Talk:Musical acoustics/Archive 1

just scale

Re: "Scales which do not adhere to just intonation, and instead have their intervals adjusted to meet other needs are known as temperaments, of which equal temperament is the most used." The Pythagorean scale does not "adhere to just intonation", but it can hardly said to be a temperament. In fact, the Pythagorean scale is the paradigm of the Western European diatonic scale, and the just scale was first proposed (in any historically meaningful way by, Ramos in the Renaissance) as a modification of the just scale. Thus the just scale can be reasonably said itself to be a temperament of the diatonic Pythagorean scale. The twelve-tone equally tempered scale flattens the fifths of a chromatic Pythagorean by slightly less than two cents, effectively removing the Pythagorean comma of approximately 23.5 cents. The equally-tempered scale is not a temperament of the just scale; it is a temperament of the chromatic Pythagorean scale. TheScotch 12:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, first off, the Pythagorean is just. How does it not adhere to just intonation? (Maybe "adhere" is a funny word to use?) Secondly the article doesn't call it a temperament. I think the problem here is a question of what temperament is. No form of just intonation is a temperament. To call 5-limit intonation (the diatonic scale described in the article) a temperament of 3-limit just intonation (pythagorean) is, well, a very strange idea to me. Of course the

Pythagorean chain of fifths was fundamental to the development of temperament, but... well, do you want to have a history of temperament on this page? I think there are other articles where this kind of information belongs (and is already there, generally). - Rainwarrior 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "well, do you want to have a history of temperament on this page?" No, I'd like it removed. As long as we have it, though, we should have it correct. Re: "Umm, first off, the Pythagorean is just. How does it not adhere to just intonation?" No, it is not just. The term just refers to a particular scale, and to say otherwise is to attempt to rewrite five hundred years of music history. The just scale is the one described in the article in the paragraph preceding the sentence I quoted from it above. The just scale has 5:4 major thirds and 6:5 minor thirds (except for one analomous 32:27 usually found between F and D of a C major just scale, although its whereabouts depends on how you form the scale: Ramos's just minor third analomy occurs elsewhere), whereas as the Pythagorean scale has 81:64 major thirds and all 32:27 minor thirds. The just scale has two kinds of major seconds: 10:9 and 9:8 major seconds, whereas the Pythagorean scale has only one kind of major second: 9:8. The difference between a Pythagorean interval and a just interval is called the Syntonic comma, approximately 21.5 cents. "Re: I think the problem here is a question of what temperament is. No form of just intonation is a temperament." The just scale is not conventionally called a temperament (as I think my remarks above made clear), but it might as well be because historically it is presented as a tempering, that is, a modification, of the Pythagorean scale. TheScotch 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think there is only one "just scale", and I do not know why you think that the suggestion that there are many forms of just intonation is somehow invalidated by music history. There lots of just intonation systems, so many that there are ways to classify them. I do, however, think the just scale mentioned in the article is one of the easiest rationalizations of the diatonic scale. - Rainwarrior 10:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: ":I am not sure why you think there is only one "just scale", and I do not know why you think that the suggestion that there are many forms of just intonation is somehow invalidated by music history." I can tell you're not sure, and the most likely explanation of this is that you really don't know very much about the subject. I happen to have made it special course of study in graduage school. You've co-opted your terms 3-limit and 5-limit from a fringe group of microtonalists who have really nothing to do with the mainstream of music. Re: "I do, however, think the just scale mentioned in the article is one of the easiest rationalizations of the diatonic scale." The Pythagorean scale was considered the only "rationalization" of the diatonic scale for essentially two millennia, and Ramos's exposition of the just scale was tremendously controversial at the time. The Pythagorean scale can be generated from a series of powers of three muliplied by a constant such that octaves are considered equivalent (the frequencies can be divided or multiplied by powers of two that is). Octave equivalence does not make "2" a generator of any of the pitches. Your 3-limit and 5-limit imply that the Pythagorean and just scales are somehow analogous. In fact, they are not analogous. Suppose we were to generate a series of powers of five multiplied by a constant with octave equivalence: We'd essentially get an augmented triad that kept rounding back on itself. If we started with C, we'd get C, E, G#, B#, DX, F#X, A#X, and so on. This may be interesting as an experimental entity, but it has nothing to do with the mainstream of music. So how is a just scale generated? By modifying a Pythagorean scale such that it has as many 5:4 major thirds and 6:5 minor thirds as possible. When you do this you inevitably get anamolies, the most grevious of which is the wolf fifth (usually from D to A in a C major just scale). The Pythagorean scale, like the equally tempered scale, can be expressed as a mathematical function. The just scale cannot. The Pythagorean scale is entirely self-consistent. The just scale--like many mean-tone scales--is not self-consistent. In any case, both the Pythagorean and just scales are historical scales no matter how you slice it, and they thus absolutely must be defined in terms of their history. Whether either belongs in this article is another question. TheScotch 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the information you have offered so far has been unknown to me. Please don't make assumptions about my educational background. Ask, if you want to know, but don't assume. The source of my disagreement is not lack of information, but rather that you think that there is only one system of just intonation. We have different definitions of what constitutes "temperament" as well as "just intonation", yours being rooted in the history of western tuning theory, and mine being categorical. You've already stated that you don't really want to see history in the article, and you've already dismissed everything except two ways of making scales as "fringe", so I don't know what kind of argument you're looking for here or what you'd like to see happen to this article. (Though there is possibly a more glaring issue below regarding Bob Fink's theories that probably deserves more attention at the moment.) - Rainwarrior 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments merged from "physics of music"

Could someone please fix the graphs so they don't wrap funny (with a wide screen)? I don't know how to do it... - Omegatron

Anyone watching this page? I just redid the sound article and ran across this one. Seems like there's a lot of overlap. I wonder how to best tidy things up. - kmccoy 07:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well it is more oriented specifically to music, explaining harmony, etc. I am not sure if they should be merged or just refer to each other. - Omegatron 13:37, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I made some links to other pages to get more attention towards it. We'll see what happens. - Omegatron 13:47, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

While I know it's a somewhat contentious issue (and might not belong on this page anyway) I find some of the terminology a little odd here - what's called the "temperate scale" is more often (in some circles, anyway) called an "equal-tempered scale", and to say it's the usual scale used in Western music ignores the fact that this is a relatively recent development. Various unequal temperings were far more common until recently. And of course, that only applies to instruments with a fixed scale - the vast majority of instruments use more flexible intonation and will bend tones to fit the prevailing harmonies. Might not belong on this page at all, but if the "temperate scale" is mentioned here, I would think that some of the other cultural information would fit in as well. Jaddle 1:21, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on "musical acoustics"

Just a start, very simple and maybe teh perspective is wrong, so I expect people to edit and expand the article! I have used the term Musical Acoustics, instead of Music Acoustics, because there already was a link to that (previously empty) article from acoustics. --Blondel 22:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today this article seems to be wiped, but I can still get here from my watch list... I have found there already exists an article physics_of_music, which is well written and to the point. --Blondel 09:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have merged content at physics of music with the stube here and removed the merger notice. Musical acoustics seemed the better title. --Cjnm 16:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Halftones in the scale and the evolution of harmony

I am more or less opposed to this whole section (and a lot of the "trio theory" section above), and I will remove it in a few days if there is no discussion. My reasons:

1. The semitone (and smaller intervals) existed in Greek scales in the 4th century BC, and possibly before. They did not gradually appear; they have been a part of the diatonic scale from the beginning.
2. "Trio theory" (this page is the first time I have heard it referred to as such) only applies to music of the western tradition from a little before the common practice onward. While it is certainly possible to harmonize folk tunes, gregorian chant, or essentially any melody for that matter, with the three primary chords of western tonality, they are not necessarily (and in many cases, necessarily not) the harmonic basis for these melodies.
3. Chromaticism appears and disappears at various points in western music history; perhaps in the relatively brief period between the early baroque and the late romantic you can ascrive some sort of "evolution", but this ignores several earlier developments (especially the greek enharmonic genera, referenced above), as well as their continual presence in other ethnic musics.
4. "Trio theory", as you describe it, is identical to the theory outlined by Arnold Schoenberg in his 1934 essay "Problems of Harmony" (it can be found in his book "Style and Idea"), but the same phenomena were described also by Hermann Helmholtz in 1865, and Kepler's "Harmony of the World" wasn't far off from it in the 17th century, and I could probably find older examples; is there a good reason that it is being given a funny name and attributed to Bob Fink here? (There are probably more original ideas in his theoretical writings than this, I'm not familiar with him, but I don't think this is really one of them.) And again, this "evolution" theory completely ignores the history of scales.

- Rainwarrior 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. We do object to its removal & here present our views after your numbered reasons.

No one wrote the semitone didn't exist in prehistory. We're talking about scales -- not isolated semitones. (edit: I have numbered and reorganized your points. Interspersing makes it impossible to reply in a readable manner, or include others in the discussion. - Rainwarrior)

The many flutes found in Jiahu China in 9 B.C. (one still playable) were described by the archaeologists in "Studies in Music Arcaeology III" as spanning a period of 1200 years then, wherein 5-note (pentatonic flutes) gradually developed to diatonic and other 7 and 8-note flutes. Therefore, factually speaking, it was gradual in entering the scale. If it happened in that prehistoric time, then it is no longer just "theory" to assume the same evolution could have existed elsewhere, if not everywhere. See: http://www.greenwych.ca/9ooo-1.htm#Update

2. You completely miss the point of the trio theory -- It is not about western music. It is clearly written as a description of the likely way in which the diatonic scale evolved in prehistory. The diatonic (or the pentatonic) didn't spring into being all at once.

From the point of view of the scientific method, the parallels between acoustics (overtones of the most widely found intervals) and the most widely found scales in prehistory (pentatonic and diatonic) cannot be ignored as coincidence but must be examined as a possible cause-and-effect. Science abhors "miracles of coincidence" as an explanation of things.

3. Repeat: The trio theory (in the books published about it since 1958) is about trying to reconstruct the process (if one existed) by which music evolved from random sound to scales in prehistoric times. The examination of overtones reveals a likely cause-and-effect.

You clearly have not read anything of this theory with any care. It is absurd to say the theory denies the existence of chromaticism in early times, or even in prehistory. Before characterizing a work, learn what it says. The book by Fink (1970) Origin of Music which elaborates the trio theory, has a large section on the Greek genera as various forms of downward leading-tones, and you can read a bit about it by the same author in his website: http://www.greenwych.ca/natbasis.htm -- scroll or search for "modes" or "Greek" to find it.

4. "Identical"? I doubt that since:

1) You demonstrate that you know little about the trio theory, or assume it says things it never says, and:

2) I doubt if Scheonberg ever wrote about those three intervals in regards to explaining the evolution of music in prehistoric times. I suggest you quote the relevant passages, as we'd be interested to see that.

3) As for Helmholtz, we've read him cover to cover, and he has never come up with these parallels to the scales or anything like the trio theory! If so he wouldn't have asked the question "If the ancients already accepted two semitones in the scale, why didn't they introduce more?" (Sensations of Tone, Dover edition, p. 280.) He didn't know the answer to that. The trio theory does.

4) Finally, the trio theory clearly announces (see the same webpage above) that everything from semitonal chromaticism, to dissonance, to long and short scales, to various forms of harmonic practice -- all existed from prehistory to the present.

But you fail to recognize dominant tendencies of a development in an evolution. For example: In the faces of a family, often we see a family "resemblance." But it is also true that we can see specific differences between each member of the family. Underneath the whole matter lies a genetic tendency -- despite the differences -- for each family member to look alike. The flaw in your argument is that you act as though you're using the existence of the differences to deny that there is a genetic dominant underlying tendency for them to look alike (in most cases) and throughout generations. I.E.: You use various music techniques and practices, the use of various harmonic methods, or other facets of music occurring at different times and places -- to deny the underlying tendency for a longer-range unfolding of an acoustic tendency toward the scales we now find so widespread in time and place and being so parallel to acoustics. You see the trees, but not the forest.

There are so many more errors of fact and understanding in your remarks that correcting them at length would be an enormous task.

It is, anyway, proper to include the matter as Fink has probably written more on the Origin of Music than anyone in the last 60 years. His place in this literature and his books in hundreds of leading research libraries 'round the world require a treatment of his work, whether you agree with it or not.

Fink's credentials includes being asked by Nature Journal -- the leading science journal in the world -- to serve as a juror regarding music in prehistory; He is published in many scholarly journals, including Archaeologia Musicalis; articles in other media (Scientific American; Times of London); Also:

Fink is writing a soon-to-appear 2007 article in a new musicology journal in Turkey;

Fink was asked for an article and was published 2003 in the proceedings of a world conference on music archaeology: Studies in Music Archaeology III;

He was cited seveeral times in the Mass. Inst. of Technology book The Origins of Music;

Invited -- all expenses paid -- to a biomusicology institute conference in Vienna to speak on music origins; -- and on and on.

Read these following URLs and then get back to this discussion only when you know some more -- all of the last 20 years or more of archaeological development in music seems to have escaped you entirely. Western music cannot any longer claim the diatonic scale. The pentatonic and the diatonic are the oldest widespread scales, clearly non-western. Before you propose to slash & burn what people write, learn about the subject more fully.

http://www.greenwych.ca/evidence.htm (Harmony 4,ooo year ago)

http://www.greenwych.ca/babies.htm (Clip on natural basis of consonance)

http://www.greenwych.ca/cycl-5-2.htm (The 7-note solution -- how scales evolve)

http://www.greenwych.ca/drone.htm (ancient counterpoint)

http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm (Neanderthal Flute)

The conclusions of that archaeology/anthropology work above support in every way the parallels described in the trio theory, and serve as a serious body of data which now corroborates that theory and its acoustic-based explanations and predictions. It is far more fact than theory at this point.

"The person who does not read learns no more than the person who cannot read." (Anon) -- 65.255.225.43 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an article called "musical acoustics". None of the material from this lengthy section on "trio theory" really falls under this category. Trio theory may indeed be an important theory to some, but that doesn't justify its inclusion on a page where it doesn't belong. Start the article Trio theory and put the information there.

No, I have not read about "trio theory" with care or at all. All of my comments on this talk page were in response to what is written in this wikipedia article, which I tried to indicate in my original post. Thank you for pointing out to me that because I have not read Robert Fink, I am effectively illiterate. That was an excellent way to make your point.

At this point I do not wish to attack the validity of "trio theory", which I never claimed to know in detail, but instead wish to attack its use in this article. It is not relevant. It is a theory of musical history, not of acoustics. It does not appear in the usual acoustics textbooks, and it does not even appear in the usual music history textbooks.

As far as I can tell from all of the information you have provided, "trio theory" is the work of one man. From the content of your argument, the frequent linking of a single website, your continued anonymity, and other factors, your inclusion of this material in the article looks intended to be promotional, rather than educational.

Finally, there is no need to spend five hours meticulously editing your talk page post. While you are editing, no other author is able to effectively reply, and when you continually make minor edits you are preventing response in a timely manner. These discussion pages are about discussion of the article page itself. They are not published, they are not part of the article. In the case of discussions, a swift reply can save a lot of typing, and it is usually better to make your point quickly, and correct misunderstandings as they come up, rather than to continually change the text of what you said while the person you are addressing might be trying to read it and reply to it. - Rainwarrior 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked to participate in this discussion by Ms. Norton.

On the one hand, you claim the trio theory exists in Helmholtz, is identical to writings by Schoenberg and others. Yet, now you claimed it is the work of just one man. Make up your mind. The trio theory is one explanation for the existence of a "natural" scale.

That it's the work of one man should be irrelevant, as many things in Wikipedia often are necessarily the work of one person. But that aside, your claim also simply isn't true -- indeed, items in the Wiki article about "The Natural Scale" and the "Trio Theory" were not written by the same person (if you read the history of the article). Yet you took out all those and other parts by other writers as well.

Several people wrote on the same tack. That being true, it falsifies your wish that the general view is held by only "one man," and negates part of your reason for removing these sections. Indeed, many others as well (Sir James Jeans, for one) have written about the scale being "natural," and about the relationship of overtones to the evolution of the scale, although not identical to the trio theory.

The Trio theory simply raises other issues about a natural scale; was written over a half-century ago; and was resisted or ignored by the proponents of the atonal system of music which generally had a stake in denying any natural foundation to the scale. Still others have denied those denyers in those decades.

If you want to deny the theory's factual basis, contribute something verifiable indicating another view. Calling it "promotional" rather than educational doesn't cover-up what is likely censorship. How would you know anyway, since you won't read any of it "with care"? My books are mostly sold-out anyway. Just a handful left. What's left to promote, except educational facts? Try READING it!!

The Int'l Herald-Tribune music critic (Henry Pleasants, author of Modern Music & All That Jazz) favourably reviewed the trio theory in the 70's and the British Jazz Journal editor wrote about the Origin of Music in 1971 that it should become a classic if given the exposure it deserves. In Canada, the view was lauded by the editor of Performing Arts in Canada magazine, and I received a 2-page article on my musical work. Again I got a spread in the Ottawa Citizen music section. The view has received a reasonable depth of public debate. I point out that the "usual textbooks" on the music of the 2oth century were so biased at promoting atonal music that they also, until relatively recent times, failed to mention much of anything of jazz, popular music, or broadway, not to mention the natural scale. So what's your point?

In the Wikipedia article, you've left in the acoustic discussion and definitions of consonance and dissonance, beats, Helmholtz, and other matters regarding the perception of sound, which are matters of acoustics as much as the evolution of the scale is. The trio theory is nothing if it isn't about such acoustics -- as overtones, beats, perception and the like are all in the trio theory -- it's all about acoustics and is part of modern contributions to the science of acoustics.

Your condemnation of something you now admit you haven't even read shows a knee-jerk reaction in you removing the material. Obviously, you are proud of your ignorance. I suspect it is a matter of disagreement with the the whole idea that a scale "can" be natural -- a view that is also recently supported by newer archaeological evidence. Especially since you offer no arguments WHY it doesn't belong under "musical acoustics, which is now suspiciously and suddenly your new "reason" for removing it.

In my opinion, that is a suppression of information about musical acoustics. If YOU want to start an article on the clinical aspects of NON-musical acoustics in general, without regard to history and views about musical acoustics (or concentrate an article just about acoustics in concert halls) then go for it. The term "musical" includes the acoustics of the scale, as well as the effects in history of acoustics, just as Helmholtz and the classical acoustic science writers dealt with it. If anything belongs under the title "Musical acoustics," then it's the material you vandalized or censored -- and if censorship, should not be tolerated.

So the material will be restored, and I hope will continue to be. You moved the material under a title that effectively hides it. Like putting an article about planet Saturn under the name of one of its moons. Ridiculous. If you agreed to move it to a title like "The Natural Musical Scale" or merge it it into "Musical scales" it might be worth looking at. As it stands, I think you hope it will be nominated for deletion by personalizing it.

After claiming the trio theory was "identical" to what Schoenberg, et al, wrote You wrote, and therefore appear to lie through your teeth in doing so: "Trio theory is a theory of the origin and nature of music proposed by musicologist Bob Fink." Not by Schoenberg now?? Not by Kepler anymore? There is something dishonest, arrogant and bullying about your behavior and contradictory "reasoning" in this matter. At best, unscholarly, slipshod and incompetent -- and persistently grasping at any straw reason available to your imagination to quash rather than assist revision or compromise regarding the material presented.

I would like to see other opinions here about keeping that material here.

Bob Fink 65.255.225.33 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus regarding staying or moving we'll abide by it. C. Norton 65.255.225.33 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My first comments were about material in the article itself. At that point, I assumed that "trio theory" was confined to the short section about the building of a diatonic scale from the three lowest prime tones in the harmonic series. This construction is covered in many places, including (but not limited) an essay by Arnold Schoenberg which can be found in Style and Idea (my books are in storage at the moment, but I believe the essay is called "Problems of Harmony" if you want to look it up), which is my favourite description of that construction. There are other good explanations of this kind of construction, and not all of them even involve overtones (Harry Partch has an interesting take on this). As such, I saw the attribution of this relatively late name "trio theory" to this construction inappropriate. My other two points in that comment were not made with the understanding that everything in that section of the article belonged to trio theory.

Now, after a response was crafted to these first comments, it was made clear to me that "trio theory" covers a lot more (or at least is part of something else that covers a lot more, I don't know, you haven't defined the term for me yet). I don't know how much more, but at least everything I had addressed in my first comment. So, at this point, no, I no longer found it appropriate to use the term as narrowly as in the first. If I could read your book, I would, but I do not currently have access to a good library (this will change in a week or so, I am in the process of moving), but I have read each article that has been linked in this article. I never refused to read your book, I just said that I hadn't. However, the material that was inserted into this article I had read, and did comment on as I understood it at the time.

I said that I no longer wished to discuss the validity of "trio theory", and this was for a few reasons. The main reason was that I that I had more recently come to the conclusion that this material doesn't belong under "musical acoustics" at all. This was simply a later realization. There were more than two months between my comment and your reply; I had a different idea of the relationship of this material to the article when I returned.

Another reason is that the nature of your response was full of rhetoric and every bit of reference to back up any statemnt was a link to your website. If you want to argue the validity of your own work, cite an author other than yourself. At the point of your reply, I had made no changes to the article based on my comments, and really at that time wanted to discuss the ideas. Your ideas do seem interesting, but the direction this discussion was taking was entirely unproductive, and I didn't think it was worth continuing: especially because I think now that none of this belongs in the article, as per above.

I think the relationship between 5-limit harmony and the diatonic scale belongs this article, but not under the name "trio theory" (though it would not be inappropriate to cite and link Trio theory among other citations for it). The history and evolution, however, doesn't belong. If anything it's an application of acoustics to a theory of history, but because something involves an musical acoustical idea doesn't make it appropriate for a definition of musical acoustics.

I would appreciate comments on this from others. - Rainwarrior 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To Rainwater: Thanks for your explanation.

I have to get back to my work and research on upcoming articles. The part of the article "Musical acoustics" that contains a description of my theory was put together by several people, including help from my publisher. I was happy with the work others did on it, and will leave it to those who wish to maintain the article to deal with changes if there is still not enough clarity about why that view is in the musical acoustics article. Anything and everything can always be improved. I do not do any editing because many Wikipedians have a strong aversion to people writing about their own work. So I will avoid it, other than suggesting minor details of dates, or sources, etc.

My publisher Ms. Norton has a different view than mine. If people in the Wikipedia community want to define musical acoustics as very narrowly as you do, then so be it, is her view. We await such a consensus, if it comes. Helmholtz and others who brought acoustics into publication, however, did devote considerable space to deal with acoustics in the evolution and history of music and scales, not only just about musical sound, and they appear to me to have originally defined the matter far more broadly than you wish to do so. So would I.

Regarding my theory and its validity: You first brought up the validity issue. The validity of any theory requires evidence. I have, despite your strange opinion, cited "other authors" and their work as evidence for the theory's validity. Please read the facts.

There is Prof. Anne D. Kilmer, and the oldest known song she deciphered; There is reliance on Helmholtz body of work, and there are present day journals and news articles about me and my views. You seem to repeatedly NOT NOTICE or read that information above and in the article. I wonder why?

There is the Neanderthal flute, written about by many others, but which corroborates my views and predictions. There are many published reviews by others of my work. There are the Chinese 9,ooo year-old flutes which clearly show my theory was accurate in its predictions that even in prehistoric times the stages of musical evolution would reflect an evolution from pentatonic to diatonic. Virtually all the archaeological evidence appeared well after my writings, and is consistent. There is Prof. Sandra Trehub and her studies on consonance and dissonance regarding babies, as well as her citing me in her paper presented at the Origin of Music world conference in Italy (about 10 years ago).

All of this evidence is not my doing, but is evidence developed by others, and they have virftually all been cited in the musical acoustics article and certainly in this discussion. It is flatly untrue when you say that my sources of evidence are cited only from me. My sources and evidence are only from others, and not me. Beyond that, I used facets of simple acoustics already well established.

That they have been copied onto the Greenwich website does not make them "our" material. They also exist in other authors' library books, journals, news articles -- in significant quantity. I listed the websites so you would read about these other authors and evidence. Further, I never asked you to read my book. Just those webpages. I am only one of many who have written about the increasing parallel relationship between acoustics and musical evolution. It's time you stopped claiming otherwise.

--Bob Fink65.255.225.45 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you and your publishers have been inserting your theories into wikipedia articles, this is a violation of wikipedia policies. Relevant policy may include Conflict of interest, Neutral point of vies, Original research, Verifiability.

With regards to citations, there are many references for the existance and content of historical writings, archaelogical evidence, etc., but what you do not have citations for is the conjecture you hang upon them. If you cannot cite someone other than yourself holding your theory, you should not be allowed to put them into this wikipedia article, as per policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own theories; you've already got a perfectly good website dedicated to that, and that's where it belongs. - Rainwarrior 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just joining this discussion. I already know how Rainwarrior feels, so Bob, would you mind briefly summarizing your position on anything that's in question? BTW, are you the same person as User:Bob Fink? If so, why don't you log in? Please log in.

As for the article, I see some references I can find, some I can't (if an ISBN doesn't show up on WorldCat or the Library of Congress, you need to provide more reference information so people can actually find it), and some statements that lack references entirely. I'll go through right now and mark the most important ones. —Keenan Pepper 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Natural scale"

The section Musical acoustics#The natural scale has some problems. First, and least important, it should be called the diatonic scale because natural scale is slightly ambiguous (at first I thought it meant the harmonic series, but that may have been because I expect to see things about the harmonic series in an article on acoustics). Second, how come this article attributes it to Aristoxenus while Diatonic scale doesn't mention him? Third, why should an article on musical acoustics even mention the diatonic scale at all? "Musical acoustics" should apply equally to all kinds of music, for example Balinese gamelan, which doesn't use the diatonic scale. Including the diatonic scale but not the pelog scale indicates a Western bias, and it's also pointless, because that's what the Diatonic scale article is for. Please keep things in their proper places. —Keenan Pepper 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aristoxenus describes a few scales in his writing on harmony (including the diatonic), but without any reference to harmonic ratios or mathematics of any kind really. I've never seen anyone attribute it to him before, though. - Rainwarrior 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I also think that "natural" is an assuming term (I think it's being used as a lead-in to the whole "evolution" section) and should be replaced by diatonic. We should mention at least one source for the properly-described 5-limit tuning itself; Kepler is the oldest reference to it I can remember offhand (see here), though I seem to recall Partch attributing it to Ptolemy? (I don't know how reliable that attribution is.) - Rainwarrior 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More discussion of Trio Theory

Rain warrior wrote "if you cannot cite someone other than yourself holding your theory, you should not be allowed..." Cute.

Mr. Fink and I have already cited many such people, editors, journalists, writers, and magazines. Either you're playing head games or are unwilling to read what we wrote. Well it's still there to read __if you can read. And an Advocate can also read it and read the history, etc..

Not that there is a Wiki requirement for a theory to be held by your friends before it can be in the Wikipedia. It's a viewpoint that has been published many years ago and many people accept it. Some don't. It's factually correct and recent archaeological finds and studies confirm the general viewpoint daily (as we said and said and said.....). It's not "conjectuire" anymore, and more and more people are writing into our webpages in the correspondence sections -- OH!!! But are they the kind of people who "count" with you? Who do we need to recruit? Dick Cheney? -- Or Lon Chaney??

Mr. Fink has left to work on writing papers he was invited to write for journals etc., and is not available. Nor doe he edit Wikipedia, or want to anyway, unless they spell his name wrong. Then he asks someone to do something about it.

I for one now suddenly realize you will kidnap my life's precious time making me repeat arguments forever, to your forever deaf ears. I hope this gives you a big adolescent laugh. If I sold lemonade, I believe you'd want me to provide a list of everyone who ever drank one I sold before I'd be allowed to sell another one. I see no good faith here nor constructiveness nor rationality. So I've had enough of your now obvious silliness -- or perhaps it's some form of warped venality or bias -- or pranksterism.

By the way, someone else wrote the section on the "natural" scale. There is a natural foundation to the scale, but we rarely if ever refer to the scale as the "Natural Scale." If anything would be called such, it would be more than one scale. But whether you believe it's natural or not, is not a requirement in Wikipedia rules. Ideas are supposed to be encouraged if verifiable in Rainwarrior's opinion, it says somewhere there, right? Including dissident ideas (even if not yet as famous as O.J. Simpson) -- as well as ideas by Copernicus, Ptolemy and Galileo. OH! But wasn't the heliocentric theory just "one man's speculation," not in the text books for centuries?? And so, in parting for the holidays from this Sticky Wiki slap-happy exercise you're running, here's a few items taken straight out of Wikipedia for you to snortle about.

WIKIPEDIA SAYS: "Am I supposed to be able to edit your site, even if I am not logged on? YES. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit...." "Wikipedia is also moving towards an environment where it is preferred that articles are edited by knowledgeable individuals, such as academics and scientists, who are able to cite from scientific magazines (Nature and similar) and other academic reference material." (Would that be you, Moe and Curly?)

"Don't be afraid to edit _ anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." (Maybe you thought they said "make it funnier"?) By the way, Gamelan does use the diatonic scale. Often, one instrument is tuned to the scale, and the parallel instrument is tuned slightly off from that. That's what creates the "shimmering" effect of the sound. It is hardly a case of ignoring the diatonic.

C. Norton 65.255.225.50 06:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

P.s Citations and sources have been provided. 65.255.225.50 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Merry Xmas & Hapopy New Year

Wikipedia linking policy states: For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

You may attack me personally with continued accusations that I take sadistic pleasure in obscuring your work, or insinuating that I have no knowledge of the subject, or that I am illiterate, but none of this is relevant to the article, so it's a waste of your time to write them.

Since you do not seem to object to the proposed changes regarding use of the term "the natural scale", I will make them. - Rainwarrior 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several people who edit on occasion. Our only interest is scholarship -- based on recent developments, even if there are conflicting opinions. Simply, all views must be represented if there are conflicts. We take other views into account, and if we missed any of them, of course add or describe them.

If our efforts inadvertently broke some rules, then by all means look at the links we added. Most of them in our webpages are to OTHER authors and events and usually not our own authorship. So mention any you feel are not relevant, or bonafide sources, and should not be there. We're not Wikipedians nor can or want to be. But we may agree on changes, and then you, being neutral, can re-do the links allowing them to live up to the rule you cited. Please leave them until this reasonable process is followed -Fair enough? C.N. 65.255.225.51 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

P.s. If I recall, it was someone else who elevated "trio theory" into a big deal subhead. The theory was simply nick-named such. I never intended to make it prominent, but didn't care one way or the other. Put another subhead if you don't like the nick-name. Please discuss it first?

Please comment on the "Evolution of the diatonic scale" section

Well, I don't think much at all of the section you added belongs to Musical acoustics, here are my reasons, section by section:

1. Archaeological evidence: The actual cited archaelogical information isn't relevant to acoustics, but might be relevant to Diatonic scale (or some of it could be used directly in the description of the diatonic scale above). The existence of ancient instruments is not part of the study of acoustics, and diatonic scale, having its own article, hardly needs so much material in its discussion in this article about acoustics.
2. Acoustic Theory of Scale Origins: Has no citations or references other than to the author's work, many statements are entirely conjecture and unproveable (the last two paragraphs especially). This entire section appears to be outlining a little-known theory; I can find no reference to it in any electronic journal I have access to, and no mention of it on any website except the author's own, and on mirrors of wikipedia, to which the content was added by the author or his friends, which violates NPOV policy.
3. Derviation of different scales: Is still outlining the theory from the section above, same issues apply.
4. Halftones in the scale and the evolution of harmony: The first paragraph doesn't address acoustics. Papal edict is hardly an acoustical matter. The third paragraph doesn't have any discernable meaning to me, though again assertions like "semiconscious influences" are not provable. The last three paragraphs again are an exegesis about trio theory, which as I have said is neither well known, nor particularly relevant to acoustics.

My opinion is that the entire section should be removed from this article, but I have no problem with the material appearing in an article specifically dedicated to the theories of Bob Fink (and even a succinct link from the diatonic scale section to his theories might be acceptable, alongside references to other theories about scale construction); something named Trio theory, or perhaps a more appropriately named article. The references to archaeological artifacts could indeed be relevant to articles other than this one, such as Diatonic scale, but that is a matter for discussion at those particular pages. - Rainwarrior 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you notice that Keenan Pepper asked for citations about several facts which we thought would be already known by most lay musicologists who are familiar with the acoustic work of Helmholtz and others. If not, then we complied and added citations. It would be far shorter if the stated citations weren't deemed necessary by Keenan. All we did was comply with his request. The matter should be battled out between you and Pepper.

Helmholtz (the "father of acoustics") presumeably dealt with musical acoustics in his seminal work Sensations of Tone, don't you think? And he apparently thought the history of the diatonic scale (including in ancient music and the history of other scales and their evolution over time) was relevant to understanding acoustics. Count the pages devoted to it in his book's table of contents & scattered throughout the book - and also count what he wrote about the ear, biology, psychology, histories of musical instruments and the esthetic effects of musical acoustics.

Many people likewise think that these matters are relevant. Why don't you? One can (and probably should in this article) take the broader, more interdisciplinary view in order to better understand the meaning of the otherwise dry and sanitized lists of ratios and frequencies and antiseptic mathematics.

So let's leave it to the input from others whether they want a broad Helmholtz-like and Sir James Jeans-like definition of musical acoustics in this article, or the physics-only definition you seem to propose. As said, we will abide by a consensus if it develops.

Perhaps if you restate your view, it can by further repetition eventually appear to be a "consensus" of many? Anyway, I'm outta here. Happy holidays. CN 65.255.225.44 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior's "game"

This is my comment: I think I've figured out Rainwarrior's "game," if one exists:

I cannot read minds, but Rainwarrior seems hell-bent on diminishing my credentials, and without evidence he also portrays my views, which are about the acoustic basis for scale evolution, as views which are unknown, unadopted, unproven and unprovable.

On the latter, he refuses to give any specific reasons for those assertions. The assertioins themselves are presented as being "reasons." On my credentials, likewise, he doesn't give any evidence for his claim I have no credentials apparently worth his recognition of them, other than his own experience at not having heard of me. They are just his opinions and assertions.

When contrary evidence is presented to him about it, he never rebuts the evidence. As Norton said, he changes the subject and tries another method for what I believe is his desire to eventually remove these views about the "natural" basis for scales entirely from Wikipedia -- probably because he opposes those views and wants to save us all from them. Who knows why, for sure.

He was told I was invited by the Lorenz Institute in Vienna to come and speak on my views about the origin of music (all expenses paid). The person inviting me seems he's heard of my work. He said: "Fink is one of those rare people who could give a comprehensive overview of this complex field [of the origin of music]." - Adolph Heschl, director: KLI., 2001.

I was asked by the editor of Nature journal, among the leading science journals (Mr. H. Gee, at the time) to serve as a juror on an article about prehistoric Chinese flute scales. Someone at Nature seemed to hear about me and recognize my expertise.

What does Rainwarrior do with this information? He acts as though he hasn't even read it -- and following upon our presenting it, keeps writing the same false claims, such as: "If you want to argue the validity of your own work, cite an author other than yourself." And: "If you cannot cite someone other than yourself holding your theory, you should not be allowed to put them into this wikipedia article, " And: "This entire section appears to be outlining a little-known theory; I can find no reference to it in any electronic journal I have access to, and no mention of it on any website except the author's own." and so on. However there are many websites which like it, review it, and link to my website on my theories and other writings.

Why does Rainwarrior keep insisting on establishing this fabrication about me? It would appear that it might later serve some agenda of his own -- Could that agenda be to rid the wiki-world of the natural basis of scales viewpoint? Why not ask him, folks?

For example, something we did not put in the wiki article was the term "The Natural Scale." It's inaccurate. There is a natural basis for scales, but not just one scale. The change should have been to " A Natural Scale," rather than "The" natural scale. But the overkill change Rainwarrior made certainly is consistent with someone anxious to get rid of the word "natural," rather than the word "The." He went on to remove every reference to the word "natural" or "natural scale" by others writing in this Wiki article (who appear to agree with my views). Ask him: Does he believe there is A Natural Scale? That is, one which natural acoustics has helped bring into existence?

Additional reviews (from the list below) were provided to Rainwarrior in the discussion , all of which prove the claims of Rainwarrior are patently untruthful:

"I think this remarkable book [Origin of Music 1970] could become a classic if given the exposure it deserves." - Ron Brown, Assistant editor of Jazz Journal, March 1971, U.K. Sounds like he sort of agrees with it, yes?

The editor of Performing Arts in Canada wrote that views in my Origin of Music book "...and (its) apparent approach remarkably coincide with concerns and attitudes of my own" - Michael Schulman, 1975.

"To say that we are intrigued (about the Origin of Music) is an understatement." - T.C. Fry, President, Musical Heritage Society Sept., 1970, N.Y.C. (Fry had offered to reprint my book as a gift premium to give away with sales of his hi-quality classical recordings.)

Commenting on the Origin of Music: "...a searching study...very sensible." - Henry Pleasants, Long-time music critic: Int'l Herald Tribune. Aug., 1971. U.K. Author of: Serious Music & All That Jazz, & The Agony of Modern Music - clearly another noted author who accepted my views as agreeable.

"I certainly do like and am profiting from The Origin of Music. " - Prof. Anne D.Kilmer, U of Calif., Berkeley - Deciphered cunieform of oldest known song (4,ooo years old). My views were also cited by Prof. Sandra Trehub in her paper at the Origin of Music world conference held in 1998-9.

This is only a part of it. Further, there are many letters sent me from readers, students, teachers and newspeople who have endorsed and praised my work -- many published on my webpages. I could fill a book with the many hundreds of linking URLs and favourable letters and reviews I have.

All of that was available to Rainwarrior in this discussion but he continued to act as though "if you cannot cite someone other than yourself holding your theory, you should not be allowed...in Wikipedia," yatta yatta. So in order to remove my views, there seems to be a need to deny the truth that anyone knows of me, approves of my views and that my views are a growing part of established literature which demonstrate a general trend of thinking regarding the biological or physiological (i.e., "natural) basis for the rise of acoustic scales. That could then be one excuse to work for deletion, if that's the agenda.

But Rainwarrior's secret weapon in a possible agenda seems to be the short-name "trio theory" which doesn't even appear in my book, but was coined haphazardly much later. Yes, he may very reluctantly admit in a "phase 2" of his agenda that "Fink has adherents and good reviews and recognition, but not under the name 'trio theory.' "

Well by god, that's true. Therefore what? That the "trio theory" should be removed to its own distant corner of the wikiuniverse until Rainwarrior and the International Acoustic Society adopts my book or theory? But Rainwarrior should realize not even the science of evolution gets that kind of blanket acceptance, but it is taught in most schools. My view isn't - although I have been invited to high school and university classes to speak more often than ever. At first, for many centuries, Copernicus was similarly locked out of the mainstream by his opponents. I have such opponents in mainstream arenas, and Rainwarrior claiming that they have not yet adopted my views should never be a reason to disallow those views on acoustics, or anything else, from Wikipedia.

As in any article or view, knowing the subject matter carefully -- not just private views or the wikipedia rules -- should be the only method by which an editor judges an article. No encyclopedian would or should be taken seriously if he admitted he could condemn a viewpoint and an article and then say, as Rainwarrior did: "No, I have not read about "trio theory" with care or at all. All of my comments on this talk page were in response to what is written in this wikipedia article...." In that case, we can only wonder why no attempt was made to suggest improvements, clarifications, et al. There was total condemnation, and it was based on invented and false assumptions, without reading up on the subject.

Then when his untrue assumptions were challenged, he switched gears. He does that a lot. He even claimed the trio theory was by Schoenberg, and by Helmholtz and Kepler and more. Then he fights mere days later that "Bob Fink" should be the only acknowledged author in the title of a separate article on the trrio theory, as my name as author appearing in the article text was not good enough for him. Why not? His flip-flops never cease. We never intended the short-name "trio theory" to be a book title, or anything but a convenience in typing a reference to it within a letter or article. Someone unknown to us made it a subhead in this article. But I think Rainwarrior needs to keep this nickname prominent for some purpose of his own, as if it was the official title of my life's work, or to justify some other goal he has.

I have spent a lifetime debating academics and composers whose stake in modern atonal (polytonal, post-tonal, you name it) theories run deep and who often have all the zealotry of theologians rather than use of the scientific method. They have for decades until recently (but even still recently according to on-going testimonials) avoided tonality, decried it, opposed it, punished students for using it, avoided teaching the history of popular music, jazz, Broadway. - Why? Because it competes with their own indoctrination view that there is no natural basis for the most widespread scales, it's all "relative," and any other view is out-of-date and/or even "harmful," as at least one composer put it in a newspaper attack on me. I can recognize an "agenda" in the manner in which these people argue -- and in Rainwarrior's arguments, there seems to me to be the same kind of outrageous denial of evidence.

As I said, I cannot read minds, but I believe a hidden agenda is there and that Rainwarrior has shown enough duplicity and slippery avoidance of specifics and consistency to now warrant my complete distrust. I do not believe he has Wikipedia quality and scholarship at heart on this matter (even when a view may be disputed by some, and almost any subject is disputed and disputable). I'm just telling the truth about my feelings. Like Norton I will no longer deal with him. If this matter is ever mediated, I will represent the theory and its inclusion although I am not an editor of this article. Bob Fink 65.255.225.42 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have severely misunderstood me, but you have the right to say what you wish here. If you want to know what motivates me, what my goals are, you don't have to try to read my mind, you can ask me (though this talk page isn't the place for personal correspondence). - Rainwarrior 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Fink's work in musical acoustics & music origins

Because of Rainwarrior's repetitive and untrue characterizations of my work, here and at Talk: Trio theory, I feel that to redeem my real standing requires replying with a massive defense of my work's notability which should meet any reasonable test in Wikipedia rules.

Much of my work is published by others, and some is self-published, such as my newsletter on ancient and prehistoric music, Crosscurrents. According to Wikipedia policy, even "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." -- So am I a professional researcher meeting those requirements with notable work?

Listings

Here are listings (in addition to those listed in my previous post) to demonstrate Wikipedia standards of notability of both myself and my work and 3rd-party publication on a wide scale:

• The pictorial clippings collage (see http://www.greenwych.ca/newsclps.jpg) shows my essays & boooks analyzing scales and the Neanderthal flute was reviewed (and reprinted in other languages as well), 'round the world in many hundreds of newspapers, perhaps thousands on the newswire services;

• I know Professor Anne Kilmer; who deciphered the oldest known song. She visited my home some years back. I know and corresponded with Prof. Bonnie Blackwell who dated the flute and Ivan Turk who found the Divje Babe object. I am known by hundreds of archaeology buffs, musicologists and practicing scientists who discuss matters on the Palanth forum and ethnomusicology forums on the Internet.

• I am known as far away as Vienna by K.L. Institute director Prof. Heschl who invited me to come there to speak on my views on the origin of music, scales and harmony, all expenses paid.

• I and my work was heard about by Nature journal editors who asked me to jury an article on ancient Chinese scales. The e-mails are saved and available.

• I know Dr. Garman Harbottle who wrote to me many times and who was an author of a Nature article which announced the same Chinese flutes some years earlier -- a senior chemist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory.

• Canadian music writer Paul McKay had sent me e-mails asking for an interview in which he reviewed and expounded (and "adopted") my theory of scale origins in his "Enchanted Ear" column in the Ottawa Citizen daily newspaper and in many others in the chain of Canadian Southam newspapers. E-mails available.

• Fox News' science reporter Amanda Onion contacted me and published my views on the 5 and 7-note scales when the 9,000 year-old Chinese flutes were first announced having been found. Her e-mails are still in my computer.

• My flute analysis was made the cover story in Alberta's Western Report magazine. In addition, I was interviewed by Mary Lou Findley on CBC's As It Happens radio -- also by Discovery Channel, and many other TV and radio media interviews.

• The Times of London wrote an article about my work;

• I'm invited to write on the origin of music and the oldest flute in a new academic musicology Journal in Turkey whose editor chose my drawing of the Neanderthal flute for its masthead logo.

• And Kate Wong, writer for Scientific American magazine, wrote an article from our e-mail correspondence about my views on the Neanderthal Flute.

• Egg magazine asked me to e-mail my revised article on the acoustic theory of scale evolution which they published, giving it cover-story status.

• Glyph, the official journal of the Archaeology Institute of America, published my article on Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music, as well as did Archaeologia Musicalis, a journal of the archaeology sub-committee in the International Council on Folk Music, which orghanizes world music archaeology conferences biannually.

• Authors writing books like musician Gil Lawton have asked for quotes from me by e-mail for their planned works. More authors and e-mails cited below.

• Erin McCarthy & Eugenia Dorfman wrote me from their corporation "EBSCO" to invite my newsletter Crosscurrents to be in their library database -- republishing almost all of my writings and essays, for use by the many libraries which subscribe to or search their database. EBSCO is one of the largest holders of world academic journal clients in the world. They pay royalties for this inclusion. Does their inclusion count as third-party publication?

• Finally, there are old books on comparitive esthetics which I just located again, written by George Lansing Raymond, published by G. P. Putnam's Sons (1894), books which I just discovered include another very similar theory on "Natural" scales and their origin, basing it on the same three intervals which I used in my theory. Not exactly the same theory, and it admits of being unable to answer some questions that my hypothesis has since explained in my essay called The 7-note Solution - Why so many 5 & 7 notes are found?

The biggest mystery remaining to be solved is how all this happened since -- according to Rainwarrior -- no one has heard of my theories and research and that I am unpublished except on my own website, and Rainwarrior also complains my theories are "unproven, and unprovable" as well as "unknown and unadopted."

Well, the theories are known throughout the archaeology and musicology community and beyond as well. They are published and/or have been adopted, even as close to us as being apparently generally adopted by that unknown editor who had much earlier placed a section in the musical acoustics article called "The Natural Scale." Which Rainwarrior was quick to trash without even waiting long enough to see if that editor would notice & respond in the discussion.

Excerpts from my e-mails:

• Music journalist and columnist (Ottawa Citizen newspaper, Ontario) Paul Mckay, wrote: "Hi Bob: I'm back in Ottawa now, after a long sojourn to Calgary and Vancouver for more interviews for 'Enchanted Ear' stories. On the plane I read your book, and found it fascinating. You were way ahead of most other music scholars. Since seeing you, I've come across several other startling examples, backing up your thesis." (May 16, 2002.) Regarding his feature column outlining my acoustical explanation of scales, he wrote: "Hi Bob: Yes, the story will be put on the Southam wire for all its papers (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Halifax, National Post etc.) to pick up." McKay also has become a supporter of my views.

• Invitation to jury panel from Nature journal from editor Henry Gee: "Dear Mr Fink, I wonder whether you would be able to review a manuscript we've received at Nature? In 1999 we published an account...on the earliest playable musical instrument, a multi-hole flute carved from the ulna of a crane from the Neolithic Jiahu site in China (Nature vol. 401, pp366-368). In this paper, the authors present a musical analysis of flutes excavated from three successive archaeological layers at Jiahu dating between 7000 BC and 5800 BC. They describe a neat elaboration of flutes, at first capable of a four-note scale (tetrachord), progressing to a pentatonic scale, a six-note scale and eventually a 7-note scale. Interestingly, the intervals don't deviate too far from a standard 12-tone scale."

• Letter from The Glyph, the quarterly (print) journal of the non-profit Archaeological Institute of America. (San Diego): "Attn: Bob Fink -- I am forwarding a response from Anne Kilmer to my request for permission to publish the article...Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music. I am the editor of The Glyph... I would like to feature this article in an upcoming issue." Prof. Anne Kilmer, at the time chairperson of Assyriology at the University of Calfornia at Berkeley, had written: "Even tho' I have only seen p. 1 of your Fax, I recognize it (Bob Fink -- a friend of mine -- probably sent it to me but can't locate it right now). Fink wrote it as a way of reporting the sort of thing that had been discovered re ancient NE music. So, in fact, he is the one whose permission you should seek...." (Prof. Kilmer in 1975 worked on and deciphered the cuneiform of the oldest known song showing it was diatonic and had harmony.)

• Letter from 4winds publishing: "...you recently gave permission for us to reproduce the article The role of the drone and counterpoint in the development of harmony in our magazine Onlook, asking that we provide you with a copy when it's ready. The magazine is now printed and I'd like to post you a copy ~ only I've misplaced your address.... " (Rouland)

• Publication of my infography: Howard Chesshire, Chief, Fields of Knowledge, Mountain School Program of Milton Academy, wrote: "What a wonderful Infography you have created about the origins of music. It is extensive, of superb quality, and a testament to the sincere and diligent work of a skilled research scholar. You asked if you were on the right track and if you should submit more citations. Not only on the right track, but an engine of accomplishment to enthuse and pull our efforts for the reminder of the week. I suggest that you wait until we've sent you some royalties before submitting additional citations. Your submission has been accepted for publication." (Sept, 2000.)

• Letter from StudyWeb site: "Congratulations! Your site (Neanderthal Flute) has been selected as a featured site in StudyWeb as one of the best educational resources on the Web by our researchers." (Jan. 1998.)

• E-mails of authors requesting quotes/interviews from me: "...a brief quote or two, from words published by you, might be useful in the final draft of a book in progress (by) Gary Talley. ...We are viewing with interest some of your comments as to the archeological artifacts.... The essence is to quote a reliable source on the fact that musical instruments and musical harmony persisted for thousands of years before musical notation evolved into anything even resembling its modern day status." (Gil Lawton, June, 2002.)

o Dirk Husemann wrote: "I work as a scientific journalist in Germany and am writing a book about the Neanderthals for the publisher campus. ...Can You give me the latest insights of Your work and - maybe Mr. Turks?

o Aaron Stokes (Kingsville, MO teacher?) wrote: " I am putting together a three-part notebook on music. One part is on history, the other on religion, and the third on science. May I have permission to print and copy the pages listed (Natural Bases of Scales & Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music)?

o Vanessa De Sa from Brazil wrote: "I'm a science editor working at Superinteressante, the most important scientific magazine in Brazil. I'm doing an article about origins of music...I know it's a polemic subject, but you propose an interesting theory about that.... Could you tell some about your theory?" and an e-mail interview ensued.

o From China, professor Fang Jianjun wrote: "In last e-mail, I asked you send your resume to me so that I can introduce you and your research to my Chinese colleagues and my musicological students and postgraduates."

o Another: "I'm working on a book about the music and the multiple intelligences, and i would like to refer some Bob Finks texts and thinkings, if i can. So, informations about Bob Fink...would be very important...sorry for my bad english!" (Paulo Est�v�o Andrade, Mar�lia, S�o Paulo Brasil). There are many more such requests.

• Journalist Morten Falck wrote: "Dear Mr. Fink: I am a science journaist in Norway's leading newspaper Aftenposten. I have just read about the neanderthal flute in Science, and have decided that this is an item I will write a note on for our readers...." (July 1997)

• Science writer for Scientific American Kate Wong wrote: "Dear Dr. Fink, I am hoping to write a news article on the Neandertal Flute in light of your musicological analysis.... I have been given the green light by the news editor; however, he rightly points out that the main challenge here will be bringing something new to the table as this is running in the September issue. In looking over the correspondence between you and David Halperin I was wondering if your reply to his question about pentatonic vs. diatonic received any response?" (Article appeared in SciAm Sept., 1997 issue.)

• Correspondence with N.A.S.A. "Your website contains information, graphics, or pictures that NASA would like to incorporate in a high visibility public education exhibit designed around the topic of Astrobiology -- the study of the living universe. Our policy is to showcase talents of people outside of NASA as well as inside to illustrate these concepts." (Lynn D. Harper, Jun., 1998.)

• Archaeologist/Editor Donna Cobb wrote: "Bob, Would it be possible to e-mail me the article containing your analysis of the Neandertal bone flute? I would, if you are o-k with it, like to print it in the Paleoscene Newsletter. This newsletter is produced for the Paleontology Section of the NSS on a quarterly basis and the next issue is due to go out shortly. ...am most interested in your findings. Donna Cobb, editor, NSS 25029 zooarchaeologist, caver. (April, 1997)

• Letter from Egg journal on music and the arts: "Hi Bob, We are going to run your article (on the Flute find) in an upcoming issue - perhaps the first part.... The reason I'm writing is to ask if you have any photos or graphics that might serve as illustration.... (Paul Woodfin, Egg Magazine, PO Box 336, Bar Harbor, ME 04609.)

• EBSCO's Academic Journal database: "We will definitely be adding Crosscurrents to at least one database, my guess would be Academic Search Premier. Let me look into it and I'll get back to you." (Erin McCarthy); "We are very pleased that we recently obtained rights to include Crosscurrents Newsletter in EBSCO's library products, and eagerly look forward to receiving the first issue for 2004." (Eugenia Dorfman.) EBSCO handles 80,000 academic journals, magazines, and newspapers.

As to Rainwarrior's claim my theory is held by only myself and is "unproved and unprovable"? Obviously, not altogether true. But even if unprovability was true, so what?

According to Einstein and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, virtually nothing is provable in science. The best one can achieve is a degree of probability.

A "fact" often is just educated opinion based on repeated experimental observations. In prehistory, the best "facts" are archaeological relics like musical instruments, and the meaning of these is even sometimes unclear. Even Wikipedia policy writings mentions something like the non-factualness of "facts" as well.

But when you observe a pattern of cumulative historical and archaeological data which exhibits an appearance of many similar scales in widely disparate times and places in the history of music, and which are parallel to the laws of acoustics, then you have to ask:

What are the odds such a close match of complex musical behavior could, by sheer accident, exist parallel to the science of acoustics, which was unknown in prehistory and in ancient societies?

The odds are so great against that, that one must either accept a miracle of coincidence as an "explanation" -- or, as the scientific method would have us do, seek anything that will more simply explain it, even a theory or construct which fits most of the the facts more convincingly than accepting that chance events could blindly build such a coincidental pattern of 5-note scale evolution into 7-note scales.

The theory related in this article, which I developed from simple established acoustic information, fits virtually all the facts and does away with any need to believe in near-impossible accident as an explanation. It may not be total "proof," but only the most cut and dried science of simple events can ever offer absolute proof -- like the simple "fact" that, for example, rainwater is all wet. Bob Fink, 65.255.225.41 03:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, an old issue revived

Though as I have said I think notability, relevance, and verifiability are in question, at this point I don't think they compare to a more serious issue. After some investigation I have found that you have been aggressively promoting your website and your theories throughout wikipedia. This violates numerous wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:EL). Self promotion is not allowed here, and you should refrain from further editing of this nature. - Rainwarrior 08:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Information for Advocate:

Rainwarrior has again removed views on my acoustic theories from Musical acoustics. I will undertake to replace it once more. I ask you if possible if you can arrange for "protection" of the page during the dispute. I have no ideas how to do that and haven't the time now to figure it out either. The reason for the deletion, Rainwarrior writes:

"...After some investigation I have found that you have been aggressively promoting your website and your theories throughout Wikipedia...." (See just above for the whole statement.)

We were *already* called on that aggressiveness during the attempt to speedy delete my biography page, and the issues were resolved then. The bio was ruled a "Keep." I and my work were deemed notable. Most of the so-called POV-pushing was done at that time by occasional volunteers at Greenwich Publishers, as well as myself -- because when the idea that "we belong in Wikipedia" came up, we didn't know the rules. So much for the "friendly to newbies" advice in Wikipedia I've heard of. I still only know few of the rules. I don't have time to be a Wikipedian. I already have careers in art & music and very old and creaky at age 71.

But, whatever investigation Rainwarrior did will find most dates show that after we were informed of some certain rules, I stopped doing so-called "aggressive" edits. My own outdated computer is not on-line, so I did them from the publisher's computer. Norton also refrained then from further edits from the same computer, except for corrections of dates, format, spelling, and the like, which she told me the rules would allow for even myself to do. So, some edits may appear, but they'll show to be minor after the warnings.

We have created no new articles, no new paragraphs or theories expounded since then. "References" and "Further reading" edits, I'm told, contain books and literature published by reliable and well-known journals, most of them not by me. Although, sometimes I'm relevant, even if Rainwarrior appears unwilling to ever entertain that idea -- no matter how many notable scholars know me, write me, work with me, include me, agree with me, publish me. Whenever Rainwarrior writes something, it appears etched in granite, no matter what evidence is provided to him. Very sad and bizarre obsessiveness.

Since that time Wikipedia writings indicate that there is motion more and more to an "atmosphere of knowledgeable people writing and editing Wikipedia." In that atmosphere Wikipedia recognized that often there are only a few people able to write adequately on a subject. The issue creates a quandary, which I hope is resolved with new rules recognizing that often a meritorious subject will never find writers for it if the rules are applied as Rainwarrior sees fit, or writers who try writing on certain subjects will garble the facts or omit notable references, and so on without authors of POVs being a part of the writing. Why not? Encyclop Brittanica did it.

Anyway, the "promotion" issue came up, and we complied with the advice then. As for commercial interests, my books are mostly sold out -- maybe 20 or so left. There is no promotion interest here.

Now those earlier links, references, et al, that were made (as was noted about Wiki rules, in this discussion page) should be re-made or kept if they appear relevant and reliable (even if made by us originally - to other authors on my website). And people like Rainwarrior should be re-entering them (invariably by other authors) or asking us to find other verifications on some other websource besides my webpages. We generally publish all opposing and other viewpoints on my websites so readers will have benefit of all points of view in one place (if permission is granted, or quotes when not granted). (Sometimes this is impossible when material is not on-line or expensive subscriptions are required to read journal articles after they're withdrawn from initial short-term on-line view. Unfortunately I cannot change the fact I think the material is right, useful and notable as proven above. Big sin.)

Hoping someone will intervene in this matter soon. Bob Fink 65.255.225.50 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In edit history, Rainwarrior wrote a new "reason" and another evasive change of subject as follows: "This is not about notability, this is about WP:COI and WP:OR. You may not promote your own research using Wikipedia." Again totally untrue: The material deleted was written by people who know my work. As stated above, I removed myself from writing when I learned a year ago authors couldn't write material about their own views. OTHERS, including Norton, re-wrote what I realized could not be directly penned by me, and so they used my own published writings to describe my views in their own words.

No other current literature or contrary viewpoint on acoustic origins of scales did Norton or anyone else know about to include. She'd have wecomed that. Then Norton was warned (as publisher) not to edit. So we revised again with even more neutral people, like asking poet Sheila Steele, who sadly, died recently. Is everyone who reads my work going to be deleted if they write about it? Everything proposed against this information seems designed to obey rules to the reductio ad absurdum of even defeating the keeping of useful, notable, scholarly material. Seems impossibly silly to me. Bob Fink 65.255.225.49 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Norton, having identified as your publisher, falls under the same conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own research, and having your friends do the edits in your stead doesn't really change what you're doing. - Rainwarrior 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I get it now!! I have way too many friends, acquaintences and contacts. Rainwarrrior seems to be saying: No one, no scholar, editor, journalist, scientist, archaeologist, nor anyone who I know, nor who wrote me they believe my theory, nor who read my book, nor anyone I talk to or write to, nor who I see on TV or radio or in the movies -- can write in Wikipedia about me. Indeed -- no one on this planet who knows me, nor knows of me, either. Right?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Many believe (like the editor of Jazz Journal in England thought), that my work might belong in an encyclopedia. Not a good enough, believable reason not to delete? Someone tell me who could feel qualified to know and write about the information I contributed that took me 50 years to research and test? Bob Fink 65.255.225.49 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the editor of Jazz Journal thinks your work belongs in this wikipedia article, he could edit it in. Though at this point because there is a dispute already in progress, given the anonymity of the internet he would have to do something to substantiate the claim that he's not you or acting as your agent before such an edit would be acceptable. - Rainwarrior 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Still awaiting comments/consensus on "Evolution of the diatonic Scale" section

That title should not be changed while awaiting comments &/or mediation. Edits should be minor: grammar, syntax, spelling, phrasing -- but not so as to change the intended meaning, like substituting other words to replace "evolution." If someone -- perhaps with a creationist bent? -- wants to challenge that meaning? If so, then write a passage of challenge -- with verifications. Use sources about theories of musical acoustics which deny "evolutionary" changes in music are taking place. Or whatever your reason for removing that word from the title. But for now, suggest your title changes and reasons in the discussion area, please. Norton, 65.255.225.44 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

POV, OR, Verifiability vs Common Sense!

Please, you are being un-duly harsh here roadwarrior. Honestly, you have a man that has worked hard at getting published (Hint: I'm not sure if it's there but it helps to have proper citations for your work? Check out WP:Cite) and now you think his work should not be included. You are both very intelligent editors and I am sure you can formulate what the problem trully is, if there is one. Nevertheless, I have quickly analyzed the situation and it appears that you are simply looking for esotoric knowledge based arguments (unsourced conflict) and attempting to complicate it with alleged issues of COI, OR, etc... based on bias from the editors affiliations. (Note:If the problem is the name of the sub-heading then talk about that!) Here is my summary:

It appears to me that user roadwarrior is attempting to justify removing information on the basis that it does not comply with wiki-rules. He has specified a list of rules but not gone into details. Essentially he has based his this violation on assumptions & discrimination. These assumption are alluded to by the fact he believe a self proclaimed theorist is obvious putting his own material on here and possibly violating NPOV and OR. The lack of specificity on the alleged offences lead me to believe that there is a lack of good faith and some discrimination. Even though there have been no specific charges laid the defendant has still present a sound rebuttal. For example it is known that "the editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication." Hence according to WP:OR "he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." (Which he has appears to have done). I have personally seen this happen in other non-related subjects. This appears to be a bickering on behalf of plaintiff most likely, in most cases, occasioned by the lack of ability to access the information. Hence the reason it is important to cite WP:Cite As for the WP:COI that is for blatant obvious interests and furthermore is only a guideline, not a rule. It is made for people that believe everyone had a POV to push. B.t.w.: Having a POV is not a bad thing. WP:POV you will notice that the first quote (which I added) explains that you can't have any true article without POVs! Finally, one should not bite the new-comers and wiki guidelines actually stipulates this!

--CyclePat 06:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is "roadwarrior"? You must mean User:Rainwarrior, and if you can't even get the participants' names right, I'm doubtful you'll shed much light on the dispute. —Keenan Pepper 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --FR Soliloquy 06:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally when I found this material on the page, I had a few questions about it, as I found the language odd and the information obscure. Several weeks later a rather rude response came (i.e. "The person who does not read learns no more than the person who cannot read."), and looking at the content of the article again, I did not think it was at all relevant to "musical acoustics", which is the first time I made an edit to that section, though I suggested that if "trio theory" (which was the name given to it at the time, check the Nov 15 response above and the content of the article at the time) was important work by Bob Fink, it deserved an article of its own, so I started Trio theory and moved it there (after which the user began to make long irrelevant and accusatory comments on Talk:Trio theory, to which I gave little reply). I had not deleted material from Wikipedia, but merely moved it to a place I thought more relevant. (I did, however, state my accusation that the material might have been a matter of self promotion at that time, noting the multiple links to the author's website.) I later left a more detailed commentary on the relevance of the material after it was restored under "Please comment on the "Evolution of the diatonic scale" section" (no one yet has responded to it).

Some time after this I began to investigate the material he has added to Wikipedia, and found a great number of links to his website which I think you understand is a violation of WP:COI (Self promotion) and against the WP:EL guidelines ("Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against"). Also added were numerous listings of his book as a reference without having added any text to the article. I've also discovered that this particular material, that material about scale construction from overtones (we apparently can't call it "trio theory" anymore), appears in several pages on Wikipedia now, including Prehistoric music, History of musical scales, and Tonality. After seeing this, it looks like a clear case of self promotion to me, and I made those accusations (this is what I meant by my comments in the second edit to remove this material).

You say that we know that "the editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication." But in WP:OR is "Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable". He hasn't cited anything else for the content in this article. - Rainwarrior 07:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding citations: Keenan Pepper earlier in the discussion had asked for citations/verifications, and listed some he believed were needed. Within minutes, these were provided in the text, none of them referring to writings by Bob Fink or webpages owned by Greenwich publishers or others who have edited this page in the past. Any citations for any fact listed if really believed needed, will be provided in a timely manner. Unless the fact is common knowledge in the field, like "musical tones produce overtones," verification will be provided, and might be offered anyway (in the text or in references) if insisted upon. -- 65.255.225.42 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Brevity

I'm willing to read two or three screenfulls of text, but not thirty. The more you write, the less chance I or anyone else will read any particular part. Please be brief! —Keenan Pepper 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Title again

The false source "trio theory" has been replaced by Rainwarrior. This terminology, "trio theory," contains a link to a commercial vender which can be removed anytime. That title, unknown by any except relatively recent Wikipedia editors, is innaccurate. It offers no information whatever about where the theory below it comes from. It was a convenient "short-title" used by an earlier editor but cannot serve as a true verification or source.

It therefore will be removed. Also the term "trio theory" exists in no book known at the time the theory it refers to below it was written and published (1970 and again in 1981). The theory's concept itself is found in the book "The Origin of Music," and is known, but the actual nickname or term "trio theory" does not exist inside that book. At Talk:Trio_theory this information was personally verified by the author and transmitted to Rainwarrior, who read it. Rainwarrior also wrote then: "I had assumed that 'trio theory' was a major part of his work, which is why I gave this article such a name. Now according to you, it is not."

The term will be replaced with the exact and proper verifying source (the title of the book, but without any vender or sales link). Why Rainwarrior would still insist on a nickname as a false source title after he knew it was never in the real source cited, seems unfathomable. --Bob Fink 65.255.225.37 09:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it was "replaced" by me, or even when you think it was replaced. Check the edit history. I think you're a bit confused as to who has done what, perhaps because you've inserted the same material from your book into two different pages. (Check Prehistoric music.) - Rainwarrior 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well for whoever cares: There it is. History says: "2:09, 27 November 2006 Rainwarrior (Talk | contribs) m (restoring material that was removed without comment)."
• When I then chose (cur) I got a comparison page (See left side of URL below), showing line 89 (containing the "trio theory" nickname) was put back by Rainwarrior Nov 27 (with his same comment shown in italics above). The right side of that URL shows my revert on Nov. 30. See this URL:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musical_acoustics&diff=91133820&oldid=90346951

I never "inserted the same material from my book" into two pages. There is no truth to that. It's a Rainwarrior invention in D-minor. The material was not written by me. It does however, summarize my published views. I see each page is a different summary, relevant to each subject (acoustics in one case, & prehistory in another). So what? As I wrote earlier: When you observe a pattern of cumulative historical and archaeological data which exhibits an appearance of many similar scales in widely disparate times and places in the history of music, and which are parallel to the laws of acoustics, then you have to ask: What are the odds such a close match of complex musical behavior could, by sheer accident, exist parallel to the science of acoustics, which was unknown in prehistory and in ancient societies? The odds are so great against that, that one must either accept a miracle of coincidence as an "explanation" -- or, as the scientific method would have us do, seek anything that will more simply explain it (than relying on miraculous coincidence). I agree this is relevant to musical acoustics -- and to prehistoric music. Kind of like why Mozart would be noted in a symphony page and in an opera page.

You linked to your own edit, mine was the one before: this one, which didnt' actually add anything (just accidentally moved some spacing around). You should read the edit history before you make assertions about it. - Rainwarrior 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Civility warning

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Observations

Rainwarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): I'm trying to understand you viewpoint, you are resiting (removing) the inclusion of Trio theory into acoustic?

65.255.225.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(Bob Fink)(It helps the situation if you log in with an account!) You want trio theory in acoustic? History on author: Can be found in google scholars and has a list of well published documents.

Questions mostly for Rainwarrior and some for Bob Fink

Are you saying this article requires more reliable WP:V publications and conformity to WP:Cite?

Are you saying that Bob Finks "acoustic evolution of scales" belongs in the "musical acoustics" article?

Are you trying to say that Bob Finks published facts are "untrue"? (note: that if his facts are published in a reliable location then they can be added to wikipedia, of course taking into consideration other wikirules)

Are overtones part of the basic discoveries that are involved in acoustics?

Do you feel that this theory should be included, but with minimal discussion in acoustics? If so, is it because of the notability?

Maybe you are trying to say that the information deserves it own article and should be litely discussed in this one?

If it is discussed littly in this article, I assume you want to put it under a different sub-heading? But also keep the main title on another page?

Question to Bob Fink

I think you mentioned you have a list of well published documents can you provide us with the bibliographical information? In particular for the ones pertenant to this matter?

Secondary issues

In your mind, subconciously or not, does the fact that Bob Fink published these books add a prejudicial effect to your opinion on the material he adds to wikipedia?

Do you believe that the academic journals such as the peer-reviewed Archaeolgia Musicalis (1988) is a reliable source?

Please remember when answering KISS (Keep is simple silly) and lets focus on the subject not personality (that means we should actually skip the secondary issues question section. --CyclePat 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am resisting the inclusion of material that is not directly related to musical acoustics. The history of scales just isn't pertinent, which is 80% of the material in this section.

As for the construction of the diatonic scale from overtones, that deserves treatment at Diatonic scale in a manner that does not appear to be advertising the work of Bob Fink. The relationship between the harmonics 1 3 and 5 and the diatonic scale has been covered many times by many authors, and I can come up with citations to accomodate, but not at this very moment (my books are in storage).

Furthermore, at this moment the history and construction of scales material is already present at Prehistoric music. Why does it need to be duplicated here? Isn't it more appropriate to that article anyway?

I did at one point suggest that this material could be very appropriate to a page specifically about the work of Bob Fink. When I did suggest this, however, with the starting of the article Trio theory, and the follow-up comments at Talk:Trio theory, I was met with accusations and some bizarre editing which seemed intended to remove reference to its authorship. I am not sure what should be done with that page at this point.

I don't think I would call anything in particular "untrue", but there are statements which have no criteria for falsifiability, e.g.: The influences from the loudest of all these overtones suggests (by an evolving process) what notes can fill in the rest of the notes found in the most widely known scales in the world and in history. This also explains why there are strong and weak notes in the scale, why there are only 2 halftones historically accepted in the scale, and why notes historically entered the scale when they did etc. I don't think statements should be made blankly and without direct attribution.

As for overtones themselves, yes of course they are part of "musical acoustics", and they're already very well covered in the rest of the article, why do you ask? Of course I see that Fink's theories involve concepts from musical acoustics, I just don't think that the theories themselves are are concepts of musical acoustics.

What is in "Archaeolgia Musicalis (1988)"? Is it relevant? It's not cited in the article. I'm having a lot of trouble finding a library that carries it at the moment. This is kind of related to your question about notability as well. I don't think notability is really so important here, but so far the only person asserting the notability of this stuff is Fink himself. I don't know, maybe his work is better known than I can determine, but I've said that it's my opinion that Fink's theories are relatively unknown, and from everything I've seen that appears to be true. I've seriously been looking for references to him (both as Bob Fink and Robert Fink) in the searchable literature I have access to and I've come up with very little. There is a small article in Science about his claims regarding the Divje Babe find (presented very much in a way that makes it clear that the claims are being made by Fink and not the publication itself), and a brief reference to that same article from a recent article by Leonard Meyer called "A Universe of Universals" (Winter 1998 Journal of Musicology). There was also an old review of Fink's 1970 book "The Universality of Music" by Vada Butcher (Journal of Research in Music Education, Autumn 1972) which is not a very favourable review for it. Other than that, I couldn't find anything.

Again, though, I don't think the notability is really the important issue, but it might be reflected in the writing of the article. The excessive link spamming, the references to his own difficult to find self published works (when there are better references to well known and easy to find works that could be used instead), the angled rhetoric all suggest that the author is trying to increase the visibility of his work by putting it here. (Someone else mentioned at Talk:Prehistoric music "this page reads like an ad for Bob Fink, whoever that is".)

What do you mean about prejudice? I didn't know who Bob Fink was when I asked my first questions about this article, and after his harsh reply it was clear that I had misunderstood some of the content of the article (partly because it is poorly written), but as I said at this point the material didn't even look relevant to me, so rather than copy edit I argued it should be removed from the article. Given Mr. Fink's angry response and my view that the material was irrelevant anyway, I saw no reason to try to discuss the facts of that segment of that article with him. - Rainwarrior 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering questions

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. The theory of the evolution of scales was originally already in Musical_acoustics. for about a year, with little change. Rainwarrior created a new page and moved the section to it, titling it "Trio Theory," even though objections were raised and ongoing. The article was reverted back into Musical_acoustics. Comment concerning the term "trio theory":

1. It was initially written in the article: "The 'trio theory' (in the Origin of Music ISBN link), claims...."
2. What was meant: "The theory here called "trio theory," outlined in this article, is found sourced in the book the Origin of Music (but not under the term "trio theory")." But that subtle detail obviously wasn't clear.
3. Rainwarrior seems to be saying that what was originally meant by the above was: "The 'trio theory,' under that name, is in the Origin of Music...." But now, if claimed it's not there, then Rainwarrior appears to conclude that the theory is unpublished and is original research. I think it'd be best to just drop the nickname causing such confusion. Further, Rainwarrior, off the bat, condemned the theory with many claims that weren't true, including that Shoenberg invented the theory, as well as Helmholtz, and maybe even Kepler. Then perplexingly, fights to name me as the author, at Talk:Trio theory.

About my publication lists: Dozens of them are found all through this discussion above ("Notability of Fink's works...") and elsewhere. There are journals, reviews, e-mails -- all demonstrating that I meet Wiki policy on citations, references, links, verifications that "material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." Previous to this section's article, as the lists and e-mails above show in excess, my acoustic ideas on scale origins was published in many peer-reviewed or "reputable" or reliable journals, magazines and news articles. It is outlined in the Neanderthal Flute essay as well. The ideas (and me) were known, adopted or recognized, and are verified by other notable authors, journalists, and researchers in and around the field, including a new e-mail yesterday from a teacher wanting lesson plans from me on my tonal scale/harmony views for his students. If more detail (dates, content etc) is wanted please ask me.

Archaeologia Musicalis (A.A.) -- peer reviewed -- is a journal of the working study-group "Music Archaeology" in the International Council on Traditional Music, which holds biannual world music Archaeology conferences, followed by publication of the books of conference proceedings such as Studies in Music Archaeology III, 2003. I was asked to write a rebuttal article for that book by its editors (publisher: Verlag, Germany). Earlier, they published a different article by me in the (Feb., 1988) A.A journal. Most of my articles contain references to the acoustic theory of scale evolution. You can find this journal under its name at worldcat.

The theory outlines ideas about prehistoric music origins, tonality, melody, harmony and acoustics. It belongs (as it explains things about each) in several locations just as info about Mozart's work would belong in composition, music history, opera, classical music, sonanta, symphony and on and on. Just one final correction: Above, Rainwarrior wrote: "The relationship between the harmonics 1 3 and 5 and the diatonic scale has been covered many times by many authors, and I can come up with citations to accomodate.... However, the theory I developed is not based on the 1, 3, 5 harmonics, but on the scale-notes 1, 4, and 5, and their overtones. -- Bob Fink 65.255.225.40 11:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding to lists of those adopting my theory, publishing, notability, etc, pertinent to this discussion: Searching through many links to my websites, so far I've found three where my view on the natural bases for scale evolution has been adopted and is being formally taught to students. Two are from links I found, the third from another e-mail I got recently.

1. This site, InTech 2000 Forum, is "a collaborative directory created by and for Florida educators."
2. In this one, the webpage states (statement linked to my Natural bases to scales webpage): "This author (Fink) makes what I feel to be very valid points regarding the unconscious influence of the overtone series on the developement of music. Check it out."
3. A third place where my view has been adopted is one evidenced recently by this e-mail excerpt: Ron Linnebach wrote: " I am a private harmony teacher in Canada. I was very happy to find your site on the natural basis of tonality. I hope to use this teaching in my lesson plans. I am looking for practice exams....Most of my students are younger advanced pianists.... Do you have any(thing)... for my harmony students that may prepare them for University? The understanding of natural tonality is very important in the teaching of harmony. The courses that are out there stay somewhat away from this concept. I suppose because it may bring contradiction to some respected composer's ideas...." Given time, I assume I could find more among the over 3 thousand reviews & links etc., to my webpages, that Google located. (Only had time to search thru about 30-40 so far.) More info to come if necessary. --Bob Fink 65.255.225.49 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rainwarrior and Bob Fink. Thank you both for your answers. I'm debating on wether I should refactor the comments to summarize. I will need to read over this again. The important thing is that we comme to an agreement, so Bob Fink, though you may still be frustrated, I would ask you to not comment so much on what rainwarriors past actions where and how they may have offended you. (I would even go as far as that the current one may have even been offencive). If you're looking to concentrate on possible past issues we could bring that up in a special RFC on the user. (I think we can all get allong! Right?) The important thing is to concentrate on the article. I think you have both demonstrated your ability and knowlege of the subject matter. There are a couple solutions we can do. One is to request a comment (RFC) on the article. (I doubt we will get any good response unless we ask a very specific question... yes or no... and even then). The same thing but we can do it in the form of a vote (usualy no comments are given in the feedback). There are other steps but I don't think they are appropriate at the moment. Again I think the best thing would be to solve the problem between each other. To do that, we must all first recognize what the problem. I'm going to have to think of a couple things... again often many things are written in the things that where not written. --CyclePat 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fresh Start

The amount of discussion on this page needs to be reduced substantially. Mr. Fink should and his cohort should not be allowed to dominate it in this manner, and his theories should not be allowed to dominate the article itself. I don't think we can really make any progress on the article until we have somehow removed these obstacles. TheScotch 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What specific measures do you suggest for a solution? BTW, which person is my "cohort"? -- Bob Fink 65.255.225.35 04:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I got out my investigative skills. I went to my local university library and pull-out Mr. Finks Books "On the Origin of Music - Essays and Reading" [1] and "Neanderthal Flute - oldest Musical Instrument". (B.t.w. Sorry I haven't remained in contact, leaving you on a whim) (My last exam in in 3 hours from now tonight, so I should have a little more time to dedicate for some research on this subject)

The only solution that appears appropriate, and in standards with wikipedia's policy would be... TO ADD more research from different resources. So pitter patter, get a move at her... (I'm checking the bibliography of Finks work... maybe there are some other interesting sources?) (In the mean time, Rob can you send me an email with the current status. (Last I remember you had proposed an agreement with Rainwarrior but I don't know what happened after) --CyclePat 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s.: Prepare for a furour of wikipedia rules on citations and referencing. I would suggest you get your books and bibliography makers out because I'm going to edit some stuff. Put warning on things that need citation and per wiki policy if it is not properly cited it will be removed. We will need to work together on this. (which is why I won't remove it right away. I will only place warnings and go to the talk page.)--CyclePat 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I went through half of the article. Reworded some sections. I don't think I took out anything important and I made the article a little shorter and more concise by doing this. I stoped reading at Archaeological evidence. (Note: some comments where left in the articlle with <- -> --CyclePat 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been any agreement while you were gone; I have refrained from editing this page pending other opinion (a two person edit conflict is pointless). I don't see why we should want to clutter the article with more information that is only tangentially related to musical acoustics. My argument is that the stuff here that is about the history of instruments isn't relevant to this page. Instead it belongs at History of music, where Mr. Fink has already put that information anyway. The "acoustic theory of scale origins" is much more related to Diatonic scale than musical acoustics, and again some of it was already put there there, and also at Prehistoric music he gave the scale constructions as well (though I think the scale constructions belong at Diatonic scale instead). So, my point is that the material is at least redundant, and possibly irrelevant, and should be removed and replaced with wikilinks to the appropriate places. (The only reason I can see for this kind of redundancy is advertising. ) I'm not even suggesting the removal of material from Wikipedia (It appears in other articles already, and I even proposed and created a new page called Trio theory which could be used to explicitly outline the theory described, which has since become and article with very unclear purpose); I am only suggesting we remove information that is both irrelevant and redundant. - Rainwarrior 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have complied with requests for rewording and combining sources/evidence with text statements. -- Bob F. 65.255.225.51 06:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Rainwarrior: Please stop shoving mine or other remarks out of your way to squeeze your comments in where you think they "belong" or flow better or will more likely be read (or not read). That amounts to "editing" the Talk page however "minor." Not fair nor acceptable. Put the remarks in chronological order where people usually look for new comments. Make a new section name if necessary. Otherwise, I'll put your comments where I think they belong. :O)

I've already addressed the issue of my views appearing on other pages, as likewise, so do many viewpoints, because they are relevant to the narrative here or there. You don't agree, that's all. As said elsewhere, I'm prepared to negotiate with you about this page if you're prepared to actually negotiate without threats, abuse, stalking or harrassing all my edits (only mine, that is), making false unfounded personal provocations (like I'm "advertising" when my views were described as part of participation on another page) and so on. E.g., I'm not the Svengali of all you dislike and want to "save" Wikipedia from, and so, stop demonizing me. --Bob F. 65.255.225.49 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The position of my reply to CyclePat was standard for Wikipedia talk pages: place the reply directly under the message it is a response to, and indent it one greater (if it is the second reply, place it directly below that one with the same indent). This is outlined at WP:TALK, I believe. Your Dec 31 remark didn't seem to be directly replying to it, and bore no indent, so I assumed it was the start of a new thread, which is usually what a lack of indentation signifies.

I also think you misunderstand the purpose of the verification needed template. It is not to be used on talk pages; on talk pages you should just right out ask the question. I'll reply to your indirect questions though.

On October 14, 2005 you'll find significant editing to History of music by 204.83.156.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 204.83.156.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 204.83.156.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (These three IPs have not made any edits not related to the work of Mr. Fink.) There are lots of edits to Prehistoric music made from the 65.255.255.* range of IP addresses (and again, checking the contributions will verify that these IPs have made no edits not related to the work of Mr. Fink), but the "trio theory" (for lack of a better name) information was added on August 26, 2006.

The point is that the information presented here is at least redundant (simply reading the content of the pages verifies this), and at worst advertising (which is an opinion I gleaned from a review of the edit history). It is my opinion that the addition of copious amounts of external links and references to your own self-published book constitutes advertising. - Rainwarrior 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- didn't even know someone made links to my webpages at History of Music. Greenwyk 06:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK? Yeah, where does it say what you claim above, Mr. Specific? I would think the following would also apply to screwing up the chronology for evil purposes too. But who cares? You're a loose cannon and will soon backfire and blow yourself up, I predict. Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

It says it at WP:TALK#Formatting. - Rainwarrior 12:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WATCHLIST

I believe the request on watch list is by you, Rainwarrior. If so (Update: Removed my loss of temper pending further evidence Rainwarrior posted the request), here are the facts: I have not refused to abide by Wiki rules. 1. The page written in my Wiki bio was written (sorry, I'm advised I actually mean "cleaned up") by User:Victoriagirl, and one of us wrote in to her: "Good job" at the time, even though what was originally written there over a year ago (based on my publisher's webpage bios --as we didn't know any Wiki rules), was completely scratched by her. We thought that was ok. And:

2. Despite some disagreements, I immediately seized upon Craig Stuntz' offer to rewrite Divje_Babe entirely (see Talk:Divje_Babe) and I instantly agreed he should go ahead (8 hours before you did). That's "refusal" to you? You even placed, out of chronological order, a comment that you, too, agreed with Craig's proposal, putting it ahead of my agreement made 8 hours earlier than yours. If one didn't read the time-date, it could appear that I was a "me-too" succumbing to a "band-wagon" preceeded by Rainwarrior and Craig. You have at other times similarly moved around his replies out of time. This is not the first, but this one looks unusual, because if placed chronologically it would still have been under an appropriate section, but would make you look like the me-too guy.

Virtually All your recent edits and activity for many weeks has been targeting only me, slandering me, without any grounds offered. Like the other pages which have material about ancient and prehistoric music (written long ago, and not by me), they will show that the edits (I dare you to quote them all in full) rarely have my name in them, and only sometimes are my webpages (but usually quoting material by other authors). How on earth does that "promote" my "profile"? This all is evidence and fact that you know or have read time and again, but ignore because it doesn't suit your corrupt campaign against me. Shameful behavior.

WIKI COI: 1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." This shows that total silence is not what the rules prescribe for involved scholars.

If that watchlist request is not by you, I strongly urge that you -- for the record -- deny it, if that's the truth. -- Bob Fink Greenwyk 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Updated 1 a.m. Jan 6.

What is "watchlist"? I know that if you're a logged-in user you have a "watch list" that shows recent changes to pages you've flagged that you'd like to watch. Could you post a link to the page you're talking about? Is this some administration board on wikipedia? I can't deny it until I know what it is, but I sign in when I make edits, so if my username isn't in the edit history it wasn't me. Was it posted anonymously? Why don't you respond directly to this at the "watchlist" page instead of bringing it up here?

A lot of my recent edits have been related to content you've added to Wikipedia, yes, though I consider the Divje Babe case a little different than this one, because at Divje Babe your article about the artifact is clearly relevant and deserves mention (though the page itself is in a very bad state, and at least three other users have complained about it). Here at musical acoustics, I don't think the material you added is related to the subject, or particularly notable, but I've said all of this already. I made some edits to Tonality because it claimed something directly which is clearly in dispute. Again though, I don't see why we're talking about this here. - Rainwarrior 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I found what you were talking about by checking your edit history. It was not a watchlist, but a COI noticeboard. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bob Fink. Actually, that post wasn't made by me, but it repeats things that I have said to others (which surprised me a little). So, it wasn't me, but I'll take credit for the things he says (on that page, not on Talk:Bob Fink, which I have never touched) if you like. Though, again, we should keep the conversation over there where it belongs. Why clutter this page any more than it already is? - Rainwarrior 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

C O N F E S S I O N

Well, Rainwarrior: You've clearly caught me out, and I might as well confess. Confession is good for the soul, I'm told. At the watchlist page, you wrote that:

"(Fink's) IPs usually are of the form 65.255.255.* -- where * ranges from 33 to 52, though 40,41,42,50, and 51 were also used briefly by someone claiming to be Kate McMillan during a debate at that page some time ago. I'm assuming these are IPs from a Saskatchewan dialup ISP. There are also some older edits by 204.83.156.17, 28, 36, and 38, and a look at the edit histories of any of these IPs will reveal editing entirely related to the work of Bob Fink (adding links to his website, particularly, and often adding...to the reference lists of article). I made a list at User:Rainwarrior/Bob Fink, because all of this anonymous editing makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the problem here otherwise."

Actually that "204.83.156.17" IP is unkown to me totally. The edits made from it indeed referred to a website about Prof. Anne Kilmer's work, and linked a webpage of mine which contained Kilmer's work on the oldest known song. But not made by me nor from the computer I use. I don't use any others. At 71, and only on a pension, I can't afford internet accounts like they were water, and being disabled, cannot get out often (except through my special -- uh -- well, this confession may help explain that 2nd IP mystery.)

I checked with my Internet Server (who like my publisher, is a close personal friend) and discovered that Kate McMillan indeed has the same IP address as mine. I never realized that. Here I was hoping that by using the Internet I could broadcast my special magic spell which I call Svengaliac (actually, an electronic invention of mine, which like radio waves, can travel even to other villages like Delisle, where McMillan lives ). With this spell, I can control others into becoming editors in Wikipedia from their own computers for my own promotional benefit.

I get a lot of press here because of my activism (the local Poster Man) and so I have thousands of close personal friends and supporters whom I can reach with my Svengaliac waves. Even the City fathers have changed the face of downtown with hundreds and hundreds of Poster-Drums (which I designed for them and which, under Svengaliac influence, of course (with a little help from the Canadian Supreme Court and my poster rights case of 1986 See Bob_Fink), the City Council agreed to manufacture. The drums are all welded to most of the city poles which allow for thousands of posters to now be placed -- just like Wiki edits -- all over the place. I am the greatest litterbug known on the planet. Local musicians dedicate songs about me, like Poster Squad by Don Freed. Come see our city to realize this. " Today Saskatoon, BUT tomorrow the whole world will be 'Under A Tack' -- or a pin, or masking tape, or glue, or scotch tape," as I always shout from the rooftops.

I mistakenly thought all the slave-edits I engineered could carry a different anonymous IP and slip under the Wiki-radar and be accepted without appearing as WikiSpam. Little did I know that many of my IP slaves had accounts on the same ISP server as me, and their IP, being the same, like Kate McMillan's (who I only heard about today from you), would call enough attention to give me away.

But technically, all the edits of these slaves are wiki-legal, and many have been made even without my knowing about it, the same IP notwithstanding, from likely many others of my hypnotized fans and supporters from their computer accounts. And many have been made even from other people using their own accounts from other servers -- like the "204" account Rainwarrior listed above, no doubt -- but I probably reached whoever they are too, with my Svengaliac waves. Thus Rainwarrior's removal of their edits may indeed be vandalism. But no matter! ALL the edits ever made in the world of musicology are really mine, mine, mine, ALL MINE!!! Ack!! Cough, Sputter Hack!! (Now if only I could enhance the reach of my waves to reach Burlington -- or even California!)

However, my conscience pangs have now got the better of my evil ways -- Ah yes -- I cannot sleep at night knowing how many dupes out there are promoting my theories and POVs. It's like the King's porridge, which keeps filling the bowl however fast you eat it -- I can't stop the cloning of more spam-o-Svengaliacs!

I've been caught; take me to Wiki-court and have my madness musicology musings banned from luft-wafting out to the whole wide world. Save me (and all of Wikipedia) from myself!! Give me the Repentence Sentence.... Bob Fink, Greenwyk 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this entirely satire, or is there some argument here you wish me to understand? Is any of this related to this article? Why not post it at the noticeboard if it is a reply to something I said there? - Rainwarrior 14:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just scales?

Perhaps I should jump in on the fun! "Just" refers strictly to a measurement of intervals, based on simple numerical ratios. It is NOT a kind of scale...in fact to attempt to build a scale upon just intervals would be an exercise in futility! Prof.rick 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A natural scale?

The trio theory is interesting, but does nothing to justify a diatonic major scale as being "natural". First, in order to form a one-octave scale, harmonics of the Tonic must be transposed several octaves. (Human intervention number 1.) Second, even if we can "hear" Harmonic 3 (Soh), which is not difficult for a trained ear, we must then regard it as a fundamental tone. It must be sounded to generate it's harmonics...which in turn must be transposed through several octaves. (Human intervention number 2.) Third, the fourth note of a major scale does not exist as a harmonic of the fundamental. Instead, we must regard the Tonic as Harmonic 3 of "some other note", and apply inverse reasoning to arrive at "fah", then, of course, transpose it and its harmonics into the desired octave. (Human intervention number 3.)

There are ancient Inuit melodies, still being sung, which use only tetratonic scales (e.g. G, A, C, D on a piano). Considering the origins of the Inuit, this may be a fore-runner of the pentatonic scale. It is difficult to reconcile these notes as stemming from an application of harmonics. (There is no major 3rd present, and even as an incomplete circle of 5ths, the E is missing.)

This article also has a strong Western bias. To attempt to define "satisfying" sounds as those of our harmonics-based thinking is absurd. Consider the SLENDRO of Bali and Java...almost a perfect 5-edo scale. This music is very pleasing to the ear, but TRY to explain it in terms of harmonics!

Also, consider the songbirds, particularly those of Africa. Amongst them, probably any interval (and even triads...even inverted triads) can be heard. Consider (a kind of goose, I believe) in China...a few dozen will gather at the river's bank, and each bird sings one note of a pentatonic scale...but in all, only five distinct notes are heard, regardless of the number of birds.

Human beings are great imitators, and no doubt we are all, to some degree, bird-brains. Prof.rick 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)