Talk:70:90:105:126: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
+::::: Yes, I agree 5-limit chords like 8:10:12:15 don't need a harmonic name. But I do sort of like "harmonic third" for 5/4, since "major 3rd" includes 81/64, 4\12, etc.
+::::: The "glue" that holds subharmonic chords together is the simplicity of the intervals between individual notes. This simplicity only occurs in certain voicings. 24:20:16:14:11:9 is a very dissonant voicing. 11:9:7:6:5:4 is much better. Because it has much simpler ratios. Surely we can agree that 9/4, 9/5 and 3/2 sound better than 16/9, 20/9 and 8/3? And likewise that 7/4, 7/5 and 7/6 sound better than 8/7, 10/7 and 12/7? And 11/4, 11/5 and 11/6 sound better than 16/11, 20/11 and 24/11?
+::::: So what to call 11:9:7:6:5:4? Is it a sixth-ninth-eleventh chord with the 6th, 9th and 11th voiced below the root? Or is it simply an eleventh chord in root position, in the obvious voicing, a close voicing of stacked 3rds? The latter is much more straightforward. This is why the 11th subharmonic makes much more sense as a root than the 3rd subharmonic.
+::::: Same with 24:20:16:14:11 vs. 11:7:6:5:4. Same for 24:20:16:14:9 vs. 9:7:6:5:4, but here the 9th subharmonic is the obvious root.
+::::: --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 21:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)