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 <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Vihuelalist <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
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 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
> thread of the discussion together
> with your newest posts"? I have deleted an endless stream of junk
> from the end of this message.
> I suppose we are all such incurable individualists on this list that
we
> will never agree as to how we should reply to messages.
> But I wish that people would delete everything except the points
they
> are responding to. Whatever may have been "netiquette" in the dim
> distant past seems to me irrelevant today. Remember that these
> messages are archived and if they are just a mess it is difficult to
> refer back to them for useful information.
>
> --
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
3. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
4. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
5. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
6. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
7. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
