Talk:4:5:6
Scale information off-topic? Why?
I recently tried to expand the article by mentioning scale information because I think it's good to know how certain microtonal chords can be used in composition. I fail to see how such information is off-topic. If there's guidelines for what sorts of information to add to these chord pages that I don't know about, then would someone mind explaining that to me? --Aura (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- This page is about a chord. Not about composing with the chord. And especially not about one person's approach to composing with that chord. As I said in my edit comment, the place for that is in a personal viewpoint page, which can be in the mainspace, and which can be linked to from the chord page.
- Where a chord occurs in a specific scale should be discussed on that scale's page. Otherwise, the chord page will get cluttered up with discussing numerous scales, Zarlino, Centaur, Duodene, etc. etc.--TallKite (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
On the consonance or concordance of 3:4:5 over 4:5:6
What reasons are there to conclude that 3:4:5 isn't more consonant than 4:5:6, even if it has less harmonic entropy? And what distinction is there between consonance and concordance? --Eufalesio (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- 4:5:6 is rooted up to octave equivalence; 3:4:5 isn't. 4:5:6 is perfectly stable; 3:4:5 has a perfect fourth on the bass, which contrasts the missing major third and suggests moving towards it. I've mentioned these things in the article.
- Sonance is more contextual than cordance, for a minimalistic answer. You can read more about it in Consonance and dissonance (and the corresponding Wikipedia article).