Hello folks,
I feel REALLY embarrassed to have to pose this question but I really need to know.

Is there such a thing as an augmented unison interval and a dimenished unison interval?

C to C is a perfect unison interval.

What is C flat to C natural? Augmented?

What is C sharp to C natural? Dimenished?

And is this the same if C natural is the bottom note?

I am studying Grade 2 Rudiments and I have found this, among OTHER things musical, very confusing.

Thanks in advance.

Calling all Kreislers, where's a Starmender when you need one, eh?

Don't be embarassed about these oddball situations,emrys. I think they should be called crackpot questions since they are usually centered around the cracks. oh well, one of two I think I can answer.

Cflat to Cnatural. I figure its in the key of Cflat, so next note in scale would be Db. So 1/2 step below that would be a diminished 2nd. That would be my answer of choice, but it could also be called an augmented first, I guess. About this I'm not really sure though.

Csharp to Cnatural, I'd revise to Cnatural to Csharp. In key of C, 2nd scale tone is D, so Db (which is still C#)is 1/2 step down, so Cnatural to Csharp is a dimished 2nd.
I've never known for sure what to do on downward intervals either.

I'm not really confident about this and mainly I posted it so that if a better trained person comes in here they can tell me where I've gone wrong.

Bob

I found that on google by typing : music theory online

click here

Strange stuff. Now why would we call C to C a unison, when there is but one note being played or observed? To have something in unison would require two different things, not simply one, right? Irealise this is symantecs but as a Tuner, I find it confusing to talk of a unsion beween one and the same note. In tuning we talk of a good unison (within a single ntoe) to mean all three strings are tuned perfectly in unison.. notice tough, there are more than one, becoming one.

Maybe it is used for two different instruments or voices

I don't get it. It seems to me they'd both be augmented, because in both cases the interval is one semitone greater than a perfect unison.

Then again, stranger things have happened...

?? caryn

It seems to be algebrical.
The diminished unison is one semitone lower than a perfect unison(- 1/2) and the augmented is one semitone higher(+1/2).

Benedict,
Yes, I think I understand now. You just have to keep thinking of C as the lower note in the interval.

Further, you can look at how the inversions behave. A minor interval becomes a major interval in inversion and vice versa; an augmented interval becomes a diminished interval in inversion and vice versa. Inverting C-C# (augmented unison) becomes C#-C (diminished octave). And now, drum roll please, Cflat-C (augmented octave) inverts to C-Cflat (*diminished unison*!).

Now it seems only logical!

:-) caryn

Yes, you can have an augmented unison. c to c# is an example. It is not a diminished second, that is c to d double flat.

Can you have a diminished unison? No, because the bottom note becomes the foundation note for the interval, so if you have c and c flat, you regard the interval as being in the key of c flat, and it is augmented.

Sorry, inverting an augmented octave does not give you a diminished unison.

Inverting an interval usually means, I think, taking the top note down an octave. That means that the principles pertaining to the change of quality when you invert the interval do not apply to intervals greater than an octave.

I must admit that I have never considered the idea of inverting an interval larger than an octave before. But doesn't the inversion of the interval refer to what is left of an octave when you take the interval out of it? In which case the inversion of intervals greater than an octave would be a null set, unless we are going to get into "negative" intervals.

I thought c to D flat would be a minor second, not a diminished second.

As for the rest of your post, I think you are too smart for me!!!

caryn

Absolutely right. Someone was talkin at me, but no excuses. I'm shocked!

Benedict, thanks for the BryanBlood link. I stumbled upon that site a couple of years ago (at Dr.BloodDotCom or some similarly interesting name) and thought it was well done, but the link went dead and I never found it again.
When I first explored it, I found some little mistake in one of his examples and wrote him an Email asking about it. He sent me a nice "thank you, now leave me alone, ya little snot" response and fixed it within a week. No,actually he was very gracious about it. Proof-reading a site that large would be a major headache. (or would that be proof-sighting? or sight-proofing? I'll have to go back and review your posts on this subject or would that be sight-reviewing?

Bob

Bob,

You are the grand master of improvisation.

I am glad my site-finding was helpful.