User talk:Rperlner

Octatonic Groove

Hi Rperlner, welcome to the Wiki 🙂 Thanks for sharing your pieces! (the 48-EDO version makes more sense to me) Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, Everyone I've talked to seems to like the 48-EDO version better. I also have a 26 edo version I like quite a lot, which I'll get around to uploading eventually. Pleased to meet you. -- Rperlner

Scherzo in 26 EDO

Hi Ray,
your Scherzo in 26 EDO sounds great. The notation looks quite uncommon to readers of classic music but interesting. After a bit of calculation I found out that the accidentals actually cause a 1\26 shift. Notating the piece in "B" causes that no double-flats have to be used (also F# and C# would allow this). I think we should have at least one article about circle-of-fifths notation(s) in the XenWiki. Thanks for sharing. --Xenwolf (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: the sixfold forte in the 3rd-last bar before Fine seems like a glitch to me.

I'm glad you liked my scherzo. I did indeed choose the key of B to try to minimize double accidentals. (Strictly speaking, anything can be notated without double flats, since Dx = Cbb etc. in 26 edo). Regarding circle-of-fifths notation. Is it not covered (albeit briefly) by https://en.xen.wiki/w/Alternative_symbols_for_ups_and_downs_notation ? Or did you have something more devoted specifically to the traditional usage of #s and bs in pythagorean and meantone tunings? (Note: There were a number of ETs the article claimed couldn't be notated in Musescore. I was able to confirm that they can be notated in the version of Musescore with the n-tet tuner plugin that I have, using the double sharp and double flat arrow accidentals. I removed the inaccurate sentences.) Regarding the sixfold forte. I did mean to put it in. Musescore just wouldn't play that note loud enough so I tried extreme measures. It probably shouldn't be taken as instructions to any human performers who might actually want to play it some day. --Ray

Removal

Seems that you summarized by describing what you did, unfortunately not why. Let me ask here instead: are multiple sharps and flats now possible. Where is the limit for this? --Xenwolf (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I intended to, but accidentally saved the changes before I put the comment in. These systems can be used in musescore. Musescore has double sharp, double flat, and double sharp and double flat with arrows, and was able to spot check that these work. The Musescore plugin documentation also says Musescore plugin to retune and pitch up/down notes in any EDO ranked from flat-2 to sharp-8. (Supports all EDOs from 5-72 except 59, 66, and 71. Also supports larger edos up to 117 that are rated with a sharpness of up to sharp-8). See https://github.com/euwbah/musescore-n-tet-plugins/blob/master/README.md

No need to apologize. Good to know.

Another question for refinement: Is there a way to use triple, quadruple etc. sharps and flats? I know that these are not available in classic notation but theoretically it's possible even if unusual to reach every note in higher order EDOs (above 35) entirely by stacking fifths. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any way to use triple/quadruple flats/sharps in MuseScore, and the same readme as I quoted before says: "Triple flats and sharps and not supported as MuseScore does not provide these accidentals." --Ray

Only double flats through double sharps are available as of MuseScore 3.5, whereas in edos with very flat fifth, triple or more are often required to access all the notes. As I said in Talk:Circle-of-fifths notation:

> Without higher-order sharp/flats, larger edos are very limited. 26edo, for example, requires Gx to Abb to access every note in the key of C major. Now modulate to any key with more than three accidentals and boom.

