Talk:5/4

This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion.

"classic" misleading

To me it seems we'd better name it "just major third". The word "classic" is so closely related to Classical music that it suggests 4\12 or some meantone variant. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We could instead add one ore more of: "octave-reduced 5th harmonic", "harmonic third", "natural third" ... --Xenwolf (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Dave Keenan used "classic" to refer to 5-limit as opposed to "Pythgorean", though he did say it may be omitted for the simplest ratio in the class. I see it reasonable.
2. Suppose we change this to "just major third", what about 8/5, 5/3, 6/5, 16/15, 25/24 and others? FloraC (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I now think that classic and just are not unambiguous in our context (they are in themselves much more evaluative than meaningful). And yes, you are absolute right about (2)! What if we add just after classic for now and wait for responses? ... --Xenwolf (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm absolutely okay with that. FloraC (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not going to lie, I actually like the name "Classic Diatonic Major Third" when referring to 5/4, namely because of the contrast with Pythagorean intervals. --Aura (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is why I love the decision of using the ratio as page titles for interval pages: there is no doubt about the interval, only about the name, sometimes.😉

I'd say it's most probably a major third. In my opinion, the word "diatonic" does not add anything significant to the name (see wikipedia:Diatonic scale and wikipedia:Diatonic and chromatic), concerning "classic" see above. But I know and respect the central role of diatonic (if I got that right) in your theory, Aura. Of course, even "Major" and "third" are disputable, but in the interest of our readers, I think it is important that a few basic terms from outside are also used here, and in a way that is not too shocking at first.

From what I can see so far, "diatonic" as a label may potentially be useful when distinguishing intervals like 5/4 from other more complex 5-limit intervals in the same neighborhood like 1594323/1280000 or even 164025/131072. --Aura (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the numerous edits, took me a while to figure out how to say what I wanted to say, especially since some ideas for examples didn't really cut it... --Aura (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think "diatonic" is great as opposite to "chromatic", but isn't this limited to distinguish unison and semitone as the origin of a given step-sized interval? --Xenwolf (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: Please don't apologize about your editing style, better invest in changing it. I, for example, often elaborate comments first in a different place and transfer them only when (if at all) I'm satisfied (especially if I'm expecting editing conflicts with co-commenters 😉).

As far as I'm aware, "Diatonic" can also contrast with names of other distinct scale types, such as "Neapolitan" and "Harmonic"- as per the more strict definition of "Diatonic" listed on Wikipedias article on the Diatonic Scale. When viewed in this light, one can say that "Diatonic" intervals are the only types of intervals found in Diatonic scales, while "Harmonic" intervals are the intervals that characterize Harmonic scales, and "Neapolitan" intervals are the intervals that characterize Neapolitan scales. However, "Melodic" scales are an interesting case, as they are characterized by having one augmented fifth, and one diminished fourth, but in this case, we can use "Melodic" as a way of specifying those specific augmented and diminished intervals that show up in Melodic scales, such as 25/16 and 32/25. I must also point out that 81/64 also counts as a "Diatonic" interval by this criteria, and furthermore, both 81/64 and 5/4 tend to occur in my Diatonic Scales, thus, to distinguish 5/4 from 81/64, we need an extra term. --Aura (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Since the 3-limit is the most important limit for navigation in terms of key signatures, how about we call Pythagorean intervals with an odd limit less that 1024 "Basic"? --Aura (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to discuss new categorizations of intervals here. The only thing I wanted to deals with is the usage of the word "classic". --Xenwolf (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well then, let's carry this conversation elsewhere shall we? --Aura (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)