Talk:Porcupine/WikispacesArchive
ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW
Please do not add any new discussion to this archive page. All new discussion should go on Talk:Porcupine.
Porcupine mode names
If y'all still want some mode names, in absence of any better suggestions, named after the locations of certain famous rocks, I propose:
ssssssL Allanian*
sssssLs Blarnian
ssssLss Ulurian
sssLsss Gibraltarian
ssLssss Plymouthian
sLsssss Rosettan
Lssssss Meteoran
with porcupine[8] denoted by a suffix or prefix, eg. LLLLLLLs super-alanian, etc.
- the martian microbe rock "AH84001" found in Allan Hills, Antarctica.
Up to you guys, I'm no porcupine expert.
- Kosmorsky November 15, 2011, 10:47:55 AM UTC-0800
Uh, haha, maybe switch Blarnian and Ulurian.
- Kosmorsky November 15, 2011, 10:54:04 AM UTC-0800
Porkupine?
Do we really want to call a subgroup temperament by the same name as a full p-limit temperament?
- genewardsmith October 31, 2011, 02:55:03 PM UTC-0700
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I most certainly do. Calling it anything other than "porcupine" seems very silly. To me it just represents different ways of using the same musical system.
If it's "allowed" to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.7 temperament with the same name, then it should also be allowed to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.11 temperament with the same name. How does that not make sense?
- keenanpepper October 31, 2011, 04:12:31 PM UTC-0700
Because saying I'm going to allow this, but not that, is a very different thing than saying I'm going to stop at this point. Your argument is that Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier should be called the same thing because they are the same thing, and I think that completely misses the point. And is your argument only applicable to subgroups defined by dropping a prime, and not the others? That makes no sense to me. Plus, there is the consistency issue.
- genewardsmith October 31, 2011, 06:59:59 PM UTC-0700
By "Bohlen-Pierce", I don't know whether you mean 13ed3 or the rank-2 3.5.7 temperament tempering out 245/243, but either way I don't see how it's anything other than a straw man.
If by "Bohlen-Pierce" you mean 13ed3, then Bohlen-Pierce is rank-1 but bohpier is rank-2. Every temperament I want to call "porcupine" is rank-2, so it's not analogous.
On the other hand, if "Bohlen-Pierce" is the rank-2 245/243 temperament, then bohpier tempers out 3125/3087 but Bohlen-Pierce contains 3125/3087 as a small interval which is not tempered out. In other words Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier do not agree on the 3.5.7 subgroup. 2.3.5 porcupine and 2.3.5.11 porcupine *do* agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup, so again, it is not analogous.
I don't see how "dropping a prime" has anything to do with it.
My reasoning is this:
Mapping 11 to 4 octaves minus 4 generators is the "default" mapping of 11 for porcupine, because the 2.3.5.7.11 temperament is simply "porcupine" and not some other name.
If I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 7 with the default mapping, I can still call that porcupine. It makes sense to call it this because if I simply ignore 7, I get back to exactly 2.3.5 porcupine again. They agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup.
So, if I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 11 with the default mapping, why shouldn't I be able to call that porcupine too? If I ignore 11, I get exactly 2.3.5 porcupine, and 11 has the default mapping! What more perfect correspondence could you possibly want?
What is "the consistency issue"?
- keenanpepper October 31, 2011, 08:17:12 PM UTC-0700
It wasn't the best example to start out with, but there are a lot of different species of subgroup temperaments, and which ones you plan on using your new naming system on and which ones not is a real question. What, for instance, about tutone, which is 2.9.5.7.11 with meantone commas--is that "meantone"? What is slendric, which is 2.3.7 with a 1029/1024 comma? What is bridgetown, in the 2.3.11/5.13/5 subgroup? The consistency issue relates to this question--it is my contention we ought to have a single, consistenly usable and used, system. Are you even proposing such a thing? I don't see it.
- genewardsmith October 31, 2011, 09:42:55 PM UTC-0700
Let's move this conversation to the tuning list, where I just posted.
- keenanpepper November 01, 2011, 10:46:07 AM UTC-0700