Talk:Extended meantone notation - Revision history

ArrowHead294: Undo revision 143244 by ArrowHead294 (talk)—This is still being discussed on the Discord server

2024-05-15T21:30:53Z

Undo revision 143244 by ArrowHead294 (talk)—This is still being discussed on the Discord server

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 15 May 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:
	# Finally, I have no idea what the title of the article, or the name of the notation, should actually be. It's an extension of 3-limit notation that doesn't extend the rank of the notation. It's not really about splitting the sharp into two unequal halves, because often one of the halves is negative, and the other is larger than a sharp, and that's hardly a "half".		# Finally, I have no idea what the title of the article, or the name of the notation, should actually be. It's an extension of 3-limit notation that doesn't extend the rank of the notation. It's not really about splitting the sharp into two unequal halves, because often one of the halves is negative, and the other is larger than a sharp, and that's hardly a "half".
	--[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 07:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 07:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I've made a few changes to this page since your critique. Do you want to take a crack at making this page better? [[User:ArrowHead294\|ArrowHead294]] ([[User talk:ArrowHead294\|talk]]) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ArrowHead294: /* Kite's critique */

2024-05-15T21:25:15Z

Kite's critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 15 May 2024
Line 53:		Line 53:
	# Finally, I have no idea what the title of the article, or the name of the notation, should actually be. It's an extension of 3-limit notation that doesn't extend the rank of the notation. It's not really about splitting the sharp into two unequal halves, because often one of the halves is negative, and the other is larger than a sharp, and that's hardly a "half".		# Finally, I have no idea what the title of the article, or the name of the notation, should actually be. It's an extension of 3-limit notation that doesn't extend the rank of the notation. It's not really about splitting the sharp into two unequal halves, because often one of the halves is negative, and the other is larger than a sharp, and that's hardly a "half".
	--[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 07:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 07:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
			:I've made a few changes to this page since your critique. Do you want to take a crack at making this page better? [[User:ArrowHead294\|ArrowHead294]] ([[User talk:ArrowHead294\|talk]]) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

TallKite at 07:25, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T07:25:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:25, 13 May 2024
Line 32:		Line 32:
	... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to [[User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation]]) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article [[Extended meantone notation]]. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.<br/> Thanks for your understanding. <br/>Best regards --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)		... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to [[User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation]]) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article [[Extended meantone notation]]. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.<br/> Thanks for your understanding. <br/>Best regards --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

	== My critique ==		== Kite's critique ==

	# Why does the title say meantone, since all of the content applies to or could be applied to non-meantone edos? More on the title later.		# Why does the title say meantone, since all of the content applies to or could be applied to non-meantone edos? More on the title later.

TallKite: My Critique

2024-05-13T07:15:57Z

My Critique

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 13 May 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:<tt>Do not read this page while it is under construction of notation. </tt>		:<tt>Do not read this page while it is under construction of notation. </tt>
	... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to [[User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation]]) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article [[Extended meantone notation]]. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.<br/> Thanks for your understanding. <br/>Best regards --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)		... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to [[User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation]]) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article [[Extended meantone notation]]. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.<br/> Thanks for your understanding. <br/>Best regards --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

			== My critique ==

			# Why does the title say meantone, since all of the content applies to or could be applied to non-meantone edos? More on the title later.
			# "In some tunings, such as 24-tone... sharps can be split in half." More informative to say "In any edo of even sharpness..."
			# "Note that the base note letters alternate. Using semisharps and semiflats, this can be re-written as: C Ct C#..." Using semisharps and semiflats puts the notes back in order, and it's implied that any time you can split the sharp, it will serve to do this. The confusion lies in the previous "In some tunings". Is the article talking about sharp-2 edos only? Or about all even-sharpness edos?
			# "The generalized chain of fifths, however, does not have a single semisharp or semiflat." Confusing, especially "single". Perhaps what is meant is, semisharps and semiflats don't always occur?
			# "In a general meantone tuning, a sharp is split into 2 different parts, the diesis and the kleisma." Finally meantone becomes relevant, because it equates the diesis to a 3-limit diminished 2nd, d2. Likewise the kleisma is equated to a descending dd2. But why talk about 5-limit commas in an article about 3-limit notation? Replacing diesis with d2 and kleisma with -dd2 makes the article clearer, simpler, and lets it apply to all edos, not just the meantone ones. The sentence would become "A sharp can always be split into 2 different parts, a d2 and a descending dd2." True because -12 fifths plus 19 fifths must equal 7 fifths. Likewise, "An octave is made up of 19 d2's and 12 descending dd2's." True because 19 * -12 fifths plus 12 * 19 fifths must equal 0 fifths.
			# In the 2nd table, the "Syntonic comma fraction" column would be more accurately called "Approximate syntonic comma fraction".
			# "True half-sharps and half-flats" The overall point of this entire section seems to be that in this notation, sometimes the up-arrow-with-shaft and the plus-sign are equated. But this isn't mentioned anywhere in this section. The article rambles, especially about equating 7/6 to a half-dim 3rd.
			# "If true half-sharps and true half-flats are desired, which exactly bisect the chromatic semitone, the meantone fifth is split in half." This is a quibble, but IMO better as "Splitting the fifth in half creates true half-sharps and half-flats which exactly bisect the chromatic semitone."
			# "While real-world Arabic and Persian music..." This article is about notating rank-1 (and rank-2?) tunings. Why bring up a very complex subject outside the scope of the article and then dismiss it after a very brief discussion?
			# "adjacent sharps and flats, such as C♯ and D♭" Clearer as "two notes a dim 2nd apart, such as C♯ and D♭,"
			# "The chain-of-neutral-thirds tuning system is not a true "temperament," because it is contorted" Confusing and unnecessary. The 5-limit meantone mapping is [(1 1 0) (0 1 4)]. A chain-of-neutral-thirds temperament will have the 5th number be 2 not 1. The sentence seems to be saying that getting that 2 there by simply doubling the 2nd row of this mapping, making [(1 1 0) (0 2 8)], is contorted. This is true, but besides the point. Obviously, simply doubling one row will cause contorsion. To avoid that, obviously one must add a column to the mapping by increasing the prime limit, and the last number in the new column must be odd. But we can talk about e.g. 31edo's half-sharps without discussing why they are there, i.e. without discussing mappings or commas.
			# "the neutral third does not have any just interval mapping to it in the 7-limit." False, consider 49/40 in the Bizozogu temperament.
			# "[If] 11/10 and 12/11 [are equated], we obtain mohajira" This assumes meantone. More general to equate 11/9 and 27/22.
			# It's not clear if the article is about edos only, or includes rank-2 temperaments too. It could even be applied to 3-limit just intonation.
			# Most of the first section discusses half-sharps. This needlessly delays the introduction of the actual notation. Better to move this entire discussion from the 1st section to the 3rd section.
			# There needs to be a lead-in sentence conveying the general idea, something like "This notation extends conventional music notation by adding 2 new accidental pairs." Otherwise the reader must read too far to understand what it is.
			# There should be a second lead-in sentence that discusses the advantages of this notation, since obviously conventional notation can suffice, and the two new accidental pairs are mathematically redundant. Then somewhere in the article, there should be comparisons of this notation with conventional notation, explicitly demonstrating the advantage of it. Otherwise the reader will wonder, why bother with a more complex notation when a simpler one would do? An example of such a comparison is in the color notation article. See the discussion of trills using po and qu. (which seem to be equivalent to the vertical-arrows-with-shafts here?).
			# Finally, I have no idea what the title of the article, or the name of the notation, should actually be. It's an extension of 3-limit notation that doesn't extend the rank of the notation. It's not really about splitting the sharp into two unequal halves, because often one of the halves is negative, and the other is larger than a sharp, and that's hardly a "half".
			--[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 07:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Spt3125: /* Notation */

2018-12-02T00:14:40Z

Notation

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 2 December 2018
Line 23:		Line 23:
	::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

			* ok, i changed Y/Z (diesis) to ^/v, and y/z (kleisma) to +/-, just to make the page less 'under construction'. i'm not attached to these, so change them if you want... [[User:Spt3125\|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125\|talk]]) 00:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

	== under construction ==		== under construction ==

Xenwolf: H1 -> H2 + TOC

2018-10-15T09:18:10Z

H1 -> H2 + TOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 15 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Notation=		__TOC__
			== Notation ==
	We require good notation. y, z, Y and Z are placeholders.		We require good notation. y, z, Y and Z are placeholders.

Xenwolf: /* under construction */ new section

2018-10-15T09:13:34Z

under construction: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 15 October 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
	:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

			== under construction ==

			Hello Piotr, <br/> There's an obvious contradiction in:
			:<tt>Do not read this page while it is under construction of notation. </tt>
			... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to [[User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation]]) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article [[Extended meantone notation]]. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.<br/> Thanks for your understanding. <br/>Best regards --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

2018-10-01T18:02:35Z

1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:02, 1 October 2018
(No difference)

WikispacesArchive>PiotrGrochowski at 18:01, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T18:01:16Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:01, 1 October 2018
(No difference)

PiotrGrochowski at 15:59, 24 September 2018

2018-09-24T15:59:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 24 September 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:Yes. A sharp is 7 fifths up, a diesis down is 12 fifths up, and a kleisma up is 19 fifths up. A diesis and kleisma added together are a sharp. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		:Yes. A sharp is 7 fifths up, a diesis down is 12 fifths up, and a kleisma up is 19 fifths up. A diesis and kleisma added together are a sharp. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
	::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
			:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 24 September 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:Yes. A sharp is 7 fifths up, a diesis down is 12 fifths up, and a kleisma up is 19 fifths up. A diesis and kleisma added together are a sharp. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		:Yes. A sharp is 7 fifths up, a diesis down is 12 fifths up, and a kleisma up is 19 fifths up. A diesis and kleisma added together are a sharp. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
	::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)		::I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... [[User:Battaglia01\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Battaglia01\|talk]]) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
			:::Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer [[Extended meantone notation]]. So you just proposed not to use [[Extended meantone notation]], which is off-topic. [[User:PiotrGrochowski\|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski\|talk]]) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)