Talk:TAMNAMS: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
If you're going with x-step names ''(which I don't really see catching on due to notation being ordinal, but that's a different subject)'', why still use the octave name (8-ave)? The ditave is available, very descriptive, and independent of the "8th". --[[User:Ayceman|Ayceman]] ([[User talk:Ayceman|talk]]) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | If you're going with x-step names ''(which I don't really see catching on due to notation being ordinal, but that's a different subject)'', why still use the octave name (8-ave)? The ditave is available, very descriptive, and independent of the "8th". --[[User:Ayceman|Ayceman]] ([[User talk:Ayceman|talk]]) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
What do you mean by "notation being ordinal"? Music notation is visual and doesn't have a direct effect on that language. We used "octave" because the idea of octave as 2/1 is so ingrained that it shouldn't cause any confusion. "Ditave" is harder to say and doesn't clarify anything despite being conceptually nicer. --[[User:SupahstarSaga|SupahstarSaga]] ([[User talk:SupahstarSaga|talk]]) | :What do you mean by "notation being ordinal"? Music notation is visual and doesn't have a direct effect on that language. We used "octave" because the idea of octave as 2/1 is so ingrained that it shouldn't cause any confusion. "Ditave" is harder to say and doesn't clarify anything despite being conceptually nicer. --[[User:SupahstarSaga|SupahstarSaga]] ([[User talk:SupahstarSaga|talk]]) | ||
::''Notation being ordinal means that notation is based on the idea that the root is the "1st", whether it's 1, A, or α', which is why the second is called the second, and so on. Intervals are relative and can be offset, but the pattern is still there. This is very ingrained, so I don't expect it to change much even in microtonal music. Still, that's a different subject.'' | |||
::I was mostly thinking that, since it's supposed to be a clearely separate system, ditave would not imply 8-step, much like how a nine note system might have a decave/mosdecave instead of an octave. --[[User:Ayceman|Ayceman]] ([[User talk:Ayceman|talk]]) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:52, 12 June 2021
Mosoctave?
If you're going with x-step names (which I don't really see catching on due to notation being ordinal, but that's a different subject), why still use the octave name (8-ave)? The ditave is available, very descriptive, and independent of the "8th". --Ayceman (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "notation being ordinal"? Music notation is visual and doesn't have a direct effect on that language. We used "octave" because the idea of octave as 2/1 is so ingrained that it shouldn't cause any confusion. "Ditave" is harder to say and doesn't clarify anything despite being conceptually nicer. --SupahstarSaga (talk)
- Notation being ordinal means that notation is based on the idea that the root is the "1st", whether it's 1, A, or α', which is why the second is called the second, and so on. Intervals are relative and can be offset, but the pattern is still there. This is very ingrained, so I don't expect it to change much even in microtonal music. Still, that's a different subject.
- I was mostly thinking that, since it's supposed to be a clearely separate system, ditave would not imply 8-step, much like how a nine note system might have a decave/mosdecave instead of an octave. --Ayceman (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)