A single notation system for any tuning

Hi Members

I found this great web site which involved a research project that
involved searching for the best notation system.

One of the many critera for searching for the best notation system
(that interested me) was that the notation sytem should be adaptable
to a variety of microtonal systems.

Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm

Also, the following additional links on the above mentioned web page
are a good read.
Searching for the Ideal Music Notation
The Case Against Traditional Notation
Samples of Different Notations

Question please,

Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?

And now for the big question? Are there any available software
programs which support alternate notation systems?

Thanks
Wally

--- In tuning@y..., "electricwally77" <earth7@o...> wrote:
> Hi Members
>
> I found this great web site which involved a research project that
> involved searching for the best notation system.
>
> One of the many critera for searching for the best notation system
> (that interested me) was that the notation sytem should be
adaptable
> to a variety of microtonal systems.
>
> Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm

wow -- it shocks me that erv wilson's unequally-spaced-staff notation
system had been left out. honestly, he make all these folks seem like
schoolchildren ;)

> Also, the following additional links on the above mentioned web
page
> are a good read.
> Searching for the Ideal Music Notation
> The Case Against Traditional Notation
> Samples of Different Notations
>
> Question please,
>
> Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?

not the list as a whole, no. george secor and dave keenan (on the
tuning-math list) have developed just such a notation system, but
it's backward-compatible with existing 12-equal, meantone, and
pythagorean notation, i.e., the body of notated western music, unlike
the notation systems in the link above or erv's unequally-spaced-
staff system. johnny reinhard recommends 12-equal notation with cents
deviations therefrom indicated on the score (that is, +18, -26, etc.,
written above the notehead).

> And now for the big question? Are there any available software
> programs which support alternate notation systems?

SCALA does, but i'm not sure the extent you can draft scores with it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "electricwally77" <earth7@optonline.net>

> Question please,
>
> Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?
>
> And now for the big question? Are there any available software
> programs which support alternate notation systems?

This has been discussed so much on this list,
you should check out the archives for the notation
and scoring discussion.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

In a message dated 11/19/02 8:56:05 AM Central Standard Time,
earth7@optonline.net writes:

> Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?
>
> Wally
>
Wally,

I checked out the various notations invented in the website you gave. I
didn't see any as being any easier to read nor any better than what we
already have. Multi-part vocal scores requre staves to be separated so words
can be put between. Orchestral/band socres requrie the same for the various
intsrruments.

The present notation system is as well established wordwide as the 12-note
keyboard. The thing to do is to work with these systems with slight
midifications rather than something different.

The notation I use fro my JT organ is the same as the traditional, with 0 and
7 added above, below, or to the left of notes when a split digital is used.

Where 0 = the 12-ET note series, and 7 = a harmonic minor 7th.

The same score played on non-keyboard instruments or sung requires adding
- and - 7 to the score.

Where - = the just major 3rd series worth 386 cents, whether just or
slightly tempered, and -7 = a harmonic minor 7th for the 386 notes.

Thus my JI/JT notation is the simplest I know of!

If a more complex notation is wanted, such as for the 11th or 13th harmonics,
just add the harmonic #s to the respective score notes.

In this regard, the 13th harmonic wirth 841 cents is A rather than Ab (as
listed in Helmholtz). Ab is 807 (harmonic), 814 (via the 13th harmonic 841+
969 + 702 + 702), or 816 (from the F#/Gb 5th series from C 0) cents.

If uncommon cents values beyond usual tempering are wanted, just add the
cents #s to the respective score notes.

Sincerely,
Pauline W. Phillips, Moderator, <A HREF="/JohannusOrgansSchool ">Johannus Organs eSchool</A>
Johannus Orgelbouw, Holland, builds pipe, pipe-digital, digital-sampled
organs.
Moderator, <A HREF="/JustIntonationOrganSchool/">Just Intonation Organ eSchool</A>

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "electricwally77" <earth7@o...> wrote:
> > Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> > that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?
>
> not the list as a whole, no. george secor and dave keenan (on the
> tuning-math list) have developed just such a notation system,

I hope to present it here sometime soon, but work on a detailed
article about the notation has been keeping me busy -- lots of
graphics, which is very time-consuming. "Just about any tuning" is
pretty much what it will do: 31-limit JI and many ET's (up to 494).

> but
> it's backward-compatible with existing 12-equal, meantone, and
> pythagorean notation, i.e., the body of notated western music,

(You almost make it sound as if this is a disadvantage.)

> unlike
> the notation systems in the link above or erv's unequally-spaced-
> staff system. johnny reinhard recommends 12-equal notation with
cents
> deviations therefrom indicated on the score (that is, +18, -26,
etc.,
> written above the notehead).

I also briefly discuss in my article why a relative-to-12 notation is
not a true generalized notation, but I don't dismiss its value when
it is used in conjunction with the employment of extended pitch-
altering techniques on 12-ET instruments.

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "electricwally77" <earth7@o...> wrote:
> > Hi Members
> >
> > I found this great web site which involved a research project that
> > involved searching for the best notation system.
> >
> > One of the many critera for searching for the best notation system
> > (that interested me) was that the notation sytem should be
> adaptable
> > to a variety of microtonal systems.
> >
> > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm
>
> wow -- it shocks me that erv wilson's unequally-spaced-staff notation
> system had been left out. honestly, he make all these folks seem like
> schoolchildren ;)

There was a short thread on the MNMA back in February. It starts with
my thoughts on their efforts here:
/tuning/topicId_34823.html#34823
I'm not here.

> > > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm

Is this site a satire (I hope so)!

Dante

here's my contribution, a staff-notation based
on 24edo (quarter-tones), but which with appropriate
accidentals also could make a nice JI notation:

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/qt-staff.htm

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning

> --- In tuning@y..., "electricwally77" <earth7@o...> wrote:
> > Hi Members
> >
> > I found this great web site which involved a research project that
> > involved searching for the best notation system.
> >
> > One of the many critera for searching for the best notation system
> > (that interested me) was that the notation sytem should be
> adaptable
> > to a variety of microtonal systems.
> >
> > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm
>
> wow -- it shocks me that erv wilson's unequally-spaced-staff notation
> system had been left out. honestly, he make all these folks seem like
> schoolchildren ;)
>
> > Also, the following additional links on the above mentioned web
> page
> > are a good read.
> > Searching for the Ideal Music Notation
> > The Case Against Traditional Notation
> > Samples of Different Notations
> >
> > Question please,
> >
> > Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> > that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?
>
> not the list as a whole, no. george secor and dave keenan (on the
> tuning-math list) have developed just such a notation system, but
> it's backward-compatible with existing 12-equal, meantone, and
> pythagorean notation, i.e., the body of notated western music, unlike
> the notation systems in the link above or erv's unequally-spaced-
> staff system. johnny reinhard recommends 12-equal notation with cents
> deviations therefrom indicated on the score (that is, +18, -26, etc.,
> written above the notehead).
>
> > And now for the big question? Are there any available software
> > programs which support alternate notation systems?
>
> SCALA does, but i'm not sure the extent you can draft scores with it.

> Paul!

Well this is one time Erv can not take the full credit except in those cases where he adds symbols to fill out the tuning. This notation is call Klarscripto and i too was surprised to find it
missing. A detailed discussion of it exist in notation in new music. Karkoushka. Praeger 1972. It works wonderfully for12 ET too. The keyboard I have for my 16 tone scale which has 3 blacks then 4
blacks instead of the normal 2 and 3, i notate with a klarscripto design of 3 lines and a 4 line group

>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
>
> >
> > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm
>
> wow -- it shocks me that erv wilson's unequally-spaced-staff notation
> system had been left out. honestly, he make all these folks seem like
> schoolchildren ;)
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > > > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm
>
> Is this site a satire (I hope so)!

of course not. why would you suspect such a thing?

Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There is indeed a
universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings. And it is cents
specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that the numbers
are below 50 cents. It may not be what the List fully endorses, but it is
time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable with it,
preferring it to all others.

best, Johnny Reinhard

because its ridiculous.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus [mailto:wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > > > > Here it is..... http://www.joinable.com/mnma.htm
> >
> > Is this site a satire (I hope so)!
>
> of course not. why would you suspect such a thing?
>
>
> 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..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There
is indeed a
> universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings. And it
is cents
> specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that the
numbers
> are below 50 cents.

this is true even without the quartertone markings (well, ok, you'd
occasionally need 50, but no higher numbers). i neglected to mention
those for brevity, but if you need to call me inaccurate, so be it.

> It may not be what the List fully endorses, but it is
> time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable with
it,
> preferring it to all others.

since you've been directing microtonal concerts for over 20 years
using your notation, i doubt you'd have an unbiased reading of what
systems musicians can or cannot become comfortable with -- let
alone "all others". in any case, serious alternatives like
secor/keenan are largely intended for instruments that do not exist
yet -- you should see how supportive george is of your method in his
paper!

best,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:

> because its ridiculous.

thanks, dante, for the probing and well-reasoned critique. you've
certainly won me over.

(??)

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There
is indeed a
> universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings.

While it may be "universal" in a sense to all *tunings*, it is not
universal to all *applications*. What you have is essentially a
*specialized* notation for the employment of extended techniques for
altering pitch on 12-ET instruments. It would be so cumbersome as to
be nearly useless for notating music for a microtonal keyboard, a
refretted guitar, or other specially built microtonal instruments.

> And it is cents
> specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that the
numbers
> are below 50 cents.

Are you saying that you are also using quartertone symbols, or am I
misunderstanding this. Deviations from 12-ET already require only +/-
50 cents.

> It may not be what the List fully endorses,

This is because we're looking for a simple *generalized* notation
that conveys harmonic meaning without reference to any specific
division of the octave. With the cents notation you are relating
everything to 12-ET, and one must become a number cruncher in order
to understand the harmonic relationships in the music. I'm sure
you're aware that cents numbers for intervals change from one tuning
to another, so you have to learn how to translate cents to (exact or
tempered) ratios or system degrees for each tuning. It would make
analysis of a score a nightmare.

> but it is
> time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable with
it,
> preferring it to all others.

I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for, but
it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.

--George

do you think any of their 22 examples would be an improvement over standard
notation for 12tet music?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus [mailto:wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
>
> > because its ridiculous.
>
> thanks, dante, for the probing and well-reasoned critique. you've
> certainly won me over.
>
> (??)
>
>
> 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..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> With the cents notation you are relating
> everything to 12-ET, and one must become a number cruncher in order
> to understand the harmonic relationships in the music.

this is only true if one is a number cruncher to begin with. if one
can hear cents notation in one's head (which is that much easier if
one begins with a 12-equal background, as most of us do), then one
can sound out the harmonic relationships immediately off the printed
page. and hearing is a more fundamental sort of musical understanding
than anything numerical.

on the other hand, i've seen one of the best and most experienced
microtonal musicians look at a set of a dozen or so ratios and fail
to see that there were any just perfect fifths in the scale, where in
fact there were several.

> > but it is
> > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable
with
> it,
> > preferring it to all others.
>
> I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for,
but
> it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.

why isn't it universal? are you claiming you need better than 1 cent
resolution for live acoustic music?

--- In tuning@y..., "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:

> do you think any of their 22 examples would be an improvement over
standard
> notation for 12tet music?

one could debate the merits of each of them. it might be kind of off-
topic. these people might even be crazier than us microtonalists :)
but how could you wonder if this was not a serious webpage? that's
what was bugging me about your reaction.

personally, i don't think it's so crazy to want to have the visual
distance between E and F, and between B and C, smaller than the
visual distance between C and D, between D and E, etc. but am i going
to spend much time trying to change this? doubtful.

shouldn't notation systems be designed around music(s) that need them? if
they're serious they should write some music thats so great, and happens to
be in a new notation, that everyone will want to spend the time learning
their notation so they can play their pieces. notation is for the composer
to communicate what s/he wants to the performer. if you've got nothing to
communicate, then why bother? Beethoven and the other c.p. composers didn't
seem to think there was anything wrong with standard notation, nor do the
musicians who play the music they notated this way.

> personally, i don't think it's so crazy to want to have the visual
> distance between E and F, and between B and C, smaller than the
> visual distance between C and D, between D and E, etc. but am i going
> to spend much time trying to change this? doubtful.

exactly. aren't you glad you have more important things to do :-)

In a message dated 11/20/02 11:19:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There
> is indeed a
> > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings. And it
> is cents
> > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that the
> numbers
> > are below 50 cents.
>
> this is true even without the quartertone markings (well, ok, you'd
> occasionally need 50, but no higher numbers). i neglected to mention
> those for brevity, but if you need to call me inaccurate, so be it.

While you have correctly pointed out that one could use inharmonic spellings
of the traditional twelve too avoid using even the quartertone symbols, it
give miscues to the average players. The use of the quartertone notation
also tells the player immediately that it is microtonal music they are
playing and not merely altered 12.

> > It may not be what the List fully endorses, but it is
> > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable with
> it,
> > preferring it to all others.
>
> since you've been directing microtonal concerts for over 20 years
> using your notation, i doubt you'd have an unbiased reading of what
> systems musicians can or cannot become comfortable with -- let
> alone "all others". in any case, serious alternatives like
> secor/keenan are largely intended for instruments that do not exist
> yet -- you should see how supportive george is of your method in his
> paper!

Paul, we all have bias regarding tuning notation, each and every one of us.
But you would be wrong to think that 20 years of producing microtonal
concerts was the cause of such bias. The great majority of the music
produced was in a multitude of notations (including Carrillo number, Partch
ratios, Johnston, Sandberg, etc. etc.) The cents notation I favor was the
result of sifting through all the others.

While perhaps sounding more pompous than I intend, the difference here is
that my opinion is more informed as to both the psychological factors in
reading notations and in the ensuing results (including what happened in
rehearsals) than most on this List. However, I do appreciate that notations
for new instruments can be different. And I have used tablature in certain
situations (such as woodwind fingerings for a multiphonic or modal pitch).
The cents notation described is a time tested dissolution based on
experience.

If everyone could communicate notationally in any tuning, literally being on
the same page, then we can accomplish much more, even more than a concert
series. :)

best, Johnny Reinhard

> best,
> paul
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/02 11:19:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate.
There
> > is indeed a
> > > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings. And
it
> > is cents
> > > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that
the
> > numbers
> > > are below 50 cents.
> >
> > this is true even without the quartertone markings (well, ok,
you'd
> > occasionally need 50, but no higher numbers). i neglected to
mention
> > those for brevity, but if you need to call me inaccurate, so be
it.
>
> While you have correctly pointed out that one could use inharmonic
spellings
> of the traditional twelve too avoid using even the quartertone
symbols, it
> give miscues to the average players.

what do you mean by "inharmonic spellings"? i'm confused.

In a message dated 11/20/02 11:36:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gdsecor@yahoo.com writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There
> is indeed a
> > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings.
>
> While it may be "universal" in a sense to all *tunings*, it is not
> universal to all *applications*. What you have is essentially a
> *specialized* notation for the employment of extended techniques for
> altering pitch on 12-ET instruments.

I must agree with Paul's comments to this post. I would only add a few
things. The instruments I use are not "12-ET instruments. Surely the
strings are not. The brass are based on JI. And the woodwinds have a
different pitch direction for each note (some sharp, some flat). None of
these, including the voice, are 12-ET.

And it is not so much specialized for 12 other than it is the common basis
for present notation reading. This way we all move together. Also, it is a
convenient breakdown of pitch.

It would be so cumbersome as to >
> be nearly useless for notating music for a microtonal keyboard, a
> refretted guitar, or other specially built microtonal instruments.

I agree, unless it is a new keyboard as we have designed. Tablature, or
Partch instrument-specific notation is still vital. I am talking
professional musicians that already read music for performances.

> > And it is cents
> > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that the
> numbers
> > are below 50 cents.
>
> Are you saying that you are also using quartertone symbols, or am I
> misunderstanding this. Deviations from 12-ET already require only +/-
> 50 cents.
>

Yes. I have described these quartertone notations in earlier posts. (can't
draw them here).

> > It may not be what the List fully endorses,
>
> This is because we're looking for a simple *generalized* notation
> that conveys harmonic meaning without reference to any specific
> division of the octave.

The quartertone symbols help convey harmonic meaning by showing tonal
relationships, rather than inharmonic ones. Overly focussing on harmonic
meaning dangerously wastes the prescriptive needs of notation to inform the
musician rapidly.

With the cents notation you are relating > everything to 12-ET, and one must
> become a number cruncher in order
> to understand the harmonic relationships in the music.

Paul is right. I just hear cents. Everything is instantaneous. Most
measurement is melodic (on a melodic instrument). The harmonic sense is
"settled into" after the successive note is initiated. Cents in linear and
most helpful. I am in no way a number cruncher, and my players even less so.

I'm sure > you're aware that cents numbers for intervals change from one
> tuning
> to another, so you have to learn how to translate cents to (exact or
> tempered) ratios or system degrees for each tuning. It would make
> analysis of a score a nightmare.
>

This is a misunderstanding. We keep A=440 at all times. It is always one of
the 1200 cents. In this way there is no such a thing as transposition. And
no nightmares.

> > but it is
> > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable with
> it,
> > preferring it to all others.
>
> I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for, but
> it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.
>
> --George

From the point of view of performing microtonal music in all systems on
traditional orchestral instruments or the voice, I would have to insist it is
"A single notation for any tuning."

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> The quartertone symbols help convey harmonic meaning by showing
tonal
> relationships, rather than inharmonic ones.

once again, what does "inharmonic" mean in this context?

> Overly focussing on harmonic
> meaning dangerously wastes the prescriptive needs of notation to
>inform the
> musician rapidly.

i agree, but this makes your "rather than inharmonic ones" comment
above all the more puzzling.

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:46 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> personally, i don't think it's so crazy to want to
> have the visual distance between E and F, and between
> B and C, smaller than the visual distance between
> C and D, between D and E, etc. but am i going
> to spend much time trying to change this? doubtful.

i think it's a great idea, too, and in fact it's one
of the prominent features of my "quarter-tone-staff"
proposal, which i just mentioned:

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/qt-staff.htm

-monz

re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing with a cold
here), what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out notations as it
was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.

I would use A up to C +32
Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18

But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
Rather than A up to C# -38

I might use a C# for one pitch that repeats, but choose a Db for a near
neighbor that distinguishes itself. There is meaning in the choice of
notation in other words.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 11/20/02 10:56:34 AM Central Standard Time,
dante.interport@rcn.com writes:

> Beethoven and the other c.p. composers didn't
> seem to think there was anything wrong with standard notation,

The great compsers slightly modified notation by adding things over the
years, so it stands as it is today. Thus Baroque music was notated somewhat
differently than today. So it's usually renotated into the modern way when
published or republished.

Pauline.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing with a
cold
> here),

feel better! i was out in the cold tuesday morning watching the
meteor shower -- lots of sneezing today for me too.

> what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out notations as
>it
> was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.
>
> I would use A up to C +32
> Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18
>
> But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
> Rather than A up to C# -38

i don't know what you're showing about traditional usage or
mathematical equivalence here. the only pattern i see here is a
preference for numbers 25 or less, which makes sense in itself . . .

> I might use a C# for one pitch that repeats, but choose a Db for a
near
> neighbor that distinguishes itself.

ok . . .

i still have no idea what you were talking about when you said that
_i_ had said something about inharmonic notation (whatever that is).

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing with
a
> cold
> > here),
>
> feel better! i was out in the cold tuesday morning watching the
> meteor shower -- lots of sneezing today for me too.
>
> > what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out notations
as
> >it
> > was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.
> >
> > I would use A up to C +32
> > Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18
> >
> > But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
> > Rather than A up to C# -38
>
> i don't know what you're showing about traditional usage or
> mathematical equivalence here. the only pattern i see here is a
> preference for numbers 25 or less, which makes sense in itself . . .

check that, you're not preferring number 25 or less, so i have no
idea what it is you are preferring . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > With the cents notation you are relating
> > everything to 12-ET, and one must become a number cruncher in
order
> > to understand the harmonic relationships in the music.
>
> this is only true if one is a number cruncher to begin with. if one
> can hear cents notation in one's head

That's a big IF!

> (which is that much easier if
> one begins with a 12-equal background, as most of us do), then one
> can sound out the harmonic relationships immediately off the
printed
> page. and hearing is a more fundamental sort of musical
understanding
> than anything numerical.

To get a major triad (with best 5/4) on G I would need:
G +11 and B -11 and D +5 for 19-ET, and
G -18 and B -36 and D -11 for 22-ET.

Now do you really think that I would *immediately* be able to tell
that the two were essentially equivalent? (I had to use a
spreadsheet to calculate the numbers for the above, because I don't
happen to have them memorized.) I'm sorry, but I don't think that
finding the numerical differences between three pairs of integers
could be described as "immediate." But once I learn that a 5-comma-
down symbol is \! (ascii simulation), I *can* immediately perceive
something like:

G B D in 19-ET, or
G B\! D in 22-ET

And if I'm in 19-ET and you throw B\! at me, I'll ignore the 5-comma-
down symbol, because I know that the 5 comma vanishes in 19. Sure,
you need to learn the 5-comma symbol, that one symbol will serve for
*any* tuning.

> on the other hand, i've seen one of the best and most experienced
> microtonal musicians look at a set of a dozen or so ratios and fail
> to see that there were any just perfect fifths in the scale, where
in
> fact there were several.

So I'm not advocating a notation that puts ratios on the page,
either. The numbers don't have to be very large to be difficult to
comprehend.

> > > but it is
> > > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable
> with
> > it,
> > > preferring it to all others.
> >
> > I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for,
> but
> > it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.
>
> why isn't it universal? are you claiming you need better than 1
cent
> resolution for live acoustic music?

It's not a matter of resolution. "Universal" is a pretty broad term,
and there are still places in the world where (thankfully) musicians
aren't thinking in 12-ET. I think it's kind of ironic that here's an
alternative tuning notation that can't be used unless one first
acquires a sufficient background in the non-alternative tuning from
which we're trying to escape. And if you go to the trouble of having
microtonal instruments, then the cents notation forces you to relate
everything in the new tuning to 12-ET, so that you have to think in
two tunings at once. I want a notation that makes microtonality
easier, not harder -- one that makes me less dependent on 12-ET.

--George

I've seen Bach notate a piece in g minor with a key sig of one flat, putting
the eb into the score. This is usually changed in a modern printed score.
What else was different? More clefs for vocal parts, yes. Anything else?

Dante
-----Original Message-----
From: prophecyspirit@aol.com [mailto:prophecyspirit@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:45 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning

In a message dated 11/20/02 10:56:34 AM Central Standard Time,
dante.interport@rcn.com writes:

Beethoven and the other c.p. composers didn't
seem to think there was anything wrong with standard notation,

The great compsers slightly modified notation by adding things over the
years, so it stands as it is today. Thus Baroque music was notated somewhat
differently than today. So it's usually renotated into the modern way when
published or republished.

Pauline.
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41033

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/20/02 11:19:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate.
> There
> > > is indeed a
> > > > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings.
And
> it
> > > is cents
> > > > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so
that
> the
> > > numbers
> > > > are below 50 cents.
> > >
> > > this is true even without the quartertone markings (well, ok,
> you'd
> > > occasionally need 50, but no higher numbers). i neglected to
> mention
> > > those for brevity, but if you need to call me inaccurate, so be
> it.
> >
> > While you have correctly pointed out that one could use
inharmonic
> spellings
> > of the traditional twelve too avoid using even the quartertone
> symbols, it
> > give miscues to the average players.
>
> what do you mean by "inharmonic spellings"? i'm confused.

***I guess when I use Johnny's notation, and I do from time to time,
I try to keep it +/- 25 cents rather than 50 when using quartertones
as a modifier. I believe Johnny feels this impedes his "style" or
understanding of certain intervals even though it can be notated that
way. For *me* though, I like the consistence of only having *one*
nearest quartertone as reference, a procedure I believe motorcycle
Monz also endorses...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41038

> re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing with a
cold
> here), what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out
notations as it
> was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.
>
> I would use A up to C +32
> Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18
>
> But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
> Rather than A up to C# -38
>
> I might use a C# for one pitch that repeats, but choose a Db for a
near
> neighbor that distinguishes itself. There is meaning in the choice
of
> notation in other words.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

***Just to clear up this strange mystery, I believe Johnny is talking
about different possible ways to notate things, *enharmonically*
rather than *inharmonically*... so all you Sethares enthusiasts
needen't get so excited.

I know Johnny likes flexiblity so, for instance, where I would prefer
never to notate beyond +/- 25 with quartertones, Johnny would prefer
not to be do dogmatic, since he feels certain numbers going up to 50
describe certain intervals better. Certainly in *his* way of
thinking, he is right about this...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > With the cents notation you are relating
> > > everything to 12-ET, and one must become a number cruncher in
> order
> > > to understand the harmonic relationships in the music.
> >
> > this is only true if one is a number cruncher to begin with. if
one
> > can hear cents notation in one's head
>
> That's a big IF!

if you can't, i'd have no confidence in your ability to read the
score. that applies to any notation system, unless your instrument is
specifically designed to produce each of its possible notes in a
completely different, unblurrable way. this is true for many
instruments for 12-equal, but for something much finer, it's true for
essentially none.

> > (which is that much easier if
> > one begins with a 12-equal background, as most of us do), then
one
> > can sound out the harmonic relationships immediately off the
> printed
> > page. and hearing is a more fundamental sort of musical
> understanding
> > than anything numerical.
>
> To get a major triad (with best 5/4) on G I would need:
> G +11 and B -11 and D +5 for 19-ET, and
> G -18 and B -36 and D -11 for 22-ET.
>
> Now do you really think that I would *immediately* be able to tell
> that the two were essentially equivalent?

to the extent that they *are* essentially equivalent (?), assuming
you were well-trained enough to produce three independent 1200-tET
pitches simultaneously on your instrument, then yes.

> (I had to use a
> spreadsheet to calculate the numbers for the above, because I don't
> happen to have them memorized.) I'm sorry, but I don't think that
> finding the numerical differences between three pairs of integers
> could be described as "immediate."

numerical differences . . . oh, you mean the intervals? well,
performers must worry about pitch first, interval second and possibly
also as a helper for the first. if you can produce all three of those
triads on your instrument, then you're damn well facile enough with
pitch that you'll be able to grasp their similarity. certainly anyone
can see that they're all a kind of major triads, with only a moment's
thought required to determine the exact intervals.

> But once I learn that a 5-comma-
> down symbol is \! (ascii simulation), I *can* immediately perceive
> something like:
>
> G B D in 19-ET, or
> G B\! D in 22-ET

where did the differences between the different Gs go? i thought the
performer had to compare these triads directly.

> And if I'm in 19-ET and you throw B\! at me, I'll ignore the 5-
comma-
> down symbol, because I know that the 5 comma vanishes in 19.

so i could turn this around and ask you how the performer is supposed
to perceive the difference between G B\! D in 22-ET and G B\! D in 19-
ET. the mental gymnastics required are surely much more involved than
the simple subtraction of cents.

> Sure,
> you need to learn the 5-comma symbol, that one symbol will serve
for
> *any* tuning.

even a tuning that has no basis in both the 3rd and the 5th
harmonics? or an irregular tuning system, like Werckmeister III?

> > on the other hand, i've seen one of the best and most experienced
> > microtonal musicians look at a set of a dozen or so ratios and
fail
> > to see that there were any just perfect fifths in the scale,
where
> in
> > fact there were several.
>
> So I'm not advocating a notation that puts ratios on the page,
> either. The numbers don't have to be very large to be difficult to
> comprehend.

the same is true for your multiple comma signifiers with different
meanings for multitudes of tuning systems.

> > but
> > > it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.
> >
> > why isn't it universal? are you claiming you need better than 1
> cent
> > resolution for live acoustic music?
>
> It's not a matter of resolution. "Universal" is a pretty broad
term,
> and there are still places in the world where (thankfully)
musicians
> aren't thinking in 12-ET. I think it's kind of ironic that here's
an
> alternative tuning notation that can't be used unless one first
> acquires a sufficient background in the non-alternative tuning from
> which we're trying to escape.

then why stick with the 5-line staff, etc.? if you're not going to be
dealing with western-trained musicians, and building upon what they
already know, but instead starting from scratch, what's the point of
sticking with *any* of the hoary conventions?

> And if you go to the trouble of having
> microtonal instruments, then the cents notation forces you to
relate
> everything in the new tuning to 12-ET, so that you have to think in
> two tunings at once.

i don't think anyone is advocating cents notation for an instrument
specifically designed for 19 or 31 or 41 steps per octave.

> I want a notation that makes microtonality
> easier, not harder -- one that makes me less dependent on 12-ET.

i wouldn't advocate your notation system as ideal for either
composers or performers. for performers, there's way too much
information that needs to be learned, while subtracting numbers up to
50 is simple enough. for composers, there's too much of a tie to
diatonic/heptatonic thinking, which prevents a "breaking out" into
the true wild world of unexplored tonal possibilities.

playing devil's advocate to some extent,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41038
>
> > re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing with
a
> cold
> > here), what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out
> notations as it
> > was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.
> >
> > I would use A up to C +32
> > Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18
> >
> > But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
> > Rather than A up to C# -38
> >
> > I might use a C# for one pitch that repeats, but choose a Db for
a
> near
> > neighbor that distinguishes itself. There is meaning in the
choice
> of
> > notation in other words.
> >
> > best, Johnny Reinhard
>
>
> ***Just to clear up this strange mystery, I believe Johnny is
talking
> about different possible ways to notate things, *enharmonically*
> rather than *inharmonically*... so all you Sethares enthusiasts
> needen't get so excited.

is johnny simply misspelling the term *enharmonically* (or perhaps
he's spelling "enharmonically" enharmonically :)? even so, i can't
see what is motivating his preferences as spelled out above.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/02 11:36:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gdsecor@y... writes:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate.
There
> > > is indeed a
> > > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings.
> >
> > While it may be "universal" in a sense to all *tunings*, it is
not
> > universal to all *applications*. What you have is essentially a
> > *specialized* notation for the employment of extended techniques
for
> > altering pitch on 12-ET instruments.
>
> I must agree with Paul's comments to this post. I would only add a
few
> things. The instruments I use are not "12-ET instruments. Surely
the
> strings are not.

They're Pythagorean, which is pretty close to 12-ET, as is the mind-
set of string players; so the habits and training of the player must
be considered as a part of the instrument. If this were not so, then
your method wouldn't work.

> The brass are based on JI.

The harmonic series is, but the valves and trombone slide positions
are all essentially 12-ET.

> And the woodwinds have a
> different pitch direction for each note (some sharp, some flat).

But the pitch direction is with respect to 12-ET.

> None of
> these, including the voice, are 12-ET.

But the piano that is used for vocal training is, hence that's what
is ingrained in the singer and hence the singer's "instrument."

> And it is not so much specialized for 12 other than it is the
common basis
> for present notation reading. This way we all move together.
Also, it is a
> convenient breakdown of pitch.
>
> > It would be so cumbersome as to
> > be nearly useless for notating music for a microtonal keyboard, a
> > refretted guitar, or other specially built microtonal
instruments.
>
> I agree, unless it is a new keyboard as we have designed.

You'll have to elaborate on that sometime. Anyway, I don't think
that a notation is truly "universal" unless it can be used for *any*
tuning on *any* instrument. And I don't even claim that for the
sagittal notation that Dave Keenan and I have developed, so I would
call it "generalized."

> Tablature, or
> Partch instrument-specific notation is still vital. I am talking
> professional musicians that already read music for performances.

I hate tablatures with a vengeance!!! To put a G-sharp on a score
and expect an 11/9 (or whatever is on somebody's scordatura keyboard)
for one instrument and have it mean 7/4 for another instrument may
give quick results, but it obscures the meaning of the symbols.
Perhaps I am just taking this personally, but having absolute pitch,
I am accustomed to *reading* symbols, *thinking* pitches, and then
*playing* them. I also happen to think tranposing instruments are
for the birds. When I learned to play the clarinet, trumpet, and
French horn, I treated them as non-transposing instruments and
learned all of the notes at concert pitch. I also learned to read
the tenor clef (an octave higher) and mezzo-soprano clef (middle C on
the 2nd line) so that I could read their parts as if they were
written for C instruments. (Another French horn player with absolute
pitch that I met did it exactly the same way.) If this sounds like I
had to go to a lot of trouble, I also found that it had its benefits,
because since I treat every instrument as if it were in C, then I can
sight-read any part on any instrument, e.g., a trombone or viola part
on the French horn, because they have the *same* notation.

I really hope that the world won't have to put up with microtonal
transposing instruments. If somebody sets about designing new ones,
*please* have them sound as written!

(So now you know why I am so much in favor of new instruments and why
I strived so hard to get a generalized keyboard.)

> > > And it is cents
> > > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation so that
the numbers
> > > are below 50 cents.
> >
> > Are you saying that you are also using quartertone symbols, or am
I
> > misunderstanding this. Deviations from 12-ET already require
only +/-
> > 50 cents.
> >
>
> Yes. I have described these quartertone notations in earlier
posts. (can't
> draw them here).
>
> > > It may not be what the List fully endorses,
> >
> > This is because we're looking for a simple *generalized* notation
> > that conveys harmonic meaning without reference to any specific
> > division of the octave.
>
> The quartertone symbols help convey harmonic meaning by showing
tonal
> relationships, rather than inharmonic ones. Overly focussing on
harmonic
> meaning dangerously wastes the prescriptive needs of notation to
inform the
> musician rapidly.
>
> With the cents notation you are relating
> everything to 12-ET, and one must
> > become a number cruncher in order
> > to understand the harmonic relationships in the music.
>
> Paul is right. I just hear cents.
> Everything is instantaneous.

How long did it take you to develop this ability?

> Most
> measurement is melodic (on a melodic instrument). The harmonic
sense is
> "settled into" after the successive note is initiated. Cents in
linear and
> most helpful. I am in no way a number cruncher, and my players
even less so.

It's just that when you're playing a harmonic instrument (keyboard,
guitar, etc.) this is not meaninful and therefore not universal.

> > I'm sure
> > you're aware that cents numbers for intervals change from one
tuning
> > to another, so you have to learn how to translate cents to (exact
or
> > tempered) ratios or system degrees for each tuning. It would
make
> > analysis of a score a nightmare.
>
> This is a misunderstanding. We keep A=440 at all times. It is
always one of
> the 1200 cents. In this way there is no such a thing as
transposition. And
> no nightmares.

But every other note changes, so your F, C, G, D, E, B, etc. are
different in almost every tuning. And if one of those is the key
you're playing in, then your tonic pitch shifts around with different
tunings.

> > > but it is
> > > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable
with it,
> > > preferring it to all others.
> >
> > I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for,
but
> > it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.
> >
> > --George
>
> From the point of view of performing microtonal music in all
systems on
> traditional orchestral instruments or the voice, I would have to
insist it is
> "A single notation for any tuning."

But not for every instrument, and especially not for a specially-
designed-and-built microtonal instrument.

However, you will also need to read my next posting, because it is
not my intention that the sagittal notation should replace yours.

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite accurate. There
> is indeed a
> > universal notation for playing in all microtonal tunings. And it
> > is cents specific, ...
> > It may not be what the List fully endorses, but it is
> > time tested and there are many musicians that are comfortable
with
> it,
> > preferring it to all others.
>
> since you've been directing microtonal concerts for over 20 years
> using your notation, i doubt you'd have an unbiased reading of what
> systems musicians can or cannot become comfortable with -- let
> alone "all others". in any case, serious alternatives like
> secor/keenan are largely intended for instruments that do not exist
> yet -- you should see how supportive george is of your method in
his
> paper!

But you probably wouldn't get that impression from the response I
just posted.

Johnny, I'll send you (off list) the text of the part of my article
that mentions your notation, just so you know where I'm coming from.

--George

In a message dated 11/20/02 3:25:20 PM Central Standard Time,
dante.interport@rcn.com writes:

> I've seen Bach notate a piece in g minor with a key sig of one flat, putting
> the eb into the score. This is usually changed in a modern printed score.

Since g is the relative minor of Bb, it should have a 2b sig. Although a
composer imght only add the b actually used! But, yes, old composers did or
failed to do things in their scores done or not done now. I recall readng
about old Bach organ scores that needed revising. But don't recall the
details. I think some were only two staves, when the standard organ score is
three staves.

Pauline

Hi George!

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> I hate tablatures with a vengeance!!! To put a G-sharp on a score
> and expect an 11/9 (or whatever is on somebody's scordatura keyboard)
> for one instrument and have it mean 7/4 for another instrument may
> give quick results, but it obscures the meaning of the symbols.
> Perhaps I am just taking this personally, but having absolute pitch,
> I am accustomed to *reading* symbols, *thinking* pitches, and then
> *playing* them.

"Taking it personally" sure seems to fit the bill! George, you've always impressed me as someone who looks at all the pieces of the puzzle, so let me add the following: *my* particular genesis is as a percussionist, and there are reams of printed scores and parts that - to us - are nothing so much as tablature. I may very well know that a given symbol may be a cymbal :) but by looking at the page I don't know exactly what it will sound like. Not to mention the many pieces that are very carefully notated for multiple percussion or sound sources that yield little, if any, visible information as to what it will sound like.

How would a generalized notation system cope with an instrument that, when one button is pressed or one key is struck, emits an entire chord, or entire cacaphony? I don't expect a notation to work with all other instruments to work with this one, and my ear/brain combination don't fight the result.

Naturally, the above all proceeds from my given musical path, as do your preferences/preconceptions. I offer this only as grist for the mill, and as testimony to the flexiblity of performers of many kinds of music. Tablature's giant wart - that the score cannot be analyzed without great difficulty and translation - doesn't go away. But there just may be instances where nothing else suffices.

(And, yes, I realize that your notation is being targeted at instruments more in line with traditional notation...)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41060

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41038
> >
> > > re my meaning of inharmonic as in notation (and I'm sneezing
with
> a
> > cold
> > > here), what I am getting out is that I am trying to spell out
> > notations as it
> > > was used traditionally while avoiding mathematical equivalence.
> > >
> > > I would use A up to C +32
> > > Rather than A up to C quarter-sharp -18
> > >
> > > But I would prefer A up to C quarter-sharp +12
> > > Rather than A up to C# -38
> > >
> > > I might use a C# for one pitch that repeats, but choose a Db
for
> a
> > near
> > > neighbor that distinguishes itself. There is meaning in the
> choice
> > of
> > > notation in other words.
> > >
> > > best, Johnny Reinhard
> >
> >
> > ***Just to clear up this strange mystery, I believe Johnny is
> talking
> > about different possible ways to notate things, *enharmonically*
> > rather than *inharmonically*... so all you Sethares enthusiasts
> > needen't get so excited.
>
> is johnny simply misspelling the term *enharmonically* (or perhaps
> he's spelling "enharmonically" enharmonically :)? even so, i can't
> see what is motivating his preferences as spelled out above.

***I believe Johnny, with his cold and all, just made a mistake and
misspelled "enharmonic," "inharmonic..." I could be wrong, but I
don't think so.

So, given that, we'll have to figure out specifically what he means
when he comes back on...

JP

In a message dated 11/20/02 8:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> ***I believe Johnny, with his cold and all, just made a mistake and
> misspelled "enharmonic," "inharmonic..." I could be wrong, but I
> don't think so.
>
>

Dat's right. Joseph's right...it should have read enharmonic. Thanks, Joe.
Johnny

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

> I can't disagree that it works well for what you're using it for, but
> it's not a *universal* or even a *generalized* notation.

What I would like to know is how, physically, such a score is prepared. Is there a way of getting a notation program to do it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning

> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41033
>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 11/20/02 11:19:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Paul mentioned my preference. This is not quite
> > > > > accurate. There is indeed a universal notation for
> > > > > playing in all microtonal tunings. And it is cents
> > > > > specific, but it includes a basic quartertone notation
> > > > > so that the numbers are below 50 cents.
> > > >
> > > > this is true even without the quartertone markings (well,
> > > > ok, you'd occasionally need 50, but no higher numbers).
> > > > i neglected to mention those for brevity, but if you
> > > > need to call me inaccurate, so be it.
> > >
> > > While you have correctly pointed out that one could use
> > > inharmonic [_sic_: enharmonic] spellings of the traditional
> > > twelve too avoid using even the quartertone symbols, it
> > > give miscues to the average players.
> >
> > what do you mean by "inharmonic spellings"? i'm confused.
>
>
> ***I guess when I use Johnny's notation, and I do from time
> to time, I try to keep it +/- 25 cents rather than 50 when
> using quartertones as a modifier. I believe Johnny feels
> this impedes his "style" or understanding of certain intervals
> even though it can be notated that way. For *me* though,
> I like the consistence of only having *one* nearest quartertone
> as reference, a procedure I believe motorcycle Monz also endorses...

yep.

-motorcycle monz

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

>For *me* though, I like the consistence of only having *one*
> nearest quartertone as reference, a procedure I believe motorcycle
> Monz also endorses...

I still would like

(a) An explanation of how to produce such a score

(b) A scan of an example

Is it considered preferable to use quarter-tone symbols?

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41078

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> >For *me* though, I like the consistence of only having *one*
> > nearest quartertone as reference, a procedure I believe
motorcycle
> > Monz also endorses...
>
> I still would like
>
> (a) An explanation of how to produce such a score
>
> (b) A scan of an example
>
> Is it considered preferable to use quarter-tone symbols?

***Hi Gene,

I guess you missed this; I already posted this for you. It's from my
_Violahexy_ and uses the quartertone symbols that were available in
my SCORE notation program that I was using at that time (pre
Sibelius!) with that addition of cents modifiers. Those were entered
in just as "text..."

/tuning/files/Pehrson/

(It's "cents_notation.gif", obviously...)

Joseph

>

The piece is question could have had referances to G dorian since such things had not completely dissapeared by this time. I once saw a study that showed how he was still influenced by how accidentals occur in the modes.

>
> From: prophecyspirit@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
> In a message dated 11/20/02 3:25:20 PM Central Standard Time,
> dante.interport@rcn.com writes:
>
> > I've seen Bach notate a piece in g minor with a key sig of one flat, putting
> > the eb into the score. This is usually changed in a modern printed score.
>
> Since g is the relative minor of Bb, it should have a 2b sig. Although a
> composer imght only add the b actually used! But, yes, old composers did or
> failed to do things in their scores done or not done now. I recall readng
> about old Bach organ scores that needed revising. But don't recall the
> details. I think some were only two staves, when the standard organ score is
> three staves.
>
> Pauline
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

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

> I guess you missed this; I already posted this for you. It's from my
> _Violahexy_ and uses the quartertone symbols that were available in
> my SCORE notation program that I was using at that time (pre
> Sibelius!) with that addition of cents modifiers. Those were entered
> in just as "text..."

Thanks, Joe--these are a major help. How big are the Mook fonts? It would be nice to make those downloadable again.

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41083

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I guess you missed this; I already posted this for you. It's
from my
> > _Violahexy_ and uses the quartertone symbols that were available
in
> > my SCORE notation program that I was using at that time (pre
> > Sibelius!) with that addition of cents modifiers. Those were
entered
> > in just as "text..."
>
> Thanks, Joe--these are a major help. How big are the Mook fonts? It
would be nice to make those downloadable again.

***Presto, chango...

Your wish is my command:

/tuning/files/Pehrson/

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/02 8:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > ***I believe Johnny, with his cold and all, just made a mistake
and
> > misspelled "enharmonic," "inharmonic..." I could be wrong, but I
> > don't think so.
> >
> >
>
> Dat's right. Joseph's right...it should have read enharmonic.
Thanks, Joe.
> Johnny

then what on earth did this comment mean, johnny:

"While you [paul] have correctly pointed out that one could use [e]
nharmonic spellings of the traditional twelve too avoid using even
the quartertone symbols . . ."

this doesn't make any sense!

In a message dated 11/21/02 8:41:07 AM Central Standard Time,
kraiggrady@anaphoria.com writes:

> I once saw a study that showed how he was still influenced by how
> accidentals occur in the modes.

Composers, arrangers and transcribers still have problems dealing with
accidentals and them later being naturaled.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> /tuning/files/Pehrson/

Joe, you are a prince.

To those interested in studying scores, please feel welcome to visit me in
New York sometime. That is what Gardner Read did for his book on Microtonal
Notation. He studied trunks of music over a three-day period, renting a bed
and breakfast around the corner from me. Paul, this includes you. I am
sorry I cannot "explain" better on the List about the whys for my choice of
notation any better than I have been. Suffice it to say that the musicians
playing the music have no such problems.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Suffice it to say that the musicians
> playing the music have no such problems.

why would they? you're clearly indicating what pitch you want them to
play, so they play it -- the possibility of alternatives doesn't even
enter the picture.

In a message dated 11/21/02 12:06:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> why would they? you're clearly indicating what pitch you want them to
> play, so they play it -- the possibility of alternatives doesn't even
> enter the picture.
>
>
>

Yes it does. Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/02 12:06:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > why would they? you're clearly indicating what pitch you want
them to
> > play, so they play it -- the possibility of alternatives doesn't
even
> > enter the picture.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes it does.

how so?

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> ...
> playing devil's advocate to some extent,
> paul

Rather than spend a lot of time (that I don't have) replying to each
one of these points, let me cut to the bottom line.

Microtonal notation is called upon to serve more than one purpose:

1) We have seen that a cents-based notation excels at giving a
performer using off-the-shelf (as opposed to specially built)
flexible-pitch instruments (or voice) *very specific* melodic
information needed to arrive at the proper pitches. It
is "universal" in the sense that it can notate any tuning, but it
depends on a 12-ET frame of reference that is not particularly useful
for (retuned) instruments of fixed pitch or specially built
microtonal instruments.

2) A "generalized" notation such as Dave Keenan and I have produced
excels at indicating specific pitches and intervals that have been
separately defined in some sort of "preface" or "attachment" to a
musical composition, and this provides *general* harmonic and melodic
information that is useful for performers of specially-built or
retuned instruments and also for study of a score. However, this
sort of notation does not go out of its way to help flexible-pitch
instrumentalists (and vocalists) using unmodified 12-ET hardware and
resources to locate actual pitches, on the assumption that this
should be acquired by training and practice.

To decide which approach is "better" than the other misses the point -
- each has its strengths and weaknesses. As I wrote in the last part
of my paper, for instruments of flexible pitch the printed parts need
to have both of these approaches *combined*. This is something that
Dave and I discussed a couple of months ago on tuning-math, and here
was my conclusion (msg. #4638, 12 Sep 02):

<< My recommendation is to have the cents written above the notes in
any and every part for an instrument of flexible pitch. Those who
don't need them can ignore them, and those who do will be able to
memorize them as they become familiar with the [sagittal] notation. >>

And just so there is no mistake about how supportive I am of Johnny
Reinhard's cents notation, let me quote from my upcoming paper:

<< There is a notation devised by Johnny Reinhard that would seem to
overcome this problem [i.e., lack of a generalized notation] in that
it is not specific to any particular tuning. It is extremely easy to
comprehend, and he has claimed that excellent results can be obtained
with it. It consists of using 12-ET notation with numbers (i.e.,
signed integers) written near each note to indicate the number of
cents by which that note should be altered to obtain the desired
pitch. >>

I go on to discuss its shortcomings and why it is not really
a "generalized" notation, for reasons given above.

And several paragraphs later I draw the conclusion that:

<< The excellent results achieved using the Reinhard method of
notation cannot be summarily dismissed. We have therefore concluded
that it would be useful for a string or wind part in sagittal
notation to have the cents deviation from a 12-ET pitch placed near
the notes for those players who are able to benefit from this. ...
Should instruments designed for microtonality subsequently become
available, these parts would already be in a notation that would be
meaningful for players using the new instruments. >>

Now is there anything that I've overlooked?

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41091

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > /tuning/files/Pehrson/
>
> Joe, you are a prince.

***Generally, it seems more like a serf... but I'll take the
compliment. You're welcome!

Joe

Dear George,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Of course, both ideas for notation can be in confluence. I would suggest to
you, though, that rather than say my orientation is based on 12ET, in the
tradition of Schoenberg, I would disagree. I am imagining 1200ET, not 12ET.
Each cent is landmarked by 24ET symbols, not 12ET.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
>
> Of course, both ideas for notation can be in confluence.

So our topic could now be "a double notation system for any tuning".
But I think I would prefer to call it a "consolidated" notation.

> I would suggest to
> you, though, that rather than say my orientation is based on 12ET,
in the
> tradition of Schoenberg, I would disagree. I am imagining 1200ET,
not 12ET.

Okay, 1200-ET it is, but I can't help feeling that it's somehow
related to 12-ET. :)

> Each cent is landmarked by 24ET symbols, not 12ET.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

I want to discuss this 50-cent landmarking idea with Dave Keenan,
because I think we have a decent chance of implementing this
meaningfully in conjunction with the sagittal symbols that are in the
neighborhood of 1/2-sharp and 1/2-flat (which happen to be rather
distinctive in appearance from the others).

--George

On Friday, November 22, 2002, at 01:51 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>> Dear George,
>>
>> Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
>>
>> Of course, both ideas for notation can be in confluence.
>
> So our topic could now be "a double notation system for any tuning".
> But I think I would prefer to call it a "consolidated" notation.
>
>> I would suggest to
>> you, though, that rather than say my orientation is based on 12ET,
> in the
>> tradition of Schoenberg, I would disagree. I am imagining 1200ET,
> not 12ET.
>
> Okay, 1200-ET it is, but I can't help feeling that it's somehow
> related to 12-ET. :)
>
>> Each cent is landmarked by 24ET symbols, not 12ET.
>>
>> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> I want to discuss this 50-cent landmarking idea with Dave Keenan,
> because I think we have a decent chance of implementing this
> meaningfully in conjunction with the sagittal symbols that are in the
> neighborhood of 1/2-sharp and 1/2-flat (which happen to be rather
> distinctive in appearance from the others).
>
> --George

Hello George, Johnny, all,

I've long been of the opinion that a return to an open-minded progressive study and use of harmonics (microtonality if you will), cannot happen until the 12EDO/12th root of 2 is no longer used as a standard frame of reference. In particular I would single out the use of cents as being particularly restraining.

One could however redraw the meaning/use of 'cents' as being a division of the 2/1 into 10,000 parts. 100 parts sub-divided into a further 100 (10,000/100 = 100 or 100 x 100 = 10,000). This I think would be much more beneficial.

Those resulting intervals, which are by the 1200 cents per octave scale 12 cents in size, do not *need* to have intrinsic musical value, though they possibly do. Somehow to me, this make much more sense used as a scale of measure labeled 'cents'.

This may not be ideal for non-octave scales, but conceivably workable.

Another point - we depend on electronic synthesis to generate reference and compositional sounds in musical scales (tunings if you will) of choice. Pretty much all hardware synthesizers in current production have no seriously considered microtonal tuning capability. Yes, I know about E-mu & Kurzweil. Both flawed, with E-mu being particularly bad. But we've managed to get the MIDI Tuning Standard implemented in Native-Instruments' FM7 for one. Ah yes, the point. They all use the 1200 'cents' per octave scale of measure.

This means we need synthesizer implementations with not just user-definable tuning, but user-definable scales of measure.

Achievable ? Yes. I think.

Csound is probably flexible enough to do this. SuperCollider also (waiting for the OS X version). The best bet is Cycling 74's Max/MSP. It's due out for Mac OS X soon and, I think, also for Windows. The key thing here is that while it costs in the region of US$500, you can develop stand-alone software synthesizers using Max?MSP and distribute them as you like. I don't know why no one has done this yet.

I'm patiently waiting for sometime next year when I plan on getting a whole new workstation using a new G4 Mac running OS X, Finale 2004, and Max/MSP (FM7 would be nice to have too).

Which reminds me. Building further on my comments about cents and the 100x100 division of the 2/1. I *like* standard notation. I suspect it should be possible to implement in Finale a slight hack of standard notation as well as a mapping to MIDI driving a custom designed, 100x100 scale-of-measure synthesizer in Max/MSP.

This is just all off the top of my head, so excuse any glaring goofs (& please point them out !). I always had the ghost of an idea, but never bothered to flesh it out until just now.

Cheers,
Joel

Hi there,

> This means we need synthesizer implementations with not just
> user-definable tuning, but user-definable scales of measure.

> Achievable ? Yes. I think

It's pretty easy to program. FTS has an option to set whatever
base one likes for the cents so one can use e.g. 10000 cents
to an octave to base 10 if one wants.

Or even 800 cents to an octave or whatever one wants, instead of
1200.

One can also choose to show cents to another base too.
Generally choosing the base to match the n-et is a sensible thing
to do e.g. base 12 for 12-et - except that we aren't used to
thinking in terms of base 12 numbers so it isn't so very
practical - but you can give it a go if you want to try it out.

You can enter the cents values in those various notations as well
as show them.

See File | Number Options | [12] 1200 cents per octave - change that
to [10] and you see [10] 10*100 relative cents 1000 per octave
and other details.

You can also change the interval to use so that you can have
e.g. 1000 cents per 3/1 instead of per 2/1.

http://tunesmithy.co.uk

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:
> Hello George, Johnny, all,
>
> I've long been of the opinion that a return to an open-minded
> progressive study and use of harmonics (microtonality if you
> will), cannot happen until the 12EDO/12th root of 2 is no longer
> used as a standard frame of reference. In particular I would
> single out the use of cents as being particularly restraining.

Joel,

In formulating a "generalized" notation Dave Keenan and I have sought
to produce a set of symbols that are defined *without* reference to
any specific division of the octave whatsoever. These are capable of
notating both JI and ET's from the *same* superset of symbols that
have the *same* harmonic meanings in all tunings, but the pitches and
intervals notated with these symbols are allowed to vary with the
tuning. Therefore, it is very useful for analysis of a score or for
specially built microtonal instruments which are not specifically
related to 12-ET.

Johnny's notation is intended for conventional instruments of
flexible pitch, and it takes advantage of the fact that most players
and singers are already oriented to 12-ET. It is highly practical in
that it quickly gives them the information that they need to get to
the proper pitches.

These two approaches supply the same information in different formats
that effectively complement one another.

> One could however redraw the meaning/use of 'cents' as being a
> division of the 2/1 into 10,000 parts. 100 parts sub-divided
> into a further 100 (10,000/100 = 100 or 100 x 100 = 10,000).
> This I think would be much more beneficial.

Why 10000 and not some other number? (Or why don't you just use 10-
ET?) You might be interested in the fact that the best fifth of
10000-ET is no improvement on the best fifth in 1200-ET. (They're
the same size.) But you'd have to call 1 degree of 10000 something
other than a cent -- that name's already taken.

> Those resulting intervals, which are by the 1200 cents per
> octave scale 12 cents in size, do not *need* to have intrinsic
> musical value, though they possibly do. Somehow to me, this make
> much more sense used as a scale of measure labeled 'cents'.

The usefulness of the information is more important than the alleged
unsuitability of the label, which seems appropriate enough to me,
since a *cent* is *1/100th* of 1 degree of 12-ET, isn't it? (Ah, but
your argument is with 12-ET!)

Anyway, we were discussing performance notation, and you went on to
electronic synthesis, which is quite another matter.

> ... Which reminds me. Building further on my comments about cents
> and the 100x100 division of the 2/1. I *like* standard notation.
> I suspect it should be possible to implement in Finale a slight
> hack of standard notation as well as a mapping to MIDI driving a
> custom designed, 100x100 scale-of-measure synthesizer in Max/MSP.

Huh?

> This is just all off the top of my head, so excuse any glaring
> goofs (& please point them out !). I always had the ghost of an
> idea, but never bothered to flesh it out until just now.

Just that I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

--George

This list being as crowded as it is, I've been kind of drifting in and out
of various threads.

So probably it was posted earlier, but, is there a web page or file
available detailing the Secor/Keenan notation?

cb

--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
> This list being as crowded as it is, I've been kind of drifting in
and out
> of various threads.
>
> So probably it was posted earlier, but, is there a web page or file
> available detailing the Secor/Keenan notation?
>
> cb

so far, it's all over on the tuning-math list. i'm posting a reaction
to it there right now.

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 10:36 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>
>
> Hi there,
>
>> This means we need synthesizer implementations with not just
>> user-definable tuning, but user-definable scales of measure.
>
>> Achievable ? Yes. I think
>
> It's pretty easy to program. FTS has an option to set whatever
> base one likes for the cents so one can use e.g. 10000 cents
> to an octave to base 10 if one wants.
...

Wonderful !

Of course the 'cent' appellation only works for divisions/multiples of a hundred. I think you imply that such a rule is enforced by FTS ?

- Joel

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 10:36 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> "gdsecor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
> ...
> Joel,
>
> In formulating a "generalized" notation Dave Keenan and I have sought
> to produce a set of symbols that are defined *without* reference to
> any specific division of the octave whatsoever. These are capable of
> notating both JI and ET's from the *same* superset of symbols that
> have the *same* harmonic meanings in all tunings, but the pitches and
> intervals notated with these symbols are allowed to vary with the
> tuning. Therefore, it is very useful for analysis of a score or for
> specially built microtonal instruments which are not specifically
> related to 12-ET.

Hi George, all,

I should take a closer look at this. Is this the thing that you guys have going on the tuning math list ? Maybe I have taken a peek at it - things that look like '/||\'. Reminds me of Babylonian numerals or something ! But where's the rhythm ? Perhaps it's meant more as an illustrative academic (in a good way) tool solely for pitch ? Like I said, I haven't examined it yet.

> Johnny's notation is intended for conventional instruments of
> flexible pitch, and it takes advantage of the fact that most players
> and singers are already oriented to 12-ET...

I certainly understand and appreciate the practical aspect and reason behind Johnny using 12EDO as a reference scale. But, it is a fudge. It should be only an intermediate solution. 10 years from now for example I would hope that we wouldn't still be stuck explaining everything according to the law of 12EDO.

> These two approaches supply the same information in different formats
> that effectively complement one another.
>
>> One could however redraw the meaning/use of 'cents' as being a
>> division of the 2/1 into 10,000 parts. 100 parts sub-divided
>> into a further 100 (10,000/100 = 100 or 100 x 100 = 10,000).
>> This I think would be much more beneficial.
>
> Why 10000 and not some other number? (Or why don't you just use 10-
> ET?) ...

10,000 because it's practical and mathematically, symmetrically pretty: 100x100. Taken further to 100x100x100, i.e. 1,000,000 divisions of the 2/1, should be all the pitch resolution needed.

It can be looked at as the 2/1 ('octave') divided by 100, with 100 sub-divisions, with a resolution of 2 decimal places.

It's also 100^3. Which might serve as a label for this 100x100x100 scale of measure. Can't call it 'mille' or similar as it's confusing for those who know that as meaning 'thousand'.

> But you'd have to call 1 degree of 10000 something
> other than a cent -- that name's already taken.

I didn't. And neither is 1 degree of 1200 a cent ! I don't need to call 1/100 anything other than a cent though !

>> Those resulting intervals, which are by the 1200 cents per
>> octave scale 12 cents in size, do not *need* to have intrinsic
>> musical value, though they possibly do. Somehow to me, this make
>> much more sense used as a scale of measure labeled 'cents'.
>
> The usefulness of the information is more important than the alleged
> unsuitability of the label, which seems appropriate enough to me,
> since a *cent* is *1/100th* of 1 degree of 12-ET, isn't it?
> (Ah, but
> your argument is with 12-ET!)

Yeah. That's the thing - to get away from 12th root of 2 musical theology. I do consider 12-ET to be perfectly valid as a scale. But, the musical world should revolve around it. Maybe this has parallels, or at least an analogy with the evolving understanding of our own solar system. We (well some/most) of us went from thinking (often believing) that everything revolved around the earth. So, you could think of 12EDO being the Earth and a division of the octave into 100 (or any multiple of 10) as being a more neutral point. Something like that anyway :-)

> Anyway, we were discussing performance notation, and you went on to
> electronic synthesis, which is quite another matter.

Not at all. I simply meant to illustrate matters of practicality, i.e. is this suggestion good for anything other than looking nice on paper (figuratively speaking) ? Electronic synthesis serves as the best reference tone generator we have, if nothing else.

>> ... Which reminds me. Building further on my comments about cents
>> and the 100x100 division of the 2/1. I *like* standard notation.
>> I suspect it should be possible to implement in Finale a slight
>> hack of standard notation as well as a mapping to MIDI driving a
>> custom designed, 100x100 scale-of-measure synthesizer in Max/MSP.
>
> Huh?

Likewise, this was to show that such redefinitions of a measure of scale *are* practicable.

Perhaps this is where the difference is that you allude to in suggesting we're speaking of different things.

What is suggested here is a two-tier notation of sorts, much as is in mainstream use now. It seems to make rudimentary sense to me - one can use a standard notation based system *and* use a neutral scale of measure for the intervals notated by aforementioned standard notation hack.

I brought up Finale because it has a quite comprehensive microtonal specification *and* allows for custom symbols (including a large built-in library of non-standard ones), *and* it can play it all back using MIDI.

Above all else, any notation system must account for means of implementation in the real world.

>> This is just all off the top of my head, so excuse any glaring
>> goofs (& please point them out !). I always had the ghost of an
>> idea, but never bothered to flesh it out until just now.
>
> Just that I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

We're just looking at it from different angles. No matter.

Asking for 'A single notation system for any tuning' is I strongly suspect, a trick question.

Eh, you say ?

What if I said I sought 'a single notation system for any human language' - English, Portuguese, Hebrew, Greek, whatever.

That's a trick question because I could use any script of any one of those languages to notate any and all others.

> --George

Cheers,
Joel

Joel, it appears you are prejudiced against 12t-ET. It must be so severe
that you missed over and again that cents notation of 1200t-ET is based on
symbols of
24-tET. The 50 cents unit is rather ideal for finer measurements. And the
notation is time tested and works great for musicians of traditional
instruments.

Changing it to match early theories would be to throw the baby out with the
water.

A consideration for George: even if one starts with cents as a universal (as
in a score), and then transfers it from there for special instruments
notation, cents would still be a universal standard. And that is how we use
it.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:

> I certainly understand and appreciate the practical aspect and
> reason behind Johnny using 12EDO as a reference scale. But, it
> is a fudge. It should be only an intermediate solution. 10 years
> from now for example I would hope that we wouldn't still be
> stuck explaining everything according to the law of 12EDO.

You could start out yourself by using 1578 yen to the octave instead of 1200 cents. 1578 is a superior division for the 7, 11, 17, 19, 21,
23, 27 and 29 limits, and while it is divisible by 6 it is not divisible by 12.

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41151
>
> I brought up Finale because it has a quite comprehensive
> microtonal specification *and* allows for custom symbols
> (including a large built-in library of non-standard ones), *and*
> it can play it all back using MIDI.
>

***Hello Joel,

Well, from what I have been hearing Finale really *does* have a more
robust support of microtonality than Sibelius. I would like to know
more how it works in detail if you ever get a chance: maybe on the
MakeMicroMusic list would be best.

Of course, the *overall* implementation of the package might not be
as intuitive as Finale, as many people suggest, in fact people in the
music engraving field whose opinions I value highly...

(and, of course, I've already *learned* Sibelius... :)

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41156

>
> Of course, the *overall* implementation of the package might not be
> as intuitive as Finale, as many people suggest, in fact people in
the music engraving field whose opinions I value highly...
>

***I meant that to read, not as intuitive as *Sibelius* of course...

J. Pehrson

hi Joel,

> From: "Joel Rodrigues" <jdrodrigues@Phreaker.net>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:28 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> I should take a closer look at this. Is this the thing that you
> guys have going on the tuning math list ?

yes.

> Maybe I have taken a peek at it - things that look like '/||\'.
> Reminds me of Babylonian numerals or something ! But where's the
> rhythm ? Perhaps it's meant more as an illustrative academic
> (in a good way) tool solely for pitch ? Like I said, I haven't
> examined it yet.

the notational system being developed on tuning-math by Dave Keenan
and George Secor is concerned exclusively with pitch, and affects
only the accidentals appearing before the noteheads (or after the
letter-names when written in text). rhythm would be notated the
usual way.

> > > One could however redraw the meaning/use of 'cents' as being a
> > > division of the 2/1 into 10,000 parts. 100 parts sub-divided
> > > into a further 100 (10,000/100 = 100 or 100 x 100 = 10,000).
> > > This I think would be much more beneficial.
> >
> > Why 10000 and not some other number? (Or why don't you just
> > use 10-ET?) ...
>
> 10,000 because it's practical and mathematically, symmetrically
> pretty: 100x100. Taken further to 100x100x100, i.e. 1,000,000
> divisions of the 2/1, should be all the pitch resolution needed.
>
> It can be looked at as the 2/1 ('octave') divided by 100, with
> 100 sub-divisions, with a resolution of 2 decimal places.
>
> It's also 100^3. Which might serve as a label for this
> 100x100x100 scale of measure. Can't call it 'mille' or similar
> as it's confusing for those who know that as meaning 'thousand'.

i understand your quest to find a notation system which is both
comprehensive enough to notate any tuning and at the same time
avoids any reference to 12edo as a basis.

my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm

any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal notations
have something to do with the problems of quantization.

prime-factor-exponent-vector notation does not have this problem,
as it does not quantize anything -- it presents tunings *exactly*,
and levels them all to the same format.

thus, for example, the 12edo "5th" is 2^(7/12). the Pythagorean
"5th" is 2^-1 * 3^1. the 1/4-comma meantone "5th" is 5^(1/4).
in {2,3,5}-vector notation, that's:

[ 7/12 0 0 ] 12edo "5th"
[-1 1 0 ] Pythagorean "5th" 3:2
[ 0 0 1/4] 1/4-comma meantone "5th"

admittedly, this form of notation does *not* refer all notes
to a division of the "8ve", which is what your notation would do.
but the "8ve" is *another* tuning "standard" that not all
musicians want to use ... some folks would argue for its
avoidance in the same way that you've argued for the avoidance
of using 12edo as a basis.

prime-factor-exponent-vectors, allowing fractional exponents
as i do, is the only way to notate any and all tunings
unambiguously and with absolute precision.

> > But you'd have to call 1 degree of 10000 something
> > other than a cent -- that name's already taken.
>
> I didn't. And neither is 1 degree of 1200 a cent ! I don't
> need to call 1/100 anything other than a cent though !

Joel, the word "cent" has a standardized accepted definition
in the world of tuning-theory, and it is indeed 1 degree
of 1200edo.

> I brought up Finale because it has a quite comprehensive
> microtonal specification *and* allows for custom symbols
> (including a large built-in library of non-standard ones), *and*
> it can play it all back using MIDI.

i agree with you that Finale is the most powerful music
notation software developed so far. if you have a good
understanding of its implementation of microtonal accidentals,
how about writing a brief tutorial on it? i'd be happy to
put it on the Sonic-Arts website.

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

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

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41159

>
>
> i agree with you that Finale is the most powerful music
> notation software developed so far. if you have a good
> understanding of its implementation of microtonal accidentals,
> how about writing a brief tutorial on it? i'd be happy to
> put it on the Sonic-Arts website.
>
>

***Hi Monz,

I guess this depends on what you mean by "power..." If "facility of
use" is taken into account, rather than "depth of features" I think a
sizable number of individuals, including some notation experts (whom
I know personally) would disagree...

best,

Joe

hi Joe,

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 11:41 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41159
>
>
>
> > i agree with you that Finale is the most powerful music
> > notation software developed so far. if you have a good
> > understanding of its implementation of microtonal accidentals,
> > how about writing a brief tutorial on it? i'd be happy to
> > put it on the Sonic-Arts website.
>
>
>
> ***Hi Monz,
>
> I guess this depends on what you mean by "power..."
> If "facility of use" is taken into account, rather than
> "depth of features" I think a sizable number of individuals,
> including some notation experts (whom I know personally)
> would disagree...

right you are! i was considering only "depth of features"
when i called Finale "the most powerful". "facility of use"
is *definitely not* its strong point.

but if you *are* willing/able to conquer Finale's learning
curve (and i haven't yet ... but i can tell...), you will
find that there's absolutely nothing it can't handle.

if/when i get back into studying Finale, i hope to figure
out how to use prime-factor-exponent-vectors as accidentals.
if it turns out that Finale just can't do that, well then ...
it'll be time to dive back into my own JustMusic software
project. :)

-monz

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

> i understand your quest to find a notation system which is both
> comprehensive enough to notate any tuning and at the same time
> avoids any reference to 12edo as a basis.
>
> my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm
>
> any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
> pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal notations
> have something to do with the problems of quantization.
>
> prime-factor-exponent-vector notation does not have this problem,
> as it does not quantize anything -- it presents tunings *exactly*,
> and levels them all to the same format.

except for those it can't express at all, like LucyTuning.

> prime-factor-exponent-vectors, allowing fractional exponents
> as i do, is the only way to notate any and all tunings
> unambiguously and with absolute precision.

right . . . :)

how about meantone optimized with a log-limit-weighted error
function? or sarn ursell's hyperpower scales?

Hi Joel,

> Wonderful !

> Of course the 'cent' appellation only works for
> divisions/multiples of a hundred. I think you imply that such a
> rule is enforced by FTS ?

Yes. You choose any multiple of 100 for the octave.
So if you have say 31*100 cents per octave then it still is
reasonable to call them cents because you have 100 of them to
each step of 31-et. Just as reasonable as to call 1200 of them
to an octave cents anyway.

Here are some examples:

Major chord in cents:

386.314 701.955 1200.0

In 31-et cents:

31=997.978 31=1813.38 31=3100.0

The = there is a kind of shorthand notation for
"equal temperament"... :-). Read it as
"thirty one equals 998.978".

You have to do it all as one word
31=997.978 to make it clear where one entry ends and the
next begins otherwise the 31 there might be read as a 31/1.
like this: 31, =997.978.

You can also use the same idea for non octave scales.

For an example of a non octave scale,

9(3/2)=495.306 9(3/2)=900.0 9(3/2)=1538.56

That is the major chord in Wendy Carlos's alpha scale of
9 equal divisions of 3/2. As you see, you put the interval of
repetition in brackets after the number of multiples of
"100 cents" that fit into it.

I call these notations all relative cents.

Then if you like, you can choose to call any of the notations plain cents
by selecting a box "Set this notation as the one to call "cents"

The advantage of doing that is that you can then use the word cents
when entering values, and use shortcuts such as the SCALA convention
that decimal point = cents.

You can then use 12= to enter 12-et based values.
For instance if you have switched the default
notation to Wendy Carlos's alpha, you could enter the
major chord in mixed notation as:

495.306 12=701.955 2/1

In these examples I've assumed that one has selected
File | Number Options | Use SCALA convention: decimal
points for cents, as most will who use FTS for scales work.

Otherwise you need to use the word cents, like this
for 31-et major chord:

997.977 cents31= 1813.38 cents31= 3100 cents31=

etc.

I also have an option to use any base for the number system
in the range 2 to 36, as explained - but you can read all about that in the help
for the window. Similarly you can use whatever number of "cents" to an octave
you like - they don't _have_ to be multiples of 100. E.g. one could show
Gene's yen that he has just posted about. In fact you can even
have fractional numbers of cents per octave or non octave.

So, anyway all this is up and running in FTS so you can give it a go
and see what it feels like.

If you use ordinary cents notation then it gets understood normally
and many, probably most FTS users will never need to know that you can use this
notation to enter values in relative cents too. It's quite hidden
away, but one will find it if one explores the File | Number Options
window - and there is help for it there too that explains it in
detail - click on the blue ? icon for the window.

Then if you want to use one of these special notations then
you can enter them at any time by just using the appropriate
notation, e.g. ... cents31 or 31=... and this will be understood
no matter what notation is currently being used to show the
scales - because it is unambiguous so FTS will always be able
to read it.

The window also has an option to show all the scales as cents diffs
from n-et for any n, in these various notations.

I got the idea of exploring alternaative cents notatons from
a post by Margo suggesing the iota (1700 cents to an octave).
Gene suggested the name relative cents.

Anyway this is something I did for fun really a while back, and find useful on
occasion. Encouraging that you are interested and I've just
done a bit more work on that dialog today to make it easier for
users to see how it works and generally make it more user friendly
- here it is:

http://tunesmithy.co.uk

Then once downloaded and installed, go to File | Number Options.

If anyone has an older version of FTS and wants to try this
option then be sure to re-download the program as I've made a
fair number of improvements in the way it works today, and fixed
some bugs too.

Robert

hi paul,

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 9:25 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i understand your quest to find a notation system which is both
> > comprehensive enough to notate any tuning and at the same time
> > avoids any reference to 12edo as a basis.
> >
> > my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
> > http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm
> >
> > any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
> > pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal notations
> > have something to do with the problems of quantization.
> >
> > prime-factor-exponent-vector notation does not have this problem,
> > as it does not quantize anything -- it presents tunings *exactly*,
> > and levels them all to the same format.
>
> except for those it can't express at all, like LucyTuning.

well, thanks for making me notice that i'd never included
my "LucyTuning" Tuning Dictionary entry in the index.
it's there now.

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/lucy.htm

so i must respectfully disagree with you. the LucyTuning "5th"
is 2^(1/2 + 1/4pi) ... so why do you say i can't express it
with prime-factor-exponent-vector notation. there's the prime-factor,
2, and there's the exponent, (1/2 + 1/4pi). ... ?????

> > prime-factor-exponent-vectors, allowing fractional exponents
> > as i do, is the only way to notate any and all tunings
> > unambiguously and with absolute precision.
>
> right . . . :)
>
> how about meantone optimized with a log-limit-weighted error
> function? or sarn ursell's hyperpower scales?

hmmm ... OK, since i don't have the faintest clue as to
what either of those types of tunings are about, how's about
you explain (preferably in great detail) why they can't be
expressed in prime-factor-exponent-vector notation? i'd
welcome the learning experience. thanks.

-monz

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> so i must respectfully disagree with you. the LucyTuning "5th"
> is 2^(1/2 + 1/4pi) ... so why do you say i can't express it
> with prime-factor-exponent-vector notation. there's the prime-factor,
> 2, and there's the exponent, (1/2 + 1/4pi). ... ?????

If you allow yourself irrational exponents, your system loses the property of uniqueness. There are now infintely many ways to notate any note.

> > how about meantone optimized with a log-limit-weighted error
> > function? or sarn ursell's hyperpower scales?

> hmmm ... OK, since i don't have the faintest clue as to
> what either of those types of tunings are about, how's about
> you explain (preferably in great detail) why they can't be
> expressed in prime-factor-exponent-vector notation? i'd
> welcome the learning experience. thanks.

Good idea--if not here, then on tuning-math.

> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 8:18 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > so i must respectfully disagree with you. the LucyTuning "5th"
> > is 2^(1/2 + 1/4pi) ... so why do you say i can't express it
> > with prime-factor-exponent-vector notation. there's the prime-factor,
> > 2, and there's the exponent, (1/2 + 1/4pi). ... ?????
>
> If you allow yourself irrational exponents, your system loses
> the property of uniqueness. There are now infintely many ways to
> notate any note.

OK, got it. since the exponent contains an irrational number
(in this case, pi), then the process of quantization still
enters the picture when calculating the actual frequencies.

but still ... LucyTuning *can* be notated this way (letting
the variable "pi" represent that irrational number), and
thus can be fit into my system of vector notation.

OK, so it's not unique ... but the vector notation can still
describe the tuning accurately (up to the degree of accuracy
of quantization that's used for the actual number represented
by "pi").

the same goes for golden meantone, where "phi" is the variable
in the exponent.

-monz

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi paul,
>
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 9:25 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: A single notation system for any tuning
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > i understand your quest to find a notation system which is both
> > > comprehensive enough to notate any tuning and at the same time
> > > avoids any reference to 12edo as a basis.
> > >
> > > my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm
> > >
> > > any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
> > > pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal
notations
> > > have something to do with the problems of quantization.
> > >
> > > prime-factor-exponent-vector notation does not have this
problem,
> > > as it does not quantize anything -- it presents tunings
*exactly*,
> > > and levels them all to the same format.
> >
> > except for those it can't express at all, like LucyTuning.
>
>
> well, thanks for making me notice that i'd never included
> my "LucyTuning" Tuning Dictionary entry in the index.
> it's there now.
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/lucy.htm
>
>
> so i must respectfully disagree with you. the LucyTuning "5th"
> is 2^(1/2 + 1/4pi) ... so why do you say i can't express it
> with prime-factor-exponent-vector notation. there's the prime-
factor,
> 2, and there's the exponent, (1/2 + 1/4pi). ... ?????

i thought all the exponents were supposed to be fractions . . .

the thing is, there are other ways to express this generator, in
which the exponent ends up being on the 3 and 5 instead of on the 2.
and you'd never know, without some extensive calculations, that these
different representations signified the same tuning. the situation
with cents (or millioctaves, etc.) couldn't be more simple -- what
you see is what you get.

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41151

> I certainly understand and appreciate the practical aspect and
> reason behind Johnny using 12EDO as a reference scale. But, it
> is a fudge. It should be only an intermediate solution. 10 years
> from now for example I would hope that we wouldn't still be
> stuck explaining everything according to the law of 12EDO.
>

***Hello Joel!

"10 years??" When I took that trip to the Metropolitan museam and
saw keyboards more than 500 years ago that had an obvious Pythagorean
12-pitches to the octave and our current Halberstadt keyboard, it
makes me think than any major changes away from 12-equal are going to
be quite a bit longer away than that, despite that contention that
history is accelerating.... Dunno...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> >
> > This list being as crowded as it is, I've been kind of drifting
in and out
> > of various threads.
> >
> > So probably it was posted earlier, but, is there a web page or
file
> > available detailing the Secor/Keenan notation?
> >
> > cb
>
> so far, it's all over on the tuning-math list. i'm posting a
reaction
> to it there right now.

I think that Paul should have added that it's been spread out all
over the tuning-math list for the past 9 months, and if you try to
figure out what it's all about from what we've posted, you're going
to be hopelessly lost, because we keep changing things until we're
satisfied that we've done it right.

Dave & I are still ironing out some of the details -- it's taking
longer than either of us wished, and I'm still trying to finalize a
presentation of it that will appear in Xenharmonikon 18. So until
that's done, we're delaying any presentation of it here, except for
this graphic, which will give you some idea of what some of the
symbols look like:

/tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/AdaptJI.gif

--George

On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 01:53 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41151
>
>> I certainly understand and appreciate the practical aspect and
>> reason behind Johnny using 12EDO as a reference scale. But, it
>> is a fudge. It should be only an intermediate solution. 10 years
>> from now for example I would hope that we wouldn't still be
>> stuck explaining everything according to the law of 12EDO.
>>
>
> ***Hello Joel!
>
> "10 years??" When I took that trip to the Metropolitan museam and
> saw keyboards more than 500 years ago that had an obvious Pythagorean
> 12-pitches to the octave and our current Halberstadt keyboard, it
> makes me think than any major changes away from 12-equal are going to
> be quite a bit longer away than that, despite that contention that
> history is accelerating.... Dunno...
>
> J. Pehrson

Hello Joe !

Ooh scary !!!

One key to optimism may be to not look at the history of music
and harmonics/microtonality/xenharmonics/whatever as a straight
line, but many parallel and intertwined paths. Plurality rather
than the quest for one idealized system.

Coincidentally, I was about to post a quote from Plato that I
came across in a paper entitled, 'A MATHEMATICA NOTEBOOK ABOUT
ANCIENT GREEK MUSIC AND MATHEMATICS', by Luigi Borzacchini and
Domenico Minunni (Dept. of Mathematics, University of Bari,
Italy)

<http://math.unipa.it/~grim/SiBorzacchini.PDF>

'And Plato shared the opinion of the musicologist Damon that:
“For a change to a new type of music is something to beware of
as a hazard of all our
fortunes. For the modes of music are never disturbed without
unsettling of the most
fundamental political and social conventions” (Respublica 424c).'

The paper is not without it's flaws though, for one there is the
cringe-inducing equation of 'well-tempered' with
'equal-tempered'.

- Joel Rodrigues

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 01:50 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> hi Joel,
>
...
>
> the notational system being developed on tuning-math by Dave Keenan
> and George Secor is concerned exclusively with pitch, and affects
> only the accidentals appearing before the noteheads (or after the
> letter-names when written in text). rhythm would be notated the
> usual way.

Wouldn't legibility be a problem ? Though I've just taken a peek at
</tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/symbols1.bmp>

> i understand your quest to find a notation system which is both
> comprehensive enough to notate any tuning and at the same time
> avoids any reference to 12edo as a basis.
>
> my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm
>

'prime-factor exponent vectors'. Ahem, Senhor Monzo, are you trying to destroy our cause ? ;-) I haven't laughed so much since Zappa's Yellow Snow ditty came on the radio a few days ago. But seriously, aside from the awe-inspiring moniker, it's great. And it goes to show we need and can use more than one system.

> any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
> pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal notations
> have something to do with the problems of quantization.

Agreed ! It's interesting that the quantization does not appear in the notation itself, though it is inevitable (in practical implementation in electronic synthesizers and acoustic instrument), or sometimes to an extent, desirable.

220*(2^(7/12)) = 329.6275569128699 Hz

> admittedly, this form of notation does *not* refer all notes
> to a division of the "8ve", which is what your notation would do.

And that's a good thing !

> but the "8ve" is *another* tuning "standard" that not all
> musicians want to use ... some folks would argue for its
> avoidance in the same way that you've argued for the avoidance
> of using 12edo as a basis.

I'm troubled by the '8ve' too, which is why I always try and say '2/1'.

The 100x100x100 (100^3) scheme might be useful in certain situations like synthesizer tuning tables, giving a resolution of 1/1000000, one millionth of the 2/1 or whatever interval is chosen.

>>> But you'd have to call 1 degree of 10000 something
>>> other than a cent -- that name's already taken.
>>
>> I didn't. And neither is 1 degree of 1200 a cent ! I don't
>> need to call 1/100 anything other than a cent though !
>
>
> Joel, the word "cent" has a standardized accepted definition
> in the world of tuning-theory, and it is indeed 1 degree
> of 1200edo.

Nah. I'll just be stubborn and say 1/100 is a cent. I can always specify the scale of measure, rather like specifying a currency, a number of which are sub-divided into 100 cents.

> i agree with you that Finale is the most powerful music
> notation software developed so far. if you have a good
> understanding of its implementation of microtonal accidentals,
> how about writing a brief tutorial on it? i'd be happy to
> put it on the Sonic-Arts website.

Sorry, no good understanding of it yet. I've only tried the demo some time ago. But Brian McLaren wrote a pretty good explanation of it to the tuning list a long time ago, 1997. It may be useful to have that up somewhere.

> -monz
> "all roads lead to n^0"

Hey Monz, renaissance man that you are, maybe if you wear a leather jacket when you ride that motorcycle and go around introducing yourself as 'the Monz' telling people all about the wonders of microtonality, we might get somewhere !:-)

Bit of lame Happy Days humor there...