Fortunately, MuseScore 3.6 will introduce triple sharp/flats, but that still doesn't release edos as flat as 33 or 40. FloraC (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, will half flats/sharps with up and down arrows be added as well? Those could be quite useful. --Rperlner (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think these need to be finalized first, and as it stands, things are really complicated for EDOs that don't temper out the Rastma- think 159edo, which I'm trying to come up with a good notation system for... Oh, and yes, I do indeed plan on having my notation system use variations of the demisharp, sesquisharp, demiflat and sesquiflat accidentals- I mean, I do have a background in 24edo after all... --Aura (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Has anything changed since the state reflected by the last comments in https://en.xen.wiki/w/Talk:159edo_notation (October 16th, I think)? In general what you're proposing seems reasonable. One additional thing I might hope for, is that in systems that temper out the Rastma, the accidentals that differ by a Rastma be taken as synonyms of the normal quartertone accidentals by the Musescore plugin. I like being able to switch the tuning from one EDO to another and have it sound as similar as possible given the EDOs. P.S. On the subject of the Rastma, I recently noticed that the tridecimal equivalent of the Rastma, 512/507 i.e. what you temper out to make 16/13 half of a perfect fifth wasn't in the table of small commas https://en.xen.wiki/w/Small_comma and added it. I got a somewhat non-catchy name for it from http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html . Any opinion on whether I could give it a catchier name e.g. Tridecimal Rastma? --Rperlner (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The most recent comments in the last section of the 159edo notation talk page reflect the current state of affairs for the most part, but something tells me we have yet to finalize things. I'm glad you think my proposals to be mostly reasonable, and I do agree that in systems that temper out the Rastma, the accidentals that differ by a Rastma should be taken as synonyms of the normal quartertone accidentals by the Musescore plugin. I'd be happy to get your input on this, and we need to get Xenwolf back into this as well. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You say that you like being able to switch the tuning from one EDO to another and have it sound as similar as possible given the EDOs... Well, I must point out that 159edo can pull some serious shenanigans on this front, mimicking 12edo, 14edo, 17edo, 19edo, 22edo, 24edo, 27edo, 31edo, 35edo, and 41edo- yes, I'm currently writing a song that changes between these different retunings mid-piece. Yes, that means I would like to see representation of both 81/80 and the rastma, and I do have some ideas for that- namely separating out the syntonic arrows into their own glyphs, which then can be combined with another combining glyph representing the rastma. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tridecimal Rastma doesn't sound like the most catchy name for 512/507, and "Rastma" itself seems to be related to "Rast", which is a term from Turkish, Arabic and Persian music. Therefore, we need something better, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding picking a name for the 512/507 comma, I have two lines of thoughts. First, In Pajara-10, I have found it useful to split the chroma in half to introduce 13-limit (as well as 19, and 23 limit) intervals. This seems most directly related, in terms of scale structure, to tempering out 512/507, although the 169/168 buzurghisma/ dhanvantarisma is also tempered out in the process. Not sure what name this implies, but that 13-limit extension of Pajara should probably be added to the wiki as well, although I'm not sure how to fill in some of the fields "e.g. Nice value" off the top of my head.--Rperlner (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My second line of thought is that One might interpret Maqam Huzam as 1 - 13/12 - 16/13=39/32 - 13/10 - 20/13 - 13/8 - 20/11 - 2. This necessarily suggests 512/507 is tempered out and would suggest the name "Huzama" for the comma. OTOH, Huzam could also be interpreted as 1 - 12/11 - 27/22 - 9/7 - 14/9 - 18/11=44/27 - 20/11 - 2. --Rperlner (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I do think it would be helpful if we also looked at Alpharabian tuning and My Ideas on Tonality for ideas on how to deal with interval names and stuff such. --Aura (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadly not, as seen in the alpha version of MuseScore 3.6. FloraC (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You said that you left a comment on Talk:Circle-of-fifths notation but I don't find it there. Maybe you only previewed it but forgot to save. --Xenwolf (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It is there, in the first reply to Aura. FloraC (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@FloraC: Oh, sorry, I thought your reply was Ray's. --Xenwolf (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Signing contributions on talk pages

Hi Ray, as to make it easier to orientate in the contributions on talk pages, please sign your contributions with adding --~~~~ at the end. This magic sequence of 6 easy-to-type characters are automatically replaced with links to you user and talk pages and a time stamp (by both, preview and save function). It also helps to indent replies by one (further) level. This can be achieved by putting the one or more colons (:) at the beginning of the line. Thanks for your understanding. --Xenwolf (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)