Talk:MODMOS scale: Difference between revisions

Line 12:

--[[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)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 --[[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)