Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Can this be done by poster of a tune, if you boobed and regret posting eg for a tune with many settings already? Also "scrap" settings of part of a tune (I did this with "Lads o the Fair" tune and the whole tune then posted by s’one else). Can such bits and bobs be removed from thesession?

A lot of clutter could be eliminated thus. Jeremy can delete tunes, but could regretful poster do so also? Would be good.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

It’s a lot of work to implement, but I think it would be really beneficial to have some ability to edit, tag, or otherwise manipulate submitted settings, and in some cases to delete. For example, I’ve submitted settings where all I’ve done is reset someone else’s setting for clarity, linebreaks, etc, and there’s no point having multiple settings for that. Likewise multiple settings in different keys - there are transposition tools for that - and settings that don’t serve any useful purpose.

Perhaps most useful would be the ability to promote a "neutral", common version of a tune. It takes a fair bit of experience, and knowledge of the regular posters here, to make an intelligent guess at which setting of a tune to select if you don’t have anything else to go by.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I’ve had my eyes cross and glaze over before when all I’m trying to do is select which nearly identical version of 20 settings of Calliope House I want to play.
Maybe, as Calum said, promote a common version? Few ornaments and little fluff?
I often end up transcribing what’s on the Session into MuseScore and tweaking notes to my liking…and when selecting a tune just from the dots, you’re right, I find it hard to cope with the choices.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

The discussion is the best argument for learning tunes "by ear" I’ve seen for a while.
🙂

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

A "simple" version of a tune is fair enough but I’m a bit concerned about the idea of a "neutral" setting. Whatever that might be..

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"I’ve had my eyes glaze over when trying to select which of 20 nearly identical settings of Calliope House I want to play."

For sure it can be a mystery why people feel compelled to post yet another nearly identical setting- only a couple different notes here and there.

Though I notice it, it doesn’t bother me. As I play through the various versions I form a gestalt of the tune, and pick and choose bits that seem more musical.

I think having a large number of settings can be informative: many similar settings suggest the core tune, while a single rather different setting suggests an outlier.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Johnny Jay, re your comment, at home I’m playing more and more by ear and it has upped my playing - of that I’m sure. Teacher Jenny Wrigley in Kirkwall, Orkney always says do without the music score, learn by heart and play better that way. Plus music stands a no, no (all that clutter) playing at sessions. "The Reel" is quite small as a venue (Kirkwall, Orkney the only session I know well - every Sat. night)

Maybe I’ll improve enough to try again at Babbity Bowster’s Glasgow sessions - when I get mobile again.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"I think it would be really beneficial to have some ability to edit, tag, or delete submitted settings…"

If this ability belongs to the submitter I’m all for it. I think this is what Susan is asking for.

It’s odd how different forums have completely different setups concerning the ability of posters to edit their own posts.

One forum I’m a member of always allows you to edit your own post, no matter how old it is. This can be very handy when new information comes to light. It’s common for people to put a note in an old post such as "EDIT: Since posting this I found out that…."

This is useful because new members will often scour old threads for information, and I prefer the information they see being up-to-date and correct.

All the other forums I’m a member of limit self-editing of posts, for example losing editing capability after 24 hours etc. Your mistakes are there forever.

"I’ve submitted settings where all I’ve done is reset someone else’s setting…there’s no point having multiple settings like that…and settings that don’t serve any useful purpose."

This seems to be a different topic, giving somebody else the ability to delete your setting. That sets up somebody in the position of judging the worthiness of settings that others have contributed. The potential drawback is that the judge might deem a setting useless/unworthy, but the setting might serve a purpose unforeseen by the judge.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"Maybe I’ll improve enough to try again at Babbity Bowster’s Glasgow sessions - when I get mobile again."

The Babbity’s been sold and Fraser has now retired. It’ll be closed for 8 weeks for refurbishment and apparently the new management would like the session to continue, but we don’t really know much more. It’d be good to meet you @Susan, I think you were there once before but I was away somewhere.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

You can already edit a tune setting that you posted, just go to the tune setting and there will be an edit button next to it. I don’t see any way to delete a setting, but I wonder what would happen if you removed all the ABC… If you’re having trouble figuring out which setting is yours, if you get to it by going to your profile -> tune settings, and select the tune, it will take you directly to the setting that you posted…

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

One thing I appreciate about the tune settings is I recognise some of the members’ names when a setting is submitted. Dr. Dow & Will Harmon used to post some good transcriptions. So when I saw their names it helped me to distinguish those from the crowd. There are other members who I look for. Those are 2 who come to mind from when I first came here & the tune settings were coming in like candy in a candy store. Yes, there were tunes which had some less well done transcriptions. Knowing the source of a transcription has been very helpful for me.

AB

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"but I wonder what would happen if you removed all the ABC"

It won’t let you save without any text in there.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

What would really help the tune section is the possibility to acknowledge a good setting, which is probably easier said than done.

but if you had the possibility to do two things, 1/ flag the setting which is closest to how you know (heard) the tune and 2/ flag the name which is typically the name you know the tune by

after a number of years the good stuff will float to the top….

it would be good if source and composer could be added to the setting if known.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Yes, I think on abcnotation.com you have the chance to include the composer, it’s a useful thing.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

The composer, if known, is almost always named in the Comments.

sean mac aonghusa is correct in that you can’t save a setting with no text. I tried that a while ago to remove some of the "settings" that were produced when Jeremy decided to allow multiple settings and used a tool to identify anything that looked like abc in the Comments to find settings that had been posted there. I have list of all the ones (perhaps a dozen) that I still have to "fix" so they make sense. I’ll get round to it eventually.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

> but if you had the possibility to do two things, 1/ flag the setting which is closest to how you know (heard) the tune and 2/ flag the name which is typically the name you know the tune by

This seems like an excellent idea.

> it would be good if source and composer could be added to the setting if known.

I’d ideally like the header structure to be decoupled from the tune type entirely; now that the tunes are rendered using a library that pretty much adheres to the ABC standard, it makes sense (to me at least) that that flexibility is actually usable, instead of having to insert [M:] fields, etc.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Yeah, I also agree with Theirlandis’ idea of letting people flag a specific setting for their tunebook, and then having the system rank the settings by how many times they’ve been flagged by people, letting the most popular settings float to the top. Don’t think it would be a huge retrofit for Jeremy (I could be wrong), but it would be a big undertaking for all of us to go flag the settings for our tunebooks!

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I know when I don’t like something it often happens. Which means this time tomorrow the tunes will be flaggable. In short I wouldn’t want to see the abcs ranked across the entire database. But if most of the
people on this thread want it as a feature they would use & Jeremy says it can be done I’m for it.

AB

ps - one feature which is available now where it is possible to show which setting you play is the tune sets.
If you have tune sets in your profile you can build them with the setting(s) you play. Personally I appreciate finding tune settings this way because it says something about how other members play tunes and sets.

pps - here is a tune setting which is not what I play in my local session so I probably would not flag it.
However I wouldn’t want members to miss it (for lack of votes). I have others.
https://thesession.org/tunes/87#comment254484

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I do think the ability to flag certain settings for the tunebook would be nice, and perhaps a upvote/downvote system to determine quality of settings would have the system put the most upvoted setting at the top. You wouldn’t be able to rate your own setting, of course, but you would be able to edit or delete it, and you would be able to rate others’ settings.

The only problem with a "neutral setting" is with tunes that have disparate versions. One that comes to mind right now is "The Reel with the Birl". There are a couple of standard versions played and it’s hard to know which to start in a session. Same for the Gmaj "Gold Ring" (I’ve always thought that should be separated into 2 tunes, but that’s beside the point).

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Edit to last comment (see, that really is a good idea): it’s Alan Ng’s site that merges the 2 Gmaj "Gold Ring" jigs, not The Session. Apologies.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

As for Susan’s original question, if it’s not obvious by now in the thread, the answer is no, you cannot delete your own settings. You could edit it, more to your satisfaction, or, Jeremy may remove it for you if you ask him to do so.

About the thread digression. I like Theirlandais’ flagging/ranking idea, and have been thinking about suggesting a version of this to Jeremy as well.

Daniel makes a good point, sometimes a particular tune page might have two or three distinct tunes posted to it by mistake, or, two or three closely related variants. That would muddy the waters for any flagging system, if the multiple (distinct/variant) tunes remain entangled in this way.

