On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:50:33 +0100
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO "quarter-flat/sharp" is non-sense and sounds ugly when speaking
> of quarter-tones, and it looks like from emails in this thread that
> "half-sharp" is rarely used. "quarter-tone flat/sharp" is most
> meaningful a
Le jeudi 24 janvier 2008 à 09:11 -0500, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
> When I speak with musicians, I almost always say "a quarter-tone
> flat" -- I rarely (if ever) say "a half-flat" or "a quarter-flat".
> But maybe that's just me...
IMHO "quarter-flat/sharp" is non-sense and sounds ugly when spe
Hi y'all,
"Half-flat" perfectly makes sense, as a flat is a semi-tone and we
want
to name a quarter tone i.e. a half of a half tone). However,
"quarter-flat" may have been already too much used to allow using
anything else...
When I speak with musicians, I almost always say "a quarter-tone
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 10:55 -0800, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > > 2008/1/22, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > I agree; I've never encountered the term "half-flats". But maybe
> > > > it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
> > > > appropriate terms in Du
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:34:30 -0500
"Palmer, Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed an issue regarding the "See also" on the TODO list:
>
> - all the commands like @seealso use a @subsubheading, but they
> appear as the same size as the @unnumberedsubsubsec headings (as
> you would exp
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:23 -0600
"Trevor Ba__a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 2:39 AM, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 2008/1/22, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I agree; I've never encountered the term "half-flats". But maybe
> > > it's a Eu
Perhaps the quarter/half thing is a confusion of terms?
If you look at flats and sharps as semi- or half-tones then a half of one of
those could be reasonably termed quarter-tones.
I've not seen a "quarter flat" but I have seen the term "quarter tone"
Ralph
On Jan 23, 2008 2:39 AM, Valentin Villenave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/1/22, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I agree; I've never encountered the term "half-flats". But maybe
> > it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
> > appropriate terms in Dutch or French or s
2008/1/22, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree; I've never encountered the term "half-flats". But maybe
> it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
> appropriate terms in Dutch or French or something?)
Please do not *always* assume that because something is weird, it mus
Hi, Graham -
I noticed an issue regarding the "See also" on the TODO list:
- all the commands like @seealso use a @subsubheading, but they
appear as the same size as the @unnumberedsubsubsec headings (as
you would expect). Fix somehow.
I had noticed that, and wondered if adding a blank lin
half-flat? half-sharp?
honestly i've never encountered this expression in english in europe
or US with any ensemble or composer i've been involved with
(and i've directed and recorded a lot of microtonal music...branca,
kline, scelsi, nono, xenakis, ziporyn)
d
On 22 Jan 2008, at 07:28,
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:16:51 -0600
"Trevor Ba__a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm, can we check something here?
Please, that's the whole point of this.
>"Half-flats and half-sharps are formed by adding eh and ih; ..."
> ... which sounds absoutely crazy to me and should instead read ...
>
On Jan 21, 2008 3:15 AM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that was humbling. I honestly thought that NR 1.1 Pitches
> was almost perfect, but the comments (thank you!) from last time
> clearly indicated otherwise. When I tried to read the material
> with a fresh mind (aided by
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:36:32 +0100
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Not true; with = the d's octave is changed; with \octave the d's
> > octave is not changed.
> >
> No! The difference is that = modifies the pitch on the current note,
> whereas the \octave
Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
- The text in "Octav
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
> > check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
> >
> - The text in "Octave corrections and checks" is
Graham Percival wrote:
Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
- The text in "Octave corrections and checks" is contradictory. First it
says that
"an octave check does not change the pitch", then it s
Well, that was humbling. I honestly thought that NR 1.1 Pitches
was almost perfect, but the comments (thank you!) from last time
clearly indicated otherwise. When I tried to read the material
with a fresh mind (aided by the comments), I found many, many
things to fix.
As always, GDP here:
http:/
18 matches
Mail list logo
