Talk:Normal forms: Difference between revisions
→Revision to the equave-reduced generator form: new section |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
My expectation is that the positive equave-reduced generator form should be left largely obsolete since musicians will work with the new equave-reduced generator form. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | My expectation is that the positive equave-reduced generator form should be left largely obsolete since musicians will work with the new equave-reduced generator form. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
: I like it. Well-motivated and well-executed. Yes, I agree that positive-ization and equave-reduction should not have been bound together as they were, and that canonical form is the baseline form. They are independent interests. And I also agree with you that their combination will likely be less popular than simple equave-reduction (or simple positive-ization). I expect after your revision, the combo form "Positive equave-reduced generator form" will be left with a very brief section, saying only that you equave-reduce the generator from the positive gen form, and that's all. Again, good thinking and good work; thanks for looking into this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | |||