Talk:Tritone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Definitions

The "Definitions" area contains <ref>'s that are not citations but intended as clarifications (which is wrong). What is the solution to this? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen articles that separate Notes into two sections, one for citation references, and the other for parenthetical comments. However, I much prefer to follow the precept that, if a comment is worth including, it is worth keeping in the main text. FWIW, I don't think the Wikipedia Manual of Style actually says that it is "wrong" to mix these two types of notes, and I have certainly seen cases where both functions are combined in a single note (see, for example, note 39 here).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at those notes, and the problem is worse than I'd imagined. The first one is note number 9, and it occurs already in the first paragraph of the lede which, as a summary of the article contents, should not require any footnotes at all. The preceding eight footnotes all come from the infobox which, like the lede, should only summarize the article contents and therefore require no annotations. It appears that at least some of these "explanatory notes" are duplicates, either amongst themselves or of material also in the article text. It is going to take some time to sort out, because it is a real mess. Thanks (I guess) for pointing this problem out, Alpkoenig … erm, I mean, Elbenkoenig.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph about just intonation, which was incomplete and contained misleading information. Then I moved into that paragraph the eight (quite interesting) footnotes which were in the infobox. I think that the footnote 2, at the end of the first paragraph in the lead should be left there. It contains an example and explanations that are likely to be very useful for laymen. If this text were moved from the footnote into the first paragraph, the latter would appear too long for experienced readers. Paolo.dL (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is much improved by your work, Paolo, though there is still some distance to go. I do see your point about the note at the end of the first paragraph, but I wonder whether that is really too early in the article to introduce such an explanation. If we could we find a more suitable place later, I would not be surprised to discover that it would fit into the main text, thus obviating the need for a "parenthetical" explanatory footnote. Perhaps it is a matter of philosophical differences, but I strongly feel that if material is worth keeping, it is worth putting in the main text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job, Jerome. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing style

Thank you, Paolo. I see you have made further simplifications, which are all to the good. One lingering problem with this article is the occasionally over-academic tone of the language. It may be a delicate matter to balance precision with immediacy, but I can well understand why some readers have found this article tough going for such a seemingly tiny subject. I am thinking, for example, of the several sentences beginning with "Thus". Is that word really necessary?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand totally what you wrote. "Thus" is not strictly necessary, but this term or a similar one (such as "So", "Hence", "Therefore", or "As a consequence") is needed in order to divide the info in small pills (short sentences expressing a single concept), without losing the logical connection between them. Small "pills" make the info more digestible. An example:

• "The symbol for tritone is TT, while that for whole tone is T. Thus, this definition may be also written as follows...".

The two sentences are connected by "Thus", but the first one makes perfectly sense without the second. This proves that the two sentences express two separate concepts. You might avoid "Thus" (or a similar term) if you try and write these two concepts in a single sentence:

• "Since the symbol for tritone is TT, while that for whole tone is T, this definition may be also written as follows...".

However, this makes the info about symbols less evident and hence less useful. The symbols seem to be only useful to write that particular formula. I don't like this (con)fusion of concepts. Paolo.dL (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the reason why some people found this article too complex is that we use this article to define three concepts: Tritone, A4 and d5. Notice that there's no separate article for A4 and d5 (they are redirected to this article). All the articles about intervals need to refer to a counterintuitive but widely used naming convention. Each article (e.g. Major third) needs to define both the interval number ("major"), and the interval quality ("third"). However, in this case we need to do it for two different intervals (A4 and d5). Sometimes, readers want to understand articles about intervals without studying this awkward and crooked convention. This is, very unfortunately, impossible. I wish it were possible. Paolo.dL (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I managed to remove all of the "Thus" in the "Definition" section. In two cases, however, I substituted it with "Hence", which I felt to be useful to stress the connection between two sentences. Possibly, "Hence" will not appear as archaic as "Thus". Paolo.dL (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my remark, I must confess to being allergic to the word "thus", as well as locutions such as "thence" and "as follows" (and I prefer "therefore" or "as a result" to "hence"). Quite apart from the fact that these words are often entirely unnecessary (as your edits show), they also reek of the mothballs used to store the academic gowns of elderly professors. Perhaps that is putting things a little melodramatically, but I do feel that pontificating language is liable to put off readers who are not already comfortable with a subject. At the same time, I admit that things may easily go too far the other way. Encyclopedia articles should not have the breezy, colloquial style suitable for a work of light fiction or a comic book.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. Thank you for explaining. You can certainly perceive these nouances of English language much better than I do. I am not English mother tongue and to me, "so", "as a result", "as a consequence", "consequently", "hence", and "therefore" all look the same, and I believe it is useful sometimes to use them as a conjunction to remind the reader that a statement is a consequence of the previous one. In a way, I believe that sometimes this makes the text more user friendly. I am surprised (and glad to learn) that the word "therefore", which appears to me unnecessarily lengthy, appears to an English mother tongue reader more colloquial than the shorter "hence". For sure, in the future I'll avoid "thus", and try to reduce similar words to a minimum. I would rather not be perceived as an elderly professor wearing a reeky academic gown :-). Paolo.dL (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand better. Your English is so good that I assumed you were a native speaker of it. It may well be that other editors would disagree with me on this point, but to my ear the word "therefore" is more day-to-day, and the word "thus" is rather elevated in style—therefore (thence, hence, thus) more "academic".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Musical examples (getting out of hand again...)

I think that the musical examples section is getting a little out of hand again. My suggestion: can we make the section "Music which explicitly mentions the tritone" which would include "Slayer" or call the section "Unusual uses of the tritone," which would include the retuned timpani in Fidelio (extremely unusual for its time). And move the rest either to a new article "Prominent uses of the tritone" or more generally, "Prominent uses of particular musical intervals." Thoughts? --Myke Cuthbert 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I cut the list down to pieces in which the tritone appears unusually or self-referentially. Yes, there are lots of Metal pieces which feature tritones, but also lots of country songs, Lawrence Welk ballads, etc. The Slayer reference could be returned, but does it use a tritone prominently anywhere except in its name? The "Charmed" example seemed the only one from popular culture which explicitly linked a tritone to specific "evil" effect. I think that if we had a musical example of Purple Haze or the opening chords of Elfman's "Simpsons," then they'd be worth mentioning in section on how the tritone is commonly used, but they're no more unusual than hundreds of other examples. --Myke Cuthbert 21:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually (having just tried to give the article some sense of order), I think the best thing would be to incorporate these in the main text, noting why they are historical. In particular, this would be useful for the heavy metal examples (about which I know nothing)...which songs were the "first" to use the tritone that was "practically endemic" to black metal (I deleted that phrase, as the wealth of examples from other kinds of music make it clear there is no endemism here) and how did it become so associated with the genre? In general, instead of a list, putting in text gives you more context about why they are notable (e.g. first of its kind in such-and-such genre, or widely familiar, etc.). Maybe I'll get around to it someday. Rigadoun (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The musical examples should at the very least say whether the tritone is used harmonically or melodically, so readers will know what to listen for. — Gwalla | Talk 04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Slayer does extensively use "Diablolus in Musica" throughout their work and hence the name for the album. One of the guitar tab books (I believe it's the one for "Decade of Aggression") points this out several times. Also, one of the former engineers for Macintosh stated that the original Mac startup sound is a tritone in the "Welcome to Macintosh" documentary. Henningp (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It may actually be a good idea to refactor the article a bit and eliminate the examples section in favor of an "in popular music" section not in list form, and maybe a "non-musical uses" section for things like car horns and air raid warnings. As it is, it's a bit scattershot, not only acting as a magnet for trivia but also redundancies (such as Danse Macabre, who is mentioned in the history section). — Gwalla | Talk 21:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally hate examples but Wikipedia's own article for Black Sabbath's Black Sabbath goes out of its way to mention the tritone; the central, three-note riff is a "devil's tritone", presumably selected because of the song's subject matter. It's probably the quintessential example of a tritone in metal music. 146.90.225.67 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples

Need to mention use of the tritone in Don Giovanni.

Feel free to do so by editing the article! (I can't add anything about this myself, because I didn't know the tritone was particularly significant in Don Giovanni.) --Camembert

tritone is used a lot in West Side Story too -- Tarquin 14:58 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Danse Macabre also uses the tritone, I believe that to achieve the correct opening effect (after the "clock" strikes thirteen) the soloist is required to detune his E string to E flat thus forming a tritone between the open A and E(flat) strings.

I think the opening notes of "The Simpsons" theme are a tritone (actually, something like C -> F#+G) and it is used heavily throughout the tune. njh 4 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

I knos that the simpsons theme song is in the dorian key. I don't think there are any intervals of a tritone however.207.157.121.50 11:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey.

Tritone can also be built from the major third and a flatted seventh at the bass,using a second inversion progression at the right hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.74.91.137 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2010

Actually it's in the Lydian mode.

Note quite - it's in "Lydian dominant"! (lydian 7) Musical_mode#Other_types_of_modes

There were way too many examples, there are thousands and thousands of popular songs with this paticular interval in them and we don't need more than a handful. To point out some famous heavy metal songs or a single film soundtrack by a well known film composer use it is useful, that a paticular Primus or a Red Hot Chili Peppers song has it in is not. The Jimi Hendrix one is good though because that intro is nothing but the interval. 86.130.146.221 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"The tritone is used very extensively throughout Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor, "Pathétique"." Is this use more extensive than in other minor key works of the composer/period? Any references to published studies? Apus 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately little study has been done, to my knowledge, on the tritone. The AS Cambridge music course focuses on this interval quite significantly which may lead to students doing research in this area for their a2 investigation and report. I conducted my report on the Diminished 7th chord which is really a close relative of the tritone, but not solely on the tritone. Beethoven used it profusely in the Pathetique sonata. Every few bars you experience a tritone. Especially at the beginning and end.

What I find interesting about the tritone is how people were afraid of using it in the past due to its connections with satan. Does anyone have any examples of the tritone being used in baroque or earlier works? Many church hymns include tritones (For those in peril on the sea and such) but other than that, I have been unable to find many tritones being used deliberately in older music. An interesting field to look into.

Jake381 10:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake! Are you sure that people were afraid of using it in the past on account of its connections with Satan? This seems to be a recent myth, as the article discusses, and not something supportable based on the documents of the time. It was not an often used interval because it was both large and dissonant (you won't find many melodic sevenths either), but I've never seen a demonic or Satanic connection before the 18th c. (when it's already in common use). There's a fourteenth century work about avoiding the tritone, but it's couched entirely in musical reasons, not religious or moral. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Mscuthbert! Though I would not place my life upon my statements as above, from my searchings I have come to my personal conclusion that it was used for this reason. I cannot see any reason otherwise why they would avoid this interval so determinedly. Dissonance creates interest in music. Before say Mozarts time I would hazrad to say that people were much more afraid of the powers that be. Though there will most likely be no written evidence that people avoided this interval, it did inherit the name "diabolus in musica". Surely nobody would wish to put the devil in their music without worrying about public reaction? Pre Classical composers still had patrons didn't they? Nice to converse with other musically aware! I don't get to much anymore :( Jake381 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that they didn't actually avoid it all that markedly. It's present even in Renaissance church music—in passing, like all dissonances (and this was a time when even major and minor thirds were considered dissonant). The term "diabolus in musica" doesn't appear in a religious context anywhere. It probably comes from the fact that they're really difficult to sing and stay in tune. — Gwalla | Talk 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I first heard the term "Diabolus In Musica" in the 1970s, when it was the focus of a 'Pied Piper' programme presented and written by David Munrow, an expert in and performer of mediaeval and Renaissance music. I wonder if the BBC still have a recording or transcript of that programme? I am a mathematician with a musical bent, and this inspiring programme certainly informed my understanding of music, and teaching of mathematics! Sasha (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives

Where do we mention that the tritone is alo known as Diabolo in Musica, Diabolus in musica, or Diavolo in musica? Would improve findability. PS apologies for any newbie mistakes in editing Tacoekkel (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and threw that into the first paragraph. Gingermint (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to Diabolo (disambiguation). Tayste (edits) 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical

How or why may this article be "too technical for most readers to understand"? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See above. I just edited the article to make clear that "whole tone" here is an interval, not a note or pitch. I also added examples. Moreover, I put the definition of "Augmented fourth" (A4) and "diminished fifth" (d5) in a separate section.

Perhaps, creating separate articles for "Augmented fourth" and "diminished fifth" would make this article simpler. However, there's nothing more complex in music than the naming convention used to name intervals.

So, unfortunately no definition for A4 and d5 can be understood without first studying this naming convention as explained in interval (music)#Interval number and quality. By the way, writing that article has required a considerable effort by many expert editors who cared a lot about readability.

Paolo.dL (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See what above? I think if you propose or attempt to split the article in two, you'll find many editors who oppose that as many people think that as many articles as possible should be merged into as few articles as possible. I would oppose the split on the basis that it would then take reading two (or three) articles to understand what is being talked about. Hyacinth (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Tritone#Ridiculous Encyclopedia entry: “Tritone”. Paolo.dL (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Although there is initially a claim there that the article is hard to understand, there is no explanation of why it is hard to understand. A different editor then points to parts of the article that they found hard to understand. To address the complaints of this editor which may be understood the article could explain the definition of every word, even those that are linked to. The first sentence, "the tritone (tri- "three" and tone "whole tone") is traditionally defined as a musical interval composed of three whole tones", could read as follows:

• The (the English language definite article denoting a person or thing under discussion) tritone (tri- "three" and tone "whole tone") is (the third-person singular present tense of the English language verb "to be") traditionally (a belief or object passed down within society) defined (a definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term) as (in the manner or role specified) a (an indefinite article) musical interval (a combination of two notes, or the ratio between their frequencies) composed (made up of) of (preposition) three (a number one more than two) whole (as opposed to half in this context) tones (an interval).

However, I believe that there is a guideline against this (perhaps Wikipedia:Summary style). Hyacinth (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly right: one cannot explain every word. Moreover, a lot of edits were performed during and after that discussion, to increase readability. In my opinion, the current the text is not too technical. It is as technical as it needs to be.

It is impossible to explain the definition of A4 and d5 to a beginner without first explaining the above-mentioned naming convention, and unfortunately that convention is so difficult to explain, that it cannot be summarized in this article. As a consequence, in this article we are forced to assume that readers understand it. This is because Tritone is a specialized article, i.e. it is about two specific intervals (A4 and d5). A similar assumption was accepted in other articles about specific intervals, such as Major third Minor third, Augmented fifth, etc. In other words, readers are supposed to study the general naming convention before reading the definition of specific intervals such as A4 and d5. The internal link ((Interval (music)#Interval number and quality) to the relevant article was provided.
Paolo.dL (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I disagree about using the expression "half tone" instead of "semitone". We cannot adjust standard terminology to make it more intuitively understandable to beginners. In Wikipedia and in the literature, the preferred word seems to be "semitone". I remind you that we cannot say that a semitone is half a tone, as in some tuning systems a semitone is not exactly half a whole tone... However, the first time we use "semitone", we explain that a whole tone is composed of two semitones. This is implied by the existing sentence "each whole tone can be further divided into two semitones". Paolo.dL (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the use of the (colloquial) "half tone" (or "half step") versus the formal "semitone". It should also be observed that the critical difference between the A4 and d5 for many historical theorists (e.g., Zarlino) hinges on the fact that the semitone "is not exactly half a tone", as well as on the differing "species" of the A4 and d5. This was the root of a discussion between the two of us a year or two ago, concerning the fact that "tritone" does not in all theoretical contexts include the d5, one name for which, "semidiapente", includes the particle "semi-" in a sense that emphatically does not mean "half", or even "approximately half".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "semi-", see Numeral prefix.

Regarding "half tone", the only indication of preference on Wikipedia is that the article for the term/concept is titled "Semitone". The article itself does not comment on preference. Hyacinth (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And regarding "semi-" when it is not a numeral prefix? I can't find a Wikipedia article coveting this case. Examples: "semiditone" does not mean "half of a ditone (major third)"—which of course would be simply a whole tone or major second—but rather a minor third; "semidiapason" does not mean half of a diapason (octave), but rather a diminished octave; "semidiatessaron" does not mean half of a perfect fourth, but a diminished fourth, etc. Thankfully, we are not obliged to write articles on Greek loan words in Latin music theory, but some of the terminology has leaked out into English (e.g., "tritone", "semitone"), which is certainly contributing to the problem of a text that is either "too technical" or "as technical as it needs to be". (And that word, "technical" is also a dratted Greek loan word—can't we replace it with a plain English word?).

