Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning even more Sagittal developments

***I seem to have, at the moment, problems *replying* to messages, so
I'm copying text into a *new* one... Sorry for any redundancy...

> Hi Joseph,
>
> By now you should have taken delivery of one Joseph-Pehrson-special
> TrueType font containing sloping + and - signs. I hope you find them
> suitable. Let me know if you want them changed in some way.
>

***These symbols are absolutely *perfect* and I'll start using them
right away. I have no problems with them whatsoever!

> I remembered how much you dislike the little Bosanquet slashes,

***Well, that was a bit of a "knee jerk" reaction. I'm trying to
rethink *everything* now...

so I
> have made the otherwise horizontal strokes on the + and - much
bigger
> and bolder than those, and sloped them at 45 degrees as recommended
by
> Daniel Wolf.
>

***They look nice this way, in any case...

> I've called the font "HEWM S" where the "S" stands for "Sagittal
> compatible" and I hope you will consider also using its version of
the
> sixthtone half-arrows, so that although you are not using Sagittal,
at
> least we don't have any clashes where the same symbol means
different
> things in the two systems.
>

***This is not a problem at all. I'm making the switch immediately.

> As George pointed out, such clashes are completely unavoidable
between
> Sims and HEWM (or Sims and Sagittal), and having departed from the
> Sims twelfthtone and quartertone symbols there is no real reason to
> hold on to its sixthtone symbols.
>
> Placing the HEWM half arrowheads on the right makes them slightly
more
> distinct from the sloping lines of the + and - symbols, and curving
> them (now more pronounced) makes them more distinct from the full
> arrows as well as the + and - symbols.
>

***Well, are you going to use the HEWM plusses and minuses for the
syntonic comma in Sagittal? I rather wish you would.

In any case, this new font is just terrific, and I will begin using
it immediately. I am also delighted to learn that it is compatible
with the Sagittal notation. It's just great!

Thanks so much again!

Joseph

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> >
> > ***Well, are you going to use the HEWM plusses and minuses for
the
> > syntonic comma in Sagittal? I rather wish you would.
>
> Me too.
>
> Gabor

That's an excellent idea for the simpler applications, but for
anything more complicated I can't see how we could possibly
incorporate the plusses and minuses as components (i.e., flags) in
combination with the other components (other flags) to arrive at
symbols that represent intervals that are the *sum* (or approximate
sum) of those components. If there are a lot of intervals to
symbolize for certain applications, then there need to be a lot of
symbols for that application, and the prospect of memorizing a lot of
different symbols can be daunting. So it is very helpful if the
symbols are constructed so that, once you know what the parts mean
(i.e., the interval size for each flag), it is a relatively simple
matter to deduce the meaning of the sum of those parts (the interval
size for the symbol), especially if no symbol has more than 2 (or at
most 3) parts (as is the case with sagittal).

Anyway, we are happy that players who are required to read both
notations will only have to learn to make a substitution of one
symbol-pair for the most popular ETs. And for that symbol pair each
notation, by design, has the same prominent feature in common with
the other, namely the slanting strokes: / for up, \ for down.

I have modified this figure to show both notations, with the sagittal
notation showing the latest (improved) version of the 5-comma
symbols, /| and \!:

/tuning-math/files/secor/notation/HEWM-
S.gif

This is about the maximum distinction that we can make between the 5-
comma /| and 7-comma |) symbols. We don't have the time to go into
specifics right now, but Dave Keenan and I believe that we have
accumulated enough evidence to demonstrate that these two symbols are
sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished when
read at high speed. (If you don't agree, then you will have to wait
for our explanation.)

--George

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48060

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ***Well, are you going to use the HEWM plusses and minuses for
> the
> > > syntonic comma in Sagittal? I rather wish you would.
> >
> > Me too.
> >
> > Gabor
>
> That's an excellent idea for the simpler applications, but for
> anything more complicated I can't see how we could possibly
> incorporate the plusses and minuses as components (i.e., flags) in
> combination with the other components (other flags) to arrive at
> symbols that represent intervals that are the *sum* (or approximate
> sum) of those components. If there are a lot of intervals to
> symbolize for certain applications, then there need to be a lot of
> symbols for that application, and the prospect of memorizing a lot
of
> different symbols can be daunting. So it is very helpful if the
> symbols are constructed so that, once you know what the parts mean
> (i.e., the interval size for each flag), it is a relatively simple
> matter to deduce the meaning of the sum of those parts (the
interval
> size for the symbol), especially if no symbol has more than 2 (or
at
> most 3) parts (as is the case with sagittal).
>
> Anyway, we are happy that players who are required to read both
> notations will only have to learn to make a substitution of one
> symbol-pair for the most popular ETs. And for that symbol pair
each
> notation, by design, has the same prominent feature in common with
> the other, namely the slanting strokes: / for up, \ for down.
>
> I have modified this figure to show both notations, with the
sagittal
> notation showing the latest (improved) version of the 5-comma
> symbols, /| and \!:
>
> /tuning-math/files/secor/notation/HEWM-
> S.gif
>
> This is about the maximum distinction that we can make between the
5-
> comma /| and 7-comma |) symbols. We don't have the time to go into
> specifics right now, but Dave Keenan and I believe that we have
> accumulated enough evidence to demonstrate that these two symbols
are
> sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished
when
> read at high speed. (If you don't agree, then you will have to
wait
> for our explanation.)
>
> --George

***Hi George!

Yes, as you know I don't agree... and this new graphic showing HEWM-S
and "pure" Sagittal, confirms to me how much better I like HEWM-S.

It's too bad there isn't some way to add to the slashes for the
syntonic comma... say have more than one slash for the subtraction or
addition with a single stem...

I can't see why that couldn't be done the same way as having
different pointed *arrows* accumulating flags.

But then, probably I don't know all the details.

The right and left flags are still a problem, regardless of whether
one set is a little more *rounded* than the other.

I bet you can do better in terms of creating a syntonic comma symbol
set that can be added together simply and which is still quite
distinct from the septimal comma arrows.

I bet it can be done (but I'm not putting any $ on it...)

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48060
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> > <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ***Well, are you going to use the HEWM plusses and minuses
for the
> > > > syntonic comma in Sagittal? I rather wish you would.
> > >
> > > Me too.
> > >
> > > Gabor
> >
> > That's an excellent idea for the simpler applications, but for
> > anything more complicated I can't see how we could possibly
> > incorporate the plusses and minuses as components (i.e., flags)
in
> > combination with the other components (other flags) to arrive at
> > symbols that represent intervals that are the *sum* (or
approximate
> > sum) of those components. If there are a lot of intervals to
> > symbolize for certain applications, then there need to be a lot
of
> > symbols for that application, and the prospect of memorizing a
lot of
> > different symbols can be daunting. So it is very helpful if the
> > symbols are constructed so that, once you know what the parts
mean
> > (i.e., the interval size for each flag), it is a relatively
simple
> > matter to deduce the meaning of the sum of those parts (the
interval
> > size for the symbol), especially if no symbol has more than 2 (or
at
> > most 3) parts (as is the case with sagittal).
> >
> > Anyway, we are happy that players who are required to read both
> > notations will only have to learn to make a substitution of one
> > symbol-pair for the most popular ETs. And for that symbol pair
each
> > notation, by design, has the same prominent feature in common
with
> > the other, namely the slanting strokes: / for up, \ for down.
> >
> > I have modified this figure to show both notations, with the
sagittal
> > notation showing the latest (improved) version of the 5-comma
> > symbols, /| and \!:
> >
> > /tuning-
math/files/secor/notation/HEWM-S.gif
> >
> > This is about the maximum distinction that we can make between
the 5-
> > comma /| and 7-comma |) symbols. We don't have the time to go
into
> > specifics right now, but Dave Keenan and I believe that we have
> > accumulated enough evidence to demonstrate that these two symbols
are
> > sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished
when
> > read at high speed. (If you don't agree, then you will have to
wait
> > for our explanation.)
> >
> > --George
>
> ***Hi George!
>
> Yes, as you know I don't agree... and this new graphic showing HEWM-
S
> and "pure" Sagittal, confirms to me how much better I like HEWM-S.

Joseph, I will readily concede that if one makes a head-to-head
comparison of the symbols in what we are temporarily calling
the "HEWM-S" font with the Sagittal font for a single application (72-
ET), that the HEWM-S font will be preferable, because it makes more
of a distinction between the symbols.

Howeuer, the issue that I'm addressing now is whether there is a
svfficient distinction between the sagittal 5- and (latest improved)
7-comma symbols to tell them apart easily when reading at high
speed. If you saw the misspelled word in the previous sentence, then
I believe that you should agree with me that the distinction is quite
sufficient.

> It's too bad there isn't some way to add to the slashes for the
> syntonic comma... say have more than one slash for the subtraction
or
> addition with a single stem...
>
> I can't see why that couldn't be done the same way as having
> different pointed *arrows* accumulating flags.
>
> But then, probably I don't know all the details.
>
> The right and left flags are still a problem, regardless of whether
> one set is a little more *rounded* than the other.

But the left flags aren't rounded at all. If you can't tell a
straight line from a cvrued, sorry, I meant curved one, then I don't
know how you made it through school.

> I bet you can do better in terms of creating a syntonic comma
symbol
> set that can be added together simply and which is still quite
> distinct from the septimal comma arrows.
>
> I bet it can be done (but I'm not putting any $ on it...)

The semantics of Sagittal notation limit the number of symbol-
elements altering a notehead to 4:
1) Sharp or flat symbol (or in the pure version, number of arrow
shafts);
2) A comma-flag;
3) Possibly another comma-flag (most commonly on the opposite side
of the arrow shaft);
4) A 5-comma up or down accent mark (used only for high-precision
or extreme-precision JI or large-numbered ETs).

In the pure version of sagittal notation, the first 3 elements are
all combined into a single symbol for maximum efficiency -- every
stroke in the symbol has significance. In the mixed-symbol version,
the conventional sharp and flat symbols are retained, and the two
flags (elements 2 & 3) are combined with an arrow shaft into a single
symbol. This is more cluttered than the pure version when notating
chords, but at least it's manageable.

It's theoretically possible to retain the efficiency of the sagittal
semantics and expand on the HEWM-S set by devising new symbols (very
distinctly different from one another) for the 6 remaining sagittal
flags, so that these could be combined by placing them beside each
other to the left of a notehead, just as we combine numerals to make
2-digit numbers. But this would be visually less efficient and would
create more clutter than combining flags (or symbol-parts) into
unified symbols (rather like trying to put cents numbers to the left
of notes). And besides, you would already have to make an exception
for the 11-M-diesis symbol (quartertone arrow in 72-ET), because ^
and v are already single symbols rather than a combination of + or -
and some sort of 55-comma symbol pair (whatever that might be).

Dave and I believe that, all things considered, we have the best
solution overall to the problem of notating a multitude of commas.

--George

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48132

> Joseph, I will readily concede that if one makes a head-to-head
> comparison of the symbols in what we are temporarily calling
> the "HEWM-S" font with the Sagittal font for a single application
(72-
> ET), that the HEWM-S font will be preferable, because it makes more
> of a distinction between the symbols.
>
> Howeuer, the issue that I'm addressing now is whether there is a
> svfficient distinction between the sagittal 5- and (latest
improved)
> 7-comma symbols to tell them apart easily when reading at high
> speed. If you saw the misspelled word in the previous sentence,
then
> I believe that you should agree with me that the distinction is
quite
> sufficient.

***This really doesn't address the point, George. The point was not
whether the symbols could be distinguished. Anyone can easily tell
the difference between a *curved* arrowhead and a *straight* one.
The problem was the fact that all these left and right arrowheads
created a confusing impression when used together. At least they did
for *me*. It was bad enough that I wasn't willing to use them in a
piece, and I'm pretty *progressive* compared to *lots* of musicians...

>
> > It's too bad there isn't some way to add to the slashes for the
> > syntonic comma... say have more than one slash for the
subtraction
> or
> > addition with a single stem...
> >
> > I can't see why that couldn't be done the same way as having
> > different pointed *arrows* accumulating flags.
> >
> > But then, probably I don't know all the details.
> >
> > The right and left flags are still a problem, regardless of
whether
> > one set is a little more *rounded* than the other.
>
> But the left flags aren't rounded at all. If you can't tell a
> straight line from a cvrued, sorry, I meant curved one, then I
don't know how you made it through school.
>

***Again, it's not "telling them apart." Anybody can sit in front of
a piece of paper score and see the difference. But, what will happen
when one trys, rapidly, to read *left arrow; right arrow; right
arrow; left arrow...* all together in a passage?? It's going to
drive the performers batty, believe me!

> > I bet you can do better in terms of creating a syntonic comma
> symbol
> > set that can be added together simply and which is still quite
> > distinct from the septimal comma arrows.
> >
> > I bet it can be done (but I'm not putting any $ on it...)
>
> The semantics of Sagittal notation limit the number of symbol-
> elements altering a notehead to 4:
> 1) Sharp or flat symbol (or in the pure version, number of arrow
> shafts);
> 2) A comma-flag;
> 3) Possibly another comma-flag (most commonly on the opposite
side
> of the arrow shaft);
> 4) A 5-comma up or down accent mark (used only for high-precision
> or extreme-precision JI or large-numbered ETs).
>
> In the pure version of sagittal notation, the first 3 elements are
> all combined into a single symbol for maximum efficiency -- every
> stroke in the symbol has significance. In the mixed-symbol
version,
> the conventional sharp and flat symbols are retained, and the two
> flags (elements 2 & 3) are combined with an arrow shaft into a
single
> symbol. This is more cluttered than the pure version when notating
> chords, but at least it's manageable.
>

***My impression is that using the traditional symbols made it much
more "readable" not more "cluttered" after looking at the graphic in
the Tuning Math forum!

> It's theoretically possible to retain the efficiency of the
sagittal
> semantics and expand on the HEWM-S set by devising new symbols
(very
> distinctly different from one another) for the 6 remaining sagittal
> flags, so that these could be combined by placing them beside each
> other to the left of a notehead, just as we combine numerals to
make
> 2-digit numbers. But this would be visually less efficient and
would
> create more clutter than combining flags (or symbol-parts) into
> unified symbols (rather like trying to put cents numbers to the
left
> of notes). And besides, you would already have to make an
exception
> for the 11-M-diesis symbol (quartertone arrow in 72-ET), because ^
> and v are already single symbols rather than a combination of + or -

> and some sort of 55-comma symbol pair (whatever that might be).
>

***I would bet that the *combining* of symbols would work better than
your "simplification" on the overall. I would enjoy seeing examples
of music using that alternative. I'll bet it would be *far* superior
from a legibility standpoint!

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***This really doesn't address the point, George. The point was not
> whether the symbols could be distinguished. Anyone can easily tell
> the difference between a *curved* arrowhead and a *straight* one.

Hi Joseph,

I'm glad you agree with this now. Until now, your point certainly
_seemed_ to be that the symbols could not be easily distinguished.

You use the past tense above, so you are apparently saying that this
was the case even before we further exaggerated the curve on the
7-comma symbols.

> The problem was the fact that all these left and right arrowheads
> created a confusing impression when used together. At least they did
> for *me*. It was bad enough that I wasn't willing to use them in a
> piece, and I'm pretty *progressive* compared to *lots* of musicians...

Now what could this mean? You say that anyone can easily distinguish
them. But you say they "created a confusing impression when used
together". The only sense I can make of this is that although you
could readily tell them apart, perhaps you had not yet learned which
was the twelfthtone symbol and which was the sixthtone. i.e. It was
the _meanings_ that you were mixing up, not the symbols themselves.
i.e. it was a cognitive problem more than a perceptual one. Maybe you
somehow expected the symbols to come out and announce their meaning
without you having to learn it?

If so, that would be a bit like a child learning to read, and not yet
having learnt which of "u" and "v" made which sound, complaining that
the people who made the alphabet should have made letters where you
could tell their sound just by looking at them.

This is of course quite possible to do, and is how most written
languages start out. You just make the letter be a little picture of
something whose name starts with the right sound. I understand our
letter "a" can be traced back to a picture of a certain kind of bird
in ancient Egypt.

Then someone else comes along and decides this writing business is
pretty clever and wants to use it for their own language (read "their
own tuning"). The trouble is, in their language the name of that bird
doesn't start with an "a" sound (read, "the size of that comma isn't
33 cents"), and anyway it's too hard to draw exact birds, so we'll
just simplify it so it doesn't look that much like any particular bird
anymore, and keep using it for the "a" sound (read "the 7-comma").
Nowadays the letter "a" is used in zillions of different languages and
it doesn't look like a picture of any particular thing (number of
cents) but it always has roughly the same "a" sound (ratio of 7 sound)
in every language (tuning).

But, gosh darn it, the price for this flexibility is that you have to
actually spend some time to _learn_ what sound the letters make. When
you do, pretty soon you can't imagine there ever being any choice in
the matter and they seem to tell you their sound just by looking at them!

But here's a mnemonic device to get you started. The half-arrow that
encloses the most space between the arrowhead and the shaft (the arc)
represents the larger comma.

> ***Again, it's not "telling them apart." Anybody can sit in front of
> a piece of paper score and see the difference. But, what will happen
> when one trys, rapidly, to read *left arrow; right arrow; right
> arrow; left arrow...* all together in a passage?? It's going to
> drive the performers batty, believe me!

Why do you insist on referring to them as left-arrow and right-arrow,
when I thought we agreed that the greatest distinction between them is
not left/right (although this certainly helps and is apparently a
sufficient distinction for you with the Couper backwards flat). I
thought we agreed that the greatest distinction between them is the
fact that one is straight and the other is curved (now outrageously so).

So why not try referring to them as "barb" and "arc", or perhaps even
"left-barb" and "right-arc". And soon we'll just be referring to them
as 5-comma and 7-comma or twelfthtone and sixthtone.

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

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48195

> Why do you insist on referring to them as left-arrow and right-
arrow,when I thought we agreed that the greatest distinction between
them is not left/right (although this certainly helps and is
apparently a sufficient distinction for you with the Couper backwards
flat). I thought we agreed that the greatest distinction between them
is the fact that one is straight and the other is curved (now
outrageously so).
>
> So why not try referring to them as "barb" and "arc", or perhaps
even "left-barb" and "right-arc". And soon we'll just be referring to
them as 5-comma and 7-comma or twelfthtone and sixthtone.
>

***Hi Dave!

When I was first presented with the Sagittal symbols for 72-tET, you
showed me a half arrow with a straight barb going to the left for the
12-tones and a slightly curved arrow going to the right for the sixth
tones. Similarly, for lowering you had a straight arrow going to the
left for twelfth tones and a curved arrow pointing downward to the
right for the sixth tones.

I realize that now the curvature is larger on the sixth tones,
although I have not yet seen this *improved* font.

I'm still very concerned that a performer seeing a "forest" of these
half arrows will find them confusing when presented together. It's
not that the player can't tell that they're different; it's that even
though they are different they are still too similar.

It would be like being shown a penny and a dime in quick alternation,
and then another dime and then a penny. The color is different, and
the size slightly. Sure, somebody could tell them apart, given
enough time. But wouldn't it be easier to quickly see the difference
between a penny and a postage stamp? The *shape* is different, and
that would mean a lot to a player.

That's why I was so satisfied with your substitution of a plus and
minus (cleverly derived from the Huygens-Fokker slashes -- or was it
somebody else, apparently) as alternating with the right pointing
*curved* arrows.

The symbols are distinct enough to be not confusing even when
presented in close alternation.

I was only hoping that the larger Sagittal system could find a way to
incorporate this degree of visual distinction. I understand, though,
you have to accomodate many different things and it may not be
possible.

This sometimes leads me to the conclusion that possibly it's a self-
defeating proposition to create a notation that *does everything.*
Maybe that creates a "forest for the trees" syndrome where trying to
shoehorn everything into a few similar-looking arrow-like symbols
makes it a notation that is not truly functional and readable.

Only time will tell, but one thing is certain, and it's that a system
that people *like* to play and use will survive in the long run...

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48195
>
> > Why do you insist on referring to them as left-arrow and right-
> arrow,when I thought we agreed that the greatest distinction
between
> them is not left/right (although this certainly helps and is
> apparently a sufficient distinction for you with the Couper
backwards
> flat). I thought we agreed that the greatest distinction between
them
> is the fact that one is straight and the other is curved (now
> outrageously so).
> >
> > So why not try referring to them as "barb" and "arc", or perhaps
> even "left-barb" and "right-arc". And soon we'll just be referring
to
> them as 5-comma and 7-comma or twelfthtone and sixthtone.
> >
>
> ***Hi Dave!
>
> When I was first presented with the Sagittal symbols for 72-tET,
you
> showed me a half arrow with a straight barb going to the left for
the
> 12-tones and a slightly curved arrow going to the right for the
sixth
> tones. Similarly, for lowering you had a straight arrow going to
the
> left for twelfth tones and a curved arrow pointing downward to the
> right for the sixth tones.
>
> I realize that now the curvature is larger on the sixth tones,
> although I have not yet seen this *improved* font.
>
> I'm still very concerned that a performer seeing a "forest" of
these
> half arrows will find them confusing when presented together. It's
> not that the player can't tell that they're different; it's that
even
> though they are different they are still too similar.
>
> It would be like being shown a penny and a dime in quick
alternation,
> and then another dime and then a penny. The color is different,
and
> the size slightly. Sure, somebody could tell them apart, given
> enough time. But wouldn't it be easier to quickly see the
difference
> between a penny and a postage stamp? The *shape* is different, and
> that would mean a lot to a player.

Yes, precisely the point that we have been making: A symbol
containing a prominent *curve* is different in *shape* from one made
up only of *straight* lines, as you said earlier:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***This really doesn't address the point, George. The point was
not
> whether the symbols could be distinguished. Anyone can easily tell
> the difference between a *curved* arrowhead and a *straight* one.

See /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48171

(Hmmm, is it that confusion lies in the mind of the beholder?)

> That's why I was so satisfied with your substitution of a plus and
> minus (cleverly derived from the Huygens-Fokker slashes -- or was
it
> somebody else, apparently)

Yes, Bosanquet.

> as alternating with the right pointing
> *curved* arrows.

You mean *up* and *down* pointing *curved* half-arrows. (With 72-ET
you have the luxury of disregarding which *side* of the arrow shaft
the arc is situated.)

> The symbols are distinct enough to be not confusing even when
> presented in close alternation.
>
> I was only hoping that the larger Sagittal system could find a way
to
> incorporate this degree of visual distinction.

So you think it comes down to a matter of *degree*. Dave thought
that the real issue was a matter of perception -- of learning what to
look for:

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48195

I think he hit the problem right on the head. Look at what you're
saying:

> ***Again, it's not "telling them apart." Anybody can sit in front
of
> a piece of paper score and see the difference. But, what will
happen
> when one trys, rapidly, to read *left arrow; right arrow; right
> arrow; left arrow...* all together in a passage?? It's going to
> drive the performers batty, believe me!

You're saying that there needs to be a difference in *shape* (which
there is), but in your confusion you're completely ignoring both the
shape (straight vs. curved) and direction (up vs. down) of the arrow
symbols.

Joseph, if I may just make several points in relation to this:

1) First Dave and I both want to thank you for emphasizing the need
to make our 5-comma and 7-comma symbols as distinct as we possibly
could, because our subsequent modification of the 7-comma symbol (as
well as every other symbol that contains a curved flag, or arc) has
resulted in a noticeable improvement in this regard.

2) I wish to refer you once more to this figure, which now contains
the latest improvements to the symbols which contain arcs:

/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/KbDec72.gif

To see the entire progression of symbols, scroll to the bottom right
of the diagram (and be sure to set the viewing size to 100%). These
are the pure Sagittal symbols that you judged to be completely out of
the question as to usability, but I would like to point out something
about them. When I compare their general appearance to that of the
numerals directly above them, I can't help noticing how much more
they differ in appearance from each other than do some of the
numerals from other numerals; for example, "3" and "5" look very much
alike, as do "6" and "8" or "8" and "9", and except for "1", there is
no clue from the physical appearance of any given numeral as to how
many units it specifies (unlike the Sagittal symbols, which are
constructed in a logical, orderly fashion). If you presently used
Roman numerals and Arabic numerals were something completely new to
you, I imagine that you would immediately dismiss them as completely
impractical, claiming that it would be next to impossible to read and
distinguish them quickly and easily. (Or if you were used to reading
everything in UPPER CASE, might you dismiss lower case letters as
impractical, since everyone would have to learn twice as many
characters?)

Yet we use these every day without any problem -- we even know that
characters that look as similar as a "3" and a "5" are
distinguishable when reading *music* at high speed (as Johnny
Reinhard would be the first to testify). I enter this into evidence
as "Exhibit B".

3) I submit that the real question here is not whether the symbols
are sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished
when read at high speed, but rather how many players will be willing
to spend sufficient *time and effort* to learn what to look for in
order to be able to read them quickly.

Please don't be too quick to answer that question before considering
something that might put this in a different light. Shortly after
beginning my investigation into the possibilities offered by
microtonality over 35 years ago I came to the conclusion that 72-ET
was an excellent division (better in my estimation than 53-ET), but
there was no question in my mind (even for many years thereafter)
that 72-ET was *completely impractical* for acoustic instruments,
believing anything beyond 31-ET to be beyond the upper limit of
practicality. I could not imagine that anyone would want to go to
the trouble of mastering difficult pitch-bending techniques on
existing wind instruments (when it would be so much easier to play
instruments designed and built for new tunings), so I did not
seriously consider that anything other than specially built or
modified instruments could be practical for alternate tunings (hence
the upper limit). Yet it is being done today, simply because at
present it is considered more practical to expend *time and effort*
than *money*; but we can't assume that this will always be the case.

Joseph, you have to keep your mind open to various possibilities.
Just because you don't think something is practical given *your
present situation* doesn't mean that it won't *ever* be practical for
*anyone else*. Dave and I spent over a year and a half taking the
development of the Sagittal notation through at least a half-dozen
generations of development that, were it to occur by an evolutionary
process involving actual microtonal practice, would probably require
many centuries to arrive at (even taking into account the
accelerating pace in which we regularly experience change due to
advances in technology). So our end product came about by a sort of
engineered evolution, with advanced features and options to
accommodate those who are way ahead of their time. (So we can't
blame you or anyone else for freaking out when exposed to the full
set of what might be 28th-century musical symbols.)

We even think of the (temporarily named) "HEWM-S" font that you have
decided to use as an evolutionary step in making a transition from
Sims to Sagittal, so we're delighted about your decision.

> I understand, though,
> you have to accomodate many different things and it may not be
> possible.
>
> This sometimes leads me to the conclusion that possibly it's a self-
> defeating proposition to create a notation that *does everything.*
> Maybe that creates a "forest for the trees" syndrome where trying
to
> shoehorn everything into a few similar-looking arrow-like symbols
> makes it a notation that is not truly functional and readable.
>
> Only time will tell, but one thing is certain, and it's that a
system
> that people *like* to play and use will survive in the long run...

Yes, time will tell -- and that applies not just to a notation, but
even more so to the music that it represents.

--George

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48232

>> So you think it comes down to a matter of *degree*. Dave thought
> that the real issue was a matter of perception -- of learning what
to look for:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48195
>

###No, I actually disagreed with Dave here. It wasn't perception at
all. The differences could be *perceived...* It was more that the
symbols looked too similar to one another, particularly since they're
all arrows.

I'm getting the feeling, George, that you and Dave are so set on
*arrows* and *multitudes of arrows* solving all the notational
problems, that you really are unwilling to consider anything else at
this stage...

I feel my "arguments" are really not taken very seriously... It's
always thrown back that I'm not *perceiving* this or that.

I can just say I wasn't satisfied with the original Sagittal set for
72 and now I am with the "adjusted" HEWM-S. That's because the
symbols for the different commas necessary in 72 are sufficiently
distinct.

> You're saying that there needs to be a difference in *shape* (which
> there is), but in your confusion you're completely ignoring both
the shape (straight vs. curved) and direction (up vs. down) of the
arrow symbols.
>

***George, this is a bit silly. Of course, there is a difference in
*shape.* But they're still ALL ARROWS and lots of them! :)

Wouldn't it be better to combine some *other* shapes with them...
but, alas, the project is too far in development and nobody wants
to "rethink" it...

>
> 3) I submit that the real question here is not whether the symbols
> are sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished
> when read at high speed, but rather how many players will be
willing
> to spend sufficient *time and effort* to learn what to look for in
> order to be able to read them quickly.
>

***Well, I would submit that the amount of time they will spend is
directly proportional to the *logic* and *clarity* they see in the
system. If it looks clear and "musicianly" they will follow along.

If it doesn't, it will be like in Chorus Line... "NEXT..."

Believe me, there's lots of potential music to play out there!!!

> Please don't be too quick to answer that question before
considering
> something that might put this in a different light. Shortly after
> beginning my investigation into the possibilities offered by
> microtonality over 35 years ago I came to the conclusion that 72-ET
> was an excellent division (better in my estimation than 53-ET), but
> there was no question in my mind (even for many years thereafter)
> that 72-ET was *completely impractical* for acoustic instruments,
> believing anything beyond 31-ET to be beyond the upper limit of
> practicality. I could not imagine that anyone would want to go to
> the trouble of mastering difficult pitch-bending techniques on
> existing wind instruments (when it would be so much easier to play
> instruments designed and built for new tunings), so I did not
> seriously consider that anything other than specially built or
> modified instruments could be practical for alternate tunings
(hence
> the upper limit). Yet it is being done today, simply because at
> present it is considered more practical to expend *time and effort*
> than *money*; but we can't assume that this will always be the case.
>

***Well, this assumption will be brought to the test when Johnny
Reinhard presents my new woodwind quintet in Blackjack this year.

Bring your tuning meters! (Just kidding, we wouldn't let you in in
that case...) :)

> Joseph, you have to keep your mind open to various possibilities.
> Just because you don't think something is practical given *your
> present situation* doesn't mean that it won't *ever* be practical
for
> *anyone else*. Dave and I spent over a year and a half taking the
> development of the Sagittal notation through at least a half-dozen
> generations of development that, were it to occur by an
evolutionary
> process involving actual microtonal practice, would probably
require
> many centuries to arrive at (even taking into account the
> accelerating pace in which we regularly experience change due to
> advances in technology). So our end product came about by a sort
of
> engineered evolution, with advanced features and options to
> accommodate those who are way ahead of their time. (So we can't
> blame you or anyone else for freaking out when exposed to the full
> set of what might be 28th-century musical symbols.)
>

***OK... So here is my *counter point* or *counterpoint!*: I think
your system would have been considerably stronger if it *HAD* gone
through years of evolution. I believe it is more a *theoretical*
construct than a practical system, and I believe that the inventors
are very "hung up" with the theoretical integrity of the system (like
making it all work with just simple arrows...)

I mean this in a friendly way, just for the sake of debate. But
really, I think that *I* am really one of the first real
intersections of Sagittal in the "real world..." and in a typical,
lengthy musical evolution it would have been a much longer and more
winnowing process.

I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of weird things in music that
have come about through evolution. Most of them, though, are pretty
readily distinguishable... note values, key signatures... they're
pretty easy to read and distinguish for the most part.... but, I
admit, the system used to be *simpler...*

On the other hand, I greatly admire all the *thinking* that has gone
into Sagittal and I hope to find time to read all the posts on Tuning
Math, even though I only understand about 60% of them... I'm rather
sorry I wasn't following along at the time...

> We even think of the (temporarily named) "HEWM-S" font that you
have decided to use as an evolutionary step in making a transition
from Sims to Sagittal, so we're delighted about your decision.
>
>
***Well, at least that's one thing we can all celebrate, so I don't
think it's fair to accuse me of being "inflexible..."! I've entirely
changed my own notations to correspond with Sagittal to a degree...
although I'm still questioning that you really have come to all the
answers for such a comprehensive system.

It seems there are two opposing forces: a comprehensive and
streamlined system, as opposed to a distinguishable and easily
recognizable system, that may have more flaws from either a
conceptual or integral standpoint.

My opinion is that a system with more "flaws" might do the job
better, so the question is how many can you tolerate and under what
conditions...

Just some ideas here!

Thanks again and carry on... [Personally I don't think it's done
yet... :) ]

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> >> So you think it comes down to a matter of *degree*. Dave thought
> > that the real issue was a matter of perception -- of learning what
> to look for:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48195
> >
>
> ###No, I actually disagreed with Dave here. It wasn't perception at
> all. The differences could be *perceived...*

Actually both you and George are misquoting me here. I did suggest it
was a problem of _learning_, but I called this "cognitive", _not_
"perceptual".

> It was more that the
> symbols looked too similar to one another,

If this isn't perceptual, what is? This is very confusing.

> particularly since they're
> all arrows.

Do you have any ideas about how to make a whole bunch of symbols come
in pitch-up/pitch-down pairs _without_ looking like arrows? The + -
thing only gives us one such, which doesn't seem to lend itself to
combining with half arrowheads.

> I'm getting the feeling, George, that you and Dave are so set on
> *arrows* and *multitudes of arrows* solving all the notational
> problems, that you really are unwilling to consider anything else at
> this stage...

It's not that we're unwilling. It's just that we can't think of
anything else that works. We're certainly open to suggestions. I
spelled out the requirements some time ago, for a different symbol
system that would preserve the semantics (the logic and consistency of
the system):

At a minimum we need a set of 8 up/down-pairs of symbol-components
that can be assembled, up to two at a time (same direction only), into
symbols that clearly indicate their pitch direction, and are distinct
from each other, and approximately indicate their pitch size (in JI),
by the size of the symbol.

> I feel my "arguments" are really not taken very seriously...

I think that's a bit unfair. I changed around 80 symbols in our
TrueType font as a direct result of your testimony! The completion of
the report was delayed by about 2 weeks while George used his spare
time to update all the bitmap images in it!

I assume you put "arguments" in scare-quotes because they were mostly
just statements of opinion rather than logical arguments based on
accepted facts.

> It's
> always thrown back that I'm not *perceiving* this or that.

Since it's so far mostly just you who's finding a problem (maybe
that's 'cause so far you're the only one who's seriously considered
using them), and since we're having trouble reconciling your various
descriptions of the problem, and since we don't have any ideas to fix
it so it would satisfy you, I hope you can understand why we are
presenting arguments as to why there isn't any significant remaining
problem (since we increased the curvature of the arcs).

I think George has an excellent point about how similar decimal digits
are, and yet Johnny Reinhard finds that they work just fine as
accidentals. And there may be up to _two_ of them _and_ a plus or
minus sign _and_ a quartertone accidental, all against a single note!
But by some miracle, people can read them at high speed.

Look at the digits 35689. They are incredibly similar! In most fonts
they all basically consist of two elipses stacked on top of each
other. The only difference between them is that some of the elipses
have a tiny gap in them, on either the left or the right side, and in
the case of the 5, the top elipse is squared up a bit, which is enough
to distinguish it from a letter S.

This enormous similarity is exploited in the 7-segment displays one
finds on digital watches and pocket calculators.

I submit that the digits 35689 are far more similar than the three
kinds of arrowhead needed to notate 72-ET in sagittal. Imagine turning
these digits thru 90 degrees clockwise and adding a vertical shaft
from the middle, so they become downward arrows. I think all that is
required is some time to _learn_ the new symbols and their meanings.

> ***George, this is a bit silly. Of course, there is a difference in
> *shape.* But they're still ALL ARROWS and lots of them! :)

But arrows are such wonderfully unambiguous indicators of direction.

You know what? I think standard music notation is totally unreadable!
Never mind the accidentals. The notes are ALL ELIPSES and lots of
them! Sure some are filled and some are open, and some have shafts
with flags. Anyone can see that. But basically it's just a forest of
elipses, all the same size and shape. How could anyone ever make sense
of those at high speed? The performer's eyes will just glaze over. Why
don't we use some different *shapes*? ;-)

Maybe the answer is: So that, if it's an elipse then you _know_ it's a
pitched note with some duration, and not a rest or unpitched
percussion, or any of the many other kinds of things indicated by
symbols on a staff.

Similarly, maybe all the accidentals are arrows so that, if it's an
arrow then you _know_ it's an accidental, not a grace note or special
notehead or rest or ornament or articulation, or any of the many other
kinds of things indicated by symbols on a staff.

> Wouldn't it be better to combine some *other* shapes with them...

Maybe. So start suggesting some *other* shapes that will combine in a
similar way to our various kinds of half-arrowhead while meeting the
requirements described above. Although you probably should wait for
the report before you start doing that.

> but, alas, the project is too far in development and nobody wants
> to "rethink" it...

That simply isn't true. During the development so far, we've many
times thrown away things that we had worked weeks or months to
perfect, as soon as anyone came up with a better idea.

> > 3) I submit that the real question here is not whether the symbols
> > are sufficiently different in appearance to be easily distinguished
> > when read at high speed, but rather how many players will be
> willing
> > to spend sufficient *time and effort* to learn what to look for in
> > order to be able to read them quickly.
> >
>
> ***Well, I would submit that the amount of time they will spend is
> directly proportional to the *logic* and *clarity* they see in the
> system. If it looks clear and "musicianly" they will follow along.

In that case, I think we're on a winner. :-)

> It seems there are two opposing forces: a comprehensive and
> streamlined system, as opposed to a distinguishable and easily
> recognizable system, that may have more flaws from either a
> conceptual or integral standpoint.
>
> My opinion is that a system with more "flaws" might do the job
> better, so the question is how many can you tolerate and under what
> conditions...

You've expressed this idea before. I have to ask: A system with more
flaws might do _what_ job better?

But before we start messing with the consistency of the system we
would have to be really convinced that (a) no one could find a way to
fix the problems by just changing the symbols, not the logic (as
described above), and (b) that the existing symbols really are unusable.

And at this stage I don't have any kind of a handle on how we might
make logical flaws work _for_ us. But thanks for taking the time to
write your thoughts.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

> > It was more that the
> > symbols looked too similar to one another,
>
> If this isn't perceptual, what is? This is very confusing.
>

> > particularly since they're
> > all arrows.
>
> Do you have any ideas about how to make a whole bunch of symbols
come
> in pitch-up/pitch-down pairs _without_ looking like arrows? The + -
> thing only gives us one such, which doesn't seem to lend itself to
> combining with half arrowheads.
>

***I'm beginning to think, Dave, that part of the "problem" is that
the figures are too "stick like" which is probably what Gabor refers
to as "anemic..."

I've made a "rough draft" of my own "Exaggital" notation, in which
there are more "filled in" shapes in use for the 8 necessary pairs,
which could, hopefully, be used in combination:

/tuning/files/Pehrson/

It's in my files area and it's called "Exaggital.jpg"

It is only an idea (looking as if drawn by a cave man) but,
hopefully, it illustrates the general principles I'm talking about.
There is something about a *solid* shape that is more recognizable
than these stick arrows.

In a contrary opinion to your argument about traditional notation,
this is one reason that I think our traditional notation
has "succeeded"... there are lots of round shapes (notes, obviously)
that are white, or filled in black. The "arrows" or "stems" are
*then* added... but they're not the *only* thing...

So you have a SOLID shape *AND* a stick shape in our traditional
system. This is more the kind of thing we need.

In this first "idea" draft of "Exaggital"... you will see that the
first three pairs are rather familiar... HEWM-S.

> At a minimum we need a set of 8 up/down-pairs of symbol-components
> that can be assembled, up to two at a time (same direction only),
into ymbols that clearly indicate their pitch direction, and are
distinct from each other, and approximately indicate their pitch size
(in JI), by the size of the symbol.
>

***I didn't do much with "sizing" yet, but that could easily be done
with such pairs... just making them larger or smaller...

> > It's
> > always thrown back that I'm not *perceiving* this or that.
>
> Since it's so far mostly just you who's finding a problem (maybe
> that's 'cause so far you're the only one who's seriously considered
> using them),

***Good idea, Dave! I knows you are a smart fella... :)

> I think George has an excellent point about how similar decimal
digits
> are, and yet Johnny Reinhard finds that they work just fine as
> accidentals. And there may be up to _two_ of them _and_ a plus or
> minus sign _and_ a quartertone accidental, all against a single
note!
> But by some miracle, people can read them at high speed.
>

***Ok, let me be up front. I do *not* agree with my friend Johnny on
this. I've used his decimal *cents* notation because that's what he
requires on his series, but I don't feel, personally, that the
numbers are distinct enough. He does.

>
> You know what? I think standard music notation is totally
unreadable!
> Never mind the accidentals. The notes are ALL ELIPSES and lots of
> them! Sure some are filled and some are open, and some have shafts
> with flags. Anyone can see that. But basically it's just a forest of
> elipses, all the same size and shape. How could anyone ever make
sense
> of those at high speed? The performer's eyes will just glaze over.
Why
> don't we use some different *shapes*? ;-)
>

***I addressed this previously... I really do believe there is
something to a *solid* shape or an *open* shape that lets the mind
read it quickly, as opposed to stick flags or arrows.

Stick flags or arrows could be used in *conjunction* with such a
system... In fact, that might be best. Look at how successful it's
been in our traditional notation... People have *used* it... all the
way back from the NEUMES... which basically operated on the same
principle... open and closed area shapes!

>
> > Wouldn't it be better to combine some *other* shapes with them...
>
> Maybe. So start suggesting some *other* shapes that will combine in
a
> similar way to our various kinds of half-arrowhead while meeting the
> requirements described above. Although you probably should wait for
> the report before you start doing that.
>

***No... I already started... :)

> And at this stage I don't have any kind of a handle on how we might
> make logical flaws work _for_ us. But thanks for taking the time to
> write your thoughts.
>

***OK... lets nix the "flaws" arguments and go for better shapes.

My own personal opinion is that you guys have, of course, the theory
down *solid*... (no play on words... :) but the SHAPES that
represent the symbols have to be rethought from the ground up!!!

J. Pehrson

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > It was more that the
> > > symbols looked too similar to one another,
> >
> > If this isn't perceptual, what is? This is very confusing.
> >
>
> > > particularly since they're
> > > all arrows.
> >
> > Do you have any ideas about how to make a whole bunch of symbols
come
> > in pitch-up/pitch-down pairs _without_ looking like arrows? The
+ -
> > thing only gives us one such, which doesn't seem to lend itself to
> > combining with half arrowheads.
>
> ***I'm beginning to think, Dave, that part of the "problem" is that
> the figures are too "stick like" which is probably what Gabor
refers
> to as "anemic..."
>
> I've made a "rough draft" of my own "Exaggital" notation, in which
> there are more "filled in" shapes in use for the 8 necessary pairs,
> which could, hopefully, be used in combination:
>
> /tuning/files/Pehrson/
>
> It's in my files area and it's called "Exaggital.jpg"
>
> It is only an idea (looking as if drawn by a cave man) but,
> hopefully, it illustrates the general principles I'm talking
about.
> There is something about a *solid* shape that is more recognizable
> than these stick arrows.
> ...
> In this first "idea" draft of "Exaggital"... you will see that the
> first three pairs are rather familiar... HEWM-S.

Okay, this is a start. For the mixed-symbol notation alone we would
need one of two things:

1) A total of 31 pairs of symbols that clearly indicate up and down
direction.

Three out of the five new pairs that you made are triangular.
Arent't these too much alike, or are these just possibilities that
would not all be used? You can see that it's not easy to come up
with a lot of symbol pairs that clearly indicate up and down, and
with as many as we would require (31), it would be *much more
difficult* to remember them all than with the symbols we presently
have. You have to consider that there is a trade-off between
differences in appearance (that aid in *recognition*) vs. logical
construction (that aids in *memorization*). We have tried to
establish a balance between these two factors.

Or, alternatively, we could have:

2) A total of 8 pairs of symbols that could be used in combination
like 2-digit numbers of 2-letter words.

But would you want to represent quartertones with *two* symbols used
in combination, one pair of which would be the + and - (5-comma)
symbols, instead of arrows, and then use the arrows for something
else (as the Sagittal semantics would require)? With our present
Sagittal symbols we have incorporated a couple of good ideas for what
sort of symbols or symbol features should represent commas and
quartertones, in a way that is compatible with the Sagittal semantics.

>
> ***I didn't do much with "sizing" yet, but that could easily be
done
> with such pairs... just making them larger or smaller...

Yes, and shapes can be modified to clarify which line or space they
are occupying. You've just sketched out some suggestions.

Joseph, I don't think it would be productive to go any farther with
this discussion before our documentation is available. In the
meantime, you are welcome to go ahead and use the "Sagittal-Wilson"
symbol set for 72-ET (as we have decided to call it. Lacking any
input from Monz or Daniel Wolf about the suitability or unsuitability
of our 7-comma symbol pairs for HEWM, we have concluded that it would
presumptuous of us to call this symbol set by that name.).

--George

🔗gooseplex <cfaah@eiu.edu>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48259

"Exaggital Notation...":

> Okay, this is a start. For the mixed-symbol notation alone we
would need one of two things:
>
> 1) A total of 31 pairs of symbols that clearly indicate up and down
> direction.
>
> Three out of the five new pairs that you made are triangular.
> Arent't these too much alike, or are these just possibilities that
> would not all be used?

***Well, George, I consider because they are *areas* rather thank
just "sticks" that the difference between a *clear* triangle and a
*filled* triangle is distinct. I can't *prove* this, other than
asking other people's opinions...

You can see that it's not easy to come up
> with a lot of symbol pairs that clearly indicate up and down, and
> with as many as we would require (31), it would be *much more
> difficult* to remember them all than with the symbols we presently
> have. You have to consider that there is a trade-off between
> differences in appearance (that aid in *recognition*) vs. logical
> construction (that aids in *memorization*). We have tried to
> establish a balance between these two factors.
>
> Or, alternatively, we could have:
>
> 2) A total of 8 pairs of symbols that could be used in combination
> like 2-digit numbers of 2-letter words.
>

***THIS is what I would like to see more of. I wish there was a
*version* of Sagittal that used this technique. I believe it would
be better than you might suppose. Maybe the smaller commas could be
smaller shapes, more "articulations" to the larger shapes.

I would really like to see this developed just as a "what if"
scenario, to help confirm whether the current Sagittal is really
going in the right direction... (up or down, mostly... :)

> But would you want to represent quartertones with *two* symbols
used
> in combination, one pair of which would be the + and - (5-comma)
> symbols, instead of arrows, and then use the arrows for something
> else (as the Sagittal semantics would require)? With our present
> Sagittal symbols we have incorporated a couple of good ideas for
what
> sort of symbols or symbol features should represent commas and
> quartertones, in a way that is compatible with the Sagittal
semantics.
>

***It's true I would hate to lose the full arrows for quartertones...
but on the other hand, I've only been using them this way now for
about a month... :)

> >
> > ***I didn't do much with "sizing" yet, but that could easily be
> done
> > with such pairs... just making them larger or smaller...
>
> Yes, and shapes can be modified to clarify which line or space they
> are occupying. You've just sketched out some suggestions.
>

> Joseph, I don't think it would be productive to go any farther with
> this discussion before our documentation is available. In the
> meantime, you are welcome to go ahead and use the "Sagittal-Wilson"
> symbol set for 72-ET (as we have decided to call it. Lacking any
> input from Monz or Daniel Wolf about the suitability or
unsuitability of our 7-comma symbol pairs for HEWM, we have concluded
that it would presumptuous of us to call this symbol set by that
name.).
>

***Well, that's fine. Wilson is a cool dude... :), so I certainly
don't mind calling the system I'm using "Sagittal-Wilson..." if it
is, indeed, Wilson's notation we are using. I'm assuming he would
have no problem with that, either... (??)

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48259
>
> "Exaggital Notation...":
>
> > Okay, this is a start. For the mixed-symbol notation alone we
> would need one of two things:
> >
> > 1) A total of 31 pairs of symbols that clearly indicate up and
down
> > direction.
> > ...
> > Or, alternatively, we could have:
> >
> > 2) A total of 8 pairs of symbols that could be used in
combination
> > like 2-digit numbers of 2-letter words.
>
> ***THIS is what I would like to see more of. I wish there was a
> *version* of Sagittal that used this technique. I believe it would
> be better than you might suppose. Maybe the smaller commas could
be
> smaller shapes, more "articulations" to the larger shapes.
>
> I would really like to see this developed just as a "what if"
> scenario, to help confirm whether the current Sagittal is really
> going in the right direction... (up or down, mostly... :)
>
> > But would you want to represent quartertones with *two* symbols
used
> > in combination, one pair of which would be the + and - (5-comma)
> > symbols, instead of arrows, and then use the arrows for something
> > else (as the Sagittal semantics would require)? With our present
> > Sagittal symbols we have incorporated a couple of good ideas for
what
> > sort of symbols or symbol features should represent commas and
> > quartertones, in a way that is compatible with the Sagittal
semantics.
>
> ***It's true I would hate to lose the full arrows for
quartertones...
> but on the other hand, I've only been using them this way now for
> about a month... :)

No, I wouldn't want to lose these either. One principle that we
followed with Sagittal is not to have the simpler applications (such
as 72-ET) end up becoming more complicated by the need to notate more
complicated tunings, and this sort of modification would be a clear
violation of that principle. I think that a synthesis of the two
alternatives I gave above might be best -- single symbol pairs for
the most common commas and combinations of symbols for less common
ones.

But I would want to get some input from others about what we already
have. Johnny Reinhard gave some good examples about features of
written languages that, contrary to what you might expect, happen to
work successfully. I'm not suggesting that we purposely introduce
things that are difficult to comprehend into a notation, but I
believe that you're putting too much emphasis on just one aspect
(maximizing the difference in appearance between symbols) at the
expense of everything else.

> > ...
> > Joseph, I don't think it would be productive to go any farther
with
> > this discussion before our documentation is available. In the
> > meantime, you are welcome to go ahead and use the "Sagittal-
Wilson"
> > symbol set for 72-ET (as we have decided to call it. Lacking any
> > input from Monz or Daniel Wolf about the suitability or
> > unsuitability of our 7-comma symbol pairs for HEWM, we have
concluded
> > that it would presumptuous of us to call this symbol set by that
> > name.).
>
> ***Well, that's fine. Wilson is a cool dude... :), so I certainly
> don't mind calling the system I'm using "Sagittal-Wilson..." if it
> is, indeed, Wilson's notation we are using. I'm assuming he would
> have no problem with that, either... (??)

It's 72-ET Sagittal with only the 5-comma pair replaced with Erv
Wilson's symbols. The exact appearance of the symbols conforms to
Daniel Wolf's recommendations, which are within the range of possible
interpretations that may be arrived at by observing Erv's hand-drawn
symbols (e.g., those found in Xenharmonikon #3). And I imagine that
Erv would be delighted to see his symbols used (with his name
appended in acknowledgement).

Dave and I expect to have the Wilson 5-comma symbols included in
every version of the Sagittal font that we release, and we
are "officially" endorsing the name "Sagittal-Wilson" for a small
Sagittal symbol set in which the 5-comma half-arrows are replaced
with the Wilson + and - symbols. Besides your desire for having a
greater distinction between the 5-comma and 7-comma symbol pairs, we
recognize that there is an additional advantage in this symbol set
for those who presently read the Sims notation (and are considering
an alternative), since they will not be confusing the Sims 7-comma
symbol pair (which is virtually identical to the Sagittal 5-comma
pair) with the Wilson 5-comma pair. So we are *not* doing this
*only* for the single reason that you brought up.

--George

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47995.html#48282
> >

> > ***It's true I would hate to lose the full arrows for
> quartertones...
> > but on the other hand, I've only been using them this way now for
> > about a month... :)
>
> No, I wouldn't want to lose these either. One principle that we
> followed with Sagittal is not to have the simpler applications
(such as 72-ET) end up becoming more complicated by the need to
notate more complicated tunings, and this sort of modification would
be a clear violation of that principle. I think that a synthesis of
the two alternatives I gave above might be best -- single symbol
pairs for the most common commas and combinations of symbols for less
common ones.
>

***That I would like to see, but I don't believe I've seen a version
of Sagittal yet that does this...

> But I would want to get some input from others about what we
already
> have. Johnny Reinhard gave some good examples about features of
> written languages that, contrary to what you might expect, happen
to
> work successfully. I'm not suggesting that we purposely introduce
> things that are difficult to comprehend into a notation, but I
> believe that you're putting too much emphasis on just one aspect
> (maximizing the difference in appearance between symbols) at the
> expense of everything else.
>

***Well, as you know, my impression of the Sagittal set is that you
are trying to cram too many subtle distinctions into single symbols.
That was my *initial* impression, and it's *still* my impression.

Has anyone besides myself been working with or evaluating Sagittal as
yet? That might be informative...

I can see, by the way, why you changed the name from "HEWM-S..." The
syntonic comma symbols you use are clearly the *Wilson* component of
HEWM... as explained by Daniel Wolf on Monz's HEWM page.

>> Dave and I expect to have the Wilson 5-comma symbols included in
> every version of the Sagittal font that we release, and we
> are "officially" endorsing the name "Sagittal-Wilson" for a small
> Sagittal symbol set in which the 5-comma half-arrows are replaced
> with the Wilson + and - symbols. Besides your desire for having a
> greater distinction between the 5-comma and 7-comma symbol pairs,
we
> recognize that there is an additional advantage in this symbol set
> for those who presently read the Sims notation (and are considering
> an alternative), since they will not be confusing the Sims 7-comma
> symbol pair (which is virtually identical to the Sagittal 5-comma
> pair) with the Wilson 5-comma pair. So we are *not* doing this
> *only* for the single reason that you brought up.
>

***Well, what was the "single reason" that I brought up? I thought
it was just that...

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
wrote:
> ...
> /tuning/topicId_47995.html#48282
>
> > > ***It's true I would hate to lose the full arrows for
quartertones...
> > > but on the other hand, I've only been using them this way now
for
> > > about a month... :)
> >
> > No, I wouldn't want to lose these either. One principle that we
> > followed with Sagittal is not to have the simpler applications
> (such as 72-ET) end up becoming more complicated by the need to
> notate more complicated tunings, and this sort of modification
would
> be a clear violation of that principle. I think that a synthesis
of
> the two alternatives I gave above might be best -- single symbol
> pairs for the most common commas and combinations of symbols for
less
> common ones.
> >
>
> ***That I would like to see, but I don't believe I've seen a
version
> of Sagittal yet that does this...

For the moment this is just hypothetical. What we now have needs to
be tested.

> > But I would want to get some input from others about what we
already
> > have. Johnny Reinhard gave some good examples about features of
> > written languages that, contrary to what you might expect, happen
to
> > work successfully. I'm not suggesting that we purposely
introduce
> > things that are difficult to comprehend into a notation, but I
> > believe that you're putting too much emphasis on just one aspect
> > (maximizing the difference in appearance between symbols) at the
> > expense of everything else.
>
> ***Well, as you know, my impression of the Sagittal set is that you
> are trying to cram too many subtle distinctions into single
symbols.
> That was my *initial* impression, and it's *still* my impression.
>
> Has anyone besides myself been working with or evaluating Sagittal
as
> yet? That might be informative...

I've been using it for quite some time to jot down ideas for harmonic
progressions on paper that I might use in future compositions. Some
of these ideas will work in more than one tuning, so it's nice to be
able to do this using a multi-tuning notation that doesn't require me
to commit to a specific tuning before I write anything down.

Margo Schulter was also trying out the Sagittal notation around a
year ago, after she asked us how we would notate a couple of things
that were not overly complicated. Since that time I don't think that
there have been any changes to what we showed her, so whatever she
tried should still be okay.

Apart from that, I think that everyone else is waiting for Dave and
me to release our documentation and to produce examples to illustrate
how some actual music will look.

> I can see, by the way, why you changed the name from "HEWM-S..."
The
> syntonic comma symbols you use are clearly the *Wilson* component
of
> HEWM... as explained by Daniel Wolf on Monz's HEWM page.
>
> >> Dave and I expect to have the Wilson 5-comma symbols included in
> > every version of the Sagittal font that we release, and we
> > are "officially" endorsing the name "Sagittal-Wilson" for a small
> > Sagittal symbol set in which the 5-comma half-arrows are replaced
> > with the Wilson + and - symbols. Besides your desire for having
a
> > greater distinction between the 5-comma and 7-comma symbol pairs,
we
> > recognize that there is an additional advantage in this symbol
set
> > for those who presently read the Sims notation (and are
considering
> > an alternative), since they will not be confusing the Sims 7-
comma
> > symbol pair (which is virtually identical to the Sagittal 5-comma
> > pair) with the Wilson 5-comma pair. So we are *not* doing this
> > *only* for the single reason that you brought up.
>
> ***Well, what was the "single reason" that I brought up? I thought
> it was just that...

Your reason for using Sagittal-Wilson is that you think there isn't
*a sufficient distinction* in appearance between the *Sagittal* 5-
comma symbol /| and the *Sagittal* 7-comma symbol |).

Our additional reason for using Sagittal-Wilson is that there isn't
*any distinction at all* between the *Sagittal* 5-comma symbol /| and
the *Sims* 7-comma symbol /|. Players familiar with the Sims
notation could experience some disorientation when first trying to
read Sagittal notation, a problem that parts in the Sagittal-Wilson
symbol set would eliminate.

For players who have never read the Sims notation, there would be no
problem moving back and forth between parts with Sagittal-Wilson and
all Sagittal symbols, since there is no conflict between the two.

--George