Juhani wrote:Hi, I'm trying to get to grips with notating JI in Mixed Sagittal. Is there no dedicated symbol for the 13-comma (27:26)?
As I understand it now has to be notated as 36:35 up from a flat which is confusing.
Sure, that's almost the same pitch but that notation doesn't tell you how to find it or where it is in the lattice - which is the whole point of the JI notation systems of Johnston, Sabat etc.
Juhani wrote:Let me add that I do know that the recommended notation for 13 is the apotome complement of , i.e. from 27
but I find that even more confusing. The logic of the accidental is not obvious for me. Why is it the horizontal mirror of 36:35? I don't see another example of an accidental whose apotome complement is its horizontal (-cum-vertical) mirror.
Juhani wrote:Johnston has 5-limit nominals, so actually the single symbol for prime 7 is indeed for 35:36 but then 63:64 is notated with a combination of 35:36 and 80:81.
Even if Sagittal has more symbols for various commas, and they're single symbols, I still read them as following the logic of a combination of other comma symbols (two 's make a and so on).
I assume means 8192:8505 corrected by a 4095:4096 comma? But then the accidental is still derived in a complicated path from a 7-limit interval. That's what I mean by the logic of the accidentals.
Assuming I never use the 7-limit comma 8192:8505 I can tell the musicians that this is the accidental used for 13-limit intervals.
All the other symbols for low-prime-limit intervals have their own symbol (5-comma, 7-comma, 11-comma), and how signs are combined to a single symbol is often clear ( for two syntonic commas etc.). I would have liked a separate symbol for 13 that is distinct from a combination of lower-limit intervals. ... But as I said, I can simply tell the musicians that this is used for 13, don't worry why it looks like that. Maybe I'd add the number 13 above the note to remind that you're supposed to find the 13th harmonic here. I don't find that ideal, though.
Table 1 doesn't show examples of those combinations of separate glyphs. It seems that's indeed what I'm after but then I'd need loads of new combined symbols in the font.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest