|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
| | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| |
| | |
| <span style="color:#800000">'''PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS <u>ABOVE</u> THIS SECTION.'''</span> Anything below here is for archival purposes only.
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Non-just nomenclature? ==
| |
| The article says that isoharmonic only applies to just chords.
| |
| | |
| What about chords like (1):(sqrt(3)):(2*sqrt(3)-1)? The distances between notes are equal in linear measurements, but the ratios are not just. There must be a better name than "equal-hertz", I hope.
| |
| | |
| - '''Sarzadoce''' August 09, 2011, 11:57:58 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| If there is no current naming standard, I propose to name them "Equal-Beating," a name which Mike uses a lot. This would be a broader category, including all isoharmonic chords but also including a plethora of irrational chords.
| |
| | |
| - '''Sarzadoce''' August 10, 2011, 12:04:15 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Equal beating is OK. I suppose arithmetic progression chords wouldn't please most people, but it does have the advantage of telling you just exactly what it is.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' August 10, 2011, 12:11:15 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |