. However, I really don't see the need of this article, since most musicians do NOT use the term, "half diminished scale". (See "discussion" on page.) I would like to see the article deleted, but, as an editor, feel reluctant to take the necessary steps, and therefore request an Administrator to tag this article for "possible deletion".

By the way, no hard feelings over the Fredrick Pritchard article's deletion. (My pupils listed in Wikipedia speak for me.) Cheers, Prof.rick 08:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sten Hostfalt
this is an objection to your suggestion for deletion of the Sten Hostfalt page for your convenience i have simplified and condensed the material and submitted links to references. also it is apparent that this comment has very little relation to the content and its relevance in music as we speak. Awareness of the current New York and international creative music scene would help you get a perspective here.--Sonusrex 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The place for comment about the proposed deletion is at Articles for deletion/Sten Hostfalt. Objecting on my user talk page will not help. - Rainwarrior 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On a personal note, however, I'm actually interested in hearing his work. The descriptions I've now read have got me intrigued, and the little snippets available from allmusic are pretty cool. I happy to have been made "aware" of this artist, thanks for that at least. - Rainwarrior 15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

 * Thanks! :) - Rainwarrior 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I reported User:Mr strike my leg stop i dont like fly for his recent edits like the one above. Please follow this link to add your thoughts on this incident. --Knowpedia 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Absolute Pitch
Hey guy.


 * Do you believe that the distinction between active and passive absolute pitch (as stated in the main article is dubious ?

I ask this in reference to your assertion that...... "Yes. Though you may also find that baroque recordings often use a lower pitch (there is some evidence that the pitches used in that period were lower in general, though there was no "standard" like A440 in use), which often includes a harpsichord. Organ recordings are rarely at A440. In anything without a piano there is no natural reason to favour any particular tuning standard, and I would say that recordings tuned to A440 are in the minority in general. The thing about the piano that doesn't really happen with any other instrument is that the way it is tuned, the piano tuner has to use a different set of calculations depending on what A is tuned to, this isn't a whole lot of extra work, but it is enough that a piano tuner wouldn't arbitrarily pick another pitch to tune to unless this was specifically requested." - Rainwarrior 06:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC Randy Bugger 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do think it's a dubious distinction. There is no mention of any scientific study done to distinguish the two in the article. Despite the fact that I think these terms are unscientific, it is true that people with "weaker" absolute pitch skills may be found. It's going to be a fuzzy distinction no matter how you try to define it, but I don't think having these two terms for this sort of thing is particularly useful. The real question for the article is whether these terms are in use, and if so, who defines them (and we sort of have an answer to that in the article already, which is why they have remained there). - 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ravel Ma Mere l'Oye Laideronnette.PNG
Hello Rainwarrior, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Ravel Ma Mere l'Oye Laideronnette.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quarter Tone Scales and Absolute Pitch
Can you distinguish and or remember them the way you can with regular scales ? I have absolute pitch too,and I am wondering if there have been any studies etc etc, Albion moonlight 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't find that absolute pitch has much to do with the size of the interval in general. Whether something is a quarter tone or a perfect fifth different from something else, it's still just a pitch, which can be remembered. I don't have names for the in-between tones, but if I am trying to identify their pitch, I can recognize that they are in-between.


 * However, when I'm in a performance where the ensemble has tuned itself to an "in-between" pitch (e.g. Choirs slide all over the place), or if I'm transcribing a piece that has been recorded like that, to make useful sense of the pitches I am hearing in the context of "absolute pitch" I have to remap the note names to what I'm hearing; it's kind of a way of making absolute pitch into relative pitch. - Rainwarrior 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharps and flats
01-June-2007: Thanks for letting me know about the sharps/flats issue in Manual of Style (music). I will convert to "-flat" and "-sharp" since those unicode boxes ("[]") have been everywhere, making the WP-music articles look very trashy. I have noticed that NOTEPAD can display the unicode sharps/flats in the find-box, but it is a terrible problem, as noted in the Manual itself. The fact that I quickly changed 30 music-key articles is more evidence of the unicode disaster in action. However, it's not the "first time" that a crazy guideline has been recommended, causing WP articles to become a joke to the world. Anyway, I just noticed today there are a million Google gHits on "Ultimate Guitar" which has the common-sense F#/Eb chord notations. So, not the whole world has become unicode-warped; I don't blame the musicians, I blame the unicode-crowd trying to push their get-a-life characters and thwart text-based (search-engine) articles. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. -Wikid77 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

