Spreading the Glossary (was: Optimal Pajara Tuning)

Hi all,

Graham Breed wrote on Sun May 21, 2006:
[snip]

> Glossary:
>
> MAD -- mean absolute deviation
>
> RMS -- root mean square (deviation)
>
> Pajara -- the 7-limit regular temperament combining the optimal mappings
> for 12- and 22-equal. The pajara-consistent mapping for 34-equal is
> <34, 54, 79, 96]
>
> Patent val -- the mapping taking the nearest approximation to each prime
> interval. For 34-equal in the 7-limit, this is <34, 54, 79, 95]
>
> Inconsistent -- an equal temperament where the mapping of each interval
> doesn't agree with interval arithmetic
>
> 7-limit -- intervals with a frequency ratio that doesn't contain a
> number larger than 7, and octave equivalents.

Graham, that's a nice thing you've done right
there!

It seems like something that belongs in a
'micro-tuning maths primer' - or perhaps on
a tuning wiki, like the one Jacob Barton's
just reminded us (on MMM) existed.

A single reliable, community-owned reference
for all this stuff (like a wiki) - with some
graded learning paths available in well-
constructed tutorials with suitable examples
(including real music) ... wouldn't that be nice?

I've got to say that I thought I'd have a handle
on the lingo by now (I've done some maths, and
taught it, too, at tertiary level). Yet I often
find I have no idea what these discussions are
about. (And BTW, I used to score very highly
on IQ tests, way back when, and am generally
regarded as a quick learner.) So I figure per-
haps I'm listening to people smarter than me -
but it still comes across as like perhaps the
first SETI messages decoded ...

How *can* we make this stuff clere to everyone?
I know the instructional design side of things,
but am in no way a subject-matter expert.
Thoughts?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 16/5/06

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

> Graham, that's a nice thing you've done right > there!

Thank you!

> It seems like something that belongs in a
> 'micro-tuning maths primer' - or perhaps on > a tuning wiki, like the one Jacob Barton's > just reminded us (on MMM) existed.

It's something that belongs in every message that uses non-standard terms.

I found the new Wiki at

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com

Jacob said it was a .org. I don't expect it'll be any more successful than the old Wiki. The wiki work gets done on Wikipedia these days.

> A single reliable, community-owned reference > for all this stuff (like a wiki) - with some > graded learning paths available in well-
> constructed tutorials with suitable examples
> (including real music) ... wouldn't that be nice?

The single, reliable reference is the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia. After that is Wikipedia. If we're going to have another reference there needs to be a clear reason for it. An article on Wikipedia will reach more readers, after all, so why should somebody be spending their time on the tuning-only wiki instead of the all powerful Wikipedia. Well, other than that their government won't let them connect to Wikipedia of course...

Well-constructed tutorials would be nice, but who's going to do the constructing? As well as us all having other demands on our time, it isn't easy to see where somebody else will have difficulty with something that you understand well.

> I've got to say that I thought I'd have a handle > on the lingo by now (I've done some maths, and > taught it, too, at tertiary level). Yet I often > find I have no idea what these discussions are > about. (And BTW, I used to score very highly
> on IQ tests, way back when, and am generally
> regarded as a quick learner.) So I figure per-
> haps I'm listening to people smarter than me -
> but it still comes across as like perhaps the > first SETI messages decoded ...

I don't think intelligence should be an issue. Maybe you have to be smarter than average, but I'd guess we all are. Who else would join a tuning-math list?

There certainly is a problem with terminology. Monzo's dictionary, now the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia, was created to solve that problem. But it's got so big that I can see a newcomer spending all day chasing definitions to try and understand all the terms. For example, I've got the miracle (temperament family) here. To understand it, you need to get past "temperament", "generator", "odd-limit", "cents", "consonant", "just-intonation", "harmonic structure", "tetrad", "hexad", "intervallic relationship", "MOS", "maximal evenness", and so on and on. And even then, some original terms are used without a definition in the message *or* an entry in the encyclopedia.

What I think we need is a short glossary on the list's home page, and in the standard email sent to all new users. Then new readers can consult it without having to go online and only have a limited amount to take in. Any term not in the glossary that isn't common in maths, music theory or plain English (and with the meaning you give it) you should explain in the first message of a thread you introduce it. Then readers don't have to go chasing round the web to find out what you mean. Sensible exceptions could be made but that sounds like a good general rule.

