Douglas Blumeyer's RTT How-To: Difference between revisions

Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs)
m intro: parallelize introduction of JI and ED
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs)
m intro: after expanding the acronyms for ED and JI once, it is no longer necessary to expand them (or, if one is expanded, the other should be too)
Line 13: Line 13:
|+ '''Table 1a.''' Why RTT
|+ '''Table 1a.''' Why RTT
!
!
!equal divisions
!ED
!RTT (middle path)
!RTT (middle path)
!JI
!JI
Line 30: Line 30:
The point is that a tempered tuning manages to score high for both usability and harmonic accuracy, and therefore the case can be made that it is better overall than either a straight ED or straight JI. On this table (which reflects my opinion), RTT got six total stars while ED and JI each only got five. (And this doesn't even account for the power RTT has to create fascinating new harmonic effects, like [[comma pumps]] and [[essentially tempered chords]], which EDs can do to a lesser extent.)
The point is that a tempered tuning manages to score high for both usability and harmonic accuracy, and therefore the case can be made that it is better overall than either a straight ED or straight JI. On this table (which reflects my opinion), RTT got six total stars while ED and JI each only got five. (And this doesn't even account for the power RTT has to create fascinating new harmonic effects, like [[comma pumps]] and [[essentially tempered chords]], which EDs can do to a lesser extent.)


But, you protest: this tutorial is pretty long, and it contains a bunch of gnarly diagrams and advanced math concepts, so how could RTT possibly be easier to use than JI? Well, what I’ve rated above is the ease of use ''after you’ve chosen your particular equal division, RTT, or JI tuning''. It’s the ease of writing, reading, reasoning about, communicating about, teaching, performing, listening to, and analyzing the music in said tuning. This is different from how simple it is to ''determine'' a desirable tuning up front.
But, you protest: this tutorial is pretty long, and it contains a bunch of gnarly diagrams and advanced math concepts, so how could RTT possibly be easier to use than JI? Well, what I’ve rated above is the ease of use ''after you’ve chosen your particular ED, RTT, or JI tuning''. It’s the ease of writing, reading, reasoning about, communicating about, teaching, performing, listening to, and analyzing the music in said tuning. This is different from how simple it is to ''determine'' a desirable tuning up front.


Determining desirable tunings is a whole other beast. Perhaps contrary to popular belief, xenharmonic musicians — composers and performers alike — can mostly insulate themselves from this stuff if they like. It’s fine to nab a popular and well-reviewed tuning off the shelf, without deeply understanding how or why it’s there, and just pump, jam, or riff away. There's a good chance you could naturally pick up what's cool about a tuning without ever learning the definition of "temper out" or "generator". But if you do want to be deliberate about it, to mod something, rifle through the obscure section, or even discover your own tuning, then you must prepare to delve deeper into the xenharmonic fold. That’s why this resource is here, for RTT.
Determining desirable tunings is a whole other beast. Perhaps contrary to popular belief, xenharmonic musicians — composers and performers alike — can mostly insulate themselves from this stuff if they like. It’s fine to nab a popular and well-reviewed tuning off the shelf, without deeply understanding how or why it’s there, and just pump, jam, or riff away. There's a good chance you could naturally pick up what's cool about a tuning without ever learning the definition of "temper out" or "generator". But if you do want to be deliberate about it, to mod something, rifle through the obscure section, or even discover your own tuning, then you must prepare to delve deeper into the xenharmonic fold. That’s why this resource is here, for RTT.