Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: 22 tet interval names

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > i replied but i'm not sure if the reply made it through. either
way,
> > could you post this (or your reply to my reply) to the tuning
list?
>
> No reply yet.
>
> Best Wishes
> a.m.

sorry about that. here goes.

>> > That makes 80 key signatures.
>
>> wha?? how are you getting that number??

>Actually 80 is wrong. But by analogy with 12tet - 2 modes (major and
>minor) starting on each of 12 tones = 24 keys, given that relative
>maj
>and min have the same signature. So in 22 tet 2 modes x 22 tones = 44
>keys.

so that's 22 key signatures. add 11 key signatures for the
symmetrical modes and you have the 33 key signatures shown (on a
decatonic staff) in the Appendix.

>Could be I'm on a wild goose chase but the Standard pentachordal
>major for example in 'c' has three accidentals (I'm using Fokker's
>notation BTW), f sharp, b and d flat.

that would seem to indicate this scale:

C, D flat, E, F sharp, G, A, B flat (, C)

which in your notation would be pitches

0, 1, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18 (,22)

while the std. pent. maj. is

0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 (,22)

so this seems way off, both in the number of pitches it indicates,
and which pitches it indicates.

>> I've also to get used to some notational problems, one being the

>> simple
>> > question of the C major triad and the notation I'm using for
guitar.
>>
>> > Taking C as the root I should notate that as c^ if I want a 5/4
>> with 'e'
>> > on the fourth string fourth fret. Then my 3/2 wth c^ is
notated 'a'
>> > flat. I seem to remember transposing the guitar fretboard
>notation
>> to
>> > accommodate the open strings. Better change back.
>
>> i'm not following. are you saying there's something wrong with
having
>> the open strings notated E A d g b' e'; that is, as the "naturals"?

>Well there's nothing wrong but if I want the open strings strings
>natural then 'c' will be c^. As I'm serious about writing for other
>conventional instruments, with or without guitar I'm prepared to
>sacrifice an initial convenience on the guitar, ie 'natural' open
>strings, so that I can have a straight 'c'. I don't know what your
>thoughts are on that. I'm going right back for a fresh start with 22
>tet and as a result am trying to build a firm foundation.

if you want a 5-limit consonance with 'g', you need 'c'. if you want
a 5-limit consonance with 'e', you need 'c^'. so i don't know what
a "straight 'c'" could mean. if you don't like this behavior, you can
try to eliminate syntonic comma 'kink', by changing the notation,
retuning the strings, etc. but you'll never get rid of it entirely --
you'll merely be shifting it elsewhere -- a wild goose chase perhaps.
if you're looking for traditional 5-limit diatonic behavior to be
preserved, you need to use 19, 26, or 31, etc., *not* 22.

>Finally, I've made a start at connecting chords concentrating on good
>voice leading on the guitar from various degrees of the decatonics,
>starting with triads, just to get a feel for the fingerings. Some
>successful root movements are obviously the same as in 12 tet, eg by
>5/4
>and 4/3. Have you done much with this and if so, have you found any
>particularly successful connections?

plenty. for example, the two augmented tetrads work nicely one after
another, for a kind of "impressionistic" sound . . . but if you
really want to avoid progressions that sound like they could come
from 12-ET, start with the suggestions under "microchromaticism" in
my paper.

sorry my original reply was lost, this was kind of my rushed attempt
to recall what i had written,

p. e.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> >
> > > i replied but i'm not sure if the reply made it through. either
> way,
> > > could you post this (or your reply to my reply) to the tuning
> list?
> >
> > No reply yet.
> >
> > Best Wishes
> > a.m.
>
> sorry about that. here goes.
>
> >> > That makes 80 key signatures.
> >
> >> wha?? how are you getting that number??
>
> >Actually 80 is wrong. But by analogy with 12tet - 2 modes (major and
> >minor) starting on each of 12 tones = 24 keys, given that relative
> >maj
> >and min have the same signature. So in 22 tet 2 modes x 22 tones = 44
> >keys.
>
> so that's 22 key signatures. add 11 key signatures for the
> symmetrical modes and you have the 33 key signatures shown (on a
> decatonic staff) in the Appendix.

Still doesn't tally. The Pentachordals; major, minor, standard and alternate are all modes of each
other. Same with the symmetricals. That makes two basic scales. On each of 22 scale steps that
makes 44 possible keys. I'll report back when i've done them all. As for decatonic notation, yes
it's excellent, but I'll have enough on my hands with a non-diatonic tuning and new notation.
Keeping to the 5 line staff is at least one point of familiarity for musicians. As I say, it's
hard enough to persuade people to look at new tunings anyway.

> >Could be I'm on a wild goose chase but the Standard pentachordal
> >major for example in 'c' has three accidentals (I'm using Fokker's
> >notation BTW), f sharp, b and d flat.
>
> that would seem to indicate this scale:
>
> C, D flat, E, F sharp, G, A, B flat (, C)
>
> which in your notation would be pitches
>
> 0, 1, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18 (,22)

Not in the notation I'm using. As I said I'm using Fokker's notation as suggested by Dave Keenan
last year : -

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

> while the std. pent. maj. is
>
> 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 (,22)
>
> so this seems way off, both in the number of pitches it indicates,
> and which pitches it indicates.

How so? Tones 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 , 20, (,22) give me C, Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
Bb, Bv, (C). That's flats on b and d and a sharp on f, as I said. I should state that I don't
want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend notating them with a slash through
the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no need to have the arrows on the key
signature. I find this is less complicated, ie having key signatures with as few accidentals as
possible. I haven't done them all yet, but the standard pentachordal major on C^ (step 1) has
three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats on b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.

>
>
> >> I've also to get used to some notational problems, one being the
>
> >> simple
> >> > question of the C major triad and the notation I'm using for
> guitar.
> >>
> >> > Taking C as the root I should notate that as c^ if I want a 5/4
> >> with 'e'
> >> > on the fourth string fourth fret. Then my 3/2 wth c^ is
> notated 'a'
> >> > flat. I seem to remember transposing the guitar fretboard
> >notation
> >> to
> >> > accommodate the open strings. Better change back.
> >
> >> i'm not following. are you saying there's something wrong with
> having
> >> the open strings notated E A d g b' e'; that is, as the "naturals"?
>
> >Well there's nothing wrong but if I want the open strings strings
> >natural then 'c' will be c^. As I'm serious about writing for other
> >conventional instruments, with or without guitar I'm prepared to
> >sacrifice an initial convenience on the guitar, ie 'natural' open
> >strings, so that I can have a straight 'c'. I don't know what your
> >thoughts are on that. I'm going right back for a fresh start with 22
> >tet and as a result am trying to build a firm foundation.
>
> if you want a 5-limit consonance with 'g', you need 'c'. if you want
> a 5-limit consonance with 'e', you need 'c^'. so i don't know what
> a "straight 'c'" could mean. if you don't like this behavior, you can
> try to eliminate syntonic comma 'kink', by changing the notation,
> retuning the strings, etc. but you'll never get rid of it entirely --
> you'll merely be shifting it elsewhere -- a wild goose chase perhaps.
> if you're looking for traditional 5-limit diatonic behavior to be
> preserved, you need to use 19, 26, or 31, etc., *not* 22.

The "22 is not a good diatonic scale" message has been received loud and clear. I think we're
saying the same thing here. By my notation, a C major triad has C, Ev, and G, ie steps 0, 7 and
13. That has what I mean by a "straight C", ie no arrows or other accidentals. When I first
looked at the notation I didn't like the idea of having the open strings notated as Ev etc. simply
in order to have a "straight" C. So I transposed everything to have the open strings with no
accidentals, which of course gave me a C^ for natated middle C. Now I've changed my mind and I
think this is too guitar-centred. It 's preferable to have the C (notated as middle C) on the
guitar with no accidentals. That's open to debate and is merely my choice at the moment, but I
agree with all you say about the comma.

> >Finally, I've made a start at connecting chords concentrating on good
> >voice leading on the guitar from various degrees of the decatonics,
> >starting with triads, just to get a feel for the fingerings. Some
> >successful root movements are obviously the same as in 12 tet, eg by
> >5/4
> >and 4/3. Have you done much with this and if so, have you found any
> >particularly successful connections?
>
> plenty. for example, the two augmented tetrads work nicely one after
> another, for a kind of "impressionistic" sound . . . but if you
> really want to avoid progressions that sound like they could come
> from 12-ET, start with the suggestions under "microchromaticism" in
> my paper.

Thanks. I'm working on these kinds of connections right now.

> sorry my original reply was lost, this was kind of my rushed attempt
> to recall what i had written,
>
> p. e.

I appreciate the time you take to reply. Hopefully I will eventually reciprocate with some useful
'moves' and eventually some decatonic music.

Kind Regards
a.m.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> > >
> > > > i replied but i'm not sure if the reply made it through.
either
> > way,
> > > > could you post this (or your reply to my reply) to the tuning
> > list?
> > >
> > > No reply yet.
> > >
> > > Best Wishes
> > > a.m.
> >
> > sorry about that. here goes.
> >
> > >> > That makes 80 key signatures.
> > >
> > >> wha?? how are you getting that number??
> >
> > >Actually 80 is wrong. But by analogy with 12tet - 2 modes (major
and
> > >minor) starting on each of 12 tones = 24 keys, given that
relative
> > >maj
> > >and min have the same signature. So in 22 tet 2 modes x 22 tones
= 44
> > >keys.
> >
> > so that's 22 key signatures. add 11 key signatures for the
> > symmetrical modes and you have the 33 key signatures shown (on a
> > decatonic staff) in the Appendix.
>
> Still doesn't tally. The Pentachordals; major, minor, standard and
alternate are all modes of each
> other. Same with the symmetricals. That makes two basic scales. On
each of 22 scale steps that
> makes 44 possible keys.

but the symmetricals are the same when you transpose them by a half-
octave! thus there are only 11, not 22, symmetrical scale key
signatures.

> I'll report back when i've done them all. As for decatonic
notation, yes
> it's excellent, but I'll have enough on my hands with a non-
diatonic tuning and new notation.
> Keeping to the 5 line staff is at least one point of familiarity
for musicians. As I say, it's
> hard enough to persuade people to look at new tunings anyway.
>
> > >Could be I'm on a wild goose chase but the Standard pentachordal
> > >major for example in 'c' has three accidentals (I'm using
Fokker's
> > >notation BTW), f sharp, b and d flat.
> >
> > that would seem to indicate this scale:
> >
> > C, D flat, E, F sharp, G, A, B flat (, C)
> >
> > which in your notation would be pitches
> >
> > 0, 1, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18 (,22)
>
> Not in the notation I'm using. As I said I'm using Fokker's
>notation as suggested by Dave Keenan
> last year : -
>
> C, C^, Db^, Dv, D, Eb, Eb^, Ev, E, F, F^, F#v, Gv, G, Ab, Ab^, Av,
A, Bb, Bb^, Bv, B.

yes, this is correct. remember, D flat is the same as C^. F sharp is
the same as Gv. recall my recent reminder about chromatic and
diatonic semitones. so my transcription is correct.

> > while the std. pent. maj. is
> >
> > 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 (,22)
> >
> > so this seems way off, both in the number of pitches it indicates,
> > and which pitches it indicates.
>
> How so? Tones 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 , 20, (,22) give me C,
Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> Bb, Bv, (C). That's flats on b and d and a sharp on f, as I said.

first of all, no (see above). secondly, the key signature would leave
out the Ev, Bv, and F natural.

> I should state that I don't
> want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend
>notating them with a slash through
> the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no
>need to have the arrows on the key
> signature.

hmm . . . so if Bb is in the key signature, and then you want to
notate Bv, you'd need a natural sign *and* a slash? even though this
note is supposedly in the key? this is terribly messy, and will lead
to sickening complications especially for some of the more complex
keys.

> I find this is less complicated, ie having key signatures with as
>few accidentals as
> possible.

then why not leave F natural, as F natural is in the key? the same
goes, though less forcefully due to the slashes, for D and B.

> I haven't done them all yet, but the standard pentachordal major on
C^ (step 1) has
> three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats on
b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.

when you do all 33, i think you'll see that they are more confusing
than informative. but all power to you if you want to stay your
course.

> > >> I've also to get used to some notational problems, one being
the
> >
> > >> simple
> > >> > question of the C major triad and the notation I'm using for
> > guitar.
> > >>
> > >> > Taking C as the root I should notate that as c^ if I want a
5/4
> > >> with 'e'
> > >> > on the fourth string fourth fret. Then my 3/2 wth c^ is
> > notated 'a'
> > >> > flat. I seem to remember transposing the guitar fretboard
> > >notation
> > >> to
> > >> > accommodate the open strings. Better change back.
> > >
> > >> i'm not following. are you saying there's something wrong with
> > having
> > >> the open strings notated E A d g b' e'; that is, as
the "naturals"?
> >
> > >Well there's nothing wrong but if I want the open strings strings
> > >natural then 'c' will be c^. As I'm serious about writing for
other
> > >conventional instruments, with or without guitar I'm prepared to
> > >sacrifice an initial convenience on the guitar, ie 'natural' open
> > >strings, so that I can have a straight 'c'. I don't know what
your
> > >thoughts are on that. I'm going right back for a fresh start
with 22
> > >tet and as a result am trying to build a firm foundation.
> >
> > if you want a 5-limit consonance with 'g', you need 'c'. if you
want
> > a 5-limit consonance with 'e', you need 'c^'. so i don't know what
> > a "straight 'c'" could mean. if you don't like this behavior, you
can
> > try to eliminate syntonic comma 'kink', by changing the notation,
> > retuning the strings, etc. but you'll never get rid of it
entirely --
> > you'll merely be shifting it elsewhere -- a wild goose chase
perhaps.
> > if you're looking for traditional 5-limit diatonic behavior to be
> > preserved, you need to use 19, 26, or 31, etc., *not* 22.
>
> The "22 is not a good diatonic scale" message has been received
loud and clear. I think we're
> saying the same thing here. By my notation, a C major triad has C,
Ev, and G, ie steps 0, 7 and
> 13. That has what I mean by a "straight C", ie no arrows or other
accidentals.

there's an arrow on E, right?

> When I first
> looked at the notation I didn't like the idea of having the open
strings notated as Ev etc. simply
> in order to have a "straight" C. So I transposed everything to have
the open strings with no
> accidentals, which of course gave me a C^ for natated middle C.

do you mean "notated" middle C? if it's notated C, why does it come
out as C^? i don't get this at all.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

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

> How so? Tones 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 , 20, (,22) give me C,
Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> Bb, Bv, (C). That's flats on b and d and a sharp on f, as I said.
I should state that I don't
> want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend
notating them with a slash through
> the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no
need to have the arrows on the key
> signature. I find this is less complicated, ie having key
signatures with as few accidentals as
> possible. I haven't done them all yet, but the standard
pentachordal major on C^ (step 1) has
> three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats on
b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.

in a way, this is like notating the (diatonic) key of F# major with a
lot of sharps but then a b-flat in the key signature, and using a
natural sign whenever the fourth degree of the scale occurs. only
worse.

i have a much better suggestion for you. don't attempt to key-signify
a decatonic scale on a heptatonic staff. instead, stick with the
conventional diatonic key signature that best matches the decatonic
scale. the decatonic scale will have 5 notes (every other note) in
common with 3 diatonic scales, and 5 notes in common with 3 others.
choose the 5 that include the tonic, and of the 3 choose the middle
one. for the example above, C, Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> Bb, Bv, (C), the 5 notes in question are C, D, F, G, and Bb. this
is a chain of fifths (as always), and extending it by one fifth on
either end introduces A and Eb. so this is the same as the
conventional Bb major or G minor key signature, and that's what you
should use. then all the key signatures will form a recognizable
pattern -- at least far neater than what you would have had
before . . .

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > i replied but i'm not sure if the reply made it through.
> either
> > > way,
> > > > > could you post this (or your reply to my reply) to the tuning
> > > list?
> > > >
> > > > No reply yet.
> > > >
> > > > Best Wishes
> > > > a.m.
> > >
> > > sorry about that. here goes.
> > >
> > > >> > That makes 80 key signatures.
> > > >
> > > >> wha?? how are you getting that number??
> > >
> > > >Actually 80 is wrong. But by analogy with 12tet - 2 modes (major
> and
> > > >minor) starting on each of 12 tones = 24 keys, given that
> relative
> > > >maj
> > > >and min have the same signature. So in 22 tet 2 modes x 22 tones
> = 44
> > > >keys.
> > >
> > > so that's 22 key signatures. add 11 key signatures for the
> > > symmetrical modes and you have the 33 key signatures shown (on a
> > > decatonic staff) in the Appendix.
> >
> > Still doesn't tally. The Pentachordals; major, minor, standard and
> alternate are all modes of each
> > other. Same with the symmetricals. That makes two basic scales. On
> each of 22 scale steps that
> > makes 44 possible keys.
>
> but the symmetricals are the same when you transpose them by a half-
> octave! thus there are only 11, not 22, symmetrical scale key
> signatures.

>
>
> > I'll report back when i've done them all. As for decatonic
> notation, yes
> > it's excellent, but I'll have enough on my hands with a non-
> diatonic tuning and new notation.
> > Keeping to the 5 line staff is at least one point of familiarity
> for musicians. As I say, it's
> > hard enough to persuade people to look at new tunings anyway.
> >
> > > >Could be I'm on a wild goose chase but the Standard pentachordal
> > > >major for example in 'c' has three accidentals (I'm using
> Fokker's
> > > >notation BTW), f sharp, b and d flat.
> > >
> > > that would seem to indicate this scale:
> > >
> > > C, D flat, E, F sharp, G, A, B flat (, C)
> > >
> > > which in your notation would be pitches
> > >
> > > 0, 1, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18 (,22)
> >
> > Not in the notation I'm using. As I said I'm using Fokker's
> >notation as suggested by Dave Keenan
> > last year : -
> >
> > C, C^, Db^, Dv, D, Eb, Eb^, Ev, E, F, F^, F#v, Gv, G, Ab, Ab^, Av,
> A, Bb, Bb^, Bv, B.
>
> yes, this is correct. remember, D flat is the same as C^. F sharp is
> the same as Gv. recall my recent reminder about chromatic and
> diatonic semitones. so my transcription is correct.
>
> > > while the std. pent. maj. is
> > >
> > > 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 (,22)
> > >
> > > so this seems way off, both in the number of pitches it indicates,
> > > and which pitches it indicates.
> >
> > How so? Tones 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 , 20, (,22) give me C,
> Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> > Bb, Bv, (C). That's flats on b and d and a sharp on f, as I said.
>
> first of all, no (see above). secondly, the key signature would leave
> out the Ev, Bv, and F natural.

I don't understand what you find wrong with this. I can't make things any clearer. How could a key
signature leave out F natural? I've never heard of key signatures with naturals.

>
> > I should state that I don't
> > want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend
> >notating them with a slash through
> > the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no
> >need to have the arrows on the key
> > signature.
>
> hmm . . . so if Bb is in the key signature, and then you want to
> notate Bv, you'd need a natural sign *and* a slash? even though this
> note is supposedly in the key?

No, if Bb is in the key signature, that simply saves me having to write a flat after B when I want
a Bb. Bv is notated as is and doesn't need to be in the key signature. I know this might fly in
the face of convention regarding key signatures, but I'm doing this for convenience rather than
conformity. You have to ask yourself at some point what your reason is for having a key signature
and at the moment I think it would be useful to know that this piece begins in C standard
pentachordal. When sharp and flats creep in then something has changed. These events of change
will eventually become recognisable as cadences, modulations and altered chords.

> this is terribly messy, and will lead
> to sickening complications especially for some of the more complex
> keys.

Not up till now. I find it quite easy to follow though I haven't written anything that modulates
drastically yet.

> > I find this is less complicated, ie having key signatures with as
> >few accidentals as
> > possible.
>
> then why not leave F natural, as F natural is in the key? the same
> goes, though less forcefully due to the slashes, for D and B.

I don't understand what you mean.

>
> > I haven't done them all yet, but the standard pentachordal major on
> C^ (step 1) has
> > three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats on
> b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.
>
> when you do all 33, i think you'll see that they are more confusing
> than informative. but all power to you if you want to stay your
> course.
>

Well at least they'll tell me what decatonic the piece starts on which is what all that a
conventional key signature does. If I write something "tonal", ie which returns to the decatonic I
started with then the key signature tells me what "key" I'm heading in and out of. So far the
signatures seem to be quite straightforward.

>
> > > >> I've also to get used to some notational problems, one being
> the
> > >
> > > >> simple
> > > >> > question of the C major triad and the notation I'm using for
> > > guitar.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Taking C as the root I should notate that as c^ if I want a
> 5/4
> > > >> with 'e'
> > > >> > on the fourth string fourth fret. Then my 3/2 wth c^ is
> > > notated 'a'
> > > >> > flat. I seem to remember transposing the guitar fretboard
> > > >notation
> > > >> to
> > > >> > accommodate the open strings. Better change back.
> > > >
> > > >> i'm not following. are you saying there's something wrong with
> > > having
> > > >> the open strings notated E A d g b' e'; that is, as
> the "naturals"?
> > >
> > > >Well there's nothing wrong but if I want the open strings strings
> > > >natural then 'c' will be c^. As I'm serious about writing for
> other
> > > >conventional instruments, with or without guitar I'm prepared to
> > > >sacrifice an initial convenience on the guitar, ie 'natural' open
> > > >strings, so that I can have a straight 'c'. I don't know what
> your
> > > >thoughts are on that. I'm going right back for a fresh start
> with 22
> > > >tet and as a result am trying to build a firm foundation.
> > >
> > > if you want a 5-limit consonance with 'g', you need 'c'. if you
> want
> > > a 5-limit consonance with 'e', you need 'c^'. so i don't know what
> > > a "straight 'c'" could mean. if you don't like this behavior, you
> can
> > > try to eliminate syntonic comma 'kink', by changing the notation,
> > > retuning the strings, etc. but you'll never get rid of it
> entirely --
> > > you'll merely be shifting it elsewhere -- a wild goose chase
> perhaps.
> > > if you're looking for traditional 5-limit diatonic behavior to be
> > > preserved, you need to use 19, 26, or 31, etc., *not* 22.
> >
> > The "22 is not a good diatonic scale" message has been received
> loud and clear. I think we're
> > saying the same thing here. By my notation, a C major triad has C,
> Ev, and G, ie steps 0, 7 and
> > 13. That has what I mean by a "straight C", ie no arrows or other
> accidentals.
>
> there's an arrow on E, right?

Yes

>
> > When I first
> > looked at the notation I didn't like the idea of having the open
> strings notated as Ev etc. simply
> > in order to have a "straight" C. So I transposed everything to have
> the open strings with no
> > accidentals, which of course gave me a C^ for natated middle C.
>
> do you mean "notated" middle C? if it's notated C, why does it come
> out as C^? i don't get this at all.

It only comes out as C^ if I have the open strings without arrows.

Kind Regards
a.m.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

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

> > first of all, no (see above). secondly, the key signature would
leave
> > out the Ev, Bv, and F natural.
>
> I don't understand what you find wrong with this. I can't make
things any clearer. How could a key
> signature leave out F natural? I've never heard of key signatures
with naturals.

***alison, what i mean is that the key signature, having an F sharp
in it already, does not clue you in that F natural is actually in the
key. so i don't understand why you'd want to have F sharp in the key
signature, and then use naturals on so many of the Fs in the score,
rather that using a simpler key signature that leaves F natural, and
then inserting sharps by the Fs that need them . . .

> > > I should state that I don't
> > > want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend
> > >notating them with a slash through
> > > the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no
> > >need to have the arrows on the key
> > > signature.
> >
> > hmm . . . so if Bb is in the key signature, and then you want to
> > notate Bv, you'd need a natural sign *and* a slash? even though
this
> > note is supposedly in the key?
>
> No, if Bb is in the key signature, that simply saves me having to
write a flat after B when I want
> a Bb. Bv is notated as is and doesn't need to be in the key
signature. I know this might fly in
> the face of convention regarding key signatures, but I'm doing this
for convenience rather than
> conformity.

but what happens with Db? if you want to write the note that's
actually in the scale, Db^, then by your own convention above, you
wouldn't be able to write D^, even though D is already flatted in the
key signature, since is Bv is "notated as is", the same would be true
of D^. so you'd have to write Db^ to get the actual note that's in
the key. then what's the point of having D flatted in the key
signature?

> > this is terribly messy, and will lead
> > to sickening complications especially for some of the more complex
> > keys.
>
> Not up till now. I find it quite easy to follow though I haven't
written anything that modulates
> drastically yet.

well, it looks even worse to me now, due to the inconsistency above.

> > > I find this is less complicated, ie having key signatures with
as
> > >few accidentals as
> > > possible.
> >
> > then why not leave F natural, as F natural is in the key? the same
> > goes, though less forcefully due to the slashes, for D and B.
>
> I don't understand what you mean.

see *** above.

> > > I haven't done them all yet, but the standard pentachordal
major on
> > C^ (step 1) has
> > > three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats
on
> > b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.
> >
> > when you do all 33, i think you'll see that they are more
confusing
> > than informative. but all power to you if you want to stay your
> > course.
> >
>
> Well at least they'll tell me what decatonic the piece starts on
which is what all that a
> conventional key signature does. If I write something "tonal", ie
which returns to the decatonic I
> started with then the key signature tells me what "key" I'm heading
in and out of. So far the
> signatures seem to be quite straightforward.

i don't see how you could say that with all the complications above.
which will only multiply as you move further from the key of C.

> > > When I first
> > > looked at the notation I didn't like the idea of having the open
> > strings notated as Ev etc. simply
> > > in order to have a "straight" C. So I transposed everything to
have
> > the open strings with no
> > > accidentals, which of course gave me a C^ for natated middle C.
> >
> > do you mean "notated" middle C? if it's notated C, why does it
come
> > out as C^? i don't get this at all.
>
> It only comes out as C^ if I have the open strings without arrows.

if the open strings are without arrows, then the note that harmonizes
with the open G string (a fifth below) is C, with no arrows. this
seems like what "notated" middle C should mean . . .

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > How so? Tones 0, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18 , 20, (,22) give me C,
> Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> > Bb, Bv, (C). That's flats on b and d and a sharp on f, as I said.
> I should state that I don't
> > want to have up and down arrows in key signatures as I intend
> notating them with a slash through
> > the notehead (which doesn't clutter up the page). So there's no
> need to have the arrows on the key
> > signature. I find this is less complicated, ie having key
> signatures with as few accidentals as
> > possible. I haven't done them all yet, but the standard
> pentachordal major on C^ (step 1) has
> > three flats, on b, e and a. The one on Db^ (step 2) has flats on
> b, e, a and d, and a sharp on f.
>
> in a way, this is like notating the (diatonic) key of F# major with a
> lot of sharps but then a b-flat in the key signature, and using a
> natural sign whenever the fourth degree of the scale occurs. only
> worse.
>
> i have a much better suggestion for you. don't attempt to key-signify
> a decatonic scale on a heptatonic staff. instead, stick with the
> conventional diatonic key signature that best matches the decatonic
> scale. the decatonic scale will have 5 notes (every other note) in
> common with 3 diatonic scales, and 5 notes in common with 3 others.
> choose the 5 that include the tonic, and of the 3 choose the middle
> one. for the example above, C, Db^, D, Ev, F, F#v, G, Av,
> > Bb, Bv, (C), the 5 notes in question are C, D, F, G, and Bb. this
> is a chain of fifths (as always), and extending it by one fifth on
> either end introduces A and Eb. so this is the same as the
> conventional Bb major or G minor key signature, and that's what you
> should use. then all the key signatures will form a recognizable
> pattern -- at least far neater than what you would have had
> before . . .

Interesting idea. What interests me here is how you would establish without writing out the scales
that every other note forms 5 notes common to three diatonic scales. What's the theory behind this
or did you just observe it when you wrote out the scales? Thanks for your patience.

Regards
a.m.