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
11100 - 11125 -
Message: 11102 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:47:07 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: > > > Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left. > > Yipe! Don't we get to see your draft before you submit it? Sure . . . the window might be quite small, though.
Message: 11106 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:10:56 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Paul Erlich wrote: > >>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. > > If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what we've been > calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? I'll ask Dave. >(Larry Hanson's > paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, 18, > 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF *, fig. 12, which implies a > mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], Thanks for pointing this out . . . but the paper indicates that this was Wilson's idea, not Hanson's. I'm not going to worry about this right now. > while on the other hand Dave Keenan's page at > http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm * implies > a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.) > > Admittedly, "nonkleismic" isn't a very good name, especially for > something that extends to a (theoretically) good 11-limit and even a > reasonably good 13-limit version. > > <<10, 9, 7, 25, -9, -17, 5, -9, 27, 46]] > <<10, 9, 7, 25, -5, -9, -17, 5, -45, -9, 27, -45, 46, -40, -110]] > > So something like that deserves a pretty unique and memorable name, and > a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal. Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use the two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . .
Message: 11107 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:48:58 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > [6, 10, 3, 2, -12, -21] minorsemi? I suggest "nautilus" for this one -- look at the floragram: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/files/Paul/nautilus.gif * Unfortunately I still have some bugs in some of my floragrams (maybe they're trying to make honey), so it looks like it'll be good old horagrams for the paper.
Message: 11110 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:56:12 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Paul Erlich wrote: > > --- 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). > > > > That also fits the trend of animal names, since a garibaldi is a kind of > fish (Hypsypops rubicundus). But is anything wrong with plain "schismic" > for this one? That doesn't tell you it's 7-limit, for one thing. For another, "schismic" is plain to us, but we've been talking to each other, and practically only to each other, for years.
Message: 11111 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:58:37 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Paul Erlich wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> > > wrote: > > > >>a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal. > > > > > > Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use the > > two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . . > > Similar, but not closely related (armadillos are related to sloths). > Still, it would be nice to use the name "armadillo" for something. It > would be even better if there was something related to the number 9 in > the temperament, since one of the more common kinds of armadillo is a > nine-banded armadillo. It would be awesome if Gene permitted the word "ennealimmal" to morph into the similar sounding word "armadillo".
Message: 11112 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:02:26 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich You know I disagree with virtually all of this -- I'd love to see your set of systematic names for these 50 temperaments, and then I might eat my words. --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> > wrote: > > > Paul Erlich wrote: > > > >>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. > > > > > > If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what > we've > > been > > > calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry > Hanson's > > > paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, > 18, > > > 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF *, fig. 12, which > implies a > > > mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's > page at > > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm * > implies > > > a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.) > > > > Thanks for this! I've been promoting "hanson" as the new name for > > catakleismic. I think "keenan" makes sense, though admittedly it > isn't > > as cute a name as armadillo. Given Dave's views on naming things, > > someone had better ask him if he'd allow it first if Paul likes it > > enough for the paper. > > Dear Herman, Gene and Paul E., > > Thanks for thinking of me here. And thanks especially Gene for > suggesting to ask me. > > I know you all think I'm a spoilsport with regard to the naming of > commas and temperaments, but I really don't think eponyms are much > better than the cryptic (or even meaningless) names that I also > object to. > > Sure these names are fun (mostly for those who get to make them up), > but they are of very little help to the person trying to break into > this stuff from scratch. They are of no educational assistance apart > from being _a_ name as opposed to no name, except in those few cases > where (a) there is a connection, albeit a cryptic one, between the > name and some memorable property of the temperament, and (b) this > connection is explained along with the giving of the name. "Orwell" > is the only one that comes to mind, with its generator near 19/84 > ths of an octave. Although it probably isn't much help for younger > people who haven't heard of the book and it's author. > > Some time ago, I was impressed by a note regarding eponyms in the > back of a well-regarded University-level textbook, 'Principles of > Anatomy and Physiology' by Tortora and Grabowski, now in its 10th > edition. I found this a very easy book to read and understand and I > have no background in the field, beyond high school biology and > chemistry. > > I just found the same note on the web, so you can read it for > yourselves. It comes immediately after the heading "CHANGES IN > TERMINOLOGY" on this page: > Addison-Wesley and Benjamin Cummings-Page Not Found * > PRE,00.html > > They instead named parts according to their properties, e.g. their > function or location or appearance etc. It just seems obvious to me > that from an educational point of view this is vastly superior. > > So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead > of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering my > wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that > didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same > reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call > it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed > been consulted about renaming that? > > These names have been in use for over a decade and they do relate to > a property of the temperament, namely the comma that vanishes. > > Admittedly this isn't my favourite property on which to base a new > name. I prefer to use the generator (and period if this is not a > whole octave, and relative complexity if there is more than one of > interest with the same interval approximated by its generator). By > this reckoning it is simply "minor thirds". But I have a preference > for "kleismic" because it is already well established. > > If it needs to be distinguished from other 7-limit extensions of (5- > limit) kleismic which, sadly, you also want to rename eponymically, > then one could use the adjective "simple" the first time it is > mentioned, or simply give the generator prime mapping. > > -- Dave Keenan
Message: 11114 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:03:00 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Herman Miller wrote: > > > Paul Erlich wrote: > > > >>--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > >>>a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal. > >> > >> > >>Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use the > >>two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . . > > > > > > Similar, but not closely related (armadillos are related to sloths). > > Still, it would be nice to use the name "armadillo" for something. It > > would be even better if there was something related to the number 9 in > > the temperament, since one of the more common kinds of armadillo is a > > nine-banded armadillo. > > I just realized that nonkleismic is a starling temperament (126/125). So > maybe a bird-related name would be better. Myna? Sure, unless someone disagrees.
Message: 11115 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:03:40 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: > Dave Keenan wrote: > > > it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed > > been consulted about renaming that? > > i'm always here. i've got a broken wrist so i don't post much. > > 'schismic' has been around a long time as a 5-limit term, one speling or > another. it's comes from the german, as used by and before helmholtz. > Who used the temperament before Helmholtz, and how was it tuned?
Message: 11116 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:05:13 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > This leaves kleismic free > to be a purely 7-limit name, But then its name fails to uniquely identify it (many temperament have a vanishing kleisma).
Message: 11117 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:37:28 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > You know I disagree with virtually all of this -- I'd love to see > your set of systematic names for these 50 temperaments, and then I > might eat my words. I doubt it. You're too far gone. ;-) And there's no time before your paper has to be in. I'm away for the next 3 days.
Message: 11118 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:47:13 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > > Paul Erlich wrote: > > >>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. > > > > If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what we've > been > > calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry Hanson's > > paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, 18, > > 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF *, fig. 12, which implies a > > mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's page at > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm * implies > > a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.) > > Thanks for this! I've been promoting "hanson" as the new name for > catakleismic. I think "keenan" makes sense, though admittedly it isn't > as cute a name as armadillo. Given Dave's views on naming things, > someone had better ask him if he'd allow it first if Paul likes it > enough for the paper. Dear Herman, Gene and Paul E., Thanks for thinking of me here. And thanks especially Gene for suggesting to ask me. I know you all think I'm a spoilsport with regard to the naming of commas and temperaments, but I really don't think eponyms are much better than the cryptic (or even meaningless) names that I also object to. Sure these names are fun (mostly for those who get to make them up), but they are of very little help to the person trying to break into this stuff from scratch. They are of no educational assistance apart from being _a_ name as opposed to no name, except in those few cases where (a) there is a connection, albeit a cryptic one, between the name and some memorable property of the temperament, and (b) this connection is explained along with the giving of the name. "Orwell" is the only one that comes to mind, with its generator near 19/84 ths of an octave. Although it probably isn't much help for younger people who haven't heard of the book and it's author. Some time ago, I was impressed by a note regarding eponyms in the back of a well-regarded University-level textbook, 'Principles of Anatomy and Physiology' by Tortora and Grabowski, now in its 10th edition. I found this a very easy book to read and understand and I have no background in the field, beyond high school biology and chemistry. I just found the same note on the web, so you can read it for yourselves. It comes immediately after the heading "CHANGES IN TERMINOLOGY" on this page: Addison-Wesley and Benjamin Cummings-Page Not Found * PRE,00.html They instead named parts according to their properties, e.g. their function or location or appearance etc. It just seems obvious to me that from an educational point of view this is vastly superior. So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering my wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed been consulted about renaming that? These names have been in use for over a decade and they do relate to a property of the temperament, namely the comma that vanishes. Admittedly this isn't my favourite property on which to base a new name. I prefer to use the generator (and period if this is not a whole octave, and relative complexity if there is more than one of interest with the same interval approximated by its generator). By this reckoning it is simply "minor thirds". But I have a preference for "kleismic" because it is already well established. If it needs to be distinguished from other 7-limit extensions of (5- limit) kleismic which, sadly, you also want to rename eponymically, then one could use the adjective "simple" the first time it is mentioned, or simply give the generator prime mapping. -- Dave Keenan
Message: 11119 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:42:33 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > wrote: > > > So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead > > of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering > my > > wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that > > didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same > > reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call > > it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed > > been consulted about renaming that? > > The problem is that in both cases there is another 7-limit > temperament with a low badness figure which is much closer to the 5- > limit temperament in tuning, so the names are in a way deceptive. So, like I said, call one "simple kleismic" and the other "complex kleismic", or even "simple-7 kleismic" and "complex-7 kleismic". It doesn't make sense to have a completely unrelated name for the same temperament at a higher limit.
Message: 11122 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:11:53 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Graham Breed Dave Keenan wrote: > it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed > been consulted about renaming that? i'm always here. i've got a broken wrist so i don't post much. 'schismic' has been around a long time as a 5-limit term, one speling or another. it's comes from the german, as used by and before helmholtz. graham
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11100 - 11125 -