Re: Quarter-tones

[Peter Lutek]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> My real problem is: where does it end? We can add quarter tone
> accidentals by doubling the alteration field,
> we now have
>
>             0 = natural,
>             1 = sharp
>             2 = double sharp.
>
> We could do
>
>   0 = natural
>   1 = 1/2 sharp
>   2 = sharp
>   3 = 3/4 sharp
>   4  = double sharp,
>
> would that be sufficient, or will we get someone clamoring for 1/3
> sharps shortly?  
>  

of course there exist many microtonal scales, which people ARE using, 
but built-in support for these can be justifiably regarded as excessive. 
if one can modify the number of staff lines and incorporate custom 
symbols (both possible now), then individuals can deal with these 
special circumstances as they arise.

quarter-tone accidentals, on the other hand, have a long history of 
common usage and are well-entrenched in the current notational lexicon 
available to composers AND readable by performers. in my many years of 
work as a performer in the field of avant-garde concert music, i have 
run into quarter-tone notation MANY times, but can't recall a single 
instance of other microtonal divisions in printed music. i DO know folks 
who work in the microtonal area, but the performance and 
instrument-building skills required generally limit those activities to 
a few folks.

bottom line: performers and composers generally know about  and are 
comfortable with quarter-tones, so they should be included.

best-
-p