Re: Alternate harmonization of superpyth[7] leading to different tonal s

Mike wrote :
> Superpyth[7] has 4:6:7 and 4:6:7:9 and 4:7:9 chords everywhere. In
> contrast, meantone[7] has 4:5:6 chords everywhere. Has anyone explored
> alternate, xenharmonic tonal structures from superpyth[7] based off of
> this?

I am not certain to understand the question, whether you mean together with 4:5:6, or without ?
In case this interests you this is a cool superpyth scale that I made after the discussion you opened on "periodicity buzz" - it has full eq-beating AND equal difference frequencies 4:5:6:7 tetrads everywhere
(we can hear they have a characteristic sound).
By omitting the major third ribbon part of it (A E B F# C#), same thing still applies for 4:6:7 triads.
Anyway it's a scale I found quite poetic and medieval (watch out for the XXL "syntonic" commas of 49.721468 c. ... good scale for learning to play with them).

! tapek-ribbon.scl
!
Eq-diff ribbon extension of Superpyth, made of two Tapek sequences
12
!
1777/1656 ! C#
627/552 ! D
173/138 ! E
4273/3312 ! E+
1465/1104 ! F
131/92 ! F#
104/69 ! G
3673/2208 ! A
945/552 ! A+
243/138 ! Bb
1043/552 ! B
2/1
! Tapek -c and triple h.eq-b recurrent sequence 3x^3 = x^2 + 8
! and Superpyth temperament (generator = 710.25498677616 c.)
! completed by the arithmetical mean ribbon y = (1 + x)/2,
! equal-differential frequencies of all [7:6:5:4] tetrads
! main sequence : 243 1465 69 13 627 945 4273/3 ... (C = 69)
! major third sequence : 3673 173 1043 393 1777/3...

- - - - - - -
Jacques

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:
>
> Mike wrote :
>
> Superpyth[7] has 4:6:7 and 4:6:7:9 and 4:7:9 chords everywhere. In
> contrast, meantone[7] has 4:5:6 chords everywhere. Has anyone explored
> alternate, xenharmonic tonal structures from superpyth[7] based off of
> this?
>
> I am not certain to understand the question, whether you mean together with 4:5:6, or without ?

I meant as part of the 2.3.7 subgroup - ignore the 5. Meantone[7] is
part of 2.3.5-limit JI, and Superpyth[7] doesn't even get 5 in there,
so you can of it as better representing the 2.3.7-limit subgroup.

Check out the "concordance table" I made in my follow-up post, and
you'll see what I'm getting at.

> In case this interests you this is a cool superpyth scale that I made after the discussion you opened on "periodicity buzz" - it has full eq-beating AND equal difference frequencies 4:5:6:7 tetrads everywhere

I'm confused? I only see one 4:5:6:7 tetrad...

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I meant as part of the 2.3.7 subgroup - ignore the 5. Meantone[7] is
> part of 2.3.5-limit JI, and Superpyth[7] doesn't even get 5 in there,
> so you can of it as better representing the 2.3.7-limit subgroup.

Or 2.3.7.11, as with "Supra" on the chromatic pairs page:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > I meant as part of the 2.3.7 subgroup - ignore the 5. Meantone[7] is
> > part of 2.3.5-limit JI, and Superpyth[7] doesn't even get 5 in there,
> > so you can of it as better representing the 2.3.7-limit subgroup.
>
> Or 2.3.7.11, as with "Supra" on the chromatic pairs page:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs

Some nice looking new ones there - awesome.

BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again? I
wouldn't have a problem calling porcupine[7] "porcupine diatonic" or
something like that.

We also need a name for "pentatonic" scales... What would be a good
name for scales that fit the paradigm of having there be not much
dissonance, but not much versatility either? Scales that are simple
and consonant, for instance.

What's a latin word meaning "good simple?" Ha.

-Mike

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again? I
> wouldn't have a problem calling porcupine[7] "porcupine diatonic" or
> something like that.
>
> We also need a name for "pentatonic" scales... What would be a good
> name for scales that fit the paradigm of having there be not much
> dissonance, but not much versatility either? Scales that are simple
> and consonant, for instance.
>
> What's a latin word meaning "good simple?" Ha.

Actually, pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic are all from Greek
roots, so maybe we should be using Greek here.

The Greek root for "simple" is "haplo," so how about "haplotonic" for
something like meantone[5]? Or perhaps it would be haplitonic.

Then you have haplotonic, diatonic, and chromatic scales, and if we
can come up with a word for scales that are obviously in between those
three, we have most stuff figured out. There lots of scales that are
halfway between haplotonic and diatonic, and even more that are
halfway between diatonic and chromatic. What would be a good name for
a scale that has some features of the diatonic scale, but also a lot
from the chromatic scale, as in Pajara[10]? Machine[11] is probably
that as well.

That is, if the pentatonic scale is a little village, and the diatonic
scale is a nice town, and the chromatic scale is a sprawling city,
what's intermediate here?

Also, Gene, any chance you might be able to help us out with this
"average complexity" search? I need to figure out how to find the
least complex mapping for a tempered chord...

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again? I
> wouldn't have a problem calling porcupine[7] "porcupine diatonic" or
> something like that.

Because a diatonic scale has seven notes to the octave.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Also, Gene, any chance you might be able to help us out with this
> "average complexity" search? I need to figure out how to find the
> least complex mapping for a tempered chord...

I'm not sure what the question is here.

> Actually, pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic are all from Greek
> roots, so maybe we should be using Greek here.

Greek for white is "aspros", so should I be using "asprotonic"?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again?

How many times would you like him to explain it?

> I wouldn't have a problem calling porcupine[7] "porcupine
> diatonic"

I would. The term "diatonic" is severely overtaxed already.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> > Actually, pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic are all from Greek
> > roots, so maybe we should be using Greek here.
>
> Greek for white is "aspros", so should I be using "asprotonic"?

No. -Carl

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again?
>
> How many times would you like him to explain it?

Once would have been okay.

> > I wouldn't have a problem calling porcupine[7] "porcupine
> > diatonic"
>
> I would. The term "diatonic" is severely overtaxed already.

Not me.

-Mike

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > Actually, pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic are all from Greek
> > roots, so maybe we should be using Greek here.
>
> Greek for white is "aspros", so should I be using "asprotonic"?

I'm just not a fan of the "white" prefix in general. Is everybody
really sold on the "albitonic" moniker? I think it's a less elegant
than "chromatic," which emphasizes that it's full of different colors,
and my proposed "haplotonic" for the pentatonic scale which emphasizes
that it's simple. On the other hand, albitonic emphasizes that it's a
white scale. Asprotonic sounds like a medication for those with autism
spectrum disorders and I think that albitonic sounds like a kind of
bird.

Maybe the point for "diatonic"-ish scales is that they're kind of
basic "root" scales that one generally derives chord progressions and
hence music from. I suggest something like "archetonic," as in
archetype. Maybe something like "genitonic" would be good, although
that has some associations I don't like.

Or how about "cinetonic," where cine means "motion," because the whole
point of diatonic scales is that they enable chord progressions to
happen, and that's what they excel at.

Anything along that line of thought I find more exciting than
"albitonic," which reminds me of that flight of the conchords sketch
about the racist dragon.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > > BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again?
> >
> > How many times would you like him to explain it?
>
> Once would have been okay.

He did it twice on MMM.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I'm just not a fan of the "white" prefix in general.

Complain to the NAACP.

> Is everybody really sold on the "albitonic" moniker?

Yes.

-Carl

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > > > BTW - why are we calling it albitonic instead of diatonic again?
> > >
> > > How many times would you like him to explain it?
> >
> > Once would have been okay.
>
> He did it twice on MMM.

Check again. He said that "albi" means white, which I get. I asked
this time why we're not just calling them diatonic scales, which is a
new question.

-Mike

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > Is everybody really sold on the "albitonic" moniker?
>
> Yes.

Is everybody you and Gene? I'm the one who suggested this search for
"diatonic" and "chromatic" scale pairs, and now I'm getting pushed
into the albitonic moniker. I don't like the "chromatic pairs" name
either, but I won't argue that. "Albitonic" reminds me of a species of
albino, racist, catatonic birds.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Is everybody really sold on the "albitonic" moniker?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Is everybody you and Gene?

Yes, since AFAIK only you Gene and I are following this.
But sure, if you want to throw a hissy fit and overload an
overloaded term like "diatonic" even more and hold an online
conference on racism in intonation terminology, I'll cave.
I always give in to such tactics.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> "Albitonic" reminds me of a species of
> albino, racist, catatonic birds.

Think Albus Dumbeldore. How bad is that? What about an alb? Is that objectionable?

Anyway, you haven't come up with a convincing alternative yet.

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, since AFAIK only you Gene and I are following this.
> But sure, if you want to throw a hissy fit and overload an
> overloaded term like "diatonic" even more and hold an online
> conference on racism in intonation terminology, I'll cave.
> I always give in to such tactics.

I actually don't like it because while diatonic means "through tones"
which is elegant, and "chromatic" means pertaining to "color" which is
elegant, albitonic means "the scale you'd put on the white notes of a
piano" which I think is less elegant. The racism thing was just a
joke. My objections obviously have nothing to do with racism.
Actually, if you want to know, FOTC has a song called "Albi the Racist
Dragon," and that's what the reference was to. Just being honest.

Back to the point - I suggested using "diatonic." You guys said that
you think diatonic was overloaded, and suggested "albitonic." I'm okay
with not using "diatonic," but I think we can do better than
albitonic, and I don't like it much. And here we are...

-Mike

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > "Albitonic" reminds me of a species of
> > albino, racist, catatonic birds.
>
> Think Albus Dumbeldore. How bad is that? What about an alb? Is that objectionable?

Now it will forever remind me of Harry Potter, which is bad, and I
don't know what an alb is.

> Anyway, you haven't come up with a convincing alternative yet.

You weren't a fan of cinetonic? I was all about that one. Kinetonic is
similar and the prefix means "movement." The idea is that the whole
point of diatonic scales are that they simplify and facilitate chord
progressions, which are about motion. Or we could ditch the "tonic"
suffix altogether, since chromatic doesn't use it anyway, and you
could have cinetic or a "kinetic" scale.

How about that? A kinetic scale is one that lends itself to motion,
which diatonic scales do. Then chromatic scales are ones that lend
themselves to color, which is their whole point. And then haplic
scales could be ones that lend themselves to simplicity, which the
pentatonic scale does. Man, I'm on the spot now, this is hard.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > Think Albus Dumbeldore. How bad is that? What about an alb? Is that objectionable?
>
> Now it will forever remind me of Harry Potter, which is bad, and I
> don't know what an alb is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alb

> > Anyway, you haven't come up with a convincing alternative yet.
>
> You weren't a fan of cinetonic? I was all about that one.

Sounds like movie technology. What does Carl think of it, I wonder?

> How about that? A kinetic scale is one that lends itself to motion,
> which diatonic scales do.

Sounds like physics.

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > How about that? A kinetic scale is one that lends itself to motion,
> > which diatonic scales do.
>
> Sounds like physics.

There's "kinetonic" too. Or, since "diatonic" meant "through tones,"
we could use "porotonic" where "por" means passage. Some further out
options include "sophotonic," a wise scale, "tropotonic" as in a scale
that is "turning,"

How about "eutonic," which means a well scale? Since we're using
well-formed MOS's for these, perhaps that's appropriate.

Or perhaps "mesotonic," because they're middle sized scales, not
haplotonic and not chromatic. Maybe that's the simplest of all.

The ones that are between diatonic and chromatic could perhaps be
"epitonic," and those beyond chromatic could be "perantonic" or
"holotonic" or maybe just "metachromatic."

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Or perhaps "mesotonic," because they're middle sized scales, not
> haplotonic and not chromatic. Maybe that's the simplest of all.

Can you define haplotonic, mesotonic and chromatic?

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:38 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Or perhaps "mesotonic," because they're middle sized scales, not
> > haplotonic and not chromatic. Maybe that's the simplest of all.
>
> Can you define haplotonic, mesotonic and chromatic?

They generalize meantone pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic respectively.

Haplotonic is the name I proposed for scales equivalent in character
to the meantone pentatonic scale, taken from the greek "simple." They
are very simple scales, and nothing's wrong with that. You can have a
baby smash a fisher price toy with a haplotonic scale on it and
everything will sound good. Meantone[5], Pompey[5],

Chromatic is a scale on the other extreme, which has a lot more notes
- you can't smash it and everything will sound good. However, these
scales are really versatile, and the concordances you can get out of
them are better than those of haplotonic scales, which are more
limited. You have to pick and choose the notes you want carefully,
whereas haplotonic scales are appropriate for a guitar solo where the
soloist doesn't know what to play but knows any note in the haplotonic
scale will vaguely "sound good."

Mesotonic is one of the names I proposed for scales in between - it's
a scale that has some baby-mashing ability, but also has enough
dissonance that you can establish multiple tonal centers within it,
and hence set up chord progressions. It's in the middle and is some
sense the sweet spot between the two extremes. I also proposed all of
the cine/kine "motion" based names and eutonic and so on for this type
of scale.

-Mike

On 7 March 2011 02:15, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Yes, since AFAIK only you Gene and I are following this.
> But sure, if you want to throw a hissy fit and overload an
> overloaded term like "diatonic" even more and hold an online
> conference on racism in intonation terminology, I'll cave.
> I always give in to such tactics.

I'm following. I don't have a particular opinion on what things are
called. "Albitonic" is good once you connect it to "white note
scale".

I think of pentatonic-like scales as having homogeneous harmony, so
"homotonic" is what I'd go for. I don't know what the equivalent
Greek would be so I don't now if it was suggested. Examples are the
meantone pentatonic (5 from 12, 9-limit no sevens), the Semaphore
pentatonic (5 from 19, 9-limit no fives) and Mohajira (7 from 31,
11-limit, or 7 from 17 with a different mapping). I'm concerned that
these names aren't showing up on Gene's page so he must be inventing
new names for old structures.

The threshold for chromatics seems to be low. Gene calls a 19 note
scale a "mega chromatic". I'm happy with a 19 note chromatic. I
think of chromatics as near-equal temperaments so they should be
strictly proper. A scale with more notes than a chromatic should be
called an "enharmonic". I can see that 19 notes is around the
boundary between chromatics and enharmonics, but still enharmonics can
work as the "chromatic" part of a chromatic pair. The point there is
that it should be a small enough number of notes that you can fit onto
a keyboard, even a linear keyboard, and 22 works.

The 13 note Orwell MOS (which should obviously be called the "clock
scale") is an interesting scale type. You can build chords on any
degree, and they'll sound in tune to the 11-limit. It's far too
unequal to count as a well temperament but it still has the
circulating property. I thought about calling it a "falaj
temperament" because it serves the same purpose as a well temperament
without being one. Wikipedia says that's a regional term though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaj

I'll reiterate that I don't care about most of this. But the basic
concept of chromatic pairs is important. It ties in with Rothenberg's
measures and maximal evenness.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> I think of pentatonic-like scales

What are pentatonic-like scales? If you've got a MOS 'nest'
it's sufficient to have terms for above (chromatic) and
below (albitonic) to navigate. Is the idea to have three
terms: for the current level (albitonic), above (chromatic),
and below (homotonic)? If so, I insist the latter be called
"negrotonic". Ok ok, noirtonic.

-Carl

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> I'm following. I don't have a particular opinion on what things are
> called. "Albitonic" is good once you connect it to "white note
> scale".

I came up with, a while ago, an alternative Halberstadt mapping for 12
in which the white keys were pentatonic and the black keys were
heptatonic. You seemed to like it. Would this make meantone[5] the
"albitonic" scale then?

> I think of pentatonic-like scales as having homogeneous harmony, so
> "homotonic" is what I'd go for. I don't know what the equivalent
> Greek would be so I don't now if it was suggested.

I suggested "haplitonic," from the Greek for "simple." I think homo
already is Greek, but some other Greek synonyms for "same" include
autotonic and isotonic. I kind of like isotonic.

> Examples are the meantone pentatonic (5 from 12, 9-limit no sevens), the Semaphore
> pentatonic (5 from 19, 9-limit no fives) and Mohajira (7 from 31,
> 11-limit, or 7 from 17 with a different mapping). I'm concerned that
> these names aren't showing up on Gene's page so he must be inventing
> new names for old structures.

I think he called the Semaphore scale "Bridgetown" and Mohajira
"Mohaha." I always thought of Mohajira[7] as diatonic, myself, but it
definitely has some pentatonic/isotonic/homotonic/haplitonic
qualities. Maybe this is one of those scales that would be between
meantone diatonic and meantone pentatonic. Maybe the whole concept
implies a certain degree of subjectivity.

> The threshold for chromatics seems to be low. Gene calls a 19 note
> scale a "mega chromatic". I'm happy with a 19 note chromatic. I
> think of chromatics as near-equal temperaments so they should be
> strictly proper.

A while ago, I posted that I'd had a revelation that I "think" in
12-tet as a "universe set." All of Rothenberg's predictions, which
I've said before don't really sum up my perception of things like the
diatonic scale, sum up my perception almost entirely when you apply
them to my perception of 12-tet. I hypothesized that this is because
as a jazz musician and having a particular affinity for
impressionistic harmony I've taught myself to think more
"chromatically" than "diatonically." Paul seems to report a similar
things, in as much as he's not a fan of propriety but believes
categorical perception is law for the chromatic scale.

So as you just said, insofar as a chromatic scale is used in a
Rothenbergian sense as a "measuring stick" or some kind of universe
set, one of my hypotheses is as you said that strictly proper scales
will be easier to cognize. I also think that chromatic scales that
have the MOS property will also be easier to keep track of for similar
reasons. I'd like to test that at some point.

> A scale with more notes than a chromatic should be
> called an "enharmonic". I can see that 19 notes is around the
> boundary between chromatics and enharmonics

For meantone, but as we're seeing it varies from temperament to
temperament a bit...

> but still enharmonics can work as the "chromatic" part of a chromatic pair. The point there is
> that it should be a small enough number of notes that you can fit onto
> a keyboard, even a linear keyboard, and 22 works.

That's good, enharmonic. We could just call everything beyond
chromatic "enharmonic" and leave it at that, or you could go with
"cosmotonic," or "holotonic," or something else like that.

> The 13 note Orwell MOS (which should obviously be called the "clock
> scale") is an interesting scale type.

Haha, why?

> I'll reiterate that I don't care about most of this. But the basic
> concept of chromatic pairs is important. It ties in with Rothenberg's
> measures and maximal evenness.

I agree.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think of pentatonic-like scales
>
> What are pentatonic-like scales?

I've defined it in almost every message I've posted in this thread
since it started. And people wonder sometimes why I'm too verbose.

-Mike

On 7 March 2011 13:26, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> What are pentatonic-like scales?  If you've got a MOS 'nest'
> it's sufficient to have terms for above (chromatic) and
> below (albitonic) to navigate.  Is the idea to have three
> terms: for the current level (albitonic), above (chromatic),
> and below (homotonic)?  If so, I insist the latter be called
> "negrotonic".  Ok ok, noirtonic.

I suggest we have names for everything we need to talk about, when we
decide to talk about them enough that we need the name. Mike
identified his "haplotonic" as pentatonic-like in the message before
mine. That's what I was talking about. It looks like a concept that
I've had as well, but haven't defined a term for.

Yes, "negrotinic" wouldn't work because it'd be confused with Negri
temperament. If it's going to be compared to a black note scale,
what's wrong with "black note scale" or "melanotonic"? But,
fundamentally, Mike's concept isn't about the level below
diatonic-like, it's a particular property of a scale. It's been
called a "wind chimes scale" somewhere as well. I'm happy with
"isotonic".

Graham

On 7 March 2011 13:48, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I think he called the Semaphore scale "Bridgetown" and Mohajira
> "Mohaha." I always thought of Mohajira[7] as diatonic, myself, but it
> definitely has some pentatonic/isotonic/homotonic/haplitonic
> qualities. Maybe this is one of those scales that would be between
> meantone diatonic and meantone pentatonic. Maybe the whole concept
> implies a certain degree of subjectivity.

It's both isotonic and albitonic. That shows the two terms aren't
mutually exclusive.

Graham

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 7 March 2011 13:48, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > I think he called the Semaphore scale "Bridgetown" and Mohajira
> > "Mohaha." I always thought of Mohajira[7] as diatonic, myself, but it
> > definitely has some pentatonic/isotonic/homotonic/haplitonic
> > qualities. Maybe this is one of those scales that would be between
> > meantone diatonic and meantone pentatonic. Maybe the whole concept
> > implies a certain degree of subjectivity.
>
> It's both isotonic and albino albatross albert albenga http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Qu3iP3RYA. That shows the two terms aren't
> mutually exclusive.

The above is what I think of when I see "albitonic." But you raise an
interesting point. However, what fundamental property do you see these
"albitonic" scales as having? You also addressed it somewhat here:

> But, fundamentally, Mike's concept isn't about the level below
> diatonic-like, it's a particular property of a scale. It's been
> called a "wind chimes scale" somewhere as well. I'm happy with
> "isotonic".

I was viewing it more as a continuum, where on one extreme you have a
wind chimes scale, and on another extreme you have an enharmonic scale
that has greater concordances than a wind chimes scale, but they're
rarer. I viewed the diatonic scale as being halfway between these
extremes, which set it up such that the "wind chimes" approach doesn't
lead to a "homogenous" sound but rather a "fractured" sound, but not
as fractured as an enharmonic scale would be if set up with wind
chimes, which would just sound like noise. This fractured nature means
that there will be more than one subset of the scale which is coherent
and "wind chimes"-y, so you can have more than one tonal center and
hence stuff like chord progressions.

So in this paradigm, the "fractured" thing and the "wind chimes" thing
couldn't really happen at the same time, since a scale can't be both
fractured and homogenous. It can be only kind of fractured, but you
are pointing out that mohajira has characteristics of both. Since
perhaps your paradigm makes more sense, what do you see the
fundamental property of "albitonic" scales as being? That more than
one point of stability exists in the scale, irrespective of how it
sounds if you mash it?

-Mike

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

> I'm concerned that
> these names aren't showing up on Gene's page so he must be inventing
> new names for old structures.

The problem is, I'm not naming scales, I'm naming subgroup temperaments. These are likely to be in essence restricted ranges of something familiar, or warped versions of the familiar. For example I suggested the "tutone" temperament some while back, which I put up on the page last night as it fits. Every other note of 11-limit meantone, so it has 9's but not 3's. Is that familiar, or isn't it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
>
> > I'm concerned that
> > these names aren't showing up on Gene's page so he must be inventing
> > new names for old structures.
>
> The problem is, I'm not naming scales, I'm naming subgroup temperaments.

I've made an attempt to fix the problem by listing related temperaments. Sometimes, as with "Bridgeport", the name already related to something but the relationship was obscure. I also changed the name of "Pompey" to "Radon", which is not only a chemical element, it's the original name of Rodan in Japan.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > What are pentatonic-like scales?
>
> I've defined it in almost every message I've posted in this thread
> since it started.

Show me a single example. -Carl

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

> Mike's concept isn't about the level below
> diatonic-like, it's a particular property of a scale.
> It's been called a "wind chimes scale" somewhere as well.

You mean where everything sounds good? That has nothing
to do with the "chromatic pairs" thing. -Carl

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > > What are pentatonic-like scales?
> >
> > I've defined it in almost every message I've posted in this thread
> > since it started.
>
> Show me a single example. -Carl

/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96650 - Here I
talk about some features that the pentatonic scale has, and mention
that we can't use "pentatonic" for the name if a 6-note scale has the
same properties
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96651 - Here's the
first time I started talking about "haplotonic" scales as a name for a
generalization of something like meantone[5], because pentatonic-like
scales are "simple" and haplo means simple. Complete with
village/town/city metaphor
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96662 - Another
mention of "haplotonic" scales and how they're simple.
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96705 - Here's
Graham's message about "pentatonic-like" scales
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96710 - Here's
Graham responding to your question about what pentatonic-like scales
are by saying that they're what I was calling haplotonic
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96708 - Here I
change the name to "isotonic" as per Graham's suggestion of them
sounding homogenous
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96713 - Here's me
talking about the different paradigms for isotonic, "albi"tonic, and
chromatic scales yet again
/tuning/topicId_96641.html#96693 - Here's me
defining everything again

etc.

-Mike

"haplo" is fantastic.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > > > What are pentatonic-like scales?
> > >
> > > I've defined it in almost every message I've posted in this thread
> > > since it started.
> >
> > Show me a single example. -Carl
>
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96650 - Here I
> talk about some features that the pentatonic scale has, and mention
> that we can't use "pentatonic" for the name if a 6-note scale has the
> same properties
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96651 - Here's the
> first time I started talking about "haplotonic" scales as a name for a
> generalization of something like meantone[5], because pentatonic-like
> scales are "simple" and haplo means simple. Complete with
> village/town/city metaphor
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96662 - Another
> mention of "haplotonic" scales and how they're simple.
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96705 - Here's
> Graham's message about "pentatonic-like" scales
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96710 - Here's
> Graham responding to your question about what pentatonic-like scales
> are by saying that they're what I was calling haplotonic
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96708 - Here I
> change the name to "isotonic" as per Graham's suggestion of them
> sounding homogenous
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96713 - Here's me
> talking about the different paradigms for isotonic, "albi"tonic, and
> chromatic scales yet again
> /tuning/topicId_96641.html#96693 - Here's me
> defining everything again
>
> etc.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> "haplo" is fantastic.

Good; I've been using it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> > "haplo" is fantastic.
>
> Good; I've been using it.

For what, exactly? Certainly not here:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs

(which is already the 2nd google result for chromatic pairs).

-Carl

Mike wrote:

> > Show me a single example. -Carl
>
[snip]

None of those amount to a definition, which is part of the
reason I still don't know whether you're talking about MOS
nests or mashability. Albitonic refers only to the former

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > > "haplo" is fantastic.
> >
> > Good; I've been using it.
>
> For what, exactly? Certainly not here:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs

Yes, there.

> (which is already the 2nd google result for chromatic pairs).

Cool!

Gene wrote:

>>>> "haplo" is fantastic.
>>>
>>> Good; I've been using it.
>>
>> For what, exactly? Certainly not here:
>>
>> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs
>
> Yes, there.

Ok, you use it but don't define it. Noirtonic would be
more consistent. -Carl