Wookie[58], a strictly proper MOS

Here's the 58-note MOS of wookie, the 58&113 temperament, with
OE wedgie <<14 59 33 35 51 ...||. The 59 gives a high complexity to
5/4, but wookie makes up for that by having a generator of 393 cents.
Meanwhile, the theoretical 5 works its magic with ratios between 5
and other odd numbers. The tuning here is 171-et, and wookie is
characterized by a near-just 7-limit.

The 58 note MOS is strictly proper, so I want to see if Ozan thinks
it makes any sense, maqam-wise. Here's Wookie[58]:

! wookie58.scl
Wookie[58], a 58&113 temperament MOS, in 171-et tuning
58
!
21.052632
42.105263
63.157895
84.210526
105.263158
126.315789
147.368421
161.403509
182.456140
203.508772
224.561404
245.614035
266.666667
287.719298
308.771930
329.824561
350.877193
371.929825
392.982456
414.035088
435.087719
456.140351
477.192982
498.245614
519.298246
540.350877
554.385965
575.438596
596.491228
617.543860
638.596491
659.649123
680.701754
701.754386
722.807018
743.859649
764.912281
785.964912
807.017544
828.070175
849.122807
870.175439
891.228070
912.280702
933.333333
947.368421
968.421053
989.473684
1010.526316
1031.578947
1052.631579
1073.684211
1094.736842
1115.789474
1136.842105
1157.894737
1178.947368
1200.000000

Here is a diatonic scale, more or less anyway, of which many copoes
can be found in Wookie[58], as in terms of wookie generators, going
from F to B, we have -14,0,14,28,-13,1,15. Ozan can say if this makes
a decent rast:

! diet.scl
Diatonic-type scale inside Wookie[58]
7
!
203.508772
392.982456
498.245614
701.754386
891.228070
1094.736842
1200.000000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 �ubat 2007 Cumartesi 6:04
Subject: [tuning] Wookie[58], a strictly proper MOS

> Here's the 58-note MOS of wookie, the 58&113 temperament, with
> OE wedgie <<14 59 33 35 51 ...||. The 59 gives a high complexity to
> 5/4, but wookie makes up for that by having a generator of 393 cents.
> Meanwhile, the theoretical 5 works its magic with ratios between 5
> and other odd numbers. The tuning here is 171-et, and wookie is
> characterized by a near-just 7-limit.
>
> The 58 note MOS is strictly proper, so I want to see if Ozan thinks
> it makes any sense, maqam-wise. Here's Wookie[58]:
>
>
> ! wookie58.scl
> Wookie[58], a 58&113 temperament MOS, in 171-et tuning
> 58
> !
> 21.052632
> 42.105263
> 63.157895
> 84.210526
> 105.263158
> 126.315789
> 147.368421
> 161.403509
> 182.456140
> 203.508772
> 224.561404
> 245.614035
> 266.666667
> 287.719298
> 308.771930
> 329.824561
> 350.877193
> 371.929825
> 392.982456
> 414.035088
> 435.087719
> 456.140351
> 477.192982
> 498.245614
> 519.298246
> 540.350877
> 554.385965
> 575.438596
> 596.491228
> 617.543860
> 638.596491
> 659.649123
> 680.701754
> 701.754386
> 722.807018
> 743.859649
> 764.912281
> 785.964912
> 807.017544
> 828.070175
> 849.122807
> 870.175439
> 891.228070
> 912.280702
> 933.333333
> 947.368421
> 968.421053
> 989.473684
> 1010.526316
> 1031.578947
> 1052.631579
> 1073.684211
> 1094.736842
> 1115.789474
> 1136.842105
> 1157.894737
> 1178.947368
> 1200.000000
>

I don't see how this could be superior to 79/80 MOS 159-tET.

> Here is a diatonic scale, more or less anyway, of which many copoes
> can be found in Wookie[58], as in terms of wookie generators, going
> from F to B, we have -14,0,14,28,-13,1,15. Ozan can say if this makes
> a decent rast:
>
> ! diet.scl
> Diatonic-type scale inside Wookie[58]
> 7
> !
> 203.508772
> 392.982456
> 498.245614
> 701.754386
> 891.228070
> 1094.736842
> 1200.000000
>
>
>

This scale fails to be Rast, on account of the interval between 2nd and 6th
degrees not being a perfect fifth.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Here's the 58-note MOS of wookie, the 58&113 temperament, with
> OE wedgie <<14 59 33 35 51 ...||. The 59 gives a high complexity to > 5/4, but wookie makes up for that by having a generator of 393 cents. > Meanwhile, the theoretical 5 works its magic with ratios between 5 > and other odd numbers. The tuning here is 171-et, and wookie is > characterized by a near-just 7-limit.
> > The 58 note MOS is strictly proper, so I want to see if Ozan thinks > it makes any sense, maqam-wise. Here's Wookie[58]:

It's spelled "Wookiee", by the way... Any particular reason for the name? Other than it being an especially large and hairy temperament?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> It's spelled "Wookiee", by the way... Any particular reason for the
> name? Other than it being an especially large and hairy temperament?

There may have been a reason; you know how these things go.
What's "lemba" mean?

> What's "lemba" mean?

And did lemba have a prior name on tuning-math?

-Carl

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >> It's spelled "Wookiee", by the way... Any particular reason for the >> name? Other than it being an especially large and hairy temperament?
> > There may have been a reason; you know how these things go. > What's "lemba" mean?

I was wondering if it was anything like your Japanese monster temperament names (which have a particular comma in common, IIRC).

"Lemba" is one of the Zireen names for temperaments from my Zireen music page (most of which are place names from a map of the Zireen world, as it turns out). It probably means something, but I haven't developed the Lembeki language yet. :-)

Carl Lumma wrote:
>> What's "lemba" mean?
> > And did lemba have a prior name on tuning-math?

"Number 82".