re: new terminology

>No one said there's anything wrong with "Temperament". Clearly however,
>there is confusion with regard to simply calling any EDO a temperament,
>which is what that was about.

I asked how temperament was ever mis-applied, and nobody answered.

>> 4. "microtonal" -- for all non-12 music; if you don't like implications
>> of strangeness, don't say anything about tuning to your audience!
>
>Carl, understand that 12EDO is not a universal point of reference. I've been
>listening to Middle Eastern, Indian, & 12EDO music all my life. To me they
>are all just tunings, all just music. "micro" nothing.

So what are you complaining about? You have no use for any such term. I
happen to agree with you -- I have very little use for one myself.

>I can't believe you're implying that the handful of terms and theories
>we have are the be all & end all, & that they should never change, or
>expand.

It's good you can't believe it; I'm not implying anything of the sort.

>Some of it is sort of broke, some is just lovely, while much of it does not
>exist. Such vehement resistance to change and progress is odd, anyhow
>nobody's forcing anyone to change. You can still call a car a horseless
>carriage, if that's your pleasure.

Drew, there are good reasons not to call a car a horseless carriage. I
have no resistance to change. But the change should be teleological.

Keep in mind you're replying here to something I wrote in reply to a post
by John Starrett. I was rejecting the idea of a standard, not the idea of
change. Language has always evolved by people using it. The standard
makers are notoriously those who don't use the terms themselves (making a
standard is the only way they can express themselves on the matter), and
nobody who actually uses the words pays attention to them, and the language
goes on as it would have anyway. People appeal to dictonionaries as if
they were some sort of authority. Maybe it's snotty attitude of the
stereotypical grammar teacher. It's a great gig, but the speaker is always
the real authority. Dictionaries are descriptive, not constructive.

The whole situation is a lot like music theory, actually. People who don't
write music sit and describe structure in music that's already been
written. Then, they turn around and praise the next composer who
brilliantly breaks the rules, and then they re-write the rules to
accomidate it, and so on. It all makes perfect sense, as long as you view
it as a descriptive process.

>>But the terms I'm concerned with aren't "temperament" or "microtone". I'm
>>much more concerned with "mode", "5th", "JI", etc. We recently won a great
>>victory with "adaptive" and "strict" JI.
>
>So, I guess this means that only what Carl is concerned with is worth
>discussing. Duh.

No, it means I don't believe anything is wrong with the current usage of
temperament or microtone. If you'd show otherwise instead of attacking me,
I'd be happy to discuss it.

-Carl

>Is there a name for tunings that do not repeat, i.e. are *endless* ?
>88CET is an example of such a tuning (I think).

In practice, everything repeats eventually (the audio spectrum is not
actually infinite, as far as human perception is concerned). All
equal-step tunings are periodic with respect to any interval that spans a
whole number of their steps. 88CET is roughly periodic with respect to
three octaves. If one values periodicity at an interval which the tuning
does represent with a whole number of steps, such as a single octave of
88CET, then I would say the tuning is "not periodic with respect to the
2/1". There is probably a more consice way to cover all this...

>>You don't have to hear _about_ them. Until now, I've spared you
>>that. You can hear them directly in two years of postings to
>>this list.
>
>The kindness... the generosity... the arrogance... the

Geez, Dan, I was trying to be light-hearted with the spared you bit (it's
clear I've got an egg to fry on the whole issue). You yourself recently
mentioned that you've never tried to influence somebody else -- you've just
gone about using your terms for "about a year" on the list. More power to
you.

-Carl

>Not quite. The issue is that tET does not specifically refer *only* to
>tunings that are EDOs (equal divisions of the octave).

Drew, perhaps you are not aware of the problems associated with the term
"octave". It is often used to mean a 2:1, and you seem to think this is
the only way it is used. But the term's origin comes from naming the 8th
(a scale degree) -- this is the use that I prefer (I try to use "2:1",
"duple", or "double" for 2:1). Also, it is quite frequently used to mean a
generic interval of equivalence (a 3:1 in the Bohlen-Pierce scale). I try
to use "IE" for interval of equivalence.

>x-cent equal, or simply CE can be viewed as CET minus the "T". And would be
>specific to tunings that are designed/callibrated in cents. It's not an
>alternative to EDO.

x-cent equal can uniquely specify any equal-step tuning. The same is not
true of tet or EDO. If one wants the name to tell the number of notes in
the tuning, and the ability to name any equal-step tuning, one needs to use
the xth-root-of n terminology.

>To say 12tET could mean 12 equal divisions of *any* larger interval, for
>example 3/1.
>
>There's no need to change what already works for it's specific purpose.
>Everyone knows what tET means.

Explicitly or not, tet _does_ mean the division is of the 2:1.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote,

>Drew, perhaps you are not aware of the problems associated with the term
>"octave". It is often used to mean a 2:1, and you seem to think this is
>the only way it is used. But the term's origin comes from naming the 8th
>(a scale degree) -- this is the use that I prefer (I try to use "2:1",
>"duple", or "double" for 2:1). Also, it is quite frequently used to mean a
>generic interval of equivalence (a 3:1 in the Bohlen-Pierce scale).

The BP 3:1 has been referred to as a tritave, among other thigs, but never
an octave.

>x-cent equal can uniquely specify any equal-step tuning. The same is not
>true of tet or EDO. If one wants the name to tell the number of notes in
>the tuning, and the ability to name any equal-step tuning, one needs to use
>the xth-root-of n terminology.

Not true -- 88CET is not exactly the xth-root-of-n for any n.

>>There's no need to change what already works for it's specific purpose.
>>Everyone knows what tET means.

>Explicitly or not, tet _does_ mean the division is of the 2:1.

You're both right!

>The BP 3:1 has been referred to as a tritave, among other thigs, but never
>an octave.

I've heard it referred to as an octave.

>>x-cent equal can uniquely specify any equal-step tuning. The same is not
>>true of tet or EDO. If one wants the name to tell the number of notes in
>>the tuning, and the ability to name any equal-step tuning, one needs to use
>>the xth-root-of n terminology.
>
>Not true -- 88CET is not exactly the xth-root-of-n for any n.

Come on, Paul! The xth-root-of-n stuff works as well as CET. The single
CET step could just as easily be irrational, and I can get as close to any
CET as you would like with xth-root-of-n terminology. Why pick nits over
this crap?

>>>There's no need to change what already works for it's specific purpose.
>>>Everyone knows what tET means.
>>
>>Explicitly or not, tet _does_ mean the division is of the 2:1.
>
>You're both right!

I wasn't disagreeing with him.

-Carl

>>The BP 3:1 has been referred to as a tritave, among other thigs, but never
>>an octave.

>I've heard it referred to as an octave.

By?

>>Not true -- 88CET is not exactly the xth-root-of-n for any n.

>Come on, Paul! The xth-root-of-n stuff works as well as CET. The single
>CET step could just as easily be irrational, and I can get as close to any
>CET as you would like with xth-root-of-n terminology. Why pick nits over
>this crap?

Just want to allow absolutely precise descriptions.

>>You're both right!

>I wasn't disagreeing with him.

I know; most of us seem to be in agreement that there's nothing wrong with
the "ET" designation we've been using for years.