Talk:Ainismic chords: Difference between revisions

(12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

== Questions ==

Shouldn't it be 1-13/11-17/12 which has steps 13/11-6/5-24/17, and shouldn't 1-6/5-17/12 which has steps 6/5-13/11-24/17? I'm asking because tempering out the ainos comma equates [[17/12]] with 78/55, [[17/9]] with 104/55, and [[26/17]] with [[55/36]], and, judging from the others on the list, the last steps should basically close the chord at the octave. Sorry, I had this wrong in earlier versions of this comment --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Line 6:

Line 8:

::: Something involving 17/13. I don't either use a systematic method. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

== Structure ==

From my perspective this article is un''read''able. Maybe text is the wrong tool to express its intention? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

: Sorry about that. I wasn't sure how to style an article like this, and so I figured that I'd mimic the structure of some of the other articles on specific essentially tempered chord types. Apparently that didn't work to well. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:: It's much better now with a list. Maybe also the repeating parts could be cut. I also tried to build a table from it which turned out to be not as good as I expected. Maybe there is a better way of presenting chords and steps but I have to admit that this is not easy in wikitext. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

== Essentially Tempered Chords ==

I have to admit that the definition of "Essentially Tempered Chords" kind of flew over my head when I read it the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried reading again, and it still flies over my head. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

: It's confusingly written. Anyway, the problem of your addition was that you didn't notice the notion is based on odd limits (not prime limits), so intervals like 44/39 is not considered "17-limit". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

:: @FloraC: since you seem to "see the light" here (for me it was also mostly confusing), wouldn't you be the right person to rework the [[dyadic chord]] article? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

== Different Classes of Ainic Chords Based on Odd-Limit ==

Hey, Flora, since I'm starting to find a noticeable degree of asymmetry in the tetrads that are confined to the 17-odd limit, do you think we can divide this type of essentially tempered chord into two classes based on odd limit? You know, something like Ainic I and Ainic II? If this is feasible, then Ainic I chords are those that have a 17-odd limit in all inversions, but it looks like Ainic II chords have something like a 39-odd-limit. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the article on [[Keenanismic chords]], it says more chords exist if you're willing to go to higher odd limits, so perhaps dividing the ainic chords into two classes like this is unnecessary... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== Questions ==
 Shouldn't it be 1-13/11-17/12 which has steps 13/11-6/5-24/17, and shouldn't 1-6/5-17/12 which has steps 6/5-13/11-24/17?  I'm asking because tempering out the ainos comma equates [[17/12]] with 78/55, [[17/9]] with 104/55, and [[26/17]] with [[55/36]], and, judging from the others on the list, the last steps should basically close the chord at the octave.  Sorry, I had this wrong in earlier versions of this comment --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 6: / Line 8: @@
 ::: Something involving 17/13. I don't either use a systematic method. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Structure ==
+From my perspective this article is un''read''able. Maybe text is the wrong tool to express its intention? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
+: Sorry about that.  I wasn't sure how to style an article like this, and so I figured that I'd mimic the structure of some of the other articles on specific essentially tempered chord types.  Apparently that didn't work to well. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: It's much better now with a list. Maybe also the repeating parts could be cut. I also tried to build a table from it which turned out to be not as good as I expected. Maybe there is a better way of presenting chords and steps but I have to admit that this is not easy in wikitext. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Essentially Tempered Chords ==
+I have to admit that the definition of "Essentially Tempered Chords" kind of flew over my head when I read it the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
+I tried reading again, and it still flies over my head. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
+: It's confusingly written. Anyway, the problem of your addition was that you didn't notice the notion is based on odd limits (not prime limits), so intervals like 44/39 is not considered "17-limit". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: @FloraC: since you seem to "see the light" here (for me it was also mostly confusing), wouldn't you be the right person to rework the [[dyadic chord]] article? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Different Classes of Ainic Chords Based on Odd-Limit ==
+Hey, Flora, since I'm starting to find a noticeable degree of asymmetry in the tetrads that are confined to the 17-odd limit, do you think we can divide this type of essentially tempered chord into two classes based on odd limit? You know, something like Ainic I and Ainic II?  If this is feasible, then Ainic I chords are those that have a 17-odd limit in all inversions, but it looks like Ainic II chords have something like a 39-odd-limit. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
+Hmm, looking at the article on [[Keenanismic chords]], it says more chords exist if you're willing to go to higher odd limits, so perhaps dividing the ainic chords into two classes like this is unnecessary... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)