Talk:256/255: Difference between revisions

Line 12:

:: I concur with the cookie-cutter names, but "charmstone" seems to be available if we wish to preserve a passing resemblance to "charisma" or "charismic". --[[User:Frostburn|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn|talk]]) 20:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

::: I prefer the cookie-cutter names for their simplicity and avoidance of introducing new names but if people prefer charmstone and charmstonic I don't really mind all that much, because "charm" does seem different enough from "charisma"/"charismic" and seems more specifically related to magic too (so potentially more fitting). Also, not sure where to put this but it's maybe worth noting that this comma is very important in [[srutal archagall]] as that temperament can equivalently (and very notably from the perspective of [[S-expression]]s) be described as "semitonic charismic". --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 00:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

: I’m usually not a part of comma process but I very much find this a cool name. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

: Yet another reason to rename: this sort of clarification should not be needed and it would avoid such a confusing usage of terms: "it is unrelated to the [[diasem]] scale structure." --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A point of consideration: would the 2.3.5.17-subgroup temperament tempering only [[256/255]] be "charismic"? If so what would the full [[17-limit]] temperament be? "charismaic"? Or alternatively, and maybe more sensically, have the 2.3.5.17 temperament be "charic" and the [[17-limit]] be "charismic". But I prefer to reserve "charismic" for the 2.3.5.17-subgroup rank 3 temperament if possible. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 00:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :: I concur with the cookie-cutter names, but "charmstone" seems to be available if we wish to preserve a passing resemblance to "charisma" or "charismic". --[[User:Frostburn|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn|talk]]) 20:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
+::: I prefer the cookie-cutter names for their simplicity and avoidance of introducing new names but if people prefer charmstone and charmstonic I don't really mind all that much, because "charm" does seem different enough from "charisma"/"charismic" and seems more specifically related to magic too (so potentially more fitting). Also, not sure where to put this but it's maybe worth noting that this comma is very important in [[srutal archagall]] as that temperament can equivalently (and very notably from the perspective of [[S-expression]]s) be described as "semitonic charismic". --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 00:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 : I’m usually not a part of comma process but I very much find this a cool name. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 : Yet another reason to rename: this sort of clarification should not be needed and it would avoid such a confusing usage of terms: "it is unrelated to the [[diasem]] scale structure." --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
+A point of consideration: would the 2.3.5.17-subgroup temperament tempering only [[256/255]] be "charismic"? If so what would the full [[17-limit]] temperament be? "charismaic"? Or alternatively, and maybe more sensically, have the 2.3.5.17 temperament be "charic" and the [[17-limit]] be "charismic". But I prefer to reserve "charismic" for the 2.3.5.17-subgroup rank 3 temperament if possible. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 00:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)