View source for Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons

== Wrong terminology ==
This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. Enharmonic intervals don't imply equivalence. For example A1 and m2 are enharmonic intervals in 19edo, but not equivalent. I think this article might be titled ''equivalent interval'', or for better distinction from ''interval of equivalence'' / ''equave'', it could be ''notationally equivalent interval'' or at least ''enharmonically equivalent interval'', to build on what is abstracted in the ''Nominal-accidental chain'' article. 

As an alternative, if the topic is just equivalence, then "interval" need not appear in the title and we could just go with ''equivalence (notation)'', ''notational equivalence'', or ''enharmonic equivalence''. 

[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

: After this comment was made, I changed the term from "enharmonic interval" to "enharmonic unison" for a variety of reasons. After changing it, I discovered that Easley Blackwood used this term in the exact same sense as I do, in “Modes and Chord Progressions in Equal Tunings” (1991), p.188. He says about 15edo “any interval that appears to be a diatonic minor second is actually an enharmonic unison — a state of affairs that takes some getting used to." (source: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/gsas_dissertations/article/1149/&path_info=28321192.pdf page 52 of the pdf, marked as page 35 in the book.) --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 08:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Roger Carpenter also uses the same term in his 1956 article “Baines and Britten: Some Affinities” which is cool! Not super critical but figured I’d add since that further supports the name change. [[User:ButterBuilding11|ButterBuilding11]] ([[User talk:ButterBuilding11|talk]]) 08:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)