BudjarnLambeth
Joined 22 July 2022
| Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
* This: [[User:BudjarnLambeth/Cultural appropriation-o-meter]] | * This: [[User:BudjarnLambeth/Cultural appropriation-o-meter]] | ||
* We all take ourselves too seriously and should have a little more fun 🎉 | * We all take ourselves too seriously and should have a little more fun 🎉 | ||
* It’s fine to explore the 2.3.5.101 [[subgroup]] if you want to. It doesn’t matter that it’s less [[ | * It’s fine to explore the 2.3.5.101 [[subgroup]] if you want to. It doesn’t matter that it’s less [[concordant]] than 2.3.5.7. Explore it anyway and see what happens. Do some stuff with [[:Category:Novelties|arbitrary numbers]] that don’t make logical sense and just see what comes of it. That’s where the fun is! | ||
* I would prefer to use a temperament [[Temperament naming|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 [[damage|accurate]] and technically [[badness|better]] - a bland name can kill a temperament’s appeal, a fun name can create appeal out of nothing. | * I would prefer to use a temperament [[Temperament naming|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 [[damage|accurate]] and technically [[badness|better]] - a bland name can kill a temperament’s appeal, a fun name can create appeal out of nothing. | ||
* Most of the ‘mathematically best options’ in music tuning that can be found, have already been found. We 2020s theorists missed out on the initial [[RTT]] gold rush of the 1990s and 2000s, so we’re not ever going to discover low-[[badness]] temperaments in the full [[5-limit]], [[7-limit]] or [[11-limit]], we were born too late to explore those. But we were born just in time to explore more niche, out-of-left-field things. The 90s/00s theorists built the fundamental bedrock. Our job now is decorate its edges with interesting little edge cases and offshoots, be those things like higher limit extensions, no-n subgroup temperaments, dual-n subgroup temperaments, anything like that. Their job in 1990-2010 was to ask “what are the most concordant tunings possible?”. Or job in 2020-2040 is to ask “if we take one of those concordant temperaments and do this to it, what happens? Is it still useable? Is it interesting?” | * Most of the ‘mathematically best options’ in music tuning that can be found, have already been found. We 2020s theorists missed out on the initial [[RTT]] gold rush of the 1990s and 2000s, so we’re not ever going to discover low-[[badness]] temperaments in the full [[5-limit]], [[7-limit]] or [[11-limit]], we were born too late to explore those. But we were born just in time to explore more niche, out-of-left-field things. The 90s/00s theorists built the fundamental bedrock. Our job now is decorate its edges with interesting little edge cases and offshoots, be those things like higher limit extensions, no-n subgroup temperaments, dual-n subgroup temperaments, anything like that. Their job in 1990-2010 was to ask “what are the most concordant tunings possible?”. Or job in 2020-2040 is to ask “if we take one of those concordant temperaments and do this to it, what happens? Is it still useable? Is it interesting?” | ||