User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio
Functional Harmony
Hello! I've just checked out your user page, and I'm starting to wonder if you might be interested in my ideas for microtonal functional harmony. I bring this up because I myself like to try and apply my own theory to the creation of new classical music. --Aura (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
While I'm thinking about it, I should mention that I tend to want to use both Pythagorean intervals- some of which would be considered as Xenharmonic- as well as both 5-limit and 11-prime-based intervals, so those have factored into my work considerably. --Aura (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I haven't had a chance to read the contents of the link you posted yet (but I just checked to make sure that it is possible for me to do so). Let me get back to you after the CrowdStrike mess is cleaned up at work. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually got a chance to read it after all before I go back to work tomorrow (this DOESN'T mean that I am done with the CrowdStrike fiasco). The names are confusing and hard to remember, but when you have numbers (including increments of EDOs), it starts to make sense. Note that it would help A LOT to move the graph of intervals up so that readers see that around the time you start naming scale degrees, as opposed to long afterwards. As for Pythagorean intervals, I have recently been thinking that it would be good to extend the table of Pythagorean intervals (of which a semi-extended version is currently found under 3-limit) up to 53 notes, also including higher-limit intervals and the differences between these and the Pythagorean intervals. Probably should go into a different article from 3-limit, though -- would like to see Xenharmonic Wiki get an Extended Pythagorean Tuning article. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I have to admit that I think of names a bit more than numbers most of the time, and I tried to make sure the names fit the functions as best as I could- if I need to provide etymologies for the names to help you understand them, as well as devices to help remember them, I can do so, provided we discuss how to go about doing this. The original graph there is outdated, and is there for historical context, so I'll probably have to make a new one. --Aura (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a better place for it, although the extremely small size of the font requires me to magnify multiple times before I can read it. Also, shouldn't the descending intervals appear as the reciprocals of the corresponding ascending intervals (like starting with 99/100 and going down to 1/2)? Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of functions, and some of the function ranges are quite narrow, so that's the biggest reason for the small text. As for the interval listings, the reason I'm not listing the reciprocals of the ascending intervals is so I can keep track of intervallic distance from the 1/1. Does that make any sense? --Aura (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of, but it is kind of confusing to have that part of the graph be labeled as descending from the tonic, but then have it notated with ascending intervals. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to go back through to read with the graph side by side, but I expect that it will help as long as I can magnify it enough to read the graph. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Got another chance to look at it, although admittedly not in as much detail as it needs. Has an awful lot of stuff to wrap my head around, especially the names that only correspond to numbers by going back and looking at the graph (although at least seeing it early does help). I did notice that even though the graph has 7/6, it doesn't have its fifth inversion 9/7 (but it does have 11/9).
- The later section Beyond Diatonic and Chromatic Functional Harmony is actually easier to understand due to having a more easily understood numeric basis (although my having read about the various types of quartertones first probably helped here).
- The part about tonic having a tolerance of around ±4 cents roughly corresponds to my own reaction to music written in tuning systems that have sharper or flatter fifths -- on the flat side, 43EDO fifths still sound reasonable if maybe a bit edgy, while 50EDO and 19EDO (and 7EDO) fifths sound different enough to pass as definitely different, but 31EDO and quarter-comma meantone fifths seem to be in the worst place in between -- too flat for 3/2 or a Kirnberger fifth, but too sharp for 112/75 or 52/35; on the sharp side, the 17EDO (and 34EDO) fifth sounds okay, and the 5EDO fifth sounds different enough to pass as definitely different, but the 22EDO fifth is again in an uncomfortable in between zone -- too sharp for 3/2 or a gentle/minthmic fifth, but too flat for 50/33. This doesn't mean that I can't find music that sounds good in these tuning systems (I have in both cases), but it's a headwind that the composer has to work against.
- For the last section, about changes to triads between major and minor, these sound reversed from what they should be -- what am I missing?
- Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the lack of 9/7 and 14/9 on the chart, that is because those intervals are too close to 32/25 and 25/16 respectively, though to be a bit more helpful in this respect, 9/7 is actually on the sharp side of 32/25, while 14/9 is correspondingly on the flat side of 25/16.
- For me, the 22edo fifth definitely passes as different to my ears- specifically, it registers as something akin to 128/85.
- Regarding the last section, the motions indicated are not meant to reflect the direction of resolution, rather they simply indicate possible changes, and I have yet to add all of the possible transformations. --Aura (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)