Re: Ukulele string tunings

[David Kastrup]

Choan Gálvez <address@hidden> writes:

> On 5/12/12 16:51 , David Kastrup wrote:
>> Choan Gálvez<address@hidden>  writes:
>>
>>> On 5/12/12 16:08 , David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> Choan Gálvez<address@hidden>   writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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".
>>
>> I find "linear" weird.  But it is not relevant what _I_ find weird if
>> that is what Ukulele players associate with it.
>
> "Low G tuning" is more common among players than "C linear
> tuning". For other pitches, I'd say the common term is "D with low
> fourth". And "Baritone tuning" is more common than "G linear tuning".
>
> But, there's no consensus --nor it is needed. Unfortunately, it's
> impossible to extract a naming estrategy from the most common names,
> and that's why I made my proposal.
>
> But, I'd rather left the renaming out than abusing other users with my
> (not so) highly opinionated terms -- I'll keep them for my include
> files.

When in doubt rather pick names that you are likely to find written on
score parts than in music theoretical papers.

While one usually would want a somewhat good reason to _change_ some
names, you quite aptly observed that it is unlikely that the current
names have been in use, as they don't work.  So you can pick the best
names from scratch without needing to consider what is there already,
but the best names should be what musicians and composers for that
instrument are used to, not what appeals to your personal aesthetics
best.

I did not want to suggest that the existing names are good in that
regard: I don't know the naming practices for the instrument family.

-- 
David Kastrup