Talk:History and philosophy of xenharmonic music

Co-signers/endorsements idea

It seems like this document has alliance alignment potential. Perhaps if there were a way for microtonalists to co-sign or endorse these statements, it could carry more weight and be promoted out of userspace that way?

However that were implemented, put me on the list. Xenjacob (talk)

I'm sorry for not seeing this sooner. Life has a way of forcing one to focus on frivolities like work and family instead of important things like xenharmonics, but I've returned to this essay at the request of others and think this is a good idea. I will add a co-sign section at the bottom for others to sign. Nick Vuci (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving to main

I'm in favor of moving this to main, but I guess the question is, would it remain an essay (in which case the article should mention you as the author) or just a freely editable article?

I believe the latter is really the only option for mainspace, but it's up to you.

EDIT: Another option is to merge the relevant portions into microtonal music, which is a high priority article that really needs some work.

– Sintel🎏 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I support merging the article. It's primarily informative for the sake of understanding of the history of microtonal and xenharmonic music. Lériendil (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarify that this is Nick Vuci's personal usage of the term

The usage of "xenharmonics" varies quite a bit from what Nick has specified. --VectorGraphics (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

If we do this then I'd be happy for this to be moved to main space

If we expand the first line of the wiki's main page to say to say "The Xenharmonic Wiki is an open resource for information about musical tuning and microtonal music, including xenharmonic music as well as historical tunings and those of world musical traditions. This information includes tuning systems and their relationships, theory, math, and practice."

Then I would be happy for this article to be moved to main space in its current state without any changes, and I would be happy to sign this too.

(The wording of my addition is thanks to Lériendil with edits from Fredg999.)

--BudjarnLambeth (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Proofreading

In some quoted text from Ivor Darreq's document in Clarifying the definition of xenharmonic music, I found a few typos, but since they are in quoted text from sources that I do not have, I do not know whether they were in the original source or are transcription errors that should be corrected. I ran the quoted text through through QuillBot to see if I had missed anything, and it found a few more apparent typos.

• "12 note forming a series of fifths, out of 53 or 41 or 29?" — seems that this should be "12 notes forming a series of fifths, out of 53 or 41 or 29?"
• "That is,a tuning" — seems that this should be "That is, a tuning".
• "The only exception would be where so few just pitches are used that no interval noticeably different in a real performance of apiece of music" — seems that this should be "The only exception would be where so few just pitches are used that no interval noticeably different in a real performance of a piece of music".
• "I many cases" — seems that this should be "In many cases".
• "I am a composer and I do not want everything I composer or improvise" — seems that this should be "I am a composer and I do not want everything I compose or improvise".
• "It is too late for such persons the stop the Xenharmonic movement" — seems that this should be "It is too late for such persons to stop the Xenharmonic movement".

Added: Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)