RE: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
drtec...@gmail.com
John,
Forgive me for the delay in responding.
Let me remind everyone that I'm first of all a computer geek, and only a hobby musician. I got into this trying to create my own scores for my own learning purposes. Of course there was a lot of commercial software available, but I found that most of it seemed more interested in enforcing rules of Traditional Notation than supporting alternatives to it. And the more I had to pay for it, the harder it was to use!
I actually started out trying to create accompaniment tracks for learning choir parts,
then drifted in to creating scores for vocal and keyboard pieces. It seemed that it would be easier to "program" scores with the pitches going across the page and time going down, Klavarskribo style. (This was back in the days when my "printer" was essentially a typewriter.)
My focus was not so much to make music easier to read or play but to make it easier to enter and edit with a computer--I wanted to make creating scores as easy as creating, say, a Word document.
I think it's debatable whether the best way to learn an aural art form is by reading marks on paper, rather than listening to music.
But given that we play from notation, that we teach students to play from notation, what is the best way to encode the music
so the student can most efficiently learn the instrument? I think we'd agree that the notation should be "intuitive". But this leads to a potential goal conflict: do we want the notation to closely match the instrument--the various keys or strings or frets or valves or whatever--
or closely match the music, that is, the patterns of sound? Is it possible to reach a compromise? Or perhaps we should be reforming the instruments (e.g. Janko keyboard, uniform tunings) along with the notation.
Of course, most of the instrumental idiosyncrasies have to do with pitch; the time dimension of music is largely independent of the instrument design or even the instrument itself.
When I speak of "poetry" and "form", I'm mainly thinking of patterns of stress or beats. I think we "feel" these (sometimes literally, when the bass is booming) moreso than we "count" them. Indeed, we "march", even "dance" to music, and if we are going to synchronize with a partner, or a band or orchestra, we must all be "marching to the same drummer." So yes, there is room for interpretation, but ultimately, the person with the baton rules.
I've come to think of the time dimensions as "patterns of stress", where "stress" has two principal forms, duration and amplitude.
My sense is that, in music, the predominant "stress patterns" are weak-STRONG rather than STRONG-weak, but this is contrary to the way we count beats, and separate music into measures, where we typically notate as if the pattern were STRONG-weak.
That is to say, I hear the musical "units" as typically separated right after strong before weak, but I see the notation (bars, beaming, etc.) as separated just before strong after weak. "Lines" typically end on a beat (strong), often a sustained note held for the nominal count, or longer. And there are recurring patterns of twos and threes and powers of two, to give the rhythm a hierarchic structure or form.
Now I've studied several popular piano methods but can't recall these concepts being discussed or taught. But maybe that's just the misfortune of my particular experience.
In any case, the Traditional Notation timing notation is a software designer's nightmare--or challenging term project for a Computer Science student, depending on your point of view. (I've given the details elsewhere.) Of course, musicians have been learning it with more or less success for centuries. But is there a better way?
BTW, I've been continuing to explore using computers to edit scores. My latest experiment is using d3.js to convert a MIDI-type score array (pitch, time) into a scatter-plot "score". There seems to be a lot of flexibility for staff lines patterns and notehead shapes.
Joe Austin
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of J R Freestone
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 5:06 PM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: *** SPAM *** RE: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
Hi Joe and Dominique,
I enjoyed your recent exchange on the "poetry" issue. There's a lot in your reply below, Joe, that I agree with, especially the wish for tools to print the music the way you like it, your frustration that this isn't available, and also your optimism about the continuing process we're engaged in.
I did find your "poetry" issue a bit odd, ever since I first read it, although it sounds like "a lovely idea". I couldn't work out exactly what it was that I didn't get about it, and Dominique certainly clarified some of it with his comparison with prose, which has looser rules, not tighter ones, than poetry. Or rather, a certain traditional approach to poetry has lots of fixed rules - poets in modern times write how they like and probably mess about with presentation more than prose writers! Maybe that's what you have in mind!
But my other qualm about that poetic approach is deeper. I feel that notated music should be quite practical and fairly precise. The feelings, the meanings we attach, and also the massive range of technical issues concerning expression, where phrases break, etc., which different players interpret differently - these, to my mind, arise out of a piece as a whole, through familiarity with it and study of the genre, and personal preference, just as Mark points out - we interpret written music differently, but it is the same score.
So, I prefer an engineering approach. This note goes here, that note goes there, in pitch and time, volume, etc., spelled out reasonably clearly. There's no need for it to look fancy (one of the big drawbacks for alternative notation design is that it's rarely as pretty as TN) or to tell me that a phrase ends somewhere other than a bar line by starting another row of the score. But I'd be fine with you having the ability to print it that way, for sure.
As you say, after a time, you dispense with the score because you've memorized the piece, so did it really matter where the line broke the phrase? And as you also say, you can notate the notation, adding your own marks to help you - most musicians do some of that, fingerings, accidentals, etc.
I'm just wondering how much to practise some pieces without the score that I've almost memorized (piano pieces, that is). I suppose it helps to keep reading the notes, as a reinforcement of my sight reading skills, including keeping my eyes off the keyboard where possible, but it's tempting to ignore the score now, because sometimes it distracts me and it's easier to make sure I play the right notes and focus on expression more if I start watching my fingers and forget the dots!
It would probably be easier to keep working at learning TN and overcoming its foibles and irritations than to program my new notation app, but then if we don't press on, we'll continue to be stuck with TN.
And of course I agree with your assessment that the time notation needs overhauling. We often complain about the inertia in the music world, when people don't see the need for any changes, but we often don't see our own inertia, and I think this might explain why so many new designs for staffs have just assumed the time notation of TN is fine as it is. It doesn't take a very long time for us to pick up the basics, the way it works, despite the difficulties at the beginning and tricky passages we encounter later, and we start to think it's reasonable and optimal. At first, that's what I was going to do with my system. It's not great, I thought, but it'll do. But the more I look at it, the more ridiculous it seems.
I wonder if it's time for this change to a timeline method, because it is more "engineering" in approach, and people generally deal with engineering approaches to information all the time now in graphics applications. At one time, the letter-per-letter approach - crotchet, minim, semiquaver, semiquaver, spell it all out - probably fitted with the literary abilities of the time, for the few who could even read and write. Most of us now deal with multi-dimensional displays of complex information just following our social media feeds.
Cheers,
John
On 16/07/2021 19:34, drtec...@gmail.com wrote:
Dominique,
Ah, I guess there are always multiple opinions on any issue.
I suppose what I really want is the *tools* to print the music the way I like it, to make it easier for me to read and play,and let you print it the way you like it. As it is, many of the tools on the market make it extremely difficult if not impossible to do things we talk about here, even to break lines between bars, for example. And almost nobody lets us print 12-position staves. Few of the proposals on this website can actually be produced with commonly-available software.
But I think my concern goes beyond that. I'm also trying to *understand* the music. I'm searching for notations that expose more of the "musical" structure of the music, that assist in recognition of the form, the rhythm, the harmony, the melody, as well as just the raw notes. These might not be notations used for performance, but perhaps for composition, or for study. Reducing ideas to some formal representation has been a tool of science for centuries. It not only aids communication, but I believe it also aids understanding. And potentially it reduces the learning curve for new students who what to master what is known and done before exploring what is yet to be discovered and accomplished. I would say the existence and persistence of this site, and the continuing emergence of "better" notations, is evidence that the traditional notation is inadequate in many respects.
And I am particularly interested in notations that can be produced by individuals, using tools like computers or more recently tablets and the web, because that is my professional field. I know that the computer is, in principle, capable of rendering any of the notations that have been proposed on this site. And I regret that developers of commercial software seem more interested in "enforcing the rules" than in supporting experimentation.
Studying notation "improvements" also suggests potential improvements in the way music and instrumental performance are taught, but that is a subject beyond my professional talents. Although, as a professional educator (but not in music) and as a music student myself, I feel qualified to express opinions on how well the method would seem to work for me.
