Talk:Rank-3 scale

Equave vs Octave

I think “generalizing” octave to equave was not so valuable. It seems to complicate things, also because the equave article is not very informative besides telling us who coined the term. To us, it may be clear that the octave is the prototypical equave, but not to others. --Xenwolf (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think most people with enough knowledge to dive into the theory of rank-3 scales should be familiar with or able to learn about equaves quickly enough. However, I agree that placing it up front might slow down comprehension. I could add it in parentheses as an "extra" instead, if that works better. Thank you for the feedback! --Fredg999 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. I think it is possible that a parenthetical remark would fit better here, maybe as or another equivalence interval. I'm not sure the term “equave” itself (short as it may be) is all that helpful in this case. The question also has the historical or derivation aspect: the octave is established as an equivalence interval in most musical cultures. Even for musically untrained persons, this interval is easy to identify, also with regard to this particularity. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think either works, but I have a preference for "equave" to keep the parenthetical remark concise. Any person not familiar with the term can find quickly, by following the link, that it is synonymous with "interval of equivalence". I'll note that "equave" is fairly common on the Xenharmonic Wiki, even though it is probably not used in academic papers (similarly to the difference between MOS and WF, to some degree): see https://en.xen.wiki/w/Special:WhatLinksHere/Equave. --Fredg999 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)