>>I hope the other list becomes redundant as well.
Just to clarify...I'm not trying to split anything here.
I set up the yahoo group in response to some requests on the list
because:
it's free (with the small annoyance of crap ads) and
it's simple and
it took a couple of minutes.
I'd be more than happy to shut it down if people so request (but then
someone else could just start one up as Bruce did).
As people have noted it doesn't really solve the "problem" and it would
be better all round, imho, if dicsussion of the shak issues stayed
centralised. Everbody is time poor nowdays and checking multiple sites
can be a hassle.
I think the "problem" is one of functionality. As has been demonstrated
different people have different info requirements and argument
thresholds (personally I find them quite entertaining!)
Despite a mailing lists simplicity the technology for threaded
discussions/lists has come a long way.
While you can skim a long digest it's still not as efficient as
subscribing to a specific forum thread or just checking the categories
online that you are interested in.
Have you considered upgrading the shakuhachi mailing list back end?
There are a number of excellent free forum software packages.
http://www.pd9soft.com/ and http://phpnuke.org/ are two that spring to
mind.
A quick check of your growth:
1997 110 messages
1998 120 messages
1999 195 messages
2000 207 messages
2001 508 messages
2002 1065 messages
2003 current 605 messages
Obviously there are hosting issues, management issues etc but who knows,
throw the word out and see what happens!
Spirituality, performance(s), playing technique, learning, design
issues, materials, acoustics of the shakuhachi...all that in a stick
with 5 holes in it...WOW!
As to why I called it ShakuhachiDesign (ref: James Jennings message) I
described it as a "discussion on R&D into shakuhachi design".
I would anticipate at some point that a discussion of the physics and
acoustics would at some point touch upon other related areas such as
materials technology, physical modeling etc. Mea culpa.
And in response to IieoOoeiI@aol.com "Bill vs the machine" conversation
I'll quote from Craig Fischer (a guru on woodwind bore design and
acoustics) from some uni notes I distributed to a few people (feel free
to email me for a copy if you wish) that seems like it nails the old
science/art debate for me:
"Solutions of the wave-equations which describe coupled resonating
systems with non-linear boundary conditions are
amongst some of the hardest problems in applied physics. Many of them
are not (yet) directly solvable and can only
be approximated. Nonetheless our human perceptions are capable of
'solving' them implicitly and savouring their
richness."
That's why we have aesthetics to polish the engineers work:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.html
Finally...thank you for hosting such a stimulating list.
p
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: bjones@weber.ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones)
To: shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: 2 many mailing lists?
Message-ID: <20030924153251.822CB81FB@weber.ucsd.edu>
Interesting comments. I get home from a nice Sunday/Monday weekend
in Palm Springs to find that some folks wish to take the non-spiritual
(my reading of the distinction) stuff off the main list. Not thinking
much about it, I just go ahead and setup a list on one of my servers.
Then I get a message that shows that someone else has setup a list on
yahoo (which is "free" - but you get to pay in other ways) for the same
discusison.
Then someone else mentions (off list) that he is sorry to see the
discussion splinter off into different lists. Then a third party asks
if there's a list for discussions of the "spiritual" nature of the
shakuhachi. And another party thanks the split group for removing that
part of the discussion from the list.
None of this is particularly new, I've seen it on many lists over the
years. Even participated in it myself (see above).
On retrospect however, I think it is a mistake to remove the technical
stuff from the main list. As another (off list) respondent noted, doing
so makes it more difficult for folks to find information about the
shakuhachi.
I would like the folks who are participating in the new list to consider
bringing their discussion back onto the main list. I know that not all
of us are particularly taken with questions about the physics of the
shakuhachi, but the amount of mail generated by discusisons of science
(not the commentary thereon) is small and should not be much of a
burden. Splitting off the discussion that way also plays into the
notion that there is some rational split between the material and
spiritual worlds - not a particularly Zen approach.
I'm removing the list I setup because it seems redundant. I hope the
other list becomes redundant as well.
bj
-
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:18:50 EDT
From: Johntcoker@aol.com
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: 2 many mailing lists?
