User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 217:

::::::::::::::::::: At a certain point, I don't think you can totally replace the diatonic scales at a certain point- namely because of their connections to the 3 prime- but you can definitely extend it to a paradiatonic system like the one I proposed using the intervals 1/1, 33/32, 256/243, 16/15, 35/32, 9/8, 8/7, 64/55, 32/27, 77/64, 39/32, 16/13, 5/4, 81/64, 128/99, 4/3, 11/8, 45/32, 64/45, 16/11, 3/2, 99/64, 128/81, 8/5, 13/8, 64/39, 128/77, 27/16, 55/32, 7/4, 16/9, 64/35, 15/8, 243/128, 64/33, and 2/1. It can be extended further, but I'm pretty sure that extending it as far as I would want to go with it would make things really hard without eventually having to temper out commas. Truth be told, I don't base my work entirely on the tonality diamond when I do my work within any given key- at least not to my knowledge.

:::::::::::::::::::: Basically agree, but by "replacing" I rather mean not every thinkable replacement, but rather something like a (possibly modified) superset of each scale. And I do remember that you mentioned that the work of Harry Partch influenced you, so I think I understood you correctly and never implied that any of your work would be based on the tonality diamond; this is not the same thing.

:::::::::::::::::: Don't you think that some musical ideas did not see proper consideration simply because the creation of the musical instrument just for experimental purposes could not be considered as feasible? But I have in my hands the technology which makes it easy to design a brand new instrument rendering any thinkable tonal systems or the set of them, modify any thinkable properties on the fly, even during playing, developed in an exclusively short time frame, so good amount of experimenting can be done quickly without much regret for the process of the instrument crafting, as its design can be easily thrown out or modified?

@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 ::::::::::::::::::: At a certain point, I don't think you can totally replace the diatonic scales at a certain point- namely because of their connections to the 3 prime- but you can definitely extend it to a paradiatonic system like the one I proposed using the intervals 1/1, 33/32, 256/243, 16/15, 35/32, 9/8, 8/7, 64/55, 32/27, 77/64, 39/32, 16/13, 5/4, 81/64, 128/99, 4/3, 11/8, 45/32, 64/45, 16/11, 3/2, 99/64, 128/81, 8/5, 13/8, 64/39, 128/77, 27/16, 55/32, 7/4, 16/9, 64/35, 15/8, 243/128, 64/33, and 2/1.  It can be extended further, but I'm pretty sure that extending it as far as I would want to go with it would make things really hard without eventually having to temper out commas.  Truth be told, I don't base my work entirely on the tonality diamond when I do my work within any given key- at least not to my knowledge.
+:::::::::::::::::::: Basically agree, but by "replacing" I rather mean not every thinkable replacement, but rather something like a (possibly modified) superset of each scale. And I do remember that you mentioned that the work of Harry Partch influenced you, so I think I understood you correctly and never implied that any of your work would be based on the tonality diamond; this is not the same thing.
 :::::::::::::::::: Don't you think that some musical ideas did not see proper consideration simply because the creation of the musical instrument just for experimental purposes could not be considered as feasible? But I have in my hands the technology which makes it easy to design a brand new instrument rendering any thinkable tonal systems or the set of them, modify any thinkable properties on the fly, even during playing, developed in an exclusively short time frame, so good amount of experimenting can be done quickly without much regret for the process of the instrument crafting, as its design can be easily thrown out or modified?