Rothenberg proipriety and maqam scales

From something Ozan said in a recent posting, I got the impression that
what I've been missing may be that he needs the MOS to be proper. This
is quite a restrictive condition, and helps to explain why Ozan likes
his scale so much, if it is correct.

If we look for Rothenberg proper MOS of 159-et between 74 and 84 in
size, we find only three: 2deg159, 79-notes, 2deg159, 80 notes, and
23deg159, 76 notes. The first two are Ozan's scales, and 23deg159
doesn't look as good from a complexity point of view, so Ozan wins.
This could help a great deal to explain what the heck is up, and it
also allows us to perform a similar analysis on other scales. Ozan,
you've given various answers to an acceptable upper limit for this
stuff, but I wonder if we could nail that down? What about lower limit?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 �ubat 2007 Cumartesi 3:11
Subject: [tuning] Rothenberg proipriety and maqam scales

> >From something Ozan said in a recent posting, I got the impression that
> what I've been missing may be that he needs the MOS to be proper. This
> is quite a restrictive condition, and helps to explain why Ozan likes
> his scale so much, if it is correct.
>
> If we look for Rothenberg proper MOS of 159-et between 74 and 84 in
> size, we find only three: 2deg159, 79-notes, 2deg159, 80 notes, and
> 23deg159, 76 notes. The first two are Ozan's scales, and 23deg159
> doesn't look as good from a complexity point of view, so Ozan wins.
> This could help a great deal to explain what the heck is up, and it
> also allows us to perform a similar analysis on other scales. Ozan,
> you've given various answers to an acceptable upper limit for this
> stuff, but I wonder if we could nail that down? What about lower limit?
>
>
>

I don't know what any of this means, but I shall venture to guess that I
must have hit a gold-mine.

What is a lower-limit?

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> What is a lower-limit?

I just meant the smallest size which can reasonably be expected to
work. I've decided to use 58-99 as my range to find proper MOS in,
however.

That's an appropriate range.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 �ubat 2007 Cumartesi 20:49
Subject: [tuning] Re: Rothenberg proipriety and maqam scales

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > What is a lower-limit?
>
> I just meant the smallest size which can reasonably be expected to
> work. I've decided to use 58-99 as my range to find proper MOS in,
> however.
>
>