Hummingbird notation

[Paul Morris]

I just came across a notation system I had not seen before. It actually uses some of the things that have been discussed recently. It builds on the traditional diatonic staff, but has unique symbols for 7 diatonic notes, and also uses something like Enrique's note traces to indicate duration of notes. Here's a nice example that shows you what it looks like:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dm18vjv3xq51trs/My%20Bonnie%20Lies%20Over%20The%20Ocean.pdf

This link was posted in the vexflow mailing list. They were inquiring about using vexflow for translating music from traditional to Hummingbird notation, to display on the web.

Cheers,
-Paul M

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Too complex IMHO.

[John Keller]

They might just as well write the lettername in the note.

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

From: Ivaylo Naydenov

To: musicn...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:48 AM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Hummingbird notation

Too complex IMHO.

--
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

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Letters are not bad but discriminatory (or neglecting) against other languages and alphabets.

[Joseph Austin]

I gather this is some kind of hybrid designed to "simplify" reading while preparing the student for TN?
Couldn't find much on the web, so sent a query to the authors.

BTW, Blogspot looks cool--I'm thinking of moving my blog.

Joe Austin
DrTechDaddy.com

[Paul Morris]

On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, Blogspot looks cool--I'm thinking of moving my blog.

Stick with WordPress and support open-source software! :-)

IMHO,
-Paul M

[Joseph Austin]

Good point.
From what I gather, Hummingbird is NOT open-source. Maybe not even free.
Joe

[Seth Hofslund]

What specifically do you find too complex about it?

I actually think it's pretty elegant. I like the rhythm notation although I think it's a bit cluttered (no need to show the individual duration of all notes in a chord when all are held for the same length). Also disappointed to see him stick with treble and bass clefs but maybe that is only for this trans-notation example. 

I like the round note heads. I dislike that there's no easy way to see intervals, especially given the sharps/flats and traditional staff. 

I'm curious as to what specifically you find problematic mainly because this is the closest I've seen to my own design as of yet (my note heads make intervals clearer, and my staff is quite a bit different. Our rhythm designs are quite close actually.)

~Seth

On Monday, November 12, 2012 9:48:58 AM UTC-6, adXok wrote:

Too complex IMHO.

[adXok]

At a first glance what I think is too complex:
· two standard clefs on the staff = different meaning of notes form one to another
· accidentals
· misunderstanding of the note pitch in harmony intervals (stacking); for example see staff 2, clef F, bars 3 and 4. Which is the note positioned underneath G (groove)? Yes, its F (because of the clef) but it could be B (below) in octave or something.
· only 7 notes (out of 12 in 12TET) have their specific graphical symbols
. shapes
· rhythm notated smallest division symbols are indistinguishable 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, while stacked in chords the problem is obvious
· same with the Rests smallest divisions

One thing I like:

Rhythm duration marks! Very clever idea! THough there is again the problem with chords
Ties & Dots concept. Its pretty elegant and simple to a certain degree. Needs more thinking on the smallest note divisions.

[Seth Hofslund]

I'm curious if the author of this has his name out there and/or a website. I can't seem to find anything on the web. 

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

.pdf file properties also doesn't have author and so on except the author of the music example. Maybe the same H. J. Fuller is the author of the notation, who knows...

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Paul Morris <pa...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:
> I just came across a notation system I had not seen before.

It does not seem an improvement or an alternative to anything to me, I
prefer TN such as it is to this, or Liberace Big notes if I were
forced to choose.

Enrique.

[Joseph Austin]

For info on Hummingbird, contact Blake West   www.lessonupmusic.com

I'm including below some communications I had with him.

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

===============================

Hey Joseph,

   I wouldn't say I'm necessarily preparing them to read traditional notation. They could if they want. But I view hummingbird as a viable alternative entirely. Especially as more kids begin to use tablets for education purposes, they'll start viewing more sheet music on tablets, and could just hit one button to go from traditional to hummingbird. The whole "library" problem can be solved. 

   To my mind, the problem with 12 position staffs, chromatic staffs and other things on MNP is that they don't really address the problem. Like, the fact that the staff system doesn't fully make sense is not what's hard about music notation. It's the fact that it's based on spatial relationships (that are different across clefs), not symbols that remain constant (which humans are better at). Also, I'll be honest, when creating hummingbird, we originally had an alternative staff system that made more sense, but we realized we'd have absolutely zero hope of adoption unless it was built on the current structure because teachers are the gatekeepers, and they won't propagate something they have to re-learn. Plus, the fact that we're building it on the current staff structure means we can hijack a lot of existing code and it will be easier to create translation software. 

   We've looked at LilyPond, but it has limitations on what you can do with it, and thus it was not viable as a means to create our translation software. VexFlow is viable, though it doesn't have nearly the support/backing that LilyPond does. Oh well, what can you do? 

   Your text system is interesting, I'd have to see it a bit more in action with some complicated pieces. Feel free to send something over when you put something together. 

    Oh, and the "hook" is our way of doing ties and dots. That "hook" is really a "ghost note". It's where the connected note would be if it was actually going to get played. You just connect the two notes (for example a quarter to an 1/8th), and then you can actually see how they link up. Rather than the dot system, where the dot means different things depending on what note it's on. Or ties, which people usually mistake as two different notes and just play it twice. 

    Anyway, yeah if you find other systems that might be good to do alternative notations with, let me know. Or if you run into other coders who might be interested in helping us out, definitely let me know! 

   Thanks Joe! - Blake

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Blake,

Yes, I saw Hummingbird on VexFlow, referenced by a post to the Music Notation Project forum.

Also on LessonUp.

I think the folks at MNP, musicnotation.org;  musicn...@googlegroups.com, would love to hear your thoughts.

If you don't mind, I'll post your reply there!

I've been trying to find an "easier" way to learn piano for several years, and stumbled on some alternative notations.

I even have one of my own, detailed on my Music blog at DrTechDaddy.com

I'm actually a computer guy, and I've been working--off and on--on techniques to create "music notation" with standard office and web software,

partly because I didn't like the high prices of score editors like Finale, but more because I didn't like their limitations and clumsy document model and user interface.

But there is "free" open-source system called LilyPond that is adaptable to alternative notations.

So I'm very curious about VexFlow as well.  

So far, it seems that it treats the score as a "graphics" object, like most score editors,

rather than as a text object, which is what I'm trying to do.

I'm intrigued by your observation that students recognize symbols better than spatial relationships.

But I gather that you are also preparing your students to read traditional notation, 

and may not be ready for a radical departure into a 12-position staff or beat-based rhythm notation.

One question: some of the trace lines have a "hook" at the end; I didn't see an explanation for that in the legend, but it seems to be related to "dots".

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

On Nov 12, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Blake West wrote:

   Hey Joe,

   Thanks for getting in touch. I assume you mean the post from the VexFlow google group? The advantages comes from a few things.

       - The pitch symbols that are paired with extremely easy/intuitive mnemonics (see the legend in the PDF that was linked in the post). This unifies the clefs (no need to learn treble and bass separately), and also makes recognition much easier even for notes that are a few ledger lines off the staff. 

       - Rhythm symbols intuitively show how long your holding the note. Currently rhythm symbols are arbitrary and make no real sense.

       - Sharps/Flats are also changed to be more intuitive. Sharps are connected to the note and point up with a "plus" sign. Flats point down.

   All of these changes come from my experience as a teacher and seeing certain problem recur again and again. Kids have shockingly little spatial reasoning ability until they seem to be about 11 or 12. That makes reading traditional notation very frustrating for them. This is important because kids are deciding whether they want to keep playing music before they're 11 or 12. And feeling like "they can do it" is key in that decision. 

   Yet, despite their lack of spatial reasoning, their symbol recognition abilities are great (they're usually reading by 5), so I figured adding symbols would help, and my tests with kids have borne that out. Even adults usually have better symbol recognition than spatial reasoning, so it's easier for them too. Other changes like sharps and flats, ties and dots, and such are also based on specific problems I kept seeing with students.

    I could go into more details, but I'll leave it at that. What's your background Joe? 

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Joe Austin <DrTec...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Austin <DrTec...@gmail.com>
Subject: Hummingbird Notation

Message Body:
Saw a post on Hummingbird Notation,
and am just curious.
What is the rationale? Advantage?

Btw, you might be interested in
http://musicnotation.org/

--
This mail is sent via the Contact Us form on LessonUp http://lessonupmusic.com

-- 
Blake West

Founder, Teacher at LessonUp

www.lessonupmusic.com

512.222.3630

========================================================================

-- 
Blake West

Founder, Teacher at LessonUp

www.lessonupmusic.com

512.222.3630

[Seth Hofslund]

Thanks for sharing this Joe. 

I might just contact Blake and see if he'd share his original staff idea. I wonder if it's anything like the very sparse staff I use for Pinwheel (only 1 line essentially - only one needed - although in computer representations I do tend to add two additional, lightly shaded lines). 

Thanks again!
~Seth

[Paul Morris]

On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:08 AM, Blake West <bwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My name is Blake. A friend and I created Hummingbird. Nice to meet you guys. Thanks for the feedback. Didn't mean for the PDF to make it onto this board yet (we're still testing stuff out), but c'est la vie, I suppose we're far enough along. I'll answer a few of the questions I've seen in the replies, just so you know where we're coming from.

Hi Blake, Welcome to the MNP group! Sorry I posted the link to your PDF before you were ready to share it. Hummingbird implements several ideas that we have been discussing (unique symbols for note heads, and trailing lines showing duration/rhythm), so I thought it would be helpful to bring it into the conversation.

Thanks for answering those questions and letting us know how you're approaching things. Glad to know you're taking an open source / CC Non-Commercial Share-Alike approach. If you're ever interested in using Hummingbird with LilyPond, I can help.

I'd be curious to know if shape note notation[1] was influential for Hummingbird, since it uses the traditional staff with a different symbol for each pitch (at least in the 7-shape versions). Although Hummingbird is "fixed-do" whereas shape note is "moveable-do" right?

Cheers,
-Paul M

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_note

[John Keller]

I like the mnemonics. Very simple, and easy to remember after just one look
through the legend.

A above
B below
C (crescent)
D dot
E emppty
F full
G groove

There are happy oincidences. Above and Below (A B) are in alphabetical
order, as are Empty and Full.

D (dot) is the centre of the alphabet, just as it is the centre of the
keyboard pattern.

C and G are alike as are these letters, G having just an extra vertical line
or groove.

It reminds me of my HIJK and L names for the black keys, which also show
happy coincidences.

H is historically the first "black" key to be added. (B and H are reversed
in German terminology)

I and J are the only dotted letters, and they are the two "eyes" on the
keyboard.

Hi J K is a personal message for me to use this.

L is the Link from each alphabet register ABCDEFG to the next.

HOWEVER I am not convinced that a symbolic notation system is better that a
spacial one. Kids will locate each note separately and will not learn to
relate each note to others - go up or down, step or skip etc. As the music
gets more difficult I believe this problem would become more evident.

I also think you have not addressed sharps and flats, key signatures etc.

Cheers, John K

----- Original Message -----
From: "Blake West" <bwe...@gmail.com>
To: <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:08 PM
Subject: [MNP] Re: Hummingbird notation


Hey Ya'll,

My name is Blake. A friend and I created Hummingbird. Nice to meet you guys.
Thanks for the feedback. Didn't mean for the PDF to make it onto this board
yet (we're still testing stuff out), but c'est la vie, I suppose we're far
enough along. I'll answer a few of the questions I've seen in the replies,
just so you know where we're coming from.

-> Why not just write letter names?
1.) They don't scale well to small fonts
2.) They're too complex to write by hand at reasonable sizes for
notation.
3.) They're ugly.

-> Why keep same staff notation?
-Our philosophy is not to create the "perfect" notation system. It's to
create one that is significantly easier to learn, faster to read, and still
backwards compatible. Actual mainstream usage would eventually be nice to
see, and we deemed any change to the staff system as a non-starter for that
goal. Further, IMHO, the staff system in TN is not the bottle neck for most
people. It's the over-reliance on spatial reasoning to convey meaning (which
humans, especially kids are not very good at). Everyone (even 5 year olds)
have great symbol reasoning abilities though, so we should tap into that.
This is important because 5-12 is when kids decide if they like music. It's
important for them to feel like they can do it.

-> Nothing on web?
-not yet, we're still testing, and are in the midst of creating a splash
page.

-> Is it open-source/free, etc.?
-We have a provisional patent on the system, though that was mostly
pre-emptive. We haven't sold anything yet. If and when we create translation
software, that will almost certainly be open source. And likely we would set
the whole thing up under CC Non-Commercial Share-alike license.

As an aside, I'm a teacher, and I wouldn't have gone this far into this
system without real-world evidence that this might be helpful to people. My
tests with adults and kids has shown very positive feedback on the ease of
use with the system. I have kids who don't even want to do songs anymore
unless they're in Hummingbird. And a young girl who can read both hands at
once now, when she couldn't before because reading notes is so much simpler
with the symbol/mnemonic combo.

If you have other questions/comments/thoughts, I'm happy to chat. my e-mail
is bwest87[at]gmail[dot]com

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:08:14 PM UTC-6, DrTechDaddy wrote:

[Blake West]

   Hey Paul,

   Thanks for bringing me into the group! I was aware of shape note notation before creating Hummingbird, though I can't say it was a direct influence. I didn't even know what the shapes looked like, I kind of just had heard it existed. Also, what we found in initial testing was that shapes alone are nice, but not really that effective on their own, because they're still abstract and have no good "hook" to the note. It's all about the right shape with the right mnemonic. That's what we had to spend time getting right. 

   And to Seth who asked about our original non-standard staff system. I dug up an old illustrator file we'd made, and took a screenshot (attached). Noteheads are a bit different than what we have now. As you'll see, the point was to make it so each note was always in a unique spatial position that also was the same across octaves. While it was novel to us when creating it, I'm pretty sure it's not a unique design (Triple space, line, double-space, line. Repeat). 

    And yeah, we'd actually love to have help bringing Hummingbird to Lilypond. We had looked into it, and it seemed like getting our glyphs into Metafont would be a huge bitch, and it was unclear (and leaning towards no) that Lilypond was capable of drawing rhythm lines at conditional lengths (ie. if the measure is spaced out further, than the whole note line should be drawn longer). Hence why we were interested in VexFlow. But if you know things we don't... please get in touch. I'd love to get even some rough and tumble translation software happening. 

   -Blake

[Blake West]

   Hey John,

   Your HIJK concept is interesting. 

   Re: spatial vs. symbolic. I agree spatial is still important (for octaves, seeing melody direction, etc.) which is why we're placing it on traditional staff, so that you have both spatial and symbolic. We purposely made it redundant. And kids may not initially "relate" notes to each other spatially, but to that I must make 2 points. 

   1.) Kids don't relate notes spatially early on in TN anyway. Over and over again, I see students who read a "G" that's below the current melody note, and simply play the G an octave higher, because their hand is closer, or because that's the "normal" G. It happens all the time. Their thought process right now is Use Menmonic (FACE, etc.) --> Determine Note --> Play First Note on Keyboard I See that Shares That Name.  Spatial relation is no where in that chain for most kids (under about 11).

   2.) If reading is too hard for them early on, then many kids will (and do) just give up on music entirely, and the point will be moot. 

   Sharps and flats have new symbols. They're in the legend. Sharps point up and look like a + sign. Flats point down. They're connected to the note, because I noticed students often see a sharp in TN but aren't sure which note it applies to. 

   I personally dislike key signatures, and think we should just do away with them and put in accidentals every time. They seem a rule created to make it more efficient for the writer, not the reader. And the writer nowadays is 95% of the time a computer, who thus far hasn't been very vocal about their annoyance with writing sharps over and over. 

   That said, since we have the sharp/flat symbols, one is free to write key signatures like normal if they so choose.

  Cheers,

  Blake

[Seth Hofslund]

>>HOWEVER I am not convinced that a symbolic notation system is better that a
spacial one. Kids will locate each note separately and will not learn to
relate each note to others - go up or down, step or skip etc. As the music

gets more difficult I believe this problem would become more evident.

This in particular is the big question with symbolic notations. Does one, over time, learn to read the symbols in such an intuitive manner that any shortcomings they offer are overcome? Perhaps Blake can answer this as he's gotten to test his system with actual students - most importantly, beginners!

Still, I have to wonder if this isn't as big an issue as you worry about John. What is there in traditional notation, aside from vertical separation, to indicate the relationship of one note to another? There is only vertical space (and the key signature / accidentals). In Hummingbird (and Pinwheel) there is vertical space AND a unique symbol, and in Pinwheel, further, the symbols themselves, their direction and shading, quickly show you the difference between any two notes. In fact, I could have two notes separated by a page worth of whitespace, or written in different clefs (note: I don't use different clefs in Pinwheel, but just as a hypothetical example) and you could instantly tell the intervallic relationship between them by the differences in the symbols. That's simply not possible in traditional notation.

The thing I worry about is not a lack of relation of notes to one another, but symbol recognition issues when there are a ton of notes being played at once or in short order. Just going on intuition alone, I'd surmise that a simple, isomatic + chromatic staff layout would be easiest to quickly assimilate at a glance (assuming a reasonable vertical span of notes), as then it becomes a task of simple pattern recognition, versus the more labored task of symbol interpretation. Further, while the symbols would have the same vertical pattern as the basic oval noteheads, that pattern would be at least somewhat obscured by the increased visual complexity of the symbols themselves. 

Blake, have you found any issues with people reading dense/odd chords, or very fast and tightly grouped notes? I guess the more general question is have you noticed any issues once symbol density (vertically or horizontally) has crossed a certain threshold, and if so what (roughly) is that threshold and what are your thoughts on addressing it?

Thanks!
~Seth

PS - Welcome to the group Blake :)

On Monday, November 26, 2012 5:05:49 PM UTC-6, John Keller wrote:

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Seth,
12 unique symbols are fine (at least in 12TET) while different shades (of gray?) are unacceptable nor coloring is. Black or white is somehow acceptable (if not used for note duration designation).
I say this because I see, as you say, that in your system you yous shades of a color to differentiate certain notes. Joseph Austin also has some of that implemented.
It is not good concept, especially when written on paper or something. Even for screen display such shading is not good thing.

Hummingbird notation has some very nice concept for marking the timing, ligatures and so on. Not durations are too tiny to differentiate one from another though. Alphabetic sequence naming works for the people using that alphabet.
Symbols (not necessary form an alphabet) should be the key-point to designating notes (and their tones).

Besides one of the criteria for a new Notation System excludes shading and that is a reasonable argument. Of course there are criteria that are not so justifiable but that is another question.

[Seth Hofslund]

Actually, I only use 'shading' as a relative term; the truth is that I only use full black or white in my note heads. Still, shading is at least 'conceptually' what's going on, or at least I've not found a better word for it yet. 

I've spent a lot of time trying variations in the display of this "shading"/differentiation. Unfortunately, certain approaches make some interval recognition easier (or even allow a form of data compression and optionally vertical compression as well) but at the expense of clarity of the individual symbols, and I've ultimately settled on an approach that seems to offer the best immediate visual recognition of the individual symbol. Time and again that's the 'problem' I've run into while designing Pinwheel - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as applied to notation design - clarity in one domain comes at the expense of clarity in some other domain. A few major changes have led to increased clarity all around, and I don't doubt that there is still a 'more ideal' form out there, and that's the only reason I haven't 'gone public' yet. I want to put 100% of the little time I have to think about this towards refining the design rather than trying to explain it. 

Sorry; rambling. Back to the drawing board to experiment with a crazy approach that came to me just before falling asleep earlier. 

~Seth

[Seth Hofslund]

Sorry to hijack the topic Blake. Back to Hummingbird!

There have been complaints here about the difficulty in recognition of some of your rhythm markers; namely 16th and 32nd notes. Have you found that these have been problematic with actual students?

I'd love to hear any other issues you may have had, or insights gleamed about how to best introduce students to a new system, with new symbols and a new approach to rhythm. Also curious if you have or have considered any method of making interval recognition quick without relying on spatial separation; or is that one of those things that just have to be learned through rote repetition until it is internalized?

Thanks!
~Seth

[Joseph Austin]

Ivaylo,

On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:40 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov wrote:

> 12 unique symbols are fine (at least in 12TET) while different shades (of gray?) are unacceptable nor coloring is. Black or white is somehow acceptable (if not used for note duration designation).
> I say this because I see, as you say, that in your system you yous shades of a color to differentiate certain notes. Joseph Austin also has some of that implemented.
> It is not good concept, especially when written on paper or something. Even for screen display such shading is not good thing.

Actually, my StaffTonnetz font is rendered in pure black and white, in print or handwriting.
I called it three "colors" because I was inspired by Roy Pertchik's keyboard which is actually colored.
If you don't like "shading", you could render it as "crosshatch" or even "strikethrough", or possibly half-open-half-solid,
just some stroke(s) through an otherwise open notehead to distinguish it from open or solid.
What I considered important is providing *two* dimensions of symbol sequence, one for major thirds, one for minor.

Of course I'm just a population of one, but I've not had a problem distinguishing the three "colors" on a "black and white" score.

BTW, I've noticed that you and others often evaluate notations based on "complexity".
How do we measure "complexity"?
I generally consider notations that follow a "systematic" or "rule-based" sequence or relationships less complex
than those that have a lot of different and "arbitrarily related" elements.
For example, I'd say TN's timing notation is more complex than it's pitch notation,
because pitch requires only position relative to lines and spaces, and two accidentals, and it follows a spatial sequence,
whereas duration requires note colors, stems (or not), flags or beams, dots, ties, and tuplet numbers--at least six different *kinds* of symbology which,
except for number of flags or dots, have no inherent systematic relationship to the quantify they represent.

Joe Austin
DrTechDaddy.com

[Joseph Austin]

On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:07 AM, Seth Hofslund wrote:

> I don't doubt that there is still a 'more ideal' form out there, and that's the only reason I haven't 'gone public' yet.

> I want to put 100% of the little time I have to think about this towards refining the design rather than trying to explain it.
>

> ~Seth

Not to hijack the discussion further, (and this applies to Hummingbird and some others also)
but had you considered the possibility that by "going public" you might elicit comments and discussion
that could potentially get to that "more ideal form" faster than just thinking about it on your own?

Joe Austin
DrTechDaddy.com

[Blake West]

I'll respond to this one quickly. Yeah no doubt. That's why we've been testing with students for months now. Figured that's an even better lab than web group forums to do refinements. The website, translation software, and such is only now that we think we're closing in. Lean Startup all the way. 

--
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

--
Blake West
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton '09
www.blakewest.me
443.691.6212
bwe...@gmail.com

[Paul Morris]

On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:03 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, I'd say TN's timing notation is more complex than it's pitch notation,
> because pitch requires only position relative to lines and spaces, and two accidentals

Hi Joe,

I think you mean "five accidentals" if we include double sharps, double flats, and naturals.

Also, I see your point about the complexity of traditional pitch notation. But pitch is not that simple either. Consider that for rhythm you don't have to constantly keep in mind anything quite like a key signature in order to play notes with the correct duration, or to understand their temporal relationship to each other (the way you do with pitch). You do have to take into account the time signature, but unless I'm mistaken, even if you don't know the time signature, the temporal relationships between any given set of notes are apparent based on their direct appearance. (Which is not the case with pitch.) Deducing a time signature from a given measure of notes is much easier than trying to do the same with a key signature.

But all this assumes you have already learned what all the symbols for duration mean... which is your point, wanting to simplify and make these more systematic.

At any rate, I'd rather not get into an extended debate over the relative complexity of traditional pitch and traditional rhythm. Better to consider approaches to improving upon them. And you've made a good case for how rhythm notation can be made less complex and more systematic.

Cheers,
-Paul M

[Paul Morris]

On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Blake West <bwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey Paul,

   Thanks for bringing me into the group!

Hey Blake, Thanks for joining in the discussion!  

I was aware of shape note notation before creating Hummingbird, though I can't say it was a direct influence. I didn't even know what the shapes looked like, I kind of just had heard it existed. Also, what we found in initial testing was that shapes alone are nice, but not really that effective on their own, because they're still abstract and have no good "hook" to the note. It's all about the right shape with the right mnemonic. That's what we had to spend time getting right. 

That makes sense, especially if you're focusing on younger students (as it seems you are).

   And to Seth who asked about our original non-standard staff system. I dug up an old illustrator file we'd made, and took a screenshot (attached). Noteheads are a bit different than what we have now. As you'll see, the point was to make it so each note was always in a unique spatial position that also was the same across octaves. While it was novel to us when creating it, I'm pretty sure it's not a unique design (Triple space, line, double-space, line. Repeat). 

Hmmm, I don't think that I've seen that particular line pattern before.

    And yeah, we'd actually love to have help bringing Hummingbird to Lilypond. We had looked into it, and it seemed like getting our glyphs into Metafont would be a huge bitch, and it was unclear (and leaning towards no) that Lilypond was capable of drawing rhythm lines at conditional lengths (ie. if the measure is spaced out further, than the whole note line should be drawn longer). Hence why we were interested in VexFlow. But if you know things we don't... please get in touch. I'd love to get even some rough and tumble translation software happening. 

Hmmm... those are things that I haven't really dealt with in LilyPond.  With TwinNote, rather than adding glyphs to a font, I just defined the note head shapes in the custom LilyPond/Scheme code (using lines and more recently bezier curves).  This is a pretty low-level approach, and might be doable with all the hummingbird glyphs but not simple or easy.  You probably know more about the possibilities of rhythm lines of conditional lengths than me, since that's not like anything I've done with it.  

So looks like my experience with it is not much help to you...  To see what's possible, there's a MNP wiki page[1], and my more recent work with TwinNote[2]  (that I need to add to the wiki page).

Cheers,

-Paul M

[1] http://musicnotation.org/wiki/LilyPond 

[2] http://twinnote.org/software/lilypond/

[Seth Hofslund]

Hi Joe,

Actually, I do intend to release it before I have everything ironed out. There is at least one major issue that I'm trying to decide upon right now; something that seems like a relatively small change on the surface but has trade-offs in at least three domains. 

I'd love to discuss this with other like minded people, but there's a catch: I don't expect people to get familiar with Pinwheel to the point necessary to help weigh in on this decision. This particular change, for instance, may impact the amount of effort required to write pinwheel, the clarity of intervals, and the mapping of a condensed two syllable scale to isomorphic instruments (or mostly isomorphic instruments, like the guitar). On the surface, it's a small change; do I start with the middle shading as the 'root' and then have the person determine the interval name by asking "is the next note's shading the same, lighter, or thicker?", or do I start with the lowest shading as the root, and ask if the next note is "one higher in shading, or two higher in shading"? 

I realize upon writing that that the problem seems almost random, and without getting deep into the nomenclature, the pinwheel (which replaces the circle of 5ths and is far more useful and informative, imo), the 12 note to two syllable compression and isomorphic mapping...well, without all of those considerations it's hard to really make a useful suggestion, unfortunately. That's not even considering the other issue I mentioned, which is note clarity and amount of effort required when writing (because one approach would require the composer to draw in the horizontal staff lines -granted, there are only 2 per staff - and the other would allow for pre-drawn staff lines. This is because one of the approaches has a fully shaded/fully black note on the line, while the other approach leads to a hollow/white note being on the line, and I don't want the staff line to go through the empty note as that reduces its clarity compared to the intermediate 'half shaded' note.)

I wouldn't expect, and don't even think it fair to ask, that somebody become that deeply versed in Pinwheel just to help me answer one design niggle. I guess in many ways, I too am sort of creating an 'integrated musical solution' - or at least I'm trying to think of a lot more than just the note's representation on the page. 

Maybe I should just put what I have out there, but I don't want Pinwheel to be judged unfairly because of a lack of polish on my end. Of course, Pinwheel is closest in design in many ways to your StaffTonnetz, and I do really appreciate the feedback I've gotten already. 

One thing I'd love to discuss - I just don't know if it warrants its own thread or if it could be put into a more general 'design issues' thread or something along those lines - is how to handle things like grace notes in a proportional time rhythm notation. (or rather, my semi-proportional approach, which has each beat subdivided down to its smallest element, but all beats of a given subdivision are ideally the same length). I think I'll start a new thread on this. 

~Seth

[Joseph Austin]

Paul,
Good points. I was just trying to give an example of what one might mean by "complicated".

But Blake makes a good point also: assuming reading music should be "so simple a child can do it,"
then what better way to determine that than see if a child can do it?

Joe Austin
DrTechDaddy.com

[Joseph Austin]

Seth,

We already have a thread going on Rhythm Considerations.

Sometimes the best way to make a choice is to roll the dice!

I used to work for a major computer company.

It seems the decision process went something like this:

If there are two ways to do something, release all three!

(then see which one the customer buys).

Joe

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

I think we could very much help to each others ideas for about anything related to Music if the 'author' gives necessary and sufficient consideration on the desired subject prior to its expose or presentation.
For example:

"Hi, I am working on a new Notation System. I want that there will be note names (letters, order and so on) no staff, no shades, time in such and such way... bars, measure marks, no clefs... and so on. I am having problem with this and this..."

Then after we see what is bothering that particular concept to offer some ideas and the author to decide whether those fit or not into the concept. At least I am going to do it that way in a few weeks or maybe next year.

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Seth Hofslund <imagi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the surface, it's a small change; do I start with the middle shading as
> the 'root' and then have the person determine the interval name by asking
> "is the next note's shading the same, lighter, or thicker?", or do I start
> with the lowest shading as the root, and ask if the next note is "one higher
> in shading, or two higher in shading"?

Speaking of questions you never told what you found wrong with my
relational approach to nomenclature using same next alternate, and now
I see you speaking of same lighter or thicker, what are the
advantages?

B.R.
Enrique.

[Blake West]

No worries. 

Regarding the difficulty in recognizing some rhythm markers, we realize it's not the most "differentiable" symbol we could come up with. We experimented with a number of other possibilities, including a diagonal line going through 8ths - 64ths, and then using a cross and double cross. While that system was more differentiable, it also looked worse. We've spent a lot of time considering trade-offs between keeping things  awesomely functional as well as keeping it unified and attractive from a design standpoint. We've found that 8ths and 16ths are perfectly differentiable. 32nds and 64ths honestly haven't really been tested yet with students, partly because none of my students are super advanced, but mostly because they're so freaking rare. Because of that rarity, we knew we needed something that worked, but we didn't want to mess up the rest of our system just to suit those two rhythms that hardly ever get used.

But we actually just changed the way we're doing multiple 8ths, 16ths, etc. by incorporating something that is similar to the beaming approach of TN, but more elegant. I've attached a screenshot. let me know what you think. The shot shows "beamed" 8ths in the treble, and "beamed" sixteenths in the bass. As you see, it uses the symbol for a single sixteenth note, but then just "drags" it across the other notes. This is much bigger and clearer than having a bunch of individual sixteenth note symbols. It also lets us clear out those messy tiny symbols, which makes the page feel less cluttered. 

Thoughts? 

--

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

--

[Joseph Austin]

Blake,

I'm a  bit confused--the timing doesn't seem to add up. 

It looks clean in this simple example,

but It's not clear how this could extend to multi-part or syncopation,

since you don't attach individual notes to the beams.

How would you indicate a group say 1/16 1/8  1/16?

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en

[Blake West]

Hey Joseph,

We haven't gotten rid of individual 8th and 16th notes. Those symbols are still the same as they were in the original legend that was presented at the beginning of this thread. This new design would follow the same beaming rules as TN. It just cleans things up a lot when you have multiple 8ths, 16ths, etc. 

To your question about multiple voices, you can think of the general rule as, "everything under the beam is of the specified duration unless shown otherwise". For instance, if a dotted half-note was going on in the treble clef, in measure 2 of this example, you woud just put the dotted half right there, and from testing it out in illustrator last night (not the best environment, but pretty good), such multi-part stuff seemed totally clear. 

[Seth Hofslund]

Brilliant work Blake!

This not only makes it easier to read, it will allow for a good deal of horizontal compression (if you desire it) when you've got say, just a long string of quarter notes, as no longer does each symbol need the duration line, and the symbols could be packed closely together. 

My system is somewhat similar in that over each beat I have a beat division indicator (not all that dissimilar to the beams you use, or beaming in TN). A line over the beat = the beat is divided once (i.e. a beat of 2 1/8th notes), a double line = the beat is subdivided twice, or divided into 4 1/16th notes, etc. This allows for a lot of horizontal compression as, say, a string of quarter notes need no duration symbols. The problem - and I'm not sure how much of a problem this is after sufficient familiarity - is that a note symbol by itself may actually indicate a note of any length; it's all dependent upon the division factor of the beat. This is offset somewhat by the fact that I always subdivide each beat to the smallest/fastest note present; so for instance in the third measure of your example, I'd represent your treble clef A note as a duration line of two 1/8th notes, and then tie it into the next beat which would also be divided into 1/8th notes. I've been working on coming up with symbols to indicate a note lasting a whole beat, a whole measure, and half measure (and was considering adding a symbol that simply meant 'this note is held until the end of this beat'; something that can be useful for a note that starts on say the 3rd count of a beat divided into 16 discrete places to accommodate 1/64th notes; indicated that it lasts for 13 counts is difficult, but indicating that it lasts merely until the end of the beat makes reading it clear and easy)

The funny thing is I too was using a double right paren to indicate a whole note, single paren to indicate a half note, etc, and this before I saw Hummingbird. I'm still trying out and searching for different symbols though as I'd like to keep Pinwheel as symbol sparse as possible. 

Anyhow, I really like what you are doing here. I have to admit I'd be curious to see what this would look like if you represented all given notes as an expression of the smallest subdivision present: that is, for example, in the first beat of measure two you'd show the three notes in the treble clef as the notehead + a 1/16th extension, and again, the A in the treble clef of the third measure would be represented as three 1/8th note markings together. This would allow you to use a single divisor beam overhead in all instances. While it would clutter things up a bit in more open, simpler passages, I wonder if it wouldn't extend some clarity in very odd and idiosyncractic measures. 

~Seth

[Seth Hofslund]

One more thought: 

If you were to try the approach I mentioned of representing all notes as the smallest subdivision present, I think to reduce visual clutter and complexity you'd have to rework your duration line and tie system slightly. The first thought that comes to mind would be not to use the 'tie loop'. For example, in measure three, just have a straight duration line coming off of the A in treble clef, along with two additional 1/8th note diagonal markers (you wouldn't need three, as the divisor beam overhead would indicate that the note symbol itself represents the first 1/8th note length, just as it does for the notes in the bass clef). 

While that would decrease the uniformity of your rhythm representation markers and their meaning, it would increase the uniformity of reading as there would never be a representation of more than one note subdivision present; in other words, all duration for a given set of overlapping notes is expressed in the same terms. 

As I said, that's the approach I'm taking in Pinwheel, and it seems to work well, but then my staff and symbols are a bit different, too. Anyhow, just tossing it out there as some food for thought! :)

~Seth

[Seth Hofslund]

>>Speaking of questions you never told what you found wrong with my
relational approach to nomenclature using same next alternate, and now
I see you speaking of same lighter or thicker, what are the
advantages?

B.R.

Enrique.

Hi Enrique,

What I'm talking about is that because of the method of your cycling (3 notes to a note head, then a jump to a new note head) is not uniform and doesn't allow for a truly uniform naming scheme for intervals. For instance, Ma to Ta and Ta to Be are the same interval, but the 'rules' of transformation as far as nomenclature is concerned are not the same. In each case, you move the trace starting point up one, but in the latter you are also moving up a reference head.

This is even more emphasized in a different example; in this example we will move the trace up one position and also move ahead one reference head. But in this example let's use these two intervals as examples:

Ma -> Te
Ta -> Be

In both cases, the 'transformation' itself is the same... up one trace position and forward one reference head, but in one case the interval is a major third, and in the other case the interval is a minor second.

That's what I meant by non-uniform cycling. It was in fact that problem that set me out on a search to discover a uniform cycling method where if you applied the same transformation 'rule' you'd always get the same interval, and that's what led me to discovering (I'd love to say inventing, as that's what I thought it was, but I see it has been done right around the same time by Joe Austin) the 3x4 cycling method. 

This allows for interval names to simply be a set of 'transformation instructions' and they are consistent no matter what. In other words, in such a system, Ma -> Te and Ta -> Be are the same interval, because they are the same transformation. 

This requires that notes cycle in two dimensions, on a 3x4 pattern, just as they do in Joe's StaffTonnetz and in Pinwheel. Thus, it wouldn't allow the same reference head to apply to any two adjacent notes; a reference head would apply to notes either 3 or 4 half steps apart (depending on which dimension - the cycle by 3 or cycle by 4 dimension - you chose to group notes to a reference head).

Hope that is clear. I tend to be more verbose than necessary! :P
~Seth

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Seth Hofslund <imagi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm talking about is that because of the method of your cycling (3
> notes to a note head, then a jump to a new note head) is not uniform and
> doesn't allow for a truly uniform naming scheme for intervals.

Seth, thanks but I think what happens is that you have looked to the
RHN method with the eyes of the inventor, which means that if they
don’t see what they would like to see or don’t understand it, then set
searching for a solution; imaging this happens with established things
such as ‘the traditional music notation system’, what can we expect
for something that is only known on a small circle?

The RHN nomenclature method has 100% consistent rules though not in
the way you describe, I could also say is very simple but the latter
is my opinion and depends on my ability of explaining it and the
attitude of the recipient, after you finally show what you propose we
might compare it and see if your two years old search has been
worthwhile.

[Joseph Austin]

Seth,

Enrique and I have had this 3x4 discussion before and agreed to disagree.

As to who "invented" it, Roy Pertchik has also made a claim, but I believe the original credit goes to Euler's Tonnetz.

Joe Austin

DrTechDaddy.com

[Michael Johnston]

While looking at http://www.theladyorganist.com/a-fresh-take-on-music-notation/ I saw that an organist had shown an interest in Hummingbird. We never got much on it but here is a short video.

http://vimeo.com/63536475

Perhaps the inventor will provide more information?

Cheers!
Michael

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Not bad idea but still incorporates the old-school approach. Seems like habits are tough to be overwhelmed. The inventor of this notation could developed it just a little more...
Their ties and dotted notes concept is very clever!

2013/5/2 Michael Johnston <mic...@michaelsmusicservice.com>

Michael

--

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.
 
 

--
 --- van Loyden 

Treatise On Pentatonics (e-book)

[Blake West]

Hey ya'll, 

Blake West here. I'm in the inventor. the main site is at www.hummingbirdnotation.com ; hopefully any info you need is there. 

Also, to the point about still using staffs. We did that on purpose. Actually, if you look at the 5th message in this thread, you'll see a screenshot I attached of the alternative to staff that we had originally come up with. It was cool because it gave each note a unique position on the "staff" that worked across octaves as well. 

But despite it being cool, we wanted our notation system to be adopted, so we went with a traditional staff. This also helps with creating translation software since it makes it easier to piggy back on open source tools out there. From teaching, it seems that the inconsistencies of staff notation simply aren't the big impediment to learning to read music anyway, which is the other reason we felt comfortable staying traditional in that area. 

Thanks! - Blake

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/musicnotation/jAllyhBMg-U/unsubscribe?hl=en-US.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

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

--

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Hi, Blake
Seems I cannot see any 5th message in this thread nor any screenshot attached. Where is this alternative staff that you came up with?

2013/5/2 Blake West <bwe...@gmail.com>

[Blake West]

Here is the screen shot. What's cool is that each note has a unique position. And that unique position is preserved across octaves.

From my mobile

[John Keller]

What is the old mnemonic for A then? G also is different.

 

John K

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Blake, what is the correct way then to notate a 7th-chord for example, or ninth. Should I write some notes touching each others circles sideways? I'm just speculating here because I do not know how to do it.

2013/5/3 John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au>

[John Keller]

How about an "Alphabet Clef"?

 

 

______________________________A

                                             G

                                      F

                              E

----------------------D-----------------------------

              C     

       B

A_____________________________

 

 

 

Alphabet clefs go A B C,

D centre line, then E F G.

Alphabet clefs have symmetry,

Beautiful symmetry!

 

 

JK

[Blake West]

Yeah handle it same way traditional does by moving things just beside each other.

From my mobile

[Blake West]

Alphabet clef is cool. Notice that b and f look the same in terms of being in between lines though. What we went for with our take was getting that symmetry across octaves while also being clear through unique positioning.

From my mobile

[John Keller]

Not sure i understand what you mean by your system having unique positioning. Arent E and A both line note for example, and B and F both spaces above lines?

 

Also you didnt answer about A - its not "Above", its on the right side!

[Blake West]

About the mnemonics, yeah they're just old, so they are now "wrong". These were early incarnations and we hadn't worked out the kinks yet. You'll also notice that the "G" note has a horizontal line, which we ended up switching to vertical so that it didn't get confused with a staff line.

And yeah, E and A are both line notes, but if you go 1 step "further out", you can see it as the E has 2 spaces above it, while the A has 3 spaces.  Same logic can apply with the B and F. The F has one space above it, while the B has 2 spaces above it. It's a bit akin to how many pianists start visualizing (even subconsciously) where notes are on the piano by the groups of black notes around them. For example, both D and G (the note on the physical piano, that is) have black notes on either side, but you don't confuse them because one is part of a group of 3 black notes, and the other is part of a group of 2 black notes. 

Not saying it's freaking awesome (we didn't even end up using it), but it does add another way to reinforce which note it is, while also solving the problem of different octaves of the same note switching back and forth between lines and spaces. 

[John Keller]

Ok thanks! And your positioning is like beginners with thumbs on middle C, ie C symmetry - right hand CDEF in treble is mirrored by left hand CBAG in bass.

 

Of course, I have always prefered the D symmetry of the keyboard and as shown within the bass clef but not in the treble clef.

[Michael Johnston]

On 5/2/2013 8:20 PM, Blake West wrote:
> About the mnemonics, yeah they're just old, so they are now "wrong".

Have you considered mnemonics for those who use another language, such
as French (Dominique) or Bulgarian (Ivaylo)?

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"

[Blake West]

Definitely. Hey Dominique or Ivaylo, want to help us localize to your area? 

--
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 a topic in the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/musicnotation/jAllyhBMg-U/unsubscribe?hl=en-US.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to musicnotation+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Bring it on! :)
To localize what exactly would be nice for me to know?

2013/5/3 Blake West <bwe...@gmail.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.
 
 

--

[Blake West]

Well just be clever with your native tongue to come up with good mnemonics for the symbols. Do they use fixed do in Bulgaria? If so, then, we'd need to find a D word for our Customers symbol. So, for example, are there any D words that mean "curve" or "crescent" or perhaps "moon" or something like that?

From my mobile

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

To be honest we use both systems, English A, B, C, D and fixed Do. It is strange that A, B, C, D, we use when we write the notes, and we use fixed Do when we speak, pronounce the names.
Thus for us:
A (written) is La (spoken)
B (written) is Si\Ti (spoken)
and so on...
Maybe I should stick to the images and associate words appropriate for those and the corresponding note name in "fixed Do" system. Seems gonna take some time...

2013/5/3 Blake West <bwe...@gmail.com>

[Blake West]

cool. let me know what you come up with. We can add it to our site when it's ready. - Blake