Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Difference between revisions
m -thinko |
m 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. |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | |||
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) | |||