yuck (was: Re: 27/26?)

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:00 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 27/26?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > (no disrepect intended towards Dave's labor or ideas
> > ... it's the original premise i don't like) ;-b
>
> I still don't see any semantic difference, so how do
> the premises differ?

i was using poetic license there, Gene. i didn't mean
"original premise" in the technical sense.

i just don't like Sim's symbols, that's really all there
is to it. i think the square-root-type signs are really
cumbersome and ugly.

i've always used up and down arrows for quarter-tones
(for about 20 years now) and for 33:32 (since 1994).
and they translate in ASCII into ^ and v .

so there's the law of inertia (again using poetic license
... sheesh, guess i need to be careful about then when
writing to you!) for that pair of symbols.

and for the 1/12-tones, i'd been using + and - for 81:80
since 1994 (based on Hauptmann/Helmholtz/Ellis/Eitz), and
that translated easily into 72edo too.

my "yuck" post was really intended to be humorous,
but i didn't want Dave to feel that i was disparaging
his effort, because i wasn't. in fact, if one accepts
the Sims notation, as Dave does, then his extensions
are quite logical and aesthetically about as pleasing
as they could be made given the originals he had to
work from. that's all i meant.

-monz

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

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

/tuning/topicId_34211.html#34211

>
> i just don't like Sim's symbols, that's really all there
> is to it. i think the square-root-type signs are really
> cumbersome and ugly.
>

****Well, one might say that, but the other side of the cent is that
those symbols, while "cumbersome" are *larger*, so there's a quick
visual progression for sight-reading the quarter-tones.

JP