Notation

Adam Silverman mentioned the notation I prefer. I learned all of this from
Erv Wilson. A good deal of my music tends to modulate over a wide harmonic
lattice of several dimension. So for the players* sake, I like to have as
little ambiguity as possible and would like all identical written intervals
to have identical size. Johnston*s notation does not do this, as it is
based upon a scale with a mixture of three and five intervals, and depends
upon identification of a tonic. Thus, within the key of C, for example,
Johnston*s fifths C/G and D/A are not both 3/2 intervals. Moreover,
Johnston*s notation obviates the fact that the conventional staff notation
is a perfectly natural vehicle for Pythagorean intervals. (And players of
bowed stringed instruments do play fifths fairly well, but need to
consciously correct to get thirds and other intervals in tune; outside of
Anglo-Irish folksong - and there only inconsistantly - I have not
encountered the syntonic diatonic as a _natural tendency_). So, I use the
conventional notation (with potentially unlimited sharps or flats along the
series of fifths) to describe a basic pythagorean series, modifications by
the comma 81/80 and 80/81 are indicated by 45 degree slanted upward plus
and downward minus sign. The septimal modifications of 64/63 and 63/64 are
indicated by an inverted seven and an upright seven, respectively. The
intervals of eleven 33/32 and 32/33 are indicated by arrows up or down.
Additional symbols have been used for ratios of 13, 17, 19, 23, but I must
admit to having been rather inconsistant with them.
There are two pieces of self criticism that I may offer with my present
answers: (1) Compound ratios do become a bit notation heavy, and are slower
to read, but these relationships are more difficult to learn anyway, and
this method seems to work. (2) In very microtonal passages, pitch height
may not match notational height. I have decided to accept this point in
lieu of going to a further step and using a notation with more than seven
nominals, such as the twelve-nominal notation proposed by Wilson in
Xenharmonikon.

I am not particularly attached to my notation but I do find it curious that
so many people have made transcriptions of Partch scores in Johnston*s
notation which goes against both the whole limit (factoring) idea of
Partch, and Partch*s decided invertibility. Moreover, the instances in
Partch*s music which are based upon the syntonic diatonic scale are
minimal.

Daniel Wolf, Frankfurt

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:17 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03671; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:46:51 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05479
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id JAA02749; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 09:46:48 -0700
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 09:46:48 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

>Just to add to Jonathan Walker's comments on the Johnston notation. . .
>
>he employs flat and sharp symbols to distinguish between five-limit minor
>and major thirds, as well as "+" and "-" to designate ascending or
>descending syntonic commas (81/80); surely this accomodates enharmonic
>spellings (?).

Ben's notation uses +/- for a mixture of 3 and 5-limit intervals (dare I
say "see Fonville, 1991?) Since each symbol or combination of symbols
represents a particular ratio, then an enharmonic spelling is necessarily a
different pitch.

Does your comment refer to a system such as that which is described by S.
Terpstra in 1/1 8:3, which uses a system which sounds to me like an ET with
comma or skhisma-sized scale steps? If so, could someone please explain
the logic of this system to me?

Johnny R. said:
>My experience with Ben Johnston gives high marks for exactitude, but
>loses too much due to the slowness with which it is read. Often conflicting
>directions are used for a single note and so a mathematical calculation
>is necessary. This process takes one out of real time.

and Paul Rapoport said:
>I am interested in Johnny Reinhard's remarks that cents notation is
>helpful to performers. I can readily believe this, provided that fine
>discriminations aren't necessary. I imagine that performers then identify
>a sound or fingering with a cents designation. Would that be right?
>
>I still don't like this for analytical purposes, however. I wonder
>whether performers prefer this notation to others or just get used to it.

Johnny's notation is especially good for his own polymicrotonal music,
which pledges allegiance to no system and wanders with ease from one
microtonal system to the next. However, it does nothing to guide the
performer towards knowledge of what *kinds* of intervals are being played.
For example, in the early performance of his "Cosmic Rays" (I have not
heard the "good" tape), the performers were so steeped in the xenharmonic
aspects of the piece (note: *xen* harmonic) that they failed to well-tune a
major triad--I argue that they didn't know that they were supposed to play
a well-tuned chord. Nonetheless, this is probably the best compromise for
such music. It should also take a whole lot of rehearsal to do well, as
does all "performed" microtonal music.

Ben's notation is specifically bent towards a JI ststem which he himself
has stretched to the limit of its practical capabilities. My suggestion
(for JI music) is to use differing systems of notation for score and parts,
in which Sims or similar diacriticals are used to approximate pitch (with
the rest tuned by ear) for easy sight-reading, and Johnston or something
similar is for the score. Of course, Johnston notation, as with all
notational systems, should be in a constant state of evolution, and I hope
that discourse such as this will include proposition of better ways to
notate pitches which are far from home on the lattice.


_________________
Adam B. Silverman
153 Cold Spring Street; A3
New Haven, CT 06511
(203) 782-1765

abs22@pantheon.yale.edu



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:17 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06401; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:47:02 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06410
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id BAA09014; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 01:46:59 -0800
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 01:46:59 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu