Trace notation

[Music Integrated Solution]

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

[Doug Keislar]

I think it would be really useful to come up with some sort of classification of various system's approaches to representing time.� (Various people have commented on the fact that the systems on the MNP site mainly address pitch, and rhythm only secondarily, which has resulted in a partly unintentional focus on pitch on the MNP site.)

One main category for time representations would be symbolic representations of duration.� This would include traditional notation, and all the ANs that adopt TN's time notation, as well as systems with analogous techniques using alternative flags and so (Panot is an example).� Numerical duration symbology is probably a subcategory; or maybe there are numerical time representations that should be a completely separate category.

Another main category would be systems that represent a note's temporal extent graphically.� This category would include not only systems that have bars like a piano roll, or traces (narrow bars) like RHN, but also techniques like Klavar's continuation dots.� Or maybe the latter can be considered as something halfway between the two categories.� Klavar's continuation dots avoid the need for duration symbols, but they rely (I think) on the notion of beats in order to calculate the exact temporal extent of a note.� In other words, they aren't a completely graphical representation of time; they include an abstract component that requires mental calculation (although a very trivial calculation compared to that required by TN's duration symbols).

It would also be worthwhile, as Enrique's message implies, to have a classification of approaches to pitch that generalize the notion of the staff.� The background gray or white "lanes" of a conventional piano-roll staff might be considered as a staff, or as something slightly different.� The reference heads of RHN are definitely something different, but like a staff they give a context to clarify a note's pitch.� The staff-independent symbols of Sotorrio's Bilinear notation are based on the noteheads combined with nearby staff lines, and maybe this is another kind of generalization of the staff concept.

Doug

On 4/8/2013 3:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

�

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

�

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

�

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

�

In other words the �reference heads� are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It�s been�awhile�since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

�

�

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�

[Music Integrated Solution]

Basically the piano roll notation uses four main ideas:

1- The idea of chromatic notation.

2- The idea of using the piano staff for pitch discrimination.

3- The space-time or proportional notation idea

4- The idea of representing musical notes with traces

 

Probably this was the order in which they were used, by (1) (first CN?), (2) Klavar (?), (3) composers on the fifties and (4) on early eighties e.g. the PRN. I am doing some research to be accurate.

 

I guess the idea of chromatic notation was after the existence of instruments tuned in ET, I am not aware there was a reason for it before, and that is why I think of ET as a kind of unfinished process that should go “Beyond tuning” (upcoming post) when we finally integrate its consolidated concept into music theory.  

 

To a certain degree all proponents of chromatic notation are also pushing the idea of integrating the ET concept into music theory, though some are more aware than others.

 

It is interesting the PRN is the most successful -- "chromatic notation"-- and the only one in common use, however it is not yet an alternative to TN because of the big gap between them.

 

Some years ago we consolidated a tuning method and recently consolidated a -- “chromatic notation”-- in a few years.

I have no doubt that we are going to give another important step because ET already changed the course of musical history.

 

Enrique.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

I think it would be really useful to come up with some sort of classification of various system's approaches to representing time.  (Various people have commented on the fact that the systems on the MNP site mainly address pitch, and rhythm only secondarily, which has resulted in a partly unintentional focus on pitch on the MNP site.)

One main category for time representations would be symbolic representations of duration.  This would include traditional notation, and all the ANs that adopt TN's time notation, as well as systems with analogous techniques using alternative flags and so (Panot is an example).  Numerical duration symbology is probably a subcategory; or maybe there are numerical time representations that should be a completely separate category.

Another main category would be systems that represent a note's temporal extent graphically.  This category would include not only systems that have bars like a piano roll, or traces (narrow bars) like RHN, but also techniques like Klavar's continuation dots.  Or maybe the latter can be considered as something halfway between the two categories.  Klavar's continuation dots avoid the need for duration symbols, but they rely (I think) on the notion of beats in order to calculate the exact temporal extent of a note.  In other words, they aren't a completely graphical representation of time; they include an abstract component that requires mental calculation (although a very trivial calculation compared to that required by TN's duration symbols).

It would also be worthwhile, as Enrique's message implies, to have a classification of approaches to pitch that generalize the notion of the staff.  The background gray or white "lanes" of a conventional piano-roll staff might be considered as a staff, or as something slightly different.  The reference heads of RHN are definitely something different, but like a staff they give a context to clarify a note's pitch.  The staff-independent symbols of Sotorrio's Bilinear notation are based on the noteheads combined with nearby staff lines, and maybe this is another kind of generalization of the staff concept.

Doug

On 4/8/2013 3:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Paul Morris]

Good points Doug.  We have a wiki page started on approaches to rhythm notation:

http://musicnotation.org/wiki/rhythm-notation/rhythm-notation-overview/

It would probably make sense to incorporate some of the points you made into it.

Cheers,

-Paul

On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

I think it would be really useful to come up with some sort of classification of various system's approaches to representing time.  (Various people have commented on the fact that the systems on the MNP site mainly address pitch, and rhythm only secondarily, which has resulted in a partly unintentional focus on pitch on the MNP site.)

One main category for time representations would be symbolic representations of duration.  This would include traditional notation, and all the ANs that adopt TN's time notation, as well as systems with analogous techniques using alternative flags and so (Panot is an example).  Numerical duration symbology is probably a subcategory; or maybe there are numerical time representations that should be a completely separate category.

Another main category would be systems that represent a note's temporal extent graphically.  This category would include not only systems that have bars like a piano roll, or traces (narrow bars) like RHN, but also techniques like Klavar's continuation dots.  Or maybe the latter can be considered as something halfway between the two categories.  Klavar's continuation dots avoid the need for duration symbols, but they rely (I think) on the notion of beats in order to calculate the exact temporal extent of a note.  In other words, they aren't a completely graphical representation of time; they include an abstract component that requires mental calculation (although a very trivial calculation compared to that required by TN's duration symbols).

It would also be worthwhile, as Enrique's message implies, to have a classification of approaches to pitch that generalize the notion of the staff.  The background gray or white "lanes" of a conventional piano-roll staff might be considered as a staff, or as something slightly different.  The reference heads of RHN are definitely something different, but like a staff they give a context to clarify a note's pitch.  The staff-independent symbols of Sotorrio's Bilinear notation are based on the noteheads combined with nearby staff lines, and maybe this is another kind of generalization of the staff concept.

Doug

On 4/8/2013 3:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Music Integrated Solution]

>>1- The idea of chromatic notation.

Yes, chromatic notation is an idea on its own, at some point in history and for some reason it was proposed; according to G. Read book p.11 it was Roualle de Boisgelou in 1764.

 

Also on p.14 he mentions L.D.F Dumouchel in 1819 as the one to first arrange the staff lines to parallel the physical layout of the piano keyboard, spaces white keys and lines black keys.

[Christian]

Dear Doug,
hereby I announce a beta version of an add-on to Pizzicato musicsoftware �
that was developed in partnership with "arpegemusic" and will be
published soon.
The Add-on makes it possible to write notes in traditional notation and
several cipher notations.
see attachment
Sincerely Christian Poerksen alias Robert Elisabeth Key

[Doug Keislar]

Dear Christian,

Thanks for the announcement. Let us know when it is officially published.

Paul: I think this system could be listed at
http://musicnotation.org/software/ under
"Applications other parties have created for alternative notation systems".

Christian: Regarding the nomenclature on p. 1 of the PDF you sent, I
wonder about the practicality of using the word "ten" to mean "twelve."
That would seem to be inviting confusion unnecessarily. "Twelve" is also
a one-syllable word; so why not name the notes one, two, three, four,
five, six, sev'n, eight, nine, A, B, twelve? (Less importantly, you
could also substitute ten and 'lev'n for A and B, to avoid the conflict
with the different meaning of B in non-Germanic musical nomenclature.)

To others: The interpretation of Christian's names (in Hamburg Music
Notation) can be seen at
http://musicnotation.org/wiki/nomenclature/nomenclatures-overview/, and
a detailed presentation is at
http://musicnotation.org/wiki/notation-systems/hamburg-music-notation-by-robert-elisabeth-key/.

Doug

On 4/9/2013 3:35 AM, Christian wrote:
> Dear Doug,
> hereby I announce a beta version of an add-on to Pizzicato

> musicsoftware �

[Joseph Austin]

Doug,

I've given some consideration to "time" classification.

The principal alternative to "duration" is it's dual, "instant."

For example, "two hours" is a duration; "two o'clock" is an instant.

In musical terms, "quarter note" is duration; "third beat" is instant.

Another terminology for this concept is "relative" vs. "absolute".

With duration, we indicate the start of one note "relative" to the start of it's predecessor;

with "absolute", we would indicate the start by the "clock".

(The same duality exists in pitch: we can speak of the pitch of a note, e.g. "middle C",

or the interval between two notes, e.g "minor third".)

I've been experimenting with rhythm notation based on "absolute" timing,

or timing based on a "time-ruler" rather than cumulative durations.

But as I've mentioned previously, I'm coming to believe that contemporary rhythms, especially Latin,

are more than that. They may actually be more analogous to "chords" or "counterpoint" vs. "melodies",

in that they seem to be a "conversation" between two separate "beat" lines. 

In which case, it's not just how long a note sounds, or even when it starts and stops, that matters;

but one must also represent how the start/stop of sounds in one part inter-lace with the start/stop in another.

I'm also becoming convinced that musical rhythm incorporates ideas that have long been recognized in verbal poetry--the idea of "metrical feet."  The emphasis on the "bar line" as not just a beat mark but a division, even a "wall", between units of music I believe has obliterated our consciousness of metrical patterns that start on a weak beat, such as common ballad and hymn meter.  This insistence on STRONG-weak vs weak-STRONG

continues in the practice to barring a sixteenth to a dotted eighth instead of notating it as a "pick-up" to the following note.  Consider, for example, a 6/8 march. To my ears, the longer note is understood more correctly as the *end* of a pattern, while the shorter note is rhythmically part of the the successor pattern.

I'm not sure yet how this figures into timing "classification," 

because I've not seen many examples that are not based on relative duration.

For starters, just collect them!

Perhaps we'd find a clue if we better understand how we learn these rhythms.

They seem easy enough to imitate and master if you hear them

(my children's teacher would have them recite phrases with the corresponding rhythm)

but "counting" doesn't seem to work (for me at least) to learn one cold.

Perhaps we need a set of rhythm words with the proper arrangement of stresses and durations--

something like "Guido syllables" for rhythm!

Perhaps I'm suggesting we need to notate rhythms more like "chords"--

so one could recognize and play the "shape" instead of just the individual "notes".

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

I think it would be really useful to come up with some sort of classification of various system's approaches to representing time.  (Various people have commented on the fact that the systems on the MNP site mainly address pitch, and rhythm only secondarily, which has resulted in a partly unintentional focus on pitch on the MNP site.)

One main category for time representations would be symbolic representations of duration.  This would include traditional notation, and all the ANs that adopt TN's time notation, as well as systems with analogous techniques using alternative flags and so (Panot is an example).  Numerical duration symbology is probably a subcategory; or maybe there are numerical time representations that should be a completely separate category.

Another main category would be systems that represent a note's temporal extent graphically.  This category would include not only systems that have bars like a piano roll, or traces (narrow bars) like RHN, but also techniques like Klavar's continuation dots.  Or maybe the latter can be considered as something halfway between the two categories.  Klavar's continuation dots avoid the need for duration symbols, but they rely (I think) on the notion of beats in order to calculate the exact temporal extent of a note.  In other words, they aren't a completely graphical representation of time; they include an abstract component that requires mental calculation (although a very trivial calculation compared to that required by TN's duration symbols).

It would also be worthwhile, as Enrique's message implies, to have a classification of approaches to pitch that generalize the notion of the staff.  The background gray or white "lanes" of a conventional piano-roll staff might be considered as a staff, or as something slightly different.  The reference heads of RHN are definitely something different, but like a staff they give a context to clarify a note's pitch.  The staff-independent symbols of Sotorrio's Bilinear notation are based on the noteheads combined with nearby staff lines, and maybe this is another kind of generalization of the staff concept.

Doug

On 4/8/2013 3:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Doug Keislar]

Joe,

Good points.� One could subdivide the two categories I mentioned, based on whether one is measuring duration (the relative distance between the note or rest's beginning and its ending) or time instant (the absolute time of the note or rest's beginning or ending).� This applies both to symbolic representations and to graphical representations.�

Traditional notation's use of durations no doubt reflects the fact that the notation was originally developed to help monks sing Medieval chants, in which notes tend to be longer and rhythm is not strictly metronomic.� For percussion, duration tends to be much less relevant than the instant at which the note is struck, since the note usually dies away quickly without the performer controlling its duration; and of course percussion is critical in most contemporary popular music (as is close-to-metronomic timing).

Doug

On 4/9/2013 10:27 AM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Doug,

I've given some consideration to "time" classification.

The principal alternative to "duration" is it's dual, "instant."

For example, "two hours" is a duration; "two o'clock" is an instant.

In musical terms, "quarter note" is duration; "third beat" is instant.

Another terminology for this concept is "relative" vs. "absolute".

With duration, we indicate the start of one note "relative" to the start of it's predecessor;

with "absolute", we would indicate the start by the "clock".

(The same duality exists in pitch: we can speak of the pitch of a note, e.g. "middle C",

or the interval between two notes, e.g "minor third".)

I've been experimenting with rhythm notation based on "absolute" timing,

or timing based on a "time-ruler" rather than cumulative durations.

But as I've mentioned previously, I'm coming to believe that contemporary rhythms, especially Latin,

are more than that. They may actually be more analogous to "chords" or "counterpoint" vs. "melodies",

in that they seem to be a "conversation" between two separate "beat" lines.�

In which case, it's not just how long a note sounds, or even when it starts and stops, that matters;

but one must also represent how the start/stop of sounds in one part inter-lace with the start/stop in another.

I'm also becoming convinced that musical rhythm incorporates ideas that have long been recognized in verbal poetry--the idea of "metrical feet." �The emphasis on the "bar line" as not just a beat mark but a division, even a "wall", between units of music I believe has obliterated our consciousness of metrical patterns that start on a weak beat, such as common ballad and hymn meter. �This insistence on STRONG-weak vs weak-STRONG

continues in the practice to barring a sixteenth to a dotted eighth instead of notating it as a "pick-up" to the following note. �Consider, for example, a 6/8 march. To my ears, the longer note is understood more correctly as the *end* of a pattern, while the shorter note is rhythmically part of the the successor pattern.

I'm not sure yet how this figures into timing "classification,"�

because I've not seen many examples that are not based on relative duration.

For starters, just collect them!

Perhaps we'd find a clue if we better understand how we learn these rhythms.

They seem easy enough to imitate and master if you hear them

(my children's teacher would have them recite phrases with the corresponding rhythm)

but "counting" doesn't seem to work (for me at least) to learn one cold.

Perhaps we need a set of rhythm words with the proper arrangement of stresses and durations--

something like "Guido syllables" for rhythm!

Perhaps I'm suggesting we need to notate rhythms more like "chords"--

so one could recognize and play the "shape" instead of just the individual "notes".

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

I think it would be really useful to come up with some sort of classification of various system's approaches to representing time.� (Various people have commented on the fact that the systems on the MNP site mainly address pitch, and rhythm only secondarily, which has resulted in a partly unintentional focus on pitch on the MNP site.)

One main category for time representations would be symbolic representations of duration.� This would include traditional notation, and all the ANs that adopt TN's time notation, as well as systems with analogous techniques using alternative flags and so (Panot is an example).� Numerical duration symbology is probably a subcategory; or maybe there are numerical time representations that should be a completely separate category.

Another main category would be systems that represent a note's temporal extent graphically.� This category would include not only systems that have bars like a piano roll, or traces (narrow bars) like RHN, but also techniques like Klavar's continuation dots.� Or maybe the latter can be considered as something halfway between the two categories.� Klavar's continuation dots avoid the need for duration symbols, but they rely (I think) on the notion of beats in order to calculate the exact temporal extent of a note.� In other words, they aren't a completely graphical representation of time; they include an abstract component that requires mental calculation (although a very trivial calculation compared to that required by TN's duration symbols).

It would also be worthwhile, as Enrique's message implies, to have a classification of approaches to pitch that generalize the notion of the staff.� The background gray or white "lanes" of a conventional piano-roll staff might be considered as a staff, or as something slightly different.� The reference heads of RHN are definitely something different, but like a staff they give a context to clarify a note's pitch.� The staff-independent symbols of Sotorrio's Bilinear notation are based on the noteheads combined with nearby staff lines, and maybe this is another kind of generalization of the staff concept.

Doug

On 4/8/2013 3:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

�

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

�

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

�

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

�

In other words the �reference heads� are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It�s been�awhile�since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

�

�

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Music Integrated Solution]

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) – trace notation – where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

 

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

 

Enrique

P.S.

according to the definition Klavar is staff notation.

 

[Doug Keislar]

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.� Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.� Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.� Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).� That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization� seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.� I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.� In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).� In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.� Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.� Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations.�

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) � trace notation � where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

�

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

�

Enrique

P.S.

according to the�definition Klavar is staff notation.

�

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

�

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

�

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

�

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

�

In other words the �reference heads� are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It�s been�awhile�since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

�

�

Enrique.

[Joseph Austin]

Doug, Enrique, et al,

I'd suggest a somewhat different perspective for classification:

It seems to me (pitch) notations can be divided into three broad categories:

1. pitch-specific, e.g. (middle) C D E F G (orchestral) A B etc: TN and many variations

2. scale-specifc, e.g. do re mi: solfedge, Shape Notes, Jainpu(?)

3a. instrument-specific: e.g. piano key, string/fret; valves, etc: Piano Roll, Tableture; lots of beginner tutorial notations

3b: a sub-classification would be performer-specific, e.g. fingering, pedaling

There might be a fourth, but I'm not sure what notation represents it:

4. interval specific: e.g. just intonation ratios like  2:3, or various chord notations: mMm

And maybe even:

5. Machine-readable: physical piano roll, MIDI, mp3, MusicXML, etc.

Some notations may combine multiple perspectives.

Besides pitch, music has other elements that may be notated and classified:

- meter and rhythm

- dynamics, including volume, attack, tremulo/vibrato, etc.

- timbre and orchestration

and one seldom addressed:

- form

No matter what classification you choose, there will doubtless be need for a generic catch-all 

for some notation that doesn't quite fit the established categories.

Joe Austin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.  Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.  Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).  That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization  seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.  I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.  In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).  In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.  Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.  Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations. 

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) – trace notation – where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

 

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

 

Enrique

P.S.

according to the definition Klavar is staff notation.

 

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Doug Keislar]

Joe,

Good points.

To be perfectly clear, my interest in classification is not to find a single category into which a particular, existing, complete notation system must go, but instead to classify approaches to solving different problems of pitch and time.� Hence my desire to separate the analysis of time notation from the analysis of pitch notation, etc. (which is what you're doing below).� The idea is that different techniques for solving different problems could be combined into new, improved complete systems, or might suggest new solutions to those problems.

Some of the categories you mention below could overlap.� For example, a given staff could be used for either absolute pitch (your #1: pitch-specific) or relative pitch (#2: scale-specific), and in a different system of categorization the staff's line pattern might be the object of classification regardless of whether it's used for absolute or relative pitch.� But it's great to think of different ways to analyze these things; the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Doug

On 4/10/2013 2:48 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Doug, Enrique, et al,

I'd suggest a somewhat different perspective for classification:

It seems to me (pitch) notations can be divided into three broad categories:

1. pitch-specific, e.g. (middle) C D E F G (orchestral) A B etc: TN and many variations

2. scale-specifc, e.g. do re mi: solfedge, Shape Notes, Jainpu(?)

3a. instrument-specific: e.g. piano key, string/fret; valves, etc: Piano Roll, Tableture; lots of beginner tutorial notations

3b: a sub-classification would be performer-specific, e.g. fingering, pedaling

There might be a fourth, but I'm not sure what notation represents it:

4. interval specific: e.g. just intonation ratios like �2:3, or various chord notations: mMm

And maybe even:

5. Machine-readable: physical piano roll, MIDI, mp3, MusicXML, etc.

Some notations may combine multiple perspectives.

Besides pitch, music has other elements that may be notated and classified:

- meter and rhythm

- dynamics, including volume, attack, tremulo/vibrato, etc.

- timbre and orchestration

and one seldom addressed:

- form

No matter what classification you choose, there will doubtless be need for a generic catch-all�

for some notation that doesn't quite fit the established categories.

Joe Austin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.� Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.� Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.� Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).� That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization� seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.� I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.� In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).� In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.� Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.� Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations.�

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) � trace notation � where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

�

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

�

Enrique

P.S.

according to the�definition Klavar is staff notation.

�

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

�

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

�

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

�

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

�

In other words the �reference heads� are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It�s been�awhile�since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

�

�

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Music Integrated Solution]

>>This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.

Thanks Doug, my focus was mainly on the methods and not on instances with those methods that as you said the most important are TN and the PRN; and yes some implementations of the PRN use a staff but others don't, they just put a keyboard at one side.

 

I would still say Jianpu is not in common use, as it is limited to a region and to a kind of music, I don't think that representing musical pitch with seven digits is in common use, however guitar tabs have a more universal use and could be said is in common use but, what is its distinctive method?

 

When I have the time I might work on a sort of chronology of distinctive or relevant ideas in music notation or it could be done in a form of collaborative wiki e.g. without a chronological order:

Staff notation

Duration symbols

Diatonic notation

Overloading of pitch notation (key signatures)

Overloading of duration symbols (time signatures)

Chromatic notation

Number notation of pitch

Cipher notation

The piano staff

The two line staff or others

Space-time or proportional notation

The vertical staff

And so on….. the list is going to be really a big one.

 

Regarding classification I consider the basic, most important and useful form of classification that should be highlighted is just two groups.

1 – Are a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

2 – Are not a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

Then it could be commented what is the scope or intention of the notation or system, if it has some special advantage and other forms of classification.

 

Every effort I have made to create awareness or give importance to this form of classification here has failed.

 

 

Enrique.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.  Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.  Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).  That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization  seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.  I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.  In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).  In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.  Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.  Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations. 

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) – trace notation – where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

 

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

 

Enrique

P.S.

according to the definition Klavar is staff notation.

 

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Joseph Austin]

Doug,

I suppose you could call my approach "functional."  

Agreed, the point is not to define cubbyholes into which we can sort notations, 

but to understand the concepts that must be conveyed and the various representations for conveying them.

I think we are all struggling to identify the deeper structure and patterns 

that make arrangements of sound "music".  

It is of course possible to produce a performance from an audio recording, or midi file, or piano roll, 

or a score denoting which notes to play for how long.

But to understand and teach "music", we also need a way to represent and talk about melodies and harmonies and rhythms and timbres and progressions--the "abstract" structures and patterns and similarities and contrasts that differentiate "music" from mere "noise".

Thus we might find it useful to have multiple notations for the same score:

one as a mnemonic for a live performance; 

another as a reference for analyzing the music or creating an arrangement;

perhaps a third as a tutorial for learning a piece or part on a particular instrument.

I also keep coming back to the idea that music is aural, not visual.

While it may not be the perceived purpose of MNP to create "play by ear" methods,

if you accept that a primary purpose of notation is to educate, then cue, the performer,

I think "playing from hearing" is an even more valid approach than "playing from seeing."

If we expand our repertoire of communication tools from "ink on paper" to "pixels on a screen",

and then recognize that the tools we use to write pixels on a screen can also be used to create sound itself,

we could begin to think of "notation" as a vehicle for creating "tutorials" and "exercises" for music students,

not just a vehicle for creating scores for professional performers.

(I suppose that's part of the reason for insistence on a "blackboard" version of a notation;

for my part, I would be equally insistent on a "typewriter" version!)

Once we accept that notation is a means to education, 

we could start to explore ways of creating dynamic visual and aural exercise sets.

In my experience, "ear training" curricula are roughly at the level of learning the "alphabet" or perhaps syllables.

Print score notation is at a similar level.

But as musicians, we need to be able to "hear" and "comprehend" musical "words" and "sentences" and "paragraphs." 

I don't think our present notations or our tools are much help for doing that.

So first of all, we need a "language" in which to express these ideas.

Something akin to the advance of mathematics from numbers to arithmetic to algebra to calculus and group theory.

In my experience, music "language" is still at the level of "numbers" and "arithmetic".

We need ways represent--so we can accurately discuss--not only quantity, but relationships and trends and progressions.

We do have the "circle of fifths."  But I think music has moved beyond that.

I note that our harmonies are actually based on major/minor thirds,

which strictly speaking require two "spirals of fifths" at a 4:5:6 relationship to each other,

which of course cannot be created with 2:3 ratios ("fifths") alone!

So we introduce the ET compromise.

With that, we rediscover Euler's Tonnetz and the "house of thirds" which possibly might be a foundation

for a study of jazz harmonies.

Then we have "jazz scales" which seem to be based on a set of "quadratic" chords,

or perhaps cn a merger of major and minor scales.

We have "diagonal" harmonic progressions that are based on inter-root intervals other than the fifth.

I've never studied drums, but I'd hope to find something equivalent to a "chord chart" or "circle of fifths"

to organize various drum and rhythm patterns.

All of this is way beyond discussing the best way to notate the pitch of a note:

that is, the deeper issues are:

What's the best way to notate the pitches of notes SO THAT 

the melodic and harmonic progression of the notes and intervals is visually obvious?

SO THAT tonalities and modulations are apparent?

What's the best way to notate the timing of notes SO THAT 

the rhythmic pattern of the notes is visually apparent and is reproducible by a novice?

What's the best way to notate orchestration SO THAT 

the blending or contrasting of tone colors is discernible from the score?

What's the best way to arrange the notes on the page SO THAT 

the similarity and contrast and progression of motifs and phrases

and the overall structure of the piece are readily discernible?

Joe Austin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

Joe,

Good points.

To be perfectly clear, my interest in classification is not to find a single category into which a particular, existing, complete notation system must go, but instead to classify approaches to solving different problems of pitch and time.  Hence my desire to separate the analysis of time notation from the analysis of pitch notation, etc. (which is what you're doing below).  The idea is that different techniques for solving different problems could be combined into new, improved complete systems, or might suggest new solutions to those problems.

Some of the categories you mention below could overlap.  For example, a given staff could be used for either absolute pitch (your #1: pitch-specific) or relative pitch (#2: scale-specific), and in a different system of categorization the staff's line pattern might be the object of classification regardless of whether it's used for absolute or relative pitch.  But it's great to think of different ways to analyze these things; the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Doug

On 4/10/2013 2:48 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Doug, Enrique, et al,

I'd suggest a somewhat different perspective for classification:

It seems to me (pitch) notations can be divided into three broad categories:

1. pitch-specific, e.g. (middle) C D E F G (orchestral) A B etc: TN and many variations

2. scale-specifc, e.g. do re mi: solfedge, Shape Notes, Jainpu(?)

3a. instrument-specific: e.g. piano key, string/fret; valves, etc: Piano Roll, Tableture; lots of beginner tutorial notations

3b: a sub-classification would be performer-specific, e.g. fingering, pedaling

There might be a fourth, but I'm not sure what notation represents it:

4. interval specific: e.g. just intonation ratios like  2:3, or various chord notations: mMm

And maybe even:

5. Machine-readable: physical piano roll, MIDI, mp3, MusicXML, etc.

Some notations may combine multiple perspectives.

Besides pitch, music has other elements that may be notated and classified:

- meter and rhythm

- dynamics, including volume, attack, tremulo/vibrato, etc.

- timbre and orchestration

and one seldom addressed:

- form

No matter what classification you choose, there will doubtless be need for a generic catch-all 

for some notation that doesn't quite fit the established categories.

Joe Austin

On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.  Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.  Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).  That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization  seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.  I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.  In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).  In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.  Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.  Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations. 

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) – trace notation – where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

 

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

 

Enrique

P.S.

according to the definition Klavar is staff notation.

 

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

[Joseph Austin]

Perhaps the simplest way to say it:

I'm looking for a notation--and corresponding music theory and instruction--

that will allow me to HEAR the music by SEEING it--

and perhaps vice-versa.

Joe Austin

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps the simplest way to say it:

I'm looking for a notation--and corresponding music theory and instruction--

that will allow me to HEAR the music by SEEING it--

and perhaps vice-versa.

Joe, that system is called ‘training’; it’s been awhile since I stopped looking for a new form of notation and music theory as I consider I already have it; most of what you describe I consider I have it in the MIS, but I will never tell anybody this is a 1-2-3 process or magic. I spend most of the time that I can dedicate to music writing applications for analyzing and creating music, and creating it.

 

I put a hold developing the authoring tool for the RHN and took a more efficient path of making the RHN more compatible with the PRN as an extension of it, then I combine existing powerful applications with mine’s (through MIDI files); everything oriented to create music, until I have more time or resources.

 

Enrique. 

[Doug Keislar]

Every effort I have made to create awareness or give importance to this form of classification here has failed.

Enrique, I disagree, but it depends on how you measure failure.� Certainly you have made me, and probably many other readers, aware that you advocate a complete system capable of replacing all aspects of the traditional one.� Your system does a nice job of correlating notation, nomenclature, etc.� Not all inventors have had such a broad view.

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:28 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

>>This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.� Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.

Thanks Doug, my focus was mainly on the methods and not on instances with those methods that as you said the most important are TN and the PRN; and yes some implementations of the PRN use a staff but others�don't,�they just put a keyboard at one side.

