Re : [tuning] The case against "faux" notation

Joe pehrson wrote:
>
> I do have a question, though. Why does the "common" system of
> enharmonic sharps and flats in notation end up working for 19??
>
> I think it's just chance. There is no basis in the enharmonic system
> for 19, is there... or is there...
>
> Regardless. I, personally, feel such a notational system is poor,
> since is goes against ALL musicianship "basic training." Yes, and I
> mean 12-tET.
>
> I suppose if someone hasn't HAD any "basic training" it wouldn't be
> much of a problem, but THOSE are not necessarily the kinds of
> musicians I am looking for...
>
> I would much rather use REAL NOTES (yes, derived from 12-tET) and use
> cents deviations from these than something "ersatz" or "faux."

Joe, I think there is a real musical reason why the enharmonic notation for
19-tet works very well. All the minor and major thirds in 19-tet get much
closer to their just values than in 12-tet. So when you're playing a piece
on a 19-tet fretted guitar, the choice between a C# and a Db is very easy to
make. Is that really coincidence? Look at the seven note scale:

C D E F G A B C

Now we fill it up chromatically, first following 12-tet:

C . D . E F . G . A . B C (the dot might be called # or b, just the same)

Next following 19-tet:

C . . D . . E . F . . G . . A . . B . C ( every first dot is called # and
every secon dot is called b, except for the dot in between B and C, and E
and F, which may be called either # or b). This doesn't really go against
"basic training", for the ear still recognizes C D E F G A B C as an
ordinary seven note scale. This works in the same way for 31-tet. You may
take a 12-tet score for a traditional guitarpiece and sightread it
instantaneaously in 19-tet. It will sound pretty close to meantone.

However, it will go against "basic training" if we use this system for
21-tet:

C . . D . . E . . F . . G . . A . . B . . C

Now of course the seven note scale doesn't sound as the basic C D E F G A B
C anymore. For example, the E# in this notation sounds virtually as an E in
12-tet! Dans la poubelle!

If you want to use 19 pitches, but not 19-tet, I would say that the
combination 12-tet with cents deviation would work better.

--- In tuning@y..., "Wim Hoogewerf" <wim.hoogewerf@f...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18695.html#18695

>
> Next following 19-tet:
>
> C . . D . . E . F . . G . . A . . B . C ( every first dot is called
# and every secon dot is called b, except for the dot in between B
and C, and E and F, which may be called either # or b). This doesn't
really go against "basic training", for the ear still recognizes C D
E F G A B C as an ordinary seven note scale. This works in the same
way for 31-tet.

Thanks so much, Wim, for getting back on this. In fact, thanks to
EVERYBODY for responses concerning the 19 tone notation. I REALLY
appreciate it. I will have more comments as I ingest or digest
everyone's point of view!

On the above, though, Wim, the basic notes you cite will NOT have the
"traditional" 12-tET relationships, correct?? In other words, "D" is
actually 189.4 cents in 19-tET, NOT 200 cents above C, and "E" is
378.9 cents NOT 400 cents as in 12-tET... so it is THERE that the
"basic training" breaks down since the basic scale C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C
will not have the 12-tET intervallic relationships in cents, correct??

Joe
________ _____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

(Joe Pehrson:)

> On the above, though, Wim, the basic notes you cite will NOT have the
> "traditional" 12-tET relationships, correct?? In other words, "D" is
> actually 189.4 cents in 19-tET, NOT 200 cents above C, and "E" is
> 378.9 cents NOT 400 cents as in 12-tET... so it is THERE that the
> "basic training" breaks down since the basic scale C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C
> will not have the 12-tET intervallic relationships in cents, correct??

They have meantone relationship. Every nominal comes close enough to it's
12-tet equivalent to be called by it's proprer name.

But isn't your problem related to Schoenberg's idea? Composer's as Ivor
Darreg and Neil Haverstick
use 19-tet for it's meantone quality. If you want to create a 19-tone row in
the way Schoenberg did in 12-tet, the use of nominals with sharps and
flats doesn't fit the concept of the composition. Then it's better to use
Carrillo's method: simply number the steps. However I'm pretty sure that
musicians afterwards, as they did with Carrilo's compositions, will
spontaneously reinvent the same notation Darreg and Haverstick are using.

What about your Verklarte Neunzehn?

--Wim Hoogewerf

--- In tuning@y..., "Wim Hoogewerf" <wim.hoogewerf@f...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18695.html#18769
>
> (Joe Pehrson:)
>
> > On the above, though, Wim, the basic notes you cite will NOT have
the "traditional" 12-tET relationships, correct?? In other words,
"D" is actually 189.4 cents in 19-tET, NOT 200 cents above C, and "E"
is 378.9 cents NOT 400 cents as in 12-tET... so it is THERE that the
> > "basic training" breaks down since the basic scale C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C
> > will not have the 12-tET intervallic relationships in cents,
correct??
>

> They have meantone relationship. Every nominal comes close enough
to it's 12-tet equivalent to be called by it's proprer name.

Hi Wim!

Actually, I *did* play around with various 19 scales using that
valuable tool, Graham Breed's MIDI RELAY (Hi Graham!), and, yes, the
"basic scale" was quite clearly recognizable, even in the 1/3 comma
meantone, a relatively "extreme" one...

Particularly for the guitar, where you can set frets and name them, I
can see how the older meantone notation would serve best. That's
probably why Neil Haverstick likes it so much.

I have other questions about it for continuously variable pitched
instruments... but that has more to do with my "accustomization" in
"basic training" than some Schoenbergian desire to impose a 12-tET
"will..."

>
> But isn't your problem related to Schoenberg's idea? Composer's as
Ivor Darreg and Neil Haverstick use 19-tet for it's meantone quality.
If you want to create a 19-tone row in the way Schoenberg did in
12-tet, the use of nominals with sharps and flats doesn't fit the
concept of the composition. Then it's better to use Carrillo's
method:
simply number the steps. However I'm pretty sure that musicians
afterwards, as they did with Carrilo's compositions, will
spontaneously reinvent the same notation Darreg and Haverstick are
using.
>

> What about your Verklarte Neunzehn?
>

Well, that brings about an interesting discussion, since with this
kind of electronic piece I didn't worry about notation at all! In
some ways, just setting things up and working from that is somewhat
akin, I believe, to jazz improvisation.

Of course, since nothing was written down, except for a few sketches
that used a "template notation" of what I was actually playing on the
keyboard, everything is just the recorded sound.

Of course, very few people would proclaim that jazz musicians have no
talent since they don't write much of it down... At least, nobody on
THIS list would claim that...

________ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson