Talk:Microtone

Ambiguity

Thanks to whomever added this article.

I think that there are a few sources of potential confusion. First, although this is a great formal definition for "a microtone," I don't feel that it accurately represents the most common usage of the term. Perhaps there needs to be some disambiguation. Second, there might be a couple of potentially subjective statements in the article. I don't feel that subjective statements should be avoided at all costs, but, perhaps there is a better way to word the article to avoid them where unnecessary. Third, what is "the microtone challenge?" Is it a challenge to produce a piece of music that utilizes more than one tone that are exactly one microtone apart, or is there more to it? --Bozu (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all: thanks for the thanks 🙂

You are right this article may be confusing. This may date back to its start: the article began as a pun on the literal meaning (etymology) of the term. Now I have the impression that it should serve three different purposes:

1. a definition in the sense of xenharmonic/microtonal practice. The definition would be good for our visitors.
2. the exploration of the literal meaning and the limits of precision (i.e. How many digits of accuracy should a cent value have?). The precision limits would be good four our interval tables.
3. can an interval with the size of one classical microtone (after the greeks, 203µ¢) even be relevant to human perception? To prove this right is the "Microtone Challenge" and good for our sportsmen. 😉

I'd be glad for any help in improving this article. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)