Talk:Diesis

Audio file

Seeing the request for an audio file here, I thought I might be able to make one with Scala. A quick attempt seems to have worked. Scala makes MIDI files, so I'm not sure it would work correctly on various computers, so I thought I'd ask before I added it to the article. I know it could sound better, but it is just demonstrating the sound of the diesis comma. I just wonder if people think something like this would be useful for this page, and other pages on commas.

I uploaded the file to the Commons, , or just http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Diesis-example.mid

Description of what the does: It first plays an octave (2:1), C3 to C4; then, starting from the same C3 pitch, it plays a justly tuned major third (5:4), then another, then another (ie, C, E, G#, B#). Then it plays the 2:1 octave C4 again, followed by the 125:64 B#, followed by both at once. The difference between the C and the B#, 128:125 is the diesis comma. In equal temperament, on a piano for example, B# is the same as C, and three major thirds in a row equal an octave. But three justly-tuned major thirds fall quite a bit flat of an octave. Does this file help understanding that?

I think I will post this question elsewhere too, where someone might actually see it! Reactions? Pfly 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MIDI files are not audio; they are abstract sequences of musical events. Here's an actual audio file rendered from the MIDI: Image:Diesis-example.ogg.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales#Audio file demonstrating diesis comma for more information. —Keenan Pepper 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Added the soundfile -- thanks to Keenan Pepper for rendering it into an ogg. My first attempt to add sound to wikipedia, first use of the "listen" template and the "music" template. Hope it works, it seems to for me. Pfly (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note designation in picture

Going up by 3 major thirds from C, steps to E, G#, and B#. So indeed the defect from B# to C(8va) is rightfully a diminished second. However the picture shows Dbb to C. This notation is inconsistent with the explanation. This is also a diminished second, but the wrong one. −Woodstone (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Diesis as a synonym of sharp (♯)

Are you sure that the word "Diesis" is (or was) not also, sometimes, used as a synonym of "Diese" or sharp? Here's the rationale for my question.

In English:

• The sharp accident (♯) is also called Diese.
• The flat accident (♭) is also called Bemolle.

Compare this with Italian, a language which was a reference in the past, even for English musicians. In Italian:

• The ♯ accident is called Diesis (see here).
• The ♭ accident is called Bemolle (see here).

(I am not sure about the name they give to the diesis comma in Italian.)

Also, and perhaps more importantly, the etymology of the word diesis is consistent with the definition of the sharp accident. Namely, in Greek diesis means "escape", and this refers to the technique of playing the aulos, where pitch is raised (i.e. sharpened!) a small amount by slightly raising the finger on the lowest closed hole, letting a small amount of air "escape"...

− Paolo.dL (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is one definition. But if you click on page 360 (right below page 241), you'll see that "infinitely many intervals could be produced, but according to Aristoxenus [4th century BC], the smallest musical interval was the enharmonic diesis or quarter tone".

The definition of "diesis" from the Harvard Dictionary of Music (along with its French counterpart, "dièse") is found on page 241. It's not chronological, but it shows the term has a long history.

And just a small note: the sharp or flat is called an accidental, as opposed to an error-caused accident. − Glenn L (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A small clarification: the Pythagorean comma is considerably smaller (about half the size) of an enharmonic diesis. They are very distinct intervals.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Since the "quarter-tone" today is half a 12TET semitone = 50 cents, it was nowhere near any of the comma-class intervals. I thus remove my question from above. *Blushes* − Glenn L (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While the theory is important to some, to those who play there is no difference between C natural and B sharp, and a sentence such as "This means that, for instance, C' is sharper than B♯..." is utterly meaningless. There's no difference on a piano, for instance, and although you may be able to play the difference on a violin, there would never be an instruction in music to do so (I hope). I enjoy reading wikipedia's music articles but many of them are simply too abstract to mean anything to the reader. I therefore would like to commend Paolo for raising that issue -- and I think I have actually heard the word used that way, but not in the way this article defines it. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Eric

I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. For those who play the piano (or similar keyboard instruments) it may be true but, as a player of woodwinds, I can tell you that this has been a daily concern of mine for the past forty-odd years—ever since I learned the difference between playing in tune and playing out of tune.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative definitions Comment

I double-checked the table on page 26 in Rameau's Treatise on Harmony and determined that, based on the 15552:15625 product as well as the omission of 148 in five-limit tuning, the ratio "125:148" is a typo for "125:128", hence my insertion of the sic note in the text. -- Glenn L (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I double checked that myself, and you are right. It is certainly a typo in Rameau's original print. I haven't checked the English translation to see whether it was corrected there or not. This probably should be done, and I have access to the translated edition, but it is not within reach at the moment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have checked and, indeed, Philip Gossett caught the error and corrected it (silently, as it happens). I have added a note explaining this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

alternative definitions

Rameau did define 128/125 as the small diesis in 1722, as stated above, but in 1726 (Nouveau systeme) he named this interval the great diesis, and 648/625 the least semitone, as he did in 1722 as well, and as did Mersenne before and Sauveur after. Alexander Ellis also called 128/125 the great diesis (c. 1885). I wonder who changed the terminology. The earliest use of the modern nomenclature that I have been able to find is in the Harvard Dictionary of Music (W Apel), 1944.129.100.58.76 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)R. carl s R. carl s (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)