Talk:Unison

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikimedia link

Broken. Not sure if it's disappeared from wikimedia or just never worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.229.189 (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

The unison can be abbreviated as P1.

The unison represents wholeness, totality. It is to harmony what the whole note is to rhythm, or what the whole tone is to melody..

See also: diapason, monophony.

I don't think any of this is true. In musical set theory a unison would be 0 and in just intonation a 1 or 1/1, but not P1. I can't recall an incidence where unison is used metaphorically for wholeness. I also do not see how it a unison is a whole note. Hyacinth 00:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps referring to unison as wholeness was something of a stretch. I am putting back P1, though. Unison is one of the four "perfect intervals", the others being the octave (P2 P8), perfect fifth (P5), and perfect fourth (P4). (I have actually seen these labels being used.) --AugPi 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Unison is not a whole-note. What I meant is that

Unison : harmony :: Whole-note : melody .

But this analogy is also something of a stretch.

I get the P2 now, thanks for clarifying. A perfect octave is P8, a unison would be P0, but is usually just called unison. I'll check at my library, I think I find a quote regarding the unison and its symbolisim by Robin McConie. Hyacinth 01:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: Interval_(music)#Abbreviated.

Regarding P1: You are correct! [1]. Hyacinth 02:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I think 'Unison' should be a disambiguation page, listing the four things that are here:

music term
UK trade union
short-lived UK political organisation (incidentally, UK isn't specified and should be)
Celine Dion album (shudder)

The music term would become Unison (music). Rd232 17:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about "Unison (disambiguation)" for the disambig and "Unison" for the music article, as it is "clearly predominant" (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation). Hyacinth 19:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so, though I'm not keen on that style; but the dominance is pretty strong. The current sit is messy. Rd232 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I meant by this...! Anyway, we now have Unison (disambiguation). Rd232 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unison an interval?

Why is unison an interval when there is zero interval between unison notes?--Light current 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Indeed! That is what I have been discussing with my colleagues in the tuning list sometime ago. A search on `unison` in the search engine of that yahoogroups will bring up my reasoning and responses. Oz.

second diminished

Hi there, I'm kinda new to this level of accurateness on intervals and the such, but I was told that (on non-tempered instruments) a B flat is not the same as an A sharp.

Of course, on a piano, or any fretted string instrument this can't be taken into account, but as I said, on any non-tempered instrument like strings on an orchestra or the human voice, there might actually be such a difference. I'm not sure how the intervals on the diatonic scale were created, but I know it has something to do with the harmonic scale... well...

The point to which I'm trying to get is that I believe the diminished second is not the same as an unison. And instead of having any information reflecting this fact(?), all I see is a link on diminished second to this page, isn't this somewhat misleading?

VdSV9•♫ 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested audio

I have added two audio examples to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations: "In unison"

Why and where does this section need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zalino Quote: argumentation outdated

"But a line is not composed of points, since a point has no length, width, or depth that can be extended, or joined to another point."

This argumentation seems outdated. A line can in fact be seen as being composed of infinitely many points. At the time this quote was made, mathematics was not quite comfortable with infinities yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.199.195 (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]