Talk:33/32: Difference between revisions

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Xenwolf (talk | contribs)
Xenwolf (talk | contribs)
undecimal subminor second: let's discuss both cases
Line 14: Line 14:
</div>
</div>
I'd like to remember that: <br> A Revert is felt however often as rude or unfriendly. If one considers that it needs hardly more than one mouse-click, whereas a substantial change costs sometimes very much effort, this becomes understandable. <br> Maybe the addition proposal should be further discussed? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to remember that: <br> A Revert is felt however often as rude or unfriendly. If one considers that it needs hardly more than one mouse-click, whereas a substantial change costs sometimes very much effort, this becomes understandable. <br> Maybe the addition proposal should be further discussed? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
: The same arguments seem to apply to [[64/33]] [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=64/33&diff=prev&oldid=49775] [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=64%2F33&type=revision&diff=49778&oldid=49775]. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:32, 18 September 2020

Name order

I'd like to change the order, making al-Farabi (Alpharabius) quarter tone first in the list. I think the math-derived names are less characteristic, and in addition we should be open to non-western music tradition because as they already tried lots of ideas we "now" have. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, despite that it's a long name (My same complaint about "Hunt minor submediant comma"). FloraC (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying to do something about that. --Xenwolf (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

undecimal subminor second

This part was introduced by Aura[1] and reverted by FloraC [2]:

Because of its close proximity to 28/27, form which it differs only by 896/891, one could reasonably argue that 33/32 is the undecimal counterpart to 28/27, particularly if treated as an interval in its own right, in which case it could be analysed as the undecimal subminor second.

I'd like to remember that:
A Revert is felt however often as rude or unfriendly. If one considers that it needs hardly more than one mouse-click, whereas a substantial change costs sometimes very much effort, this becomes understandable.
Maybe the addition proposal should be further discussed? --Xenwolf (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The same arguments seem to apply to 64/33 [3] [4]. --Xenwolf (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)