Sagittal notation (down arrow)

Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the distinction of
writing the very first *negative* review of Sagittal notation on this
list.

Dave Keenan sent me the font. It's arrows upon arrows. Even the
*simplest* of the arrows has slight variations in companions that
have different arrow sides.

No musician could *ever* read this notation in a practical
circumstance. I'm sorry. Basically, this notation and font is a
*theoretical* exercise, and a fascinating one.

I think this could be a very important notation for *analysis* of
microtonality, but it surely doesn't seem like a notation that
musicians could actually use in performance...

One reason is the simple fact that so many of the symbols look so
much like other ones. There is no way that somebody signt reading
could *ever* interpret these subtle distinctions.

I got the font to work easily and nicely in Sibelius. There was
nothing to it. I can bring the font in *easily* since it's a True
Type font, so that part worked just great. In fact, Dave, I wouldn't
try to *replace* symbols in Sibelius with this. I would let the
*user* determine which symbols of the full Sagittal set one wanted to
use... It's *easy* in Sibelius.

Now, whether I would personally want to *use* a notation like this
for practical music-making is another matter.

Regrettably, as one of the immediate "beta testers" of this product,
I would have to say that it is an important tool for *analysis* but
would most probably not work for practical music making.

I hope I'm proven wrong, Dave and George, since I know all the work,
and fascinating work at that, that went into it.

And, this is only a first appraisal, but I have a big mouth (big
typing fingers) so here it is preliminarily...

Joseph Pehrson

P.S. Maybe our Johnny Reinhard is right after all in his sensible
cents approach... :) Certainly he knows from a PRACTICAL
standpoint...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the distinction of
> writing the very first *negative* review of Sagittal notation on this
> list.

Oh dear, Joseph. What a pity you didn't email these misconceptions to
George or I before writing something so negative and ill-informed.

I understood you were going to test its use for notating 72-ET. Why
not tell us how it fares at that?

> Dave Keenan sent me the font.

I sent the current draft which has final versions of the 72-ET symbols
and drafts versions of many others.

> It's arrows upon arrows. Even the
> *simplest* of the arrows has slight variations in companions that
> have different arrow sides.

Good grief. What do you expect to find in a system capable of uniquely
notating zillions of different ratios, and ETs up to 1171? The
capability is there, but you aren't forced to use it. Most will never
use more than a tiny fraction of these symbols. In any given tuning,
the few you need will be as distinct as possible. Most people will
never need anything other than the 3 pairs that you were supposed to
be reviewing.

And three quarters of those symbols are immediately irrelevant to
anyone who plans to use the sagittal symbols in combination with the
conventional sharps and flats.

> No musician could *ever* read this notation in a practical
> circumstance. I'm sorry. Basically, this notation and font is a
> *theoretical* exercise, and a fascinating one.

So you freaked when you saw a palette laying out the whole font (an
important lesson for us). But you have no idea what you are looking at.

> One reason is the simple fact that so many of the symbols look so
> much like other ones. There is no way that somebody signt reading
> could *ever* interpret these subtle distinctions.

They won't have to.

> I got the font to work easily and nicely in Sibelius. There was
> nothing to it. I can bring the font in *easily* since it's a True
> Type font, so that part worked just great.

Well that's _something_. :-)

> In fact, Dave, I wouldn't
> try to *replace* symbols in Sibelius with this.

I have no idea what you mean. You may have misinterpreted something I
said.

> I would let the
> *user* determine which symbols of the full Sagittal set one wanted to
> use... It's *easy* in Sibelius.

That was certainly the intention.

> Now, whether I would personally want to *use* a notation like this
> for practical music-making is another matter.

So are you actually going to try it?

As Paul said, it's a straight one-for-one substitution for the Sims
accidentals you're using now. I told you which ones.

After using Sims', I imagine it's going to be hard for you to get used
to the fact that the full arrow is the 1/4-tone and not the 1/12-tone,
and the half-arrow is the 1/12-tone and not the 1/6-tone, although
they are wider and narrower respectively than the similar Sims
symbols, as befits their purpose. But I hope you can keep an open mind
about how it might appear to someone who hasn't already been using
Sims notation.

I think you will find that the alignment with the notehead is more
definite in sagittal, particularly in the combinations with sharps and
flats.

And the new quartertone symbols don't take up such enormous expanses
vertically and horizontally as the Sims "square-root" signs.

I kinda hoped you might change one of your Blackjack scores to use
them and then show us what it looks like. Even just one page.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

By the way. There is no "hinting" in that draft TrueType font. This
means that the on-screen rendition of the symbols is crap. Only the
printed versions can be trusted (or 400% enlargements onscreen).

-- Dave Keenan

>Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the distinction of
>writing the very first *negative* review of Sagittal notation on this
>list.

No worries; I beat you to it!

>P.S. Maybe our Johnny Reinhard is right after all in his sensible
>cents approach... :) Certainly he knows from a PRACTICAL
>standpoint...

There's something to this proposal, but it doesn't show at a glance
the harmonic structure of the music, and it seems to fail for
keyboard music.

-Carl

hi Dave and Joe,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

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

> > Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the
> > distinction of writing the very first *negative* review
> > of Sagittal notation on this list.
>
> <big snip>
>
> As Paul said, it's a straight one-for-one substitution for
> the Sims accidentals you're using now. I told you which ones.
>
> After using Sims', I imagine it's going to be hard for you
> to get used to the fact that the full arrow is the 1/4-tone
> and not the 1/12-tone,

well, at least i can say that it's not trouble for *me*,
since my HEWM 72edo notation uses up/down arrows (and ^ and v
in ASCII) for the 1/4-tones! :)

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

> and the half-arrow is the 1/12-tone and not the 1/6-tone,
> although they are wider and narrower respectively than
> the similar Sims symbols, as befits their purpose.

hmmm ... well, for 1/6-tones Joe's notation and mine are
the same, using half-arrows in actual notation and < and >
in ASCII.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47489

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the distinction
of
> > writing the very first *negative* review of Sagittal notation on
this
> > list.
>
> Oh dear, Joseph. What a pity you didn't email these misconceptions
to
> George or I before writing something so negative and ill-informed.
>

***Well, I *did* mention that these were only initial impressions.

> I understood you were going to test its use for notating 72-ET. Why
> not tell us how it fares at that?

***Now that you sent me a graphic of the entire set, I can tell
right away that it does *not* work so well with 72-tET.

The twelfth-tones and sixth-tones are *MUCH TOO SIMILAR.* Sure they
are on different sides of the note stem, but that's not enough.
When a musician is reading a score, there needs to be *much* more
differentiation than this!

In fact, when I was trying to find the fonts myself from the ascii
resemblances you sent me, I chose *other* ones for the twelfth-
tones, since I couldn't believe you would use such similar symbols
for both!

>
> > Dave Keenan sent me the font.
>
> I sent the current draft which has final versions of the 72-ET
symbols
> and drafts versions of many others.
>
> > It's arrows upon arrows. Even the
> > *simplest* of the arrows has slight variations in companions
that
> > have different arrow sides.
>
> Good grief. What do you expect to find in a system capable of
uniquely
> notating zillions of different ratios, and ETs up to 1171?

***Maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe there should be a *core*
set of symbols with other symbols that are *modifiers.* I think
that could be much more easily read. Now maybe you are doing that,
but it appears, of the moment, that you are trying to get *single*
symbols to do almost everything!

The
> capability is there, but you aren't forced to use it. Most will
never
> use more than a tiny fraction of these symbols. In any given
tuning,
> the few you need will be as distinct as possible. Most people will
> never need anything other than the 3 pairs that you were supposed
to
> be reviewing.
>

***Well, it's not an adequate set. I can tell you that right now...

> And three quarters of those symbols are immediately irrelevant to
> anyone who plans to use the sagittal symbols in combination with
the
> conventional sharps and flats.
>
> > No musician could *ever* read this notation in a practical
> > circumstance. I'm sorry. Basically, this notation and font is
a
> > *theoretical* exercise, and a fascinating one.
>
> So you freaked when you saw a palette laying out the whole font (an
> important lesson for us). But you have no idea what you are
looking at.
>

***As I said, I will continue to reserve judgement. This is only
friendly discussion, hopefully.

> > One reason is the simple fact that so many of the symbols look
so
> > much like other ones. There is no way that somebody signt
reading
> > could *ever* interpret these subtle distinctions.
>
> They won't have to.
>
> > I got the font to work easily and nicely in Sibelius. There was
> > nothing to it. I can bring the font in *easily* since it's a
True
> > Type font, so that part worked just great.
>
> Well that's _something_. :-)
>
> > In fact, Dave, I wouldn't
> > try to *replace* symbols in Sibelius with this.
>
> I have no idea what you mean. You may have misinterpreted
something I
> said.
>

***Well, at one point you were having me evaluate the *utility* of
the existing Sibelius symbols, which led me to believe that you were
expecting to *replace* some of them. I was just saying that this is
unnecessary, since on can *add* as many symbols from a True Type
font as one wants, and they will all appear at the *bottom* of the
symbols pallette. I believe the entire Sagittal font could be
included in this way...

> > I would let the
> > *user* determine which symbols of the full Sagittal set one
wanted to
> > use... It's *easy* in Sibelius.
>
> That was certainly the intention.
>
> > Now, whether I would personally want to *use* a notation like
this
> > for practical music-making is another matter.
>
> So are you actually going to try it?

***Well, at the moment, I am not happy with the 72-tET set, so I
rather doubt it for right now.

>
> As Paul said, it's a straight one-for-one substitution for the Sims
> accidentals you're using now. I told you which ones.

***Hardly. The Sims are very well-differentiated. This set is not.

>
> After using Sims', I imagine it's going to be hard for you to get
used
> to the fact that the full arrow is the 1/4-tone and not the 1/12-
tone,
> and the half-arrow is the 1/12-tone and not the 1/6-tone, although
> they are wider and narrower respectively than the similar Sims
> symbols, as befits their purpose. But I hope you can keep an open
mind
> about how it might appear to someone who hasn't already been using
> Sims notation.

***Really that's not the most significant problem, since I *could*
get used to quartertones being arrows. As Monz attests, *lots* of
contemporary music has used that over the years. The problem is the
lack of differentiation between sixth-tone and twelfth-tone symbols
as I mention above.

>
> I think you will find that the alignment with the notehead is more
> definite in sagittal, particularly in the combinations with sharps
and
> flats.
>
> And the new quartertone symbols don't take up such enormous
expanses
> vertically and horizontally as the Sims "square-root" signs.

>
> I kinda hoped you might change one of your Blackjack scores to use
> them and then show us what it looks like. Even just one page.
>

***Well, I supposed I could do that, but I can tell you right now
how it's going to look: a bunch of very similar looking symbols all
over the page!

Sorry!

Joseph

In a message dated 10/2/2003 4:13:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> There's something to this proposal, but it doesn't show at a glance
> the harmonic structure of the music, and it seems to fail for
> keyboard music.
>
> -Carl
>

Rudolf Rasch had a tough time with Gardner Read's book along similar lines.
When Gardner compiled every kind of notation he could locate and decipher,
Rudolf complained that it didn't reflect the harmonic relationships, and raked
him over the coals. Gardner contacted me asking what was it that produced the
tirade.

I think it is apples and oranges. Harry Partch was right to call trained
musicians "Show Horses in the Concert Ring." They don't fare well with
intellectual rationalisms: they only want to be pointed into a direction so they can
go. The place for explaining harmonic structure is in an introductory
paragraph, page, or section. Once the music notation begins in real time, the issues
are clarity, size of notation, space, good page turns, and lack of similarity
between notation. Arrows are way risky because of their implied
indefiniteness. Players need linear real-time indications, as if they have blinders on
their eyes like the horses. They can be too easily distracted by theoretical
analysis, and just give up the ghost. Cents numbers trump multiple notations
because the player sees all the different quantities of numbers as a single
notation: it is a number.

Keyboards traditionally do not move through pitch. Each pitch is
metaphorically behind a door and the keyboardist can only knock. New instruments may
change this situation, but it is all speculatory at the moment. For similar
reasons, as stated above, keyboardists do not need to know more than to place
their fingers in the right "pre-ordained" or pretuned places.

As far as cents notation in the field, it works well.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47501

> In a message dated 10/2/2003 4:13:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ekin@l...
> writes:
>
> > There's something to this proposal, but it doesn't show at a
glance
> > the harmonic structure of the music, and it seems to fail for
> > keyboard music.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
> Rudolf Rasch had a tough time with Gardner Read's book along
similar lines.
> When Gardner compiled every kind of notation he could locate and
decipher,
> Rudolf complained that it didn't reflect the harmonic
relationships, and raked
> him over the coals. Gardner contacted me asking what was it that
produced the
> tirade.
>
> I think it is apples and oranges. Harry Partch was right to call
trained
> musicians "Show Horses in the Concert Ring." They don't fare well
with
> intellectual rationalisms: they only want to be pointed into a
direction so they can
> go. The place for explaining harmonic structure is in an
introductory
> paragraph, page, or section. Once the music notation begins in
real time, the issues
> are clarity, size of notation, space, good page turns, and lack of
similarity
> between notation. Arrows are way risky because of their implied
> indefiniteness. Players need linear real-time indications, as if
they have blinders on
> their eyes like the horses. They can be too easily distracted by
theoretical
> analysis, and just give up the ghost. Cents numbers trump
multiple notations
> because the player sees all the different quantities of numbers as
a single
> notation: it is a number.
>
> Keyboards traditionally do not move through pitch. Each pitch is
> metaphorically behind a door and the keyboardist can only knock.
New instruments may
> change this situation, but it is all speculatory at the moment.
For similar
> reasons, as stated above, keyboardists do not need to know more
than to place
> their fingers in the right "pre-ordained" or pretuned places.
>
> As far as cents notation in the field, it works well.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

***I agree entirely with Johnny that there is a difference between
a "theoretical" notation and a "performance" notation.

From the look of it, it seems that Sagittal falls into the former
category...

(Performers really don't care all that much about the theory...)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> ...
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > > Well, aren't I a wonderful human being. I get the distinction
of
> > > writing the very first *negative* review of Sagittal notation
on this
> > > list.
> >
> > Oh dear, Joseph. What a pity you didn't email these
misconceptions to
> > George or I before writing something so negative and ill-informed.
>
> ***Well, I *did* mention that these were only initial impressions.

Dave previously addressed some of the problems involved with
designing a notation that contains hundred of symbols. If they are
too dissimilar in appearance from one another, then it is difficult
to remember how they are related, but if they are too similar in
appearance, then it is difficult to tell them apart. We chose
symbols that all have an arrowlike appearance (for similarity), but
these contain symbol elements (strokes or flags) that are different
in appearance from one another.

A westerner's initial impression of Chinese characters (and, come to
think of it, Chinese faces!) is that they tend to look very much
alike, but taking a little time to become familiar with them enables
one to appreciate the differences. Did you learn your alphabet
overnight? Do you now have any problem distinguishing "J" from "L"?

> > I understood you were going to test its use for notating 72-ET.
Why
> > not tell us how it fares at that?
>
> ***Now that you sent me a graphic of the entire set, I can tell
> right away that it does *not* work so well with 72-tET.
>
> The twelfth-tones and sixth-tones are *MUCH TOO SIMILAR.* Sure
they
> are on different sides of the note stem, but that's not enough.
> When a musician is reading a score, there needs to be *much* more
> differentiation than this!

For the benefit of others who may be reading this and who may wish to
offer their opinions, the symbols in question are contained in this
graphic (a musical example in sagittal notation):

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

The two symbols are, respectively, the 5-comma /| and 7-comma symbols
|), and they may be seen (in reverse order) in measure 6 of the
graphic (pointing downward). In my judgment they are about as
different in appearance as the letters L and J. Both pairs have a
vertical stroke in common and differ in two ways: 1) a curved vs. a
straight-line stroke 2) placed on opposite sides of the vertical
stroke.

Ezra Sims addressed the problem of symbol legibility under adverse
conditions (poor lighting and excessive reading distance) by making a
couple of his 72-ET symbols (the ones for the quartertones) rather
large (i.e., long in the vertical direction, besides being rather
ugly), which makes it more difficult to determine quickly which
notehead is being modified in a polyphonic part or score. For parts
in sagittal notation that are likely to be read under less-than-ideal
conditions, we recommend using staves that are slightly larger than
usual -- a 10 percent linear magnification would make a significant
difference in legibility.

>
> >
> > > Dave Keenan sent me the font.
> >
> > I sent the current draft which has final versions of the 72-ET
symbols
> > and drafts versions of many others.
> >
> > > It's arrows upon arrows. Even the
> > > *simplest* of the arrows has slight variations in companions
that
> > > have different arrow sides.

Well, at least you can readily tell in which direction the pitch is
being altered.

> > Good grief. What do you expect to find in a system capable of
uniquely
> > notating zillions of different ratios, and ETs up to 1171?
>
> ***Maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe there should be a
*core*
> set of symbols with other symbols that are *modifiers.* I think
> that could be much more easily read. Now maybe you are doing that,
> but it appears, of the moment, that you are trying to get *single*
> symbols to do almost everything!

There *is* a core subset of symbols (which we call "spartan") that
use only two kinds of flags: straight and convex (barbs and arcs) --
the two kinds that are physically largest in size. The symbols for
72-ET are in this spartan subset, as are all of the symbols in the
graphic example. Spend a little time learning the harmonic
significance of the symbols in the example:

A symbol with a single straight flag (or "barb") alters by a 5 comma
(80:81), also used for 1 degree of 72 (1deg72).

A symbol with a single curved flag (or "arc") on the right side
alters by a 7 comma (63:64), also used for 2deg72.

A symbol with either two barbs or two arcs (one left, one right)
alters by an 11 diesis (32:33 for 2 barbs, 704:729 for two arcs).
The arrow with two barbs is used for 3deg72.

A symbol with one barb and one arc (on opposite sides) alters by a 13
diesis (1024:1053 with the barb on the left; 26:27 with the barb on
the right). Neither of these symbols is used for 72-ET, and the
former one is not shown in the example.

A comparison of the upper staff with the lower one will illustrate
how these single-shaft arrow symbols are combined with sharp and flat
alterations to arrive at the pure-sagittal multi-shaft arrow symbols
in the lower staff.

This is admittedly a bit theoretical, but that is what gives the
notation a great deal of flexibility.

Perhaps part of the problem is what you're seeing on the *screen* in
Sibelius:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> By the way. There is no "hinting" in that draft TrueType font. This
> means that the on-screen rendition of the symbols is crap. Only the
> printed versions can be trusted (or 400% enlargements onscreen).

which is all the more reason why you should try printing out some
music (in a slightly larger size than usual) using the sagittal
symbols, then spend a some time looking it over, and after a few days
let us know what you think.

--George

>keyboardists do not need to know more than to place their fingers
>in the right "pre-ordained" or pretuned places.

Right, so cents notation is not appropriate.

-Carl

>***I agree entirely with Johnny that there is a difference between
>a "theoretical" notation and a "performance" notation.

I disagree with this statement in the extreme, and I'm sure Joseph,
that's you don't mean this, but I don't have time at the moment to
go into why.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47491

> By the way. There is no "hinting" in that draft TrueType font. This
> means that the on-screen rendition of the symbols is crap. Only the
> printed versions can be trusted (or 400% enlargements onscreen).
>
> -- Dave Keenan

***But I have a font program and I've printed out the set! That's
what I'm looking at... :)

Joseph

P.S. I feel really bad about all this, but I'm just expressing my
current view. I was excited about the possibilities and disappointed
when I saw the "reality..."

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47508

> A westerner's initial impression of Chinese characters (and, come
to
> think of it, Chinese faces!) is that they tend to look very much
> alike, but taking a little time to become familiar with them
enables
> one to appreciate the differences. Did you learn your alphabet
> overnight? Do you now have any problem distinguishing "J" from "L"?
>

###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're not
going to take the time to learn this. Most of them, as Johhny
Reinhard mentioned, care little about theory (many don't even take
much of it in school!) and they just want to play.

So it is up to *me* as the composer to present it to them, and it has
to be something totally transparent.

The 72-tET symbols do not appear adequate to me. I understand that
they illustrate commas and have their own logic but there is a big
difference between 16 cents and 33 cents and the arrows don't show
these distinctions.

I'm not going to tell a player: "Well here is my notation. If the
little arrow is straight and points to the left it's 16 cents, but if
it is just a teeny tiny little tiny bit curvy and points to the
right, well, we're talking about 33 cents here...

They're going to look at my crosseyed. They *already* look at me
crosseyed...

Nobody is going to play this and, at the moment, I am not inclined to
put it on my music, even for "experimental" purposes since it's so
ridiculous...

> For the benefit of others who may be reading this and who may wish
to
> offer their opinions, the symbols in question are contained in this
> graphic (a musical example in sagittal notation):
>
> /tuning-
> math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif
>

###I wish some *performing* musicians would take a look at this.
Maybe Johnny Reinhard will look at it. However, I know what he'll
say, since he doesn't even like the *Sims!*

> Ezra Sims addressed the problem of symbol legibility under adverse
> conditions (poor lighting and excessive reading distance) by making
a
> couple of his 72-ET symbols (the ones for the quartertones) rather
> large (i.e., long in the vertical direction, besides being rather
> ugly), which makes it more difficult to determine quickly which
> notehead is being modified in a polyphonic part or score.

###Well, yes, but this is not how I read this at all. I think the
size plays an *important* part in a player determining the "severity"
of the microtonal inflection. In other words, the player knows
*immediately* that quartertones are being played.

> > > > It's arrows upon arrows. Even the
> > > > *simplest* of the arrows has slight variations in companions
> that
> > > > have different arrow sides.
>
> Well, at least you can readily tell in which direction the pitch is
> being altered.
>

###Sure, this much makes sense. But in the Sims, for instance, the
arrows for sixth tones are *quite* different from the arrows for
twelfth tones... The quartertones don't make a lot of sense, I
agree...

> > but it appears, of the moment, that you are trying to get
*single*
> > symbols to do almost everything!
>
> There *is* a core subset of symbols (which we call "spartan") that
> use only two kinds of flags: straight and convex (barbs and arcs) --

> the two kinds that are physically largest in size. The symbols for
> 72-ET are in this spartan subset, as are all of the symbols in the
> graphic example. Spend a little time learning the harmonic
> significance of the symbols in the example:
>
> This is admittedly a bit theoretical, but that is what gives the
> notation a great deal of flexibility.
>

###I read through this and it's very interesting and it's great that
you have designed such a sophisticated system. However, it doesn't
address the question of legibility and differentiation and that, of
course, I what I'm having problems with...

> which is all the more reason why you should try printing out some
> music (in a slightly larger size than usual) using the sagittal
> symbols, then spend a some time looking it over, and after a few
days let us know what you think.
>

***Well, I'll continue to give it the benefit of the doubt, and will
continue thinking about it.

However, in a complex passage, if a performer is going to see a whole
bunch of *very* similar arrows (just with the flags going different
ways) pretty soon his mind is going to glaze over.

We might as well be playing aleatoric music at *that* point... :)

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47513

> >***I agree entirely with Johnny that there is a difference between
> >a "theoretical" notation and a "performance" notation.
>
> I disagree with this statement in the extreme, and I'm sure Joseph,
> that's you don't mean this, but I don't have time at the moment to
> go into why.
>
> -Carl

***Well, OK, Carl, then you're forcing me to question the validity of
the Sagittal notation in *ANY* case...

Theoretical tuning concepts in music can probably be best expressed
with numbers and ratios, anyway...

JP

>###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're not
>going to take the time to learn this.

That's a problem for microtonal music, not microtonal notation.

-Carl

>***Well, OK, Carl, then you're forcing me to question the validity of
>the Sagittal notation in *ANY* case...

I'm not saying the sagittal accidentals aren't too similar-looking.
But I am saying it's desirable, even for the prototypical clarinet
player, to be able to tell at a glance which notes aren't in the
current key or when the key changes, for a conductor or keyboardist
to see the harmonic content of a score at a glance. This isn't
possible with cents deviation from 12-tET.

>Theoretical tuning concepts in music can probably be best expressed
>with numbers and ratios, anyway...

No, that's the point. I don't like this "theoretical" monster, by
the way. What exactly is theory, vs. what isn't? Whatever you
don't like?

The point is, if you read your forms of tonality, you can do away
with ratios but still retain all the meaning, with a single accidental
for linear temperaments -- conventional notation being the most
glaring example. Is conventional notation theoretical?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47526

> >###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're
not
> >going to take the time to learn this.
>
> That's a problem for microtonal music, not microtonal notation.
>
> -Carl

***I disagree, Carl. There are different *levels* of this, and some
things that are *easier* to teach than others...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47527

> >***Well, OK, Carl, then you're forcing me to question the
validity of
> >the Sagittal notation in *ANY* case...
>
> I'm not saying the sagittal accidentals aren't too similar-looking.
> But I am saying it's desirable, even for the prototypical clarinet
> player, to be able to tell at a glance which notes aren't in the
> current key or when the key changes, for a conductor or keyboardist
> to see the harmonic content of a score at a glance. This isn't
> possible with cents deviation from 12-tET.
>

***I think, Carl, if you work more with instrumentalists, you will
find that they are really not interested in *any* of this. They are
more concerned with how they *look* in front of the crowd...

> >Theoretical tuning concepts in music can probably be best
expressed
> >with numbers and ratios, anyway...
>
> No, that's the point. I don't like this "theoretical" monster, by
> the way. What exactly is theory, vs. what isn't? Whatever you
> don't like?
>

***I enjoy *theory*, but in the classroom, not in the performance
situation...

> The point is, if you read your forms of tonality, you can do away
> with ratios but still retain all the meaning, with a single
accidental
> for linear temperaments -- conventional notation being the most
> glaring example. Is conventional notation theoretical?
>
> -Carl

***I'm not following you...

JP

In a message dated 10/3/2003 1:18:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> >***Well, OK, Carl, then you're forcing me to question the validity of
> >the Sagittal notation in *ANY* case...
>
> I'm not saying the sagittal accidentals aren't too similar-looking.
> But I am saying it's desirable, even for the prototypical clarinet
> player, to be able to tell at a glance which notes aren't in the
> current key or when the key changes, for a conductor or keyboardist
> to see the harmonic content of a score at a glance. This isn't
> possible with cents deviation from 12-tET.
>

Carl, "at a glance" is at term appropriate for reading music. Understanding
the whys and therefores is not for players needing "at a glance" information
for them to do their job. I am sorry this is difficult for you to appreciate.

> >Theoretical tuning concepts in music can probably be best expressed
> >with numbers and ratios, anyway...
>
> No, that's the point. I don't like this "theoretical" monster, by
> the way. What exactly is theory, vs. what isn't? Whatever you
> don't like?
>

Joseph is correct here, even though he likes symbols rather than numbers.
Instead of calling salt by its chemical components, why not stick with the term
most understood by players.

> The point is, if you read your forms of tonality, you can do away
> with ratios but still retain all the meaning, with a single accidental
> for linear temperaments -- conventional notation being the most
> glaring example. Is conventional notation theoretical?
>
> -Carl

Conventional notation is a practice, so it is not a theory. Also, music is
not for tonality alone, so sets of notes may be arbitrary from an all-inclusive
set of pitches.

-Johnny

>>>###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're
>>>not going to take the time to learn this.
>>
>> That's a problem for microtonal music, not microtonal notation.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***I disagree, Carl. There are different *levels* of this, and some
>things that are *easier* to teach than others...

There certainly are different levels, but unless you deny the link
between media and music, you can't escape my statement. You can
compose in one medium (say, at a keyboard) and transcribe into
another (say, Sagittal notation) for performance, but the music will
still suffer to the extent the performers don't understand it.

-Carl

>> I'm not saying the sagittal accidentals aren't too similar-looking.
>> But I am saying it's desirable, even for the prototypical clarinet
>> player, to be able to tell at a glance which notes aren't in the
>> current key or when the key changes, for a conductor or keyboardist
>> to see the harmonic content of a score at a glance. This isn't
>> possible with cents deviation from 12-tET.
>>
>
>***I think, Carl, if you work more with instrumentalists, you will
>find that they are really not interested in *any* of this.

Do you really have any idea of my level of experience with
instrumentalists?

>***I enjoy *theory*, but in the classroom, not in the performance
>situation...

I enjoy truth, but only before breakfast.

>> The point is, if you read your forms of tonality, you can do away
>> with ratios but still retain all the meaning, with a single
>> accidental for linear temperaments -- conventional notation being
>> the most glaring example. Is conventional notation theoretical?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***I'm not following you...

While you seem to be so focused on microtonal notation, everything
I'm saying applies to conventional notation, which happens to be an
incredibly powerful language for describing and visualizing music.

If you use ten nominals for blackjack, you won't need anything but
sharps and flats.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Dave previously addressed some of the problems involved with
> designing a notation that contains hundred of symbols. If they are
> too dissimilar in appearance from one another, then it is difficult
> to remember how they are related,

when you're reading a score, you have no time to remember theoretical
relationships behing symbols. they have to be ingrained through
muscle memory. on the composition/analysis side, it only takes a
little cleverness to discern clear relationships between utterly
dissimilar symbols -- if you've ever taken a mensa test, you'll know
what i mean.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
[Johnny Reinhard:]
> >keyboardists do not need to know more than to place their fingers
> >in the right "pre-ordained" or pretuned places.
>
> Right, so cents notation is not appropriate.
>
> -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
[Joseph Perhson:]
> >***I agree entirely with Johnny that there is a difference between
> >a "theoretical" notation and a "performance" notation.
>
> I disagree with this statement in the extreme, and I'm sure Joseph,
> that's you don't mean this, but I don't have time at the moment to
> go into why.
>
> -Carl

From Johnny's statement I would gather that a keyboard part in just
intonation (for example) written for an instrument with a
conventional keyboard (scordatura) would look somewhat different from
one written for his soon-to-emerge generalized keyboard controller,
and that a part written for tones mapped onto a decimal keyboard
would look even different. So if I want to perform your music but
happen to have the wrong keyboard (or, instead, if I wanted to
substitute a refretted guitar), I'm going to have to rewrite the part
or else (if there isn't enough time to do that) tough it out as best
I can.

BTW, Johnny, what kind of notation would you use for a refretted
guitar or a microtonal metallophone? Do you keep on inventing
tablatures for every instrument/tuning combination that comes along,
or is there a breaking point somewhere? How is a composer expected
to keep track of all of these tablatures?

There has been an attempt to establish a dichotomy between
*theoretical* and *performance* notations (as if the theoretical
notation were not really very practical), but which of these roles is
of most value in the creative process of *composing* actual music?

I will readily admit that the cents (or 1200-ET-based) notation is
excellent for helping players of flexible-pitch instruments to find
the desired pitches (in a way that the sagittal notation was not
designed to do), and I have already expressed the opinion that parts
in sagittal notation for flexible-pitch instruments and voice could
be augmented with cents indications. But that is not the issue here.

Our objective in designing the sagittal notation was twofold:

1) To have a single notation with a common set of symbols that is
versatile enough that it can be used (insofar as it is possible) for
all instruments and all tunings, so that an instrumental part would
not have to be changed if either an instrument or pitch standard were
to be changed, or so that minimal changes would need to be made in
order to transfer a composition from one tuning to another (with
sagittal it is not inconceivable that this could done at sight with
the proper training).

I believe that Dave Keenan and I have come very close to
accomplishing this by making the symbols harmonically meaningful, and
as such, we believe that the sagittal notation excels in a
*theoretical* role.

Having these characteristics in a notation would also give a composer
the freedom to jot down an impression of a fleeting bit of music that
might happen to pass through one's consciousness, and to develop it
into something more concrete without having to lock oneself into
deciding upon certain details (including even the specific tuning)
about the composition that is taking form. (Can you tell that I am
sharing something that I already know from my own experience?)

2) To have a notation that has symbols that are legible enough to be
read in real time, so that it is also usable in the role of
*performance.*

As to how successful we were in this regard remains to be seen, but
if it is found wanting, then you are going to have to show us some
alternative that you think might be better.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47488.html#47508
>
> > A westerner's initial impression of Chinese characters (and, come
to
> > think of it, Chinese faces!) is that they tend to look very much
> > alike, but taking a little time to become familiar with them
enables
> > one to appreciate the differences. Did you learn your alphabet
> > overnight? Do you now have any problem distinguishing "J"
from "L"?
> >
>
> ###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're not
> going to take the time to learn this. Most of them, as Johhny
> Reinhard mentioned, care little about theory (many don't even take
> much of it in school!) and they just want to play.
>
> So it is up to *me* as the composer to present it to them, and it
has
> to be something totally transparent.
>
> The 72-tET symbols do not appear adequate to me. I understand that
> they illustrate commas and have their own logic but there is a big
> difference between 16 cents and 33 cents and the arrows don't show
> these distinctions.
>
> I'm not going to tell a player: "Well here is my notation. If the
> little arrow is straight and points to the left it's 16 cents, but
if
> it is just a teeny tiny little tiny bit curvy and points to the
> right, well, we're talking about 33 cents here...
>
> They're going to look at my crosseyed. They *already* look at me
> crosseyed...
>
> Nobody is going to play this and, at the moment, I am not inclined
to
> put it on my music, even for "experimental" purposes since it's so
> ridiculous...

Let's step back a little and put this into perspective. Suppose
you're writing for just intonation, where the commas represented by
these two symbols are ~21.5 and ~27.3 cents, respectively. Suddenly
the size difference isn't so drastic. The problem is that 72-ET
exaggerates these differences. Our symbols were designed to progress
in size according to the size of the actual commas in JI, and they
were also designed to be harmonically meaningful in many different
tunings. You can either have a notation that is meaningful and that
works reasonably well in a lot of different tunings, or you can have
a multitude of separate notations that are optimized to (harmonically
illiterate) performers' expectations for each tuning. Take your pick.

But, come on now! You make it sound like you're dealing with people
who don't have the wits to be able to cope with the difference
between a penny and a dime, or a sharp and a double-sharp (ha ha, got
you there!). When you come right down to it, we're talking about
whether players will be able to remember and distinguish between
these *two* specific symbols (since I assume that the one for 3deg72
has been judged as acceptable). Hey, if they need a reason for why
|) is larger than /|, then explain to them that |) stands for a 7-
comma and /| for a 5-comma, and that the characters that we use for
the numbers 7 and 5 are also about the same size. I know that
statement is logically full of holes, but I'm trying to make the
point that there are numerous instances in life where symbols do not
perfectly express the realities that they are supposed to represent,
but we still manage to get along pretty well with them.

> > ...
> > This is admittedly a bit theoretical, but that is what gives the
> > notation a great deal of flexibility.
> >
>
> ###I read through this and it's very interesting and it's great
that
> you have designed such a sophisticated system. However, it doesn't
> address the question of legibility and differentiation and that, of
> course, I what I'm having problems with...
>
> > which is all the more reason why you should try printing out some
> > music (in a slightly larger size than usual) using the sagittal
> > symbols, then spend a some time looking it over, and after a few
> days let us know what you think.
> >
>
> ***Well, I'll continue to give it the benefit of the doubt, and
will
> continue thinking about it.
>
> However, in a complex passage, if a performer is going to see a
whole
> bunch of *very* similar arrows (just with the flags going different
> ways) pretty soon his mind is going to glaze over.
>
> We might as well be playing aleatoric music at *that* point... :)

Please, just give it a chance (pun intended :-). Some day if you
decide to try another tuning and are using this notation, then you
won't have to start from scratch with new symbols -- or worse, with a
couple of of the same symbols, but with new meanings that contradict
the 72-ET ones (and then see how *really* confused your players can
get).

--George

George,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> As to how successful we were in this regard remains to be seen, but
> if it is found wanting, then you are going to have to show us some
> alternative that you think might be better.

Not necessarily: I, for instance, have been and continue to be quite skeptical of the entire concept that one notation can serve for any (and every) tuning, both conceptually and (more importantly to me) in a functional usage for performance.

I am confident I couldn't find anything better, but that doesn't mean saggital will work! Time, and getting it out there, will tell...

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 10/3/03 5:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gdsecor@yahoo.com writes:

> From Johnny's statement I would gather that a keyboard part in just
> intonation (for example) written for an instrument with a
> conventional keyboard (scordatura) would look somewhat different from
> one written for his soon-to-emerge generalized keyboard controller,
> and that a part written for tones mapped onto a decimal keyboard
> would look even different. So if I want to perform your music but
> happen to have the wrong keyboard (or, instead, if I wanted to
> substitute a refretted guitar), I'm going to have to rewrite the part
> or else (if there isn't enough time to do that) tough it out as best
> I can.

I believe you are correct that if one is using the wrong instrument one does
change notation. There certainly have been times I have toughed it out (as
with transpositions, or with using the a different style of 96-tET harp for the
music of Julian Carrillo).

> BTW, Johnny, what kind of notation would you use for a refretted
> guitar or a microtonal metallophone?

My guitar solo came in 2 versions, one that distinguished the differences in
cents as a manuscript, but a second for the player that read in conventional
notation. Theory was confusing and simply tuning the open strings proved
challenging enough. For the metallophone it would depend on how many notes it had,
possibly taking a cue from Partch (who had a different tuning for each
instrument).

Do you keep on inventing >
> tablatures for every instrument/tuning combination that comes along,
> or is there a breaking point somewhere?

It is always a site specific choice. After all, a player usually only plays
one instrument. George, it is not really much different when conducting a
full orchestra. The parts are transposed, there are different clefs, etc. Often
the score is printed in C to alleviate this confusion, but professional score
rarely do this. The conductor is expected to gauge by eye "at a glance" what
the correct notes are on the hoof. From experience, this is not easy. Most
is worked out way before meeting up with the players.

How is a composer expected
> to keep track of all of these tablatures?

Once the piece is written and given to the players, the composer can use the
manuscript score. The exception is for a conductor, if one is called for.
This is why I had 2 versions of my guitar score: one was for my checking on
things, the other was for the guitarist to read.

> There has been an attempt to establish a dichotomy between
> *theoretical* and *performance* notations (as if the theoretical
> notation were not really very practical), but which of these roles is
> of most value in the creative process of *composing* actual music?
>

The act of composition requires whatever the composer wants to write down.
It may be out order. It may only be descriptive and general. It is
prescriptive. It is "before" a part. It is just as much a responsibility to catch the
magic of the music as it is to be able to lay it out for others to follow the
intent in real time. A part is designed for ease. Any unnecessary hurdles
will impair, or possibly prevent the music from being performed.

> I will readily admit that the cents (or 1200-ET-based) notation is
> excellent for helping players of flexible-pitch instruments to find
> the desired pitches (in a way that the sagittal notation was not
> designed to do), and I have already expressed the opinion that parts
> in sagittal notation for flexible-pitch instruments and voice could
> be augmented with cents indications. But that is not the issue here.
>

I recall and understand. I would only add that cents does not provide a
"helping" to find pitches, so much as it points exactly to targeted pitches.

All best, Johnny Reinhard

At 07:52 PM 3/10/2003, you wrote:
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>***But I have a font program and I've printed out the set! That's
>what I'm looking at... :)

I don't think that's a good thing to do. It could be dangerous for your mental health. :-)

Looking at the complete set of over 200 (unaccented) symbols in the pure sagittal system, from double-flat to double-sharp, and imagining that someone might have to learn the meaning of them all, or try to differentiate them all, would be enough to make anyone run screaming. Although I'm guessing that eight year old Chinese children routinely achieve similar feats, and George and I have both done so in the past 18 months. But of course we are not sight-reading music with all of them!

I stress that this is a superset designed to cover almost every conceivable microtonal tuning. Most of these symbols will probably _never_ be used. But they are there just in case. We pushed the system to this extreme so we could be sure we weren't building in any serious limitations for the future. And I guess we were just having fun and got a bit carried away, and ended up in outer-space. :-)

It must be fascinating to look at all those symbols and have no idea what they mean, like looking at a secret code, or an alien language, or a product of a strange collective psychosis of two old eccentrics. :-)

But you only need 3 pairs of symbols, and conventional sharps and flats, to notate the following:

ETs 1 thru 19,22,24,26,29,31,34,36,38,41,65,72,79 and a partial 11-limit JI. A very few more symbols notate practically every ET that's ever actually been used, and 13-limit JI.

So relax, no one has to understand or distinguish all those symbols.

Lets just work on those 3 pairs for now, and just so we are talking the same language, here's a list of various ways to refer to them. [Use Message Index, Expand Messages, to see these columns lined up if you're reading this on the Yahoo web interface.]

Comma name Long Short Description In 72-ET
------------------------------------------------------------------
5-comma up /| / left barb up twelfth-tone-up
5-comma down \! \ left barb down twelfth-tone-down
7-comma up |) f right arc up sixth-tone-up
7-comma down !) t right arc down sixth-tone-down
11-diesis up /|\ ^ double barb up quarter-tone up
11-diesis down \!/ v double barb down quarter-tone down

>P.S. I feel really bad about all this, but I'm just expressing my
>current view. I was excited about the possibilities and disappointed
>when I saw the "reality..."

Don't feel bad. Someone once said, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Now that we've both gotten over the shock of your initial reaction, I'm hoping we can work together to improve the symbols.

The underlying semantics (the fact that the symbols have to _mean_ certain commas) is pretty much non-negotiable if we are to have any kind of harmonically based lingua-franca, and so is the fact that particular commas are represented as particular combinations of only 8 different graphical components (e.g. flags), at most two at a time (because this just works so well, and we've tried so many other ways). But exactly what those eight components should _look_ like, is still up for grabs. And there is still some freedom available in the specific choice of commas (and therefore component combinations) used to notate each ET.

George and I have indeed spent the last several months in an ivory tower, and agree we need to be brought back to earth, however the 72-ET symbols have barely changed since March 2002. The first year was spent designing the sagittal symbols in full public view, first on tuning, then on tuning-math. What a pity you didn't object so vehemently to any of the proposals back then. See the dates on some of the .gif and .doc files in
/tuning/files/secor/notation/
/tuning-math/files/secor/notation/
If it is because you found those versions of the 72-ET symbols to be sufficiently distinct, then there's no problem. We can make them so again.

>Anyway, I don't know what font program was used, but they did come
>out quite nicely.

Thanks. The way they look in a high resolution printout has nothing to do with the choice of font program. They can all do the same in that regard. I'm currently using Font Creator as it was only US$50, but it has no "hinting" which is what could make the symbols come out on screen the same as the bitmaps we designed earlier. If anyone has experience with, and access to, more powerful font software such as a recent version of Font Lab or Fontographer, and is interested in helping, please email.

>They look very "artistic.." In fact, they
>look "too artistic" which, to me, is part of the problem...

Can you explain this? Do you mean you'd rather they were ugly and looked totally out of keeping with other musical symbols. ;-)

>The 72-tET symbols do not appear adequate to me. I understand that
>they illustrate commas and have their own logic but there is a big
>difference between 16 cents and 33 cents and the arrows don't show
>these distinctions.
>
>I'm not going to tell a player: "Well here is my notation. If the
>little arrow is straight and points to the left it's 16 cents, but if
>it is just a teeny tiny little tiny bit curvy and points to the
>right, well, we're talking about 33 cents here...

Now this, at last, is valuable criticism. One problem we have is that these symbols must also serve as 5-comma and 7-comma symbols in JI. In JI their sizes are not 17 and 33 cents, but 22 and 27 cents - barely different at all. But since 72-ET is so important we must certainly do better.

I am surprised that you find the sixth-tone symbol to be only a "teeny tiny little tiny bit" curved, but we could certainly make the radius tighter, such that it is almost square like this. [Use Message Index, Expand Messages, to see this on the web]

___
| |
| |
|
|
|

Do you think that will make it sufficiently distinct from, and larger than, the twelfth-tone symbol.

/|
/ |
|
|
|

>Quite frankly, I think I would be happy with the Sagittal notation
>for 72-tET if I could be given another *double* arrowhead for the 7-
>limit "33 centers..."

Unfortunately I don't think we can give you a double arrowhead symbol for the sixth-tone, without breaking the sub-system we developed so that all the multiples of 12-ET would be consistent with one-another (called the trojan subsystem). As we've said before, it will often be possible to design a more distinct set of accidentals for any _particular_ tuning, but then musicians will have to learn completely different sets for every tuning, and the same symbol will end up being used with entirely unrelated meanings in different tunings (as the common arrow is now).

If we are to have a harmonically-based and polyphonically-suited lingua-franca of microtonality, in addition to the cents-from-24-ET notation, then some folks may have to accept some compromise for the good of the whole. Of course everyone thinks their favourite tuning is the most important. But having said that, I'll agree that 72-ET _is_ very important and I'm sure there is still room for improvement.

But if not, I suppose I'd rather break something like the trojan sub-system for all multiple of 12-ET, than see the whole system assigned to the dust-bin of history so soon.

>[I don't care what side of the f*ing stem it's on! :) ]

I don't understand the need for profanity here, even in jest. We've said from the early days that flipping a symbol horizontally is not sufficient to make it distinct. That's why one symbol is straight and the other curved. I'm hoping we just have to make the curvature more obvious.

Otherwise, someone please come up with another set of eight graphical components that can be assembled max-two at a time into a set of maximally distinct symbols having a definite up or down direction, that don't occupy significantly more space vertically than the conventional accidentals, that won't be confused with any other music symbols, that have a definite alignment with a notehead, that won't lose essential detail when merged with staff lines in the two possible positions, and are aesthetically pleasing. The semantics of the overall system are too good to throw away.

Regards,

-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com/

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:17:42 -0000, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>There has been an attempt to establish a dichotomy between
>*theoretical* and *performance* notations (as if the theoretical
>notation were not really very practical), but which of these roles is
>of most value in the creative process of *composing* actual music?

Hmm.. this is an interesting question. When I started writing music for
different ET tunings, I hadn't settled on a useful notation, and ended up
doing everything with Cakewalk's piano roll window (although I did notate
the theme from the beginning of the Mizarian Porcupine Overture in a
scordatura notation, with the notes of 15-ET mapped to consecutive notes of
the standard keyboard so that a written minor tenth sounded as an octave).

These days, since I've been trying to get a feel for kleismic temperament,
I've gone back to using scordatura notation for an 11-note kleismic scale
(with one note per octave duplicated). But my keyboard mapping for the
kleismic scale isn't the same as the one on David Keenan's page
(http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm). While
his keyboard is mapped Bb Db E G B D F A C D# F#, mine is mapped D F A C D#
F# A# C# E G B. I could probably notate it with Dx Fx Ax instead of E G B,
which would be theoretically more sensible, but then you'd have a C major
triad, for instance, written C Dx Fx, which doesn't immediately register as
a triad when you look at it. With the scordatura notation, the major and
minor triads all look like triads of some kind (although only A and C major
actually look like a major triad). Still, in most cases I imagine the
keyboard-based notation would make less sense than a theoretical notation
designed for the specific tuning.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47541

> >>>###The problem with this is that in training musicians they're
> >>>not going to take the time to learn this.
> >>
> >> That's a problem for microtonal music, not microtonal notation.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >***I disagree, Carl. There are different *levels* of this, and
some
> >things that are *easier* to teach than others...
>
> There certainly are different levels, but unless you deny the link
> between media and music, you can't escape my statement. You can
> compose in one medium (say, at a keyboard) and transcribe into
> another (say, Sagittal notation) for performance, but the music will
> still suffer to the extent the performers don't understand it.
>
> -Carl

***Oh... well this really wasn't a discussion I was a part of (so I
don't know how I got into it! :) I have no trouble with "tablature-
type" notation. In fact, that's what *I* use in my first-step
translation of Blackjack from a sequencer to the *final* Blackjack 21-
tET score (in other words, of course, I just write the notes of the
traditional keyboard, since I know them, when I'm composing,
and "translate" later...)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47543

>> >***I think, Carl, if you work more with instrumentalists, you
will
> >find that they are really not interested in *any* of this.
>
> Do you really have any idea of my level of experience with
> instrumentalists?

***Well, I really don't want to impugn your experience here, Carl...
I'm sure you have.

My own personal experience makes me feel that different
instrumentalists have different interests in theory. Usually they
are not terribly interested. Conductors are, of course, more
interested than most performers. (Of course, many of them are also
composers or theorists...)

>
> >***I enjoy *theory*, but in the classroom, not in the performance
> >situation...
>
> I enjoy truth, but only before breakfast.
>
> >> The point is, if you read your forms of tonality, you can do away
> >> with ratios but still retain all the meaning, with a single
> >> accidental for linear temperaments -- conventional notation being
> >> the most glaring example. Is conventional notation theoretical?
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >***I'm not following you...
>
> While you seem to be so focused on microtonal notation, everything
> I'm saying applies to conventional notation, which happens to be an
> incredibly powerful language for describing and visualizing music.
>
> If you use ten nominals for blackjack, you won't need anything but
> sharps and flats.
>

***Sure, I just went over that with Monzo above. It makes lots of
sense, but it's still *creating* a notation for a *specific* case. I
don't see how we can get around that...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47554

> Please, just give it a chance (pun intended :-). Some day if you
> decide to try another tuning and are using this notation, then you
> won't have to start from scratch with new symbols -- or worse, with
a
> couple of of the same symbols, but with new meanings that
contradict
> the 72-ET ones (and then see how *really* confused your players can
> get).
>
> --George

***Hello George!

Like I've been saying, I have the font sitting on the table in front
of me, and I'm going to continue giving it serious consideration.

At the moment, though, in reference to your above comments, I feel it
would be easier to teach a performer a *completely new set* of well
differentiated symbols for each piece then to have them try to play
from a score where important microtonal distinctions look a lot like
one another...

That's my feeling at the moment... :) anyway.

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David C Keenan <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47566

> At 07:52 PM 3/10/2003, you wrote:
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> >***But I have a font program and I've printed out the set! That's
> >what I'm looking at... :)
>
> I don't think that's a good thing to do. It could be dangerous for
your
> mental health. :-)
>
> Looking at the complete set of over 200 (unaccented) symbols in the
pure
> sagittal system, from double-flat to double-sharp, and imagining
that
> someone might have to learn the meaning of them all, or try to
> differentiate them all, would be enough to make anyone run
screaming.
> Although I'm guessing that eight year old Chinese children
routinely
> achieve similar feats, and George and I have both done so in the
past 18
> months. But of course we are not sight-reading music with all of
them!
>

***I have to admit, Dave, that looking at the entire set didn't
*disturb* me so much as make me think that this whole project was
some kind of eccentricity that didn't have very much to do with music
as I know it...

> I stress that this is a superset designed to cover almost every
conceivable
> microtonal tuning. Most of these symbols will probably _never_ be
used. But
> they are there just in case. We pushed the system to this extreme
so we
> could be sure we weren't building in any serious limitations for
the
> future. And I guess we were just having fun and got a bit carried
away, and
> ended up in outer-space. :-)
>

***So, you are admitting yourself that I am not *entirely* off base...

> It must be fascinating to look at all those symbols and have no
idea what
> they mean, like looking at a secret code, or an alien language, or
a
> product of a strange collective psychosis of two old eccentrics. :-)
>
> But you only need 3 pairs of symbols, and conventional sharps and
flats, to
> notate the following:
>
> ETs 1 thru 19,22,24,26,29,31,34,36,38,41,65,72,79 and a partial 11-
limit
> JI. A very few more symbols notate practically every ET that's ever
> actually been used, and 13-limit JI.
>
> So relax, no one has to understand or distinguish all those symbols.
>
> Lets just work on those 3 pairs for now, and just so we are talking
the
> same language, here's a list of various ways to refer to them. [Use
Message
> Index, Expand Messages, to see these columns lined up if you're
reading
> this on the Yahoo web interface.]
>
> Comma name Long Short Description In 72-ET
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5-comma up /| / left barb up twelfth-tone-up
> 5-comma down \! \ left barb down twelfth-tone-down
> 7-comma up |) f right arc up sixth-tone-up
> 7-comma down !) t right arc down sixth-tone-down
> 11-diesis up /|\ ^ double barb up quarter-tone up
> 11-diesis down \!/ v double barb down quarter-tone down
>
> >P.S. I feel really bad about all this, but I'm just expressing my
> >current view. I was excited about the possibilities and
disappointed
> >when I saw the "reality..."
>
> Don't feel bad. Someone once said, "There's no such thing as bad
> publicity." Now that we've both gotten over the shock of your
initial
> reaction, I'm hoping we can work together to improve the symbols.
>

***Yes, these are the symbols that you sent me, and which I'm having
problems with. Although, it seems now that George Secor has another
proposal for me which is more acceptable!

> The underlying semantics (the fact that the symbols have to _mean_
certain
> commas) is pretty much non-negotiable if we are to have any kind of
> harmonically based lingua-franca,

***Well, I *do* understand that. I'm just hoping there is some kind
of "work around" that will do this and also create the
differentiation that I need in order to use the notation for my
music...

and so is the fact that particular commas
> are represented as particular combinations of only 8 different
graphical
> components (e.g. flags), at most two at a time (because this just
works so
> well, and we've tried so many other ways). But exactly what those
eight
> components should _look_ like, is still up for grabs. And there is
still
> some freedom available in the specific choice of commas (and
therefore
> component combinations) used to notate each ET.
>
> George and I have indeed spent the last several months in an ivory
tower,

****Ahhhh. The admissions! So, I am not totally in the stratosphere!

> and agree we need to be brought back to earth, however the 72-ET
symbols
> have barely changed since March 2002. The first year was spent
designing
> the sagittal symbols in full public view, first on tuning, then on
> tuning-math. What a pity you didn't object so vehemently to any of
the
> proposals back then. See the dates on some of the .gif and .doc
files in
> /tuning/files/secor/notation/
> /tuning-math/files/secor/notation/
> If it is because you found those versions of the 72-ET symbols to
be
> sufficiently distinct, then there's no problem. We can make them so
again.
>

***I don't think so. As I recall, I was "complaining" about the
Sagittal notation back then but I probably wasn't complaining so
vehemently, because I wasn't seriously considering it for my *own*
music. Now I am.

You see, this is part of the problem. I really want to be supportive
of this project, but I want to know that it is a *real* project...
something that can *work* and not just some hypothetical theoretical
exercise. One thing that *I* need for my music in order to conclude
this are *distinctly* recognizable symbols. But, I believe you
probably have gathered this by now...

> >Anyway, I don't know what font program was used, but they did come
> >out quite nicely.
>
> Thanks. The way they look in a high resolution printout has nothing
to do
> with the choice of font program. They can all do the same in that
regard.
> I'm currently using Font Creator as it was only US$50, but it has
no
> "hinting" which is what could make the symbols come out on screen
the same
> as the bitmaps we designed earlier. If anyone has experience with,
and
> access to, more powerful font software such as a recent version of
Font Lab
> or Fontographer, and is interested in helping, please email.

***Quite frankly, the font came out fine. I have no problem with it,
and I looks fine both on the screen and in the print-out. This was
the *best* part of your project, in *my* opinion...

>
> >They look very "artistic.." In fact, they
> >look "too artistic" which, to me, is part of the problem...
>
> Can you explain this? Do you mean you'd rather they were ugly and
looked
> totally out of keeping with other musical symbols. ;-)
>

***No, I just meant that with all the little squiggles here and there
and with all the arrows that look the same with just a little
additional squiggle here an there, or a bend, or such like, they look
extraordinarily *elaborated* but still many look very similar to one
another. That's what I meant by "artistic" as opposed
to "practical..." But, of course, they should look "nice..."

> >The 72-tET symbols do not appear adequate to me. I understand that
> >they illustrate commas and have their own logic but there is a big
> >difference between 16 cents and 33 cents and the arrows don't show
> >these distinctions.
> >
> >I'm not going to tell a player: "Well here is my notation. If the
> >little arrow is straight and points to the left it's 16 cents, but
if
> >it is just a teeny tiny little tiny bit curvy and points to the
> >right, well, we're talking about 33 cents here...
>
> Now this, at last, is valuable criticism. One problem we have is
that these
> symbols must also serve as 5-comma and 7-comma symbols in JI. In JI
their
> sizes are not 17 and 33 cents, but 22 and 27 cents

***Got it! I see what you're saying here...

- barely different at
> all. But since 72-ET is so important we must certainly do better.
>
> I am surprised that you find the sixth-tone symbol to be only
a "teeny tiny
> little tiny bit" curved, but we could certainly make the radius
tighter,
> such that it is almost square like this. [Use Message Index, Expand
> Messages, to see this on the web]
>
> ___
> | |
> | |
> |
> |
> |
>
> Do you think that will make it sufficiently distinct from, and
larger than,
> the twelfth-tone symbol.
>
> /|
> / |
> |
> |
> |
>

***Well, that helps, but I still don't feel it's enough compared to
George's most recent proposal...

> >Quite frankly, I think I would be happy with the Sagittal notation
> >for 72-tET if I could be given another *double* arrowhead for the
7-
> >limit "33 centers..."
>
> Unfortunately I don't think we can give you a double arrowhead
symbol for
> the sixth-tone, without breaking the sub-system we developed so
that all
> the multiples of 12-ET would be consistent with one-another (called
the
> trojan subsystem).

***My impression is that George's trojan has already broken... since
he seems to be giving me another set already...

As we've said before, it will often be possible to
> design a more distinct set of accidentals for any _particular_
tuning, but
> then musicians will have to learn completely different sets for
every
> tuning, and the same symbol will end up being used with entirely
unrelated
> meanings in different tunings (as the common arrow is now).
>

***Maybe that's not so awful, as long as the symbols are *distinct...*

> If we are to have a harmonically-based and polyphonically-suited
> lingua-franca of microtonality, in addition to the cents-from-24-ET
> notation, then some folks may have to accept some compromise for
the good
> of the whole. Of course everyone thinks their favourite tuning is
the most
> important. But having said that, I'll agree that 72-ET _is_ very
important
> and I'm sure there is still room for improvement.
>
> But if not, I suppose I'd rather break something like the trojan
sub-system
> for all multiple of 12-ET, than see the whole system assigned to
the
> dust-bin of history so soon.
>
> >[I don't care what side of the f*ing stem it's on! :) ]
>
> I don't understand the need for profanity here, even in jest.

***Well, I was just getting a little frustrated, but you still didn't
read behind the asterisk properly: the word was fLIPPing... :)

We've said
> from the early days that flipping a symbol horizontally is not
sufficient
> to make it distinct.

***WHOA... my point exactly!

That's why one symbol is straight and the other
> curved.

***Not enough...

I'm hoping we just have to make the curvature more obvious.
>
> Otherwise, someone please come up with another set of eight
graphical
> components that can be assembled max-two at a time into a set of
maximally
> distinct symbols having a definite up or down direction, that don't
occupy
> significantly more space vertically than the conventional
accidentals, that
> won't be confused with any other music symbols, that have a
definite
> alignment with a notehead, that won't lose essential detail when
merged
> with staff lines in the two possible positions, and are
aesthetically
> pleasing. The semantics of the overall system are too good to throw
away.
>

***Well, now I'm getting a conflicting set of Sagittal symbols.
George has apparently discarded the trojan...

I guess this is "to be continued..."

J. Pehrson

>My own personal experience makes me feel that different
>instrumentalists have different interests in theory. Usually they
>are not terribly interested. Conductors are, of course, more
>interested than most performers. (Of course, many of them are also
>composers or theorists...)

They don't have to be consciously interested in it to benefit
from it!

>***Sure, I just went over that with Monzo above. It makes lots of
>sense, but it's still *creating* a notation for a *specific* case. I
>don't see how we can get around that...

Well, there are three options...

>(1) Dave and George didn't do an optimal job of making 600 symbols
>that look very different from one another.
>
>(2) There's no way to do it; we have to give up the idea of a master
>list and use the same accidentals to mean different commas in
>different tunings.
>
>(3) We keep the master list, but reduce the number of different
>accidentals needed in a score by using the appropriate number of
>nominals.

I'm currently (and have been) in favor of (3), but I'm willing
to hear argument.

-Carl