User:Dummy index/Chromatic pairs and how we define haplotonic: Difference between revisions

Dummy index (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Dummy index (talk | contribs)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
(WIP)
= Proposal to simplify the definition =


* In order to distinguish between the fixed category of [[:Category:Haplotonic scales]], etc., and the reciprocal relationship (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic), the latter will be called, for example, MOS triplet. Every 3 successive generations of MOS that satisfies the above relationship will be called a MOS triplet.
** Or moshaplotonic as a parent MOS, moschromatic as a descendant MOS, like that [[moschroma]] and [[mosdiesis]] are relative from any MOS scale of interest.
* If the number of notes in the scale is important, consider using the [[Pentatonic]] and [[Heptatonic]] pages.
* Based on the above equation and the nature of MOS, the chromatic must be a direct descendant of the albitonic. So I don't like the existence of mega-albitonic between albitonic and chromatic, even though the meanings of relational and categorical usages don't have to be exactly the same. (I will also withdraw the mini-albitonic that I said.)
* Categorical haplotonic scales include the last MOS that s &ge; 125 ¢ and some subset of such scales. in <nowiki>[[Chromatic pairs]]</nowiki>, such subsets all may be labelled mini-haplotonic (even if there are more than one).
* Categorical albitonic scale is the first MOS that s &lt; 125 ¢.
** If the interval that appears is too narrow to be a semitone, it may be a [[Cluster MOS]].
* Categorical chromatic scales include direct descendant of albitonic (by adding corresponding haplotonic) and further descendant <del>(by adding same haplotonic)</del>. in <nowiki>[[Chromatic pairs]]</nowiki>, such further descendants all may be labelled mega-chromatic (even if there are more than one).
= Memos =
I couldn't find a comprehensive explanation of haplotonic, so I'm going to consider the current situation in my own way.
I couldn't find a comprehensive explanation of haplotonic, so I'm going to consider the current situation in my own way.


Line 10: Line 20:


# Number of notes. about 5-notes. here I tentatively state the best is 4–6 notes.
# Number of notes. about 5-notes. here I tentatively state the best is 4–6 notes.
# (haplotonic)+(albitonic)=(chromatic). strong.
# (haplotonic)+(albitonic)=(chromatic). strong. (strict, but local)
# Semitone-free MOS. some authors might consider this property. All labelled scales are s &gt; 125 ¢.
# Semitone-free MOS. some authors might consider this property. All labelled scales are s &gt; 125 ¢.


In fact, it can be seen from condition 3 that the haplotonic scale is up to 9 notes.
In fact, it can be seen from condition 3 that the haplotonic scale is up to 9 notes.


By the way, many of the scale-lists listed on <nowiki>[[Chromatic pairs]]</nowiki> are actually "chain of albitonic-chromatic pairs". Moreover, the part that is a arithmetic sequence is composed by repeatedly adding the same strong haplotonic scale. And the haplotonic is direct parent MOS of first albitonic of the arithmetic chain.
By the way, many of the scale-lists listed on <nowiki>[[Chromatic pairs]]</nowiki> are actually "chain of albitonic-chromatic pairs". Moreover, the part that is a arithmetic sequence is composed by repeatedly adding the same strong haplotonic scale. And the strong haplotonic is direct parent MOS of first albitonic of the arithmetic chain.  
* Nestoria[7], Nestoria[12], Nestoria[17] — adding Nestoria[5] repeatedly
* Nestoria[7], Nestoria[12], Nestoria[17] — adding Nestoria[5] repeatedly
* (memo: strong haplotonic is "L will be new s if cutting s from L anymore" so soft-of-basic)
* (memo: strong haplotonic is "L will be new s if cutting s from L anymore" so soft-of-basic)
* What I mean of albitonic-chromatic pairs is strict operation of equation of condition 2. And with MOS tree, albitonic-chromatic relation usually results in direct parent-daughter. Exception is (1L ''x''s)+(1L ''y''s)=(1a (1+''x''+''y'')b) (i dunno another case). You can then use ''n''*(haplotonic)+(albitonic)=(...) to move a few steps at once (<q>possibly multiple copies of one of them</q>).
* What I mean of albitonic-chromatic pairs is strict operation of equation of condition 2. And with MOS tree, albitonic-chromatic relation usually results in direct parent-daughter. Exception is (1L ''x''s)+(1L ''y''s)=(1a (1+''x''+''y'')b) (i dunno another case). Or adopt [[User:Ganaram inukshuk/Notes #Strict definition|his strict definition]]. You can then use ''n''*(haplotonic)+(albitonic)=(...) to move a few steps at once (<q>possibly multiple copies of one of them</q>).


~~ Exercise ~~
~~ Exercise ~~
* I would like to exclude 1L xs from the albitonic-chromatic pair. To reason this... excluding 1L from strong haplotonic.
* I would like to exclude 1L ''x''s from the albitonic-chromatic pair. To reason this... excluding 1L from strong haplotonic.
* First two strong haplotonic of Barton are Barton[2] and Barton[11]. Barton[2] is too few notes. Barton[11] is too many notes. Barton[3] and all descendants aren't semitone-free. Strong haplotonic can be obtained for any rank-2, but not always any haplotonic can be.
* First two strong haplotonic of Barton are Barton[2] and Barton[11]. Barton[2] is too few notes. Barton[11] is too many notes. Barton[3] and all descendants aren't semitone-free. Strong haplotonic can be obtained for any rank-2, but not always any haplotonic (in condition 1 and 3) can be.
* Seni[5] and Sensi[8] both are labelled Category:Haplotonic scales. Only Sensi[8] is strong haplotonic, but Sensi[5] is shorter genchain, obviously more haplo than Sensi[8]. both haplotonic? mini-haplotonic and haplotonic? haplotonic and strong-haplotonic? Well, shouldn't both be haplotonic? Isn't it just that we want to differentiate it because we're trying to include it in the scale-list?
* Seni[5] and Sensi[8] both are labelled Category:Haplotonic scales. Only Sensi[8] is strong haplotonic, but Sensi[5] is shorter genchain, obviously more haplo than Sensi[8]. both haplotonic? mini-haplotonic and haplotonic? haplotonic and strong-haplotonic? Well, shouldn't both be haplotonic? Isn't it just that we want to differentiate it because we're trying to include it in the scale-list?
** If there are multiple haplotonic scale in condition 1 and 3, it may be nice to name most-notes scale (must be strong haplotonic!) "strong haplotonic" or "maximum haplotonic" or "the end of haplotonic".
** If there are multiple haplotonic scale in condition 1 and 3, it may be nice to name most-notes scale (must be strong haplotonic!) "strong haplotonic" or "maximum haplotonic" or "the end of haplotonic".
*** Baldy[5] and Baldy[6] both are strong haplotonic, so we need to use different terms to distinguish them. e.g. Baldy4/5/6 are haplotonic and Baldy6 is max-haplotonic. Until Baldy5 become listed, Baldy6 is simply called haplotonic.
* Fractional-octave?
* Are they undoubtedly haplotonic? neutral third 3L 4s, mavila 2L 5s, ...