new-staff notations in Tonalsoft Musica

hi Ozan,

(i'm posting this to the tuning list, as at this point
the offlist discussion between Ozan and i probably has
wider general interest. we were discussing the future
incorporation of Sagittal notation, and of Ozan's
Spectral Notation, into Musica. i strongly enourage
comments and criticisms from all.)

i also meant to stress to you in my last email
that i have strong feelings about revolutionizing
musical notation myself, with the use of my
"quarter-tone-staff" notation.

my enthusiasm for this notation is only partly
due to its excellence in notating 24-edo music
(as can be seen in the short example of the Haba quartet
on my webpage quoted at the bottom of this message).

more and more, i am embraciing 72-edo as
a compact means of approximating 11-limit JI.

72-edo may be notated very neatly on my
quarter-tone-staff with the use of only two
accidentals -- i like to use up and down arrow-heads,
which in this notational scheme are somewhat analagous
to the way sharps and flats work in regular notation.

there's a graphic illustration here:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?72edo.htm&qtstaff

i find this quarter-tone-staff presentation of 72-edo to
be far superior to any other that has been devised
(even despite my enthusiasm for Sagittal notation).

the 5-line staff was developed for diatonic music
using a 7-tone scale which has two different step-sizes,
and it has continued to work well for this type of music
for 1000 years. certainly, it has two prominent
shortcomings, even for this type of music:

1)
there is no visual indication of the difference
between diatonic whole-steps and half-steps
(which must instead be learned by rote); and

2)
there is no visual representation of the
"octave"-equivalence which is a feature of
diatonic music.

upon moving beyond 7-tone diatonic music, even to
something as simple as 12-edo, the 5-line staff's
shortcomings quickly become a ponderous hindrance.
(my personal feeling is that the 12edo-staff notation
i devised works far better for this tuning.)

move further, into microtonal tunings which are not
representative of traditional musical usage like
meantone, etc., and to me it makes very little sense
to force those types of tunings to be shoe-horned
onto the 5-line staff.

there will be vehement arguments about how performing
musicians need the continuance of the 5-line staff, but
i say that's nonsense. if a good musician can learn
to read music which uses 2 different clefs (as any
pianist, bassoonist, trombonist, or cellist must do
... to say nothing of all the different clefs which
must be mastered by composers and conductors), then
there should be no problem acclimating to an entirely
new staff system -- particulary if that staff was
*designed* with the particular microtonal tuning
in mind, and gives a good visual representation of
the pitch-height and equivalence structure of that tuning.

i am indeed hoping that we (at Tonalsoft) will be able
to get these two types of notation (12edo-staff and
quarter-tone-staff) into the initial release of Musica.
having a powerful compositional tool which makes use
of these notations should render them much more
quickly accpetable ... at least, that is my hope.

cordially,

monz

----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: Ozan Yarman
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 1:38
Subject: Re: OFFLIST - re: Tonalsoft Musica

<snip>

in addition to the pitch-height graph notation and regular
5-line staff notation, early versions of Musica (but probably
after 1.0) will also incorporate my 12-edo-staff notation and
my quarter-tone-staff notation.

you can look these up in the Encyclopaedia:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?12edo-staff.htm

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/index2.htm?qt-staff.htm

Dear Monz,

Spectral Notation is yet to be developed from the core idea of using colored accidentals in order to notate voluminous temperaments based on the extended theory of the cycle of perfect fifths that dear George so exquisitely elucidated in lenght. What number and which type of accidentals ought to be used is an issue that requires resolution. I have decided that Tartini-Couper symbols which are used in my part of the world might be sufficient in the end. If only some feasible method of elaborating them could be prepared...

Regarding your unorthodox and challenging suggestions, I have the following criticisms:

1. Despite all of the shortcomings of regular staff notation, and no matter how distasteful it might be to microtonalists, it has become the universal standard everywhere it seems. To suggest that we dispense with the 5-line notation habit is tantamount to demanding the abolishment of all the Western-oriented orthodox music institutions and starting music education from scratch. Not only is this suggestion extreme, it is probably also impossible to accomplish.

