Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Notation and new terms

Hi there,

I can see the need for new terms. However also sometimes
one can go overboard and introduce too many of them.

To give an example that may be clear for those
enamoured of new terms (as I am indeed myself - I
like inventing words too):

I'm fond of the interval 13/8. Maybe I'd like to have
a new term then for a scale that has a 13/8 in it.
Let's call it a tridec scale :-).

Now, maybe if I find lots of interesting and new
results that particularly apply to tridec scales,
or maybe make lots of music in such scales
and want to be able to say which of my pieces
use it, so it might be easier in my own work to
refer to them as tridec scales.

If I were to write an article for a journal,
either musical or mathematical, and wanted
to say frequently "scale with a 13/8" in it,
then it would be useful perhaps to
abbreviate that to "tridec scale"
just for the purposes of the article.

Howeveer, I wouldn't expect it to enter
a dictionary or encyclopedia unless for
some reason it really took on and became
prevalent.

What is a bit strange here is that words
are getting into Monz's encyclopedia
that are not yet used anywhere else
except in the encyclopedia, or in posts
here discussing the encyclopedia.

Again, there is some precedent here.
Mathematicians are very fond of inventing
new terms as Genehas remarked, and it would
be quite normal in a mathematical paper
to define a few new terms. Perhaps most
mathetmaical papers introduce a new
term or so, so think how many mathematical
terms have been invented. But most get
forgotten quickly.

Normally, they are only used
in that paper, and in some of the
subsequent papers that refer to it.
If it is a one off paper that never
gets any follow up, by other researchers,
its terms may be published once only,
though they may have been in frequent use
for a few years by the researcher who wrote
the paper and those who discussed its
results with him.

That then is the usual way new terms
are introduced into general mathematical
practice - someone uses a term
a few times maybe in a talk or in a
paper - then it gets picked
up by others, and eventually if the
idea is one of wide relevance to other
researchers, then it may become the
established notation in the field.

E.g. the term n-grid dual which I needed
a lot in my geometrical research was
invented by De Bruin in his paper on
the subject introducing the construction
- and now is a widely understood term
in non periodic tiling research.
You wouldn't think of calling that
construction by any other name now.

But in its early days you would need to
give a reference to his paper and
probably you would briefly recap the
definition so that the reader knows what
you are talking about, and so that they
know where to go to look it up if anything
isn't clear about how you are using it.

So the thing that is a bit strange is that
some of the material in the encyclpedia is
presented in the form of leading edge research.

If it were restricted to use only terms
that are currently used in say, at least
half a dozen tuning posts, and posts not discussing
the inclusion of the term in the dictionary,
ones actually using the term to discuss other
things of practical or theoretical interest,
then the number of new words would be considerably
reduced.

I think that would make it more accessible
to newbies and more generlly useful even to
tuning maths denizons to judge by Dave Keenan's
remarks. On the other hand it makes some entries a bit more wordy
- but then quite a few entries will get removed
altogether and the entire encyclopedia itself
might end up being rather smaller than it
is now.

Of course Monz and Paul and Gene form quite
a dynamo for inventing new terms and one
doesn't want to discourage that of course.
Some of them may become useful in the future
although not used in any posts yet.

Maybe one needs some kind of division of the
encyclopedia - an encyclopedia of currently
used terms and one of proposed terms
for future use by tuning theorists. That division
might make it easier to use.

Or even indeed, some kind of indication at the head of teh
entry of whether the term is an essential one,
a proposed one for future use, or a rarely
used one that one may encounter now and again
in some of the more recondite posts on the subject.

It would be useful for the newbie to know if the term
they are learning is actually used by
anyone yet, or used frequently yet.

It would also be useful for the newbie if proposed
new terms weren't yet used in the rest of the
encyclopedia until they become current, even if
the rest of the encyclopedia becomes more wordy
as a result.

One could also follow the model of dictionaries
and encyclopedias and have a smaller encyclopedia
for newbies. But that is too much work for someone.

However, some kind of indication of the popularity of
an entry may be useful right now, particularly
some indication o whether it is a proposal for
a new term, or a currently popular term,
or a rarely but occasionally used term.

Just a suggestion.

Robert

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

hi Robert,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I can see the need for new terms. However also sometimes
> one can go overboard and introduce too many of them.
>
> <big snip>
>
> However, some kind of indication of the popularity of
> an entry may be useful right now, particularly
> some indication o whether it is a proposal for
> a new term, or a currently popular term,
> or a rarely but occasionally used term.
>
> Just a suggestion.

thanks for your suggestions and comments.

i've always viewed the Dictionary/Encyclopaedia as
a repository of *all* the words anyone researching
tuning would need to know.

i understand that newbies have trouble with this
stuff ... i've emphasized over and over again how
difficult it was for me 15 and 20 years ago to find
out about "proslambanomenos" and "diezeugmenon" and
other such terms that i found constantly in studying
ancient Greek theory. authors wrote their papers
for specialized audiences who were already Classical
scholars, so it was assumed that they knew the terms.

the great thing about hypertext is that it simply
takes a mouse-click to instantly find the definition
of *another* unfamiliar word which may appear in
a definition.

i do realize that, as Dave said, with the proliferation
of new terminology, one can go round and round in
the Encyclopaedia and get dizzy trying to figure
things out. but that's due more to my own lack
of understanding of the new terms than to anything else.

as always, i welcome contributions from anyone who
may be able to provide more insight.

also, as i understand things better and have more
time to write up examples, and to create diagrams,
graphs, musical illustrations, etc., definitions
become more complete and easier to grasp.

what i'm working on intermittently now, is a
tutorial which will lie outside the Encyclopaedia
(in another section of the Tonalsoft site), with
copious links into the Encyclopaedia, but whose
aim is to explain microtonal music to the newbie.

here's an example:

http://tonalsoft.com/brief-introduction.htm

(and thanks to your comments and my putting that
link here, i've just taken a break from writing
this post and spent an hour updating and creating
a whole bunch of defintions! ... such as "Hz",
"partial", "waveform", "fundamental" -- important
basic stuff.)

so the idea is that there will be some simple
webpages for newbies, which refer to Encyclopaedia
entries, but those pages themselves will be kept
pretty uncomplicated.

-monz

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Monz,

> here's an example:

> http://tonalsoft.com/brief-introduction.htm

Thanks, definitely an easier read for a newbie.
Shows that you can do it :-).

> i've always viewed the Dictionary/Encyclopaedia as
> a repository of *all* the words anyone researching
> tuning would need to know.

Or might possibly need to know if the terms in it
get accepted by the tuning community?

That's the thing that seems a bit strange, to have
an encyclopedia / dictionary that introduces new words.
That's why you get pages keep appearing and disappearing
and changing as you change your mind about what
a new word should be called, and I feel like
Dave that an encyclopedia isn't really the proper
place for introducing terms that haven't
been used yet.

I thought before that something was a bit
strange about it but it's only today that
I realised quite what it is. Maybe
that can help?

I don't know what the solution is quite
but maybe it can help to clarify what
the issue is. Often dictionaries
label words as obsolete, rare etc.
Might help to label the words
simlarly, as rare, some are obsolete
and you say that if they are. But
could also be useful to label them
as "words for future use" in whatever
way one chooses to say that if you
leave those in. Never heard of a
"Dictionary for the future", kind
of a bit sci fi but I suppose one
could :-).

And I do think using future words
in entries that don't need them
are going to be puzzling for a newbie who has
enough to deal with without
puzzling about learning the meaning of future
words that possibly may or may not
get used later on. So if one
can reduce the number of uses of
those in the rest of the dictionary
I think it will help newbies, and even
some experienced hands.

Robert

🔗Jacob <jbarton@rice.edu>

> as always, i welcome contributions from anyone who
> may be able to provide more insight.

Hi monz! I have an insight: how about a page on circles of fifths? I suggest this
because 1) musicians already know about one, and you've got one on your "brief
introduction" page, 2) it's an important concept, ain't it? 3) A simple example can
show new types the great diversity and accessibility of microtonal scales. Flatten your
12-tone fifth by ~5 cents and voila! 19 notes! Fx=Gb! A few cents more and bang! 26
notes! Fx = Gbb!

This kind of thing might be better on a newbie-tutorial-type website. I use it
frequently to explain microtonality to the clueless. (Err, no report on whether it really
sinks in!) The page could have a list of all of the EDOs with vaguely good fifths along
with some explanation of the consequences of their particular fifth (enharmonics,
"mood" of select intervals). And of course you could link to the closely-related "bike
chains" and "linear temperaments."

What do you think?

JAcob

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> Hi monz! I have an insight: how about a page on circles of
fifths? I suggest this
> because 1) musicians already know about one, and you've got one on
your "brief
> introduction" page, 2) it's an important concept, ain't it? 3) A
simple example can
> show new types the great diversity and accessibility of microtonal
scales. Flatten your
> 12-tone fifth by ~5 cents and voila! 19 notes! Fx=Gb! A few cents
more and bang! 26
> notes! Fx = Gbb!
>
> This kind of thing might be better on a newbie-tutorial-type
website. I use it
> frequently to explain microtonality to the clueless. (Err, no
report on whether it really
> sinks in!) The page could have a list of all of the EDOs with
vaguely good fifths along
> with some explanation of the consequences of their particular
fifth (enharmonics,
> "mood" of select intervals). And of course you could link to the
closely-related "bike
> chains" and "linear temperaments."
>
> What do you think?

Sounds like it might be related to this (although I don't talk about
notation in it).

http://dkeenan.com/Music/1ChainOfFifthsTunings.htm

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

hi Jacob,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:

> > as always, i welcome contributions from anyone who
> > may be able to provide more insight.
>
> Hi monz! I have an insight: how about a page on
> circles of fifths? I suggest this because 1) musicians
> already know about one, and you've got one on your
> "brief introduction" page, 2) it's an important concept,
> ain't it? 3) A simple example can show new types the
> great diversity and accessibility of microtonal scales.
> Flatten your 12-tone fifth by ~5 cents and voila! 19 notes!
> Fx=Gb! A few cents more and bang! 26 notes! Fx = Gbb!
>
> This kind of thing might be better on a newbie-tutorial-type
> website.

i'll be eventually having lots and lots of newbie-tutorial
stuff on the Tonalsoft site, complete with rotatable 3-D
lattices and audio examples where you'll see those lattices
in action.

> I use it frequently to explain microtonality to the
> clueless. (Err, no report on whether it really sinks in!)
> The page could have a list of all of the EDOs with vaguely
> good fifths along with some explanation of the consequences
> of their particular fifth (enharmonics, "mood" of select
> intervals). And of course you could link to the
> closely-related "bike chains" and "linear temperaments."
>
> What do you think?
>
> JAcob

a "circle-of-5ths" page is something i've actually
been wanting to make for years and i just never did it
... until now. thanks.

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?circle-of-5ths.htm

i'll be putting lots more here as time goes on.

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗jjensen142000 <jjensen14@hotmail.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > 2 cycles: 10, 14, 24, 34, 38, 44, 52, 54, 58, 62
> > 3 cycles: 15, 21, 36, 51, 57, 66
> > 4 cycles: 20, 28, 48, 68
> > 5 cycles: 25, 35, 60
> > 6 cycles: 30, 72.
>
>
>
> we are talking about bike-chains here, aren't we?
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?bike-chain.htm

Yes, but it's only the examples of multiple cycles of _fifths_ (or
equivalently fourths). There are of course multiple chains of
_other_ intervals in other ETs no larger than 72.

However, I have never understood the alleged analogy. There aren't
too many bikes with more than one chain, and certainly not six! And
what the does it have to do with derailleurs?

I don't see why "bike-chain" is any more suggestive of what's going
on than "circle" or "cycle".

I think the problem goes rather the other way. The unqualified
term "chain" suggests a closed chain or cycle to some people,
because they think of a bicycle chain instead of a linear chain as
used for lifting or pulling, e.g. an anchor chain. So using the
term "bike chain" at all in the context of tuning seems like asking
for trouble, by making it _more_ likely that people will think
that's what we are talking about when we use "chain" unqualified.

I remember we once agreed it would be a good idea to explicitly
say "open chain" or "(open) chain" when that's what we mean. I'm
sorry I haven't been doing that.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>

/tuning/topicId_55558.html#55558

wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I can see the need for new terms. However also sometimes
> one can go overboard and introduce too many of them.
>
> To give an example that may be clear for those
> enamoured of new terms (as I am indeed myself - I
> like inventing words too):
>
> I'm fond of the interval 13/8. Maybe I'd like to have
> a new term then for a scale that has a 13/8 in it.
> Let's call it a tridec scale :-).
>
> Now, maybe if I find lots of interesting and new
> results that particularly apply to tridec scales,
> or maybe make lots of music in such scales
> and want to be able to say which of my pieces
> use it, so it might be easier in my own work to
> refer to them as tridec scales.
>
> If I were to write an article for a journal,
> either musical or mathematical, and wanted
> to say frequently "scale with a 13/8" in it,
> then it would be useful perhaps to
> abbreviate that to "tridec scale"
> just for the purposes of the article.
>
> Howeveer, I wouldn't expect it to enter
> a dictionary or encyclopedia unless for
> some reason it really took on and became
> prevalent.
>

***This is a brilliant suggestion. Quite frankly, I think I
mentioned some variation on it some time before... :) Just use the
new terms in particular contexts, not as generalities...

J. Pehrson (still in Michigan...)

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_55558.html#55637

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >
> > > http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?circle-of-5ths.htm
> >
> > I think you need to point out that an equal temperament can have
> more
> > than one circle. 15 and 22 would be good examples.
>
> 22-ET would _not_ be a good example. It only has one circle of its
> best fifths. What may have misled you is that it supports two
chains
> of fifths a half-octave apart, but these eventually run into each
> other and form a single cycle. Here are all examples no larger than
> 72-ET.
>
> 2 cycles: 10, 14, 24, 34, 38, 44, 52, 54, 58, 62
> 3 cycles: 15, 21, 36, 51, 57, 66
> 4 cycles: 20, 28, 48, 68
> 5 cycles: 25, 35, 60
> 6 cycles: 30, 72.

***Hi Dave!

Are you saying here that 22-tET can be described by 72-tET??

Just curious...

Joseph