Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Scale Families Solution

This is the best nomenclature I can come up with. Please critique,
praise, or ignore as you see fit...but bear in mind: for me, this is
about names, NOT MATH. Please keep it that way?

---

Definitions:
"L": large scale step; variable, defined in terms of EDO degrees.

"s": small scale step; variable, defined in terms of EDO degrees.

"Uniform": refers to any scale in which L=s.

"Superabundant": refers to scales in which the amount of large steps
(L's) exceeds the amount of small steps (s's).

"Deficient": refers to scales in which the amount of small steps (s's)
exceeds the amount of large steps (L's).

"Perfect": refers to scales in which the amount of small steps (s's)
is EQUAL to the number of large steps (L's).

Scales will be given in format L+s.

---

Pentatonic Families:

5+0 or 0+5: Uniform Pentatonic
4+1: Primary Superabundant Pentatonic
3+2: Secondary Superabundant Pentatonic
2+3: Secondary Deficient Pentatonic
1+4: Primary Deficient Pentatonic

Hexatonic Families:

6+0 or 0+6: Uniform Hexatonic
5+1: Primary Superabundant Hexatonic
4+2: Secondary Superabundant Hexatonic
3+3: Perfect Hexatonic
2+4: Secondary Deficient Hexatonic
1+5: Primary Deficient Hexatonic

For those who don't see the pattern yet:

Heptatonic Families:

7+0 or 0+7: Uniform Heptatonic
6+1: Primary Superabundant Heptatonic
5+2: Secondary Superabundant Heptatonic
4+3: Tertiary Superabundant Heptatonic
3+4: Tertiary Deficient Heptatonic
2+5: Secondary Deficient Heptatonic
1+6: Primary Deficient Heptatonic

By now, if it's not clear, please ask me about it.

Note that the ordinal terms "Primary, Secondary" may continue as
necessary to fill in all scales of the Octatonic, Enneatonic,
Decatonic, etc. groups. Note also that these terms tell you the
number of "minority" steps in a scale, such that, say, a Quaternary
Deficient Enneatonic would have 4 L's. For those who don't know what
comes after "Quaternary" (I didn't, until I looked it up), the list
goes "quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary, denary".

Of course, most of you won't find too many reasons to use these names,
as the numerical notation of L+s is fine most of the time. I merely
suggest these as an alternative to the numbers, as too many numbers
easily gets confusing.

---

Are there any objections? Critiques? Insults? Let 'em fly.

-Igs

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Jacob <jbarton@rice.edu>

I just remembered something obvious: Each of these is definable by
three numbers: two addends and a sum. The naming system you suggest
names the sum and the smallest addend, requiring you to subtract to
get the other. For example 5+3=8 out of 11-EDO (5 steps of 1/11, 3
steps of 2/11) would be in the group "tertiary superabundant
octatonic" (in musicians' shorthand, "TertSupeOct") requiring an
additional subtraction to realize there are 5 small steps.

An alternative would be supplying the two addends, which is actually
something I would find more useful when preparing to try and play a
scale. I don't even care that they add up to eight notes, only that
I've got to play five small ones and three big ones in an octave.

Interesting about this fact is that in the scale tree, I will always
find this scale between x/5 and y/3 sized generators. So I suggest a
nomenclature that implies nearness: "5-near-3", or "quinparatertiary,"
or something. A nice straddling of the g/p outlook and the L/s
outlook. Because we also have 5 steps next to 3 steps. (Well,
interlaced, but...it allows for shuffled M'sOS too!)

If we took "near-3" as to mean that the generator is nearer to y/3, we
could conceal (the rather analytical and sidestepping)
superabundance/deficiency in knowing that the 3 steps are bigger
(which they are). This would turn the L+s order backwards, but oh well.

What this doesn't work for are the fraction-period scales like 4+2,
which, I confess, I don't know as well.

Optional to include are nonoctave "approximations" of uniform and
two-dimensional scales. 6/31-oct. can masquerade quite well as
5-edo...perhaps "parauniform" (though that uses "para" in two
differents situations). And so can the MOS 5+1 (6:1). Food for
thought, anyway.

In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> This is the best nomenclature I can come up with. Please critique,
> praise, or ignore as you see fit...but bear in mind: for me, this is
> about names, NOT MATH. Please keep it that way?

I tried, I really did.

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@sbcglobal.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
> > This is the best nomenclature I can come up with. Please critique,
> > praise, or ignore as you see fit...but bear in mind: for me, this is
> > about names, NOT MATH. Please keep it that way?
>
> You must have sent the wrong message with this, because the one I've
> got is full of math.

You should know what I'm talking about by now. When I ask for advice
on what to call something, I don't want people to respond to me with
equations! Maybe 3 or 4 out of every 5 posts responding to my
original topic had nothing or very little to do with what to call
anything. It's great everything relates to the scale tree, but unless
every branch has a name and you think that we should call these scales
by the name of the branch of the scale tree that contains them, then I
don't know what relevance it has to what I'm looking for. Sorry if
I've offended you, but it seems like more often than not, when someone
posts to this list asking a question, rather than giving a
straightforward answer everyone takes the question and runs in their
own direction with it. This is one the reasons I disappeared in the
first place and if it weren't for some of the truly helpful answers
I've gotten here I'd probably disappear again.

Everyone is entitled to saying what they wish, obviously, but I am
also entitled to be annoyed when I feel like someone has dodged,
ignored, or extremely misinterpretted my question. And if I worded my
question ambiguously (though everyone has their own definition of THAT
word), I apologize, but I certainly don't expect people to take an
attitude with me or get offended for my trying to CLARIFY what I'm
asking! Capice?

-Igs

🔗microtonalist <mark@equiton.waitrose.com>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@sbcglobal.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> For example 5+3=8 out of 11-EDO (5 steps of 1/11, 3
> steps of 2/11) would be in the group "tertiary superabundant
> octatonic" (in musicians' shorthand, "TertSupeOct") requiring an
> additional subtraction to realize there are 5 small steps.

A valid contention.

> Interesting about this fact is that in the scale tree, I will always
> find this scale between x/5 and y/3 sized generators. So I suggest a
> nomenclature that implies nearness: "5-near-3", or
> "quinparatertiary,"

Ah. Makes sense. Is this the case for all scales? If so, your
terminology is indeed more efficient. It gives you the whole scale in
one word.

> If we took "near-3" as to mean that the generator is nearer to y/3,
> we could conceal (the rather analytical and sidestepping)
> superabundance/deficiency in knowing that the 3 steps are bigger
> (which they are). This would turn the L+s order backwards, but oh
> well.

Oh well indeed.

> What this doesn't work for are the fraction-period scales like 4+2,
> which, I confess, I don't know as well.

Why doesn't it work for these? Because they're not on the tree?
Bollocks to that! The terminology doesn't necessarily HAVE to
reference the tree, if you just take the words to mean s-para-L (or
L-para-s, we'd have to decide that) then it works fine.

> Optional to include are nonoctave "approximations" of uniform and
> two-dimensional scales. 6/31-oct. can masquerade quite well as
> 5-edo...perhaps "parauniform" (though that uses "para" in two
> differents situations). And so can the MOS 5+1 (6:1). Food for
> thought, anyway.

Well, the inclusion of these might unforeseeably complicate things. I
don't really want to include the L:s ratio in the naming, as that is
precisely what seperates meantone temperaments from superpyth
temperaments (meantones are [almost?] always between 1:1 and 2:1,
while superpyths are [almost?] always greater than 2:1 IN THEIR
HEPTATONIC SCALES), and it is just this type of separation I want to
avoid. If we wanted to call an MOS of 5+1 (6:1) something similar to
the uniform pentatonic instead of primeparaquinary (or whatever), it
would seem to follow we should call any MOS of n+1 with a ratio of 6:1
something similar to a uniform n-tonic; and conversely, that we should
also do something similar with scales where L and s are in a very
SMALL ratio, close to 1:1. Thus 32-EDO's 5+2 of ratio 5:4 would
"deserve" a name close to "uniform heptatonic". It is precisely these
complications I wish to avoid, or rather, I do not wish to consider
the ratio of L:s to be a criteria in the naming.

Of your first example though, the non-octave one, THAT could be
something. However, as there is such a great infinity of equal
non-octave scales, to try to include them in this terminology may be
unrealistic. Rather, one could simply call that non-8ve scale of
6-out-of-31's a uniform pentatonic, and specify that it is compressed
by some amount. Although calling it a pentatonic does assume an
"equivalence" of compressed octaves, which is not necessarily valid.
So what to call it (or any other non-octave scale) would depend on the
equivalence/period assumed by the composer. You could have a 5+2
scale of whatever ratio that repeats at the 12:7 or something, but it
would still be a "secondparaquinary".

How's that?

-Igs

>
> In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> > This is the best nomenclature I can come up with. Please critique,
> > praise, or ignore as you see fit...but bear in mind: for me, this is
> > about names, NOT MATH. Please keep it that way?
>
> I tried, I really did.

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> You should know what I'm talking about by now. I don't.

> When I ask for advice
> on what to call something, I don't want people to respond to me with
> equations!

Okay, no equations. Not that I've seen many up to now.

> Maybe 3 or 4 out of every 5 posts responding to my
> original topic had nothing or very little to do with what to call
> anything.

Are you counting replies to replies in that number? You don't own the whole thread just because you started it.

> It's great everything relates to the scale tree, but unless
> every branch has a name and you think that we should call these scales
> by the name of the branch of the scale tree that contains them, then I
> don't know what relevance it has to what I'm looking for.

That's pretty much exactly what I think! What the $#@! do you think I've been talking about all this time? You certainly never bother to say why you disagree with it. (The provisos are that each branch needs two names because the shapes as you define them come in pairs, I don't expect you want the names I have, and anyway I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should call anything.)

Incidentally, I don't know what the word "capice" means either. You've used it twice in messages to me, and it isn't in my dictionary.

Graham

🔗pgreenhaw@nypl.org

He means "capisce"..... "understand?"...... "dig it?"

Incidentally, I don't know what the word "capice" means either. You've
used it twice in messages to me, and it isn't in my dictionary.

Graham

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

Graham Breed wrote:

>Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >
>>You should know what I'm talking about by now. >> >>
>
>I don't.
>
> >
>>When I ask for advice
>>on what to call something, I don't want people to respond to me with
>>equations!
>> >>
>
>Okay, no equations. Not that I've seen many up to now.
>
> >
>>Maybe 3 or 4 out of every 5 posts responding to my
>>original topic had nothing or very little to do with what to call
>>anything.
>> >>
>
>Are you counting replies to replies in that number? You don't own the >whole thread just because you started it.
>
> >
>>It's great everything relates to the scale tree, but unless
>>every branch has a name and you think that we should call these scales
>>by the name of the branch of the scale tree that contains them, then I
>>don't know what relevance it has to what I'm looking for.
>> >>
>
>That's pretty much exactly what I think! What the $#@! do you think >I've been talking about all this time? You certainly never bother to >say why you disagree with it. (The provisos are that each branch needs >two names because the shapes as you define them come in pairs, I don't >expect you want the names I have, and anyway I wouldn't dream of telling >you what you should call anything.)
>
>
>Incidentally, I don't know what the word "capice" means either. You've >used it twice in messages to me, and it isn't in my dictionary.
> >
Maybe there's a problem with your monitor Graham. This seems to be a frequent
source of misunderstanding around here. Ask Paul.

I'm pretty sure nobody noticed that Kyle Gann wrote an article an article about
Johnny Reinhart's latest version of Ive's Universe in the Village Voice last week.
http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0537,gann,67709,22.html
I enjoy Kyle's writing, so I check in frequently. And, hey, I like to know what
Johnny is up to lately.

I guess folks had problems with their monitors amd they didn't notice.

And these same folks would be unaware of the performances of La Monte Young's
String Trio this month. http:\\melafoundation.org

I'm guessing that they may have problems with their monitors.

Don't bother to respond.. I'm having problems with my monitor.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@sbcglobal.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:

> Are you counting replies to replies in that number?
> You don't own the whole thread just because you started it.

No, I'm not counting replies to replies (unless they are replies to MY
replies), and yes, I am well aware that I don't OWN anything on this
board, let alone one of these tangled threads.

> That's pretty much exactly what I think! What the $#@! do you think
> I've been talking about all this time? You certainly never bother
> to say why you disagree with it.

You never said anything about NAMES. You illustrated very thoroughly
how the scale tree contains all but the fractional-octave-period scale
shapes, but what I was after was NAMES for these scales, not another
means of representing the relationships between them.

> (The provisos are that each branch
> needs two names because the shapes as you define them come in pairs,
> I don't expect you want the names I have, and anyway I wouldn't
> dream of telling you what you should call anything.)

But that's PRECISELY what I wanted! I WANT to be told what to call
things! That's why I posted! I wanted to see if anyone else had
wandered down this path before, and if so, what they had found. I
would like VERY MUCH to see what names you came up with, and learn
about how you derived them. I don't know where I went wrong, what
ambiguous terms I used or what words of yours I misread that would
have led to this misunderstanding, but I hope we are CLEAR now?
>
>
> Incidentally, I don't know what the word "capice" means either.

Apologies, I seem to have misspelled it. Should be capisce, I believe
it's italian for "understand?", common colloquialism where I'm from.
Watch some mafia movies, you'll surely hear how it is used.

-Igs

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> You never said anything about NAMES. You illustrated very thoroughly
> how the scale tree contains all but the fractional-octave-period scale
> shapes, but what I was after was NAMES for these scales, not another
> means of representing the relationships between them. Names are easy. You can name them after Snow White and the Seven Dwarves if you like. Finding things to name is a bit more difficult. The idea behind names based on the scale tree is that some of the relationships between scales are apparent from their names. Not all, because you have to draw the lines somewhere and not all relationships are in the one dimensional tree anyway.

> But that's PRECISELY what I wanted! I WANT to be told what to call
> things! That's why I posted! I wanted to see if anyone else had
> wandered down this path before, and if so, what they had found. I
> would like VERY MUCH to see what names you came up with, and learn
> about how you derived them. I don't know where I went wrong, what
> ambiguous terms I used or what words of yours I misread that would
> have led to this misunderstanding, but I hope we are CLEAR now?

Currently, I don't have a serious naming (as opposed to numbering) of the whole tree. I don't think anybody else does either which is why, like it or not, you're getting a lot of interest in this topic. I have names for little bits of the scale tree, that usually relate to linear temperaments or specific melodic patterns. They tend to be too specific for the simplicity of the shapes you're looking at. For example, 3L+4s is mohajira, but only when L+s is a neutral third. The same shape works with major thirds but then it loses the "mohajira nature".

There are also some names that have already been suggested, but you chose not to use. Most obviously, you aren't using "EDO" for equal divisions of the octave. Some other useful names are "augmented" for scales with three periods to the octave and "diminished" for four periods to the octave. I hope nobody is going to seriously argue that these should refer to temperaments and not shapes.

Meantone as it happens isn't relevant, because it would refer to the 7L+5s family, which is beyond your cutoff. But that still leaves the classic and inverse pentatonics, diatonic and mavila. It doesn't matter that this branch of the tree doesn't have a consistent naming scheme because it's important enough that you can remember all the inconsistent ones.

One name I'm using in private is "wonneg" for 4L+1s. It's a cross between wonder (1L+4s) and negri (9L+1s). Probably it should only apply whan L and s are around the same size, but as the word's never been used in public before there's no precedent.

Here are some dwarf names. Each branch of the scale trees for 1 and 2 periods to the octave is named after a pair of dwarves. I also used the same names for the near half-octave generators of each tree, because there's no conflict.

5L Snow White pentatonic
1L 4s Happy pentatonic
2L 3s Sneezy pentatonic
3L 2s Sleepy pentatonic
4L 1s Grumpy pentatonic

6L Snow White hexatonic
1L 5s Happy hexatonic
2L 4s Sleepy hexatonic
3L 3s Bashful hexatonic
4L 2s Dopey hexatonic
5L 1s Grumpy hexatonic

7L Snow White heptatonic
1L 6s Happy heptatonic
2L 5s Dopey heptatonic
3L 4s Doc heptatonic
4L 3s Sneezy heptatonic
5L 2s Sleepy heptatonic
6L 1s Grumpy heptatonic

8L Snow White octatonic
1L 7s Happy octatonic
2L 6s Sleepy octatonic
3L 5s Sneezy octatonic
4L 4s Bashful octatonic
5L 3s Doc octatonic
6L 2s Dopey octatonic
7L 1s Grumpy octatonic

9L Snow White nonatonic
1L 8s Happy nonatonic
2L 7s Dopey nonatonic
3L 6s Lufhsab nonatonic
4L 5s Doc nonatonic
5L 4s Sneezy nonatonic
6L 3s Bashful nonatonic
7L 2s Sleepy nonatonic
8L 1s Grumpy nonatonic

10L Snow White decatonic
1L 9s Happy decatonic
2L 8s Ypeels decatonic
3L 7s Doc decatonic
4L 6s Dopey decatonic
5L 5s Bashful decatonic
6L 4s Sleepy decatonic
7L 3s Sneezy decatonic
8L 2s Yepod decatonic
9L 1s Grumpy decatonic

Graham

🔗pgreenhaw@nypl.org

Yo Beardsley -- let it rest

(and I did notice the article..... for I pick up the paper copy every
week, and don't need to rely on a monitor todeliver my village voice)

___________________________________________
Paul Greenhaw
Music Specialist II
The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
40 Lincoln Center Plaza
New York, NY 10023
(212) 870-1892
__________________________________________

David Beardsley <db@biink.com>
Sent by: tuning@yahoogroups.com
09/15/2005 04:34 PM
Please respond to tuning

To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Scale Families Solution

I'm pretty sure nobody noticed that Kyle Gann wrote an article an
article about
Johnny Reinhart's latest version of Ive's Universe in the Village Voice
last week.
http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0537,gann,67709,22.html
I enjoy Kyle's writing, so I check in frequently. And, hey, I like to
know what
Johnny is up to lately.

I guess folks had problems with their monitors amd they didn't notice.

And these same folks would be unaware of the performances of La Monte
Young's
String Trio this month. http:\\melafoundation.org

I'm guessing that they may have problems with their monitors.

Don't bother to respond.. I'm having problems with my monitor.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

SPONSORED LINKS
Music education
Music production education
Music education degree
Degree education music online
Music business education
Music education online

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.