12-June-2007: I started to feel like I was repeating my self over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). If you haven't already, I think you should try using IE6/7 to view the sharps and flats comparison on the talk page. That way we are all on the same page. If you have other questions feel free to ask. --Dbolton 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardized Ear Training
The wiki ear training article seems to to be full of well intentioned misinformation. I may try and fix it but before I try, I have a question. Is it correct to call a whole step a perfect 2nd irregardless of the key that the song is in ? The article uses the first 2 notes of silent night as an example of a perfect 2nd when in fact it begins on the 5th and is followed by a 6th. It is a whole step but is a perfect 2nd for the purposes of ear training ? I have absolute pitch but I have no real background in music theory. Also if you have the inclination to fix that aforementioned article, do feel free to start without me. LOL. Albion moonlight 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Perfect second" is not really a proper term. The terms you can use are "major second" or "whole tone". Your question about Silent Night sounds to be a confusion between scale degrees (sometimes called scale steps) and the size of a step. Intervals are relative, so it doesn't matter which note of the scale it starts on (which is absolute). - Rainwarrior 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will therefor be less bold when (AND IF) I edit that ear training article. Albion moonlight 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Nodal Relationships question on the Mathematics Reference Desk
Thanks very much for all your help with the problem. This has now given me a very interesting task for the next few weeks (better than a normal maths lesson...). I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do this, but I would like to award you with a WikiCookie. --80.229.152.246 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) - Rainwarrior 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: AlleborgoBot overwriting recent changes
Thank you very much for report! I have already contacted developers to solve the problem ;) --Alleborgo 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Harmony in 4ths and 5ths page!
Can't wait for it to go live, it looks great! I do believe Ma mere l'Oye is PD now.

Also of note, there is now a Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR report on our I64 hating colleague--the IP edits just seemed too suspicious not to mention somewhere. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was posting there at 3RR at the same time as you actually. ;) Uh... what do you mean about Harmony in 4ths and 5ths? Are you referring to Quartal and quintal harmony? That's been up for a long time... I guess you were looking at my old sandbox page which I had used to translate the German version (which had been a featured article)? - Rainwarrior 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you'd be happy to know that the Ravel image in question does appear in the article. It just wasn't considered fair use for user pages because of its tags, so it got bot-deleted from my sandbox. - Rainwarrior 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Haha
I laughed at you answer at the Mathematics Reference Desk today regarding the budgie taking a bath. That was quite funny, although I think the asker would take a while to figure out their mistake. :) --JDitto 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I just thought it was a pretty strange question for the math desk. - Rainwarrior 04:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

liked your pun...
At the math ref desk ("Equation"), I appreciated your comment here. Good pun. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahah, it wasn't intended, but I see it now. :) - Rainwarrior 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpage suggestion
For your formula to determine cents, I have a suggestion as to rendering the words in math mode.


 * $$\mbox{Cents} = 1200 \times \log \mbox{Ratio} \div \log 2 .$$

Note the \mbox{}s. If you like that appearence better, feel free to use the source. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the way it looks on my user page, but this is a good thing to know about when I'm editing math stuff in the future. Thanks! - Rainwarrior 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Third party opinion request
I'm writing to request comment on the article Tone cluster. Edits of mine have been reversed, most likely because another editor has a personal problem with me. There is no explination on the talk pages, so I would appreciate it if you were to comment, one way or the other, so as to assist us in resolving this dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyacinth (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Flute Hypotheis - Divje Babe
I took a look at the Divje Babe article having read Fink's article before chiming in on its AfD. The article is totally dominated by the flute hypothesis; perhaps its worth (assuming that the hypothesis is notable) separating out that material as its own article. As a coda, I haven't any idea whether the hyopothesis is, in fact, notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not worth giving Fink's thoughts on the artifact their own article (that's what his webpage is for). The theory is notable but it is certainly not a dominant theory. His article has been mentioned in papers produced by people on both sides of the flute argument, but it is generally treated as an "oddball" theory. I think the article needs to be scaled back in general. Fink's argument could be summarized in a few sentences, and being a minor theory as it is that's probably about as much treatment as it should have in the article. - Rainwarrior 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I might take another crack at the article this weekend. It's been on my to-do list for quite some time. - Rainwarrior 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

53 equal temperament
I appear to not have edited 53tet at all. Hyacinth 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply at User talk:Hyacinth.

Wolf Fifth
I have no historical source that supports my contention that the term "wolf fifth" comes from the German word for twelve rahter than the sound of a wolf. I am not a musicologist, but rather a physicist who plays some music. However, the wolf fifth is produced when completing the circle of twelve fifths in a Pythagorean tuning, then the twelfth fifth is flatter by about a quarter semitome and is thus the "zwolf fifth." Such concerns in tuning were not very important until the advent of keyboard instruments. I believe I read somewhere that this term was first mentioned about the time of Bach.

