Talk:4:5:6

Scale information off-topic? Why?

I recently tried to expand the article by mentioning scale information because I think it's good to know how certain microtonal chords can be used in composition. I fail to see how such information is off-topic. If there's guidelines for what sorts of information to add to these chord pages that I don't know about, then would someone mind explaining that to me? --Aura (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This page is about a chord. Not about composing with the chord. And especially not about one person's approach to composing with that chord. As I said in my edit comment, the place for that is in a personal viewpoint page, which can be in the mainspace, and which can be linked to from the chord page.

Where a chord occurs in a specific scale should be discussed on that scale's page. Otherwise, the chord page will get cluttered up with discussing numerous scales, Zarlino, Centaur, Duodene, etc. etc.--TallKite (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

On the consonance or concordance of 3:4:5 over 4:5:6

What reasons are there to conclude that 3:4:5 isn't more consonant than 4:5:6, even if it has less harmonic entropy? And what distinction is there between consonance and concordance? --Eufalesio (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

4:5:6 is rooted up to octave equivalence; 3:4:5 isn't. 4:5:6 is perfectly stable; 3:4:5 has a perfect fourth on the bass, which contrasts the missing major third and suggests moving towards it. I've mentioned these things in the article.

Sonance is more contextual than cordance, for a minimalistic answer. You can read more about it in Consonance and dissonance (and the corresponding Wikipedia article).

—FloraC (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why 4:5:6 would be "perfectly" stable, even more so than 3:4:5. 4:5:6 has the 5/4 before the 3/2, which is a more complex interval, unlike 3:4:5 which has 4/3 before 5/3, which is less numerically complex. It would be reasonable to say that 4:5:6 is more stable than 3:4:5, but that claim would surely come from the Western tradition of harmony/counterpoint.

Saying that [3:4:5 -> 4:5:6] "the fourth above the root contrasts and therefore wants to move to the missing major third" is a stylistic choice. Just as saying that [3:4:5 -> 2:3:4] "the fourth wants to move to the missing fifth and the sixth rises up to the octave for pure consonance".

Apart from that, I wonder what your thoughts are for the voicings. I included voicings in the chord articles for completeness and to not obviate compound intervals. After all, 4:5:6 is not the same as 2:3:5 or 1:5:12, not numerically, not sonically.