Minor second definition sh/could include flat second [bII]

Hi Monz;
I have been checking your definitions and have a suggested addition to the minor second entry.
To only call this a minor second assumes that it is only used in music which can be described as having a minor (or Major?) tonality. This excludes all scales lacking a third, which usually determines whether it is Major or minor.

Why did you write the sourcecode links with targets, (like a pornosite)? It fills my browser with webpages in the background, which I then have to close, before it overloads and freezes or crashes my Netscape or Opera.

monz wrote:

>A slew of new updates for the Tuning Dictionary,
>mostly having to do with new lattice diagrams:
>
~====================================================~
Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
or Lucytuned Lullabies go to
http://www.lucytune.com or http://www.lucytune.co.uk or http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@y..., Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> Hi Monz;
> I have been checking your definitions and have a suggested
addition to
> the minor second entry.
> To only call this a minor second assumes that it is only used in
music
> which can be described as having a minor (or Major?) tonality.

That's not true at all. The two types of tonality came later, and
note that minor tonality doesn't even normally include a minor
second over the tonic!

Mathematically, the seven interval classes of diatonic music
correspond to the seven equivalence classes that arise from a
kernel of {81:80, 25:24}. Then, treating variations of 25:24 as
large enough to merit their own sub-categories (which they
would in any except the Thai closed-7 system), but ignoring
81:80, gives rise to the "major" and "minor" designations on
diatonic intervals. Modern major/minor tonality later sprung from
this system, but is in no way required to define it.

81:80 is either tempered out (the normal case), or in JI, it gives
rise to further terminological distinctions, which become very
confusing and often contadictory between different authors.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> 81:80 is either tempered out (the normal case), or in JI, it gives
> rise to further terminological distinctions, which become very
> confusing and often contadictory between different authors.

Interesting--what would

1--10/9--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--15/8

be called by these various authors, I wonder?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > 81:80 is either tempered out (the normal case), or in JI, it
gives
> > rise to further terminological distinctions, which become very
> > confusing and often contadictory between different authors.
>
> Interesting--what would
>
> 1--10/9--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--15/8
>
> be called by these various authors, I wonder?

I was talking about terminological distinctions in the naming of
_intervals_. As for entire modes, you'll occasionally find some names
given, for example this one is often referred to as "Redfield" or
something like that.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> > Interesting--what would
> >
> > 1--10/9--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--15/8
> >
> > be called by these various authors, I wonder?
>
> I was talking about terminological distinctions in the naming of
> _intervals_. As for entire modes, you'll occasionally find some names
> given, for example this one is often referred to as "Redfield" or
> something like that.

Thanks--you've given me the name of the fellow who started me on this scale business, by coming up with the above, and then saying you could have seven modes of this, as well as seven modes of diatonic. I was pretty impressed, but of course all I knew was what Redfield had told me.