�

I would still say Jianpu is not in common use, as it is limited to a region and to a kind of music, I�don't�think that representing musical pitch with seven digits is in common use, however guitar tabs have a more universal use and could be said is in common use but, what is its distinctive method?

�

When I have the time I might work on a sort of chronology of distinctive or relevant ideas in music notation or it could be done in a form of collaborative wiki e.g. without a chronological order:

Staff notation

Duration symbols

Diatonic notation

Overloading of pitch notation (key signatures)

Overloading of duration symbols (time signatures)

Chromatic notation

Number notation of pitch

Cipher notation

The piano staff

The two line staff or others

Space-time or proportional notation

The vertical staff

And so on�.. the list is going to be really a big one.

�

Regarding classification I consider the basic, most important and useful form of classification that should be highlighted is just two groups.

1 � Are a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

2 � Are not a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

Then it could be commented what is the scope or intention of the notation or system, if it has some special advantage and other forms of�classification.

�

Every effort I have made to create awareness or give importance to this form of classification here has failed.

�

�

Enrique.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.� Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.� Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.� Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).� That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization� seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.� I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.� In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).� In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.� Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.� Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations.�

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) � trace notation � where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

�

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

�

Enrique

P.S.

according to the�definition Klavar is staff notation.

�

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

�

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

�

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

�

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

�

In other words the �reference heads� are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It�s been�awhile�since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

�

�

Enrique.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Doug Keislar]

I agree with Enrique.� A highly trained musician can read a piece of music and more or less hear it mentally, and they can hear a piece of music and to some extent visualize what the notation would be.� They can do that with traditional notation.� Some musicians can even do it with orchestral scores.�� The main reason musicians can do this is that they have spent many, many hours reading music and hearing the results simultaneously.� The process would probably be helped by an improved notation system, but the extensive training can't be skipped.

And I agree with Joe that the goal of overall musicianship should be considered when creating an alternative notation system.� If you only consider (for example) how to tell a performer what key to press at what time, you're looking at only part of the picture.� Every music student should be able to play an instrument by ear; it's a failure of traditional Western music education to focus only on rendering previously notated music.� Isomorphic notation systems and isomorphic instruments can help, especially, as Enrique reminds us, if there's a correlated, integrated system that doesn't� address just one aspect.

Doug

On 4/11/2013 10:08 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps the simplest way to say it:

I'm looking for a notation--and corresponding music theory and instruction--

that will allow me to HEAR the music by SEEING it--

and perhaps vice-versa.

Joe, that system is called �training�; it�s been�awhile�since I stopped looking for a new form of notation and music theory as I consider I already have it; most of what you describe I consider I have it in the MIS, but I will never tell anybody this is a 1-2-3 process or magic. I spend most of the time that I can dedicate to music writing applications for analyzing and creating music, and creating it.

�

[Joseph Austin]

I do understand that "training" (and "practice") is necessary to learn music.

My intended point was that we should consider "notation" part of the "tools" of that training.

Training in commerce and science was greatly facilitated by advances in mathematical notation.

I believe musical training could be facilitated by advances in notations,

but most effectively if the notations are representative of corresponding advances in 'theory,' 

and especially if accompanied by complementary advances in "human-machine interfaces" of instruments. 

As evidence of such an intention, i believe advances in notation/theory 

should be illustrated by improved curriculum materials, not just improved scores.

For example, a 12-step staff will contrast the half and whole steps in a scale,

and the differences between major and minor thirds in chords,

whereas a 7-step staff with sharps and flats obscures them.

Similarly, alternating color chromatic pitches even more vividly contrast the do-re-mi from the fa-so-la-ti whole-tone sequences,

and contrast even half-step intervals, like major thirds, from odd one, like minor thirds.

By analogy with mathematical evolution, I would say conventional music notation / vocabulary is about at the "Roman Numerals" stage of sophistication.  We have A B C D E F G with #s and bs for the pitches,

and first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh octave etc. for the scale degrees and chord intervals,

an assortment of terms for chord structures: minor major augmented diminished etc;

a "circle of fifths" as the organizing principle for scales and harmonic progressions.

I presume traditional notation and theory is adequate for training for music of the "classical" era.

But I believe contemporary music has moved past that.

Joe Austin

On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:

I agree with Enrique.  A highly trained musician can read a piece of music and more or less hear it mentally, and they can hear a piece of music and to some extent visualize what the notation would be.  They can do that with traditional notation.  Some musicians can even do it with orchestral scores.   The main reason musicians can do this is that they have spent many, many hours reading music and hearing the results simultaneously.  The process would probably be helped by an improved notation system, but the extensive training can't be skipped.

And I agree with Joe that the goal of overall musicianship should be considered when creating an alternative notation system.  If you only consider (for example) how to tell a performer what key to press at what time, you're looking at only part of the picture.  Every music student should be able to play an instrument by ear; it's a failure of traditional Western music education to focus only on rendering previously notated music.  Isomorphic notation systems and isomorphic instruments can help, especially, as Enrique reminds us, if there's a correlated, integrated system that doesn't  address just one aspect.

Doug

On 4/11/2013 10:08 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps the simplest way to say it:

I'm looking for a notation--and corresponding music theory and instruction--

that will allow me to HEAR the music by SEEING it--

and perhaps vice-versa.

Joe, that system is called ‘training’; it’s been awhile since I stopped looking for a new form of notation and music theory as I consider I already have it; most of what you describe I consider I have it in the MIS, but I will never tell anybody this is a 1-2-3 process or magic. I spend most of the time that I can dedicate to music writing applications for analyzing and creating music, and creating it.

 

[Music Integrated Solution]

Joe,

I think there is a consensus in this group about the need for alternatives to the traditional system; however what keeps us in endless circles sometimes saying or repeating the same in different ways is that we are mixing all problems, activities in music, proposals for solutions and the scope or intention of those proposals; which sometimes resembles a conversation among deaf people that look like shouting and arguing while saying about the same.

 

Regarding the looking-a-score-and-hearing-the-music or vice versa, I agree the traditional system and the traditional methods of training are not the best we could have and an alternative may reduce the time required to achieve and maintain those skills, but ‘we the people’ may not value that new system if there are no scores available, or worst if those scores have to be generated also “manually”, considering that in any new system the amount of time required for learning those skills still will be significant.

 

My vision (and point) is that the traditional methods of notation, nomenclature and analysis of music were created in a manual era and work only manually.

 

We are now in a new era, with new possibilities and it does not make sense if we do not take further advantage of them; that is why the methods of notation, nomenclature and analysis of the MIS are oriented to the requirements and possibilities of such new era, which is the improvement of the automation of those processes.

 

In other words the traditional system was created according to the requirement and possibilities of those times and the MIS is created according to the possibilities and new requirements of our times.

 

Now back to our classification criteria I said it was important if a system is a full or equivalent alternative, meaning if it is an integrated and complete system (yes or no).

 

Second I would ‘ask’ if its methods of notation, nomenclature and analysis work both manually and automatically (yes or no).

 

I hope it could be seen why I have chosen to improve the idea of representing notes with traces, created the relational (objective) method for generating nomenclature, and embraced the descriptive (objective) approach to the analysis of music, which has some precedent among the community of music scholars as the native methods of the MIS.

 

We could make a long wish-list of what we would like a system to be but don't forget to put on top ‘‘it should be feasible” so that it could be useful.

 

Enrique.

[Paul Morris]

On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

> Paul: I think this system could be listed at http://musicnotation.org/software/ under
> "Applications other parties have created for alternative notation systems".

Good call. I've added it to my to do list.
-Paul

[Christian]

Dear Paul and Doug,
We think about Dougs suggestion on the subject of ten and twelve.
May be a decimal option is useful.
Unfortunately I made a mistake. It is not no keys of course it is no clefs.
Please tell me if you find other mistakes.
See the corrected attachment
All the best Christian

[Music Integrated Solution]

Doug et al,

 

Now that I have a better overall picture of traditional and chromatic staff notations, I would not say that chromatic staff notation is exactly an improvement over the traditional one, just as we may not speak of ET as an improvement over just intonation but as something different with other possibilities.

 

When ET started to be used they were aware that they were sacrificing or losing something but finally prevailed because that - different method of tuning - allowed to continue thinking of music in the same way and using existing music theory and instruments.

 

Everything was not lost, just a little bit, but that is not the case with chromatic staff notation that despite its similarities it proposes a different way of thinking of music and does not allow to continue using (functionally) existing music theory.

 

However despite of being aware of that I still think that the concept exposed by ET, which is the equal distribution of only (fewer) twelve notes and intervals is worthwhile and possible taking advantage of it nowadays, as long as we find a ‘feasible’ way of doing it, not ignoring facts.

 

ET was and is used because of tangible benefits and feasibility, and not because of criticism of just intonation, so it will be possible the obvious next step in the course of musical history that in a way or another so many proposals have been pushing.

 

Enrique.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

Every effort I have made to create awareness or give importance to this form of classification here has failed.

Enrique, I disagree, but it depends on how you measure failure.  Certainly you have made me, and probably many other readers, aware that you advocate a complete system capable of replacing all aspects of the traditional one.  Your system does a nice job of correlating notation, nomenclature, etc.  Not all inventors have had such a broad view.

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:28 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

>>This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.

Thanks Doug, my focus was mainly on the methods and not on instances with those methods that as you said the most important are TN and the PRN; and yes some implementations of the PRN use a staff but others don't, they just put a keyboard at one side.

 

I would still say Jianpu is not in common use, as it is limited to a region and to a kind of music, I don't think that representing musical pitch with seven digits is in common use, however guitar tabs have a more universal use and could be said is in common use but, what is its distinctive method?

 

When I have the time I might work on a sort of chronology of distinctive or relevant ideas in music notation or it could be done in a form of collaborative wiki e.g. without a chronological order:

Staff notation

Duration symbols

Diatonic notation

Overloading of pitch notation (key signatures)

Overloading of duration symbols (time signatures)

Chromatic notation

Number notation of pitch

Cipher notation

The piano staff

The two line staff or others

Space-time or proportional notation

The vertical staff

And so on….. the list is going to be really a big one.

 

Regarding classification I consider the basic, most important and useful form of classification that should be highlighted is just two groups.

1 – Are a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

2 – Are not a full or equivalent alternative to the traditional system.

Then it could be commented what is the scope or intention of the notation or system, if it has some special advantage and other forms of classification.

 

Every effort I have made to create awareness or give importance to this form of classification here has failed.

 

 

Enrique.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This seems like a fairly accurate description of two notations in common use: traditional notation and piano-roll.  Some people might insist that piano-roll notation uses a staff, though.  Another notation in common use is guitar tab, which some people might categorize as a staff notation while others might disagree.  Another notation in common use in some countries is Jianpu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation).  That doesn't use either a staff or traces.

Your categorization  seems to lump time notation and pitch notation together.  I think it makes sense to analyze time notation independently of pitch notation.  In such an approach, the presence or absence of a staff is irrelevant, because the staff is pitch notation, not time notation (except that it extends horizontally in time).  In terms of time notation, Klavar has more in common with piano-roll notation than it does with traditional notation.  Jianpu doesn't use a staff, but it does use symbolic notation of durations, a trait which it has in common with traditional notation although the symbology is different.  Guitar tab also uses symbolic notation of durations. 

Doug

On 4/10/2013 6:25 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

Bottom line, we have two distinctive methods of notating music in common use, which I prefer to call (1) - staff notation - that may be defined by the use of a staff of lines (any number) with regular or irregular spaces and noteheads representing the notes, and (2) – trace notation – where notes are represented by traces or segments, bars, bands or lines (without noteheads); as opposed to the use of such traces as extenders of notes for notating time, e.g. in the PRN, Dodeka and the RHN the traces are not extenders but the notes themselves, while such traces are sometimes used as extenders of some form of noteheads as in TN or others.

 

There are some improvements that can be done to the two systems in use, but I do not see yet the justification for a system with another form of notation, at least of the known ones.

 

Enrique

P.S.

according to the definition Klavar is staff notation.

 

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doug, I would like to round the idea but I think it deserves a separate thread.

 

Does the idea of representing musical notes with traces deserve a special classification?

 

So far they talk about graphic notion, cipher notation, staff notation and some more; however from my point of view the idea of representing musical notes with traces could be considered a milestone on music notation, only comparable to the idea of staff notation.

 

It could be said trace-notation includes any music notation system where musical notes are represented solely by traces, bands, bars or line; and anything else is not part of the notes; other examples are Dodeka and the piano roll notation.

 

In other words the “reference heads” are not part of the notes; they are just a discrimination method. It’s been awhile since I only use the necessary heads and not one head for each note as in the first examples I showed here.

 

 

Enrique.

[Music Integrated Solution]

I see the ET tuning and the concept separately, ET tuning allows total harmonic freedom and the concept allows a simpler way of controlling music, which is what could make a significant different.

 

In other words what I see valuable in an alternative system is if it makes a positive difference in the control of music and not just in improving the graphical part; that of course is part of that control. Looking at a score and perceiving the music or the other way around is only possible when controlling music.

 

The MIS is not just an alternative to notation; the MIS is an alternative to the control of music; its simpler method of notation allows an alternative way of controlling music

 

This article seems interesting, I will soon purchase it

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03796488908566477

 

Enrique.

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

I think we agree on objectives. 

As to whether a system is 

"a full or equivalent alternative",

"an integrated and complete system,"

the question could only be answered if there were some body of work(s) which the system would have to represent, completely and unambiguously.

What I'm trying to suggest is that this "body of works" 

should not be just, or even primarily, an anthology of works for performance,

but should be based on some exposition of "music theory."

This would include scales in "all" keys, the recognized chords and chord structures, including inversions; cadences, rhythm patterns, etc.

But the point would not be just to represent a given musical example 

in the new notation, but to state the "rule" by which one could recognize or create the given example in the new notation "from scratch", that is, going directly from theory to notation, without first translating to/from TN.

Imagine for example stating the "rule" to create a diatonic major scale starting on say the nth "fifth" from Middle C:

A rule in TN would consist of:

1. finding the keynote by counting lines and spaces by fours, modulo 7,

(e.g. alternating up 4, down 3).

2. positioning noteheads on 8 successive positions, beginning with the keynote

3. creating the key signature with sharps or flats, again counting by fours mod 7

A corresponding rule in a "chromatic" notation might look more like:

1.  Find the tonic by counting staff positions (half-steps) by seven, mod 12

(e.g. alternating up 7, down 5)

2. position successive notes with position separation: 2 2 1 2 2 2 (1).

and perhaps;
3. color the first three notes X and the next four Y.

Now imagine, if you will, the "rules" for answering the following questions:

* Given a notated sequence of 8 successive notes of a scale,

identify the scale by key and type (major, natural/harmonic/melodic minor),

and mode, and name the notes (according to the naming scheme of the notational system.)

