JI sequencer feature offer

I just realized that traditional notation with Johnstonian accidentals
would be possible with Pure Data. This wouldn't probably be so much a
feature to add to my sequencer as a separate interface.
I'm not saying I could produce it quickly, but would many of you be
interested in a sequencer using Johnston's accidentals? What sorts of
interfaces would be good for that?
Like, certain keys would add certain accidentals to existing notes,
certain keys would take them away, etc. You can't just have a key turn
a flat on or off, since you might want to use numerous flats. Or, I
could set it up like my existing sequencer, where you could set 1/1 to
different values as the score progresses.
Personally, I find my existing solution easier to use than Johnston's
accidentals. I like that people are encouraged to think in terms of
ratios, which is closer to what music really is than the ABCs are.
Anyone?

On 9/17/06, Chuckk Hubbard <BadMuthaHubbard@...> wrote:
> I just realized that traditional notation with Johnstonian accidentals
> would be possible with Pure Data. This wouldn't probably be so much a
> feature to add to my sequencer as a separate interface.
> I'm not saying I could produce it quickly, but would many of you be
> interested in a sequencer using Johnston's accidentals? What sorts of
> interfaces would be good for that?

First, I personally find Saggital more aesthetic than Johnston.
Second, I find Pythagorean Johnston more reasonable than Diatonic
Johnston. Third, I find Hubbard notation (or does it have another
name?) the simplest and most intuitive notation I've ever seen, from a
composing angle.

If you did switch to a staff-based notation, I think you could leave
the interface essentially unchanged, but replace the numbers with
icons and the rectangles with note heads.

The problem then, though, is where to put the staff lines. You could
space them unevenly, so that they are sometimes 5/4 apart and other
times 6/5 apart. Or you could compromise and space them based on
7-tet, so that they are the same distance apart but notes never line
up perfectly with the staff lines.

--TRISTAN
Dreaming of Eden is a Comic with no Pictures
http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com

Yeah, I pretty much agree with Tristan. While, ideally, you could choose to
use any of the systems he mentioned, I'd probably prefer to use Saggital,
followed by pythagorean Johnston, followed by diatonic Johnston. Diatonic
Johnston does have the advantage that there are actually people out there
that perform based on this system, and there are major published works in
it. I just find it a weird way to think.

Personally, Chukk, I don't think that persuing a staff-based notation system
in PD would be the best priority for you. Your sequencer is great, but
there's a lot of work before it's really polished. Most composers are used
to fairly polished notation applications for standard notation (Finale,
Sibelius, etc) and it'd be very hard to match that kind of feature set.
Personally, if I write something in a sequencer like yours and I actually
need staff notation for presentation/performance, I can do that in Sibelius
afterwards.

My personal hope is that one of the major notation editors finally gets
usable support for microtonal composition. Sibelius, my personal choice,
has a kludgy script based support for quartertones, and you could probably
write a plugin to get it to play back in any given notation system/tuning
you want with the proper skill. Still, you'd have to limit yourself to one
voice per staff, I believe. Finale has it's custom key signature option
which can make a lot of notation systems work with a synth with a preset
tuning. Notion currently has elegant support for quartertones, and when
emailed said they at least have some interest in greater microtonal
support. One can hope, right?

There's also stuff like Rosegarden which may be good starting platforms.

That said, if you're excited about writting a JI notation editor, I'm sure
there are people who would love it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rozencrantz the Sane escreveu:
> First, I personally find Saggital more aesthetic than Johnston.
> Second, I find Pythagorean Johnston more reasonable than Diatonic
> Johnston. Third, I find Hubbard notation (or does it have another
> name?) the simplest and most intuitive notation I've ever seen, from a
> composing angle.

Where can I learn about Johnston and Hubbard, please?

Thanks,
Hudson

_______________________________________________________ O Yahoo! est� de cara nova. Venha conferir! http://br.yahoo.com

On 9/18/06, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...> wrote:

> Where can I learn about Johnston and Hubbard, please?

I first learned about Johnston notation from the Just Intonation
primer that a friend leant me. It never interested me much, so I never
pursued it. A google search doesn't turn up much.

By Hubbard Notation I just mean the layout of Chuckk Hubbard's JI
sequencer, where each interval is always the same height and each note
has its ratio written on it.

--TRISTAN
Dreaming of Eden is a Comic with no Pictures
http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com