Sagittal notation on the table

I just wanted to mention that a page with the matrix print-out of the
Sagittal notation is sitting here on my writing table in "all its
glory..."

I'm very interested in it, and will continue to keep it here and to
think about it. I have only offered *initial* impressions (of
course, it's not so great sometimes when initial impressions are
negative...)

I will continue to think about it and consider it, and if I change my
opinion (which is possible) this list will be the first to know.

It hasn't happened yet...

But, congrats again for all the hard work and, expecially, the
theoretical thinking that went into this project. I have great
admiration for that, what I can understand of it...

Thanks again!

Joseph

hi Joe,

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

> I just wanted to mention that a page with the matrix
> print-out of the Sagittal notation is sitting here on my
> writing table in "all its glory..."
>
> I'm very interested in it, and will continue to keep it here
> and to think about it. I have only offered *initial*
> impressions (of course, it's not so great sometimes when
> initial impressions are negative...)
>
> I will continue to think about it and consider it, and if
> I change my opinion (which is possible) this list will be
> the first to know.
>
> It hasn't happened yet...
>
> But, congrats again for all the hard work and, expecially,
> the theoretical thinking that went into this project. I have
> great admiration for that, what I can understand of it...

i appreciate that you're willing to put in these disclaimers,
now that you've already given an initial negative critique
of Sagittal notation.

Sagittal will be one of the many notations (along with my
72edo and JI versions of HEWM, and Johnston-JI, etc. etc.)
available for use in my software, and my expectation is that
it will ultimately prove to be the most important one. then
you'll have a chance to really do some composing *in* Sagittal,
and i also expect that you'll change your opinion of it.

of course, you're far more involved in the actual practical
end of microtonal composition / copying / rehearsing / performing /
publishing than most of us here, so your input in that regard
is most valuable.

a big part of your concern is the practicability of
Sagittal notation. note that music as it's notated today
retains so many concepts which are antiquated illogical relics,
yet musicians learn it and have no problem with it.

my biggest beef is the way a transition from a line to an
adjoining space or vice-versa on the 5-line staff means
one scale step, but it can be either a whole-step / L
or half-step / s , which is totally inconsistent. but
this never bothers musicians at all. they learn it, get
used to it, and most never even imagine "thinking outside
the box" on that one.

anyway, i withheld making comments in this thread for
as long as i could, and i probably won't say anything more
about Sagittal until it actually is implemented in my own
software ... which will be soon, probably before the end
of this year.

-monz

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47525

> anyway, i withheld making comments in this thread for
> as long as i could, and i probably won't say anything more
> about Sagittal until it actually is implemented in my own
> software ... which will be soon, probably before the end
> of this year.
>
>
>
>
> -monz

***Well, my opinion is that, as of the moment, it's a *flawed*
product, and I have no intention of using it in my music in any way,
unless a greater visual distinction can be made between the sixth-
tones and the twelfth-tones...

Joe P.

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47525

>
> of course, you're far more involved in the actual practical
> end of microtonal composition / copying / rehearsing / performing /
> publishing than most of us here, so your input in that regard
> is most valuable.
>
>
> a big part of your concern is the practicability of
> Sagittal notation. note that music as it's notated today
> retains so many concepts which are antiquated illogical relics,
> yet musicians learn it and have no problem with it.
>
> my biggest beef is the way a transition from a line to an
> adjoining space or vice-versa on the 5-line staff means
> one scale step, but it can be either a whole-step / L
> or half-step / s , which is totally inconsistent. but
> this never bothers musicians at all. they learn it, get
> used to it, and most never even imagine "thinking outside
> the box" on that one.
>

***Monz... with all due respect, your commentary here, I
believe, "misses the point..." It's not that there are
inconsistencies and ridiculous things in our standard notation. Of
course there are. The fact of the matter is, however, that these
inconsistencies are *legible* and *differentiated!*

So, essentially what I am saying is that Sagittal is *too*
consistent! It is too concerned about the internal logic of the
commas and so forth and not concerned enough with presenting discrete
symbols, however ridiculous :) that performers, however, could easily
*see* and *learn!!!!!*

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47534

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47520.html#47525
>
> > anyway, i withheld making comments in this thread for
> > as long as i could, and i probably won't say anything more
> > about Sagittal until it actually is implemented in my own
> > software ... which will be soon, probably before the end
> > of this year.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
>
> ***Well, my opinion is that, as of the moment, it's a *flawed*
> product, and I have no intention of using it in my music in any
way,
> unless a greater visual distinction can be made between the sixth-
> tones and the twelfth-tones...
>
> Joe P.

***HEWMMM... this was a rather strong statement, looking it over this
evening. A bit harsh. My only explanation was that I wrote it
at "work.." :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> So, essentially what I am saying is that Sagittal is *too*
> consistent! It is too concerned about the internal logic of the
> commas and so forth and not concerned enough with presenting discrete
> symbols, however ridiculous :) that performers, however, could easily
> *see* and *learn!!!!!*

You seem to be assuming that a lack of distinctness between symbols
can _only_ be remedied by reducing the degree of logical consistency.
I do not believe this is the case.

> ***Well, what if they were to have taken it from the standpoint of
> making the *most commonly used* symbols differentiated the greatest
> from one another, and then filled in the options after that.

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that that is exactly what we
thought we were doing, within the constraints I mentioned at the end of
/tuning/topicId_47488.html#47566
but apparently we have failed, so far.

Those constraints were:
(a) having a definite up or down direction
(b) not occupying significantly more space vertically than the
conventional accidentals
(c) not confusable with any other music symbols
(d) having a definite alignment with a notehead
(e) not losing essential detail when merged
with staff lines in the two possible positions, and
(f) being aesthetically pleasing to look at.

And probably some others I've forgotten. Do these look like
"theoretical" contraints to you?

> To cite further: George gave a graphic on Tuning Math (yes, I was
> sneaking undercover...for good reason... over there) and he showed
> two versions, the *purest* version of Sagittal and the version that
> used traditional accidentals with Sagittal.
>
> The "pure" version was, of course, impossible to read,

I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind the
meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?

Dave,

Coming in from the periphery, I'd offer:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind the
> meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
> fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?

I really do think, in your spirited defense of your design decisions, that you are overlooking the aspect of printed music in a *performance* situation. Yes, indeed, those of us who wouldn't know the above languages would need to learn them, but even then a complicated (visually, that is) symbolic language used in a textual context does NOT need to be read at a certain speed, but musical graphics must be translated by the eye/brain, sometimes at a ferocious pace. The legibility and discernability of those various symbols is *emminently* important.

If one designs a notation that functions only for composition and the study of scores, one can take as much time visually and mentally parsing it as they like. When the metronome (or conductor, or leader of the ensemble, or...) gets going at a good clip and you have to read the fly-specks on the page, it is unbelievably important how it looks. Absolutely paramount.

(spoken after a 2 hour opening night concert where, thankfully, the Zappa-phrase "statistical density" of the notes was pretty low tonight...)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Coming in from the periphery, I'd offer:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> > impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind the
> > meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
> > fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?
>
> I really do think, in your spirited defense of your design
decisions, that you are overlooking the aspect of printed music in a
*performance* situation. Yes, indeed, those of us who wouldn't know
the above languages would need to learn them, but even then a
complicated (visually, that is) symbolic language used in a textual
context does NOT need to be read at a certain speed, but musical
graphics must be translated by the eye/brain, sometimes at a ferocious
pace. The legibility and discernability of those various symbols is
*emminently* important.
>
> If one designs a notation that functions only for composition and
the study of scores, one can take as much time visually and mentally
parsing it as they like. When the metronome (or conductor, or leader
of the ensemble, or...) gets going at a good clip and you have to read
the fly-specks on the page, it is unbelievably important how it looks.
Absolutely paramount.
>

Thanks Jon.

I'm surprised that after all we've said, you would think that George
and I are _overlooking_ this. We may well have an inflated sense of
what is possible, but we're certainly not overlooking it. We have been
concerned with it from day one. Or maybe it was day two. :-)

But you and Joseph seem to be overlooking the fact that when the music
"gets going at a good clip" it doesn't actually matter very much if
someone plays a twelfthtone instead of a sixthtone or vice versa. It's
unlikely that even the composer would notice, in fact it is probably
cruel of him or her to even write them in. If you looked at actual
pitch measurements of even very good string players in fast passages,
you'd probably be horrified.

And as a guide to what is possible I must cite Mildred Couper's
backwards flat. Whether or not you or I or Joseph think they are any
good, the fact is they are popular enough to have made it into
Sibelius as a standard symbol for quartertone down. They are simply a
standard flat symbol flipped horizontally, no difference in width, no
difference in curvature, and yet they have apparently been found
sufficiently distinct to risk an error of 50 cents, three times the
reading error we are talking about here in regard to Sagittal sixth
and twelfthtones, where the symbols are not only flipped, but one is
curved where the other is straight.

I'd really like to hear some other opinions on the distinctness of the
existing sagittal 5-comma /| and 7-comma |) symbols, and any
suggestions for improving them. See
/tuning-math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif

I'm still hoping we can make them sufficiently distinct by making the
curvature more pronounced. Does anyone else think this is futile?

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47586

> I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind the
> meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
> fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?

***Well, Dave, people could learn practically *anything* if they set
their minds to it. However, that certainly doesn't mean, does it,
that we should try for the clearest notation possible...??

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47593

> Dave,
>
> Coming in from the periphery, I'd offer:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> > impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind
the
> > meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
> > fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?
>
> I really do think, in your spirited defense of your design
decisions, that you are overlooking the aspect of printed music in a
*performance* situation. Yes, indeed, those of us who wouldn't know
the above languages would need to learn them, but even then a
complicated (visually, that is) symbolic language used in a textual
context does NOT need to be read at a certain speed, but musical
graphics must be translated by the eye/brain, sometimes at a
ferocious pace. The legibility and discernability of those various
symbols is *emminently* important.
>
> If one designs a notation that functions only for composition and
the study of scores, one can take as much time visually and mentally
parsing it as they like. When the metronome (or conductor, or leader
of the ensemble, or...) gets going at a good clip and you have to
read the fly-specks on the page, it is unbelievably important how it
looks. Absolutely paramount.
>
> (spoken after a 2 hour opening night concert where, thankfully, the
Zappa-phrase "statistical density" of the notes was pretty low
tonight...)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Thank you, Jon. This is very well expressed and echos my own
comments in a different way...

Joe P.

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47595

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Coming in from the periphery, I'd offer:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> > > I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> > > impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind
the
> > > meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with
the
> > > fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?
> >
> > I really do think, in your spirited defense of your design
> decisions, that you are overlooking the aspect of printed music in a
> *performance* situation. Yes, indeed, those of us who wouldn't know
> the above languages would need to learn them, but even then a
> complicated (visually, that is) symbolic language used in a textual
> context does NOT need to be read at a certain speed, but musical
> graphics must be translated by the eye/brain, sometimes at a
ferocious
> pace. The legibility and discernability of those various symbols is
> *emminently* important.
> >
> > If one designs a notation that functions only for composition and
> the study of scores, one can take as much time visually and mentally
> parsing it as they like. When the metronome (or conductor, or leader
> of the ensemble, or...) gets going at a good clip and you have to
read
> the fly-specks on the page, it is unbelievably important how it
looks.
> Absolutely paramount.
> >
>
> Thanks Jon.
>
> I'm surprised that after all we've said, you would think that George
> and I are _overlooking_ this. We may well have an inflated sense of
> what is possible, but we're certainly not overlooking it. We have
been
> concerned with it from day one. Or maybe it was day two. :-)
>
> But you and Joseph seem to be overlooking the fact that when the
music
> "gets going at a good clip" it doesn't actually matter very much if
> someone plays a twelfthtone instead of a sixthtone or vice versa.
It's
> unlikely that even the composer would notice, in fact it is probably
> cruel of him or her to even write them in. If you looked at actual
> pitch measurements of even very good string players in fast
passages,
> you'd probably be horrified.
>

***Oh... I'm glad, Dave, you're including these comments on the
Tuning List, since they are the same as the ones you sent in private
email, and it's better that the commentary be over here where people
can *publically* share it. In fact, as I've mentioned, I think the
whole project should have been discussed more on the "general" list
than only on Tuning Math where it tended to grow and have sustenance
despite the rather rarified atmosphere. There was no real soil and
water. But over here, in the real world, this baby is going to wilt
real fast unless we come to some kind of practical considerations...

