> I am surprised there is nk mention of quarter tones here
There is some debate about 22 śrutis[1][2]. I subscribe to this paragraph from the second link:
> Further, there seems to be no point in trying to interpret these positions in precise mathematical terms. Such measured values do not in anyway contribute to the understanding of music.
In addition to the above, the gamakas I mentioned are a good abstraction over quarter-tones. For most practising musicians, 12 notes + gamakas are enough to describe Indian classical music. I understand Western classical music is a little stricter with its theory, but Indian music is less so, given a stronger aural-oral tradition in India rather than the written word.
Finally, mine was an already-long comment on a Hacker News thread meant to give a rough overview of Carnatic music to a (possibly untrained) Western audience, and not a detailed, thought-out blog post or article about comparative music theory and musicology.
There is some debate about 22 śrutis[1][2]. I subscribe to this paragraph from the second link:
> Further, there seems to be no point in trying to interpret these positions in precise mathematical terms. Such measured values do not in anyway contribute to the understanding of music.
In addition to the above, the gamakas I mentioned are a good abstraction over quarter-tones. For most practising musicians, 12 notes + gamakas are enough to describe Indian classical music. I understand Western classical music is a little stricter with its theory, but Indian music is less so, given a stronger aural-oral tradition in India rather than the written word.
Finally, mine was an already-long comment on a Hacker News thread meant to give a rough overview of Carnatic music to a (possibly untrained) Western audience, and not a detailed, thought-out blog post or article about comparative music theory and musicology.
[1]: https://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/shruti.pdf
[2]: https://carnatic2000.tripod.com/sruthi.htm