View this page "Types of notation"
carl
http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
-Carl
Daniel Wolf
Johnston-style notation, in which the group of naturals is a just diatonic
scale on C and Carillo-style numerical notation.
djw
carl
I can put on the page?
-Carl
Daniel Wolf
naturals to a pythagorean set, so that like intervals are notated
consistantly: all 3:2s will be fifths in which both tones are inflected
identically (c g, d a, e- b-, f+ c+ etc), 5:4s are major thirds reduced by
a comma etc. (c e-, eb+ g). With Johnston's, in which the naturals are
c=1/1, d=9/8, e=5/4, f=4/3, g=3/2, a=5/3, b=15/8, the notation of interval
classes varies with and within each key. Thus c g and d a+ are both 3:2
fifths and c e and bb d- are both 5:4 major thirds. My preference is
probably obvious, but it should be possible to accomodate both notations.
djw
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
carl
I'll try to google it.
-Carl
Aaron Johnson
HEWM is way better at being clean and consistent.
carl
> Love Twining's music, love Johnston's music, but man, does Johnston notation
> suck.
>
> HEWM is way better at being clean and consistent.
But I'm gonna add this to my page for completeness:
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/j/johnston.aspx
-Carl
Mike Battaglia
notation is like this, that's the one I prefer:
+/- = syntonic comma inflection
7/L = septimal comma inflection
^/v = undecimal diesis inflection
b/# = pythagorean chromatic semitone inflection
The chain of fifths is like C/G/D/A/E/B, not C/G/D/A/E+/B+
Although for the undecimal diesis, I sometimes prefer to use half
flat/half sharp symbols rather than ^/v, but they both work at
different times. That might be a mixture of HEWM and Sims-Maneri.
As I was sayin a while ago though, it's great to be able to write
chords like C E- G Bb7, but that 7 glyph is completely intellectual
and serves no intuitive or synesthetic function. Certainly is less of
a useful moniker than thinking of a note as being "sharpened" or
"flattened", or there being a "soft B" and a "hard B" from back in the
day, or even "raising" or "lowering" something in pitch. Synesthetic
naming conventions are the way to go.
I always thought of changing a note from a normal to a septimal
interval as "deepening" the sound, which is what it feels like to me
when you go from C E- G Bb(16/9) to C E- G Bb(7/4). Sounds like it's
getting "deeper" somehow.
-Mike
carl
of HEWM, and the below looks like it would qualify. There are
people whe know what Maneri-Sims notation is, but I'm not one
of them (and there doesn't seem to be a Tonalsoft entry for it).
I thought it was only for 72-ET.
There's also Tartini-Couper, and Bosanquet notations, which
I don't currently have on the notations page. Unfortunately,
this isn't a wiki, and it looks like only Page creators can
edit pages.
-Carl
Mike Battaglia
>
> According to the Tonalsoft page, there are several versions
> of HEWM, and the below looks like it would qualify. There are
> people whe know what Maneri-Sims notation is, but I'm not one
> of them (and there doesn't seem to be a Tonalsoft entry for it).
> I thought it was only for 72-ET.
It's only for 72-ET in the sense that HEWM is for 72-ET. They can be
used in JI as well. In a sense, the idea is the same one that Sagittal
is built off of: the accidentals are small JI inflections which can
then be tempered in any given scale.
From what I can find, Maneri-Sims notation is an odd sort of notation
which looks a little bit like Sagittal, actually. I think HEWM is the
notation I was actually talking about. My preferred notation is a
mixture of HEWM and Tartini-Couper... I sometimes like the
Tartini-Couper half flats and sharps instead of the ^ and v symbols.
> There's also Tartini-Couper, and Bosanquet notations, which
> I don't currently have on the notations page. Unfortunately,
> this isn't a wiki, and it looks like only Page creators can
> edit pages.
I have to look into Bosanquet notation... Not sure what it is.
-Mike
Daniel Wolf
wrote:
> What is the difference between HEWM and Sims-Maneri again? Whichever
> notation is like this, that's the one I prefer:
>
> +/- = syntonic comma inflection
> 7/L = septimal comma inflection
> ^/v = undecimal diesis inflection
> b/# = pythagorean chromatic semitone inflection
>
> The chain of fifths is like C/G/D/A/E/B, not C/G/D/A/E+/B+
This is HEWM
>
> Although for the undecimal diesis, I sometimes prefer to use half
> flat/half sharp symbols rather than ^/v, but they both work at
> different times. That might be a mixture of HEWM and Sims-Maneri.
