Talk:History and philosophy of xenharmonic music: Difference between revisions

BudjarnLambeth (talk | contribs)
BudjarnLambeth (talk | contribs)
Mark as high priority
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{High priority}}
== Co-signers/endorsements idea ==
== Co-signers/endorsements idea ==


Line 23: Line 25:
The usage of "xenharmonics" varies quite a bit from what Nick has specified. --[[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
The usage of "xenharmonics" varies quite a bit from what Nick has specified. --[[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to add to the TLDR section ==
== If we do this then I'd be happy for this to be moved to main space ==
@Nick Vuci, would you be happy to add this or something like it to the TLDR or some other prominent part of the page?
If we expand the first line of the ''wiki's main page'' to say to say "The Xenharmonic Wiki is an open resource for information about [[musical tuning]] and [[microtonal music]], including [[xenharmonic music]] as well as [[historical tunings]] and those of [[world musical traditions]]. This information includes tuning systems and their relationships, [[theory]], [[math]], and [[practice]]."
 
Then I would be happy for this article to be moved to main space in its current state without any changes, and I would be happy to sign this too.
 
(The wording of my addition is thanks to Lériendil with edits from Fredg999.)
 
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
 
== Proofreading ==
 
In some quoted text from Ivor Darreq's document in Clarifying the definition of xenharmonic music, I found a few typos, but since they are in quoted text from sources that I do not have, I do not know whether they were in the original source or are transcription errors that should be corrected. I ran the quoted text through through QuillBot to see if I had missed anything, and it found a few more apparent typos.


"
* "12 note forming a series of fifths, out of 53 or 41 or 29?" — seems that this should be "12 notes forming a series of fifths, out of 53 or 41 or 29?"
* "That is,a tuning" — seems that this should be "That is, a tuning".
* "The only exception would be where so few just pitches are used that no interval noticeably different in a real performance of apiece of music" — seems that this should be "The only exception would be where so few just pitches are used that no interval noticeably different in a real performance of a piece of music".
* "I many cases" — seems that this should be "In many cases".
* "I am a composer and I do not want everything I composer or improvise" — seems that this should be "I am a composer and I do not want everything I compose or improvise".
* "It is too late for such persons the stop the Xenharmonic movement" — seems that this should be "It is too late for such persons to stop the Xenharmonic movement".


Is it still okay to discuss - on the wiki, the Facebook, or the Discord - music that is microtonal, but not xenharmonic?
Added:  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 06:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)


: '''Yes''', while the primary focus of the Xenharmonic Alliance is xenharmonic music, discussion and documentation of any non-12edo tuning, xen or not, is welcome.
: Thank you for spotting these errors. I have corrected all the examples you listed:)
"


--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 22:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Return to "History and philosophy of xenharmonic music" page.