Your point about poetry is well taken. There is a certain multiplicity of structures, and potential conflict between the semantics and the syntax, between the sentence structure and rhythm and rhyme, between phrases and bars. But wouldn't it be nice to have the freedom to emphasize one or the other, without being forced in one direction just to save paper and ink?
Over the years I have "implemented" and tried, to one degree or another, about a half-dozen different notations posted on this site. I've even simply "improved" TN by such things as splitting lines at phrase boundaries and coloring sharps and flats. I'd say any of there notations are easier to play than TN. But I must say it's proven to be more trouble to convert TN into a "better" notation than to actually learn to "read" the TN itself. (But I don't think I actually *read* it--I think I simply eventually memorize it and use the notation as a cue to jog my memory.) So why bother? Well, for "science" sake. And in the hope that eventually we will have tools to make transcription easier.
So we keep at it!
Joe Austin
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Waller Dominique
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 11:53 AM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: *** SPAM *** RE: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
Hi Joe,
>For example, I tend to hear a short note following a long one as belonging to the following motif, with the sustained note ending the preceding motif. But TN typically groups a short note as the end of a previous “beat” rather than as a “pickup” to the next beat.
I quite understand your point here and feel very much like you. But I don’t think writing things differently would be a progress. It’s possible to create the feeling you wish by adding a slur, so as to clarify groups of notes inside a regular sequence of beats. Historically speaking, it took time to have equal length of time between bars. It was not the case with the first tablatures, in which bar-lines were displayed irregularly, sometimes for rhythmic grouping and sometimes for obscure reasons.
Besides, your mantra through years has been: Music is poetry, why write it like prose?
But I think you’re much more demanding on musical notation then you are on poetry. Because precisely, poetry (in its classical form at least) displays sentences in groups of equal length like musical bars, sometimes independently of the meaning. On the contrary, prose is more faithful to the meaning and inner rhythm of the sentence since commas freely separate group of thoughts, and also at the same time allow a pause to breathe. In typography, they talk about grammatical commas versus physiological commas, but very often both coincide naturally – the sense and the breath. So if musical notation is already written like prose, like you claim, then I think maybe it’s better like this. And I think it somehow resembles poetry already by the regularity of its bar-lines, like I’ve mentioned. Dominique
envoyé : 15 juillet 2021 à 21:02
de : drtec...@gmail.com
à : musicn...@googlegroups.com
objet : *** SPAM *** RE: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
For the record, I would like to state that I also agree with
"the idea of keeping timing information away from the note-head which codes only pitch."
I've been convinced for some time that we need something I've called "absolute notation" to indicate timing and rhythm.
I've offered the distinction of "relative" vs. "absolute" with the example of pitch.
TN notates pitch "absolutely". That is, the pitch of the note is determined by it's position on the staff independent of any other notes.
I've seen "relative pitch" proposals in some numeric chord notations, where the root note is specified "absolutely" and the other notes are denoted, not by their absolute or scale pitch, but by their interval from the root. For example, a C major chord might be denoted C 4 7 or even C 4 3 instead of C E G,
where 4 and 7 are half-steps above the root, and 4 and 3 are half-steps above the previous lower note.
My point here is not to debate the merits of such an approach, but just to point out the difference between absolute and relative notation.
TN notates time "relatively", i.e. the start (and end) time of a note must be computed *relative* to the start and duration of every other note from the beginning of the composition! Or at least relative to the start of the measure, except in those cases where the first note in the measure doesn't start at the start of the measure! It doesn't take much complication until you cannot tell, by just looking at a note, what count is starts or ends on. I suppose the grouping referenced by lettersquash is a mechanism to simplify that computation.
I've also suggested that the orthographic grouping in TN does not always correspond to the way I hear the grouping musically. For example, I tend to hear a short note following a long one as belonging to the following motif, with the sustained note ending the preceding motif. But TN typically groups a short note as the end of a previous "beat" rather than as a "pickup" to the next beat.
Irrespective of any other considerations, TN timing notation is also an ad-hoc jumble of different sorts of notation, a situation that drives software developers mad.
Consider how many *different* orthographic features are used to convey timing: solid or hollow noteheads, stems or not, various numbers of flags or maybe beams instead, one or more dots following, dots or dashes above/below (staccato, tenuto, etc.), fermata, repetition of the notehead with added ties (easily confused with slurs) across a bar or half-bar, numbered "slur" arcs for tuplets, and bar lines of various sorts, plus the time signature. And another whole alphabet of notehead shape for rests. Then there's swing, where the nominal timing is reinterpreted as something else. And perhaps I've omited some. Reform would be warranted just on considerations of simplicity and consistency!
Joe Austin
aka DrTechDaddy
"Music is Poetry; why print it like prose?"
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Keller
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 10:47 AM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
Hi John F,
I was thinking of Mark and Dominique when i thought we agreed on this. I wasn’t aware of you vehemently disagreeing!
Anyway your mention of Stuart Byrom and his WYSIWYP, got me looking up his website, and WOW, I was amazed he has his app working for translating musicXML files.
I just converted and looked at Bach prelude and fugue 2 (WTC bk 1).
I imaging that he could probably do a timeline version of ES if I asked nicely.
He must be very knowledgable in programming or coding (Is that what its called?) to know how to turn the XML into such a clear graphic output.
It would be good if he posted about his achievements here. Its not important that his system is not 12 step.
Neither is Equiton or Dominique’s system.
Stuart, if you are listening, Congratulations!
Cheers,
John K
On 15 Jul 2021, at 9:12 pm, J R Freestone <j.r.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
On 15/07/2021 00:11, John Keller wrote:
Good point Doug.
I agree with the idea of keeping timing information away from the note-head which codes only pitch.
We all seem to agree on this point.
Well, yes, if you ignore those who don't agree with any of this method of rhythm notation!
But it's ok, I'm not seriously upset or one to bear a grudge. I recognise that on this forum I'm in a small minority who don't like this method, and currently I'm mostly talking to myself when I describe and give examples of alternatives. Stuart Byrom (WYSIWYG notation) would probably support and develop this alternative, but he's less bull-headed than I am and doesn't post much here, mostly just to update people on the development of his notation system and multiple-platform free app that transcribes MusicXML. Indeed, we now discuss all this privately, since there's little support for our ideas here.
I was encouraged to hear someone here report that musicians said they'd like an indication of the background pulse, the beat of the music, which I believe is to see clearly where notes (beginning and end) fit against that, and this is one of the main reasons I see the timeline method as superior to constraining the duration information to the note's onset iconography, whether in its head or some attachment to it going vertically (i.e. in the pitch direction, rather than along the timeline). The timeline method brings its own challenges, I freely admit, but does provide the thing these musicians asked for, I assume, a background pulse graphic against which to measure a note's onset and release.
There are two elements to this. First, the position of the note's release can be explicit (if there is a line of some sort extending to that point - Klavarskribo's method is not quite explicit in this sense, which I see as one of its failings). The second benefit is that the "background pulse" is always present as part of the staff in some way, and thus there is no requirement to indicate beats by grouping of notes, as per TN and most of these adjusted versions of it.
It seems hard to get it to dawn on people how many problems this method causes, while they design their clever workarounds. Notes, it seems, either must be grouped into the beats of the time signature, or it is deemed desirable to do so to help the player time the notes, but the actual notes in music aren't naturally part of a beat like that, especially where any kind of syncopation is involved, and in almost any music, notes' duration will extend outside of the beat, so another workaround is required to join those to some other portion of the next beat. This can extend into whole beats (as well as portions of them), requiring another iconography (dots, multiple stems, etc.) to be notated and symbolically processed - i.e. they are implicit, not explicit.
Anyway, I'll not keep flogging a dead horse, I just wanted it to be noted that the only methods now being discussed are essentially minor tweaks of TN, and don't provide the thing musicians were reported as asking for. I can't remember (sorry) who said that, or how often it was requested, or by what kind of musician.
All the best
¬~ lettersquash
I wanted to ask you Dominique, how you represent the longer note values.
Do you continue with beams literally showing duration?
Could you illustrate how you indicate long notes?
Nice to see your in-kind reply to my light hearted criticism.
My idea is that beams don’t so much show duration, as onsets within the beats.
They do this by the grouping.
Cheers,
John K
On 15 Jul 2021, at 5:22 am, Douglas Keislar <douglas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting idea. Another issue with non-straight stems is what you do about chords (multiple noteheads on the same stem). If you have a 6-note chord on a curved stem, it's probably going to occupy a significant amount of horizontal space and possibly be confusing to read, especially with respect to other notes that may be occurring around the same time.
Doug
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:49 AM Mark Gould <equit...@gmail.com> wrote:
HI all,
I'd been thinking about the idea of containing all the rhythmic duration relating to stems. I wonder if anyone had explored using 'shaped' stems, say straight for 1/4 notes, curved one way for 1/8, the other way for 1/16, s shaped for 1/32 reverse s for 1/64 (one could ostensibly go on adding more curves to the stem). One could add extension lines to these wavy beams for multiples, with some convention for 2x 3x etc, and you would indicate the old dotted problem not with 1 1/2 but with 3/2 + 1/2.
This way duration is all on the stem and not on the notehead, as Dominique suggests. I've attached a 'guess' at what this notation might look like, though I've worked nothing out to check if it would be 'sensible'.
The only issue I see is with how you'd indicate tuplets (some sort of bracket, I'd guess).
Mark
On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 20:49:19 UTC+1 Dominique Waller wrote:
Hi John and all,
A point about ties and slurs. In English music vocabulary, slurs I guess are those big arcs that indicate to play notes legato, in a continuous way. And ties I guess are those arcs that bounds note-heads of the same pitch to indicate to sustain the sound from a beat to another.
If we agree on this vocabulary, then what you’ve proposed, that I’ve proposed too, is to tie stems without repeating the notehead(s). But I've noticed that to do so, you’ve tightened the time symbols at the place of the (missing) note-heads and not at the other end of the stem. Because I also work with tablature, where ciphers and time symbols are joined but autonomous (which what I try to do with staves) it appeared more natural to me that time symbols should be linked together, and therefore not at the place of their missing noteheads.
One advantage of your solution is that, in the more usual case of stems above noteheads, slurs could be drawn above stems and ties under noteheads, so that one could not confuse them. But I come with the opposite solution: it should be more natural to draw slurs next to noteheads, and ties next to the opposite end of the stem, on the “pure rhythms” side so to say. Of course, this could not work for the choral, with its entangled voices, only for melodies and chords.
Besides, to go on with your linguistic joke on my time notation, it’s not true that ittiestimesymbolswithoutanygpapinbetweenthem. The truth is it separates clearly each beam from the other but with a smaller gap and not in the usual way. On the contrary, traditiona notatio cho of th natura en of eac duratio o els tur i backwar insid th ti an i th ga i large i i becaus i take th plac o th missin bea! Dominique
Le mercredi 30 juin 2021 à 00:40:36 UTC+2, John Keller a écrit :
Better to mark the start of each beat. But there is nothing wrong with the traditional way of doing it!
Looking at my transcription of Bolero, it is easy to take in the rhythms by separating the beats clearly, just as words are separated when writing.
Dominiquesideaisliketryingtoreadthissentencenooffence!
John
On 30 Jun 2021, at 5:11 am, Mark Gould <equit...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking of your comment that many one beat units would look continuous, so I was thinking something that 'ends' a group or beat to separate it off from others. The small gap between the beams in Dominique's original Bolero troubled me, but didn't want to have a symbol that looked like a stem.
Ending a beat here is only a graphical convenience, a separator symbol, no more no less.
