Call For Review

I **very quickly** glanced at these, and they appear to be
excellent. I suggest anyone with the time or interest review
them and contribute the changes to the Wiki, or post suggested
changes here for further review.

I'm also curious if anyone here contributed to any of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(music)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenharmonic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Partch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_the_Western_music_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone_temperament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Tuning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen-Pierce_scale

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> I **very quickly** glanced at these, and they appear to be
> excellent. I suggest anyone with the time or interest review
> them and contribute the changes to the Wiki, or post suggested
> changes here for further review.
>
> I'm also curious if anyone here contributed to any of this.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(music)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenharmonic
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Partch
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_the_Western_music_scale

Not very much mathematics here, and an article which needs a lot of
fixing. I discover that "Any scale in which the ratio of any note to
the tonic is an integer ratio is called a scale of just intonation.
These scales have a very natural-sounding quality to them" which
makes a nonsensical claim, and which assumes there is s tonic,
something utterly irrelevant to the definition. We also learn "We
often use the term 'key' for a scale", which I hope few people
actually do.

The following scale is presented:

! west.scl
"The common Western scale of just intonation"
12
!
21/20
9/8
6/5
5/4
4/3
7/5
3/2
8/5
5/3
9/5
17/9
2

We are then told this: "This is the common western scale of just
intonation; other scales of just intonation exist, such as Indian
raga scales." The discussion of equal temperament is also muddled;
the separate article on that topic is much better.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantone_temperament

I may be in the minority on this, but is there any reason to say
2:sqrt(5) instead of sqrt(5)/2? This article refers to an article on
the wolf, and that in turn tells me that wolves cannot be used. I beg
to differ; but I like the fact that it has linked ogg files. Joseph
might take note that the profound evil of Ogg Vorbis may be spreading.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma

I note that by the definitions given here, Pythagorean tuning is a
form of meantone. Not objecting; just noting.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Tuning

This fails to note it is a meantone tuning! That should be in the
first sentence.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen-Pierce_scale

If Wiki can have an article like this on Bohlen-Pierce, it reasonably
ought to have articles on the major regular temperaments. Miracle
would be a good place to start.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > I **very quickly** glanced at these, and they appear to be
> > excellent.

Some of my comments seem to have gotten lost between writing and
posting. I would suggest Jon take a look at the stuff discussing
Partch both in the Partch article and elsewhere, and would like to
know who first discovered tonality diamonds. I know it wasn't me. :)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> We are then told this: "This is the common western scale of just
> intonation; other scales of just intonation exist, such as Indian
> raga scales." The discussion of equal temperament is also muddled;
> the separate article on that topic is much better.

I forgot to add that, in fact, it isn't even well enough known to be
in the Scala archives.

>> I **very quickly** glanced at these, and they appear to be
>> excellent. I suggest anyone with the time or interest review
>> them and contribute the changes to the Wiki, or post suggested
>> changes here for further review.
>>
>> I'm also curious if anyone here contributed to any of this.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(music)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenharmonic
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Partch
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_the_Western_music_scale
>
>Not very much mathematics here,

All of these are meant to be ****very basic**** articles, and IMHO
should be kept that way. If we can get all the errors out of them
without bloating them to high heaven then we'll be justified in
adding articles... essentially mirroring the xenharmony.org theory
pages on Wikipedia is a good idea I think.

>and an article which needs a lot of
>fixing. I discover that "Any scale in which the ratio of any note to
>the tonic is an integer ratio is called a scale of just intonation.
>These scales have a very natural-sounding quality to them"

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

>We are then told this: "This is the common western scale of just
>intonation; other scales of just intonation exist, such as Indian
>raga scales." The discussion of equal temperament is also muddled;
>the separate article on that topic is much better.

Ok, ok, this is certainly the wrong kind of presentation. But, it
(this approach to explaining things) has a long history and may be
useful if the terminology can be subtly changed to exclude egregious
errors.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Tuning
>
>This fails to note it is a meantone tuning! That should be in the
>first sentence.

Yep, I saw that.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen-Pierce_scale
>
>If Wiki can have an article like this on Bohlen-Pierce, it reasonably
>ought to have articles on the major regular temperaments. Miracle
>would be a good place to start.

If you feel the urge, go for it. But personally I'd first learn the
ropes by fixing the existing articles. Not that I'm necc. offering
to make time for any of this. :)

-Carl

>Some of my comments seem to have gotten lost between writing and
>posting. I would suggest Jon take a look at the stuff discussing
>Partch both in the Partch article and elsewhere, and would like to
>know who first discovered tonality diamonds. I know it wasn't me. :)

Max Meyer, IIRC. At least in the modern sense. According to
Barbara Hero et al the numerical structure goes back to Greece
and perhaps earlier.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> All of these are meant to be ****very basic**** articles, and IMHO
> should be kept that way.

The best part of the so-called mathematics of musical scales article
is about the physics of music, and I note there is an empty link
waiting to be filled on that very topic. The good stuff could be
moved there, and major surgery done on the bad stuff.

If we can get all the errors out of them
> without bloating them to high heaven then we'll be justified in
> adding articles... essentially mirroring the xenharmony.org theory
> pages on Wikipedia is a good idea I think.

I was thinking more of un-bloating them by removing the crap
component. I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
temperaments, and left empty links on it for discussions of schismic
and miracle. If Paul's arm gets better maybe he will feel inspired.
The markup language is easier than html or TeX, by the way.

>The markup language is easier than html or TeX, by the way.

That's the idea.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
> temperaments

Since the term was already used by Bosanquet and Barbour to mean
something less general, maybe we should use a term like "uniform
temperament" or something like that . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
> > temperaments
>
> Since the term was already used by Bosanquet and Barbour to mean
> something less general, maybe we should use a term like "uniform
> temperament" or something like that . . .

I thought my definition was in accord with that usage. What did I add?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
> > > temperaments
> >
> > Since the term was already used by Bosanquet and Barbour to mean
> > something less general, maybe we should use a term like "uniform
> > temperament" or something like that . . .
>
> I thought my definition was in accord with that usage. What did I
add?

I can't find your definition on wikipedia. Is it up there?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
> > > > temperaments
> > >
> > > Since the term was already used by Bosanquet and Barbour to
mean
> > > something less general, maybe we should use a term
like "uniform
> > > temperament" or something like that . . .
> >
> > I thought my definition was in accord with that usage. What did I
> add?

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_temperament

"Regular temperament" is already being used in this sense, and an
encylopedia should follow actual usage, and not be a place for trying
out neologisms. If Bosanquet only talked about linear temperaments,
it hardly seems to me we should coin a new, confusing term because of
that.
> I can't find your definition on wikipedia. Is it up there?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52091.html#52091

> I **very quickly** glanced at these, and they appear to be
> excellent. I suggest anyone with the time or interest review
> them and contribute the changes to the Wiki, or post suggested
> changes here for further review.
>

***Could somebody please explain to me, a person clearly "out of the
loop" what a "Wiki" is and why it is called that??

Sounds like something one used to order at Trader Vic's...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52091.html#52092
> I may be in the minority on this, but is there any reason to say
> 2:sqrt(5) instead of sqrt(5)/2? This article refers to an article
on
> the wolf, and that in turn tells me that wolves cannot be used. I
beg
> to differ; but I like the fact that it has linked ogg files. Joseph
> might take note that the profound evil of Ogg Vorbis may be
spreading.
>

***Heh... I'll be there when we reach "critical mass..." :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Could somebody please explain to me, a person clearly "out of the
> loop" what a "Wiki" is and why it is called that??
>
> Sounds like something one used to order at Trader Vic's...

Why, obviously the place to find out is the Wikipedia.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> > wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I did add a somewhat heavy-duty article on regular
> > > > > temperaments
> > > >
> > > > Since the term was already used by Bosanquet and Barbour to
> mean
> > > > something less general, maybe we should use a term
> like "uniform
> > > > temperament" or something like that . . .
> > >
> > > I thought my definition was in accord with that usage. What did
I
> > add?
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_temperament
>
> "Regular temperament" is already being used in this sense, and an
> encylopedia should follow actual usage, and not be a place for
trying
> out neologisms. If Bosanquet only talked about linear temperaments,
> it hardly seems to me we should coin a new, confusing term because
of
> that.

I strongly object to this wikipedia entry on two grounds.

1) It is written for mathematicians.
2) Definitions in a field *evolve*, they aren't created by fiat. We
can't, in good conscience, have this slash-and-burn attitude toward
existing terminology. We had this argument before on
the "positive"/"negative" definition.

And we've argued everything else, too. I don't have the energy to
fight you on this, so I wish you luck in your attempt to improve the
wikipedia definitions. Perhaps getting them to link to one another in
a clear, logical way would be the best use of your mathematical
talent.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> I strongly object to this wikipedia entry on two grounds.

One does not objct to Wikipedia articles so much as edit them. If you
do that, I suggest you not throw out any information it now contains,
as that is considered bad form.

> 1) It is written for mathematicians.

No, it was written *by* a mathematician, and it might be improved in
that respect.

> 2) Definitions in a field *evolve*, they aren't created by fiat. We
> can't, in good conscience, have this slash-and-burn attitude toward
> existing terminology. We had this argument before on
> the "positive"/"negative" definition.

That definitions evolve is exactly the fact you seem determined to
ignore. This now *is* the existing terminology. I didn't invent it, I
picked it up from how it now is, in fact, being used. You seem to want
to roll the lingusitic clock back 100 years. Why???

I'm not going to try to redefine positive/negative or linear
temperament if that helps.

Obviously, the topic is worthy of an entry. Your proposal to come up
with a new name such as "uniform" is unacceptable according to
Wikipedia canons, so that one is out. Do you have a proposal, or
merely a complaint?