Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math Fwd: Re: listing linear temperaments

>Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:15:06 -0800
>To: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
>From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
>Subject: Re: listing linear temperaments
>
>>> //This is long. May I humbly suggest we do it up old-school, like
>>> //in the Classic onelist years, and reply to everything until we
>>> //agree on everything? Let's get something export-quality! Dave
>>> //Keenan, activate your magic power ring, Voltron is needed once
>>> //again! Monz, break out the colored chalks! Paul, I totally
>>> //understand you wanting to take a break, and I've always been
>>> //behind a book from you, but why not finish the paper on linear
>>> //temperamenst first?
>>
>>So who wrote this bit with the "//"s and what do you want me to do
>>exactly?
>
>I wrote it. Pretty cheasy, huh. I just wanted you to participate,
>is all. You're the only person I can think of who's sharp enough
>to have a chance at understanding the latest temperament stuff who's
>still distant enough from it to provide crucial BS control.
>
>>>Graham's catalog, "The grooviest 7-limit temperaments", Monzo's
>>>lines, and Herman Miller's "Carl's favorite page on the internet"
>>>Warped Canons page are huge, huge, huge. But wouldn't it be cool
>>>to really get the goat?
>>
>>I'm not familiar with this idiom. "Get the goat"? I probably haven't
>>been watching enough US TV shows lately. Wait a minute ... I don't
>>watch _any_ TV shows. :-)
>
>I don't even have a TV.
>
>I got my idioms mixed, actually. "Gets my goat" is archaic for
>"pisses me off". I meant, "get the goose", which is obscure but
>means, "really does it properly".
>
>>Maybe we don't need to agree on a badness measure. They don't have to
>>be ranked in the paper. Just give the reader enough info to make up
>>their own mind, or include a table with multiple badness measures. I
>>think we can agree that any temperament that has actually been used in
>>real life (even if it's only once or only maybe) should be listed.
>>Then any temperament that any one of us thinks is at least as good as
>>those should be listed.
>
>I don't have much to say, since I'm not even after authorship, since I
>don't have anything to contribute -- I just want to _read_ the paper.
>Personally, I think a list would be best, but agree that explaining the
>tools of temperament finding and classification is more important.
>
>>If the list is still too small, or you definitely want a top 20, then
>>let everyone list their top 15 and we take the union. If that's too
>>many then let everyone list their top 14, or if too few, their top 16
>>and so on. Of course you can try to convince people to change their
>>lists, but in the end everyone gets their top N.
>
>This could work, but I think it looks weaker to say, "here's a list
>that we had to vote on", rather than, "here's a list produced by this
>formula, and it includes all the historical temperaments".
>
>From what I've seen, there's no reason the argument over which badness
>is best couldn't bear the kind of fruit that the arguments over
>dissonance-complexity (tenney) and error (rms) did back in the onelist
>days. And even if there isn't a total consensus, just pick one and
>mention in the paper that there are other possibilities.
>
>>You know, a temperament that is good at 7:9:11s seems a lot more
>>interesting to me than one that does 1:3:5:7:9:11:17:19 (and needs
>>lots of gens to do it). So I'm dubious about the list-for-every-limit
>>idea. But maybe it's just too hard to do otherwise.
>
>It's a true point. Limits are just a starting point in line with
>classical tuning theory. The paper should give interested people
>the start they need on solving for subsets (and Grahams cgi could
>also help here).
>
>
>-- You seem to have addressed this just to me, which is fine by me.
>Or, if you want this on the list, feel free to forward it there.
>
>-Carl

>X-eGroups-Return: d.keenan@uq.net.au
>Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:06:47 -0000
>From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
>To: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
>Subject: Re: listing linear temperaments
>User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
>X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
>X-Originating-IP: 203.101.241.248
>
>--- In tuning-math@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
>> //This is long. May I humbly suggest we do it up old-school, like
>> //in the Classic onelist years, and reply to everything until we
>> //agree on everything? Let's get something export-quality! Dave
>> //Keenan, activate your magic power ring, Voltron is needed once
>> //again! Monz, break out the colored chalks! Paul, I totally
>> //understand you wanting to take a break, and I've always been
>> //behind a book from you, but why not finish the paper on linear
>> //temperamenst first?
>
>So who wrote this bit with the "//"s and what do you want me to do
>exactly?
>
>> A paper. I think it's a great idea. And, the 569 of us who don't
>> have a computer set up to do calculations on linear temperaments
>> need a list!
>>
>> Graham's catalog, "The grooviest 7-limit temperaments", Monzo's
>lines,
>> and Herman Miller's "Carl's favorite page on the internet" Warped
>> Canons page are huge, huge, huge. But wouldn't it be cool to really
>> get the goat?
>
>I'm not familiar with this idiom. "Get the goat"? I probably haven't
>been watching enough US TV shows lately. Wait a minute ... I don't
>watch _any_ TV shows. :-)
>
>Maybe we don't need to agree on a badness measure. They don't have to
>be ranked in the paper. Just give the reader enough info to make up
>their own mind, or include a table with multiple badness measures. I
>think we can agree that any temperament that has actually been used in
>real life (even if it's only once or only maybe) should be listed.
>Then any temperament that any one of us thinks is at least as good as
>those should be listed.
>
>If the list is still too small, or you definitely want a top 20, then
>let everyone list their top 15 and we take the union. If that's too
>many then let everyone list their top 14, or if too few, their top 16
>and so on. Of course you can try to convince people to change their
>lists, but in the end everyone gets their top N.
>
>Those without programs (or with limited programs, like me) might be
>provided (by those who do have programs, graham and gene) with much
>larger lists of temperaments from which to choose, complete with prime
>mapping, period, and some kind of optimum generator with errors for
>all intervals.
>
>You know, a temperament that is good at 7:9:11s seems a lot more
>interesting to me than one that does 1:3:5:7:9:11:17:19 (and needs
>lots of gens to do it). So I'm dubious about the list-for-every-limit
>idea. But maybe it's just too hard to do otherwise.

Fwd: Re: listing linear temperaments

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>