MIDI to Lilypond conversion

[Joseph Austin]

Merry Christmas

I tried to run Lilypond's midi2ly on my mac and got the following error:

Seems to be a Python problem:

ImportError: dlopen(/Applications/LilyPond-2-19-45.app/Contents/Resources/lib/lilypond/current/python/midi.so, 2): no suitable image found.  Did find:

/Applications/LilyPond-2-19-45.app/Contents/Resources/lib/lilypond/current/python/midi.so: mach-o, but wrong architecture

joemacbook:Resources josephaustin$ 

I get a similar problem trying to do the convert from within Frescobaldi.

This is my first attempt at MIDI-to-Lilypond conversion,

so I may be making some elementary error.

Joe Austin

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

You may try a workaround by importing the midi file in some music editing program and exporting the resulting xml file.

This will also give you the opportunity to fine-tune layout before importing into Frescobaldi.

Willem

Op zaterdag 24 december 2016 22:42:16 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

Thanks for the suggestion.

I actually tried importing the MIDI to Finale, 

but Finale split the tracks into two staves of a grand staff, which is not what I wanted.

So I thought it might be simpler to convert to Lilypond instead of trying to learn Finale.

So you have another suggestion for a 'third party" conversion app?

Joe

--
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/d/optout.

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

I have: I use the free software Musescore. Of course it will take some getting used to, but it might do the trick.

I use it to copy a piece in TN before converting it by exporting the musicXML into Frescobaldi.

good luck, Willem

Op maandag 26 december 2016 14:12:29 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Are you saying Musescore accepts MIDI in and produces musicXML out?

If so, do I need to care about the TN?  Does Musescore add stuff that isn't in the MIDI file?

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

I've been away a few days, hence my late reaction: I used the midi import option for converting a midi file of the tenor part of a choir piece.

You get a few options on importing. Then a TN score is produced: note durations may be a problem and make editing necessary. I also remember a lot of cluttered tempo indications which I had to remove manually. When you are satisfied with the TN piece, you choose export> musicXML.

The best way is to try: Musescore is free.

Willem

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 21:04:40 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

The tempo clutter is from the way MIDI does accelerando and decelerando--

"continuous" (actually lots of small steps) tempo change events.

A "smart" midi translator would convert that to "accel" and "decel" notation.

I would imagine a similar situation exists for cresc and decresc.

Does musicXML have a feature for specifying accel and decel?

---

What I really want is something like a piano-roll notation, a linear pitch/time grid,

on which I can display the notes, perhaps approximately.

(Aria Maestosa works that way, and of course, "playing in" with a MIDI keyboard.)

Then after the notes are in, in approximate position, add the bar lines manually.

Then after the bar-lines are in position, the computer can go back and compute quantization and durations.

This is totally the opposite of most notation entry software, that requires a duration be entered with every note.

In other words, I want to compute the duration from the position, not the position from the duration.

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

You'd need some other software than Musescore for the actions you describe. 

The advantage of Musescore is that you don't need to know note names at all while entering notes. You just copy a piece of TN by entering the notes you see.

There is a layout option in which you can stretch measures manually to customize layout.

I don't know, but using piano roll to enter music seems like a lot of work, and not very fast.

The fastest way to enter notes I know of (but you have to read TN for it) I saw in Cubase.

You enter the rhythm of a voice first, by playing it on one or two midi keys in real time in sync with a metronome.

After you've stopped recording, you click the first note and press the right midi keyboard key. The note jumps to the right pitch, and the cursor moves to the next note.

good luck, Willem

Op woensdag 4 januari 2017 04:20:30 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

What you describe sounds like Denemo.

I've used in for entering melodies.  Not sure how well it works for piano music with chords.

The problem I have with keyboard entry is I want to create scores for pieces I'm trying to learn.

If I could play them well enough to enter "live", I wouldn't need to enter them in the first place!

I think I could enter on a piano-roll grid much faster with a finger or pen than I can with a mouse.

Someday I may get a pen tablet and try it.

(I bought a drawing tablet for my granddaughter for Christmas--maybe she will let me borrow it!)

In any case, I can't imagine any form of Alternate Notation taking off until we can figure out at easy way to create the scores!

It seems to me that scoring from MIDI is the most realistic option at this point.

It may be that the biggest selling point for a given notation will be the ability to easily create it!

That was the original impetus for KlavarSkribo--it can be created with a modified piano keyboard functioning as a score typewriter.

If we could easily generate scores in a variety of notations, then we could do serious experiments to see which are better.

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

I understand that real time recording is not an option. The process described is a kind of two-phase step recording.

To write a score in Musescore, I use a pen tablet and my computer keyboard. Pressing numbers on the numeric pad indicates the length of the note to be entered, zero means rest instead of note. So it's a combination of typing numbers and clicking on the right position in the bar. It is quite fast.

How do you differentiate hands/voices when using midi for note input?

Did you already install Musescore and tried it out?

Willem

Op woensdag 4 januari 2017 18:36:59 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

Yes, once upon a time, I installed Musescore and tried it out.

It didn't seem to offer any improvement for music entry and left out a lot of formatting features I wanted.

My main interest in MuseScore was that it's an open system so possibly a platform for AN development.

But I've cast my lot with Lilypond instead, largely influenced by Paul Morris.

I'm now working on MIDI conversion to Lilypond.

I now use Aria Maestosa, a Piano-roll editor, for score entry.

I've  recently tried Denemo, which uses the two-pass (rhythm first, then pitch) approach.

I have a GarageKey midi keyboard that works well with it.

I may use that more in the future.

My two primary musical activities are singing in a chorus and playing keyboard.

For singing, my end-product is audio playback.

I typically create one track for my vocal part [Tenor or Bass], one track for piano,

and one or more other tracks for other voices; sometime I will combine Soprano and Alto onto one track.

(AM does not allow multi instruments or channels on the same track.)

In MIDI, "track" is a file concept, and represents a time-ordered sequence of notes and chords;

"channel" is transmission concept typically mapping to hardware instrument,

and "instrument" or patch is timbre selection.

"Part" and "voice" are musical concepts that can be mapped to tracks, channels, and instruments in various ways.

AM allows one channel and one instrument per track; either choice can be the same for multiple tracks.

If two "parts" or "voices" share a track, they must also share the same MIDI channel and MIDI instrument.

For playing, my end-product is a score, typically in modified notation.

(AM is an audio / MIDI generator; it does not produce printed scores.

When I use AM, AM produces a MIDI file which is then converted to a score by other software.)

As a minimum, I arrange the page 4 bars per line and uniform time,

splitting lines at phrase breaks rather than measures,

perhaps converting noteheads to shape-notes.

(Lilypond is more accommodating for that than Finale;

I'm not sure MuseScore can do it at all.)

At some point I intend to try the Finale custom-staff feature to approximate KlavarSkribo;

Beyond that, I create a MIDI file which I then convert into my own notation, ChromaTonnetz,

using software I wrote myself.

I've built two versions so far:

1--convert to a text file using a custom font, which prints on vertical staves, one note-space per line.

2--convert to a web-page using HTML Canvas, also with vertical staves and vector-graphic noteheads.

BTW, in principle I could adapt my software to any other staff and add stems and even flags,

but I have no particular interest in adding beams, accidentals, volume and tempo modifications, etc.

Formally, I think my significant contribution is Tonnetz-based "isomorphic" shape-note noteheads.

I typically create a separate track for each hand, 

and separate channel for each voice on the same staff, choral style.

In my software, I use the track (hand) distinction to set stem direction for LH/RH.

For piano, technically I suppose both tracks should map to the same channel/instrument;

for organ, each track can be a separate voice.

I don't know that MIDI can allow organ-style "multi-stop" playback--same notes to multiple channels.

In my notation, timing is linear, so I only notate "note-on" (or note-off for rests) and don't encode duration as part of the note,

only as it's placement.

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

That's quite an explanation you gave, thanks!

Back to the initial problem you mentioned: the splitting of your midi tracks by Finale into two staves of a grand staff.
Did you find a solution? Have you found a way to import midi into Lilypond in a satisfactory way?

Willem

Op vrijdag 6 januari 2017 15:14:14 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

I haven't found a solution yet--to either challenge.

I consider myself a 'beginner" with Finale, so there may be a simple solution, I'm just not aware of it yet.

As for MIDI to notation, it's a non-trivial problem to convert performance-timing into a score.

As humans, we seem to be able to recognize classical rhythmic patterns well enough,

but I'm not so sure about contemporary syncopated jazz and pops.

I'm not even sure it's a MIDI problem--perhaps rhythm is like color perception--

we know what to call it because we know what to expect, 

but an objective measure would show a lot of variation in what we call "red", or "dotted quarter note".

Suppose we got a roomful of musicians and played the top 40 hits.

Let each musician write the score from hearing it.

How many versions of the score for the same song do you think we would get, rhythm-wise?

And how many covers of the same song would have matching scores?

(In an amateur chorus, we often find people "naturally" singing a different rhythm that what's in the score,

and of course they "learned" the song from hearing it.)

For example, Elvis's "Can't Help Falling in Love" is scored in 4/4, but often sung in 6/8.

Inasmuch as the timing is more likely to vary than the pitch,

I think music editors typically take the wrong approach in scoring timing.

What I'd like is to preserve an ordered sequence of pitches but allow flexibility in timing,

so I could rearrange the relative temporal separation notes.

In other words, do the opposite of Denemo etc.

First, enter a sequence of pitches in "flexible" time.

Then, go back an add rhythmic patterns.

I'd classify the rhythmic patterns the way poets classify "metric feet",

and apply a rhythmic pattern to a sequence of notes.

For example, draw bar lines, intermediate bar lines, and then specify the separation patterns between the lines,

e.g.: equal, 2:1,  3:1, 1:2:1,  2:1:1,  etc.  Some patterns might cross bars, e.g. "1|2 1 2" for 6/8 march.

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

You seem to want a lot more than regular software is capable of right now, although of course I'm not sure of that, not knowing all music notation software.

Since most of us on this forum have a tendency to repeat ourselves, I feel no hesitation:

I strongly recommend you direct your efforts to working with Clairnote. You'll find that within weeks the note positions will be firmly ingrained, so at least the pitch of notes will be easy to read. In time, chord- an interval shapes will become more familiar also.

Then you can focus on playing rather than reading. Finding the 'ideal notation' is quite another matter, which will probably take some ( a lot of?) time to find.

I think Jan's lyre notation and Express Stave are also an improvement over TN, but they lack the overall solution Clairnote offers (clear voice separation is not so good in lyre notation, and ES seems hard to write by hand, and I'm not sure about the software-solution for that).

About reading rhythm: when you think of it, it's quite ambitious to want to be able to read acoustic pulses in time off a piece of paper.

I think simply studying existing TN rhythmic patterns, and learning to read them, just like one learns to read text, is the most realistic way to go.

That way you'll be reading rhythm in chunks, rather than note by note.

The humand mind is not like a computer, so any effort to notate rhythm using something like piano roll notation is, in my opinion, futile.

How's the trad keyboard playing going?

Willem

Op zaterdag 7 januari 2017 21:25:54 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

Trad Keyboard is going slowly.

My problem is not so much reading, 

but getting my fingers to go where my eyes tell them to!

And to move as fast as the music wants them to.

I agree with your assessment of patterns.  It works the same for recognizing chord and arpeggio patters

(of course, recognition would be easier with a "better" notation.)

I'm resisting Clairnote, or any AN, until I find a way to get music into it.

I think MIDI is the way to go. So what's a good notation that can be directly translated from MIDI?

Joe

[Doug Keislar]

Joe,

Assuming by "MIDI" you mean to include unedited MIDI data as captured from a keyboard performance, it would seem to me that the only notation that can be DIRECTLY translated from MIDI without problems would be one whose pitch axis was quantized to 12 degrees per octave, and whose time axis was completely unquantized.  Whether such a notation could be considered "good" is dependent on the user's criteria.  Humans can of course benefit from a representation that includes some representation of rhythm beyond raw onset and offset times.  Of course, a lot of TN notation software does attempt to quantize the time axis when given raw MIDI input, but it's not without problems.

Doug

[Doug Keislar]

Oh, never mind my message below.  I see now in your message from 3 days ago that you're envisioning entering the pitch info first (presumably from a MIDI keyboard), and then editing the music to add rhythmic info.

Doug

[Joseph Austin]

Doug,

The interesting thing is, most humans have no problem recognizing the "rhythm" of a live performance--our toes are tapping, our feet are dancing,...

