Talk:Enharmonic scale

A fact from Enharmonic scale appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that enharmonic scales are the third genus of musical scales?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/July.

Wikipedia

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant detail?

In this example, natural notes are sharpened by multiplying its frequency ratio by 256:243 (called a limma), and a natural note is flattened by multiplying its ratio by 243:256. A pair of enharmonic notes are separated by a Pythagorean comma, which is equal to 531441:524288.

Is this really relevant to enharmonic scales? It seems more of a pythagorean tuning issue. There are plenty of other enharmonics scales (i.e. meantone) that have other differences. Rainwarrior 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagorean enharmonic scale is relevant, I was looking exactly this kind of information.. Käkki2 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the audience?

How about starting with a simple explanation so the layman that is looking for a simple explanation will have one and then go in more complex analysis that a mathematician may be looking for. Here it is in 3 lines:

An enharmonic note is a note that when written on sheet is different but when played is the same, for example: F sharp and G flat, or A sharp and B flat. An enharmonic scale is the same, a scale that looks different on paper but is the same when played: E flat major and D sharp major.

I don't think that's true -- looks to me like the enharmonic scale is a whole different thing, and people have started to call scales enharmonic incorrectly. See http://music-theory.ascensionsounds.com/who-really-understands-musical-enharmonics/ and http://www.musicofyesterday.com/history/8002324/The_Greek_Octave_System.php

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not enharmonic scales. In fact, in an enharmonic scale E-flat and D-sharp are two different notes. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing notes

The C flat, E sharp, F flat and B sharp notes are missing from the chart. Why is this..? Käkki2 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:kiss|kiss] Jun 1, 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.29.95 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the chart, sharps and flats raise and lower notes by two steps on the chart. So C♭ = A♯, E♯ = G♭, F♭ = D♯ and B♯ = D♭. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text and refs partially dropped in20121129 edits -- restore the Moore ref?

More properly dieses or 'divisions',^[1] nonexistent on modern keyboards and originating in the diminished seventh chord.^[2]

References

^ John Wall Callcott (1833). A Musical Grammar in Four Parts, p.109. James Loring.
^ Moore, John Weeks (1854). Complete Encyclopædia of Music, p.281. J. P. Jewett.

Refs supporting the 20121129 edit

http://music-theory.ascensionsounds.com/who-really-understands-musical-enharmonics/

http://www.musicofyesterday.com/history/8002324/The_Greek_Octave_System.php

"Enharmonic scale" does not mean "the same scale spelled differently" -- careful!

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17-TET

Does this mean that 17-TET is an enharmonic scale? Is 19-TET one too? What about 31-TET and 53-TET? Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 and 19 both are, yes. Enharmonic scales where the fifth is larger than 700 cents will usually have 17 notes, those with flatter fifths (meantone) will usually have 19 notes. Also, in the latter type of scale, C# (for example) is lower than Db, but in the former type of scale, these relationships are reversed (C# is above Db).

As for 31, the entire scale requires double-sharps and double-flats (or half-sharps and half-flats) to notate and thus is not enharmonic, although it could be considered "super-enharmonic" (a generalization). But there is a 19-note enharmonic subset of 31-ET. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FiredanceThroughTheNight: Interesting. But the article says that an enharmonic scale is a gradual progression through quarter tones, so I'm not sure I understand how this works. It gives the definition of non-equivalent sharps and flats, which seems to imply a 17- (positive temperaments) or 19-tone (negative temperaments) scale proceeding by third-tones (either schismatic or meantone). But in the quarter-tone system, C♯ and D♭ are still the same note! The difference is that there are notes between them and the naturals C and D.

How would "super-enharmonic" be defined? A scale when double sharps and double flats are their own distinct notes as well, separate from naturals and single sharps and flats? This allows 31 in, but not 24. Or would it simply be an enharmonic scale with half-sharps and -flats as well, allowing both 24 and 31? Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super-enharmonic is just my made-up term, so it doesn't really have a formal definiton.

Your question re: 19-ET and quarter-tones is a good one. The two definitions of enharmonic (quarter-tone scales vs. scales with distinct sharps and flats) are actually mutually exclusive! 17 and 19 are enharmonic in the latter sense, but they are definitely not quarter-tones (they're both third-tone scales). Whereas quarter-tone scales, most famously 24 but also 22 and 26, require more complex systems of notation. In 24, you can't notate solely via the circle of fifths since it only takes you through half the notes. Whereas in 22 and 26, you can, but you also need more than just sharps and flats. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Callcott-1] John Wall Callcott (1833). A Musical Grammar in Four Parts, p.109. James Loring.

[Moore-2] Moore, John Weeks (1854). Complete Encyclopædia of Music, p.281. J. P. Jewett.

[1]

[2]