Oulrich 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a much older term, though I have been finding difficulty tracking down a good source on this. It turned out to not be in the article I thought it was in... I'm almost certain I've come across and read about the origin of this term at some point, but I haven't been able to verify this yet. However, I think the similarly spelled "zwolf" is just coincidental, and not the root of the term (there are many words in different languages that appear similar despite not being historically related). I am, however, certain that I have never seen it suggested that "wolf" is being used as a truncation of "zwolf" here. So... sorry I can't provide you with concrete evidence, but I'm fairly confident that it is just a coincidence. - Rainwarrior 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Schoenberg concerns
cross-posted to enwiki, commons

Hey,

I stumbled across a couple of your uploads, Image:Schoenberg op11 no1 excerpt.MID and a graphical representation of an excerpt from the score, Image:Schoenberg op11 no1 excerpt.png, which I'm a tad concerned about. You say that the "work is public domain", yet Schoenberg only died in 1951 and so his work won't enter the public domain until 2022 at the earliest (Austria, as part of the EU, grants copyright of life + 70 years, and under Berne I understand that the US applies such standard copyright claims within its own borders). Am I missing something?

James F. (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I am under the belief that these works are public domain because both of them were published before 1923 (Opus 11 is from 1909). The death-date of the author, in this case, I don't think matters. Am I mistaken? I'm no expert in copyright law, but the rules laid out on our article on Public domain suggest to me that these works are public domain. - Rainwarrior 06:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Encryption using musical notation / Thank you
Just a quick note to thank you for answering my question. --Lil Miss Picky 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. have you ever heard of the alchemical text "Atalanta Fugiens"? --Lil Miss Picky 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No I've never heard of Atalanta Fugiens. What is it? - Rainwarrior 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Inversion (music)
I understand your frustation with the above mediation, but I'm sorry, you can't use any evidence from the mediation in a user conduct RfC like you have with Tony1. Mediation is a voluntary process and all sides of a dispute should come out. Therefore, with official mediation, we don't allow you to take evidence to other forms of dispute resolution such as arbitration or RfC's. In many ways it is confidential in the respect that people have to go looking to find the mediation. Please refactor the RfC so it does not contain evidence from the mediation.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. The RfC specifically asks for evidence of dispute resolution and why it has failed. Please direct me to the relevant policy, because this doesn't make sense to me as you have described it. - Rainwarrior 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have found the statement at WP:Mediation, but do not understand it. I am not sure how to refactor the RfC? Am I supposed to completely remove all traces of the mediation from the RfC, including the fact that it was attempted at all? I don't understand how to proceed here, because the RfC specifically asks for a description of how an attempt to resolve the dispute was made. - Rainwarrior 11:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may say that you attempted mediation, and that this has failed but there is no need to link to it. You in particular should not reference particular comments made as part of the mediation. I presume that your decision to launch a user conduct RfC means you are withdrawing from that mediation? WjBscribe 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. - Rainwarrior 11:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all links to the Mediation page from your user conduct RfC in order to protect the privileged nature of mediation. See Mediation for further information. The Mediation Committee is committed to upholding the mediation privelege and if necessary I will delete the pages to prevent their use. WjBscribe 11:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't readd the removed information. I was unaware of this policy when I added it. Though I do not understand its purpose, I will not act against it. - Rainwarrior 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Its purpose is to encourage people to be free and frank during mediation and to be willing to try making concessions that they would otherwise not make if they thought this could later be used against them i.e. to avoid "User Y can't really care that much about issue A as he was willing to change his position in order to achieve a compromise on issue B". The idea is for people to be actively working towards a solution, rather than being cautious what they say and how they say it in case it comes back to bite them later. WjBscribe 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that no comments from four months of attempted mediation are allowable as comments, but then there is criticism that all the offending material is over four months old. Sigh.  So you're sort of up a creek if you try to use mediation and it fails.


 * Rainwarrior -- sorry I just don't have the energy any more to deal with Tony or the inevitable retaliatory RfC he's threatened against me, so I'll need to go with endorsing the summary rather than adding to it. However, I could add these points of conduct and incivility:


 * "Well, that would mean the end of our collaboration on anything; it's going to be very unpleasant, I'm afraid, and there'll be no end to it until the fallacy is not privileged."
 * "I wonder whether you really do work as an academic."
 * "I really will strongly object if this falsehood emerges in a proper article. There's no point in giving oxygen to it, even if misguided people persist with the falsehood."
 * "It's of no import at all that some so-called important textbooks have persisted with this 19th-century falsehood into the 21st century." (WP:RS)
 * -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Bradley, on reviewing the comments I've made and that you've drawn on at the RfA, yes, I agree that I've been incivil. I apologise for this. I see that we've both made further attempts at resolution on the talk page of the article in question, since the RfA began. Your image looks fine to me, as I said there, and I wonder whether we can move forward to create a good article that is acceptable to all. Tony   (talk)  07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - Rainwarrior 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I am not sure what to do about the RfC. If we can work this out with civility, then it doesn't serve any further purpose; I don't know the protocol here, though. - Rainwarrior 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC
I have deleted the Request for Comment you endorsed concerning because more than 48 hours had passed without proper certification. To remain listed, a RFC must demonstrate public evidence of attempts to resolve a dispute, and should also demonstrate that the dispute is an on-going concern. If there are existing matters between yourself and Tony1 I hope that you can resolve them directly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's probably what should happen here. I think Tony1 and I are close to agreement at this point. - Rainwarrior 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to see some progress
This is a message to Wahoofive, Rainwarrior, Mscuthbert, and Tony. I am pleased to see that there has been some progress on this six-four matter. I long ago withdrew from the discussion when it became clear that nothing useful was coming of it. When the page Inversion (music) is unlocked and things are back to normal, I look forward to contributing something to the discussion once more. I suppose others may want to come in then also. I'll not join the discussion till the disputes are all behind, and things are functioning normally. Meanwhile, I recommend this: have a look at Chopin's exquisitely beautiful Prelude in C# minor, Op. 45. (You can find it online [blacklisted link removed], and no doubt other places as well.) The point to consider is this: what analysis are we to give the extended "six-four" in the twelfth- and eleventh-last (and tenth-last?) bars? If the underlying harmony in these bars is V, parse these notes: the B and the A, the two Fxs, the B#, and the D#. And then parse these notes on the assumption that the underlying harmony in those bars is I. Thank you!

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahah, this is a nice one. - Rainwarrior 18:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is! In fact, I should have suggested parsing all of the notes in those bars. It's one thing to toy with minimalist hymns; but in the real world of Chopin and his confrères a superbly wrought musical surface can display the underlying harmonic bones better than any village organist's skeletal sketches. The doctrines of over-simplifying theory are exposed as inadequate.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (My comments on Noetica's page) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See continuing conversation chez moi, Rainwarrior.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And some more now, if you're still interested.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejoinder
Response to Rainwarrior's comment at User talk:Tony1.

It looked very much like an accusation to me, and will have been understood as such by everyone who saw it. If you want to call it a strong implication, fine, but the mud sticks on me, and I have a trenchant objection to being smeared with something I did not do. I note that you didn't even give me a chance to correct your hunch before launching into it publicly. Since I have no technical way of disproving what for all intents was an accusation, caution would have been better than placing me in a helpless situation. The 3RRR, by the way, occurred as a result of my miscounting, not wilfully: it was a mistake. The whole episode stinks.

You're sorry for publicly denigrating me, huh? Do you realise how much pain and embarrassment you have caused me? And it festered there for days while Wales's RfC drew every person imaginable and their dog past it. I'll never forgive the three of you for that. To me, it was pure and gratuitous gang-vindictiveness.

I think you see the mediation in a very one-eyed fashion: it was not all sweetness and light from you people, and take a good look at how cooperative you were, how you assisted in drawing it to a speedy resolution during the five months. My perception is the opposite. I was up against three of you alone, and endured negativity and misrepresentations of my views (especially from W.). I moved my position at an early stage (have both views, but no privileging of only one in the illustration). But I saw no corresponding movement. Wahoo's good example was a way out, but led nowhere, and not because of me. You were rather deprecating of my hard work in bringing you the sources, as you'd stridently asked for. That is why I told you I was offended. Jusifiably, I think. All I received in return was sabotage and pain. My distress and anger are hard to put into words.

Now erase this message if you wish, because it's too personal for a talk page; I just couldn't bear to email you. Tony  (talk)  13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it was I who had to beg someone to delete the page, in desperation. Tony  (talk)  13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply by Rainwarrior at User talk:Tony1.


 * I stand by everything I said. It's extraordinary that you think walking out of a mediation, when it's clearly approaching a resolution, isn't sabotage. Your apology for launching the Rfwhatever because you were not able to use the mediation text to further lampoon me is just laughable and insulting: what kind of apology is that? You've flung an accusation of bad faith against me, but you have come across as self-righteously indignant when accused of it yourself. But, as you say, you "don't really care". You twist the truth: I "got mad" as you put it, at the smearing association with sockpuppetry. Get it right. I've apologised for statements that were brusque, even rude, but received not even the politeness of a reply. And you make petulant statements such as "That's all. That's it. Continue to be angry, if it satisfies you". Allow me to be the judge of what satisfies me and what doesn't; dealing with this gives me no satisfaction. Your current attitude shows why the mediation failed.

How do you expect someone to react after what you've done? Tony  (talk)  10:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

12tet
Hi, When is it true that 12TET is not intended to approximate 12 note just intonation? Seems a strange statement. I sort of see that you could argue that its purpose is to make key changes easier, but surely both things are true? I thought the sentence made the structure of the first para more balanced. Best, Keithbowden 00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Atonal music, for instance, does not necessarily intend that 12-TET approximates any kind of just intonation, and there is music theory that goes along with this that does not deal with the relationship to just intonation even indirectly. The history and development of 12-TET, yes, did begin with just intonation and approximations of it, but I don't think it's fair to assume that all of its uses intend this. - Rainwarrior 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rainwarrior, But you are confusing the "use" of something with its purpose. Indeed if you look on the Equal Temperament page under "Purpose of 12TET" it says exactly what I said: that the purpose (intention) of 12TET is to approximate the 12 note chromatic scale whilst making key changes easier. 12TET was not designed for atonal music. It was designed to approximate the 12 note chromatic scale whilst facilitating key changes. The fact that it is often used for playing atonal music does not change this.

Note that I wrote diatonic rather than chromatic which would have been better.

I suggest that we put the sentence back in with the above correction. If you can think of any other change that would make the sentence clearer to you then fine. (You could for instance put in the word "usually" but I think that it would be unnecessary and even strictly incorrect.) Keithbowden 11:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm confusing "use" with "purpose", and the word in question was "intent". Intent is not a property of a scale, it is a property of a human that has a use or a purpose for it. 12-TET doesn't have a purpose, it has many purposes which are in effect at different times when used by different people. I think it is inappropriate to say that 12-TET is always intended to approximate just intervals, and even more inappropriate to have a "purpose of 12-TET" section (I had not noticed this before) like this.


 * Right now, the third sentence of the article reads: "Equal temperaments are often intended to approximate some form of just intonation." I think this is a perfectly fine general statement about this possibility. It is also perfectly fine to talk about the historical development of 12-TET as an approximation to JI, and in this context it is quite appropriate to speak of the "purposes" intended for it (which include far more than approximation of JI). Also needing mention is its wonderful property of being the lowest equal temperament that can reasonably accomodate 5-limit JI. - Rainwarrior 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * More or less what I'm saying is that 12-TET is just a set of numbers, really. It's useful as an approximation to just intonation, but it is not always useful for this purpose. How someone uses it doesn't necessarily reflect the purpose as needed by this or that musician over the years. It's untenable to say that it "always" approximates JI just as it's not appropriate to say that 3.14 "always" approximates $$\pi$$. Okay, maybe you think it's tenable, but even if I agreed, I think the more important idea is that 12-TET approximates it well (which I hope is well articulated in the article, but there is always room for improvement). The statement I removed is not a very direct way of saying this. - Rainwarrior 00:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Of course 3.14 always approximates pi and it is perfectly appropriate to say it. This goes for my statement also. As we are also both Computer Scientists and so presumably generally think logically I conclude that this is simply a semantic argument that will never be resolved and as such I bow to your excellent contributions to this page and elsewhere.

Please don't remove/change the purpose of 12TET section. It is just what many people want. I know that the way you think finds this inappropriate - but I think that most people would disagree and in the end you are writing for them and not for yourself. What other definition of "approximate" could there be? ;-)) With Best Wishes, Keithbowden 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to say, for instance "12-TET approximates the intervals of 5-limit JI within 16 cents" is a very qualified statement; it's the kind of thing I'd like to see said about it. To say that it always approximates them without giving a level of tolerance is a whole lot less meaningful. Anything is an approximation if you're tolerant enough, and if you're less tolerant, this statement gives you no information about whether it's good enough (and for many musicians both past and present, it isn't). Now, as I said, I think it's important that the relationship of JI to 12-TET be explained in the article both from a historical development and mathematical perspective, but I don't think the "purpose of 12-tet" section did this any better than the sections on history and on just intonation that were already in the article (it made several vague or unqualified statements that were expressed with more distinction elsewhere in the article) and as I said, I object to the term "purpose" because there are many composers and theorists who do not intend to approximate JI with their use of 12-TET. Like, if 3.14 was a grade point average, discussing it as an approximation of pi would be absurd. I don't want the context of JI and harmony forced on the reader when there are places to investigate outside that context. - Rainwarrior 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Measure of the purity
Hello Rainwarrior,

I'll try to explain the math behind there, altough it's a bit complicated.

Riemann zeta function is, roughly speaking, a sum over positive integers raised in some power. If this power is complex, the sum turns to a "melody" with frequencies propotional to logarithms of positive integers. So we obtain some maxima on the points which are close to multiplies of several logarithms simultaneously, i.e. fit the just musical notation.

First version is formally correct; second is a bit modified for "practic use".

BTW, the formula for the first version could be simplified a bit:


 * $$purity = \Big|\zeta\left(1+\frac{2 \pi i}{\ln{r}}\right)\Big|$$

Droog Andrey (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well my main concern with this is how "practical" this is. Who uses it? Did you come up with this, or is this calculation used in a significant amount of literature somewhere? (If not, this kind of thing isn't admissible for Wikipedia; see WP:Original research.) The lesser concern I have is what the theoretical justification is and also how it is derived. I understand the definition of the Riemann-Zeta function and complex exponentiation, but I can't just make the leap to believe that it is a useful measurement of an equal temperament's relationship to Just Intonation. This is quite an interesting idea and I'd very much like to hear more about it (please tell me more!), but I don't think it's appropriate for the article. - Rainwarrior (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As for practical use, there are chiefly educational purposes. I doubt whether it can be used to invent new temperaments 'cause all of them are already found. But it's an excellent way to show their common character. It's just a well-known fact among number theorists. Maybe it's really described in some literature concerning properties of zeta function. I think we may start searching references from here: http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics.htm

