Talk:Kite's ups and downs notation

About those who work with extremely large EDOs

Hey Kite, I saw your new section, and I must say that while many microtonalists who work with 159edo would be familiar with 53edo, I should point out that in my case, that familiarity is only passing, as when I was searching for a good EDO to use, it was a combination of 3-limit, 5-limit and 11-limit considerations that brought me to 159edo, and as 53edo doesn't have a good 11-limit, I ended up skipping over it, jumping over from 94edo. Not only that, but I'm currently in the process of writing a song that uses an approximation of 159edo as a basis for retunings of other EDOs. Accordingly, you might want to edit your comments on who might work with it... --Aura (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Did I mention that I got my start in microtonality with 24edo of all things? Considering that this means I'm already a significant exception to your presumption due to currently being engaged in a significant share of the pioneering work, and considering the fact I'm trying to make 159edo accessible for people like me who are otherwise more resistant to the idea of detwelvulating, don't be surprised if 159edo eventually proves to be more than just a simple relative of 53edo. --Aura (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed "Presumably, anyone" to "Many people".--TallKite (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Aura (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about being rude... --Aura (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) --TallKite (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Can ups and downs override sharps and flats?

Consider a score that had D with only a sharp followed by D with only an up. Is the second note read as ^D or ^D#? In Diamond-mos notation, we have the standard that each accidental completely overrides previous accidentals, so the second note would be ^D (written D^ in diamond-mos). Does the Ups and Downs standard have the same rule? Some people on discord agree with it, but the article doesn't make it clear. SupahstarSaga (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Kite's Thoughts on 41edo Note Names and Key Signatures#Staff Notation, it depends on whether ups and downs are treated as independent or dependent. If they're independent, then the second note would be ^D#. If they're dependent, then it would be ^D instead. Flirora (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Flirora is correct. I will be adding more to my article about 41edo key signatures that will clarify this a bit. I call these cancelling rules. For independent ^v, if N = natural and P = plain, ^vP doesn't cancel #bN, and #bN doesn't cancel ^vP. For dependent ^v, ^vP cancels #bN, and #bN cancels ^vP. P always cancels ^v, just like N always cancels #b.

I personally much prefer independent ^v because it greatly reduces the clutter, especially in 41edo. Why say ^ND when you can just say ^D? I realize that's different from established practice, e.g. Saggital and HEJI. --TallKite (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the last thing you said. You would never need to write ^ND under the diamond-mos standard because ^/v alone already cancel #/b. In fact, I'm not including ^N in the diamond-mos template mscz I'm making, because ^ alone has the same meaning. In general, I don't think either choice is creates more or less clutter. The "independent" rule can write D# ^D# with less clutter, and the "dependent" rule can write D# ^D with less clutter. I go with the dependent rule because it's more in line with how standard 12edo accidentals already work. SupahstarSaga (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Reading the page Flirora linked, I now think there's a little misunderstanding here. Your "dependent" rule requires that ups and downs always be attached to a #/b/N accidental. I agree that that causes clutter. The diamond-mos rule is different; ups and downs can appear alone, but they cancel #/b/N. You can think of diamond-mos ^/v as including implicit naturals. I don't think my rule is more or less cluttered than your "independent" rule. SupahstarSaga (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Cancel

> If an up-C is followed by a down-C, the down-arrow cancels the up-arrow.

To cancel means to remove the previous effect, but I think what's meant here is to completely replace the previous effect with the new effect, so that the notated down-C sounds a down-C, not a natural C. If I'm right about that, I think replace is right word to use here. To override means the same thing as to replace in this specific context so I'm not sure of the comparison between override and "cancel" in the next paragraph. I think the two approaches are addition and replacement/override. FloraC (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Blackwood Up and Down Accidentals

Apologies if I offended Kite with my previous edit.

Checking if my edits are actually saved before I type out and lose my response again. ButterBuilding11 (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to include Blackwood’s contributions because he names his accidentals “up” and “down” just as Kite does (see his article in Perspectives cited below). That way, if anyone comes to this page looking for information on Blackwood’s system, like I did, they aren’t confused. The naming is why I specifically cited Blackwood’s system and not other prior systems which also use arrows as accidentals, like that in Kircher’s Musurgia Universalis mentioned by Nick Vuci in the Discord. ButterBuilding11 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

However, after reviewing the Discord, I recognize that my appending to Vector’s edit was not the appropriate way to go about this, and for that I apologize. It seems I am currently unable to edit the page itself, so I wanted to propose an additional paragraph here instead to be included under “See Also”: ButterBuilding11 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Easley Blackwood Jr. proposed a system of microtonal accidentals in 1982 with arrows which he also names “up” and “down,” though Blackwood’s system is distinct from Kite’s as described above. Blackwood, Easley. 1991. “Modes and Chord Progressions in Equal Tunings,” Perspectives of New Music 29, no. 2. ButterBuilding11 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I also might urge moving Kite’s credit, as it seems misplaced under the “See Also” heading, given that the article is specifically describing his system. ButterBuilding11 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)