User:Moremajorthanmajor/United Kingdom of Musical Instruments: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The '''musical system of the modern United Kingdom of Musical Instruments''' fundamentally obeys the concepts of conventional human musical systems to the whole depth of musical history. That is, it is ideally based on [[Just Intonation]] and thus normally prioritizes the perfect consonances of the [[3-limit]], followed closely by the remaining true relations of the ideally consonant thirds and sixths and the commonly dissonant steps/seconds and sevenths. False relations are normally more important for how they are averted or masked than for compositions which proceed into them. | The '''musical system of the modern United Kingdom of Musical Instruments''' fundamentally obeys the concepts of conventional human musical systems to the whole depth of musical history. That is, it is ideally based on [[Just Intonation]] and thus normally prioritizes the perfect consonances of the [[3-limit]], followed closely by the remaining true relations of the ideally consonant thirds and sixths and the commonly dissonant steps/seconds and sevenths. False relations are normally more important for how they are averted or masked than for compositions which proceed into them. | ||
Where the instruments differ is in their underlying system(s) of functionality though their systems of functionality with the most native documentation are also originally Eurasian and North African. The globally most popular system of functionality is that which fully crystallized in Medieval Western Europe. There is no single standard name for this system, which is derived from the real-world music history of very late medieval and later pre-classical theorists, who used terms like ''musica mensurata'' ("measured music") or ''cantus mensurabilis'' ("measurable song") to refer to the rhythmically defined polyphonic music of their age, as opposed to ''musica plana'' or ''musica choralis'', i.e., Gregorian plainchant which is happening alongside this system in-universe. The most common terms for this system have changed across its history from the medieval ''chordon conjugans'' (“conjugating chord”) to the modern “conjugable tone” and its various translations, as opposed to the presumed “non-conjugating” octaves underlying both Gregorian plainchant and the rhythmically defined polyphonic music. The main defining feature of compositions in this tradition are the progressions from one “chord” to another by changing the balance of perfect fourths and perfect fifths in the frame interval of the simple gamut which would traditionally signal the start of a new piece of a sequence. The traditional goal of these “chord progressions” would be a “chord” within one step of the octave on the | Where the instruments differ is in their underlying system(s) of functionality though their systems of functionality with the most native documentation are also originally Eurasian and North African. The globally most popular system of functionality is that which fully crystallized in Medieval Western Europe. There is no single standard name for this system, which is derived from the real-world music history of very late medieval and later pre-classical theorists, who used terms like ''musica mensurata'' ("measured music") or ''cantus mensurabilis'' ("measurable song") to refer to the rhythmically defined polyphonic music of their age, as opposed to ''musica plana'' or ''musica choralis'', i.e., Gregorian plainchant which is happening alongside this system in-universe. The most common terms for this system have changed across its history from the medieval ''chordon conjugans'' (“conjugating chord”) to the modern “conjugable tone” and its various translations, as opposed to the presumed “non-conjugating” octaves underlying both Gregorian plainchant and the rhythmically defined polyphonic music. The main defining feature of compositions in this tradition are the progressions from one “chord” to another by changing the balance of perfect fourths and perfect fifths in the frame interval of the simple gamut which would traditionally signal the start of a new piece of a sequence. The traditional goal of these “chord progressions” would be a “chord” within one step of the octave on the chain of fifths to give a sense of finality to the last piece of a sequence. The chain of fifths is often grouped into the three parts of the “regular conjugation”. | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+ | |+ | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| rowspan="4" |Weakest, ''lenissimus'' | | rowspan="4" |Weakest, ''lenissimus'' | ||
|Fa ''supertripartiens'' > Mi♭ | |Fa ''supertripartiens'' > Mi♭ | ||
|19 | |19 | ||
|Minor tenth, seventeenth | |Minor tenth, seventeenth | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
|Diminished twelfth | |Diminished twelfth | ||
|} | |} | ||
Major is considered as comparable to Sol as minor is to Fa, but Sol ''superparticularis'' and Sol ''superpartiens'' never saw as widespread usage as Fa ''superparticularis'' and Fa ''superpartiens'' before the conversion of the latter to flats. At that time, it was also widespread, but not absolute, that only the true relations were considered within the bounds of the modal system. | Major is considered as comparable to Sol as minor is to Fa, but Sol ''superparticularis'' and Sol ''superpartiens'' never saw as widespread usage as Fa ''superparticularis'' and Fa ''superpartiens'' before the conversion of the latter to flats. At that time, it was also widespread, but not absolute, that only the true relations, and thus the 2.3.5.7.13.17.19.43 subgroup, were considered within the bounds of the modal system. The paradox of this is that the true relations generally do not have the same desired (sub)harmonics for ''fortis'' and ''lenis''. To solve this problem, theorists quickly created the [[User:Moremajorthanmajor/United Kingdom of Musical Instruments/List of m/n comma mean tetrachords|mean tetrachord]], which is primarily considered to temper out [[129/128]]. | ||