Talk:4:5:6: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 : —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
+:: I don't see why 4:5:6 would be "perfectly" stable, even more so than 3:4:5. 4:5:6 has the 5/4 before the 3/2, which is a more complex interval, unlike 3:4:5 which has 4/3 before 5/3, which is less numerically complex. It would be reasonable to say that 4:5:6 is more stable than 3:4:5, but that claim would surely come from the Western tradition of harmony/counterpoint.
+:: Saying that [3:4:5 -> 4:5:6] "the fourth above the root contrasts and therefore wants to move to the missing major third" is a stylistic choice. Just as saying that [3:4:5 -> 2:3:4] "the fourth wants to move to the missing fifth and the sixth rises up to the octave for pure consonance".
+:: Apart from that, I wonder what your thoughts are for the voicings. I included voicings in the chord articles for completeness and to not obviate compound intervals. After all, 4:5:6 is not the same as 2:3:5 or 1:5:12, not numerically, not sonically.