Frankly, I don't believe your rationalization above is worthy of
consideration. The fact that somebody *can't* do something doesn't
mean you shouldn't present it in such a way that at least they can
*try!*

Look, basically I'm only asking players to differentiate *THREE*
different symbols. This is for *fast OR slow* passages. All I'm
asking for is a discrete set of *THREE* pairs.

It's so little to demand, I can't believe it. I understand it's
wrecking certain theoretical concerns and "breaking the trojan" or
whatever, but there really has to be some latitude in this.

> And as a guide to what is possible I must cite Mildred Couper's
> backwards flat. Whether or not you or I or Joseph think they are any
> good, the fact is they are popular enough to have made it into
> Sibelius as a standard symbol for quartertone down. They are simply
a
> standard flat symbol flipped horizontally, no difference in width,
no
> difference in curvature, and yet they have apparently been found
> sufficiently distinct to risk an error of 50 cents, three times the
> reading error we are talking about here in regard to Sagittal sixth
> and twelfthtones, where the symbols are not only flipped, but one is
> curved where the other is straight.
>

***This seems to me like a different case, which I mentioned in my
email. I think it has to do with the "loop" of the flat. It really
is much more pronounced than the little flags and although it is
*indeed* flipped, it seems like a different situation than the one-
flag arrows that are inverted.... At least it seems that way to
*me*...

> I'd really like to hear some other opinions on the distinctness of
the
> existing sagittal 5-comma /| and 7-comma |) symbols, and any
> suggestions for improving them. See
> /tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif
>
> I'm still hoping we can make them sufficiently distinct by making
the
> curvature more pronounced. Does anyone else think this is futile?

***Yes, but I understand I already voted... :)

JP

DK
> > And as a guide to what is possible I must cite Mildred Couper's
> > backwards flat. Whether or not you or I or Joseph think they are any
> > good, the fact is they are popular enough to have made it into
> > Sibelius as a standard symbol for quartertone down. They are simply
> a
> > standard flat symbol flipped horizontally, no difference in width,
> no
> > difference in curvature, and yet they have apparently been found
> > sufficiently distinct to risk an error of 50 cents, three times the
> > reading error we are talking about here in regard to Sagittal sixth
> > and twelfthtones, where the symbols are not only flipped, but one is
> > curved where the other is straight.
>

I'm afraid the above proves the opposite point than intended, AFAIC.

Cooper is as unknown an American composer as can possibly be, first of all.
Having still not heard or yet performed her music I can't make any judgment
regarding the quality of her work. But Sibelius is just a company. It only
takes one person to enact such a decision in a company. All the others would
simply agree or turn it down. Maybe, as with Yamaha, it will only be a limited
time usage before they change or remove the symbol. Who knows?

But I do know that as a player, the backward flat is very disturbing to me.
For quartertones I use the 3/4 tone sharp and even a quarterflat symbol, but
the backwards flats inevitably stops me in my tracks. The 3/4 flat is always
rewritten as the quartersharp off of a lower letter name to prevent this. I
think even Alois Haba had this practice after examining his scores.

Also, how unfair to think that players are always missing their pitches.

1. Player hears pitch in the head as in a grid
2. Player emotionalizes the pitch by positioning it to the grid
3. Player practices in real time positioning the pitches with others also
playing
4. Players goes for the gold, sometimes missing the perfection of intentions,
but with a clear goal.

If they are great players, and those are the players I work with, then the
results largely depend on the notation. Sometimes the players memorize before
the concert, even while reading the notation, to have an even greater
opportunity to achieve gold.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> I'm surprised that after all we've said, you would think that George
> and I are _overlooking_ this. We may well have an inflated sense of
> what is possible, but we're certainly not overlooking it. We have been
> concerned with it from day one. Or maybe it was day two. :-)

I'm not saying you are overlooking it - it is patently obvious that you have spent much thought. What I *am* thinking about, and I may be quite wrong, is the approach of people who have not had to perform music, at a highly-proficient level, that does not take into account the readibility in action.

You know me by now, and I don't mean to cast doubt on you two as individuals in your capacity to 'think' about music. But I have yet to see anything but the tiniest of notated music examples, and what I'd like to see is what some complex music, of the kind that one might be expected to perform (not analyze for harmonic content, not study for scalar composition, etc).

I'm only trying to help in a perspective that I *know* something about: performing music.

> But you and Joseph seem to be overlooking the fact that when the music
> "gets going at a good clip" it doesn't actually matter very much if
> someone plays a twelfthtone instead of a sixthtone or vice versa.

Dave, when I start preparing a piece, I definitely do not build into the practicing the area of "doesn't actually matter". It ALL matters to me, and if something slips in the heat of performance, I understand. But that notation will be adhered to, to the best of my human ability, and it is the attempt to read correctly the (seeming) labyrinth of notational symbols.

Again, I could be very wrong, but it seems like so much of the textual 'explanations' of how it will work would be so much more easily explained by notational examples. One picture is worth, etc. I'm not saying they (at this point) would be easy to do, but...

>It's
> unlikely that even the composer would notice, in fact it is probably
> cruel of him or her to even write them in.

Brian Ferneyhough has specifically built part of his repertoire on writing music so complicated that he is interested in what comes out when people fail to correctly play the piece. I find that sadistic, myself.

> If you looked at actual
> pitch measurements of even very good string players in fast passages,
> you'd probably be horrified.

Hey, I play in an orchestra. If that kind of stuff would "horrify" me, I would have blown my brains out long ago! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47520.html#47586
>
> > I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> > impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind the
> > meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with the
> > fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?
>
>
> ***Well, Dave, people could learn practically *anything* if they set
> their minds to it. However, that certainly doesn't mean, does it,
> that we should try for the clearest notation possible...??

I think your "should" above, should have been a "shouldn't. In which
case I agree. However, to know whether something is clear, I think it
helps to learn what it is intended to mean. You declared something
"impossible to read" when you had apparently not learnt the meaning of
the symbols. Perhaps we could do with a little less hyperbole in this
discussion.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> DK
> > > And as a guide to what is possible I must cite Mildred Couper's
> > > backwards flat. Whether or not you or I or Joseph think they are any
> > > good, the fact is they are popular enough to have made it into
> > > Sibelius as a standard symbol for quartertone down. They are simply
> > a
> > > standard flat symbol flipped horizontally, no difference in width,
> > no
> > > difference in curvature, and yet they have apparently been found
> > > sufficiently distinct to risk an error of 50 cents, three times the
> > > reading error we are talking about here in regard to Sagittal sixth
> > > and twelfthtones, where the symbols are not only flipped, but one is
> > > curved where the other is straight.
> >
>
> I'm afraid the above proves the opposite point than intended, AFAIC.
>
> Cooper is as unknown an American composer as can possibly be, first
of all.
> Having still not heard or yet performed her music I can't make any
judgment
> regarding the quality of her work.

Hi Johnny,

I just feel sorry for her having her name misspelled so often. :-)

I'm afraid I fail to understand how her degree of fame, or the quality
of her work, bear on this discussion. I would have thought that the
symbol could stand or fall on its own merits.

And I happen to agree with you, that it has few.

> But Sibelius is just a company. It only
> takes one person to enact such a decision in a company. All the
others would
> simply agree or turn it down. Maybe, as with Yamaha, it will only
be a limited
> time usage before they change or remove the symbol. Who knows?

I heard a rumour (for which admittedly I have no evidence whatsoever)
that quartertones were included in Sibelius at the request of the
London College of Music. In any case, companies do have to listen to
their big customers.

> Also, how unfair to think that players are always missing their
pitches.
>

At least I didn't say that they were "more concerned with how they
*look* in front of the crowd". :-)

Of course, I didn't actually say (or think) what you say above.

I have no doubt that they strive for, and achieve, excellent results
from the point of view of even the most discriminating listener.

-- Dave Keenan

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

/tuning/topicId_47520.html#47620

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_47520.html#47586
> >
> > > I expect you find at least one of Cyrillic, Greek or Chinese
> > > impossible to read too, even merely as letter sounds, nevermind
the
> > > meaning of words. But might that not have something to do with
the
> > > fact that you haven't _learnt_ them?
> >
> >
> > ***Well, Dave, people could learn practically *anything* if they
set
> > their minds to it. However, that certainly doesn't mean, does
it,
> > that we should try for the clearest notation possible...??
>
> I think your "should" above, should have been a "shouldn't. In which
> case I agree. However, to know whether something is clear, I think
it
> helps to learn what it is intended to mean. You declared something
> "impossible to read" when you had apparently not learnt the meaning
of
> the symbols. Perhaps we could do with a little less hyperbole in
this
> discussion.

***Hi Dave,

I've only been discussing the *three* symbols (with inversions) that
you provided me for 72-tET. I made some initial comments on how the
general font appeared to me, but the entire rest of the discussion
has been about this limited set...

Joseph

This is a question for dave and george-
One advantage of the original set on notations put forth in Xen III was the consistancy of notion in that it a slant went up you immediately knew that the pitch was up keyboard and vise versa. As some one who has built quite a few instruments laid out, in quite a few different bosanquet (like) patterns, i always found this extremely useful. so my question is (in
order not to have to attempt this myself ) is have you tried seeing how the notation falls on such keyboards using a few sample tunings? Considering the basic trend here, the direction of microtonal music seems to have resigned itself to electronics despite the fact that the option are even less than they were a decade ago.
If keyboard of like designs become the 'mainstream', how notation falls upon such objects, might be its main use of any notational system used.

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

Kraig wrote...

>This is a question for dave and george-
> One advantage of the original set on notations put forth in
>Xen III was the consistancy of notion in that it a slant went up
>you immediately knew that the pitch was up keyboard and vise versa.
>As some one who has built quite a few instruments laid out, in
>quite a few different bosanquet (like) patterns, i always found
>this extremely useful. so my question is (in order not to have to
>attempt this myself) is have you tried seeing how the notation falls
>on such keyboards using a few sample tunings? Considering the basic
>trend here, the direction of microtonal music seems to have resigned
>itself to electronics despite the fact that the option are even less
>than they were a decade ago.
> If keyboard of like designs become the 'mainstream', how notation
>falls upon such objects, might be its main use of any notational
>system used.

In this paper Erv argues for notations with nominal sets suited to
the tuning (not necessarily heptatonic).

He also shows a beautiful set of accidentals based on position on a
chain of generators. Depending on the mapping these could correspond
to different commas. But a "master list" based directly on commas
has some advantages. One doesn't have to worry about the direction
of pitch change (which depends on the size of the generator re. the
equal point in Erv's setup). Wherever you see symbol x, you'll be
applying the same tuning change, no matter the generator size, no
matter how many nominals you're using, no matter if your tuning is
linear. Transferring a piece from schismic to meantone would require
accidental changes in either approach, but I don't see any reason
to worry about making such a change special (as Erv does with the
mirror image thing) -- I don't see any musical reason for this.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> This is a question for dave and george-
> One advantage of the original set on notations put forth in
Xen III was the consistancy of notion in that it a slant went up you
immediately knew that the pitch was up keyboard and vise versa. As
some one who has built quite a few instruments laid out, in quite a
few different bosanquet (like) patterns, i always found this
extremely useful. so my question is (in
> order not to have to attempt this myself ) is have you tried seeing
how the notation falls on such keyboards using a few sample tunings?
Considering the basic trend here, the direction of microtonal music
seems to have resigned itself to electronics despite the fact that
the option are even less than they were a decade ago.
> If keyboard of like designs become the 'mainstream', how notation
falls upon such objects, might be its main use of any notational
system used.
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island

Our purpose was not to gear the sagittal notation to any particular
keyboard or instrument, but rather to have it correlated to harmonic
function of tones, whether for JI or temperaments. Making a notation
that excels with a particular keyboard or instrument or tuning tends
to put it in the category of a *specialized* notation, and our
intention was to make it as *generally* meaningful and useful as we
could, both for theory and performance.

--George