22 tet notation (again)

Hi Folks

The sub-zero temperatures have forced me into out of the cold workshop
and into the warm house. That means I'm looking at 22 tet again and I've
been charting out tetrad progressions up and down the neck in various
shapes with a view to making a few web-pages to share. I decided to
notate the shapes in the Fokker based notation thet Dave (Keenan) kindly
provided some time back, so I wrote out the note names and step numbers
on a 22 tet fretboard template : -

homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/

There are several on the list who are familiar with all the
ramifications of 22 tet notation. Does anyone really find it
satisfactory to have all the open strings of a standard tuned guitar
notated with an accidental? Secondly, is there any good reason as to why
I (we) shouldn't just shift everything back one step and have our
precious "C" notated as "C^" or whatever accidental we choose? Then we
have open strings without accidentals, including A, a good candidate for
440Hz.

It seems to me that there are so few people composing in 22 tet and
those I know of write for guitar so I can't see the "establishment"
coming down too heavily on us.

Comments welcome. I'm open minded on this.

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> The sub-zero temperatures have forced me into out of the cold
workshop
> and into the warm house. That means I'm looking at 22 tet again and
I've
> been charting out tetrad progressions up and down the neck in
various
> shapes with a view to making a few web-pages to share. I decided to
> notate the shapes in the Fokker based notation thet Dave (Keenan)
kindly
> provided some time back, so I wrote out the note names and step
numbers
> on a 22 tet fretboard template : -
>
> homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/

I don't see the template here. Is this the accurate URL?

> There are several on the list who are familiar with all the
> ramifications of 22 tet notation. Does anyone really find it
> satisfactory to have all the open strings of a standard tuned guitar
> notated with an accidental? Secondly, is there any good reason as
to why
> I (we) shouldn't just shift everything back one step and have our
> precious "C" notated as "C^" or whatever accidental we choose? Then
we
> have open strings without accidentals, including A, a good
candidate for
> 440Hz.

As long as the G-B interval is 8 degrees of 22-tET, and not 7, this
would probably be fine.

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I decided to
> notate the shapes in the Fokker based notation thet Dave (Keenan)
kindly
> provided some time back, so I wrote out the note names and step
numbers
> on a 22 tet fretboard template : -
>
> homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/

As Paul said, nothing here about 22-tET.

I'm hoping you're referring to the Rapoport-style notation which I
mistakenly atrributed to Fokker. I believe this is what Scala uses.

> Does anyone really find it
> satisfactory to have all the open strings of a standard tuned guitar
> notated with an accidental?

I don't.

> Secondly, is there any good reason as to
why
> I (we) shouldn't just shift everything back one step and have our
> precious "C" notated as "C^" or whatever accidental we choose? Then
we
> have open strings without accidentals, including A, a good candidate
for
> 440Hz.

I can't see a problem with this.

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > I decided to
> > notate the shapes in the Fokker based notation thet Dave (Keenan)
> kindly
> > provided some time back, so I wrote out the note names and step
> numbers
> > on a 22 tet fretboard template : -
> >
> > homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/
>
> As Paul said, nothing here about 22-tET.

I corrected the link on my next post.

> I'm hoping you're referring to the Rapoport-style notation which I
> mistakenly atrributed to Fokker. I believe this is what Scala uses.

Yes, that'll be the one. You gave me that one and Ben Johnson's, expressing a preference for the
former.

> > Does anyone really find it
> > satisfactory to have all the open strings of a standard tuned guitar
> > notated with an accidental?
>
> I don't.
>
> > Secondly, is there any good reason as to
> why
> > I (we) shouldn't just shift everything back one step and have our
> > precious "C" notated as "C^" or whatever accidental we choose? Then
> we
> > have open strings without accidentals, including A, a good candidate
> for
> > 440Hz.
>
> I can't see a problem with this.

Good, then if the "boffins" are happy, I'll get on with it. Thanks.

Kind Regards