Message-ID: <149.194d4293.2ca33a0a@aol.com>
--part1_149.194d4293.2ca33a0a_boundary
bj,
I 2nd your remarks. I've an interest in "everything shakuhachi", though
the
strictly technical/scientific stuff is quite secondary. I joined up for
the
tech discussion, but would really like it if, rather than separate
lists, we
could have it all on different threads on one list. I agree that that
approach
would make it much simpler for people to get shak related information
and
conversation - whatever their main "angle" of interest. But, if
"splits"
continue, then I'll have to sign up for the "spiritually oriented" list,
too. As I'm
an avid "shakist" I don't want to miss anything, any perspective, any
thoughts
or experience on shakuhachi.
But....... there's always that good old Delete key at my fingertips, for
when
any message on any thread isn't of much interest to me. I can simply
check
the heading, or the name of the sender - if I so choose - and either
skim that
message, or even flat out delete it without checking it out.
My vote's for wholeness, and I'll simply skim/skip the stuff that I find
of
too little interest to me.
jt coker
--part1_149.194d4293.2ca33a0a_boundary
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT
SIZE=3D2= FAMILY=3D"DECORATIVE" FACE=3D"Tempus Sans ITC" LANG=3D"0">bj,
<BR> <BR>I 2nd your remarks. I've an interest in "everything
shakuhachi", t= hough the strictly technical/scientific stuff is quite
secondary. I jo= ined up for the tech discussion, but would really
like it if, rather than se= parate lists, we could have it all on
different threads on one list. I= agree that that approach would
make it much simpler for people to get shak=20= related information and
conversation - whatever their main "angle" of intere= st. But, if
"splits" continue, then I'll have to sign up for the "spir= itually
oriented" list, too. As I'm an avid "shakist" I don't want to=20=
miss anything, any perspective, any thoughts or experience on
shakuhachi. &n= bsp; <BR> <BR>But....... there's always that good old
Delete key at my fingertips, for= when <I>any</I> message on <I>any</I>
thread isn't of much interest to me.=20= I can simply check the
heading, or the name of the sender - if I so ch= oose - and either skim
that message, or even flat out delete it without chec= king it out.
<BR> <BR>My vote's for wholeness, and I'll simply skim/skip the
stuff that I find= of too little interest to me. <BR> <BR>jt
coker</FONT></HTML>
--part1_149.194d4293.2ca33a0a_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:53:58 -0700
From: Mark Millonas <millonas@email.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20030924115223.00bc9a40@email.arc.nasa.gov>
So far you are the only one who has said this, and I have gotten about
30
off-list email
asking us to please keep it on the list "in spite of the crazies". But
having a new list solves both problems.
At 08:16 AM 9/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Marko, thanks for doing this. My inbox was filling up with all of the
>physics discussions that I am only mildly interested in hearing about
but
>not on a daily basis. Setting up a separate home was great!
>
>
>
>
>Lynne Nicholson
>
> >From: Mark Millonas
> >Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> >To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
> >Subject: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
> >Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:45:04 -0700
> >
> >Hi:
> >
> >Some of us have decided to move the physics discussion of bores in
> >relation to the shak elsewhere. If it isn't too annoying I will just
> >relate here my first posting
> >*there* so in case there
> >is anyone on this list that likes the topic and flavor (at least as
> >exemplified by this one posting) they can join us or listen in. I
> >also do this with the hopes that some of the musician
> >and shak makers might help us out on some things if it look like
> >anything they might be interested in.
> >I promise not to post anymore acoustics related (but perhaps
> >culturally charged) stuff here anymore.
> >
> >Anyway, first post at ShakuhachiDesign@yahoogroups.com, last post
> >here.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >A possible place to start a discussion might be the following paper:
> >A. H. Benade. On woodwind instrument bores, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
> >31(2):137-146 (1959). Unfortunately it is BPDF (before pdf) so the
> >only way to get a copy is to go to a university library,
> >or I could scan it if anyone can tell me how to post it here.
> >
> >I think this might be a good place to start both because the results
> >in the paper are particularly simple and because it methodology is a
> >simple example of the one I originally proposed: define the required
> >acoustic features then infer the bores that fit those features.
> >His results are for close-ended woodwinds, but I can go home and see
> >if I can re-do all the proofs for open ended bores. That
> >is, unless someone can point me to a place where this has already
> >been done.