2. The visual indication for the half-tones E-F and B-C are the notes themselves. Paul has explained to me in our private conversation that the logic behind this discrepancy arises from the fact that the fifth must be five lines+spaces away from a notehead (including the notehead) in accordance with the diatonical nomenclature. What better reference for comprehending intonation if not as simple a scale as C Major expressed by consequent natural (unaccented) tones on the staff?

3. You know that octave equivalance is not a big deal when reading regular staff notation. A learned musician knows that the octave is 7 steps away from the tone of reference.

4. Whether we like it or not, the 5-line staff notation is practiced everywhere by tens of thousands of music-makers. Are we supposed to start teaching them music all over again? I do not think they will accept that, and neither would I. Insisting on two or more seperate staff systems to notate pitches does not sound like a good idea either. Maybe I'm more conservative than I wish to be in this case, but that's how it is.

5. I simply loved the 12-ET staff notation, but I think you arrived a millenium too late to present it. Besides, it obviously is not well-suited for diatonical scales. There are undesirable gaps when indicating half-tones located between 3.-4. and 7.-8. degrees.

I vote for the preservation of the 5-line staff notation, seeing as diatonical music is the most commonly practiced genre in the West as well as the Middle-East.

Cordially,
Ozan

hi Ozan,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Dear Monz,
>
> Spectral Notation is yet to be developed from the core
> idea of using colored accidentals in order to notate
> voluminous temperaments based on the extended theory of the
> cycle of perfect fifths that dear George so exquisitely
> elucidated in lenght. What number and which type of accidentals
> ought to be used is an issue that requires resolution.
> I have decided that Tartini-Couper symbols which are used
> in my part of the world might be sufficient in the end.
> If only some feasible method of elaborating them could
> be prepared...

i understand the desire to retain something which carries
the weight of tradition behind it.

but if you're going to retain the 5-line staff with its
traditional diatonic basis, i will always argue in favor
of the HEWM set of accidentals (if the larger Sagittal sets
are not needed), as to me they make the most sense with
regard to their sonic meanings.

> Regarding your unorthodox and challenging suggestions, I have
> the following criticisms:
>
> 1. Despite all of the shortcomings of regular staff notation,
> and no matter how distasteful it might be to microtonalists,
> it has become the universal standard everywhere it seems.
> To suggest that we dispense with the 5-line notation habit
> is tantamount to demanding the abolishment of all the
> Western-oriented orthodox music institutions and starting
> music education from scratch. Not only is this suggestion
> extreme, it is probably also impossible to accomplish.

i'm certainly not advocating that the systems in use be
abolished, but rather only that 12-edo-staff and
quarter-tone-staff be introduced alongisde, as supplements.

while i personally don't see any harm in a drastic change,
at the same time, there's no need to assume that there *must*
be a revolutionary shift in education and practice. all
that is necessary is that the new systems be provided
within a framework where they are easily usable, and where
they *get used*. hopefully enough people will compose
with Musica, and use the new notations that it will provide,
that the new systems will catch on.

release 1.0 of Musica will of course base its staff notation
on the standard 5-line diatonic staff. but my two new-staff
notations will also be introduced, if not in v1.0, then very
shortly afterward.

> 2. The visual indication for the half-tones E-F and B-C are
> the notes themselves. Paul has explained to me in our private
> conversation that the logic behind this discrepancy arises from
> the fact that the fifth must be five lines+spaces away from a
> notehead (including the notehead) in accordance with the
> diatonical nomenclature. What better reference for comprehending
> intonation if not as simple a scale as C Major expressed by
> consequent natural (unaccented) tones on the staff?

i agree that this system worked fine when Guido d'Arezzo
invented it 1000 years ago. but with the advent of tonality
in Western music (c.1500 or so) it should have been scrapped
and a whole new system put in its place. that didn't
happen, and music has continued to develop at a dizzying
pace with which the notation just couldn't keep up ... and
having to ensure that the old diatonic staff would always
be backwards-compatible only made the matter worse.

> 3. You know that octave equivalance is not a big deal when
> reading regular staff notation. A learned musician knows that
> the octave is 7 steps away from the tone of reference.

it's not a big deal to me, only because i've been reading it
for so long that i'm used to it. that does not alter the fact
that it is far more logical to use a staff notation which
visually displays the periodicity of frequency which results
from the acceptance of an interval-of-equivalence. if both
our hearing and our compositional practice say that it's
there, then why use a notation which disguises the fact?

> 4. Whether we like it or not, the 5-line staff notation
> is practiced everywhere by tens of thousands of music-makers.
> Are we supposed to start teaching them music all over again?
> I do not think they will accept that, and neither would I.
> Insisting on two or more seperate staff systems to notate
> pitches does not sound like a good idea either. Maybe I'm
> more conservative than I wish to be in this case, but that's
> how it is.

yes, well, i've already presented my argument for this
under #1 above. and yes, you *are* much more conservative
than i about this matter.

the way i see it, using several different notations simultaneously
can never be a bad thing. it's like having a piece of writing
translated into several different languages -- if you understand
more than one of those languages, then comparing them will
more than likely give you an insight that you would never
get by reading it in just one language.

even if we (Tonalsoft) do not get my alternative new-staff
notations into v1.0 of Musica, there will still already be
at least two different graphical notations -- the 5-line
diatonic-staff notation (whether using regular pythagorean/meantone
or HEWM accidentals), and the pitch-height notation.

the pitch-height notation is a plain time-vs.-pitch graph,
similar to the familiar "piano-roll" notation used in most
other sequencer programs -- but the big difference of course
is that it's not necessarily quantized to 12-edo. (it certainly
*can* be quantized to 12-edo, but only if that's the tuning
being used by the user for that piece.) instead, the vertical
size of the spaces depends on the particular tuning chosen,
and on the equivalence-interval being used (it does not have
to be the 2:1 "octave", but rather, can be any interval desired).
for rational tunings, the spaces are unequally-sized.

so even in the very first release of Musica, the user will
be able to see the piece in both the pitch-height notation
and the diatonic-staff notation, and possibly also in my
new-staff notations if we get them into that release.

and of course, the user will also have windows open which
display various lattice-diagrams, whose lattice-points
highlight in real-time as the music plays, displaying on
the lattice the notes which are sounding.

i have always been a very big believer in redundant coding,
and my software is going to make abundant use of it!

(hmm ... "abundant redundance" ... has a nice ring to it ...)

> 5. I simply loved the 12-ET staff notation,

awesome!

> but I think you arrived a millenium too late to present it.
> Besides, it obviously is not well-suited for diatonical scales.
> There are undesirable gaps when indicating half-tones located
> between 3.-4. and 7.-8. degrees.

i see it the other way around -- the gaps are between all
the other degrees and not those two pairs ... which is
precisely the point. the notation gives a direct visual
analogue of the sound, by reducing all step sizes (from
line-to-space and space-to-line) to the lowest common size,
which in 12-ET is the semitone.

> I vote for the preservation of the 5-line staff notation,
> seeing as diatonical music is the most commonly practiced
> genre in the West as well as the Middle-East.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

as i've said, i certainly do not advocate abolishing the
diatonic 5-line staff ... at least not immediately, anyway.
;-)

but there's no reason not to put a few new tasty items on
the table to complement it -- users will choose to use
what they like and ignore what they don't.

and thus, slowly, the revolution may occur without upsetting
anyone.

-monz

On Monday 20 December 2004 04:00 am, monz wrote:

> > 5. I simply loved the 12-ET staff notation,
>
> awesome!
>
> > but I think you arrived a millenium too late to present it.
> > Besides, it obviously is not well-suited for diatonical scales.
> > There are undesirable gaps when indicating half-tones located
> > between 3.-4. and 7.-8. degrees.
>
> i see it the other way around -- the gaps are between all
> the other degrees and not those two pairs ... which is
> precisely the point. the notation gives a direct visual
> analogue of the sound, by reducing all step sizes (from
> line-to-space and space-to-line) to the lowest common size,
> which in 12-ET is the semitone.
>
> > I vote for the preservation of the 5-line staff notation,
> > seeing as diatonical music is the most commonly practiced
> > genre in the West as well as the Middle-East.
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ozan
>
> as i've said, i certainly do not advocate abolishing the
> diatonic 5-line staff ... at least not immediately, anyway.
> ;-)
>
> but there's no reason not to put a few new tasty items on
> the table to complement it -- users will choose to use
> what they like and ignore what they don't.
>
> and thus, slowly, the revolution may occur without upsetting
> anyone.

I read a very convincing article a couple of years ago in Harper's about how
when something has been around a long time, the probability of it staying
around for the same amount of time from the present to the future are very,
very, high. The reasoning was that we are most often in the middle of
something (like life), very rare is the beginning (or end) of something.

So I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on a bet that 5-line staff notation
will go away soon.

Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has been
proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything slows down,
because we have to start counting the objects, and this is true of staff
lines as it is for anything else. For reading, it's hardly a good idea to
make the musician slow down! Notice that this comes into play with leger
lines, too--a built in flaw in the system (thus, it's always better to use
8va marks).

-Aaron.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

On Monday 20 December 2004 09:19 am, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> I read a very convincing article a couple of years ago in Harper's about
> how when something has been around a long time, the probability of it
> staying around for the same amount of time from the present to the future
> are very, very, high. The reasoning was that we are most often in the
> middle of something (like life), very rare is the beginning (or end) of
> something.

It turns out that it was the New Yorker (12 July 1999), in an article written
by Timothy Ferris, called "How to Predict Everything".

This blurb below indicates that Gott, the subject of the article, is probably
wrong in his reasoning, so Monz, maybe your notation WILL take over!

###############

"Point, Counterpoint and the Duration of Everything"

by James Glanz, The New York Times, 8 February 2000, F5.

In our last issue we considered the article "How to Predict Everything" (The
New Yorker, 12 July 1999, pp. 35-39), which describes how physicist John Gott
proposes to compute prediction intervals for the future duration of any
observed phenomenon. Gott's method hinges on the "Copernican assumption" that
there is nothing special about the particular time of your observation, so
with 95% confidence it occurs in the middle 95% of the lifetime. If the
phenomenon is observed to have started A years ago, Gott infers that A
represents between 1/40 (2.5%) and 39/40 (97.5%) of the total life. He
therefore predicts that the remaining life will extend between A/39 and 39A
years into the future. (Given Gott's assumptions, this is simple algebra: if
A = (1/40)L where L is the total life, then the future life is L - A = 39A.)
Gott has used the method to predict everything from the run of Broadway plays
to the survival of the human species!

But can such broad applicability really be justified? Not according to Dr.
Carlton Caves, a physicist at the University of New Mexico (and a New Yorker
reader!) who has put together a systematic critique of Gott's work. His
article, "Predicting Future Duration from Present Age: A Critical
Assessment," will be published in Contemporary Physics.

Caves' ideas are based on Bayesian analysis. He says that Gott errs by
ignoring prior information about the lifetimes of the phenomena in question.
For example, Gott claims to have invented his method while standing at the
Berlin Wall in 1969, eight years after it was erected. With 50% confidence he
inferred that those eight years represented between 1/4 and 3/4 of its total
life, so he predicted that the Wall would last between 2 2/3 years and 24
years into the future. (For the record, twenty years later, the Wall did come
down.) But what sense does it make, asks Caves, to ignore historical and
political conditions when making such a prediction? Surely, such prior
knowledge is relevant, and Bayesian ideas provide a framework for
incorporating it. In Caves' view, failing to do so in favor of some
"universal rule" is unscientific.

To illustrate the matter more simply, Caves imagines discovering a party in
progress, where we learn that the guest of honor is celebrating her 50th
birthday. Gott's theory predicts that, with 95% certainty, she will live
between 1.28 and 1950 additional years, a range which Caves dismisses as too
wide to be useful. Even worse, he points out, would be to predict that with
33% confidence she is in the first third of her lifetime and thus has a 33%
chance to live past the age of 150! As a challenge to Gott, Caves has
produced a notarized list of 24 dogs owned by people associated with his
department. He identified the half dozen who are older than 10 years -- prior
information that Gott would presumably ignore. Gott's method would presumably
predict that each had a 50% chance of living to twice its current age. Caves
is willing to bet Gott $1000 on each dog, offering 2-to-1 odds that it won't
live that long. Caves cites Gott's refusal to bet as evidence that he doesn't
believe his own rule.

For more technical details, you can read Caves' paper online at

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0001414

and Gott's rebuttal at

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/4/2/6/1/news-04-02-06a

As for the dogs, Gott thinks his analysis would apply to the whole sample, not
to each dog individually hand-picked by Caves. Trying to sort out all of this
is an interesting discussion exercise involving the notions of sampling,
confidence levels, and prediction.

################
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

>Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has
>been proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything slows
>down, because we have to start counting the objects, and this is true of
>staff lines as it is for anything else.

These results are for a generalized stimulus, and don't consider training.
One probably wouldn't need to count staff lines. There are 7 notes in a
scale, but we don't count them when reading.

>Notice that this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in flaw
>in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).

It is? I should think an A above the treble clef should not be
notated down. And a high C is easy. And in fact with some practice
ledger lines are no problem. Marking down with 8va can cause
collisions with other notes and distortion of the melodic shape.

-Carl

On Monday 20 December 2004 11:36 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has
> >been proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything slows
> >down, because we have to start counting the objects, and this is true of
> >staff lines as it is for anything else.
>
> These results are for a generalized stimulus, and don't consider training.
> One probably wouldn't need to count staff lines. There are 7 notes in a
> scale, but we don't count them when reading.

This is true, but my point was more about having to find which note one was to
play in the middle of 12 lines, not the number of notes in a scale, which
doesn't matter when reading.

> >Notice that this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in flaw
> >in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).
>
> It is? I should think an A above the treble clef should not be
> notated down. And a high C is easy. And in fact with some practice
> ledger lines are no problem. Marking down with 8va can cause
> collisions with other notes and distortion of the melodic shape.

I wasn't really talking so much about high A or C above the treble clef, but
more about those notes one is likely to have to write down in the score as
"reminders" (e.g. 'B' five legers up) Of course, one gets used to this type
of reading, but it's undeniable for any music teachers (and I have years of
experience here) that more errors crop up with leger lines for students than
anywhere else with reading.

Like anything else, though, one should focus on practicing out these
difficulties, but I still say adding difficulties to a system needlessly is a
poor idea. The tradeoff for having more staff lines in terms of consistency
would be far outweighed by the speed-reading costs, and the costs in time and
money to re-educate.

-A.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

I agree with Carl that the ledger lines are not a big problem. The 5-line habit has strong arguments in favor of it.

Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Aralık 2004 Pazartesi 19:36
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: new-staff notations in Tonalsoft Musica

>Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has
>been proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything slows
>down, because we have to start counting the objects, and this is true of
>staff lines as it is for anything else.

These results are for a generalized stimulus, and don't consider training.
One probably wouldn't need to count staff lines. There are 7 notes in a
scale, but we don't count them when reading.

