Re: propriety

Awhile back Kraig Grady wrote that propriety was a concept that seemed
to have drifted from his mind "like feathers that are blown away when
you shake them..." As this term has so often appeared in various
posts, I'm somewhat surprised that I too have never quite seemed to
get a firm grip on exactly what it is, or isn't... Is propriety really
as straightforward as this explanation that Dave Keenan used while
describing his chain-of-minor-thirds scale:

1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3
G# Ab Bb B Cb Db D D# E# F F# [G#]
(B#) (Fb)

In a proper scale one does not find any interval that contains more
scale steps than another while being smaller in size, such as Bb:Cb
vs. Ab:Bb above. In a strictly proper scale an interval with more
scale steps is always larger in size, not merely larger or equal.

If so, then this would seem to be a definition that's pretty easy to
get a handle on, and one that seems to say that the W=3 h=2 19e
Pythagorean diatonic would be an example of a "strictly proper" scale,
while the standard (W=2 h=1) 12e (Pythagorean) diatonic would be an
example of a "proper scale," and the W=3 h=1 17e Pythagorean diatonic
would be an example of an "improper scale?"

If this is correct, are these examples -- which all hinge on the size
of #4th & b5th -- the (best) sort of examples one would want to
give... i.e., are diatonic scales in which the augmented fourth
exceeds the size of the diminished fifth (1/1, 10/9, 7/6, 21/16, 3/2,
14/9, 7/4, 2/1, is one I've used very recently, so it comes right to
mind) a telling or a trivial example of impropriety, (etc.)?

Dan

>Is propriety really
>as straightforward as this explanation that Dave Keenan used while
>describing his chain-of-minor-thirds scale: [ . . . ]
>In a proper scale one does not find any interval that contains more
>scale steps than another while being smaller in size, such as Bb:Cb
>vs. Ab:Bb above. In a strictly proper scale an interval with more
>scale steps is always larger in size, not merely larger or equal.

That's right!

>If so, then this would seem to be a definition that's pretty easy to
>get a handle on, and one that seems to say that the W=3 h=2 19e
>Pythagorean diatonic would be an example of a "strictly proper" scale,
>while the standard (W=2 h=1) 12e (Pythagorean) diatonic would be an
>example of a "proper scale," and the W=3 h=1 17e Pythagorean diatonic
>would be an example of an "improper scale?"

Right again (though I might say chain-of-fifths diatonic since Pythagorean
is a specific tuning).

>If this is correct, are these examples -- which all hinge on the size
>of #4th & b5th -- the (best) sort of examples one would want to
>give... i.e., are diatonic scales in which the augmented fourth
>exceeds the size of the diminished fifth (1/1, 10/9, 7/6, 21/16, 3/2,
>14/9, 7/4, 2/1, is one I've used very recently, so it comes right to
>mind) a telling or a trivial example of impropriety, (etc.)?

I guess it depends what you're seeking to use propriety for or to discredit
about it.

[Paul H. Erlich:]
> That's right!

OK, good.

> Right again (though I might say chain-of-fifths diatonic since
Pythagorean is a specific tuning).

Right, that's what I meant.

> I guess it depends what you're seeking to use propriety for or to
discredit about it.

Well I'm just trying to better understand it really... and now that I
feel that I have some confidence in the definition, I should probably
go purge the TD archives to get a better handle on what propriety is
defining _conceptually_. But for the sake of others whom might be
interested and perhaps just picked up the thread here, I'll ask if
anyone wants to offer an explanation of what these classes of
propriety are really saying conceptually: When Paul says that "it
depends what you're seeking to use propriety for or to discredit about
it," I'm interested in what its best uses might be, what might
discredit it, etc.

Thanks,
Dan