interval names

[Ron Nossaman]

>        David,
>          Respectfully, All tuners are not musicians, and  IMHO  calling a
>fourth a diminished third could create confusion among those of us lacking
>in the knowledge of music theory. I tend to get on my high horse concerning
>incorrect nomenclature ( a character flaw on my part no doubt) but I draw
>the line when I don't know the correct terms!
>    Tom Driscoll

I quite agree. As mechanics, and no matter how much sparkly glitter is
sprinkled on top, that's what we are, shouldn't we be able to refer to all
intervals separated by a specific number of semitones by the same name?
That is, by their mechanical rather than their musical relationship, since
it's the width of the interval we're concerned with rather than it's
pedigree? The idea here, radical as it is, being to communicate a concept
rather than bog down in bickering over esoteric minutiae. Specification of
nomenclature for clarification of a concept is one thing, but this sort of
thing does nothing more than add unnecessary bulk and confusion. We're
talking tuning intervals, not musical. Consider the difficulties we all
have in translating a highly trained musician's description of a perceived
problem with the instrument into concepts and information the mechanic can
understand and deal with. How about if we deal with the mechanics and let
the pianist deal with the music?  


Ron N