Talk:159edo/Notation: Difference between revisions

Line 24:

:::: No problem, I'm still open to improvement. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

== Kite's proposal for 159edo notation ==

I prefer a simpler notation, with as few extra accidental pairs as possible. You have 3 pairs, plus the half-sharp/half-flat, so really 4 pairs. One could do single-pair, only ups and downs (or darts as you say), but one would need at least septuple ups, and in practice octuple or more. I think that's impractical, so I propose a double-pair notation.

I also like to have all accidentals be pronounceable, so that one can not only write down the music but also talk about the music. That lets me name chords, which in some genres is as important as writing down the music.

I would notate 159edo with a combination of ups/downs and lifts/drops. The latter (shall we call them slants?) are written / and \. The ups and downs are used as in 53edo, so one up is 3 edosteps. One lift is 1 edostep.

<tt>

0 natural

1 / lift

2 ^\ updrop

// (double-lift)

3 ^ up

4 ^/ uplift

5 ^^\ double-updrop

^// (up double-lift)

6 ^^ double-up

vvv# triple-downsharp

7 ^^/ double-uplift

vvv/# triple-down liftsharp

8 ^^^\ triple-updrop

^^// (double-up double-lift)

vv\# double-down dropsharp

9 ^^^ triple-up

vv# double-downsharp

10 ^^^/ triple-up lift

vv/# double-down liftsharp

v\\# (down double-drop sharp)

11 v\# downdrop sharp

12 v# downsharp

13 v/# downlift sharp

\\# (double-drop sharp)

14 \# dropsharp

15 # sharp

</tt>

Notes flatter than natural can be deduced by symmetry, i.e. C \C v/C vC v\C etc. Notes beyond sharp just run through the same list, but adding "sharp":

sharp, liftsharp, updrop sharp (or double-lift sharp), upsharp, uplift sharp...

going to double-sharp eventually.

Instead of ^^^ one could put an actual numeral 3 right on the score, like ^3. If someone actually used just darts and no slants, they would really need to write ^7 and not ^^^^^^^.

The spectrum of qualities looks like this:

<tt>

0 m minor

1 /m liftminor

2 ^\m updrop minor

3 ^m upminor

4 ^/m uplift minor

5 v\~ downdropmid

6 v~ downmid

7 v/~ downliftmid

8 ^\~ updropmid

9 ^~ upmid

10 ^/~ upliftmid

11 v\M downdrop major

12 vM downmajor

13 v/M downlift major

14 \M dropmajor

15 M major

16 /M liftmajor

17 ^\M updrop major

18 ^M upmajor

19 ^/M uplift major

etc.

</tt>

Thus 4:5:6:7:9:11 = P1 vM3 P5 v\m7 M9 v/~11 = C vE G v\Bb D ^^/F = Cv9(v\7)v/~11 = C down-9 downdrop-7 downlift-mid-11

I like using both ups/downs and lifts/drops for larger edos only when the edo is multi-ring (the circle of 5ths doesn't include every note) and each ring requires ups and downs. For example 205edo is 5 rings of 41edo, but 124edo is not 4 rings of 31edo. The lifts and drops label the rings. In 159edo, there's a lift ring, a drop ring, and a plain ring. The lift ring is also a double-drop ring.

Now this notation may not be what you are looking for, because it isn't based on HEJI. If you want to stick with HEJI, I understand. But I must say I dislike using a half-sharp symbol for 7\159 when the sharp symbol is 15\159. Counter-intuitive. I also dislike that ^ means 1\159 but an up-arrow attached to a sharp or flat or natural means 3\159.

As far as the exact shape of the down, I like the letter v in a narrow sans serif font like arial narrow. Sleek and compact. I really dislike any serifs on it. Now here you can get into a debate about how Western music notation has a certain look, like the treble clef being a stylized letter G, and microtonal accidentals should have the same look. Eh, I just don't agree.

It's hard to get the caret as skinny as the letter v. So if you make actual image files, I'd say for the up, just rotate the arial narrow v 180 degrees.

I sort of like the way you stack two ups or downs on top of each other. But when there is a chord in close position on the staff, and one note is double-down, it can appear as if two adjacent notes each have a down. Another problem is that the ups or downs can't get really skinny. I would prefer two skinny ups side-by-side over two wide ups one above the other. Takes up the same amount of space, and is far less likely to be misinterpreted. And you can't type the stacked glyph, and I think all notation should be typeable. So all in all, I'm against the idea, but not strongly against it. I think stacking three ups is definitely going too far.

In general I don't like combining accidentals into complex glyphs, like the arrows on the sharp that HEJI has. I prefer multiple accidentals in a row, analogous to letters forming words. I also prefer accidentals not get too tall, since it makes it hard to notate close-voiced chords.

Anyway, just my thoughts. :)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :::: No problem, I'm still open to improvement. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
+== Kite's proposal for 159edo notation ==
+I prefer a simpler notation, with as few extra accidental pairs as possible. You have 3 pairs, plus the half-sharp/half-flat, so really 4 pairs. One could do single-pair, only ups and downs (or darts as you say), but one would need at least septuple ups, and in practice octuple or more. I think that's impractical, so I propose a double-pair notation.
+I also like to have all accidentals be pronounceable, so that one can not only write down the music but also talk about the music. That lets me name chords, which in some genres is as important as writing down the music.
+I would notate 159edo with a combination of ups/downs and lifts/drops. The latter (shall we call them slants?) are written / and \. The ups and downs are used as in 53edo, so one up is 3 edosteps. One lift is 1 edostep.
+<tt>
+	natural
+/ 	lift
+^\ 	updrop
+   // 	(double-lift)
+^ 	up
+^/ 	uplift
+^^\ 	double-updrop
+   ^// 	(up double-lift)
+^^ 	double-up
+   vvv#	triple-downsharp
+^^/	double-uplift
+   vvv/# triple-down liftsharp
+^^^\	triple-updrop
+   ^^//	(double-up double-lift)
+   vv\#	double-down dropsharp
+^^^	triple-up
+   vv#	double-downsharp
+^^^/ triple-up lift
+    vv/# double-down liftsharp
+    v\\# (down double-drop sharp)
+v\#	downdrop sharp
+v#	downsharp
+v/#	downlift sharp
+    \\#	(double-drop sharp)
+\#	dropsharp
+#	sharp
+</tt>
+Notes flatter than natural can be deduced by symmetry, i.e. C \C v/C vC v\C etc. Notes beyond sharp just run through the same list, but adding "sharp":
+sharp, liftsharp, updrop sharp (or double-lift sharp), upsharp, uplift sharp...
+going to double-sharp eventually.
+Instead of ^^^ one could put an actual numeral 3 right on the score, like ^3. If someone actually used just darts and no slants, they would really need to write ^7 and not ^^^^^^^.
+The spectrum of qualities looks like this:
+<tt>
+  m	minor
+  /m 	liftminor
+  ^\m	updrop minor
+  ^m 	upminor
+  ^/m	uplift minor
+  v\~	downdropmid
+  v~	downmid
+  v/~	downliftmid
+  ^\~	updropmid
+  ^~	upmid
+^/~	upliftmid
+v\M	downdrop major
+vM	downmajor
+v/M	downlift major
+\M	dropmajor
+M	major
+/M 	liftmajor
+^\M	updrop major
+^M	upmajor
+^/M	uplift major
+ etc.
+</tt>
+Thus 4:5:6:7:9:11 = P1 vM3 P5 v\m7 M9 v/~11 = C vE G v\Bb D ^^/F = Cv9(v\7)v/~11 = C down-9 downdrop-7 downlift-mid-11
+I like using both ups/downs and lifts/drops for larger edos only when the edo is multi-ring (the circle of 5ths doesn't include every note) and each ring requires ups and downs. For example 205edo is 5 rings of 41edo, but 124edo is not 4 rings of 31edo. The lifts and drops label the rings. In 159edo, there's a lift ring, a drop ring, and a plain ring. The lift ring is also a double-drop ring.
+Now this notation may not be what you are looking for, because it isn't based on HEJI. If you want to stick with HEJI, I understand. But I must say I dislike using a half-sharp symbol for 7\159 when the sharp symbol is 15\159. Counter-intuitive. I also dislike that ^ means 1\159 but an up-arrow attached to a sharp or flat or natural means 3\159.
+As far as the exact shape of the down, I like the letter v in a narrow sans serif font like arial narrow. Sleek and compact. I really dislike any serifs on it. Now here you can get into a debate about how Western music notation has a certain look, like the treble clef being a stylized letter G, and microtonal accidentals should have the same look. Eh, I just don't agree.
+It's hard to get the caret as skinny as the letter v. So if you make actual image files, I'd say for the up, just rotate the arial narrow v 180 degrees.
+I sort of like the way you stack two ups or downs on top of each other. But when there is a chord in close position on the staff, and one note is double-down, it can appear as if two adjacent notes each have a down. Another problem is that the ups or downs can't get really skinny. I would prefer two skinny ups side-by-side over two wide ups one above the other. Takes up the same amount of space, and is far less likely to be misinterpreted. And you can't type the stacked glyph, and I think all notation should be typeable. So all in all, I'm against the idea, but not strongly against it. I think stacking three ups is definitely going too far.
+In general I don't like combining accidentals into complex glyphs, like the arrows on the sharp that HEJI has. I prefer multiple accidentals in a row, analogous to letters forming words. I also prefer accidentals not get too tall, since it makes it hard to notate close-voiced chords.
+Anyway, just my thoughts. :)