Introductory examples in Sagittal notation: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

<h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2>

This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:

: This revision was by author [[User:hstraub|hstraub]] and made on <tt>2015-08-~~21 08~~:45:59 UTC</tt>.

: This revision was by author [[User:hstraub|hstraub]] and made on <tt>2015-08-22 09:47:37 UTC</tt>.

: The original revision id was <tt>~~557098125~~</tt>.

: The original revision id was <tt>557162621</tt>.

: The revision comment was: <tt></tt>

The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.

Line 24:

# Conventional staff notation (natural notes, sharps and flats) indicates tones in a series built on the equal division’s best approximation of a fifth.

There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic|enharmonic equivalences]]. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in [[meantone]] systems.

There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic|enharmonic equivalences]]. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in [[meantone]] systems. The corresponding symbol is obviously superfluous in this case. Other cases of enharmonic equivalence are less obvious. The developers for Sagittal notation have defined.a standard selection of symbols to be used for each equal system; these definitions have the character of recommendations.

Below there is an example how the standard notation systems for some equal termperaments differ.

[[image:SagittalEDOExample.jpg]]

[todo]

Line 47:

Line 51:

A special attraction of Sagittal notation is that it has been designed to notate both rational intervals (e.g. just intonation) and all kinds equal divisions of the octave. Basic guidelines for the latter, as defined in <a href="/file/view/Sagittal.pdf/243193787/Sagittal.pdf" onclick="ws.common.trackFileLink('/file/view/Sagittal.pdf/243193787/Sagittal.pdf');">Sagittal.pdf</a>, are as follows:

<ol><li>An interval in an equal temperament is to be notated in the same way as a just ratio for which the equal interval is the best approximation.</li><li>Conventional staff notation (natural notes, sharps and flats) indicates tones in a series built on the equal division’s best approximation of a fifth.</li></ol>

There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic" rel="nofollow">enharmonic equivalences</a>. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in <a class="wiki_link" href="/meantone">meantone</a> systems.

There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic" rel="nofollow">enharmonic equivalences</a>. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in <a class="wiki_link" href="/meantone">meantone</a> systems. The corresponding symbol is obviously superfluous in this case. Other cases of enharmonic equivalence are less obvious. The developers for Sagittal notation have defined.a standard selection of symbols to be used for each equal system; these definitions have the character of recommendations.

Below there is an example how the standard notation systems for some equal termperaments differ.

<img src="/file/view/SagittalEDOExample.jpg/557089549/SagittalEDOExample.jpg" alt="SagittalEDOExample.jpg" title="SagittalEDOExample.jpg" />

[todo]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2>
 This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<br>
-: This revision was by author [[User:hstraub|hstraub]] and made on <tt>2015-08-21 08:45:59 UTC</tt>.<br>
+: This revision was by author [[User:hstraub|hstraub]] and made on <tt>2015-08-22 09:47:37 UTC</tt>.<br>
-: The original revision id was <tt>557098125</tt>.<br>
+: The original revision id was <tt>557162621</tt>.<br>
 : The revision comment was: <tt></tt><br>
 The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.<br>
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 # Conventional staff notation (natural notes, sharps and flats) indicates tones in a series built on the equal division’s best approximation of a fifth.
-There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic|enharmonic equivalences]]. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in [[meantone]] systems.
+There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic|enharmonic equivalences]]. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in [[meantone]] systems. The corresponding symbol is obviously superfluous in this case. Other cases of enharmonic equivalence are less obvious. The developers for Sagittal notation have defined.a standard selection of symbols to be used for each equal system; these definitions have the character of recommendations.
+Below there is an example how the standard notation systems for some equal termperaments differ.
+[[image:SagittalEDOExample.jpg]]
 [todo]
@@ Line 47: / Line 51: @@
   A special attraction of Sagittal notation is that it has been designed to notate both rational intervals (e.g. just intonation) and all kinds equal divisions of the octave. Basic guidelines for the latter, as defined in &lt;a href="/file/view/Sagittal.pdf/243193787/Sagittal.pdf" onclick="ws.common.trackFileLink('/file/view/Sagittal.pdf/243193787/Sagittal.pdf');"&gt;Sagittal.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;An interval in an equal temperament is to be notated in the same way as a just ratio for which the equal interval is the best approximation.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Conventional staff notation (natural notes, sharps and flats) indicates tones in a series built on the equal division’s best approximation of a fifth.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
-There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many &lt;a class="wiki_link_ext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic" rel="nofollow"&gt;enharmonic equivalences&lt;/a&gt;. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in &lt;a class="wiki_link" href="/meantone"&gt;meantone&lt;/a&gt; systems.&lt;br /&gt;
+There are a number of details to be observed here. First and most important point is that a notation defined this way is highly ambiguous. Every note of an equal-tempered system is best approximation for a whole range of just ratios - even an unlimited number of them, in fact. There are, in other words, extremely many &lt;a class="wiki_link_ext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic" rel="nofollow"&gt;enharmonic equivalences&lt;/a&gt;. This is not necessarily a problem - enharmonic equivalences exist anyway, in conventional non-microtonal notation, too. Yet there are certain simplifications it make sense to define - certain commas, for example, vanish completely in some equal systems, as the syntonic comma in &lt;a class="wiki_link" href="/meantone"&gt;meantone&lt;/a&gt; systems. The corresponding symbol is obviously superfluous in this case. Other cases of enharmonic equivalence are less obvious. The developers for Sagittal notation have defined.a standard selection of symbols to be used for each equal system; these definitions have the character of recommendations.&lt;br /&gt;
+&lt;br /&gt;
+Below there is an example how the standard notation systems for some equal termperaments differ.&lt;br /&gt;
+&lt;!-- ws:start:WikiTextLocalImageRule:13:&amp;lt;img src=&amp;quot;/file/view/SagittalEDOExample.jpg/557089549/SagittalEDOExample.jpg&amp;quot; alt=&amp;quot;&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; --&gt;&lt;img src="/file/view/SagittalEDOExample.jpg/557089549/SagittalEDOExample.jpg" alt="SagittalEDOExample.jpg" title="SagittalEDOExample.jpg" /&gt;&lt;!-- ws:end:WikiTextLocalImageRule:13 --&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
+&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 [todo]&lt;br /&gt;