An ASCII-dental mess

I can't believe the mess we've gotten ourselves into with ASCII accidentals.

Here's how I see it.

I have no great problem with the Sims (USA?) notation when folks use the
proper non-ASCII glyphs. I'm assuming those are the ones described as such
on this web page
https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html

The problem is with the transliteration of them into ASCII proposed by
Monz, and more specifically the fact that everyone wants to use the pair of
ASCII characters caret "^" and lower-case vee "v" for something different.

-----------------------------
Too many uses for "^" and "v"
-----------------------------

Clearly the Sims up and down (full) arrows, which correspond to 17c "comma"
or "1/12 tone" shifts are the ones most deserving of being transliterated
to "^" and "v".

But unfortunately we had Richter-Herf (Europe?) independently come up with
a system for 72-EDO which used up and down (full) arrows for 50c or "1/4
tone" shifts. This is apparently where Monz got the idea from.

Now we have Graham Breed using "^" and "v" (possibly to stand for up and
down triangles) as the chromatic shift in Miracle temperament, which, in
72-EDO, corresponds to 33c or "1/6 tone".

So we've effectively got "^" and "v" standing for every possible 72-EDO
accidental except # and b. +-1, +-2 and +-3 steps.

This is really bad and must be changed.

It seems that for acceptance of Miracle, in the only place that 72-EDO is
being taught officially, we need to be consistent with the Sims notation.
We can forget Richter Hoef. One of them has to lose, since they use arrows
to mean completely different things.

----------
+-1/72 oct
----------

Now we should look for ASCII characters that actually _look_ something like
the Sims glyphs. It's obvious that "^" and "v" should stand for the Sims
complete arrows. "+" and "-" don't look like them at all. And I understand
that the way in which Ben Johnson uses "+" and "-" is completely at odds
with how Monz has been using them.

+1 ^
-1 v

I suggest that Graham Breed and Monz graciously cease their use of "^" and
"v" for other shifts.

I've been using / and \ for these until now because I didn't want to add to
the confusion over ^ and v, and they were already used for this purpose by
Fokker and hence by Manuel in Scala.

See the symbols in
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerpb.html

----------
+-2/72 oct
----------

Now for the Sims half-arrows. No so easy. We could use "7" and "L" except
that we already put 7 after letter names to mean 7th chords, and the hook
on the "L" is on the opposite side from the Sims glyph, and now this idiot
Keenan wants to have a note called "L". We might think we could use "J" or
"j" instead of "L", except the serifs make them look more like the Sims +3
step symbol, the half-up-arrow with a flag.

I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a half arrow to
designate _twice_ the shift designated by a full-arrow. Shouldn't it have
been the other way around. Or maybe use an arrow with a double-barbed head
(one head under the other) instead of half a head. But everyone keeps
telling me we're stuck with the Sims glyphs. So on we march.

Monz has chosen to use ">" and "<" for these. It's difficult to remember
which is up and which is down. Even Monz himself got these swapped around
on an early Miracle lattice. But unless anyone can suggest something better
to represent the Sims half-arrows, I guess we'll stick with them. At least
they are visually bigger than the "^" and "v" for +-1 step.

+2 >
-2 <

I have been using "//" and "\\" for these shifts.

----------
+-3/72 oct
----------

Now we come to the 1/4 tone half-arrows-with-flags, one of which looks like
a square-root symbol and the other of which looks a bit like a lowercase
"j" without the dot. Let's face it, there isn't any ASCII character that
looks even remotely like the square-root symbol, and for that reason I
propose we use a symbol that is at least reminiscent of the Tartini
half-sharp symbol (also shown on Ted Mook's page, URL above). Manuel has
already chosen to use "|" for half-sharp in Scala for this reason. He also
chose ";" for half-flat. And those are what I have been using.

There is no need for these symbols to be a symmetrical pair. The Sims
glyphs are not. There is no reflection or rotation that will map Sims' 1/4
up symbol to his 1/4 down symbol. I already suggested "j" as the 1/4 down
symbol. I think this is better than ";".

I also think that "|" is not good because it has no direction to it and
could equally be the vertical stroke of a Tartini half-flat (or a backwards
flat) as a half-sharp. Lwer case "f" isn't bad. It looks good as a pair
with "j". From "fj" it's easy to see which one is up and which is down. But
it could be a problem since "F" is the name of a note, even though we can
use uppercase for the note name and lowercase for the accidental. "t" might
be a better choice.

+3 f or t
-3 j

----------
Keenan-ese
----------

So you see it's not so much Keenan-ese as Scala-ese. But in choosing when
to favour C# over Db etc. my spelling owes its primary alleigance to
meantone rather than to 12-tET. It just so happens that, in 72-EDO,
meantone _is_ 12-tET.

By the way Monz, I don't believe you correctly translated any of my Scala
file comments into your notation. It's partly because you want to make them
agree at C whereas I want to use D (since it is a point of symmetry, and I
don't know how to say (in a Scala file that is assumed to start on C) that
the "C" needs to be at something other than 0 cents. I asked that question
a few days ago, and no one responded.

But let's leave those Scala files until we sort out this ASCII notation.

Graham, I think you misunderstood. Joseph and Monz are referring to the
meantone based notation as Keenan-ese, not the one with 10 natural letters.
They aren't even looking at that, or the decimal numbers.

Your auto-generated meantone based notation seems to disagree with mine, on
more than just what symbols to use.
See http://dkeenan.com/Music/MiraclePitchChart.htm
If you ASCIIfy it, please use | for half-sharp and ; for half-flat, at
least until we get this mess sorted out.

Maybe when we sort this out, you can have your program generate a list for
Canasta with 6 columns showing: degrees of 72-EDO (0=C), decimal numbers
(4=D), decimal letters (D=D), "Keenanese", "Monzonian", and hopefully "new
Monzonian" i.e. whatever new scheme we come up with, which will simply be
old Monzonian with some characters changed.

Lets hear some other thoughts on how to get out of this mess.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583

Cute subject-line, Dave!

> I can't believe the mess we've gotten ourselves into with ASCII
accidentals.
>

Thank you so VERY much, Dave, for this interesting and PRACTICAL post
about possible 72-tET notations in ascii!

> Here's how I see it.
>
> I have no great problem with the Sims (USA?) notation when folks
use the proper non-ASCII glyphs. I'm assuming those are the ones
described as such on this web page

> https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
>

Yes, absolutely!

> The problem is with the transliteration of them into ASCII proposed
by Monz, and more specifically the fact that everyone wants to use
the pair of ASCII characters caret "^" and lower-case vee "v" for
something different.
>

I see... I wasn't aware there were so many versions of this!

> -----------------------------
> Too many uses for "^" and "v"
> -----------------------------
>
> Clearly the Sims up and down (full) arrows, which correspond to
17c "comma" or "1/12 tone" shifts are the ones most deserving of
being transliterated to "^" and "v".
>

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. Additionally, Monz' use of -
and + for this gets lost in a score. Those symbols are very small...

Sometimes the "^" and "v" can look like accents, but I suppose we can
live with that, since, actually most of the use of ascii notation is
NOT in notated scores for performance but in discussion over the
Internet...

>
> So we've effectively got "^" and "v" standing for every possible 72-
EDO accidental except # and b. +-1, +-2 and +-3 steps.
>

This would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic...

> This is really bad and must be changed.
>
> It seems that for acceptance of Miracle, in the only place that 72-
EDO is being taught officially, we need to be consistent with the
Sims notation.

YES... that really makes a lot of sense since it seems there ALREADY
IS a practicing school of musicians using this notation.

> ----------
> +-1/72 oct
> ----------
>
> Now we should look for ASCII characters that actually _look_
something like the Sims glyphs. It's obvious that "^" and "v" should
stand for the Sims complete arrows. "+" and "-" don't look like them
at all. And I understand that the way in which Ben Johnson uses "+"
and "-" is completely at odds with how Monz has been using them.
>
> +1 ^
> -1 v
>
> I suggest that Graham Breed and Monz graciously cease their use
of "^" and "v" for other shifts.
>

As I say... that would be no problem with ME, personally, for what
it's worth...

> I've been using / and \ for these until now because I didn't want
to add to the confusion over ^ and v, and they were already used for
this purpose by Fokker and hence by Manuel in Scala.
>
> See the symbols in
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerpb.html
>

I see... Well, these take some "getting used to" as well...

> ----------
> +-2/72 oct
> ----------
>
> Now for the Sims half-arrows. No so easy. We could use "7" and "L"
except that we already put 7 after letter names to mean 7th chords,
and the hook on the "L" is on the opposite side from the Sims glyph,
and now this idiot Keenan wants to have a note called "L". We might
think we could use "J" or "j" instead of "L", except the serifs make
them look more like the Sims +3 step symbol, the half-up-arrow with a
flag.
>
> I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a half
arrow to designate _twice_ the shift designated by a full-arrow.
Shouldn't it have been the other way around.

That makes sense...

>Or maybe use an arrow with a double-barbed head (one head under the
other) instead of half a head. But everyone keeps telling me we're
stuck with the Sims glyphs. So on we march.

It rather seems that way... Paul Erlich believes this, and there is
going to be someone from the Boston Microtonal Society (hopefully)
expressing HIS opinion about this on the list...

>
> Monz has chosen to use ">" and "<" for these. It's difficult to
remember which is up and which is down. Even Monz himself got these
swapped around on an early Miracle lattice. But unless anyone can
suggest something better to represent the Sims half-arrows, I guess
we'll stick with them. At least they are visually bigger than the "^"
and "v" for +-1 step.
>
> +2 >
> -2 <
>
> I have been using "//" and "\\" for these shifts.
>

OK... this all follows well so far...

> ----------
> +-3/72 oct
> ----------
>
> Now we come to the 1/4 tone half-arrows-with-flags, one of which
looks like a square-root symbol and the other of which looks a bit
like a lowercase "j" without the dot. Let's face it, there isn't any
ASCII character that looks even remotely like the square-root symbol,
and for that reason I propose we use a symbol that is at least
reminiscent of the Tartini half-sharp symbol (also shown on Ted
Mook's page, URL above).

This, frankly, really bothers me too. In fact, I had at first
considered using the "default" versions of these 1/4 tone accidentals
in my notation program. They really are almost STANDARD by now...
particularly the little line with the one little slash through it!

Of course, they don't exist in ASCII.

Since I WAS able to create my OWN font in my program that virtually
replicates the Sims/Maneri notation, I decided to go with that...

It was a "conservative" gesture, but if people really are playing
this 72-tET music and practicing ear training with it, it's important
to try to maintain the conventions they have already learned (no
matter HOW bizarre... that's happened, obviously, MANY times in
history before!)

>Manuel has already chosen to use "|" for half-sharp in Scala for
this reason. He also chose ";" for half-flat. And those are what I
have been using.
>

OK... I was rather wondering what those were all about... thanks...

> There is no need for these symbols to be a symmetrical pair. The
Sims glyphs are not.

Yeah, I know... They are mighty strange...

There is no reflection or rotation that will map Sims' 1/4
> up symbol to his 1/4 down symbol. I already suggested "j" as the
1/4 down symbol. I think this is better than ";".
>
> I also think that "|" is not good because it has no direction to it
and could equally be the vertical stroke of a Tartini half-flat (or a
backwards flat) as a half-sharp. Lwer case "f" isn't bad. It looks
good as a pair with "j". From "fj" it's easy to see which one is up
and which is down. But it could be a problem since "F" is the name of
a note, even though we can use uppercase for the note name and
lowercase for the accidental. "t" might be a better choice.
>
> +3 f or t
> -3 j
>

Boy, Dave... I think the "f" is really a problem, since it's a named
note already. Can you imagine a musician seeing a note with an "f"
in front of it, and not thinking something about "F." I can't...

Maybe that one needs some more thinking... I would tend to go with
Manuel's | and ; ... now that I understand them...

Maybe one could even put a "+" in FRONT of the "|"

Like this: +|

Then, it kind of looks like one wanted to put the cross over the
middle of the line like the Tartini but, of course, couldn't in
ascii.. That way it wouldn't be confused with a possible Tartini
flat...

Just an idea...

I think right now, after this discussion, I would vote for:

^ = 1/12 high
v = 1/12 low

> = 1/6 high
< = 1/6 low

+| = 1/4 high
; = 1/4 low

Thanks!

OH... by the way, MONZ... You SHOULD be able to get the Mook fonts to
work in Finale... It seems, according to the webpage, that they are
compatible... (I had to "redraw" for IBM SCORE...)

_______ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583

> I can't believe the mess we've gotten ourselves into with
> ASCII accidentals.
>
> Here's how I see it.

Hi Dave. This is just a very cursory first response to
your proposals. I'm going to print this message and study
it much more carefully, then give further thoughts.

Much of what I'm saying in this post is historical background
on how I came up with my various uses of 72-EDO accidentals,
and hopefully, enough justification for my choices that
perhaps you will finally see why I adhere to them so strongly.

First comment: awesome pun in the subject line!

> Clearly the Sims up and down (full) arrows, which correspond
> to 17c "comma" or "1/12 tone" shifts are the ones most
> deserving of being transliterated to "^" and "v".
>
> But unfortunately we had Richter-Herf (Europe?) independently
> come up with a system for 72-EDO which used up and down (full)
> arrows for 50c or "1/4 tone" shifts. This is apparently where
> Monz got the idea from.

Actually, the use of up and down arrows to represent 1/4-tones
has quite a long history, going much further back than Herf.

In fact, I chose to use arrows for 1/4-tones long before I
ever knew anything about Herf, Sims, or 72-EDO. There have
been many different proposals for 1/4-tone notation, and
the arrows are the ones that always made the most sense to me.

When I first encountered Sims's notation, I immediately disliked
the square-root signs for 1/4-tones, and also disliked the
fact that he used the arrows which I (and others) preferred
for 1/4-tones, to represent the 1/12-tones.

When I encountered Herf's notation shortly after that, I saw
that he was in "agreement" with me about the use of the arrows,
and he used the very simple and short / and \ for 1/12-tones.
So I provisionally decided to use Herf notation for 72-EDO.
This was around 1994 or so.

> It seems that for acceptance of Miracle, in the only place
> that 72-EDO is being taught officially, we need to be
> consistent with the Sims notation. We can forget Richter Hoef.
> One of them has to lose, since they use arrows to mean
> completely different things.

I have already posted much on this. I strongly disagree, and
in fact am of the opinion that we here on the tuning list
should make a concerted communal effort to try to convince
the Bostonians to switch to using the ASCII 72-EDO notation
I presented here. They *are* indeed possibly the only ones
teaching and learning 72-EDO "officially".

(Herf's legacy in Salzburg, Austria includes an institute named
after him, but I don't know much about it and don't know how
seriously 72-EDO is being cultivated there now that he's no
longer alive. Any further info would be appreciated.)

>
> ----------
> +-1/72 oct
> ----------
>
> Now we should look for ASCII characters that actually _look_
> something like the Sims glyphs. It's obvious that "^" and "v"
> should stand for the Sims complete arrows. "+" and "-" don't
> look like them at all. And I understand that the way in which
> Ben Johnson uses "+" and "-" is completely at odds with how
> Monz has been using them.

No, Dave, not "completely" at odds at all.

Johnston uses + and - to indicate shifts of a syntonic comma,
which is *exactly* what they mean in my HEWM prime-factor
notation, and very closely approximate what they mean in
ASCII 72-EDO notation.

The difference is that Johnston starts with the 2-dimensional
5-limit scale as his basis, so his commatic shifts follow
a pattern on the lattice that simply is not intuitive and
must be memorized. I use Pythagorean as the notational basis
for the nominals (and # and b), so the + and - always indicate
an exponent of 1 along the 5-axis.

My use of + and - for 72-EDO grew directly out of my use
of them for HEWM. And my inspiration to use them for HEWM
grew out of my interest in Johnston's notation.

Upon encountering Johnston's notation and realizing how
1/12-tone functioned as an approximate syntonic comma in 72-EDO,
I decided that I liked + and - much better than Herf's / and \
for the 1/12-tones.

> ----------
> +-2/72 oct
> ----------
>
> Now for the Sims half-arrows. No so easy. <snip>
>
> I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a
> half arrow to designate _twice_ the shift designated by a
> full-arrow. Shouldn't it have been the other way around.

Exactly my way of thinking. That's why for me the full arrow
is a 1/4-tone and the half-arrow is a 1/6-tone.

And again, my use of the half-arrows grew out of my interest
in Johnston's notation. He uses "7" to represent and inflection
of 7^1, and an upside down 7 that can only be rendered in
ASCII approximately as "L" for 7^-1. The half-arrow pointing
down looks quite a bit like Johnston's inverted 7.

When trying to render all this in ASCII, I decided that "<"
looked a lot better as an accidental than "L", and so I decided
to use that to represent 7^-1 in HEWM. Simple logic dictated
that ">" would be the reverse corollary.

Also, the fact that < and > are mathematical symbols, gave
them a relationship to the use of + and -, so to me it made
a lot of sense to employ them.

(And in case anyone missed it, I'll reiterate here that
< and > were the symbols Schoenberg experimentally chose
to indicate 1/4-tones around 1908-9.)

> Monz has chosen to use ">" and "<" for these. It's difficult
> to remember which is up and which is down. Even Monz himself
> got these swapped around on an early Miracle lattice.

Hey, it can happen to anyone at any time... simple human
capacity for error. I don't find it difficult at all to
remember, because a long time ago I learned in school that
"<" = *L*ess than, and "<" looks a little like an "L".

> But unless anyone can suggest something better to represent
> the Sims half-arrows, I guess we'll stick with them. At least
> they are visually bigger than the "^" and "v" for +-1 step.

Hurrah! One victory out of three.

> Maybe when we sort this out, you can have your program
> generate a list for Canasta with 6 columns showing: degrees
> of 72-EDO (0=C), decimal numbers (4=D), decimal letters
> (D=D), "Keenanese", "Monzonian", and hopefully "new
> Monzonian" i.e. whatever new scheme we come up with,
> which will simply be old Monzonian with some characters
> changed.

I've already begun making a chart like this by hand, but
stopped because Graham had made a few errors and I've since
gone on to many other topics (like the MIDI tuning thing,
which required from very deep study from me).

It really would be great to have all of these different
notations stored in software, to be converted from one
to the other at a moments notice.

Actually, Manuel, if you can add *all* of these new notational
proposals into Scala, then I think Scala users will eventually
sort it out and reach a consensus based on use and not
on theory. I think that would be a good way to go about it.

OK, as I said, I'll study Dave's ideas in more depth...
The main reason I decided to send this "quick response"
was because I want to indicate to Dave and any other dissenters
that I have thought very long and very hard about these
notational questions. It's not something I just dreamed
up one day.

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

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23585

> > There is no need for these symbols to be a symmetrical pair.
> > The Sims glyphs are not.
>
> Yeah, I know... They are mighty strange...

Guys, don't forget that "#" and "b" are not a symmetrical
pair either. But no musician has any problem with them.

But here I'm sort of arguing against my own proposals,
because I really like the symmetry of "<" and ">", and
"v" and "^". I wish "+" and "-" were symmetrical.

> OH... by the way, MONZ... You SHOULD be able to get the Mook
> fonts to work in Finale... It seems, according to the webpage,
> that they are compatible... (I had to "redraw" for IBM SCORE...)

I tried the Mook fonts before and couldn't get them to work.
But now, on my new computer, I can't even get regular 12-EDO
notation looking right in Finale! Somehow I've lost my
Petrucci font, which has all the Finale musical symbols.
Don't know what happened to it... I'm still using my old
hard-drive as my D: drive now, and it should be there.

I suppose I'll have to reinstall Finale... haven't needed
it lately, so haven't gotten around to it yet...

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

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583
>
> Actually, that makes a lot of sense. Additionally, Monz' use of -
> and + for this gets lost in a score. Those symbols are very
small...
>
> Sometimes the "^" and "v" can look like accents, but I suppose we
can
> live with that, since, actually most of the use of ascii notation is
> NOT in notated scores for performance but in discussion over the
> Internet...

Absolutely! I don't think anyone expected you to use these ASCII glyphs in
an actual score. We assumed you were using the Sims glyphs. Using any of
+-^v>< (or / and \ for that matter) in an actual score is not advised.

> > I suggest that Graham Breed and Monz graciously cease their use
> of "^" and "v" for other shifts.
> >
>
> As I say... that would be no problem with ME, personally, for what
> it's worth...

I think it's worth a lot, since you are the one working with "real" musicians.

> > See the symbols in
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerpb.html
> >
>
> I see... Well, these take some "getting used to" as well...

Yes. I prefer either arrows or half-arrows for comma shifts rather than the
slashes. And it seems the original Tartini half-flat has been replaced by a
backwards flat (on Ted Mook's page).
https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
This is probably a good move since the half flat glyph could easily be
misread as a flat (I would think). Is the backward flat more standard these
days?

> > I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a half
> arrow to designate _twice_ the shift designated by a full-arrow.
> Shouldn't it have been the other way around.
>
> That makes sense...

Is it really too late. We certainly couldn't swap their usage.

> >Or maybe use an arrow with a double-barbed head (one head under the
> other) instead of half a head. But everyone keeps telling me we're
> stuck with the Sims glyphs. So on we march.
>
> It rather seems that way... Paul Erlich believes this, and there is
> going to be someone from the Boston Microtonal Society (hopefully)
> expressing HIS opinion about this on the list...

I look forward to that. Fortunately a 1/6-tone symbol isn't really needed,
but I still propose double-barbed arrows rather than half arrows. e.g.
.
/|\ |
/ | \ |
/|\ \ | /
/ | \ \|/
| \ | /
| \|/
'
which we could ASCIIfy unambiguously as ^^ and vv. Maybe they are a bit
tedious for handwritten scores, but as I say, you don't need them very often

> > Now we come to the 1/4 tone half-arrows-with-flags, one of which
> looks like a square-root symbol and the other of which looks a bit
> like a lowercase "j" without the dot. Let's face it, there isn't any
> ASCII character that looks even remotely like the square-root
symbol,
> and for that reason I propose we use a symbol that is at least
> reminiscent of the Tartini half-sharp symbol (also shown on Ted
> Mook's page, URL above).
>
> This, frankly, really bothers me too. In fact, I had at first
> considered using the "default" versions of these 1/4 tone
accidentals
> in my notation program.

Well hell why not. Tell Sims what to do with his square-root. ;-)

> They really are almost STANDARD by now...
> particularly the little line with the one little slash through it!

Ok. This sounds like the Tartini half-sharp has been modified too. The one
in the Fokker paper (and on Ted Mook's page) has two horizontal strokes.
Can you more thoroughly describe the 1/4 tone symbols you are talking about
here? Either an ASCII drawing or a scan?

> Of course, they don't exist in ASCII.

Neither does anything else, so this isn't really an issue.

> Boy, Dave... I think the "f" is really a problem, since it's a named
> note already. Can you imagine a musician seeing a note with an "f"
> in front of it, and not thinking something about "F." I can't...

Er Joseph, again, I'm not talking about putting these symbols on a real
score. I'm talking about symbols that we can use to represent the "real"
symbols (whether Sims or modified Tartini) in net discussions. So that we
can look at the ASCII glyph but in our "minds eye" see the "real" glyph.
"f" and "t" are both able to do that for me in regard to the Tartini
half-sharp. But then so does "|" now that I've learnt it. We're already
using a letter "v". But yeah, forget "f".

> Maybe that one needs some more thinking... I would tend to go with
> Manuel's | and ; ... now that I understand them...

Ok. Excellent. That's fine with me.

> Maybe one could even put a "+" in FRONT of the "|"
>
> Like this: +|

Hmm. I don't like it, given that the "+" has already been used on its own.
Best to avoid multiple characters for a single symbol if possible. The "^^"
and "vv" as proposed above, work as two-character symbols because they have
the same meaning as the single character symbol applied twice.

> Then, it kind of looks like one wanted to put the cross over the
> middle of the line like the Tartini but, of course, couldn't in
> ascii.. That way it wouldn't be confused with a possible Tartini
> flat...

Maybe this is not so important now that you understand I'm only proposing
these ASCII character as stand-ins for net discussions.

> I think right now, after this discussion, I would vote for:
>
>
> ^ = 1/12 high
> v = 1/12 low
>
> > = 1/6 high
> < = 1/6 low
>
> +| = 1/4 high
> ; = 1/4 low

Drop that plus sign and I'm with you. But I'm still open to other suggestions.

By the way, I would never use | and ; (1/4 tone shifts) in combination with
# and b. I see these four symbols as forming a mutually exclusive set, to
be modified by the other accidentals. So there is a sense in which we are
going 12-tET -> 24-EDO -> 72-EDO.

Graham, One thing I forgot to mention before. Whatever ASCII (or real)
symbol we decide on for 1/6 tones, it would be good if we could use the
same symbol for the chromatic shift in the decimal notation. This might
mean using Sims half-arrows for it in "real" scores (or in typesetting the
Miracle paper).

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

In regard to Joseph's objection to my suggestion that "f" could be
used to remind us of the Tartini half-sharp (in the absence of any
ASCII character that could remind us of the Sims square-root sign),
please note that we are already using the lowercase letter "b" for the
flat symbol and noone complains about that. We could obviously also
use "d" to remind us of the backwards flat, instead of "j" to remind
us of Sims 1/4-tone down symbol.

But hey, Scala's "|" and ";" work ok for me.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583

> Actually, the use of up and down arrows to represent 1/4-tones
> has quite a long history, going much further back than Herf.

Please elaborate. Are there any extant "schools" still using them in that way?

> In fact, I chose to use arrows for 1/4-tones long before I
> ever knew anything about Herf, Sims, or 72-EDO. There have
> been many different proposals for 1/4-tone notation, and
> the arrows are the ones that always made the most sense to me.

Why?

The problem seems to be that arrows are the ones that always make the most
sense to _everyone_ as a new accidental, irrespective of what _size_ they
want them to be.

> > It seems that for acceptance of Miracle, in the only place
> > that 72-EDO is being taught officially, we need to be
> > consistent with the Sims notation. We can forget Richter Hoef.
> > One of them has to lose, since they use arrows to mean
> > completely different things.
>
> I have already posted much on this. I strongly disagree, and
> in fact am of the opinion that we here on the tuning list
> should make a concerted communal effort to try to convince
> the Bostonians to switch to using the ASCII 72-EDO notation
> I presented here. They *are* indeed possibly the only ones
> teaching and learning 72-EDO "officially".

If you think they are gonna switch from using full arrows for 1/12-tones to
using them for 1/4-tones, I think you're living in fantasy-land. Sorry. I
don't think they would do it if the god of music herself told them to. It
would be too confusing, since they presumably already have a large body of
work (and people) that use them. Introducing completely different symbols
is one thing, but changing the meaning of an existing symbol is quite another.

> > And I understand that the way in which
> > Ben Johnson uses "+" and "-" is completely at odds with how
> > Monz has been using them.
>
>
> No, Dave, not "completely" at odds at all.

Ok. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "completely". My point is, for example,
(as you confirmed), in Johnson's notation the JI wolf is notated D:A, in
your notation it is D:A-. A musican familiar with Johnson's notation would
play entirely the wrong thing if presented with a score using +- in the way
you have been using them. Better to make a clear distinction and use / and
\, or Simms arrows (ASCIIfied as ^ and v), for comma shifts in non-Johnson
notation.

> > I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a
> > half arrow to designate _twice_ the shift designated by a
> > full-arrow. Shouldn't it have been the other way around.
>
> Exactly my way of thinking. That's why for me the full arrow
> is a 1/4-tone and the half-arrow is a 1/6-tone.

This might make sense if a 1/4 tone were twice a 1/6 tone, but last I
checked it wasn't. :-)

> And again, my use of the half-arrows grew out of my interest
> in Johnston's notation. He uses "7" to represent and inflection
> of 7^1, and an upside down 7 that can only be rendered in
> ASCII approximately as "L" for 7^-1. The half-arrow pointing
> down looks quite a bit like Johnston's inverted 7.

Yes I was aware of this relationship between the half-arrows, the numeral 7
and the 7th harmonic.

> When trying to render all this in ASCII, I decided that "<"
> looked a lot better as an accidental than "L", and so I decided
> to use that to represent 7^-1 in HEWM. Simple logic dictated
> that ">" would be the reverse corollary.

I assumed that was the case. But really, knowing that it has something to
do with the seventh harmonic, will be irrelevant to most musicians reading
the score in order to play it. And all you have to do is transpose, and
suddenly the half-arrows have nothing whatsoever to do with the 7th
harmonic or subharmonic.

> Also, the fact that < and > are mathematical symbols, gave
> them a relationship to the use of + and -, so to me it made
> a lot of sense to employ them.

Sure.

> (And in case anyone missed it, I'll reiterate here that
> < and > were the symbols Schoenberg experimentally chose
> to indicate 1/4-tones around 1908-9.)

A good reason _not_ to use them for 1/6-tones, I should think.

> > Monz has chosen to use ">" and "<" for these. It's difficult
> > to remember which is up and which is down. Even Monz himself
> > got these swapped around on an early Miracle lattice.
>
> Hey, it can happen to anyone at any time... simple human
> capacity for error.

Exactly! No-one's blaming you. I'm blaming the symbols for making such an
error more likely. It would never have happened with "#" and "b" or "^" and
"v". Would it?

> I don't find it difficult at all to
> remember, because a long time ago I learned in school that
> "<" = *L*ess than, and "<" looks a little like an "L".

Sure, but I hope you're not suggesting these be used on actual scores. The
symbols need to be quite distinct so as to reduce the possibility of error
to an absolute minimum. To a musician reading a score, up and down have a
clear relationship to pitch, left and right do not, they relate to time.

> > But unless anyone can suggest something better to represent
> > the Sims half-arrows, I guess we'll stick with them. At least
> > they are visually bigger than the "^" and "v" for +-1 step.
>
> Hurrah! One victory out of three.

Don't count on it. :-)

Notice that Sims' 1/6 tone half arrows _both_ resemble ">" much more than
either of them resembles "<".

> Actually, Manuel, if you can add *all* of these new notational
> proposals into Scala, then I think Scala users will eventually
> sort it out and reach a consensus based on use and not
> on theory. I think that would be a good way to go about it.

But how will we ever find out what Scala users are doing, unless they tell
us? Why not have them tell us _now_, what they _would_ do, and save Manuel
all that trouble?

A consensus based on use, has apparently already been made at the New
England Conservatory. We are mainly just arguing about what ASCII
characters we should use to represent the Sims glyphs when we aren't able
to use the "real" font.

> The main reason I decided to send this "quick response"
> was because I want to indicate to Dave and any other dissenters
> that I have thought very long and very hard about these
> notational questions. It's not something I just dreamed
> up one day.

I'm sorry Monz. I didn't mean to suggest that it was. However, I thought
you might be willing to change it in the light of new information, since,
as far as I know, there are not a lot of musicians already using either
your system or Richter-Herfs.

And Graham Breed's use of ^ and v as the decimal accidentals is even less
entrenched.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

Notice that Ted Mook says (of the Sims glyphs),

"By adding only three symbols [I think he means three pairs] and using
them alone or in combination with the traditional ones, these 1/12
-tone symbols contained in MICRO cause the least
possible disruption of the players' perceptual habits. The ease with
which they can be learned and applied has been thoroughly tested in
over 20 years of
performances by ensembles and soloists in the US, Europe and Japan."

Is anyone claiming anything like that for the Richter-Herf notation?

-- Dave Keenan

In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010522220324.00a7fce0@uq.net.au>
David Keenan wrote:

> > Sometimes the "^" and "v" can look like accents, but I suppose we
> can
> > live with that, since, actually most of the use of ascii notation is
> > NOT in notated scores for performance but in discussion over the
> > Internet...
>
> Absolutely! I don't think anyone expected you to use these ASCII glyphs
> in
> an actual score. We assumed you were using the Sims glyphs. Using any
of
> +-^v>< (or / and \ for that matter) in an actual score is not advised.

I was using ^ and v on the scores.

> > > See the symbols in
> > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerpb.html
> > >
> >
> > I see... Well, these take some "getting used to" as well...
>
> Yes. I prefer either arrows or half-arrows for comma shifts rather than
> the
> slashes.

I prefer slashes. They make good half half-arrows, and they're easy to
write. There may be a conflict with existing symbols, I don't know if
that'd be a problem in practice.

> And it seems the original Tartini half-flat has been replaced
> by a
> backwards flat (on Ted Mook's page).
> https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
> This is probably a good move since the half flat glyph could easily be
> misread as a flat (I would think). Is the backward flat more standard
> these
> days?

Perhaps the downwards half-arrow can serve as the original half-flat when
it's needed.

My book on Arabic music uses a flat with an upward slash for a half-flat.
It's claimed as a standard usage. This is for 24 pitches to the octave,
and a theoretical cat-fight if you ever claim they're equally spaced. If
it is used by Arabic musicians, that probably makes it more common than
anything else under discussion.

> > > I have to say, it seems pretty dumb on Sims part, to use a half
> > arrow to designate _twice_ the shift designated by a full-arrow.
> > Shouldn't it have been the other way around.
> >
> > That makes sense...
>
> Is it really too late. We certainly couldn't swap their usage.

Yes, if they've been training musicians and getting performances, they
have priority. It is a shame they chose to do so with such a strange
system.

> > >Or maybe use an arrow with a double-barbed head (one head under the
> > other) instead of half a head. But everyone keeps telling me we're
> > stuck with the Sims glyphs. So on we march.
> >
> > It rather seems that way... Paul Erlich believes this, and there is
> > going to be someone from the Boston Microtonal Society (hopefully)
> > expressing HIS opinion about this on the list...
>
> I look forward to that. Fortunately a 1/6-tone symbol isn't really
> needed,
> but I still propose double-barbed arrows rather than half arrows. e.g.
> .
> /|\ |
> / | \ |
> /|\ \ | /
> / | \ \|/
> | \ | /
> | \|/
> '

They look kind of like half-sharps as well, which might be a good thing.

> which we could ASCIIfy unambiguously as ^^ and vv. Maybe they are a bit
> tedious for handwritten scores, but as I say, you don't need them very
> often

Don't like that Asciification. It makes them look like two dieses when
they should be two commas.

> > Maybe that one needs some more thinking... I would tend to go with
> > Manuel's | and ; ... now that I understand them...
>
> Ok. Excellent. That's fine with me.
>
> > Maybe one could even put a "+" in FRONT of the "|"
> >
> > Like this: +|
>
> Hmm. I don't like it, given that the "+" has already been used on its
> own.
> Best to avoid multiple characters for a single symbol if possible. The
> "^^"
> and "vv" as proposed above, work as two-character symbols because they
> have
> the same meaning as the single character symbol applied twice.

I think + would do for half-sharp. It looks like half a # and is similar
to the Tartini symbol. I'd give it first refusal for use of +. | and ;
look like line noise to me, and | is also really difficult to get on my
Revo.

> By the way, I would never use | and ; (1/4 tone shifts) in combination
> with
> # and b. I see these four symbols as forming a mutually exclusive set,
> to
> be modified by the other accidentals. So there is a sense in which we
> are
> going 12-tET -> 24-EDO -> 72-EDO.

You mean you wouldn't use a 1.5-sharp symbol, or you wouldn't mix # and b
with | and ; on the same page?

> Graham, One thing I forgot to mention before. Whatever ASCII (or real)
> symbol we decide on for 1/6 tones, it would be good if we could use the
> same symbol for the chromatic shift in the decimal notation. This might
> mean using Sims half-arrows for it in "real" scores (or in typesetting
> the
> Miracle paper).

The half-arrows look okay to me. I don't know how strict the font is --
I'd prefer bigger heads and smaller shafts. Then they'd be similar to ^
and v anyway. If performers are okay with them I'll back off, but I'd
rather they mistook a half-arrow for a full-arrow than a half-arrow going
the other way.

For now, I've updated
<http://x31eq.com/miracle/conversion.html> with the
Tartini-esque meantone, and also to include Dave's alpha-decimal and the
current Monzo-72.

Dave, I think the meantone agrees with you and the 72-equal mapping
agrees too. The 72-equal won't have the same symbols, because I'm
converting into 72 and then back to the other notation, rather than
preserving the meantone symbols with additional comma-shifts.

Graham

Graham wrote:
> | and ; look like line noise to me, and | is also
> really difficult to get on my Revo.

Sorry to hear that. Let me mention another advantage.
My asciification of the sesquisharp is: #|
Merge this in your imagination and it's the same as Fokker's
symbol with three vertical and two horizontal stripes.
The asciification of the sesquiflat is: b;
Also, it's not hard imagining this together to form the Fokker
symbol.

Let me mention again that they can be looked up in Scala
by clicking "Legend: accidentals" in the Help menu.

With regard to use of symbols, having the least amount of
different pairs of symbols is the more ergonomical for me.

The notation systems in Scala are strongly influenced by
the articles of Paul Rapoport who regrettably quit the list
a long time ago. But anyone with interest in notation is
strongly urged to read his articles about it because they're
excellent.

Manuel

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23587

>
> OK, as I said, I'll study Dave's ideas in more depth...
> The main reason I decided to send this "quick response"
> was because I want to indicate to Dave and any other dissenters
> that I have thought very long and very hard about these
> notational questions. It's not something I just dreamed
> up one day.
>

Thank you, Joe, for this post. Actually, I *was* thinking about the
arrows and I *have* to concur that they FREQUENTLY are used in
microtonal music as quartertones...

I'm thinking more of microtonal music from maybe 20 or 30 years ago...

It seems the "arrow" is the first accidental that anybody thinks
of... and, of course, quartertones were also the
first "microtonality" of which many composers were thinking...

In fact, in several early works of my own from the 1970's which are
NOT specifically microtonal, I use ARROWS to indicate QUARTER TONES.

I think, really, you're going to have to thrash this ascii matter out
with Dave Keenan. Then we can, possibly put it to a vote, OR,
conceivably use MORE THAN ONE notation simultaneously... although
this is a real redundancy, obviously, and it would be much better if
we would come to a concensus.

The quote that Dave gave from the Mook page is insightful...

20 years is a LONG time for microtonal practice and if it is indeed
the case that the Joe Maneri/Sims people have been using the GLYPH
notation this long, it's going to be counter-productive to change it.

For the time being, I am going to stick with the Maneri/Sims for my
own work, now that I got the symbols into the computer.

Regarding the ascii... I really don't care, but I *do* believe we can
come to a concensus on this...

Well, I hope... :)

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23587

> I have already posted much on this. I strongly disagree, and
> in fact am of the opinion that we here on the tuning list
> should make a concerted communal effort to try to convince
> the Bostonians to switch to using the ASCII 72-EDO notation
> I presented here. They *are* indeed possibly the only ones
> teaching and learning 72-EDO "officially".
>

OK... now here we have something verifiable in practically
a "scientific" sense. We need to hear from the cat over at the
Boston Microtonal Society. Somebody also needs to talk to Ezra Sims
and Joe Maneri. Anybody know these guys??

My feeling is that they are ALL going to STRONGLY object to the
changing of their glyphs...

They've been doing ear training with these for 20 years! I would
object, too! I would bet good money you're not going to be able to
change this, and it's fruitless to try...

Any other opinions?? For this, though, we can go right to
the "sources" since these guys are still around. Sorry I didn't ask
Maneri at Reinhard's Microthon.

I know what he's going to say, though! :) :)

___________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23589

Hi Dave...

Actually, I think you'll have to "thrash" this issue out with Monzo,
who, as you know, is quite a scholar as well as a musician!

I will be happy to voice any "opinions" if anybody asks for them..

For now, I am using the Maneri/Sims glyphs... and I really don't care
what anybody decides about the ascii.

I do feel, however, that there SHOULD be some consensus on this
matter... rather than a bunch of overlapping ascii notations.

We can do it! If not, we need to put it to a vote or some such...
and STICK with it!

>
> Absolutely! I don't think anyone expected you to use these ASCII
glyphs in an actual score. We assumed you were using the Sims glyphs.
Using any of +-^v>< (or / and \ for that matter) in an actual score
is not advised.

Right, I'm not going to do that... although I know that Monz is still
intent on trying to convince the Bostonians to change. I say it's
not going to happen.... (Just a good guess)

>
> Yes. I prefer either arrows or half-arrows for comma shifts rather
than the
> slashes. And it seems the original Tartini half-flat has been
replaced by a
> backwards flat (on Ted Mook's page).
> https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
> This is probably a good move since the half flat glyph could easily
be
> misread as a flat (I would think). Is the backward flat more
standard these days?

I believe so. On my SCORE notation program, the "defaults" for
quartertones, which you were asking about (ascii about?? :) ) are
a "backwards flat" filled in for quartertone flat and a "pipe line"
like Manuel's for the quartertone sharp, except it also has ONLY ONE
slash line through it, not two. I think the two actually may be a
little "more standard..."

Obviously, NONE of this is "really standard" yet!!!

> which we could ASCIIfy unambiguously as ^^ and vv. Maybe they are a
bit tedious for handwritten scores, but as I say, you don't need them
very often
>

I'm a bit concerned that this is the same problem we had with my "+|"
which, I now believe was also not optimal.

TWO symbols should not be used if it is AT ALL possible to use only
ONE... in MY opinion...

> > > Boy, Dave... I think the "f" is really a problem, since it's a
named note already. Can you imagine a musician seeing a note with
an "f" in front of it, and not thinking something about "F." I
can't...
>
> Er Joseph, again, I'm not talking about putting these symbols on a
real score. I'm talking about symbols that we can use to represent
the "real" symbols (whether Sims or modified Tartini) in net
discussions.

Understood. However, it's STILL better to devise symbols that COULD
be put on a score in place of the Maneri/Sims.

I'm not saying they WILL be. In fact, I believe, personally, they
will NOT.

HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE CLOSE to the Sims glyphs... and that is the
CRUCIAL point, perhaps composers will START putting them in
the "real" performer scores.

This is how these kinds of things change gradually, in my opinion.

So, somehow the ascii symbols should be, obviously, as close to the
SIMS/MANERI as possible.

I guess that has me siding with the "^" and "v" for 1/12 tones, even
though Joe Monzo wants those for quarter tones...

EVERYBODY agrees on "<" and ">" for 1/6 tones... so that one is not a
problem. Actually, I SEE these as KIND OF looking like half-arrows
(!!) I think some composers could actually start using them
on "real" scores, even though they look like ACCENT marks, which
bothered me at first!

The quartertones are anybody's guess. I would side with Manuel op de
Coul. He has much experience in these matters.

Nothing wrong with "|" and ";" now that I'm used to it.

I really don't like the multiple "slashes..." unless there is some
MAJOR theoretical point to be made about commas or some such, which
could be interesting... but as a PRACTICAL ascii notation... rather
not...

>
> > Maybe that one needs some more thinking... I would tend to go
with Manuel's | and ; ... now that I understand them...
>
> Ok. Excellent. That's fine with me.
>

Now we just need Monzo and a vote... :)

> > Maybe one could even put a "+" in FRONT of the "|"
> >
> > Like this: +|
>
> Hmm. I don't like it, given that the "+" has already been used on
its own. Best to avoid multiple characters for a single symbol if
possible. The "^^" and "vv" as proposed above, work as two-character
symbols because <snip>

Let's drop ALL the multiple symbols and I will agree with you!

>
> > I think right now, after this discussion, I would vote for:
> >
> >
> > ^ = 1/12 high
> > v = 1/12 low
> >
> > > = 1/6 high
> > < = 1/6 low
> >
> > | = 1/4 high
> > ; = 1/4 low
>

This is where Keenan/Pehrson (probably OpdeCoul) are right now... but
I don't believe Monzo is with us yet!

> By the way, I would never use | and ; (1/4 tone shifts) in
combination with # and b. I see these four symbols as forming a
mutually exclusive set, to be modified by the other accidentals.

Well, my SCORE notation program also uses flat+ quarter tone, and
sharp+ quarter tone (three vertical lines!) for flexibility, but you
may be right that they should be avoided...

Musical context and VOICE LEADING might be taken into consideration,
though, before these are eliminated (??)

So there is a sense in which we are
> going 12-tET -> 24-EDO -> 72-EDO.
>

That's where *I'm* going, for sure!

Thanks, again, for the commentary!

_________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23593

> In regard to Joseph's objection to my suggestion that "f" could be
> used to remind us of the Tartini half-sharp (in the absence of any
> ASCII character that could remind us of the Sims square-root sign),
> please note that we are already using the lowercase letter "b" for
the
> flat symbol and noone complains about that. We could obviously also
> use "d" to remind us of the backwards flat, instead of "j" to
remind
> us of Sims 1/4-tone down symbol.
>
> But hey, Scala's "|" and ";" work ok for me.
>
> -- Dave Keenan

Personally, I VASTLY prefer them...
___________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23595

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583
>
> > Actually, the use of up and down arrows to represent 1/4-tones
> > has quite a long history, going much further back than Herf.
>
> Please elaborate. Are there any extant "schools" still using them
in that way?
>

Monzo's right about this. However, with the "new" Maneri notation
becoming the "default" this HAS to change....(!!)

>
> > > It seems that for acceptance of Miracle, in the only place
> > > that 72-EDO is being taught officially, we need to be
> > > consistent with the Sims notation. We can forget Richter Hoef.
> > > One of them has to lose, since they use arrows to mean
> > > completely different things.
> >
> > I have already posted much on this. I strongly disagree, and
> > in fact am of the opinion that we here on the tuning list
> > should make a concerted communal effort to try to convince
> > the Bostonians to switch to using the ASCII 72-EDO notation
> > I presented here. They *are* indeed possibly the only ones
> > teaching and learning 72-EDO "officially".
>
> If you think they are gonna switch from using full arrows for 1/12-
tones to using them for 1/4-tones, I think you're living in fantasy-
land. Sorry. I don't think they would do it if the god of music
herself told them to. It would be too confusing, since they
presumably already have a large body of work (and people) that use
them. Introducing completely different symbols is one thing, but
changing the meaning of an existing symbol is quite another.
>

YES... I agree with Dave 200% on this! (Whoops, I would say bad
math, but ASCAP gives it's "writers" and "authors" a 200% agreement
if there is no co-author or writer !!)

Better to make a clear distinction and use / and
> \,

Please... I am decidedly "anti slashing..."

>
> A consensus based on use, has apparently already been made at the
New England Conservatory. We are mainly just arguing about what ASCII
> characters we should use to represent the Sims glyphs when we
aren't able to use the "real" font.
>

This is as I understand things, until proven incorrect...

On to more discussion and the FINAL VOTE... TA DA!

_________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23596

> Notice that Ted Mook says (of the Sims glyphs),
>
> "By adding only three symbols [I think he means three pairs] and
using
> them alone or in combination with the traditional ones, these 1/12
> -tone symbols contained in MICRO cause the least
> possible disruption of the players' perceptual habits. The ease
with
> which they can be learned and applied has been thoroughly tested in
> over 20 years of
> performances by ensembles and soloists in the US, Europe and Japan."
>
> Is anyone claiming anything like that for the Richter-Herf notation?
>
> -- Dave Keenan

Can't fight beantown...

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23603
>
> Graham wrote:
> > | and ; look like line noise to me, and | is also
> > really difficult to get on my Revo.
>
> Sorry to hear that. Let me mention another advantage.
> My asciification of the sesquisharp is: #|
> Merge this in your imagination and it's the same as Fokker's
> symbol with three vertical and two horizontal stripes.
> The asciification of the sesquiflat is: b;
> Also, it's not hard imagining this together to form the Fokker
> symbol.
>
> Let me mention again that they can be looked up in Scala
> by clicking "Legend: accidentals" in the Help menu.
>
> With regard to use of symbols, having the least amount of
> different pairs of symbols is the more ergonomical for me.
>
> The notation systems in Scala are strongly influenced by
> the articles of Paul Rapoport who regrettably quit the list
> a long time ago. But anyone with interest in notation is
> strongly urged to read his articles about it because they're
> excellent.
>
> Manuel

Hello Manuel!

Can you please provide a LINK to this material??

Thanks!

_________ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <9egfkt+kiuu@eGroups.com>
How about t for the ASCII half-flat, has anybody mentioned that?

Given we're running out of ASCII characters, I thought I'd poke around in
Unicode to see if there was anything better. I like huge,
all-encompassing standards, and Unicode is just the ticket.
Theoretically, all the symbols can be used in HTML pages, so long as the
browser has all the relevant fonts (which it won't).

The code charts can be found in PDF here:

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/>

and the glyphs are also rendered as GIFs:

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/web.html>

The most interesting page is that of Musical Symbols.

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1D100.pdf>

I can't find the GIF glyphs.

The following are listed as accidentals:

1D127 same as 266D MUSICAL FLAT SIGN
1D128 same as 266E MUSICAL NATURAL SIGN
1D129 same as 266F MUSICAL SHARP SIGN
1D12A MUSICAL SYMBOL DOUBLE SHARP
1D12B MUSICAL SYMBOL DOUBLE FLAT
1D12C MUSICAL SYMBOL FLAT UP
1D12D MUSICAL SYMBOL FLAT DOWN
1D12E MUSICAL SYMBOL NATURAL UP
1D12F MUSICAL SYMBOL NATURAL DOWN
1D130 MUSICAL SYMBOL SHARP UP
1D131 MUSICAL SYMBOL SHARP DOWN
1D132 MUSICAL SYMBOL QUARTER TONE SHARP
1D133 MUSICAL SYMBOL QUARTER TONE FLAT

The glyphs used are mighty strange. I don't know if there's any way of
updating them, but it doesn't matter because the standard doesn't specify
the fonts. The character set looks right for meantone-based music. The
"up" and "down" can mean dieses (the difference between C# and Db) and
the quarter tone symbols can be used for "enharmonic" music where the
chromatic semitone is divided into two equal steps (consistent with the
septimally double-positive scales 24,31,38,45,...).

So when score programs catch up with this Unicode set, you can write
extended-meantone music, and choose from alternative standards for when
you print it out.

Unfortunately, this won't work for 72-equal. We need "quarter tone sharp
up" and the like. If there are academics behind a notation, it may be
possible to submit it to the committee. Instructions are here:

<http://www.unicode.org/pending/proposals.html>

Commentary on Unicode 3.1 is here:

<http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr27/>

The musical symbols are discussed at 12.11. Not much of interest, other
than "Commonly recognized additions to the CMN[Common Musical Notation]
repertoire, such as quarter-tone accidentals, cluster noteheads, and
shape-note noteheads have also been included."

Unicode does include arrows:

<http://charts.unicode.org/Web/U2190.html>
<http://charts.unicode.org/PDF/U2190.pdf>

2191 and 2193 are up and down respectively, 21BF and 21C2 the
half-arrows. There are also double-headed arrows at 219F and 21A1.

General punctuation

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2000.pdf>

includes dagger 2020 and double dagger 2021. The double dagger should
make a good Tartini half-sharp.

Miscellaneous symbols

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf>

has musical symbols from 2669 to 266F. These are superseded by the
dedicated code page. But it's interesting that some (almost identical)
crosses follow at 2670 and 2671. Could be used for half-sharps.

This page also includes planet signs 263F-2647 and zodiacal symbols
2648-2653, which might be useful for naming notes in a 9 or 12 note
system.

<http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U25A0.pdf>

includes a white up-pointing triangle 2206 and white down-pointing
triangle 2207, useful as alternatives to arrows.

So there you go.

Graham

Sure Joseph, you'll find the Rapoport references in
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html#R
See the Xenharmonikon, 1/1 and Musicworks articles.

Manuel

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23608

> > > I think right now, after this discussion, I would vote for:
> > >
> > >
> > > ^ = 1/12 high
> > > v = 1/12 low
> > >
> > > > = 1/6 high
> > > < = 1/6 low
> > >
> > > | = 1/4 high
> > > ; = 1/4 low
> >
>
> This is where Keenan/Pehrson (probably OpdeCoul) are right
> now... but I don't believe Monzo is with us yet!

I might be able to be convinced. But I have to say that
using ^ and v for the 1/12-tones instead of the 1/4-tones
really rubs me the wrong way... always did when looking
at Sims scores, and does here too.

I try really hard to be open-minded about matters discussed
on this list (well, *these lists*), but I just feel so
strongly about

+ = 1/12 high
- = 1/12 low

> = 1/6 high
< = 1/6 low

^ = 1/4 high
v = 1/4 low

Look at how beautifully simple it is. Also, the history
of using up and down arrows for 1/4-tones goes back further
than Sims/Maneri using them for 1/12-tones. I think
Gardner Read's book is the place to read about this.

And I really do dislike ; for anything, because it has
two disconnected components.

> > So there is a sense in which we are going
> > 12-tET -> 24-EDO -> 72-EDO.
> >
>
> That's where *I'm* going, for sure!

This was probably always in the back of my mind too.
And maybe not really even in the back.

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

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23610

> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23595
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23583
> >
> > > Actually, the use of up and down arrows to represent 1/4-tones
> > > has quite a long history, going much further back than Herf.
> >
> > Please elaborate. Are there any extant "schools" still using them
> in that way?
> >
>
> Monzo's right about this. However, with the "new" Maneri notation
> becoming the "default" this HAS to change....(!!)

I'm not easily convinced by that line of reasoning.
The Sims/Maneri notation has so far been pretty darn limited
to the Boston area, and really, how many composers have made
serious use of this notation over the last 20 years? I'm
sure they're around, but the only ones I've ever heard of
are Sims, Maneri, and van Duyne. Now Ted Mook and Joe P.
have made software fonts of it, so perhaps it will become
a bit more popular.

But, really, IMO, there's no reason why the precedence of
this notation has to be given so much weight.

As Graham keeps pointing out, the MIRACLE theory is very
young (not even a month old yet!!!!!), so there's still
lots of room for new methods of notation.

I already anticipate the disagreeing responses this next
sentence will generate, but I think perhaps the suggestion
that we continue to use a muliplicity of approaches for
at least a little while, is a good one.

I think it will be easier for many of us to make a better
decision eventually, based on some experience with using
these notations. There are lots of different aspects to
consider and they can't all be decided upon simply by debate
on the tuning list(s). Real practical experience is a
necessary component.

> >
> > A consensus based on use, has apparently already been made
> > at the New England Conservatory.

And that is ONLY *ONE* SCHOOL!, among thousands.

> > We are mainly just arguing about what ASCII characters
> > we should use to represent the Sims glyphs when we
> > aren't able to use the "real" font.
> >
>
> This is as I understand things, until proven incorrect...

That's still an opinion, abeit with many adherents.

I like to use my ASCII 72-EDO *in my scores*. I think it's
the clearest and easiest way to notate tunings of the kind
of complexity we're discussing here.

It looks like I'm shaping up to be the lone cranky nay-sayer
in this thread, but it's going to take an awful lot of solid
arguing to convince me to switch from + - > < ^ v # b now.

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

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23626

>
> It looks like I'm shaping up to be the lone cranky nay-sayer
> in this thread, but it's going to take an awful lot of solid
> arguing to convince me to switch from + - > < ^ v # b now.
>

Ummm, Joe... if THIS is your response to changing the notation you
have been using and thinking about, what do you think the response of
the OTHER Joe (& Sims) will be to the thought of changing THEIR
glyphs??

Third Joe...

________ ______ __________
Joseph Pehrson

Another thing I like about my ASCII 72-EDO is the ease
with which one may actually speak (meaning audible speech
as well as writing) of these microtones. My suggested names,
for example:

C+ C-plus
C> C-greater
/ C^ C-up
\ C#v C-sharp-down
C#< C-sharp-less
C#- C-sharp-minus
C# C-sharp

This has a direction bearing on such matters as rehearsal.
For example, if your clarinetist is playing a C- that's
a little flat, you need to be able to *tell* him that!:
"Play the C-minus in measure 5 a little sharper".

I think this works a lot better than "C-semicolon" or
"C-backslash" or whatever. And how do you say "|"?

Mull this over for a while... you'll see what I mean.

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

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23628

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23626
>
> >
> > It looks like I'm shaping up to be the lone cranky nay-sayer
> > in this thread, but it's going to take an awful lot of solid
> > arguing to convince me to switch from + - > < ^ v # b now.
> >
>
> Ummm, Joe... if THIS is your response to changing the notation
> you have been using and thinking about, what do you think the
> response of the OTHER Joe (& Sims) will be to the thought of
> changing THEIR glyphs??
>
> Third Joe...
>
> ________ ______ __________
> Joseph Pehrson

Joe, you've made this point probably half a dozen times
already, and I'm sorry I never responded to it until now.

I agree with you that Maneri and, even more so, Sims
are very unlikely to change in midstream now. They're
both quite a bit older than me, and have been using their
notation quite a bit longer, and have been teaching students
to use it far longer than I have been advocating mine here.

But: 1) we haven't tried yet, and 2) I can be *damned*
persistent when going after something I really want.
A couple of months ago it looked like I had you and many
others convinced that my ASCII 72-EDO notation was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. Now I'm all alone...
but also not very likely to stop using it at this point.

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

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23638

> But: 1) we haven't tried yet, and 2) I can be *damned*
> persistent when going after something I really want.
> A couple of months ago it looked like I had you and many
> others convinced that my ASCII 72-EDO notation was the
> greatest thing since sliced bread. Now I'm all alone...
> but also not very likely to stop using it at this point.
>

Hang on! I'm vacillating! I'm just a vassal and a vessel for this!

I'll use anything youse guys decide. Just make it clear and
CONSISTENT!!!

________ ______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> I'll use anything youse guys decide. Just make it clear and
> CONSISTENT!!!
>
OK, I think I'll go with

| = 1/4 tone up
> = 1/6 tone up
^ = 1/12 tone up
v = 1/12 tone down
< = 1/6 tone down
; = 1/4 tone down

since it's reminiscent of the Boston notation, and I'm in Boston
right now.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23652

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I'll use anything youse guys decide. Just make it clear and
> > CONSISTENT!!!
> >
> OK, I think I'll go with
>
> | = 1/4 tone up
> > = 1/6 tone up
> ^ = 1/12 tone up
> v = 1/12 tone down
> < = 1/6 tone down
> ; = 1/4 tone down
>
> since it's reminiscent of the Boston notation, and I'm in Boston
> right now.

That would be great. I have a "brilliant" idea :)

Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then it
won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!

_________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23655

> I have a "brilliant" idea :)
>
> Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then it
> won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!
>
> _________ _______ ____
> Joseph Pehrson

Joe, that is a great idea. If we use a very concise legend
similar to the ones in the last few posts on this thread,
and we use it ALL THE TIME whenever we post discussions
that include these notations, then at least we'll all always
understand what's being discussed!

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

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23661

>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23655
>
>
> > I have a "brilliant" idea :)
> >
> > Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then it
> > won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!
> >
> > _________ _______ ____
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
>
> Joe, that is a great idea. If we use a very concise legend
> similar to the ones in the last few posts on this thread,
> and we use it ALL THE TIME whenever we post discussions
> that include these notations, then at least we'll all always
> understand what's being discussed!
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"

That's what I mean! Then we can EACH do the notation we PREFER...
but the KEY is having the LEGEND, the KEY, there EVERY TIME!!!

_________ ______ ____ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23661
>
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23655
> >
> >
> > > I have a "brilliant" idea :)
> > >
> > > Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then
it
> > > won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!

But Joseph,

That apparently isn't enough. I provided a legend on my circular chart
but you still found it too hard. You apparently just don't like
slashes. And hey, I'm not that fond of them either.

Yes of course we should always provide a legend, but it is still going
to be a total pain in the ass if we have people using ^ and v to mean
three different things.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23682

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23661
> >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23655
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have a "brilliant" idea :)
> > > >
> > > > Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and
then
> it
> > > > won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!
>
> But Joseph,
>
> That apparently isn't enough. I provided a legend on my circular
chart
> but you still found it too hard. You apparently just don't like
> slashes. And hey, I'm not that fond of them either.

Hi Dave!

Well, actually, I was just looking for something "familiar" that I
could "latch onto..." Probably it wouldn't have been too hard if I
had taken enough time with it... I *did* see the legend...

>
> Yes of course we should always provide a legend, but it is still
going to be a total pain in the ass if we have people using ^ and v
to mean three different things.
>
> -- Dave Keenan

Well, it looks like Paul Erlich is now using those for the 1/12
tones, and I also like the idea of keeping close to the Boston.

Poor Monzo!

__________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23697

> Well, it looks like Paul Erlich is now using those for the 1/12
> tones, and I also like the idea of keeping close to the Boston.
>
> Poor Monzo!

Bah, humbug! <grumble, grumble...>

I can't believe how my troops deserted me...

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

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Another thing I like about my ASCII 72-EDO is the ease
> with which one may actually speak (meaning audible speech
> as well as writing) of these microtones.
...
> I think this works a lot better than "C-semicolon" or
> "C-backslash" or whatever. And how do you say "|"?

Aw c'mon Monz. :-)

How you say them can be quite independent of what symbols you use. But
it's a good question to ask.

Paul, another question for Julie: How do Sims and Maneri _say_ these
accidentals?

Irrespective of the symbols, I say (and think)
1/12 tones "up" and "down" (or "comma up", "comma down")
1/6 tones "double up" and "double down" (or "up up", "down down")
1/4 tones "semisharp" and "semiflat" (or "half-sharp", "half-flat")

And hence combinations like "sharp up", "semiflat double-down".

By the way, in ordinary usage "|" is "bar" (or "vertical-bar").

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

Regards,

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <9egfkt+kiuu@e...>
> How about t for the ASCII half-flat, has anybody mentioned that?

No, but I suggested it for the half sharp (as renminiscent of the
Tartini half-sharp), for folks that couldn't handle "f". I assume you
mean that "t" should remind us of the Arabic symbol that looks like a
normal flat symbol with a nearly-horizontal slash across the vertical
stroke. I quite agree.

Graham, is the standard Arabic half-sharp the same as the Tartini?
Long vertical with two short horizontals?

Paul, another question for Julie (is that her name?) of the Boston
Microtonal Society:

Why didn't Sims use the standard Arabic glyphs or the Tartini glyphs
for quarter-tones?

> Given we're running out of ASCII characters, I thought I'd poke
around in
> Unicode to see if there was anything better.

Brilliant idea. Well done.

> The glyphs used are mighty strange.

I really like the systematic glyphs for
FLAT UP
FLAT DOWN
NATURAL UP
NATURAL DOWN
SHARP UP
SHARP DOWN

Adding arrows to the tops and bottoms of the ordinary symbols is a
great idea. The meaning is immediately obvious.

But their quarter-tone glyphs suck bigtime! I like the Arabic ones
best so far. How sure are you that the ones in your book are standard
over the Arabic world? If so, how come they didn't make it into
UNICODE.

> Unfortunately, this won't work for 72-equal. We need "quarter tone
sharp
> up" and the like.

Indeed. Only I'd name them "SEMISHARP UP" and "SEMISHARP DOWN" and
base them on the Arabic glyphs (although maybe the stroke on the
semiflat could get confused with an arrow-head). And eventually we'd
want "DOUBLE-UP" and "DOUBLE-DOWN" versions of all of these, with
double headed arrows in place of single.

Dream on.

-- Dave Keenan

No I'm not going to ask that you form a tuning-dental-notation
group until you sort this thing out but...

In your proposals, are a JI C major and minor chord

C E- G
C Eb+ G

? I don't know if this is what Sims or anybody else expects,
but if I look at either Pythagorean or 12 (72), this is the way
I would expect to get to these chords...

If its a different symbol thats fine. I'm just waiting for the
smoke to come out of the chimnee of the building and an
announcement of a standard. In my case, I (sometimes) write
music in a machine readable format (ascii) and a consistent
set of symbols for non-meantone temperments would be nice
(I am comfortable for instance with notating from C to D in
31 as

C Dbb C# Db Cx D

and know (think) I will get 'comparable' behavior in any
meantone (though what happens in "double accidental land"
may be surprising).

If I'm only using 31, I might go further and use

C C^ C# Db Dv D

but this is all personal and home-built.

Happily waiting for you guys to come up with the ASFM (ascii
standard for microtonal notation).

Bob Valentine

In-Reply-To: <9ei8kt+5j2p@eGroups.com>
Dave Keenan wrote:
> > How about t for the ASCII half-flat, has anybody mentioned that?
>
> No, but I suggested it for the half sharp (as renminiscent of the
> Tartini half-sharp), for folks that couldn't handle "f". I assume you
> mean that "t" should remind us of the Arabic symbol that looks like a
> normal flat symbol with a nearly-horizontal slash across the vertical
> stroke. I quite agree.

Oh, well, it looks like half of something ;)

I was thinking it looks like a b with a bit rubbed out. Not the same bit
that gets rubbed out in any other notation, but it makes sense in and of
itself.

> Graham, is the standard Arabic half-sharp the same as the Tartini?
> Long vertical with two short horizontals?

Yes.

> > The glyphs used are mighty strange.
>
> I really like the systematic glyphs for
> FLAT UP
> FLAT DOWN
> NATURAL UP
> NATURAL DOWN
> SHARP UP
> SHARP DOWN

You do?

> Adding arrows to the tops and bottoms of the ordinary symbols is a
> great idea. The meaning is immediately obvious.

If you squint, or make the font sufficiently large. I can easily see
these being missed on a score.

> But their quarter-tone glyphs suck bigtime! I like the Arabic ones
> best so far. How sure are you that the ones in your book are standard
> over the Arabic world? If so, how come they didn't make it into
> UNICODE.

Not knowing any Arabic musicians, I can't say how common they are. Touma
says they are the standard way of writing Arabic scales in adapted staff
notation. But I don't have any other sources for that. It probably
depends on how often Arabic musicians choose to use adapted staff
notation.

As for the Unicode committee, I don't think they knew anything about it.
The brief was for Western notation. Whatever that might mean, it would
probably exclude Arabic. They did a good job of the character set in
general (at least to my uneducated eye), obviously consulted some music
publishers and early music specialists. But the fact Arabic music is so
rarely mentioned in general discussions of quarter tones shows there is a
cultural divide here. Also, Unicode is intended to allow characters to be
viewed differently in different fonts. A lot of arguments about Han
unification hinge on this point. So there's no need for an "Arabic
quarter tone flat" because the usual quarter tone flat will be rendered
correctly in an Arabic music font.

Obviously somebody must have had some idea about quarter tones and
comma(?) shifts for those characters to be included. But the glyphs
clearly weren't designed by tuning specialists. I reckon they must have
adapted the font from a score editor, or even a commercial font from a
company that had nothing to do with music. So somebody went down the
list, and came to the accidentals, and thought "sharp up????" So they
added the arrows, and botched the quarter tones, never having seen a
half-sharp in the wild...

I think the musical symbols are newly added to the standard, so perhaps
the example glyphs will improve in a later revision. That's one reason I
mentioned it here: if anybody thinks they could do better, they might be
right.

> > Unfortunately, this won't work for 72-equal. We need "quarter tone
> sharp
> > up" and the like.
>
> Indeed. Only I'd name them "SEMISHARP UP" and "SEMISHARP DOWN" and
> base them on the Arabic glyphs (although maybe the stroke on the
> semiflat could get confused with an arrow-head). And eventually we'd
> want "DOUBLE-UP" and "DOUBLE-DOWN" versions of all of these, with
> double headed arrows in place of single.

Yes, "SEMISHARP" or "HALF-SHARP" would have been better names than
"QUARTERTONE SHARP".

> Dream on.

You never know, all kinds of weird stuff gets in. And at least you still
get the arrows so you can get by until 72-equal takes over the world.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> Paul, another question for Julie: How do Sims and Maneri _say_
these
> accidentals?

That I know. It's "twelfth-sharp", "quarter-sharp", etc. (kind of
confusing because a plain sharp would be "half-sharp" by this
nomenclature).

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> Paul, another question for Julie (is that her name?) of the Boston
> Microtonal Society:
>
> Why didn't Sims use the standard Arabic glyphs or the Tartini
glyphs
> for quarter-tones?

I'm not going to ask her that, because it would be highly speculative
unless we asked Sims himself. Julie may know why he chose what he
chose, but to ask why he didn't choose what he didn't choose?
>
> But their quarter-tone glyphs suck bigtime! I like the Arabic ones
> best so far. How sure are you that the ones in your book are
standard
> over the Arabic world?

Sort of. For Egyptian orchestras and such, yes. But most Arabic music
is not a written tradition.

> If so, how come they didn't make it into
> UNICODE.

I think UNICODE is probably a Western phenomenon :)

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23629

>
> Another thing I like about my ASCII 72-EDO is the ease
> with which one may actually speak (meaning audible speech
> as well as writing) of these microtones. My suggested names,
> for example:
>
> C+ C-plus
> C> C-greater
> / C^ C-up
> \ C#v C-sharp-down
> C#< C-sharp-less
> C#- C-sharp-minus
> C# C-sharp
>
> This has a direction bearing on such matters as rehearsal.
> For example, if your clarinetist is playing a C- that's
> a little flat, you need to be able to *tell* him that!:
> "Play the C-minus in measure 5 a little sharper".
>
> I think this works a lot better than "C-semicolon" or
> "C-backslash" or whatever. And how do you say "|"?
>
> Mull this over for a while... you'll see what I mean.
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"

Monz...

Don't you think it would be easier to stick to the "generic" Sims in
such rehearsals... i.e.:

Please play the 1/6 tone flat a little sharper/flatter, please play
the 1/12 tone sharp a little sharper/flatter...

I think that would a bit more "general" and useful, no??

_________ ________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

On 5/23/01 4:51 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

>> | = 1/4 tone up
>> > = 1/6 tone up
>> ^ = 1/12 tone up
>> v = 1/12 tone down
>> < = 1/6 tone down
>> ; = 1/4 tone down
>>
>> since it's reminiscent of the Boston notation, and I'm in Boston
>> right now.
>
> That would be great. I have a "brilliant" idea :)
>
> Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then it
> won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!

Funny I was just thinking something like this
when I got up to this post;

As we progress deeper and deeper into microtonal notation,
it would be harder and harder to standardize, I'd think.

After a certain point, once you learn words, and spelling,
you develop your own sense of handwriting.
By the same token, I would think maybe microtonal notation
could be advanced with a bit of standardization,
and that after that point, it would have to be personal.

(I thought this far, as I was reading posts,
then this was the next post I saw.)

So at that point where notation becomes personal,
supplying a *legend* would become sort of an artist's signature.

With software like Finale, though,
anyone could effectively translate someone else's notation
into their own, by means of substituting a font,
or importing into a custom key signature
with its own unique custom accidental map.

Marc

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23698

>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23697
>
> > Well, it looks like Paul Erlich is now using those for the 1/12
> > tones, and I also like the idea of keeping close to the Boston.
> >
> > Poor Monzo!
>
>
> Bah, humbug! <grumble, grumble...>
>
> I can't believe how my troops deserted me...
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"

Come on, Monz'... it's just the LOGIC of a good idea....

You'll have to follow along. It's best to stay as close to the
established Sims notation as possible!

___________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23738

> On 5/23/01 4:51 PM, "jpehrson@r..." <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> >> | = 1/4 tone up
> >> > = 1/6 tone up
> >> ^ = 1/12 tone up
> >> v = 1/12 tone down
> >> < = 1/6 tone down
> >> ; = 1/4 tone down
> >>
> >> since it's reminiscent of the Boston notation, and I'm in Boston
> >> right now.
> >
> > That would be great. I have a "brilliant" idea :)
> >
> > Let's just always have a LEGEND with these notations, and then it
> > won't make a h** of a lot of difference!!!
>
> Funny I was just thinking something like this
> when I got up to this post;
>
> As we progress deeper and deeper into microtonal notation,
> it would be harder and harder to standardize, I'd think.
>
> After a certain point, once you learn words, and spelling,
> you develop your own sense of handwriting.
> By the same token, I would think maybe microtonal notation
> could be advanced with a bit of standardization,
> and that after that point, it would have to be personal.
>
> (I thought this far, as I was reading posts,
> then this was the next post I saw.)
>
> So at that point where notation becomes personal,
> supplying a *legend* would become sort of an artist's signature.
>

Marc... this is rather the "traditional" way of viewing xenharmonic
notation but, personally, I feel it is a mistake. This is why there
are SO MANY DIFFERENT notations in books on contemporary notation!

At some point a certain "standardization" has to take place, so the
creativity of the composer is in the MUSIC and not in his NOTATION...

That's a 1960's new music concept...

_________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> At some point a certain "standardization" has to take place, so the
> creativity of the composer is in the MUSIC and not in his
NOTATION...
>
> That's a 1960's new music concept...
>
The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover _all_
the possibilities will be something like cents. Even 4*72 = 288-tET,
which I've mentioned covers _most_ things, is going to be found
lacking somewhere. However, I'd feel more comfortable having players
trained in 72-tET playing compositions in 72-tET, so sticking with 72-
tET notation for 72-tET or 11-limit JI music makes some sense . . .

On 5/24/01 4:10 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> Marc... this is rather the "traditional" way of viewing xenharmonic
> notation but, personally, I feel it is a mistake. This is why there
> are SO MANY DIFFERENT notations in books on contemporary notation!
>
> At some point a certain "standardization" has to take place, so the
> creativity of the composer is in the MUSIC and not in his NOTATION...
>
> That's a 1960's new music concept...

I just thought of it and it's a tradition already.
Ahh I missed most of the 60s... *So much for that vision.*

That does make more sense, though...
that the creativity should be in the music. ::klunk::

But outside of that one book 20th Century Microtonal Notation,
I haven't seen any books on modern notation.
Looking up microtonality on library systems
usually doesn't turn up much.
Hadn't thought of looking from just the notation angle.

Recommend any authors or titles?

In a message dated 5/24/01 5:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover _all_
>

This is what I have been saying. So stop fiddling around already with
anything else unless you are going to use a "tuning-specific" notation. To
me it's like buying a computer...you get more memory than you think you need,
and more to add on later, because you do not want to limit yourself. A
notation, including a notation program, can impair, injure, or distort music
independently of the composer's imagination, and that is a no-no for me.

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/24/01 5:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover
_all_
> >
>
> This is what I have been saying. So stop fiddling around already
with
> anything else unless you are going to use a "tuning-specific"
notation.

All the "fiddling" that's been going on here lately, sir, has been
entirely specific to 72-tET. Ironically, perhaps, the photocopied
example of Sims' 72-tET notation that was put up had the melodic and
harmonic intervals indicated in cents!

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> Oh, well, ["t"] looks like half of something ;)
>
> I was thinking it looks like a b with a bit rubbed out. Not the
same bit
> that gets rubbed out in any other notation, but it makes sense in
and of
> itself.

Yes. I could get used to it. But here's another proposal for half-flat
and half-sharp that avoids using alphabetic characters. "&" and "$".
It's obvious which is which, isn't it? Consider the sequence.

Cb C& C C$ C#

The ampersand "&" looks a bit like a backwards flat, and if you squint
a bit harder you can even convince yourself that it looks a bit like
Sims' square-root sign (at least it has the flag at the top going to
the right). It's a fully connected character and doesn't look like
line noise.

The dollar sign "$" looks like a Tartini/Arabic half-sharp if you
ignore the fact that it has 3 crossings of the vertical rather than
two, and it looks like an "S" for "sharp" cut in half by a vertical
line. It isn't as ambiguous as the vertical bar "|".

> > I really like the systematic [UNICODE example] glyphs for
> > FLAT UP
> > FLAT DOWN
> > NATURAL UP
> > NATURAL DOWN
> > SHARP UP
> > SHARP DOWN
>
> You do?
>
> > Adding arrows to the tops and bottoms of the ordinary symbols is a
> > great idea. The meaning is immediately obvious.
>
> If you squint, or make the font sufficiently large. I can easily
see
> these being missed on a score.

Ah yes. I thought that too. I forgot to say that I would make their
arrow heads a lot bigger than in their example glyphs.

> So there's no need for an "Arabic
> quarter tone flat" because the usual quarter tone flat will be
rendered
> correctly in an Arabic music font.

Right, but I simply wondered why they didn't use them as the example
quartertone glyphs instead of inventing those silly new ones.

> So somebody went down
the
> list, and came to the accidentals, and thought "sharp up????" So
they
> added the arrows, and botched the quarter tones, never having seen a
> half-sharp in the wild...

Probably.

> I think the musical symbols are newly added to the standard, so
perhaps
> the example glyphs will improve in a later revision. That's one
reason I
> mentioned it here: if anybody thinks they could do better, they
might be
> right.

Good point.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > Paul, another question for Julie: How do Sims and Maneri _say_
> these
> > accidentals?
>
> That I know. It's "twelfth-sharp", "quarter-sharp", etc. (kind of
> confusing because a plain sharp would be "half-sharp" by this
> nomenclature).

Oh wow! That's incredibly dumb.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23743

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > At some point a certain "standardization" has to take place, so
the
> > creativity of the composer is in the MUSIC and not in his
> NOTATION...
> >
> > That's a 1960's new music concept...
> >
> The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover
_all_
> the possibilities will be something like cents. Even 4*72 = 288-
tET,
> which I've mentioned covers _most_ things, is going to be found
> lacking somewhere. However, I'd feel more comfortable having
players
> trained in 72-tET playing compositions in 72-tET, so sticking with
72-
> tET notation for 72-tET or 11-limit JI music makes some sense . . .

That makes "cents," Paul (bad and overused pun...)

Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that we can FIND an "uber-
notation" for EVERYTHING...

I was just opposed to the idea that composers would invent new
notations as part of their "creativity" if it was at all possible to
find SOME standardizations...

In my view, and I believe YOURS as well, notation is a PRACTICAL
means of conveying the sounds, not a "creative pursuit" in itself as
Marc Jones was implying, unless I just read his drift incorrectly...
which is possible.

__________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23745

> >
> > That's a 1960's new music concept...
>
> I just thought of it and it's a tradition already.
> Ahh I missed most of the 60s... *So much for that vision.*
>

Hi Marc!

Well, unfortunately, I *also* missed most of the 60s... but,
regrettably, for entirely different reasons (!!)

> That does make more sense, though...
> that the creativity should be in the music. ::klunk::
>
> But outside of that one book 20th Century Microtonal Notation,
> I haven't seen any books on modern notation.
> Looking up microtonality on library systems
> usually doesn't turn up much.
> Hadn't thought of looking from just the notation angle.
>
> Recommend any authors or titles?

There have been several, and I have some in my "library" at home
which I will cite for you later today.

There is, in fact, a rather costly one (I say it in Patelson's... I
think it was $50!) that consisted ONLY of microtonal notation, but
with my "Swiss cheeze" memory (not like Paul's!) can't recall who
wrote it.

The point, however, is that these books are dismaying.

Why?

Well, there are pages and pages of notations that describe the SAME
THINGS, and it's just that the composers choose to do the same things
in different ways.

Personally, I believe if ANYTHING will kill the xenharmonic movement
for traditional instrumentalists, this will do it!

Performers HATE to learn multiple notations to play the same kind of
music... Particularly if EACH COMPOSER has a different one!

Admittedly, Johnny Reinhard's intrepid band can shift from one
notation to another in a moment's notice... but they are exceptional.

My OWN hope is that we can take microtonality to GENERAL MUSICIANS,
and that, eventually EVERYBODY will be playing it... including ALL
the performers of conventional instruments!

For that, we need notations that are simple, consistent and about the
MUSIC not the visual creativity of the composer!

End of diatribe... End of tribal warpath!

__________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23747

>
> > The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover
_all_
> >
>
> This is what I have been saying. So stop fiddling around already
with
> anything else unless you are going to use a "tuning-specific"
notation.

Again, more "cents" from Johnny Reinhard... (I'm on a roll with that
really bad, overused, pun...)

That's a good idea... but, of course, as Johnny mentions, a "tuning-
specific" notation is, naturally, preferable for 72-tET since it's so
easy to learn. I feel, FOR THAT, it's much easier than "general
cents" notation since one only has to know 1/12 tone and 1/6 tone...
and people already know 12-tET and 1/4 tones, so that's it!

I think I'm "stuck" now in 12-tET for some time... or at least for
several upcoming pieces....

We'll see how I feel tomorrow. :)

_______ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23748

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 5/24/01 5:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > paul@s... writes:
> >
> >
> > > The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover
> _all_
> > >
> >
> > This is what I have been saying. So stop fiddling around already
> with
> > anything else unless you are going to use a "tuning-specific"
> notation.
>
> All the "fiddling" that's been going on here lately, sir, has been
> entirely specific to 72-tET. Ironically, perhaps, the photocopied
> example of Sims' 72-tET notation that was put up had the melodic
and harmonic intervals indicated in cents!

Yes, and, actually that runs through the entire book!!

So, that's a sure victory for Johnny's way...

Maybe we can think of 72-tET as a SPECIFIC generalized SUBSET of the
overall CENTS approach...

And, because only 1/12 tone 1/6 tone and 1/4 tone are needed, we no
longer HAVE to include the 33.3 cents indication, etc.. except in
training...but CENTS is used THERE too!

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23751

> Yes. I could get used to it. But here's another proposal for half-
flat and half-sharp that avoids using alphabetic characters. "&"
and "$".
> It's obvious which is which, isn't it? Consider the sequence.
>
> Cb C& C C$ C#
>
> The ampersand "&" looks a bit like a backwards flat,

Hi Dave!

I hate to be a "stick in the mud" or a "pain in the b**" or whatever
other kind of off-color metaphor we can come up with, but I REALLY am
having a problem of using an AMPERSAND "&" to mean going DOWN, flat,
rather than UP.

That's really "counterintuitive," isn't it?

If you "reversed" the symbols and used C& for up and C$ for down, I
could live with it, or get used to it.

But to ME... and I believe to YOU as a MATHEMATICIAN... "&" mean
ADDING something, no??

__________ ________ _______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23772

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_23583.html#23747
>
> >
> > > The only kind of "standardization" that's really going to cover
> _all_
> > >
> >
> > This is what I have been saying. So stop fiddling around already
> with
> > anything else unless you are going to use a "tuning-specific"
> notation.
>
> Again, more "cents" from Johnny Reinhard... (I'm on a roll with
that
> really bad, overused, pun...)
>
> That's a good idea... but, of course, as Johnny mentions, a "tuning-
> specific" notation is, naturally, preferable for 72-tET since it's
so
> easy to learn. I feel, FOR THAT, it's much easier than "general
> cents" notation since one only has to know 1/12 tone and 1/6
tone...
> and people already know 12-tET and 1/4 tones, so that's it!
>
> I think I'm "stuck" now in 12-tET for some time... or at least for
> several upcoming pieces....
>
> We'll see how I feel tomorrow. :)
>
> _______ _______ ________
> Joseph Pehrson

Whoops... as I glance at this horrified... I meant I'm stuck in 72-
tET for the time being!!

Talk about a Freudian slip!!!!

________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <9ek5bo+9v1f@eGroups.com>
Dave Keenan wrote:

> Yes. I could get used to it. But here's another proposal for half-flat
> and half-sharp that avoids using alphabetic characters. "&" and "$".
> It's obvious which is which, isn't it? Consider the sequence.
>
> Cb C& C C$ C#

The $ looks okay, I don't like &. How about d for a backwards b, seeing
as b is already a letter?

Following Manuel's post on the history of / and \ for comma shifts, I
think we should be using them. It'd then follow that ^ and v would be
double-commas, each being composed of a / and \ in some order (and then
shrunk a bit). Or more generally they could be meantone dieses -- any
small shift that's still larger than a comma. Then $ or + and t or d for
half sharps and flats in either enharmonic, quarter tone or 12*6
notation.

Well, that's all wrapped up, but seems to be at odds with what everybody
else is proposing.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> The $ looks okay, I don't like &. How about d for a backwards b,
> seeing as b is already a letter?

Yes. I see the problem with "&". Thanks for pointing that out Joseph.
Maybe "d" looks too much like "b", so I prefer "t" for half-flat (i.e.
quarter-tone flat), but not strongly. What do others think.

Cb Ct C C$ C#
or
Cb Cd C C$ C#
or
something else?

> Following Manuel's post on the history of / and \ for comma shifts,
> I think we should be using them.

I personally don't have a problem with slashes for comma up and down
(i.e. twelfth-tone sharp and flat). Maybe Joseph's main problem with
them was that he didn't want to see double or triple slashes? I can
certainly understand that. That could easily be arranged.

> It'd then follow that ^ and v would be
> double-commas, each being composed of a / and \ in some order (and
> then shrunk a bit).

That's logical enough, but the serious problem with using ^ and v for
super and sub (i.e. sixth-tone sharp and flat) is, as it always has
been, that Sims uses full arrows for comma (i.e. twelfth-tone) shifts.
So the way I see it, in our ASCIIfication of Sims, either we use ^ and
v for commas or we don't use them at all. But they so clearly indicate
the direction of pitch change (in contrast to \/<>t$) that it would be
a shame not to use them at all.

So it seems we're still stuck with Graham wanting to use ^ and v for
sixth-tones and Monz wanting to use them for quarter-tones and Sims
effectively using them for twelfth-tones. Sigh. I'd love to hear from
some lurkers on this issue.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23811

>
> > Following Manuel's post on the history of / and \ for comma
shifts, I think we should be using them.
>
> I personally don't have a problem with slashes for comma up and
down (i.e. twelfth-tone sharp and flat). Maybe Joseph's main problem
with them was that he didn't want to see double or triple slashes? I
can certainly understand that.

Yes, and the ascii notation should look as much like PERFORMANCE
notation as possible. In a "real" score that goes by in "real time,"
a performer can't always look carefully and count the number of
slashes... I think lots of mistakes would be made that way, and the
performers would also be irritated by that notation.

>
> That's logical enough, but the serious problem with using ^ and v
for
> super and sub (i.e. sixth-tone sharp and flat) is, as it always has
> been, that Sims uses full arrows for comma (i.e. twelfth-tone)
shifts.
> So the way I see it, in our ASCIIfication of Sims, either we use ^
and v for commas or we don't use them at all.

I, also, have come to the conclusion that ^ and v need to be used for
the commas, the Sims ARROWS...

As Paul say, they're the CLOSEST. I really think Monz is "outvoted"
on this one!

>
> So it seems we're still stuck with Graham wanting to use ^ and v
for sixth-tones and Monz wanting to use them for quarter-tones and
Sims effectively using them for twelfth-tones. Sigh. I'd love to hear
from some lurkers on this issue.
>

My vote is now with YOU and Paul, Dave: ^ and v for 1/12 tone...

_________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

On 5/25/01 10:02 AM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> That's really "counterintuitive," isn't it?
>
> If you "reversed" the symbols and used C& for up and C$ for down, I
> could live with it, or get used to it.
>
> But to ME... and I believe to YOU as a MATHEMATICIAN... "&" mean
> ADDING something, no??

I agree. At first sight, a note followed by an ampersand,
would seem to suggest adding something to what you have.

And conversely, as a MUSICIAN, intuitively,
"$" would mean subtracting something from what you have.

heh :)

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> I, also, have come to the conclusion that ^ and v need to be used for
> the commas, the Sims ARROWS...
>
> As Paul say, they're the CLOSEST. I really think Monz is "outvoted"
> on this one!

I'm *definitely* outvoted here! On that handwritten score, the half
arrows look closer to ^ and v than anything else on the page. Do other
folks really see it differently?

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23837

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
>
> I'm *definitely* outvoted here! On that handwritten score, the
half arrows look closer to ^ and v than anything else on the page.
Do other folks really see it differently?
>
>
> Graham

Graham, you "cracker!":

Of all the ascii characters, ^ and V look more like "arrowheads" than
anything else... There's nothing "half-arrowy" about them, in terms
of the HEAD!... and that's the significant part of the Sims' "half-
arrow." The "line" is no big deal... it's a line like any other
line!!

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

On Fri, 25 May 2001 21:58:43 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
wrote:

>--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
>> The $ looks okay, I don't like &. How about d for a backwards b,
>> seeing as b is already a letter?
>
>Yes. I see the problem with "&". Thanks for pointing that out Joseph.
>Maybe "d" looks too much like "b", so I prefer "t" for half-flat (i.e.
>quarter-tone flat), but not strongly. What do others think.
>
>Cb Ct C C$ C#
>or
>Cb Cd C C$ C#
>or
>something else?

I've been using "z" for the semisharp. It's got a diagonal stroke instead
of a vertical one, but it does have two horizontal strokes, and I think it
looks a little more like the usual semisharp symbol than "$".

Either "d" or "t" would be fine for the semiflat. "&" suggests a flat to
me, since a program I used back in the 80's used it for a flat accidental.
I used to use "h" for the semiflat in ASCII, but I'm leaning towards "d"
now.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Monz...
>
> Don't you think it would be easier to stick to the "generic"
> Sims in such rehearsals... i.e.:
>
> Please play the 1/6 tone flat a little sharper/flatter,
> please play the 1/12 tone sharp a little sharper/flatter...
>
> I think that would a bit more "general" and useful, no??
>
> _________ ________ _____
> Joseph Pehrson

Actually, Joe, Sims has a terminology which he uses:
"twelfth-low C", "twelfth-high C", "sixth-low C",
"sixth-high C", and "quarter-low C" and "quarter-high C",
etc.

I just like mine because it's simpler, one word instead of two.

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

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> No I'm not going to ask that you form a tuning-dental-notation
> group until you sort this thing out but...
>
> In your proposals, are a JI C major and minor chord
>
> C E- G
> C Eb+ G
>
> ? I don't know if this is what Sims or anybody else expects,
> but if I look at either Pythagorean or 12 (72), this is the way
> I would expect to get to these chords...

Hi Bob,

In my ASCII 72-EDO notation (the one no-one else wants to use
anymore), this is exactly how the JI major and minor triads
would appear. If the tuning is actually JI or this appears
in a JI analysis, I'd probably supplement the nominals and
accidentals with prime-factors and exponents.

My argument against Ben Johnston's notation is that it's
much simpler and totally consistent to always notate 5-limit
pitches with a + or - and 3-limit pitches with just the
nominals and sharps/flats.

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

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_23583.html#23741

> Come on, Monz'... it's just the LOGIC of a good idea....
>
> You'll have to follow along. It's best to stay as close to the
> established Sims notation as possible!
>
> ___________ _______ ______
> Joseph Pehrson

As far as I'm concerned, my notation is more logical and
the rest of you are just caving in because you think Sims
notation is so "established".

We'll see whether I "follow along"... chances are I do like
Partch and stay alone on the outside.

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