Guitar Hero Anyone?
John
I've seen a lot of discussion about changes in the current
notation's rhythm system, whether or not it is necessary to change
something that "is not broken". While I do agree that the current
rhythm system is not directly broken, I do suggest that it indirectly
negatively effects the current and new notation systems. The current
system employs the use of note color, dots, beams, and other visual
representatives that, if a new rhythm system were to be developed,
could be put towards other purposes.
I noticed that while playing the piano that I did not necessarily
rely on the note color or dots to determine a notes rhythmic location
or length during play. Once the location of the beginning of the note
was recognized, I merely noticed the notes relation vertically to
notes played at the same time above it and below it and the point at
which the finger that now played the note was directed to another
action, be it a rest or another note. This made me realize that just
as spacial consistency is important to the intuitive nature of pitch
discretion, it is equally important in its location rhythmically.
It is important that it be understood that this system for
rhythmic notation that I have developed was created for its addition
to other notations. It does not rename the notes or even give a
specific pitch to any line (as I don't think any system should), nor
does it give a system for identifying the current tonic or scale.
This is so that if anyone decides to add it to their system, which
should be easy given they use a chromatic staff, it is easy and lacks
any conflict.
Heres a link to the system as well as some information on its
formation and inspiration:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5789/ghnotationsystem.jpg
Just one clarification, the explanation calls the vertical lines not
representing beat one to start at the second chromatic note and end at
the second to last, where that could be interpreted as the note one or
two half steps below the octave. As shown in the illustration, it
ends two steps below the octave. Maybe it should be one though, so
please let me know what you think.
Michael Johnston
> rhythmic notation that I have developed was created for its addition
> to other notations.
Excellent attitude! Is the intent to make the rhythmic axis fully
proportional? If so, things like Liszt piano paraphrases will look very
strange because of the very, very fast notes that come all at once after
some reasonably fast passages -- you know, show-off scales and
arpeggios. I've often asked for someone to do what you've started. I
would like to see ideas on improving the rhythmic component, and you are
one of the brave ones for diving in.
BTW, I have had to swallow my ill will towards Guitar Hero. My nephew
who was playing trumpet and later a little piano has dropped it all and
begun playing Guitar Hero all the time. I was interested to see it but
when he demonstrated it to me, I was crushed in that there is no actual
music making. It's purely a matter of coordinating your fingers to the
image on the screen and sound from the speakers. I had hoped there would
be something more to it. But, I'll wait for you to rename your invention
because you will not stick with GH because it will fall out of fashion
and it really has nothing to do with guitars. <g>
Cheers!
Michael
--
MICHAEL'S MUSIC SERVICE 4146 Sheridan Dr, Charlotte, NC 28205
704-567-1066 ** Please call or email us for your organ needs **
http://michaelsmusicservice.com "Organ Music Is Our Specialty"
John
>because you will not stick with GH because it will fall out of fashion
>and it really has nothing to do with guitars
permanent title : )
> Is the intent to make the rhythmic axis fully
> proportional? If so, things like Liszt piano paraphrases will look very
> strange because of the very, very fast notes that come all at once after
> some reasonably fast passages -- you know, show-off scales and
> arpeggios.
looked like it would be equally functional to keep it proportional
merely within a measure, and even then within a measure the
consistency didn't seem that important as long as the beats defined by
vertical lines were distinct and the subdivisions of the beat were
proportional. I will have to transcribe some music and try to read it
myself to figure these ergonomics out. Unfortunately without a Janko
keyboard this chromatic music is harder to read than western on a
standard piano. Maybe I'll just post some transcriptions and let
everyone take a look.
> My nephew
> who was playing trumpet and later a little piano has dropped it all and
> begun playing Guitar Hero all the time
forces on the planet. It provides an immense amount of satisfaction
with very little effort. It provides those with large amounts of
rhythmic talent and coordination with an easy way to show off
socially. No need to take lessons, practice, or even know what you're
doing musically; it's all done for you. It's way too easy to get
hooked and worst of all its not the kids fault, it's a great game.
Beware!
Here's a video to show how good people get at this game, this kids
nine:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://
www.youtube.com/v/KUzNcheoY6U&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param
name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://
www.youtube.com/v/KUzNcheoY6U&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-
shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"
width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUzNcheoY6U&feature=fvw
Anyway, thanks for the feedback,
John
Jim_Plamondon
> Believe me when I say that Guitar Hero is one of the most destructive
> forces on the planet. It provides an immense amount of satisfaction
The fallacy:
If the Music Notation Modernization Project were to come up with a
musical notation which -- like Korea's "hangul" writing system or the
Cheorokee "talking leaves" writing system -- enabled its users to
become (musically) litrate within days, then would this result be One
of the Most Destructive Forces on the Planet?
It is not the "lack of effort" that makes Guitar Hero bad; minimizing
the effort necessary to achieve success is a GOOD thing.
The truth (in my humble opinion):
The problem with Guitar Hero is, as John points out at the end of the
above quote, that success at the Guitar Hero game does little to
facilitate musical understanding (i.e., an understanding of tonal
relationships). Actually, I would argue that Guitar Hero is actually
pretty good at teaching its players a sense of rhythm, which is also a
very important component of musical understanding.
The objective of the Music Notation Modernization Group should be, I
submit, to minimize the effort needed to acheive musical understanding
(however that might be defined). Ideally, "very little effort" would
be required to attain such mastery, with dramatically fewer lessons
and as less practice required to acheive such mastery.
Hence, we should not confuse effort with value.
In my humble opinion. ;-)
--- Jim
Paul W Morris
Michael Johnston
like to offer a slightly different perspective.
The value in learning is not directly derived from the effort offered
nor the time expended in the study. For me, the most important
consideration is the achievement you're working for and, almost as
important, the process of learning, or "journey," of learning.
> It is not the "lack of effort" that makes Guitar Hero bad; minimizing
> the effort necessary to achieve success is a GOOD thing.
I don't like this view of working towards a goal for a few reasons. One
is that quick fixes can become the primary focus of the effort. We've
seen the results of this in the political and financial areas. My nephew
in high school is not interested in learning anything for the sake of
learning it. He learns just what he needs to make an A on a test. The
teacher tells him what he needs to learn, he learns it, he takes the
test, he gets an A, the parents are happy, he's happy. What's left out?
My nephew has no interest in anything, sadly. Video games have replaced
his natural sense of curiosity somehow. This is not the case with me, so
I don't really understand it. I know he had to work on the trumpet and
the music I gave him frequently taxed his ability. He used to tell me
that he "hadn't learned that note yet." So, he learned it and went
forward. This has stopped, replaced by the improvement in video games as
reflected in higher and higher games scores, a point of pride among his
friends.
When I showed him my organ, he began to play the pedals. Ah! My brother
was so pleased! Here was the natural curiosity and the willingness to
jump on board and give something unknown a try. I think he might be good
at it, but he's never come back. My brother tells me he comes home from
11th grade and immediately takes a nap. After homework and supper, it's
off the game console. There's no reading, no music practice, no TV, and
certainly nothing like writing music. This is disappointing of course,
but isn't this how much of today's young people behave? When Pong first
came out, I was more interested in how it was written than in playing
it. He has zero interest in writing his own games or small apps or even
scripts. The video game console has certain addictive bits in its
design. It's not that the quick gratification is bad, but it is habit
forming and prevents the other things that many think are important and
valuable. I once talked to someone who told me they felt so stupid for
wasting all that time playing games; this person now plays Chopin and
other beautiful music and practices to achieve better proficiency.
> Actually, I would argue that Guitar Hero is actually
> pretty good at teaching its players a sense of rhythm, which is also a
> very important component of musical understanding.
