Post #2299475

2024-05-03 08:28 UTC

@astrid@fedi.astrid.tech @lily@glaceon.social it really isn't. Not least because they'll never get to the ×2 interval because their minor third isn't ⁴√2, it's 1.2, so stacking four of them will give you ×2.0736. And one of their favourite intervals is ϕ — the whole point of musical intervals is to be (or approximate) neat, simple ratios and the whole point of ϕ is to be as far away from any of those as it can. It's arguably the most violent possible discord you can produce with two notes. It's not just a pointless analogy, it's actually *fighting* them.

Replies (3)

@andrewt@mathstodon.xyz 2024-05-03 08:31

@astrid@fedi.astrid.tech @lily@glaceon.social also "minor seventh" is also the name of a chord so I assumed we were using the ratios of all the notes in that chord and it sounded very silly but no, they're doing a perfectly reasonable thing and just *calling* it something silly

Open ##2299476
@mattmcirvin@mathstodon.xyz 2024-05-04 15:06

@andrewt@mathstodon.xyz @astrid@fedi.astrid.tech @lily@glaceon.social It actually might be interesting to use the golden ratio as an intentionally dissonant interval, like the tritone but more so. (I guess it's about 833 cents, a third of the way between a minor and major sixth?) But it's probably no more interesting than any other kind of dissonance. There's an infinite supply of intervals derived from it that are just as dissonant.

Open ##2299491
@swift@merveilles.town 2024-05-04 15:24

@andrewt@mathstodon.xyz @astrid@fedi.astrid.tech @lily@glaceon.social the golden ratio thing is already annoying on its own because there's a bunch of claims about it being aesthetically pleasing in geometry, but any time someone's attempted to verify this scientifically people invariably bias in favour of ratios that are slightly higher (i.e. Slightly longer rectangles)

Open ##2299493