Talk:136/135: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Suggest renaming 136/135 to "quiet comma". |
re |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I was recently made aware that there is just intonation musician who has used this comma in composition prior to the year 2023 but wishes to remain anonymous. They call it the "quiet comma" and I suggest renaming 136/135 based on precedence. | I was recently made aware that there is just intonation musician who has used this comma in composition prior to the year 2023 but wishes to remain anonymous. They call it the "quiet comma" and I suggest renaming 136/135 based on precedence. | ||
--[[User:Frostburn|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn|talk]]) 14:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) | --[[User:Frostburn|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn|talk]]) 14:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
: I think superpyth implies a mapping of 17 due to its whole tone fitting ~17/15 very well, but calling it ''diatonisma'' for that reason is indeed quite a stretch. That said, we'd like to hear the work you mentioned. If it's not meant to be heard, the author not meant to be known and credited, then imo it's not a good source for the wiki. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:46, 28 December 2023
I don't find the name diatonisma relevant to to this comma. There's nothing in diatonic, Pythagorean tuning or even superpyth that clearly implies the prime 17.
I was recently made aware that there is just intonation musician who has used this comma in composition prior to the year 2023 but wishes to remain anonymous. They call it the "quiet comma" and I suggest renaming 136/135 based on precedence. --Frostburn (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think superpyth implies a mapping of 17 due to its whole tone fitting ~17/15 very well, but calling it diatonisma for that reason is indeed quite a stretch. That said, we'd like to hear the work you mentioned. If it's not meant to be heard, the author not meant to be known and credited, then imo it's not a good source for the wiki. FloraC (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)