I have, too.
>
> As I was sayin a while ago though, it's great to be able to write
> chords like C E- G Bb7, but that 7 glyph is completely intellectual
> and serves no intuitive or synesthetic function. Certainly is less of
> a useful moniker than thinking of a note as being "sharpened" or
> "flattened", or there being a "soft B" and a "hard B" from back in the
> day, or even "raising" or "lowering" something in pitch. Synesthetic
> naming conventions are the way to go.
>
But there is not much evidence that we share the same synaesthesia. Just
consider all of the contradictory mappings of 12 tones onto colors.
In any case, our interest in this project is not choosing one particular
notation over another, no matter how much we agree that HEWM functions
well enough and Johnston less so, but in identifying the principles of the
broadest array of notation systems and creating functions that allow for
all of them. In this case, it is a matter of (a) allowing a choice of
fonts for accidents and, preferably, making the selection of fonts as
convenient to the user as possible, and either (b), for HEWM and similar
consistant systems, specifying the frequency and/or pitchbend value of
each uninflected note and each inflection or (c), for Johnston and other
inconsistant systems, specifying the frequency and/or pitchbend value of
each combination of a note and an inflection.
Daniel Wolf
Mike Battaglia
> consider all of the contradictory mappings of 12 tones onto colors.
I doubt we do. But either way, when I hear about notes being
"sharpened" or "flattened", I don't imagine actual sharpening or
flattening... But the name is a fairly good rough grab at the quality
of expanding or contracting the size of an interval. So is the "soft"
and "hard" B interval naming convention. And as for raising and
lowering things in pitch, I do see them that way, but a lot of vocal
teachers work very hard to get their students to overcome this
association, as it leads to them raising their heads up to hit higher
notes, which is bad.
Either way, there is an art to picking these synesthetic terms... I
hear 7-limit intervals as having a "mystical" quality to them
sometimes, but I'm not going to call them the "mystical" intervals,
because that's TOO synesthetic - it forces a certain association when
it might not be necessary. But I do hear 7-limit intervals as having a
"deeper" sound than 5-limit ones sometimes... The movement from C E- G
Bb (16/9) to C E- G Bb (7/4) sounds like it is, in one sense, getting
"deeper."
I don't know if "deeper" is the term we're going to use, but you get
the idea... Some general-purpose synesthetic term that isn't too
colorful but just colorful enough will come by and catch on.
> In any case, our interest in this project is not choosing one particular
> notation over another, no matter how much we agree that HEWM functions
> well enough and Johnston less so, but in identifying the principles of the
> broadest array of notation systems and creating functions that allow for
> all of them. In this case, it is a matter of (a) allowing a choice of
> fonts for accidents and, preferably, making the selection of fonts as
> convenient to the user as possible, and either (b), for HEWM and similar
> consistant systems, specifying the frequency and/or pitchbend value of
> each uninflected note and each inflection or (c), for Johnston and other
> inconsistant systems, specifying the frequency and/or pitchbend value of
> each combination of a note and an inflection.
For this project, indeed. We did get into a discussion of general
purpose notation systems themselves, and these are just my
observations from looking at different aspects of the western one over
the past few hundred years.
I'd be happy if a new notation system came out of all of this,
personally. Sagittal is great, but I find the glyph set a bit hard to
adjust to. Ease of adaptation will undoubtedly be a major factor when
this stuff gets popularized. There is a certain art to building off of
people's current schemas for music notation and finding out how to
expand on them easily... Or, in other words, the HEWM +/- glyph is
genius.
-Mike
Daniel Wolf
wrote:
>> But there is not much evidence that we share the same synaesthesia. Just
>> consider all of the contradictory mappings of 12 tones onto colors.
>
> I doubt we do. But either way, when I hear about notes being
> "sharpened" or "flattened", I don't imagine actual sharpening or
> flattening... But the name is a fairly good rough grab at the quality
> of expanding or contracting the size of an interval. So is the "soft"
> and "hard" B interval naming convention.
The soft and hard b is a perfect illustration of my point. For years, as
a teaching assistant, I had to grade music history exams and half the
students inevitably got hard and soft backwards. I suspect that the
Greek/Hellenistic "soft" tetrachords had the same problem... On the basis
of the last half century of notational experiments, I think that going
with an up/down metaphor is probably enough synaesthesia for music
notation without adding additional names, colors, and shapes (which we may
want to reserve for Cowell-style rhythmic noteheads anyways).
djw
Mike Battaglia
> a teaching assistant, I had to grade music history exams and half the
> students inevitably got hard and soft backwards.
What was the question? Was it because they didn't know the information
or understand what the question was asking, or because they actually
heard a B natural as being "hard" and a B flat as being "soft"?
Daniel Wolf
wrote:
>> The soft and hard b is a perfect illustration of my point. For years,
>> as
>> a teaching assistant, I had to grade music history exams and half the
>> students inevitably got hard and soft backwards.
>
> What was the question? Was it because they didn't know the information
> or understand what the question was asking, or because they actually
> heard a B natural as being "hard" and a B flat as being "soft"?
>
The latter. The hard/soft metaphor, presumably originating with tightening
or loosening a string, is at best ambiguous outside of that context, and
at worst, meaningless. Many thought that lower pitches were harder and
higher pitches softer.
While one may want to include the capacity to add notational elements of a
synaesthetic character as an option, I think it's wisest to have nothing
of the sort as a default setting. The spatial metaphors of high and low
are already enough!
djw
Graham Breed
> The latter. The hard/soft metaphor, presumably originating with tightening
> or loosening a string, is at best ambiguous outside of that context, and
> at worst, meaningless. Many thought that lower pitches were harder and
> higher pitches softer.
Thank you! The word is "metaphor". Mike, please stop
saying "synaesthesia" when you mean "metaphor".
Graham
Graham Breed
numbers above to show deviations from 12-equal.
Mike Battaglia wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:27 AM, carl <clu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> According to the Tonalsoft page, there are several versions
>> of HEWM, and the below looks like it would qualify. There are
>> people whe know what Maneri-Sims notation is, but I'm not one
>> of them (and there doesn't seem to be a Tonalsoft entry for it).
>> I thought it was only for 72-ET.
>
> It's only for 72-ET in the sense that HEWM is for 72-ET. They can be
> used in JI as well. In a sense, the idea is the same one that Sagittal
> is built off of: the accidentals are small JI inflections which can
> then be tempered in any given scale.
Sims-Maneri is so for 72-ET! You can use those symbols
anywhere you like but the result isn't Sims-Maneri. Each
symbol is a different division of the tone.
>>From what I can find, Maneri-Sims notation is an odd sort of notation
> which looks a little bit like Sagittal, actually. I think HEWM is the
> notation I was actually talking about. My preferred notation is a
> mixture of HEWM and Tartini-Couper... I sometimes like the
> Tartini-Couper half flats and sharps instead of the ^ and v symbols.
Sagittal is partly inspired by Sims-Maneri. Try searching
Sagittal.pdf for "Sims".
Which glyphs you like isn't really an issue for a score
editor. More important is what pitch structure they
represent. JI notations tend to require more than one
accidental glyph to apply to a single note. That's harder
to implement. Sims-Maneri is a pretty good target for
version 0.1 because it's simple and people do use it.
Graham
Daniel Wolf
> How about AFMM notation? Quartertone accidentals and
> numbers above to show deviations from 12-equal.
>
I've never quite understood the combination of quartertones with
semitone-based cent deviations. Are the cents deviations from the nearest
quartertone or the nearest semitone? Can someone make the case for this?
djw
Graham Breed
I believe the cents deviations are from the nearest
semitone, so the quarter-tone accidentals are redundant.
The performers already knew the quarter-tones and wanted to
see them.
Graham
carl
> The soft and hard b is a perfect illustration of my point. For years, as
> a teaching assistant, I had to grade music history exams and half the
> students inevitably got hard and soft backwards. I suspect that the
> Greek/Hellenistic "soft" tetrachords had the same problem... On the basis
> of the last half century of notational experiments, I think that going
> with an up/down metaphor is probably enough synaesthesia for music
> notation without adding additional names, colors, and shapes (which we may
> want to reserve for Cowell-style rhythmic noteheads anyways).
I want to make notehead shape a bit of bandwidth that the user can
do whatever he wants with. Cowell notation is included by means of
a factory-included notation description file. The same thing goes
for all the notations on the Types of Notations page. These aren't
notations we want to support. They're *examples* of notations we
would like to be able to support.
