Oppp...

I said...

>I think agree, but isn't propriety a different measure than yours, rather
>than a "stronger" one? That is, a scale could be proper without having a
1:1 >relationship between its consonances and scale steps?

But I don't think Paul E. meant 1:1 relationship. I think he meant that
any consonance would always subtend the same number of scales steps, but
not necessarily that this number of scales steps couldn't represent a
dissonance, or another consonance. But it still doesn't change the fact
that propriety says nothing about connsonance or dissonance - it only
addresses the relative sizes of intervals associated with scale steps. And
so a given scale could be proper and not meet Paul's criteria; the
consonance in question could be an ambiguous interval.

But all in all, a small point.

Carl