Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: small interval (s) flat second [bII]

So keep it clear and simple and call it a "flat two" [bII];
which of course in LucyTuning is a small interval (s).

paulerlich wrote:

>--- 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.
>

--
~====================================================~
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

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> So keep it clear and simple and call it a "flat two" [bII];
> which of course in LucyTuning is a small interval (s).

The below argues _for_ calling it a "minor second". Calling it
a "flat two" _does_ assume the major/minor tonal system, which is the
very assumption you were objecting to -- because it's only "flat"
relative to the _major mode_.

>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> >--- 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.
> >
>
> --
> ~====================================================~
> Charles Lucy - lucy@h... (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

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

My choice of numbering notes of the scale are the seven contiguous notes on the spiral arranged in ascending order from second in the chain of fourths to fifths.
This just also happens to be the sequence which is also know as the Major scale.
e.g. C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7. LLsLLLs pattern. This is the unique major scale and seems to be familiar in most cultures. (Ionian-Bilaval etc.)

The situation with the minor scales becomes a little more complicated e.g. which minor scale? harmonic, Hungarian, melodic etc.

So I propose that it be just called the flattened second or bII.
Why complicate it by calling it minor?

paulerlich wrote:

>--- In tuning@y..., Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
>
>>So keep it clear and simple and call it a "flat two" [bII];
>>which of course in LucyTuning is a small interval (s).
>>
>
>The below argues _for_ calling it a "minor second". Calling it >a "flat two" _does_ assume the major/minor tonal system, which is the >very assumption you were objecting to -- because it's only "flat" >relative to the _major mode_.
>
>>paulerlich wrote:
>>
>>>--- 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.
>>>
>>-- >>~====================================================~
>>Charles Lucy - lucy@h... (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
>
>
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> >
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >
>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> My choice of numbering notes of the scale are the seven contiguous
notes
> on the spiral arranged in ascending order from second in the chain
of
> fourths to fifths.
> This just also happens to be the sequence which is also know as the
> Major scale.

Why did you choose to start with the _second_ note in the chain, if
not to reproduce the familiar Major scale?

> e.g. C=1 D=2 E=3 F=4 G=5 A=6 B=7. LLsLLLs pattern. This is the
unique
> major scale and seems to be familiar in most cultures. (Ionian-
Bilaval etc.)

This was not always the case . . .

> The situation with the minor scales becomes a little more
complicated
> e.g. which minor scale? harmonic, Hungarian, melodic etc.
>
> So I propose that it be just called the flattened second or bII.
> Why complicate it by calling it minor?

The term "minor" just means "smaller". These names came into use long
before (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the concepts of "Major
scale" and "Minor scale" and tonality as we know it.

It's too bad these terms are used for so many things and terminology
is so confusing. Perhaps it would be better to call the minor
second "smaller 1-step" and the major second "larger 1-step" or
something. But the terms are universally understood among musicians
who speak English and related languages, so there's no hope of little
old us changing them now! When it comes to meantone temperaments that
depart from 12-tET, congruence with existing terminology is a great
advantage in communication and in the popularization of non-12-tET
alternatives.