Talk:Theoretical key

message: A note about today's equal temperament might help put this into context, as C# hasn't always been exactly the same as Db. A qualifier is needed about double flats being common enough for enharmonic changes, but rarely used in key signatures. --Alf melmac 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, harmonic progressions can strongly imply one enharmonic over another. Modulation and tonicization can give a strong impression of, for example, one key modulating to its subdominant key, which in turn could do the same, giving a sense of modulating into ever more flatted keys, even if equal temperament "magically" makes a Abbbb into an F, for example, it is possible to give the impression of a harmonic progression into a key like Abbbb, even if no sane composer would notate it that way.  There's a Beethoven piece that does exactly this, although I forget which piece at the moment.  ..but my point is that something like Abbbb is not an "impossible" or "theoretical" key except in terms of the music notation  being too unwieldy to employ.  Pfly 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Appassionata! :-) Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Equal temperament

message: I do not think it makes sense that in other equal temperaments, the normal conventional scales are built. For example, this article says that "in the 19 tone equal temperament, Bbb major is enharmonic to A# major". The normal major/minor scales are based on dividing the octave into 12 parts, not 19. So if we split the octave into 19 parts instead of 12, then the diatonic scales built on these pitches should also be completely different - a halfstep would be 1/19, not 1/12, of an octave, and a fullstep would be 2/19, not 1/6, of an octave. So, the scales would not be the normal major and minor - they will be totally different, because it would be a different key system (if it would proceed around a 'circle of fifths' at all).Majopius (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no knowledge of non twelve-tone systems. But I strongly agree that the statements need supporting evidence. So I've tagged it 'Disputed-section'.  (I've also tried to tidy up the article, but that's another story...) Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. It links to the pages for 19-ET and so on so you can read more there. I'm removing the tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That's not how it works. In 19-tone equal temperament a perfect fifth is 11/19 of an octave. A whole tone is 3/19, a diatonic semitone is 2/19, and a chromatic semitone is 1/19. Assigning note names in the usual way then does indeed result in B being enharmonically equivalent to A. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal Temperaments and Division of the Octave 

message: Originally it was up to 10 sharps or flats, because that's the most you can get out of parallel keys of non-theoretical keys. Someone added 11. Actually I think the best closure spot if you're unsatisfied with 10 would be 12, given that that is where the circle of fifths closes again (it first closes at 6 sharps or flats, where F = G; now we have B = C = D), so I added 12. The most you could legitimately go to is probably 14, as beyond that you need triple sharps and flats. (And also, I don't think anyone has used those keys, even transiently; at least B major with its 12 sharps is transiently encountered, for example in one of Reicha's 36 Fugues, though not with its key signature.)
(Although with regards to avoiding triple sharps: you can't get completely away from the problem here. G minor has 12 sharps, and the ascending G harmonic minor scale would have to be: G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.) Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK: that someone was Georgia guy. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the table