Re: Quarter-tones

[Thorkil Wolvendans]

At 00:11 17-9-03 +0200, you 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?

Well, I don't think people will start mumbling about 1/3 sharps really 
fast, because as far as my knowledge goes, that's pretty hard to 
achieve...(correct me if I'm wrong - I'm only a simple composer molesting 
the piano all day..! ;)
But I would recommend the quarter-tone system used in atonal music for 
woodwinds (considered by Kurt Stone in 'Music Notation in the 20th Century' 
to have reached a near standard-status - and this was written in 1980).
In this system they use a 1/4 sharp and a 1/4 flat (which looks like a 
regular flat but written backwards), besides, of course the regular sharp 
and flat. This means that if someone writes for instance a 3/4 sharp C, 
this would enharmonically be a 1/4 flat D.

The Tartini-sharp style, with its 1/4 sharps (which looks like a normal 
sharp but one vertical line missing), normal sharps and 3/4-sharps (with 
three vertical lines), can cause a very messy score image, where a page 
with 1/4 sharps, 1/4 flats and normal sharps and flats, doesn't or at least 
causes a much less messy image of the score.
This is why I recommend the quarter-tone system used in atonal music for 
woodwinds.

Han-Wen, I expect that you're in posession of 'Music Notation in the 20th 
Century' by Kurt Stone, since you mentioned it in your bibliography list. 
If so, I'd recommend (if you haven't already done so) to read page 68-69 to 
see what Stone wrote about it. In case you don't have the book (and for 
others who are interested), I'll scan the pages and put up a link sometime 
today.

Regards,
Thorkil