This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).
Contents Hide Contents S 1211000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11050 - 11075 -
Message: 11076 Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:14:23 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Paul Erlich wrote: > > >>>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds > >>> > >>>Anyone have another suggestion? > >> > >>Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth) > >>Or just plain supermajor? > > > > > > If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to > > as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct? > > For some reason I have <<3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50]] listed as "Slendric / > Wonder". But actually <<3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22]] might be a better fit > for the description on Catalogue of linear temperaments *. Any of > these could be "slendric" or "wonder" (it might be useful to assign each > of these names to a different temperament). But both names apply to a system where there is no prime 5. Hola from Espaņa.
Message: 11077 Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:16:04 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > > Paul Erlich wrote: > > > > >>>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds > > >>> > > >>>Anyone have another suggestion? > > >> > > >>Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth) > > >>Or just plain supermajor? > > > > > > > > > If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to > > > as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct? > > > > For some reason I have <<3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50]] listed as > "Slendric / > > Wonder". But actually <<3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22]] might be a better fit > > for the description on Catalogue of linear temperaments *. Any of > > these could be "slendric" or "wonder" (it might be useful to assign > each > > of these names to a different temperament). > > I'd advise keeping the name "wonder" for <<3 17 -1 20 -10 -50||. This > is clearly much more consistent with what Margo had in mind as a > {2,3,7} linear temperament using 1029/1024. Margo is not much of a fan > of flat fifths, for starters, and the tunings are consistent. Graham's > site seems to be unavailable at the moment, but I have no objections > to "slendric" in place of "supermajor seconds", an ugly name even if I > am responsible for it. Unfortunately, if prime 5 is in there, this is even less like slendro than "pelogic" is like pelog. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: Yahoo! Terms of Service *
Message: 11084 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:49:25 Subject: Re: File missing From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@m...> wrote: > All, > > Does anyone know what happened to the nifty file listing all the > commas? (Including "Atom of Kirkenburger")? > > Paul Hi Paul, I think it's still fine: Yahoo! - * method=reportRows&tbl=10&sortBy=3 -the other paul
Message: 11085 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:13:53 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > Here is what I am suggesting for names for Paul's list of 50 > temperaments. Septischismic in place of schismic, augie in the place > of augmented, and erethezontic in the place of biporky have been > discussed. Minorsemi from the approximate 21/20 generator, and > duodecal because like waage it's got 12 on the brain. > > In the 5-limit, the names minorsemi and tertiatonic come from the > discussion of 12-note 5-limit Fokker blocks around tuning-math 8300 to > 8400. Superpythagorean corresponds to the 7-limit name, and corrects a > typo for the comma. > > [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic > [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic I'm very unenthusiastic about these names.
Message: 11087 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:42:25 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > > [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic > > > [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic > > > > I'm very unenthusiastic about these names. > > How about some alternatives? The field of drosophila genetics makes use, in addition to porcupine and hedgehog, of the terms armadillo and pangolin. Perhaps these could be called into service?
Message: 11091 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:55:28 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > > wrote: > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic > > > > > [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic > > > > > > > > I'm very unenthusiastic about these names. > > > > > > How about some alternatives? > > > > The field of drosophila genetics makes use, in addition to porcupine > > and hedgehog, of the terms armadillo and pangolin. Perhaps these > > could be called into service? > > I've heard they give weird names to friutfly genes, such as > "fruitless" for the gene which makes male fruitflies gay (and no, I am > not making that up.) Are these examples? Yes. > How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin" in place > of "nonkleismic"? Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.
Message: 11093 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:41:53 Subject: Re: The Keyboard Temperament of J. S. Bach From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Charles" <Francis@d...> wrote: > For those interested in this topic, new findings are available at: > J.S. Bach Tuning * > > > Regards > Charles I find these conclusions insupportable. That C-A would be a Pythagorean major sixth (27:16), while A-F# would be just (5:3) or near-just major sixths, goes against the key-gradation pattern that all well-temperaments of the time exhibit. C-A and G-E are the major sixths closest to just (or very nearly so) in all of them, since they occur most frequently in the keys with the fewest accidentals in their key signatures. But this topic is better for the tuning list, not this list.
Message: 11094 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:57:16 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > [1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] septischismic? Continuing on our kick of naming after people, I might call this Garibaldi, since Eduardo Sabat-Garibaldi gave names to 5120/5103 ("Beta 5") and 33554432/33480783 ("Beta 2") in his study which yielded the 1/9-schisma, pure-octave version of this temperament. 4000/3969, though, may have escaped his attention (at least Manuel doesn't list any other "Beta"s, or any name for 4000/3969 at all). > 32805/32768 schismic And this would be Helmholtz (I've seen it referred to as Helmholtzian temperament in the past, though of course it's Groven's too).
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11050 - 11075 -