I notice that there isn't even a link to the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia on the list's home page. Maybe I have the power to fix that but I'm a bit rusty on all this.

> How *can* we make this stuff clere to everyone?
> I know the instructional design side of things,
> but am in no way a subject-matter expert.
> Thoughts?

You sound like exactly the person who *should* be writing the tutorials! Whatever you find difficult to understand, you'll know how to explain to anybody else with the same problem. Another thing you could do is send messages asking for definitions of words you don't understand. The sheer nuisance value might achieve something.

Graham

>The single, reliable reference is the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia. After
>that is Wikipedia. If we're going to have another reference there needs
>to be a clear reason for it.

The reason for another reference is, the Tonalsoft encyclopedia isn't
open, has only a single editor, and contains terms that only that editor
uses. Wikipedia is not for original research, and is not set up to
service this community. It should contain the most solid stuff from
this community, but a tuning Wiki is desired.

Aside from a lack of popularity, the ritters server was often slow
or down, and neither tuning wiki so far has used very good Wiki
software.

>An article on Wikipedia will reach more readers, after all, so why
>should somebody be spending their time on the tuning-only wiki
>instead of the all powerful Wikipedia.

Entries that are appropriate could be drafted on the tuning Wiki and
uploaded to Wikipedia.

>Well, other than that their government won't let them connect to
>Wikipedia of course...

Another good reason.

>There certainly is a problem with terminology. Monzo's dictionary, now
>the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia, was created to solve that problem. But it's
>got so big that I can see a newcomer spending all day chasing
>definitions to try and understand all the terms. For example, I've got
>the miracle (temperament family) here. To understand it, you need to
>get past "temperament", "generator", "odd-limit", "cents", "consonant",
>"just-intonation", "harmonic structure", "tetrad", "hexad", "intervallic
>relationship", "MOS", "maximal evenness", and so on and on. And even
>then, some original terms are used without a definition in the message
>*or* an entry in the encyclopedia.

Another thing I don't like about the Tonalsoft enc. is that it
mixes temperament entries with vocabulary entries. They're different
enough to warrant separate databases. In fact, temperaments deserve
more than tables, they deserve a structured, searchable, sortable
database.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> Entries that are appropriate could be drafted on the tuning Wiki and
> uploaded to Wikipedia.

That's a thought. Or taken from Wikipedia and expanded.

On 5/22/06, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> > Entries that are appropriate could be drafted on the tuning Wiki and
> > uploaded to Wikipedia.
>
> That's a thought. Or taken from Wikipedia and expanded.

Sounds like a good idea to me. This other wiki could be for all the
Original Research stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Keenan

>> > Entries that are appropriate could be drafted on the tuning Wiki and
>> > uploaded to Wikipedia.
>>
>> That's a thought. Or taken from Wikipedia and expanded.
>
>Sounds like a good idea to me. This other wiki could be for all the
>Original Research stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Keenan, what are the pros/cons of using your Wikiproject like this,
vs. a separate MediaWiki instance?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Another thing I don't like about the Tonalsoft enc. is that it
> mixes temperament entries with vocabulary entries. They're different
> enough to warrant separate databases. In fact, temperaments deserve
> more than tables, they deserve a structured, searchable, sortable
> database.

That's something I might add to my website. It's something I could use if I ever make the temperament searching scripts more friendly. But of course I couldn't keep up with the linear temperaments in my old catalog so I'd prefer some wiki type thing to copy from.

By increasing amount of work, I might try:

1) a way of looking up a name from some specification of the temperament.

2) a better searchable database (my host has MySQL and I've used it before)

3) a web app so that people can add new names

If you want to list them on a wiki in a consistent format then we can work out the searchable part later.

Graham

Hi all,

Graham Breed wrote on Mon May 22, 2006:
>
> Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
>
> > Graham, that's a nice thing you've done right
> > there!
>
> Thank you!

And Thank YOU for your detailed and thoughtful
reply. Which I'll now proceed to take issue with
... ! ;-)

> > It seems like something that belongs in a
> > 'micro-tuning maths primer' - or perhaps on
> > a tuning wiki, like the one Jacob Barton's
> > just reminded us (on MMM) existed.
>
> It's something that belongs in every message that uses non-standard terms.

Oh, I agree ... but then, to a newbie or even a mid-level
reader, most or many terms are unknown and so too are
their standard definitions, if they exist.

> I found the new Wiki at
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com

That's the one. Sorry, should have included the URL.

> Jacob said it was a .org. I don't expect it'll be any more successful
> than the old Wiki. The wiki work gets done on Wikipedia these days.

Now here we're perhaps confusing a technology with
a purpose! Wikipedia is NOT for research; however,
the wiki medium is an excellent tool for collaborative
development and promulgation of standards.

I'd say, if there is no better, community-owned
resource available, we should give it a chance. Let's
not write it off too quickly!

> > A single reliable, community-owned reference
> > for all this stuff (like a wiki) - with some
> > graded learning paths available in well-
> > constructed tutorials with suitable examples
> > (including real music) ... wouldn't that be nice?
>
> The single, reliable reference is the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia.

You left out "commumity-owned" - Why? Because
it isn't. We all know Joe Monzo is one of the original
good guys, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise
to put community property into any commercial hands.
What if some day monz got an offer for Tonalsoft too
good to refuse? (Hey, we can all dream of financial
success too.) And it's not a major job these days to
run a wiki, is it?

> ... After that is Wikipedia. ...

For the agreed standard stuff, yes, not for new
research and development. Heck, I just put the term
EDO into Wikipedia's equal temperament article for
the first time today.

> ... If we're going to have another reference there needs
> to be a clear reason for it. ...

Yep. And I've just given two.

... An article on Wikipedia will reach more
> readers, after all, so why should somebody be spending their time on the
> tuning-only wiki instead of the all powerful Wikipedia. ...

Why? See above. And migrate anything "standard" to
Wikipedia when it's been standardised. (How does
*that* happen? Why, we either (A) let a standards
body arbitrate on these things or (B) establish a public
- ie published - and working consensus. There's more
than one book and academic paper been published in
the general area of microtuning already, and I'd guess
that members of this list are likely to publish a few
more in the next year or so.)

> ... Well, other
> than that their government won't let them connect to Wikipedia of
> course...

I'm sensitive to the difficulties of people living under
repressive r�gimes. However, even if half the world
can't use Wikipedia at all, that leaves billions of
people, including millions of musicians, who can.

> Well-constructed tutorials would be nice, but who's going to do the
> constructing? ...

A very good question indeed! Two answers spring to
mind; one - those amazing volunteers who do ALL the dirty,
thankless jobs; two - "show me the money!" ie someone
who sees a commercial opportunity in doing so. Of course,
the second only works if the price is considered fair value.
Oh yeah, and if the marketing is good enough to instil con-
fidence.

> ... As well as us all having other demands on our time, it
> isn't easy to see where somebody else will have difficulty with
> something that you understand well.

Try explaining an "eigenmonzo" or "well-temperament"
or maybe even "octave" to a Britney fan, and I think you
will quickly start to get an idea of the scale of the dif-
ficulties involved. And Rome wasn't built in a day! The
obvious thing is to start with the basics - and these are
mostly the unrecognised asssumptions that most people
make about music. Neil Haverstick has posted some
relevant messages on this on MMM in the last few months.

> > I've got to say that I thought I'd have a handle
> > on the lingo by now (I've done some maths, and
> > taught it, too, at tertiary level). Yet I often
> > find I have no idea what these discussions are
> > about. (And BTW, I used to score very highly
> > on IQ tests, way back when, and am generally
> > regarded as a quick learner.) So I figure per-
> > haps I'm listening to people smarter than me -
> > but it still comes across as like perhaps the
> > first SETI messages decoded ...
>
> I don't think intelligence should be an issue. Maybe you have to be
> smarter than average, but I'd guess we all are. Who else would join a
> tuning-math list?

A musician who thought they needed to understand
a little more of the maths in order to make their
music better?

> There certainly is a problem with terminology. Monzo's dictionary, now
> the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia, was created to solve that problem. But it's
> got so big that I can see a newcomer spending all day chasing
> definitions to try and understand all the terms. For example, I've got
> the miracle (temperament family) here. To understand it, you need to
> get past "temperament", "generator", "odd-limit", "cents", "consonant",
> "just-intonation", "harmonic structure", "tetrad", "hexad", "intervallic
> relationship", "MOS", "maximal evenness", and so on and on. And even
> then, some original terms are used without a definition in the message
> *or* an entry in the encyclopedia.

Yeah, I've spent a good bit of time batting back and
forth ... ;-) And a dictionary is not an encyclopedia;
monzo's achievements to date might be enhanced by
some effort to analyse concept dependencies (there
are software tools to help with this kind of "concept
mapping"). If this were done, the Tonalsoft Encyclo-
pedia might contain fewer short entries in proportion
to the longer ones, because each concept map could
form the basis for consolidation of term definitions
into larger, more coherent articles. Just a thought.

> What I think we need is a short glossary on the list's home page, and in
> the standard email sent to all new users. Then new readers can consult
> it without having to go online and only have a limited amount to take
> in. Any term not in the glossary that isn't common in maths, music
> theory or plain English (and with the meaning you give it) you should
> explain in the first message of a thread you introduce it. Then readers
> don't have to go chasing round the web to find out what you mean.
> Sensible exceptions could be made but that sounds like a good
> general rule.

You are absolutely right in all of the above. May I
suggest we have your paragraph added to the home
page? Or at least linked from it?

> I notice that there isn't even a link to the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia on
> the list's home page. Maybe I have the power to fix that but I'm a bit
> rusty on all this.

Get out the WD-40 ... ;-)

> > How *can* we make this stuff clere [sic] to everyone?
> > I know the instructional design side of things,
> > but am in no way a subject-matter expert.
> > Thoughts?
>
> You sound like exactly the person who *should* be writing the tutorials!

What was that about "demands on our time"?!! I was
supposed to be in bed two hours ago! ;-) Still. I'm glad
you agree on the value of tutorials.

> Whatever you find difficult to understand, you'll know how to explain
> to anybody else with the same problem. Another thing you could do is
> send messages asking for definitions of words you don't understand. The
> sheer nuisance value might achieve something.

I've tried that, but (a) it doesn't often work,
and (b) if I bug them too much, people stop
replying to me at all!

Regards,
Yahya

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 16/5/06

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

>>>It seems like something that belongs in a
>>>'micro-tuning maths primer' - or perhaps on
>>>a tuning wiki, like the one Jacob Barton's
>>>just reminded us (on MMM) existed.
>>
>>It's something that belongs in every message that uses non-standard terms.
> > Oh, I agree ... but then, to a newbie or even a mid-level
> reader, most or many terms are unknown and so too are
> their standard definitions, if they exist.

Yes, they're going to need to do some background reading, and maybe a primer would help.

>>>A single reliable, community-owned reference
>>>for all this stuff (like a wiki) - with some
>>>graded learning paths available in well-
>>>constructed tutorials with suitable examples
>>>(including real music) ... wouldn't that be nice?
>>
>>The single, reliable reference is the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia.
> > You left out "commumity-owned" - Why? Because
> it isn't. We all know Joe Monzo is one of the original
> good guys, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise
> to put community property into any commercial hands.
> What if some day monz got an offer for Tonalsoft too
> good to refuse? (Hey, we can all dream of financial
> success too.) And it's not a major job these days to
> run a wiki, is it?

Monzo's part of the community and he owns it. Many definitions were supplied by members of the community and could be moved to any other community project if it came to it.

We looked at wikis last year, and I set up a free one, and it didn't take off. If this is more successful, so much the better. Tutorials can be posted on websites. We can discuss a glossary on the list.

>>... After that is Wikipedia. ...
> > > For the agreed standard stuff, yes, not for new
> research and development. Heck, I just put the term
> EDO into Wikipedia's equal temperament article for
> the first time today.

New research is best on the researchers' websites. There aren't that many new ideas (at least not important ones) and so we shouldn't need that many new terms.

>>... If we're going to have another reference there needs
>>to be a clear reason for it. ...
> > > Yep. And I've just given two.
> > > ... An article on Wikipedia will reach more
> >>readers, after all, so why should somebody be spending their time on the
>>tuning-only wiki instead of the all powerful Wikipedia. ...
> > > Why? See above. And migrate anything "standard" to
> Wikipedia when it's been standardised. (How does
> *that* happen? Why, we either (A) let a standards
> body arbitrate on these things or (B) establish a public
> - ie published - and working consensus. There's more
> than one book and academic paper been published in
> the general area of microtuning already, and I'd guess
> that members of this list are likely to publish a few
> more in the next year or so.)

You think so? I haven't done much since 2001, but nobody's written a book in the meantime. I don't expect any more from the next 5 years.

