source file: mills2.txt Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:44:49 -0800 Subject: Crying "wolf". From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> Jonathan Walker has got his history right, but terminology often has a life of its own, and now, following my Webster's Collegiate, the _wolf_ for tuning is **a dissonance in some chords on organs, pianos, or other instruments with fixed tones tuned by unequal temperament**, or **an instance of such dissonance** (there is also a definition for the faulty tones in certain stringed instruments, and the usual stuff about _canus lupus_). I think we should accept the broader definition of _wolf_that describes an effect or category of effects, rather than specific intervals, and when we intend a specific interval it would be best just to give the ratio itself. This is tangential to another subject that has often concerned me: In general, I am not a fan of invented terminology, and I think that an informal neologism ban treaty within the tuning community would be of great benefit to the public profile of our enterprise. The existing musical, mathematical, and physical vocabulary is surely adequate and precise enough for our modest needs! Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:56 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02052; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:57:57 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02053 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id IAA22496; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:57:54 -0800 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:57:54 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu