Talk:5/4: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
re |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:: I now think that '''classic''' and '''just''' are not unambiguous in our context (they are in themselves much more evaluative than meaningful). And yes, you are absolute right about (2)! What if we add '''just''' after '''classic''' for now and wait for responses? ... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC) | :: I now think that '''classic''' and '''just''' are not unambiguous in our context (they are in themselves much more evaluative than meaningful). And yes, you are absolute right about (2)! What if we add '''just''' after '''classic''' for now and wait for responses? ... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC) | ||
::: I'm absolutely okay with that. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:06, 9 October 2020
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
"classic" misleading
To me it seems we'd better name it "just major third". The word "classic" is so closely related to Classical music that it suggests 4\12 or some meantone variant. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- We could instead add one ore more of: "octave-reduced 5th harmonic", "harmonic third", "natural third" ... --Xenwolf (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dave Keenan used "classic" to refer to 5-limit as opposed to "Pythgorean", though he did say it may be omitted for the simplest ratio in the class. I see it reasonable.
- Suppose we change this to "just major third", what about 8/5, 5/3, 6/5, 16/15, 25/24 and others? FloraC (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)