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" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Vihuelalist" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Cc: "Monica Hall" <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 <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
From: Monica Hall <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" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Vihuelalist" <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
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
