please define "paultone"

Hey guys (Paul, Gene, etc.),

I need to put a "paultone" entry into the Tuning Dictionary.
Someone please submit a suitable definition.

If the definition needs to link to anything else important
that's not in the dictionary, please supply definitions for
those as well.

Thanks.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 12/8/01 4:44:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
joemonz@yahoo.com writes:

>

"Appall Tone"?

A tone of voice that is aesthetically displeasing?

Johnny

monz wrote:

> I need to put a "paultone" entry into the Tuning Dictionary.
> Someone please submit a suitable definition.
>
> If the definition needs to link to anything else important
> that's not in the dictionary, please supply definitions for
> those as well.

I've got a catalog of linear temperaments with names at
<http://x31eq.com/catalog.htm>.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/8/01 4:44:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> joemonz@y... writes:
>
>
> >
>
> "Appall Tone"?
>
> A tone of voice that is aesthetically displeasing?
>
> Johnny

Obviously, we should think of a better name. Gene, since you thought
of this system 20 years before I did, what do you think we should
call it?

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Obviously, we should think of a better name. Gene, since you
thought
> of this system 20 years before I did, what do you think we should
> call it?

Calling it [-2,4,4,-2,-12,11] springs immediately to mind, of course,
but somehow that seems to lack something. Since it has chains of
fifths and tones in it, we could keep the tone and call
it "twintone", after the two parallel tracks of fifths splitting the
difference between the major whole tone and the septimal whole tone.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, we should think of a better name. Gene, since you
> thought
> > of this system 20 years before I did, what do you think we should
> > call it?
>
> Calling it [-2,4,4,-2,-12,11] springs immediately to mind, of
course,
> but somehow that seems to lack something. Since it has chains of
> fifths and tones in it, we could keep the tone and call
> it "twintone", after the two parallel tracks of fifths splitting
the
> difference between the major whole tone and the septimal whole tone.

Sounds good to me.

So "twintone" is defined as a tuning system consisting of two chains
of 707-711 cent fifths, a half-octave apart. This is intended to
facilitate 7-limit harmony. Two kinds of 10-note scale suggest
themselves; they are the main topic of my paper

http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf

Also 7-note "hyperpythagorean" scales can be formed from just one of
the chains -- these are great for harmony based only on the primes 7
and 3 (and of course 2 is implied in all of this).

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > Calling it [-2,4,4,-2,-12,11] springs immediately to mind, of
> course,
> > but somehow that seems to lack something. Since it has chains of
> > fifths and tones in it, we could keep the tone and call
> > it "twintone", after the two parallel tracks of fifths splitting
> the
> > difference between the major whole tone and the septimal whole
tone.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Sounds like a tuning with only two notes in it. I expect a badness
measure based on Diophantine approximation theory will reveal an
excellent such tuning to us any day now. ;-) To be adaptively tuned or
timbred of course.

Maybe "tweentone"? Rhymes with meantone. But I don't really like that
either.

> Also 7-note "hyperpythagorean" scales can be formed from just one of
> the chains -- these are great for harmony based only on the primes 7
> and 3 (and of course 2 is implied in all of this).

Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

> Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?

"hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction. What do John
Chalmers and Margo Schulter think?

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
>
> > Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?
>
> "hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction.

Better in what way?

I think that modern usage has it that hyper is beyond super. Hyper
refers more to the extreme rather than the merely beyond normal. To me
an example of hyper-Pythagorean would be 37-tET with its chain of
713.6 c fifths.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> >
> > > Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?
> >
> > "hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction.
>
> Better in what way?
>
> I think that modern usage has it that hyper is beyond super. Hyper
> refers more to the extreme rather than the merely beyond normal. To
me
> an example of hyper-Pythagorean would be 37-tET with its chain of
> 713.6 c fifths.

The only "normal" Pythagorean is the just one.

And look at the ancient greek names for modes.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?
> > >
> > > "hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction.
> >
> > Better in what way?
> >
> > I think that modern usage has it that hyper is beyond super. Hyper
> > refers more to the extreme rather than the merely beyond normal.
To
> me
> > an example of hyper-Pythagorean would be 37-tET with its chain of
> > 713.6 c fifths.
>
> The only "normal" Pythagorean is the just one.

Of course! What did you think I was saying?

What I mean is, we could take superpythagorean to refer to
temperaments consisting of a single chain of fifths of about 704 to
712 cents and hyperpythagorean from 712 to 720. These involve
different 5-limit and 7-limit mappings.

> And look at the ancient greek names for modes.

What about them? We're not ancient Greeks, and in any case I assume
you're not intending hyperpythagorean to mean "acute" pythagorean, or
pythagorean starting at some interval above the normal pythagorean.

And of course hyper already has a different meaning in relation to
Church modes as opposed to ancient Greek modes.

Hey guys,

How about "Monty-Pythagorian"!

Apparently coined sometime in the life of Brian, by the Roman
chieftan "Biggist Dickus"...

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?
> > > >
> > > > "hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction.
> > >
> > > Better in what way?
> > >
> > > I think that modern usage has it that hyper is beyond super.
Hyper
> > > refers more to the extreme rather than the merely beyond
normal.
> To
> > me
> > > an example of hyper-Pythagorean would be 37-tET with its chain
of
> > > 713.6 c fifths.
> >
> > The only "normal" Pythagorean is the just one.
>
> Of course! What did you think I was saying?
>
> What I mean is, we could take superpythagorean to refer to
> temperaments consisting of a single chain of fifths of about 704 to
> 712 cents and hyperpythagorean from 712 to 720. These involve
> different 5-limit and 7-limit mappings.
>
> > And look at the ancient greek names for modes.
>
> What about them? We're not ancient Greeks, and in any case I assume
> you're not intending hyperpythagorean to mean "acute" pythagorean,
or
> pythagorean starting at some interval above the normal pythagorean.
>
> And of course hyper already has a different meaning in relation to
> Church modes as opposed to ancient Greek modes.

> > Why are they "hyper" rather than "super"?
>
> "hyper" seems to make for a better verbal construction.

Hyper- is Greek and super- is Latin. Though many people don't mind mixing
Greek affixes with Latin roots and vice versa (just as much as I wouldn't
use an Arabic broken plural with a Chinese term), I do. I'm just A.R. about
these sorta things. And yes, I know I just made a smart-aleck linguistic
comment.

~DaW~

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 3:27 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: please define "paultone"
>
>
> I think that modern usage has it that hyper is beyond super. Hyper
> refers more to the extreme rather than the merely beyond normal. To me
> an example of hyper-Pythagorean would be 37-tET with its chain of
> 713.6 c fifths.

I'll chime in here in agreement with you, Dave.
This seems perfectly logical to me.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: unidala <JGill99@imajis.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:26 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: please define "paultone"
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> How about "Monty-Pythagorian"!
>
> Apparently coined sometime in the life of Brian, by the Roman
> chieftan "Biggist Dickus"...

I like that one. ;-)

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com