Notation for Partch

(1) My point is only that if one is interested in making a tonal analysis
of a Partch score from within the Partch perspective, that is locating a
given pitch, dyad, triad, tetrad etc within the diamond structure, then it
is useful (not essential, but useful) when the notation of the
transcription shows immediately how an interval is factored. Further, it is
useful (not essential, but useful) when intervals are invariant under
transposition. For example: in the key of C, Johnston`s d1 a1 has the
ratio of 40/27, which I would notate as d1 -a1, the minus indicating the
lowering of a by a syntonic comma. The minus sign is an immediate cue that,
(1) the interval is not pythagorean, but reduced by a comma, and (2) that
the interval ratio will have 5 in the numerator and some factor of three
in the denominator.

(2) Regarding Adam�s argument regarding the advantage of Johnston�s
notation because one may use Johnston�s players: In Germany, at least, the
only Just notation to have any currency is essentially what I have
described in the version promoted by Prof. Vogel in Bonn. I reckon that
the number of musicians who have worked with Vogel�s system is similar to
if not greater than the number who have worked with Johnston�s, and there
has been a great effort by his students to make and publish transcriptions
of classical repertoire into his notation (which raises some entirely
different issues as performance materials, but has no small interest as a
kind of functional analysis). If I were to present the arguments for and
against the individual systems to a large group of accomplished musicians,
my guess is that the interval invariance of pythagorean-based notations
would win out in terms of performer friendliness; it certainly wins out in
terms of analyst friendliness. (And if the Kronos does not want to learn
another notation, I am perfectly satisfied to stick with the Arditti).

(3) Lastly, I cannot but note that there has always been a sort of inertia
in the tuning community (akin to the inertia that left us with VHS and not
the superior Betamax technology). If some standard is set, there is a
tendency to treat it religiously. I recall conversations with devout
Partchians more than twenty years ago who felt it a sacrilege to use any
pitch standard than 1/1-196. I think that this attachment to the Johnston
notation is a further case in point. When I advocate an alternative, it is
only that, with its own specific advantages and disadvantages. I am
personally very attracted to Wilson�s notations with twelve nominals in
place of seven and a staff of alternating groups of two and three lines
(much like Hauer�s _atonal_ notation), but I am not optimistic about the
prospects for finding performers willing to take that stretch.

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 18:17 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03686; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 05:05:30 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02855
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id VAA08077; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:05:28 -0700
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:05:28 -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