So as the "intelligence" of software advances, notating the rhythm of live performance should be possible.

Another question: how rigid does rhythm need to be?

Jazz seems to have a looser notion of rhythm than classical.

Latin has a much more complex notion of poly-rhythm--

it has to do more with relative order and pattern than rigid timing.

Even when rhythm is notated exactly, individual performance varies.

We have notions of long vs short and "two for one" but the difference between equal eights and dotted eighth-sixteenth and triplet tied eight and eighth is not always distinguishable in performance--which of course is the reason it can't be reliably reconstructed from a performance.

Now if we are to get a substantial repertoire into any alternative notation,

we will need some process more efficient than "click time, click pitch" for every note!

The challenges of scanning printed TN and the challenges of converting live performance (audio or MIDI) are significant, but I believe we must press in these directions if we are to reach a solution.

Back in the early days of Cakewalk (when it was MIDI instead of audio),

it was fairly straightforward to quantize and edit midi performance data.

I believe the technology has the promise; it's just that many developers seem stuck in the wrong paradigm.

For alternative notation, MIDI seems to be a reasonable "normal" form that can be generated from TN scoring programs as well as from live performance.

The other alternative, MusicXML, seems to me to be tainted with the TN paradigm (e.g. letter notes and accidentals, organization by measures instead of motifs and phrases, etc.)

After all, the music comes first, not the notation.

If we can't notate music "accurately" from a live performance,

then perhaps our notions of notation no longer match our notions of music!

Certainly the MNP community realizes this.

Joe Austin

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

contrary to my earlier messages I've now come to believe that it ís necessary to drill fingering patterns.

The piano, be it Janko or trad, is capable of expressing multiple musical lines, which involves a lot of things having to happen simulaneously.

Since the mind is capable of concentrating on one thing at the time, this means that every separate action has to be ingrained one at a time:

finding right spot in sheet music

recognising notes

recognising chords

remembering the optimal fingering

looking at hands

applying this fingering

being able to play contrary motions in left/fight hands if necessary

checking note duration

applying pedal if necessary

starting at the top of this list again

These steps need to be ingrained to a point where they are automated, so your concentration can move to the next step.

I'm working at a number of pieces; some of them I must have played 100 times or more. Maybe in another 50 times I'll be able to play them at performance speed.

By the way, of course playing multiple pieces slows down progress, but I get bored if I don't.

So, yes, progress is slow. There's no other way. Sigh!

Willem

Op woensdag 11 januari 2017 00:37:26 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[Paul]

Hi Joe,

On 01/10/2017 06:37 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
> I'm resisting Clairnote, or any AN, until I find a way to get music
> into it.

I've gotten pretty quick with just typing in sheet music as LilyPond
text files in Frescobaldi, and then converting them to Clairnote. (I've
tried Denemo at various points but haven't had much luck with it.)

I'm now wondering if it would be worth looking into sheet music scanning
software to try to automate this. Anyone have any recommendations or
experiences with score scanning software?

I would use it to create MusicXML files that I could import into
LilyPond. (Since MIDI is designed for performance data and not for
notation, I try to use MusicXML as the interchange file format.)

Cheers,
-Paul

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

I agree with you about boredom.

I'm trying something a bit different lately:

Instead of "learning" each piece before moving on to the next,

I'm starting a new piece every day or so.

This means I'm always working on unfamiliar stuff.

Not only does it avoid boredom, 

but it prevents me from substituting motor memory for concentration.

In the process, I hope, I'm learning to recognize "common" patterns,

not just the particular ones that occur in a particular piece.

Joe

[Joseph Austin]

Paul,

For me, the most frustrating aspect of Lilypond is the commas and apostrophes for octaves--I'm always getting it wrong, especially when copying from one part of the score to another.

My other frustration, as a software developer, is realizing how much more user-friendly a given computer app could be made to be. But if I yield to the temptation to build one myself, I never get any music converted, much less learn to play it.

For the past few weeks I've been working on converting MIDI to Lilypond--so far I've just about figured out how to remove invalid chars in the MIDI file from the Lilypond source. I'm slowed up somewhat by having to learn Python along the way--they keep inventing new programming languages faster than MNP can invent music notations!

