User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 I will ask Dave if he can come up with an alternative to "simple map" that has the desirable property of terminological distinctiveness that you and I both want. If he can't, I think it would be better to use only "uniform map".
+--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Re: Uniform map, integer uniform map  ==
+Of course, I agree that integers are simpler than non-integers / reals. But the concern here is not ''simplicity''; rather, it is ''specificity''. Integers are more specific than reals.
+The fundamental concept which is most important to name here is that of a map which maps primes uniformly, i.e. one which could be represented by a straight vertical line through the diagrams as shown on the uniform map page. When someone is first learning about maps, I believe it is very important for users to learn quickly that not just any sequence of increasing numbers has much value as a map, like ⟨17 26 40] is pretty crazy and useless, and so is ⟨17 28 39], but any of the maps ⟨17 26 38], ⟨17 26 39], ⟨17 27 39], ⟨17 27 40], ⟨17 28 40], or ⟨17 28 41] are perfectly reasonable from the perspective of uniformity. To ever try to use a non-uniform map would be a horrible idea, bad beyond any aesthetic sense of tempering harmonies or optimizing their tunings, but more like it's to the point that listeners could have no real hope of interpreting harmony that way at all.
+Of course, pure-octave tuning is a very simple concept, and this will favor mappings toward the center of the 17-block, such as the ⟨17 27 39] and ⟨17 27 40] ones. However, we must be careful not to conflate pure-octave tuning with the integer uniform map, i.e. the map right at the center point of the 17-block, which happens to be ⟨17 27 39], not ⟨17 27 40]. Any of these uniform maps — integer or otherwise — ''could'' be used with or without pure-octave tuning, to some success. Again, pure-octave tuning ''favors'' some of them. But in many important cases, such as this one, it doesn't ''significantly'' favor ⟨17 27 39] over ⟨17 27 40], at least by most accounts. This reveals how the integer uniform map isn't so much an effective tuning method or anything like that, but a mere convenience in some cases, like when we just want some easy reasonable place to start, with a single representative map for a temperament. And in most other cases, the idea of the integer uniform map is only a dangerously seductive distraction (as shown by how unfortunately wide and prevalent the interest in "patent vals" has become), where people apparently seem to think that it has more important tuning relevance than it does.
+In conclusion, uniform maps are the more important and basic issue. This is reflected in how our D&D's guide spends a significant chunk of time in the first major article explaining this issue, and almost no time at all explaining the issue of integer uniform maps.
 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)