Theory Analyzer for Musescore
Michael Johnston
As a plugin, wouldn't it work with alternate notations? (I asked. I
don't have this program myself.)
Cheers!
Michael
--
MICHAEL'S MUSIC SERVICE 4146 Sheridan Dr, Charlotte, NC 28205
704-567-1066 ** Please call or email us for your organ needs **
http://michaelsmusicservice.com "Organ Music Is Our Specialty"
John Keller
intervals rather than counting semitones. The examples on this blog just
have intervals as numbers 8 6 6 etc (without major minor perfect ). So this
would need a modification if applied to ANs where each sucsessive line or
space no longer represents the next degree in a diatonic key. EG in Express
Stave each line or space has three chromatic notes assigned. Theory rules
would have to be explained differently if students were writing in ANs. In
elementary harmony a student can write the notes in chords I, II, III, IV, V
etc without knowing or caring about the key signature. They may not be able
to play it correctly on the keyboard, but they CAN do the writing exercise.
Teaching the same thing in ANs will require a different method, and may
prove to be more difficult.
John K
> --
> 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
Paul Morris
This is a good point. The chromatic-staff notation systems make music
simpler and more direct to read, but may make it somewhat harder to
write music in a given key, since the composer has to be more aware of
which notes are in the key, since this is not built into the staff and
key signature.
It would be interesting to think about how theory might be taught
differently. Probably would be best to start by learning the patterns
of the major and minor scales? Once these are known you could build off
of them to learn intervals, chords, etc.
And good to know about this plugin. Seems like it would make grading
these kinds of assignments so much easier for music teachers.
-Paul M
Doug Keislar
> direct to read
Playing the devil's advocate, it could also be argued that most
chromatic staves make music harder to read in certain contexts, such as
for singers who are singing largely diatonic music (with very few
accidentals) and who don't have a great amount of training in music.
For such cases, shape-note staves have been useful, as have numerical
notation systems. A relative-pitch staff with some sort of unambiguous
accommodation for occasional accidentals might be easier for such people
to learn than a chromatic staff.
Instrumentalists who play instruments that have twelve distinct
positions per octave on the "user interface" -- such as guitars and
piano-style keyboards -- most clearly benefit from reading a chromatic
staff. For singers, whose instrument has no visible interface, the
extra chromatic pitches might hinder reading. Similarly, if singing
mostly pentatonic music, a singer might benefit from a
five-degree-per-octave staff.
The inventor of digital sound synthesis, Max Mathews, once proposed a
user interface that would consist of only ten keys, one for each
finger. This was in the context of software that was fed a predefined
musical "score" (not implying notation, just a composition). The user
would have little control of pitch selection; the software would choose
the correct notes from the composition based on its knowledge of the
score, as the user triggered each key. There would not be much chance
for playing a "wrong" note; the user would mostly control the timing and
(assuming velocity or pressure sensitivity) the dynamics. Of course,
such software and such a keyboard would be almost useless for
improvisation and similar musical purposes.
The common point here is that when considering what is "best" or
"easiest" we always have to keep in mind what context we're talking
about. Many notation inventors have different criteria or different
problems they're trying to solve. Some are concerned mainly with
beginners, even if this means sacrificing features useful for advanced
musicians. Some focus on specific instruments (such as keyboard
instruments or guitars), and so tablature approaches become popular.
So when considering a ***general-purpose*** notation system, as might be
defined by considering the first seven criteria at
http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/criteria.html , we have to agree
that there are trade-offs to be made between different contexts of use.
Something that seems very easy in a certain context might be quite
problematic in a different context. It becomes a problem of finding an
optimal solution given a lot of different constraints, such as different
instruments, different degrees of musical training, different tuning
systems, different musical styles, etc.
A chromatic staff seems to be a candidate for such a solution. (Some
people argue that a diatonic staff is a better starting-point for
accommodating different tuning systems, but this position seems to rely
on a limited universe of tuning systems and musical styles. For a
general-purpose approach to microtonality, the chromatic staff's greater
number of degrees per octave may be better.)
As Enrique and many others have noted, correlation between notation and
instruments makes learning music easier. However, for a general-purpose
solution, we have to juggle the requirements of different instruments,
and we have to consider whether our optimization problem allows for
improvements to instruments along with improvements to notation.
Doug
jason....@gmail.com
-Chromatic staff
-Pitch numbers for each note
-Intervals deduced by comparing Pitch numbers
-Logical Timing system
-Easy to learn
-Can write all complexities of music
Let me know if you agree? I think this is the "Ring to rule them all" :-)!
Doug Keislar
Well, you're changing the subject a bit to start arguing for a specific
chromatic system versus others. My point was that in certain contexts a
non-chromatic system might be easier, even if a chromatic system is the
best truly general-purpose system.
In the case of numerical notations, one could argue (as the devil's
advocate again, to be consistent with my previous post) that a 7-degree
numerical notation such as jianpu
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_musical_notation) is better than
a 12-degree system such as Number Notes, in the specific usage context
of relatively untrained singers. The extra 5 staff positions, and the
extra 5 numbers, could be seen as getting in the way of comprehending
the positions of pitches within the diatonic scale. (Naive singers
don't necessarily understand -- or even need to understand! -- that the
seven notes of the diatonic scale are unequally spaced.)
I'm not arguing that a diatonic system is better than a chromatic one,
I'm just making the point that when one debates the merits of different
approaches, one has to keep in mind the debater's criteria.
That is one of the main points I was trying to make, which I realize is
different from the point you're making (and have made before on this forum).
Best,
Doug
Nextstep Musical System
>
> So when considering a ***general-purpose*** notation system, as might be
> defined by considering the first seven criteria at
> http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/criteria.html , we have to agree
> that there are trade-offs to be made between different contexts of use.
Hi Doug,
I hope it could be noticed the difference between the traditional
general-purpose system concept, which for me is rather a neutral
system (e.g. the conventional system) and the Multipurpose concept I
am introducing based on the use of alternative resources, specially
backgrounds that allow adjusting notation towards somehow opposite
requirements like those you mentioned, without making or having to
learn a variety of systems.
B.R.
Enrique.
Ivaylo Naydenov
Point 10 is a step back to the conventional status quo. I am sure that seven lines should not confuse the reader. I admit that more lines lead toward confusion but that is a matter of individual and visual capabilities (what about blind people?).
Point 17 dismisses the rectangular, triangular and polygonal noteheads or tails - and I totally do agree with that Point of the criteria (noteheads should stay oval in shape).
~~ Ivaylo