I think that’s where some are confused. The designations of augmented and diminished have nothing to do with whether an interval is written above or below the first note. It only has to do with the distance between the two. So, to answer your question: if told to write an augmented unison starting on C, either C-C# or C-Cb would be correct. If I take a perfect 4th- say, F-Bb and write F- B natural, I have made it an augmented 4th. If I write Fb-Bb, I still make an augmented 4th- because in both cases, I have increased the size of the perfect 4th. If I have an 8 foot ceiling height and want to increase it by a foot, I can accomplish that by either raising my roof by 1 foot, or keep it where it is and lower the floor by 1 foot. In either case, I have augmented my ceiling height. This stuff only really matters in theoretical analysis. It makes no difference, soundwise, what we call a melodic interval. A minor 2nd or an augmented unison sound exactly the same.
Reading the phrase in context doesn’t change its meaning. And no, it is not standard practice to consider an interval as being calculated in an upward direction.
What names do you give to these six intervals?
- A major 3rd
- A descending major 3rd
- An augmented 5th
- A descending augmented 5th
- A diminished 2nd
- An augmented 2nd
It appears that no matter what I say, you will have a different understanding.
One of my earlier posts, the one just above Derrek’s, gives a consistent approach to the naming of written intervals. If you don’t value consistency, then I can’t help that.
I’ve met a lot of musicians, professional and otherwise, in my 55-plus years of music-making across a wide variety of ensembles, who would strongly disagree with you on that point.
But it’s not consistent in another way: diminishing an interval is to reduce the distance between notes. A unison cannot be reduced in distance.
You say literally „the upper/second note“ in a previous post. With unisons, there is no upper note, and choosing the second note for unisons is an arbitrary choice by you because order doesn’t matter for intervals (as you can see in the chart with simultaneous intervals above)
I do value consistency. That’s exactly why I can’t accept the inconsistent list of names you just gave there.
Firstly, the terms “ascending” and “descending” have no meaning when applied to two notes played simultaneously. But even if we assume that they do, the names you give to 5 and 6 are not consistent with the names you give to 3 and 4.
As I said earlier, it appears that no matter what I say, you will have a different understanding.
I’m not going to put my position forward any more except to refer to the original post at the top of the page and ask you to name the interval involved in the transposition from E to E flat without using the words semitone (or half-step), ascending, up, descending or down.
For a transposition, the specification “up” or “down” is essential. If a singer asks me “can you transpose this song a tone?”, I need to ask them “do you mean up or down?”
I define a transposition from E to E flat as “down an augmented unison”.
Transposing by a diminished unison lowers the pitch by a semitone (while keeping the written notes on the same lines and spaces), so using the word “down” is not needed.
And what about transposition by a diminished second? Or an augmented second? Do you need the words up or down there?
Yes but… there’s no such thing as a diminished unison — that is what even Daniel Spreadbury aknowledged… I understand why some people would think like that, but honestly, it’s absolutely not consistent with any other interval. I really think this should get corrected, for the sake of consistency. And I really thought this horse was dead three days ago!
Off-topic. It’s all about diminished unison.
It’s about consistency. A system where the direction of transposition is somehow contained in the interval for certain intervals, but not for others, is not consistent.
Possibly. My teacher was very old (and very old-school) and this was such a long time ago I may be misremembering some details.
However, the distinction you are making between melodic and harmonic intervals seems so trivial and insignificant, it’s almost pointless.
My recollection is that all spellings of each interval were divided into melodic and harmonic based on criteria that was a bit more useful in chords.
Harmonic intervals preserve their quality in inversions (e.g. consonances remain consonant) and flip their width (dim becomes aug, etc), while melodic do not (e.g. a diminished octave inverts to diminished unison). So, augmented 7 is a melodic interval in this context because it’s a dissonance that inverts to a consonance.
The reason for this distinction between melodic and harmonic intervals has to do with chordal harmony. Melodic intervals are not used to spell chords because they do not make sense as functional components of chords, while they are quite meaningful in spelling out the melodic context. For example, a double-diminished 2nd makes no sense a chord tone because it doesn’t have any real harmonic meaning.
So yes, in this type of context a diminished unison is a legitimate interval simply by being the result of inversion. It’s a spelling that describes a melodic interval (that’s actually used in practice) and that has no functional meaning as a chord tone.
I concede it might be overwrought but at least it doesn’t just arbitrarily ignore some intervals or deny they exist- it explains all of them. And it doesn’t create strange tautologies like ascending or descending when there are interval properties that already describe that.
Yes, an interval is a difference between two notes. But how do you describe a K64 without choosing a reference tone?
It’s not trivial, and it’s not mine: it’s the standard definition of those terms that you’ll find in theory books or musical encyclopaedias.
The term “inversion” has a different meaning for a harmonic interval or for a melody.
For a harmonic interval, it means you take the lower note and move it up an octave so it becomes the upper note. Thus major third inverts to minor sixth, or diminished 7th inverts to augmented 2nd. Consonant intervals invert to consonant ones, dissonant to dissonant.
If you invert a melody, each interval keeps the same magnitude but changes its direction: every descending major third becomes an ascending major third, every ascending diminished fifth becomes a descending diminished fifth.
The standard system, as I describe it, classifies every possible interval that exists. You can easily make up names for intervals that don’t exist, like “triple-diminished second” or “major fourth”: I don’t need or want a system that pretends to give meanings to those terms.
There are no strange tautologies there. There are no interval properties that tell you if an interval is ascending or ascending. An interval is a measure of distance.
You’ve lost me there. What is a K64?
So I did and yes, you’re right! It’s only slightly surprising, though - my teacher was Russian and an old-time family friend, and in all honesty, I did have an inkling he came from a different school once or twice before.
Still - this simple explanation feels incredibly simplistic! To me, understanding all simultaneous intervals as either melodic or harmonic is an angle on the intersection of counterpoint and tonal harmony. I remember counterpoint shifts and Scriabin. But it’s been ages since I touched any of this.
Well, I understand now why this entire thread felt so strange! Thank you.
In numbers 1-4 in your example, it doesn’t matter whether the flute or oboe plays the higher note. On the staff, the size of the interval
(the location on the staff of the notes) here doesn’t change. Ascending/descending makes no difference in the quality here and isn’t necessary. G4-B4 will be a major 3rd whether the oboe OR the flute plays the higher note. for #5 & 6, neither are any kind of 2nd, because the distance between the intervals shown is not a second. At the end of the day, as I said before, who cares, really? All of the examples you gave will SOUND the same in our compositions regardless of what we identify them as. That’s the main thing.
Man, people over think this stuff. A harmonic interval sounds simultaneously. A melodic one sounds melodically. Their inversions are an entirely different issue.
Sure, you can give them whatever name you want and define them differently. And I admitted my use of the terminology (melodic/harmonic) is obviously not the standard one. But still:
-
all intervals can be spelled in several ways. I was taught 3, including the bb and ## intervals.
-
each of these spellings make sense in their own right and context.
-
the inversions of intervals should follow consistent logic: consonants invert to consonants, diminished to augmented, and so on. However, some of these spellings follow this and some others do not: aug unison, dim 2, aug 7 and several others. That’s where the problems start.
I suppose we can say some of these names are more valid than others, that some of the inversion rules apply and others don’t, or that some of these intervals simply do not exist. I’m sure there’s another explanation that I’m not aware of (likely a better one, too).
The way I was taught and the way I see it is that these spellings are valid. Their inversions are valid. There is nothing wrong with a diminished unison, and there is nothing wrong with transposing by a diminished unison. It’s not the most common interval but it’s not the only uncommon one either.
The differences in inversion behavior do not lead to denying interval legitimacy or changing the rules - they simply enable (or not) the chordal harmony. You can take many an interval simultaneously, and yet only some of them will work in a chord while others won’t. Those that invert following the standard logic will always work in chords. And that’s probably the reason my teacher named some intervals melodic - they only work in the context of melodic movement.