"average" performer training

I have to admit, if I can get "average" performers to distinguish 16
cent intervals, as in the 1/12 tone up, downs of the Sims 72-tET
notation, I'm going to be pretty happy....

I mean, of course, ACCURATELY!

"Average" performers are, in my view anyway, distinct from Johnny
Reinhard and the AFMM's rather "superhuman" band. I wouldn't even
want to TRY to teach an average performer that kind of accuracy...

I guess I'm just not so enterprising... oh well.. I'll "settle" for
that...

______ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:05 PM
> Subject: [tuning] "average" performer training
>

> I have to admit, if I can get "average" performers to distinguish 16
> cent intervals, as in the 1/12 tone up, downs of the Sims 72-tET
> notation, I'm going to be pretty happy....

Or as in the 1/12-tone plusses and minuses of the Monzo 72-EDO notation!
:-p

(I don't give up easily...)

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] "average" performer training
>

> Or as in the 1/12-tone plusses and minuses of the Monzo 72-EDO notation!
> :-p

This reminded me of something I wanted to post last night.

Back around May 23, when Dave Keenan started the "ASCII-dental mess"
thread, I supported my choice of ^ and v for the 1/4-tones based
on the historical precedence of the up- and down-arrows for
1/4-tones in musical notation.

I also noted then that my preference for + and - for the
1/12-tone inflection comes from my recognition that in
72-EDO the 1/12-tone acts as the comma, and that my adaptation
of Ben Johnston's JI notation uses + and - for the syntonic comma.

What I failed to note anywhere in the discussion of Johnston's
notation (which actually stretches back to April) is that
Johnston uses up- and down- arrows to indicate the intonational
inflection of prime-factor 11.

I had stated in my posts that Johnston uses the prime number
itself, either right-side-up or inverted to show otonal or
utonal derivation respectively, for primes 7 and above, but
this is incorrect. The exception is 11, which uses arrows.

I believe, but am not sure, that Johnston chose to use arrows
for this inflection for the same reason I did: that it was
already well-established for 1/4-tones, which closely
approximate the 11-limit intervals.

I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In-Reply-To: <023001c0f004$f03f7580$4448620c@att.com>
monz wrote:

> I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
> too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.

If this discussion's going to flare up again, would it be worth setting up
a temporary Yahoo Group to hammer out the details. The remit could be
"standardized ASCII rendering of extensions of traditional notation".

Graham

> monz wrote:
>
> > I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
> > too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.
>
> If this discussion's going to flare up again, would it be worth setting up
> a temporary Yahoo Group to hammer out the details. The remit could be
> "standardized ASCII rendering of extensions of traditional notation".

I don't have anything else to say about it, so this is it from me.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On 6/8/01 7:09 AM, "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
>>> too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.
>>
>> If this discussion's going to flare up again, would it be worth setting up
>> a temporary Yahoo Group to hammer out the details. The remit could be
>> "standardized ASCII rendering of extensions of traditional notation".
>
>
> I don't have anything else to say about it, so this is it from me.

In all the times you guys have talked about it,
I've never seen this arrangement laid out horizontally.

v < - 0 + > ^

I like this actually. Caught my eye.
It makes a bit of visual sense.
Sort of feels like a swoop from left-down to up-right.

^
< - 0 + >
v

In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:25:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
joemonz@yahoo.com writes:

> I believe, but am not sure, that Johnston chose to use arrows
> for this inflection for the same reason I did: that it was
> already well-established for 1/4-tones, which closely
> approximate the 11-limit intervals.
>
>
> I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
> too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"
>

Yes that is exactly why he chose arrows for the 11 limit intervals. Another
reason why that choice was made is inversions. You can turn a 7 upside down
and it becomes L, which is the inversion of 7. However if you turn 11 upside
down you still have something that looks like 11, or at least very close if
you add little lines on top of your ones and then invert them. So it was
exactly as you said the arrow is well established for 1/4 tones and its also
more clear to invert an arrow and not as clear to invert an 11.

Cheers,

Andy

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

/tuning/topicId_24503.html#24517

>
> I really think you guys blew it by accepting Sims's notation
> too readily. I'm sticking with v < - 0 + > ^.
>

Frankly, Monz... *we* didn't... everybody *ELSE* seems to have!

Any more on this topic now on "Tuning Gossip..."

/tuning_gossip/messages

___________ ____________ ____
Joseph Pehrson

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:22:36 -0700, "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Back around May 23, when Dave Keenan started the "ASCII-dental mess"
>thread, I supported my choice of ^ and v for the 1/4-tones based
>on the historical precedence of the up- and down-arrows for
>1/4-tones in musical notation.

Arrows for quarter-tones seem to be a natural development. Just the other
day I was going through some of my old music stuff, and noticed that I was
using arrows attached to the standard accidentals for quarter-tones. This
came as a bit of a surprise, since I've recently been using them for steps
of 72-equal in conjunction with the Tartini/Fokker accidentals for the
quarter-tones. But since they're more commonly used for quarter-tones, I've
decided that it's better to avoid them.

Although I've pretty much settled on the Tartini/Fokker accidentals for the
semisharp and semiflat, I'm still experimenting with notations for the
other intervals. One requirement is that whatever symbols I use should be
useful in other tuning systems. I like the + and - for this reason, since
many tuning systems have an interval that can function as a comma. But it
would also be useful to have symbols for 1/6-tone intervals (especially in
Miracle tuning), and the half-arrows seem to be as good as anything else
for representing these intervals. (Single steps of 43- and 50-equal might
also be represented by the same symbols, since three steps add up to a
sharp or flat in those tuning systems.)

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24503.html#24596

> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:22:36 -0700, "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> >Back around May 23, when Dave Keenan started the "ASCII-dental
mess"
> >thread, I supported my choice of ^ and v for the 1/4-tones based
> >on the historical precedence of the up- and down-arrows for
> >1/4-tones in musical notation.
>
> Arrows for quarter-tones seem to be a natural development.

Oh oh.... thank you very much, Herman, for your "contribution" to
this thread... (by now I believe it is a smothering blanket), but I
believe any further elaborations to this should be on the Tuning
Gossip site, or there's going to be an insurrection here...

(In case you haven't been reading, this thread is "thread-bare!")

/tuning_gossip/messages

________ _________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 03:28:20 -0000, jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>Oh oh.... thank you very much, Herman, for your "contribution" to
>this thread... (by now I believe it is a smothering blanket), but I
>believe any further elaborations to this should be on the Tuning
>Gossip site, or there's going to be an insurrection here...
>
>(In case you haven't been reading, this thread is "thread-bare!")

It was bad timing. I only saw the suggestion to take the discussion to
another list after the message I replied to. I don't agree that discussions
of notation are at all inappropriate here, but it can wait for a better
time.

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24503.html#24693

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 03:28:20 -0000, jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> >Oh oh.... thank you very much, Herman, for your "contribution" to
> >this thread... (by now I believe it is a smothering blanket), but
I
> >believe any further elaborations to this should be on the Tuning
> >Gossip site, or there's going to be an insurrection here...
> >
> >(In case you haven't been reading, this thread is "thread-bare!")
>
> It was bad timing. I only saw the suggestion to take the discussion
to
> another list after the message I replied to. I don't agree that
discussions
> of notation are at all inappropriate here, but it can wait for a
better
> time.

Hello Herman...

Oh no! DEFINITELY discussions of notation belong here! It's just
that people got sick of this PARTICULAR one! Enjoyed the Pachelbel,
by the way....

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson