MOS naming scheme

I don't know if Igs is still around, but here's a more serious scheme. The logic behind new names is as follows:

Happy and Grumpy are remnants of the dwarf scheme. A good proportion of the shapes fit this pattern, so it's worth having a word for it.

Biggie is a contraction of "bi-grumpy". Rice is named after Rice Kagona.

Bicycle is a contraction of "bi-classical". This family is like the usual fifth-generated one, but half the size.

Mosh is a contraction of "mohajiraish". Mish is related to mosh.

Father is a temperament name. I think the etymology is a pun on "fourths/thirds" and as such names a shape.

Bug is another temperament name, from the draft of the first part of Paul's forthcoming magnum opus. If it's too specific to apply to this family, I suggest "bogey" instead.

"Bi-equal" means the scale is made from two EDOs. There may be a better name for these. They become more important whan you look at complicated temperaments.

I'm using "fair" and "unfair" to distinguish the large from the small. All the names uniquely specify a shape, and if the number of notes doesn't need to be part of the name it isn't. That doesn't mean you'd leave them this terse in practice.

1L 4s Happy pentatonic
2L 3s classic pentatonic
3L 2s father
4L 1s bug

1L 5s Happy hexatonic
2L 4s Rice hexatonic
3L 3s augmented
4L 2s bicycle
5L 1s Grumpy hexatonic

1L 6s Happy heptatonic
2L 5s mavila
3L 4s mosh
4L 3s mish
5L 2s diatonic
6L 1s Grumpy heptatonic

1L 7s Happy octatonic
2L 6s Rice octatonic
3L 5s fair father
4L 4s diminished
5L 3s unfair father
6L 2s Biggie octatonic
7L 1s Grumpy octatonic

1L 8s Happy nonatonic
2L 7s fair mavila
3L 6s fair augmented
4L 5s fair bug
5L 4s unfair bug
6L 3s unfair augmented
7L 2s unfair mavila
8L 1s Grumpy nonatonic

1L 9s Happy decatonic
2L 8s Rice decatonic
3L 7s fair mosh
4L 6s fair bicycle
5L 5s bi-equal decatonic
6L 4s unfair bicycle
7L 3s unfair mosh
8L 2s Biggie decatonic
9L 1s Grumpy decatonic

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> I don't know if Igs is still around, but here's a more serious
> scheme.
> The logic behind new names is as follows:
>
> Happy and Grumpy are remnants of the dwarf scheme. A good
> proportion of the shapes fit this pattern, so it's worth having a
> word for it.
>
> Biggie is a contraction of "bi-grumpy". Rice is named after Rice
> Kagona.
>
> Bicycle is a contraction of "bi-classical". This family is like the
> usual fifth-generated one, but half the size.
>
> Mosh is a contraction of "mohajiraish". Mish is related to mosh.
>
> Father is a temperament name. I think the etymology is a pun on
> "fourths/thirds" and as such names a shape.
>
> Bug is another temperament name, from the draft of the first part of
> Paul's forthcoming magnum opus. If it's too specific to apply to
> this family, I suggest "bogey" instead.
>
> "Bi-equal" means the scale is made from two EDOs. There may be a
> better name for these. They become more important whan you look at
> complicated temperaments.
>
> I'm using "fair" and "unfair" to distinguish the large from the
> small.
> All the names uniquely specify a shape, and if the number of notes
> doesn't need to be part of the name it isn't. That doesn't mean
> you'd leave them this terse in practice.
>

To me, these names sound a little, hmm, childish. But since they
apparently already have meanings in the scene, why not.
I can write down my list of pentatonic MOS with these.
--
Hans Straub

hstraub64 wrote:

> To me, these names sound a little, hmm, childish. But since they
> apparently already have meanings in the scene, why not.
> I can write down my list of pentatonic MOS with these.

Some of them have meanings, some don't. I didn't knowingly reject any established names and everything's open to merciless peer review right here. Obviously, I used "fair/unfair" instead of "superabundant/deficient". As well as being shorter and less Latin, it's easier to remember which scales are fair and unfair by thinking about the smaller steps being in the majority.

The names themselves aren't that important. If there are others you prefer, so be it. As a lot of scales don't currently have names, we have to start somewhere. I wanted names that are short and friendly, so as not to frighten off newbies any more than we have to by the very fact of inventing terminology. Also, if you're using names rather than numbers, it should be because you have a lot to say about a particular shape. With frequent use, a short name is obviously preferable.

If the result is that they're childish, that's fine with me. I'm not trying to boost my professional or academic credibility, let alone shroud ideas with a professional mystique. I'd be quite happy for children to learn scales from all these families. I'm sure they're capable of it.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
>
> Some of them have meanings, some don't. I didn't knowingly reject
> any established names and everything's open to merciless peer
> review right here. Obviously, I used "fair/unfair" instead of
> "superabundant/deficient". As well as being shorter and less
> Latin, it's easier to remember which scales are fair and unfair by
> thinking about the smaller steps being in the majority.
>

Now that I see the explanation, it makes sense, indeed.

>
> The names themselves aren't that important. If there are others
> you prefer, so be it. As a lot of scales don't currently have
> names, we have to start somewhere. I wanted names that are short
> and friendly, so as not to frighten off newbies any more than we
> have to by the very fact of inventing terminology.

Well, the huge amount of terminology certainly does frighten off -
this big zoo of temperament names did already frighten me...

>
> Also, if you're using names rather than numbers, it should be
> because you have a lot to say about a particular shape.

That's true, again.

>
> If the result is that they're childish, that's fine with me. I'm
> not trying to boost my professional or academic credibility, let
> alone shroud ideas with a professional mystique. I'd be quite
> happy for children to learn scales from all these families. I'm
> sure they're capable of it.
>

That's a point... Hehe, that would be something to attract children
to tuning via Disney dwarf names...

Alright, here is the complete list of families of pentatonic MOS
scales for all n-EDO tunings up to 36EDO.

Additional constraints: L/s < 5, L/s > 7/6

Naming scheme:

1L 4s Happy pentatonic
2L 3s classic pentatonic
3L s2 father
4L 1s bug

n MOS family L s
****************************
6 Happy pentatonic 2 1
7 Happy pentatonic 3 1
7 classic pentatonic 2 1
8 Happy pentatonic 4 1
8 father 2 1
9 classic pentatonic 3 1
11 Happy pentatonic 3 2
11 classic pentatonic 4 1
11 father 3 1
12 Happy pentatonnic 4 2
12 classic pentatonic 3 2
13 Happy pentatonic 5 2
13 father 3 2
13 bug 3 1
14 Happy pentatonic 6 2
14 classic pentatonic 4 2
14 father 4 1
14 bug 3 2
15 Happy pentatonnic 7 2
16 Happy pentatonic 8 2
16 Happy pentatonic 4 3
16 classic pentatonic 5 2
16 father 4 2
17 Happy pentatonic 9 2
17 Happy pentatonic 5 3
17 classic pentatonic 4 3
17 bug 4 1
18 Happy pentatonic 6 3
18 classic pentatonic 6 2
18 father 4 3
18 bug 4 2
19 Happy pentatonic 7 3
19 classic pentatonic 5 3
19 father 5 2
20 Happy pentatonic 8 3
20 classic pentatonic 7 2
21 Happy pentatonic 9 3
21 Happy pentatonic 5 4
21 classic pentatonic 6 3
21 father 5 3
22 Happy pentatonic 10 3
22 Happy pentatonic 6 4
22 classic pentatonic 5 4
22 classic pentatonic 8 2
22 father 6 2
22 bug 5 2
23 Happy pentatonic 11 3
23 Happy pentatonic 7 4
23 classic pentatonic 7 3
23 bug 5 3
24 Happy pentatonic 12 3
24 Happy pentatonic 8 4
24 classic pentatonic 6 4
24 classic pentatonic 9 2
24 father 6 3
24 bug 5 4
25 Happy pentatonic 13 3
25 Happy pentatonic 9 4
25 classic pentatonic 8 3
25 father 7 2
26 Happy pentatonic 14 3
26 Happy pentatonic 10 4
26 Happy pentatonic 6 5
26 classic pentatonic 7 4
26 father 6 4
26 bug 6 2
27 Happy pentatonic 11 4
27 Happy pentatonic 7 5
27 classic pentatonic 6 5
27 classic pentatonic 9 3
27 father 7 3
27 bug 6 3
28 Happy pentatonic 12 4
28 Happy pentatonic 8 5
28 classic pentatonic 8 4
28 father 8 2
28 father 6 5
28 bug 6 4
29 Happy pentatonic 13 4
29 Happy pentatonic 9 5
29 classic pentatonic 7 5
29 classic pentatonic 10 3
29 father 7 4
29 bug 6 5
30 Happy pentatonic 14 4
30 Happy pentatonic 10 5
30 classic pentatonic 9 5
30 father 8 3
30 bug 7 2
31 Happy pentatonic 15 4
31 Happy pentatonic 11 5
31 classic pentatonic 8 5
31 classic pentatonic 11 3
31 father 9 2
31 father 7 5
31 bug 7 3
32 Happy pentatonic 16 4
32 Happy pentatonic 12 5
32 Happy pentatonic 8 6
32 classic pentatonic 10 4
32 father 8 4
32 bug 7 4
33 Happy pentatonic 17 4
33 Happy pentatonic 13 5
33 Happy pentatonic 9 6
33 classic pentatonic 9 5
33 classic pentatonic 12 3
33 father 9 3
33 bug 7 5
34 Happy pentatonic 18 4
34 Happy pentatonic 14 5
34 Happy pentatonic 10 6
34 classic pentatonic 8 6
34 classic pentatonic 11 4
34 father 8 5
34 bug 8 2
35 Happy pentatonic 19 4
35 Happy pentatonic 15 5
35 Happy pentatonic 11 6
35 classic pentatonic 10 5
35 classic pentatonic 13 3
35 father 9 4
35 bug 8 3
36 Happy pentatonic 16 5
36 Happy pentatonic 12 6
36 classic pentatonic 9 6
36 classic pentatonic 12 4
36 father 10 3
36 father 8 6
36 bug 8 4

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

> If the result is that they're childish, that's fine with me. I'm not
> trying to boost my professional or academic credibility, let alone
> shroud ideas with a professional mystique. I'd be quite happy for
> children to learn scales from all these families. I'm sure they're
> capable of it.
>
>
> Graham

Yes!! I agree with Kraig about names btw.