Reinhard notation

Some questions.

(1) I called in Reinhard notation in the subject line. Does it have
an official name?

(2) Are the numbers cents values of the notes relative to a fixed
center, or +- 12-equal?

(3) Is any thought given to consistency, or is it simply a matter of
rounding to the nearest cent?

In a message dated 10/4/03 5:14:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> Some questions.
>
> (1) I called in Reinhard notation in the subject line. Does it have
> an official name?
>

Well, I call it cents notation. It has been a standard for the American
Festival of Microtonal Music concerts for over 10 years. It began as a result of
AFMM players having to play too many different notations on the same programs,
some of which were redundant of the same actual tunings.

> (2) Are the numbers cents values of the notes relative to a fixed
> center, or +- 12-equal?
>

The cents deviations indicated above the notehead only include numbers from
1-49, so it is the 24-tET scale that is fixed.

> (3) Is any thought given to consistency, or is it simply a matter of
> rounding to the nearest cent?
>

For intervals that have decimal placements, they are rounded out to the
nearest cent.

best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> The cents deviations indicated above the notehead only include
numbers from
> 1-49, so it is the 24-tET scale that is fixed.

Eh? And how to you notate 24-et?

In a message dated 10/5/03 12:15:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> Eh? And how to you notate 24-et?
>
>
>
>

Using the standard # as a template, quartersharp would be a = with a single
downward stroke, while 3/4 sharp would be a = with 3 downward strokes.

I use a radical sign as a quarter flat, while the occasional 3/4 flat uses a
regular flat with a diagonal through it.

Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/5/03 12:15:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> I use a radical sign as a quarter flat, while the occasional 3/4
flat uses a
> regular flat with a diagonal through it.

Any way you do it, it's bizarre. Why not simply use the nearest 12-et
note and negative numbers when appropriate?

In a message dated 10/5/03 2:16:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

>
> Any way you do it, it's bizarre. Why not simply use the nearest 12-et
> note and negative numbers when appropriate?
>
Why bizarre? The sharps are as logical as can be and have been used my many,
many composers. The quarterflat (down stroke, jutting forward at a 30 degree
angle) is to resemble a quarter of a circle.

Regardless, using the nearest 12 would require numbers from 1-99, which makes
a bigger difference in interpreting. This is shown by years of usage. There
have been occasions, such as when wanting to emphasize a particular interval,
or in a transposition, where a larger number was used, and it is immensely
more difficult to negotiate. The quartertones are now as reliable as the 12
tones once were. Hence, a violinist only needs to roll a finger to find a
microtone with less than a 49 cents difference.

Gene, negative numbers are used in front of the numbers when they are
subtracted. Positive numbers are also used. It might be suggested that they are not
necessary since without the plus sign should indicate that it is a positive
number. But in reading music, the lack of a sign makes the mind wander/wonder
which slows down the process. I even suggest a -1 and a +1 although some make
think this useless. It is not. Keep in mind (pardon the pun) that the
bassoon is tuned completely in the mind, and every distinction needs be notated for
the mind.

best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> Why bizarre? The sharps are as logical as can be and have been
used my many,
> many composers.

The sharps (and flats) are fine as a means of notating 12-et, since
we are used to it.

The quarterflat (down stroke, jutting forward at a 30 degree
> angle) is to resemble a quarter of a circle.

Using a quarterflat symbol when you've already got numbers (and so
could call this 50) is bizarre and makes no sense.

> Regardless, using the nearest 12 would require numbers from 1-99,
which makes
> a bigger difference in interpreting.

No, it would require numbers from -49 to 50, which would be a hell of
a lot easier to parse than this goofy quarter-tone business. The way
you have it now, a 5/4 is represented as D#, plus a quarter tone, plus
34 cents, which is crazy, since E minus 14 cents is much, much easier
to grasp.

> Gene, negative numbers are used in front of the numbers when they
are
> subtracted.

Then why not stick to them?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47643

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Why bizarre? The sharps are as logical as can be and have been
> used my many,
> > many composers.
>
> The sharps (and flats) are fine as a means of notating 12-et, since
> we are used to it.
>
> The quarterflat (down stroke, jutting forward at a 30 degree
> > angle) is to resemble a quarter of a circle.
>
> Using a quarterflat symbol when you've already got numbers (and so
> could call this 50) is bizarre and makes no sense.
>
> > Regardless, using the nearest 12 would require numbers from 1-99,
> which makes
> > a bigger difference in interpreting.
>
> No, it would require numbers from -49 to 50, which would be a hell
of
> a lot easier to parse than this goofy quarter-tone business. The
way
> you have it now, a 5/4 is represented as D#, plus a quarter tone,
plus
> 34 cents, which is crazy, since E minus 14 cents is much, much
easier
> to grasp.
>
> > Gene, negative numbers are used in front of the numbers when they
> are
> > subtracted.
>
> Then why not stick to them?

***When *I* was using "cents notation" I was rounding to the nearest
quartertone... so I never used a number larger than 25. Anything
less or greater would reference the nearest quartertone.

I believe Johnny, though, likes another method since he likes to
define certain intervals with larger numbers than that...

J. Pehrson

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

> ***When *I* was using "cents notation" I was rounding to the
nearest
> quartertone... so I never used a number larger than 25. Anything
> less or greater would reference the nearest quartertone.

That makes a lot more sense. Of course, you could go on from there
and add symbols for 14, 7, and 2 cents, for instance.

In a message dated 10/5/03 4:36:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Why bizarre? The sharps are as logical as can be and have been
> used my many,
> > many composers.
>
> The sharps (and flats) are fine as a means of notating 12-et, since
> we are used to it.
>

You misunderstand: I mean the "quartertone adjusted" sharps are as logical as
sharps and have been used successfully by many, many composers.

> The quarterflat (down stroke, jutting forward at a 30 degree
> > angle) is to resemble a quarter of a circle.
>
> Using a quarterflat symbol when you've already got numbers (and so
> could call this 50) is bizarre and makes no sense.
>

(This is one of the chasms of understanding I have mentioned in past posts.)
Navigating smaller numbers is easier for players. The symbol gets them
closer to the target. The same is similar to how a wind player uses a fingering to
get close to a targeted pitch, but never hits dead on. The exactitude is in
the mind and the mind's ear. A number less than 50 is easier to recognize as
the quartertone symbols have long been ingrained by contemporary players.

> > Regardless, using the nearest 12 would require numbers from 1-99,
> which makes
> > a bigger difference in interpreting.
>
> No, it would require numbers from -49 to 50, which would be a hell of
> a lot easier to parse than this goofy quarter-tone business. The way
> you have it now, a 5/4 is represented as D#, plus a quarter tone, plus
> 34 cents, which is crazy, since E minus 14 cents is much, much easier
> to grasp.

Don't you mean numbers -49-99? BTW, your describing a living culture of
music making as goofy, and it is likely the most successful microtonal music
ensemble in existence. Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
ploy it?

> > Gene, negative numbers are used in front of the numbers when they
> are
> > subtracted.
>
> Then why not stick to them?

Sometime the pitch is lowered such as -14 for a 386 cent major third of 5/4.
Sometimes it is added as with +16 for a 316 cent minor third of 6/5. How do
you mean "stick to them"?

best, Johnny

In a message dated 10/5/03 5:20:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> ***When *I* was using "cents notation" I was rounding to the nearest
> quartertone... so I never used a number larger than 25. Anything
> less or greater would reference the nearest quartertone.
>

Paul pointed this out a while ago, but since most of the microtonal music
played still has an emphasis of the "tonal" it has paid to have spellings
accurate (such as chords built on thirds using alternative letter names). This tonal
representation has made it less likely to use atonal enharmonic identities
which would allow for numbers only up to 24.

best, Johnny

hi Johnny (and Joe Pehrson and Gene),

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

> In a message dated 10/5/03 4:36:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Regardless, using the nearest 12 would require numbers
> > > from 1-99, which makes a bigger difference in interpreting.
> >
> > No, it would require numbers from -49 to 50, which would
> > be a hell of a lot easier to parse than this goofy
> > quarter-tone business. The way you have it now, a 5/4
> > is represented as D#, plus a quarter tone, plus 34 cents,
> > which is crazy, since E minus 14 cents is much, much
> > easier to grasp.
>
> Don't you mean numbers -49-99? BTW, your describing a
> living culture of music making as goofy, and it is likely
> the most successful microtonal music ensemble in existence.
> Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had
> to employ it?
>
> > > Gene, negative numbers are used in front of the
> > > numbers when they are subtracted.
> >
> > Then why not stick to them?
>
> Sometime the pitch is lowered such as -14 for a 386 cent
> major third of 5/4. Sometimes it is added as with +16
> for a 316 cent minor third of 6/5. How do you mean
> "stick to them"?

i remember a few years ago, Johnny and i were discussing
using quarter-tone symbols along with cents notation ...
if i'm not mistaken, that's when Joe Pehrson decided to
notate his music that way. right, Joe?

anyway, i was using an example then that i'd like to
ask you about again now, Johnny. the 7/4 ratio is
~968.8259065 cents. this is ~31.17409353 cents less
than 2^(10/12) [= 1000 cents], and ~18.82590647 cents
more than 2^(19/24) [= 950 cents].

do you always use either "2^(10/12) -31 cents" or
"2^(19/24) +19 cents", or do you use both depending on
the situation? if the latter, then please elaborate
on when and why one is better than the other.

i'm very curious about your empirically-derived response
to this, since you've been directing the AFMM for so long now.

my own gut feeling, agreeing with what you say above about
the size of the cents-values, is that "2^(19/24) +19" would
result in a better-sounding approximation to 7/4 since the
deviation from 24edo is smaller than the other notation's
deviation from 12edo.

but on the other hand, i'd be willing to bet that AFMM
performers are probably more likely to comprehend the 7/4
*as* "2^(10/12) -31", mainly because of the ubiquitous use
of 12edo as a comparison against which nearly all modern
musicians learn about harmonics and ratios.

-monz

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

> > No, it would require numbers from -49 to 50, which would be a
hell of
> > a lot easier to parse than this goofy quarter-tone business. The
way
> > you have it now, a 5/4 is represented as D#, plus a quarter tone,
plus
> > 34 cents, which is crazy, since E minus 14 cents is much, much
easier
> > to grasp.
>
> Don't you mean numbers -49-99?

Of course not.

BTW, your describing a living culture of
> music making as goofy, and it is likely the most successful
microtonal music
> ensemble in existence.

I am told that some people use quartertones with a range of -24 to 25
cents, which makes a lot more sense. What is your objection to that,
without special pleading and irrelvant asides?

Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
> ploy it?

No, I mean it is goofy.

> Sometime the pitch is lowered such as -14 for a 386 cent major
third of 5/4.

Sounds good to me. Why not always do it this way?

> Sometimes it is added as with +16 for a 316 cent minor third of
6/5. How do
> you mean "stick to them"?

I have no idea what you are saying. Both of these are what I was
suggesting.

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

This tonal
> representation has made it less likely to use atonal enharmonic
identities
> which would allow for numbers only up to 24.

What in the world might an "atonal enharmonic identity" be, and how
could anyone differentiate it from a tonal enharmonic identity?

In a message dated 10/6/2003 2:11:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> I am told that some people use quartertones with a range of -24 to 25
> cents, which makes a lot more sense. What is your objection to that,
> without special pleading and irrelvant asides?
>
>

Mr. Goofy, I don't understand what you mean. It's as if we are speaking
different languages. Is there another way you can ask this, or can someone else
intervene in a more gentle way?

Johnny

Hi Joe,

I guess you want to know if for a 969 cents 7/4 interval we would suggest a
+69 over a -31.

Composers have done both, obviously using the larger number to suggest more
of the function. But you are correct in surmising that -31 gets the player
there (to the targeted pitch) faster. Yes, we would suggest numbers less than
50 for better player acceptance and success.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 10/6/2003 2:13:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> What in the world might an "atonal enharmonic identity" be, and how
> could anyone differentiate it from a tonal enharmonic identity?
>

Just as I could use a C# instead of a Db as a tonal harmonic identity, I
could express a major second of C-D as C-C# +50. In other words, when I want the
letter names to better correspond with traditional tonal harmony I could
surpress and easier theoretical mathematical expression of a said interval.

Johnny

hi Johnny,

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

> Hi Joe,
>
> I guess you want to know if for a 969 cents 7/4 interval
> we would suggest a +69 over a -31.
>
> Composers have done both, obviously using the larger number
> to suggest more of the function. But you are correct in
> surmising that -31 gets the player there (to the targeted
> pitch) faster. Yes, we would suggest numbers less than
> 50 for better player acceptance and success.

i thought you were saying that you use quarter-tone symbols
as well as negative and positive cents-values. ...?

in that case, as i said, the 969-cent 7/4 is either
2^(10/12) -31 or 2^(19/24) +19 .

of course, the 2^(10/12) and 2^(19/24) part of the notation
would be expressed as a 12edo and 24edo note, respectively.
the only numbers needed are the cents-values -31 or +19 .

... but your response above indicates that you're *not*
using quarter-tones, because +69 is in relation to 2^(9/12).

???

-monz

Joe,

Ah, I understand. Though I reported a happenstance without quarters...

I would use the -31 over the +19. It jars best with the 969 interval which I
have in memory. Once one is in the less than 50 cent format, there is no
real handicap to either approach, except I think of the interval as less than the
16/9 minor seventh.

best, Johnny

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

> Just as I could use a C# instead of a Db as a tonal harmonic
identity, I
> could express a major second of C-D as C-C# +50.

C-C# +50 is 150 cents, which is not a major second.

In a message dated 10/6/2003 12:43:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> >Just as I could use a C# instead of a Db as a tonal harmonic
> identity, I
> >could express a major second of C-D as C-C# +50.
>
> C-C# +50 is 150 cents, which is not a major second.
>

Sorry, I should have written "I could express a major second shy a
quartertone" as...

mea culpa

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

> i thought you were saying that you use quarter-tone symbols
> as well as negative and positive cents-values. ...?

I believe the system is negative down to -24, or perhaps -49, and
positive up to +99, which is what I've been objecting to.

> in that case, as i said, the 969-cent 7/4 is either
> 2^(10/12) -31 or 2^(19/24) +19 .

Or 2^(9/12) + 69. A mess!

In a message dated 10/6/2003 12:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> positive up to +99, which is what I've been objecting to.
>
>

positives are only up to 49 in the cents notation I employ. Johnny

hi Johnny,

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

> Joe,
>
> Ah, I understand. Though I reported a happenstance
> without quarters...
>
> I would use the -31 over the +19. It jars best with
> the 969 interval which I have in memory. Once one is
> in the less than 50 cent format, there is no real handicap
> to either approach, except I think of the interval as
> less than the 16/9 minor seventh.

ah, OK ... that's what i expected, because my mental
conception of 7/4 works the same way, as an interval
narrower than either 2^(10/12) or 16/9.

i was just wondering if, in your many years of practical
experience working with microtonal music, you've ever
found a situation where the "2^(19/24) +19" cents
conception worked better. i guess not. thanks.

-monz

In a message dated 10/6/2003 3:51:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> i was just wondering if, in your many years of practical
> experience working with microtonal music, you've ever
> found a situation where the "2^(19/24) +19" cents
> conception worked better. i guess not. thanks.
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>

Ah, yes. If one had a chromatic passage whereby there was no sensed 7/4
interval, +19 would abe fine, if not preferable. Also, if one wanted a different
notename because the preceding note(s) were the same as that to be the
appointed 7/4, a +19 might be preferable.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
> > ploy it?
>
> No, I mean it is goofy.

A little more respect wouldn't go astray here Gene, such as I recently
pleaded for on your behalf. .... I know, you never asked me to. :-)

The usual practice is to assume that people know what they are talking
about, even if they don't communicate it very well.

Johnny's notation doesn't seem the least bit goofy to me, but makes
perfect sense. There is such a thing as preferred "spelling" of
intervals (or of pitches relative to a particular tonal center or
nominal key), otherwise we wouldn't need both sharps and flats in
12-ET. It helps in recognition. The same thing applies to sometimes
using a cents deviation outside the range -25 to +25 even though you
have a nearer quartertone that you _could_ use. And

I also find that Johnny uses a perfectly reasonable notation for the
quartertones. The symbols seem logically enough derived from the
existing sharp and flat symbols.

Although it does seem that the lack of a really good semiflat symbol
does skew the use of the cents deviations.

The only reason we didn't use quartertone symbols like these in
sagittal is because there is no good way to extend this idea to finer
divisions. Witness Haba's attempt at notating 72-ET. "Chicken
scratchings", Sims called them. Johnny has cleverly sidestepped this
issue, but for George, wanting a harmonically based notation and one
that does not have to use 12 or 24-ET as a basis, such symbols proved
to be a dead-end, hence the adoption of the second most favoured
quartertone symbols, the arrows.

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

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47656

> hi Johnny (and Joe Pehrson and Gene),
>
>
> i remember a few years ago, Johnny and i were discussing
> using quarter-tone symbols along with cents notation ...
> if i'm not mistaken, that's when Joe Pehrson decided to
> notate his music that way. right, Joe?
>

***This is absolutely correct, Monz!

>
> anyway, i was using an example then that i'd like to
> ask you about again now, Johnny. the 7/4 ratio is
> ~968.8259065 cents. this is ~31.17409353 cents less
> than 2^(10/12) [= 1000 cents], and ~18.82590647 cents
> more than 2^(19/24) [= 950 cents].
>
> do you always use either "2^(10/12) -31 cents" or
> "2^(19/24) +19 cents", or do you use both depending on
> the situation? if the latter, then please elaborate
> on when and why one is better than the other.
>
> i'm very curious about your empirically-derived response
> to this, since you've been directing the AFMM for so long now.
>
> my own gut feeling, agreeing with what you say above about
> the size of the cents-values, is that "2^(19/24) +19" would
> result in a better-sounding approximation to 7/4 since the
> deviation from 24edo is smaller than the other notation's
> deviation from 12edo.
>
> but on the other hand, i'd be willing to bet that AFMM
> performers are probably more likely to comprehend the 7/4
> *as* "2^(10/12) -31", mainly because of the ubiquitous use
> of 12edo as a comparison against which nearly all modern
> musicians learn about harmonics and ratios.
>

***I would tend to agree also with this, Monz. However, if you
recall it was *your* idea to use a notation that has cents deviation
to the nearest *quartertone* in all cases, hence, as Gene was
expressing, quartertone +25 to -24...

It was *your* usage that I was adopting. However, Johnny has
expressed a disagreement with that method, citing just the example
above, and common practice, that you state! :)

best,

Joe P.

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

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47668

> In a message dated 10/6/2003 2:11:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
> > I am told that some people use quartertones with a range of -24
to 25
> > cents, which makes a lot more sense. What is your objection to
that,
> > without special pleading and irrelvant asides?
> >
> >
>
> Mr. Goofy, I don't understand what you mean. It's as if we are
speaking
> different languages. Is there another way you can ask this, or can
someone else
> intervene in a more gentle way?
>
> Johnny

***I think Monz explained it best in post:

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47656

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47677

> Joe,
>
> Ah, I understand. Though I reported a happenstance without
quarters...
>
> I would use the -31 over the +19. It jars best with the 969
interval which I
> have in memory. Once one is in the less than 50 cent format, there
is no
> real handicap to either approach, except I think of the interval as
less than the
> 16/9 minor seventh.
>
> best, Johnny

***Yes, this discussion came up before with Johnny... I remember when
I mentione that I was using Joe Monzo's system of -24 to 25 for each
quartertone, Johnny objected that sometimes the harmonic identities
are not adequately maintained and that sometimes he needed numbers
larger than 25.

So I guess *flexibility* is the key with this...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47682

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i thought you were saying that you use quarter-tone symbols
> > as well as negative and positive cents-values. ...?
>
> I believe the system is negative down to -24, or perhaps -49, and
> positive up to +99, which is what I've been objecting to.
>
> > in that case, as i said, the 969-cent 7/4 is either
> > 2^(10/12) -31 or 2^(19/24) +19 .
>
> Or 2^(9/12) + 69. A mess!

***Personally, I'm still using Joe Monzo's system of -24 to 25 cents
to the nearest quartertone... although I understand it might not be
flexible enough for certain purposes...

JP

hi Joe,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > my own gut feeling, agreeing with what you say above about
> > the size of the cents-values, is that "2^(19/24) +19" would
> > result in a better-sounding approximation to 7/4 since the
> > deviation from 24edo is smaller than the other notation's
> > deviation from 12edo.
> >
> > but on the other hand, i'd be willing to bet that AFMM
> > performers are probably more likely to comprehend the 7/4
> > *as* "2^(10/12) -31", mainly because of the ubiquitous use
> > of 12edo as a comparison against which nearly all modern
> > musicians learn about harmonics and ratios.
> >
>
> ***I would tend to agree also with this, Monz. However,
> if you recall it was *your* idea to use a notation that
> has cents deviation to the nearest *quartertone* in all cases,
> hence, as Gene was expressing, quartertone +25 to -24...
>
> It was *your* usage that I was adopting. However, Johnny
> has expressed a disagreement with that method, citing just
> the example above, and common practice, that you state! :)

well, as you can plainly see from what i wrote, either way
works for me too.

i tend to think of 7/4 as a narrowed 2^(10/12) or 16/9 ratio,
but that's just force of habit. when i hear that nice
quarter-tone 2^(19/24), it always sounds like such a
juicy luscious approximation to 7/4 ... i used all those
adjectives because the fact that it's 19 cents flatter than
7/4 really spices it up. ;-)

but seriously, i really do believe that "2^(19/24) +19 cents"
is a better way to use "Reinhard cents notation" to get
the 7/4. the fact that it's even flatter/narrower in 24edo
than the actual 7/4 leads the reader/performer in the right
direction to get a good narrow 7/4.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
> > > ploy it?
> >
> > No, I mean it is goofy.
>
> A little more respect wouldn't go astray here Gene, such as I
recently
> pleaded for on your behalf. .... I know, you never asked me to. :-)

I'm giving at least as much as I'm getting.

