Ideal microtonal notation

[Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
>Thank you so much, Paul, for your assistance with 72-tET. There is
>more to learn here... I can see that possibly it is the MOST useful
>and PRACTICAL notation for Just Intonation...

Well... the benefits of 72-tET notation are clear, but I've waited for
someone to point out that it is _not_ good (nor is any fixed-ET notation
good) when the composer wants to instruct the musicians to distribute
out commas, as in the infamous I-vi-ii-V-I "comma pump" sequence, a
little at a time. For such distributions I would favor a "cents
deviation from 12-tET" notation, which I can already get from the output
of my adaptive tuning program, and which to my eye is quite clear.

Because I work with MIDI, with only 12 pitch classes, deviation from
Pythagorean fifths is not practical - I don't want to agonize over
whether a note is G# or Ab, etc.

Admittedly, writing cent deviations on a musical score adds more to
its size than single-character marks. I have to believe, though, that
in the long run the benefits will be worthwhile for a lot of music.

JdL

Wouldn't the "ideal notation" allow for the clear communication of ANY
intonation? Why try to tweak old notation for something it's not made for?
Traditional notation already fails with non-keyboard music; to achive an
intended intonation (if there is one), spatial placement doesn't show clear
and unique intervallic relations (the "vocal" requirement), and there are no
clear mechanical correspondances (the "instrumental" requirement) for
existing instruments for intonation other than fixed instruments like the
keyboard. Let's face it - this situation will _never change on 5 lines. We
need to throw out the old 5 lines - what's needed is a better notation.
Along with this, we need new wind instruments that aren't limited to 12ET.
We need to get the string family to become a real family (please visit
newviolinfamily.org), we need to rebuild the brass family into a new trombone
family (there's a reason why nobody plays the alto trombone anymore!). And
how about a family of new pure cone instruments? In short, comrades, what we
need is a revolution. : )

It is _not out of reach. Who's with me?

Aaron

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
> >Thank you so much, Paul, for your assistance with 72-tET. There
is
> >more to learn here... I can see that possibly it is the MOST
useful
> >and PRACTICAL notation for Just Intonation...
>
> Well... the benefits of 72-tET notation are clear, but I've waited
for
> someone to point out that it is _not_ good (nor is any fixed-ET
notation
> good) when the composer wants to instruct the musicians to
distribute
> out commas, as in the infamous I-vi-ii-V-I "comma pump" sequence, a
> little at a time. For such distributions I would favor a "cents
> deviation from 12-tET" notation, which I can already get from the
output
> of my adaptive tuning program, and which to my eye is quite clear.

Actually I did make this point repeatedly -- 72-tET is only good for
strict 11-limit JI and not good for classical Western harmony.
>
> Because I work with MIDI, with only 12 pitch classes, deviation from
> Pythagorean fifths is not practical - I don't want to agonize over
> whether a note is G# or Ab, etc.

Well that _is_ also an advantage of 72-tET.

[I wrote:]
>>Well... the benefits of 72-tET notation are clear, but I've waited for
>>someone to point out that it is _not_ good (nor is any fixed-ET
>>notation good) when the composer wants to instruct the musicians to
>>distribute out commas, as in the infamous I-vi-ii-V-I "comma pump"
>>sequence, a little at a time. For such distributions I would favor a
>>"cents deviation from 12-tET" notation, which I can already get from
>>the output of my adaptive tuning program, and which to my eye is quite
>>clear.

[Paul E:]
>Actually I did make this point repeatedly -- 72-tET is only good for
>strict 11-limit JI and not good for classical Western harmony.

Is that the same point? I always think of classical Western harmony as
being in some fixed tuning, in which micro notations are not needed.

[JdL:]
>>Because I work with MIDI, with only 12 pitch classes, deviation from
>>Pythagorean fifths is not practical - I don't want to agonize over
>>whether a note is G# or Ab, etc.

[Paul:]
>Well that _is_ also an advantage of 72-tET.

True.

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> >>Well... the benefits of 72-tET notation are clear, but I've
waited for
> >>someone to point out that it is _not_ good (nor is any fixed-ET
> >>notation good) when the composer wants to instruct the musicians
to
> >>distribute out commas, as in the infamous I-vi-ii-V-I "comma
pump"
> >>sequence, a little at a time. For such distributions I would
favor a
> >>"cents deviation from 12-tET" notation, which I can already get
from
> >>the output of my adaptive tuning program, and which to my eye is
quite
> >>clear.
>
> [Paul E:]
> >Actually I did make this point repeatedly -- 72-tET is only good
for
> >strict 11-limit JI and not good for classical Western harmony.
>
> Is that the same point? I always think of classical Western
harmony as
> being in some fixed tuning, in which micro notations are not needed.

? Your own remarks above should answer that question. Well, assuming
we're agreed (though perhaps not on all the details) that adaptive
tuning is ideal for classical Western harmony . . . aren't we agreed
on that?

[Pitchcolor wrote:]
>Wouldn't the "ideal notation" allow for the clear communication of ANY
>intonation? Why try to tweak old notation for something it's not made
>for? Traditional notation already fails with non-keyboard music; to
>achive an intended intonation (if there is one), spatial placement
>doesn't show clear and unique intervallic relations (the "vocal"
>requirement), and there are no clear mechanical correspondances (the
>"instrumental" requirement) for existing instruments for intonation
>other than fixed instruments like the keyboard. Let's face it - this
>situation will _never change on 5 lines. We need to throw out the old 5
>lines - what's needed is a better notation. Along with this, we need
>new wind instruments that aren't limited to 12ET. We need to get the
>string family to become a real family (please visit newviolinfamily.org),
>we need to rebuild the brass family into a new trombone family (there's
>a reason why nobody plays the alto trombone anymore!). And how about a
>family of new pure cone instruments? In short, comrades, what we need
>is a revolution. : )

>It is _not out of reach. Who's with me?

>Aaron

Oh, I'm with you! Ironically when 12-tET finally recedes into history
(and I believe that it is inevitable that it will become less and less
used in new compositions), the notation I favor today will become less
and less comprehensible.

But it's a chicken and egg thing. In the year 2001, 12-tET is 99.5% of
the airwaves across a broad range of musical genres. Once other tunings
are in people's ears, new notations will emerge, I have no doubt. And
12-tET will begin to relinquish its vividness in the collective Ear.
For now, I see the first goal as being the propagation of alternatives
that can be understood (and so played) by today's musicians, as part of
their first introduction to the world outside the 12-tone box.

It's definitely not too early to think about the notations that will
gain sway down the road, though!

JdL

[Paul E:]
>? Your own remarks above should answer that question. Well, assuming
>we're agreed (though perhaps not on all the details) that adaptive
>tuning is ideal for classical Western harmony . . . aren't we agreed
>on that?

Yes, absolutely. Us and a few other people. My confusion came from
realizing that this is what you meant by "classical Western harmony."
But it's clear now.

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., Pitchcolor@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21593.html#21604

> Wouldn't the "ideal notation" allow for the clear communication of
ANY
> intonation? Why try to tweak old notation for something it's not
made for?
> Traditional notation already fails with non-keyboard music; to
achive an
> intended intonation (if there is one), spatial placement doesn't
show clear
> and unique intervallic relations (the "vocal" requirement), and
there are no
> clear mechanical correspondances (the "instrumental" requirement)
for
> existing instruments for intonation other than fixed instruments
like the
> keyboard. Let's face it - this situation will _never change on 5
lines. We
> need to throw out the old 5 lines - what's needed is a better
notation.
> Along with this, we need new wind instruments that aren't limited
to 12ET.
> We need to get the string family to become a real family (please
visit
> newviolinfamily.org), we need to rebuild the brass family into a
new trombone
> family (there's a reason why nobody plays the alto trombone
anymore!). And
> how about a family of new pure cone instruments? In short,
comrades, what we
> need is a revolution. : )
>
> It is _not out of reach. Who's with me?
>
> Aaron

Dat cool... Pitchcolor... my guess is that almost *ALL* of us here
are with you... HOWEVER, it's also important to integrate our new
experiments into the existing "system" of Western/Eastern culture and
musics, and throwing everything out the window does not, necessarily,
serve that purpose, in my view... Whoops... just threw something
*Else* out the window...

________ ________ _______ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21593.html#21617

> [Paul E:]
> >? Your own remarks above should answer that question. Well,
assuming
> >we're agreed (though perhaps not on all the details) that adaptive
> >tuning is ideal for classical Western harmony . . . aren't we
agreed
> >on that?
>
> Yes, absolutely. Us and a few other people. My confusion came from
> realizing that this is what you meant by "classical Western
harmony."
> But it's clear now.
>
> JdL

See, John... Your adaptive tuning has become the "lingua franca" of
Western harmony in these parts already!

_______ _______ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Aaron!
The revolution started 25 years ago for myself. And a few where already there in place. So
who is with who! :)
But to be to the point, revolutions are best started when sunspot activity is less, not at its
peak, when its effect is to make people more conservative. or haven't you noticed. But let us
compare some game plans. hmmmmmmm first we will..............

Pitchcolor@aol.com wrote:

> In short, comrades, what we
> need is a revolution. : )
>
> It is _not out of reach. Who's with me?
>
> Aaron

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Aaron wrote:

> We
> need to throw out the old 5 lines - what's needed is a better notation.
> Along with this, we need new wind instruments that aren't limited to 12ET.
> We need to get the string family to become a real family (please visit
> newviolinfamily.org), we need to rebuild the brass family into a new trombone
> family (there's a reason why nobody plays the alto trombone anymore!). And
> how about a family of new pure cone instruments? In short, comrades, what we
> need is a revolution. : )
>
> It is _not out of reach. Who's with me?

Yo. Hear, hear. But wouldn't it really be more like a revival than a revolution? There are
numerous folk and medieval or early Renaissance instruments that fit your descriptions, if I
understand them.

Then I'll pick up my guitar and play - Just, like yesterday. And I'll get on my knees and pray we
don't get fooled again.

Meet the new tuning. Same as the old tuning.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

[Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
>See, John... Your adaptive tuning has become the "lingua franca" of
>Western harmony in these parts already!

Can the world be far behind? ;->

JdL