Talk:Why Microtonality?/WikispacesArchive

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.
Please do not add any new discussion to this archive page.
All new discussion should go on Talk:Why Microtonality?.


Puns links to here but I have missed the reference or it doesn't exist. Should puns be in section 5 as the reference at the top of this page?

or is the reference wrong?

- vaisvil August 14, 2016, 02:04:34 PM UTC-0700

New reasons

I think these belong at the end; it keeps Jake's point of view and then adds to it, instead of implying his reasons aren't as good as the additions.

- genewardsmith August 05, 2011, 03:59:45 PM UTC-0700

If this is going to be an article on Jake's views, then it should be changed to "Why Jake Freivald likes microtonality." Considering that it's meant to be a catch-all article for reasons people could be interested in microtonality and considering that Jake has invited edits and additions, I think the most common and important reasons should go first. It's easy enough to look through the catalog of existent microtonal music to see that the one concern that out-numbers all the others by a huge margin is the concern with escaping the familiar, constructing and exploring different and sometimes radical new ways of relating pitches. This is the one thing that all microtonalists have in common, except for that slim minority including John O'Sullivan, Charles Lucy, Mario Pizarro, and Marcel Develde whose only concerns are increasing the "purity" of 12-TET in some way. Given, of course, that this is the *xenharmonic* wiki, I don't think their views are really appropriate to be expressed here.

And in any case, as Jake wrote the article, and as I'm currently in dialog with him about this article, I'll thank you to leave it to him to challenge my edits.

- igliashon August 05, 2011, 05:27:59 PM UTC-0700

I have no beef with people adding to or modifying what's here. I wrote the page because I thought there was a need for it; I said it's one man's opinion because I thought it wasn't authoritative, and probably shouldn't be -- there may be dozens of reasons I haven't thought of. Without getting an article started, though, it will never get even partially baked.

I have some thoughts for Igs that I'll send under separate cover.

- jdfreivald August 05, 2011, 07:36:16 PM UTC-0700

Just as a note for Gene, there's a discussion about this page going on on Jake's Google+ page that you're not seeing, so Igs' recent edits aren't just drive-by vandalism.

- mbattaglia1 August 06, 2011, 12:40:43 PM UTC-0700

All I see on Jake's page is a claim there are no postings to display.

- genewardsmith August 06, 2011, 01:13:09 PM UTC-0700

You have to add him to your friend "circle" and ask him to add you back.

- mbattaglia1 August 06, 2011, 01:46:29 PM UTC-0700

I don't see a mechanism for the latter.

- genewardsmith August 06, 2011, 04:27:26 PM UTC-0700

You're in my music circle now, Gene.

I've modified the page in accordance with the discussion we've had on G+, and I think it's better than it was. It'll still take some modification to be really good, but I think it's an improvement over (a) nothing and (b) my original article. I don't have any problem with moving the discussion from G+ to here, either -- I posted to G+ to announce the page and encourage discussion, but this is the more logical place to actually have the discussion.

- jdfreivald August 06, 2011, 06:12:54 PM UTC-0700