Talk:Diminished unison

Talk copied over from WP:CM

Is this a viable article? I can see the rationale, but I don't think any theorist uses the term except in jest! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Augmented unison is a redirect. Also, technically this is theory, and not classical (though the theory project is basically dead). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

At least in theory augmented unison could mean something, whereas diminished unison is just a paradox (depending on whether you regard intervals as a scalar or a vector quantity). Since I don't have perfect pitch, I hear intervals in a scalar way, but I guess someone with perfect pitch might be able to imagine a diminished unison. Looking through the Google hits, this is clearly something people like arguing about, but neither term has any usefully applicable meaning. --Deskford (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take: if somewhere out in the world, there are professional musicians or music theorists who take this term seriously, then we ought to keep the article--but add language to it indicating that the term is extremely unusual. (We need to avoid misleading any music-theory newbies who read the article.) If on the other hand "diminished unison" is not seriously used by any legitimate musicians or theorists, we should delete the article. Opus33 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the Augmented Unison makes perfect sense. How else to describe c-c♯ (an "altered" unison) as opposed to c-d♭ (a minor second)? Move the article there, IMO, given that I just made up the term "altered" unison. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more to the point, Semitone describes the phenomenon that three distinct intervals become identical when heard in equal temperament and other some other temperament systems (augmented unison, minor second, and diminished third (eg c♯-e♭)). That article could hold all three, as long as the difference is made clear. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was rash to say neither term has any useful meaning. Augmented unison makes sense; it's just diminished unison that is hard to justify. So for the non-equal-temperamentists among us, augmented unison could have its own article explaining implications in other tuning systems, as diminished third does. But diminished unison? If there is to be an article at all it should make clear that the term is not in serious use, and is just a joke, a paradox, a brain-twister. --Deskford (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore my comments about diminished third: obviously that is actually a tone! --Jubilee♫clipman 19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Any one who has given music intervals a fair study will undoubtedly surmise that the entire necessity for the use of "diminished" is firstly considerate in the treatment of the perfect 5th, the most cohesive interval overall to harmonic motion, embellished by the 7th and higher, yet given a firm foundation by the 3rd. And so it goes for the use of "augmented". The fact remains that the perfect 5th may be altered to be diminished or augmented. It is then logical to apply that same alteration to any other perfect interval, in this particular case, the perfect prime. Not to be consistent with perfect intervals in regards to their type would be irregular, and I have found nothing irregular in God's design concerning music theory, especially given the facts of the overtone series and its direct support to further harmony. Just as the overtone series provides us with a basis, the fundamental tone, so does the diminished unison provide a basis in the next step up from monophony in this - it is the smallest interval. - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Inversion of augmented octave

This article claims that a "diminished unison" exists as an inversion of the augmented octave. However according to my reading of the article Inversion (music), this would not be the case. This latter article says that you invert an interval by raising or lowering either of the notes the necessary number of octaves, so that both retain their names (pitch class) and the one which was higher is now lower and vice versa. So if I start with an augmented octave (one octave plus a semitone), to invert it I have to shift one of the pitches by two octaves, otherwise the higher one is still higher and the lower still lower. The result is thus a diminished octave (one octave minus a semitone). Having thought this one through, I am even more convinced that a "diminished unison" is a paradoxical concept, but I still wouldn't advocate deleting the article — it should explain the paradox (and, if my reasoning above is correct, explain the fallacy of the inverted augmented octave argument). I would be intrigued to see what any of the cited references say, but none are online references. --Deskford (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Sembos reference, used to back up the inverted augmented octave argument, can be read on Google Books. I find his explanation (page 51) a little hazy and overladen with exclamation marks. He also seems to contradict himself, having said on page 37 that intervals exceeding the interval of an octave ... are called compound intervals and on page 49 that compound intervals cannot be inverted. Surely by definition an augmented octave exceeds an octave...? --Deskford (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of hazy, if one doesn't understand the basic concepts of intervals how does one expect to determine much about this article? Hyacinth (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It actually makes perfect sense that an augmented octave inverts to a diminished octave: after all, the former is simply an an octave plus augmented unison which inverts to the diminished octave... I think you have found the answer! Keep the article though and find books that explain it all properly. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, having just read Sembos, I don't think he is a great source: he is just too hazy. I think what he means is that intervals above an octave of any colour (including dim and aug and double aug for that matter) are compound intervals, but never properly explains this. He also seems to be amazed at the fact that augmented intervals can contain flats even though the inversion of a diminished fifth (such as c to g♭ above) can also contain a flat but is still called an augmented fourth (c to g♭ below). Does that mean that a flattened fourth is an augmented fourth? Possibly: it all depends which accidentals are used. Presumeably c-c' (quadruply diminished octave) which inverts to a quadruply augmented unison would produce a doubly-sharpened-and-doubly-flattened unison and he'd explode in apoplexy before even getting to a quadruply augmented octave... I really think we need to use more reliable works such as produced by Prout, Piston, Dahlhaus, Lovelock, and possibly even Miller (Complete Idiot's Guide). --Jubilee♫clipman 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that Sembos is published by Lulu Press, a self-publishing agency, and is thus not necessarily a reliable reference. Are any of the others you mention available online? --Deskford (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Piston's Harmony and Counterpoint are available as torrents. The others might be too, but I haven't checked yet. I suspect these are not made available freely as PDFs simply because they are such good sellers! Anyway, try harmony, theory etc plus one of the names on Google and you'll soon find some decent books... --Jubilee♫clipman 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to keep the composure we accuse Sembos of losing?

I doubt that Sembos is "amazed" in the sense of dumb-founded at a topic he is trying to fill with interest as he teaches it. I presume the exclamation points are for you, the reader, not from a transcription of his over-excited speech. While Sembos is obviously feigning surprised that the diminished unison uses a sharp rather than a flat, this did surprised the original authors of this page, so perhaps you should not act as if it is such an obvious point. Hyacinth (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the inversion and compound interval issues brought up by Deskford: neither of which are relevant to this page except as they relate to Sembos's credibility as a source and both issues may complicate things more than they are worth since you don't have a clear understanding of the issues in the first place. However, like many things, inversion is fairly simple to do but fairly complicated to explain in words. Inversion_(music)#Inverted_intervals: "Traditional interval names add together to make nine: seconds become sevenths and the reverse, thirds become sixes and the reverse, and fourths become fifths and the reverse....See also complement (music)." Thus an octave inverts to a unison: 8+1=9, not to an octave or double octave. "Under inversion, perfect intervals remain perfect, major intervals become minor and the reverse, augmented intervals become diminished and the reverse." Thus an augmented octave becomes a diminished unison. Hyacinth (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes (and an apology for my cynical statements above)

OK, sorry: you are right, we should not be belittling people here. Hyacinths logic is perfectly correct; Deskford's analysis worked through the logic of the opening statement to the letter and produced quite a different result from that produced by the rule of nine or inversion of ratios. Hyacinth is technically correct, though; however, since the article points out that some theorists disallow the diminished unison in any sense, she has to admit that there must be another interval that these do allow as the inversion of the aug 8va: viz, the aug 1st. Regarding the definition of a diminished unison, however, I have found (Googling diminished unison) several online sources that have quite a different way of looking at it; these could be used to expand the article, though we still need quotes from the top rank theorists, such as Lovelock, Prout et al:

Unisons & Octaves

If we imagine a second note sounding at the same time as the key-note (they form a dyad), we could ask ourselves what is the interval between them?

The simplest interval we can consider is the interval between two identical notes - e.g. C and C. The interval is called the unison, the perfect unison or the perfect prime. We can also say that the notes are 'in unison'.

The interval from C to C sharp is called the augmented unison or the augmented prime - 'unison' because the note names are the same (both Cs), 'augmented' because the interval is one semitone greater than a 'perfect' unison.

The interval from C to C flat is called the diminished unison or the diminished prime

Some theorists do not allow the diminished unison because the C flat lies below the C natural and this breaks the rule that all dyadic intervals are named from the lower note.

If we now consider the interval between our key-note C and any other C, we would say that the interval is one, two, three or more octaves depending on which C is the upper note; for example, the eighth degree of the scale is one octave above the key-note.

- Dolmetsch

Unisons

A "perfect" unison is exactly 0 half steps.

C -> C is a perfect unison. It is the exact same note.

Our next modifier is "diminished". When you diminish an interval, you make it smaller by one half step. So 0 - 1 = -1.

A -> Ab is a diminished unison.

"Augmented" is the opposite. When you augment an interval, you make it bigger by one half step.

D -> D# is an augmented unison.

So perfect, diminished, and augmented are the only modifiers for the first group. Again, they can be applied to unisons, 4ths, 5ths, and octaves.

- music-theory-for-musicians.com

Anytime you lower the last note of a perfect interval it becomes a diminished unison, 4th, or 5th:

C-Cb = diminished unison

C-Fb = diminished 4th

C-Gb = diminished 5th (tritone)

- learngospelmusic.com

A diminished unison = MINUS one semi tone i.e. the top note is BELOW the bottom note

- randychance.com

Perfect intervals flatted ONCE:

Diminished Unison Diminished Fourth Diminished Fifth Diminished Octave

- maddeningmusic.com

Unison, fourth, fifth, octave. These intervals may be perfect, augmented, or diminished. A perfect fourth is five semitones, a perfect fifth is seven semitones, a perfect octave is twelve semitones. A perfect unison occurs between notes of the same pitch, so it is zero semitones. In each case, an augmented interval contains one more semitone, a diminished interval one fewer.

- Allexperts

Thus, while Sembos considers the aug to be flat and the dim to be sharp (at least in the case of certain inversions), almost all the others I have found so far have it the other way around, while Allexperts (sensibly) avoids talking about flats or flatting to illustrate their point. Dolmesch also point out the fact that some theorist disallow the interval. Where inversion is discussed, they all give the correct interpretation. Allexperts is typical:

An interval may be inverted, by raising the lower pitch an octave, or lowering the upper pitch an octave (though it is less usual to speak of inverting unisons or octaves). For example, the fourth between a lower C and a higher F may be inverted to make a fifth, with a lower F and a higher C. Here are the ways to identify interval inversions:

* For diatonically-named intervals, here are two rules, applying to all simple (i.e., non-compound) intervals:

* #The number of any interval and the number of its inversion always add up to nine (four + five = nine, in the example just given).

* #The inversion of a major interval is a minor interval (and vice versa); the inversion of a perfect interval is also perfect; the inversion of an augmented interval is a diminished interval (and vice versa); and the inversion of a double augmented interval is a double diminished interval (and vice versa).

:A full example: E flat below and C natural above make a major sixth. By the two rules just given, C natural below and E flat above must make a minor third.

* For intervals identified by ratio, the inversion is determined by reversing the ratio and multiplying by 2. For example, the inversion of a 5:4 ratio is an 8:5 ratio.

* Intervals identified by integer can be simply subtracted from 12. However, since an interval class is the lower of the interval integer or its inversion, interval classes cannot be inverted.

(On a totally different track, one foreign website I found seems to like me: zeakryat.com!)

BTW, Hyacinth, I think we do understand the basic principles of interval and inversion: we are simply trying to make sense of the facts before us on Wikipedia. The inversion article is apparently contradictory to a lay person as Deskford points out. However, that issue needs to be raised on that article's page, not here. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is "she"? Hyacinth (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologise! See your talkpage. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Improve rather than merge then?

I've added Dolmetsch and tried to explain the weird Sembos statement. This article is actually better cited than the vast majority of the other interval articles now! Perhaps even further improvement is possible? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What does weird mean? Hyacinth (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It was (to me) completely incomprehensible as it stood. Now that there is more context, it makes better sense. Perhaps weird was not the most clear of terms to use either however...--Jubilee♫clipman 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I could create something that gave way to so much discussion! 4 = 2 + 2 12:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

HAHA! The page was pretty much as you left it when we started ie about three lines long! It is still much shorter than this discussion page... However, we have established that in theory the term is meaningful and is used by numerous theorists. The discussion also highlights the fact that several other intervals need to be written up (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory). --Jubilee♫clipman 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the picture...isn't the second bar an augmented unison? 4 T C 10:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... aren't these intervals identical: it's just the context that defines them. Basically, no one uses the term diminished unison except in relation to the complement/inversion of an augmented octave. I think that's where we are all at, anyway...?? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it helps if you read the text and not just look at the pictures. Hyacinth (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say that I'm in favor of deleting this article. The only reliable source (Kostka and Payne), says that this interval does not exist.BassHistory (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

How, why, and where does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I pulled it, as there does not appear to be any portion of this article that is not properly cited. Furthermore, I believe any template that is not 100% clear should be explained on the talk page, or, at least, in the edit summary. Otherwise, such a template is useless, as one cannot know how to improve the article. — trlkly 23:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Box on the right

I doubt perfect unisons are diminished unisons. 121.7.199.205 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can this article be deleted?

"Diminished unison" is simply an erroneous name for "augmented unison." There is already a page, semitone, which covers the interval "augmented unison." Just because one self-published author, and one webpage, use a neologism, doesn't mean there should be an entire article about it. Furthermore, the only difference is in semantics. There is no practical difference between an augmented unison and a diminished unison (that is, if one even believes that the later exists).BassHistory (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added the deletion tag to the page. If you feel this is a legitimate article, please provide a real source, not just "Uncle Bob's Music Theory Page," etc.

BassHistory (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are five sources, none named "Uncle Bob's". Just cite some sources saying the concept is erroneous and relax. Hyacinth (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also no augmented unison article. Hyacinth (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reason for deletion (WP:DEL#REASON). Hyacinth (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, excuse the sarcasm. I think we should go by WP:SPS on this one. We have three published sources which all agree: there is no such interval. The burden of proof goes to those arguing for the article's existence, as per the following deletion guideline:

• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [should be deleted]

No reliable source has been found to verify this article, which has been under discussion for a year. There is already a section in "Semitone" that covers the augmented unison. That should be sufficient for Wikipedia.BassHistory (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was bold: I went ahead and moved the well sourced info from this article (two sentences) to Semitone#Augmented_unison, along with the three published sources. Diminished unison now redirects there, in case anyone googles or searches that term.BassHistory (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is because the diminished unison, if treated as existent, is treated as distinct from the augmented unison. I've restored the article for now. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, I've never ever once heard a distinguished theorist ever mention anything about a diminished unison. It's a paradox. It can't exist because you're taking away (diminished) from the most basic level (unison). The concept displayed in this article is that of an augmented unison. Any given pitch, let's say C, that has a chromatic alteration later, say Cb, is an expansion - or augmentation per se - of the interval, not a diminution. There is absolutely no validity to the term "diminished unison." It simply cannot exist except in some alternate mathematical world where imaginary numbers can be realized in music. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Part Deux / Augmented Unison Article

I stated that this article needs to be deleted (see section above) for obvious reasons. No one uses this term, other than to say it doesn't exist - see the references in this page. If someone wants to clarify their statements that a "diminished unison while appearing like an augmented unison is treated differently" - I'd love to hear it. The problem with this page is that it's an article that is describing something that doesn't exist and can't exist. Unlike mathematics, music notation is pretty finite at it's current state.

On the other hand, there needs to be an augmented unison article written. It's current redirect to semitone is not the answer. While they are similar things (yes, they occupy the same space intervallically), there needs to be discussion on why augmented unison terminology is used and the resolutions of an augmented unison (usually to a third). --Devin.chaloux (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Something not existing is in fact NOT a reason to delete a page. See WP:HOAX#Hoaxes_versus_articles_about_hoaxes for instance, which is the closest scenario I could find here. Now if the sources do, in fact, only mention its nonexistence and don't get into the detailed analysis of the term this page does, then yes there's no article needed though a small mention on other pages would be appropriate. As suggested, a page on an augmented unison in line with those of other intervals would certainly make sense, and a note on THAT page about this term would be wholely appropriate. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But that's the point - it's only a term of nonexistence. I'm not sure how you even could measure negative semitones or tune to negative cents. It's all theoretical, but the problem with this is that unlike math, music has no outlet to support these theories. Frankly only one theorist has decided to use this term and that's objectionable at best. All of the most popular theory textbooks today do not adopt this terminology because it is essentially a paradox. It's appropriate place would be in the appropriate article, which doesn't exist, augmented unison. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the proposed deletion because a speedy deletion had been proposed before. This needs to go to WP:AFD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake, remove this redirect. Please, please, please stamp it out forever and make it die…BassHistory (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)