Mike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

2018-10-01T18:01:47Z

1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:01, 1 October 2018
(No difference)

Wikispaces>FREEZE at 18:01, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T18:01:16Z

New page

{{WSArchiveHeader}}

== Abstract regular temperament vs Abstract temperament ==
When you guys first came up with this stuff, the only thing you all cared about were regular temperaments.

But, since people are now really into the idea of designing circulating temperaments around vals, and it's clear that circulating temperaments really kick quite a hefty amount of ass, it's pretty clear that the theory is way more useful and broad than that.

Since Keenan's been known to say things like "I love <15 24 35 42 52|" - not 15-EDO, but rather his 15-note well-tuning, which is still represented by that val - should we perhaps consider just calling these objects "abstract temperaments" instead of abstract "regular" temperaments, specifically?

I've been happy to leave names alone for a while now, but I think this is a good idea because to insist on everything being regular and not circulating really sells us short. Vals are more general than even regular temperaments.

- '''mbattaglia1''' January 18, 2013, 12:29:37 AM UTC-0800
----
Bump.

- '''mbattaglia1''' January 20, 2013, 03:57:32 PM UTC-0800
----
Must we worry about this? I think "consistently mapped" might make sense, in case it is, which is not always true for a circulating temperament.

- '''genewardsmith''' January 20, 2013, 04:48:52 PM UTC-0800
----
It's worth worrying about just for the sake of communicating. For instance, I was telling Jason Leith about "regular temperament theory" yesterday and he was like, "well, what about irregular temperament theory?" Then I had to explain that regular temperament theory really can handle "irregular" temperaments too, like with Keenan's marimba, and that the "regular" was a hangover from the old days, and so on. But it was confusing.

The theory right now can handle

1) ordinary regular temperaments

2) circulating temperaments

3) "inconsistent" temperaments

By the latter I mean something like a temperament with the existence of a 9 which is 3 * 3, and a separate 9' which is more accurate but not 3 * 3. The latter happens in 59-EDO, for instance, if you choose to work in the 2.3.5.9' subgroup. So as far as your "consistently mapped" thing goes, this would be a "consistently mapped" inconsistent temperament.

So yeah, I do think it's important.

- '''mbattaglia1''' January 20, 2013, 05:11:03 PM UTC-0800
----
bump

- '''mbattaglia1''' January 22, 2013, 08:56:41 PM UTC-0800
----

== what is going on here? ==
Why is this page now called "abstract regular temperament"?

- '''clumma''' September 18, 2011, 01:36:20 PM UTC-0700
----
It's always been called that.

- '''genewardsmith''' September 18, 2011, 02:33:00 PM UTC-0700
----
Yeah, since you created it six months ago, apparently by pasting in what used to be on the "regular temperament" page. :(

- '''clumma''' September 18, 2011, 03:06:32 PM UTC-0700
----
We needed an article on that topic, and it wasn't a cut and paste job.

- '''genewardsmith''' September 18, 2011, 05:32:07 PM UTC-0700
----
I support this and like the distinction; I've linked Margo Schulter to this page to explain how what I called "maqamic" is still a temperament despite that the choice of intonation is adaptive. It's a useful concept.

- '''mbattaglia1''' September 18, 2011, 06:39:24 PM UTC-0700
----

Talk:Regular temperament/WikispacesArchive - Revision history

Mike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

Wikispaces>FREEZE at 18:01, 1 October 2018