I have some problems with your jargon. I accept that, if you are presenting a whole new system of theory, it may be necessary to coin new terms, but a lot of the time the originality of coinage seems willful. E.g., you use the term "equi-tempered tuning", when the rest of us understand it as "equal temperament", or "equal tempered tuning" - why change a familiar term?

First, we did not even notice that we were changing a familiar term - there are so many words that use the "equi" prefix (equidistant, equilateral, equinox) all meaning "equal", that it seemed perfectly normal to use "equi-tempered". However, we have a strong reticence to using "equal temperament" because using the noun "temperament" gives it much more importance than we wish to accord to it. It is only one specific example of arbitrary keyboard tuning and we prefer to use "tuning" as the noun and precede it by the adjective "tempered" rather than the noun "temperament". Now, you will say that we could have chosen "equal tempered" rather than "equi-tempered", but we felt that "equi-tempered" (with its German flavor) might be a little more elegant. I hope that this did not prevent us from being clear and comprehensible.

In your definition of "Minor", your 2nd point seems deliberately eccentric. What's wrong with the traditional definition based on the interval between root and 3rd? (The major 3rd between 3rd and 5th being of secondary importance.) (I'm not saying nothing is wrong with the old definition - but if you think there is, you need to say what it is.)

You are perfectly correct, there is something wrong with the old definition and we should have said it. Since MusicNovatory is a generative theory, not only its operations but also all of its definitions must be oriented in that direction. Let us look at the intervals - only the octave, the perfect fifth, and the major third are generative intervals which can produce the various musical phenomena of Harmony and Melody (see René Descartes, Hermann Helmholtz, James Jeans, Pierre Schaeffer). The perfect fourth and the minor third are merely "change" (to make a monetary analogy), or "left over" - the fourth is the change left over when the fifth is generated within the octave, and the minor third is the change left over when the major third is generated within the fifth. We have no choice here - in a minor chord, the minor third between the root and third cannot be primary while the major third between the 3rd and 5th is secondary. In both the major and minor chords, there is a major third and a minor third - the major third is primary and the minor third is secondary in both cases. The difference between the two chords is their disposition - the major chord has the major third on the bottom and the minor chord has the major third on top. Allow us to add that the words "major" and "minor" are used with two completely different meanings here - when we speak of intervals, "major" means large and "minor" means small (their original Latin meanings) - when we speak of chords, we speak of disposition; the major chord is not larger than the minor chord.

With other new terms, such as Orbit, Motrix, etc., I think you need to relate these more carefully (as much as possible) to accepted traditional concepts, to persuade us of the (greater) value of your system.

In many cases, this might not be possible, because MusicNovatory and Academic Theory are as incompatible as the geocentric and heliocentric theories are in astronomy (the earth and sun cannot both circumnavigate each other, it must be one way or the other). If you have a chance (if you haven't already), we recommend that you see the section History of Music Theory in the Preface of the Introduction to the site. Be sure to get back to us if you still have questions about this.