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 The original graph there is outdated, and is there for historical context, so I'll probably have to make a new one.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)

Alright, I've added a new graph of intervals in the location that you suggested- one that's should hopefully make more sense of the article. If I need to explain the names of functions a bit more, I'm happy to. --Aura (talk) 22:07, 26 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)

Unfortunately, I'm not near a computer right now, so I can't change it. Still, the confusion is noted, and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, do the functions themselves now make sense? --Aura (talk) 06:39, 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)