Re: ideal notation

In a message dated 4/25/01 9:59:34 PM, jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

<< 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... >>

Abandoning 5 lines doesn't throw "everything" out the window. I agree that a
new system should have continutity with existing notation, because there are
things about existing notation that work. We can throw out 5 lines and still
maintain the same metrical and rhrythmic notation, for instance. There's no
need to throw out things that work. 5 equally spaced lines doesn't really
work well for anybody. We should build on those aspects of the notation that
_do work, and change and improve those that don't work.

Pitchcolor!(sorry I couldn't resist)
Depending on the keyboard layout, a form of Klarscipto works well for my own use. 12 ET would
have 2 lines followed by 3 lines and this pattern repeated with the groups of 2 and 3 having an
extra space. For a 16 tone scale i have that has a keyboard of 3 blacks then 4 blacks I use a
notation of 3 lines then 4 lines. see also http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3a.PDF and environs for
more ideas along these lines

Pitchcolor@aol.com wrote:

> Abandoning 5 lines doesn't throw "everything" out the window. I agree that a
> new system should have continutity with existing notation, because there are
> things about existing notation that work. We can throw out 5 lines and still
> maintain the same metrical and rhrythmic notation, for instance. There's no
> need to throw out things that work. 5 equally spaced lines doesn't really
> work well for anybody. We should build on those aspects of the notation that
> _do work, and change and improve those that don't work.

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

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

In a message dated 4/27/01 2:08:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Pitchcolor@aol.com writes:

> We can throw out 5 lines and still
> maintain the same metrical and rhrythmic notation, for instance. There's
> no
> need to throw out things that work. 5 equally spaced lines doesn't really
> work well for anybody.

Dear Pitchcolor (Aaron),

One thing that happens on this list is that every so often someone new to the
lists reinvents the wheel. And accordingly, much of this discussion has been
held before, and no FAQ or pouring over the archives would change this
situation much. It's normal, and healthy, to think outside the frame, to
imagine new ways. Each time around brings new people in, and offers new
perspectives to others.

First off Julian Carrillo chucked the 5 lines for his 96-tET scale.
Unfortunately, for me, I have to rewrite it completely when he produce
Carrillo's music, because trained musicians can't read it. Lots of
handwriting with a pencil (thank heavens for manuscript paper).

Secondly, 5 lines works great for me. It's never let me down (at least until
my eyes got worse requiring bifocals). It's convenient and clear, tidy and
comprehensible.

Since it is my business, to play and direct other people's music, 5 lines
with cents deviations of 1200 possible (well I could you decimal points for
even greater accuracy...), has been far and wide the best way to negotiate
the vast seas of microtones.

I'm not aware of more than a handful of people on this list that play other
people's music with any regularity, if at all. To compose prescriptively,
there has to be a pharmacist that can decipher the doctor's prescription
(trained musicians using their training). To compose descriptively, as a
blotter for the imagination in a letter to self, anything works that you
enjoy. Da Vinci wrote his diary in mirror-image...but he seems to have
enjoyed it.

Tablature is ancient, and instrument specific. That's how I compose,
instrument specific, and I've used it. But tablature doesn't guarantee
accurate intonation when a different wind or string player performs it. It
also doesn't guarantee that the blowing or resistance will be with the same
harmonies as with multiphonics. 1200 divisions of the octave does. It is
also not unsightly since only a +/- number is associated with a note head, no
other changes. It mainstreams anything microtonal on the visual level. (All
right I admit it, I'm using Finale now.)

A word about "training" -- it's not just the money and time spent in graduate
school education and the sufferings of intense competitions, the speedy of
acquisition of much new information and technically accomplished
expressivity, it isn't even only an industry of people supporting familles.
It is a connection with the first instrument masters back to the beginning of
the instrument. Teacher to teacher over centuries has eradicated bad habits
the way antibiotics kill bacteria. If you muck up notation with confusion
(demonstrated in Gardner Read's multiplicity of notations in his book on the
subject) even less will be done.

There's also the issue of timing. Musicians really make hay with it, and my
intuition says this is not the time for a notation revolution. "There's no
reason to throw out things that work."

Best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> Abandoning 5 lines doesn't throw "everything" out the window.
> I agree that a new system should have continutity with existing
> notation, because there are things about existing notation that
> work. We can throw out 5 lines and still maintain the same
> metrical and rhrythmic notation, for instance. There's no
> need to throw out things that work. 5 equally spaced lines
> doesn't really work well for anybody. We should build on
> those aspects of the notation that _do work, and change and
> improve those that don't work.

Good points, Aaron. I thought immediately of Julian Carillo's
notation, in which he used integers to designate the degrees
of his microtonal EDO scales, and therefore did away with staff
lines entirely, but retained all the other aspects of the
notation.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21677.html#21699

> Good points, Aaron. I thought immediately of Julian Carillo's
> notation, in which he used integers to designate the degrees
> of his microtonal EDO scales, and therefore did away with staff
> lines entirely, but retained all the other aspects of the
> notation.
>

But, when Johnny Reinhard performs Carillo they take this notation
and translate it BACK into conventional notation for the performers.

Am I correct about this, Johnny... or am I wrong??

_______ ______ _______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

I totally agree. I've been using cents notation for years without any
ambiguity.

RT

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

>
> Since it is my business, to play and direct other people's music, 5
> lines
> with cents deviations of 1200 possible (well I could you decimal
> points for
> even greater accuracy...), has been far and wide the best way to
> negotiate
> the vast seas of microtones.