> The usual practice is to assume that people know what they are
talking
> about, even if they don't communicate it very well.

It's not an assumption which is always made about what I say.

> Johnny's notation doesn't seem the least bit goofy to me, but makes
> perfect sense. There is such a thing as preferred "spelling" of
> intervals (or of pitches relative to a particular tonal center or
> nominal key), otherwise we wouldn't need both sharps and flats in
> 12-ET. It helps in recognition. The same thing applies to sometimes
> using a cents deviation outside the range -25 to +25 even though you
> have a nearer quartertone that you _could_ use. And

It leaves me with a highly idea of what the system even is. What if I
wanted to use it? Which way should I spell things? Why am I presented
with a radically asymmetric range of possible numerical values?

> I also find that Johnny uses a perfectly reasonable notation for the
> quartertones. The symbols seem logically enough derived from the
> existing sharp and flat symbols.

I've not commented on that.

In a message dated 10/7/2003 4:54:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> but seriously, i really do believe that "2^(19/24) +19 cents"
> is a better way to use "Reinhard cents notation" to get
> the 7/4. the fact that it's even flatter/narrower in 24edo
> than the actual 7/4 leads the reader/performer in the right
> direction to get a good narrow 7/4.
>
>
>
> -monz
>

You guys are trying to fit everything into a system. Cents notation as
practiced by the AFMM is a living practice. Monz, why declare a "better way" when
actual practice with musicians finds the -31 cents for a 7/4 relates better to
the musician playing the interval. They know what a 7th harmonic is and this
plays into that understanding. If one wanted to call it a +19 from a
quartertone, well as I explained, that works as well, especially in conditions I have
already layed out. The point here is that this works. New systems can and
will be developed, but AFMM musicians have a minimum of time to learn the music
I give them, so they wouldn't be the best pool of musicians to try an
experiment of notation.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 10/7/03 5:09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> I'm giving at least as much as I'm getting.

This was not the attitude I thought we had reached. Johnny

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

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47741

> In a message dated 10/7/2003 4:54:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> monz@a... writes:
>
> > but seriously, i really do believe that "2^(19/24) +19 cents"
> > is a better way to use "Reinhard cents notation" to get
> > the 7/4. the fact that it's even flatter/narrower in 24edo
> > than the actual 7/4 leads the reader/performer in the right
> > direction to get a good narrow 7/4.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> >
>
> You guys are trying to fit everything into a system. Cents
notation as
> practiced by the AFMM is a living practice. Monz, why declare
a "better way" when
> actual practice with musicians finds the -31 cents for a 7/4
relates better to
> the musician playing the interval. They know what a 7th harmonic
is and this
> plays into that understanding. If one wanted to call it a +19 from
a
> quartertone, well as I explained, that works as well, especially in
conditions I have
> already layed out. The point here is that this works. New systems
can and
> will be developed, but AFMM musicians have a minimum of time to
learn the music
> I give them, so they wouldn't be the best pool of musicians to try
an
> experiment of notation.
>
> best, Johnny

***Well, Johnny brings up an interesting point here. Basically, is
Sagittal notation a notation to be used by *professionals* or is it
to be used by theorists, students of tuning, and student performers,
who have comparatively lots of time on there hands in an academic
setting? It makes a difference.

I was assuming it aspired to be a *professional* tool...

J. Pehrson

on 10/7/03 2:07 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>>> Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
>>>> ploy it?
>>>
>>> No, I mean it is goofy.
>>
>> A little more respect wouldn't go astray here Gene, such as I
> recently
>> pleaded for on your behalf. .... I know, you never asked me to. :-)
>
> I'm giving at least as much as I'm getting.
>
>> The usual practice is to assume that people know what they are
> talking
>> about, even if they don't communicate it very well.

I also think this is a good practice. I wish it was the usual practice,
since all too often I see exceptions. Gene is not alone in not always
following this practice. (;) And hey, I think I did it myself a few times
even lately.

> It's not an assumption which is always made about what I say.

You can't always tell what assumptions someone else is making about you. If
you incorrectly assume the worst about what someone thinks of you and then
respond in kind, you have created a problem out of nothing.

I'm really not a "behaviorist" but my recommendation to Gene and others is
to simply omit such accusations. Just eat them. Edit them out, even if you
think you are right. Having not publicly defended your ego it is thus much
easier to let your flexibility (which is there, but so often a little too
late ;) unfold graciously. People (particularly men I think) deal really
badly with having said something, because they believe they must stand by it
and defend it, because of a silly aversion to admitting mistakes. Often the
flexibility comes out later, as an unnecessary and vacuous conflict finally
resolves, accompanied by a "hedged" admissions of a mistake - yes I was
wrong but I had this good excuse, so I was not really wrong. Better to
experience being really wrong (especially in some small way) and grow a
little. (You weren't really wrong anyway. Just just said something that
you later disagreed with.)

I think it requires what some (many?) of us "guys" think of (or use to think
of) as a violation of our integrity and responsibility to do this.

The bigger integrity lies on the other side of the habit of defending one's
position. You have the whole rest of your life to give up that habit, and
become available to the constant source of reward which the dying habit
leaves in its wake!

By simply omitting accusations that you think are deserved, you create
plenty of space for youself to have a change of opinion. No one will ever
know you ever thought otherwise. And suddenly all these trivial
communication problems stop happening! And you get to see yourself having
been wrong with no bad consequences, so being wrong won't be so bad any
more.

This requires risking giving more than you think you are getting.

The all-too-common male intellectual habit of doing things like identifying
with one's stated position, therefore having to defend it, and assuming
contrary opinions false until proven true is very wasteful and this practice
often goes unchallenged in primarily-male communities. I'm here to
challenge that because I have learned to risk being wrong and found it
*very* rewarding. It is incredibly painful at times though! ;) So I think
you may not try it unless someone tells you it is really worth it to go
through. I share the experience hoping it will give some inspiration for
some courageous non-ego-defending counter-to-testosterone-habit rewarding
growth.

I hope the humor was enough to get you through this, and that no one feels
"accused" by any of this. I do "accuse" these habits of existing, and being
hosted by too many of us at times!

-Kurt

hi Kurt,

i also agree very much with what you wrote here!

i certainly make proposals or speculations which i am prepared
to defend vehemently ... but i also am ready to admit when
i'm wrong, and i have learned an awful lot in the process.

so what are you saying? ... that i'm effeminate? or a wussy?
bring it on.

(c'mon, i'm just kidding ... i'm a pacifist)

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 10/7/03 2:07 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >>> Don't you mean it seems goofy to you who has never had to em
> >>>> ploy it?
> >>>
> >>> No, I mean it is goofy.
> >>
> >> A little more respect wouldn't go astray here Gene, such as I
> > recently
> >> pleaded for on your behalf. .... I know, you never asked me
to. :-)
> >
> > I'm giving at least as much as I'm getting.
> >
> >> The usual practice is to assume that people know what they are
> > talking
> >> about, even if they don't communicate it very well.
>
> I also think this is a good practice. I wish it was the usual
practice,
> since all too often I see exceptions. Gene is not alone in not
always
> following this practice. (;) And hey, I think I did it myself a
few times
> even lately.
>
> > It's not an assumption which is always made about what I say.
>
> You can't always tell what assumptions someone else is making about
you. If
> you incorrectly assume the worst about what someone thinks of you
and then
> respond in kind, you have created a problem out of nothing.
>
> I'm really not a "behaviorist" but my recommendation to Gene and
others is
> to simply omit such accusations. Just eat them. Edit them out,
even if you
> think you are right. Having not publicly defended your ego it is
thus much
> easier to let your flexibility (which is there, but so often a
little too
> late ;) unfold graciously. People (particularly men I think) deal
really
> badly with having said something, because they believe they must
stand by it
> and defend it, because of a silly aversion to admitting mistakes.
Often the
> flexibility comes out later, as an unnecessary and vacuous conflict
finally
> resolves, accompanied by a "hedged" admissions of a mistake - yes I
was
> wrong but I had this good excuse, so I was not really wrong.
Better to
> experience being really wrong (especially in some small way) and
grow a
> little. (You weren't really wrong anyway. Just just said
something that
> you later disagreed with.)
>
> I think it requires what some (many?) of us "guys" think of (or use
to think
> of) as a violation of our integrity and responsibility to do this.
>
> The bigger integrity lies on the other side of the habit of
defending one's
> position. You have the whole rest of your life to give up that
habit, and
> become available to the constant source of reward which the dying
habit
> leaves in its wake!
>
> By simply omitting accusations that you think are deserved, you
create
> plenty of space for youself to have a change of opinion. No one
will ever
> know you ever thought otherwise. And suddenly all these trivial
> communication problems stop happening! And you get to see yourself
having
> been wrong with no bad consequences, so being wrong won't be so bad
any
> more.
>
> This requires risking giving more than you think you are getting.
>
> The all-too-common male intellectual habit of doing things like
identifying
> with one's stated position, therefore having to defend it, and
assuming
> contrary opinions false until proven true is very wasteful and this
practice
> often goes unchallenged in primarily-male communities. I'm here to
> challenge that because I have learned to risk being wrong and found
it
> *very* rewarding. It is incredibly painful at times though! ;)
So I think
> you may not try it unless someone tells you it is really worth it
to go
> through. I share the experience hoping it will give some
inspiration for
> some courageous non-ego-defending counter-to-testosterone-habit
rewarding
> growth.
>
> I hope the humor was enough to get you through this, and that no
one feels
> "accused" by any of this. I do "accuse" these habits of existing,
and being
> hosted by too many of us at times!
>
> -Kurt

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

/tuning/topicId_47618.html#47768

> hi Kurt,
>
> i also agree very much with what you wrote here!
>
> i certainly make proposals or speculations which i am prepared
> to defend vehemently ... but i also am ready to admit when
> i'm wrong, and i have learned an awful lot in the process.
>
> so what are you saying? ... that i'm effeminate? or a wussy?
> bring it on.
>
> (c'mon, i'm just kidding ... i'm a pacifist)
>
>
>
> -monz
>

***[off topic] Monz, you rival Ghandi in what I saw after extreme
attacks by a nutty so and so... I will always recall your response as
*paradign* behavior... (I couldn't have done it myself...)

JP

on 10/7/03 8:48 PM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> hi Kurt,
>
> i also agree very much with what you wrote here!
>
> i certainly make proposals or speculations which i am prepared
> to defend vehemently ... but i also am ready to admit when
> i'm wrong, and i have learned an awful lot in the process.
>
> so what are you saying? ... that i'm effeminate? or a wussy?
> bring it on.

Well I'd have to "accuse" myself of the same.

Well some people may think I lean a little in the feminine direction, but
not in a way that has resulted in any gender confusion - not that confusion
is a bad thing, mind you. I hope I continue to lean more in that direction,
because so far it's nothing but a better deal.

>
> (c'mon, i'm just kidding ... i'm a pacifist)
>
>
>
> -monz

hi Joe,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47618.html#47768
>
> > hi Kurt,
> >
> > i also agree very much with what you wrote here!
> >
> > i certainly make proposals or speculations which i am prepared
> > to defend vehemently ... but i also am ready to admit when
> > i'm wrong, and i have learned an awful lot in the process.
> >
> > so what are you saying? ... that i'm effeminate? or a wussy?
> > bring it on.
> >
> > (c'mon, i'm just kidding ... i'm a pacifist)
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> >
>
> ***[off topic] Monz, you rival Ghandi in what I saw after
> extreme attacks by a nutty so and so... I will always recall
> your response as *paradign* behavior... (I couldn't have
> done it myself...)

thanks, i appreciate that. i post a lot to these
lists *and* try hard avoid flames wars.

... and i know McLaren personally, so i could forgive
him a lot, where it might not be as easy to someone who's
only an email acquaintance. we're still friends, but not
in as close contact as before.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Well, Johnny brings up an interesting point here. Basically, is
> Sagittal notation a notation to be used by *professionals* or is it
> to be used by theorists, students of tuning, and student performers,
> who have comparatively lots of time on there hands in an academic
> setting? It makes a difference.
>
> I was assuming it aspired to be a *professional* tool...

I don't think Johnny was talking about Sagittal at all. But to answer
your question:

With the help of people like yourself and Klaus Schmirler, who have
been kind enough to offer helpful criticism and suggestions for
improvement, we will try to make it as generally useful as possible.

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

> ... and i know McLaren personally, so i could forgive
> him a lot, where it might not be as easy to someone who's
> only an email acquaintance.

I think it is kind of neat that while McLaren never flamed me, he did
complain in a reply to one of my postings that Paul was too
mathematical. I've noticed that about Paul.

hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > ... and i know McLaren personally, so i could forgive
> > him a lot, where it might not be as easy to someone who's
> > only an email acquaintance.
>
> I think it is kind of neat that while McLaren never flamed me,

don't be so quick to believe that ... he's flaming you,
he's just not posting it on the internet.

> he did complain in a reply to one of my postings that
> Paul was too mathematical. I've noticed that about Paul.

the pot calling the kettle black, eh?

;-)

-monz