Talk:3L 1s (3/2-equivalent): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Raised issue with the proposed name |
m →Name confusion: Added signature |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Imagine if all 2/1-quivalent 5L 2s scales were called "Meantone". Imagine how confusing it would be if Superpyth[7] and Andromeda[7] and Flattone[7] were all called Meantone MOSes. It'd be a headache. | Imagine if all 2/1-quivalent 5L 2s scales were called "Meantone". Imagine how confusing it would be if Superpyth[7] and Andromeda[7] and Flattone[7] were all called Meantone MOSes. It'd be a headache. | ||
That kind of confusion is what could be created in the future if we name this abstract MOS pattern "Angel". "Angel" should be reserved specifically for the Angel temperament itself. Not for the MOS pattern in general. | That kind of confusion is what could be created in the future if we name this abstract MOS pattern "Angel". "Angel" should be reserved specifically for the Angel temperament itself. Not for the MOS pattern in general. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 02:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:38, 5 May 2023
Name confusion
In my opinion, the name for an abstract MOS pattern such as 3L 1s should not be the same as the name of a temperament which produces the pattern.
"Angel" should be used only to refer to Angel temperament specifically, it should not be used to refer to all 3L 1s MOSes.
Imagine if all 2/1-quivalent 5L 2s scales were called "Meantone". Imagine how confusing it would be if Superpyth[7] and Andromeda[7] and Flattone[7] were all called Meantone MOSes. It'd be a headache.
That kind of confusion is what could be created in the future if we name this abstract MOS pattern "Angel". "Angel" should be reserved specifically for the Angel temperament itself. Not for the MOS pattern in general. --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)