>Notice that this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in flaw
>in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).

It is? I should think an A above the treble clef should not be
notated down. And a high C is easy. And in fact with some practice
ledger lines are no problem. Marking down with 8va can cause
collisions with other notes and distortion of the melodic shape.

-Carl

>> >Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has
>> >been proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything slows
>> >down, because we have to start counting the objects, and this is true of
>> >staff lines as it is for anything else.
>>
>> These results are for a generalized stimulus, and don't consider training.
>> One probably wouldn't need to count staff lines. There are 7 notes in a
>> scale, but we don't count them when reading.
>
>This is true, but my point was more about having to find which note one
>was to play in the middle of 12 lines, not the number of notes in a scale,
>which doesn't matter when reading.

Neither does the number of staff lines. There are 88 keys on a piano,
but you manage to find your way around.

>Like anything else, though, one should focus on practicing out these
>difficulties, but I still say adding difficulties to a system needlessly
>is a poor idea. The tradeoff for having more staff lines in terms of
>consistency would be far outweighed by the speed-reading costs, and the
>costs in time and money to re-educate.

Re-education aside (we're talking about microtonal music, here) I don't
think it's clear that more staff lines adds any kind of difficulty.

-Carl

On Monday 20 December 2004 11:44 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> I agree with Carl that the ledger lines are not a big problem. The 5-line
> habit has strong arguments in favor of it.

As do I--read below carefully. I think you will find that we all agree.
As I said elsewhere, I should have qualified my remark about ledger lines.
They really aren't a problem at all, considering the problems that would come
from extra lines. My comments were more about the parsing of more than 5
objects of any sort (lines, leger lines, balls, stones, sticks, whatever)

-Aaron.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 20 Aral�k 2004 Pazartesi 19:36
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: new-staff notations in Tonalsoft Musica
>
> >Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched upon here: it has
> >been proven that our reaction time to seeing more than 5 of anything
> > slows down, because we have to start counting the objects, and this is
> > true of staff lines as it is for anything else.
>
> These results are for a generalized stimulus, and don't consider
> training. One probably wouldn't need to count staff lines. There are 7
> notes in a scale, but we don't count them when reading.
>
> >Notice that this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in flaw
> >in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).
>
> It is? I should think an A above the treble clef should not be
> notated down. And a high C is easy. And in fact with some practice
> ledger lines are no problem. Marking down with 8va can cause
> collisions with other notes and distortion of the melodic shape.
>
> -Carl

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

I don't know about others, but I take pride in the fact that I am able to juggle several musical and non-musical operations at the same time in `stereo-mode`. *wink*

Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron K. Johnson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Aralık 2004 Pazartesi 21:10
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: new-staff notations in Tonalsoft Musica

On Monday 20 December 2004 11:44 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> I agree with Carl that the ledger lines are not a big problem. The 5-line
> habit has strong arguments in favor of it.

As do I--read below carefully. I think you will find that we all agree.
As I said elsewhere, I should have qualified my remark about ledger lines.
They really aren't a problem at all, considering the problems that would come
from extra lines. My comments were more about the parsing of more than 5
objects of any sort (lines, leger lines, balls, stones, sticks, whatever)

-Aaron.

hi Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched
> upon here: it has been proven that our reaction time to
> seeing more than 5 of anything slows down, because we have
> to start counting the objects, and this is true of staff
> lines as it is for anything else. For reading, it's hardly
> a good idea to make the musician slow down! Notice that
> this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in
> flaw in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).

ah, yes, this is the Miller Limit cropping up again.

it was fortuitous that i was able to design the 12-edo-staff
notation with 5 lines.

also, this is the main reason why i use two different
"weights" of lines in the quarter-tone-staff notation:
i knew that 11 lines of all the same weight would be
too hard to read. making some of them heavier (thicker
and darker) greatly aids the eyes in being able to
decipher the notation.

