Andrew Heathwaite's MOS Investigations: Difference between revisions
m Moved from MOS scales to MOS scale |
m Add links |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a page for me, Andrew Heathwaite, to organize my thoughts and questions regarding [[MOSScales|Moment of Symmetry Scales]]. I'm using it primarily to provoke and organize conversations with myself. It's a sort of personal sandbox. If it provokes conversations with others, all the better! You *yes you* are more than welcome to correct obvious errors, add clearly-demarked related material, and comment through the comments tab -- ask questions, tell me where you think I'm totally bonkers, connect me to similar ideas that you may know about, give a hurrah or two -- whatever you find suitable. | This is a page for me, [[Andrew Heathwaite]], to organize my thoughts and questions regarding [[MOSScales|Moment of Symmetry Scales]]. I'm using it primarily to provoke and organize conversations with myself. It's a sort of personal sandbox. If it provokes conversations with others, all the better! You *yes you* are more than welcome to correct obvious errors, add clearly-demarked related material, and comment through the comments tab -- ask questions, tell me where you think I'm totally bonkers, connect me to similar ideas that you may know about, give a hurrah or two -- whatever you find suitable. | ||
==Map of Sensi[8]== | ==Map of Sensi[8]== | ||
This diagram is an experiment in combining the two ways I tend to visualize MOS | This diagram is an experiment in combining the two ways I tend to visualize [[MOS scale]]s -- as a chain of [[generator]]s (x-axis) and as particular steps in pitch-space (y-axis). | ||
[[File:map_of_sensi-8-.png|alt=map_of_sensi[8].png|map_of_sensi[8].png]][[File:map_of_sensi-11-_correction2.png|alt=map_of_sensi[11]_correction2.png|map_of_sensi[11]_correction2.png]] | [[File:map_of_sensi-8-.png|alt=map_of_sensi[8].png|map_of_sensi[8].png]][[File:map_of_sensi-11-_correction2.png|alt=map_of_sensi[11]_correction2.png|map_of_sensi[11]_correction2.png]] | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I am new to this and may be reinventing wheels. If you have anything to add or correct, please comment! | I am new to this and may be reinventing wheels. If you have anything to add or correct, please comment! | ||
[[MODMOS_Scales|MODMOS Scales]] generalize the class of | [[MODMOS_Scales|MODMOS Scales]] generalize the class of [[scale]]s which are not [[MOSScales|MOS]], but which have been obtained by applying a finite number of chromatic alterations to an MOS. In particular, the chromatic alterations are (usually) by "chroma," a small interval obtained by subtracting s from L. (c = L-s.) With strictly proper MOS Scales (which have 2s > L), the chroma is smaller than s (s > L-s). These are the scales I've been looking at recently. I have found that the MODMOS procedure produces interesting and useful scales in [[sensi]][8] and [[miracle]][10], as well as [[porcupine]][7]. | ||
Mike Battaglia, whose enthusiastic promotion of the MODMOS scales of porcupine[7] has informed and inspired me, has proposed two new letters to stand for altered steps of MODMOS scales. "A" (short for "augmented") is a large step which has been widened by one chroma. (A = L+c.) Likewise, "d" (short for "diminished") is a small step which has been narrowed by one chroma. (d = s-c.) Thus, a MODMOS scale can be written like LsdLsss. I noticed that d and c can serve as "atoms" for deriving the other three steps, as follows: | [[Mike Battaglia]], whose enthusiastic promotion of the MODMOS scales of porcupine[7] has informed and inspired me, has proposed two new letters to stand for altered steps of MODMOS scales. "A" (short for "augmented") is a large step which has been widened by one chroma. (A = L+c.) Likewise, "d" (short for "diminished") is a small step which has been narrowed by one chroma. (d = s-c.) Thus, a MODMOS scale can be written like LsdLsss. I noticed that d and c can serve as "atoms" for deriving the other three steps, as follows: | ||
d = d | d = d | ||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
In playing around with these scales, I found that the sensi[8] MODMOSes sound like albitonic (approximately diatonic-sized) scales -- 8 is not too far off from 7. I also found it pretty easy to distinguish the different types of steps. | In playing around with these scales, I found that the sensi[8] MODMOSes sound like albitonic (approximately diatonic-sized) scales -- 8 is not too far off from 7. I also found it pretty easy to distinguish the different types of steps. | ||
