Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
> "Phil" == Phil Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Phil> Yes and no. the expression "well-tempered" comes from the Phil> title of Bach's two volumes of preludes and fugues. The Phil> well tempered klavier certainly referred to a keyboard Phil> instrument tuned in equal temperament, and the books each Phil> contain 24 preludes and fugues in each of the twelve major Phil> and minor keys, thus demonstrating that it is possible to Phil> tune a keyboard instrument so that it can be played in any Phil> key. No, I think most people these days believe that Bach's Well-tempered keyboard was not equal tempered. He did demonstrate that you could play a keyboard in all keys, but not that they all sounded the same. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
In fact, the even tempered scale hasn't completely taken over. The uilleann pipes are usually tuned against the drones, and I imagine that is also true of the highland pipes and other instruments like the vielle which have drones. This means that when voicing the instrument, makers adjust the pitch of the note on the chanter to make them blend well with the drones. (More exactly, they adjust the drone pitch until it sounds right with the given note on the chanter. The amount the drone had to go up is the amount the chanter will have to come down.) This effectively means that they are in some kind of just tuning: the ratio of the frequency of each note to the drone frequency is a simple fraction with fairly low denominator. (Or quite close---the overtones have quite a bit to do with the blend, and they're almost never exactly in harmonic ratios with the fundamental, so there's probably a small tuning adjustment for that.) It's close to the even tempered scale for the fifth and third, not so close with the second, for instance. (15-17 cents difference, as I remember.(?)) With this kind of tuning, even the interval D-E sounds reasonable. (Try that on a piano.) It's common to play an E minor tune over a D drone, and pipers love to play with the C note against the D drone. After playing the pipes for a number of years, I find that the piano, played solo or with an orchestra, sounds correct, but, when I hear it played along with a set of pipes, it sounds very much in-your-face and definitely off. Guitars are much better, since their attack isn't quite so brash. (Of course, the pianist mistakenly thinks that the pipes are off...:-) Cheers, John Walsh To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Bruce Olsen wrote: >Also it came as a surprise to me to find the Basics sound command gives >square waves at the speaker (ABC2WIN and my ABZ player). Norbeck's >AbcMus I haven't examined much, but my trials on A=440 lead to an audio >signal out as a three part sawtooth for each cycle. The ear doesn't seem >to much care how close to a sine wave it is, as far as calling it >'music' goes. In fact, using a pure sine wave to make music is in some ways a bad idea. If you play a sine wave from a good tone generator in a normal room, and then listen carefully to it as you move around the room you will notice all sorts of strange acoustic effects. The sound appears to come from different directions in different places, It gets unexpectedly louder in some places, and sometimes disappears altogether in one ear, although you can still hear it with the other. If you try to tune a real musical instrument to it you will notice that it is much more difficult than you expect. The reason for this is that the sound reflects from the walls of the room and forms a pattern of standing waves. Sound from a real instrument will do that too, but because real instrument sounds contain a mixture of harmonics the different frequencies fill in the antinodes of each others standing wave pattern, covering up the effect. The instrument which produces the nearest to a pure sine wave is the lower notes of the flute, although even here there is some sixth harmonic, and a little random noise. It is much more difficult to tune your guitar to a flute than to a piano. A sawtooth waveform is in some sense a much more musical sound than a sine wave. After all, the basic waveform produced by a violin string is a sawtooth, because in each cycle, the bow pulls the string slowly to one side, then it snaps back into place. Of course the sound that you hear is considerably more complex because it is coloured by the wood and air resonances of the body. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
John Henckel wrote: >Is "well-tempered" and "equal-tempered" the same thing? I don't think >so. I was under the impression that equal-spaced half steps produced >bad-sounding music. The key of E is not supposed to sound exactly like the >key of C (except one third higher). That's why the composer dictates the >key signature. Each key has its own peculiaritiesies because the notes are >not equally spaced. Knowing and using the peculiarities of each key is >part of the art of composition. > Yes and no. the expression "well-tempered" comes from the title of Bach's two volumes of preludes and fugues. The well tempered klavier certainly referred to a keyboard instrument tuned in equal temperament, and the books each contain 24 preludes and fugues in each of the twelve major and minor keys, thus demonstrating that it is possible to tune a keyboard instrument so that it can be played in any key. At earlier times instruments were tuned using various scales which were more consonant in some keys than others, and I'm sure that composers took advantage of that to produce specific effects which cannot be reproduced on modern instruments. Even on a modern instrument tuned in equal temperament keys can sound different from each other, but I think that's more to do with the mechanics of the instrument than the actual pitches of the notes. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Bruce Olson wrote: > Also it came as a surprise to me to find the Basics sound command gives > square waves at the speaker (ABC2WIN and my ABZ player). That's because it's simply a speaker connected to the output of a logic element (in the original PCs, it was a flip-flop), so all you can do is apply +5V or 0V and use the limited frequency response of the speaker to filter out some of the upper harmonics. > Norbeck's AbcMus I haven't examined much, but my trials on A=440 lead to > an audio signal out as a three part sawtooth for each cycle. The ear > doesn't seem to much care how close to a sine wave it is, as far as > calling it 'music' goes. ABCMus uses the computer's MIDI device, usually a soundcard synthesizer (using either a wavetable or FM synthesis method) so the output can be anything you want (within the abilities of the soundcard and its driver). To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Phil Taylor wrote: > > Frank Nordberg wrote: > >I posted this table at abcusers a year or so ago: > > > > Pythagorean Equal > >c260.74 261.6 > >cb 278.43 277.2 > >d# 274.69 277.2 > >d293.33 293.7 > >db 313.24 311.1 > >e# 309.03 311.1 > >e330 329.6 > >f347.65 349.2 > >fb 371.25 370 > >g# 366.25 370 > >g391.11 392 > >gb 417.66 415.3 > >a# 412.03 415.3 > >a440 440 > >ab 469.86 466.2 > >b# 463.54 466.2 > >b495 493.9 > > > >Just multiply the numbers with 2 to get the next octave. > >Lots of people have already posted descriptions of the formula for equal > >temperement, so I suppose I don't have to do that. > >For the pythagorean temperement you multiply with 2187/2048 to go up an > >augmented prime and 256/243 for a minor second. > > That's not what I understand as a Pythagorean scale. Pythagoras considered > only the octave (x 2) and the fifth (x 3/2) to be perfect intervals, > so a pythagorean scale is constructed using only these ratios. So, if > you start with A = 440, the fifth E = 440 * 3/2 * 1/2 = 330.0. You get > all the other notes by continuing around the circle of fifths, multiplying > by 3/2 or 3/4 as necessary to stay within the octave. The problem is > that twelve fifths doesn't quite add up to seven octaves, so when you > get back to A it's seriously out of tune. The difference is called > the comma of Pythagoras : > > C 264.298096 > C# 278.4375 > D 297.335358 > Eb 313.242188 > E 330 > F 352.397461 > F# 371.25 > G 396.447144 > Ab 417.65625 > A' 446.003036 > A 440 > Bb 469.863281 > B 495 > > >These two temperements have two things in common, they are simple to > >define mathematically and they are pretty useless musically. > > It is indeed a pretty useless scale for any music which wanders very > far away round the circle of fifths. > > We wouldn't get very far without the equal-temperament scale though > would we? The equally-tempered scale distributes the comma of Pythagoras > around all twelve intervals so all intervals are very slightly wrong. > It's the only way you can tune an instrument with fixed tunings and > have it sound reasonably OK in all keys. > > Phil Taylor > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html There have been various interpretations on what the Pythagorian scale is (search web with Google, even look at H. Partch, which I don't take very seriously. There's also a website with lots of other scales). Can anyone tell me where to find out what Pythagoras said in a reliable translation? Bruce Olson Old English, Irish and, Scots: popular songs, tunes, broadside ballads at my website (no advs-spam, etc)- www.erols.com/olsonw or click below http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
| Confooozin. and all gray areas. I liked the "money changing hands" idea. It's not necessarily all that grey. And "money changing hands" is irrelevant to copyright. Otherwise, if I had a grudge against you, I could make copies of your stuff and give them out for free, thus ending your income from selling them. This is effectively what Microsoft did to Netscape. Only someone (or some corporation) with lots of money to spend on lawyers can get away with this sort of trick. The intent of copyright law is to give you total control over the right to copy your own creation. You don't have to have a reason, and you don't have to show monetary damages. | I also liked the conceptual differences between a traditional tune, an | arrangement of that tune and a performance of that tune -- and the copyright | (or lack of) differences between them. This is something that publishers routinely gloss over, in an attempt to claim more than they have a right to. If you look into your books of trad tunes, you'll see lots of simple copyright notices, with no clue as to whether it's the tunes or the specific printed edition that's under copyright. This is done intentionally, with the hope that you'll pay them for the right to use a tune that's in the public domain. If you know enough to challenge their claim, perhaps by saying that you have a version from such-and-such a publication from 1823, they'll quietly stop trying to get money from you. But if you pay them for the right to use a tune, they'll accept your money and not mention the fact that you didn't need to pay unless you are copying their specific version. Sometimes you'll see things like "Arrangement copyright ...", which is specific and a lot more honest. But this isn't common. To discover what is actually protected by copyright can be tricky. You really have to do your own research. Publishers will attempt to make the maximum claim and hope you believe them. Anyone can claim a copyright on anything, and a great many such claims are fraudulent. Lawyers make a good living from this sort of confusion. At the other extreme, I have my copy of the Collins edition of O'Neill's Music of Ireland here. Looking through the first and last pages turns up no copyright notices at all. The work has long been public domain, of course, and this publisher is being honest about the fact. The Collins edition would be covered by copyright, of course, and if you were to sell copies of it, they could sue you. But aside from their work in producing the printed books, they have no claim on the material. This was discussed a few years back, when the project got underway to transcribe all of this book into ABC. The conclusion was that the contents were in fact public domain, and an ABC version wouldn't be any sort of violation. I now have this transcription housed on my web site, and I haven't heard anything from any publisher. Well, there was one minor contact. I found that it's now published by Mel Bay, so I put a link to their web site in my list of current sources. I got an email message from someone at Mel Bay thanking me for including the link. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Laura Conrad wrote: > > > "John" == John Henckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John> Is "well-tempered" and "equal-tempered" the same thing? > > No. > > John> I don't think so. I was under the impression that > John> equal-spaced half steps produced bad-sounding music. > > No, most "modern" music assumes an equal-tempered scale. If you try > to play music more than a couple of centuries old that way, you get > something that doesn't sound the way the composer would have heard > it. Which most people who are used to equal temperament don't think > sounds bad, but if you have gotten your ears used to the kind of > difference between keys and purity of intervals that other tuning > systems provide, it sounds bland or even out-of-tune. > > John> One time I watched a professional piano tuner and was > John> surprised to see that he didn't use any electronic pitch > John> measuring device. He only used ONE tuning fork for middle > John> C, and he tuned all the other notes from there! I said, > John> "why don't you just tune each note separately to its correct > John> frequency" and he said that would sound awful. He said it > John> is impossible to tune any piano perfectly, but it is always > John> a compromise of many different factors. In other words, it > John> is an art. > > Yes, but he still tuned the piano to an equal tempered scale. Piano > tuning is an art because piano strings are stiff, so the harmonics of > the string are not the same as the mathematical overtones. Also, the > tone sounds better if the 2 or three strings that are struck for one > note aren't exactly in tune. > > So you don't tune anything exactly to the "correct" frequency. For > instance, you don't tune the octaves exact, because if you did, you > would get horrible difference tones between the fundamental of the > higher note and the first overtone of the lower note. > > And of course the great composers for the piano play games with these > peculiarities. I remember a chord in a Messiaen piece that is just > left to ring for about 10 seconds. Depending on the piano and the > room acoustics, the different harmonics damp out at different rates, > so the sound changes from second to second in really marvelous ways. > > Harpsichords (and fortepianos) have less stiff strings, so you can > tune them to the "correct" frequencies for the tuning you've decided > on. It's deciding on the right tuning for a given concert that may > have pieces in several keys and from a range of composers and periods > which constitutes the art in that case. > > -- > Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://www.laymusic.org : Putting live music back in the living room. > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html About a week and a half ago I asked a piano tuner friend how he did it. He has a tuning fork to start (A=440) and has a table of beat frequency differences to tune to by comparing one string to another (tightening or loosening a sting will tell if the adjusted string frequency is higher or lower than that of the reference string). So it's tuned to 12TET, and not to just intonation. Bruce Olson -- Old English, Irish and, Scots: popular songs, tunes, broadside ballads at my website (no advs-spam, etc)- www.erols.com/olsonw or click below http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
John Henckel wrote: > > Is "well-tempered" and "equal-tempered" the same thing? I don't think > so. I was under the impression that equal-spaced half steps produced > bad-sounding music. The key of E is not supposed to sound exactly like the > key of C (except one third higher). That's why the composer dictates the > key signature. Each key has its own peculiaritiesies because the notes are > not equally spaced. Knowing and using the peculiarities of each key is > part of the art of composition. > > One time I watched a professional piano tuner and was surprised to see that > he didn't use any electronic pitch measuring device. He only used ONE > tuning fork for middle C, and he tuned all the other notes from there! I > said, "why don't you just tune each note separately to its correct > frequency" and he said that would sound awful. He said it is impossible to > tune any piano perfectly, but it is always a compromise of many different > factors. In other words, it is an art. > > At 11:01 AM 4/4/01 +0100, Phil wrote: > > >We wouldn't get very far without the equal-temperament scale though > >would we? The equally-tempered scale distributes the comma of Pythagoras > >around all twelve intervals so all intervals are very slightly wrong. > >It's the only way you can tune an instrument with fixed tunings and > >have it sound reasonably OK in all keys. > > John Henckel alt. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Zumbro Falls, Minnesota, USA (507) 753-2216 > > http://geocities.com/jdhenckel/ > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html 'bad sounding music' is in the ear of the beholder. 12TET seems to be nowhere as bad an approximation as for the diminished 7th, 1 3b 5b 7bb (for base C in just intonation = 264, 316.8, 380.16, 456.192). That last is a poor approximation in 12TET. I reccommend Juan Roederer's 'The Physics and Psychophsics of Sound' and an intoroduction to the theory of music. Practice of music is quite advanced, but theory is primitive. On page 167 is a graph of an experimental determination of the ratio of two frequencies judged 'consonant'. Within 75% confidence intervals anything between a minor third (x 6/5) to a major 5th (x 3/2) work. Then things start getting complicated. Also it came as a surprise to me to find the Basics sound command gives square waves at the speaker (ABC2WIN and my ABZ player). Norbeck's AbcMus I haven't examined much, but my trials on A=440 lead to an audio signal out as a three part sawtooth for each cycle. The ear doesn't seem to much care how close to a sine wave it is, as far as calling it 'music' goes. Bruce Olson Old English, Irish and, Scots: popular songs, tunes, broadside ballads at my website (no advs-spam, etc)- www.erols.com/olsonw or click below http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
Confooozin. and all gray areas. I liked the "money changing hands" idea. I also liked the conceptual differences between a traditional tune, an arrangement of that tune and a performance of that tune -- and the copyright (or lack of) differences between them. "Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: On Behalf Of John Chambers This is in part because the copyright laws are based on a concept that doesn't map well to what we're doing. The "copyright" deals with the right to copy a particular publication. When you convert ABC to a printed form, this is not in any meaningful sense a "copy" of any other printed material. It's not "the same sheet music", as can be seen by putting your laser printer page next to the page in the book and comparing them. All the details are different, so it's obviously not a "copy"... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
> "John" == John Henckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> Is "well-tempered" and "equal-tempered" the same thing? No. John> I don't think so. I was under the impression that John> equal-spaced half steps produced bad-sounding music. No, most "modern" music assumes an equal-tempered scale. If you try to play music more than a couple of centuries old that way, you get something that doesn't sound the way the composer would have heard it. Which most people who are used to equal temperament don't think sounds bad, but if you have gotten your ears used to the kind of difference between keys and purity of intervals that other tuning systems provide, it sounds bland or even out-of-tune. John> One time I watched a professional piano tuner and was John> surprised to see that he didn't use any electronic pitch John> measuring device. He only used ONE tuning fork for middle John> C, and he tuned all the other notes from there! I said, John> "why don't you just tune each note separately to its correct John> frequency" and he said that would sound awful. He said it John> is impossible to tune any piano perfectly, but it is always John> a compromise of many different factors. In other words, it John> is an art. Yes, but he still tuned the piano to an equal tempered scale. Piano tuning is an art because piano strings are stiff, so the harmonics of the string are not the same as the mathematical overtones. Also, the tone sounds better if the 2 or three strings that are struck for one note aren't exactly in tune. So you don't tune anything exactly to the "correct" frequency. For instance, you don't tune the octaves exact, because if you did, you would get horrible difference tones between the fundamental of the higher note and the first overtone of the lower note. And of course the great composers for the piano play games with these peculiarities. I remember a chord in a Messiaen piece that is just left to ring for about 10 seconds. Depending on the piano and the room acoustics, the different harmonics damp out at different rates, so the sound changes from second to second in really marvelous ways. Harpsichords (and fortepianos) have less stiff strings, so you can tune them to the "correct" frequencies for the tuning you've decided on. It's deciding on the right tuning for a given concert that may have pieces in several keys and from a range of composers and periods which constitutes the art in that case. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.laymusic.org : Putting live music back in the living room. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Is "well-tempered" and "equal-tempered" the same thing? I don't think so. I was under the impression that equal-spaced half steps produced bad-sounding music. The key of E is not supposed to sound exactly like the key of C (except one third higher). That's why the composer dictates the key signature. Each key has its own peculiaritiesies because the notes are not equally spaced. Knowing and using the peculiarities of each key is part of the art of composition. One time I watched a professional piano tuner and was surprised to see that he didn't use any electronic pitch measuring device. He only used ONE tuning fork for middle C, and he tuned all the other notes from there! I said, "why don't you just tune each note separately to its correct frequency" and he said that would sound awful. He said it is impossible to tune any piano perfectly, but it is always a compromise of many different factors. In other words, it is an art. At 11:01 AM 4/4/01 +0100, Phil wrote: >We wouldn't get very far without the equal-temperament scale though >would we? The equally-tempered scale distributes the comma of Pythagoras >around all twelve intervals so all intervals are very slightly wrong. >It's the only way you can tune an instrument with fixed tunings and >have it sound reasonably OK in all keys. John Henckel alt. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zumbro Falls, Minnesota, USA (507) 753-2216 http://geocities.com/jdhenckel/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] abc2ps 1.4
I was messing about on my Mac last night under OS X, and I thought I'd try the latest version of abc2ps to see if it would build under the developer tools. Lo and behold, the 1.4 version has been extensively reworked, has a proper make file, built first time and now can produce .au (audio) files. Great job, Michael! Now all I need to do is find a version of GhostVIew that runs under OS X... wil -- Wil Macaulay email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: +1-(905)-886-7818 xt2253FAX: +1-(905)-886-7824 Syndesis Ltd. 28 Fulton Way Richmond Hill, Ont Canada L4B 1J5 "... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ..." To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ABC applications
Frank Nordberg writes: | John Chambers wrote: | > While you're at it, you might add my abc2ps clone to the growing | > list. | | Will do. Can I add the perl scripts at | http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/sh/ | as well? Sure. Hmmm ... That means that maybe I should look around there and think about making it easier to find things. I've just sorta used that directory as a place to link every ABC-related script that I have, and it's a grab-bag full of miscellaneous stuff. I work on seval different machines, and it's handy to have a web directory like this that I can reach from anywhere when I want something. It might be more useful to others if I had some sort of guide to what all those things do. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
Brad writes: | Thanks for the comments, all. Fear not, I have not violated any | laws since | this was only an idea --- the points raised by this little thread | has | dampened my enthusiasm for such a project. In fact, my feeling | is that even posting | tunes like Ashokan Farewell to the net is questionalble without | permission, | but I am no expert in this field. Also, when I said 'author' I | meant the | author of the book, not the tune --- sorry for the confusion. Actually, the evidence so far is that you probably don't need to be paranoid about such things, as long as you don't try selling things without permission. A common practice in online collections (not just music, but anything) is to include disclaimers saying that you aren't sure of the copyright status of all the material, and if a copyright owner objects to anything, they should send you email and you'll remove their stuff. This generally seems to be all that's really needed, and as long as you really are willing to remove copyrighted material, you're probably not in any legal danger. My web site has a couple thousand tunes in ABC, many collected from mailing lists where attribution is often sketchy. I've exchanged email with quite a number of tune composers, and so far I've been asked to remove exactly one tune (which I did). In all other cases, I've quickly gotten permission. Usually I have to explain what ABC is, and I have a small canned explanation for that. I sent it to Jay Ungar a couple years back, and got permission to include Ashokan Farewell in ABC. I think he's pleased that his tune is such a hit. I also found his other email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So ask him. What I've found especially effective is to offer to either remove a tune or to include the composer's email and/or web address in the headers, along with any info about books and recordings. This does several things. It gets me the correct info about the tune right from the person who should know the most about it. It also gets across the idea that ABC can function as "cheap advertising". ABC gives the tune in a bare-bones fake-book form which isn't at all a competitor for a recording. ABC can also include pointers to the composer's web site. This looks good to anyone trying to make money from their music, and also improves the quality of the documentation in the ABC headers. I've also occasionally received email from tune owners simply telling me that the headers for a tune are incomplete, and giving me the info that should be added. I've taken this as tacit permission to have the tune online, and I add the new info to the headers. This info always seems to include an email or web address. Sometimes I get more email later asking to change an address, which I do. One thing you do have to watch out for is publishers who try to claim ownership of traditional tunes. Note that it's almost always the publishers who try this, not composers. But referencing a publication dated before 1927 usually shuts them up real fast. The Fiddler's Companion web site comes in very handy here. Also, if you're open about a project like you described, producing a music book for some charitable purpose, there's a good chance that almost everyone will give permission to use their tunes for free. But you do have to ask. The hardest part is finding the address. This is getting easier with email, but it's still not always easy. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
Brad writes: | Thanks for the comments, all. Fear not, I have not violated any | laws since | this was only an idea --- the points raised by this little thread | has | dampened my enthusiasm for such a project. In fact, my feeling | is that even posting | tunes like Ashokan Farewell to the net is questionalble without | permission, | but I am no expert in this field. Also, when I said 'author' I | meant the | author of the book, not the tune --- sorry for the confusion. Actually, the evidence so far is that you probably don't need to be paranoid about such things, as long as you don't try selling things without permission. A common practice in online collections (not just music, but anything) is to include disclaimers saying that you aren't sure of the copyright status of all the material, and if a copyright owner objects to anything, they should send you email and you'll remove their stuff. This generally seems to be all that's really needed, and as long as you really are willing to remove copyrighted material, you're probably not in any legal danger. My web site has a couple thousand tunes in ABC, many collected from mailing lists where attribution is often sketchy. I've exchanged email with quite a number of tune composers, and so far I've been asked to remove exactly one tune (which I did). In all other cases, I've quickly gotten permission. Usually I have to explain what ABC is, and I have a small canned explanation for that. I sent it to Jay Ungar a couple years back, and got permission to include Ashokan Farewell in ABC. I think he's pleased that his tune is such a hit. I also found his other email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So ask him. What I've found especially effective is to offer to either remove a tune or to include the composer's email and/or web address in the headers, along with any info about books and recordings. This does several things. It gets me the correct info about the tune right from the person who should know the most about it. It also gets across the idea that ABC can function as "cheap advertising". ABC gives the tune in a bare-bones fake-book form which isn't at all a competitor for a recording. ABC can also include pointers to the composer's web site. This looks good to anyone trying to make money from their music, and also improves the quality of the documentation in the ABC headers. I've also occasionally received email from tune owners simply telling me that the headers for a tune are incomplete, and giving me the info that should be added. I've taken this as tacit permission to have the tune online, and I add the new info to the headers. This info always seems to include an email or web address. Sometimes I get more email later asking to change an address, which I do. One thing you do have to watch out for is publishers who try to claim ownership of traditional tunes. Note that it's almost always the publishers who try this, not composers. But referencing a publication dated before 1927 usually shuts them up real fast. The Fiddler's Companion web site comes in very handy here. Also, if you're open about a project like you described, producing a music book for some charitable purpose, there's a good chance that almost everyone will give permission to use their tunes for free. But you do have to ask. The hardest part is finding the address. This is getting easier with email, but it's still not always easy. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
Richard L Walker writes: | The irony (unless it involves money changing hands) is that people would | have a problem with a book, yet, you can take those same tunes, available | online in mid or abc format, and produce the same sheet music with several | programs. This is in part because the copyright laws are based on a concept that doesn't map well to what we're doing. The "copyright" deals with the right to copy a particular publication. When you convert ABC to a printed form, this is not in any meaningful sense a "copy" of any other printed material. It's not "the same sheet music", as can be seen by putting your laser printer page next to the page in the book and comparing them. All the details are different, so it's obviously not a "copy". One thing that needs to be explained repeatedly is that there are two very different copyrights involved here. You can see the difference if you look at printed copies of traditional tunes, and look at the copyright notices. How can someone copyright a tune that's centuries old? The answer is that they can't. However, they can claim copyright on a particular printed version of the tune. The notes aren't covered by the copyright; only the printed version is covered. You can play and record the tune without permission. You can write up and publish your own version of the tune. You just can't copy that publisher's printed version. For new tunes, the notes themselves are covered by copyright. For a new tune, you can't make a recording without permission. That's a "copy", because it's the tune itself that's under copyright, and the recording is a "copy" of the tune. In this case, translating the tune to any other form, including ABC, is considered "copying", and you need permission. There's a similar situation with text. You can publish your own version of Shakespeare's works without permission from anyone. His words can't be copyrighted. You just can't make a copy of someone else's publication and sell it. Once a tune is public domain, it can't be copyrighted, but a particular version (recording, printed arrangement, etc.) can be. This sort of copyright is much weaker; it only covers that one specific version of the tune. An ABC version isn't a "copy", and a MIDI or PDF file derived from the ABC isn't a "copy". In fact, you could claim your own copyright on the ABC and later versions if you liked (though you might have trouble enforcing a copyright on a 200-byte text file). Actually, none of this has been tested in the courts, and we don't have any idea what they'll say in the long term. The Napster decisions aren't encouraging, as they imply that even a library's card catalog is a copyright violation. This probably won't stand in the long run, since most libraries now have their catalogs online, and library catalogs are not going to be outlawed. But it's probably going to take several more decades for the legal system to understand the Internet and decide that catalogs are legal. And there are likely to be some changes to the definition of "copy". To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
The irony (unless it involves money changing hands) is that people would have a problem with a book, yet, you can take those same tunes, available online in mid or abc format, and produce the same sheet music with several programs. "Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: bulk]On Behalf Of Brad Johnson ...Thanks for the comments, all. Fear not, I have not violated any laws since this was only an idea --- the points raised by this little thread has dampened my enthusiasm for such a project. In fact, my feeling is that even posting tunes like Ashokan Farewell to the net is questionable without permission,... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
John Chambers wrote: > > | This brings to the forefront a very murky problem. I have > | a (not so) large collection of tunes in ABC format (<=100 :-). > | While most are in the public domain, some are not. > | For example, I have a version of Ashokan's Farewell written by > | Jay Unger in 1983. > | > | Now (not so hypothetically), in the interest in promulgating > | (my particular brand of) music, I typeset my tunes and take them > | to the local music store and sell them with the proviso that all > | profits go to help offset the cost of musical instrument rentals > | to under-privilaged children (I encourage you all to do the > | same). > | The question is, have I violated J. Unger's copyright (and > | Rounder's) > | or not? > > Yes you have. No murkiness here at all. A few copies for > personal use aren't going to raise many eyebrows. But > selling printed copies like this is totally illegal just > about anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter in the least > that you are doing something that you consider worthwhile > with the money. (And note that, by posting your message, > you have publicly admitted that you know who composed this > tune, so you'll have no defense. ;-) > > In this case, I happen to know that Jay's a nice guy, and > if you ask, he'll almost certainly give you permission. So > ask him. You might not be surprised to hear that his email > address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's one of the organizers of > the Ashokan dance camp. He and Molly also have a web site, > at www.jayandmolly.com. > > (Hereabouts in New England there have been suggestions that > we declare a 5-year moratorium on Ashokan Farewell. ;-) > > | In a similar vain, a lot of the tunes I originally learned from > | "the book-o-fiddle-tunes": if the author does not receive credit, > | have I broken the law? (or more exactly, an unwritten law?) > > You have certainly violated lots of written laws. Dunno > about the unwritten ones, though. If you can show evidence > that you did a reasonable search and couldn't learn > anything about a tune, the courts have a history of being > lenient when the actual owner sues. Publishers tend to be > rather picky about doing a fairly thorough search for > copyright owners. If you look in a lot of obvious places > and can't find anything, it's common to have a disclaimer > to the effect that the composer is unknown, and later > editions often have an updated attribution (if the composer > is found and permission given) or the tune is deleted with > an explanation. > > This is the main reason that music books often come out > several years after their planned publication date. > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html Thanks for the comments, all. Fear not, I have not violated any laws since this was only an idea --- the points raised by this little thread has dampened my enthusiasm for such a project. In fact, my feeling is that even posting tunes like Ashokan Farewell to the net is questionalble without permission, but I am no expert in this field. Also, when I said 'author' I meant the author of the book, not the tune --- sorry for the confusion. Brad To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Frank Nordberg wrote: >I posted this table at abcusers a year or so ago: > > Pythagorean Equal >c260.74 261.6 >cb 278.43 277.2 >d# 274.69 277.2 >d293.33 293.7 >db 313.24 311.1 >e# 309.03 311.1 >e330 329.6 >f347.65 349.2 >fb 371.25 370 >g# 366.25 370 >g391.11 392 >gb 417.66 415.3 >a# 412.03 415.3 >a440 440 >ab 469.86 466.2 >b# 463.54 466.2 >b495 493.9 > >Just multiply the numbers with 2 to get the next octave. >Lots of people have already posted descriptions of the formula for equal >temperement, so I suppose I don't have to do that. >For the pythagorean temperement you multiply with 2187/2048 to go up an >augmented prime and 256/243 for a minor second. That's not what I understand as a Pythagorean scale. Pythagoras considered only the octave (x 2) and the fifth (x 3/2) to be perfect intervals, so a pythagorean scale is constructed using only these ratios. So, if you start with A = 440, the fifth E = 440 * 3/2 * 1/2 = 330.0. You get all the other notes by continuing around the circle of fifths, multiplying by 3/2 or 3/4 as necessary to stay within the octave. The problem is that twelve fifths doesn't quite add up to seven octaves, so when you get back to A it's seriously out of tune. The difference is called the comma of Pythagoras : C 264.298096 C# 278.4375 D 297.335358 Eb 313.242188 E 330 F 352.397461 F# 371.25 G 396.447144 Ab 417.65625 A' 446.003036 A 440 Bb 469.863281 B 495 >These two temperements have two things in common, they are simple to >define mathematically and they are pretty useless musically. It is indeed a pretty useless scale for any music which wanders very far away round the circle of fifths. We wouldn't get very far without the equal-temperament scale though would we? The equally-tempered scale distributes the comma of Pythagoras around all twelve intervals so all intervals are very slightly wrong. It's the only way you can tune an instrument with fixed tunings and have it sound reasonably OK in all keys. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] to post or not to post?
