I post quite a bit of stuff on the music radar forum, and not too long ago someone expressed the purpose of a scale to reflect “the assonance of tones” which I thought was quite poetic and a nice description of it. The thread went on to discuss this descriptive “mistake” but I took a step back and gave this “mistake” some thought and realised that some quite interesting things surfaced when the vantage point of objective consideration is used. We have a whole range of terms in music theory to identify intervals in different contexts, but we only use 2 words to describe what they are all like from a perceptive point of view. These are “Consonance” and “Dissonance”. They are also expanded upon (and prefixed) with more adjectives such as “strong”, “weak”, or “mild”. Surely the perceptive vantage point on intervals has greater importance than the theoretical expressions which are used to describe them? This being the case, it seems strange that this situation is accepted so blindly when intervals sound so different? We don’t describe the weather using two words prefixed like this, and it’s just as complex! It occurred to me that this situation (through the natural evolution of the language of music) will change over time, but also that it is people who influence this change (albeit inadvertently). Maybe we can actually take control of this evolution, based on considered analysis of these situations? Really, the only way that “what can be done” has been made apparent historically, is where it’s been recorded that somebody somewhere has actually done it! As far as I can tell, it’s usually only a lack of perspective that will determine whether or not you, or anyone else, can be that someone.