144-tET vs. quartertone +/- 50

Dan Sterns wrote "off list"

Hi Joe,

> My only question concerns the "universality" of it, as Johnny
Reinhard mentions...

This was *exactly* my reason for the 144-tET conversion. A doable,
step-by-step way for performers to tackle the entire scope of a
virtual pitch continuum.

> as well as the fact that WITHOUT the training, it may be more
difficult and "foreign" for the average performer than Johnny's
quarter-tone +/- 50.

I still absolutely, 100% do not get this! The +/- method still HAS to
require a practical training procedure. This simply can not be in
doubt! And I bet it's not much different from the one I advocate, a la
Joe Maneri, for the 144 notation.

Dan