Here, I don't think the game actually teaches anything as much as it
provides a stimulus which must be matched to receive points. Dancing
used to have some of this. Band plays Fox Trot, couple dances Fox Trot,
couple is happy. The feet moving in a pattern to the stimulus of the
music's rhythm provided by the band didn't "teach" the dancers what to
do, but they were able to match their actions to it. My nephew has one
real guitar and three game control shaped like guitars. The rhythm that
he matches by interacting with these controls is purely
stimulus-response; I don't see the actual learning. Now, when he picks
of the real instrument, he doesn't use the fingers in the same way. With
the real guitar, it's all chords and strumming. Wouldn't this indicate
that, at least for him, there's no connection to learning?
> Ideally, "very little effort" would
> be required to attain such mastery, with dramatically fewer lessons
> and as less practice required to acheive such mastery.
Well, the truism is that you get what you pay for, you get out of it
what you put into it. Certainly, that simplistic, but I use it as a
guide. We had a voice teacher north of here who years ago began offering
voice lessons on VHS tape. I was intensely negative about it because it
didn't make sense to me. Sure, a recorded lecture could teach music
history, theory, notation, and such but not technique and lessons. JohnK
may remember these done for piano. The teacher sold the tapes and then
once in a while the student would come in for a real lesson. This was an
attempt to accelerate learning but I believe it has all disappeared. Has
anyone seen a current video teaching system for music?
John
>nor the time expended in the study. For me, the most important
>consideration is the achievement you're working for and, almost as
>important, the process of learning, or "journey," of learning.
>what you put into it.
It sounds like you are making two points. One, that the attempt
to make our music system simpler would lead to "quick fixes" that
detract from the process of learning music, and two, that the effort
that we put into learning today's music system today is important for
the journey.
I will attempt to not necessarily speak for Jim directly when I
say that I think that, in response to your first point, that it is not
the point he makes. I think that he states that currently our system
has a high effort cost for low value return, that is, a high amount of
study and experience necessary for an understanding of tonal
relationships, and that this can be fixed with little or no cost other
than that of having to change. I don't think that he ever makes the
point that in the minimization of effort it is worth decreasing the
value of the journey or destination itself, i.e. a quick fix or the
singing videos. In fact, if done correctly, this minimization surely
would increase the value of both the end result and the journey in the
situation of our current music system.
In response to your second point, much of the effort required
today in learning and using our current music system such as the
learning of key signatures and understanding the current staff is only
a bunch hoops through which one is required to jump that I believe
detract from the journey. In a hypothetical hero's quest these hoops
would not be comparable to mountains to climb or damsels to save but
rather a requirement to dig two holes and fill each with the others
dirt every few minutes, not for character building or strength
training, but because someone told you thats what all heroes on a
quest do and it is absolutely necessary. In no way are we suggesting
the removal of mountains and damsels in throughout the quest because
that would detract for the journey; instead we are suggesting that we
show this hero that the digging of the holes is completely unnecessary
and let him focus on climbing and rescuing. Yes, he will be able to
save the damsel and climb the mountain twice as fast, but equally
important is that his journey in doing so will be uninterrupted. My
metaphor is over now.
I think the point I have made is that the value attained is not
related to merely the sum of all effort(the holes, mountains, and
damsels/learning key signatures and how to read our current staff),
but rather the effort directly related to growth and attainment of a
the goal(just the mountains and damsels). Therefor the effort put
into learning our current system is NOT valuable because it does not
relate directly to an understanding of music.
John
Jim_Plamondon
the essence of my point.
Meryl Streep's character is the headmistress of a Catholic school in
the 1960's. She finds a ball-point pen in her classrom, and goes off
on a diatribe against them. To this headmistress, the ball-point pen
is a tangible embodiment of the deadly sin of sloth -- i.e., for man's
search for "the easy way out." She states should never have allowed
cartridge pens into her school; now she can see that they were the
first step on the slippery slope towards sloth. Ball-point pens are,
she declares, the death of penmanship.
The headmistress is entirely correct that the ball-point pen delivered
the death-blow to calligraphic penmanship. Calligraphic penmanship
requires a "linear pen-tip" such as that found on quill and fountain
pens; the ball-point pen does not have a linear tip.
The headmistress values calligraphic penmanship. She values its beauty
and tradition. She considers its to be an essential skill in an
education person -- the kind of educated person she thinks her school
should be prodicing.
However, it takes time to teach, learn, and use calligraphic
penmanship, and their tools (e.g. fountain pens) are more expensive
than ball-point pens.
Education suffers from Baumol's Curse (http://www.thummer.com/blog/
2007/11/baumols-curse.html): its costs, being primarily labor, always
tends to rise, relative to those activities which can be automated
more effectively. That makes a given level of education increasingly
expensive, relative to (say) the cost of food or widgets (the
production of which is more-easily automated).
This incessant rise in relative cost leads education, in general, in a
constant quest for increased efficiency through alternative approaches
-- such as Guido d'Arezzo's invention, c. 1000 ad, of "sight-singing"
and its tools, including the musical staff and solmization. His
methods enabled him to teach a competent plainchant singer in one
year, whereas traditional methods required 10 years. That's a HUGE
increase in educational efficiency.
However, Guido sacrificed something to gain this efficiency: the
memorization of songs. Traditionally-trained singers knew hundreds of
plainchant songs by heart. They took great pride in their detailed
knowledge of a vast repertoire, because this detailed memorization was
an important metric of quality. Good singers, by definition, had
memorized hundreds of songs. Poor singers had not. Good singers
didn't need any tricks or gadgets to help them sing; they KNEW their
songs. Guido's sight-readers might be able to sing unknown songs on
first sight, but -- so what? When had that ever counted for
anything? Guido's singers DIDN'T KNOW ANY SONGS. Therefore, ipso
facto, they were lousy singers.
The invention of the musical staff was exactly analogous to the
invention of the ball-point pen. It devalued memorization, just as the
ball-point pen devalued calligraphic penmanship.
Efficiency is almost never obtained without sacrificing something that
was previously valued. The easy-to-learn efficiency of Guitar Hero's
display-and-control system -- five lines, each corresponding to one of
five buttons -- is obtained by sacrificing the system's tonal
content. Ball-point pens deliver writing at low cost and great
simplicity (compared to fountain pens) by sacrificing linear tips.
Sight-singing delivers ease of learning and use by sacrificing
memorization.
So: efficiency is GOOD. Without constant increases in efficiency,
Baumol's Curse makes education unaffordable to all but the richest
elites (as it has been throughout most of history).
Mark Walsen
"Efficiency is almost never obtained without sacrificing something
that was previously valued."
Cheers
-- Mark
Michael Johnston
> memorization of songs.
Outstanding post, Jim. Points like this are valid. If I were to add a
small point, it would be that the travelling musicians who carried the
news and sang of love and battle continued the in-mind tradition for
much longer. The monks needed a quicker way to teach the many new
arrivals. The plague tended to increase converts to the religious life.
This is the best reason I know for having an archive at Google. Some of
our posts are worth keeping. Our archive for piporg-l goes back to 1991
and I often search the archives for posts from former and deceased
members who contributed high quality articles.
Jim_Plamondon
damsel-rescuing. The efficiency of knight education would benefit by
minimizing hoop-jumping and maximizing damsel-resuing (although I
would argue that knighthood is really about killing people; the damsel
thing is just public relations).
Ultimately, however, I really *do* mean that the fewer dragons one has
to slay, holes fill, and damsels rescue, the better. Screw the
journey. I want the reward. I submit that everyone else does,
too...although they tend to pick and choose the areas in which they
laud or bemoan such journey-minimizing. Everyone knows that walking or
biking to work would be better for their health (accidents aside), yet
the vast majority of people persist in driving anyway, because they do
not value the journey; they just want to get to work, as quickly and
efficiently as possible. They just want the reward, in this as in
everything else. This is not a bad thing; they are seeking efficiency,
and efficiency is good.
So, why do people often confuse journeys wih rewards?
The Catholic encyclopedia describes sloth as follows (http://
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm):
"A man apprehends the practice of virtue to be beset with difficulties
and chafes under the restraints imposed by the service of God. The
narrow way stretches wearily before him and his soul grows sluggish
and torpid at the thought of the painful life journey. The idea of
right living inspires not joy but disgust, because of its
laboriousness."
Those who were raised on the Catholic view of sloth -- which includes
every Westerner, because medieval Catholic thought permeates modern
Western culture -- see many innovations as slothful attempts to avoid
God's narrow way (although they may not cast their uneasiness in quite
these terms). They see labor-saving innovations as being *morally*
suspect. This is, I submit, one possible source of the widespread
confusion over journeys and rewards.
Here's a simple test of your thoughts on sloth. Consider the movie The
Matrix. In it, people can download abilities (i.e., skills and
knowledge) directly into their brains. One such download gives you
the ability to fight using kung fu; another such download gives you
the ability fly a helicopter. The movie didn't show it, but
presumably, one such download could deliver the ability to compose
tonal music, and another could deliver the ability to play that music
on a given instrument (complete with the knowledge and skill necessary
to convey emotion).
Would these hypothetical "downloadable abilities" be a good thing, or
a bad thing?
I argue that they would be an unadulterated good, because they would
deliver a journey-free reward. They are efficient.
I can think of only two arguments against such downloading. One is
that some knowledge -- such as knowledge of how to make Weapons of
Mass Destruction -- is too dangerous to let "just anyone" know, and
"downloadable abilities" would facilitate the spread of such
contraband knowledge. But this argument has been used against every
incremental development of communication technology since Gilgamesh
first poked a stick into a tablet of wet clay. Knowledge is power, and
those in power always try to monopolize knowledge. The powerful
present this as being rational, but it is merely self-serving. It's
rational for the powerful to seek to hold their power, but irrational
for the powerless to accept their powerlessness.
The second argument is that the powerful could use the downloads to
brainwash the powerless. This is certainly possible, as is shown by
our current educational system, which does exactly that.
Some will argue that such downloading would be sinfully slothful. But
the same could have been said about sailboats, when sails were first
invented; surely it was a sin to slothfully harness the wind, rather
than rowing the boat yourself. Or when the printing press was
invented, to slothfully save the effort of writing out a manuscript.
Or when insulin was invented, to slothfully save the effort of
investing in proper diet and exercise. Or when Arabic numerals were
introduced into Europe, to slothfully save the effort of using Roman
numerals. Or, or, or. Technology is inherently labor-saving, thought-
saving, and effort-saving -- that is, sloth-increasing. Innovation
deprecates the "value" of a journey that someone, somewhere, values in
and of itself.
In education, I submit that the journey is not the reward. It is just
a *cost* -- a cost to be minimized to the greatest possible extent, in
order to deliver the widest and deepest set of abilities to the
highest possible percentage of the world's population at the lowest
possible cost. If everyone could simply download (instantly and
affordably) the abilities now taught over years of K-12, college, post-
grad, etc., then...great! Likewise, if one could similarly download
the ability -- i.e., the knowledge and skills -- used in problem-
solving and ability-creation, then perhaps the available pool of
abilities would expand at a faster rate than is currently possible.
Nothing but goodness here.
I find this hypothetical scenario of "downloadable abilities" to be
excellent for clarifying one's thinking about the sinfulness of sloth,
and the reward inherent in journeys. If one sees such "ability
downloading" as being bad, then one is placing a value on difficulty,
in and of itself. I know of no rational explanation for "valuing
difficulty" other than the status value of conspicuous consumption
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption).
I say: keep the status; I want the ability. Keep the journey; I want
the reward, and I want it at the lowest possible cost -- and I want to
make that ability available to others at the least possible cost,
too. Gimme sloth, baby, by the bucketful -- enough sloth to share
with everyone.
To bring this back to Guitar Hero -- short of ability-downloading, my
real-world nirvana would be a Guitar Hero-like game that used an
isomorphic keyboard and notation, thus combining the ease of Guitar
Hero with the depth of tonality. The game's player's would absorb
tonality's patterns through osmosis, supplemented by the occasional
"cheat sheet" which explained these patterns as a means of getting
higher scores at the more-advanced levels. Then, one could have a
simple, easy, fun game, through which one learned the patterns of
tonality, too.
