Talk:MODMOS scale - Revision history

BudjarnLambeth: Update

2024-01-14T06:15:59Z

Update

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:15, 14 January 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:: I like the term inflected MOS. Should we have an abbreviation like IMOS or INFMOS, or should we just call it inflected MOS with no abbreviation? I'm happy either way.		:: I like the term inflected MOS. Should we have an abbreviation like IMOS or INFMOS, or should we just call it inflected MOS with no abbreviation? I'm happy either way.
	:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

			:: I have created the page now. I decided to go with inflected MOS as the name. Thank you for the name :)
			:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 06:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth at 04:17, 12 January 2024

2024-01-12T04:17:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, 12 January 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, it is a big help :)		:: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, it is a big help :)

	The MODMOS article as it stands right now reads "''although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma''", which means that as it stands right now, those infinite options are already available, and they are included within MODMOS.		:: The MODMOS article as it stands right now reads "''although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma''", which means that as it stands right now, those infinite options are already available, and they are included within MODMOS.

	:: So the problem already exists.		:: So the problem already exists.

BudjarnLambeth at 04:16, 12 January 2024

2024-01-12T04:16:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 12 January 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:
	The MODMOS article as it stands right now reads "''although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma''", which means that as it stands right now, those infinite options are already available, and they are included within MODMOS.		The MODMOS article as it stands right now reads "''although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma''", which means that as it stands right now, those infinite options are already available, and they are included within MODMOS.

	So the problem already exists.		:: So the problem already exists.

	What I am mainly hoping we can do, is contain the problem by giving that infinite field of other alterations its own separate term, so that they can muddy that term, instead of muddying the term "MODMOS" itself.		:: What I am mainly hoping we can do, is contain the problem by giving that infinite field of other alterations its own separate term, so that they can muddy that term, instead of muddying the term "MODMOS" itself.

	Within that infinite field, we can define various subtypes: MOSes altered by step sizes from the MOS itself, MOSes altered by the chroma of a different MOS, MOSes altered by JI intervals, etc.		:: Within that infinite field, we can define various subtypes: MOSes altered by step sizes from the MOS itself, MOSes altered by the chroma of a different MOS, MOSes altered by JI intervals, etc.

	But the first step, I feel, is to wall it off from MODMOS, to contain the problem.		:: But the first step, I feel, is to wall it off from MODMOS, to contain the problem.

	I like the term inflected MOS. Should we have an abbreviation like IMOS or INFMOS, or should we just call it inflected MOS with no abbreviation? I'm happy either way.		:: I like the term inflected MOS. Should we have an abbreviation like IMOS or INFMOS, or should we just call it inflected MOS with no abbreviation? I'm happy either way.
	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: Added reply

2024-01-12T04:16:21Z

Added reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 12 January 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	: I worry that "non-strict" MODMOS would, maybe paradoxically, have a stricter threshold of recognizability, i.e. altering a MOS by something other than a chroma might increase the likelihood that it isn't recognized by the listener as a variant of the original MOS. It's only an hypothesis, though. The article already talks a bit about the existence of extreme cases, but there's no clear example, so here's one for the sake of this explanation: 12edo's ultrahard onyx MOS, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (12), can ''technically'' also be called a MODMOS of diatonic Locrian b3 bb4 bb5 bbb6 bbbb7. If you add on top of that the possibility of altering by any interval, not just the moschroma, then you're effectively calling every 7-tone scale a MODMOS of any given 7-tone MOS, and I don't think it's a useful category, unless you work systematically with a sort of "alteration measure" to keep track of scales that deviate too much from the MOS to rank them from most similar to least similar, and I don't expect such a measure to be perfect. I suppose one could make the point that extreme cases don't have to matter, and lightly altered cases could still be interesting. In that case, I'm not sure if NSMODMOS is a pretty term I'd like to use for such scales.		: I worry that "non-strict" MODMOS would, maybe paradoxically, have a stricter threshold of recognizability, i.e. altering a MOS by something other than a chroma might increase the likelihood that it isn't recognized by the listener as a variant of the original MOS. It's only an hypothesis, though. The article already talks a bit about the existence of extreme cases, but there's no clear example, so here's one for the sake of this explanation: 12edo's ultrahard onyx MOS, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (12), can ''technically'' also be called a MODMOS of diatonic Locrian b3 bb4 bb5 bbb6 bbbb7. If you add on top of that the possibility of altering by any interval, not just the moschroma, then you're effectively calling every 7-tone scale a MODMOS of any given 7-tone MOS, and I don't think it's a useful category, unless you work systematically with a sort of "alteration measure" to keep track of scales that deviate too much from the MOS to rank them from most similar to least similar, and I don't expect such a measure to be perfect. I suppose one could make the point that extreme cases don't have to matter, and lightly altered cases could still be interesting. In that case, I'm not sure if NSMODMOS is a pretty term I'd like to use for such scales.
	: If it were up to me, MODMOS scales would be called "altered MOS scales", reusing the existing music theory term for "{{w\|altered chord}}" (although {{w\|altered scale}} is something specific, apparently?), and what's currently proposed as NSMODMOS scales, I would call "inflected MOS scales", coming from the idea that an "inflection" is similar to an alteration, but generally less strict and more contextual. [[User:TallKite\|Kite]] has recently made such a distinction between accidentals and inflections, as can be seen on the [[Arrow]] page for example. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		: If it were up to me, MODMOS scales would be called "altered MOS scales", reusing the existing music theory term for "{{w\|altered chord}}" (although {{w\|altered scale}} is something specific, apparently?), and what's currently proposed as NSMODMOS scales, I would call "inflected MOS scales", coming from the idea that an "inflection" is similar to an alteration, but generally less strict and more contextual. [[User:TallKite\|Kite]] has recently made such a distinction between accidentals and inflections, as can be seen on the [[Arrow]] page for example. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

			:: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, it is a big help :)

			The MODMOS article as it stands right now reads "''although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma''", which means that as it stands right now, those infinite options are already available, and they are included within MODMOS.

			So the problem already exists.

			What I am mainly hoping we can do, is contain the problem by giving that infinite field of other alterations its own separate term, so that they can muddy that term, instead of muddying the term "MODMOS" itself.

			Within that infinite field, we can define various subtypes: MOSes altered by step sizes from the MOS itself, MOSes altered by the chroma of a different MOS, MOSes altered by JI intervals, etc.

			But the first step, I feel, is to wall it off from MODMOS, to contain the problem.

			I like the term inflected MOS. Should we have an abbreviation like IMOS or INFMOS, or should we just call it inflected MOS with no abbreviation? I'm happy either way.
			--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Fredg999: Fix incorrect explanation

2024-01-12T03:41:08Z

Fix incorrect explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 12 January 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:

	: I worry that "non-strict" MODMOS would, maybe paradoxically, have a stricter threshold of recognizability, i.e. altering a MOS by something other than a chroma might increase the likelihood that it isn't recognized by the listener as a variant of the original MOS. It's only an hypothesis, though. The article already talks a bit about the existence of extreme cases, but there's no clear example, so here's one for the sake of this explanation: 12edo's ultrahard onyx MOS, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (12), can ''technically'' also be called a MODMOS of diatonic Locrian b3 bb4 bb5 bbb6 bbbb7. If you add on top of that the possibility of altering by any interval, not just the moschroma, then you're effectively calling every 7-tone scale a MODMOS of any given 7-tone MOS, and I don't think it's a useful category, unless you work systematically with a sort of "alteration measure" to keep track of scales that deviate too much from the MOS to rank them from most similar to least similar, and I don't expect such a measure to be perfect. I suppose one could make the point that extreme cases don't have to matter, and lightly altered cases could still be interesting. In that case, I'm not sure if NSMODMOS is a pretty term I'd like to use for such scales.		: I worry that "non-strict" MODMOS would, maybe paradoxically, have a stricter threshold of recognizability, i.e. altering a MOS by something other than a chroma might increase the likelihood that it isn't recognized by the listener as a variant of the original MOS. It's only an hypothesis, though. The article already talks a bit about the existence of extreme cases, but there's no clear example, so here's one for the sake of this explanation: 12edo's ultrahard onyx MOS, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (12), can ''technically'' also be called a MODMOS of diatonic Locrian b3 bb4 bb5 bbb6 bbbb7. If you add on top of that the possibility of altering by any interval, not just the moschroma, then you're effectively calling every 7-tone scale a MODMOS of any given 7-tone MOS, and I don't think it's a useful category, unless you work systematically with a sort of "alteration measure" to keep track of scales that deviate too much from the MOS to rank them from most similar to least similar, and I don't expect such a measure to be perfect. I suppose one could make the point that extreme cases don't have to matter, and lightly altered cases could still be interesting. In that case, I'm not sure if NSMODMOS is a pretty term I'd like to use for such scales.
	: If it were up to me, MODMOS scales would be called "altered MOS scales", reusing the existing music theory term for "{{w\|altered scale}}", and what's currently proposed as NSMODMOS scales, I would call "inflected MOS scales", coming from the idea that an "inflection" is similar to an alteration, but generally less strict and more contextual. [[User:TallKite\|Kite]] has recently made such a distinction between accidentals and inflections, as can be seen on the [[Arrow]] page for example. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		: If it were up to me, MODMOS scales would be called "altered MOS scales", reusing the existing music theory term for "{{w\|altered chord}}" (although {{w\|altered scale}} is something specific, apparently?), and what's currently proposed as NSMODMOS scales, I would call "inflected MOS scales", coming from the idea that an "inflection" is similar to an alteration, but generally less strict and more contextual. [[User:TallKite\|Kite]] has recently made such a distinction between accidentals and inflections, as can be seen on the [[Arrow]] page for example. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Fredg999: /* Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales? */ re

2024-01-12T03:39:48Z

Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:39, 12 January 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:

	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

			: I worry that "non-strict" MODMOS would, maybe paradoxically, have a stricter threshold of recognizability, i.e. altering a MOS by something other than a chroma might increase the likelihood that it isn't recognized by the listener as a variant of the original MOS. It's only an hypothesis, though. The article already talks a bit about the existence of extreme cases, but there's no clear example, so here's one for the sake of this explanation: 12edo's ultrahard onyx MOS, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (12), can ''technically'' also be called a MODMOS of diatonic Locrian b3 bb4 bb5 bbb6 bbbb7. If you add on top of that the possibility of altering by any interval, not just the moschroma, then you're effectively calling every 7-tone scale a MODMOS of any given 7-tone MOS, and I don't think it's a useful category, unless you work systematically with a sort of "alteration measure" to keep track of scales that deviate too much from the MOS to rank them from most similar to least similar, and I don't expect such a measure to be perfect. I suppose one could make the point that extreme cases don't have to matter, and lightly altered cases could still be interesting. In that case, I'm not sure if NSMODMOS is a pretty term I'd like to use for such scales.
			: If it were up to me, MODMOS scales would be called "altered MOS scales", reusing the existing music theory term for "{{w\|altered scale}}", and what's currently proposed as NSMODMOS scales, I would call "inflected MOS scales", coming from the idea that an "inflection" is similar to an alteration, but generally less strict and more contextual. [[User:TallKite\|Kite]] has recently made such a distinction between accidentals and inflections, as can be seen on the [[Arrow]] page for example. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales? */

2024-01-12T01:05:30Z

Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 12 January 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I wonder if maybe MODMOS should ''only'' refer to scales that are altered by chromas, and that some new, separate term should be invented to describe scales that are altered by another interval?		I wonder if maybe MODMOS should ''only'' refer to scales that are altered by chromas, and that some new, separate term should be invented to describe scales that are altered by another interval?

	Maybe the term could something like "~~LOMMOS~~" (~~loosely~~ modified ~~MOS~~)?		Maybe the term could something like "NSMODMOS" (non-strict modified moment of symmetry)? (Credit to Paul Erlich for coming up with that term during a Facebook conversation today :) )

	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 00:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales? */

2024-01-12T00:25:04Z

Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:25, 12 January 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Maybe the term could something like "LOMMOS" (loosely modified MOS)?		Maybe the term could something like "LOMMOS" (loosely modified MOS)?

			--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 00:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales? */ new section

2024-01-12T00:24:54Z

Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:24, 12 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== Should we invent a new term to distinguish between these types of scales? ==

			At the moment, this article says the following:

			"In theory, although numerous options exist for the choice of chromatic alteration, the standard is alteration by the MOS's chroma, where the chroma is the difference between any pair of intervals sharing the same interval class. This choice of chromatic alteration interval is so fundamental to the structure of these scales that the term MODMOS, in its main sense, is generally interpreted as referring to only those scales being altered by this interval in particular. In the exposition below, we give a formal treatment of MODMOS's that looks only at chroma-altered scales. These scales are distinguished by the sense that they are epimorphic, and hence of special musical interest. However, alterations by other intervals may also be useful."

			I wonder if maybe MODMOS should ''only'' refer to scales that are altered by chromas, and that some new, separate term should be invented to describe scales that are altered by another interval?

			Maybe the term could something like "LOMMOS" (loosely modified MOS)?

Fredg999: Fredg999 moved page Talk:MODMOS Scales to Talk:MODMOS scale: Singular and sentence case title by convention

2021-08-14T19:10:12Z

Fredg999 moved page Talk:MODMOS Scales to Talk:MODMOS scale: Singular and sentence case title by convention

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:10, 14 August 2021
(No difference)