Talk:Regular temperament/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:Regular temperament.


Abstract regular temperament vs Abstract temperament

When you guys first came up with this stuff, the only thing you all cared about were regular temperaments.

But, since people are now really into the idea of designing circulating temperaments around vals, and it's clear that circulating temperaments really kick quite a hefty amount of ass, it's pretty clear that the theory is way more useful and broad than that.

Since Keenan's been known to say things like "I love <15 24 35 42 52|" - not 15-EDO, but rather his 15-note well-tuning, which is still represented by that val - should we perhaps consider just calling these objects "abstract temperaments" instead of abstract "regular" temperaments, specifically?

I've been happy to leave names alone for a while now, but I think this is a good idea because to insist on everything being regular and not circulating really sells us short. Vals are more general than even regular temperaments.

- mbattaglia1 January 18, 2013, 12:29:37 AM UTC-0800


Bump.

- mbattaglia1 January 20, 2013, 03:57:32 PM UTC-0800


Must we worry about this? I think "consistently mapped" might make sense, in case it is, which is not always true for a circulating temperament.

- genewardsmith January 20, 2013, 04:48:52 PM UTC-0800


It's worth worrying about just for the sake of communicating. For instance, I was telling Jason Leith about "regular temperament theory" yesterday and he was like, "well, what about irregular temperament theory?" Then I had to explain that regular temperament theory really can handle "irregular" temperaments too, like with Keenan's marimba, and that the "regular" was a hangover from the old days, and so on. But it was confusing.

The theory right now can handle

1) ordinary regular temperaments

2) circulating temperaments

3) "inconsistent" temperaments

By the latter I mean something like a temperament with the existence of a 9 which is 3 * 3, and a separate 9' which is more accurate but not 3 * 3. The latter happens in 59-EDO, for instance, if you choose to work in the 2.3.5.9' subgroup. So as far as your "consistently mapped" thing goes, this would be a "consistently mapped" inconsistent temperament.

So yeah, I do think it's important.

- mbattaglia1 January 20, 2013, 05:11:03 PM UTC-0800


bump

- mbattaglia1 January 22, 2013, 08:56:41 PM UTC-0800


what is going on here?

Why is this page now called "abstract regular temperament"?

- clumma September 18, 2011, 01:36:20 PM UTC-0700


It's always been called that.

- genewardsmith September 18, 2011, 02:33:00 PM UTC-0700


Yeah, since you created it six months ago, apparently by pasting in what used to be on the "regular temperament" page.  :(

- clumma September 18, 2011, 03:06:32 PM UTC-0700


We needed an article on that topic, and it wasn't a cut and paste job.

- genewardsmith September 18, 2011, 05:32:07 PM UTC-0700


I support this and like the distinction; I've linked Margo Schulter to this page to explain how what I called "maqamic" is still a temperament despite that the choice of intonation is adaptive. It's a useful concept.

- mbattaglia1 September 18, 2011, 06:39:24 PM UTC-0700