Re: Sagittal notation

Hi there,

Something no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that this new
Saggital notation is rather beautiful. Well to my eye anyway.
Though I don't know what the symbols mean, I enjoy looking
at this image:

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

Also I think not too hard to get used to - though I haven't followed the
details, clearly it is based on the circle of fifths, with one mark
for the syntonic comma for the 5/4 and 9/5, that at any rate is
easy to pick out because all the 5*3^ns are marked the same way.
Then another one takes you from a 16/9 to a 7/4 in the top diagram
so it is the 64/63 comma whatever that one is called.

The lower diagram I assume must be based on the Pythagorean diatonic
scale

F C G D A E B
4/3 1/1 3/2 9/8 27/16 81/64 243/128

or ordered as a scale:

9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 243/128 2/1

steps:
9/8 9/8 256/243 9/8 9/8 9/8 256/243

So - where it marks the 7/4, without the flat sign so it
must take you from 243/128 to 7/4. Similarly takes you from
the 81/64 to the 7/6.

If you look at the 16/9 then that double width down arrow
must take you to it from the B at 243/128, so it is a
the Pythagorean chromatic semitone.

The double arrow with one fleche to the right takes you
down from the Pythagorean major third to the minor third,
and so wherever you put it, it will convert the top note
of a Pythagorean major third to a minor third.
The one that looks like an anchor is an eleven limit conversion
one so one can leave that for now. Also the asymmetrical anchor
is a thirteen limit conversion arrow.

Really it is rather beautiful to think about it too, as well as to
look at it. Maybe performers who take the time to appreciate it will
find they really enjoy reading music written like this :-).

Cheers,

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote: in
/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47568

> Hi there,
>
> Something no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that this new
> Saggital notation is rather beautiful. Well to my eye anyway.
> Though I don't know what the symbols mean, I enjoy looking
> at this image:
>
> /tuning-math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif
>

Thanks Robert. You made my day. All your deductions from George's
"Rosetta stone" are spot on.
[Read about the real Rosetta stone here.
http://www.ba.dlr.de/ne/pe/virtis/stone1.htm]

> Really it is rather beautiful to think about it too, as well as to
> look at it. Maybe performers who take the time to appreciate it will
> find they really enjoy reading music written like this :-).

And I didn't even pay him. Honest. :-)

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

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47598

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
> wrote: in
> /tuning/topicId_47568.html#47568
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Something no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that this new
> > Saggital notation is rather beautiful. Well to my eye anyway.
> > Though I don't know what the symbols mean, I enjoy looking
> > at this image:
> >
> > /tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif
> >
>
> Thanks Robert. You made my day. All your deductions from George's
> "Rosetta stone" are spot on.
> [Read about the real Rosetta stone here.
> http://www.ba.dlr.de/ne/pe/virtis/stone1.htm]
>
> > Really it is rather beautiful to think about it too, as well as to
> > look at it. Maybe performers who take the time to appreciate it
will
> > find they really enjoy reading music written like this :-).
>
> And I didn't even pay him. Honest. :-)

***Robert Walker is a brilliant man and a very nice person, but I
don't believe his comments are coming from a "real world" music
performance perspective at all... The paragraph above is just flat
wrong, according to every experience with performers I have ever
had...

Johnny??

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Something no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that this new
> Saggital notation is rather beautiful. Well to my eye anyway.
> Though I don't know what the symbols mean, I enjoy looking
> at this image:
>
> /tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/SagJI.gif

Thanks for your kind words, Robert -- a welcome calm in the midst of
a storm.

> Also I think not too hard to get used to - though I haven't
followed the
> details, clearly it is based on the circle of fifths, with one mark
> for the syntonic comma for the 5/4 and 9/5, that at any rate is
> easy to pick out because all the 5*3^ns are marked the same way.
> Then another one takes you from a 16/9 to a 7/4 in the top diagram
> so it is the 64/63 comma whatever that one is called.

The septimal comma, which Dave & I simply call a 7-comma.

Just one correction: Both staves are notating the very same thing,
only the upper one (mixed notation) uses sagittal symbols in
combination with conventional sharps & flats, whereas the lower one
(pure sagittal notation) uses all-new symbols. In both staves the
naturals being altered are in a pythagorean sequence.

> The lower diagram I assume must be based on the Pythagorean diatonic
> scale
>
> F C G D A E B
> 4/3 1/1 3/2 9/8 27/16 81/64 243/128
>
> or ordered as a scale:
>
> 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 243/128 2/1
>
> steps:
> 9/8 9/8 256/243 9/8 9/8 9/8 256/243
>
> So - where it marks the 7/4, without the flat sign so it
> must take you from 243/128 to 7/4. Similarly takes you from
> the 81/64 to the 7/6.
>
> If you look at the 16/9 then that double width down arrow
> must take you to it from the B at 243/128, so it is a
> the Pythagorean chromatic semitone.
>
> The double arrow with one fleche to the right takes you
> down from the Pythagorean major third to the minor third,
> and so wherever you put it, it will convert the top note
> of a Pythagorean major third to a minor third.
> The one that looks like an anchor is an eleven limit conversion
> one so one can leave that for now. Also the asymmetrical anchor
> is a thirteen limit conversion arrow.

Yes, you can readily discern how the appearance of each symbol is
correlated with its harmonic function.

Do you think anyone reading music at high speed would have any
trouble distinguishing the "anchor" modifying the final B in measure
4 from the arrow modifying the first F in the same measure if one of
the symbols were inverted so that both pointed in the same
direction? (Or are there only a select few who are qualified to make
a judgment such as that?)

> Really it is rather beautiful to think about it too, as well as to
> look at it. Maybe performers who take the time to appreciate it will
> find they really enjoy reading music written like this :-).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert

Again, thank you.

--George

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

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47693

> Do you think anyone reading music at high speed would have any
> trouble distinguishing the "anchor" modifying the final B in
measure
> 4 from the arrow modifying the first F in the same measure if one
of
> the symbols were inverted so that both pointed in the same
> direction?

***Yes...

Oh... I guess I wasn't really *asked*... :)

J. Pehrson

George D. Secor wrote (not to me, but since it concerns something I noticed a few days ago, I'll just sqeeze in here):

> Do you think anyone reading music at high speed would have any > trouble distinguishing the "anchor" modifying the final B in measure > 4 from the arrow modifying the first F in the same measure if one of > the symbols were inverted so that both pointed in the same > direction? (Or are there only a select few who are qualified to make > a judgment such as that?)

I mistook it immediately, i.e. I decided to take a second look, and it was a second look of the kind I know I will always take if this symbol comes up. Given the arrowlike (receding) nature of the flat's hoop, I suggest a bend backwards (like J) for the 7 comma, or maybe all your "round" arrowheads (which then are more like fishing hooks). (I'm suggesting this without having seen the complete symbol set, so take it with a grain of salt).

I like the idea of a general notation, but I can see that it will have a hard time to compete with the more or less established notation communities. No reason not to try, though! (And I hope my input & suggestion are different enough from a rant to be helpful.)

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> I mistook it immediately, i.e. I decided to take a second look, and it
> was a second look of the kind I know I will always take if this symbol
> comes up. Given the arrowlike (receding) nature of the flat's hoop, I
> suggest a bend backwards (like J) for the 7 comma, or maybe all your
> "round" arrowheads (which then are more like fishing hooks). (I'm
> suggesting this without having seen the complete symbol set, so take
> it with a grain of salt).

Thanks Klaus,

I think this is an excellent suggestion. We're looking into it, along
with some other ideas prompted by Joseph Pehrson's observations.

There are definitely some difficulties with this idea over the
complete symbol set, but they don't seem insurmountable. We're working
on it.

-- Dave Keenan

hi Dave,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

> > I mistook it immediately, i.e. I decided to take a
> > second look, and it was a second look of the kind I
> > know I will always take if this symbol comes up. Given
> > the arrowlike (receding) nature of the flat's hoop, I
> > suggest a bend backwards (like J) for the 7 comma, or
> > maybe all your "round" arrowheads (which then are more
> > like fishing hooks). (I'm suggesting this without having
> > seen the complete symbol set, so take it with a grain of salt).
>
>
> Thanks Klaus,
>
> I think this is an excellent suggestion. We're looking
> into it, along with some other ideas prompted by
> Joseph Pehrson's observations.
>
> There are definitely some difficulties with this idea
> over the complete symbol set, but they don't seem
> insurmountable. We're working on it.

i just hope that you keep in mind that Joe Pehrson, who seems
to be the foremost exponent of practicality when it comes to
microtonal issues, argued *vehemently* against my proposal
to have 72edo-HEWM adopted as a standard, and now's he's
come around to accepting it.

my point? ... sometimes logic and careful planning
win out after all. ;-)

(however, it looks like that didn't happen today in California...
but please continue *that* thread on metatuning...)

-monz

monz wrote:

> i just hope that you keep in mind that Joe Pehrson, who seems
> to be the foremost exponent of practicality when it comes to
> microtonal issues, argued *vehemently* against my proposal
> to have 72edo-HEWM adopted as a standard, and now's he's
> come around to accepting it.

After an almost irrational reaction against Sagittal and from someone who is not interested in other systems than 72-et (or rather, part of it). These are conflicting requirements.
If instrumentalists like the AFMM want rewritten scores in something widely applicable (applicabable? no, I won't look it up) like the cent notation, which apparently is not used by composers in the first place because they can't recognize what they have written, and, on the other hand, if a common notation for analyzing (which includes a composer rereading his own score) and performance, like the solutions for 72-et, tend to lock the users in very specific subcultures, Sagittal appears a sorely needed solution that has the potential to free up the tunings _and_, in the long run, bring composers and players closer together.
But maybe a better composer to ask would be someone pandivisional like Brian McLaren. These people, on the other hand, tend to be content with midi efforts. Marc Jones has been mentioned... and the microtonal guitar players. Even if they work alone, they have to hand in some piece of notation when they register their pieces, no?

klaus

In a message dated 10/8/2003 9:41:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
KSchmir@z.zgs.de writes:

> If instrumentalists like the AFMM want rewritten scores in something
> widely applicable (applicabable? no, I won't look it up) like the cent
> notation, which apparently is not used by composers in the first place
> because they can't recognize what they have written, and, on the other
> hand, if a common notation for analyzing (which includes a composer
> rereading his own score) and performance, like the solutions for
> 72-et, tend to lock the users in very specific subcultures

Hi Klaus, I don't quite get your beef here. AFMM has played every kind of
score, especially poorly written manuscripts. Over time, when mixing different
tunings, it made sense to not have double duty for symbols (like arrows) and
have a single tuning using cents to navigate them all.

Also, any composer can make the leap to cents regardless of how they wrote
their own manuscript, if not instantly, than by a legend. Again, this is no
different than writing for a horn in F or a trumpet in Bb. Cents notation is
designed to break out of the microtonal subculture ghetto and to put everyone on
the same page. And it works well, too.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/8/2003 9:41:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > KSchmir@z.zgs.de writes:
> >> If instrumentalists like the AFMM want rewritten scores in something
>> widely applicable (applicabable? no, I won't look it up) like the cent
>> notation, which apparently is not used by composers in the first place
>> because they can't recognize what they have written, and, on the other
>> hand, if a common notation for analyzing (which includes a composer
>> rereading his own score) and performance, like the solutions for
>> 72-et, tend to lock the users in very specific subcultures
> > > > Hi Klaus, I don't quite get your beef here. AFMM has played every kind > of score, especially poorly written manuscripts. Over time, when mixing > different tunings, it made sense to not have double duty for symbols > (like arrows) and have a single tuning using cents to navigate them all.

If you mean a single orthography for every tuning, this is just what I wanted to say. Cent notation takes the place of many other, tuning specific and composer specific, writing styles.

> > Also, any composer can make the leap to cents regardless of how they > wrote their own manuscript, if not instantly, than by a legend. But the "not instantly" was my point. A composer, at least a non-serial composer (one who doesn't want to explore ETs for some numerical qualities -- and don't anybody get me wrong, I think this is a valid approach to music, too), needs to be able to see not the pitches, but the relations of notes. Sagittal can take care of that (two comma symbols for a doubled major third distance instead of -14 and -28 -- and 16 and 32 for minor thirds).

Of course, for the insecure instrumentalist (giving a thought to insecure nonprofessional players like myself) cents notation has the advantage of being compatible with electronic tuners.

klaus

Again,
> this is no different than writing for a horn in F or a trumpet in Bb. The horn is a case in point: its general C notation helped the composer to see the available notes (and their relations). Pitches aren't that interesting :).

> Cents notation is designed to break out of the microtonal subculture > ghetto and to put everyone on the same page. And it works well, too.
> > best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 10/8/2003 4:42:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
KSchmir@z.zgs.de writes:

> >Also, any composer can make the leap to cents regardless of how they
> >wrote their own manuscript, if not instantly, than by a legend.
>
> But the "not instantly" was my point. A composer, at least a
> non-serial composer (one who doesn't want to explore ETs for some
> numerical qualities -- and don't anybody get me wrong, I think this is
> a valid approach to music, too), needs to be able to see not the
> pitches, but the relations of notes. Sagittal can take care of that
> (two comma symbols for a doubled major third distance instead of -14
> and -28 -- and 16 and 32 for minor thirds).
>
> Of course, for the insecure instrumentalist (giving a thought to
> insecure nonprofessional players like myself) cents notation has the
> advantage of being compatible with electronic tuners.
>
> klaus
>

Hi Klaus,

Have you every heard of the distinction of "descriptive" versus
"prescriptive" notation? The composer does a diservice to the players if he or she simply
hands the manuscript over to the musicians. There is usually a vast
improvement in penmanship for the "prescriptive" version, or in other words, a cleaner
re-write.

As for the relations shown, we have discussed this. I have even said I would
prefer a -31 over a +19 for the 7/4 because it shows more clearly the
interval. That said, cents or any notation, cannot make the intervals sound "right."
It is the musician's gift to make the intervals believeable. They must hear
the "sense" in the intervals, over and above what intellectual intentions
there may be. In fact, they do much more than play exact pitches. They must
match vibrati, they can both engorge the tone harmonically or darken tone. They
can move off the grid for a tension. They can have notes arrive from above or
below a targeted pitch, or initiate it dead on, etc. Even the dynamics play
a role in pitch.

Musicians must "hear" the relations between the tones. Seeing them makes
much less difference. Seeing only aids hearing, the ultimate outcome. Cents
objectifies all different systems, thus serving the cause of music making.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Hi Johnny,
I have the feeling I have to defend my defense of Sagittal notation, and that you feel you have to defend your practice. What I actually attacked were the specialized Sims and HEWM notations, and I cited your cent notation as proof that at least some musicians prefer a general solution. I do believe that Sagittal, if its final incarnation comes out right, will be preferable (for reasons below). I also believe/can see that it will not be easy for it to get accepted, partly because some composers and instrumentalists think that 72-et is a reasonably good and very workable approximation for their purposes (they may well be right), partly because you have a little tradition of cents notation going, but mainly because so much of the more freewheeling tuning where Sagittal can prove itself goes on and is notated in the midi realm, hardly ever encountering a real live performer.

klaus

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Klaus,
> > Have you every heard of the distinction of "descriptive" versus > "prescriptive" notation? The composer does a diservice to the players > if he or she simply hands the manuscript over to the musicians. Or to a copyist, who might not be equipped for turning ratios into cents. I still think Sagittal has the potential to work both ways.