I found it more natural with miracle[10] MODMOSes, to take subsets. I also found it more difficult to distinguish between steps, as they are closer together. Gene Smith's "Muddle" scales make sense to apply here. That means taking a MOS-like subset of a non-equal scale. For example, take the Miracle[10] MODMOS ssdLsssLss. We may group the steps (ss)(d)(Ls)(s)(sL)(s)(s). This mirrors the structure of the MOS scale of [[10edo|10edo]] that goes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1. Since there are 7 different rotations of this MOS pattern, we may apply it in 7 different ways in our MODMOS. Here it is in steps of 72edo: | I found it more natural with miracle[10] MODMOSes, to take subsets. I also found it more difficult to distinguish between steps, as they are closer together. [[Gene Smith]]'s "Muddle" scales make sense to apply here. That means taking a MOS-like subset of a non-equal scale. For example, take the Miracle[10] MODMOS ssdLsssLss. We may group the steps (ss)(d)(Ls)(s)(sL)(s)(s). This mirrors the structure of the MOS scale of [[10edo|10edo]] that goes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1. Since there are 7 different rotations of this MOS pattern, we may apply it in 7 different ways in our MODMOS. Here it is in steps of 72edo: | ||
parent scale: '''7 7 5 9 7 7 7 9 7 7''' | parent scale: '''7 7 5 9 7 7 7 9 7 7''' | ||
Line 594: | Line 594: | ||
==Notes on Keenan Pepper's Diatonic-like MOS Scales== | ==Notes on Keenan Pepper's Diatonic-like MOS Scales== | ||
In the Xenharmonic Alliance Facebook Group, on Dec. 1, 2011, Keenan Pepper posted a short list of MOS scales, introducing them, '<span style="">The diatonic scale has both an extremely low average harmonic entropy, and also a very nearly maximum 'categorical channel capacity' (something I'm currently working on defining properly in terms of information theory - it basically means 'ability to tell different intervals and modes apart').</span>" | In the [[Xenharmonic Alliance]] Facebook Group, on Dec. 1, 2011, [[Keenan Pepper]] posted a short list of MOS scales, introducing them, '<span style="">The diatonic scale has both an extremely low average [[harmonic entropy]], and also a very nearly maximum 'categorical channel capacity' (something I'm currently working on defining properly in terms of information theory - it basically means 'ability to tell different intervals and modes apart').</span>" | ||
This sounds interesting. I'm using this space to take some notes on the scales he lists: | This sounds interesting. I'm using this space to take some notes on the scales he lists: | ||
Line 608: | Line 608: | ||
! | s:c | ! | s:c | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Porcupine[7] in 15edo | | | [[Porcupine]][7] in [[15edo]] | ||
| | 160 | | | 160 | ||
| | 240 | | | 240 | ||
Line 616: | Line 616: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Porcupine[7] in 37edo | | | [[Porcupine]][7] in [[37edo]] | ||
| | 162.16 | | | 162.16 | ||
| | 227.03 | | | 227.03 | ||
Line 624: | Line 624: | ||
| | 5:2 = 2.5 | | | 5:2 = 2.5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Porcupine[8] in 22edo | | | [[Porcupine]][8] in [[22edo]] | ||
| | 163.64 | | | 163.64 | ||
| | 212.18 | | | 212.18 | ||
Line 632: | Line 632: | ||
| | 3:1 = 3 | | | 3:1 = 3 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Neutral 3rds [7] in 17edo | | | [[Neutral third scales|Neutral 3rds]][7] in [[17edo]] | ||
| | 352.94 | | | 352.94 | ||
| | 211.77 | | | 211.77 | ||
Line 640: | Line 640: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Neutral 3rds [7] in 27edo | | | [[Neutral third scales|Neutral 3rds]][7] in [[27edo]] | ||
| | 355.56 | | | 355.56 | ||
| | 222.22 | | | 222.22 | ||
Line 648: | Line 648: | ||
| | 3:2 = 1.5 | | | 3:2 = 1.5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Sensi[8] in 19edo | | | [[Sensi]][8] in [[19edo]] | ||
| | 442.11 | | | 442.11 | ||
| | 189.47 | | | 189.47 | ||
Line 656: | Line 656: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Sensi[8] in 46edo | | | [[Sensi]][8] in [[46edo]] | ||
| | 443.48 | | | 443.48 | ||
| | 182.61 | | | 182.61 | ||
Line 664: | Line 664: | ||
| | 5:2 = 2.5 | | | 5:2 = 2.5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Sensi[8] in 27edo | | | [[Sensi]][8] in [[27edo]] | ||
| | 444.44 | | | 444.44 | ||
| | 177.78 | | | 177.78 | ||
Line 672: | Line 672: | ||
| | 3:1 = 3 | | | 3:1 = 3 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Negri[9] in 19edo | | | [[Negri]][9] in [[19edo]] | ||
| | 126.32 | | | 126.32 | ||
| | 189.47 | | | 189.47 | ||
Line 680: | Line 680: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Orwell[9] in 84edo | | | [[Orwell]][9] in [[84edo]] | ||
| | 271.43 | | | 271.43 | ||
| | 157.14 | | | 157.14 | ||
Line 688: | Line 688: | ||
| | 8:3 = 2.67 | | | 8:3 = 2.67 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Orwell[9] in 53edo | | | [[Orwell]][9] in [[53edo]] | ||
| | 271.70 | | | 271.70 | ||
| | 158.49 | | | 158.49 | ||
Line 696: | Line 696: | ||
| | 5:2 = 2.5 | | | 5:2 = 2.5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Orwell[9] in 22edo | | | [[Orwell]][9] in [[22edo]] | ||
| | 272.73 | | | 272.73 | ||
| | 163.64 | | | 163.64 | ||
Line 704: | Line 704: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Orwell[9] in 35edo | | | [[Orwell]][9] in [[35edo]] | ||
| | 274.29 | | | 274.29 | ||
| | 171.43 | | | 171.43 | ||
Line 712: | Line 712: | ||
| | 3:2 = 1.5 | | | 3:2 = 1.5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Pajara[10] in 22edo | | | [[Pajara]][10] in [[22edo]] | ||
| | 109.09 | | | 109.09 | ||
| | 163.64 | | | 163.64 | ||
Line 720: | Line 720: | ||
| | 2:1 = 2 | | | 2:1 = 2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | Blackwood[10] in 15edo | | | [[Blackwood]][10] in [[15edo]] | ||
| | 80 | | | 80 | ||
| | 160 | | | 160 | ||
Line 731: | Line 731: | ||
=Porcupine Temperament= | =Porcupine Temperament= | ||
I'm going to zoom in on [[Porcupine|Porcupine Temperament]], which has been mentioned on the Facebook Xenharmonic Alliance page recently as a xenharmonic alternative to Meantone. Here's a little list of some of the things that were mentioned, so they can be collected in one place and not lost forever in the impenetrable Facebook Caverns: | I'm going to zoom in on [[Porcupine|Porcupine Temperament]], which has been mentioned on the Facebook Xenharmonic Alliance page recently as a xenharmonic alternative to [[Meantone]]. Here's a little list of some of the things that were mentioned, so they can be collected in one place and not lost forever in the impenetrable Facebook Caverns: | ||
<ul><li>Keenan Pepper writes about how Porcupine tempers 27/20, 15/11 and 25/18 all to the 11/8 approximation, which, he claims, is a stronger consonance than any of the intervals mentioned.</li><li>Mike Battaglia writes about how 81/80 is "tempered in" to 25/24, making it melodically useful instead of an "irritating mystery interval" which "introduces pitch drift".</li><li>MB writes about Porcupine's [[MODMOS_Scales|MODMOS]] scales (which I will deal with more below), summarizing, "<span style="">In short, when you're playing in porcupine, you should never feel like you're limited to just the 7 or 8-note MOS. Just freeform modify notes by L-s as much as you want, deliberately, in a willful attempt to explore porcupine chromaticism. It's even easier than meantone chromaticism.</span>"</li><li>MB: "I<span style="">n porcupine, bIII/bIII/bIII = IV/IV. This is the same thing as saying that 6/5 * 6/5 * 6/5 = 4/3 * 4/3</span>."</li><li>Someone argues that Porcupine doesn't do that great in the 5-limit after all, saying, "<span style="">Its only real selling-point over optimal meantone is simpler 7-limit and 11-limit approximations, but that assumes that these are a good in their own right and thus worth sacrificing some 5-limit efficiency; for anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool xenharmonist, that's a questionable assumption to make.</span>" (As for me, I want those 7- and 11-limit approximations, and I could care less about a 5-limit temperament to rival meantone. I don't compose in 5-limit temperaments, period.)</li><li>In response to the above, Keenan Pepper says, "<span style="">You mentioned that almost every interval in the diatonic scale is a 9-limit consonance? Well, every interval in porcupine[7] is an 11-limit consonance! 1/1 10/9 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 11/8 16/11 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 9/5 2/1. Bam!</span>" (This is relevant to my work, which assumes composers want 11-limit approximations.)</li><li>I (Andrew Heathwaite) added, "<span style="">...maybe another description for what Porcupine is good for is a *gateway* from 5 and 7 to 11, for those comfortable with the former and curious about the latter. As a full 11-limit temperament, it is efficient and easy.