> >
> >There are two acoustic features that Benade uses and will be
> >immediately recognizable to the musician with no mathematical
> >training whatsoever: (1) The first and second resonance of a bore
> >(lower and second register) should have frequencies in the ration of
> >1:2 (play at exactly one octave apart) and (2) that (1) should hold
> >if you "chop" the bore down to any length (that is, for any fingering
> >where all the holes are closed up to a certain point). So the
> >criteria are that the flute play in tune
> >in the first and second registers for all the basic notes.
> >
> >Criteria (1) requires that the bore have the shape where the
> >cross-sectional area depend exponentially on the length S(x) ~ x^a (a
> >Bessel horn), where a is called the flare constant.
> >If we add (2) this then a = 0 and a = 2 are the *only* shapes that
> >*exactly* satisfy these two requirements.
> >These are cylinders and cones. The shak doesn't fit either of these
> >two categories, but
> >(generally speaking) is a cylinder connected to a reverse cone,
> >connected to something that looks along like a Bessel flair
> >with a>2.
> >
> >It is possible that there are some major compromises going on here in
> >terms of playing, but there are also several ways of relaxing the
> >criteria that could also explain the shape.
> >For example, in the shak we don't need the registers to be in tune
> >for arbitrary lengths
> >of bore, but only for specified lengths corresponding to the notes
> >of the scale: that is for
> >5 lengths of corresponding to the pentatonic scale. Because of this
> >the
> >shape (based just on these most simple criteria) could be morphed.
> >So within this "wiggle room"
> >what kind of shapes would be allowed, and are there any that come
> >close to the traditional shak shape.
> >This is something that could be explored mathematically is anyone is
> >clever enough, but could also
> >be explore via the computer. Furthermore, more experience shak
> >makers my already have a "feel" for this
> >wiggle room, and perhaps they could comment on this, if they are
> >willing.
> >
> >
> >By the way, hopefully nobody remembers but I said something stupid a
> >while back. It *IS* the peaks of the input impedance (not the minima)
> >that correspond to the resonance because that's
> >where the wave bound around and build up rather than pass right
> >through.
> >Sorry about that.
> >
> >Marko
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________
> >
> >List subscription information is at:
> >http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
>
>
>----------
><http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2728??PS=>High-speed Internet access as low
>as
>$29.95/month*. Click here.
>*Depending on the local service providers in your area.
>_____________________________________________ List subscription
>information is at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: bjones@weber.ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones)
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <20030924192332.9EEF281BE@weber.ucsd.edu>
>From shakuhachi-request@communication.ucsd.edu Wed Sep 24 11:54:16
>2003
>
>So far you are the only one who has said this, and I have gotten about
>30 off-list email asking us to please keep it on the list "in spite of
>the crazies".
>
>But having a new list solves both problems.
If the problems are:
1. technically-oriented messages on the list that some folks
don't want to see
and
2. keeping the discussion all in one place
How does a new list solve both?
or maybe you'd care to restate the sissues...
bj
-
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: bjones@weber.ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones)
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Notation Calligraphy
Message-ID: <20030924200334.85F7F8327@weber.ucsd.edu>
>From: Bill Fletcher <bill@scienceandart.com>
>
>What is the best kind of pen, brush, ink . . . books . . .
>for learning/doing the calligraphy for shakuhachi notation?
I don't think shakuhachi notation is done any differently than other
Japanese calligraphy. So the stuff used for shodo should be perfect
(along with some lessons in the latter).
bj
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:30 -0700
From: Mark Millonas <millonas@email.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20030924142406.0237bb48@email.arc.nasa.gov>
>
>How does a new list solve both?
Your right, it probably doesn't. But, I guess some of us were hoping to
have a "journal" club
type thing where we try to have fun discussing actual, well defined,
acoustical problems
in a "culture-free zone". A few of us would also like to stop having
to
explain over and over again
what we have *not* said, and what we are *not* talking about, only to
have
multiply to
the off-point rants. But you're right, having a different group
doesn't necessarily protect against that. It's just a temporary filter.
I have no problem with the new list having a finite life span. I'm sure
it
will. I think it is just to have an extended discussion
about some specialized things. I wish there was a better way to do that.
I'm also perfectly happy chatting in private with the folks who truly
"get it".
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:07:21 -0700
From: James Jennings <jennings@megaseattle.com>
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: 2 many mailing lists?
