Re: "octave" reply to Johnny Reinhard

Johnny Reinhard wrote:

<<People have
to accept the changing meanings of words, like with the word octave.
Since the octave hasn't had only 7 different notes (?)  for ages now, but has
12 or more on ALL conventional instrument, I'd just assume retaining the term
"octave" for better conveyance of meaning.   >>

(?) = if that pattern of seven tones is subtended inclusively as 2:1 it
gives 8, and the name octave makes sense from this point of view because it
is the duplication of a tone at the 8th. The scale gurus on the list should
find ample material here, as historically, the term _scale had more to do
with a _ladder of variable intervals, etc. and 12 wasn't a literal construct
until much much later by which time original terminology had become pretty
meaningless, etc.

I understand that you want to use the vernacular to communicate broadly, but
my question is just what is a _better conveyance of _meaning? I know there
are many many folks who would see me arguing about this and think its a
complete waste of time, because everybody knows you can't interpret the word
_octave literally, and everyone is going to keep saying _octave no matter how
much anybody babbles on about how archaic it is, and we should all just
accept that and move on.

But should we consciously perpetuate this misnomer in our discussions which
run completely counter to its literal meaning? Should we if involved in high
level discussions about historical chronology maintain that the month of
October is the 10th month? Point being: we may have to use the word _octave
in most situations, and if it applies, that's fine, but isn't it absurd to
use it anywhere that it's etymological meaning makes no sense - and
especially where we have a clearly superior alternative???

<<The octave may be the one of or "the" only universal in music.  I find that
even the purposeful lengthening or shortening of the octave in Indonesia or
elsewhere, is done with full awareness of the interval itself. >>

I certainly won't dispute the perceptual durability of 2. If I read
correctly, full awareness of 2 and the peak surrounding it is obvious. But
this doesn't address the point that the specific syntax _octave has nothing
to do with this. It's because of 2, not because of an 8th tone.

<< Shouldn't 12
have become a "thirtave?" >>

If it became the _thirtive then _major and _minor seconds would have to be
called _firsts and _seconds, _minor thirds would be _thirds and _major thirds
would have to be _fourths. Who was going to go for that? In fact your point
proves that scale naming logic like this for intervals just doesn't hold up.

best,
Aaron