Talk:Enharmonic equivalence/Archive 1

Symbols appear as question marks
The sharp and flat symbols on this page appear as question-marks ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.66.131 (talk • contribs)
 * That means either you are using an outdated browser, which doesn't handle Unicode properly, or you don't have a suitable font installed that has the sharp and flat symbols in it. Either way, it's recommended you do some upgrading -- browser, fonts, or both. -- Rsholmes 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_%28music%29 I can see them there. Why can't I see them here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddster (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic
The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Double sharps
At the moment, we have "Fx" (lower-case x) for F double sharp, and "D♯♯" (two sharp symbols) for D double sharp. Any thoughts on either changing both to 𝄪 (U+1D12A, the correct symbol, but not visible on many browsers) or changing the second to "Dx" (strictly inaccurate, but less inaccurate than what we have now)? If not, I'll change "D♯♯" to "Dx". Tevildo (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (music) suggests 𝄪 : 𝄪. Hyacinth (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement
I notice that this article goes through a mathematical procedure to explain that G-sharp is actually slightly lower than A-flat. The article about G-sharp, however, says that A-flat is lower, as does the one on the Pythagorean comma. Is it that different temperaments can cause one or the other to be slightly higher? Or is one of these ideas simply in error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.31.233 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement Upheld
Having just read the above observation, I read the paragraph in question and agree that it is flawed. Before I change it, I will place my thoughts here for review and comments. The issue relates to the difference in pitch between enharmonic equivilents. The writer states that G# is LOWER than Ab, but this is INCORRECT. A simpler way to demonsrate the difference in enharmonic equivilents is as follows (which uses the SAME starting note for both calculations where the article does not): B#=(3/2)^12 > (1/2)^7=C. This demonstrates that if someone starts on the lowest C of a piano and goes to B# hightest on the piano by means of 12 perfect fifths (3/2 ratio), the result is HIGHER than if one goes to the high C by means of 7 octaves (1/2 ratio). Clearly this demonstrates that B# is higher than C. By similar calculations starting on different notes, one can easily demonstrate that F# is HIGHER THAN Gb, A# HIGHER THAN Bb, E# HIGHER than F, etc. This is a VERY important acoustic fact that reveals the MUSICAL/Psychological reason for the proper treatment of the tritone equivilents: an augmented 4th interval, e.g. C-F#, expands OUTWARD to resolve to a 6th, whereas a diminished 5th, e.g. C-Gb, colapses INWARD to resolve to a 3rd. This is all consistent with the fact that a chromatic 1/2 step is LARGER than a diatonic 1/2 step (by the dimension of one pythagorean comma which is roughly 1/9th the size of a whole step). Therefore, from C to C# is HIGHER THAN from C to Db. Emdelrio (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this article were about Pythagorean tuning, using only 3:2 perfect fifths as a basis, then you would be perfectly correct. A chain of 3:2 fifths from A♭ to E♭ to B♭ … F♯ to C♯ to G♯ results in a G♯ that is higher than the seven-octaves-higher A♭ by a Pythagorean comma (531441:524288, decimal 1.01364326477). However, the explanation in this article is in the context of just intonation, using 5:4 major thirds. In this framework, a cycle of 5:4 major thirds from A♭ to C to E to G♯ indeed results in a G♯ that is lower than the octave of the A♭ by an enharmonic diesis (128:125, decimal 1.024—a much larger interval than the Pythagorean comma). Put another way, a Pythagorean major third (81:64, decimal 1.265625) is much wider than a just major third (5:4, decimal 1.25 exactly). Both of these discrepancies should be made clear in this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a short section on Pythagorean tuning, which ought to clarify this situation. The mathematics do not lie.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref improve/Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A number of calls for citations have been added to particular sentences and paragraphs, with brief hidden-text annotations in cases where the "how" may not be immediately clear.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone know this word's etymology?? Wiktionary doesn't reveal it. Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a significant fault of the article as currently written. Thanks for bringing up the question. The OED tells us the word is Greek, ἐναρμονικός, < ἐν in + ἁρμονία, and in turn explains ἁρμονία as "joining, joint, agreement, concord of sounds, music". Originally, therefore, the word meant "in agreement" or "in tune". Liddell and Scott give various forms, with the meanings "harmonious", "musical", "in harmony with", and "concordant". Needless to say, incorporating this into this article will require some rewriting of the opening paragraph (if the etymology is placed there, as is conventional), since it makes little sense in connection with the "modern" meaning.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Enharmonic notes and temperament
The third sentence in the introduction states: "For example, in twelve-tone e q u a l  temperament [] the notes C♯ and D♭ are enharmonic [] notes." Why this "equal"? For, isn't it true that the notes C♯ and D♭ are enharmonic notes in ALL other temperaments as well? According to me the temperament of a twelve-fixed-pitches-per-octave-instrument, has nothing to do with 'enharmonic notes' in traditional notation. Yes? -- Hesselp (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a convenient feature of "for example," not a defect. The target of "for example" does not need to be an exhaustive list of possibilities. In this case, equal temperament is the most prominent example in common practice. In the modern usage of "enharmonic," C♯ and D♭ are not enharmonic in temperaments that call for split keys on an organ manual, if I read this article correctly. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. In 19 equal temperament C♯ and D♭ are two different notes. In fact, they are the same distance apart as C and C♯, and it is instead C and D♭ (or C♯ and D𝄫) that are enharmonically equivalent. Double sharp (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To Just plain Bill. Thank you so much for your reaction; it gives me the chance to clarify my point in more detail. 1. The standard system for musical notation is meant for music using twelve tones (pitches) per octave. (Originally for seven pitches per octave.)  Within this system the markings in the staff as well as the signs C♯, D♭ and the names C-sharp, D-flat, are unambiguous. So it is correct to state "the notes C♯ and D♭ are enharmonic notes", NOT depending on the kind of tuning of the 12-tone scale chosen by (or: available to) someone who plays/executes the written notation. 2. In case staff notation is meant to record music using more than twelve tones per octave, the unambiguous meaning (as far as pitch is considered) is lost. So now the statement "the notes C♯ and D♭ are enharmonic notes"  is not a false statement, but a meaningless statement (or better: a non-statement). 3. There is not an obvious correspondence between the keys on an extended keyboard (more than twelve keys per octave) and the different notes in standard notation. (Which part of the 'splitted key' between the F-key and G-key, will correspond with the F♯-note? Or are the two parts of a splitted black key notated in the same way as the two parts of a splitted white key, maybe without sharps and flats at all?) 4. On the violin you can produce an infinite number of different pitches around half-way a given octave. This variety of pitches should be described in another way than only by C♯ and D♭, or .... they are not specified at all and the violist has to chose. 5. Conclusion:  I propose to substitute the third sentence of the introduction by: "For example, in the traditional notation of music using twelve pitches per octave, the notes C♯ and D♭ are enharmonic (or enharmonically equivalent) notes." -- Hesselp (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk of restructuring this and other articles over at WikiProject Music Theory
There is a thread about restructuring this article and others over at the relevant WikiProject if anyone is interested. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition
Why start it with, "For example"? 98.225.5.52 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)