2.3.5.11-porcupine

Is there ahy other name than this for it in this new world of nomenclature?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Is there ahy other name than this for it in this new world of nomenclature?

Currently not. It's only "2.3.5.11 porcupine", or simply "porcupine" if the context makes it clear which subgroup you're talking about. It could of course be given another "common name" / "trivial name".

Keenan

No, just like there's no other name for 7-limit meantone than 7-limit
meantone. Same concept.

-Mike

On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:25 AM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

Is there ahy other name than this for it in this new world of nomenclature?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> Currently not. It's only "2.3.5.11 porcupine", or simply "porcupine" if the context makes it clear which subgroup you're talking about. It could of course be given another "common name" / "trivial name".

OK, I've dubbed it "porkypine" after the Pogo character.

On Jul 12, 2012, at 1:10 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> Currently not. It's only "2.3.5.11 porcupine", or simply "porcupine" if
the context makes it clear which subgroup you're talking about. It could of
course be given another "common name" / "trivial name".

OK, I've dubbed it "porkypine" after the Pogo character.

Fine, but then why don't we dub 7-limit meantone something else as well? No
need to be inconsistent in how we do it.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 1:10 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
>
> > Currently not. It's only "2.3.5.11 porcupine", or simply "porcupine" if
> the context makes it clear which subgroup you're talking about. It could of
> course be given another "common name" / "trivial name".
>
> OK, I've dubbed it "porkypine" after the Pogo character.
>
> Fine, but then why don't we dub 7-limit meantone something else as well? No
> need to be inconsistent in how we do it.

I found it confusing to have "porcupine" almost the sole exception, and if I'm confused, probably other people are.

On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:17 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

> Fine, but then why don't we dub 7-limit meantone something else as well?
No
> need to be inconsistent in how we do it.

I found it confusing to have "porcupine" almost the sole exception, and if
I'm confused, probably other people are.

I'm saying it's not the sole exception. For instance, 2.3.5.7 porcupine
also shares the name "porcupine" with the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament.

What I'm saying is inconsistent is the notion that the obvious low badness
2.3.5.11 extension of the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament needs a unique name,
whereas the obvious low badness 2.3.5.7 250/243 temperament doesn't. Why?

-Mike

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

> I'm saying it's not the sole exception. For instance, 2.3.5.7 porcupine
> also shares the name "porcupine" with the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament.
>
> What I'm saying is inconsistent is the notion that the obvious low badness
> 2.3.5.11 extension of the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament needs a unique name,
> whereas the obvious low badness 2.3.5.7 250/243 temperament doesn't. Why?

Because it's so damned ad hoc for one thing. Because it's easy to overlook, for another. My eye skipped right over the obscure notification on Ig's small ed2 temperaments page that the reference was to 2.3.5.11 and not 2.3.5.7.11. And, of course, there's no theory behind any of this to help.

On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:08 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

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

> I'm saying it's not the sole exception. For instance, 2.3.5.7 porcupine
> also shares the name "porcupine" with the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament.
>
> What I'm saying is inconsistent is the notion that the obvious low badness
> 2.3.5.11 extension of the 2.3.5 250/243 temperament needs a unique name,
> whereas the obvious low badness 2.3.5.7 250/243 temperament doesn't. Why?

Because it's so damned ad hoc for one thing.

What's ad hoc about it? Why isn't it ad hoc to deem 2.3.5.7 special,
especially in the case of porcupine?

To me it seems especially arbitrary to insist that the official name of
2.3.5.11 porcupine can't just be "porcupine." If we're going to give
2.3.5.11 porcupine an official name, why is it not ok for that official
name to be porcupine but it's ok for the 2.3.5.7 version to be porcupine?

Because it's easy to overlook, for another. My eye skipped right over the
obscure notification on Ig's small ed2 temperaments page that the reference
was to 2.3.5.11 and not 2.3.5.7.11.

This situation seems like exactly the same thing as someone saying "19-EDO
supports meantone" and not saying which limit they're talking about. You
don't know if the person means 2.3.5 or 2.3.5.7. In fact, they could even
be talking about 2.3.5.7.11 and be saying something false!

And, of course, there's no theory behind any of this to help.

Can you at least give specific theoretical things you want? Our current
naming system is also very arbitrary, even before subgroups got involved.

-Mike

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

> Can you at least give specific theoretical things you want? Our current
> naming system is also very arbitrary, even before subgroups got involved.

You could start by telling me what kind of subgroups you allow into this naming scheme. Then you could explain how you know archy should be called superpyth rather than dominant or archy. When is a non-p-limit subgroup allowed to grab the name? Then tell me how to keep confusion at bay, as instanced by my problem with porcupine.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> You could start by telling me what kind of subgroups you allow into this
> naming scheme.

All of them. I don't think it's productive to set a hard cap on it,
just like there's no hard cap on what limits are acceptable or what
amount of tuning badness is acceptable. People will explore the
subgroups which are useful and ignore the ones which aren't. We need
not worry about the 2.2025 subgroup any more than we need to worry
about the 171-limit, but if for some reason somebody wants to work
with it, this will allow them a framework to do so.

However, I note that, despite there being no theoretical upper bound
on what limits are allowed, the "free market" has so far mostly stuck
with the 13-limit and below, with occasional moments where you'll see
17 and 19 in there. So I'd expect the same will happen will subgroups,
and that people will mostly care about subgroups which are generated
by, at most, 13-odd-limit intervals.

> Then you could explain how you know archy should be called
> superpyth rather than dominant or archy.

Basically, I'm modeling this after the "temperament family" system
that had on your old website, which Carl's now mirroring at lumma.org.
I dunno if you're the one who first started thinking in terms of
families, and I know Paul hates it, but that's what I like. The only
thing I want to change is that your system always goes from 2.3.5 to
2.3.5.7 to 2.3.5.7.11 and so on, because I don't think it's
theoretically justified to rule out 2.3.7 "parent" temperaments with
2.3.7.11 children as well, or 2.3.5 temperaments with 2.3.5.11
children.

Having to routinely name subgroup children of parent temperaments
isn't really something I expect we'll have to do with the system I'm
proposing. In my world, we'd have always started off by naming things
like 2.3.7 64/63 and 2.3.11 243/242, because they're ultra-important,
fundamental temperaments, and we'd have been looking at things like
7-limit superpyth and 11-limit mohajira as extensions of them, and
there'd be no problem. However, that's not what we did, because this
whole subgroup business is new. So what I'm trying to do now is to go
back in time and pretend like we did it that way from the beginning.

It's consistent with this subgroup-oriented generalization of your own
family structure to call 2.3.7 64/63 "superpyth" and then have the
2.3.5.7 64/63 245/243 temperament be an "extension" which is also
called "superpyth." You could do the same with "dominant" too. It's
the same as calling 2.3.5 81/80 "meantone" and having 2.3.5.7 81/80
126/125 also be "meantone". I hope this concept is simple and doesn't
lead to any confusion.

So given all that, you're now asking why we should call it superpyth
and not dominant or archy. I don't think we have a reason to invent a
new name like archy because the whole reason to invent a new name for
it came out of the notion that if we called it superpyth the world
would explode, but that's not the case. So between superpyth and
dominant, there's no real reason to pick superpyth other than the fact
that everyone already calls it superpyth; that's the unofficial name
that most people are using. So since that's as good a name as any, I
vote superpyth.

Again, keep in mind that this whole having to retcon names to fit the
family system is just to get the engines started as a way to set
things right. Once you have all the important "parent" subgroup
temperaments named, you're just back to naming extensions like we
already do now.

> When is a non-p-limit subgroup allowed to grab the name?

In the paradigm I'm proposing, this is the same question as "when is
an extension of a temperament allowed to grab the name?" For instance,
why isn't there an 11-limit sensi, but there's an 11-limit sensor and
sensus and so on? We currently don't have any systematic way to answer
that question: we've simply been using our judgment in an ad hoc way.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > You could start by telling me what kind of subgroups you allow into this
> > naming scheme.
>
> All of them.

So you're OK with sentry being called sensi?

On Jul 12, 2012, at 7:45 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > You could start by telling me what kind of subgroups you allow into this
> > naming scheme.
>
> All of them.

So you're OK with sentry being called sensi?

I don't get it. Are you asking me if we should change one of the 11-limit
extensions of sensi to actually be called sensi?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 7:45 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:

> So you're OK with sentry being called sensi?
>
> I don't get it. Are you asking me if we should change one of the 11-limit
> extensions of sensi to actually be called sensi?
>

No, I'm asking if it's OK to call the 2.5/3.9/7 subgroup temperament tempering out 245/243 "sensi".

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> No, I'm asking if it's OK to call the 2.5/3.9/7 subgroup temperament
> tempering out 245/243 "sensi".

Oh! Yes. Basically, I only think there are a few temperaments that
we're going to have to "retcon" this way. That was one of them. This
is what I proposed:

2.3.7 64/63 becomes superpyth
2.5/3.9/7 245/243 becomes sensi
2.3.11 243/242 becomes either mohajira or maqamic

God damn it, what was the last one? 2.5.7 50/49 becomes lemba, was it?
Christ, I don't remember at all anymore.

Anyway, I don't think that there's too many for us to do. I do
recognize that it's going to be a bit "ad hoc" just at first while we
try to go back in time and imagine how we'd have done it back then,
but again this is just a temporary thing to do at first. Once we sort
this out for the great and obvious wonderful subgroup temperaments
which should probably have names already, it's not something we'll
ever have to worry about again.

-Mike

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

> Because it's so damned ad hoc for one thing. Because it's
> easy to overlook, for another. My eye skipped right over
> the obscure notification on Ig's small ed2 temperaments
> page that the reference was to 2.3.5.11 and not
> 2.3.5.7.11. And, of course, there's no theory behind any
> of this to help.

What false conclusion did this lead you into? That page
mentions heptatonic and octatonic scales. There are no
11-limit triads in these scales that involve the prime
number 7. With parsimonious harmony, 11-limit porcupine is
much the same thing as 2.3.5.11-limit porcupine and that
thing is — porcupine.

The subgroup is a label that gives you a limited idea of
the chords being used and, in so far as it matters, listing
the primes is a clear and obvious way of specifying it.
Unless there's ambiguity, I don't see why the temperament
should change because certain chords are not used. Would a
piece in "porkypine" suddenly shift into porcupine because
a 5:6:7 triad gets used in the closing cadence? What if
the composer uses certain intervals of 7 without realizing?

Graham