</span>"</li></ul> | <ul><li>Keenan Pepper writes about how Porcupine tempers 27/20, 15/11 and 25/18 all to the 11/8 approximation, which, he claims, is a stronger [[consonance]] than any of the intervals mentioned.</li><li>Mike Battaglia writes about how 81/80 is "tempered in" to 25/24, making it melodically useful instead of an "irritating mystery interval" which "introduces pitch drift".</li><li>MB writes about Porcupine's [[MODMOS_Scales|MODMOS]] scales (which I will deal with more below), summarizing, "<span style="">In short, when you're playing in porcupine, you should never feel like you're limited to just the 7 or 8-note MOS. Just freeform modify notes by L-s as much as you want, deliberately, in a willful attempt to explore porcupine chromaticism. It's even easier than meantone chromaticism.</span>"</li><li>MB: "I<span style="">n porcupine, bIII/bIII/bIII = IV/IV. This is the same thing as saying that 6/5 * 6/5 * 6/5 = 4/3 * 4/3</span>."</li><li>Someone argues that Porcupine doesn't do that great in the 5-limit after all, saying, "<span style="">Its only real selling-point over optimal meantone is simpler 7-limit and 11-limit approximations, but that assumes that these are a good in their own right and thus worth sacrificing some 5-limit efficiency; for anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool xenharmonist, that's a questionable assumption to make.</span>" (As for me, I want those 7- and 11-limit approximations, and I could care less about a 5-limit temperament to rival meantone. I don't compose in 5-limit temperaments, period.)</li><li>In response to the above, Keenan Pepper says, "<span style="">You mentioned that almost every interval in the diatonic scale is a 9-limit consonance? Well, every interval in porcupine[7] is an 11-limit consonance! 1/1 10/9 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 11/8 16/11 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 9/5 2/1. Bam!</span>" (This is relevant to my work, which assumes composers want 11-limit approximations.)</li><li>I (Andrew Heathwaite) added, "<span style="">...maybe another description for what Porcupine is good for is a *gateway* from 5 and 7 to 11, for those comfortable with the former and curious about the latter. As a full 11-limit temperament, it is efficient and easy.</span>"</li></ul> | ||
=Porcupine Chromaticism= | =Porcupine Chromaticism= | ||
Line 763: | Line 763: | ||
==Modes of Porcupine[7] that have one chromatic alteration== | ==Modes of Porcupine[7] that have one chromatic alteration== | ||
The following list includes all the modes (hopefully) that can be generated by shifting one tone of Porcupine[7] by one quartertone interval (chroma), which is one degree in 22edo. This produces scales with three step sizes -- in addition to a neutral tone (3\22) and large whole tone (4\22) there is now a semitone as well (2\22). In addition, two scales (and their rotations of course) have a 5-step subminor third. Underscores represent gaps in the chain of Porcupine generators. Note that lowering a tone by one quartertone interval (chroma) means sending it forward 7 spaces in the chain of generators, while raising a tone by one chroma means sending it backward 7 spaces in the chain of generators. This is how we wind up with such large gaps in the chain. Again, modes with perfect fifths from the bass are bolded. | The following list includes all the modes (hopefully) that can be generated by shifting one tone of Porcupine[7] by one [[quartertone]] interval (chroma), which is one degree in 22edo. This produces scales with three step sizes -- in addition to a neutral tone (3\22) and large whole tone (4\22) there is now a semitone as well (2\22). In addition, two scales (and their rotations of course) have a 5-step subminor third. Underscores represent gaps in the chain of Porcupine generators. Note that lowering a tone by one quartertone interval (chroma) means sending it forward 7 spaces in the chain of generators, while raising a tone by one chroma means sending it backward 7 spaces in the chain of generators. This is how we wind up with such large gaps in the chain. Again, modes with perfect fifths from the bass are bolded. | ||
2 4 3 3 3 3 4 .. 0 _ 2 3 4 5 6 _ 8 | 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 .. 0 _ 2 3 4 5 6 _ 8 | ||
Line 923: | Line 923: | ||
=Orwell[9], meet Porcupine[7]= | =Orwell[9], meet Porcupine[7]= | ||
