Dave Keenan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:12 pm
Footnote 18 in the XH article (my bolding) says:
While the Reinhard method makes use of numbers of cents modifying 24-EDOpitches, it is not possible to use separate quartertone symbols at the same time as Sagittal symbols, so the numbers would need to be specified relative to steps of 12-EDO. The numbers would therefore be wider in range, but would never require more than 2 digits.
So if Revo Sagittal is used, the performers have to at least read double and triple-shaft arrows as sharps or flats, and X-shaft arrows as double sharps and double flats. They can however ignore the flags. So the cents will be the same no matter whether it's Evo or Revo.
But if you're putting cents on, why would you use Revo?
Thanks for this. Interesting. To me it made even more
sense to use cents with Revo than to use cents with Evo. Because the Revo are for the trve kvlt microtonalists, and the cents are for those less-committed folks who don't really know what any of this means but who can at least estimate percentages of the way between the notes they do know.
But I only thought that way before
you clarified that performers should be expected to parse the sharp or flat part out of the Revo symbol, even if it is larger than the Revo symbol, e.g.
so its accompanying cents value would actually be around negative 20¢, not positive 90¢. And we both agree that that's
bonkers; if you know Revo well enough to be able to do that
on the fly, you certainly don't need the cents to help.
And yes, the cents would usually be relative to 12edo. But no matter whether they are relative to 12-edo or to the native fifth of the tuning, there should be some words at the start of the score to that effect. e.g. "Cents relative to 12-equal", or "Cents relative to Pythagorean", or "Cents relative to 1/4-comma meantone" or "Cents relative to a chain of 708 cent fifths" etc.
I think my way, where
would be accompanied by 90¢, is reasonable. Honestly, I even thought it was obvious, and so I didn't bother explaining, i.e. that you'd give cents deviations from the 12-EDO notation that was visible on the page (which in Revo is only bare nominals),
until you revealed that you approached the problem differently.
And so in conclusion, you make an excellent point here, that this is a finnicky enough problem, and people will have different definitions of obvious, that inevitably you should just explain whatever it is you're doing at the beginning. The dream of a standard microtonal notation that requires no explanation is probably the pipe kind.