Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning should we call them "abstract temperaments"?

On 7 March 2010 02:31, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> There's been some debate here about whether to call
> temperaments "abstract temperaments", or "temperament classes",
> to avoid confusion with the more specific definition used by
> music historians.

I'd prefer "temperament classes" of course, as it's the term I've been
using. You probably already have my name in the "temperament classes"
column.

Note: there is a precedent for "regular temperament" having this
meaning in the peer reviewed literature now. That was only pending
last time we had this discussion. You could argue that "regular
temperament" can have a meaning distinct from "a temperament that's
regular".

> I noticed the wikipedia entry for "glass" begins,
> ""
> A glass is an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid material.
> Glasses are typically brittle, and often optically transparent.
> Glass is commonly used for windows, bottles ...""

Maybe this is here for the glass/glasses distinction. The third one
is an uncountable noun. It's common for uncountable nouns to work
like this. The same pattern could work with "meantone":

A meantone is a regular temperament.
Meantones typically have thirds tuned flatter than 12-equal.
Meantone was commonly used in the 16th century on harpsichords, ...

Similar things can happen with "temperament". The difference is that
"glasses" always means different types of material*, "meantones" only
means different tunings with the same mapping (right?) but
"temperaments" could mean different tunings, different mappings, or
different numbers of notes. So I think it is useful to have a
specific term.

*You can also have glasses to drink out of, and glasses to help you
see better. That's the English language for you. When you're talking
about materials, it's obvious these don't apply. "Temperament" has
non-musical meanings as well.

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 7 March 2010 02:31, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> > There's been some debate here about whether to call
> > temperaments "abstract temperaments", or "temperament classes",
> > to avoid confusion with the more specific definition used by
> > music historians.
>
> I'd prefer "temperament classes" of course, as it's the term
> I've been using. You probably already have my name in the
> "temperament classes" column.

I'd dispute that you've been using it. Since when? I'd wager
it isn't a majority of your uses since '02 or probably even '07.

> Note: there is a precedent for "regular temperament" having this
> meaning in the peer reviewed literature now.

"Regular temperament" certainly beats "temperament class".

> > I noticed the wikipedia entry for "glass" begins,
> > ""
> > A glass is an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid material.
> > Glasses are typically brittle, and often optically transparent.
> > Glass is commonly used for windows, bottles ...""
>
> Maybe this is here for the glass/glasses distinction. The third
> one is an uncountable noun. It's common for uncountable nouns to
> work like this. The same pattern could work with "meantone":
>
> A meantone is a regular temperament.
> Meantones typically have thirds tuned flatter than 12-equal.
> Meantone was commonly used in the 16th century on harpsichords, ...

That would certainly meet with my approval.

> Similar things can happen with "temperament". The difference
> is that "glasses" always means different types of material*,
> "meantones" only means different tunings with the same mapping
> (right?) but "temperaments" could mean different tunings,
> different mappings, or different numbers of notes.

Temperaments would mean different wedgies. A temperament
is always a homomorphism. Where's the problem?

> *You can also have glasses to drink out of, and glasses to help
> you see better. That's the English language for you. When
> you're talking about materials, it's obvious these don't apply.
> "Temperament" has non-musical meanings as well.

Agreed.

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

On 7 March 2010 22:39, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

>> I'd prefer "temperament classes" of course, as it's the term
>> I've been using. You probably already have my name in the
>> "temperament classes" column.
>
> I'd dispute that you've been using it. Since when? I'd wager
> it isn't a majority of your uses since '02 or probably even '07.

Of course I've been using it. A Google search on my website shows
where I've been using it. Why would you dispute such a thing?

>> Note: there is a precedent for "regular temperament" having this
>> meaning in the peer reviewed literature now.
>
> "Regular temperament" certainly beats "temperament class".

You do have this habit of throwing out opinions without anything to
support them.

Anyway, whoever the "we" of the subject is, I'm going to keep calling
temperament classes "temperament classes" for now if I write more for
my website. If I write something for a peer reviewed journal I'll
have to play that game.

>> Similar things can happen with "temperament". The difference
>> is that "glasses" always means different types of material*,
>> "meantones" only means different tunings with the same mapping
>> (right?) but "temperaments" could mean different tunings,
>> different mappings, or different numbers of notes.
>
> Temperaments would mean different wedgies. A temperament
> is always a homomorphism. Where's the problem?

The problem is what you said in the first place: "...confusion with
the more specific definition used by music historians."

You could talk about temperaments or temperament classes as wedgies.
That's Gene's definition as I understand it. I happen not to agree
with it. I don't know if you want to debate that. If you do, you can
explain what a "wedgie" is, because it isn't something people on this
list should have to know about.

Vicentino, now. Vicentino is somebody microtonalists should know
about. And neither of his tunings implies a mapping that would clear
Gene's definition. I'm happy to call them both temperament classes.
Maybe they aren't temperaments. I could use a term for temperament
classes that doesn't have the word "temperament" because periodicity
blocks and all kinds of other things should qualify. I haven't
noticed such a proposal so I stay with "temperament class".

I think a temperament's always a homomorphism of some kind. And I
don't want to explain what a "homomorphism" is.

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> >> I'd prefer "temperament classes" of course, as it's the term
> >> I've been using. Â You probably already have my name in the
> >> "temperament classes" column.
> >
> > I'd dispute that you've been using it. Â Since when? Â I'd wager
> > it isn't a majority of your uses since '02 or probably even '07.
>
> Of course I've been using it. A Google search on my website shows
> where I've been using it. Why would you dispute such a thing?

Because I've read everything you've ever written on the subject
and think I would recall such an adherence? Because I'm that
much of a jerk?

You use it in your 'complete rank 2' paper, but apparently not
consistently. I could see the title either way, but probably
it should have "class" in it. Why shouldn't the first line of
sec. 4.4 have "class"? Elsewhere in sec. 4 there are many
similar cases.

I'll assume your other 2008-era papers are similar. I think
I reported on search results of your mailing list contribs last
time this came up.

>> "Regular temperament" certainly beats "temperament class".
>
>You do have this habit of throwing out opinions without anything
>to support them.

If there was much support they wouldn't be opinions. But it
is clearly less of a leap to add a modifier than to make your
previous term a modifier. I'll also point this out:

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

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

> >> Similar things can happen with "temperament". Â The difference
> >> is that "glasses" always means different types of material*,
> >> "meantones" only means different tunings with the same mapping
> >> (right?) but "temperaments" could mean different tunings,
> >> different mappings, or different numbers of notes.
> >
> > Temperaments would mean different wedgies. Â A temperament
> > is always a homomorphism. Â Where's the problem?
>
> The problem is what you said in the first place: "...confusion with
> the more specific definition used by music historians."

Which definition of "glass" do you suppose came first?

> I think a temperament's always a homomorphism of some kind. And
> I don't want to explain what a "homomorphism" is.

One cannot understand regular temperament without understanding
homomorphism (the term homomorphism isn't strictly necessary).
Of course one doesn't have to understand regular temperament to
make music in regular temperaments.

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

On 9 March 2010 21:20, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'd prefer "temperament classes" of course, as it's the term
>> >> I've been using. Â You probably already have my name in the
>> >> "temperament classes" column.
>> >
>> > I'd dispute that you've been using it. Â Since when? Â I'd wager
>> > it isn't a majority of your uses since '02 or probably even '07.
>>
>> Of course I've been using it. A Google search on my website shows
>> where I've been using it. Why would you dispute such a thing?
>
> Because I've read everything you've ever written on the subject
> and think I would recall such an adherence? Because I'm that
> much of a jerk?

Given the way these arguments have gone in the past, I don't want to
assume anything about your motivation.

> You use it in your 'complete rank 2' paper, but apparently not
> consistently. I could see the title either way, but probably
> it should have "class" in it. Why shouldn't the first line of
> sec. 4.4 have "class"? Elsewhere in sec. 4 there are many
> similar cases.

Right, it could be either way. So I follow the rule -- if in doubt,
leave it out. What does that prove?

The argument for it being temperament finding is that only
temperaments can have an error, because error is a function of the
tuning. So as the search would make no sense without considering
errors it must be searching for tuned temperaments and not temperament
classes. To avoid duplication, only one tuning for each class is
listed.

I do also say that in primerr.pdf, I assign errors to temperament
classes. That's arguable. As there are functions that give the error
given a mapping, you could say that, and I did. It does look
inconsistent though. so sue me. Outside the introduction, it's
always tuned temperaments that have errors, which is correct because
the proof depends on the error being a function of the single tuning
parameter.

Section 4.4 is correct. "Say that you’re looking for temperaments. .
." It's temperaments that are important, not temperament classes.
You could look for temperament classes instead, but why bother with
the extra word?

If you want to pick nits, why not find an example that's clearly
wrong? Maybe you can. I'm only human, after all.

> I'll assume your other 2008-era papers are similar. I think
> I reported on search results of your mailing list contribs last
> time this came up.

Yes, in all the other PDFs I thought about the correct terms, and I
can defend them. But I didn't add footnotes explaining my reasoning
in each case so, not having thought about it as much as me, you may
not understand why I used a particular term. I may also have made
mistakes.

But the basic, obvious fact remains that I have been using the term
"temperament class". And I've never claimed to use it correctly in
all cases. What I've said is, when there's a need to make a
distinction between something with a tuning and something without,
temperaments should have tunings. I seem to be one of the first
people to make this distinction, because I still don't know of a term
that pre-dated my usage of "temperament family". I adopted the term
in good faith and I've only changed it once because of a conflict with
a newer coinage. I don't plan to change it again on my own website
unless there's a good reason. I shouldn't have to be obsessive about
my usage to do this.

>>> "Regular temperament" certainly beats "temperament class".
>>
>>You do have this habit of throwing out opinions without anything
>>to support them.
>
> If there was much support they wouldn't be opinions. But it
> is clearly less of a leap to add a modifier than to make your
> previous term a modifier. I'll also point this out:

I searched last time this came up and found other people using "class"
or "family". So the evidence suggests it isn't such a leap.

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

Sure, a lot of Wikipedia follows your definition of temperament,
partly because you and Gene were editing it, and it doesn't consider
my website to be notable. These precedents weren't there when I
originally chose my terminology though.

This page, as it happens, isn't clear or consistent. It says
"...regard the temperament as having a map from p-limit just
intonation . . . to the set of tempered intervals" which I'm quite
happy with. The temperament has a set of tempered intervals which,
barring Humpty Dumpty-isms, I take to be intervals with specific
tunings that may differer from JI. Still, "a regular temperament" may
not be "a temperament".

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

Right, it isn't there. And neither is abstract temperament.

>> The problem is what you said in the first place: "...confusion with
>> the more specific definition used by music historians."
>
> Which definition of "glass" do you suppose came first?

I don't see any inconsistency in definitions of "glass" and I thought
you agreed.

>> I think a temperament's always a homomorphism of some kind. And
>> I don't want to explain what a "homomorphism" is.
>
> One cannot understand regular temperament without understanding
> homomorphism (the term homomorphism isn't strictly necessary).
> Of course one doesn't have to understand regular temperament to
> make music in regular temperaments.

The term isn't at all necessary.

Graham

should we call them "abstract temperaments"?

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>