Talk:Extended meantone notation

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Notation

We require good notation. y, z, Y and Z are placeholders.

It should be in ASCII, so that it can easily be typed on a keyboard. ASCII includes:

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
0123456789:;<=>?
@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_
`abcdefghijklmno
pqrstuvwxyz{|}~

PiotrGrochowski (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The symbols should also only consist of one character. This is for convenience in certain situations, such as a music editor which has a compact view of the notes with 3 characters (base letter, modifier, octave number). PiotrGrochowski (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  • (+,-) , (^,v) , (/,\) have all been used as up/down inflections in various notation systems, and are easy to type. Some people have very strong opinions about notation, but I think it's fine to use any symbols you like, as long as you define them clearly and use them consistently! Spt3125 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, right now, you can get a diesis by just going from E# to F. But I like ^ and v for quarter tones (used in HEWM notation), and wouldn't mind using them for the diesis as well. So you would have Fv = E#. I don't like / and \ because I always forget which is which.

Then if you want the thing I was calling a kleisma (sometimes called a "lesser diesis"), I think that would be interval between E and E#v, right? Mike Battaglia (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. A sharp is 7 fifths up, a diesis down is 12 fifths up, and a kleisma up is 19 fifths up. A diesis and kleisma added together are a sharp. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I really think it may be best to simply notate the diesis as C-Dbb, rather than C-C^ or anything else. For two reasons: first, from a "tonal" standpoint, that that's what this interval really is: a double diminished second. Consider the chord progression Cmaj -> Am -> Emaj -> C#m -> G#maj -> E#m -> B#maj -- you have now modulated and are a diesis lower than you started. But this interval may be different sizes in different tunings, and flatter than 19-EDO, the diesis is larger than the chromatic semitone! But even though it is larger, you can still "feel" that you have modulated to the "same place" on the chain of fifths, so there is an interesting perceptual effect there. This is true even if you do the above chord progression in a flattone tuning like 26-EDO for instance, where it's 92 cents, or in a superpyth tuning like 17-EDO, where it's -70 cents! So while the diesis may change in size - it always "feels" like a diesis - much like a chromatic semitone always "feels" like a chromatic semitone whether it's 19-EDO or 17-EDO. But, just my thought... Mike Battaglia (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Removing the diesis from the notation is a modification and the resulting notation is no longer Extended meantone notation. So you just proposed not to use Extended meantone notation, which is off-topic. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ok, i changed Y/Z (diesis) to ^/v, and y/z (kleisma) to +/-, just to make the page less 'under construction'. i'm not attached to these, so change them if you want... Spt3125 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

under construction

Hello Piotr,
There's an obvious contradiction in:

Do not read this page while it is under construction of notation.

... why should the change being made when no one should see it? Please elaborate the change in your user name space (I moved the exact content to User:PiotrGrochowski/Extended meantone notation) and, if ready (meaning someone should read it), replace the content of the article Extended meantone notation. Don't misunderstand me: it's absolutely okay to change pages in-place, but not to bring a page into a limbo state or a quasi locked state (for two weeks now). I really hope you work it out, I'm looking forward to see the change.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)