Talk:53 equal temperament

This article contains material merged from Holdrian comma. Please see its talk page for past discussions: Talk:Holdrian comma

Music in 53 EDO Section
Rainwarrior! Only information on Bosanquet in this section of the article have some confirmation. Would you remove all another?! Commator 11:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Rainwarrior, why do you not remove info on American tuner James Paul White? Explain please why it is better then info on I. Newton, J. Slavenski and Flukes? Commator 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These things could use citations, sure. What you added though were external links, which are not the same as adding information to the article. Links are held to a much different standard (again, please read WP:EL). Furthermore the one sentence about the Flukes having rebuilt an organ was not corroborated by the information on the page you linked as source (which even if it did would not be an appropriate source). Some of the other links you added I thought were useful, which is why I left them. - Rainwarrior 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added citations for Bosanquet and James Paul White. I don't know anything about the Arabic music, though I suspect the author who added this information to the article would be able to provide some. I've said before, if you'd provide a reference to some printed material relevant to Slavenski's use of 53-equal-temperament it would be a fine contribution to the article. You haven't though. I won't add information to the article if I can't look it up. - Rainwarrior 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the link, and be sure the piece is existing. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:J_Slavenski_Preface_to_53EDO_piece.jpg Commator 14:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture is interesting, but I never doubted the existence of the piece. My problem is with the external link you added which was useless. Whether the piece exists or not has nothing to do with the quality of that link. - Rainwarrior 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Restore information on J. Slavenski without external link that you dislike. Commator 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have provided no verifiable information on Slavenski, so there is nothing that I can possibly restore. You may add information about Slavenski as long as it can be backed up with a citation, and is relevant to the article. - Rainwarrior 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the piece Slavenski wrote have a title? - Rainwarrior 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On the page is talking. Commator 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? I don't think this page has a very good description of the piece. From the picture you posted of the manuscript, it seems that the manuscript was in French, and so the title should have also been in French (or possibly Croatian), but the webpage mentions a title in English. Do you know the title? The comment about Slavenski could use at least this much more detail. - Rainwarrior 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Josip Slavencki. Title with 53EDO movement Commator 10:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Newton's unpublished manuscripts?
Does anyone have a source for this comment? - Rainwarrior 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rainwarrior, I ask you to remove this fully unconfirmed information, or restore information on J. Slavensky and Bosanquet's Engarmonium reparing, which can be checked by anybody who wish it. Commator 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had overlooked the Newton statement, thanks for reminding me to delete it. As for the external links I removed, I will comment below. - Rainwarrior 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand now you need to restore the info on I. Newton with mark 'citation needed', or delete info with such marks in Music in 53EDO section. Commator 11:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The request for a source on the Newton statement was here for a year, that's more than long enough. The request on the Arabic music information has only been there a few days; I think it's reasonable to wait still. - Rainwarrior 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you to decide how long information must wait its confirmation?! Commator 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To all editors of the article! Information of article author is restored not for Rainwarrior's exercises in deleting! Commator 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you restore the statement about Newton? Do you think it is true? Did you read it somewhere? - Rainwarrior 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you to decide how long information must wait its confirmation?! Commator 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to restore this information unless you believe that you can find a citation for it. - Rainwarrior 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To delete this information you need confirm it's false. Only your own opinion is not enough for deleting. Commator 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't prove that something doesn't exist. That would be an impossible criterion to satisfy. If you cannot attribute the statement to a source it has no place here. - Rainwarrior 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have directed you to this policy before, but you should at least read Verifiability. - Rainwarrior 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't directed me. Commator 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * '...Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the Fact template...'


 * Alternative seems better in this case. One year is zero for manuscript, which exist hundreds of years. It's ridiculous you don't understand it. So restore the information or don't delete it after my restoring. If readers will know on I. Newton, they will find his manuscript and unpublished source will be faster published. Or you don't trust in others? Commator 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An unpublished manuscript is not a source. Especially not one that has no description. How many thousands of paper must have Newton wrote? They are not all in the same place. Which unpublished manuscript is this? Where does it exist? You cannot go to a library and find "Newton's unpublished manuscript" on the shelf there. It is unpublished. There is only one.


 * If on the other hand there was a book that was published that says somewhere in its text "Isaac Newton's unpublished manuscript shows A B C..." we could cite this as a source. We could say that John Doe's book says this on page 25, and then someone could go to a nearby academic library and actually find a copy of this book and see that it really says this. This is what it means to be verifiable. - Rainwarrior 04:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another way to explain this: if the statement is untrue, how do I prove it? The manuscript is unpublished, the only way to prove that it is untrue would be to find every single unpublished manuscript of Newton (travel all over the world to find them), and read every word to make sure they do not say these things. This is an impossible task; this is why the burden of proof is on the person adding the material. It is EASY to check that something is true if it has a suitable source. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find out if something is false if the source is not given. - Rainwarrior 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While impossible to evidence the statement is false, the statement is true! Restore the statement on I. Newton and not delete it. It seems you only are disturbed by this statement. Therefore be so kind to evidence its false before next deleting. The article must provide not only your viewpoint. Particularly because you recognize your viewpoint is not correct sometime. Commator 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have provided absolutely no evidence that the statement is true. - Rainwarrior 09:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it true, so I don't delete it. I also believe the information contributor is not a liar. Your and only your actions cast a shadow on contributor and his information. It is a bad practice you and only you wish to sow among the article editors. Therefore you and only you must give very strong evidence the information is false, before you will delete it next time. Commator 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot possibly prove that it is false because there is no possible way to verify this information. The fact is that the line could say anything and I could not PROVE that it is false because it is technically impossible to prove such a thing. I have already explained this several times. This is not "me and only me"; this is very clearly Wikipedia policy. - Rainwarrior 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen this mentioned a bunch of times, gif 7 in §20, cited as "*GB-Cu* add. 4000, fol. 105*v*. (Reproduced on page 57 of our book.)" in Mark Lindley and Ronald Turner-Smith "An Algebraic Approach to Mathematical Models of Scales" Music Theory Online vol. 0, nr.3, June 1993 - Mireut 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've been wondering what this statement was supposed to mean. Do you think you could put a statement about this back into the article? The one I had removed was unclear (part of why I was unhappy that it was unsourced is that I wanted to know just what Newton was aware of), and I'm not sure exactly what should be said about Newton and 53-TET. - Rainwarrior 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Me neither, I don't know if that article says enough about it to support or expand the statement here the but at least they give a clue about the context (1664-5) and where to look for a something more explicit. - Mireut 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the diagram demonstrates at least that he liked the third with 17 steps, which I suppose shows that he "was aware" that it sounded better. I would expect him to have a grasp of the mathematics involved as well, but this is just speculation. The only thing I could really say about this that could be backed up by the article you linked is that "Isaac Newton was interested in the properties of 53-equal temperament", which isn't all that interesting of a statement. - Rainwarrior 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, after checking around a little it seems that in that particular manuscript he took a look maybe 15 different EDO tunings, not just 53-TET. Given that I haven't seen anything that suggests he was particularly interested in 53-TET over any of the others, and also that he is not really considered someone who has contributed to the study of tuning (directly that is), is it worth mentioning here? Maybe it's relevant to Isaac Newton, but what does this little bit of trivia accomplish here? - Rainwarrior 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any explanation about the dotted lines? - Mireut 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are five steps after any of the LAs, I guess if you kept going by pretending that LA is a MI and continuing to FA? Anyhow, do you have any opinion on whether this information is worth putting here, and if it is, how should it be presented, and what should be cited as a source? My vote is to remove it entirely. The back-and-forth reversion between myself and Commator is an annoying thing to be doing. - Rainwarrior 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With better support of the dates and, I think, more explicit description about the size of Newton's thirds, like maybe Lindley's page 57, it might predate Holder. Then could it be put in something like This was first shown in 16xx by Holder, although xxx discovered Isaac Newton had considered the system as early as 166x ^mss...., cited in...? Anyways, this discussion won't disappear if there was some way the current statement could be removed or made invisible until it was integrated better and supported by a better reference than up to now. (ps. I noticed at Holdrian comma there's a reference that looks like it might cover the tagged Erol Sayan/Kemal Ilerici stuff here) - Mireut 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, the date could make it significant after all. I hadn't noticed that detail. - Rainwarrior 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

About so needful I. Newton's diagram by Mureut was linked. Consider please my jpg drawing: at the page http://www.geocities.com/sonantometry/documents/ click 'The I. Newton's Diagram.'


 * 1. Let's assume the diagram suppose dividing of 360° by 53 equal angles. Also 1 cent = 360/1200 = 0.3°. It's very comfortable for 53EDO to find cent values of notes and intervals.
 * 2. Additional accidental < means one Holdrian comma flat.
 * 3. The scale of I. Newton with sonant formulas assigned: C<:M4d=52, C:T=53=0, D<:M2d=8, D:2D=9, Eb:3d=13, E<:M=17, F:d=22, F#<:M2D=26, G<:M3d=30, G:D=31, Ab:4d=35, A<:Md=39, A:3D=40, Bb:2d=44, B<:MD=48.
 * 4. This I. Newton's diagram is included a fifth chain from 5 diatonic gamuts of the identical structure within the aforesaid scale:
 * 0=C, 8=D<, 17=E<, 22=F, 31=G, 39=A<, 44=Bb :T[:T, :M2d, :M, :d, :D, :Md, 2d;
 * 31=G, 39=A<, 48=B<, 53=0=C, 9=D, 17=E<, 22=F :D[:T, :M2d, :M, :d, :D, :Md, :2d;
 * 9=D, 17=E<. 26=F#<, 31=G, 40=A, 48=B<, 53=0=C :2D[:T, :M2d, :M, :d, :D, :Md, :2d;
 * 22=F, 30=G<, 39=A<, 44=Bb, 53=0=C, 8=D<, 13=Eb :d[:T, :M2d, :M, :d, :D, :Md, :2d;
 * 44=Bb, 52-C<, 8=D<, 13=Eb, 22=F, 30=G<, 35=Ab :2d[:T, :M2d, :M, :d, :D, :Md, :2d.
 * 5. All sonants of the analysis contain D, d, and M only. So I. Newton's scale approximate 5-limit Just Intonation. For more information on sonants and sonantometry: http://sonantometry.blogspot.com Commator 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted the major third of 17 steps above. It's great that you have done an analysis of it, but the problem I have with the statement is that it is poorly worded and there is no given source which a reader could go to for the real information. After Mireut pointed out the date of the manuscript, it finally seems a significant thing to mention. However, we still don't have a clear description of what it is Newton knew, and part of the reason for this is that there is no source given. You or I can look at the diagram and reason about it, but this is original research, and the diagram itself doesn't tell all that much. What else did Newton write about 53-TET? Did he say anything significant, or is this entire statement derived entirely from this little sketch? Unless we can answer these questions (by finding an appropriate source), it is not worth simply writing "Newton's unpublished manuscripts show that he was aware of this" in the article. That is a useless statement, it tells the reader almost nothing. - Rainwarrior 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you like to delete the statement, please delete. I will restore each your deleting from now. I'm glad the I. Newton's unpublished manuscript with mention of 53EDO is existing. Commator 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be more acceptable to rephrase it something like how it was first put in keeping the citation needed tag? - Mireut 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do so if it not hard to you. I'm sure Sir Isaac Newton must be mentioned in this article. Thank you for link, so important for the article and my own Project Commator. Commator 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited it into a form that reflects the things we know so far. I still don't think this is very good information, and we really need a good source here. - Rainwarrior 06:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

External links to music
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales. —Keenan Pepper 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The following examples need to be replaced with links to HTML files describing them, or migrated to the wikipedia Commons. - Rainwarrior 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rainwarrior, let's assume that authors of the examples create at own sites HTMLs with describing the pieces. Then they link these pages to the article. Would you delete the links as non notable and self-promotional? Commator 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Melancholic by Aaron Krister Johnson


 * A composition based on a folk melody of the Shiraz region, in shur-dastgah by Mohajeri Shahin


 * An experiment in Iranian homayun and chahargah modes by Mohajeri Shahin


 * Trio for Clarinet, English Horn and Banjo by Gene Ward Smith


 * Pachelbel's canon in 53-et

Three external links
I removed the following links: For the reasons: - Rainwarrior 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Project Commator.
 * 2) On the page is talking composer Josip Štolcer-Slavenski has 'written for the Bosanquet Enharmonium with 53 tones in an octave'
 * 3) The Light Of My Betelgeuse. 7-limit 53 EDO approximation in memory of K. E. Tsiolkovsky for alto recorder, choir & Bosanquet Enharmonium by M. Khramov
 * 1) This page doesn't provide much information about 53-TET, and the little it does is already covered by the article. It has been added to several articles by User:Commator, and I think it's self promotion. (See WP:EL: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.)
 * 2) This page has absolutely nothing on it that gives the reader any information about 53 equal temperament. For the most part it appears to be a commentary on a random selection of recordings, and the only mention anywhere of 53-TET is twelve pages down where it says: It includes two movements: the first movement is written for the Bosanquet enharmonium with 53 tones in an octave, and the second for four trautoniums and timpani. This composition, as far as I know, was never performed and the score is in the library of the Faculty of Music in Belgrade. Nothing further appears on the subject. This link is useless for this article.
 * 3) The main content of this page is inaccessible because it requires a proprietary Sibelius plugin. I cannot see the score, but it is labeled as part of a piece written by User:Commator (again this falls under the self-promotion category), and to top it off there is a button to buy it for $7.95, so it is flat out advertising.


 * Answer to point 3: This link added not for you only. Who wish to know more can download free Sibelius Scorch and see full score and listen sound. It is absolutely free. $7.95 needs if somebody wish to print the score. Also on page is very good visible link to free MP3 file. If you think the link to page with my piece is my self-promotion, my opinion is another. I have three-year practice on using of 53EDO. I must to tell it to others, who like this tuning. So let this link to 53EDO score will be known to readers of article on 53EDO tuning.


 * Answer to point 2: On the page is talking:

"JOSIP STOLCER SLAVENSKI ... in the 1930s ... composed a composition for electronic insruments with the title Music in the Natural Tonal System (1937). It includes two movements: the first movement is written for the Bosanquet enharmonium with 53 tones in an octave, and the second for four trautoniums and timpani. This composition, as far as I know, was never performed and the score is in the library of the Faculty of Music in Belgrade."
 * This is very true and important information for who wish to study 53EDO. Using this information only, I communicated with Belgrade and have now the scanned copy of the score. It is possible the piece will be performed soon. So the link is very useful for investigators of 53EDO.


 * Answer to point 1: People who like and use 53EDO can be interested on other fans. It seems you're not from these ones. Maybe you'll edit other article? Commator 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate for you to come here and promote your music (did you read the WP:EL guideline?). This has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a "fan" of 53-TET. As for the link about Slavenski, again this is not a useful link. It is not sensible for a user who clicks on it to have to sift through 15 pages of irrelevant text to find one sentence that just says "a piece was written in 53-TET". Some of the other links you've added here seem good though. I removed the new link to "Phil and Pam Fluke", though, because there is no mention of any relevant information (e.g. 53-TET, Bosanquet, etc) on it. - Rainwarrior 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rainwarrior, if Dmitri Mendeleev link to article Chemical element own Periodic table it is self-promotion. As good wikipoliceman you need to remove this link. Would you do so?
 * If I know the score for Bosanquet's instrument in 53EDO by J. Slavenski is exist, as 53EDOfan and wikifan I need to add this information to articles Josip Štolcer-Slavenski, Robert Holford Macdowall Bosanquet and 53 equal temperament. Also the source must be linked. Why do you remove this my information and link? You're dislike me personally, or all another composers, mathematicians and wikipedians?
 * Restore please information on J. Slavenski and link to source. Also information on historical act of reparing of Bosanquet's Engarmonium must be restored with link to this work performers. Commator 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can add information about Slavenski's piece if you like, but there is a difference between an external link and a source. A source should be a reputable published source, not some disorganized webpage. Put in a note that Slavenski has written a piece for Bosanquet's instrument, and then cite the published score itself in the references section. - Rainwarrior 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand me. I ask You to restore information on J. Slavenski and Bosanquet's Enharmonium. You're a wikipedian who better know how to allocate this important information by the right way. See emails below to be sure the information is true.

- Original Message - From: Mykhaylo Khramov (Commator) To: Sanela Radisavljevic Sent: 21.06.07 18:00 Subject: Re: Josip Slavenski's Music in the Natural Tonal System, 1st movement

Dear Sanela Radisavljevic, I haven't words to express my thanks for your kindly helping in my project! Today I looked at first the manuscript of Josip Slavenski and it was the score for Bosanquet enharmonium. It is all clear for me in this manuscript, the scanned version is very good. I hope to return to you soon the score of first movement in Sibelius format, so music will be prepared for printing and will be playable by computer. For your information, last year fall in England was repared Bosanquet enharmonium and now it playable. So may be you khow somebody who can to go to play this music in England? I communicated with Pam and Phil Fluke. They performed reparation and they was interested in scores for Bosanquet. I gifted them 9 scores by me prepared. Let me know if you wish to know more on this. Sincerely, Michael.

On 6/21/07, Sanela Radisavljevic  wrote: Dear Mr. Khramov, You asked for the first movement of Josip Slavenski's Music in the Natural Tonal System, so here it is. Maybe it wouldn't be easy for reading, but this is the best scan version of composition which we have here in the Library. Actually, this is the scan version of the Slavenski's handwriting because Music in the Natural Tonal System hasn't been published yet unfortunately. It's very important for us to know that Josip Slavenski's compositions are performed in foreign countries, so if You are going to perform Music in the Natural Tonal System, I'll ask You to send information about it on e-mail address: sokojmic@EUnet.yu  (this is the address of SOKOJ Music Information Center in Belgrade, institution which was founded in 1984 as part of the legacy of Slavenski). Sincerely, Sanela Radisavljevic, musicologist The Faculty of Music in Belgrade Serbia

- Original Message - From: Phil Fluke  To: KMY Commator  Sent: 19.10.06 15:11 Subject: Re: Bosanquet's Enharmonium.

Hallo there

how good to hear that you are doing music specially for the Bosanquet!!!

Many years ago - when we first got the instrument from the Science Museum store we were told that there was music for it - but no-one has been able to find it yet!!!!!!

>   I haven't words to say how I am glad to read your message! >   It means that thanks to your unique labor, people able to hear >   again Bosanquet's unique instrument. Thank you for your very kind words - it is people like yourself that make this work so worth while!!!

>   The 53 Equal Divisions of the Octave is not popular so far, but not >   for me. >   I have more than two year practice in interpreting to 53 EDO music >   pieces. >   The pieces of Bach, Fokker, Johnson and others are among them. >   Also I have some own pieces for 53 EDO. >   You can listen and watch scores free on my pages >   http://www.g7music.net/cgi-bin/user_page.pl?url=commator >   http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/user_page.pl?url=commator >   My greatest wishing now is to send to you some scores as gift. Oh - what a wonderful idea!!!! Thanks you so VERY much!!!!

>   Maybe you or somebody else would be interested to play on >    Bosanquet. Certainly we will try!!!!!!

>   As for me I need to solve many problems before I could be able to >    travel to UK. >   Most of them money and spoken English. So I don't know when I >   myself could be in touch with Bosanquet's Enharmonium. Ah yes - the money is truly a problem - but the language - well - it seems to us that your English is VERY good - we understand your emails - and we would be totally unable to speak to you in your language - is it Ukraine???? We are guessing from the email address!!!! So we think that part of the problem is no problem at all!!!

