source file: mills2.txt Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:06:09 -0800 Subject: Crying "wolf". From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> > Do we really want to use the same term "wolf" for these two very > different intervals? (And, as you very appropriately pointed out, different sources of tuning errors.) I tend to use "wolf" to mean either of two meanings: A note that is conceptually correct in the tuning system but nevertheless has a systematic pitch error from whatever source, and also the more specific case of the break in the circle of fifths to make a diminished sixth. I don't know whether to think that it's a good idea to use the same term for those two meanings, but this sort of general/specific dual word usage is certainly not unprecedented. For example: Equal temperament: General: A tuning based on single, consistent step size. Specific: 12TET Meantone: General: A tuning based up on circle of a fixed size P5 wrapping within an octave. Specific: Quarter-comma meantone. Comma: General: A pitch error between two systematically valid formulations of what are conceptually the same pitch. Specific: Syntonic comma. I suppose one could take either of two camps in this question: 1. Music is not, and perhaps shouldn't become, an exact science. This sort of dual-meaning word is common, and it is poetic license, if not poetic justice, that it should be accepted in the case of "wolf" as well. 2. Look, let's not make the same mistake for the ... what? ... sixth time?! Dan Wolf was, I think, insightful to point out that historically, "wolf" has been used to describe far more divergent effects, like a note on an instrument that, just by the acoustomechanics of the instrument itself, tends to "stick out". I've even heard some violinists describe the open E string on a "wolf". So, the clear lesson here is that context is key. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:01 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00454; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:04:00 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA00452 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id OAA17132; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:03:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:03:57 -0800 Message-Id: <32AC8C41.6777@ix.netcom.com> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu