Re: Notating ETs with 72 and 144 notation

Hi Joe,

As far as notation goes, I pretty much agree. My idea would be to
first take halftones to eigthtones, so C to Db, a first to a minor
second, would become:

first
supra first
mean first/mean minor second
infra minor second
minor second

The names I'm using (Fokker's for the most part) are not particularly
well thought out at the moment, so they're more or less just there to
illustrate the basic premise. From eigthtones I'd go all the way to
the 144-tet, twenty-fourth tones by augmenting the supra, infra and
mean families:

first
wide first
narrow supra first
supra first
wide supra first
narrow mean first
mean first/mean minor second
wide mean minor second
narrow infra minor second
infra minor second
wide infra minor second
narrow minor second
minor second

Of course this leads to situations like calling the just 5/4 something
like a "wide infra major third", and that sort of thing will always
seem backwards and several other ways amiss to microtonalist... and
therein lies the dilemma!

Joe, you might be interested in the idea of composing for traditional
instruments in some exotic ETs that you've not yet explored using
either the 72 or 144 notation as a template. There's many, many
interesting possibilities in this regard.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Notating ETs with one comma per prime

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34071.html#34379
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Musically, I see no problems whatsoever with wild fifths. Roughly
> > anything within the 650-750 cent range I could call a workable
fifth
> > in a piece of music written to accommodate it--they work just fine
> for
> > me with normal timbres as well.
> >
> > What I'm interested in notation wise is a kind of master note
naming
> > grid, most likely based on 72-tet but 144-tet seems a better
> candidate
> > to me, where there are families of fifths, but only certain ones
> > falling within a given range would be "perfect fifths". The only
> > question I really have is whether to base the basic unadorned
> > intervals on a just or a 12-tet scheme...
> >
> >
> > take care,
> >
> > --Dan Stearns
> >
>
> ****Personally, I think this "elaboration" of 72-tET into 144-tET is
> a *wonderful* idea!
>
> I'm hoping, though, just for "consistency" if the notation is to be
> performed with our past traditions, the basis is 12-tET...
>
> J. Pehrosn
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
> Monitoring Service trial
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34413

> Joe, you might be interested in the idea of composing for
traditional instruments in some exotic ETs that you've not yet
explored using
> either the 72 or 144 notation as a template. There's many, many
> interesting possibilities in this regard.
>
>
> take care,
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

***Hi Dan...

Yes, I think this could work. Once the performers have a good grasp
of 72-tET which is, indeed, a pretty easy notation for them, *many*
new worlds are possible.

I would like to go on record supporting this *far* over the idea of
changing our basic 12-tET notation, developing alternate staves, or
such like. This would be the *death* of xenharmonic music, trust me!

We have to use and elaborate on *what we already have* if this music
is to move into the "mainstream" where it belongs!

(Of course, I have no objections to exotic notations for analytical
purposes...that's just great... only to give to real, living
(hopefully) performers...)

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> This would be the *death* of xenharmonic music, trust me!

The death of xenharmonic music has been greatly exagerated. After
all, Joe, it's come this far without a centralized notation; if one
isn't developed, it won't die, it just may not become:

> into the "mainstream" where it belongs!

...which is not the only reason for x-music to exist. But your goals
are well-intentioned, and if indeed some notation can be had that
will ensure good interface with those familiar with 12tet as well as
allow ample tunings to be explored, we have nowhere to go but up and
out...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Yes, I think this could work. Once the performers have a good grasp
> of 72-tET which is, indeed, a pretty easy notation for them, *many*
> new worlds are possible.
>
> I would like to go on record supporting this *far* over the idea of
> changing our basic 12-tET notation, developing alternate staves, or
> such like. This would be the *death* of xenharmonic music, trust
me!
>
> We have to use and elaborate on *what we already have* if this music
> is to move into the "mainstream" where it belongs!
>
> (Of course, I have no objections to exotic notations for analytical
> purposes...that's just great... only to give to real, living
> (hopefully) performers...)

Hmm. We seen both 6x12-tET-based and chain-of-best-fifths-based
notations for 22-tET and the worlds foremost performer of 22-tET
music refuses to comment. How are we supposed to make any progress.
Perhaps Alison Monteith or some other 22-tETter would care to comment?