* Given a notated chord, invert the chord if necessary into "successive thirds" 

("snowman") position and "name" the chord and it's intervals, according to the naming scheme of the notation.

* Given a 4-voice note sequence, determine whether the sequence ends with a perfect authentic cadence.

My point is, an "improved" notation (and nomenclature) should provide an "improved" means of constructing and identifying (and naming) musical structures, not just an alternative way of representing pitches. For example,

a chromatic system might avoid complex rules for placing or interpreting accidentals, and thus the rules might be key-invariant.

RE: feasibility: It would of course be preferred that the notation couud be encoded into machine-readable form by a musician 

(that is, not requiring extensive computer training)

and that suitable software would be available, usable by said musician,
to generate the examples or answer the questions computationally.

Joe Austin

[Music Integrated Solution]

Joe,

I make a distinction between ‘full’ and ‘equivalent’ meaning than - full - is basically a system with the traditional theory but a difference in notation, while - equivalent - prescinds from traditional theory but is also functional, e.g. I consider the MIS equivalent because it prescinds from enharmonic equivalence and it rather supports the concept of equal distribution of notes and intervals than that of natural notes and accidentals.

 

As I have said before the core of the MIS is objective, it avoids theories as much as possible, such as that some chords are inversions of others, or theories of harmonic functions.

 

Its native method of analyzing harmony is based on interval patterns or Gestalten given its novel relational method of generating nomenclature.

 

The MIS is not aimed at being a replica of the traditional system but to be a system with new possibilities, it is its objectivity that allows it.

 

However it deserves a more detailed comparison of what we lose and what we gain when sacrificing the analytical capacity of humans -- when the description of a given chord does not depend on any theoretical interpretations of the harmonic context.

 

We might face again the challenge of choosing whether to sacrifice something to gain functionality such as it happened with ET. In a new contemporary alternative I have chosen functionality again, and insist before comparing systems it has to be considered the scope or intentions of the systems so that we compare apples to apples.

 

 

Enrique.

[Music Integrated Solution]

The point is we already have a subjective and very complex system, which is bound to theories and speculations, with a theoretical legacy that we hardly need because is hardly used in practice, why duplicate it?

Joe,

As I can see your inclination is towards the subjective side, my perception is that you want to make the system even more subjective than what already is, then before comparing particularities of systems or -- what you proposed -- we could take a broader analysis of subjective vs. objective, which by the way could be another form of classifying systems.

 

Here I list first Eberlein points, which I value (though I am responsible for my interpretation), then anybody may be against with a list of opposing points or favor them with additional comments.

 

The descriptive (objective) approach to the analysis of harmony based on interval patterns:

- could be acceptable as a communication tool to persons with different theoretical convictions

- could be suited to all kinds of music and different ages.

- could make possible the production of faultless harmony descriptions by computers

- it is absent of any assumptions concerning the scale or tonal center fundamental to the music. Moreover, it does not contain any assumptions about the root note of the chords

- it does not make use of questionable hypotheses about, for instance, the tonal center of a piece or the root note of a chord and it does not depend on any special theory of harmonies, since its sole theoretical assumption is the harmonic equivalence of notes in octave distances.

- it could drastically simplify the teaching of tonal harmony since the brain acrobatics of conventional harmony descriptions are done away with.

- can be applied to music of any style and epoch. It can describe, for example, non-triadic medieval harmony just as well as tonal harmony.

 

 

Enrique.

[Paul Morris]

On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

But the point would not be just to represent a given musical example 

in the new notation, but to state the "rule" by which one could recognize or create the given example in the new notation "from scratch", that is, going directly from theory to notation, without first translating to/from TN.

Imagine for example stating the "rule" to create a diatonic major scale starting on say the nth "fifth" from Middle C:

A rule in TN would consist of:

1. finding the keynote by counting lines and spaces by fours, modulo 7,

(e.g. alternating up 4, down 3).

2. positioning noteheads on 8 successive positions, beginning with the keynote

3. creating the key signature with sharps or flats, again counting by fours mod 7

A corresponding rule in a "chromatic" notation might look more like:

1.  Find the tonic by counting staff positions (half-steps) by seven, mod 12

(e.g. alternating up 7, down 5)

2. position successive notes with position separation: 2 2 1 2 2 2 (1).

and perhaps;
3. color the first three notes X and the next four Y.

Now imagine, if you will, the "rules" for answering the following questions:

* Given a notated sequence of 8 successive notes of a scale,

identify the scale by key and type (major, natural/harmonic/melodic minor),

and mode, and name the notes (according to the naming scheme of the notational system.)

* Given a notated chord, invert the chord if necessary into "successive thirds" 

("snowman") position and "name" the chord and it's intervals, according to the naming scheme of the notation.

* Given a 4-voice note sequence, determine whether the sequence ends with a perfect authentic cadence.

Hi Joe,  This would be an interesting comparative exercise.  I really like how it focuses on very specific concrete tasks.  

Cheers,

-Paul

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

OK, but it would be helpful to see examples of MIS applied to:

- traditional scores

- more modern music: jazz, syncopation, diagonal harmonies, etc.,

where we would expect to see some advantages over TN

- "new' music, which might be hard to express in TN.

This would include not just the scores, 

but "discussion" of the scores, describing the melodic / harmonic / rhythmic patterns

using the MIS terminology and notation.

Joe

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

I'm not interested in creating a system for the sake of a system,

but as a tool for understanding and performing music.

I'm trying to shift the emphasis toward *understanding* vs. merely performing,

because I believe the production and performance of music is really 

a transfer from the "mind's ear" to the instrument, 

rather than an eye-hand coordination exercise starting with the notation on the page.

For example, today at my lesson I was trying to learn a certain rhythm pattern.

The instructor began to write in out in counts: 1 e & a , etc., and was obviously struggling.

So I said, Just play it.

He did, and I was able to imitate it, without benefit of notes or counts.

I also recorded it, and have a "sonogram" of the phrase.

I can now "measure" the sonogram and get the actual ratios of durations or ticks of the beat

at which the notes occur, and convert it into notation, 

quantizing according to whatever standard rhythmic pattern I think it belongs.

---

I  believe "theory" should be predictive, not just descriptive.

So a "theory" of melody / harmony / rhythm should provide "rules" or "guidelines"

so someone could create new music within the style covered by the theory,

or alternatively reject alleged "music" which did not follow the "rules".

If the "theory" were valid, the yes/no vote dictated by the rules would match the 

like/ don't like votes of persons listening to the contrasting examples,

or in other terms, the theoretical verdict would correlated to the "sales" of the music.

When we begin to see large paying audiences for "music" that doesn't follow the traditional rules,

then we know our theories are out of date!

But it's really sad if those large paying audiences are not also paying for instruments and lessons 

and  producing music of their own.

In my view, whatever "system" we devise, it's of little value 

if it doesn't convert people who enjoy listening to music

into people who enjoy producing music.

Joe

[dominique.waller]

Paul wrote : > I really like how it focuses on very specific concrete tasks. 

 

So do I. Dominique

[Joseph Austin]

I've been searching for some compact expositions of "music theory" to give concreteness to my discussion of notation, and ran across the following on Barbershop Harmony:

The 11 Chords of  Barbershop by Simon Rylander

http://www.sunshinetracks.com/chords.pdf

Barbershop Harmony, as described above, consists of eleven just-tempered chords,

primarily the major triad (4:5:6) and the "barbershop seventh" (4:5:6:7).

Interestingly, there are thus two ways of tuning a "minor third" (5:6 and 6:7)

depending on the chord and position in which it occurs. 

 

Just tuning is required to give barbershop harmony it's characteristic "ring",

which arises from reinforcement of harmonics of the various chord notes,

and hence is sung a capella because ET instruments would clash with the effect.

In general, as described on Wikipedia:

"Barbershop music features songs with understandable lyrics and easily singable melodies, 

whose tones clearly define a tonal center and imply major and minor chords 

and barbershop (dominant and secondary dominant) seventh chords 

that resolve primarily around the circle of fifths, while making frequent use of other resolutions."[1]

1. ^ "Definition of the Barbershop Style, from the Contest and Judging Handbook". Barbershop Harmony Society. 2002-07-11. Archived from the original on 7 June 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-06.

My purpose is not to propose "barbershop harmony" as THE theory of music,

but to offer this as an example (admittedly incomplete) of a theory reduced to "rules" that could be applied to certify or even generate an alleged example of the style.

I would imagine similar sets of rules could be offered for Gregorian chant, "common practice period" classical music, and perhaps even jazz, pop, and "Latin" music, etc.

Let it be conceded that not all accepted works of a given period will obey all the "rules" of that style.

But  the generally accepted rules would provide a basis for judging acceptable notations for representing music that does obey the rules,

and provide a basis for creating sample curriculum to teach those styles using the proposed notations.

Thus, we could approach the goal of creating notations 

that not only make music easier to play,

but also make it easier to learn and teach and study.

Also, as a bona fide example of just intonation music, 

Barbershop presents a challenge for "alternative notations",

and a reminder that not all music fits either the 12-tone ET system or the 7-note diatonic system!

You just can't get true "thirds" from a scale based only on "fifths"!

Joe Austin

[Michael Johnston]

> following on Barbershop Harmony:

Good for you, Joe. Here's my old quartette, Nassau Blend.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=100104041697&set=t.754106697&type=3&theater

And the Princeton chorus which I directed for a couple of years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=100104036697&set=t.754106697&type=3&theater

(I don't know if these will show up if you don't have a Facebook account.)

Explaining what you mentioned in the note is the hardest part of getting
people to sing Barbershop well. The notation conveys none of the tuning
adjustments necessary for those "well-tuned" singers. The fact is that
we never used a keyboard for learning or rehearsing, ever. The hope was
to keep equal temperament out of our minds for a while. Pitch pipes and
tuning forks were the thing!

I have never seen or imagined a notation system which could handle all
of the tuning things we did. When you change key, my head would spin!

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"

[Joseph Austin]

Michael,
Nice pics!

I've never actually sung barbershop,
but at one time in my life I had imagined one could create a MIDI file to drive a micro-tunable synth
to produce just intonation.

Once I actually programmed a micro-controller to play a "just" diatonic scale:
fa la do mi so ti re ** fa, where ** is the "seventh" of sol.
16:20:24:30:30:45:54:63:72
or in actual pitches A3=220 Hz:
176,220,264,330,396,495,594,693,792

I'd have to go back and analyze all 11 chords to see how many actual pitches are required.

With modern technology,
it might even be possible to build an instrument to "auto-harmonize" in just/barbershop harmony.
If human voices can tune dynamically, who says electronic instruments have to have fixed tuning?

Joe Austin

[Music Integrated Solution]

Joe,

I grew up in a country where there is an equivalent word for ‘barbershop’ but is not related to music at all, only inside churches there are quartets that sing a similar kind of music with or without accompanying instruments, I happened to sing a lot in some of those quartets, but at the time ignored issues of tuning methods, it was all sort of a natural way.

 

Sometimes we sang accompanied by the piano and sometimes without it; it could have sound differently but for me it was irrelevant, the pieces of music were the same, what makes me think that for theoretical purposes we can adjust most of the music to the ET grid, especially if we consider that we are doing the other way around, analyzing or theorizing music that is performed or written for ET with a system that is not.

 

Enrique.

[Music Integrated Solution]

The point is that those micro values don’t have an impact in the meaning of music, the same happens when quantizing the IOIs, which is a similar grid but for the timing, musical ideas remain the same, what makes me think that the 12 x 12 grid is solid for the analysis of music.

[Keislar, Doug]

Hi Joe,

Good idea, and like most good ideas, it's been done. The first instruments to "auto-harmonize" in just intonation used not-so-modern technology. To my knowledge the first person to achieve this was Eivind Groven in the mid-20th century:
http://www.orgelhuset.org/en/orgel.htm

The idea was to get just intonation (with more than 12 pitches per octave) while using a standard 12-note-per-octave keyboard, depending on which keys were simultaneously depressed.

Later in the 20th century, Harold Waage designed another such organ:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4152964

Doug

________________________________________
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com [musicn...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Joseph Austin [drtec...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:13 PM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MNP] Music theory

[Joseph Austin]

Doug,
Thanks for the info.

Sometimes I wonder: is it worth it learning to play in 12 keys,
when you can change key so easily with a knob or capo?

Maybe we should abandon key isomorphism and concentrate on expanded scales!

Joe Austin

[Doug Keislar]

On 4/19/2013 7:50 AM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Doug,
Thanks for the info.

Sometimes I wonder: is it worth it learning to play in 12 keys,
when you can change key so easily with a knob or capo?

Maybe not, if all you're doing is playing simplistic music that doesn't modulate or have complex harmonies.
But I think you would be missing out on a lot in terms of understanding music.

Irving Berlin couldn't read music, and he had other people harmonize the melodies he created.  He had a transposing piano so that he would only ever have to play in F# (Gb).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposing_piano
Good enough for composing song melodies.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Berlin#Songwriting_methods:
"though Berlin may seldom have played acceptable harmony, he nevertheless, by some mastery of his inner ear, senses it, in fact writes many of his melodies with this natural, intuitive harmonic sense at work in his head, but not in his hands."

Maybe Berlin should have tried a piano with your gray-B-and-F coloring, so he could have seen C major as similar to F#!

Maybe we should abandon key isomorphism and concentrate on expanded scales!

I wouldn't agree with that.  But it's not either-or, in any case.  Both are interesting.

Doug

[Music Integrated Solution]

>>I've been searching for some compact expositions of "music theory" to give concreteness to my discussion of notation, 

I finally read the paper - Music theory and chromatic notation - (or, to Bb or not to Bb but to be Cbb) by MARIO H A KOPPERS that I previously indicated, I think it is a must reading it and I have added it up to the collection of scholarly papers that integrate and provide academic support to the MIS, here I complete the unfinished statement of the first page.

 

 “”Traditional notation is not merely a graphic representation of musical sounds but it is also a medium on which Western music theory hinges, and a revision of notation would necessitate careful reconsideration of the theory of music.””

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03796488908566477

but I used this one

http://pubget.com/site/cart

There is a lot of what we have been talking about on it.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

There is not Theory in Music. It is just a nomenclature. And todays so called Western Music "Theory" is wrong or at least misleading.
It is somehow bound to the Conventional Piano keyboard plus some unnecessary complexity of double alterations and so on.

On the other hand with acoustic pianos is impossible to avoid transposing the key without changing the fingering (well, in fact there was mechanical invention that allow to do the key change without changing the fingerings but it was too complex and pricey). Todays electronic synthesizers allow effortless instant transposing by pressing buttons or knobs and that is fine but does not change the fact that standard piano keyboard is limited  as well so many isomorphic keyboards (like Chromatone™, Daskin™ Axis™, Tonnetz as also PC-qwerty or many Chromatic-microtonal). 

Those have their advantages but they fail on the very basic concept... the concept of use and ergonomics. In fact back in those days a century ago von Jankò seems to have succeeded with the design ergonomics but unfortunately implemented the heritage of the organ and standard piano keyboard design as well while there is a very simplistic approach to solve all the problems that come up when talking about design, ergonomics, usefulness and compactness.
Yes, back in those days (without electronics, plastic parts and such production) it was also possible to solve those issues by using some advanced design and woodwork in mechanical realm.

Also the same is relevant to the Notation and Nomenclature: to be more meaningful yet simplistic at the same time!

P.S. Here is a brief essay I wrote and am willing to share with you (the last part showing the design is restricted though because of some pending patent rights).
        Music "theory" also simplifies to reflect the ultimate design. Thanks!

_____
Ivaylo

[Joseph Austin]

Ivaylo,

The keyboard ooks promising.  When do you expect to have one for sale?

Theory in music?  As I've tried to say before, to me "theory" means "predictive rules".

They may change from age to age, but I think music has always had "rules" the distinguish "music" from "noise".

Unfortunately, I think "making music" has degenerated from composing to performing to turning on an iPod.

We need to start teaching kids to compose from scratch again.

Joe Austin

On Apr 23, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov wrote:

There is not Theory in Music. It is just a nomenclature. And todays so called Western Music "Theory" is wrong or at least misleading.
It is somehow bound to the Conventional Piano keyboard plus some unnecessary complexity of double alterations and so on.

On the other hand with acoustic pianos is impossible to avoid transposing the key without changing the fingering (well, in fact there was mechanical invention that allow to do the key change without changing the fingerings but it was too complex and pricey). Todays electronic synthesizers allow effortless instant transposing by pressing buttons or knobs and that is fine but does not change the fact that standard piano keyboard is limited  as well so many isomorphic keyboards (like Chromatone™, Daskin™ Axis™, Tonnetz as also PC-qwerty or many Chromatic-microtonal). 

Those have their advantages but they fail on the very basic concept... the concept of use and ergonomics. In fact back in those days a century ago von Jankò seems to have succeeded with the design ergonomics but unfortunately implemented the heritage of the organ and standard piano keyboard design as well while there is a very simplistic approach to solve all the problems that come up when talking about design, ergonomics, usefulness and compactness.

Yes, back in those days (without electronics, plastic parts and such production) it was also possible to solve those issues by using some advanced design and woodwork in mechanical realm.

Also the same is relevant to the Notation and Nomenclature: to be more meaningful yet simplistic at the same time!

P.S. Here is a brief essay I wrote and am willing to share with you (the last part showing the design is restricted though because of some pending patent rights).
        Music "theory" also simplifies to reflect the ultimate design. Thanks!

_____
Ivaylo

[Music Integrated Solution]

>>There is not Theory in Music

Music had no theories until people started to analyze it, theories are the result of trying to understand and explain music, or how some music works, then musical analysis was born, mostly based on theories, however according to Edward Cone - music analysis lies between description and prescription -, and I think in that space there is solid ground for the alternatives we need without so many theories.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Joeseph,

what you see in the end of the presentation is NOT the keyboard in its final design. That grey 3D-design pictures you see there is what I have designed from the standard piano keyboard back in my college years to comfort the old piano keyboard and to implement the chromatic approach. That particular design is for free (if someone would like to make a keyboard of it). My latest design is far more comfortable and simple and is in no way related to those arrangement and design of the keys.
I'll try to make a prototype but I have no know how of manufacturing whatever keyboard. I tried to contact with the Chromatone™ inventor without any success (via e-mail and post-mail).
Also tried to contact to the nearest manufacturer FATAR  in Italy (because in my country there is no even a single piano or keyboard manufacturer) still no success (via e-mail).
Three years back from now I send my presentation to Yamaha but their policy was to reject any third-party inventions no matter what is about (electronics, music instruments, auto and mechanics). So they haven't even opened it.

In fact Chromatone™ and Daskin™ (Jankò original) share the same concept that still has certain issues in terms of playing and ergonomics.

As for the Theory of Music I would like to think of it as a predefined nomenclature of its elements (theory of music elements or simple TME). I think it is wrong to name the intervals and notes based on the 7-notes scales (modes).
Those should be named after the Temperament and the notes number in an "octave" (an 'octave' to me is a 'renova' from Latin: anew, again).

[Joseph Austin]

Ivaylo,

Are you familiar with this site:

http://diykeyboard.wikidot.com/

With availability of 3D printing, there are a lot of amateur and professional "makers" who can create prototypes,

and organizations that support them, such as Maker Faire:

http://blog.makezine.com/page-2/the-first-mini-maker-faire-in-continental-europe/

and Tech Shop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpPOPF9HbSM.

I've had a hunch that the best way to introduce a new instrument design would be with a musical "toy" or game suitable for young people.

For example, consider the popularity of Guitar Hero.  

I'd strive for low cost, with a tutorial program included for self-learning.

That way you could avoid the problems of:

a. people already committed to the traditional keyboard

b. need to find a sympathetic teacher

Then, if it really is "easy to learn and play", it might become successful.

---

As for Music "theory",  I agree that what is called "theory" in many introductory instrument curricula is nothing more than notation.  But I think of theory more in terms of rules and patterns such as scales, chords, harmonic progressions, etc.

In other words, "theory" explains how music "works."

Joe Austin

On Apr 23, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Ivaylo Naydenov wrote:

Joeseph,

what you see in the end of the presentation is NOT the keyboard in its final design. That grey 3D-design pictures you see there is what I have designed from the standard piano keyboard back in my college years to comfort the old piano keyboard and to implement the chromatic approach. That particular design is for free (if someone would like to make a keyboard of it). My latest design is far more comfortable and simple and is in no way related to those arrangement and design of the keys.
I'll try to make a prototype but I have no know how of manufacturing whatever keyboard. I tried to contact with the Chromatone™ inventor without any success (via e-mail and post-mail).
Also tried to contact to the nearest manufacturer FATAR  in Italy (because in my country there is no even a single piano or keyboard manufacturer) still no success (via e-mail).
Three years back from now I send my presentation to Yamaha but their policy was to reject any third-party inventions no matter what is about (electronics, music instruments, auto and mechanics). So they haven't even opened it.

In fact Chromatone™ and Daskin™ (Jankò original) share the same concept that still has certain issues in terms of playing and ergonomics.

As for the Theory of Music I would like to think of it as a predefined nomenclature of its elements (theory of music elements or simple TME). I think it is wrong to name the intervals and notes based on the 7-notes scales (modes).
Those should be named after the Temperament and the notes number in an "octave" (an 'octave' to me is a 'renova' from Latin: anew, again).

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Joseph, 
many thanks for the advices and the suggested websites. I will check them thoroughly.

2013/4/23 Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com>

--
 --- van Loyden 

Treatise On Pentatonics (e-book)

[Music Integrated Solution]

I can see some confusion when speaking of - music theory - and - theories in music –, but in any case the way M. Koppers puts it is clear enough for anybody to understand what he means, which I think is very important and deserves different kind of comments and should not be ignored.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

I do not know anything about M. Koppers. What did he write? And where that could be read?

2013/4/24 Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com>

I can see some confusion when speaking of - music theory - and - theories in music –, but in any case the way M. Koppers puts it is clear enough for anybody to understand what he means, which I think is very important and deserves different kind of comments and should not be ignored.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Michael Johnston]

> I do not know anything about M. Koppers. What did he write? And where
> that could be read?

You'll see the instances of Mario's writing on
http://musicnotation.org/mnma/conferences/. Some of these may be ordered
from the Univ of South Dakota and there are links on this page. MNP does
not control these.

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

Kopper's paper is a good introduction, but I'm disappointed that he stops just when it starts getting interesting.

I've been considering the following hypothetical / historical (?) progression:

1. pentatonic scale, 5 pure (3:2), and their (2:1): harmony consists of "fifths" and "octaves"

2. extended to a 7-tone scale with seven (3:2) ?

3. splitting the 3:2 into 6:5:4, giving triadic harmony ("major/minor thirds"): the seven-tone major/minor diatonic scale;

4. mean-tone temperament to map the diatonic scale onto practical instruments

Common-practice harmony; cadences, etc.

5. modulations among related scales, leading to equal temperament (per Koppers, for example);

circle of fifths

*. meanwhile, "pure" Pythagorean harmony prospers in pockets such as "Barbershop".

Major development:

6. Jazz harmony: tetradic chords (4:5:6:7)?  blues scales  (back to pentatonic with added "blue" note--major/minor thirds);

over a stylized progression of basic triads or tetradic chords, or just a bass line like: 1+ (5 6 7b 6):  12-bar blues.

It's not clear from what I've read whether jazz is a development of equal-temperament harmony

or an import of a non-western scale system adapted to equal-temperament.

7. pop harmony: I"ve seen it described as "diagonal" progressions that don't follow the traditional circle-of-fifths.

And of course I'll bring up the neglected dimension:

8. Meanwhile, rhythm patterns also evolve, with eventual introduction of clave, multi-part, syncopation, back-beat, etc.

---

As we observe, theory, and notations and nomenclature "froze" at about the time equal-temperament was introduced.

But before we start developing a theory based on 12-TET, 

why not first create a "musical" theory of jazz and pop?

When I ask about that, people say: just listen to it until you "get it".

Actually, I'm beginning to think it's easier to "get it" by hearing it than by analyzing it!

Maybe that's true for all music.

So why do we start students with reading notation instead of making and listening to sounds?

What if there were in instrument such as a Wii-Theremin or tablet surface with which you could create any pitches or harmonies or rhythms whatsoever--and composers just created sequences and harmonies that "sounded good".  

Then record and analyze what they create, and see what scales, chords, progressions, rhythm patters, etc. they develop?

I wonder how much the development of music has been constrained the need to "quantize" pitches to produce practical instruments?

Joe Austin

[Doug Keislar]

Hi Ivaylo (adXok),

The paper by Koppers that Enrique was alluding to is available online, as mentioned in Enrique's posting a few days ago:

I finally read the paper - Music theory and chromatic notation - (or, to Bb or not to Bb but to be Cbb) by MARIO H A KOPPERS that I previously indicated, I think it is a must reading it and I have added it up to the collection of scholarly papers that integrate and provide academic support to the MIS, here I complete the unfinished statement of the first page.

 

 “”Traditional notation is not merely a graphic representation of musical sounds but it is also a medium on which Western music theory hinges, and a revision of notation would necessitate careful reconsideration of the theory of music.””

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03796488908566477

but I used this one

http://pubget.com/site/cart

-- Doug

[Music Integrated Solution]

>>Enrique,

>>Kopper's paper is a good introduction, but I'm disappointed that he stops just when it starts getting interesting.

Joe,

I think he takes side in a scholarly manner in basic issues related to chromatic notation:

1- We have to (it is not an option) reconsider music theory if we want to give a full use to chromatic notation.

2- We can safely prescind from enharmonic equivalence.

 

Though this may not be news, what I find interesting is his - convergence - with Roland Eberlein and others criticizing harmonic analysis and theory, and advocating an alternative though for different reasons but with a similar kind of talk –quote.

 

““ Harmonic analysis and theory today provides fertile ground for speculation which often require extensive intellectual gymnastics. Far-fetched theories on tonality and harmony are empirically “proven” by mathematical calculations of Just intonation or Mean-tone tuning and manipulation of enharmonic equivalents. Theoretical principles based on archaic calculations of intervals, with their respective graphic signs are used as basis for harmonic practice which defeats and contradicts the essence of enharmonicism.””

 

However, Eberlein and Koppers alternatives are totally different because Eberlein intend to apply his proposal to the traditional notation, which is a perfect fit to chromatic notation and not easy to use with the traditional one, while Koppers intend to apply the same traditional subjective method that Eberlein criticizes to chromatic notation, which besides does not seem to be easy to use either.

 

The point is that neither Eberlein nor Koppers proposals may be feasible enough to become common practice; however some form of Eberlein proposal may unlock the riddle of chromatic notation and that has been my experience.

 

Enrique.

 

[John Keller]

It would be good if we could all see these articles without having to buy them!

 

JOhn K

----- Original Message -----

From: Music Integrated Solution

To: musicnotation

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:19 AM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Music theory

--

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

I see it is a book, compilation of artical on various related subjects and no preview of what might be of interest to me. 
Yes, the title 'to Bb or not to Bb' is very catchy but if anyone would like to share only the spoken article would be nice.
There are too many variants for A new notation system, each suitable for certain needs I suppose. 

Seth - the person of this forum group also claimed to have one, I do have also some system, many others have too.
I do not think it is very nice to have a proprietary claims on a Notation System (alphabet or some kind of language). 
Material inventions (like language translator-interpreter device) should be protected and patented though!

In fact soon I'm gonna share my system. Have to translate the last parts form Bulgarian to what I call rapid English (no time and money for professional editors!)

_____
Ivaylo

2013/4/25 John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au>

[Music Integrated Solution]

I have seen that in the US some of these papers can be read through local public libraries, it could be the same in other countries.

[Joseph Austin]

John,

I did buy it, but I'd suggest others might prefer to hold on to their wallets.

There's not much "new news" here,

just a rehashing some of the history of tunings,

especially mean-tone vs. equal-temperament; 

suggesting that calling a note F-sharp or G-flat is prejudicial to the diatonic scale and suggesting an alternative name (an idea equivalent to your HIJKL);

and an example of four chord progressions in which he illustrate that

"rules of harmony" treat a minor 7th and augmented 6th as distinct cases 

but the actual notes in 12TET are exactly the same.

My favorite "quote" (which I will paraphrase) is that traditional theory and notation is fine for music composed in the days of mean-tone temperament,

but it's a mistake to try to interpret music composed "for" 12TET in terms of that theory,

so we need a new theory (and notation and nomenclature) for 12TET.

Poppers doesn't actually propose such a theory, but gives examples of a chromatic staff and a couple 12-tone nomenclatures to illustrate the directions he thinks such a theory might take.

I was disappointed in that, after showing the difficulties of applying traditional theory to later music,

he didn't actually suggest what I would call an alternative "theory", but merely suggested we need an alternative nomenclature.  (In my view, "theory" is not only descriptive but also prescriptive and predictive; in simple terms, it must at least distinguish what is "music"--that is, "beautiful"--from what is not.)

So I ask: is "modern" music composed "for" 12TET,

or is it just the case that the composer finds the nearest 12TET equivalent to what his/her "muse" is actually inspiring?

I'd sooner think that music was fundamentally based on some fundamental physical reality,

such as the sequence of harmonic overtones and small-integer frequency ratios,

rather than on the coincidental "near equivalence" of (3/2)^12 = 531441/4096 ~= 129.75, and 2^9 = 128.

I can't imagine a 12TET theory that would explain the preference for 7, 4, and 3 semi-tone intervals in chords, but it is easily explained by regarding 12TET as an approximation to just intonation and appealing to Pythagorean harmony theory.

Joe Austin

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

I agree with most of what Popper says,

but I don't think he really breaks any ground (in this paper) toward a chromatic theory.

So where do we go with a "chromatic" theory?

Einstein's theory of relativity forced physics to give up the idea of an "absolute" or preferred space-time frame of reference.

Perhaps the musical equivalent is to give up the notion of a "home" tonality.

Couldn't we define a melodic or harmonic progression in terms of relative intervals instead of in terms of degrees of a scale?  Perhaps you do that in your terminology.

An example I have used before:

In Richard Rodger's ode to the diatonic scale,  "Do Re Mi",

there are a few chromatic sequences.

Calling "do" 1 of the chromatic scale, the sequences are:

Sol, a needle pulling thread: so, do re mi fa so la (8, 1 3 5 6 8 10) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2)

La, a note to follow sol: la, re mi FI so la ti (10, 3 5 7 8 10 12) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2) 

Ti, a drink with jam and bread:  ti, mi FI SI la ti do (12, 5 7 9 10 12 13) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 1)

that will bring...:  ti TA la ... (12 11 10) intervals (-1 -1)

These modulate to "hexachords" on three successive notes a whole-tone apart (e.g. Keys C, D, E) respectively, with the same chromatic intervals 2 2 1 2  beginning* each sequence

(* the last one ends with a 1-interval to the tonic instead of 2, but then the melody again proceeds down chromatically!)

This kind of progression makes no particular sense in terms of the circle of fifths,

or of preserving tonality (the nominal subject of the lyrics)

but it clearly fits the context and sounds perfectly "normal".

The hapless student discovers the paradox only when trying to play the tune on her 8-note toy xylophone!

So harmonic relativism may be part of the answer,

but we still need to account for the preference for intervals of 7, 4, and 3 semitones,

which suggests concepts from Pythagorean harmony will remain part of any theory of music.

Joe Austin

[Doug Keislar]

So I ask: is "modern" music composed "for" 12TET,

or is it just the case that the composer finds the nearest 12TET equivalent to what his/her "muse" is actually inspiring?

I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose that small-integer frequency ratios, at least the octave 2:1 and the perfect fifth 3:2, were the original basis for the intervals in the diatonic scale.� But I don't think it's true that most modern composers mentally hear just intonation intervals and translate them to the closest interval in 12-tone equal temperament (12-TET).� People are accustomed to 12-TET, so that's what they hear in their imagination for the most part.� These days, more than ever, because of the ubiquity of Auto-Tune and electronic instruments in popular music, music is quantized to perfect 12-TET, even singers' voices.� (I'm not saying that's a good thing.)� My dissertation from 1991 studied judgments of intonation.� The subjects in the experiments, who all had musical training, tended to judge intervals as being more in tune the closer they were to 12-TET, rather than to just intonation.� This doesn't mean just intonation isn't a musical useful and interesting system, but I'm skeptical of the idea that people tend to prefer or mentally hear just intervals rather than 12-TET.� In any case, the octave is identical in the two systems, the perfect fifth is very close (only 2 cents -- 2/100 of a semitone -- different), etc., so the question is most pertinent to major and minor thirds.

Doug

On 4/25/2013 9:03 AM, Joseph Austin wrote:

John,

I did buy it, but I'd suggest others might prefer to hold on to their wallets.

There's not much "new news" here,

just a rehashing some of the history of tunings,

especially mean-tone vs. equal-temperament;�

suggesting that calling a note F-sharp or G-flat is prejudicial to the diatonic scale and suggesting an alternative name (an idea equivalent to your HIJKL);

and an example of four chord progressions in which he illustrate that

"rules of harmony" treat a minor 7th and augmented 6th as distinct cases�

but the actual notes in 12TET are exactly the same.

My favorite "quote" (which I will paraphrase) is that traditional theory and notation is fine for music composed in the days of mean-tone temperament,

but it's a mistake to try to interpret music composed "for" 12TET in terms of that theory,

so we need a new theory (and notation and nomenclature) for 12TET.

Poppers doesn't actually propose such a theory, but gives examples of a chromatic staff and a couple 12-tone nomenclatures to illustrate the directions he thinks such a theory might take.

I was disappointed in that, after showing the difficulties of applying traditional theory to later music,

he didn't actually suggest what I would call an alternative "theory", but merely suggested we need an alternative nomenclature. �(In my view, "theory" is not only descriptive but also prescriptive and predictive; in simple terms, it must at least distinguish what is "music"--that is, "beautiful"--from what is not.)

So I ask: is "modern" music composed "for" 12TET,

or is it just the case that the composer finds the nearest 12TET equivalent to what his/her "muse" is actually inspiring?

I'd sooner think that music was fundamentally based on some fundamental physical reality,

such as the sequence of harmonic overtones and small-integer frequency ratios,

rather than on the coincidental "near equivalence" of (3/2)^12 = 531441/4096 ~= 129.75, and 2^9 = 128.

I can't imagine a 12TET theory that would explain the preference for 7, 4, and 3 semi-tone intervals in chords, but it is easily explained by regarding 12TET as an approximation to just intonation and appealing to Pythagorean harmony theory.

Joe Austin

On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:15 PM, John Keller wrote:

It would be good if we could all see these articles without having to buy them!

�

JOhn K

----- Original Message -----

From:�Music Integrated Solution

To:�musicnotation

Sent:�Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:19 AM

Subject:�Re: [MNP] Music theory

>>Enrique,

>>Kopper's paper is a good introduction, but I'm disappointed that he stops just when it starts getting interesting.

Joe,

I think he takes side in a scholarly manner in basic issues related to chromatic notation:

1- We have to (it is not an option) reconsider music theory if we want to give a full use to chromatic notation.

2- We can safely prescind from enharmonic equivalence.

�

Though this may not be news, what I find interesting is his - convergence - with Roland Eberlein and others criticizing harmonic analysis and theory, and advocating an alternative though for different reasons but with a similar kind of talk �quote.

�

�� Harmonic analysis and theory today provides fertile ground for speculation which often require extensive intellectual gymnastics. Far-fetched theories on tonality and harmony are empirically �proven� by mathematical calculations of Just intonation or Mean-tone tuning and manipulation of enharmonic equivalents. Theoretical principles based on archaic calculations of intervals, with their respective graphic signs are used as basis for harmonic practice which defeats and contradicts the essence of enharmonicism.��

�

However, Eberlein and Koppers alternatives are totally different because Eberlein intend to apply his proposal to the traditional notation, which is a perfect fit to chromatic notation and not easy to use with the traditional one, while Koppers intend to apply the same traditional subjective method that Eberlein criticizes to chromatic notation, which besides does not seem to be easy to use either.

�

The point is that neither Eberlein nor Koppers proposals may be feasible enough to become common practice; however some form of�Eberlein�proposal may unlock the riddle of chromatic notation and that has been my experience.

�

Enrique.

�

--�

You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).

To post to this group, send email to�musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to�musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at�http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---�

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tomusicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit�https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�

--�

You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).

To post to this group, send email to�musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to�musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at�http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---�

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tomusicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit�https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Doug Keislar]

This kind of progression makes no particular sense in terms of the circle of fifths,

or of preserving tonality (the nominal subject of the lyrics)

That's an overstatement.� Chromatic alterations, often harmonized by secondary dominants as in this song, are a staple of tonality.� Tonality is more than the diatonic scale.

Doug

On 4/25/2013 10:18 AM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Enrique,

I agree with most of what Popper says,

but I don't think he really breaks any ground (in this paper) toward a chromatic theory.

So where do we go with a "chromatic" theory?

Einstein's theory of relativity forced physics to give up the idea of an "absolute" or preferred space-time frame of reference.

Perhaps the musical equivalent is to give up the notion of a "home" tonality.

Couldn't we define a melodic or harmonic progression in terms of relative intervals instead of in terms of degrees of a scale? �Perhaps you do that in your terminology.

An example I have used before:

In Richard Rodger's ode to the diatonic scale, �"Do Re Mi",

there are a few chromatic sequences.

Calling "do" 1 of the chromatic scale, the sequences are:

Sol, a needle pulling thread: so, do re mi fa so la (8, 1 3 5 6 8 10) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2)

La, a note to follow sol: la, re mi FI so la ti (10, 3 5 7 8 10 12) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2)�

Ti, a drink with jam and bread: �ti, mi FI SI la ti do (12, 5 7 9 10 12 13) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 1)

that will bring...: �ti TA la ... (12 11 10) intervals (-1 -1)

These modulate to "hexachords" on three successive notes a whole-tone apart (e.g. Keys C, D, E) respectively,�with the same chromatic intervals 2 2 1 2 �beginning* each sequence

(* the last one ends with a 1-interval to the tonic instead of 2, but then the melody again proceeds down chromatically!)

This kind of progression makes no particular sense in terms of the circle of fifths,

or of preserving tonality (the nominal subject of the lyrics)

but it clearly fits the context and sounds perfectly "normal".

The hapless student discovers the paradox only when trying to play the tune on her 8-note toy xylophone!

So harmonic relativism may be part of the answer,

but we still need to account for the preference for intervals of 7, 4, and 3 semitones,

which suggests concepts from Pythagorean harmony will remain part of any theory of music.

Joe Austin

On Apr 24, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

>>Enrique,

>>Kopper's paper is a good introduction, but I'm disappointed that he stops just when it starts getting interesting.

Joe,

I think he takes side in a scholarly manner in basic issues related to chromatic notation:

1- We have to (it is not an option) reconsider music theory if we want to give a full use to chromatic notation.

2- We can safely prescind from enharmonic equivalence.

�

Though this may not be news, what I find interesting is his - convergence - with Roland Eberlein and others criticizing harmonic analysis and theory, and advocating an alternative though for different reasons but with a similar kind of talk �quote.

�

�� Harmonic analysis and theory today provides fertile ground for speculation which often require extensive intellectual gymnastics. Far-fetched theories on tonality and harmony are empirically �proven� by mathematical calculations of Just intonation or Mean-tone tuning and manipulation of enharmonic equivalents. Theoretical principles based on archaic calculations of intervals, with their respective graphic signs are used as basis for harmonic practice which defeats and contradicts the essence of enharmonicism.��

�

However, Eberlein and Koppers alternatives are totally different because Eberlein intend to apply his proposal to the traditional notation, which is a perfect fit to chromatic notation and not easy to use with the traditional one, while Koppers intend to apply the same traditional subjective method that Eberlein criticizes to chromatic notation, which besides does not seem to be easy to use either.

�

The point is that neither Eberlein nor Koppers proposals may be feasible enough to become common practice; however some form of�Eberlein�proposal may unlock the riddle of chromatic notation and that has been my experience.

�

Enrique.

�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Couldn't we define a melodic or harmonic progression in terms of relative intervals instead of in terms of degrees of a scale?  Perhaps you do that in your terminology.

Do not know if you were asking me but... Yes, I do that in my way of defined terminology.
Something more I do want to emphasize: the concept of a semitone (as an interval or even in some cases designating the non-diatonic tones) is absolutely wrong!
I mean it is not wrong only by nomenclature means but as a concept as a whole to structure a interval relation of any kind.

2013/4/25 Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com>

This kind of progression makes no particular sense in terms of the circle of fifths,

or of preserving tonality (the nominal subject of the lyrics)

That's an overstatement.  Chromatic alterations, often harmonized by secondary dominants as in this song, are a staple of tonality.  Tonality is more than the diatonic scale.

Doug

On 4/25/2013 10:18 AM, Joseph Austin wrote:

Enrique,

I agree with most of what Popper says,

but I don't think he really breaks any ground (in this paper) toward a chromatic theory.

So where do we go with a "chromatic" theory?

Einstein's theory of relativity forced physics to give up the idea of an "absolute" or preferred space-time frame of reference.

Perhaps the musical equivalent is to give up the notion of a "home" tonality.

Couldn't we define a melodic or harmonic progression in terms of relative intervals instead of in terms of degrees of a scale?  Perhaps you do that in your terminology.

An example I have used before:

In Richard Rodger's ode to the diatonic scale,  "Do Re Mi",

there are a few chromatic sequences.

Calling "do" 1 of the chromatic scale, the sequences are:

Sol, a needle pulling thread: so, do re mi fa so la (8, 1 3 5 6 8 10) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2)

La, a note to follow sol: la, re mi FI so la ti (10, 3 5 7 8 10 12) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 2) 

Ti, a drink with jam and bread:  ti, mi FI SI la ti do (12, 5 7 9 10 12 13) intervals (-7, 2 2 1 2 1)

that will bring...:  ti TA la ... (12 11 10) intervals (-1 -1)

These modulate to "hexachords" on three successive notes a whole-tone apart (e.g. Keys C, D, E) respectively, with the same chromatic intervals 2 2 1 2  beginning* each sequence

(* the last one ends with a 1-interval to the tonic instead of 2, but then the melody again proceeds down chromatically!)

This kind of progression makes no particular sense in terms of the circle of fifths,

or of preserving tonality (the nominal subject of the lyrics)

but it clearly fits the context and sounds perfectly "normal".

The hapless student discovers the paradox only when trying to play the tune on her 8-note toy xylophone!

So harmonic relativism may be part of the answer,

but we still need to account for the preference for intervals of 7, 4, and 3 semitones,

which suggests concepts from Pythagorean harmony will remain part of any theory of music.

Joe Austin

On Apr 24, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

>>Enrique,

>>Kopper's paper is a good introduction, but I'm disappointed that he stops just when it starts getting interesting.

Joe,

I think he takes side in a scholarly manner in basic issues related to chromatic notation:

1- We have to (it is not an option) reconsider music theory if we want to give a full use to chromatic notation.

2- We can safely prescind from enharmonic equivalence.

 

Though this may not be news, what I find interesting is his - convergence - with Roland Eberlein and others criticizing harmonic analysis and theory, and advocating an alternative though for different reasons but with a similar kind of talk –quote.

 

““ Harmonic analysis and theory today provides fertile ground for speculation which often require extensive intellectual gymnastics. Far-fetched theories on tonality and harmony are empirically “proven” by mathematical calculations of Just intonation or Mean-tone tuning and manipulation of enharmonic equivalents. Theoretical principles based on archaic calculations of intervals, with their respective graphic signs are used as basis for harmonic practice which defeats and contradicts the essence of enharmonicism.””

 

However, Eberlein and Koppers alternatives are totally different because Eberlein intend to apply his proposal to the traditional notation, which is a perfect fit to chromatic notation and not easy to use with the traditional one, while Koppers intend to apply the same traditional subjective method that Eberlein criticizes to chromatic notation, which besides does not seem to be easy to use either.

 

The point is that neither Eberlein nor Koppers proposals may be feasible enough to become common practice; however some form of Eberlein proposal may unlock the riddle of chromatic notation and that has been my experience.

 

Enrique.

 

[Music Integrated Solution]

Joe,

The - title - of the paper is - Music theory and chromatic notation – my interpretation is - that chromatic notation is the main reason that makes him suggest the reconsideration of music theory and the publication of the paper, and not ET, though instruments tuned in ET should had caused the idea of chromatic notation.

 

>>So where do we go with a "chromatic" theory?

Before we have to answer:

Why chromatic notation?

Is chromatic notation worthwhile?

Does chromatic notation alone justify the reconsideration of music theory?

Is such reconsideration really necessary because of chromatic notation?

Is chromatic notation worthwhile without reconsidering music theory?

 

Some of the answers may vary if we believe that chromatic notation is not the only reason to reconsider music theory, the other major reason is - to take theories out of music theory as much as possible -, which is the reason of the Eberlein paper.

 

Then there is another bunch of questions:

Do we need theories in music theory now?

What can we do with theories that we cannot do without them?

What can we do without theories that we cannot do with them?

Is such objective approach to music theory better?

And so on….

 

I am claiming an objective and feasible integrated solution and not a chromatic notation, which is a great responsibility because I have to answer these and other questions, but my answer to Joe’s question is simple – with a chromatic theory without theories we go forwards -

 

Enrique.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

with a chromatic theory without theories we go forwards

Yes! That is the answer, though we have to realize that most of the popular music is strictly diatonic I should say. That means it is primarily 7-tonic scales (and to be more precise in 6 modes, locrian is very rarely used in songs)​.
Music though is not just songs for the masses (sorry for the rude expression but it is just the way it is). That is why I do consider the well known modes of the "white keys" of the piano a special case of one complete 12 tone chromatic cluster of tones (12-TET or 12-TJT).

It doesn't matter the comma differences between the 'octave' clusters! The pattern is always the same applied to different counts of frequencies (tones) by using simple ratio relationships. 

Yes, everybody knows the the [3:2]-interval is slightly different than ¹²√2⁷ (twelfth root of 2 to the power of 7). So simple it is: 1.5 ≈ 1.498
This doesn't mean both "fifths" should be named, noted differently. Not at all because you do not change the total note numbers in the Temperament.
And of course I put fifth between quotes because the Temperament says it is a seventh and not fifth. That is a matter of seeing the whole thing rather than it special cases of 7-tone scales.

TET should be named 'absolute' and TJT should be 'relative' in terms of interval relations correspondingly. The number of tones is always 12 and that is the 'constant' in that case. Every scale being it symmetric arpeggios, pentatonics, scales are extracted from those even the so popular diatonic modes. The names and intervals should be given that way and not the other way around as it is now.

[Music Integrated Solution]

In 8/17/10 I wrote

>>Please take a look at the chapter by Roland Eberlain (is Eberlein) in “Music, gestalt and 

>>computing” page 225, between Google books and Amazon it can be read the >>whole chapter, I got the book but for copyright I guess should not post it here.

Since then I have been talking about that paper and its importance, which title is - A method of analyzing harmony based on interval patterns or “Gestalten” the paper was published also individually.

I think it deserves I write some post attempting to explain why I find this a key element in the feasibility and future of chromatic notation.

Enrique.

[Joseph Austin]

Ivaylo,

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by "the concept of a semitone is absolutely wrong"?

I would assume that a "semitone" (perhaps there is a better name for it), that is, an interval of frequency ratio one : twelfth root of 2, is the defining concept of 12TET and the basic unit of measurement for all scales and chords in any chromatic theory.

Joe Austin

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

I try to keep it simple. Lets say you have 12-step staircase.
If you want to go from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3, etc. you make one step at a time.

If you want to go from 1 to 3, from 2 to 4, you have to skip a step, meaning you jump over one certain step. And so one.

There is no such thing as half-step to be taken. It is a step from whatever angle you look at it. Thus the smallest interval is one step, not a half step.

Simple as that.

2013/4/26 Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com>

[Joseph Austin]

Ivaylo,

That makes sense, but then we need a new name,

e.g. "unica" Latin for 1/12--I haven't found a Greek word for it.

(It sounds familiar--you or someone may have suggested that before.)

"Step" would be forever confused with "whole-tone",

so those terms would also need to excise from our vocabulary!

Apparently the Romans used a duodecimal fraction system,

the ancestor of the English feet and inches.

The full series, per

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals and

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romannumerals/p/RomanFractions.htm, 

would be:

1/12 unica 

2/12 (1/6) sextans

3/12 (1/4) quadrens / terunicus ["minor third'}, 

4/12 (1/3) triens ["major third'], 

5/12 quicunx ["perfect fourth"],  

6/12 (1/2) semis, 

7/12 septunx ["perfect fifth], 

8/12 (2/3) bes / bessis,  

9/12 (3/4)  dodrans / nonunicum 

10/12 (5/6) dextans / decunx, 

11/12 deunx

12/12 (1) as ["octave"]

Fractions were written as arrangements of dots similar to dominoes,

each dot representing 1/12, with S for 1/2 (6/12).

I had actually been thinking of using "domino" notation myself,

perhaps for finger numbers inside a notehead,

but it could also be applied to intervals, timing, etc.

My thinking is that giving a new meaning to old notation 

e.g. Roman numerals, as Koppers did,

would just lead to confusion.

Joe Austin

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

That is why my book "Treatise on Pentatonics" disclaims it inappropriate for musicians over 18 years of age (a little joke of course).

step is always a step and it is a step according to whatever number of elements is present. Intervals in music are derived from the special case of 7-tones diatonic scales (the modes of the major scale - white keys on the piano).

And that is what I mean by saying the term half-step is wrong.
I do think of the smallest interval in 12TET or 12TJT as a prime (prima, first). Well there is the unison (zero interval or base tone) of course (zero is not small nor big though). Then comes the second, third (minor third), fourth (known as major third) and so on. 
That way a simple major scale (from whatever key-note) should be consequentially written upwards as:

0·2·2·1·2·2·2 (intervals one after the other, )

0·2·4·5·7·9·11 (intervals from the 0 base tone)

Name it in whatever language you want. It stays universal, no need for accidentals or whatever alterations. Here is the "whole-tone" scale (scale of seconds):
0·2·2·2·2·2 (yep, seconds they are)
0·2·4·6·8·10 (yep, seconds in-between they are)

And so on.

2013/4/26 Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

For comparison in the conventional notation system formulas lets see the whole-tone scale:

1·2·3·#4·#5·#6 

oh, wait... there is another one way:

1·2·3·b5·b6·b7

That gives me a headache still today.

2013/4/26 Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com>

[Music Integrated Solution]

http://musicintegratedsolution.blogspot.com/

will continue...

[dominique.waller]

Very intersting.  Enrique, thank you very much for sharing this.

 

Only a little problem : the verb to prescind doesn’t exist in english. Maybe our American friends may help and find a good equivalent...

Cheers, Dominique

 

From: Music Integrated Solution

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:00 PM

To: musicnotation

Subject: Re: [MNP] Music theory

 

http://musicintegratedsolution.blogspot.com/

 

 

will continue...

 

[Music Integrated Solution]

Thanks Dominique, I have been struggling with that word as it does not come an equivalent so meaningful to my mind, before using it I tried

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=prescind+from%2C+prescind&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

and

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prescind

but as you say I would like to hear from native English speaking people.

[Michael Johnston]

> Only a little problem : the verb to prescind doesn�t exist in english.

> Maybe our American friends may help and find a good equivalent...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescind

How about 'ignore'? Turn away?

[Music Integrated Solution]

Thanks Michael, if the word is not known I can go back to my original words - ‘we can get rid of’ - though it has a stronger connotation, I just wanted to soften.

 

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Michael Johnston <mic...@michaelsmusicservice.com> wrote:

Only a little problem : the verb to prescind doesn’t exist in english.

Maybe our American friends may help and find a good equivalent...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescind

How about 'ignore'? Turn away?

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"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotation-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotation+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Music Integrated Solution]

In spanish when they are going to fire you usually say, we are going to prescind from your services, which is nicer than to say we are going to get rid of you.

[Doug Keislar]

In that case, instead of saying the new system will prescind from enharmonic equivalents, we can just say that the enharmonic equivalents have decided not to be part of the new system, because they want to pursue other opportunities and have more time to spend with their family.

On 4/29/2013 11:39 AM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

In spanish when they are going to fire you usually say, we are going to prescind from your services, which is nicer than to say we are going to get rid of you.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Michael, if the word is not known I can go back to�my�original words - �we can get rid of� - though it has a stronger�connotation, I just wanted to soften.

�

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Michael Johnston <mic...@michaelsmusicservice.com> wrote:

Only a little problem : the verb to prescind doesn�t exist in english.

Maybe our American friends may help and find a good equivalent...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescind

How about 'ignore'? Turn away?

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"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

[Paul Morris]

On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

In that case, instead of saying the new system will prescind from enharmonic equivalents, we can just say that the enharmonic equivalents have decided not to be part of the new system, because they want to pursue other opportunities and have more time to spend with their family.

:-D  

Too funny.  I agree that "prescind" is pretty rare in English.  Maybe "abandon" or "discard" ?

-Paul

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Paul Morris <pa...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Doug Keislar <do...@musclefish.com> wrote:

 

Too funny.  I agree that "prescind" is pretty rare in English.  Maybe "abandon" or "discard" ?

Maybe because it is a nice word in a tough world.

 

[Music Integrated Solution]

But I would not like a word to steal the show, I expected different kind of comments.

[John Keller]

I have been coaching a university music student in writing 4 part harmony. He doesnt play piano or think in chords but is a great viola player. Getting him to fill in harmony has been difficult but I taught him to spell triads ignoring the key signature, so ACE, BDF, CEG etc. Only 7, so not too hard and he can more efficiently jot in notes.

 

Naturally I have pondered a lot about how i would do the equivalent theory teaching in Express Stave or other chromatic notation systems in which we have precinded (discarded or abandoned) key signatures and enharmonic equivalents.

 

Learning to spell all 12 major plus 12 minor triads would be rather too laborious but one idea I have is to use the Key Clock or circle of fourths and for whatever key you are in, cover the unused five notes with your hand. Then you use the "pick two, miss two rule" which I can explain later.

 

Cheers, JohnK 

----- Original Message -----

From: Music Integrated Solution

To: musicnotation

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:26 AM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Music theory

But I would not like a word to steal the show, I expected different kind of comments.

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

OK, a different kind of comment:

“”The traditional methods of harmony analysis are unable to describe music of the 20th century adequately, since their fundamental axioms (e.g. all chords are built up of thirds, all chords are representatives of either certain scale steps or three different musical functions, cadences are the foundation of all harmonic progressions etc.) mostly do not hold true in this music. Vünsche (1965).””

I agree, but:

it's not enough to "get rid of" enharmonic equivalence, traditional harmonic function, etc.

We must replace them with something else, or you have no "theory", 

just a way of notating random notes.

So we should be looking for the axioms that do explain 20/21st century music,

which includes characteristics I've listed elsewhere such as tetradic chords,

"blue" notes, "back" beats, "diagonal" progressions, chromaticisms, syncopation, etc.

If we want to train students to hear and perform contemporary music,

what do we teach them instead of (or in addition to) twelve diatonic major/minor scales 

and circle-of-fifths triadic and dominant-seventh chord progressions, 

and N/M time signatures and rhythms?

I would expect a new theory to be expressed in sets of lessons and exercises to illustrate and drill the rudiments of the theory, including new scales, harmonic progressions, rhythm patterns, etc.

For example, if an improvised jazz melody should follow "the scale of the chord" rather than a global tonality, how does the theory describe the situation, and how does the

notation cue the performer to the prevailing chord or scale for a measure at a time? 

Can we construct (and correct) an exercise such as: given a notated chord, write an appropriate melody, or vice versa? 

In a highly syncopated and perhaps "poly-rhythmic" piece, 

how does the theory describe and the notation indicate the "beats" or accents of the rhythm for each particular part?  How do we "count" or otherwise learn such rhythms?

With the music student in mind, I've been focusing on notation that not only indicate pitch but also harmonies, not only duration but rhythm, etc.

Admittedly, the nominal scope of MNP is notation, not theory;

but the "need" for a new notation implies a "theory" that is not adequately accommodated by contemporary notation.  How can a notation be judged without reference to the underlying theory that it is attempting to represent?

Joe Austin

On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Music Integrated Solution wrote:

But I would not like a word to steal the show, I expected different kind of comments.

[Paul Morris]

On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

But I would not like a word to steal the show, I expected different kind of comments.

I was just laughing at Doug's joke about contemporary language used for laying people off work (not to say that people getting fired is a funny issue in itself...).  I don't have time at the moment to engage in a more in-depth conversation.  I do think it's interesting to think about music theory in the context of alternative notation systems.  My brief thought is that if:

(1) a notation system is meant as a potentially universal system that would be adequate to a wide variety of different forms of music (at least as much if not more than traditional notation, for example, medieval, baroque, classical, jazz, contemporary avant-garde, pop, "non-western", etc...), and...

(2) different styles of music are served better by different kinds of music theory, then...

(3) such a notation system should be compatible with different kinds of music theory, just as it is compatible with different kinds of music.  

In other words, it seems to me that music theory is based on the patterns of the musical genre or musical practices that it is meant to "theorize" or describe, so if a notation is adequate to different styles of music, it will also, or at least should also, be adequate to different kinds of music theory.

The details of what this looks like in practice are the interesting part to me.

Cheers,

-Paul

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

it's not enough to "get rid of" enharmonic equivalence, traditional harmonic function, etc.

We must replace them with something else, or you have no "theory", 

just a way of notating random notes.

Joe I agree, in part that is why I say the PRN so far is just a chromatic graphical representation of musical notes (it applies also to many chromatic notations) but the MIS is not the same, however I think we have to make a distinction between the analysis of harmony and the analysis of music.

 

My interpretation is that the analysis of harmony is useful and practical and we need an alternative; the analysis of music is another story, there is some battle going on; just take a look in case you want to have some fun

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0262-5245.2004.00204.x/abstract

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1343130?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101965131413

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/740369?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101964525063

 

I just ordered - Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis – but just as a way of expanding my music education.

  

[Joseph Austin]

John,

I can imagine how "choose two, skip two" could work in identifying the notes of a triad from the circle of keys.

But instead of just identifying notes, wouldn't it be better to also identify intervals?

Since I discovered the Euler Tonnetz, a hexagonal arrangement of notes in intervals of major thirds, minor thirds, and perfect fifths, I've thought it's a much better structure for finding scales and chords than the circle of keys.  It allows finding any "stacked thirds" chord by tracing a path through the honeycomb.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

When using the circle of keys, I usually add an inner circle with the intervening thirds of the major triads, so the major and minor chords form a triangle of notes. (Major triads point in; minor triads point out.)

(The inner circle is also a circle of fifths, just offset from the outer circle.)

As for adapting to Express Stave:

I prefer deriving the scale from the chords (ii IV vi I iii V7), which gives a sequence of alternating minor and major thirds (except for the last 7th which is another minor) rather than whole-step half-step sequences. You could apply this version of the "scale" (or the individual chords for that matter) directly to the staff, somewhat like a key signature, and read the notes directly.  

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

John,

I can imagine how "choose two, skip two" could work in identifying the notes of a triad from the circle of keys.

But instead of just identifying notes, wouldn't it be better to also identify intervals?

 

Agree, I think we have talked about it in the past, the chromatic system is inefficient (almost theoretically useless) when based on notes or note names, it is the opposite of isomorphic instruments, it multiplies everything by twelve, and that is why I find the ‘interval pattern’ method the feasible way.

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

I found a book that claims to offer an analysis of Beatles music,

which I suppose sets the standard for modern pop.

Unfortunately, it's not written in a language I understand,

although the website offers a fairly extensive summary in English:

The Sound of the Beatles

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/The_sound_of_the_Beatles.shtml

G. Tillekens 

Het geluid van de Beatles

ISBN: 9789055891122

My main interest in "theory" is as a guide to learning,

more along the lines of Kodály, Orff, and Suzuki.

But they are mostly oriented toward beginners, and only take you so far.

I've seen lot's of versions of the "blues" scale, listing the notes,

commenting on the "blue" notes,

but no discussions of how one incorporates those notes into a tune.

I've seen lots of books that tell you how to construct or play "advanced" chords,

like tetrads and 6 and 9 and 11 and 13, but none that tell you how / when to use them.

I've seen books that tell how to "count" syncopated rhythms,

but none that explain the difference between say, calypso and rumba,

or between a minuet and a waltz for that matter.

The books that do offer guidance say "follow your ear".

But then the "ear training" resources never seem to include those scales or chords!

I keep feeling there must be something out there 

that explains how contemporary pop  (or earlier blues and jazz) is put together,  

because so many people seem to be playing it and buying it, 

that it can't just be random noise (even though sometimes I think some of it is), 

but it's definitely not "classical".

Joe

[Joseph Austin]

Paul,

Supposing that music notation is a form of language, consider how languages change.

Short of a "Tower of Babel", 

I'd suppose the biggest impacts are:

(a) cultural isolation (e.g. British vs American English, Iberian vs American Spanish)

(b) cultural collision (e.g. Anglo-Saxons with French).

(c) cultural evolution e.g. introduction of new words for new concepts.

We see the "isolation" effect in instrument or style-specific notations: 

guitar chord symbols, jazz fonts.  

The diatonic to chromatic "evolution" effect led to the mess we are in;

and it's happening now with syncopated rhythm too but few seem to be concerned, yet!

And who knows when we will have to deal with a major cultural "collision", 

as Eastern and Western peoples and cultures increase their mingling.

I surmise the reason we are doing MNP 

is that we believe that music has advanced but that the notation hasn't kept pace.

But I suspect the reason we are having such difficulty coming up with a "better" notation is that we don't really have a better "theory" to guide us.

I've had an idea that is trying to gel:

that we are looking at the problem in the wrong way.

For instance, I think we write notes but we actually play intervals--

playing is not so much about what key or valve or string you press, 

but how you get from where you are to where you need to be next.

With rhythm, it's the reverse:

we write durations but play instants--

it's not about how long you wait for the next beat, 

but when you come in.

I know when I try to enter a score with the popular score editors,

they force me to write in pitches and durations,

whereas I'm thinking in intervals and counts.

So I'm trying to develop tools that will let me write the way I think.

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

[John Keller]

Joe,

 

I only got this your comment as a quote from Enrique. In case you wrote more about my idea, could you send it again please?

 

John K

----- Original Message -----

From: Music Integrated Solution

To: musicnotation

Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 3:53 AM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Music theory

[John Keller]

Joe! Got your comment just now. (There was a lot of white space)

 

I understand the double circle of keys. This is like having the relative minors written inside the majors but rotated by 2.5 minutes so that the A(m) fits in between C and F instead of being directly under C. So each triad is a triangle, eg FAC. Good idea, but I prefer the key clock  to just have one circle for simplicity. To get the relative minors you just change the axis from C-K (vertical) to A-J (horizontal).

 

Not sure what you mean about identifying intervals. All interval relationships are the same for all  the diatonic keys. It is identifying the actual notes of the key that is the hard part for a student. I can teach construction of any major scale in ES by 3 smalls, 4 bigs (or v v). This works out the set of 7 notes out of the 12, but the key clock idea puts these 7 notes in a bunch where you can cover the unused notes, so you can see more quickly the allowed notes, rather than having to refer back to the scale you constructed.

 

Cheers,

John K

 

 

----- Original Message -----

[Seth Hofslund]

This sums it up well. I think the solution - at least for pitch/interval display - can be found in languages like Lisp where code is data, data is code.  

I do think duration needs to be notated more clearly than in TN, Klavar, or from what I've seen of Joe's system, because idiosyncratic arpeggios or any non-typical durations on a polyphonic instrument should be clearly represented in the same manner as typical duration groupings, and should not call for special or rarely seen aspects of the notation to be correctly handled. Then again I'm not well versed in Klavar, really only knowing of its rhythm what is discussed in the tutorial pdf. It seems like it would be very hard to sight read any kind of arpeggios where some notes are held and others are not: eg when a chord is being held and other notes within the pitch range of that chord are being sprinkled in during the chord's duration. 

I think clarity of note on time in relation to the beat is important, but a clear demarcation of duration is equally so. This is where traces or some visual representation of duration is quite helpful, imo, as it is one less thing that calls upon memory. Of course, as mentioned, the demarcation must be very clear so as to not use up the mental resources (or more!) that have been freed up by removing the memory aspect of reading rhythm. This is one area I feel Enrique's system falls short; or maybe I've just not looked at it enough to where it has become as fast/intuitive/clear as I think a replacement to TN needs to be. 

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't duration dependent on some additional parameters like acoustics, instrument specific tunings (open tones). I mean some non rhythm related things like reverberation, sustain and modulation of the tone.

For example a very drastic delayed and reverbed tone is nothing like its corresponding note. I cannot imagine some additional graphical representation of delays, reverb time durations and sustain.

That would be too much crowded notation. Keep it simple, just keep it simple.

2013/5/1 Seth Hofslund <imagi...@gmail.com>

[Seth Hofslund]

Right, I'm just talking the held duration of the note; the part the performer is concerned with physically in regards to his manipulation of the instrument. 

A good notation should be able to notate modern (and non modern) effects though, too, as necessary, such as pitch or modulation wheel position, etc. Anything that is directly manipulated in the performance of the piece. This isn't always possible (complex electronic like say, Infected Mushroom, has so much going on with regards to changing filter envelopes, modulation effects, rhythmically triggered samples, etc that you couldn't really display it any more concisely than the software that they use to compose does), but I think it can be done more efficiently and effectively than TN, and is something that all notation designers should be considering.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Seth,
so maybe you are talking about implementing the time duration of the notes, their rhythm (discrete) notation, their pitch, tone volume and modulation (vibrato, sustain, etc.) into one simple Notation System?
Very interesting motivation you have to have then. Todays DAW MIDI-rolls deal successfully with such parameters although on separate Notations I would say. 
Consolidating all those into one single Notation System would be very creative task.

Enrique has something in that relation partially dealing with such a concept. I would like to see your solution on that subject.

2013/5/1 Seth Hofslund <imagi...@gmail.com>

[Music Integrated Solution]

Seth,

I still like to use – equivalent alternative – instead of – replacement -, I had pending showing my favorite quote of Koppers paper that it seems like having to do with your point.

“”Even if chromatic alteration does indicate the need for a slight pitch adjustment, traditional notation would hardly seem sufficient to accommodate all the possible gradations of possible tonal adjustments, If, like volume, rhythmic and tempo adjustments, pitch adjustment is a factor of expression, why use enharmonic orthography at all?””

 

That is acute, my interpretation is that pitch adjustments are not the result of graphic appearance of a note, but it is rather the harmonic context and expressive aspect that dictates pitch adjustments, it seems that just an indication of adjust up or down suffices, anyway we cannot obey to commands like adjust volume to x db.

 

The point is that music notation for humans should not be so loaded with express indications, especially nowadays that we have the auxiliary of technology, but anyway I would like if you expand your interpretation of my system.

 

Enrique.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Yeah,

last few weeks I was searching for a new tech. stuff to implement (just as a concept prototype for now) in my piano keyboard design and I was quite amazed of what people around the world (the so called first world countries) have at disposal under their hands.

Please if you are interested make a search for Roger Linn (Linnstrument: http://www.rogerlinndesign.com/preview-linnstrument.html) – prototype

Roli Seabord (http://www.weareroli.com/) – prototype
Haken Continuum (http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/) – retail release

The prices of course are far too high for me but anyways those instruments implement some good hi-tech that I would certainly would like to incorporate into my design!

P.S. Not an offtopic, because imagine how expressive such a technology is – something impossible for the till now digital keyboards

[Joseph Austin]

Seth,

I don't know how much you've seen of my system.

My most recent timing experiments have not yet evolved into a what I'd call a "system",

but my StaffTonnetz notation does include notation for held notes.

Normally, whenever a new note symbol appears in a part, other notes in that part are ended.

To continue holding a note, I use a quotation mark (") at the same pitch as the held note and same time as the added note.

To discontinue sounding a note before the next note occurs, I use a rest symbol (%) at the same pitch value and appropriate time value.  For a chord, there would be a "rest" for each of the individual notes to be stopped.

For an example, check on my website for the last measures of Bach's WTC Prelude 1.

http://drtechdaddy.com/2010/09/24/tonnetz-based-4x3-notation/

I do not presently have a satisfactory method for indicating two parts at the same pitch, 

since I place all notes on the same staff.

[It's not really a problem for keyboard, but might be for ensembles.]

I had been using color to distinguish parts, but I hadn't considered "blended colors".

[I've even encountered technical difficulties using color in html; 

some browsers seem to remove kerning when colors overlap, which throws off the horizontal alignment.]

TN of course uses separate staves per part, alternate direction stems for two parts on the same staff,

and when all else fails, offsets one of the noteheads.

Offsetting noteheads would violate my principle of putting all notes starting at the same time at the same position on the time axis.  Stems could be ambiguous if a stem touched a notehead from another part.

Separate staves of course would always work, especially for ensembles,

but I try to avoid that because it uses more paper.

I like to see as much of the piece at once as practical, in order to better recognize the form.

Separate staves also makes the harmony harder to recognize.

I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have to improve the notation.

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

[Joseph Austin]

John,

Re what I meant by "identifying intervals":

Of course I'm just guessing how your "cover and skip" method works,

but assuming the student is reading from a circle of fifths,

he will get the note letters for a chord but not in the order of "stacked thirds,

that is, he'll get 1 5 - - 3 instead of 1 3 5.

If you used the double circle, the student could read off the notes in order;

you can even leave the minors next to the majors and trace a right triangle "Diagonal Down Straight Up"

(or v v for minor).

My other suggestion comes from the observation that one can identify all the notes of a scale

by counting off the chords of the key in alternating minor/major thirds, e.g. d F a C e G b D F.

You get the same notes, but separated by min/Maj thirds instead of min/Maj seconds.

And you can do it directly on the keyboard or on the staff.

Sure, it's not in the same order as a "scale" in the traditional sense,

but on the other hand, you already have the notes of all your root triads in order!

In other words, with a chromatic staff, it's easier to find the chords from scratch than to derive them from the scale, IMHO.  So, find the chords first, then get the scale notes from the chords!

Then, put that "super-chord", or three or six individual chords. at the end of staff as a sort of key signature,

perhaps replicated in various octaves.

If your student is doing harmonization, I would think having ready access to the notes of the chord

already arranged on the staff would be more useful than a method for getting letter names of the notes!

If you decide to try it, I'd be curious to hear the student's opinion.

Joe

[John Keller]

Joe,

 

Yep that would all work!

 

With my Key Clock idea the "pick two" gives the root and 5th (structural support), the one by itself gives the third (major or minor flavour). I prefer the simplicity of a single circle.

 

I wanted to avoid having to write out the notes of the key at the start of the stave, whether as a scale or stacked thirds, but agree that this might be necessary.  

 

Advantage of a scale is you can see the degree number of each note more quickly. The superchord has the advantage of having consecutive chord notes.

 

This discussion reminded me of Candida Tobin's method of teaching harmony to 8 yos in the classroom. Thanks to YouTube we can see the stuff she was doing back in the days of low technology. She died in 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g52N56per2A

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

I think of a Key (tonality) as a simple indication and not as a rule of scale your notes need to be stick to. In fact keying a scale is another spacial case because there are symmetric (wholetone, some arpeggios) and asymmetric scales (whole-half, half-whole) where each tone could certainly be the key of the scale. I mean Key notes cannot exceed the number of notes in a Temperament (12 TET in our case), whilst Tonalities (and modes) are much more than 12 in their variotions.

Maybe the majority of the songs are composed in a way so they stick to a certain diatonic (key and scale, in fact called a mode) but hey... its 21st century not 12th.

So to me it appears that a key should be an Octave Separator (cleff?!). I know it may sounds silly but that is what I think a Key is and should be. In 12TET (12TJT) a key could be any of the 12 tones, depends on how you would like to think of the melody grouped notes to gravitate to. 
For example, there are pentatonic scale positions where used in melody alone you might suggest a certain key, while in fact when harmony and beat appear, the key of the mode comes out to be very different.
Thus I think every note of those 12 should have the possibility of being a Key. Depends on the composer's intention.

In my Plain Notation System (on the MNP Wiki there is a basic edition of it, that bends the conventional concept a bit further just as an introduction) there are 12 Key notes. And then your music piece might be in lets say an A biharmonic major (whatever...) but in the melody part there appears an E arpeggio extended into 3 "octaves" using 5 different tones out of the 12 (TET). Well, this arpeggio is certainly not in A and that is why its notation should clearly show us the intention of the composer: its key note is E and uses 5 different notes (conventional thinkers might see it as an arpeggiated E ninth-chord or something that is in the key of A, whatever). 
In mine Plain Notation you choose to point to what key the certain affected part of the melody-harmony is referred to for the easiness of orientation. You can of course stick to a general Key-note but that is pointless in various cases like the example given above.

I highly advocate: 12 tones (12TET or 12 TJT), 12 notes, 12 names (letters and syllables)
Simple enough.

[Joseph Austin]

John,

I enjoyed the video, then clicked over to another one of hers.

It's exciting to see what is possible! Thanks for that.

I wonder what would be the result if we let children continue to use these creative methods,

even invent their own,

instead of insisting on converting them to the "right" way later on!

Joe Austin