universal notation

(I must first say that I haven't had the time to read the most
recent posts.)
I have just come up with a way to notate 15 EDO and have already
become somewhat attached to it. (Though I might be open to other
ways of notation even at this date.)
I'm just going to throw this out to the group...What if there was
a software (freeware) program that would automatically take any
notation and convert it to what I (or someone else) has gotten
used to. Coming up with a one size fits all approach may be the
best idea, but then again there is Esperanto. Proposed in 1887, it
was supposed to be the universal spoken and written language. Dr.
L. L. Zamenhof took parts of several languages and made one. Does
anyone you know speak Esperanto?
My idea is to have software (any programmers out there) that
would take a 4 digit microprinted number next to a note. [look at
a new 20 dollar bill, go to the right of the lower left number'20'
to see "The United States of America..." to see how small and
unobtrusive microprinting can be.] The microprinting would be read
by the software and converted to the composers own format. The 4
digit number would be the number of cents up from the tonic that
the note in question is.
Over time (50 years?) I would think one or two standards for
15 EDO (and all other EDO's) would emerge on their own just
because some are logical and most aren't.

Stephen Szpak

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@h...>

/tuning/topicId_50278.html#50278

wrote:
>
> (I must first say that I haven't had the time to read the most
> recent posts.)
> I have just come up with a way to notate 15 EDO and have already
> become somewhat attached to it. (Though I might be open to other
> ways of notation even at this date.)
> I'm just going to throw this out to the group...What if there was
> a software (freeware) program that would automatically take any
> notation and convert it to what I (or someone else) has gotten
> used to. Coming up with a one size fits all approach may be the
> best idea, but then again there is Esperanto. Proposed in 1887, it
> was supposed to be the universal spoken and written language. Dr.
> L. L. Zamenhof took parts of several languages and made one. Does
> anyone you know speak Esperanto?
> My idea is to have software (any programmers out there) that
> would take a 4 digit microprinted number next to a note. [look at
> a new 20 dollar bill, go to the right of the lower left number'20'
> to see "The United States of America..." to see how small and
> unobtrusive microprinting can be.] The microprinting would be read
> by the software and converted to the composers own format. The 4
> digit number would be the number of cents up from the tonic that
> the note in question is.
> Over time (50 years?) I would think one or two standards for
> 15 EDO (and all other EDO's) would emerge on their own just
> because some are logical and most aren't.
>
> Stephen Szpak

***I guess this might be possible, but I don't really see the utility
for it since people, most notably Dave Keenan and George Secor, who
have *lots* of experience, are designing an overall system (called
Sagittal) that does this very thing. I would seriously consider
Dave's suggestions regarding the notation of 15-tET and you should
post your *own* system to this forum. I almost *guarantee* that
there will be reasons why the Keenan/Secor system will be better.
(I'll take bets now...)

Also, it's a little silly not to just use cents notation directly, if
that's the kind of notation you want. This is the approach used by
Johnny Reinhard... just using cents values above the pitches, and he
considers it a *universal* system, so there is really no reason why a
*computer* needs to do it.

Computers are great, but they don't have to butt into
*everything... :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak" <stephen_szpak@h...> wrote:
>
> Coming up with a one size fits all approach may be the
> best idea, but then again there is Esperanto. Proposed in 1887, it
> was supposed to be the universal spoken and written language. Dr.
> L. L. Zamenhof took parts of several languages and made one. Does
> anyone you know speak Esperanto?

Hi Stephen,

I actually learned some Esperanto as a child, but not having anyone
else to speak or listen, read or write it to, it soon fell into disuse.

I don't believe this is a good analogy for what we're doing here.
Because we're representing not whole words with meaning with our
accidentals, but rather individual sounds, a better analogy would be
to a character set that is used across multiple languages. Remember
the Roman alphabet (also called the Latin alphabet). You're looking at
it now. And so are speakers of French, German, Italian, Spanish, and
30 or 40 other unrelated languages. And in the other half of the world
Chinese characters were similarly successful in being used for
multiple unrelated languages.

But I have used the term "lingua franca" myself in reference to the
sagittal system, and so a better analogy here would be to English,
which is (for better or worse) becoming many people's second language,
in some cases purely for the purpose of communicating with others for
whom English is a second language.

> My idea is to have software (any programmers out there) that
> would take a 4 digit microprinted number next to a note. [look at
> a new 20 dollar bill, go to the right of the lower left number'20'
> to see "The United States of America..." to see how small and
> unobtrusive microprinting can be.] The microprinting would be read
> by the software and converted to the composers own format. The 4
> digit number would be the number of cents up from the tonic that
> the note in question is.

Such numbers would not have to be printed anywhere but simply stored
invisibly by the program. You can already do this sort of thing with
Finale and Sibelius. When you put a symbol on the staff, the index of
the symbol in the symbol-table is what is actually stored. Then you
can edit the symbol-table so that a different symbol appears at that
numbered position and all occurrences in your score will automatically
show the new symbol. But of course these programs aren't shareware.
They do however have free downloadable demo versions that can't save
or print.

> Over time (50 years?) I would think one or two standards for
> 15 EDO (and all other EDO's) would emerge on their own just
> because some are logical and most aren't.

Two _have_ emerged. Chain-of-best-fifths with additional accidentals
for one degree up or down, and notation relative to 12-ET with either
cents or additional accidentals for fifth-tones and tenth-tones.

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

/tuning/topicId_50278.html#50295

>
> Such numbers would not have to be printed anywhere but simply stored
> invisibly by the program. You can already do this sort of thing with
> Finale and Sibelius. When you put a symbol on the staff, the index
of
> the symbol in the symbol-table is what is actually stored. Then you
> can edit the symbol-table so that a different symbol appears at that
> numbered position and all occurrences in your score will
automatically
> show the new symbol. But of course these programs aren't shareware.
> They do however have free downloadable demo versions that can't save
> or print.

***Actually, as a point of clarification, I am under the
understanding that *Finale* has this feature, but Sibelius not yet.
I wish it did!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_50278.html#50295
>
> >
> > Such numbers would not have to be printed anywhere but simply stored
> > invisibly by the program. You can already do this sort of thing with
> > Finale and Sibelius. When you put a symbol on the staff, the index
> of
> > the symbol in the symbol-table is what is actually stored. Then you
> > can edit the symbol-table so that a different symbol appears at that
> > numbered position and all occurrences in your score will
> automatically
> > show the new symbol. But of course these programs aren't shareware.
> > They do however have free downloadable demo versions that can't save
> > or print.
>
> ***Actually, as a point of clarification, I am under the
> understanding that *Finale* has this feature, but Sibelius not yet.
> I wish it did!

Joseph,

The demo version of Sibelius that I'm playing with certainly has this
feature (version 2.1.1). For example, if I put a number of notes on a
staff with the built-in Tartini half-sharp symbols against them and
then go to Edit Symbols and change the quartertone-sharp symbol from
the Tartini to the sagittal up-arrow, then all the symbols on the
staff change accordingly. What happens when you try this?

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

/tuning/topicId_50278.html#50310

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_50278.html#50295
> >
> > >
> > > Such numbers would not have to be printed anywhere but simply
stored
> > > invisibly by the program. You can already do this sort of thing
with
> > > Finale and Sibelius. When you put a symbol on the staff, the
index
> > of
> > > the symbol in the symbol-table is what is actually stored. Then
you
> > > can edit the symbol-table so that a different symbol appears at
that
> > > numbered position and all occurrences in your score will
> > automatically
> > > show the new symbol. But of course these programs aren't
shareware.
> > > They do however have free downloadable demo versions that can't
save
> > > or print.
> >
> > ***Actually, as a point of clarification, I am under the
> > understanding that *Finale* has this feature, but Sibelius not
yet.
> > I wish it did!
>
> Joseph,
>
> The demo version of Sibelius that I'm playing with certainly has
this
> feature (version 2.1.1). For example, if I put a number of notes on
a
> staff with the built-in Tartini half-sharp symbols against them and
> then go to Edit Symbols and change the quartertone-sharp symbol from
> the Tartini to the sagittal up-arrow, then all the symbols on the
> staff change accordingly. What happens when you try this?

***Oh, sure, this can be done with quartertones, and then changing
the *quartertones* to something else, but you can't assign specific
cents values to *symbols* and have it alter the notes automatically.
One of the reasons for this is the fact that the
underlying "ManuScript" programming language that Sibelius uses does
not address *symbols...* Too bad that it doesn't...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Oh, sure, this can be done with quartertones, and then changing
> the *quartertones* to something else, but you can't assign specific
> cents values to *symbols* and have it alter the notes automatically.

You're right. But I never said anything about that aspect of it. Only
that it's very easy to translate all the _symbols_ on a score in
either Finale or Sibelius. I agree that actual support for _playing_
them as particular cents modifications is woeful in both.

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

/tuning/topicId_50278.html#50340

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > ***Oh, sure, this can be done with quartertones, and then
changing
> > the *quartertones* to something else, but you can't assign
specific
> > cents values to *symbols* and have it alter the notes
automatically.
>
> You're right. But I never said anything about that aspect of it.
Only
> that it's very easy to translate all the _symbols_ on a score in
> either Finale or Sibelius. I agree that actual support for _playing_
> them as particular cents modifications is woeful in both.

***Hi Dave!

Well, as a matter of "nit-picking..." :) I don't really think that
*accidentals*, even *quartertone* accidentals can be properly called
*symbols* in Sibelius.

Symbols come from the symbols menu. While it's true that
*accidentals* can be altered and even replaced by symbols, they have
different properties.

It's a little like comparing a pawn and a queen in chess... :)

One of the "problems" is that the underlying object-oriented
programming language, ManuScript accesses *accidentals* but does
*not* access symbols, as I understand it.

My impression is that Finale *does* make it possible to assign
discrete cents deviations to symbols that are placed on the
notehead. So, in this respect it is ahead of Sibelius in terms of
microtonality. I've spoken to several people about it.

The question is that Finale is not as nicely engineered a product for
overall music making as Sibelius, and sibelius has a more intuitive
and modern interface. So, we are all hoping that *eventually* it
will incorporate more "deep features" so it will be able to do some
of the more esoteric things that Finale can do...

Joseph

hi Joe,

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

> The question is that Finale is not as nicely engineered
> a product for overall music making as Sibelius, and sibelius
> has a more intuitive and modern interface. So, we are all
> hoping that *eventually* it will incorporate more
> "deep features" so it will be able to do some
> of the more esoteric things that Finale can do...

my advice: don't wait for Sibelius to play catch-up.
our Tonalsoft product will do it all. our latest estimate
is that we hope to have the beta-test release out by March,
and release 1.0 should follow within a few months of that.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> my advice: don't wait for Sibelius to play catch-up.
> our Tonalsoft product will do it all.

My advice: don't talk about it until it is at least alpha, and then allow the process of alpha testing to show what it can and can't do. Then have an expansive beta testing phase, where all the things you never dreamed could happen DO happen. And somewhere along that phase, *then* you can start telling people, with a reasonsable expectation of both features and availability, just how much of _all_ your product can produce. Otherwise you might as well call it TonalLimp!

If you want a very good example of a software product that has been handled in a similar vein to what I describe, look at AudioMulch:

http://www.audiomulch.com/
/mulch-discuss/

Cheers,
Jon (whose emphasis in his Software Engineering degree was - you guessed it - QA...)

Monz,

on 12/22/03 9:04 PM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> hi Joe,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
>> The question is that Finale is not as nicely engineered
>> a product for overall music making as Sibelius, and sibelius
>> has a more intuitive and modern interface. So, we are all
>> hoping that *eventually* it will incorporate more
>> "deep features" so it will be able to do some
>> of the more esoteric things that Finale can do...
>
>
>
> my advice: don't wait for Sibelius to play catch-up.
> our Tonalsoft product will do it all. our latest estimate
> is that we hope to have the beta-test release out by March,
> and release 1.0 should follow within a few months of that.
>
>
>
> -monz

So I hope the software is written in a way that makes it easy to port to
another platform. (Hint hint)

So what were your plans for eventual Mac suppport? I can't find the info,
though I seem to recall you having mentioned it once.

-Kurt

hi Jon,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > my advice: don't wait for Sibelius to play catch-up.
> > our Tonalsoft product will do it all.
>
> My advice: don't talk about it until it is at least alpha,
> and then allow the process of alpha testing to show what it
> can and can't do. Then have an expansive beta testing phase,
> where all the things you never dreamed could happen DO happen.
> And somewhere along that phase, *then* you can start telling
> people, with a reasonsable expectation of both features and
> availability, just how much of _all_ your product can produce.
> Otherwise you might as well call it TonalLimp!
>
> If you want a very good example of a software product that
> has been handled in a similar vein to what I describe, look
> at AudioMulch:
>
> http://www.audiomulch.com/
> /mulch-discuss/
>
> Cheers,
> Jon (whose emphasis in his Software Engineering degree was
> - you guessed it - QA...)

thanks for the thoughtful comments. you're right, and
believe it or not i really *am* trying to keep a low
profile on this until we actually do release it.
i just get a little enthusiastic sometimes. :)

maybe all i should really emphasize is that the Tonalsoft
sequencer is being built with tuning choices available
right from the beginning ... tuning considerations are
an integral part of the app's framework, and indeed, the
tuning stuff is for the first release is already finished,
and it's the first part of the app that we *have* finished.

-monz

hi Kurt,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> Monz,
>
>
> So I hope the [Tonalsoft] software is written in a way
> that makes it easy to port to another platform. (Hint hint)
>
> So what were your plans for eventual Mac suppport? I can't
> find the info, though I seem to recall you having mentioned
> it once.
>
> -Kurt

sorry. somewhat to my own chagrin, we've gone Microsoft
all the way. our framework requires .net and direct-x.

no plans for Mac support any time soon ... hopefully
eventually we'll do it for a future release. but the
short answer is: if you want to use our software, you'll
need a Windows machine.

-monz