Talk:Diamond-mos notation - Revision history

ArrowHead294: ArrowHead294 moved page Talk:Diamond–MOS notation to Talk:Diamond-mos notation over redirect

2025-01-07T15:05:16Z

ArrowHead294 moved page Talk:Diamond–MOS notation to Talk:Diamond-mos notation over redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:05, 7 January 2025
(No difference)

ArrowHead294: ArrowHead294 moved page Talk:Diamond-mos notation to Talk:Diamond–MOS notation

2025-01-07T14:25:00Z

ArrowHead294 moved page Talk:Diamond-mos notation to Talk:Diamond–MOS notation

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:25, 7 January 2025
(No difference)

CompactStar at 20:01, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T20:01:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 6 June 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Special status of diatonic ==		== Special status of diatonic ==

	I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (JKL, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.		I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (JKL, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals. After all, this notation is said to attempt to "keep new symbols and memorization required to a minimum."

	There are also other places where 5L 2s has a different treatment in this notation, like allowing equalized and collapsed for diatonic but not other MOSes.		There are also other places where 5L 2s has a different treatment in this notation, like allowing equalized and collapsed for diatonic but not other MOSes.

	[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)		[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CompactStar at 19:59, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T19:59:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 6 June 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Special status of diatonic ==		== Special status of diatonic ==

	I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.		I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (JKL, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.

	There are also other places where 5L 2s has a different treatment in this notation, like allowing equalized and collapsed for diatonic but not other MOSes.		There are also other places where 5L 2s has a different treatment in this notation, like allowing equalized and collapsed for diatonic but not other MOSes.

	[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)		[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CompactStar at 19:57, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T19:57:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 6 June 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.		I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.

			There are also other places where 5L 2s has a different treatment in this notation, like allowing equalized and collapsed for diatonic but not other MOSes.

	[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)		[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CompactStar at 19:56, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T19:56:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 6 June 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Special status of diatonic ==		== Special status of diatonic ==

	I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could ~~reduce confusion by using~~ the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS.		I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could use the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS to avoid people having to learn new note names and accidentals.

	[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)		[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

CompactStar: /* Special status of diatonic */ new section

2023-06-06T19:55:37Z

Special status of diatonic: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 6 June 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	: I would argue that ups and downs have gotten consensus in the community that goes beyond the rules of your original standard. Diamond-mos ups and downs have the same meaning on the staff as yours (most of the time?); only the text rules are different. If people use ups and downs one way or the other, they can clarify their use by saying which standard they're using. I think us using ups and downs helps cut down on memorization, since it's an element most microtonalists already know. [[User:SupahstarSaga\|SupahstarSaga]] ([[User talk:SupahstarSaga\|talk]]) 17:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)		: I would argue that ups and downs have gotten consensus in the community that goes beyond the rules of your original standard. Diamond-mos ups and downs have the same meaning on the staff as yours (most of the time?); only the text rules are different. If people use ups and downs one way or the other, they can clarify their use by saying which standard they're using. I think us using ups and downs helps cut down on memorization, since it's an element most microtonalists already know. [[User:SupahstarSaga\|SupahstarSaga]] ([[User talk:SupahstarSaga\|talk]]) 17:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

			== Special status of diatonic ==

			I wanted to know, why does diatonic use standard notation (ABC, #/b) while non-diatonic uses different notation (J, &/@)? It can't be for distinctiveness purposes because everything non-diatonic uses identical notation. So if a lot of MOSes will be sharing the same notation anyway, we could reduce confusion by using the "ABC" notation for both diatonic and non-diatonic MOS.

			[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

SupahstarSaga at 17:41, 26 July 2021

2021-07-26T17:41:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 26 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Just glancing at this, haven't read through it yet. Perhaps ^ could be called "caret" and v could be "vee", analogous to am and at. This might help avoid confusion with my usage of ups and downs. --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 03:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)		Just glancing at this, haven't read through it yet. Perhaps ^ could be called "caret" and v could be "vee", analogous to am and at. This might help avoid confusion with my usage of ups and downs. --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 03:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

			: I would argue that ups and downs have gotten consensus in the community that goes beyond the rules of your original standard. Diamond-mos ups and downs have the same meaning on the staff as yours (most of the time?); only the text rules are different. If people use ups and downs one way or the other, they can clarify their use by saying which standard they're using. I think us using ups and downs helps cut down on memorization, since it's an element most microtonalists already know. [[User:SupahstarSaga\|SupahstarSaga]] ([[User talk:SupahstarSaga\|talk]]) 17:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TallKite: Created page with "Just glancing at this, haven't read through it yet. Perhaps ^ could be called "caret" and v could be "vee", analogous to am and at. This might help avoid confusion with my usa..."

2021-07-26T03:59:47Z

Created page with "Just glancing at this, haven't read through it yet. Perhaps ^ could be called "caret" and v could be "vee", analogous to am and at. This might help avoid confusion with my usa..."

New page

Just glancing at this, haven't read through it yet. Perhaps ^ could be called "caret" and v could be "vee", analogous to am and at. This might help avoid confusion with my usage of ups and downs. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 03:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)