The 6x12-tET based notation for 22-tET requires 6 new accidentals
where the chain-of-best-fifths-based notation requires only 2. Here
they are again

C C] C#^ D< D^ Eb< Eb> Ev E> Fv F[ F# G[ G^ G#< G#^ A< A> Bbv Bb> Bv
C[ C

C C^ C#v Dv D D^ Eb^ Ev E F F^ F#v Gv G G^ G#v Av A A^ Bb^ Bv B C

In the 6x12-tET notation the accidentals do _not_ represent fixed
deviations from 12-tET. In the other notation they do at least
represent fixed deviations from the other notes in the tuning.

I think its clear that on a fixed-pitch instrument the latter is to be
preferred, while on a continuous pitch instrument itmay be debatable.
If open strings are tuned to the fifths or fourths of the tuning,
instead of 12-tET fifths, as would seem an obvious thing to do, then I
think the latter notation is to be preferred there too. Only with
something like the trombone could I imagine a performer preferring the
former notation.

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

Hmm. We seen both 6x12-tET-based and chain-of-best-fifths-based

> notations for 22-tET and the worlds foremost performer of 22-tET
> music refuses to comment. How are we supposed to make any progress.
> Perhaps Alison Monteith or some other 22-tETter would care to comment?

I haven't been following this thread as I'm short on time and theoretical nouse. For what it's
worth I use the notation that you, Dave K. recommended. See below for how I score it out. I like
the up and down arrows through the noteheads. Saves clutter.

http://homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/22notation.jpg

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> dkeenanuqnetau wrote:
>
> Hmm. We seen both 6x12-tET-based and chain-of-best-fifths-based
>
> > notations for 22-tET and the worlds foremost performer of 22-tET
> > music refuses to comment. How are we supposed to make any
progress.
> > Perhaps Alison Monteith or some other 22-tETter would care to
comment?
>
> I haven't been following this thread as I'm short on time and
theoretical nouse. For what it's
> worth I use the notation that you, Dave K. recommended. See below
for how I score it out. I like
> the up and down arrows through the noteheads. Saves clutter.
>
> http://homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/22notation.jpg
>
> Kind Regards

I could not help but notice two important considerations in your
reply:

1) The up and down arrows (actually sloping lines) to indicate
direction of pitch alteration; and

2) Eliminating clutter.

How do you keep those sloping lines from getting lost when you notate
chords?

May I point out how the sagittal notation accomplishes both of these
objectives very simply and elegantly in 22:

/tuning/files/secor/notation/22vsJI.bmp

while at the same time maintaining a notational link with 72-EDO.

--George

gdsecor wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't been following this thread as I'm short on time and
> theoretical nouse. For what it's
> > worth I use the notation that you, Dave K. recommended. See below
> for how I score it out. I like
> > the up and down arrows through the noteheads. Saves clutter.
> >
> > http://homepages.which.net/~alison.monteith3/22notation.jpg
> >
> > Kind Regards
>
> I could not help but notice two important considerations in your
> reply:
>
> 1) The up and down arrows (actually sloping lines) to indicate
> direction of pitch alteration; and
>
> 2) Eliminating clutter.
>
> How do you keep those sloping lines from getting lost when you notate
> chords?
>
> May I point out how the sagittal notation accomplishes both of these
> objectives very simply and elegantly in 22:
>
> /tuning/files/secor/notation/22vsJI.bmp
>
> while at the same time maintaining a notational link with 72-EDO.
>
> --George

Using Sibelius I can make the staff and noteheads big enough to be clearly seen. I'm currently
writing some web pages on 22 tet guitar which will have some notated chords and which will I hope
will illustrate the relative clarity of the notation.

Unfortunately I can't get access to your notation because of my Netscape browser needs some
plug-in and if I use Microsoft I'm asked for IDs and passports which I've forgotten. I'll try
later because i should be looking at all the options.

I'm in the depths of a Blackjack composition for my own instruments and high voices. I'm scoring
by hand as I go, using the C-G-D-A notational system. I find that chord notation is very messy by
hand, particularly with notes that have sharps (or flats) and > or < type arrows, and especially
with hexany triads where you often have notes close together on the staff. Sibelius allows me to
control this clutter with the different noteheads it offers.

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34698
> I'm in the depths of a Blackjack composition for my own instruments
and high voices. I'm scoring
> by hand as I go, using the C-G-D-A notational system. I find that
chord notation is very messy by
> hand, particularly with notes that have sharps (or flats) and > or
< type arrows, and especially
> with hexany triads where you often have notes close together on the
staff. Sibelius allows me to
> control this clutter with the different noteheads it offers.
>
> Kind Regards

***Hi Allison!

Did you make your *own* Sims 72-tET accidentals for Blackjack in
Sibelius or use the ones that Ted Mook provides... just curious.

How does Sibelius work for Blackjack??

Thanks!

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I'm in the depths of a Blackjack composition for my own instruments
and high voices. I'm scoring
> by hand as I go, using the C-G-D-A notational system. I find that
chord notation is very messy by
> hand, particularly with notes that have sharps (or flats) and > or <
type arrows, and especially
> with hexany triads where you often have notes close together on the
staff. Sibelius allows me to
> control this clutter with the different noteheads it offers.

Alison,

This is very odd. In the standard CGDA key (and in the GDAE key) there
are _no_ notes that have both a sharp or flat _and_ a sixth-tone
symbol. In fact _every_ sharp has a twelfth-down symbol with it and
_every_ flat has a twelfth-up symbol with it.

G G#v Ab^ A A> Bb^ B[ Bv C< C C#v Db^ D D> Eb^ E[ E> F< F] F#v G< G

I'm surprised that there's any problem if you're using Sims glyphs
like those in Ted Mook's font, where multiple symbols are available in
a single glyph.
https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html

Although George Secor uses different symbols, the same kind of
integration exists between my 72-tET and 22-tET notations as exists in
his. Here's 22-TET.

G G^ G#v Av A A^ Bb^ Bv B C C^ C#v Dv D D^ Eb^ Ev E F F^ F#v Gv G

In both George's and my notations there is a single symbol that means
the same thing in both 22-tET and 72-tET, namely the syntonic comma.
This doesn't mean that it represents 21.5 cents in both ETs, or that
Bv is the same pitch in both, but that, for example, G:Bv:D is a major
triad and G:Bb^:D is a minor triad in both.

You can also read the syntonic comma symbols v^ as 1-step symbols. In
some ETs the syntonic comma vanishes and in others it is irrelevant
because the ET is so bad at ratios of 5. Of the remaining ones less
than 72-tET, practically all of them represent the syntonic comma in 1
step.

In 22-tET the septimal comma <> vanishes and the 11-comma (32:33) []
is the same number of steps as the syntonic comma.

jpehrson2 wrote:

>
>
> ***Hi Allison!
>
> Did you make your *own* Sims 72-tET accidentals for Blackjack in
> Sibelius or use the ones that Ted Mook provides... just curious.
>
> How does Sibelius work for Blackjack??
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joe Pehrson

Sibelius gives you a choice of 8 or so noteheads and I think you can programme your own. So I use
up and down slashes through the noteheads for ^ and v and have several others to choose from for <
, > and [ , ]. It's very much my own system for my own convenience and I'm happy with it. Scoring
by hand, the first stage, is just the usual mess and clutter till I get to the computer.

Regards

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > I'm in the depths of a Blackjack composition for my own instruments
> and high voices. I'm scoring
> > by hand as I go, using the C-G-D-A notational system. I find that
> chord notation is very messy by
> > hand, particularly with notes that have sharps (or flats) and > or <
> type arrows, and especially
> > with hexany triads where you often have notes close together on the
> staff. Sibelius allows me to
> > control this clutter with the different noteheads it offers.
>
> Alison,
>
> This is very odd. In the standard CGDA key (and in the GDAE key) there
> are _no_ notes that have both a sharp or flat _and_ a sixth-tone
> symbol. In fact _every_ sharp has a twelfth-down symbol with it and
> _every_ flat has a twelfth-up symbol with it.

Yes, I'm spraffing again. I mean notes that have a combination of sharps/flats and ^ or v

>
>
> G G#v Ab^ A A> Bb^ B[ Bv C< C C#v Db^ D D> Eb^ E[ E> F< F] F#v G< G
>
> I'm surprised that there's any problem if you're using Sims glyphs
> like those in Ted Mook's font, where multiple symbols are available in
> a single glyph.
> https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html

I looked at this. It's a great resource but still has two symbols (if you need a sharp/flat plus
one other symbol) next to the note. Sibelius lets me use the notehead for the ^ and v which means
less clutter.

>

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34766

>
>
> jpehrson2 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ***Hi Allison!
> >
> > Did you make your *own* Sims 72-tET accidentals for Blackjack in
> > Sibelius or use the ones that Ted Mook provides... just curious.
> >
> > How does Sibelius work for Blackjack??
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joe Pehrson
>
> Sibelius gives you a choice of 8 or so noteheads and I think you
can programme your own. So I use
> up and down slashes through the noteheads for ^ and v and have
several others to choose from for <
> , > and [ , ]. It's very much my own system for my own convenience
and I'm happy with it. Scoring
> by hand, the first stage, is just the usual mess and clutter till I
get to the computer.
>
> Regards

***Hi Allison!

Well, that obviously is working for you, but I was wondering if it
was possible to use the actual Sims glyphs in Sibelius. That's what
I use in SCORE, the system I'm still using.

A friend of mine told me that Sibelius accepts all PostScript fonts,
so I would guess that the Ted Mook 72-tET fonts would work.

I was rather hoping you tried that... :) But, I see you have your
own way.

Thanks for the info!

jp

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34768

> > I'm surprised that there's any problem if you're using Sims glyphs
> > like those in Ted Mook's font, where multiple symbols are
available in
> > a single glyph.
> > https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
>
> I looked at this. It's a great resource but still has two symbols
(if you need a sharp/flat plus
> one other symbol) next to the note. Sibelius lets me use the
notehead for the ^ and v which means
> less clutter.
>
> >
>
> Kind Regards

****Hi Allison.

Well, yes, but it is, of course, a "proprietary" system. Last night
I happened to be talking to a (mostly) jazz trombonist who is
interested in microtonality but hasn't thought too much about
the "codification" of it.

As it turns out, he's played with Joe Maneri and had heard of the 72-
tET system and symbols.

He was *particularly* intrigued when he learned the system *I* was
using was *exactly* the same as the system Sims/Maneri were using.

In *this* case, the fact that I am adhering "to the letter" to an
established system will possibly gain me a performance...

best,

jp

jpehrson2 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34413.html#34768
>
> > > I'm surprised that there's any problem if you're using Sims glyphs
> > > like those in Ted Mook's font, where multiple symbols are
> available in
> > > a single glyph.
> > > https://www.mindeartheart.org/micro.html
> >
> > I looked at this. It's a great resource but still has two symbols
> (if you need a sharp/flat plus
> > one other symbol) next to the note. Sibelius lets me use the
> notehead for the ^ and v which means
> > less clutter.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Kind Regards
>
> ****Hi Allison.
>
> Well, yes, but it is, of course, a "proprietary" system. Last night
> I happened to be talking to a (mostly) jazz trombonist who is
> interested in microtonality but hasn't thought too much about
> the "codification" of it.
>
> As it turns out, he's played with Joe Maneri and had heard of the 72-
> tET system and symbols.
>
> He was *particularly* intrigued when he learned the system *I* was
> using was *exactly* the same as the system Sims/Maneri were using.
>
> In *this* case, the fact that I am adhering "to the letter" to an
> established system will possibly gain me a performance...
>
> best,
>
> jp

I envy your easy access to open minded musicians. Most trombonists round here think Boston is
where you have tea parties and they wouldn't know a microtone if it landed on their head. I took
your advice and dropped the Micro font into Sibelius. I'll figure out how to access the font
later.

BTW your Blackjack music is groundbreaking and inspiring. I'm doing my bit for the 'cause' : - )
but my work will be played on my own instruments and that will take time. I'm nonetheless tempted
to score out for conventional strings and wind and throw the score at Nigel Osborne up in
Edinburgh who I think has some clout in a contemporary music forum.

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34830

>
> I envy your easy access to open minded musicians. Most trombonists
round here think Boston is where you have tea parties and they
wouldn't know a microtone if it landed on their head. I took
> your advice and dropped the Micro font into Sibelius. I'll figure
out how to access the font later.

***How did you do this, Allison? I have the *Sibelius* demo up and
running, and I'm finding that customized symbols are *very* difficult
to add, and there is no provision, as in SCORE to *draw* ones own
symbols...

This is a problem, and I certainly don't want to purchase Sibelius
until I know that it can do these special features that I need.

SCORE, of course, is behind the curve, still being in DOS (!) but
virtually *ANYTHING* can be modified on it. It's incredible.

More on *Sibelius* probably should be over at MakeMicroMusic, if it
goes on too long...

>
> BTW your Blackjack music is groundbreaking and inspiring. I'm doing
my bit for the 'cause' : - )

***Thanks so much for your nice comments.

> but my work will be played on my own instruments and that will take
time. I'm nonetheless tempted to score out for conventional strings
and wind and throw the score at Nigel Osborne up in Edinburgh who I
think has some clout in a contemporary music forum.
>

****There is *so* much to do with Blackjack, it's incredible.

Thanks for the comments!

JP

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34830

I'm nonetheless tempted
> to score out for conventional strings and wind and throw the score
at Nigel Osborne up in Edinburgh who I think has some clout in a
contemporary music forum.
>
> Kind Regards

***Oh, sorry, Alison. I meant to say, good luck with that!!!

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34413.html#34842

>
>
> ***How did you do this, Allison? I have the *Sibelius* demo up and
> running, and I'm finding that customized symbols are *very*
difficult to add, and there is no provision, as in SCORE to *draw*
ones own symbols...
>

Hi Alison (and others):

Well the problem with installing Ted Mook's font in my Windows system
is that I wasn't using "Adobe Type Manager Lite 4.1" a *free* utility
that's up on the Web.

That makes PostScript fonts usable for Windows and the Mac as well.
Probably you knew this; but *I* didn't. I'm lucky to have a friend
who's one of the premier professional music engravers in New York.

Now it's working like a charm, and the Mook symbols are brought into
Sibelius as TEXT items, *not* symbols.

That's the scoop. More probably should go on MakeMicroMusic,
although we've discussed *notation* a lot on *this* forum.

best,

JP

jpehrson2 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34413.html#34830
>
> >
> > I envy your easy access to open minded musicians. Most trombonists
> round here think Boston is where you have tea parties and they
> wouldn't know a microtone if it landed on their head. I took
> > your advice and dropped the Micro font into Sibelius. I'll figure
> out how to access the font later.
>
> ***How did you do this, Allison? I have the *Sibelius* demo up and
> running, and I'm finding that customized symbols are *very* difficult
> to add, and there is no provision, as in SCORE to *draw* ones own
> symbols...
>
> This is a problem, and I certainly don't want to purchase Sibelius
> until I know that it can do these special features that I need.

I dropped the Micro Postscript font into the Postscript Fonts Sub-Folder in the "Extras" Folder.
It has the same icon as the others so I figure I just have to scratch around to get it active.
(sorry that's not much help - I've not had the time recently). Pages 272ff of the manual tell me
that I can change music fonts using the Create-Symbols-Music Fonts menu.

>
> SCORE, of course, is behind the curve, still being in DOS (!) but
> virtually *ANYTHING* can be modified on it. It's incredible.
>
> More on *Sibelius* probably should be over at MakeMicroMusic, if it
> goes on too long...

When I come up with the solution I'll post to MMM.

> >
> > BTW your Blackjack music is groundbreaking and inspiring. I'm doing
> my bit for the 'cause' : - )
>
> ***Thanks so much for your nice comments.
>
> > but my work will be played on my own instruments and that will take
> time. I'm nonetheless tempted to score out for conventional strings
> and wind and throw the score at Nigel Osborne up in Edinburgh who I
> think has some clout in a contemporary music forum.
> >
>
> ****There is *so* much to do with Blackjack, it's incredible.
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> JP

You're very welcome

Kind Regards