Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Difference between revisions
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 ''..." |
+++ |
||
| 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]]) | 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) | |||