72-tET notation suggestion

I have a suggestion for 72-tET notation:

1/12 tone sharp: +17
1/6 tone sharp: +33
1/4 tone sharp: +50

etc. This notation is immediately recognizable for the equivalent
72-tET scale degree. And, it has the added (IMHO _huge_) advantage
that it is consistent with notation for music which does not wish to
be saddled with 72-tET's problems, problems which for many styles of
composition are absolutely prohibitive. It should be, if anything,
easier to learn than any given set of symbols (and MUCH easier than a
world of conflicting symbol sets) for musicians who have never been
exposed to anything other than 12-tET.

Acceptance of this notation would of course, make it unnecessary to
have ongoing heated debates about the proper meaning of '^' and other
interesting ASCII characters, which might cause a widespread sense of
lack of purpose among some people ( ;-> ), yet these trials could be
overcome, I believe.

(This is the "Reinhard" notation, cents deviation from 12-tET).

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_23999.html#23999

> I have a suggestion for 72-tET notation:
>
> 1/12 tone sharp: +17
> 1/6 tone sharp: +33
> 1/4 tone sharp: +50
>
> etc. This notation is immediately recognizable for the equivalent
> 72-tET scale degree. And, it has the added (IMHO _huge_) advantage
> that it is consistent with notation for music which does not wish to
> be saddled with 72-tET's problems, problems which for many styles
of
> composition are absolutely prohibitive. It should be, if anything,
> easier to learn than any given set of symbols (and MUCH easier than
a
> world of conflicting symbol sets) for musicians who have never been
> exposed to anything other than 12-tET.
>
> Acceptance of this notation would of course, make it unnecessary to
> have ongoing heated debates about the proper meaning of '^' and
other
> interesting ASCII characters, which might cause a widespread sense
of
> lack of purpose among some people ( ;-> ), yet these trials could
be
> overcome, I believe.
>
> (This is the "Reinhard" notation, cents deviation from 12-tET).
>
> JdL

This is nice, John... but it minimizes one of the main "virtues" of
the 72-tET system, as I see it.

Performers only have to learn three things, 1/12 tone, 1/6 tone and,
they already know 1/4 tones... at least many of them do.

Adding cents adds to the complexity...

Sure, in some scores probably necessary, or OK, but I just wanted to
make the point about going against the inherent simplicity of 72-
tET...
______ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson