On 09/21/2010 10:33 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 08:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>>> Does that settle the matter adequately? :-)
>>
>> No, because it's not in the issue tracker.
>
> I'll put it there! Just checking that the source is adequate.
Done, but could not attach the scans
On 22 Sep 2010, at 08:18, Benkő Pál wrote:
I didn't mean to replace the whole of your system
by d and a, only M and m. similarly to your P5-P8 example,
(1 0)(d) = (M)
(1 -1)(a) (m)
But it becomes complicated when adding pitches. If one has seconds
s_1, ...,
s_k, then there is an accidenta
On 22 Sep 2010, at 08:18, Benkő Pál wrote:
In algebraic terms, choose a neutral n between m and M. The total
pitch
system will be i m + j M + k n, where i, j, k are integers. But
the staff
system only has the pitches i' m + j' M. When taking the
difference with
the
staff note, reducing the
2010/9/22 Hans Aberg :
> On 21 Sep 2010, at 21:31, Benkő Pál wrote:
>
>>> In algebraic terms, choose a neutral n between m and M. The total pitch
>>> system will be i m + j M + k n, where i, j, k are integers. But the staff
>>> system only has the pitches i' m + j' M. When taking the difference wit
On 21 Sep 2010, at 21:31, Benkő Pál wrote:
In algebraic terms, choose a neutral n between m and M. The total
pitch
system will be i m + j M + k n, where i, j, k are integers. But the
staff
system only has the pitches i' m + j' M. When taking the difference
with the
staff note, reducing the
On 9/21/10 9:28 AM, "Joseph Wakeling" wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 04:52 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> However, I was wrong in my assumption that something about the key signature
>> should determine which of the enharmonic equivalents should be used.
>> Instead, it appears that the neighboring notes sho
On 09/21/2010 08:13 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> Does that settle the matter adequately? :-)
>
> No, because it's not in the issue tracker.
I'll put it there! Just checking that the source is adequate.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@g
> In algebraic terms, choose a neutral n between m and M. The total pitch
> system will be i m + j M + k n, where i, j, k are integers. But the staff
> system only has the pitches i' m + j' M. When taking the difference with the
> staff note, reducing the degree to 0, and taking away the sharps/fla
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:55:52PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 05:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> > Excellent reference! That book is frequently quoted on this list, so
> > this should settle any question of "is it necessary".
>
> Does that settle the matter adequately? :-)
No,
On 21 Sep 2010, at 16:52, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Here are scans from the relevant section of Stone's book. It
explicitly
*says* that natural+1/4 and sharp-1/4 are enharmonic equivalents,
and that
the notation for those pitches must be chosen with care.
Another interpretation might be slight
On 09/21/2010 05:28 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Stone's guidance about the choice of accidentals is IMO something for
> composers to consider rather than Lilypond. From a Lilypond point of
> view, the issue should simply be: the composer can have the accidentals
> s/he chooses.
... but ... thank
On 09/21/2010 04:52 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> However, I was wrong in my assumption that something about the key signature
> should determine which of the enharmonic equivalents should be used.
> Instead, it appears that the neighboring notes should govern in tonal music.
> In atonal music, it doe
On 09/21/2010 04:42 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> This is not the nuance implied, since by your definition,
> natural-uparrow (+1/4) and sharp-downarrow are the same, and you
> clearly want them to mean something different.
They are enharmonically the same pitch, which can be notated in two
(symbo
On 21 Sep 2010, at 14:16, Carl Sorensen wrote:
It seems to me that the pitches natural+1/4 and sharp - 1/4 are the
same
pitch (i.e. enharmonic equivalents) and that it is appropriate to have
either one represent the same pitch.
Arab music uses E24 quarter-tone accidentals, though the actual
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Joseph Wakeling
wrote:
> >From a notational perspective, the first two numbers are used to
> calculate the vertical staff position of the notehead, while the value
> of the alteration is used to determine the accidental: e.g. (1,1,-1/2)
> corresponds to the D-flat
On 21 Sep 2010, at 16:05, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Yes - accidentals do not affect the degree: they are of degree
zero. One
can add notes and intervals on this abstract level, and the degrees
add
as well. In mathematics, a function f is called a homomorphism (of
abelian groups) when f(0) = 0,
On 09/21/2010 02:16 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> Yes - accidentals do not affect the degree: they are of degree zero. One
> can add notes and intervals on this abstract level, and the degrees add
> as well. In mathematics, a function f is called a homomorphism (of
> abelian groups) when f(0) = 0, f(x +
On 09/20/2010 05:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> For arrowed quarter-tones the notation is described (and recommended) in
>> Kurt Stone's book "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century".
>
> Excellent reference! That book is frequently quoted on this list, so
> this should settle any question of
On 21 Sep 2010, at 14:16, Carl Sorensen wrote:
A sharp is M-m and a flat m-M.
If I understand right, this is a key "trick" of your system, since
such
representations allow you to raise or lower the pitch without
affecting
the degree.
So by extension, if we say that q is a quarter-tone, t
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 06:16:40AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 9/21/10 3:46 AM, "Joseph Wakeling" wrote:
>
> > but where/how in that system do we distinguish between for example
> > natural + 1/4 and sharp - 1/4 ? Presumably the former is (m-q)
> > whereas the latter is (M-m)+(q-m
On 9/21/10 3:46 AM, "Joseph Wakeling" wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 03:41 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> A sharp is M-m and a flat m-M.
>
> If I understand right, this is a key "trick" of your system, since such
> representations allow you to raise or lower the pitch without affecting
> the degree.
>
> So b
On 21 Sep 2010, at 11:46, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
A sharp is M-m and a flat m-M.
If I understand right, this is a key "trick" of your system, since
such
representations allow you to raise or lower the pitch without
affecting
the degree.
Yes - accidentals do not affect the degree: they ar
On 09/20/2010 03:41 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> A sharp is M-m and a flat m-M.
If I understand right, this is a key "trick" of your system, since such
representations allow you to raise or lower the pitch without affecting
the degree.
So by extension, if we say that q is a quarter-tone, to raise or l
On 20 Sep 2010, at 18:00, Wols Lists wrote:
As a related issue, have you considered how (different kinds of)
transposition would be handled in your pitch scheme?
This is much simpler: the linear combinations are vectors that you
just add. For example, if a, b, c, ... are represented by 0, M,
On 20/09/10 14:41, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> As a related issue, have you considered how (different kinds of)
>> transposition would be handled in your pitch scheme?
>
>
> This is much simpler: the linear combinations are vectors that you
> just add. For example, if a, b, c, ... are represented by 0, M
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joseph Wakeling writes:
>
>> Indeed, d-3/4 is not sufficient [1]: in arrow quarter-tone notation you
>> want to be able to indicate quarter-tone raising or lowering of any of
>> the 12 standard tones.
>
> One solution would be to allow pitch
On 20 Sep 2010, at 18:08, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
One scan should be fine. The first step is to convince people that
the representation needs to be extended, and Stone should be
sufficient for that. The next step is for somebody actually code it.
Sure. I'll try and follow up with Hans separa
Joseph Wakeling writes:
> On 09/20/2010 03:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> Hmm. This is similar to the distinction between cis and des, correct?
>
> Yes, exactly, it's an enharmonic equivalence.
>
>> Am I also correct in assuming that d-3/4 is not sufficient? Also, is
>> there a frequency dif
On 09/20/2010 05:27 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> For arrowed quarter-tones the notation is described (and recommended) in
>> Kurt Stone's book "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century".
>
> Excellent reference! That book is frequently quoted on this list, so
> this should settle any question of
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Joseph Wakeling
wrote:
> On 09/20/2010 03:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
>> 2) make a scan of some published music that uses this notation. This
>> will immediately silence anybody who wants to argue (as I somewhat
>> did) that a single fraction is sufficient to sh
On 09/20/2010 03:22 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Hmm. This is similar to the distinction between cis and des, correct?
Yes, exactly, it's an enharmonic equivalence.
> Am I also correct in assuming that d-3/4 is not sufficient? Also, is
> there a frequency difference between c+1/4 and cis-1/4 ?
On 20 Sep 2010, at 14:48, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
I saw the post but was not sure quite how to interpret it.
I expected someone to ask for details. In the past, I discussed
part of
it with Graham Breed, who did some LilyPond microtonal
implementation,
but perhaps he is not working on it an
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Joseph Wakeling
wrote:
>
> *A key assumption of this approach is that there is a one-to-one
> correspondence between accidental and alteration value.* This clearly
> holds for conventional Western 12-tone notation. However, it does _not_
> hold for many _microto
On 09/20/2010 12:23 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:
>> I saw the post but was not sure quite how to interpret it.
>
> I expected someone to ask for details. In the past, I discussed part of
> it with Graham Breed, who did some LilyPond microtonal implementation,
> but perhaps he is not working on it anymore
On 20 Sep 2010, at 12:08, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Hence why I say that the issue of effective microtonal support still
requires action at the code level, and is not simply a matter of
better
documentation ... :-(
I made a post about this issue last week, but there were no
responses.
http
On 09/20/2010 10:47 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2010, at 00:50, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>
>> Hence why I say that the issue of effective microtonal support still
>> requires action at the code level, and is not simply a matter of better
>> documentation ... :-(
>
> I made a post about this i
On 20 Sep 2010, at 00:50, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
Hence why I say that the issue of effective microtonal support still
requires action at the code level, and is not simply a matter of
better
documentation ... :-(
I made a post about this issue last week, but there were no responses.
http://
37 matches
Mail list logo
