Beethoven's "Fur Elise" in TwinNote using LilyPond
Paul Morris
I just wanted to share that I created some sheet music for Beethoven's
"Fur Elise" in TwinNote using LilyPond. This is the first "serious"
transcription I have done, and I think it turned out pretty well. I
used a TMN LilyPond file from the Mutopia Project.
One obstacle was how to tweak chords, and change which side of the stem
the note heads appear on (for minor thirds). I was surprised that this
was not an easy thing to do in LilyPond out of the box, but with some
generous help from the LilyPond user list I got it working with some
custom Scheme code.
Anyway if you're interested you can check it out here, and let me know
what you think!
http://twinnote.org/sheet-music/fur-elise/
In other news, I submitted the MNP AudioVisualizer as a demo on the
Mozilla Developer Network. (HTML5 Audio is the theme for this month's
Dev Derby challenge.) You can check that out here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/demos/detail/audiovisualizer-for-alternative-music-notation-sys
Cheers,
-Paul
Dan Lindgren
I also like the way you present your notation on your website,
but I'm still longing to see the key signatures and accidentals =)
Needless to say, the AudioVisualizer is looking good, too!
Best,
Dan
On 14 Apr, 21:04, Paul Morris <p...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to share that I created some sheet music for Beethoven's
> "Fur Elise" in TwinNote using LilyPond. This is the first "serious"
> transcription I have done, and I think it turned out pretty well. I
> used a TMN LilyPond file from the Mutopia Project.
>
> One obstacle was how to tweak chords, and change which side of the stem
> the note heads appear on (for minor thirds). I was surprised that this
> was not an easy thing to do in LilyPond out of the box, but with some
> generous help from the LilyPond user list I got it working with some
> custom Scheme code.
>
> Anyway if you're interested you can check it out here, and let me know
> In other news, I submitted the MNP AudioVisualizer as a demo on the
> Mozilla Developer Network. (HTML5 Audio is the theme for this month's
> Dev Derby challenge.) You can check that out here:
>
> Cheers,
> -Paul
Paul Morris
One thought I had for accidentals is to just put a small traditional accidental sign above (or below?) the note, just above (or below?) the staff. That way you don't have to introduce a new symbol, you avoid the traditional meaning that is associated with accidentals in front of notes, and the symbols don't clutter up the horizontal series of symbols/notes on the staff. They would just identify the note, resolving the identity of "enharmonic equivalents". While this would work for single notes, it's not so good for chords or harmonic intervals...
In working on this, I keep in mind a point/quote that Doug brought up about not using familiar symbols from an old system in a new system if their meaning has changed. On the other hand, nothing says "sharp" like a sharp sign.
Another thought was to simply use +/- (plus or minus) for #/b (sharp and flat), placed in front of the note. Maybe putting them in a circle to make them easier to see.
The symbols you use in Chromatic Nydana are pretty nice as well. Although, beginners might confuse them with accent marks that appear above the note, but that's a minor concern.
For key signatures I like the idea of just showing the notes that are in the key in some symbolic way, at least for beginners. I also really like your approach of showing a sharp or flat sign as part of the key signature that indicates that the notes in the key are either flats or sharps, so I'd like to incorporate that somehow as well.
And of course these would be optional for those who want to be able to distinguish 'enharmonic equivalents' and have that continuity with TMN.
Cheers,
-Paul
John Keller
--
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
Dan Lindgren
To put accidentals above or below notes (or staves) is an
interesting approach (albeit with the limitations you mentioned
yourself).
The plus or minus signs would be less clear on stave lines...
I once tried a circle with a slash or backslash across it (it works
also when placed on stave lines).
Ideally, the accidentals should also explicitly mark the notes
that don't belong to the key signature (this is not true in
my own chromatic approach, however).
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.
And, as we say here in Sweden: "When you are waiting for
something good, you can never wait too long."
Cheers,
Dan
On 16 Apr, 19:37, Paul wrote:
> Thank you Dan! I do have alternative key signatures and accidentals on
> my to-do list. It's hard to work out a good set of symbols when so many
> are already in use in TMN. (One of my friends joked that I need to
> "keep the marketing department from getting ahead of R&D" -- research &
> development.)
>
> One thought I had for accidentals is to just put a small traditional
> accidental sign above (or below?) the note, just above (or below?) the
Waller
You wrote in your PDF: > Note that this file does not contain
TwinNote’s alternative symbols for key signatures, accidentals, or
registers/clefs.
OK. And I add that the time signature doesn’t change either. Was it
deliberate?
Besides, I checked the Creative Common link at the bottom of your PDF
and it opened to this message : “Creative Commons has retired this
legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works.” Did
you know that? Your comment? Cheers! Dominique
P.S. For some reason, my answer didn't reach in the first place. I
send this from the Google Group
Paul Morris
The TwinNote triangle note heads are bigger than the ones in Twinline, and the shape/angles may be a little different. I do have a font for TwinNote that I've used with Finale. With LilyPond I am able to just define the note head shapes as postscript stencils in the code I use for TwinNote customizations (although it would probably be possible to modify the LilyPond font, but the stencil method is just quicker and easier for now).
I have tried Finale, and it works pretty well for me, although some things I find frustrating about it, like how there are so many options for everything. It can get overwhelming. The main advantage with LilyPond is that anyone can download it and try TwinNote for free (if they're willing to use LilyPond's textual interface). Also I don't have to spend money on upgrading Finale. (There's an annoying bug in my copy, Finale 2007, where after awhile the app will fail to open until you go in and delete the preferences file, and then you have to reset all your preferences... It's annoying and seems like something that they would fix in an update, but they haven't.) And there may be more music freely available in LilyPond format through the Mutopia project, but I don't know that for sure. Besides that there are the usual benefits of open source software.
But since you've already invested in Finale and it's working for you then there's probably not that much advantage in switching to LilyPond.
With LilyPond I can get minims/half notes to appear with double stems automatically. See the demo file here:
http://twinnote.org/software/lilypond/ So it is pretty flexible with what you can do with it, once you know how to work with it, which can sometimes be a challenge.
Cheers,
-Paul
Paul Morris
> Ideally, the accidentals should also explicitly mark the notes
> that don't belong to the key signature (this is not true in
> my own chromatic approach, however).
the notes that are in the current key (basically, are they sharps or
flats), and the alternative accidental signs would only appear for
accidentals (notes that don't belong to the current key), and identify
them as sharps or flats, etc.
This is similar to the "division of labor" between key signatures and
accidentals in TMN.
Anyway, we'll see what I come up with. I hope that your wait will not
be in vain!
Cheers,
-Paul
dominique.waller
Hi Paul,
You wrote in your PDF: > Note that this file does not contain TwinNote’s alternative symbols for key signatures, accidentals, or registers/clefs.
OK. And I add that the time signature doesn’t change either. Was it deliberate?
Besides, I checked the Creative Common link at the bottom of your PDF and it opened to this message : “Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works.” Did you know that? Your comment? Cheers! Dominique
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Morris
Paul Morris
Waller wrote:
Hi Paul, You wrote in your PDF: > Note that this file does not contain TwinNote’s alternative symbols for key signatures, accidentals, or registers/clefs. OK. And I add that the time signature doesn’t change either. Was it deliberate?
I'd be curious to know what the proposals are for improving time signatures? I guess you could always give a particular note (quarter note?) one beat, which would be simpler, but probably less flexible.
For example, I have seen a simplified version of Fur Elise that is in 3/4 time instead of 3/8, so you have lots of 8th notes instead of 16th notes.
Besides, I checked the Creative Common link at the bottom of your PDF and it opened to this message : “Creative Commons has retired this legal tool and does not recommend that it be applied to works.” Did you know that? Your comment? Cheers! Dominique
It looks like they are recommending "public domain" for works that are older and free of any copyright. And instead they recommend the CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license for works that are still under copyright. This license is equivalent to "public domain" status. So I guess I should change it. More here:
https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
https://creativecommons.org/about/pdm
P.S. For some reason, my answer didn't reach in the first place. I send this from the Google Group
Cheers,
-Paul
Nextstep Musical System
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to share that I created some sheet music for Beethoven's "Fur
> Elise" in TwinNote using LilyPond. This is the first "serious"
> transcription I have done, and I think it turned out pretty well. I used a
> TMN LilyPond file from the Mutopia Project.
>
Hi Paul,
I took a fresh look at your score but not from the beginning, just
skimmed looking for chords at a random area, when paid attention to a
section my interpretation was that the solid pointing up triangles
were higher notes than the opposite ones in the same position, later
realized that my natural perception was not your intention; also for
such a simple score it seemed to me cluttered and full of distraction
(but consider I am biased and got used to something different).
Looking at complete and elaborated scores of chromatic staff notation
may be for many a new experience and opportunity to make their own
interpretation and conclusion; I call the conventional system "a
diatonic solution" that in time could be improved (who knows), but I
wonder can just such chromatic notation of pitch be called an
improvement of the diatonic solution ( I don’t think so).
Then, Is such a chromatic staff variant a solution on its own, or a
different solution?
If so, is it really better?
If not, what is it?
B.R.
Enrique.
Paul Morris
Thanks for taking a look at the score. See responses below...
Nextstep Musical System wrote:
> Hi Paul, I took a fresh look at your score but not from the beginning, just
> skimmed looking for chords at a random area, when paid attention to a
> section my interpretation was that the solid pointing up triangles
> were higher notes than the opposite ones in the same position, later
> realized that my natural perception was not your intention;
That's interesting to know. My natural perception of them is the
opposite of yours, but I am familiar with the idea/representation. I
hope the visual logic of it made sense once you saw the intention behind it.
> also for such a simple score it seemed to me cluttered and full of distraction
> (but consider I am biased and got used to something different).
I see what you mean about it being cluttered, although it's somewhat
less cluttered than the TMN version that it's based on (since there are
no accidentals). The pedal marks below the staff are distracting to
me. It seems like simpler symbols could be used there. Also, if it
were in 3/4 time instead of 3/8, then the majority of the notes would be
8th notes instead of 16th notes, which would visually simplify all the
beams. Does anyone know why it was written in 3/8 and not 3/4 time?
> Looking at complete and elaborated scores of chromatic staff notation
> may be for many a new experience and opportunity to make their own
> interpretation and conclusion; I call the conventional system "a
> diatonic solution" that in time could be improved (who knows), but I
> wonder can just such chromatic notation of pitch be called an
> improvement of the diatonic solution ( I don�t think so).
>
> Then, Is such a chromatic staff variant a solution on its own, or a
> different solution? If so, is it really better? If not, what is it?
Well, it is what it is, and I guess each person will come to their own
conclusion about whether it is an improvement on TMN or not. I
definitely think it's an improvement for all the usual "chromatic staff"
reasons: more accurate and direct representation of pitches and
intervals, no need to memorize and remember all the different key
signatures, the same notes an octave apart look the same, no need to
learn more than one staff for different clefs, etc.
Cheers,
-Paul
Dan Lindgren
> The symbols you use in Chromatic Nydana are pretty nice as
> well. Although, beginners might confuse them with accent
> marks that appear above the note, but that's a minor concern.
The intonation signs ( > and < ) in Nydana Notation appear in
front of noteheads, whereas accent marks are usually above
or below noteheads - it's similar to the difference between
staccato dots and augmentation dots in TMN; but in addition
to that, I further differentiate these sign by using accent marks
where the lower line is horizontal (a variant that I have also
seen being used by at least one publisher of TMN).
Dan
Nextstep Musical System
>
> Well, it is what it is, and I guess each person will come to their own
As of what I have seen it is: "a chromatic notation"; the point is:
That just a chromatic notation is not an alternative to a diatonic solution.
That a chromatic notation should be part of a chromatic solution,
such solution requires further theoretical support and specification
of how it works.
That all chromatic solutions are not necessarily better than a
diatonic solution.
That there are three major choices, (1) an improvement of the diatonic
solution, (2)an alternative to the diatonic solution or (3) go on with
the conventional diatonic solution just as it is, but I think that
would be a mistake with the possibilities we have nowadays and the
negation of the spirit of humankind.
B.R.
Enrique.
Paul Morris
Yes, for pragmatic reasons I want to make it possible to use the TwinNote notation system (the visual representation, staff, notes, etc.) with traditional nomenclature and theory. Musicians need to be able to communicate with each other regardless of what notation system they use, and everyone will not switch to a totally new system at the same instant. Many musicians will want or need to learn the traditional system to some degree, even if they prefer an alternative one. For those reasons I want to provide "backwards compatibility" with the traditional nomenclature and theory.
I know you think this won't work, and that a new chromatic nomenclature and theoretical support is required. As we found before, I think we will just have to agree to disagree about this.
That said, there's nothing preventing anyone from using the TwinNote notation system with whatever new nomenclature and theory that they want to use. (Maybe someday I will propose an alternative nomenclature myself.)
All the best,
-Paul
Nextstep Musical System
>
> I definitely think it's an improvement for all the usual "chromatic staff" reasons: more
> accurate and direct representation of pitches and intervals, no need to
> memorize and remember all the different key signatures, the same notes an
> octave apart look the same, no need to learn more than one staff for
> different clefs, etc.
>
I think nobody denies that everything you mention is an improvement of
readability, but if what you want is keeping compatibility may be have
taken the wrong path, and auto imposed some unnecessary restrictions,
readability can be improved within the frame of the diatonic solution
and there are also many proposals; if they are not in common use today
is for other reasons.
The common reason to almost every proposal so far is that beyond
readability they bring nothing functionally new (additional), what
makes them optional; while compatibility is a reasonable concern I am
most concerned (and achieved) with what is not possible (limitations)
in the conventional system, so once you know it is not optional
anymore.
But it looks that our biggest difference is that I want when people
consider alternative music notation they think of a blank surface, and
you want they think of a TwinNote score written by somebody else.
Good luck,
Enrique.
John Keller
From: Paul Morris
Paul Morris
One problem with keeping traditional terminology but applying to an alternative chromatic notation is which enharmonic to name a black key!
A. Assuming music without accidentals where all the notes are within the key... Then the alt-key-signature indicates whether the notes in the key are sharp or flat (there are no keys that have both sharps and flats in them, of course). So that resolves the identity of black-key-notes. You know they're all sharp or all flat while you're in that key (unless they are accidentals, see B.)
B. What about music with accidentals? That's where alt-accidental-signs come in. Their presence indicates to the musician that a note is an accidental -- that it is not in the current key -- something that's always helpful to know. And it can also indicate whether it is a sharp, flat, natural, double-sharp, double-flat etc.
This is different from the traditional system because the alternative key signatures and accidentals are optional, and are no longer essential to playing the right notes (on instruments like a piano). If you ignore them in TMN then you play a note that is off by a full semitone (ouch!), whereas if you ignore them in TwinNote you might play an F# instead of a Gb, which may not make a difference in many contexts.
So for performance purposes it is safe to ignore them, unless you're playing at a level and in a genre where you are concerned with fine-grained intonation, and/or fine-grained analysis of the harmonic function of a particular note, that can't be determined from a note's context alone. When practicing or just reading the score, they help you understand a given note's harmonic function in the piece, just as in TMN.
More below...
Anyone looking at a new notation system needs to quickly try to get used to it. How do we do this?Here is some of my mental processing in trying to learn TwinNote:It is a middle-C type of notation. C is the white note with the legerline through it. The white notes are the down-pointing triangles - which is the higher of the two triangles. It is 6-6, so the C D E notes are all similar, and they are in the line and space positions equivalent to treble clef. So the notes belonging to the first line of the pair are E (v) and E flat (^) - thats easy; the spaces are F and F#; but is the legerline for C and C#?, no its C and B! And is the space below the legerline for B and B flat, like on top of the bass?. No, its Bb and A. So (mental note) A looks like the shape of letter A (^), and think of it as 2nd space of treble, not the space above the bass ... So do I think of the top line of the pair as a G as in 2nd line of treble, or as an A as in top line of bass? Solution: think of the up-pointing triangle on that line as though in treble (ie G), but the down-pointing triangle as though its top line of bass (A flat). So for the top line of the pair and the space above it (below the legerline), - which is where im inclined to get mixed up - think "point up, they are like in treble ie G and A, point down they are like in bass ie A flat and B flat." Now lets nail that top line - its G and (G#/Ab) - aha! the white down-pointing triangle note is both like treble G# and bass Ab ...And so on ... and I'm still not very fluent. Is this anything like how others would go through trying to learn TwinNote?As a teacher I know the solution is to do some note naming drill to get quicker. But then should I also have to choose my enharmonic notename correctly? Will I call that note A flat or G sharp? Am I allowed to say F# and Bb for that major 3rd, or must I change one enharmonic? Of course the 6-6 system makes seeing the tones and semitones in scale passages easy, so if I see E then F# then G# (going up) I would name them as such, but if I see C then Bb then Ab (downward) I will give them the flat names. The name i choose for (G#/Ab) will depend on its context. But what about arbitrary flashcard-type note drill? What will I call the black keys?
You could do this as in TMN, introducing key signatures one at a time, one sharp, one flat, two sharps, two flats, etc. Only now you also can clearly see the pattern of whole steps and half steps that consistently make up the scale in each key. This incremental approach also sets the groundwork for learning the circle/spiral of fifths and the relationship between the keys in that series.
For note drills or flash cards I would also start with the white-key notes, and then introduce the black-key notes. You could think of them both ways as "either A# or Bb," getting used to these notes having two possible names. But you could also just include an alternative accidental sign or key signature to fully indicate the name of the note.
To me, the simple solution is a single name for each black key. It seems to me that this is THE MAIN consideration required when comparing chromatic notation theory with the traditional "diatonic" music theory.
I wonder, how do you or others respond to traditionalists who say that enharmonic equivalents are not really equivalent and that you can't collapse them into one note without losing some information about intonation and/or harmonic function? This is the objection that I am trying to accommodate by having optional alternative key signatures and accidentals that make it possible to use the traditional names, as described above. (While leaving open the possibility of using a new note-naming system with theory to match.)
Cheers,
-Paul
Doug Keislar
I got behind on email after being on vacation. Now I've had a chance
to look at your F�r Elise PDF created with LilyPond. Congratulations,
you've come a long way with LilyPond! It would be great to talk about
this (and show some examples of TwinNote) at
http://musicnotation.org/software/lilypond.html
which still just shows Kevin Dalley's old examples.
Also, it might be useful to update
http://musicnotation.org/wiki/LilyPond
to relate some tricks you've learned.
Doug
Michael Johnston
I do not mean to be Negative Nelson here, but I get email regularly
about scores in Sibelius and Finale. "How to print?" "How to make a
PDF?" Is the Finale Notepad still available? (This comes in to
michaelsmusicservice.com.)
As much as *I* like the concept of Lilypond, I think we've got to move
to one of the more popular apps. I do not, however, have a suggestion as
to how. I have had one, that's *one* positive experience with
Kickstarter which raised $350 for a license with Boosey & Hawkes for a
sheet music restoration. Could MNP use Kickstarter to raise money to pay
a coder to write a Sibelius or Finale plugin for us? I think this meets
the criteria for an artistic project.
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"
Doug Keislar
You seem to be assuming that equivalent functionality can be obtained
from commercial apps (Finale, Sibelius) as compared to open-source apps
like Lilypond. Although John Keller has done great things with Finale,
it's far from clear that one would never hit an insurmountable roadblock
when trying to do something in an alternative notation system for which
the app was not designed. By contrast, with an open-source app one
would always be able (in principle) to customize the code in order to
solve any problem posed by an alternative notation system.
In any case, it's not an either-or proposition, of course... each
approach has its advantages.
Best,
Doug
Paul Morris
It would be great to talk about this (and show some examples of TwinNote) at
http://musicnotation.org/software/lilypond.html
which still just shows Kevin Dalley's old examples.
Also, it might be useful to update
http://musicnotation.org/wiki/LilyPond
to relate some tricks you've learned.
As much as *I* like the concept of Lilypond, I think we've got to move to one of the more popular apps. I do not, however, have a suggestion as to how. I have had one, that's *one* positive experience with Kickstarter which raised $350 for a license with Boosey & Hawkes for a sheet music restoration. Could MNP use Kickstarter to raise money to pay a coder to write a Sibelius or Finale plugin for us? I think this meets the criteria for an artistic project.
Also, because MuseScore does not have corporate-funding, they might welcome an investment, especially if it helped them get things they might be interested in anyway, like a percussion map feature that allows you to reassign pitches on the staff. That would be useful for alternative notations, but also for mainstream percussion notation.
Cheers,
-Paul
P.S. I went ahead and wrote up a discussion of TwinNote's approach to alternative key signatures and accidental signs (even though they're still a work in progress). For anyone interested: http://twinnote.org/learn/key-signatures-and-accidental-signs/
Nextstep Musical System
> One problem with keeping traditional terminology but applying to an
> alternative chromatic notation is which enharmonic to name a black key!
>
Hi John,
what about the scores that have more than five accidentals?
B.R.
Enrique.
John Keller
Just as Traditional Notation added accidentals to the basic 7 natural notes,
Alternative Chromatic Notations could add new kinds of accidentals to the
basic 12 equal tempered notes. I don't see this as a problem.
On a related note, any 12 et chromatic notation system could always leave
out the 5 black key notes and just use the 7 white key notes with the exact
same Traditional Notation system of key signatures and accidentals. This is
useful in Express Stave because the 7 natural notes A B C D E F G are more
or less identical with the those notes as written within traditional bass
clef.
It allows the potential to teach both systems concurrently, which is what i
am endeavouring to do in my piano teaching.
I have various students - some I just teach TN, others both systems; one boy
in his final high school year just learnt ES. I would say he progressed
twice as fast as average students, and I would say he is not really
musically talented in fact.
I never really had to teach him scales or other technical work, just how to
play easily, relaxedly and with correct pedal technique. Using black keys
right from the start seemed to facilitate good keyboard orientation, also
scale techniques of thumb under and fingers over thumb seemed to occur
naturally just within pieces he played.
This boy now wants to teach piano as well!
John K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nextstep Musical System" <mtall...@gmail.com>
To: <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MNP] Beethoven's "Fur Elise" in TwinNote using LilyPond
B.R.
Enrique.
--
Nextstep Musical System
> Hi Enrique,
>
> Just as Traditional Notation added accidentals to the basic 7 natural notes,
> Alternative Chromatic Notations could add new kinds of accidentals to the
> basic 12 equal tempered notes. I don't see this as a problem.
>
Never thought on a new kind of accidentals but rather on micro tonality.
> On a related note, any 12 et chromatic notation system could always leave
> out the 5 black key notes and just use the 7 white key notes with the exact
> same Traditional Notation system of key signatures and accidentals.
Agree it is useful some kind of exposing the 7-5 pattern, mainly
because of the piano keyboard and still Janko uses orientation based
on that pattern, but leaving out five makes it a diatonic notation,
which I think is a better option unless the chromatic notation is for
specific purposes or allows additional functionality.
Being 100% compatible with the conventional system is more important
than just a chromatic proportional distribution of pitch, and they may
be sacrificing too much for a little, but again except when the
chromatic notation has other purposes.
B.R.
Enrique.
Nextstep Musical System
notation cannot leave music theory in limbo.
Paul Morris
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Paul Morris <pa...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:I definitely think it's an improvement for all the usual "chromatic staff" reasons: more accurate and direct representation of pitches and intervals, no need to memorize and remember all the different key signatures, the same notes an octave apart look the same, no need to learn more than one staff for different clefs, etc.I think nobody denies that everything you mention is an improvement of readability, but if what you want is keeping compatibility may be have taken the wrong path, and auto imposed some unnecessary restrictions, readability can be improved within the frame of the diatonic solution and there are also many proposals; if they are not in common use today is for other reasons.
Glad you agree that these are improvements. I am not sure how making it possible to use the traditional note names, interval names, and music theory with TwinNote imposes any restrictions on it. If anyone wants to they can easily use TwinNote notation with a new naming system (and new approach to music theory), they would just need to ignore or omit the alternative key signatures and accidental signs.
But maybe the approach you use, changing the notation, the note names, the interval names, and the music theory all together is a better approach?
The common reason to almost every proposal so far is that beyond readability they bring nothing functionally new (additional), what makes them optional; while compatibility is a reasonable concern I am most concerned (and achieved) with what is not possible (limitations) in the conventional system, so once you know it is not optional anymore.
But maybe there are limitations in the traditional system that I am not seeing, things that are not possible with it that your approach makes possible?
But it looks that our biggest difference is that I want when people consider alternative music notation they think of a blank surface, and you want they think of a TwinNote score written by somebody else.
Best regards,
-Paul M
Paul Morris
> Just as Traditional Notation added accidentals to the basic 7 natural
> notes, Alternative Chromatic Notations could add new kinds of
> accidentals to the basic 12 equal tempered notes. I don't see this as
> a problem.
Are you thinking of (1) alternative accidental signs that would just
clarify the name of a note (C#/Db), or (2) more like the traditional
accidental signs that shift the pitch up or down a semitone, as well as
changing the name of the current note they apply to?
I think you're right that adding such alternative accidental signs (#1)
to the basic 12 equal tempered notes would achieve parity with
traditional notation and music theory when it comes to the kinds of
notes and intervals that can be represented.
This reminds me of a table I made on interval specificity. I will post
it in another message.
Thanks for sharing about your teaching with both ExpressStave and
traditional notation. It's pretty impressive how that has helped some
of your students progress faster. Twice as fast as average in the case
of that one particular boy is really something!
Cheers,
-Paul