Talk:Isoharmonic chord: Difference between revisions
Wikispaces>FREEZE No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' <span style="color:#800000">''... |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW = | = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW = | ||
'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' | '''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. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 07:00, 20 September 2018
ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW
All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.
PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS ABOVE THIS SECTION. 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