>But I'm >   dreaming about it more then 5 year and hope it will be real. >   I have two addresses from Web: >   1. REED ORGAN MUSEUM SALTAIRE, >   6 Albert Terrace, Saltaire, Shipley, >   W Yorks BD 18 PS, >   Great Britain >   2. MUSEUM OF VICTORIAN REED ORGANS AND HARMONIUM, >   Victoria Hall, Victoria Road, Saltaire, Shipley, >   BD18 3LA, >   Great Britain >   Let me know please which is right and I'll send scores and CD. The best address is the first one - that is our home - the second one is the Museum - we hire a large room in the local Village Hall to keep all our instruments there.

>   Maybe you have favorite pieces? Only tell me their titles and I'll >   try to interprete some of them to 53 EDO for you!

Our favourite pieces are those written specially for harmonium - like the work of Cesar Franck - L'Organiste or music by Guilmant or Saint- Saens - also for harmonium. Is it possible that you can work on these????

Once again - thanks for your very kind words and your interest - but most specially for your intention to give us music for the special instrument.

We are most grateful to you

Look forward to hearing from you again

Pam & Phil - Original Message - From: Phil Fluke  To: KMY Commator  Sent: 16.10.06 22:30 Subject: Re: Bosanquet's Enharmonium.

Hallo there

Sorry we have been so long in replying to you. We have had the Senior Curator visit the Museum to inspect the Bosanquet - she was well pleased with the work/

It is possible to play it some - you are welcome to visit the Museum here in Saltaire but please phone me beforehand as I am often out on harmonium business - I am a one man show!!!

My mobile phone is 07976 535980

I look forward to hearing from you - and perhaps seeing you

sincerely Phil Fluke

In message <002001c6a5ab$5f1a7d40$0100a8c0@mir0027>, KMY Commator  writes > >   Dear Mr. Fluke, > >   > >    Recently I finished my first audio CD with microtonal music >   "Another Tuning". >   http://geocities.com/commator/CDPages/AnotherTuning.htm > >   > >    In its tracks 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 the 53 tuning is used. > >   As I know from the Web you are repairing Bosanquet's Enharmonium >   now. > >   So one exemplar of CD is autographed for > >   > >    Let me know please your mail addres for I could send this exemplar. > >   Also I'm very interesting to know what you think about possibility >   to play this unique instrument after you finish repairing. > >   > >    Your sincerely, >   Mykhaylo Khramov >   http://members.g7music.net/commator Commator 10:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, if Mendeleev was editing his own article I would ask him to stop. However, there's a big difference between external links and wikilinks. There are a lot less problems with conflict of interest involving wikilinks, since the link itself doesn't go to a page that isn't already part of wikipedia. - Rainwarrior 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If D. Mendeleev open own article Periodical Table and then edit it, you would ask him to stop. Is your opinion so?
 * My model was other: God tell to Mendeleev Periodical Table and he create own site Periodical Table. Then he go to WP article Chemical Element and find it without any information on Periodical Table he know from God. He add link to own site. You're shoked at this unscrupulous self-promotion and without any discussion remove Mendeleev's link. The article Chemical Element again without any information on Periodical Table which God gifted to humanity via Mendeleev. In result you're satisfied, Mendeleev is wounded, readers of the article don't know the Periodical Table is gifted to humanity, God incognizable. I think this model is good for you only.
 * May be next better for all: you study Periodical Table and understand it not useful for you, but may be useful for other readers. Then you remove link of wikipedian Mendeleev to own site as impermissible self-promotion. Then you link to article useful site of Mendeleev. If you find the Mendeleev's link is not useful for readers of article you start discussion and ask Mendeleev to remove his self-promotion and so on. Commator 12:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The content of your personal e-mails is never relevant to Wikipedia. No one can verify the truth of them. Whether or not I personally believe you, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I would add information about Slavenski's piece if I knew of a published source which mentions it, but I do not. All I have to go on is this website which only mentions the title. This is not enough. By what company is the score published, in what year, and in what city? Is it mentioned in any published books? What about the New Grove Encyclopedia? If I cannot make a bibliographical entry for it, it does not belong here on Wikipedia. - Rainwarrior 04:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is possible to find plausible pretext to any unseemly act and difficult to name your behaviour neutral. Why do you not remove information on Newton? How can you be patient to unconfirmed information within more then year? But score of J. Slavensky is exist. People can see this manuscript in Belgrade or like me at own home after communication with The Faculty of Music in Belgrade. Bozanquet's Engarmonium is exist and repared. Each score for it is very rare item. If you like 53EDO and dislike me, why do you not check this information personally and add it to article? You also dislike J. Slavenski, Phil and Pam Fluke who repared Bosanquet? What do you do in this article? Commator 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dislike any of these people, including you. This is not a personal issue. I don't know you, I don't know the Flukes, and I have no opinion of Slavenski's work, good or bad. I removed three of the links you added for reasons I've already stated. - Rainwarrior 09:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Write something in Tribute section of Talk:Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. All your deletings of my contributions in all articles will be discussed too. Commator 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The sections deleted earlier by Rainwarrior

 * Pythagorean approximation
 * 53-ET is not mean-tone
 * Just approximation

Rainwarrior deleted these sections without any discussion here. His only reason marked in history is: 'seven note tunings not relevant (and comments are inaccurate)'. It is not enough for deleting! I restored these sections because they are useful and relevant for this article. Also they can be extended and improved when Rainwarrior will be stopped in his delete-folly. Commator 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the information is useful, but the tables are not. The numbers in the tables aren't accurate enough (and aren't compared to anything). The language is confusing. Unless you already know these things, it is difficult to see whether the author was comparing this scale to just intonation, or pythagorean tuning, etc. at any given time. I don't think a couple of more or less random 7-note samplings of 53-TET really explain anything; they don't show any unique properties of 53-TET (all of the properties discussed are directly properties of the 7-note scale it is approximating, not of 53-TET).


 * I was a little hasty when I deleted it before, because I thought all of the useful information I was deleting was already in the article, but looking back, some of it was missing (e.g. the comparison to Pythagorean tuning is made at Pythagorean tuning but not here). I'm going to rewrite the information here that is useful in a condensed form and then remove the rest. - Rainwarrior 15:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad, that you going to improve the information and waiting impatiently for results of your efforts. Commator 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Information on semitones in your table need be improved. I know the Pythagorean diatonic semitone has difference with just one. Also chromatic ones are not the same in Pythagorean and just intonaion. Commator 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true. I had actually copied most of this table that someone else had added to two other articles (19 and 31 TET) and filled it out with values relevant to 53-TET. I'll put a note that these are "just" chromatic/diatonic semitones for the moment; if you want to add pythagorean, or remove the two just semitones I think either of those changes (or neither) I wouldn't object to. - Rainwarrior 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about adding to the table approximations of the 7-limit JI intervals? Commator 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this to me? "...major thirds that are wide from just (approximately 81/64 as opposed to the purer 5/4), and minor thirds that are conversely narrow (32/27 compared to 6/5)."

While 2^(13/53) is indeed about 32/27, 2^(14/53) is only +1.34 cents away from 6/5, right? Let err = 2^(14/53)/(6/5) Then err in cents is = 1200*LOG(err)/LOG(2) = 1.34 If I haven't miscalculated, is there some reason the former ratio is considered the minor third in 53tet? Secondly, =2^(17/53)/(5/4) is only -1.41 cents away from 5/4 by the same calculations. What is going on here?

Secondly, 2^(17/54) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.45.58 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvement?
How is rounding down in the interval size table an improvement? Hyacinth (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What do these annotations on the note names in the scale diagram mean?
I assume the letter names are constructed from Pythagorean tuning and then the number tells us how many syntonic commas to raise the note by (so starting from C0, E0 is the Pythagorean ditone 81:64 and E−1 is the just major third). But if so this needs to be explained. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The way accidentals are laid out in most of the article is misleading or confusing
The section on notation uses triple and even quadruple sharps and flats to denote the non-natural notes of 53-ET.

This is not how sharps and flats work! The chain-of-fifths notation which Western music notation is based upon defines a fifth sharp as the difference between a particular note and the octave-reduced note seven fifths above it. For example, in 53-ET, the perfect fifth (3/2) is 31 steps, so going up by seven fifths gives us 217 steps, whereas going up by 4 octaves gives us 212 steps. The difference between these is 5, so sharps raise by 5 steps, double-sharps raise by 10, flats lower by 5, and double-flats lower by 10.

The way most of the notation is laid out gives the impression that those who wrote the article are stuck in the 12-TET way of thinking, where a sharp raises by only 1 step.

There is already a section on ups and downs notation, which does specify the accidentals correctly. Why not just use that for the whole article? Ups and downs notation is a direct extension of the conventional sharps, flats, and naturals, and thus preserves the fundamental meaning of "sharp" and "flat" that we are all familiar with. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note, "defines a fifth" should have been "defines a sharp", I was a little confused until I realized that typo. Anyway, to comment on the article, I do find it confusing as well. It introduces the confusing term "diatonic notation" but doesn't cite a source. Whose diatonic notation is it? Reading it I cannot understand the logic, and don't know what source to look up to try and understand it. There is no explanation of why "E𝄪 is enharmonic with F𝄫", and the ordering of these lists of pitches is not explained (is this naming the 53 steps in ascending order?). It says "the note a fifth above B is not F♯ but F♯𝄪𝄪" but no justification or explanation is given for this. The second section for "extended pythagorean notation" also lacks a citation, but at least I can guess the logic, because a perfect fifth simply takes its "normal" notation, and I can understand why "a just major 3rd must be spelled as a diminished 4th". I assume whatever the "diatonic notation" is doing is something to try and reconcile the third and the fifth, but I'm unable to guess how by what's written in the article. I also note that there's a picture of Ottoman notation that isn't given a description in text either, and it really deserves its own treatment in this section. The ups and downs section at least has a citation (yay!) but it really could use a description of how thirds are written to compare/contrast with the others. I assume C to vE is a just major third, but the article should really be mentioning this.
 * There seems to be a few criteria that are involved in the pros/cons/rationale for each of them, but we should make those criteria explicit and consistent, and discuss all of them for each of the notation systems so that the article adequately compares and explains them. Possible criteria:
 * How is a just fifth notated?
 * How are just major and minor thirds notated?
 * What enharmonics are created?
 * How does the 53-chromatic scale look?
 * Is it compatible with previously notated western diatonic music that doesn't rely on enharmonic relationships? (This is probably what "diatonic" notation is aiming for, but I haven't puzzled out the mechanism.)
 * I'd also like to see the scale diagram cover all 53 notes, or at least explain the significance of selecting only 21. Though I notice the diatonic notation in that diagram says C to E♭ is a just major 3rd? Really??
 * I don't know what it would mean to use ups/downs for the "whole article", though I do agree that it's the least confusing of the notation systems it offers. The only text I see that relevantly uses notation is the "chords of 53 equal temperament" section, which I think should be consolidated into a chart that shows these chords in each notation, instead of saying a few things about one, and having a big list for another, etc. - Rainwarrior (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By "use ups and downs for the whole article" I meant "notate all accidentals in the article according to ups and downs notation". DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 01:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that there aren't accidentals anywhere else in the article, except when making reference to a notation system, so I don't see a way to propose that as a change? There's not really anything there to convert. In the "notation" section, each section has to use the notation it's talking about. The "scale diagram" section has all three at once, which I think is kind of a good way to compare them. There's a Turkish theory section which seems underdeveloped, but it should probably use the notation associated with that. The "chords of 53 equal temperament" subsection of notation right now seems to cover arbitrary chord sets in different notations, with up-down being the most comprehensive, but what I think would be better is turn that into a table showing how those chords look in all 3 (or 4?) notation systems. Anyway, if you're up for improving the article, please go ahead! - Rainwarrior (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)