As for more information... let's look on the plot of this function. I've calculated some values specially for you and collected them into .wav-file as samples:

http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/music/theory/hrsz1.wav

To explore the plot, open this file in some audio-editor (Adobe Audition is preferred) and choose samples (instead of time) as marks on the x axis. The function was computed for r=2^(1/k) for every k from 0.01 to 500 with step 0.01:

http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/music/theory/p1.gif http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/music/theory/p2.gif

Just look how the function describes different temperaments and decide how "practical" could it be.

A few words on the 171-EDO. This temperament appears to be the ultimate one for 7-limit music. It fits the majority of 7-limit intervals with error being within 1 cent, whereas the step of the scale exceeds 7 cents. Moreover, it subdivides 19-EDO. Some time ago I began to make up a table of 7-limit intervals in the 171-EDO context:

http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/music/theory/intervals171.html

Maybe I'll finish this work in the near future and we'll write an article about 171-EDO? :-)

Best regards,

Droog Andrey (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that graph is quite convincing that there is something to this function; it seems to have increasing spikes at the well used equal temperaments. I'm curious as to why the value at 12, 24, 36, and 48 are decreasing; shouldn't these be successively better, or at least equal? (i.e. 24 has every interval that 12 has, and some really good 11 limit ones too). Is this deliberate, or is it a byproduct of the numerical method you used to evaluate this function? (Again we really haven't gone into why this works, or where it is derived from; I plan to do some analysis on it when I have some spare time.)


 * My question about how practical this wasn't really supposed to be hypothetical, it was "where has this been practiced" rather than "what use is it". Who uses it, or has talked about it, and in what literature? (Or is this your own work?) It will quantify a lot of the practical equal temperaments in order, but we've got a lot of mathematical ways to theorize this without resorting to something quite as abstract as the Riemann-Zeta function. To understand the use of 31 or 53 equal temperaments it really helps to know, for instance, how good their major thirds are, and the calculations involved are generally quite transparent. The Riemann-Zeta function, however, is kind of a black box. It's really very interesting in a pure-math kind of way, but I tend to think this sort of thing is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. - Rainwarrior (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Temperaments of 24EDO, 36EDO and so on have more and more intermediate steps which doesn't make a good appoximation to natural intervals. Moreover, the relative error increases as ratio goes down. E.g., 7:5 equals to 5.82512... 12EDO steps, i.e. the error is about 35% of a half-step, but in 24EDO 7:5 is 11.65024... steps, so the error rises to 70% of a half-step. On the other hand, almost every step of 171EDO represent some 7-limit intervals with error of about 10-20% of a half-step, so this scale is quite pure.

BTW, there's a larger file, with the values of k up to 10000: http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/music/theory/purity.wav (3.8 Mb)

It's clear for me why it works, but maybe it's because of my interest in number theory. Again, it is not my own work, it's just a well-known (among number theorists) fact, believed to be somewhat curious. My own work was a try to build another function (the "second version"); I removed it from the discussion since I understood it doesn't work as perfect as "classical" one.

Let's expose the zeta function as follows:

$$purity = \Big|\zeta\left(1+\frac{2 \pi i}{\ln{r}}\right)\Big| = \Big|\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-\left(1+\frac{2 \pi i}{\ln{r}}\right)}\Big| = \Big|\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}e^{-2\pi i \log_r{n}}\Big|$$

The more n's have $$\log_r{n}$$ close to an integer, the more items of the sum turn in-phase, the greater is the absolute value of the sum. Items are weighted with 1/n, so the bias for a perfect fifth (3:2) makes more contribution than, say, one for a septimal whole tone (8:7). You see, all is taken into account :-)

As for literature - I'll try to find some references here, there is a lot of zeta function curiosities collected on this site. BTW, there's also my own contribution made some years ago: http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/kulsha.htm

And, what do you think about 171EDO? Droog Andrey (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. References:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ward_Smith
 * http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/4ee8df49573d0150
 * http://www.robertinventor.com/tuning-math/s__10/msg_9550-9574.html#9556
 * http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A117536
 * http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A117538
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety

Droog Andrey (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I've had some time to look at that function and think about it a bit and why it works. I haven't worked with the Riemann-Zeta function before so just looking at its definition its properties aren't immediately obvious to me; translating it into powers of e makes is more or less readable. I would have gotten there myself, but thanks for doing it anyway; it at least gives me something to verify.


