source file: mills2.txt Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 02:49:52 -0800 Subject: Re: Notation for Partch From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> (1) My point is only that if one is interested in making a tonal analysis of a Partch score from within the Partch perspective, that is locating a given pitch, dyad, triad, tetrad etc within the diamond structure, then it is useful (not essential, but useful) when the notation of the transcription shows immediately how an interval is factored. Further, it is useful (not essential, but useful) when intervals are invariant under transposition. For example: in the key of C, Johnston`s d1 a1 has the ratio of 40/27, which I would notate as d1 -a1, the minus indicating the lowering of a by a syntonic comma. The minus sign is an immediate cue that, (1) the interval is not pythagorean, but reduced by a comma, and (2) that the interval ratio will have 5 in the numerator and some factor of three in the denominator. (2) Regarding Adamīs argument regarding the advantage of Johnstonīs notation because one may use Johnstonīs players: In Germany, at least, the only Just notation to have any currency is essentially what I have described in the version promoted by Prof. Vogel in Bonn. I reckon that the number of musicians who have worked with Vogelīs system is similar to if not greater than the number who have worked with Johnstonīs, and there has been a great effort by his students to make and publish transcriptions of classical repertoire into his notation (which raises some entirely different issues as performance materials, but has no small interest as a kind of functional analysis). If I were to present the arguments for and against the individual systems to a large group of accomplished musicians, my guess is that the interval invariance of pythagorean-based notations would win out in terms of performer friendliness; it certainly wins out in terms of analyst friendliness. (And if the Kronos does not want to learn another notation, I am perfectly satisfied to stick with the Arditti). (3) Lastly, I cannot but note that there has always been a sort of inertia in the tuning community (akin to the inertia that left us with VHS and not the superior Betamax technology). If some standard is set, there is a tendency to treat it religiously. I recall conversations with devout Partchians more than twenty years ago who felt it a sacrilege to use any pitch standard than 1/1-196. I think that this attachment to the Johnston notation is a further case in point. When I advocate an alternative, it is only that, with its own specific advantages and disadvantages. I am personally very attracted to Wilsonīs notations with twelve nominals in place of seven and a staff of alternating groups of two and three lines (much like Hauerīs _atonal_ notation), but I am not optimistic about the prospects for finding performers willing to take that stretch. Daniel Wolf, Frankfurt Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:17 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03686; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 05:05:30 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02855 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id VAA08077; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:05:28 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:05:28 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu