A Cautionary Example

In case you have somehow missed this. Here is Erv Wilson Scale tree.

http://anaphoria.com/sctree.PDF The region between 1.5 and 1.9 you can click on and take the simplest ratios formed from the series of harmonic medients. I only work with scales that have every interval subtended by the same number of steps that way I can ‘transpose any material anywhere is unique yet subtle variations in intonation. The further advantage of scales like this is that they easily map onto a generalized keyboard with every note looking exactly the same on the keyboard as well as the closest match from any one pitch.
Ptolemy thought the 45/44 was the smallest note he could use melodicly. It is somewhere in that region depending on context. I do have smaller one that if one is running up the scale with the properties mentioned above they fit in well with the continuity.

KG replies: That wuss Ptolemy would only go down to 39 cents? I like 31-cent steps myself, though I've used 81/80 [20.5 cents] melodically.

Thanks for the chart, I'll print it out. It's a nice visual aid, though I've also got other criteria like wanting one harmony with 7 in the denominator against another with 7 in the numerator, same for 11 and so on. Nothing I come up with would be as consistent as you describe, though I do like your idea of transposition. That's the great thing about microtonality, no two people approach it the same way, and your approach seems to indicate how your brain is hard-wired. These days I go back and forth between 11-limit and 13-limit. Working the 13th harmonic into chords doesn't quite work for me, but I love 16/13 and 13/10 as melodic intervals.

thanks for the interesting insights into "a day in the life of a microtonal composer". to me it´s rather inspiring than deterrent :-)
are you familiar with the (JI) microtonal accidentals marc sabat designed? i find them very useful and they work great in sibelius too.
(plainsound.org)

KG replies: No, I'm not. I use a Ben Johnston font designed by Andrian Pertout, who also studied with him. But they don't affect playback. Do Sabat's? A student designed me a plug-in allowing me to put a fraction over the note and change the tuning, but I'm a little afraid to use it for some reason. Everyone comes up with their own shortcuts, still always tedious, but I'll look for Sabat's.

I agree that in the range of 30 cents seems to be good range as a guide.
As for my brain being hard wired, it is more a question that my instruments are. Every scale I make has to be capable of the most far reaching approaches a single tuning can devise. What I make I use and reuse for years if not the rest of my life. There is no turning back as one can only build so many ensembles of instruments, and it is ensembles and not individual instruments work toward.
Partch’s tuning can be viewed as having these same properties as I mentioned if one uses it in the context of a 41 tones scale with two alternates. Erv Wilson's work with him witnessed him constantly using it in this fashion.

KG replies: That's the advantage of being all thumbs: having no carpentry skills, I was never seduced into it, and so never had to commit myself to a tuning. But I do enjoy your instruments.

@kyle gann: no, they don´t affect playback, although it´s probably possible to program them so that they do. i usually use other programs for playback. i don´t know johnston´s system that well and i´m not sure how it relates to sabat/scwheinitz´, but i imagine that there are some common denominators. it would be interesting to know how the meanings of the symbols overlap, hope i can find time to look it up.

KG replies: I looked up the Sabat system a few years ago, and seem to recall there being a lot of conceptual similarity to Johnston's. As how could there not be, I guess, the whole number series being what it is.

One of the wost extensive and far reaching investigations into notation was done by George Secor and Dave Keenan which was the result of much imput from all types of microtonalist from all over.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/d.keenan/sagittal

It includes also many of the sources which might in certain situations have advantages.

Arnold Schoenberg the microtonalist says: “That we name the interval c – g, five, does not mean that c – g is actually, in every context, five; our usage comes from the fact that in our present scale – our scale – exactly three tones come between c and g. But what if there had been four or two? And there could have been, and it would have been right, too; for nature lends herself to a far greater variety of interpretations than [do] our secrets.” -Harmonielehre, pp. 318-19

KG replies: Yeah, Schoenberg talked the talk, but he never walked the walk. I actually enjoy his essays much more consistently than I do is music.

I've made a working set of Johnston accidentals with playback in Finale. Each symbol has its own pitch bend value. In addition to that, the basic chromatic scale has to be tuned in JI with some other method than pitchbend (.scl, .tun etc.) because of the two sizes of whole tones in the 5-limit root scale. I use LMSO for that and most often I use LMSO's simple Cupcake synth for playback. Multiple symbols could be added to a note but since the pitch bend values do not add up, I have to find a separate symbol for each combination such as b-, 7+ etc.
My question is: is this impossible in Sibelius? I've been told it is but now I see mention of pitch bends and plug-ins with fraction symbols. I'm not a fan of Finale but have been under the impression that this complex microtonal playback would not work in Subelius.

KG replies: Nice to hear from you, Juhani, it's been a long time. I imagine it is possible in Sibelius, because a student of mine made me a plug-in that would let me put a fraction over a note, and the pitch would bend accordingly. I'm in awe of people who can figure out how to do these things.