Talk:Gamelan notation

earler comments

Notes for someone more experienced at writing articles: Being a traditional gamelan player, I must add that it is really quite fruitless to talk about pelog 4s and 7s as being sharp or flat. In fact, this kind of thinking is rather misleading. Also, it might be more useful to compare the pitches to the natural harmonic scale (see also: just notation) or pentatonic scales rather than solfege (that is, western 'equal' temprament). thanks Shadowshark (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Do you disagree that it can be fruitful to think of pelog as pentatonic with substitutions available, or is your objection only to the western frame of reference? If the later, we probably agree, but I've assumed "flat" and "sharp" etc. are familiar to many Anglophone readers in the sence of "lowers" and "raised", without implying by a fixed number of cents. The "Galin-Paris-Cheve system of 1894" claim originates (I'm pretty sure) with Judith Becker, but my point was that the resemblance between 3-5 and mi-sol gap is probably coincidental. There isnt an article yet on laras, but Pelog and Slendro do a better job of covering the actual tuning than may be expected of an article on notation. Sparafucil (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about using the terms "raised" or "lowered"? They would be widely understood by the anglophone audience, but unlike sharp and flat they seem less likely to imply a Western interpretation or a fixed number of cents. Rigadoun (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub

As the article lacks WP:RS it remains stub class - please help improve by finding other refs or cites SatuSuro 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)