Re: 72-EDO Saggital Notation

Hello, there, everyone, and I'd like to say a bit more about George
Secor's most impressive 72-EDO notation, and about some of the issues
regarding "standards" in our community.

First, George, I'd like not only to affirm everything that you've
quoted from my letters, but to add that I consider your saggital
system one of the most ingenious and artful innovations in musical
notation over the last 450 years at least.

Since "implementation is the best flattery," to borrow a computer-age
variant of a time-honored adage, I would like happily to announce my
own policy. So far, I have not used any 72-EDO notation on this group,
because I have not been involved with 72-EDO; for 24-of-36-EDO, I have
used a simple notation with a single extra symbol to show the raising
of a note by a 1/6-tone. Thus so far I have been "neutral" in the
72-EDO notation debate.

What I would like to do at any appropriate point is to learn and use
your ASCII equivalents of the saggital notation in this forum as my
72-EDO notation of choice, both to demonstrate it, and to discuss some
practical issues regarding the "translation" of music originally
conceived in neo-medieval styles and tuning systems into 72-EDO.

Of course, as my quoted remarks should suggest, this notation very
beautifully builds on tradition -- from Tartini/Cooper to Bosanquet --
while achieving a unified and attractive visual appearance which "puts
it all together." An ASCII representation can only suggest part of
this overall beauty, but it is in its own way a very practical
solution for text-based dialogue in a forum like this one.

Please, Joe Pehrson, let me respond very respectfully to the issues
you raise. First, I must admit that I am something of a creature of
tradition myself, at least if the tradition doesn't conflict with my
musical intent. Thus my 31-(N)EDO notation for a meantone cycle is
mostly based on Vicentino's of 1555: it's simple, and practical.

However, I would not exclude the possibility of improvements, or even
simply of new approaches which some people might prefer: for example,
those of Colonna, Tartini/Cooper, and Fokker.

One could argue that a new notation in an area where a practical
system is already in use should be asked to overcome a certain
presumption in favor of that system: the new alternative should be
good enough not only to serve the purposes for which it is designed at
least equally well, but to justify the possible inconvenience of
changing from the old system to the new, or of sometimes "translating"
between them.

In my opinion, George, your system meets that burden, and does it both
amply and in style. The loving care you have put into this saggital
notation, your patience in refining it step by step for conceptual
elegance and readability, are reflected in the version you now have to
offer. I have been deeply honored to have played some small role in
this process, one that makes me all the more appreciative of the
creativity and disciplined imagination you have brought to this
effort.

As a result, our community has a compelling new alternative for
notating 72-EDO, and promoting communication about many fine points of
intonation and musical structure.

Of course, time is the best test of any notation, and I urge that we
all give George Secor's masterful solution a fair and open seeing --
and hearing -- and from there make our own critical judgements.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

Anyone!
Where is this notation, i couldn't find it!

"M. Schulter" wrote:

> Hello, there, everyone, and I'd like to say a bit more about George
> Secor's most impressive 72-EDO notation, and about some of the issues
> regarding "standards" in our community.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32692.html#32694

> Anyone!
> Where is this notation, i couldn't find it!
>
> "M. Schulter" wrote:
>
> > Hello, there, everyone, and I'd like to say a bit more about
George
> > Secor's most impressive 72-EDO notation, and about some of the
issues
> > regarding "standards" in our community.
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com

Ummm... we're still waiting for it. The curtain rises... drum
roll... :)

JP
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32692.html#32692

> Please, Joe Pehrson, let me respond very respectfully to the issues
> you raise. First, I must admit that I am something of a creature of
> tradition myself, at least if the tradition doesn't conflict with my
> musical intent. Thus my 31-(N)EDO notation for a meantone cycle is
> mostly based on Vicentino's of 1555: it's simple, and practical.
>
> However, I would not exclude the possibility of improvements, or
even simply of new approaches which some people might prefer: for
example, those of Colonna, Tartini/Cooper, and Fokker.
>

Hello Margo!

It is true that I'm getting nervous about the appearance of this new
72-tET system, and I haven't even seen it yet. I'm only concerned,
of course, about the establishment of performance practice having
sight-sung through all the examples in Joe Maneri's book... (those
doubting Thomases here, you're right... I didn't do that yet)

However, I will try to keep a very open mind and will thoroughly
reserve judgement... although I won't be using the new system... :)

Bring it on, bros! The suspense is killing me...

J. Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0201141349310.10970-100000@veenet.value.net>
Margo wrote:

> In my opinion, George, your system meets that burden, and does it both
> amply and in style. The loving care you have put into this saggital
> notation, your patience in refining it step by step for conceptual
> elegance and readability, are reflected in the version you now have to
> offer. I have been deeply honored to have played some small role in
> this process, one that makes me all the more appreciative of the
> creativity and disciplined imagination you have brought to this
> effort.

The suspension's killing me! When do the rest of us get to see it?

Graham

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

/tuning/topicId_32692.html#32728

> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0201141349310.10970-100000@v...>
> Margo wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, George, your system meets that burden, and does it
both
> > amply and in style. The loving care you have put into this
saggital
> > notation, your patience in refining it step by step for conceptual
> > elegance and readability, are reflected in the version you now
have to
> > offer. I have been deeply honored to have played some small role
in
> > this process, one that makes me all the more appreciative of the
> > creativity and disciplined imagination you have brought to this
> > effort.
>
> The suspension's killing me! When do the rest of us get to see it?
>
>
> Graham

See... a "suspension" implies "resolution..." That's why a different
name has to come up for the ASSes. In fact, Paul Erlich was
reminding me that they can be quite consonant... I need to listen to
them again. But "suspension" in music is not like a
*chemical* "suspension" or anything of the kind. It's a dissonance
that needs to be resolved...

JP