Sloth at its finest.
--- Jim
Paul W Morris
Evan Lenz
both you and Jim that efficiency is a good thing. I once had an argument
with a college roommate about swimming. He chose to wear his regular,
baggy swim trunks and pay no attention to his technique. He figured that
he was getting better exercise by struggling his way through. I figured
he was wasting his time and energy. Improving technique in swimming (and
minimizing drag) allows you to swim faster and further, and tone your
muscles more quickly, since you're not just flapping your arms. Refining
your skills in this way is also more engaging in the long term than
brute-force aerobics, where you get your heart rate up by thrashing
through the water.
For me, the advantage of advances in music notation, and of games for
helping one learn music, is that they promise more progress toward
mastery per unit of time/effort. Yet the wonderful thing is that the
challenge is still there. So both kinds of rewards are always there: the
in-the-moment flow of (just the right amount of) challenge, and the
extrinsic rewards of what you can do as a result (make music). In fact,
an effective video game is going to *increase*, not decrease, the joy of
learning, by carefully optimizing and dynamically adjusting the
challenge/easiness ratio. So it's not just about quicker results (which
it is), but making the journey more fun too, increasing the likelihood
that you'll spend even more time on the journey, which is a double boon
for progress toward mastery. And let's not forget: "mastery" is *not* a
single, final destination, especially in music. We can aim for
perfection and Matrix-like "downloads", but we'll never be in danger of
exhausting all the potential learning. There's always room for more,
which is wonderful.
Evan
Paul W Morris wrote:
> ...
>
> I'd say that one of the great things about a better notation system,
> or better instruments is not that they remove all of the challenge,
> but that they lessen some of the more tedious challenges, the learning
> by rote (some challenges are better than others) and leave more time
> for the more engaging challenges of how to play well. They let you
> more quickly focus on the art of the *how* of playing rather than the
> mechanics of the *what*.
>
> ...
Doug Edwards
Well said Evan. I teach music to elementary kids. The goal is to experience music not to study its elements though it's all part of the journey. I always seek out ways to bring kids to successful music making in the quickest way for two reasons, one, we have a very limited amount of contact time with the kids, and two, the labor/reward ratio. Standard notation becomes a barrier, or at least a very high hurdle, to this goal. Besides rote learning, I am always looking for new notation methods and tools that accomplish this goal. It's not that kids can't learn standard notation but rather that it is such a laborious task to get to the goal.
Doug
|
Jim_Plamondon
able to "download" the stuff which one considers to be boring and
tedious, enabling one to skp ahead to whatever one considers to be the
interesting bits. One person's "boring bit" is another person's hobby.
Here's a great essay on the relationship between learning and fun:
http://www.theoryoffun.com/theoryoffun.pdf
Guitar Hero does a phenomenal job of breaking down the subject of
"mastering Guitar Hero" (which is not the same as "mastering music-
making," although there is some overlap) into tiny little baby steps,
and motivating the mastery of each step. Mastering each sequential
step is easy enough not to be boringly-hard, yet hard enough not to be
boringly-easy. Equally important, mastering the current step gives the
player an endorphin-rush of mastery-attainment -- "You ROCK!" -- thus
motivating the player to undertake the challenge of mastering the
*next* step.
It is no accident that Guitar Hero required a novel notation, a novel
controller, and a novel pedagogy. The company's previous attempts to
develop musical games used standard game controllers...and failed
miserably. It was only when the company developed a complete,
integrated system of notation, controller, and pedagogy (i.e., game-
play) that it was able to deliver an experience that rocked the world.
Guitar Hero is a masterpiece of fun-engineering. This group has much
to learn from its success. One thing it tells us, is that we should
consider looking beyond notation alone, to examine the entire system
of music-making -- including notation, instruments, and pedagogy --
rather than just notation alone.
IMHO.
--- Jim