Talk:Enharmonic unison

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.

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.) --TallKite (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)