That said, cents or any notation, cannot make the
> intervals sound "right." It is the musician's gift to make the > intervals believeable. They must hear the "sense" in the intervals, > over and above what intellectual intentions there may be. In fact, they > do much more than play exact pitches. They must match vibrati, they can > both engorge the tone harmonically or darken tone. They can move off > the grid for a tension. They can have notes arrive from above or below > a targeted pitch, or initiate it dead on, etc. Even the dynamics play a > role in pitch.

More reason not to give a number. And I like these reasons. Sagittal claims to notate the meanings, the relations between pitches, while leaving the degree of accuracy open.

> > Musicians must "hear" the relations between the tones. Seeing them > makes much less difference. Seeing only aids hearing, the ultimate > outcome. Cents objectifies all different systems, thus serving the > cause of music making.
> > best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/8/2003 9:41:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > KSchmir@z... writes:
> >
> >> If instrumentalists like the AFMM want rewritten scores in
something
> >> widely applicable (applicabable? no, I won't look it up) like
the cent
> >> notation, which apparently is not used by composers in the first
place
> >> because they can't recognize what they have written, and, on the
other
> >> hand, if a common notation for analyzing (which includes a
composer
> >> rereading his own score) and performance, like the solutions for
> >> 72-et, tend to lock the users in very specific subcultures
> >
> > Hi Klaus, I don't quite get your beef here. AFMM has played
every kind
> > of score, especially poorly written manuscripts. Over time, when
mixing
> > different tunings, it made sense to not have double duty for
symbols
> > (like arrows) and have a single tuning using cents to navigate
them all.
>
> If you mean a single orthography for every tuning, this is just
what I
> wanted to say. Cent notation takes the place of many other, tuning
> specific and composer specific, writing styles.
>
> > Also, any composer can make the leap to cents regardless of how
they
> > wrote their own manuscript, if not instantly, than by a legend.
>
> But the "not instantly" was my point. A composer, at least a
> non-serial composer (one who doesn't want to explore ETs for some
> numerical qualities -- and don't anybody get me wrong, I think this
is
> a valid approach to music, too), needs to be able to see not the
> pitches, but the relations of notes. Sagittal can take care of that
> (two comma symbols for a doubled major third distance instead of -
14
> and -28 -- and 16 and 32 for minor thirds).
>
> Of course, for the insecure instrumentalist (giving a thought to
> insecure nonprofessional players like myself) cents notation has
the
> advantage of being compatible with electronic tuners.
>
> klaus
>
> > Again,
> > this is no different than writing for a horn in F or a trumpet in
Bb.
>
> The horn is a case in point: its general C notation helped the
> composer to see the available notes (and their relations). Pitches
> aren't that interesting :).
>
> > Cents notation is designed to break out of the microtonal
subculture
> > ghetto and to put everyone on the same page. And it works well,
too.
> >
> > best, Johnny Reinhard

Klaus,

Let me begin by saying that Dave Keenan and I appreciate both your
constructive criticism and moral support of our efforts in attempting
to produce a generalized notation that can be used for many different
tunings. Since Johnny's cents notation would seem to have the same
objective, it might appear that these are two competing systems, when
nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe that it's counterproductive to argue whether sagittal or
cents notation is better. They both give information about *pitch*
(and/or intervals), but they do this in very different (I would say,
complementary) *formats*, each of which has specific advantages over
the other for certain purposes and applications.

Johnny's notation has decades of experience to demonstrate beyond
dispute that his notation not only works, but that it works
*extremely well* as a performance notation for instruments of
flexible pitch. Any alleged shortcomings that others may find tend
to focus on difficulties in perceiving harmonic relationships (hence
leaving much to be desired for the process of composing music).

