|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
| | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == Porcupine mode names == | | == Naming, once again == |
| If y'all still want some mode names, in absence of any better suggestions, named after the locations of certain famous rocks, I propose:
| |
|
| |
|
| ssssssL Allanian*
| | Can we just pretend 'porkypine' never happened? |
|
| |
|
| sssssLs Blarnian
| | – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ssssLss Ulurian
| | : By the way, it's not just me, this really is ridiculous. Historical record of it's naming is basically gws proposing it and then other people saying they think it's a bad idea: |
| | | : https://yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io/tuning/topicId_104838.html |
| sssLsss Gibraltarian
| | : I couldn't find any other mentions of it on the tuning group (though searching the archives is currently annoyingly hard). On the XA Discord, it has 36 mentions (compared to >3700 for porcupine), and half of them are related to the name being terrible and not the actual temperament. |
| | | : – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 21:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC) |
| ssLssss Plymouthian
| |
| | |
| sLsssss Rosettan
| |
| | |
| Lssssss Meteoran
| |
| | |
| with porcupine[8] denoted by a suffix or prefix, eg. LLLLLLLs super-alanian, etc.
| |
| | |
| <ul><li>the martian microbe rock "AH84001" found in Allan Hills, Antarctica.</li></ul>
| |
| | |
| Up to you guys, I'm no porcupine expert.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:47:55 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Uh, haha, maybe switch Blarnian and Ulurian.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:54:04 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Porkupine? ==
| |
| Do we really want to call a subgroup temperament by the same name as a full p-limit temperament?
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 02:55:03 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I most certainly do. Calling it anything other than "porcupine" seems very silly. To me it just represents different ways of using the same musical system.
| |
| | |
| If it's "allowed" to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.7 temperament with the same name, then it should also be allowed to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.11 temperament with the same name. How does that not make sense?
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 04:12:31 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Because saying I'm going to allow this, but not that, is a very different thing than saying I'm going to stop at this point. Your argument is that Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier should be called the same thing because they are the same thing, and I think that completely misses the point. And is your argument only applicable to subgroups defined by dropping a prime, and not the others? That makes no sense to me. Plus, there is the consistency issue.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 06:59:59 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| By "Bohlen-Pierce", I don't know whether you mean 13ed3 or the rank-2 3.5.7 temperament tempering out 245/243, but either way I don't see how it's anything other than a straw man.
| |
| | |
| If by "Bohlen-Pierce" you mean 13ed3, then Bohlen-Pierce is rank-1 but bohpier is rank-2. Every temperament I want to call "porcupine" is rank-2, so it's not analogous.
| |
| | |
| On the other hand, if "Bohlen-Pierce" is the rank-2 245/243 temperament, then bohpier tempers out 3125/3087 but Bohlen-Pierce contains 3125/3087 as a small interval which is not tempered out. In other words Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier do not agree on the 3.5.7 subgroup. 2.3.5 porcupine and 2.3.5.11 porcupine *do* agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup, so again, it is not analogous.
| |
| | |
| I don't see how "dropping a prime" has anything to do with it. | |
| | |
| My reasoning is this:
| |
| | |
| Mapping 11 to 4 octaves minus 4 generators is the "default" mapping of 11 for porcupine, because the 2.3.5.7.11 temperament is simply "porcupine" and not some other name.
| |
| | |
| If I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 7 with the default mapping, I can still call that porcupine. It makes sense to call it this because if I simply ignore 7, I get back to exactly 2.3.5 porcupine again. They agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup.
| |
| | |
| So, if I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 11 with the default mapping, why shouldn't I be able to call that porcupine too? If I ignore 11, I get exactly 2.3.5 porcupine, and 11 has the default mapping! What more perfect correspondence could you possibly want?
| |
| | |
| What is "the consistency issue"?
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 08:17:12 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| It wasn't the best example to start out with, but there are a lot of different species of subgroup temperaments, and which ones you plan on using your new naming system on and which ones not is a real question. What, for instance, about tutone, which is 2.9.5.7.11 with meantone commas--is that "meantone"? What is slendric, which is 2.3.7 with a 1029/1024 comma? What is bridgetown, in the 2.3.11/5.13/5 subgroup? The consistency issue relates to this question--it is my contention we ought to have a single, consistenly usable and used, system. Are you even proposing such a thing? I don't see it.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 09:42:55 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Let's move this conversation to the tuning list, where I just posted.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' November 01, 2011, 10:46:07 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |