Wikipedia Intervals Template: "supermajor"/"subminor" vs "septimal major" and "septimal minor"

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Intervals

Someone a while ago added "septimal major" and "septimal minor" and
"neutral" intervals to the list, which was nice. They also put
approximate step sizes for each interval: a "septimal minor third" is
listed as 2 1/2 steps, and a "septimal major third" is listed as 4 1/2
steps.

I've changed it to "supermajor", "subminor" and "neutral" intervals
instead, which is how I usually see them referred to on here anyway.
This way of explaining it makes more sense when you consider the way
the other intervals are described: the "major second" is listed in the
box as simply being around 200 cents, and it isn't; no mention is made
of whether it's 9/8 or 10/9 or anything like that. The
"major"/"minor"/"diminished"/"augmented" monikers used reflect an
emphasis on the width of the interval, not tying them down to any
specific intonation. It makes sense to then present microtonal
intervals in the same way: when viewed in that light, the prioritized
information about 7/6 isn't that it's a "septimal" version of a "minor
third", but that it is a "subminor" third, which is narrower than the
minor third. That way, the approximate 4 1/2 step size is abstract
enough to refer to ANY of the intonations for "supermajor third" that
there are - whether 9/7 or 13/10 or 23/18 or even just intentionally
wide thirds that aren't tuned in JI.

Plus, it was a bit annoying that a "septimal minor third" and a
"septimal major second" were both listed as 2 1/2 steps. Given the
above reasoning, it makes more sense to use the
"subminor"/"supermajor" naming convention here, which could actually
refer to the step sizes given. At this point, the whole table does
look pretty good and sums things up nicely, at least for now.

Anyways, some guy reverted my edit later that day, saying only that
"supermajor second" was a blank page. I've created the "supermajor
second" page and for now, it just redirects to "septimal whole tone"
-- so I took his suggestion and put the monikers back. In case there's
an edit war here, what do you guys think? Should it be "subminor" and
"supermajor" or "septimal minor" and "septimal major"?

-Mike

Also, what about interval abbreviations for subminor/supermajor
intervals? For example, on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subminor_third, the abbreviation listed
is simply "m3", and the abbreviation for a supermajor third is "M3",
as are the subminor and supermajor equivalents. The neutral third is
"n3".

Are there established abbreviations for subminor and supermajor
intervals? If not, what would we go with? Perhaps "s3" for subminor
and "S3" for supermajor, similar to the existing convention for major
and minor?

-Mike

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Mike Battaglia<battaglia01@...> wrote:
> Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Intervals
>
> Someone a while ago added "septimal major" and "septimal minor" and
> "neutral" intervals to the list, which was nice. They also put
> approximate step sizes for each interval: a "septimal minor third" is
> listed as 2 1/2 steps, and a "septimal major third" is listed as 4 1/2
> steps.
>
> I've changed it to "supermajor", "subminor" and "neutral" intervals
> instead, which is how I usually see them referred to on here anyway.
> This way of explaining it makes more sense when you consider the way
> the other intervals are described: the "major second" is listed in the
> box as simply being around 200 cents, and it isn't; no mention is made
> of whether it's 9/8 or 10/9 or anything like that. The
> "major"/"minor"/"diminished"/"augmented" monikers used reflect an
> emphasis on the width of the interval, not tying them down to any
> specific intonation. It makes sense to then present microtonal
> intervals in the same way: when viewed in that light, the prioritized
> information about 7/6 isn't that it's a "septimal" version of a "minor
> third", but that it is a "subminor" third, which is narrower than the
> minor third. That way, the approximate 4 1/2 step size is abstract
> enough to refer to ANY of the intonations for "supermajor third" that
> there are - whether 9/7 or 13/10 or 23/18 or even just intentionally
> wide thirds that aren't tuned in JI.
>
> Plus, it was a bit annoying that a "septimal minor third" and a
> "septimal major second" were both listed as 2 1/2 steps. Given the
> above reasoning, it makes more sense to use the
> "subminor"/"supermajor" naming convention here, which could actually
> refer to the step sizes given. At this point, the whole table does
> look pretty good and sums things up nicely, at least for now.
>
> Anyways, some guy reverted my edit later that day, saying only that
> "supermajor second" was a blank page. I've created the "supermajor
> second" page and for now, it just redirects to "septimal whole tone"
> -- so I took his suggestion and put the monikers back. In case there's
> an edit war here, what do you guys think? Should it be "subminor" and
> "supermajor" or "septimal minor" and "septimal major"?
>
> -Mike
>

From: "Mike Battaglia"

> Also, what about interval abbreviations for subminor/supermajor
> intervals? For example, on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subminor_third, the abbreviation listed
> is simply "m3", and the abbreviation for a supermajor third is "M3",
> as are the subminor and supermajor equivalents. The neutral third is
> "n3".
>
> Are there established abbreviations for subminor and supermajor
> intervals? If not, what would we go with? Perhaps "s3" for subminor
> and "S3" for supermajor, similar to the existing convention for major
> and minor?

I've been using "sm" for subminor and "SM" for supermajor, but I also use "sa" for semiaugmented and "sd" for semidiminished, so that might be confusing. Might "-m" and "+M" be a better alternative?

Also, the subminor/septimal minor's interval class is not 2 1/2; it's 2 2/3. At least if it were up to me. �;�)

~D.

> I've been using "sm" for subminor and "SM" for supermajor, but I also
> use "sa" for semiaugmented and "sd" for semidiminished, so that might be
> confusing. Might "-m" and "+M" be a better alternative?

I do like the sm and SM. It does sort of come in handy when you
realize that the names "subminor", "supermajor", "semi-____" and
"sesqui-____" all start with s, so perhaps we could keep up with your
convention and let a little "s" stand for subminor or semi-___, and
let a capital "S" stand for "supermajor" or "sesqui-____". So a
subminor third would be sm3, a supermajor third would be SM3, a
semiaugmented 4 would be sa4, and a semidiminished 5 would be sd5. A
sesqui-augmented fifth would be SA5, a sesqui-diminished 5 would be
SD5, etc. Actually, now that I'm typing it, I realize that it might
end up being confusing. Hm. When do you capitalize the "A" for
augmented label and when don't you?

But I do like the "sm" for subminor and the "SM" for supermajor, with
"s" and "S" possibly being further abbreviated versions of those. I'd
personally avoid the -/+ symbols any more; they're already used for
too many things as it is. + can be an augmented chord, a raised
interval in general, an 81/80 shift... When does the madness end?

> Also, the subminor/septimal minor's interval class is not 2 1/2; it's 2
> 2/3. At least if it were up to me. ¶;¬)
>
> ~D.

I would certainly agree with septimal minor being 2 2/3. That's
actually one of the main reasons I changed the naming from "septimal
minor" to "subminor": 2 1/2 steps could certainly be considered a type
of "subminor third", albeit an extremely narrow one. It's a pretty far
stretch for 7/6, though.

As it stands, though, the box is pretty organized with its 24-tet
approximations, and doesn't offer any inaccurate information I can
tell of. If we want to make the box a bit more detailed, however, and
go from the general "subminor third of about 2.5 steps" to the more
detailed "septimal minor third of about 2.66 steps", I'm all for it.

-Mike

> I do like the sm and SM. It does sort of come in handy when you
> realize that the names "subminor", "supermajor", "semi-____" and
> "sesqui-____" all start with s, so perhaps we could keep up with your
> convention and let a little "s" stand for subminor or semi-___, and
> let a capital "S" stand for "supermajor" or "sesqui-____".

Sorry, a correction - the "s" could stand for "sub" or "semi" and the
"S" stands for "super" or "sesqui". So if you wanted a superminor
third, for some reason, you could have Sm3, which would be about 333
cents, I suppose.

BTW, whoever came up with sesqui? What a strange word.

-Mike