Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

User avatar
cmloegcmluin
Site Admin
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by cmloegcmluin »

In case this is handy, here are the primes thus far addressed, with their size in cents, and then the order they should appear in if based on this size.
5    -21.506   10
7    -27.264    9
11    53.273    4
13   -64.915    1
17    14.730   13
19     3.378   16
23    16.544   12
29    33.148    7
31   -54.528    3
37    46.394    5
41    21.084   11
43    13.795   14
47   -35.697    6
53   -31.767    8
59    64.519    2
61     6.479   15

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by Dave Keenan »

I did mean to link to that HEWM page. Search on <+ within the page (the only example).

I have a Sagittal songbook. But I was thinking we needed to show symbols on staves more often in introductory and other explanatory material.

Thanks. I'll look into the CSS webfont thing when I've finished renewing my teaching quals.

I agree that sharps and flats should not be separated from their nominals by a space. And nor should a sagittal symbol when it is the only accidental.

User avatar
cmloegcmluin
Site Admin
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by cmloegcmluin »

I have a Sagittal songbook. But I was thinking we needed to show symbols on staves more often in introductory and other explanatory material.
Will do.
Thanks. I'll look into the CSS webfont thing when I've finished renewing my teaching quals.
Good luck!
I agree that sharps and flats should not be separated from their nominals by a space. And nor should a sagittal symbol when it is the only accidental.
My suggestion was that the space should be there even when the sagittal is the only accidental, for consistency,
e.g. ~|( E instead of ~|(E.
But I suppose this is just coming down to subtle matters of style. We probably don't need to make a recommendation on this matter.

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by Dave Keenan »

I assumed this was about what to output from the calculator rather than what to recommend to others. I don't have a strong feeling either way about that case. But let's be clear that we're only talking about including any spaces, when using the long ASCII form of pitches in prime factor notation. Long ASCII for monosagittal JI notations doesn't need any spaces within a pitch, so why have them when the prime factor notation happens to be the same as the mono? It seems simplest to use spaces within a pitch, only to separate sagittals (when in long ASCII form).

User avatar
cmloegcmluin
Site Admin
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by cmloegcmluin »

Ha, I wasn't thinking about that, but yes, whatever the calculator spits out will certainly influence the community :)

You've got another good point: while I'd only been considering consistency within prime factor notation thus far, it's important to consider consistency across all Sagittal notations for the simplest cases.

From the first page of the Xenharmonikon article:
...the authors worked together to expand and refine these ideas into a notation system that would be both versatile and powerful, but for which the required complexity would not make it more difficult to do the simpler things.
This has stuck with me as an important principle to uphold. In this case, it convinces me to agree with you.

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by Dave Keenan »

cmloegcmluin wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:28 am
In case this is handy, here are the primes thus far addressed, with their size in cents, and then the order they should appear in if based on this size.
5    -21.506   10
7    -27.264    9
11    53.273    4
13   -64.915    1
17    14.730   13
19     3.378   16
23    16.544   12
...
When ordering prime-factor accidentals so that the largest alteration is closest to the notehead, it is convenient that, as you add primes up-to-and-including prime 19, no new prime symbol comes in between any two previous prime symbols. From 5 to 13 each new prime goes to the right of all previous, and from 17 to 19 each new prime goes to the left of all previous. And this ordering remains the same if the 17-kleisma replaces the 17-comma. This can be diagrammed as:

19 17 5 7 11 13 Notehead

Only with the addition of prime 23, which almost no-one uses, do these adjacency relationships change.

User avatar
cmloegcmluin
Site Admin
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer
Contact:

Re: Prime-factor Sagittal JI notation (one symbol per prime)

Post by cmloegcmluin »

Excellent observation. That should definitely be part of a Prime Factor notation how-to.

Post Reply