Truth to be told, I suspect I've always enjoyed music more as a puzzle to be solved than as an art to be performed.

Joe

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Truth to be told, I suspect I've always enjoyed music more as a puzzle to be solved than as an art to be performed.

If I may say, I think overall there seems to be also a quota of rebellion over the years; rebellion to the notation system, rebellion to the nomenclature, rebellion to the analysis, rebellion to the piano kb or its 7/5, rebellion to the tuning system, rebellion to tonal music and maybe others.

When there is a collective rebellion against something there are chances of a revolution, and sometimes revolutions may lead to some changes.

The problem is that changes are not always for the better, and many people tend to resist them and perceive others as rebels without a justified cause.

Nevertheless, a revolution called equal temperament started many years ago and its aftereffects suggest that we should and still are trying to take advantage of enharmonic equivalence, but traditional tonal theory is like a wall on the way.

Solving a puzzle would be finding a way of taking full advantage of enharmonic equivalence that ET suggests, and not just an easier to read chromatic notation.

In other words enharmonic equivalence is not an axiom of tonal theory, but it is an axiom of pc set theory.

Tonal theory and traditional notation are like bread and butter, while chromatic notation is like butter without bread.

The puzzle and the challenge is not to put the accidentals back to the chromatic notation but to make chromatic notation more edible.

The puzzle and the challenge is not to start a new revolution but to provide a solution that better support the one that already started that looks like an unfinished business to me.

Enrique.

 

[Music Integrated Solution]

Maybe I was hungry last night, maybe I just easily find new words for repeating myself as Willem says, but for a long time I've had the feeling that ET is an unfinished business, that it opened the door toward a simpler system but people get distracted with easier to read or fancy notations while the most important puzzle is to find a way of finishing the business, which is - - to put enharmonic equivalence to work theoretically (as we know it today) and notations could remain a matter of preference still for a long time.

I am saying this because these days the world is full of brilliant minds and brilliant people out there, and the puzzle to be solved does not seem to be such a big one, however the style for solving puzzles remains the same: Individualism, everybody for himself, the hero; that style sometimes works, but not so far for this matter, in a new era with new possibilities if the style does not work, it could be time for trying another one.

[Joseph Austin]

[Joseph Austin]

Enrique,

RE rebellion:

I suspect the root of the rebellion is that "learning music" seems to be more difficult than it ought to be.

Most of us learn to speak our native language relatively painlessly.

Reading may come more or less easily depending on our traditional alphabet and spelling rules.

(I was just reading of the death of Zhou Younguang, whose virtually single-handedly erased illiteracy in China

through the introduction of a phonetic Pinyin alphabet for the Chinese.)

Similarly, most children can learn to sing by rote,

but tacking an instrument, particularly via notation, often seems to be more drudgery than fun.

I have discovered, in the experience of taking a year to learn "playing by ear", that "hand-ear" coordination (on piano) comes relatively naturally

if I restrict myself to playing in the key of C, and just use one finger (or octaves).

I've been eagerly awaiting the emergence of Dodeka-type linear instruments to see whether that phenomenon would generalize to a truly uniform keyboard.  (I may have mentioned that my father liked to entertain me my playing songs on a morse-code oscillator that had a single knob for adjusting pitch--he would simply twirl the knob to successive tones of a song--no notation or "keyboard layout" involved.  He was a violinist--and he played that by ear also.)

I would suppose that if we can recognize melodies by ear, that at least some must also be able to recognize harmony by ear.

(I see teens at church singing harmony without notation. 

It is my understanding that the reason old hymnbooks have 4-part harmony is that congregations used to be able to sing it!--presumably from the notation.) But I suspect that the notation in fact is used more as a cue than a script.

When I'm singing a part, I have a sense of where the melody "ought to go" and follow the score more for the rhythm than the pitch.

The "revolution" I would like to see is getting back to learning "music" instead of learning notation.

In language, we learn to understand and speak before we learn to read and write.

I suspect that we should approach music the same way--understand what we're hearing in terms of rhythm and melody and harmony,

and learn to reproduce it, and invent our own patterns, 

before undertaking the challenge of recording it in symbols and interpreting the symbolic recordings of others.

With modern DAWs, it should be possible to create s curriculum of graded "listening" exercises designed to train one's recognition of rhythm,

melody, and harmony, in preparation for understand music. Once we understand what we're hearing, or the sound-patterns we're trying to create,

then the semantic content to be represented will inform the syntactic structure to be employed to represent that aural experience.

In some sense, modern technology has made notation obsolescent--we can record the actual sounds--no need to convert them into symbols.

As pattern recognition technology matures, we will be able to search audio files for tunes and chords, so our current symbolic notations will become less important.

But notation aside, it's clear that music has "moved on" from the classical diatonic scale--witness jazz!

The notions of improvisation, blues harmonies, casual rhythms, etc. nearly defy notation in the classical manner.

As I am currently engaged in converting MIDI to notation, I'm recognizing that "real" music does not fit the Procrustean Bed of uniformly spaced and regularly divided measures. Unfortunately, some very popular notation systems and the MusicXML based on them have taken the "measure" to be the fundamental unit of, well, "measure", in music, whether or not it is the fundamental "musical" unit. I'd prefer to think in units that poets call "feet" and "lines" and "stanzas", but they don't always break where the printer likes to break the score.

As I say: Music is Poetry; why do we print it as prose?

So I welcome your zeal for a new music theory.  I just question whether ET  and pitch-class set theory will prove to be any less restrictive or incomplete an answer than the harmonic series, the circle of fifths, or the diatonic scale. Perhaps that's what you are trying to say also.

I'd seek fuller answers in a more general understanding of "pattern".

But meanwhile, I think we can do a better job of organizing the principles and patterns of classical rhythm, harmony, and melody for pedagogical purposes,

by focusing on aural recognition before symbolic transcription.

Joe

On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Music Integrated Solution <mtall...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Music Integrated Solution]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

So I welcome your zeal for a new music theory.

Joe,

I think of 'my zeal' rather as 'a contemporary system integrated by design', which it is what is missing, we already have complementary theory and complementary notation with a significant level of acceptance, which are used by professionals and taught as part of music education.

The conventional notation, conventional theory, piano roll and pc set theory gather many values but they do not integrate well or were intended to, however many of those values could be more useful in an integrated system.

I am interested in a more inclusive and objective system, but it should never be hard to be used with tonal music by regular people or I could never use it myself.

My priorities are about existing and new functionalities that I would like to implement in a simpler way, but not necessarily may end up being a simple system; simpler is the result of comparing.

I do not need a simpler notation than the piano roll, and think that some simple ideas can take it to the top of the usability level, because of its unique values, and without causing confusion with the other one.

Most of your previous comments were related to music education, which I try to avoid, First things First. I (we) need to take the system at least to the level of presentation and usability, then listen to what music educators could say.

Enrique. 

 

[dominique.waller]

Hi Enrique,

This time it’s no blah blah... what a great post! I could sign it!

Yes, you’re right, what we need is not just a new notation, even a chromatic one, we need a whole new system, to take advantage of enharmonic equivalence.

And as Willem analysed once, we may even need different notations for different situations and usages. Dominique

--
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/d/optout.

---

L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. www.avast.com

[dominique.waller]

Hi Joe,

 

> The "revolution" I would like to see is getting back to learning "music" instead of learning notation. In language, we learn to understand and speak before we learn to read and write.

 

Then maybe you should  turn to the work of Zoltan Kodaly. He thought that singing was the most natural way to mentally incorporate the fundamental notions of music : intervals, pitch, harmony, prior to learning notation.

 

From: Joseph Austin

Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 4:23 PM

To: musicn...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [MNP] MIDI to Lilypond conversion

 

[Joseph Austin]

My formal music education consists of a one-semester music appreciation class in college,

and (too) )many years of self-taught singing and (some) formal instruction in keyboard.

My children studied Suzuki violin for a few years and my granddaughter studies viola.

I "study" keyboard with a teacher who runs a studio primarily catering to school-age children.

My point is, in all of this musical instruction, I have not encountered "PC set theory".

I know about piano roll because I used Cakewalk and Synthesia to create accompaniments to practice singing.

(And when I was a kid by grandma had a piano-roll player piano, but I don't recall she had more than one to two actual rolls.)

So what I'm saying is, if the modern theory or piano roll has anything to offer the beginning musician, 

whom I surmise is usually either a child being "guided" by a parent, or a teen exploring on his/her own, 

it's not getting into the music store or the teacher's studio or general education.

For that matter, aural comprehension of music doesn't seem to be in the popular curriculum,

although perhaps it is in the rock/jazz tradition that I'm just not immersed in.

If I'm missing out on something that is working for "popular" music, even "popular" classical/jazz, please let me know where I can find more!

Joe Austin

[Joseph Austin]

Yes, I'm a "fan" of Kodaly--I've read a book on his method--I even know someone who taught it.

I'd like to see more of that sort of thing--in audio format.

Joe

[gguitarwilly]

Hi Joe,

Concerning typing the right commas and apostrophes I tried something a while ago that worked pretty well: start out at the right note, then leave out all commas and apostrophes, just type note names and duration. Then check the view of the score. Click on notes where they are an octave wrong one by one, add the c&a's. You'll find you need to insert less then you thought, and it tremendously speeds up note entering.

Willem

Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 01:50:29 UTC+1 schreef Joseph Austin:

[dominique.waller]

OK, fine. I’ve read books on him also.I’ve always thought that his ideas on pedagogy were seminal.

Cheers ! Dominique

[Music Integrated Solution]

Hi Dominique,

The concept of what I call the integrated system has been around for a while, I used to quote M. Koppers’ paper and others; this is another way of saying about the same.
I appreciate your comments, so I would like to know also if possible what has been the blah blah, I appreciate even more that kind of feedback.
Thanks.

 Enrique.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:16 PM, dominique.waller <dominiqu...@orange.fr> wrote:

Hi Enrique,

This time it’s no blah blah... what a great post! I could sign it!

Yes, you’re right, what we need is not just a new notation, even a chromatic one, we need a whole new system, to take advantage of enharmonic equivalence.

And as Willem analysed once, we may even need different notations for different situations and usages. Dominique

 

From: Music Integrated Solution

Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:15 AM

To: musicnotation

Subject: Re: [MNP] MIDI to Lilypond conversion

 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Joseph Austin <drtec...@gmail.com> wrote:

Truth to be told, I suspect I've always enjoyed music more as a puzzle to be solved than as an art to be performed.

 

If I may say, I think overall there seems to be also a quota of rebellion over the years; rebellion to the notation system, rebellion to the nomenclature, rebellion to the analysis, rebellion to the piano kb or its 7/5, rebellion to the tuning system, rebellion to tonal music and maybe others.

When there is a collective rebellion against something there are chances of a revolution, and sometimes revolutions may lead to some changes.

The problem is that changes are not always for the better, and many people tend to resist them and perceive others as rebels without a justified cause.

 

Nevertheless, a revolution called equal temperament started many years ago and its aftereffects suggest that we should and still are trying to take advantage of enharmonic equivalence, but traditional tonal theory is like a wall on the way.

 

Solving a puzzle would be finding a way of taking full advantage of enharmonic equivalence that ET suggests, and not just an easier to read chromatic notation.

In other words enharmonic equivalence is not an axiom of tonal theory, but it is an axiom of pc set theory.

 

Tonal theory and traditional notation are like bread and butter, while chromatic notation is like butter without bread.

 

The puzzle and the challenge is not to put the accidentals back to the chromatic notation but to make chromatic notation more edible.

The puzzle and the challenge is not to start a new revolution but to provide a solution that better support the one that already started that looks like an unfinished business to me.

 

 

Enrique.

 

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotation-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotation+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

---

L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotation-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotation+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[John Keller]

Any way we can see this Koppers article without buying it?

John Keller

Express Stave

http://musicnotation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Express-Stave-Guide--reverseES-1.pdf

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.

[dominique.waller]

Hi Enrique,

 

I find this time you put it in the most straightforward way. I could not withdraw anything from this last post of yours. Maybe it took you time to put order in your own ideas, or at least to come up with a compact and complete expression of your whole project, in as much as it coincides with Kopper’s. I’ve read his article again, by the way, and I found it real clear.

    This time you didn’t bother to bring practical application to your project, and maybe  that’s why your thinking could be expressed so freely and neatly ?

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/d/optout.

[Joseph Austin]

Willem,

I'll try that next time I do lilypond.

Joe