(the) Regular temperament/mapping/tuning/microtonal/intonation theory/paradigm

I've been trying some different names out for the theory outlined on
this list to see which name gets the best reaction. I've gotten the
best reaction so far from "regular temperament theory." The reaction I
usually get is something like "temperament? I know what that is. A
theory of temperaments, sounds logical. What's a 'regular'
temperament? Sounds vaguely interesting, although I hate math."

Say that you've spent a lot of time immersed in "regular temperament
theory," or if you're my age play the role of the unabashed "regular
temperament theory" nerd, and make it sound important, and the other
theory nerds will love you! Just so long as they've not had to learn
music set theory yet, at which point they'll build up a wall to
protect themselves from any more math, and hence look down on your
theory as a defense mechanism. In general:

- The best reaction by far has been just "regular temperament theory,"
which is short, to the point, brief, is three words with "theory" on
the end just like "music set theory," communicates that it's a theory
that revolves around a specific thing which must be important for some
reason, and uses words that people know. It sounds organized and
logical. In comparison, a phrase like "music set theory" sounds puny
and weak and as though it would lose in a fight, much like Batman
would lose in a fight to Superman.

- "The regular mapping paradigm" works if you sell it as though it's
some kind of transcendental state that you've achieved with the help
of science. The problem is that people often don't intuitively realize
that I'm talking about a concrete theory for music; it just sounds
more like I'm talking about "the serialist perspective on music" or
something like that. Saying things like "regular temperament theory
evolved out of the modern regular mapping paradigm" seem to go over
well.

- The name "microtonal theory" has usually gotten a bad reaction.
People tend to treat the word "microtonal" the same way that they
treat the word "atonal", like it's some kind of hyper-specialized
passing academic fad genre that uses small notes.

- Do not ever use the word "xenharmonic" in a serious sentence when
describing the theory behind music in new tuning systems. If you ever
use this word in front of a person who had a strongly negative first
experience with microtonal music, it will just reinforce the idea they
have that you are oblivious to things that sound dumb. Maybe it just
doesn't match my South Philly accent too well.

- The name "tuning theory" comes across like it's something that
people who tune Steinways for a living would learn. People can't
believe I'd spend so much time studying how to tune guitars. I've
never gotten a good reaction from this name.

- People tend to like "alternative tunings" a lot, particularly drop D
and DADGAD.

- "Intonation theory" sounds like it'd go well with "articulation
theory" and "phrasing theory" and "the regular ornamentation
paradigm." Use this if you want people to think you spend hours on an
online mailing list figuring out how to get horn players to tune
12-equal better in a way that most can't hear.

I was thinking about trying the name "music group theory" at one
point, but I doubt my music theory Ph. D buddies will be convinced.
Plus, I think what we're doing is "music theory," no subfield
required, of which "regular temperament theory" is just the first
thing you should learn to be up to date on modern music theory.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> - People tend to like "alternative tunings" a lot, particularly drop D
> and DADGAD.

Remember that time some guy came on the list asking about tuning his motorcycle or something, so we gave him all this nonsense advice that mostly consisted of terrible puns?

Good times.

Keenan