User:BudjarnLambeth: Difference between revisions

Line 200:

* We all take ourselves too seriously and should have a little more fun

* I would prefer to use a temperament named something fun like “waterslide” or “jinglebells” even if it has lots of error, over one named something dry and bland like “countertrihexakleismatic” even if it’s super accurate and technically better - a lame name can kill a temperament’s appeal, a fun name can create appeal out of nothing

* Most of the ‘mathematically optimal’ things in music tuning have already been found, so when making new discoveries now, it’s makes more sense spending time to find something that sounds new or interesting or has some quirky story behind it, than it is trying to find a more mathematically optimal thing - maths still matters, because there’s no point finding a temperament that sounds like sandpaper, but it just doesn’t have to be perfectly optimised is all I’m saying

* Most of the ‘mathematically optimal’ things in music tuning have already been found, so when making new discoveries now, it’s makes more sense spending time to find something that sounds new or interesting or has some quirky story behind it, than it is trying to find a more mathematically optimal thing - maths still matters, because there’s no point finding a temperament that sounds like sandpaper, but it just doesn’t have to be perfectly optimised is all I’m saying.

* It’s fine to explore the 2.3.5.101 subgroup if you want to. It doesn’t matter that it’s less consonant than 2.3.5.7. Explore it anyway and see what happens. Do some stuff with arbitrary numbers that don’t make logical sense and just see what comes of it. That’s where the fun is!

@@ Line 200: / Line 200: @@
 * We all take ourselves too seriously and should have a little more fun
 * I would prefer to use a temperament named something fun like “waterslide” or “jinglebells” even if it has lots of error, over one named something dry and bland like “countertrihexakleismatic” even if it’s super accurate and technically better - a lame name can kill a temperament’s appeal, a fun name can create appeal out of nothing
-* Most of the ‘mathematically optimal’ things in music tuning have already been found, so when making new discoveries now, it’s makes more sense spending time to find something that sounds new or interesting or has some quirky story behind it, than it is trying to find a more mathematically optimal thing - maths still matters, because there’s no point finding a temperament that sounds like sandpaper, but it just doesn’t have to be perfectly optimised is all I’m saying
+* Most of the ‘mathematically optimal’ things in music tuning have already been found, so when making new discoveries now, it’s makes more sense spending time to find something that sounds new or interesting or has some quirky story behind it, than it is trying to find a more mathematically optimal thing - maths still matters, because there’s no point finding a temperament that sounds like sandpaper, but it just doesn’t have to be perfectly optimised is all I’m saying.
+* It’s fine to explore the 2.3.5.101 subgroup if you want to. It doesn’t matter that it’s less consonant than 2.3.5.7. Explore it anyway and see what happens. Do some stuff with arbitrary numbers that don’t make logical sense and just see what comes of it. That’s where the fun is!
 <br><br>