notation vs. tuning

About a month ago, I had posted on the ASCII adaptation I made
of Dan Stearns's 144-ET notation, which itself was adapted from
Ezra Sims's 72-ET notation.

Paul Erlich had responded with a criticism of it because
it is 'inconsistent' [see 'consistency' in my tuning dictionary],
whereas 72-ET is consistent thru the 11-limit; thus 144-ET,
in his opinion, offered no improvement over 72-ET.

I replied several times arguing that a notation may often
prove to be useful even tho the tuning system upon which
it is based may be less useful, invoking also 24-ET (the common
quarter-tone system) as a useable notation.

Today I found on the web an essay by James Ingram, Stockhausen's
copyist for a number of years, called _The Notation of Time_.

http://home.t-online.de/home/j.ingram/tnt.htm

It contains the following statement:

[Ingram]
>
> Composers were, as always, concerned primarily with the
> effectiveness of the notation and secondarily with its logicality.

Which is precisely the point I was making.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]