[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
Just laughing loudly. Monica - Original Message - From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" To: "'Vihuela List'" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 6:50 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...) Being a robot and lacking a friendly, smiling face, I am very grateful for the impersonal nature of e-mail. (Just kidding. ...kinda.) Eugene -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Stewart McCoy Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:33 PM To: Vihuela List Subject: [VIHUELA] Protocol of emails (again...) Dear Monica, Many thanks for your single message. Much appreciated. :-) I think it's fair enough to discuss how we send messages to each other, but Heaven forbid that any arbitrary protocol should be imposed. If anything is seriously amiss, Wayne will intervene, but otherwise we are free to do things as we think best. One thing which does worry me about emails is their impersonal nature. We cannot see the sender's friendly, smiling face, so it is easy to take something amiss, especially when many of us have never met face to face. The lists at Dartmouth College are a wonderful resource, and I am grateful to Wayne for organising them. Best wishes, Stewart. -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Monica Hall Sent: 20 December 2011 17:35 To: Vihuelalist Subject: [VIHUELA] Protocol of emails (again...) Sorry Stewart - there is no way that everyone is going to be happy whatever we might decide to do (and who is going to police it anyway?) I personally have no problem at all with the fact that I receive the messages twice - or indeed with the fact that I receive my own messages back straight away. I think you have to accept that if you are on the list everyone is going to do exactly as they please and there is nothing you can do about it - except not be on the list. As far as tidying the heading is concerned I understand that [VIHUELA] is inserted automatically. As for capital letters - well we all make typing mistakes and sometimes it is helpful to use them to emphasise something. I think it is pretty clear from all the messages so far that we would each like to impose our own protocol on everyone else. But in a free world that's just not going to happen. Regards Monica (who in this instance has sent the message only to the list and has tidied the heading to see what may come back when she presses send). To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
Being a robot and lacking a friendly, smiling face, I am very grateful for the impersonal nature of e-mail. (Just kidding. ...kinda.) Eugene > -Original Message- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of Stewart McCoy > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:33 PM > To: Vihuela List > Subject: [VIHUELA] Protocol of emails (again...) > > Dear Monica, > > Many thanks for your single message. Much appreciated. :-) > > I think it's fair enough to discuss how we send messages to each other, > but Heaven forbid that any arbitrary protocol should be imposed. If > anything is seriously amiss, Wayne will intervene, but otherwise we are > free to do things as we think best. > > One thing which does worry me about emails is their impersonal nature. > We cannot see the sender's friendly, smiling face, so it is easy to take > something amiss, especially when many of us have never met face to face. > > The lists at Dartmouth College are a wonderful resource, and I am > grateful to Wayne for organising them. > > Best wishes, > > Stewart. > > -Original Message- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of Monica Hall > Sent: 20 December 2011 17:35 > To: Vihuelalist > Subject: [VIHUELA] Protocol of emails (again...) > > Sorry Stewart - there is no way that everyone is going to be happy > whatever > we might decide to do (and who is going to police it anyway?) I > personally > have no problem at all with the fact that I receive the messages twice - > or > indeed with the fact that I receive my own messages back straight away. > > I think you have to accept that if you are on the list everyone is going > to > do exactly as they please and there is nothing you can do about it - > except > not be on the list. > > As far as tidying the heading is concerned I understand that [VIHUELA] > is > inserted automatically. As for capital letters - well we all make > typing > mistakes and sometimes it is helpful to use them to emphasise something. > > I think it is pretty clear from all the messages so far that we would > each > like to impose our own protocol on everyone else. But in a free world > that's just not going to happen. > > Regards > > Monica (who in this instance has sent the message only to the list and > has > tidied the heading to see what may come back when she presses send). > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
People sometimes complain about links not working. These "References" are copies of the links that generally do work, in the first few iterations of the message, anyways. Wayne > I also get > rid of this sort of thing: > >> Ed Durbrow >> Saitama, Japan >> [1]http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ >> [2]http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ >> >> -- >> >> References >> >> 1. http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ >> 2. http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
That seems reasonable. There is one other point which I would make and that is - if you are commenting on something that another individual has said, especially if you are disgreeing or saying something which is critical it is courteous to reply to them directly as well as to the list as they may otherwise overlook the comments. It is quite difficult to keep these discussions completely neutral. Monica - Original Message - From: "Ed Durbrow" To: "vl" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:58 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...) I think that is a harder call. With this list, for example, sometimes I'll hit reply, write my reply and then send it off only to realize that I meant to send it to the whole list and not just the individual. So that is one case. The other is when the priority is to the individual but you would like the list to get it to. In a case where I was responding to you via the list, I would try to remember to send it only to the list, but some people I know (me for instance) might go for a couple of days without looking at the list posts while monitoring individual messages daily. Sometimes you want to make sure the person doesn't miss it. I imagine some people might get a digest and skip over things. I suggest using your RH pinky to delete those extra posts, as we all know lute players simply don't get enough exercise for that neglected digit. :-) Stewart McCoy wrote: When people reply to my messages, they often send me the same email twice: one to me and one to the List to which I subscribe. This is unnecessary duplication, Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [1]http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ [2]http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- References 1. http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ 2. http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
I think that is a harder call. With this list, for example, sometimes I'll hit reply, write my reply and then send it off only to realize that I meant to send it to the whole list and not just the individual. So that is one case. The other is when the priority is to the individual but you would like the list to get it to. In a case where I was responding to you via the list, I would try to remember to send it only to the list, but some people I know (me for instance) might go for a couple of days without looking at the list posts while monitoring individual messages daily. Sometimes you want to make sure the person doesn't miss it. I imagine some people might get a digest and skip over things. I suggest using your RH pinky to delete those extra posts, as we all know lute players simply don't get enough exercise for that neglected digit. :-) Stewart McCoy wrote: When people reply to my messages, they often send me the same email twice: one to me and one to the List to which I subscribe. This is unnecessary duplication, Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [1]http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ [2]http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ -- References 1. http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/ 2. http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Protocol of emails (again...)
Thanks for this Stewart, You'll see I've deleted your name from the address (another task - but not too onerous!) Why do you save messages (on your own computer)? Aren't they saved by your email provider? If so there's nothing lost (but only gain for the reasons mentioned). I'm particularly suspicious of the selective quote if we don't make it as easy as possible to search previous messages in the thread. So that, for example, you and I and others can readily see what I wrote in the first place and not have to repeat it in subsequent messages - as below. In addition, those coming to the thread later can comprehend where it started and then not have to repeat what was said earlier... However, I'd be happy to delete when the subject changes - though but for some reason there's a habit of continuing with old subject headings long after the conversation has moved on regards Martyn --- On Sun, 18/12/11, Stewart McCoy wrote: From: Stewart McCoy Subject: [VIHUELA] Protocol of emails (again...) To: "Vihuela List" Date: Sunday, 18 December, 2011, 23:15 Dear Martyn, Please may I add something to your list of gripes. When people reply to my messages, they often send me the same email twice: one to me and one to the List to which I subscribe. This is unnecessary duplication, since I usually want to read their message no more than once. Sending an ever-growing conversation back and forth, is also unnecessary, and clogs up the memory. (I save all messages.) For the sake of continuity I include the previous message, or only part of it if it is a long one. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. -Original Message- From: [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Martyn Hodgson Sent: 18 December 2011 10:07 To: Vihuelalist Cc: Monica Hall Subject: [VIHUELA] PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...) I much prefer to have a sequential record of a discussion/thread rather than having to go back to laboriously search for the relevant email to see precisely what was said umpteen emails ago. As it is, the well-recognised problem with this particular mode of communication is that many/most people often only skim a message (I count myself guilty sometimes) and if, by deleting earlier messages, we loose what was actually said (short of an even more time consuming search of archives) then any check on accuracy is also lost. I also prefer to have the most recent message at the top rather than mixed in with the previous one (which can lead to selective quotes) or at the bottom which, clearly, if a long thread also involves much scrolling down and time wasting. Surely if a consistent system is followed whereby messages are always replied at the top with the previous ones below in date order then nothing is lost. If someone doesn't want to scroll down then they don't have to. One other thing: I think it important to change the subject heading when there's a significant change in content. Some interesting threads have subject titles which end up bearing little if any relation to the most recent discussion. Martyn To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu 2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...)
I can competently contribute to this topic.
1. Email is fundamentally a social phenomenon. That means lots
of different people are involved. Give up on uniform compliance
to any protocol. Even machines have a hard time doing that.
2. In general, most people stack discussions with the most recent
reply on top. That's probably more laziness than a conscious
decision.
3. Things get hard to follow when people reply top-down
and bottom-up in the same thread. Maybe a good rule of thumb
would be to follow the lead of the first replier? But given
item 1 above, don't hold your breath... You just have to
deal with it.
4. Sometimes replying inline is much easier, and much more
appropriate.
It helps to say that's what you're doing up front. Also, try to
identify your inline statements clearly.
5. It's a good idea to trim the replies after a certain point. Some
mail clients do that automatically. Personally, I tend to forget
to trim replies. Apologies.
6. We're all trying our best to communicate, foibles notwithstanding.
7. About the [VIHUELA] in the subject... Are you doing that manually?
Or is that put in there by the list server? If the latter, there's
nothing to do about it. For me, I get hundreds of emails a day, and
this label is a good way to sort out these most intriguing messages.
If you label the messages manually, I thank you and hope you
continue.
cud
__
From: Monica Hall
To: Martyn Hodgson
Cc: Vihuelalist
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 8:45 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...)
I fear this is a lost cause. We will never get everyone to conform.
But I
think that it is usually better to put one's reply at the top of the
message. It is not helpful in anyway to have to scroll though pages of
junk to find out what the writer has said.
Having said that - I think it is sometimes necessary to reply point by
point
to a message rather than in one go. I suppose you could copy and paste
bits from the previous message but that is a bit time consuming.
You are right about the headings. Just one query. Should we always
put
[VIHUELA] before the sugject matter?
Regards
Monica
- Original Message -
From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Vihuelalist" <[2]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Cc: "Monica Hall" <[3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...)
>
> I much prefer to have a sequential record of a discussion/thread
rather
> than having to go back to laboriously search for the relevant email
to
> see precisely what was said umpteen emails ago. As it is, the
> well-recognised problem with this particular mode of communication
is
> that many/most people often only skim a message (I count myself
guilty
> sometimes) and if, by deleting earlier messages, we loose what was
> actually said (short of an even more time consuming search of
archives)
> then any check on accuracy is also lost.
>
> I also prefer to have the most recent message at the top rather than
> mixed in with the previous one (which can lead to selective quotes)
or
> at the bottom which, clearly, if a long thread also involves much
> scrolling down and time wasting.
>
> Surely if a consistent system is followed whereby messages are
always
> replied at the top with the previous ones below in date order then
> nothing is lost. If someone doesn't want to scroll down then they
don't
> have to.
>
> One other thing: I think it important to change the subject heading
> when there's a significant change in content. Some interesting
threads
> have subject titles which end up bearing little if any relation to
the
> most recent discussion.
>
> Martyn
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 17/12/11, Monica Hall <[4]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>From: Monica Hall <[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was:
Return
>to earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
>To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
>Cc: "Vihuelalist" <[7]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>Date: Saturday, 17 December, 2011, 15:35
>
>Ah - I think I know what's happening - you've got the wrong end of
> the
> > stick:
> I am glad you know what is happening. It all depends o
[VIHUELA] Re: PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...)
I fear this is a lost cause. We will never get everyone to conform. But I
think that it is usually better to put one's reply at the top of the
message. It is not helpful in anyway to have to scroll though pages of
junk to find out what the writer has said.
Having said that - I think it is sometimes necessary to reply point by point
to a message rather than in one go. I suppose you could copy and paste
bits from the previous message but that is a bit time consuming.
You are right about the headings. Just one query. Should we always put
[VIHUELA] before the sugject matter?
Regards
Monica
- Original Message -
From: "Martyn Hodgson"
To: "Vihuelalist"
Cc: "Monica Hall"
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] PROTOCOL OF EMAILS (again...)
I much prefer to have a sequential record of a discussion/thread rather
than having to go back to laboriously search for the relevant email to
see precisely what was said umpteen emails ago. As it is, the
well-recognised problem with this particular mode of communication is
that many/most people often only skim a message (I count myself guilty
sometimes) and if, by deleting earlier messages, we loose what was
actually said (short of an even more time consuming search of archives)
then any check on accuracy is also lost.
I also prefer to have the most recent message at the top rather than
mixed in with the previous one (which can lead to selective quotes) or
at the bottom which, clearly, if a long thread also involves much
scrolling down and time wasting.
Surely if a consistent system is followed whereby messages are always
replied at the top with the previous ones below in date order then
nothing is lost. If someone doesn't want to scroll down then they don't
have to.
One other thing: I think it important to change the subject heading
when there's a significant change in content. Some interesting threads
have subject titles which end up bearing little if any relation to the
most recent discussion.
Martyn
--- On Sat, 17/12/11, Monica Hall wrote:
From: Monica Hall
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return
to earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "Vihuelalist"
Date: Saturday, 17 December, 2011, 15:35
Ah - I think I know what's happening - you've got the wrong end of
the
> stick:
I am glad you know what is happening. It all depends on which end of
the
stick one has got hold of.
I'm not (and have not as far as I can see) suggesting that an
> alfabeto accompaniment necessarily converts into a bass line (ie
the
> lowest sounding note in each chord would result in the bass line -
even
> if we knew it) but the converse: that a bass line enables one to
> 'realise' a chordal accompaniment (eg alfabeto) on the guitar - not
the
> same thing at all.
I'll take your word for it - there isn't time to go back all over it.
> And, of course, songs with nothing other than alfabeto can't and
> therefore don't show single notes. It's only when mixed tablature
> becomes common that we could expect to start to
> see such realisations. That's quite different to say it's 'wrong'
to
> consider the practice of inserting some bass notes if one has the
bass
> and not just the alfabeto. It's almost as if
> one only saw the alfabeto dances in Calvi (1646) without noticing
his
> intabulated dances later in the same book and concluded he never
wrote
> in two parts.
He didn't write either of them actually. He copied them from
elsewhere. The
alfabeto pieces are copied from Corbetta's 1639 book and the other
pieces
from an unidentified source probably not originally for
guitar. They
belong to two different traditions.
> And I haven't even got round to Valdambrini yet - he seems to
exhibit a
> fine disregard for the precise octave of the bass in his cadential
> examples.
But that is not relevant to earlier alfabeto accompaniments.
>
> And, no, I don't anywhere suggest that if one has a bass line AND
the
> alfabeto one should always seek to amalgamate the two. But I
certainly
> don't think the practice is prohibited by any early contemporary
> sources - hence my suggestion about the performance of the
> Grandi song which has both the alfabeto and the bass line...
It is not a question of whether it is prohibited or not since we do not
have
any surviving instructions. It is a question of what was customary
at the
time the Grandi song appeared in print and earlier - as far as we can
tell
from surviving sources which include written out alfabeto
accompaniments.
These do not give any suggestion at all that any attempt was made to
include
the bass part.
Monica
With reference to Lex ps "could you please stop sending the whole
