Talk:MOS naming

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion.

"Perfect", "augmented" and "diminished" for generic MOS intervals

If small/large are supposed to be used instead of major/minor (which I agree with), are they also used for perfect intervals (i.e. the generator) and its augmented/diminished versions? Then what about augmented/diminished --- do they not have the same meaning as in diatonic, or do you have different terms for the chroma sharp and flat alterations in generic moses? I want TAMNAMS to catch up with more established usage. Inthar (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if the objective is to abstract away the harmonic interpretation of interval names, instead focusing on the size relationships, it would be necessary to create alternative names for augmented and diminished. I would propose enlarged and reduced. Perfect would should not change, as it represents the generator.
The reason for this is obvious when looking at systems where it makes more sense to invert major and minor by forcefully changing the bright generator, such as antidiatonic and sephiroid. With #/b and major/minor switched, augmented/diminished is also reversed, while perfect remains.
Another option would be, of course, to just drop the whole idea along with diamond MOS.
In any case, I would recommend specifying that these intervals names be co-official with the harmonic maj/min/aug/dim/#/b. They can be regular or inverted depending on MOS pattern, since the two systems have separate objectives.
As a side note on diamond MOS, have you thought about using + and - (as in A+ B-) instead of & and @? I find the current system very indistinct for inline text and difficult to follow. Ayceman (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I do find "enlarged" and "reduced" appealing. Maybe "generating" can be used instead of "perfect". This would eliminate any need for a mos- prefix.
The & and @ are supposed to be accidentals that are readable on a staff (when stylized) and distinct enough. Inthar (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thinking in terms of potential translations to other languages, and economizing on the syllables, maybe real/true, general, or just use gen itself as a word.
On &/@ - that may be so, but so are +/- and Unicode support for stylizing inline text isn't coming anytime soon. I would strongly suggest A+/B- or */` (A*/`B). Ayceman (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that the prefixes should probably stay, as they could be used for the traditional harmonic system (#/b/maj/min/aug/dim/perf), maybe call that THARMS Ayceman (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested compromise:

  • Generator: perfect (e.g. perfect mos4th, Pmos4)
  • Smaller interval class (when not the generator's): small (e.g. small mos3rd, smos3)
  • Larger interval class (when not the generator's): large (e.g. large mos3rd, Lmos3)
  • "small" minus chroma or "perfect" minus chroma: diminished (e.g. diminished mos3rd, dmos3)
  • "large" plus chroma or "perfect" plus chroma: augmented (e.g. augmented mos3rd, Amos3)

Inthar (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, there's still a potential issue in confusing aug and dim if you use an inverted harmonic system. I was thinking of making an interval table in sephiroid displaying both TAMNAMS and the inverted traditional intervals, as proposed by Komorsky. At present, it would map a diminished to an augmented and vice-versa. Enlarged 3rd (E3), large 3rd (L3), small 3rd (s3), reduced 3rd (r3) should work to distinguish them. Ayceman (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)