On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Mike Duffy >
wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jun 2021 01:42:49 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>
>(From your sig) : Ph D in music theory.
>
>So why have we 'evolved' such a complicated language of music notation?
>
>Even with modern tools to unambiguously put a note on the line or in a
>space (vs. sometimes accidentally touching a line), there are still
>multiple 'clefs', and the hideous clutter of octothorpes & half-spades on
>*every* line to denote the key.
>
>It would probably be easier for a novice to make sense of a midi stream
>which has been piped into almost any UTF-8 character set.
>
>
>Also, are you aware of any serious attempt / intent on anyone's part to
>carry the scale resolution to the next level in the Fibonacci sequence?
>
>The trivial case required to define the Fibbonacci sequence as it applies
>to musical scales is 1 note per octave, i.e. a piano with only the 'C'
>keys.
>
>The next case is a piano with two keys per octave, 'G' and 'C'. G is at a
>frequency 3/2 times the 'C' below it; or 2/3 the C above it.
>
>The next case is 3 keys per octave. C, G, & E to incorporate sub-
>multiples of 5 ('fifths').
>
>The next case is the 5 tone 'pentatonic' system used by oriental music.
>
>The next is the 8 tone (white) keys of Western Music.
>
>The next is the 13 tone (black + white keys) of western music.
>
>
>Is there any serious work being done on a the next level? (21 keys)
Ask them, theyre here. "You can stop saying that now. Thank you."
--
Not Dave Smith