Talk:Porcupine/WikispacesArchive

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW

All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.
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