Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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) | |||
Revision as of 12:38, 23 December 2024
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.
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.