Sagittal notation is only arriving on the scene, but it has been in
development for over 2 years, and Dave and I have expended an
extraordinary amount of effort to ensure that it also works
*extremely well* in conveying harmonic relationships (and hence
excels as a theoretical notation). Hence, virtually all of the
criticism thus far has focused on concerns that the symbols might
leave something to be desired in a performance situation (although we
have also expended considerable effort to ensure that this is not
so). Whatever the case, it remains that the notation be tested for
real-time readability by others in the months ahead.

I mentioned above that I believe that the two notations are
complementary rather than competitive, from which one might infer
that certain instrumental (and vocal) parts could be notated in such
a way as to combine the two approaches. This would allow a player to
use either approach separately, or alternatively, to use one of these
for primary direction, supplemented from time to time by the other,
as needed. A few months ago Johnny and I privately discussed a few
issues that would need to be addressed in combining the two
approaches in a printed part, and we did agree that the idea was
worth pursuing.

--George

Thank you, Klaus, for the explanation. I understand. Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47568.html#47693
>
> > Do you think anyone reading music at high speed would have any
> > trouble distinguishing the "anchor" modifying the final B in
measure
> > 4 from the arrow modifying the first F in the same measure if
one of
> > the symbols were inverted so that both pointed in the same
> > direction?
>
> ***Yes...
>
> Oh... I guess I wasn't really *asked*... :)
>
> J. Pehrson

Joseph,

The question was intended for anyone reading along, and I rather
expected you to answer, so thank you for answering.

I thought that I would soon have a reply for you regarding your
criticism of the sagittal symbols as to suitability for notating 72-
ET. Over the past couple of days Dave Keenan and I have been
discussing the issues you raised, and we seem to be coming to a
general agreement about most of these.

Unfortunately, both of us have been swamped lately with other
responsibilities involving deadlines, so we will need to delay
posting our response for perhaps a few weeks. We consider the issues
that you raised very important, and we want to be able to give them
the time and attention that they deserve (since we want to look at
these things from a few different directions). Besides that, we
would be hard pressed at this time to keep up with the volume of
messages that would follow our reply. (In other words, we need a
break!)

I hope you understand this and take us at our word that we're serious
about coming back to this (and not just blowing you off).

Thanking you in advance for your patience,

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

> I also
> believe/can see that it will not be easy for it to get accepted,
> partly because some composers and instrumentalists think that 72-et
is
> a reasonably good and very workable approximation for their
purposes

approximation of what? minimax miracle?

> (they may well be right),

Paul Erlich wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> > >>I also >>believe/can see that it will not be easy for it to get accepted, >>partly because some composers and instrumentalists think that 72-et > > is > >>a reasonably good and very workable approximation for their > > purposes > > approximation of what? minimax miracle? > approximation to 11 limit JI, secor generated scales, the pitch continuum, whatever, in real live practical terms. so many notes are over before they hit their theoretical pitch (not to mention double basses and Heisenberg, but you know that one better than me).

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...>
wrote:
> >
> >>I also
> >>believe/can see that it will not be easy for it to get accepted,
> >>partly because some composers and instrumentalists think that 72-
et is
> >>a reasonably good and very workable approximation for their
purposes
> >
> > approximation of what? minimax miracle?
>
> approximation to 11 limit JI, secor generated scales, the pitch
> continuum, whatever, in real live practical terms. so many notes
are
> over before they hit their theoretical pitch (not to mention double
> basses and Heisenberg, but you know that one better than me).
>
> klaus

Regarding "secor"-generated scales, I can't help but point out that
there is a double meaning in the statement, as indicated in my very
first message on this list: :-)
/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47819
which begins:

<< Re: What is a Secor?

A "secor" (lower case) is a generator, specifically the interval that
generates the scales of the Miracle tuning.

A "Secor" (capitalized) is also a generator, specifically the last
name of the person writing this, who has generated over the past 38
years a considerable pile of paperwork containing notes and sketches
for a varied collection of original ideas pertaining to alternative
tonal systems, including the aforementioned generating interval of
a "secor" and the keyboard geometry derived from it. >>

Most of the Secor-generated microtonal scales (second definition) are
at least 13-limit. In my opinion, those that are either low-error
temperaments or in just intonation are not adequately notated (from a
theoretical perspective) by shoe-horning them into a 72-tone
framework. In other words, I would certainly not want to *compose*
in those tunings using a 72-ET notation if I had a better option
available, and I have no doubt that there are others who feel the
same way about some of their favorite tunings.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> Regarding "secor"-generated scales, I can't help but point out that
> there is a double meaning in the statement, as indicated in my very
> first message on this list: :-)
> /tuning/topicId_47568.html#47819

Sorry, that should have been:

/tuning/topicId_32446.html#32446

--George

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

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47777

> hi Dave,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...>
wrote:
>
> > > I mistook it immediately, i.e. I decided to take a
> > > second look, and it was a second look of the kind I
> > > know I will always take if this symbol comes up. Given
> > > the arrowlike (receding) nature of the flat's hoop, I
> > > suggest a bend backwards (like J) for the 7 comma, or
> > > maybe all your "round" arrowheads (which then are more
> > > like fishing hooks). (I'm suggesting this without having
> > > seen the complete symbol set, so take it with a grain of salt).
> >
> >
> > Thanks Klaus,
> >
> > I think this is an excellent suggestion. We're looking
> > into it, along with some other ideas prompted by
> > Joseph Pehrson's observations.
> >
> > There are definitely some difficulties with this idea
> > over the complete symbol set, but they don't seem
> > insurmountable. We're working on it.
>
>
>
> i just hope that you keep in mind that Joe Pehrson, who seems
> to be the foremost exponent of practicality when it comes to
> microtonal issues, argued *vehemently* against my proposal
> to have 72edo-HEWM adopted as a standard, and now's he's
> come around to accepting it.
>
> my point? ... sometimes logic and careful planning
> win out after all. ;-)
>
>
> (however, it looks like that didn't happen today in California...
> but please continue *that* thread on metatuning...)
>
>
>
> -monz

***Hi Monz,

Well, regretfully, this assumption is a little preliminary. I was
only saying that I thought there was some *logic* in HEWM and that I
also didn't like the Sims quartertones (who with any brain would :)

There is *one* practical problem with your HEWM, which was discussed
on this list some time ago, as I recall. The little plusses above
the notes can be confused with accent symbols. They also would be
*very* problematic in *BRASS* notation, where the plus is used for
*stopped notes...* That's one of the worst problems...

The quartertones as big arrows makes sense, since, as you mention,
*lots* of contemporary music has used them. I used them *myself*
years ago, although my arrows had a body that looked like the number
*four...* (a common symbol back then...)

Added to this is the difficulty that the Sims notation is in
circulation. Now how *wide* a circulation is subject to debate. I
*definitely* have met some musicians in New York who already know it.

I just wrote to Julia Werntz in Boston about this question, since I
would like to know just how many performers around there are
*conversant* in the Sims notation and would *not* like to change...

Joe P.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47794

> Hi Johnny,
> I have the feeling I have to defend my defense of Sagittal
notation,
> and that you feel you have to defend your practice. What I actually
> attacked were the specialized Sims and HEWM notations, and I cited
> your cent notation as proof that at least some musicians prefer a
> general solution. I do believe that Sagittal, if its final
incarnation
> comes out right, will be preferable (for reasons below). I also
> believe/can see that it will not be easy for it to get accepted,
> partly because some composers and instrumentalists think that 72-et
is
> a reasonably good and very workable approximation for their
purposes
> (they may well be right), partly because you have a little
tradition
> of cents notation going, but mainly because so much of the more
> freewheeling tuning where Sagittal can prove itself goes on and is
> notated in the midi realm, hardly ever encountering a real live
> performer.
>
> klaus
>

***Which makes me wonder if there is any kind of *utility* for this
kind of notation in any case... As I had mentioned before, it seems
like more a "composer shorthand" than a musical notation...

Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47795
>
> I mentioned above that I believe that the two notations are
> complementary rather than competitive, from which one might infer
> that certain instrumental (and vocal) parts could be notated in
such
> a way as to combine the two approaches. This would allow a player
to
> use either approach separately, or alternatively, to use one of
these
> for primary direction, supplemented from time to time by the other,
> as needed. A few months ago Johnny and I privately discussed a few
> issues that would need to be addressed in combining the two
> approaches in a printed part, and we did agree that the idea was
> worth pursuing.
>
> --George

***Just for the record: I have a score of my woodwind quintet in
Blackjack that has *both* the Sims *and* cents notation. Personally
I found it useful, but Johnny thinks it's too "busy" and, hence,
confusing to include both systems. I can see his reasoning...

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47799

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_47568.html#47693
> >
> > > Do you think anyone reading music at high speed would have any
> > > trouble distinguishing the "anchor" modifying the final B in
> measure
> > > 4 from the arrow modifying the first F in the same measure if
> one of
> > > the symbols were inverted so that both pointed in the same
> > > direction?
> >
> > ***Yes...
> >
> > Oh... I guess I wasn't really *asked*... :)
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> Joseph,
>
> The question was intended for anyone reading along, and I rather
> expected you to answer, so thank you for answering.
>
> I thought that I would soon have a reply for you regarding your
> criticism of the sagittal symbols as to suitability for notating 72-
> ET. Over the past couple of days Dave Keenan and I have been
> discussing the issues you raised, and we seem to be coming to a
> general agreement about most of these.
>
> Unfortunately, both of us have been swamped lately with other
> responsibilities involving deadlines, so we will need to delay
> posting our response for perhaps a few weeks. We consider the
issues
> that you raised very important, and we want to be able to give them
> the time and attention that they deserve (since we want to look at
> these things from a few different directions). Besides that, we
> would be hard pressed at this time to keep up with the volume of
> messages that would follow our reply. (In other words, we need a
> break!)
>
> I hope you understand this and take us at our word that we're
serious
> about coming back to this (and not just blowing you off).
>
> Thanking you in advance for your patience,
>
> --George

***Thanks, George and, of course, there is no rush with this. At the
moment I'm still using the Sims notation and will continue doing so
until I see some real advantage to something else...

J. Pehrson

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

> There is *one* practical problem with your HEWM, which was
discussed
> on this list some time ago, as I recall. The little plusses above
> the notes can be confused with accent symbols. They also would be
> *very* problematic in *BRASS* notation, where the plus is used for
> *stopped notes...* That's one of the worst problems...
>

In the notation design of Wilson that Dr. Wolf uses, the horizontal
stroke of the plusses (which are _before_ the notes, not above them)
slant upward and are thick. The minusses (sp.?) slant downward. They
are not confuseable with brass muting. Please read Monz's webpage on
the notation.

Gabor B.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"

/tuning/topicId_47568.html#47852

<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > There is *one* practical problem with your HEWM, which was
> discussed
> > on this list some time ago, as I recall. The little plusses
above
> > the notes can be confused with accent symbols. They also would
be
> > *very* problematic in *BRASS* notation, where the plus is used
for
> > *stopped notes...* That's one of the worst problems...
> >
>
> In the notation design of Wilson that Dr. Wolf uses, the horizontal
> stroke of the plusses (which are _before_ the notes, not above
them)
> slant upward and are thick. The minusses (sp.?) slant downward.
They
> are not confuseable with brass muting. Please read Monz's webpage
on
> the notation.
>
> Gabor B.

***Yes, that would certainly be preferable. However, I don't believe
there is any available *font* for this notation at the present time,
is there??

J. Pehrson