For a while now I've been aware of the limitations of the tune submission process. It's basically first come, first served.
Up 'till now, if you wanted to submit an alternate setting of a tune, you could only do so in the comments. If you submitted it as a new tune, it would simply be deleted (I don't want to fragment the tunes section by having comments relevant to a tune being spread over more than one place).
That obviously wasn't ideal so I've made some changes.
If you go to a tune when you're logged on with your username and password and you click on the "ABC" tab, you'll now see a link asking "do you know another setting of this tune?". Clicking this link pops up a form where you can enter the body of the ABC notation (the headers are already in place).
After you submit your version, it will now also appear in the "ABC" tab. Also, selecting "download ABC file" from the "download" tab will download an ABC file with all the versions.
I'll also try to make sheetmusic and soundfiles for newly submitted versions, but that may take a while: I want to give priority to making the sheetmusic and soundfiles for newly submitted tunes.
Here's an example:
Gian Marco submitted his version of The Cap And Bell. Radriano posted his version in the comments. I've taken Radriono's version and added it as an alternate setting. Now both versions appear:
The usual ABC submission rules apply:
don't add extra information in the body of the ABC, do it in the comments instead (e.g. where the setting comes from). They'll just be deleted from the ABC.
Please don't post minor variations to the existing settings. Suggesting subtle variations is something that's still best done in the comments.
You can't change the name, time signature, key or tune type for a variation: if those things are different, then it's probably a different tune.
I hope this new feature will help ease some of the frustration people have been experiencing with the somewhat draconian measures I've taken up 'till now to discourage duplicate tune submissions.
Thoughts? Comments? Your feedback, as always, is most appreciated.
Sorry, it's me again. Considering some tunes are played in two different keys with interesting variations, I think it would be better if we could post another setting in a different key.
And I've got a question. Should we confine ourselves to posting only one alternative setting of a certain tune a day like posting a new tune? I think we should. Otherwise, Jeremy, you'll be very busy.
Hi Jeremy. This looks like it could be really useful, but it's going to take me a while to get my head round it!
I agree with Slainte that it would be better if you could change the key header, maybe using a prompt just before you're asked to enter the abc, just like when you enter abc normally but without the rest of the info like title and genre. I can think of *heaps* of tunes that commonly get played in sessions in 2 or 3 different keys, but they're basically the same tune. I think this feature would be put to its best use if you could include those.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that it would be more useful for wildly different settings in different keys than just settings in the same key but different variations. So you could even go the other way and if your prompt for the key is the same key as the original setting then you are told to put it in the comments section. If the key is different then you're allowed to submit it as a diffent-key-setting. I think this might avoid a situation where the system is misused.
Also, the problem with not having them in the comments section is that you can't say "this is my personal variation" or "this is the setting on Kevin Burke's CD", and even if you do post that info in the comments, you can't link it directly to the transcription because it potentially gets swamped under a whole load of different people's variations.
If this thing you're doing is retrospective, then how does that work? Would we lift stuff from the comments and still leave the comments there or are you doing it, cuz if you are then isn't that too much for you to do? I feel a bit guilty about this because I e-mailed you to ask you about posting settings in different keys... If it's not retrospective then that would be a shame because there aren't that many common session tunes not already on the database.
To be honest, I never got frustrated at having to post different settings in the comments section, and I think it was working fine cuz you knew they were all there in the one place. But then on the other hand I guess there is a line somewhere when a different setting becomes a different tune, and sometimes it's hard to know where to draw that line. I just worry sometimes that lumping them all together as one tune might bugger up the natural process of tune divergence, because people will hear them at sessions, and get online to look up the name. I'm thinking of tunes like Ed Reavy's "Never Was Piping So Gay" and that Paddy Fahy's reel in G, which must have started life as a different setting of NWPSG, but has become viewed as a different tune.
I was also wondering, will it be possible to choose which setting you'd prefer to print out when printing out tunebooks? It looks as though at the moment that that would be difficult for you to do cuz all the sheetmusic gets lumped together.
In conclusion, I'm not sure that it would make this site work much smoother than it already does. You'll still get people who post different settings of tunes as completely new tune submissions through not realising that it's already there, so you'll still end up deleting stuff. I kinda worry that it's going to be misused for the slightest difference in a setting, and consequently confuse and clutter things.
The issue for me - that I would be interested in hearing other people's views on - is whether tunes should be duplicated in different keys, e.g. "The Holly Bush" in Dmix and the same tune in Emix. I thought I'd read you say somewhere in the discussions that you thought it would be useful. But actually I personally think *everything* associated with the tune, including different-key-settings is fine just in the comments section. That seemed to be your original principle behind the tune submission thing anyway.
On the other hand, I suppose we're getting to a stage now where we have this huge database full of tunes, and the tunes coming in now tend to be obscure ones that you're less likely to hear in a session. Maybe by starting up something like this new feature, the database could be taken off into a new direction. It's already a more powerful database for tunes than say Norbeck's because of the tunes comments section, and there's this interaction with people all over the world who actually play them. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about all this...
My goodness, Dow you are prolific!! I wouldn't know where to begin to comment on that lengthy submission but much of it makes a lot of sense. I would have thought that the best thing to do for now is to wait and see how this works out, since Jeremy has already put it in place. If there are problems he can then try and seek ways around them.
How about putting other versions in as, for example: 'Drowsie Maggie 2' or would that get rejected under the present system?
There are bound to be problems trying to categorize the music anyway. I only found out the other day that "The Reel With The Birl" is a setting of "Drowsy Maggie". Having a different name helps along its status as a different tune. And then there's that Donegal version of Drowsy Maggie (recorded by Altan) which would be considered a different tune if it had a different name. That A-part is more different to the standard setting than the A-part of "The Reel With The Birl", but they're considered the same tune cuz they have the same name.
Another thing that springs to mind is settings that are wildly different from the original but don't really deserve status as a session setting, but they're sort of interesting anyway. I'm thinking of one time I was in a creative mood and posted a whole load of weirdo settings for a tune http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1939 If I'd thought that I was expected to post such wildly different settings as a proper submission then I wouldn't have dared post them!
I've just thought of something else. You could really develop this "different settings" submission feature by letting it go its own way. In other words, not doing sheetmusic/sound files or anything else that takes up your time. If you did it that way, then people would be freed to submit whatever, and readers could pick and choose. Like for example you could do it like this:
Drowsy Maggie (original submission by Jeremy or whoever, with abc, sound file and sheet music)
Then you could click on a tab that says "other settings" and get a long list of abc files submitted by readers:
Yeah, that would be the icing on the cake if you could do that. Because it would put all the settings in one place. And say if I was going to visit Will in Montana and he said "hey Dow learn my setting of Drowsy Maggie" I could simply go to the different settings thing and learn it straight from the abc. It would avoid cluttering up the comments section with different settings if that wasn't what you wanted.
One drawback I suppose is the fact that all the settings are in a different section and abc-only, so they don't get the same "status" as the original tune submission, but I really don't think that matters. The most important thing is that the information's there. The more information on different settings, the better IMO. If you leave it so you don't do sound files/sheetmusic for every new setting, it would a) save you a lot of work, and b) thesession would be better off as a whole, because you'd have more settings to choose from that might even differ from each other only slightly, and c) it wouldn't be left to you to make spur-of-the-moment decisions as to how different a setting is. It could be left to run its own course, and even if (say) Slainte's setting is only *slightly* different from the original tune submission, it wouldn't matter because it's just one setting in a long list.
Sorry, me again. With a feature like this, you could improve on the quality of the tune info at thesession.org and maybe shift the balance from new tune submissions to working on the old submissions and developing them. I for one would be interested to post my own settings of the tunes I play and just have them sit there in the "other settings" section for anyone who wants to look at them. I haven't done that up till now cuz I don't feel as though I should be cluttering up the comments section with my personal settings of a load of tunes alongside settings that are on actual recordings or whatever. I feel a bit like: "who wants to know my setting of the tune, it's not *that* different to the original submission, not different enough to justify cluttering up the comments anyway".
Oh and to avoid clutter, you could allow "other settings" contributors to edit their abc afterwards if they've made a mistake, like you can already with your own tune submissions.
And one more thing, if you were prompted for tune title as well as stuff like key and source in the headers, then you'd be able to see whether tunes get called different names according to where you are in the world. For example you might get all the settings submitters in Canada and the US calling a tune one thing, and all the people in the UK calling it something else. At the moment you can't tell who has posted alternative names, but this could be made even more sophisticated than it is I think. Not sure how tho'
Hmm I keep going away and doing something else and changing my mind again. Everything's already possible with the comments section which is flexible enough to include anything and everything. If your setting differs only slightly you can do stuff like quote one bar and say "mine's like Slainte's except for bar 4 whoich I have as |DEFD ~G3A|". Maybe there just needs to be another general call for people to use the comments section to its full potential and post more different settings there.
Dow
Just how do you manage to have such a great conversation with yourself. I only just now managed to check back on this - been working! Then I find all these posts from you and answered by you. Do you think they have all gone to bed in the Western world.
I do love your idea of the drop down tab for the different settings but I suspect that would all be too hard to put into place. Need to wait and hear back from Jeremy tomorrow or is that tonight?
If you want to keep talking to yourself I promise I'll come back and listen/read later but Ive got work to do now.
Cheers
Whilst putting the rubbish out I thought of another reason why the comments section is a more appropriate place for all this stuff. If someone posts their setting in the comments section, then it allows other people to comment either on the other setting, or the original submission, and it's obvious which one's being talked about. You can also discuss how viable a setting is, or whether it is a setting at all, e.g. "that's not a setting of tune x, it's a completely different tune called y, and it's already been posted here @ z". With a separate settings section, you wouldn't be able to do this as easily.
I can't decide! Part of me thinks that having a separate section might encourage more people to make submissions, even if they differ only slightly to the original. And as a result you'd get a rich variety of settings and variations, all on the database.
Can Jeremy or another member please confirm that it's presently possible to have the same "tune name" listed as different types of tunes, ie if one version is a reel and the other is a jig? This appears to the case eg Coleman's Cross. I just wanted to make sure that there was no objection to submitting a another tune with the same name as long as it's a different type. Thanks in anticipation.
Sure. "I can't decide! Part of me thinks that having a separate section might encourage more people to make submissions, even if they differ only slightly to the original. And as a result you'd get a rich variety of settings and variations, all on the database".
It's 21.35. Anyway, am I the only one posting on this thread? I feel like Billy-No-Mates sitting in a pub on my own talking to myself. Emin tell us what you think.
LOL you're not the only one. Beebs rang me today to find out if I was okay. She said she'd never seen me so drunk as I was last night. Apparently I did a vanishing act. I can hardly remember a thing about the evening, but I have this vague sense that I had a good time.
Yeah I think I went to bed around 3am & woke up again around 6am, which is the only reason I'm up right now, seriously wondering if (or actually when) I should lay back down. When the rooms starts spinning, that's my cue. Oh look, vertigo.
