User talk:CompactStar/Arithmetic MOS scale: Difference between revisions
→How does this work?: new section |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Since there are currently no explanations other than the definition, I'm trying to understand whether this concept holds itself together logically or not. So far, I'm left wondering how one would deal with scale rotations (aka [[mode]]s). For example, with the diatonic scale, you can have Ionian mode LLsLLLs, Aeolian mode LsLLsLL, etc. and the MOS properties are true for all of these modes. However, with an "arithmetic MOS scale", let's say 12:14:16:17:19:21:23:24 to keep the comparison simple, you'll encounter problems when you move to another mode. If this was "Ionian" and you moved to "Aeolian", then the new scale would be 21:23:24:28:32:34:38:42. There are now differences of sizes 1, 2 and 4 in this new scale, so it's no longer an arithmetic MOS by definition. This is just an example, but I'm questioning overall how useful of a generalization this is if you lose important properties such as this one relative to rotations, especially if you use the term "MOS" which carries a lot of assumptions with it. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) | Since there are currently no explanations other than the definition, I'm trying to understand whether this concept holds itself together logically or not. So far, I'm left wondering how one would deal with scale rotations (aka [[mode]]s). For example, with the diatonic scale, you can have Ionian mode LLsLLLs, Aeolian mode LsLLsLL, etc. and the MOS properties are true for all of these modes. However, with an "arithmetic MOS scale", let's say 12:14:16:17:19:21:23:24 to keep the comparison simple, you'll encounter problems when you move to another mode. If this was "Ionian" and you moved to "Aeolian", then the new scale would be 21:23:24:28:32:34:38:42. There are now differences of sizes 1, 2 and 4 in this new scale, so it's no longer an arithmetic MOS by definition. This is just an example, but I'm questioning overall how useful of a generalization this is if you lose important properties such as this one relative to rotations, especially if you use the term "MOS" which carries a lot of assumptions with it. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
: Agreed with all above. —-[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 03:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC) | |||