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)

Okay, so, after what Kite said, and given my thoughts on the Rastma being a potential JI basis for the single step of 159edo, I'm thinking we ought to replace the dart glyphs entirely, and use a different combining glyph to represent the Rastma as a single step of 159edo, with the double step and quadruple step of 159edo being represented by syntonic-modified accidentals that are further modified the the combining element representing the Rastma. On another note, I think we can relegate the Septimal comma symbols and 13-limit accidentals to being optional, that way, people who want to keep the system more simple can do so. If need be, we can always ask the people who make new versions of Helmholtz-Ellis notation to separate the syntonic comma modifiers from the other accidental symbols, and we can go from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Line 108:

Line 110:

Anyway, just my thoughts. :) <small>''unsigned contribution by: [[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User Talk:TallKite|Talk]]) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)''</small>

: Thanks for taking the time to respond. Perhaps we can file this under other ideas for notating 159edo... Yes, I do fancy the idea of sticking to HEJI and Mainstream Quartertones- at least for the main accidentals- as they are more likely to be familiar to people, and for the record, I *can* actually pronounce note names such as "D-Sesquiflat". Nevertheless, it's good to see that we both agree that there's a need for more than one set of accidental symbols on larger EDOs. I realize you dislike the idea of the demisharp and demiflat symbols being mapped to 7 steps when sharp and flat are mapped to 15, and you have every right not to like that, but dare I point out that we have a similar problem in 5-limit Just Intonation where two [[25/24]] chromatic semitones add up to less than a proper whole tone, let alone a proper double sharp, so that objection doesn't exactly sit well with me. On another note, now that you have pointed out the problems with stacking the darts, as well as the mismatch between the darts and the combined glyphs, I think that means we'll just have have to get more creative. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

: I must point out one more thing, and that is the fact that 11-limit quartertones are actually useful in modulation to keys that are not on the same circle of fifths, while being simultaneously within an unnoticeable comma's distance from the quartertone of [[24edo]], which many musicians outside this community are familiar with, hence the rationale behind me elevating the status of the 11-limit, and using mainstream quartertone accidentals to represent it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@@ 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)
+Okay, so, after what Kite said, and given my thoughts on the Rastma being a potential JI basis for the single step of 159edo, I'm thinking we ought to replace the dart glyphs entirely, and use a different combining glyph to represent the Rastma as a single step of 159edo, with the double step and quadruple step of 159edo being represented by syntonic-modified accidentals that are further modified the the combining element representing the Rastma.  On another note, I think we can relegate the Septimal comma symbols and 13-limit accidentals to being optional, that way, people who want to keep the system more simple can do so.  If need be, we can always ask the people who make new versions of Helmholtz-Ellis notation to separate the syntonic comma modifiers from the other accidental symbols, and we can go from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 == Kite's proposal for 159edo notation ==
@@ Line 108: / Line 110: @@
 Anyway, just my thoughts. :) <small>''unsigned contribution by: [[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User Talk:TallKite|Talk]]) 04:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)''</small>
 : Thanks for taking the time to respond.  Perhaps we can file this under other ideas for notating 159edo...  Yes, I do fancy the idea of sticking to HEJI and Mainstream Quartertones- at least for the main accidentals- as they are more likely to be familiar to people, and for the record, I *can* actually pronounce note names such as "D-Sesquiflat".  Nevertheless, it's good to see that we both agree that there's a need for more than one set of accidental symbols on larger EDOs.  I realize you dislike the idea of the demisharp and demiflat symbols being mapped to 7 steps when sharp and flat are mapped to 15, and you have every right not to like that, but dare I point out that we have a similar problem in 5-limit Just Intonation where two [[25/24]] chromatic semitones add up to less than a proper whole tone, let alone a proper double sharp, so that objection doesn't exactly sit well with me.  On another note, now that you have pointed out the problems with stacking the darts, as well as the mismatch between the darts and the combined glyphs, I think that means we'll just have have to get more creative. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 : I must point out one more thing, and that is the fact that 11-limit quartertones are actually useful in modulation to keys that are not on the same circle of fifths, while being simultaneously within an unnoticeable comma's distance from the quartertone of [[24edo]], which many musicians outside this community are familiar with, hence the rationale behind me elevating the status of the 11-limit, and using mainstream quartertone accidentals to represent it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)