TallKite
Joined 19 September 2018
Clarified clause structure and meaning |
Forgotten words |
||
| Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
::: Now, two lattices: this is how I try to play with different ideas of presenting the lattices with more keys in a window; and this is one of the things I wanted to discuss with you. My initial idea (ears ago :-) was to overcome the limitation of the rational-number tonal systems in terms of the ability to transpose and play different tonalities in the same piece. The idea was to have the keyboard re-tuned on the fly, depending on a chosen tonality. Of course, the idea itself is questionable. For example, it is not suitable for atonal music. Now I'm returning to the idea in different forms. First of all, this is research. As you may have guessed, more than playing in different octaves, I'm concerned with the more fundamental problem of the possibility of harmonic modulation with such tonal systems. With two lattices, we have more nicely used room on a page and can experiment with two different tunings at the same time, changing the tunings independently. Or something like that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:07 UTC'' | ::: Now, two lattices: this is how I try to play with different ideas of presenting the lattices with more keys in a window; and this is one of the things I wanted to discuss with you. My initial idea (ears ago :-) was to overcome the limitation of the rational-number tonal systems in terms of the ability to transpose and play different tonalities in the same piece. The idea was to have the keyboard re-tuned on the fly, depending on a chosen tonality. Of course, the idea itself is questionable. For example, it is not suitable for atonal music. Now I'm returning to the idea in different forms. First of all, this is research. As you may have guessed, more than playing in different octaves, I'm concerned with the more fundamental problem of the possibility of harmonic modulation with such tonal systems. With two lattices, we have more nicely used room on a page and can experiment with two different tunings at the same time, changing the tunings independently. Or something like that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:07 UTC'' | ||
::: The notation with "ab" and 1, 2 is mine, I have some rationale about it. Something symmetrically between A and B is ab, not flat or sharp. Flat or sharp should be the tone closer to the "letter" tone. If you have 5 tones in between, you have two sharps, two flats, and one symmetrically in between. Many complain about up-down notation, but my main thing is 1) it is not standardized in Unicode, in a way, 2) purely readable. The notation is a totally conventional thing. Moreover, I do not accept the entire idea of traditional notation, not only because it is not suitable to variable tonal systems, but only because the idea of notation as the language between music and graphics is totally wrong semiotically: the levels of abstraction are insufficient. There should be at least one graphic-independent layer and different layers of metadata. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:06 UTC'' | ::: The notation with "ab" and 1, 2 is mine, I have some rationale about it. Something symmetrically between A and B is ab, not flat or sharp. Flat or sharp should be the tone closer to the "letter" tone. If you have 5 tones in between, you have two sharps, two flats, and one symmetrically in between. Many complain about up-down notation, but my main thing is 1) it is not standardized in Unicode, in a way,not really accepted, 2) purely readable. The notation is a totally conventional thing. Moreover, I do not accept the entire idea of traditional notation, not only because it is not suitable to variable tonal systems, but only because the idea of notation as the language between music and graphics is totally wrong semiotically: the levels of abstraction are insufficient. There should be at least one graphic-independent layer and different layers of metadata. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:06 UTC'' | ||
::: By the way, the total number of keys is always a problem. First of all, the technology really pushes the limits and is based on very new possibilities, in particular, of Web API, first of all, the sound synthesis (if you look at my article on Sound Builder). That's why I simply reject all less advanced browsers. In practice, it finally works: I pay a high technological price compared to other approaches but obtain serious benefit: the browser as a platform is highly OS-independent. The combination of arbitrary chords and glissando, even with "only" ten fingers makes it obvious that 100% of keys should be able to sound at the same time. This is a huge memory consumption load, and thus limitation. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:06 UTC'' | ::: By the way, the total number of keys is always a problem. First of all, the technology really pushes the limits and is based on very new possibilities, in particular, of Web API, first of all, the sound synthesis (if you look at my article on Sound Builder). That's why I simply reject all less advanced browsers. In practice, it finally works: I pay a high technological price compared to other approaches but obtain serious benefit: the browser as a platform is highly OS-independent. The combination of arbitrary chords and glissando, even with "only" ten fingers makes it obvious that 100% of keys should be able to sound at the same time. This is a huge memory consumption load, and thus limitation. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2020 December 12, 16:06 UTC'' | ||