Talk:159edo/Notation
Atoms of the language
As I understand it, there are Syntonic commas integrated into the symbols, currently only combinations with five base symbols (
, 
, 
, 
, 
), as well as Septimal comma symbols (
, 
, 
, 
). If we add symbols for 1/4 and 3/4 accidentals and the darts, we can combine them in the table. I'm now working on it... --Xenwolf (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aura, I saw that you were as confused as I about the wide lines above. It results from the image dimensions, the browser automatically adjusts the line height to the upper and lower extrema. BTW: I have 2 files out of 16 ready (the 0.5 sharp and 1.5 sharp, which are easy to extent by the synto-arrows), but I won't upload them until I have finished them all, the darts will most likely follow the septi-flags regarding their vertical position... --Xenwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling be about those wide lines... Oh, and it's good to see that you've got some more stuff done. For the record, the darts following the septi-flags in terms of their vertical position actually makes sense, though to be fair, once that's done, we ought to tell Kite about our design for the darts, as I suspect that these darts are the accidentals that are best used in Ups and Downs notation on scores. --Aura (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- A dart is 1\159 or approximately 1/3 of a Syntonic comma or 1/4 of a Septimal comma. All of them are not exact, but in good approximation. I think you'll find all the symbols you need in the Category:159edo notation, I have to pause now. --Xenwolf (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Dart symbol(s)
I like the idea of universal usability indicating some edo step or double step. The graphical symbols themselves are the least sophisticated glyphs I made, IOW they are still more like a sketch. Maybe the distance between the double darts is a bit too small. Also the angle isn't carefully designed as are the "rounded" edge parts. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like the idea of the darts being universally usable- I mean, they are nothing more than better versions of the glyphs of ups and downs notation after all... As for the distance between the double darts being two small, that really depends on the height of the triple dart glyphs, as the triple dart glyphs should have the same height as a natural accidental. However, you are absolutely right about the rounded edges of the glyphs, those really do need fixing... --Aura (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- One more thing... the angle of the darts is something that should be decided by Kite, as he's the one who first came up with Ups and Downs notation, and besides, he would need to know about the stylistic upgrade anyway. --Aura (talk) 21:10, 5 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.
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
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:
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.
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. :)