 * The lowest two terms with n = 1 and 2 will start any EDO off with a bias of (2.5+i0), although this also disadvantages any non-EDO (I note that Bohlen-Pierce does rather poorly in the table you gave). Starting with this bias, integer values tend to increase the magnitude, whereas more out of phase values work against this bias and somewhat out of phase values push it laterally in either direction in the imaginary component. What bothers me about this is that this lateral movement seems like undesirable noise to me; one temperament a few low harmonics might end up + phase and on another might end up with some + some -, and though they might both have the same amount of absolute phase error the one with error more on one side picks up extra magnitude. My suggestion is why not cut out this "imaginary" source of noise by taking the real component rather than the magnitude?
 * $$\Re{\Bigg(\zeta\left(1+\frac{2 \pi i}{\ln{r}}\right)\Bigg)}$$
 * Or possibly something like this, along the same lines, but where all terms are positive:
 * $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f(n)}{n}$$ where $$f(n) = \frac{ 1 + \cos (2 \pi \log_r n) }{ 2 }$$
 * Another thing that I think detracts from non-EDO temperaments is how octave equivalence affects things, as powers of two times a value of n all give the same contribution n=2,4,8,16... or n=3,6,12,24... or n=5,10,20,40... so after weighting all of the even terms just double the odd ones, basically, whereas on a non-EDO each term's contribution is unique (or if they divide some other ratio than 2/1, a different rate of uniqueness applies); doesn't this further increase the EDO ability to "throw it's weight around" in the lower harmonics, making their peaks in general more dramatic than for non-EDO? What about the problem you explained earlier where 24-EDO comes up worse than 12-TET because its error-phasing is effectively doubled; do you want to scale this phasing to compensate?


 * Anyhow, there are lots of ways you can evaluate the fitness of a linear temperament to just intonation. What's the particular attraction to the Riemann-Zeta function?


 * As for 171EDO, I'm glad you're interested in it, but I doubt I'll ever do anything with it, personally. I probably won't want to use a scale with so many tones for composition (the step of ~7 cents is awfully close to the threshold of human melodic distinction, for one thing), but really I do think it's good that someone is thinking about it even though I'm not. - Rainwarrior (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary music
Hey Rainwarrior, I’m working I putting together a WikiProject Contemporary music. I thought I’d ask if you would be interested in joining. Your name looks familiar though, I hope I’m not being redundant. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for speaking up at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, RW. A totally ridiculous situation. You'll understand if I step back from the discussion myself, in those inflammatory and provocative circumstances? My opinions and arguments have been seriously misrepresented there, again and again, by Roivas and TheScotch. The record shows this very clearly: but who could be bothered to dig up the evidence? I have done so before, but the calumny just continues anyway,

I'll simply get on with the article itself. I have a few more little additions to make; then I want to polish and trim things, transferring even more into the notes so that we maintain a tight and readable main text. It's hard to see what the objection could be to so many notes, since they have been unremittingly demanded. Original research? POV? Not a bit! It's so easy for me to argue against those claims. And really, the notes constitute an invaluable resource for anyone wanting to sort all this out: unique on the web, or anywhere. Am I overstating this? I don't think so! Many WP articles have become loci classici, and I don't see how D&C fails to be among them.

I hope you appreciate my reasons for withdrawing from that whole wrangle with the six-four. There was a lot I could have said, but I judged it unproductive to say it. I really value your work, and Wahoofive's and Myke's. But I also work collaboratively with Tony, elsewhere in Wikipedia.

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 09:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have commented sooner. I had been loosely following the recent dialogue between Roivas and you, but it appeared, on the surface, to be productive enough, though the constant quoting of each other and of texts made it hard to tell; it looked like you were making edits that responded to his criticisms, so I figured progress was being made here and kept out of it. The call for deletion seemed like something that could be harmlessly ignored at first, but when The Scotch joined in with those accusations of POV I wanted to respond.


 * I understand why you wished to stay out of the 6/4 argument. I am glad that some improvement finally got made to the article, but I was very distressed by how Tony1 felt coming out of it. He had painted me as a saboteur, and I put up with it for a long while (quite frankly, I understood where he was coming from if he believed the accusations he'd made of me), but eventually I'd had enough and started that unfortunate RfC. After this, however, his personal attacks ceased and we worked out the page in a manner that seemed civil to me, but he made it clear that he was unhappy and I wish I could do something to help that.


 * Anyhow, I have been following the article, and there are things I find a little awkward about it, but nothing I can make a good point about or can think of a way to improve just yet. When I have something better to suggest than "this article is a little awkward" though, I will do so. For now I'll try and keep my nose in there if I think the discussion is going in an unhealthy direction. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course things are worded awkwardly, here and there. The focus has been on getting the content comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, and well-supported. It is impossible to keep it elegant as well, while it is under ill-focused attack because of some perception of POV-pushing. After all, while Grove, Harvard, and Oxford all have quite short elegant(?) entries on these things, all three are compromised by some imprecision or confusion. Easy to show!
 * Yes, I have responded to Roivas's criticisms, and re-classified a definition or two where I thought this was harmless. But I have shown, and can show again, how things were well justified before such an accommodation.
 * I have no ownership, of course. But I will work to counter prejudice hijacking a balanced account of the use of these terms – in real discourse in the real world, in major printed work.
 * Thanks for continuing to look in at the article and its talk. I look forward to your more focused suggestions, when you arrive at them. You will see less of that constant churning of old material in the talk. I simply won't engage with it any more. If others cannot or will not grasp things the first time, it's unlikely they will the next time.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

piano tuning
this is my first comment please bear with me. The term "Laying the Bearings" may in deed have origins in the term "tempering the 5th as much as it will bear" or "tuning the 5th flat as much as the eare can bare"   These I  believe are quoted in Mersenne. (163?) I can get the exact pages and edition etc etc. if desired. Richard Moody piano tuner technician  ric@pnotec.com    www.pnotec.com     Pnoric (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)pnoric


 * I'm pretty sure I've read it somewhere, but I've been unable to come up with a source, myself, so it's best to leave it out until we can attribute it to a specific place. If you can find a proper citation, please put it back up with the citation. - Rainwarrior (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: A system of temperament can also be known as a set of bearings, a term derived from early treatises on temperament which asserted that a fifth could be flattened "as much as it can bear". End quote. I don't trust that etymology of "bearings." D021317c 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it out. I haven't been able to verify it. - Rainwarrior (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Piano_tuning"

LEAVE IT IN. THIS DOES HAVE HISTORICAL BEARING ON PIANO TUNING. I will qive you some refernces if you desire Pnoric (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

now how do I send this message off???? you are even worse than AOL : ) pnoric   a first timer


 * As I said, I'm pretty sure it's true, and evidently you think so too. However, I'm opposed to having it in the article unless there is a source for it. If you've got a reference (i.e. a quote with the author, title of book, publisher, date, and page number), that would make this claim verifiable, and then I think it would be encyclopedia-worthy. - Rainwarrior (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit
Hi, sorry for editing your talk page, but I wanted to remove a link which is on the spam blacklist. --79.50.238.61 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirteenth
Could you pitch in on Thirteenth and Talk:Thirteenth? A users insists that straight-up thirteenth chords "don't exist". Hyacinth (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right because his definition of a "straight-up thirteenth chord" is C-E-G-B-D-F-A and when placed a ♭9 above a major 3rd, the 4th becomes a strong dissonant, which also disrupts the balance of the tonic (being now somewhat shifted to F, since the perfect 4th is the only interval in which the higher note is stronger). Generally, ♭9 is an interval to avoid unless placed above the root. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue at "Thirteenth" was not satisfactorily resolved, so you may feel free to get involved. However, anon (now User:Hearfourmewesique) has interpreted me asking people who aren't really my friends to weigh in for or against me as "ganging up" or whatever the impossible to remember wiki slang is [ Tag team ]. Also, if you where my friend I would recommend you not exert your energy unless you already wanted to.
 * As you can see from directly above, User:Hearfourmewesique argues quite unpersuasively through repeated insistence. Little to no response to logic, policy, sources, or quotes.
 * As such I leave it up to you. Hyacinth (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rated article
Hello, Rainwarrior. Thanks for taking the time to translate Quartal and quintal harmony from the German article in 2006. I've rated the article on behalf of WikiProject Contemporary music and feel there are multiple issues with the present article — still remarkably similar to your original, indeed — which are addressed on the talk page. If you could contribute your thoughts, that would great. Thanks. --Jubilee♫ clipman 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice
WikiProject Contemporary music   Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator. P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

CTM scope review
Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:


 * 1) We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
 * 2) We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:
 * 1) It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
 * 2) If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
 * 3) Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
 * 4) Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes
In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Moon8
Hey, I'm listening to your Pink Floyd cover and really enjoying it so far. You are the same person, right? If so, congrats for getting on Wired, Boing Boing and all that. —Keenan Pepper 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, that was me. Thanks! Rainwarrior (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Strider Changes
Hello Bradley. Thank you for your additions to the Strider (arcade game) article. I'm just wondering if you think it's really necessary to add mistakes and other minutia to an article acting as an encyclopedia entry? Sure the game has many mistakes, but they aren't really worth pointing out in an article that was made intentionally as an overview. I recommend a Strider specific Wiki called strider.wikia.com that's much better suited to adding this kind of detailed information. You will also find the information you seek regarding where the first Stage is referred to as the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic at this location and much more.

Knowledge protector (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The details I added seemed no more minute to me than other content already present in the sections. If you think the article has become too detailed, I think it would be better to talk about this on the article's talk page, and not my user page, since this is a community issue, not something to do with me in particular. As far as where the Kazakh SSR comes in, I realized later this text appears in cyrillic on the opening of that level. - Rainwarrior (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:MathisMvmt2.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MathisMvmt2.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. (Unsigned: 28 November 2019)