Best,
Joel

hi Joel,

> From: "Joel Rodrigues" <jdrodrigues@Phreaker.net>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:00 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Re: A single notation system for any tuning
>
>
> i [monz] wrote:
>
> > my solution to this is to use prime-factor exponent vectors. see
> > http://sonic-arts.org/dict/vector.htm
> >
> > any other system introduces some sort of quantization of the
> > pitch-continuum, and all the arguments about microtonal notations
> > have something to do with the problems of quantization.
>
> Agreed ! It's interesting that the quantization does not appear
> in the notation itself, though it is inevitable (in practical
> implementation in electronic synthesizers and acoustic
> instrument), or sometimes to an extent, desirable.

ah, yes! quantization is indeed inevitable, at some point
along in the process from producing musical sounds to our
ears receiving them to our brains decoding the pitch information.

you might like to take a look at my ideas concerning "finity":
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/finity.htm

i still have a lot more to say about "finity", but have had
difficulty formulating it.

> >>> But you'd have to call 1 degree of 10000 something
> >>> other than a cent -- that name's already taken.
> >>
> >> I didn't. And neither is 1 degree of 1200 a cent ! I don't
> >> need to call 1/100 anything other than a cent though !
> >
> >
> > Joel, the word "cent" has a standardized accepted definition
> > in the world of tuning-theory, and it is indeed 1 degree
> > of 1200edo.
>
>
> Nah. I'll just be stubborn and say 1/100 is a cent. I can always
> specify the scale of measure, rather like specifying a currency,
> a number of which are sub-divided into 100 cents.

well, sorry, but i have to disagree with you about that.

the vast literature of tuning theory is already filled with
so much ambiguous and unclear terminology (which is precisely
why i created the online Tuning Dictionary) -- why take a
term which already has a clearly specified meaning and *make*
it ambiguous?

to me it makes much more sense (pardon the homonymous pun)
to leave "cents" alone and just create a new term for your
new measure.

have you stopped to consider that even using 10 as a base
is an arguable choice? why not just use base-2, since you
seem to be most interested in electronic microtonal music-making?
that's the numbering system that all digital computers speak.

> Hey Monz, renaissance man that you are, maybe if you wear a
> leather jacket when you ride that motorcycle and go around
> introducing yourself as 'the Monz' telling people all about the
> wonders of microtonality, we might get somewhere !:-)
>
> Bit of lame Happy Days humor there...

well ... that *is* kind of how things were, until someone
driving a jeep ran into me two weeks ago. sometimes when it
was hot i would ride without my leather jacket, but i'm sure
glad i had it on that night! ... if i didn't, the road
would have taken a pretty big chunk of meat off of my shoulder.
instead, all i lost was my good jacket.

anyway, the "monz" nickname comes from Happy Days to begin with.
my friends used to call me that back in the 1970's, when
the show first aired on TV.

-monz

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

> you might like to take a look at my ideas concerning "finity":
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/finity.htm

hi folks,

i still maintain that this:

"[Paul Erlich has done important work in this area - see his Tuning
Digest postings on harmonic entropy]"

is misleading. any important work that i may have done in the field
of finity has concerned periodicity blocks, the Hypothesis, etc.
harmonic entropy has nothing, as far as i can see, to do with it.
harmonic entropy investigates a possible information-theoretic basis
for choosing the *rungs* of the lattice -- the basic consonant
intervals from which the lattice is constructed. finity, especially
in the context of periodicity blocks, concerns the similarity in
pitch between two vertices in the lattice, normally separated from one
another by quite a few rungs, and the effect of treating these
vertices as equivalent pitches, whether by outright tempering of the
rungs or by notational identification.

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 01:50 , tuning@y... wrote:
>
> > "monz" <monz@a...>
> > Subject: Re: Re: A single notation system for any tuning
> >
> > hi Joel,
> >
> ...
> >
> > the notational system being developed on tuning-math by Dave
Keenan
> > and George Secor is concerned exclusively with pitch, and affects
> > only the accidentals appearing before the noteheads (or after the
> > letter-names when written in text). rhythm would be notated the
> > usual way.
>
> Wouldn't legibility be a problem ? Though I've just taken a peek at
> </tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/symbols1.bmp>

Dave & I have discussed several issues relating to legibility and
ease of reading:

1) We have concluded that the staff should be slightly larger than
usual for string and wind parts, because these sometimes have to be
read under less-than-ideal conditions -- poor lighting and a greater
reading distance required when two players share a music stand.

2) Early on Dave brought up the problem of "lateral confusability" --
confusion between symbols that are lateral mirror images of each
other -- and we took steps to minimize its occurrence.

3) We debated extensively whether conventional sharp and flat (single
& double) symbols should be retained, which would necessitate
instances in which two symbols modify a note-head (manuscript tends
to get cluttered with symbols, but it's easier to learn), or whether
they should be replaced, which would make it possible to have only a
single modifying symbol per note (less cluttered, easier to read
chords, but more symbols to learn). We concluded that both the
double-symbol and single-symbol versions have their separate
advantages, so we are presenting the notation in both versions and
letting the microtonal marketplace decide if one, the other, or both
should be used.

4) In the adaptive JI example (URL above) there are five new symbols
shown in the musical example and 12 altogether in the sequence to the
right (not counting the vertical mirroring that converts an "up"
symbol to a "down" symbol). This is for 217-ET or 17-limit JI mapped
to 217, which is a rather complicated application. And even this is
only a subset of the grand total of 30 symbols that are used for
larger ETs and JI prime number limits above 17. However, it's not
necessary to learn all of the symbols of the sagittal notation in
order to begin using it -– only those required for a particular
tuning or prime number limit. For examle, 53-ET and 72-ET each
require only 3 new symbols, and 94-ET requires 5. Additional symbols
can always be learned as needed for other tunings or higher prime
limits. Our objective was to have a large superset of symbols that
would handle a lot of different tunings, and when it's necessary to
learn the notation for a new tuning, you don't discard what you've
already learned; instead you build on it.

I hope this answers a few questions.

--George

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41209

> Sorry, no good understanding of it yet. I've only tried the demo
> some time ago. But Brian McLaren wrote a pretty good explanation
> of it to the tuning list a long time ago, 1997. It may be useful
> to have that up somewhere.
>

***Actually, I read that some time ago, but I don't believe it is
a "step by step..." It was more an explanation of the potentialities
soon after Finale implemented some of the microtonal possibilities.
I believe it *is* on the Web someplace... maybe on the Starrett site
(no time to hunt and peck for it at the moment...)

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41217

> --- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <jdrodrigues@P...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41209
>
> > Sorry, no good understanding of it yet. I've only tried the demo
> > some time ago. But Brian McLaren wrote a pretty good explanation
> > of it to the tuning list a long time ago, 1997. It may be useful
> > to have that up somewhere.
> >
>
> ***Actually, I read that some time ago, but I don't believe it is
> a "step by step..." It was more an explanation of the
potentialities
> soon after Finale implemented some of the microtonal
possibilities.
> I believe it *is* on the Web someplace... maybe on the Starrett
site
> (no time to hunt and peck for it at the moment...)
>
> J. Pehrson

***Well, anyway, Sibelius *does* work with microtonality, and one can
use the *convenient* Sibelius interface to do most of the work. All
it takes is creating pitch bend numbers above the postscript
symbols... and it only takes a second to do that...

Or one can use a *plug in* to assign pitch bends automatically, if
one doesn't mind changing the "normal" associations of accidentals
with 12-tET...

J. Pehrson

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

All
> it takes is creating pitch bend numbers above the postscript
> symbols... and it only takes a second to do that...

How do you do it in a second?

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41220

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> All
> > it takes is creating pitch bend numbers above the postscript
> > symbols... and it only takes a second to do that...
>
> How do you do it in a second?

***Once you get them over *one* note, just use the *Alt* key and copy
to over the next note. In fact, you could put them over *all* the
notes at one time that way if you wish.

Then, just go in and change the number to the correct bend by
clicking on the text. It only takes a second to change it to a
different number...

Maybe Sibelius is, therefore, OK for microtonality, since I keep
hearing how so many people think Finale is so good, but nobody really
seems to know how to do it... Wading through dialogue boxes, I
guess....

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40990.html#41214

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > you might like to take a look at my ideas concerning "finity":
> > http://sonic-arts.org/dict/finity.htm
>
> hi folks,
>
> i still maintain that this:
>
> "[Paul Erlich has done important work in this area - see his Tuning
> Digest postings on harmonic entropy]"
>
> is misleading. any important work that i may have done in the field
> of finity has concerned periodicity blocks, the Hypothesis, etc.
> harmonic entropy has nothing, as far as i can see, to do with it.
> harmonic entropy investigates a possible information-theoretic
basis
> for choosing the *rungs* of the lattice -- the basic consonant
> intervals from which the lattice is constructed. finity, especially
> in the context of periodicity blocks, concerns the similarity in
> pitch between two vertices in the lattice, normally separated from
one
> another by quite a few rungs, and the effect of treating these
> vertices as equivalent pitches, whether by outright tempering of
the
> rungs or by notational identification.

***But, these are kinda the same general thing, though, no?? It's
just a different *approach* as to how one defines the procedure, and
where one is in the procedure??

signed,

dodo

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_40990.html#41214
>
>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > you might like to take a look at my ideas concerning "finity":
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/dict/finity.htm
> >
> > hi folks,
> >
> > i still maintain that this:
> >
> > "[Paul Erlich has done important work in this area - see his
Tuning
> > Digest postings on harmonic entropy]"
> >
> > is misleading. any important work that i may have done in the
field
> > of finity has concerned periodicity blocks, the Hypothesis, etc.
> > harmonic entropy has nothing, as far as i can see, to do with it.
> > harmonic entropy investigates a possible information-theoretic
> basis
> > for choosing the *rungs* of the lattice -- the basic consonant
> > intervals from which the lattice is constructed. finity,
especially
> > in the context of periodicity blocks, concerns the similarity in
> > pitch between two vertices in the lattice, normally separated
from
> one
> > another by quite a few rungs, and the effect of treating these
> > vertices as equivalent pitches, whether by outright tempering of
> the
> > rungs or by notational identification.
>
>
> ***But, these are kinda the same general thing, though, no??

i don't see any similarity.

> It's
> just a different *approach* as to how one defines the procedure,
and
> where one is in the procedure??

????????

Hi Pauline

Thanks for helping me on the notation of JI in standard 12tEQ
notation.
You make some very interesting points.

Regards
Walter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/02 8:56:05 AM Central Standard Time,
> earth7@o... writes:
>
>
> > Is there a standard notation system that the Tuning list promotes
> > that allows one to compose in just about any tuning?
> >
> > Wally
> >
> Wally,
>
> I checked out the various notations invented in the website you
gave. I
> didn't see any as being any easier to read nor any better than what
we
> already have. Multi-part vocal scores requre staves to be separated
so words
> can be put between. Orchestral/band socres requrie the same for the
various
> intsrruments.
>
> The present notation system is as well established wordwide as the
12-note
> keyboard. The thing to do is to work with these systems with slight
> midifications rather than something different.
>
> The notation I use fro my JT organ is the same as the traditional,
with 0 and
> 7 added above, below, or to the left of notes when a split digital
is used.
>
> Where 0 = the 12-ET note series, and 7 = a harmonic minor 7th.
>
> The same score played on non-keyboard instruments or sung requires
adding
> - and - 7 to the score.
>
> Where - = the just major 3rd series worth 386 cents, whether just
or
> slightly tempered, and -7 = a harmonic minor 7th for the 386 notes.
>
> Thus my JI/JT notation is the simplest I know of!
>
> If a more complex notation is wanted, such as for the 11th or 13th
harmonics,
> just add the harmonic #s to the respective score notes.
>
> In this regard, the 13th harmonic wirth 841 cents is A rather than
Ab (as
> listed in Helmholtz). Ab is 807 (harmonic), 814 (via the 13th
harmonic 841+
> 969 + 702 + 702), or 816 (from the F#/Gb 5th series from C 0) cents.
>
> If uncommon cents values beyond usual tempering are wanted, just
add the
> cents #s to the respective score notes.
>
> Sincerely,
> Pauline W. Phillips, Moderator, <A
HREF="/JohannusOrgansSchool ">Johannus
Organs eSchool</A>
> Johannus Orgelbouw, Holland, builds pipe, pipe-digital, digital-
sampled
> organs.
> Moderator, <A
HREF="/JustIntonationOrganSchool/">Just
Intonation Organ eSchool</A>