>>... As well as us all having other demands on our time, it
>>isn't easy to see where somebody else will have difficulty with
>>something that you understand well.
> > Try explaining an "eigenmonzo" or "well-temperament"
> or maybe even "octave" to a Britney fan, and I think you
> will quickly start to get an idea of the scale of the dif-
> ficulties involved. And Rome wasn't built in a day! The
> obvious thing is to start with the basics - and these are
> mostly the unrecognised asssumptions that most people
> make about music. Neil Haverstick has posted some
> relevant messages on this on MMM in the last few months.

I don't think the musical taste should be the issue here. If you don't know standard musical terms there are plenty of things you can read. What's an eigenmonzo? Is that a new word for a unison vector? A Google search does well for "Well Temperament". And that's a general tuning term, not a tuning-math one.

I do actually have an introduction that doesn't assume the reader knows what an octave is:

http://x31eq.com/start.htm

We can't expect everybody to understand all the messages here. I don't know what a Steiner system is, and so I'm ignoring that thread, but I'm sure I could look it up if it seemed to relate to something interesting. It would be nice if tuning veterans and professors of music could understand the basic discussions. So far, I don't think they could.

As a first step, a short glossary of specialist terms would be nice. Anything not in the glossary, define it in terms that are the first time you use it in a thread. A newcomer who doesn't understand a definition knows that they'll have to do some background reading.

How are Neil's posts relevant to this?

>>I don't think intelligence should be an issue. Maybe you have to be
>>smarter than average, but I'd guess we all are. Who else would join a
>>tuning-math list?
> > A musician who thought they needed to understand
> a little more of the maths in order to make their
> music better?

And why would somebody of average or below intelligence seek out maths in this way?

>>There certainly is a problem with terminology. Monzo's dictionary, now
>>the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia, was created to solve that problem. But it's
>>got so big that I can see a newcomer spending all day chasing
>>definitions to try and understand all the terms. For example, I've got
>>the miracle (temperament family) here. To understand it, you need to
>>get past "temperament", "generator", "odd-limit", "cents", "consonant",
>>"just-intonation", "harmonic structure", "tetrad", "hexad", "intervallic
>>relationship", "MOS", "maximal evenness", and so on and on. And even
>>then, some original terms are used without a definition in the message
>>*or* an entry in the encyclopedia.
> > Yeah, I've spent a good bit of time batting back and
> forth ... ;-) And a dictionary is not an encyclopedia;
> monzo's achievements to date might be enhanced by
> some effort to analyse concept dependencies (there
> are software tools to help with this kind of "concept
> mapping"). If this were done, the Tonalsoft Encyclo-
> pedia might contain fewer short entries in proportion
> to the longer ones, because each concept map could
> form the basis for consolidation of term definitions
> into larger, more coherent articles. Just a thought.

Could be, it's a lot of work for somebody.

>>What I think we need is a short glossary on the list's home page, and in
>>the standard email sent to all new users. Then new readers can consult
>>it without having to go online and only have a limited amount to take
>>in. Any term not in the glossary that isn't common in maths, music
>>theory or plain English (and with the meaning you give it) you should
>>explain in the first message of a thread you introduce it. Then readers
>>don't have to go chasing round the web to find out what you mean.
>>Sensible exceptions could be made but that sounds like a good
>>general rule.
> > You are absolutely right in all of the above. May I
> suggest we have your paragraph added to the home
> page? Or at least linked from it?

Do you want the glossary as a thread here or on the wiki?

I can't edit the home page. I'm an administrator and I can find the link that should edit it, but it's read only :(

>>>How *can* we make this stuff clere [sic] to everyone?
>>>I know the instructional design side of things,
>>>but am in no way a subject-matter expert.
>>>Thoughts?
>>
>>You sound like exactly the person who *should* be writing the tutorials!
> > What was that about "demands on our time"?!! I was
> supposed to be in bed two hours ago! ;-) Still. I'm glad
> you agree on the value of tutorials.

The value of a tutorial comes from working through it with students and seeing where thay have difficulties. None of us are in a position to do that. At least where you have difficulties you can adapt the tutorial accordingly.

>> Whatever you find difficult to understand, you'll know how to explain
>>to anybody else with the same problem. Another thing you could do is
>>send messages asking for definitions of words you don't understand. The
>>sheer nuisance value might achieve something.
> > > I've tried that, but (a) it doesn't often work,
> and (b) if I bug them too much, people stop
> replying to me at all!

Hmph, so, we definitely have a problem. Let's see what we can do about it.

Graham