I'm sure the answer to this is really simple and I'm just way overtired, but I need some help with enharmonically changing a specific interval. The interval in question is an A# to an E#, a perfect 5th. I'm only allowed to change the bottom note, but I can't find an enharmonic equivalent that makes a viable interval.. Bb to an E# doesn't make sense, nor does Cbb to E#. Thanks in advance, I'm sure I'll be chastising myself for such a simple mistake later.
Bb to F, as F is always a form of the fifth degree of B =]
Last edited by juckfush at Jul 29, 2010,
Thanks, but as I said I'm only allowed to change the bottom tone.
What's the context for this, as in the key or progression? And why can you only change the root? - it just seems really bizarre.

But in this case, because an E# is technically the perfect fifth of A#, you really can't change the A# to anything enharmonic to imply that harmony, if you're only allowed to change the root - it's going to have to be written as is (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).
Last edited by juckfush at Jul 29, 2010,
Just a theory question in some basic workbooks I'm being forced to shoot through, needless to say I wasn't expecting to be so stumped :P No key, no progression, and the questions states to change only the bottom tone. Not usual of these types of books to throw in impossible questions such as this, but I'm beginning to think it's the only solution!

By the way, the product interval doesn't need to be a perfect 5th, it can be anything.
The two nearest choices in terms of generic intervals (fourths and sixths) would be a doubly-augmented fourth (Bb to E#) and the diminished sixth (Gx# to E#).
Ah, I was thinking it was part of a seminar or study

Looking at it, A# to E# is a perfect fifth, and if you're keeping the E# and not rewriting as F or anything similar, that's your only way of having a theoretically correct A#.

I *think* what the book might be implying, is writing, say, Bb (enharmonically equivalent to A#), and because Bb to E# would be some sort of fourth interval, you'd name it a double-augmented fourth, or something similar (I'm sure double-augmented isn't the correct term, but I'll check back in with an edit, hopefully)? So the tonality is the same, but written, you have both the enharmoncally equivalent notes and an enharmonically equivalent name; I hope that makes sense!

That's what I'm gathering, but hopefully somebody else can drop by and confirm it.

EDIT: ^ And there you go - it's doubly

Last edited by juckfush at Jul 29, 2010,
I'll have to agree with you both on the double-augmented 4th, although the concept is a little advanced for this portion of a basic theory rudiments book, as well as unmentioned as of yet (yet every other insignificant little detail on basic theory is unfortunately stressed and repeated to nail it into thick beginner skulls ). Thank you both for your help!

Errr- doubly-augmented*
Last edited by NewShred at Jul 29, 2010,
Quote by NewShred
I'll have to agree with you both on the double-augmented 4th, although the concept is a little advanced for this portion of a basic theory rudiments book, as well as unmentioned as of yet (yet every other insignificant little detail on basic theory is unfortunately stressed and repeated to nail it into thick beginner skulls ). Thank you both for your help!

Errr- doubly-augmented*
Could you write out the question in its entirety? I feel like I'm not completely sure what it's asking.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
sorry guys but I cant follow all that. whats the problem. is there a melodie that plays a# to e# or a 'chord'?

I dont get it.!! why not make a 'g' of e#. wtf are we takling about here? whats the goal?
Quote by BlackmetalGitar
sorry guys but I cant follow all that. whats the problem. is there a melodie that plays a# to e# or a 'chord'?

I dont get it.!! why not make a 'g' of e#. wtf are we takling about here? whats the goal?

Why would e# be a g?

It is a question. In a theory workbook. The question says to name the original interval (a perfect 5th) then enharmonically change the bottom note, and name the new interval. There is no chord, no song, no context, no era. The only option I see is to call the A# a Bb and call the interval doubly-augmented.
Quote by NewShred
It is a question. In a theory workbook. The question says to name the original interval (a perfect 5th) then enharmonically change the bottom note, and name the new interval. There is no chord, no song, no context, no era. The only option I see is to call the A# a Bb and call the interval doubly-augmented.
Oh, I see what it's asking now. Yeah, that seems like the most viable option. Seems like a kind off strange example to use in a basic theory book, considering I've never seen a double-augmented fourth anywhere in my studies.
Only play what you hear. If you don’t hear anything, don’t play anything.
-Chick Corea
My issue exactly, but it's not a huge deal as it's only one question, so I guess anyone proofreading the book will either note a typo in the notation or think I'm being a smart-ass :P