Aura (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Aura (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:
:::::::: Sorry about that!  I had a lot to say, and I still have a lot to say.  For the record, I define a pitch class as consisting of a given pitch plus all multiples and divisions of that pitch by powers of two, so in 159edo, that's 159 different pitch classes available to work with.  Also, I'd greatly prefer to keep the number of pitch classes limited for sections of my songs that remain in a particular key so that I don't have to do as much work in tuning them, not to mention that I've grown to like the idea of chords with different diatonic functions having different tunings- something that inevitably results from limiting your pitch class selection, for better or for worse.  It is true that I'll change things up for purposes of modulation and when otherwise using accidentals, but nevertheless, while working in any one particular key, I'll generally keep using the same set of fixed pitches. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 10:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Sorry about that!  I had a lot to say, and I still have a lot to say.  For the record, I define a pitch class as consisting of a given pitch plus all multiples and divisions of that pitch by powers of two, so in 159edo, that's 159 different pitch classes available to work with.  Also, I'd greatly prefer to keep the number of pitch classes limited for sections of my songs that remain in a particular key so that I don't have to do as much work in tuning them, not to mention that I've grown to like the idea of chords with different diatonic functions having different tunings- something that inevitably results from limiting your pitch class selection, for better or for worse.  It is true that I'll change things up for purposes of modulation and when otherwise using accidentals, but nevertheless, while working in any one particular key, I'll generally keep using the same set of fixed pitches. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 10:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Just to throw this out there, I classify prime-limits based on their function relative to the tonic in tonal music.  The 2-limit is the "Pitch Class Prime"- tying into my aforementioned definition of "Pitch Class".  The 3-limit and 5-limit are classified as the "Diatonic Primes" because of their key functions in diatonic and just chromatic music.  The 7-limit, 11-limit and 13-limit are classified as "Paradiatonic Primes" due to their relative ease (and, in the case of the 7-limit, frequency) of use as accidentals in otherwise diatonic keys, and, due to the fact that these relatively low primes can create intervals that can be readily used as substitutions for diatonic intervals- again tying into comments I made before about the interval 77/64 in particular.  The 17-limit and 19-limit are classified as "Quasidiatonic Primes" owing to the most basic intervals in these families having striking similarities to diatonic intervals, but with greater complexity. Finally, the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit are classified as "Quasiparadiatonic Primes", a mouthful of a name that I've given them on account of these primes either having striking similarities to paradiatonic intervals, or being able to create intervals that can find use as substitutions for paradiatonic intervals, albeit with greater complexity.  I also have a distinct classification for primes between 37 and 1021, and another for primes beyond 1021, but the names of these classes ties into a whole different topic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Just to throw this out there, I classify prime-limits based on their function relative to the tonic in tonal music.  The 2-limit is the "Pitch Class Prime"- tying into my aforementioned definition of "Pitch Class".  The 3-limit and 5-limit are classified as the "Diatonic Primes" because of their key functions in diatonic and just chromatic music.  The 7-limit, 11-limit and 13-limit are classified as "Paradiatonic Primes" due to their relative ease (and, in the case of the 7-limit, frequency) of use as accidentals in otherwise diatonic keys, and, due to the fact that these relatively low primes can create intervals that can be readily used as substitutions for diatonic intervals- again tying into comments I made before about the interval 77/64 in particular.  The 17-limit and 19-limit are classified as "Quasidiatonic Primes" owing to the most basic intervals in these families having striking similarities to diatonic intervals, but with greater complexity. Finally, the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit are classified as "Quasiparadiatonic Primes", a mouthful of a name that I've given them on account of these primes either having striking similarities to paradiatonic intervals, or being able to create intervals that can find use as substitutions for paradiatonic intervals, albeit with greater complexity.  I also have a distinct classification for primes between 37 and 1021, and another for primes beyond 1021, but the names of these classes ties into a whole different topic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Okay, so in accordance with Sam's suggestion, I'm renaming the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit the "Pseudodiatonic Primes", since these primes are not diatonic by any stretch, yet they still serve as substitutes for the paradiatonic primes in a pinch.  Any further thoughts? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Okay, so in accordance with Sam's suggestion, I'm renaming the 23-limit, 29-limit, and 31-limit the "Pseudodiatonic Primes", since these primes are not diatonic by any stretch, yet they can still serve as substitutes for the paradiatonic primes in a pinch.  Any further thoughts? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)