Various regional versions for how the tune is played may also complicate the effectiveness of a flagging system as well, if it’s a tune that’s played quite a bit differently in various different places across the globe. I think these things would need to be considered if/when setting up such a system.

Personally when learning new tunes, I listen to a whole lot of recordings of it which I like (for the musician’s playing and/or their arrangement), combined with how I’ve heard it in session (if I have), to get a general sense of the "core" tune, which is often within a few notes of one or more of the settings posted here at thesession.org (not always, but certainly more times than not one of these settings is in the first few of a tune page). It takes a fair amount of individual effort to reduce the tune to its’ simplest form (i.e., by listening to recordings/in sessions, going through the settings here and sometimes elsewhere online or in tunebooks, transcribing version(s) from recordings, etc. etc..), though, the time spent definitely helps with becoming very familiar with the tune while (or before) learning the tune. My current default is to learn any tune from a setting which I’d consider the "core" tune, unless I have good reason not to (i.e., regional setting; or, a tune which is unlikely to be known by people at my local sessions - uncommon, new, or "foreign"/regional tunes - and would like to vary it a bit to my own taste, since I’d likely be introducing it to everyone here).

On the flip side of that, it can be overwhelming, as Emily pointed out, when many transcriptions/settings exist for the tune. Particularly for someone new to the tune, and/or without much time/the means to work it out for themselves which setting they should go by to learn the tune (i.e., a "core" tune setting, the regional setting, etc. etc..). I have also heard a similar type of comment as Emily’s at a session: the person wanted to learn a relatively common tune, but didn’t want to go through all the settings here at thesession.org for the tune to figure out which one they’d like to learn from (for this tune, there were about ten settings here at the time). They instead opted to record someone at our session who played it well, and learned it off of that local session recording.

That’s one type of situation where flagging settings which are closest to the "core" tune (i.e., the most basic version of how it’s commonly played), or, flagging the regional settings, could be handy for people who want to quickly choose a setting which is relatively "basic" and representative of how they’ll hear it in a session. If they want to look at other settings beyond that after they’ve learned (or reminded themselves of) the "core" tune/regional version, easy enough for them to revisit the tune page at a later time.

Re: ‘They instead opted to record someone at our session…’

"They instead opted to record someone at our session who played it well, and learned it off of that local session recording."

Hello!

That works. It really, really works very well.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Agreed. Probably the quickest and best way to do it.

It’ll also probably eventually become my default to do it that way as well (part of my reason for starting this thread: https://thesession.org/discussions/44139 ). For now, I’ve been enjoying my current process, and will keep with it that way at least a while longer.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I doubt it can be both the quickest and the best at the same time. If so; that’s rare in my personal experience.
But I try to keep an open mind.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Giving it more thought, sure, I agree AB, perhaps "quicker" and "a good way" in place of "quickest" and "best" would have been better for my previous comment.

My opinion may evolve with time. As I currently see it, in some circumstances, it is a relatively quick and good method of learning tunes, at least the ones which are played locally. Learning by ear, on the fly, would also be another quick/good method.

If the intention is to play the tune mostly (or exclusively) locally, using a local recording (or a few local recordings, for good measure) eliminates the process of figuring out which source to use (say, from online, in print, and/or album recordings), hence making it quicker (provided you can learn by ear or can have it transcribed, and that the recording quality is good). It makes it good in the sense that the way it’s learned inherently matches the local setting.

Re: quick and good

I refer to what you just posted, NfldWhistler, as ‘thinking ot loud’.
Probably alot of that on the Mustard.
;

[Does the media here educate us; as much as our local session?]

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Fair description AB.

I’d guess that depends on how frequently you go to sessions, and, participate online (passively or actively).

First stumbling onto a session, by chance, played at a local coffee shop, certainly taught me how enjoyable tunes could be live. Obviously couldn’t learn that online. At the time, I was far more interested in trad songs than tunes, so it also started my pull towards the tunes as well.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Personally speaking I quite like to see all the different settings. Looking through a tune which has several versions gives me ideas for improvisations and adaption. I play a very limited range instrument that isn’t really an Irish music session instrument at all. I enjoy finding tunes that I can make work on my border or smallpipe that can fit the range of my instrument straight away particularly however as that is not often the case the variations of settings sometimes, and I stress the word sometimes, give me a clue how to play a tune in a way that will allow me to join in without upsetting the apple cart.

I’m a trained piper but my musical knowledge theory wise is pretty much nil. I find that in even the most limited of expressions in the settings on this site, people have put down fundamentals of a tune, as they appear to their ear or instrument, those little snippets of clarity can be the key to a much better vision of the essence of a piece of music. With the boot on the other foot. I see where pipe tunes have become part of the common repertoire and I am made aware of the way non pipers interpret them. This can certainly help in pulling the stick from out of the ass of a piper whose musical experience is the highly stylised and formal Highland pipe sort of thing.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I must admit there are 3-4 submitters whose versions I nearly always prefer and these are the ones I look at first when faced with a large choice of versions.
What I would like to see tidied up is the number of tune sets with only one tune in - so not a set.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I would like "scraps" removed from the record (as said above, I am guilty of o n c e posting a scrap). Once I printed someone else’s scrap, not knowing it was such and in a hurry (wanting a short setting…, midi not accessible at library). But maybe that is a potential new topic?

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

@Tarrantella IMO a set is something "private" a user creates. The fact that you can see what sets a particular tune has been added to doesn’t make them less private.

Whenever I add a set I do so for my benefit, I’m not thinking "Well.. let’s add a set so that people can use it". I don’t mind that, I find looking at other people’s sets quite helpful sometimes, but it’s not like adding a tune setting that is actually intended for people to find and use.

What I mean with this is that if someone has a set with only one tune… they might have a reason for it. They might be trying to find other tunes or they forgot about it. I have a set with only one tune on it that I had completely forgotten about!

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Interesting about the sets…I’ve been a member here for years and I’ve never looked at sets.

What purpose does it serve? Do people play fixed sets at sessions?

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"Do people play fixed sets at sessions?"

Some people do and woe betied anyone who tries to vary things.
However, it varies from session to session and some are more rigid than others.

Individual musicians will also have sets they wish to play or lead which may or may not be the norm at a particular location.
As far as posting sets here is concerned, it can surely mean little more than a suggestion or a statement of individual preference. It should never be regarded as compulsory or the most orthodox approach or practice.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Woe betied (spelling) - anyone varying things to be tied up (thereby prevented from playing (low humour)?

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"Woe betide"

You are right. I seem to be making far more typing mistakes and unconscious errors these days.
🙂

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I had a lesson with a student very new to the music yesterday who was bemoaning the fact that there are so many settings of tunes here. I told her to embrace the fact that people play the same tune pretty differently. But I also think it’s important for each player to have a specific string of notes that they consider to be their base setting of every tune they play. And to be OK with the fact that it might be different than what other people consider to be the basis of the tune. In the case of my students, I want their base setting of a tune to be what I taught them (and not something they looked up here — mostly because I want them to learn it by ear, and not rely on written sources).

I generally never learn a tune from ABC posted here, and agree that it’s a good idea to listen to a variety of sources when I’m interested in a tune. And I agree wholeheartedly that the best source you can get for a tune is often from your local session(s), because those are the people that you’re most likely to play the tunes with. But we’ve learned over the years that there are a lot of people who share our love for Irish traditional music but don’t have any sessions near them, and use this site as their lifeline for their love of the music.

So in that regard, it would be nice if the more common settings floated to the top. It wouldn’t have to be a blatant ranking saying "this setting is better than that setting", it could just be the display order, which I believe is just chronological. So, currently, if the original posting of a tune isn’t that great, and people have posted much more complete settings after that, the original still shows up first. And I’m sure people just grab the first setting much of the time…

The only downside I can see of changing the order to a ranking system (other than the fact that it would be more work for Jeremy to set it up) is that the chronological order of settings matches the chronological order of the comments. So when someone posts a new setting, they historically did so with a comment about what’s different about it, or where they got it. So it can make some sense when you’re looking through the different settings and then the comments. But Jeremy has already decoupled the settings and the comments from each other, so I don’t know that it’s a huge deal to have the settings appear in a different order, based on their "popularity" with the members of the site, since both the setting and the comment are attributed to the author.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Pete, how would you think determination of “most common” or “popularity” would be established?

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I’ve thought for a while that some way of "voting" for tunes (or settings of a tune) would be amazing to have on here, a bit like social media "Likes".

It would really help people looking for popular irish tunes for example to them simply look up the ones with the most likes. In fact…to have a "Like" button and also an "I play this" button. Heck, why not a "Want to Learn" button too?! That way people could save different lists of tunes to share with friends, of tunes they currently play, and tunes they’d like to learn.

Pub sessions could also create shared lists of tunes that are commonly played in that session.

How about it? Anyone know how we’d submit this as a feature request?

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

@Craptiger, that’s a huge workload for the sight’s one admin/moderator, I hope you know that. I would love to be able to create separate lists of tunes, but more important I think would be a way of upvoting/downvoting particular settings within a tune in order to establish the most basic, or common, setting of a given tune. Again, this gets muddy when variants are considered.

And as far as popularity is concerned, there’s already a list of the most popular tunes, which can be readily found under the tunes section.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I like finding tunes on thesession. Often they are helpful.
But it’s not a problem to discard settings that don’t work for me.
I’d rather have them all available - even the ‘bad’ ones - and sort it out for myself.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune? [Tune sets]

Richard, tune sets can be more or less standarised in learner sessions. Sometimes there will be a copy of tunes and suggested sets kept by the host to show to vistors when they ask which tunes everyone knows.

Jeremy introduced the feature 4 years ago. https://thesession.org/discussions/38596

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

In my view, a key missing ingredient in transcriptions is an explanation of why the contributor is adding their particular setting: where they got it (particular musician, recording of a particular musician or band, osmosis at local session etc.) or why they think its addition is merited.

Now the site does ask whether contributors want to make a comment about setting they are adding. But I’d make it mandatory and show it in the headers of the ABC code as a N: or other field, rather than having it optional and putting it up to half a mile down the page of comments. I think it would also be reasonable to warn people that the moderators (well, the moderator) might delete settings added without a satisfactory reason.

Then we could see whether a version came from John Doherty, or Aggie White, or Kenny’s subconscious memory, or from Bill Sowerbutts at the session in Ashton-under-Lyme. Or posters might say "It [sounds much better | is usually heard] [with|without] such-and-such a note or passage." Some prolific posters might even be obliged to fess up to their random additions e.g. "I made one small change, to eliminate a big jump which the composer apparently wanted but which I can’t do on the pipes" 😉

I think this would be of great help in sifting through multiple versions and could obviate the need for the complex reprogramming that a rating system would involve. Backfilling any such comment/note field would be a big undertaking though!

Re: Settings of tunes?

Excellent, Stiamh! I too would like to see something like an info field for N:notes. Every setting becomes more useful when the transcriber is required to include comments.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

"Pete, how would you think determination of “most common” or “popularity” would be established?" As I was mentioning earlier, the "most common" or "popular" settings would be determined by which settings of the tunes people add to their tune books the most.

The thing that doesn’t exist right now, though, is the ability to add a specific setting to your tune book… But I like this idea more than a facebook-like Like button, but that would also give you data to rank settings (while also potentially inviting the possibility of people or bots abusing the system… not that it’s a huge security risk, or anything…)

But now that I think more about it, it would still probably stay skewed to the first posted setting in a lot of cases, because if people added the tune to their tune book when there was only one setting, and then multiple settings were posted, the users would have no idea to go back and update their tune book, even if a setting much closer to what they play was posted after they had already added it… So I dunno…

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Thumbs up for obligatory (albeit brief) text specifying ‘Source of this Variation’ in the ABC file. Some folks are kind enough to provide source information in a separate comment but this can get lost in a string of version submissions and subsequent comments.

Composer would be nice to have also if well established but of course this is not always the case.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Has an upvote/downvote function like Reddit or StackOverflow has been proposed before? I’m recalling it but not finding a discussion.

I could see some big benefits to prioritize more "generally-useful" settings. There would be a bias, like Pete said, toward the first setting posted, particularly for tunes where fewer settings exist prior to the design change, but it could really help separate wheat from chaff on the long-popular tunes.

Impact on the tune ecosystem could be significant, as comments are the only references to setting source. That said, setting IDs and permalink URLs are established for each setting. Since they’re not reset at "1" for each tune, it could be possible to re-sort at page load while retaining a visible numerical identifier as a reference point for the comments. But this is still a complex architecture change.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

There’s an easy solution to the potential issues raised by Reverend.

It’s this: all of the current tunes added to someone’s tunebook wouldn’t count towards a voting/flagging system. They wouldn’t default to X1.

This could be achieved by being able to add a tune to the tunebook without giving an upvote to any particular setting, resetting all of the "counters" to zero (without removing them from anyone’s tunebooks), or, perhaps more simply, de-couple the voting/flagging system from adding a tune to any tunebook. This would also avoid the issue of X1 being defaulted to as the de-facto "core" setting.

As for the concern about re-ordering tune settings based on a voting/flagging system, and the potential confusion associated with the order of comment made. A few solutions. Either don’t re-order, the upvotes would just show up around the each setting’s sheet music/abc’s. Or, re-order, but give an option to order based on posting order, and based on "popularity". Kind of like when you have a music player on your phone and computer, and can re-order it based on custom order, artist name, "song" name, album name, etc etc..

To find comments, I tend to use "control f " and look up the poster’s ID until finding their comment(s) relating to their setting(s), provided there are any. Saves from searching through all of the sometimes lengthy comment section. Utilizing this minimizes that potential issue as well.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I’ve been reading, learning and thinking about all this. My own view is that I’m perfectly happy with how things are, and as long as Jeremy accepts it as it is, I don’t care at all. I would be concerned about anything being deleted by pure measure of popularity. I would rather have the capacity to make my own mind up.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I like being able to read comments as they are posted in other words the chronology of discussions & comments has a natural flow. Searching & scrolling is bound to happen because most people think of everything in the tunes section as a database. Like everything on the internet it is searchable by one method or another. Having said that it is good to come on this site & enjoy the conversations as real conversations.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I still use the tunes here, and look at each setting, and read the comments, and look for versions that sound right, and often blend versions.

If it is not unseemly to say so, I usually find the Norbeck setting to be close to what is played at sessions, and well notated, so more and more I head there first. I like his system of adding variations below the primary setting. I will put in a plug for the settings added by Jack B here for their internal consistency, clear notation, pipe friendliness, and for usually being close to what I hear in sessions.

Still, there is something to be learned from each setting, and I think it would be a mistake to “clean up” the settings. Nor would I bother to have a “like” system.

Hugh

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I should probably clarify… I also love the site just as it is, it’s probably the site I visit / use most regularly out of the entire interweb!
It’s also worth saying that with 20 years of web application development experience I’m more than aware of the work potentially involved in doing what I suggested, it definitely wasn’t intended as a flippant "oh, just add a Facebook style Like system then" haha. I work on sites that take months if not years for teams of people to build.
So please don’t take my thoughts as anything more than just a casual offhand comment 🙂

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I can see the point of multiple settings - to choose from. However it does sometimes feel like wading through an extensive jungle, one wonders what to do wifh, say, 15 or more settings.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

When I contribute a setting to a tune I always provide the provenance. Likewise I always look to comments to find out what the provenance is for the tunes. If I want to learn a tune someone at our session is playing I always try to find out where they got it even more than the name. It’s common that the source is a recording and I can track it down to learn the tune and use the dots to kickstart it. I have also been posting YouTubes and other video sources for tunes that I transcribe. These are the things I always hope to find in the tune database when I’m researching a tune.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Dear Mr. Button,
I have always appreciated your, as well as others contributions to the tunes section. I am personally incapable of such contribution, but I totally appreciate it, and am grateful for your ability, and I personally don’t want anything to change. Things are fine as they are.

Posted by .

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

Gobby, thank you for your comment. I think the credit for what works with this website is 100 percent Jeremy’s genius.

Re: Removal of bad settings of a tune?

I dare not say "Amen" again so soon, so I will just say, "So true".

Posted by .

So true!

Jeremy deserves enormous credit. He is the wizard who knows so well how to keep the Mustard running.
Cheers, Mr. Keith!

Posted by .