Re: Towards a new pitch representation

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> If we are going to move to a list for alterations, the list should probably
> be rationals, rather than integers, in order to be most general.  Thus it
> should most likely be (1/2 -1/4), rather than (1 -1).

In that case, it would appear that "alteration" as a separate concept
could be eliminated, and instead of pitch x with alteration (y z ...),
we could just write (x y z ...).

It is just a pity that x is not (logarithmically) equispaced in physical
pitch.

-- 
David Kastrup