Re: [tuning-math] Glumma
- From: Carl Lumma <carl@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:48:36 -0700
>>Maybe we should call this glumma, and use the 'recta'
>>designation for the original glumma?
>
>If that appeals to you more, fine. "Glumma" was because
>of its close relation to your scale "Lumma".
I just played a bit with glumma, recta3c1 (or whatever it
is), and stellhex on my keyboard. My conclusion is that
none of them are worth the trouble. I wonder if the
periodicity blocks that define them share any properties
that we can avoid in the future! (Something a while back
suggested that blocks with a smallest 2nd bigger than any
of its unison vectors would be improper. Or something.
Wish I could remember.)
-Carl
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
Other related posts:
