Talk:Meantone family
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
Errors in edolists
The edolists are very flawed. How is 53edo a dominant meantone?! PiotrGrochowski (info, talk, contribs) 15:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Typo in Septimal Meantone section?
In the Septimal Meantone section, it says that nine fifths are needed to reach the interval for 7, C ~ A#. I count ten fifths, and so does the Wikipedia article on Septimal Meantone Temperament.
| Note | Fifthspan |
|---|---|
| C | 0 |
| G | 1 |
| D | 2 |
| A | 3 |
| E | 4 |
| B | 5 |
| F# | 6 |
| C# | 7 |
| G# | 8 |
| D# | 9 |
| A# | 10 |
Edit: And the table in the Meantone vs Meanpop page also says ten fifths for C - A#.
Are we missing something?
Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like an error indeed, good catch. --Fredg999 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if the error arose because whoever typed it was looking at the monzo [-17 9 0 1⟩ = 137781/131072 for the flattone comma (not sure if that is an official name), which maps 9 fifths (octave-reduced) to 8/7 as D♯ and thereby 9 fourths (octave-reduced) to 7/4 as B♭♭, and then they typed it into the septimal meantone description by mistake? (Unfortunately this comma doesn't currently have its own page as far as I can tell, although if it doesn't have an official name, not having its own page isn't surprising -- maybe also the problem for some of the other septimal extensions commas?) Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sharptone?
Still trying to figure out why sharptone exists as a septimal extension to meantone, when the only EDO it seems to really work for (that is, without a 'd' wart) is 5EDO, and then the other equal temperaments listed under it are 12d and 7d (the latter being way over on the flat end of the usable meantone tuning spectrum); meanwhile, Dominant also works for 5EDO, since B♭ is enharmonic to A in 5EDO. Seems like this name should have been saved for a more useful subset of the sharp approximate half of the meantone tuning spectrum. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Commas listed in Extensions?
Shouldn't the commas listed under Extensions also appear in the comma lists of the respective sub-temperaments listed later on? Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of higher-limit Vincenzo
What's the reasoning behind doing this? Was it discussed with anyone else? If not, deleting one of the highest-limit temperaments on the whole wiki seems like a bad idea. Yourmusic Productions (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I feel like this page is getting a bit out of hand with how many ridiculous stuff is here. If you think those are useful feel free to revert my edit. – Sintel🎏 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Prime 47 in higher-limit Vincenzo is literally identified with 3/2. There is no point in including some harmony as high as 47 in a temperament if it is allowed to be tuned this far off. 47-limit Vincenzo would be useful if it actually reflected any high-limit structures. It does not. --Lériendil (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- "deleting one of the highest-limit temperaments on the whole wiki seems like a bad idea" this would be true if the temperament was even remotely reasonable. It's basically only useful for detempers, in which case, someone doing a detemper of one of those edos doesn't need this temperament to do it, because they will just detemper the edo. To put into perspective how useless it is, tempering out 25/24 (dicot) is much more fruitful for detempers, because it meaningfully describes certain JI scales that have 5/4 and 6/5 subtend the same number of scalesteps, such as a generator sequence. --Godtone (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- And yes, it was discussed with others; multiple people noticed it was a unusually ridiculous temperament that clearly served no practical musical purpose. --Godtone (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Stuff above 19-limit deleted
Why delete stuff above the 19-limit (Latest revision as of 2025-03-24T09:25:25)? I wouldn't recommend putting in new stuff above the 19-limit (or in some cases 23-limit), but since somebody already did the work, why not keep it? Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so it's specific to this particular higher-limit stuff not being useful, not that any higher-limit stuff should be cut out. Fair enough. And I didn't connect the name Vincenzo to the stuff that was deleted. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. We're currently proposing a more extensive streamlining of the septimal meantone strong extensions as well because many extensions include mappings of different primes with incompatible tuning tendencies. I don't believe this would be applied more generally; meantone extensions are a somewhat extreme case in terms of clutter, and doing this would help illuminate what actually useful extensions are there in different tuning subranges of meantone. But these extensions will continue to reach the 19-limit. --Lériendil (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. And while we're on the subject of streamlining, I would recommend a reorganization so that the main article starts with 5-limit Meantone (and its tuning spectrum table either reflects this or also includes the other major 7-limit extensions), and Septimal Meantone is moved to its own article like Flattone, Dominant, etc. (also getting its own tuning spectrum table if the tuning spectrum tables are not all merged). I can think of pros and cons for merged and separate tuning spectrum tables. But since past historical use of Meantone usually didn't pay much attention to septimal intervals, putting Septimal Meantone ahead of all of the others might not be the best way to organize things, given that modern use (which eventually will also be historical, and arguably already is for the early-to-mid 20th Century) has usage of Dominant being, um, dominant. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)