Message-ID: <a05200f02bb97b7364a75@[192.168.0.8]>
>...to find that some folks wish to take the non-spiritual
>(my reading of the distinction) stuff off the main list.
"Non-spiritual" is certainly not how I read the distinction.
>Then I get a message that shows that someone else has setup a list on
>yahoo (which is "free" - but you get to pay in other ways) for the same
>discusison.
Except they called it "ShakuhachiDesign", which is not my distinction
either. (Not to mention the fact that I'd prefer to avoid Yahoo
Groups if possible.)
"ShakuPhys" sounded like an excellent name to me. I want to explore
the physics of how an air jet and a pipe gives rise to a
characteristic sound. This is a different topic from spirituality,
musicality, performance, and flute making issues.
>I would like the folks who are participating in the new list to
>consider bringing their discussion back onto the main list.
Note that Marko is considering a sort of "Journal Club", and
suggested starting with a paper from the Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America. This is a bit like starting a non-fiction book
group, except it assumes a grounding in calculus and physics.
Discussing that here might be as out of place as discussing French
Literature.
While I agree that it'd be a shame to divide the discussion because
we have trouble getting along, there's no shame in dividing the
discussion according to our interests. The scientists will still be
on the original list after all.
James
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:01:40 -0600
From: "Lynne Nicholson" <lynneon@hotmail.com>
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <Law15-F22LXSNq5rwfv0002bdd2@hotmail.com>
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>I value, highly, thoughtful pauses/silences between
& in conversations emails, writings, and music, as
well. It is part of my heritage. I understand that it may not
be part of everyone's</P> <P>An overabundance of emails on the same
subject can intrusive as the emails may not be on
welcomed subjects to go on and on about. So, I find 5 to 10
emails on the same topic in one day excessive .and
practically note that they can fill up small inboxes very quickly
when everything coming in is totaled. There are such things as meeting
place, other on line free software and online
conferences.</P></DIV> <P>So, what I request is balance,
consideration and understanding for any of us who believe that
less can be better. </P> <P>And if that isn't available, I
understand what is also available is to decline to participate further
in this list.</P> <P><BR>Best Regards,</P> <P>Lynne<BR><BR></P>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#0000cc><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=#0000cc><STRONG><BR></DIV></STRONG></FONT></EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Mark Millonas <MILLONAS@EMAIL.ARC.NASA.GOV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
<DIV></DIV>>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics
related post
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:30 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>How does a new list solve both?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Your right, it probably doesn't. But, I guess some of us
were
<DIV></DIV>>hoping to have a "journal" club
<DIV></DIV>>type thing where we try to have fun discussing actual,
well defined,
<DIV></DIV>>acoustical problems
<DIV></DIV>>in a "culture-free zone". A few of us would also like to
stop
<DIV></DIV>>having to explain over and over again
<DIV></DIV>>what we have *not* said, and what we are *not* talking
about, only
<DIV></DIV>>to have multiply to
<DIV></DIV>>the off-point rants. But you're right, having a different
group
<DIV></DIV>>doesn't necessarily protect against that. It's just a
temporary
<DIV></DIV>>filter.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I have no problem with the new list having a finite life
span. I'm
<DIV></DIV>>sure it will. I think it is just to have an extended
discussion
<DIV></DIV>>about some specialized things. I wish there was a better
way to do
<DIV></DIV>>that.
<DIV></DIV>> I'm also perfectly happy chatting in private with the
folks who
<DIV></DIV>>truly "get it".
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>_____________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>List subscription information is at:
<DIV></DIV>>http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a
href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2728??PS=">High-speed Internet access as
low as $29.95/month*. Click here.<br></a> *Depending on the local
service providers in your area.</html>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: bjones@weber.ucsd.edu (Bruce Jones)
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <20030924231641.EB96A82E7@weber.ucsd.edu>
Just a note to folks who may not be aware that the list is
available on a digest basis.
That way, you get at most, one message a day.
Email lite. Your inbox will find it less filling.
your taste buds may vary :-)
bj
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:01:00 -0700
From: "Brett Breitwieser" <brett@bigskyranch.us>
To: <Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu>
Subject: RE: advert for new group, and last ever physics related post
Message-ID: <CIEKJMMNDHBOILPKNBOIOEIICDAA.brett@bigskyranch.us>
------------------------------
End of shakuhachi V1 #419
************************* _____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
_____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:35 PST