Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Sender: "John O'Hagan" <johnmohagan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:59:19 +1000
From: John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: code review
In-Reply-To: <3f15d831-45bb-471c-8d49-a2db21e67c7a@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
References: <mailman.1623.1340939177.4697.python-list@python.org> <EaAHr.369967$of1.132220@fx06.am4> <mailman.1651.1341052165.4697.python-list@python.org> <2662370.TGmo96CKe1@PointedEars.de> <mailman.1658.1341085147.4697.python-list@python.org> <VlJHr.500117$jl.112442@fx19.am4> <mailman.1659.1341089444.4697.python-list@python.org> <87wr2oecf6.fsf@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <4FEF7117.7000109@jollybox.de> <jsns6l$7c0$1@dough.gmane.org> <mailman.1663.1341093928.4697.python-list@python.org> <4fefb0ad$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <43f27741-bd1b-4c15-9822-c196b8b0396e@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> <mailman.1714.1341248151.4697.python-list@python.org> <4ff24384$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmp7mpUg+spdv5HMX+8yD42koM7Ks+KRMbL9ooV6EY-QRg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.1728.1341282369.4697.python-list@python.org> <3f15d831-45bb-471c-8d49-a2db21e67c7a@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1745.1341327575.4697.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:24820

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 7:25 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there
> > a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of
> > the Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all.
> >
> > Music is another field which could do with a "metrification": I get tired of
> > explaining to beginners why there's no B#, except when it's C. Check
> > outhttp://musicnotation.org
> 
> You assume that equal temperament is the only way to have music.
> Apart from the fact that there are non-tempered musics all over the
> world, even Bach Mozart and Beethoven did not write for/to equal
> temperament. In a pure/untempered C-scale A-flat is almost half a
> semitone sharper than G-sharp -- 8/5 vs 25/16.
> 
[...]

I don't assume that at all :) If you didn't already, have look at the
link.  I was talking about notation of the normal everyday contemporary
tempered system where there is no pitch difference between Ab and G#. But even
in a just system, any difference between them depends on the system itself,
the key, and whether you choose to call them that. I've never heard anyone claim
that C is sharper than B#, although in the key of E the relationship would be
the same. 

AIUI there is any number of whole number ratios which fall between seven and
nine tempered semitones above the fundamental (to take your example), and in
C, any one of them could be called either Ab or G# depending on the key
signature or other context. IMHO, that's the aspect that could benefit from a
simplified representation.

To the OP, I'm deeply sorry!

--

John