Easley Blackwood enharmonics

I've been listening to Easley Blackwood's _12 Microtonal Etudes_
again, but this time with the *score*...

As some of you probably know, *every* synthesized note is written out
in Blackwood's particular notation for each ET.

The score is actually pretty easy to follow, since *rhythmically*
Blackwood is quite traditional.

I guess he's pretty traditional *harmonically* too, at least in the
ETs in which he can emulate diatonic harmony.

OK... my *question* involves the enharmonics in the notation.
Blackwood has this seemingly *complicated* system of enharmonics for
each ET.

I was wondering what the reason was for this. Anybody know?? I'm
assuming it probably has something to do with the chord structures
and the diatonic modulations he's trying to set up.

The notation seems complex... am I on the right track??

Thanks, Group!

Joe Pehrson

>The score is actually pretty easy to follow, since *rhythmically*
>Blackwood is quite traditional.
>
>I guess he's pretty traditional *harmonically* too, at least in
>the ETs in which he can emulate diatonic harmony.

I would agree with this, at least regarding the microtonal
etudes.

>OK... my *question* involves the enharmonics in the notation.
>Blackwood has this seemingly *complicated* system of enharmonics
>for each ET.
>
>I was wondering what the reason was for this. Anybody know??
>I'm assuming it probably has something to do with the chord
>structures and the diatonic modulations he's trying to set up.
>
>The notation seems complex... am I on the right track??

Enharmonics are generally caused by commas that are tempered
out. Blackwood likes them for some reason; his 12-et music
is also filled with them.

Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
an incredibly bad decision on his part.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"

/tuning/topicId_41601.html#41626

<clumma@y...> wrote:
> >The score is actually pretty easy to follow, since *rhythmically*
> >Blackwood is quite traditional.
> >
> >I guess he's pretty traditional *harmonically* too, at least in
> >the ETs in which he can emulate diatonic harmony.
>
> I would agree with this, at least regarding the microtonal
> etudes.
>
> >OK... my *question* involves the enharmonics in the notation.
> >Blackwood has this seemingly *complicated* system of enharmonics
> >for each ET.
> >
> >I was wondering what the reason was for this. Anybody know??
> >I'm assuming it probably has something to do with the chord
> >structures and the diatonic modulations he's trying to set up.
> >
> >The notation seems complex... am I on the right track??
>
> Enharmonics are generally caused by commas that are tempered
> out. Blackwood likes them for some reason; his 12-et music
> is also filled with them.
>
> Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
> to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
> an incredibly bad decision on his part.
>
> -Carl

****Thanks for the "clues" here, Carl. Every little bit helps...

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
<clumma@y...> wrote:

> >The notation seems complex... am I on the right track??
>
> Enharmonics are generally caused by commas that are tempered
> out.

blackwood made some curious choices in his notation system, which are
(surprise surprise) altogether too tied to 12-equal habits. for
example, his 16-equal notation preserves the "conventional" notation
for diminished seventh chords, where "conventional" means a
particular choice from among the 12-equal enharmonic equivalents that
*he* finds most comprehensible on the page.

> Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
> to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
> an incredibly bad decision on his part.

you realize, of course, that the current notation project undertaken
by george secor and dave keenan also keeps 7 nominals for every
tuning system (i believe, at this point, they're doing 43-limit JI,
as well as every ET up to 100 and many more through 494) . . . so is
this an incredibly bad decision on george secor and dave keenan's
part as well?

carl wrote,

> > Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
> > to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
> > an incredibly bad decision on his part.

i wrote,

> you realize, of course, that the current notation project
undertaken
> by george secor and dave keenan also keeps 7 nominals for every
> tuning system (i believe, at this point, they're doing 43-limit JI,
> as well as every ET up to 100 and many more through 494) . . . so
is
> this an incredibly bad decision on george secor and dave keenan's
> part as well?

not to mention the notation systems used by johnny reinhard, ben
johnston, joe monzo, etc. all use 7 nominals. all "incredibly bad"??

>>Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
>>to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
>>an incredibly bad decision on his part.
>
>you realize, of course, that the current notation project
>undertaken by george secor and dave keenan also keeps 7
>nominals for every tuning system (i believe, at this point,
>they're doing 43-limit JI, as well as every ET up to 100
>and many more through 494) . . . so is this an incredibly
>bad decision on george secor and dave keenan's part as well?

I think it will be useful and interesting to have a unified
notation for microcromatic diatonic music... but if they
sell it for all microtonal music it would unequivocally be
a mistake, as I've said many times in the past.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > >The notation seems complex... am I on the right track??
> >
> > Enharmonics are generally caused by commas that are tempered
> > out.
>
> blackwood made some curious choices in his notation system, which
are
> (surprise surprise) altogether too tied to 12-equal habits. for
> example, his 16-equal notation preserves the "conventional"
notation
> for diminished seventh chords, where "conventional" means a
> particular choice from among the 12-equal enharmonic equivalents
that
> *he* finds most comprehensible on the page.
>
> > Blackwood's notation is needlessly complex because he chose
> > to keep 7 nominals whether the tuning called for them or not;
> > an incredibly bad decision on his part.
>
> you realize, of course, that the current notation project
undertaken
> by george secor and dave keenan also keeps 7 nominals for every
> tuning system (i believe, at this point, they're doing 43-limit JI,
> as well as every ET up to 100 and many more through 494) . . . so
is
> this an incredibly bad decision on george secor and dave keenan's
> part as well?

We're doing 31-limit JI independent of any EDO -- higher primes must
be mapped to an ET.

We're in the process of going beyond 494 -- at least up to 612 now
(by popular demand -- Monz & Gene want 612).

We have 7 nominals for most ETs, but not all. Per Table 3 of my
paper, we do 16 as a subset of 48 (that includes D, although I notice
that I didn't say that in the paper). In Table 4 the multiples of 5
are notated with 5 nominals, CGDAE, but preferably as subsets of
larger ETs (5 & 10 out of 50, 15 out of 60). We do most of the
divisions that aren't 1,3,9-consistent as subsets of larger
divisions, although we have also given native-fifth notations for
some of these (7, 14, 21, 45, 49, 57, 64) as an option.

--George