|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
| | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == 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
| |
| ----
| |
