Re: Digest Number 452

> >I just think of the "T" in "ET" as standing for "tuning".
> Well I like the sounds of that better as well

I confess that I haven't been following the lead-up to this very closely, so I may be missing some context.

But assuming that I'm not, I'll point out that I personally think that it's very valuable to clearly point out whether or not a tuning is a temperament. That's one of the most basic distinctions of a tuning (whether it's just or tempered), so specifically calling that fact out in the name strikes me as appropriate and desirable.

I therefore don't think that "equal tuning" is a good way to think of ET.

[Gary Morrison:]
>I confess that I haven't been following the lead-up to this very
closely, so I may be missing some context.

Not that I really think that any of this is all that terribly
important; I did go into this in some detail a couple of days ago (TD
449.24), and indeed as the bit you quoted stands, I think it is
missing some context...

>But assuming that I'm not, I'll point out that I personally think
that it's very valuable to clearly point out whether or not a tuning
is a temperament. That's one of the most basic distinctions of a
tuning (whether it's just or tempered),

To me tempering implies that some standing context is being "modified"
"adjusted" or "compromised," and the vast majorities of equal tunings
(the way I see it anyway) seem to me better addressed as equal
division's of the _____, rather than as a tuning scheme (such as
twelve-tone equal temperament...) that has it's basis in (or derives
it's meaning from) tempering... now for someone else who's tuning
work and interests primarily deal with some extended approaches to
tempering, I would imagine that _____ET is probably going to be a
perfectly fine fit as it is.

Dan