I would try and answer your question if I thought I fully understood it John! If you're simply talking about tunes of different genres that coincidentally have the same name, like "Around The World For Sport", then of course there's no problem. Otherwise we'd have a problem when it came to submitting tunes that go by the name of "Paddy Fahy's". However, if you're talking about tunes that are basically the same notes but a different genre, like for example "The Long Note" as a slide, and the same tune played as a reel, then I don't know. Jeremy might consider these as different settings of the same tune so one would belong in the comments section of the other. But under the new system he's introducing you wouldn't be able to enter it as a "different setting" because the genre would be set for you in the headers upon submission.
It was the first point I asking about, ie submitting "tunes of different genres that have coincidentally the same name". I am aware that it always has been possible and done in the past. I wasn't sure, though, if Jeremy approved of the practice.
I don't see how anybody could objact to posting ten different "Paddy Fahy" tunes instead of just one. (Which one would we pick?)
The most significant flaw in this otherwise brilliant innovation, Jeremy, is the restriction on the key and time signature. Eg: Pierre Schryer and Dermott Byrne do "the Pigeon on the Gate" in G dor while the one here is in E dor. The tune is much cooler in their setting, but to post it as a different version I would have to transpose it to E dor, write the ABC, then write in the comments; "by the way, Pierre and Dermott's version, posted here in E, is supposed to be in G" Then anyone who wanted to learn it would have to transpose it back to G (*if* they notice my comment).
Also, I was shocked to learn people over here play the Foxhunter in A instead of G. If I gave a hoot about sheet music it might be handy to have both keys posted.
Anyway, I'm not likely to post Dermott and Pierre's setting using this feature, so anyone who wants to learn that tune will just have to buy the CD. (It's well worth it, believe me!)
This restriction seems likely to encourage people to post the minor variations and prevent people from posting the more interesting ones.
Plus it prevents people posting Strathspey versions of reels, or 7/8 versions of slip jigs. Having a single tune posted as a reel, hornpipe, and strathspey in G, A, B and F would be an excellent learning tool for the sheet-music inclined to break down their attachment to one particular set of dots.
Look at me! Jeremy works so hard on my one-stop trad shop and all I can do is complain! I should stress the fact that I love this site. It's the best site in the universe (except for http://www.dancingbush.com/) and it keeps getting better. I'm so impressed that you keep dreaming up improvements.
I wonder if it might be easier to organize if each variation was on a separate file on the same page instead of combining them all into one file. That way you could select the file you want to listen to or print out. Or did anyone already suggest this?
Hmmm... well now I'm having second thoughts about this whole thing.
Maybe Dow is right and the comments are good enough for handling different tune versions.
The only downsides to using comments (and these are the things I was trying to address) are:
1) You can't put a version from the comments in your tunebook.
2) You can't see the sheetmusic or hear the soundfile for a version in the comments.
Now I'm not so sure. Anybody else have some thoughts on the relative merits of using the comments for posting settings?
To answer a couple of other questions:
Yes, it is retroactive. You can add an alternate setting for any tune in the database. Tellingly, nobody has yet. Not one. Perhaps comments are preferable because people get to add things like "here's the setting I know from so-and-so..."
Technically, I guess you could add versions in different keys by including the "K:" header at the start of your ABC. But if that's the only difference between your version and the existing version, I don't think it would really merit being posted.
Jeremy, what if you had the download button where the abcs are posted in the coments section. That way when people read the comments, the files related to those comments will be right there.
I like being able to post abcs directly in the comment section--it's easy to annotate that way, and break out individual phrases to show different ways to play them. But that's just me--I can play straight from the abcs, so I don't need the dots or a sound file. Realizing that other people might want to convert the abcs into dots or sound, I try to remember to post all the pieces needed to do that (the X, K, M, and L fields) so someone can paste the whole thing into concertina.net or abcmus, etc.
I didn't mean to do the whole comment -- just the abcs if they've been submitted. Personally, I usually copy & paste to my barfly program if I want to look closer, but I don't know what everyone else's capabilities are.
I still think it's a good idea, Jeremy. I don't think any tune can be expressed in one piece of sheet music. I think the best way to do it is to have the versions appear on seperate tabs and let the user control which one goes into the tunebook. Then all the comments should appear on one page so the variations can be compared and we can argue about which one is the most "real" or "traditional".
I'm going off now to take your suggestion and put up Pigeon on the Gate with the K: in the body of my ABCs.
I have Barfly too, don't use near as much as I should. Jeremy, would it be possible to put an ABC converter on this site like on concertina.net? That might solve a number of problems.... plus get more ppl used to ABC & noodling around with it. $.01
Y'know... I'm not sure this feature is going to work out. It may be that I underestimated the power of the comments section.
I think I may well roll things back to the way they used to be.
Here's a compromise solution, though: when someone posts a version in the comments, I can make sheetmusic and a soundfile from that which I can then add. This wouldn't solve the tunebook problem (you'd still only get the original version in your tunebook) but it would allow equal time-sharing for "competing" versions of tunes under the "sheetmusic" tab.
Whaddya think? Would anybody have any objections if this new feature quietly disappeared as quickly as it emerged?
On a related note, Jack, you're idea of extracting ABCs from the comments has got the cogs in my skull turning... I'll see what I can come up with.
Okay... I've done a roll-back to the way things used to be.
My apologies to anyone who was getting excited about the new feature, but it's better to roll it back now rather than later.
So now here's what's on my "to do" list:
1) find ABCs submitted in the comments to tunes, make sheetmusic and soundfiles out of them and upload them. This alleviates the "first come, first served" problem.
2) See if there's some way of extracting ABCs from comments so that they can be included in tunebooks... but don't hold your breath
Sorry about all the flip-flopping on this issue, guys. It's clear to me now that it isn't such a clear-cut issue and that adding ABCs in the comments works better than I realised.
Phooey. OK then, I'll put my pigeon in the comments tab. By the way, Jeremy, looks like that tune would be a good one to play with if you're developing this idea - there are lots and lots of settings posted there.
Jeremy, I'm wodering how we can help you. It's nice to have various settings of one tune, but it's obviously too much work for one person to upload them. So it'll be better if we can inform you how many alternative settings of a certain tune are posted in the comment space by using some kind of automated system. We can email you but it will be a mess.
Jeremy, with the new sheetmusic and soundfiles, where will they appear? You seem to be saying they won't be next to the original for tunebook use. Does that mean it appears on screen in the comments section or will there be a drop down tab?
I don't think there are enough people posting other settings. There are a few people who stand out, Pants, Slainte, Will, David, Kenny. I just wish more people would have a good look at the tunes section and do a bit more sharing. It's your way of giving back something to thesession.org, folks. So if you're using a lame excuse like you don't know how to write abc, then get off yer arses and learn - it'll take you 5-10 mins, seriously. abc is such an unbelievably powerful tool for trad musos. I spent a long time writing tunes down on manuscript paper cuz of my classical background (I know, *gasp* :-o), but now if I hear a tune, I can just write it on any old scrap of paper/beermat, whatever, and it's so quick. There's nothing you can do with sheetmusic that you can't do with abc. The thing with sheetmusic on this site is just that it looks good for tunebooks. But I take the sheetmusic files with a pinch of salt anyway because quite often people have spotted mistakes and edited their abc afterwards, and the sheetmusic file retains those mistakes. So you end up having to look at the abc anyway. If anything, sheetmusic use for trad tunes deserves to be phased out as a medium for the online passing-on of trad IMO. It's cumbersome and you have to make an effort to make a proper file out of it. And classically-trained musos can already read it, so there's a danger that people just play directly from the dots and think they can play. abc is just text, so you can write it anywhere, e-mail it or whatever.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think you should view the time-consuming sheetmusic and soundfiles as being the backbone of the database and something that has to be cemented and formalized to make the database helpful or useful. I know some people only learn by ear, but soundfiles don't help with the rhythm and ornamentation, which is the most important thing really. abc is the way to go, and it's the medium of all the important information on this site as regards ornamentation/variations/settings. So it's not up to you to improve the tunes section with structural change, Jeremy, it's up to us to get off our arses, learn abc, and post as much knowledge as we can in the comments section.
I also don't think you should worry that the original submission gets more "status". I would hope that anyone learning tunes off this site realises that the original submission just sets the ball rolling, and it's what comes afterwards in the comments section that's the really important meaty stuff. Where else can you get a range of different abc settings, anecdotes about a tune, even arguments about a tune online?!
One way around the problem of wildly different settings could be to submit them as separate tunes by the same name and say "this tune appears to be a very different version of tune x, and I was wondering if people here think it has diverged significantly enough from other settings to deserve recognition as a separate tune". If people say no, Jeremy deletes it. If people say yes, or are undecided, then it stays. In other words, letting the people/masses decide.
I may well be concentrating too much on the sheetmusic and soundfiles.
What does bother me though is that when click on the "download" tab and download the ABC or when you add a tune to your tunebook and then download the tunebook, you don't get the benefit of versions in comments. That's why I'm working on Jack's idea of extracting ABCs from comments.
From my own personal experience, I think this could be helpful; I have the tunes The Whinny Hills Of Leitrim and The Earl's Chair in my tunebook: http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1064 http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/221
Both of those tunes have some nice variations in the comments. In fact, the versions I've ended up learning are hybrids of the original submission and the versions from the comments. It would be nice if I could have the variations in my tunebook along with the original submission.
I'm making some progress with the extracting ABCs from comments but it'll only ever be "garbage in, garbage out". In other words, where people have added well formatted variations, extracting them becomes easier.
As for the idea of a democratic process behind the decision to declare a tune a variation or its own separate entity.... hmmmm....
Naw. I think I prefer the gladitorial approach where I decide with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down
Seriously, I could imagine that it could lead to animosity. As it is, if someone disagrees with my decision to remove a tune because I feel it's actually more like a variation on an existing tune, then they can aim their resentment at me, which is okay. I'd much rather that than having people hold grudges against fellow members for voting "against" them.
I'd just like to say that this site addresses a problem I have with all the other tune databases, different tune versions. More than once I have been delighted to find not only the tune, but also the setting I'm looking for in the comments. For that reason, as Dow suggests we do more of, I contribute versions into the comments section. I can see Jeremy is working on a way to make the alternate settings easier to access at the same place in the comments where they appear, but even if that doesn't pan out -- the session.org site still rocks!
New: Submitting different settings of tunes
New: Submitting different settings of tunes
For a while now I've been aware of the limitations of the tune submission process. It's basically first come, first served.
Up 'till now, if you wanted to submit an alternate setting of a tune, you could only do so in the comments. If you submitted it as a new tune, it would simply be deleted (I don't want to fragment the tunes section by having comments relevant to a tune being spread over more than one place).
That obviously wasn't ideal so I've made some changes.
If you go to a tune when you're logged on with your username and password and you click on the "ABC" tab, you'll now see a link asking "do you know another setting of this tune?". Clicking this link pops up a form where you can enter the body of the ABC notation (the headers are already in place).
After you submit your version, it will now also appear in the "ABC" tab. Also, selecting "download ABC file" from the "download" tab will download an ABC file with all the versions.
I'll also try to make sheetmusic and soundfiles for newly submitted versions, but that may take a while: I want to give priority to making the sheetmusic and soundfiles for newly submitted tunes.
Here's an example:
Gian Marco submitted his version of The Cap And Bell. Radriano posted his version in the comments. I've taken Radriono's version and added it as an alternate setting. Now both versions appear:
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/3005/abc
The usual ABC submission rules apply:
don't add extra information in the body of the ABC, do it in the comments instead (e.g. where the setting comes from). They'll just be deleted from the ABC.
Please don't post minor variations to the existing settings. Suggesting subtle variations is something that's still best done in the comments.
You can't change the name, time signature, key or tune type for a variation: if those things are different, then it's probably a different tune.
I hope this new feature will help ease some of the frustration people have been experiencing with the somewhat draconian measures I've taken up 'till now to discourage duplicate tune submissions.
Thoughts? Comments? Your feedback, as always, is most appreciated.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Brilliant Jeremy... cheers!
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Is it retrospective?
Trevor
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Trevor Jennings
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Oops, I've just posted a different setting of my favourite tune in the comment space. Jeremy, you're great.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by slainte
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Oh, right. We must note minor variations shouldn't be post.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by slainte
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I've just looked at the example. Isn't it hard to find where the new setting starts in the sheetmusic?
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by slainte
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Sorry, it's me again. Considering some tunes are played in two different keys with interesting variations, I think it would be better if we could post another setting in a different key.
And I've got a question. Should we confine ourselves to posting only one alternative setting of a certain tune a day like posting a new tune? I think we should. Otherwise, Jeremy, you'll be very busy.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by slainte
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Hi Jeremy. This looks like it could be really useful, but it's going to take me a while to get my head round it!
I agree with Slainte that it would be better if you could change the key header, maybe using a prompt just before you're asked to enter the abc, just like when you enter abc normally but without the rest of the info like title and genre. I can think of *heaps* of tunes that commonly get played in sessions in 2 or 3 different keys, but they're basically the same tune. I think this feature would be put to its best use if you could include those.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that it would be more useful for wildly different settings in different keys than just settings in the same key but different variations. So you could even go the other way and if your prompt for the key is the same key as the original setting then you are told to put it in the comments section. If the key is different then you're allowed to submit it as a diffent-key-setting. I think this might avoid a situation where the system is misused.
Also, the problem with not having them in the comments section is that you can't say "this is my personal variation" or "this is the setting on Kevin Burke's CD", and even if you do post that info in the comments, you can't link it directly to the transcription because it potentially gets swamped under a whole load of different people's variations.
If this thing you're doing is retrospective, then how does that work? Would we lift stuff from the comments and still leave the comments there or are you doing it, cuz if you are then isn't that too much for you to do? I feel a bit guilty about this because I e-mailed you to ask you about posting settings in different keys... If it's not retrospective then that would be a shame because there aren't that many common session tunes not already on the database.
To be honest, I never got frustrated at having to post different settings in the comments section, and I think it was working fine cuz you knew they were all there in the one place. But then on the other hand I guess there is a line somewhere when a different setting becomes a different tune, and sometimes it's hard to know where to draw that line. I just worry sometimes that lumping them all together as one tune might bugger up the natural process of tune divergence, because people will hear them at sessions, and get online to look up the name. I'm thinking of tunes like Ed Reavy's "Never Was Piping So Gay" and that Paddy Fahy's reel in G, which must have started life as a different setting of NWPSG, but has become viewed as a different tune.
I was also wondering, will it be possible to choose which setting you'd prefer to print out when printing out tunebooks? It looks as though at the moment that that would be difficult for you to do cuz all the sheetmusic gets lumped together.
In conclusion, I'm not sure that it would make this site work much smoother than it already does. You'll still get people who post different settings of tunes as completely new tune submissions through not realising that it's already there, so you'll still end up deleting stuff. I kinda worry that it's going to be misused for the slightest difference in a setting, and consequently confuse and clutter things.
The issue for me - that I would be interested in hearing other people's views on - is whether tunes should be duplicated in different keys, e.g. "The Holly Bush" in Dmix and the same tune in Emix. I thought I'd read you say somewhere in the discussions that you thought it would be useful. But actually I personally think *everything* associated with the tune, including different-key-settings is fine just in the comments section. That seemed to be your original principle behind the tune submission thing anyway.
On the other hand, I suppose we're getting to a stage now where we have this huge database full of tunes, and the tunes coming in now tend to be obscure ones that you're less likely to hear in a session. Maybe by starting up something like this new feature, the database could be taken off into a new direction. It's already a more powerful database for tunes than say Norbeck's because of the tunes comments section, and there's this interaction with people all over the world who actually play them. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about all this...
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
My goodness, Dow you are prolific!! I wouldn't know where to begin to comment on that lengthy submission but much of it makes a lot of sense. I would have thought that the best thing to do for now is to wait and see how this works out, since Jeremy has already put it in place. If there are problems he can then try and seek ways around them.
How about putting other versions in as, for example: 'Drowsie Maggie 2' or would that get rejected under the present system?
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Donough
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
There are bound to be problems trying to categorize the music anyway. I only found out the other day that "The Reel With The Birl" is a setting of "Drowsy Maggie". Having a different name helps along its status as a different tune. And then there's that Donegal version of Drowsy Maggie (recorded by Altan) which would be considered a different tune if it had a different name. That A-part is more different to the standard setting than the A-part of "The Reel With The Birl", but they're considered the same tune cuz they have the same name.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Hey we cross-posted. What made you think of Drowsy Maggie? Cue creepy music "doo-doo-doo-doo..."
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Another thing that springs to mind is settings that are wildly different from the original but don't really deserve status as a session setting, but they're sort of interesting anyway. I'm thinking of one time I was in a creative mood and posted a whole load of weirdo settings for a tune http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1939 If I'd thought that I was expected to post such wildly different settings as a proper submission then I wouldn't have dared post them!
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I've just thought of something else. You could really develop this "different settings" submission feature by letting it go its own way. In other words, not doing sheetmusic/sound files or anything else that takes up your time. If you did it that way, then people would be freed to submit whatever, and readers could pick and choose. Like for example you could do it like this:
Drowsy Maggie (original submission by Jeremy or whoever, with abc, sound file and sheet music)
Then you could click on a tab that says "other settings" and get a long list of abc files submitted by readers:
X1: Drowsy Maggie
Setting: Donegal
Source: Altan
Submitter: Slainte
K: Edor
X:2
T: Drowsy Maggie
Setting: Personal
Submitter: Will
K: Edor
X:3
T: Drowsy Maggie
Setting: Personal
Submitter: Dow
K: Ador
...and so on. You'd get prompts from a list of options when you submit like "whose setting is it? Your name? Key/mode?"
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Yeah, that would be the icing on the cake if you could do that. Because it would put all the settings in one place. And say if I was going to visit Will in Montana and he said "hey Dow learn my setting of Drowsy Maggie" I could simply go to the different settings thing and learn it straight from the abc. It would avoid cluttering up the comments section with different settings if that wasn't what you wanted.
One drawback I suppose is the fact that all the settings are in a different section and abc-only, so they don't get the same "status" as the original tune submission, but I really don't think that matters. The most important thing is that the information's there. The more information on different settings, the better IMO. If you leave it so you don't do sound files/sheetmusic for every new setting, it would a) save you a lot of work, and b) thesession would be better off as a whole, because you'd have more settings to choose from that might even differ from each other only slightly, and c) it wouldn't be left to you to make spur-of-the-moment decisions as to how different a setting is. It could be left to run its own course, and even if (say) Slainte's setting is only *slightly* different from the original tune submission, it wouldn't matter because it's just one setting in a long list.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Sorry, me again. With a feature like this, you could improve on the quality of the tune info at thesession.org and maybe shift the balance from new tune submissions to working on the old submissions and developing them. I for one would be interested to post my own settings of the tunes I play and just have them sit there in the "other settings" section for anyone who wants to look at them. I haven't done that up till now cuz I don't feel as though I should be cluttering up the comments section with my personal settings of a load of tunes alongside settings that are on actual recordings or whatever. I feel a bit like: "who wants to know my setting of the tune, it's not *that* different to the original submission, not different enough to justify cluttering up the comments anyway".
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Oh and to avoid clutter, you could allow "other settings" contributors to edit their abc afterwards if they've made a mistake, like you can already with your own tune submissions.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
And one more thing, if you were prompted for tune title as well as stuff like key and source in the headers, then you'd be able to see whether tunes get called different names according to where you are in the world. For example you might get all the settings submitters in Canada and the US calling a tune one thing, and all the people in the UK calling it something else. At the moment you can't tell who has posted alternative names, but this could be made even more sophisticated than it is I think. Not sure how tho'
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Hmm I keep going away and doing something else and changing my mind again. Everything's already possible with the comments section which is flexible enough to include anything and everything. If your setting differs only slightly you can do stuff like quote one bar and say "mine's like Slainte's except for bar 4 whoich I have as |DEFD ~G3A|". Maybe there just needs to be another general call for people to use the comments section to its full potential and post more different settings there.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Dow
Just how do you manage to have such a great conversation with yourself. I only just now managed to check back on this - been working! Then I find all these posts from you and answered by you. Do you think they have all gone to bed in the Western world.
I do love your idea of the drop down tab for the different settings but I suspect that would all be too hard to put into place. Need to wait and hear back from Jeremy tomorrow or is that tonight?
If you want to keep talking to yourself I promise I'll come back and listen/read later but Ive got work to do now.
Cheers
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Donough
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Wow someone to talk to. Oh, you've gone. Never mind, I've got to go and do some work too.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Whilst putting the rubbish out I thought of another reason why the comments section is a more appropriate place for all this stuff. If someone posts their setting in the comments section, then it allows other people to comment either on the other setting, or the original submission, and it's obvious which one's being talked about. You can also discuss how viable a setting is, or whether it is a setting at all, e.g. "that's not a setting of tune x, it's a completely different tune called y, and it's already been posted here @ z". With a separate settings section, you wouldn't be able to do this as easily.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I can't decide! Part of me thinks that having a separate section might encourage more people to make submissions, even if they differ only slightly to the original. And as a result you'd get a rich variety of settings and variations, all on the database.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Can Jeremy or another member please confirm that it's presently possible to have the same "tune name" listed as different types of tunes, ie if one version is a reel and the other is a jig? This appears to the case eg Coleman's Cross. I just wanted to make sure that there was no objection to submitting a another tune with the same name as long as it's a different type. Thanks in anticipation.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Johnny Jay
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Hey Dow, could you repeat that please?
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Sure. "I can't decide! Part of me thinks that having a separate section might encourage more people to make submissions, even if they differ only slightly to the original. And as a result you'd get a rich variety of settings and variations, all on the database".
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
He could show you a shortcut for that on ABC, Jack. There's a nice tidy way to notate that, if you're interested. ;)
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Cool, crossposting from Oz. Hiya Dow, what time is it there?
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
It's 21.35. Anyway, am I the only one posting on this thread? I feel like Billy-No-Mates sitting in a pub on my own talking to myself. Emin tell us what you think.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I think I drank too much last night, & I still think Lúnasa rocks.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
But otherwise brilliant innovation on Jeremy's part.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
LOL you're not the only one. Beebs rang me today to find out if I was okay. She said she'd never seen me so drunk as I was last night. Apparently I did a vanishing act. I can hardly remember a thing about the evening, but I have this vague sense that I had a good time.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Yeah I think I went to bed around 3am & woke up again around 6am, which is the only reason I'm up right now, seriously wondering if (or actually when) I should lay back down. When the rooms starts spinning, that's my cue. Oh look, vertigo.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Dow, you're a prolific tune submitter. Can you answer my question?
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Johnny Jay
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I would try and answer your question if I thought I fully understood it John! If you're simply talking about tunes of different genres that coincidentally have the same name, like "Around The World For Sport", then of course there's no problem. Otherwise we'd have a problem when it came to submitting tunes that go by the name of "Paddy Fahy's". However, if you're talking about tunes that are basically the same notes but a different genre, like for example "The Long Note" as a slide, and the same tune played as a reel, then I don't know. Jeremy might consider these as different settings of the same tune so one would belong in the comments section of the other. But under the new system he's introducing you wouldn't be able to enter it as a "different setting" because the genre would be set for you in the headers upon submission.
# Posted on June 13th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
It was the first point I asking about, ie submitting "tunes of different genres that have coincidentally the same name". I am aware that it always has been possible and done in the past. I wasn't sure, though, if Jeremy approved of the practice.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Johnny Jay
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I don't see how anybody could objact to posting ten different "Paddy Fahy" tunes instead of just one. (Which one would we pick?)
The most significant flaw in this otherwise brilliant innovation, Jeremy, is the restriction on the key and time signature. Eg: Pierre Schryer and Dermott Byrne do "the Pigeon on the Gate" in G dor while the one here is in E dor. The tune is much cooler in their setting, but to post it as a different version I would have to transpose it to E dor, write the ABC, then write in the comments; "by the way, Pierre and Dermott's version, posted here in E, is supposed to be in G" Then anyone who wanted to learn it would have to transpose it back to G (*if* they notice my comment).
Also, I was shocked to learn people over here play the Foxhunter in A instead of G. If I gave a hoot about sheet music it might be handy to have both keys posted.
Anyway, I'm not likely to post Dermott and Pierre's setting using this feature, so anyone who wants to learn that tune will just have to buy the CD. (It's well worth it, believe me!)
This restriction seems likely to encourage people to post the minor variations and prevent people from posting the more interesting ones.
Plus it prevents people posting Strathspey versions of reels, or 7/8 versions of slip jigs. Having a single tune posted as a reel, hornpipe, and strathspey in G, A, B and F would be an excellent learning tool for the sheet-music inclined to break down their attachment to one particular set of dots.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Look at me! Jeremy works so hard on my one-stop trad shop and all I can do is complain! I should stress the fact that I love this site. It's the best site in the universe (except for http://www.dancingbush.com/) and it keeps getting better. I'm so impressed that you keep dreaming up improvements.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I wonder if it might be easier to organize if each variation was on a separate file on the same page instead of combining them all into one file. That way you could select the file you want to listen to or print out. Or did anyone already suggest this?
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Hmmm... well now I'm having second thoughts about this whole thing.
Maybe Dow is right and the comments are good enough for handling different tune versions.
The only downsides to using comments (and these are the things I was trying to address) are:
1) You can't put a version from the comments in your tunebook.
2) You can't see the sheetmusic or hear the soundfile for a version in the comments.
Now I'm not so sure. Anybody else have some thoughts on the relative merits of using the comments for posting settings?
To answer a couple of other questions:
Yes, it is retroactive. You can add an alternate setting for any tune in the database. Tellingly, nobody has yet. Not one. Perhaps comments are preferable because people get to add things like "here's the setting I know from so-and-so..."
Technically, I guess you could add versions in different keys by including the "K:" header at the start of your ABC. But if that's the only difference between your version and the existing version, I don't think it would really merit being posted.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Jeremy, what if you had the download button where the abcs are posted in the coments section. That way when people read the comments, the files related to those comments will be right there.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
That's just not possible, Jack. There's no way of telling if a comment has ABC in it or not.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I like being able to post abcs directly in the comment section--it's easy to annotate that way, and break out individual phrases to show different ways to play them. But that's just me--I can play straight from the abcs, so I don't need the dots or a sound file. Realizing that other people might want to convert the abcs into dots or sound, I try to remember to post all the pieces needed to do that (the X, K, M, and L fields) so someone can paste the whole thing into concertina.net or abcmus, etc.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Will Harmon
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I didn't mean to do the whole comment -- just the abcs if they've been submitted. Personally, I usually copy & paste to my barfly program if I want to look closer, but I don't know what everyone else's capabilities are.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I understood what you meant Jack, but what I'm saying is that I can't easily think of a way of extracting the ABCs from a comment.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I see... ok.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Phantom Button
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I still think it's a good idea, Jeremy. I don't think any tune can be expressed in one piece of sheet music. I think the best way to do it is to have the versions appear on seperate tabs and let the user control which one goes into the tunebook. Then all the comments should appear on one page so the variations can be compared and we can argue about which one is the most "real" or "traditional".
I'm going off now to take your suggestion and put up Pigeon on the Gate with the K: in the body of my ABCs.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I have Barfly too, don't use near as much as I should. Jeremy, would it be possible to put an ABC converter on this site like on concertina.net? That might solve a number of problems.... plus get more ppl used to ABC & noodling around with it. $.01
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by emily_bmore
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Well, after all that work preparing the file the link to the new feature doesn't work for me. I'll try again tomorrow.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Y'know... I'm not sure this feature is going to work out. It may be that I underestimated the power of the comments section.
I think I may well roll things back to the way they used to be.
Here's a compromise solution, though: when someone posts a version in the comments, I can make sheetmusic and a soundfile from that which I can then add. This wouldn't solve the tunebook problem (you'd still only get the original version in your tunebook) but it would allow equal time-sharing for "competing" versions of tunes under the "sheetmusic" tab.
Whaddya think? Would anybody have any objections if this new feature quietly disappeared as quickly as it emerged?
On a related note, Jack, you're idea of extracting ABCs from the comments has got the cogs in my skull turning... I'll see what I can come up with.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Okay... I've done a roll-back to the way things used to be.
My apologies to anyone who was getting excited about the new feature, but it's better to roll it back now rather than later.
So now here's what's on my "to do" list:
1) find ABCs submitted in the comments to tunes, make sheetmusic and soundfiles out of them and upload them. This alleviates the "first come, first served" problem.
2) See if there's some way of extracting ABCs from comments so that they can be included in tunebooks... but don't hold your breath
Sorry about all the flip-flopping on this issue, guys. It's clear to me now that it isn't such a clear-cut issue and that adding ABCs in the comments works better than I realised.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Phooey. OK then, I'll put my pigeon in the comments tab. By the way, Jeremy, looks like that tune would be a good one to play with if you're developing this idea - there are lots and lots of settings posted there.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Kerri Brown
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Jeremy, I'm wodering how we can help you. It's nice to have various settings of one tune, but it's obviously too much work for one person to upload them. So it'll be better if we can inform you how many alternative settings of a certain tune are posted in the comment space by using some kind of automated system. We can email you but it will be a mess.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by slainte
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Jeremy, with the new sheetmusic and soundfiles, where will they appear? You seem to be saying they won't be next to the original for tunebook use. Does that mean it appears on screen in the comments section or will there be a drop down tab?
I don't think there are enough people posting other settings. There are a few people who stand out, Pants, Slainte, Will, David, Kenny. I just wish more people would have a good look at the tunes section and do a bit more sharing. It's your way of giving back something to thesession.org, folks. So if you're using a lame excuse like you don't know how to write abc, then get off yer arses and learn - it'll take you 5-10 mins, seriously. abc is such an unbelievably powerful tool for trad musos. I spent a long time writing tunes down on manuscript paper cuz of my classical background (I know, *gasp* :-o), but now if I hear a tune, I can just write it on any old scrap of paper/beermat, whatever, and it's so quick. There's nothing you can do with sheetmusic that you can't do with abc. The thing with sheetmusic on this site is just that it looks good for tunebooks. But I take the sheetmusic files with a pinch of salt anyway because quite often people have spotted mistakes and edited their abc afterwards, and the sheetmusic file retains those mistakes. So you end up having to look at the abc anyway. If anything, sheetmusic use for trad tunes deserves to be phased out as a medium for the online passing-on of trad IMO. It's cumbersome and you have to make an effort to make a proper file out of it. And classically-trained musos can already read it, so there's a danger that people just play directly from the dots and think they can play. abc is just text, so you can write it anywhere, e-mail it or whatever.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think you should view the time-consuming sheetmusic and soundfiles as being the backbone of the database and something that has to be cemented and formalized to make the database helpful or useful. I know some people only learn by ear, but soundfiles don't help with the rhythm and ornamentation, which is the most important thing really. abc is the way to go, and it's the medium of all the important information on this site as regards ornamentation/variations/settings. So it's not up to you to improve the tunes section with structural change, Jeremy, it's up to us to get off our arses, learn abc, and post as much knowledge as we can in the comments section.
I also don't think you should worry that the original submission gets more "status". I would hope that anyone learning tunes off this site realises that the original submission just sets the ball rolling, and it's what comes afterwards in the comments section that's the really important meaty stuff. Where else can you get a range of different abc settings, anecdotes about a tune, even arguments about a tune online?!
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
One way around the problem of wildly different settings could be to submit them as separate tunes by the same name and say "this tune appears to be a very different version of tune x, and I was wondering if people here think it has diverged significantly enough from other settings to deserve recognition as a separate tune". If people say no, Jeremy deletes it. If people say yes, or are undecided, then it stays. In other words, letting the people/masses decide.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
Very good points, Dow.
I may well be concentrating too much on the sheetmusic and soundfiles.
What does bother me though is that when click on the "download" tab and download the ABC or when you add a tune to your tunebook and then download the tunebook, you don't get the benefit of versions in comments. That's why I'm working on Jack's idea of extracting ABCs from comments.
From my own personal experience, I think this could be helpful; I have the tunes The Whinny Hills Of Leitrim and The Earl's Chair in my tunebook:
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/1064
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display.php/221
Both of those tunes have some nice variations in the comments. In fact, the versions I've ended up learning are hybrids of the original submission and the versions from the comments. It would be nice if I could have the variations in my tunebook along with the original submission.
I'm making some progress with the extracting ABCs from comments but it'll only ever be "garbage in, garbage out". In other words, where people have added well formatted variations, extracting them becomes easier.
As for the idea of a democratic process behind the decision to declare a tune a variation or its own separate entity.... hmmmm....
Naw. I think I prefer the gladitorial approach where I decide with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down
Seriously, I could imagine that it could lead to animosity. As it is, if someone disagrees with my decision to remove a tune because I feel it's actually more like a variation on an existing tune, then they can aim their resentment at me, which is okay. I'd much rather that than having people hold grudges against fellow members for voting "against" them.
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Jeremy
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
LOL
# Posted on June 14th 2004 by Dr. Dow
Re: New: Submitting different settings of tunes
I'd just like to say that this site addresses a problem I have with all the other tune databases, different tune versions. More than once I have been delighted to find not only the tune, but also the setting I'm looking for in the comments. For that reason, as Dow suggests we do more of, I contribute versions into the comments section. I can see Jeremy is working on a way to make the alternate settings easier to access at the same place in the comments where they appear, but even if that doesn't pan out -- the session.org site still rocks!
# Posted on June 15th 2004 by Phantom Button