Talk:MODMOS scale: Difference between revisions

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.

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)

@@ 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.
-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)