User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio

Functional Harmony

Hello! I've just checked out your user page, and I'm starting to wonder if you might be interested in my ideas for microtonal functional harmony. I bring this up because I myself like to try and apply my own theory to the creation of new classical music. --Aura (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, I should mention that I tend to want to use both Pythagorean intervals- some of which would be considered as Xenharmonic- as well as both 5-limit and 11-prime-based intervals, so those have factored into my work considerably. --Aura (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I haven't had a chance to read the contents of the link you posted yet (but I just checked to make sure that it is possible for me to do so). Let me get back to you after the CrowdStrike mess is cleaned up at work. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually got a chance to read it after all before I go back to work tomorrow (this DOESN'T mean that I am done with the CrowdStrike fiasco). The names are confusing and hard to remember, but when you have numbers (including increments of EDOs), it starts to make sense. Note that it would help A LOT to move the graph of intervals up so that readers see that around the time you start naming scale degrees, as opposed to long afterwards. As for Pythagorean intervals, I have recently been thinking that it would be good to extend the table of Pythagorean intervals (of which a semi-extended version is currently found under 3-limit) up to 53 notes, also including higher-limit intervals and the differences between these and the Pythagorean intervals. Probably should go into a different article from 3-limit, though -- would like to see Xenharmonic Wiki get an Extended Pythagorean Tuning article. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)