Talk:Enharmonic equivalence

message: The tritones F-B and B-F only exists diatonically in the C major scale. The same situation does not occur in the scales of F-sharp major and G-flat major because your respective tritones are B-E, E-B, C-F and F-C. C major (12 o'clock) is a complementary scale of F-sharp major and G-flat major (6 o'clock). F natural does not exist in scales with sharps and B natural does not exist in scales with flats. 177.102.163.131 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enharmonic tritones in the diatonic scales 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. The article has been moved to the proposed title by the nominator but as there have been no objections I see no value in reverting it. If this move is objected to in the near future, Enharmonic should be considered the stable title.  Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Enharmonic →  – It's very weird, and I think categorically wrong, to have an article title of just an adjective. Even if there's no common noun form I'd feel comfortable renaming to ("enharmonicity"? probably? if i were king? "enharmonicism" is a slightly narrower concept.) Remsense聊 02:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Comment relevant policy: WP:NOUN. — Frostly (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 October 2023 

message: I changed and deleted many jargon-laden statements and grouped the relevant/helpful ones (about non-12-tone tuning systems) together. Also eliminated random examples that don't elucidate the points being made. I think this is mainly what made the article hard to understand. I don't know if it's enough to warrant removing that template. Special-T (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too technical" template 

message: After my and Special-T's edits, the lede now contains the sentence "Similarly, two intervals, chords, or key signatures are considered enharmonic if they contain identical pitches that are notated differently. " But key signatures don't really "contain" pitches; they just change the pitches of subsequent notes. Suggestions for clarifying this? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I think it would just be "keys", yes?  Or, instead of "contain", "represent" - Special-T (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key signatures 

message: In the musical examples, the descriptive language serves to obscure the meaning we're trying to convey. The center section of the Raindrop Prelude may be brooding and ominous, but that's unrelated to the change in the pedal point from A to G. Chopin didn't change to sharps because it's ominous; it's because D minor has an unwieldy number of accidentals. He could have started the piece in C major, and the change of affect would be identical, with no enharmonic change required. The Beethoven and Schubert examples have a similar problem. We're giving the impression that these enharmonic changes in themselves create a change of affect, but that isn't at all true; these affective descriptions undermine our thesis that these enharmonics are (at least in equal temperament) indistinguishable by ear. I say we take those quotes out and focus on the notational matter. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. I left that section alone because I get excessively cranky about subjective digressions like that. Figured someone else could do a better job of it. - Special-T (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary descriptions of affect