|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW = | | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| | {{High priority}} |
| ----
| | __TOC__ |
| | == More notational stuff == |
|
| |
|
| == Splitting off the MOS catalog? ==
| | The user IIL suggested the name "mmos5" for what people typically refer to as the "small fifth" of a generic MOS. Since there is terminology already in use, I changed it to that. |
| This article is pretty big, and sometimes I just want the MOS catalog. What about splitting it off? The same comment might be made about the EDO article.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''genewardsmith''' April 17, 2012, 09:05:22 AM UTC-0700
| | I will reiterate what I said in the page about "Vals:" these are "main" math pages that you are editing with your system, and the people who typically maintain all these pages are getting antsy about such an enormous volume of edits being made without collaborating with the other users. We are all on FB and I suggest joining us there (using a pseudonymous FB account if you don't want to use your real name, as about half the members do). |
| ----
| |
| Good idea I think. Big articles have gone out of fashion as nobody has the time to read.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''xenwolf''' April 18, 2012, 03:22:51 AM UTC-0700
| | If not, then if you want to make a new system or naming convention, we would like it if you could make another section on the site where you folks (who are primarily on Discord?) can be free to do what you want, without running on top of the other collaboration going on here. For instance, there are already two or three other MOS naming "systems" on the Wiki; it doesn't seem like the one you have written here should be the "main" one that is part of the main "MOS" page. It would be nice to make a category called something like "Discord Work In Progress" and then we can look at merging things into the "main" pages afterward, when you are done polishing them up. |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == MOS definition ==
| | Thanks. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC) |
| Shifted a few things around because of the consensus on Multi-MOS and strict MOS and all that, which is I think the best we're going to get. I defined things so that the umbrella class of scales is called "MOS," with these being names for specific subtypes of MOS. I also left in the thing about how some people like to call the larger umbrella term of MOS scales "DE" scales.
| |
|
| |
|
| Feel free to shift things around if you think anything is confusing.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''mbattaglia1''' March 25, 2012, 10:20:51 AM UTC-0700
| | == Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup == |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == The 'WITNOTS' Scale ==
| | Hi! Is there a clever way to find MOS scales which represent, say 2.7.11 or 2.3.7 JI subgroups better than EDOs with comparable number of steps? Simple calculations or workflows for Scala are all good. |
| Hi, everybody (: | |
|
| |
|
| I put that name, because means: | | Also in that vein, maybe you know some shiny MOS which greatly differs from EDOs smaller than ~20edo? (and with not too many steps?..) I experimented with several modes (MOS and otherwise) of 22edo, 19edo, 17edo and several other EDOs but hopefully there is a nice MOS somewhere which doesn’t want to fit as an EDO mode without making the original intervals greatly worse. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| What
| | : Ah, I see [[Subgroup temperaments]] in particular. That article would be helpful, thank you all for making it! --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Is
| |
|
| |
|
| The
| | == Soft/hard == |
|
| |
|
| Name
| | Soft and hard redirect here but there is no information on them here. Please figure out a better path for people to use the wiki to discover information about hard/soft MOS. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Of
| | : I'd guess [[User:Inthar|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC) |
| | |
| This
| |
| | |
| Scale?
| |
| | |
| So, I guess that somebody of you can found a name for this particular MOS: 11L 3s (for me, works well with the name 'Tetradecimal Triatonic').
| |
| | |
| Bye bye (:
| |
| | |
| - '''Osmiorisbendi''' April 17, 2011, 10:03:10 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Error in propriety range ==
| |
| I believe the statement about the range of propriety being (2a+c)/(2b+d) < g < (a+2c)/(b+2d) is incorrect. As a counterexample, take Porcupine[8]. The statement in the article says that the 8-note MOS is only proper if the generator is between 2\17 and 2\15, but Porcupine[8] is proper in 22-equal as you can easily verify.
| |
| | |
| Perhaps the statement in the article only holds for even-numbered MOSs, or something like that.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' March 20, 2011, 02:44:44 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Of course I meant to say perhaps it only holds for odd-numbered MOSs, and not necessarily for even ones.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' March 20, 2011, 04:02:05 PM UTC-0700 | |
| ----
| |
| I thought about it more and the odd/even thing is certainly wrong. I think the exception to the formula is when one of the numerators is zero, e.g. a = 0. Then when the MOS is of the form LLL...LLLs, the restriction that L < 2S isn't necessary, so the formula fails.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' March 20, 2011, 09:33:38 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| I've corrected it.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' April 06, 2011, 11:45:49 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Theory of MOS scales ==
| |
| My understanding of MOS scales is that they are Well-Formed scales and that these are a subset of Maximally-Even Scales. At least in Erv's original formulation, MOS did not divide the octave evenly. For example, the octatonic scale is Max Even, but not an MOS of 12-tet because it cannot be produced by a cycle of any interval relatively prime to 12. Also a cycle if 8 fifths in 12-tet creates a scale with only two interval sizes, but this scale is not an MOS either.
| |
| | |
| - '''jhchalmers''' June 11, 2010, 12:58:59 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| I've heard contradictory things about what Erv meant, but my understanding now is that the octatonic scale would count. Eight fifths can be called pseudo-Myhill, which is what Scala does. Is there an easier way to define that than using semiconvergnts
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' April 06, 2011, 11:53:15 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| I've always done it empirically-- taking cycles of generating interval g modulo N (interval of equivalence, usually the octave). Each time a new pair of step intervals appears, there is a new MOS. For G=5 and N=12, we have the following
| |
| | |
| 5 7
| |
| | |
| 5 5 2
| |
| | |
| 3 2 3 2 2
| |
| | |
| 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
| |
| | |
| There is no way the octatonic would arise by this method.
| |
| | |
| - '''jhchalmers''' April 06, 2011, 01:06:45 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |