Re: Ukulele string tunings

[Choan Gálvez]

On 5/12/12 16:08 , David Kastrup wrote:
> Choan Gálvez<address@hidden>  writes:
>
> > Current tunings for tenor and baritone ukulele are string
> > reversed. From `ly/string-tunings-init.ly`:
> >
> > %% ukulele tunings
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'ukulele-tuning \stringTuning<g' c' e' a'>
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'ukulele-d-tuning \stringTuning<a' d' fis' b'>
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'tenor-ukulele-tuning \stringTuning<a' e' c' g>
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'baritone-ukulele-tuning \stringTuning<e' b g d>
> >
> > Those two last tuning should be<g c' e' a'>  and<d g b e'>  respectively.
> >
> > In addition, I'd say those two tunings are weirly named -- from the
> > same file, all guitar tunings are named `guitar-something`, all banjo
> > tunings `banjo-something`.
>
> But those are not tenor or baritone tunings of a ukulele, but rather
> tunings of the tenor or baritone ukulele.  Namely different instruments.

Yes. And no. The most common tuning for ukuleles --soprano, concert and 
tenor-- is <g' c' e' a'> (C reentrant tuning).

The one which is currently defined as `tenor-ukulele-tuning` is used in 
soprano, concert and baritone too: <g c' e' a'> (C linear tuning).

And the most used tuning for tenor ukuleles is <g' c' e' a'> (currently 
ukulele-tuning, that's fine).

The `baritone-ukulele-tuning` is used --as far as I know-- only in 
baritone sized instruments, as the pitches are too low to sound nice in 
small instruments. But... there is an "A linear tuning" for baritone too.

I'd use the following naming strategy:

* Start with "ukulele-"
* Use "pitch-" when the tuning is other than the common C tuning (C6)
* Use "linear-" when the tuning is linear instead of the more common 
reentrant tuning
* Finish with "tuning".

So, we'd have:

ukulele-tuning <g' c' e' a'>
ukulele-linear-tuning <g c' e' a'> (currently tenor-ukulele-tuning)
ukulele-d-tuning <a' d' fis' b'>
ukulele-g-linear-tuning <d g b e'> (currently baritone-ukulele-tuning)

Those are the most used tunings. The not-so-common tunings can be left 
out, just like they are now.

FYI, I use too:

<f' bes d' g'> (that would be ukulele-bes-tuning)
<d' g b e'> (that would be ukulele-g-tuning)
<e a cis' fis'> (that would be ukulele-a-linear-tuning)



> So there is some consistency after all:
> <instrument>-<tuningvariant>-tuning
> Not sure whether this reason is good enough.
>
> > As I haven't find any report about the wrong definitions, I think it's
> > be safe to assume that no one is using them and it would be ok to
> > rename them.
>
> Indeed this would seem to indicate that a convert-ly rule would not need
> to accompany such a change.
>
> > I'd suggest rewriting them as:
> >
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'ukulele-linear-tuning \stringTuning<g c' e' a'>
> > \makeDefaultStringTuning #'ukulele-baritone-tuning \stringTuning<d g b e'>
> >
> > or alternatively, remove them.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Not sure about the renaming.  Of course, strings need to get reversed.

Should I open an issue about the reversing?

> It would appear that this had been wrong in any version of the file.  I
> seem to remember, however, that LilyPond is not overly skilled dealing
> with non-increasing string pitches, so the standard ukulele would likely
> not be fabulously supported either.

It is not. But that's something I can deal (and do deal) with... and a 
starting point for maybe a hundred posts more ;)

Best.
--
Choan Gálvez