Talk:Octave reduction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Introduction: re |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
: Second this. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | : Second this. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | :: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
::: This is great news! I also don't have anything against reorganizing stuff. As long as we provide an easy way to approach concepts. In this special case, octave reduction will be quite understandable, because of the very broad acceptance of the ''octave equivalence'' concept (in western music). Good luck for further reorganization! --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | |||