Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons - Revision history

TallKite: TallKite moved page Talk:Enharmonic unison to Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Editor VectorGraphics has repeatedly edited pages I've written about my own research and inserted misinformation. On discord he is openly hostile to me. This move is necessary to avoid a toxic work environment for me.

2025-08-20T01:06:44Z

TallKite moved page Talk:Enharmonic unison to Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Editor VectorGraphics has repeatedly edited pages I've written about my own research and inserted misinformation. On discord he is openly hostile to me. This move is necessary to avoid a toxic work environment for me.

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:06, 20 August 2025
(No difference)

ButterBuilding11 at 08:38, 22 March 2025

2025-03-22T08:38:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 22 March 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	: 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)		: 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)

TallKite: /* Wrong terminology */

2024-12-27T08:50:31Z

Wrong terminology

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:50, 27 December 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:

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

TallKite: TallKite moved page Talk:Enharmonic interval to Talk:Enharmonic unison: updated terminology

2024-12-24T10:03:36Z

TallKite moved page Talk:Enharmonic interval to Talk:Enharmonic unison: updated terminology

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:03, 24 December 2024
(No difference)

FloraC: -thinko

2024-12-23T14:22:48Z

-thinko

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 23 December 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Wrong terminology ==		== 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 C# and Db 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.		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''.		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)		[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

FloraC: +++

2024-12-23T12:38:19Z

+++

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 23 December 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Wrong terminology ==		== Wrong terminology ==
	This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. 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. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)		This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. Enharmonic intervals don't imply equivalence. For example C# and Db 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)

FloraC: Created page with "== Wrong terminology == This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. I think this article might be titled ''..."

2024-12-23T11:49:37Z

Created page with "== Wrong terminology == This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. I think this article might be titled ''..."

New page

== Wrong terminology ==
This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. 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. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)