-Carl
carl
> Note: I don't want to *reserve* notehead shape for Cowell notation.
> I want to make notehead shape a bit of bandwidth that the user can
> do whatever he wants with. Cowell notation is included by means of
> a factory-included notation description file. The same thing goes
> for all the notations on the Types of Notations page. These aren't
> notations we want to support. They're *examples* of notations we
> would like to be able to support.
pitch information.
-Carl
Daniel Wolf
them. In music fonts, the stem, beams, and noteheads are separate
characters, and all the good programs allows one to change each single
notehead to whatever character you'd like (it's useful in a lot of
contexts: for example for early music notation, shape note singing, or
percussion), as well as to hide stems.
djw
Mike Battaglia
The point is that it's a particularly synaesthetic metaphor.
-Mike
carl
> The Cowell noteheads are really a non-issue, unless you'd like to automate
> them. In music fonts, the stem, beams, and noteheads are separate
> characters, and all the good programs allows one to change each single
> notehead to whatever character you'd like (it's useful in a lot of
> contexts: for example for early music notation, shape note singing, or
> percussion), as well as to hide stems.
>
> djw
to play the polyrhythms associated with the noteheads, let alone
specify
arbitrary meanings for the noteheads.
-Carl
carl
Dave Keenan
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
carl
I don't think the other google account I used was a member of the
list. Duh!
-Carl
Dave Keenan
about sagittal, addressed the relationships between Tartini-Couper,
HEWM, Sims-Maneri and Sagittal, and addressed other topics in this
thread, in the MakeMicroMusic list at
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MakeMicroMusic/message/19436
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MakeMicroMusic/message/19437
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MakeMicroMusic/message/19438
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MakeMicroMusic/message/19439
Sagittal was also partly inspired by Bosanquet notation as you can
read in
http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/sagittal/Sagittal.pdf
-- Dave Keenan
George Secor
writing the part of the Sagittal.pdf paper dealing with other existing
notations, and I forwarded those paragraphs pertaining to the AFMM
notation to him for his review and approval. Johnny explained to me
that the cents deviations are from the nearest *quartertone*. I hope
that the explanation in the Sagittal paper is sufficient to make that
clear.
--George
George Secor
On Jul 9, 7:53 am, Graham Breed <gbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sagittal is partly inspired by Sims-Maneri. Try searching
> Sagittal.pdf for "Sims".
>
> Graham
Hi Graham,
To set the record straight, I need to point out that the Sims notation
actually has had much more of a negative than positive influence on
the development of Sagittal, for the following reasons:
1) I came up with the original Sagittal symbols for 72-ET, /|, |\,
and /|\ (and multi-shaft versions), before I ever saw or even heard of
the Sims notation. Thus, the Sagittal /| (5-comma) was not inspired
by the Sims 2deg72 symbol, but rather from the addition of an arrow
shaft to the right of the Bosanquet 5-comma slashes, / and \, as the
Sagittal paper states.
2) Sims was basically intended for 72-ET (although its symbols can be
used to notate simpler divisions), whereas Sagittal was intended to be
a multi-tuning notation from the very start.
3) Ezra Sims devised his microtonal accidentals from scratch, in
almost complete disregard of what came before, whereas Sagittal was
designed to incorporate the best features of previous notations.
4) The only positive influence the Sims notation had on Sagittal is
the concern (Sagittal paper, p. 20) about "reading instrumental parts
under less than optimal conditions (such as poor lighting and the
greater reading distance required when two players share a music
stand)", which led to the recommendation regarding "the use of
slightly larger staves than usual ...".
--George
carl
On Jul 18, 12:16 am, Dave Keenan <d.keen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, I addressed some possible misconceptions
> about sagittal, addressed the relationships between Tartini-Couper,
> HEWM, Sims-Maneri and Sagittal, and addressed other topics in this
Dave Keenan
Please note that I wrote "possible" misconceptions. It seemed that
Aaron Johnson and Mike Battaglia may not have been aware of the
options for using sagittal single-shaft symbols with conventional
sharps and flats, Tartini-Couper (TC) semi and sesqui symbols and
Wilson-plus/minus symbols (all provided in a consistent style in the
Sagittal font). It also seemed like they may have thought notating 17-
EDO or 72-EDO in sagittal (without using TC or Wilson) necessarily
used more symbols, or more-complex looking symbols than notating them
in TC or HEWM.
-- Dave Keenan
On Jul 19, 6:12 am, carl <clu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What misconceptions were those? -Carl
>
> On Jul 18, 12:16 am, Dave Keenan <d.keen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In case anyone missed it, I addressed some possible misconceptions
> > about sagittal, addressed the relationships between Tartini-Couper,
> > HEWM, Sims-Maneri and Sagittal, and addressed other topics in this
Graham Breed
MicroABC.
http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
Graham
Torsten Anders
notation is read. What is this number replacing the clef, what do
your nominals mean (I assume not the standard diatonic meaning), and
what this arrow accidental.
Best
Torsten
--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de
Graham Breed
>
> Thanks, but your could please provide some explanation how this
> notation is read. What is this number replacing the clef, what do
> your nominals mean (I assume not the standard diatonic meaning), and
> what this arrow accidental.
The old explanation's at http://x31eq.com/decimal_notation.htm and now
I can typeset it I'm that bit closer to a proper write-up in PDF.
Note that the ending of this piece makes no sense, which may mean that
what I originally recorded makes no sense, so I'm revising it. But it
does fine as a demo of the notation.
And -- well, why not? -- here's a rough and ready preview of
Tartini/Couper notation for 31-equal:
http://x31eq.com/music/wisofl_31.pdf
Graham
Dave Keenan
you should at least say "generalised diatonic". But that doesn't seem
specific enough. There are several different ways in which diatonicity
might be generalised. Sorry I don't have a snappy suggestion yet. I'm
not even sure what the essential distinction is between this and
oither types of notation.
-- Dave Keenan
Torsten Anders
http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation to
the explanation. Also, I did not find any explanation of your "number-
clefs".
Best
Torsten
Graham Breed
>
> Thanks. It may be a good idea to add a link next to your example at
> http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation to
> the explanation. Also, I did not find any explanation of your "number-
> clefs".
Currently decimal notation doesn't have its own section and I don't
want to turn the page into a promotion of my own notations. So I just
stuck the example in the relevant section.
The numbers are the integer part of the base 2 logarithm of the
frequency in hertz minus 4. So clef 4 is the lower treble clef. Clef
n starts at 4*2**n Hz. And I did explain that:
http://x31eq.com/decimal_notation.htm#absolute
Graham
carl
to be a list of *types* of notations (there are 4 so far) with
a few examples of each type, not catalog of every known notation
system. Graham- your site is down again. Could you upload your
Tripod example score to the files section and then update the
link? And generally link out only to html content. Thanks.
-Carl
carl
Marcel de Velde
Ratios could be based on for instance the key of the piece as root. Or rooted in other ways as desired and possible root changes (to avoid large ratios for instance) indicated.
We talked about this shortly on the tuning list a while ago and I like this way a lot. In my opinion by far the best way to go for JI.
I'm currently using photoshop from a pdf score and putting ratios above each note, looks great.
Marcel
Daniel Wolf
In Finale, you can do this as note-attached expressions, anchored
graphically however you like to each notehead, with or without playback as
a pitchbend. (If you wish pitchbends, this is a bit of a management issue
in the expression tables, as one will need separate expressions for each
different pitchbend value of a given ratio.)
In Harmony Assistant, a function like this, complete with pitch bend, is
already in one of the "rules" that comes with the program.
Daniel Wolf
> I'm currently using photoshop from a pdf score and putting ratios above
> each
> note, looks great.
>
> Marcel
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Marcel de Velde
In Finale, you can do this as note-attached expressions, anchored graphically however you like to each notehead, with or without playback as a pitchbend. (If you wish pitchbends, this is a bit of a management issue in the expression tables, as one will need separate expressions for each different pitchbend value of a given ratio.)
In Harmony Assistant, a function like this, complete with pitch bend, is already in one of the "rules" that comes with the program.
Daniel Wolf
Never expected this from a big commercial program like Finale.
I'm becoming a user today :)
Thanks!
Marcel
carl
It is listed under "Adaptive JI". -Carl
Marcel de Velde
It is listed under "Adaptive JI". -Carl
Read adaptive and then didn't read any further lol
Thanks.
Marcel
Torsten Anders
> http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
I suggest to the Linear Notations you add Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI
Pitch Notation.
see http://music.calarts.edu/~msabat/ms/pdfs/notation.pdf
and other pages at http://www.plainsound.org/.
Best,
Torsten
Torsten Anders
as a long chain of fifths, which can then be associated your
accidentals of choice. More specifically, you can set the Total Steps
(per octave) to any integer up to 100.
Best
Torsten
Graham Breed
It's a wiki. You don't suggest changes, you change it, and see if
Carl changes it back. In this case, it's a variant of HEWM. I see a
plainsound link under HEWM.
Graham
Daniel Wolf
Finale 3.7 (ca 1995). Playback with the non-standard key signature,
however, depends upon an external synth with full-keyboard tuning or a
midi relay set-up. Microtonal playback within Finale, using it as a
stand-alone sequencer, is restricted to individual note-attached pitch
bends.
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:56:57 +0100, Torsten Anders <torste...@gmx.de>
wrote:
carl
That falls under HEWM. See the link to plainsound provided.
-Carl
carl
helpful!
-Carl
Torsten Anders
> That falls under HEWM. See the link to plainsound provided.
I fully agree that these notations are based on the same fundamental
idea from Helmholtz, but so is Sagittal Notation. I do not agree that
HEWM and Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation should be both
listed under the name HEWM.
The Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation (much too long name :)
is something in the middle between the minimalistic HEWM notation and
Sagittal notation. HEWM introduces accidentals for prime factors up to
11. The Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation goes far beyond
that (and also introduces convenient accidentals for multiple commas).
Besides, the acronym HEWM stands for Helmholtz / Ellis / Wolf / Monzo,
but the names Wolf and Monzo have little to do with the other
notation. Compared with Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation,
Sagittal notation basically adds extra accidentals for commas
resulting from certain prime factor combinations (e.g., 7:5 kleisma)
and for comma fractions (e.g., 1/4 syntonic comma).
On a related note, http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
says that Sagittal is "permitting a wider range of fifth sizes".
What is that claim based on? I have used Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI
Pitch Notation happily, e.g., for 31-TET (narrow fifths) and 22-TET
(wide fifths). For example, if you allow for accidental combinations
to express something like the 7:5 kleisma, then the Extended Helmholtz
Ellis JI Pitch Notation should be able to notate all equal
temperaments that Sagittal can notate.
Did I miss anything here?
Thank you!
Best,
Torsten
Torsten Anders
privately.
Best
Torsten
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "Making Microtonal Tools" Google group.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> microtools-...@googlegroups.com
>
> For more options, visit this group's web site at
> http://groups.google.com/group/microtools
Daniel Wolf
the "W" in HEWM belongs as much to Erv Wilson, whom I credited in a letter
(published, badly excerpted, in Interval) to Jonathan Glasier in '79. In
the version of the notation I published in 1/1 about ten years later, I
gave a set of provisional symbols based on ASCII characters through prime
23, so it was never intended to be limited to 11. That said, I have
never successfully used symbols from this set beyond prime 13 with real
players, preferring to use a combination of cents and ratios beyond that
point.
Daniel Wolf
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:51:08 +0100, Torsten Anders <torste...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> On 05.03.2010, at 03:34, carl wrote:
Torsten Anders
The information provided at http://tonalsoft.com/enc/h/hewm.aspx
(cited at http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation)
hints that this notation is much younger...
Best,
Torsten
carl
You point out valid differences, but for an high-level overview lik
this, I still believe it's appropriate to lump EHEJPN with HEWM.
Sagittal probably too, but it's got a strong brand, a compact name :)
a dedicated website, copious English-language documentation,
a true-type font file that can be downloaded, and of course, it was
"invented here" :).
I didn't receive the attachment, and have replied to Johannes
offlist to this effect.
-Carl
On Mar 5, 4:51 am, Torsten Anders <torstenand...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 05.03.2010, at 03:34, carl wrote:
>
> > That falls under HEWM. See the link to plainsound provided.
>
> I fully agree that these notations are based on the same fundamental
> idea from Helmholtz, but so is Sagittal Notation. I do not agree that
> HEWM and Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation should be both
> listed under the name HEWM.
>
> The Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation (much too long name :)
> is something in the middle between the minimalistic HEWM notation and
> Sagittal notation. HEWM introduces accidentals for prime factors up to
> 11. The Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation goes far beyond
> that (and also introduces convenient accidentals for multiple commas).
> Besides, the acronym HEWM stands for Helmholtz / Ellis / Wolf / Monzo,
> but the names Wolf and Monzo have little to do with the other
> notation. Compared with Extended Helmholtz Ellis JI Pitch Notation,
> Sagittal notation basically adds extra accidentals for commas
> resulting from certain prime factor combinations (e.g., 7:5 kleisma)
> and for comma fractions (e.g., 1/4 syntonic comma).
>
> On a related note,http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation
Graham Breed
> Hi Torsten,
>
> You point out valid differences, but for an high-level overview lik
> this, I still believe it's appropriate to lump EHEJPN with HEWM.
> Sagittal probably too, but it's got a strong brand, a compact name :)
> a dedicated website, copious English-language documentation,
> a true-type font file that can be downloaded, and of course, it was
> "invented here" :).
I think there is a font file for the EHEJPN as well. Some time I need
to get it sorted out with my LilyPond code, and reconcile some of the
changes Torsten and maybe others made.
The name HEWM is bad for a generic. I thought Monzo put the "M" in to
mean his specific version. I'll talk about PyNNA (Pythagorean
Nominals and New Accidentals) for this message.
So, yes, Sagittal is at its heart a kind of PyNNA. But it can also be
used as a kind of "close to common-practice" as well. And the glyphs
can be used with other notations. So can the EHEJPN glyphs, but
EHEJPN is documented as a JI notation. From the point of view of
software support, which is what the wiki and this list are about, the
structural features are more important than the glyphs.
However it's listed, I think Sagittal deserves to be on there. There
are different issues to supporting it compared to (other) PyNNAs.
Sagittal uses only one or two glyphs for each accidental, and so has a
large character set, and makes use of implicit temperament. These are
things you need to know about when you write the software. You have
to be able to support all the glyphs (and there are problems going
beyond a 7-bit character set) but you know you don't need strings of
unbounded length. And you're essentially working as a tempered system
and the software will have to map the JI into that.
Note: any JI notation can be used to notate temperaments, following
the regular mapping paradigm. But Sagittal is itself micro-tempered
which is a different issue. But as soon as you get one Sagittal
flavor working it should be easy to add the others, so it's one type
of notation.
For general PyNNAs, the difficult bit is allowing arbitrary string
lengths and getting the spacing right. Once you have something
working it shouldn't be difficult to change the font or add some more
prime dimensions. So from the point of view of types of notation,
EHEJPN really looks like just another PyNNA.
If the EHEJPN glyphs get used in other contexts, that's fine. The
list is to record types of notation, not glyphs.
Graham
Daniel Wolf
> On 6 March 2010 00:11, carl <clu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The name HEWM is bad for a generic.
I agree. I think it should just be Helmholtz-Ellis. ("I say it's
broccoli and I say to hell with it...") The major difference — and it's
actually become a major headache with performers — between HEWM (which is
also the system that Martin Vogel uses) and the von Schweinitz/Sabat is
the particular association of arrows or plus/minus signs. In my chats
with Wolfgang, he's not been particularly attached to his ordering of the
accidentals, but Marc (Sabat) seems to be.
The major competition to Helmholtz-Ellis for JI has been Ben Johnston's,
in which the uninflected set of nominals is 1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3,
15/8 in C Major. I happen to dislike this, because intervals are not
consistently spelled. There is, however, a repertoire and some players
familiar with it, but as much as the system works for Johnston, it really
doesn't work for Partch, for example, who did not base his music on that
particular diatonic scale. The accidentals, through 11, are essentially
the same as HEWM, so there is that commonality.
Daniel Wolf
Torsten Anders
>> The name HEWM is bad for a generic.
> I agree. I think it should just be Helmholtz-Ellis.
Yep, or something like Extended Helmholtz-Ellis.
> In my chats with Wolfgang, he's not been particularly attached to
> his ordering of the accidentals, but Marc (Sabat) seems to be.
The difference between them might be that Marc uses them for
performance, so he obviously practised reading them very fluently.
I feel their accidentals for 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13 limit make sense, and
multiple 3 to 7 limit accidentals are nicely combinable. For me
personally, they are also more easy to read than Sagittal, because
they are more distinct. However, the von Schweinitz/Sabat signs beyond
13-limit seem a bit arbitrary for me.
Best
Torsten