Jack Campin wrote: > > > I was only interested in different people's reason for not wanting > > their music posted so that I could be more informed when the topic > > came up, like it did in the workshop this past weekend. > > Here are some I can think of: > > 1. I'm dead and I'm not listening to that ouija board (this is the >commonest one). The copyright laws differs from country to country, but as a rule of thumb: if you've been dead for 70 years or more, there is no copyright on your stuff, if not, it's up to your heirs. > > 2. We're "they" and we're not telling you we are (this is the situation >with Jimmy Shand's compositions - *he* never managed to trace who all >the copyright holders were, so a complete edition of his work isn't >going to happen for decades). This is mainly a problem in the USA where the copyright laws are set up mainly to protect the big guys. *Civilized* countries at least pretend to make an attempt to protect the *originators*, but even then there might be a few problems. > > 3. Publishing this tune is not unconditionally legit but it raises some >interesting musical points, so I can post it here with limited >distribution in this discussion context and reasonably expect a court >to uphold that this is "fair use" (I've done this several times). Quite a big grey zone here. Since this all started with my posting about the abcusers tune archive, I should metion that tunes belonging to this category is ommitted without any fuzz. > > 4. This is a work in progress or subject to revision so I want to stay >in control of it and prevent half-baked copies propagating (Laura's >position, and one that applies to some of my stuff). Hmmm... in that case, Jack, you should check if I've included some of your stuff you'd rather not see on the web. > > 5. This belongs in a particular context provided by the file it comes >from and it would be doing the world a musical disservice to >distribute it without that contextual information (the story with >almost all of the material on my website). > > 6. The point of posting this tune on the web is as an advertising >freebie to sell my CDs or get bookings for my artists (this is >why Paul Cranford has ABCs on his site). This is sometimes a tricky one. Obviously you'd want as much distribution as possible for your advertising stuff, but at the same time you'd like to keep *some* kind of control over it. > > 7. This tune is just plain wrong but it throws up some neat bugs in >the ABC spec or in ABC software (again, I've done that). Another comment about the tune archive - the abcs there are edited versions, not necessarily identical in all details to what was posted at abcusers. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
> cb 278.43 277.2 > d# 274.69 277.2 You mean C# and Db, surely? -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architect | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricket.org/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Fomula for determining a half step in MgHz...
Brad Maloney wrote: > > Hi, > My Name is Brad Maloney and I have been lurking for quite a while on this > list. At any rate for a diversion and excercise I am playing around > with coding a QBasic-like program from scratch, but I am hung up on > the fomula that "figures" half step increments in MgHz.. I have > so far created several scales & temperments but none that are > "Well Tempered" > Even if you don't have the formula if you could forward a table > of A 440 chromaticaly through a 880 it would be a great help. with > those figures I can find the formula.. > Thanks in advance, Brad Maloney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I posted this table at abcusers a year or so ago: Pythagorean Equal c260.74 261.6 cb 278.43 277.2 d# 274.69 277.2 d293.33 293.7 db 313.24 311.1 e# 309.03 311.1 e330 329.6 f347.65 349.2 fb 371.25 370 g# 366.25 370 g391.11 392 gb 417.66 415.3 a# 412.03 415.3 a440 440 ab 469.86 466.2 b# 463.54 466.2 b495 493.9 Just multiply the numbers with 2 to get the next octave. Lots of people have already posted descriptions of the formula for equal temperement, so I suppose I don't have to do that. For the pythagorean temperement you multiply with 2187/2048 to go up an augmented prime and 256/243 for a minor second. These two temperements have two things in common, they are simple to define mathematically and they are pretty useless musically. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