(unfortunately, this feature did not come out so clearly
on my quarter-tone-staff webpage ... when i get time i'll
have to redo the graphics for that page to make what i'm
saying more obvious. the handwritten original of my
transcription of the Haba quartet, which i scanned for
the graphic, looks just fine and is very easy to read.)

-monz

hi Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> This blurb below indicates that Gott, the subject of the
> article, is probably wrong in his reasoning, so Monz, maybe
> your notation WILL take over!
>
> ###############
>
> "Point, Counterpoint and the Duration of Everything"
>
>
> by James Glanz, The New York Times, 8 February 2000, F5.
>
>
> <snip>

well, quite simply, the notation which gets used the most
is the one which will survive. it's like that with all
ideas which are actually put into practice -- if it works,
it stays around.

that's exactly why Guido's diatonic staff notation
survived ... don't you think there were lots of other
attempts to record music in some form of notation, before
he came along? his method worked the best for the music
of his time, and it was good enough that it kept on working
for another 1000 years. but my feeling is that music
really is on the threshhold of a whole new existence now.

-monz

>> Another argument for 5-line staves hasn't been touched
>> upon here: it has been proven that our reaction time to
>> seeing more than 5 of anything slows down, because we have
>> to start counting the objects, and this is true of staff
>> lines as it is for anything else. For reading, it's hardly
>> a good idea to make the musician slow down! Notice that
>> this comes into play with leger lines, too--a built in
>> flaw in the system (thus, it's always better to use 8va marks).
>
>ah, yes, this is the Miller Limit cropping up again.

It's not completely clear, but I believe Aaron is referring
to the so-called "subitizing limit".

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> [Aaron wrote:]
>
> > <snip> ... my point was more about having to find
> > which note one was to play in the middle of 12 lines,
> > not the number of notes in a scale, which doesn't matter
> > when reading.
>
> Neither does the number of staff lines. There are 88 keys
> on a piano, but you manage to find your way around.

AHA! exactly my point about the design of my quarter-tone-staff
notation!

the reason why it's easy to navigate the piano keyboard,
is because of those nice little black keys, which form the
periodic 2+3 pattern.

try covering up the black keys, and see if you can play
a C-major scale. not so easy then, is it?

the white keys are spread out in perfect linear order across
the whole keyboard, and without the broken 2+3 pattern of
the black keys, they all look (AND FEEL) exactly the same.

so i used exactly the same pattern on my quarter-tone-staff
notation, using heavy lines for the 12-edo notes which go
on the black keys, and light lines for 6 of the 12-edo notes
which go on the white keys -- the exception is "C", which
has only a ledger line, so that staves can be stacked and
visually show the "octave" equivalence.

then the spaces are for the other 12 notes which complete
24-edo.

and as i wrote yesterday, the real benefit i see to using
the quarter-tone-staff notation, for the future, is that with
the use of just two mirror accidental symbols, it is very
easy to notate 72-edo, which is a damn good tuning.

-monz

Hi there,

One thing I've found useful to help make it easier to read
a staff with more than 5 lines is to have
a ledger line type space every four or five lines
or so - like the space between the two staffs in the
ordinary 5 line notation.

Or alternatively, a dotted line.

I think that when you have many closely
ruled lines then the eye can get rather
more easily confused if there are no
landmarks, so leaving a gap gives a
landmark and doesn't impair legibility
as the notes are just spaced as before
and it is easy to see if a note is midway
between two lines or slightly above or
below the midpoint.

One could do the same with ledger
lines in fact - if there are
say more than three ledger ilnes,
then leave out the first ledger line:

_o_
___
___

______
______
______
______
______

or

_o_
___
___

___
___
___
___
___

______
______
______
______
______

etc.

Maybe that would reduce the number of
sight reading errors for players who
have to read scores with lots of ledger
lines.

(perhaps I'll add this as an option to FTS :-) ).

Robert