User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 207:

:::::::::::::: This is also perfectly fine. It won't prevent me from crediting your work in an article and/or the product credits (unless we decide to get in some collaboration to do some joint work). But then, why "Connectivity" and why not "Diatonic"? Here is the thing: "we want" is not a sufficient reason, the work should not claim any more than it actually does. At this stage, it ''has'' to be bound to "microtonal diatonic". If it goes beyond that, there are legitimate ways to reflect this fact: 1) re-naming of the product or just some title information, 2) adding new product or a component... [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 23:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: With the name "Connectivity", I'm trying to say something specific about the nature of the pitch selection- namely referencing the fact that each pitch class on the keyboard belongs to either the Overtone Series or the Undertone Series of the Tonic, which is a property I call "connectivity". Also, I'm hoping there would actually be additional components on the keyboard so that we can play more than just the intervals from my diatonic scales which we are using as the starting point. I mean, out of the selection of pitches for the keyboard that I proposed below, 33/32, 35/32, 8/7, 64/55, 39/32, 16/13, 128/99, 11/8, 16/11, 99/64, 13/8, 64/39, 55/32, 7/4, 64/35 and 64/33 are ''not'' actually diatonic intervals at all; instead, they are what I call "paradiatonic" intervals- microtonal intervals that are good for playing alongside the diatonic intervals but which have their own distinct functions and properties relative to Tonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::: But first of all, I am interested to know if you agree with my statement that you can mix fragments with different scales in one music piece? Sorry in this concern looks either too trivial to you, or not clear.

@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 :::::::::::::: This is also perfectly fine. It won't prevent me from crediting your work in an article and/or the product credits (unless we decide to get in some collaboration to do some joint work). But then, why "Connectivity" and why not "Diatonic"? Here is the thing: "we want" is not a sufficient reason, the work should not claim any more than it actually does. At this stage, it ''has'' to be bound to "microtonal diatonic". If it goes beyond that, there are legitimate ways to reflect this fact: 1) re-naming of the product or just some title information, 2) adding new product or a component... [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 23:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: With the name "Connectivity", I'm trying to say something specific about the nature of the pitch selection- namely referencing the fact that each pitch class on the keyboard belongs to either the Overtone Series or the Undertone Series of the Tonic, which is a property I call "connectivity".  Also, I'm hoping there would actually be additional components on the keyboard so that we can play more than just the intervals from my diatonic scales which we are using as the starting point.  I mean, out of the selection of pitches for the keyboard that I proposed below, 33/32, 35/32, 8/7, 64/55, 39/32, 16/13, 128/99, 11/8, 16/11, 99/64, 13/8, 64/39, 55/32, 7/4, 64/35 and 64/33 are ''not'' actually diatonic intervals at all; instead, they are what I call "paradiatonic" intervals- microtonal intervals that are good for playing alongside the diatonic intervals but which have their own distinct functions and properties relative to Tonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::: But first of all, I am interested to know if you agree with my statement that you can mix fragments with different scales in one music piece? Sorry in this concern looks either too trivial to you, or not clear.