Semaphore and Godzilla

In my experience over this past year, the whole semaphore/godzilla
thing has proven to be a consistent source of confusion amongst
newcomers, which is mostly due to the fact that Graham's temperament
finder says one thing, the Wiki says another, Paul's paper says yet
another, people use the term inconsistently, etc.

One useful ad-hoc naming convention that's arisen in response to this
confusion is to just call anything which tempers 49/48 and splits 4/3
into two equal parts is "semaphore." For instance, Igs used this
naming convention in his post on XA, where he talked about how great
"semaphore" is, and then talks about how he likes 14-EDO as being a
good "semaphore" tuning because it's a dividing line between
"godzilla" and "superpelog."

Many of us have been using the term the same way in XA chat.
Additionally, sometimes people have been using the term godzilla to
specifically mean the 19-EDO version, where 81/80 is tempered out as
well and you get 5/4 as LL in the 9-note MOS. This is useful, because
whereas people probably wouldn't talk about godzilla in 14-EDO, they
definitely talk about semaphore in it.

So under this usage, "semaphore" basically just refers to the 2.3.7
49/48 temperament, and "godzilla" refers to the 2.3.5.7 49/48 and
81/80 temperament. Godzilla and superpelog and beep are all something
like full-limit "extensions" of semaphore. Therefore, a really clean
compromise between all of these terms is thus:

1) Semaphore is the 2.3.7 49/48 rank-2 temperament.
2) Godzilla is the 2.3.5.7 49/48 and 81/80 rank-2 temperament.
3) The 2.3.5.7 49/48 rank-3 temperament is something else, like "Semiphore."

In other words, I propose we switch Semiphore and Semaphore on the
wiki. Nobody really uses the term Semiphore for the 2.3.7 49/48
temperament anyway, and also nobody uses the term Semaphore to mean
the planar temperament anyway. Godzilla will remain the way it is.
This will lead to a minimum of changes because all of the stuff about
Godzilla stays intact, and it's only obscure subgroup and planar stuff
that will change. In fact I'll offer to do those changes.

Graham's agreed to this convention and says he'll update his
temperament finder to Godzilla. What does Gene say about swapping
Semiphore and Semaphore, and then we can move on from this dark age in
7-limit tuning history?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Graham's agreed to this convention and says he'll update his
> temperament finder to Godzilla. What does Gene say about swapping
> Semiphore and Semaphore, and then we can move on from this dark age in
> 7-limit tuning history?

Sounds like a great idea. What should I do in general when there are these kinds of confusions?

Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> In my experience over this past year, the whole
> semaphore/godzilla thing has proven to be a consistent
> source of confusion amongst newcomers, which is mostly
> due to the fact that Graham's temperament finder says one
> thing, the Wiki says another, Paul's paper says yet
> another, people use the term inconsistently, etc.
>
> One useful ad-hoc naming convention that's arisen in
> response to this confusion is to just call anything which
> tempers 49/48 and splits 4/3 into two equal parts is
> "semaphore." For instance, Igs used this naming
> convention in his post on XA, where he talked about how
> great "semaphore" is, and then talks about how he likes
> 14-EDO as being a good "semaphore" tuning because it's a
> dividing line between "godzilla" and "superpelog."
>
> Many of us have been using the term the same way in XA
> chat. Additionally, sometimes people have been using the
> term godzilla to specifically mean the 19-EDO version,
> where 81/80 is tempered out as well and you get 5/4 as LL
> in the 9-note MOS. This is useful, because whereas people
> probably wouldn't talk about godzilla in 14-EDO, they
> definitely talk about semaphore in it.
>
> So under this usage, "semaphore" basically just refers to
> the 2.3.7 49/48 temperament, and "godzilla" refers to the
> 2.3.5.7 49/48 and 81/80 temperament. Godzilla and
> superpelog and beep are all something like full-limit
> "extensions" of semaphore. Therefore, a really clean
> compromise between all of these terms is thus:
>
> 1) Semaphore is the 2.3.7 49/48 rank-2 temperament.
> 2) Godzilla is the 2.3.5.7 49/48 and 81/80 rank-2
> temperament. 3) The 2.3.5.7 49/48 rank-3 temperament is
> something else, like "Semiphore."

I made that change. Here are the discrepancies I still
have with the wiki:

7-limit rank two
u'Cynder' in optimal as u'Mothra' (3, 12, -1, 1, 1, 0, 3)
u'Waage' in optimal as u'Compton' (0, 1, 2, 12, 19, 0, -22)
'Subneutral' in optimal as u'Breedsmic temperaments' (60, -8, 11, 1, 19, 0, 6)
11-limit rank two
u'Septimal' in optimal as u'Jamesbond' (0, 0, 1, 0, 7, 11, 16, 0, 24)
'Horcrux' in optimal as u'Charisma' (5, 1, 12, -27, 1, 0, 2, -1, 12)
u'W\xfcrschmidt' in optimal as u'Wurschmidt' (8, 1, 18, 20, 1, 7, 3, 15, 17)
u'Semifourths-hemififths' in optimal as u'Semihemi' (2, 25, 13, 34, 2, 0, -35, -15, -47)
u'Ennealimnic' in optimal as u'Ennealimmic' (2, 3, 2, 5, 9, 1, 1, 12, -2)
13-limit rank three
'Mohajira' in chromatic as u'Neutraltet' (2, 5, 1, 1, 2)
'Semaphore' in chromatic as u'Semiphore' (2, 1, 1, 0, 2)

Note that some of these are because the wiki isn't self
consistent.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> 7-limit rank two
> u'Cynder' in optimal as u'Mothra' (3, 12, -1, 1, 1, 0, 3)

[81/80, 1029/1024]: Optimal: Mothra; Finder: Cynder
[81/80, 1029/1024, 2079/2048]: Optimal: Mothra; Finder: Mothra
[81/80, 1029/1024, 729/704]: Optimal: Cynder; Finder: Cynder
[81/80, 1029/1024, 2187/2156]: Optimal: Mosura; Finder: Mosura
[81/80, 1029/1024, 2079/2048, 648/637]: O: Mothra; F: Mothra
[81/80, 1029/1024, 729/704, 648/637]: O: Cynder; F: Cynder
[81/80, 1029/1024, 2187/2156, 66339/65536]: O: Mosura; F: Mosura

The question is whether it makes more sense to call Mothra the main branch and Cynder a side-branch, or vice-vera. I say go with Mothra.

> u'Waage' in optimal as u'Compton' (0, 1, 2, 12, 19, 0, -22)

[531441/524288, 413343/409600] O: Compton; F: Waage
[531441/524288, 413343/409600, 8019/8000]: O: Compton; F: Compton
[531441/524288, 413343/409600, 8019/8000, 625/624]: O: Compton; F: Compton
[531441/524288, 413343/409600, 8019/8000, 2132325/2097152]: O: Comptone; F: Comptone

Paul first said it should be Compton, then changed his mind and said it should be Waage, so now we have both. Opinions?

> 'Subneutral' in optimal as u'Breedsmic temperaments' (60, -8, 11, 1, 19, 0, 6)

Fixed.

> 11-limit rank two
> u'Septimal' in optimal as u'Jamesbond' (0, 0, 1, 0, 7, 11, 16, 0, 24)

[2187/2048, 135/128]: O: Jamesbond; F: Jamesbond
[2187/2048, 135/128, 33/32]: O: Jamesbond; F: Septimal
[2187/2048, 135/128, 33/32, 1053/1024]: O: Jamesbond; F: Jamesbond
[2187/2048, 135/128, 33/32, 117/112]: O: Septimal; F: Septimal

I think [2187/2048, 135/128, 33/32] should be Jamesbond.

> 'Horcrux' in optimal as u'Charisma' (5, 1, 12, -27, 1, 0, 2, -1, 12)

Changed.

> u'W\xfcrschmidt' in optimal as u'Wurschmidt' (8, 1, 18, 20, 1, 7, 3, 15, 17)

Fixed.

> u'Semifourths-hemififths' in optimal as u'Semihemi' (2, 25, 13, 34, 2, 0, -35, -15, -47)

Does anyone like the name "Semifourths-hemififths"?

> u'Ennealimnic' in optimal as u'Ennealimmic' (2, 3, 2, 5, 9, 1, 1, 12, -2)
> 13-limit rank three

I'll need to look at this one.

> 'Mohajira' in chromatic as u'Neutraltet' (2, 5, 1, 1, 2)

Neutraltet is 2.3.11, and could be called 2.3.11-mohajira or 2.3.11-maqamic among other things.

> 'Semaphore' in chromatic as u'Semiphore' (2, 1, 1, 0, 2)

I thought there was some consensus reached on this?

> Note that some of these are because the wiki isn't self
> consistent.

Example?

"genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> Paul first said it should be Compton, then changed his
> mind and said it should be Waage, so now we have both.
> Opinions?

What he published is more important than what he thinks at
any point in time.

> > u'Semifourths-hemififths' in optimal as u'Semihemi' (2,
> > 25, 13, 34, 2, 0, -35, -15, -47)
>
> Does anyone like the name "Semifourths-hemififths"?

It's in proposed+names+for+rank+2+temperaments. I'm only
supposed to use one name for each data point, hence no
Cynder/Mothra.

> > 'Mohajira' in chromatic as u'Neutraltet' (2, 5, 1, 1, 2)
>
> Neutraltet is 2.3.11, and could be called 2.3.11-mohajira
> or 2.3.11-maqamic among other things.

The earliest name is Mohajira, from Jacques Dudon.

> > 'Semaphore' in chromatic as u'Semiphore' (2, 1, 1, 0, 2)
>
> I thought there was some consensus reached on this?

Yes.

> > Note that some of these are because the wiki isn't self
> > consistent.
>
> Example?

See above. Also Septimal/Jamesbond, which is still a
conflict, although Jamesbond does come up in other lists.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > Paul first said it should be Compton, then changed his
> > mind and said it should be Waage, so now we have both.
> > Opinions?
>
> What he published is more important than what he thinks at
> any point in time.

So are you supporting Compton or Waage here?

>
> > > u'Semifourths-hemififths' in optimal as u'Semihemi' (2,
> > > 25, 13, 34, 2, 0, -35, -15, -47)
> >
> > Does anyone like the name "Semifourths-hemififths"?
>
> It's in proposed+names+for+rank+2+temperaments.

Maybe it shouldn't be.

> > > 'Mohajira' in chromatic as u'Neutraltet' (2, 5, 1, 1, 2)
> >
> > Neutraltet is 2.3.11, and could be called 2.3.11-mohajira
> > or 2.3.11-maqamic among other things.
>
> The earliest name is Mohajira, from Jacques Dudon.

Jacques Dudon gave that name to the 2.3.11 temperament? These two temperaments are not the same.

> See above. Also Septimal/Jamesbond, which is still a
> conflict, although Jamesbond does come up in other lists.

It's also bee around longer.