Regarding "half tone", when did Wikipedia become a reliable source? I would say that you have identified some serious defects in those two Wikipedia articles. Would you like to fix them yourself, or shall I do it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask Paolo.dL "when did Wikipedia become a reliable source?" as that editor was the one who claimed that "In Wikipedia and in the literature, the preferred word seems to be "semitone", which I simply responded to (as there is nothing in Wikipedia indicating it is the preferred term there or in the literature). Hyacinth (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but why did you choose to respond only to the less important half of Paolo's claim, since he also cites "the literature" (which I imagine means "reliable sources", as opposed to Wikipedia)? OK, OK, I know it is easy to check Wikipedia and slightly more difficult to check "the literature", but it really is the latter that matters, isn't it? Tell you what: I'll make a start, by citing a few common references. Harvard Brief Dictionary (1960) lists both "half tone, half step" and "semitone", but refers the latter back to the former. George Thaddeus Jones's Music Theory (Barnes & Noble Outline Series) lists "semitones" first, then says "or half steps". The New Grove entry for "Half step" (there is no entry for "Half tone") reads "see SEMITONE". The Oxford Dictionary of Music has only an entry for "Semitone", though it defines the word as "Half a tone". The Oxford Companion to Music similarly has an entry only for "Semitone", which is defined as "The smallest interval in common use in Western music, covering half a tone". The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory (second edition) starts from "half steps" (p. 6), and later (p. 19) cautiously introduces in a sidebar the term "semitone" as an alternative used "in some musical circles". Mel Bay's Teach Yourself Piano Chords avoides the word "semitone" altogether in favour of "half step" ("half tone" does not appear in this book). From this cursory survey, it would appear that Paolo is correct about "the literature", so long as we consider the more academically respectable sources (though there is one exception in my list), but when we start consulting complete idiots or Mel Bay, things change a bit. Perhaps the pertinent question is: With which end of the spectrum do we wish to associate Wikipedia music-theory articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I do it often, many editors believe it is bad form to ask other editors to provide citations for their statements. (However, if someone claims something, it is their job to back it up, not mine.) Hyacinth (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, we decided to use Semitone as the title of an article, and we did that not because of a personal preference, but because we believe this is the term which is most commonly used in the relevant reliable literature. That's how an Article title is selected. Moreover, we consistently decided to use "semitone" instead of "half tone" or "half step" in other articles as well, including this one. And the term "we" includes me and Jerome Kohl, who confirmed that choice in this discussion. Therefore I believe Hyacinth's substitution of "semitone" with "half tone" should be (at least temporarily) reverted. Hyacinth, please feel free to try and build consensus in this talk page about your proposal to subtitute "semitone" with "half tone". Paolo.dL (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point me to this discussion? Hyacinth (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a context in this article where "halftone" is actually inappropriate? For example Zarlino is not mentioned. Hyacinth (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Although it may sound flippant to say so, in fact this goes straight to the heart of the problem under discussion. First of all, "half step" would be better than "halftone", which refers to a photomechanical process, but whether this is preferable to "semitone" depends entirely on the question of whether this article is aimed at the "For Dummies" readership, or somewhat higher. It seems to me that the complaint of incomprehensibility fringes on complaining that the article ought to be aimed at the complete beginner, which would also argue that subtleties such as the way in which a d5 might actually be a different size than an A4 should not be included, since it will make the reader's brain hurt. This in turn rules out any mention of Zarlino, who very clearly explains such matters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One term may refer to more than one thing.

There was no mention of Zarlino before this discussion began. Thus his description wasn't avoided because of this discussion. Unless the consensus of this discussion is that clarity and explanations be ruled out, Zarlino's clear explanation of such matters would be desirable. Hyacinth (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed one term may refer to different things, but one must also be careful about combining two words in open compound, hyphenated compound, and closed compound forms (that is, "halftone" is not the same thing as "half tone" or the unit modifier "half-tone")—another good reason for using "semitone", quite apart from the fact that the "simplification" suggested by the link applied to the term "half tone" leads to the article titled "semitone".

I believe you will find that you are wrong about Zarlino never having been mentioned before in this discussion, by the way. If you will see under the heading Talk:Tritone#Evident_logic_fault_in_the_introduction above, you will discover that his Istituzione were introduced into the discussion in April 2011. Still, this is not the important point. If you agree (as you seem to) that Zarlino should be introduced into the discussion, then it would be easily done. However, it will not please the readers who complain that the article is already too technical.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the title of "Semitone" was decided by any group of editors. It appears that the article at "Semitone" was created by me without discussion with other editors. A later discussion about keeping that title doesn't appear to exist. To say that "we" decided this through discussion or that there was a consensus seems incorrect. Hyacinth (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right. By the way, thank you for creating that article. Since you are an expert editor, I am sure you selected the term Semitone as the title of that article because it was the most commonly commonly used, recognizable, unambiguous, etc., according to WP:Article title. Also, do not forget that everybody accepted it.

Everybody also accepted the use of the term semitone in the crucial article Interval (music), which is the main article about intervals on Wikipedia, a central topic in music theory. Many experienced editors contributed to that article.

The term semitone was used in this article because the editors who wrote it (and I was one of them) believed it was the most commonly used term to mean augmented unison or minor second, i.e. about half a whole tone. Please also consider that:

1. The term half step seems to be misleading as we are talking about "tri-tones", not "tri-steps".
2. Jerome Kohl kindly provided in this discussion a short review of the literature which confirms that the term half tone is not as frequently used as the term semitone in the reliable literature.
3. I do not consider as reliable literature the Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory.
4. I have never heard the terms "chromatic half tone" (A1) and "diatonic half tone" (m2); only "chromatic semitone" (A1) and "diatonic semitone" (m2)

Paolo.dL (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)