I've done a little composing in Orwell[9], which, in 22edo, goes 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 (where L=3\22 and s=2\22), so I want to apply MODMOS to that. To make a MODMOS here, we alter a tone by a single degree of 22edo, same as we do in Porcupine[7]. This is our "chroma," and it's generated by taking L-s: so in 22edo we have 3\22-2\22=1\22. We wind up with either: | I've done a little composing in [[Orwell]][9], which, in 22edo, goes 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 (where L=3\22 and s=2\22), so I want to apply MODMOS to that. To make a MODMOS here, we alter a tone by a single degree of 22edo, same as we do in Porcupine[7]. This is our "chroma," and it's generated by taking L-s: so in 22edo we have 3\22-2\22=1\22. We wind up with either: | ||
<ol><li>A permutation of the four large and five small steps, eg. 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2<ol><li>How many of these are there? Does anyone know a formula for finding the number of possible permutations when some of the items are interchangable? Here the question is, how many permutations can we make of 4 items of Type A and 5 items of Type B?</li></ol></li><li>A scale with three step sizes: large, small, and smaller, eg. 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1<ol><li>In 22edo, our "smaller" step is the same as our "chroma" (which is the interval that we alter a tone by to produce a MODMOS, L-s). However, this is not the case in larger edos! Look at [[31edo|31edo]], where our initial scale is 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3. Now our chroma is 4\31-3\31=1\31 and our "smaller" step is 2\31: 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2! We get our "smaller" step by starting with s (3\31) and taking away a chroma (1\31), so we have 3\31-1\31=2\31.</li><li>So what should we call the "smaller" interval in our scale? Maybe some kind of diminished something-or-another?</li></ol></li><li>A scale with four steps sizes: large, small, larger and smaller, eg. 4 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 2<ol><li>This is generated by starting with L and adding a chroma, so in 22edo it's 3\22+1\22=4\22. In 31edo, that would be 4\31+1\31=5\31, and the scale in question would be 5 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.</li><li>So what should we call the "larger" step? Some kind of augmented something-or-another?</li><li>Note that in 22edo, our "larger" step, 4\22, is the same as two of our small steps (2\22+2\22=4\22), even though we generated our "larger" step by adding a chroma to a large step (3\22+1\22). In 31edo, our "larger" step is NOT the same as two of our small steps (4\31+1\31=5\31 does not equal 3\31+3\31=6\31)!</li></ol></li></ol> | <ol><li>A permutation of the four large and five small steps, eg. 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2<ol><li>How many of these are there? Does anyone know a formula for finding the number of possible permutations when some of the items are interchangable? Here the question is, how many permutations can we make of 4 items of Type A and 5 items of Type B?</li></ol></li><li>A scale with three step sizes: large, small, and smaller, eg. 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1<ol><li>In 22edo, our "smaller" step is the same as our "chroma" (which is the interval that we alter a tone by to produce a MODMOS, L-s). However, this is not the case in larger edos! Look at [[31edo|31edo]], where our initial scale is 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3. Now our chroma is 4\31-3\31=1\31 and our "smaller" step is 2\31: 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2! We get our "smaller" step by starting with s (3\31) and taking away a chroma (1\31), so we have 3\31-1\31=2\31.</li><li>So what should we call the "smaller" interval in our scale? Maybe some kind of diminished something-or-another?</li></ol></li><li>A scale with four steps sizes: large, small, larger and smaller, eg. 4 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 2<ol><li>This is generated by starting with L and adding a chroma, so in 22edo it's 3\22+1\22=4\22. In 31edo, that would be 4\31+1\31=5\31, and the scale in question would be 5 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.</li><li>So what should we call the "larger" step? Some kind of augmented something-or-another?</li><li>Note that in 22edo, our "larger" step, 4\22, is the same as two of our small steps (2\22+2\22=4\22), even though we generated our "larger" step by adding a chroma to a large step (3\22+1\22). In 31edo, our "larger" step is NOT the same as two of our small steps (4\31+1\31=5\31 does not equal 3\31+3\31=6\31)!</li></ol></li></ol> |