: Re: Gene's Bonehead 31-et notation

Hello Gene!
If someone was just going to write common practice music possibly notating your way would be fine.
First though there is already a body of 31 tone music in which the composers don't seem to be interested in strictly diatonic music.
I don't think of the Fokker school either as being a group of radicals, and people not steeped in a common practice background. same with those at webster college in
St. Louis.
On the other hand if one wants to say use one of Ptolemy's chromatics. ( i happen to like this inversion )
C D# E+F G A# B+C or like the original
D# E+ F G# A# B+ D#.
these are extremely beautiful scales that i am sure no common practice harmonist would not be happy to have acess to.

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:55:22 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>Subject: Re: Gene's Bonehead 31-et notation
>
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> >
>>> As i pointed out in my other post this notation has worked fine for >>> those who knew little about theory. >> >>
>
>I'm writing that page for people who may know a *lot* about theory,
>meaning the theory of the common practice music of the Western
>tradition. People who start from the diatonic scale and work up from
>there.
>
> >
>>> Nothing is more confusing to me is when you have letter names crossing >>> if we are going to talk about the layman, to have c higher than Ds >>> especially in a meantone system just makes it hard to find where your >>> notes are.
>> >>
>
>They don't need to find where the notes are, since this has nothing to
>do with keybaords. >
> >
>>> Here we are back invented the wheel
>> >>
>
>This wheel has already been invented. It is the old wheel people who
>are not microtonalists are already rolling around on. It strikes me as
>absurd to tell someone interested in using 31-equal to write
>common-practice style music that they now must use some new, goofball
>wheel which will not make any sense to them. Why not simply make use
>of the standard notation which has been around for hundreds of years,
>and *which they already know*?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello Gene!
> If someone was just going to write common practice music possibly
> notating your way would be fine.

Well, that's the deal. There seem to be a lot of people online who
write very conservative common practice music, and some of them are
quite good at it. There's no reason they must be writing their midi
files in 12-equal, and in fact 31 will fit a lot of it much better
when it comes to style.