Mark
On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 07:07:09 UTC+1 John Keller wrote:
Mark,
There is something vaguely unsettling to me about trying to mark the ‘end' of a ‘beat'.
Like trying to mark where is the end of one centimetre.
Or what is the very last number before 2.
The beginning of a beat is defined.
It is where the drumstick strikes the drum or where the note begins its sound.
The end of a beat is either the start of the next beat, or it is undefined!
John
On 28 Jun 2021, at 10:15 pm, Mark Gould <equit...@gmail.com> wrote:
<70D9E4C8-2A52-4A60-975A-8153EE048EFD.jpeg>
Hi Dominque,
I wonder if some sort of little end mark should be used to end the 'beat'? I've attached a tiny image to indicate my idea (though the symbol itself here is only an idea, perhaps there is a better symbol to be devised?)
Mark
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 18:27:15 UTC+1 Dominique Waller wrote:
Hi John K.,
> While logical, I worry that your idea will look too continuous when the various one beat patterns are used in succession.
I guess you mean those signs are too compact when tied together. It's true that TN better separates signs. To indicate the end of the beat or show subdivisions inside the beat, it's always possible to leave a little blank, a little visual interruption from a beat to another or a beam to another if it is for clarifying subdivisions. So, groups of notes are clearer. Check the attached file with an excerpt of the Bolero melody in cipher notation (tablature). Separations between beats are clear.
> And the idea that the beams must always follow after the note head, makes it much harder to learn TN as well as your system.
The goal is to reform or replace TN, not to make it easier to learn! My system is not harder to learn for someone who hasn’t been raised with TN. On the contrary, the benefits of this solution are numerous:
- it's time proportional
- it's explicit and visually intuitive
- it's intellectually satisfying because it's logical
- it's faithful to the history of music notation and tablature
> Also, your idea for augmentation + instead of a dot, would be better at the beam end.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What would be better? Where exactly would you put the sign? Please give me a visual example.
> How would you go for large double-dotted chords!
There would be only one plus sign (or double plus sign) attached to the stem that supports all the notes of the chord. Exactly like you proposed yourself in your Scriabin excerpt recently. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment (possible). Cheers! Dominique
envoyé : 27 juin 2021 à 13:21
de : John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au>
à : "musicn...@googlegroups.com" <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
objet : Re: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
Hi Dominique,
While logical, I worry that your idea will look too continuous when the various one beat patterns are used in succession. And the idea that the beams must always follow after the note head, makes it much harder to learn TN as well as your system.
My idea is that the beaming is flexible and should always show beat divisions and subdivisions.
Also, your idea for augmentation + instead of a dot, would be better at the beam end.
How would you go for large double-dotted chords!
Cheers,
John K
On 27 Jun 2021, at 12:57 am, J R Freestone <j.r.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dominique,
(Is your given name "Dominique"?)
That's quite right! Your idea is much more logical. Of course, for anyone who's already got used to the "more beams wins" rule, it could be a little confusing, but that's the fault of history. (I didn't know they'd dropped their beams like that - very interesting.)
lettersquash / John FOn 26/06/2021 14:38, Waller Dominique wrote:
Hi John F.
I'm reading you had troubles with understanding beams and ties. But it's normal! Beams and ties in their present form are illogical! Normally one reads from left to right, in the direction of time; stems mark the starting of the note and the beaming indicates the division of time. But in today's ligatures, one must look backward so to say. For example, in the case of a dotted 8th note + a 16th note, one has to look at the beaming on the left of the second stem to identify the 16th note, not on its right! All those discrepancies stem from the same original cause: the shortening of the final beam.
What I mean is that, originally, in medieval tablatures, there were three beams for three quavers in ligature ; but with time, the last beam fell off and disappeared. A consequent reform of time notation would imply to fix that and restore ligatures in their original form, so that they appear much more logical and visually intuitive, and time-proportional (yes, all that at the same time). Have a look at the added file, it's explained with examples I've edited rhythms with Bach, OpusText and MusiSync fonts. Dominique
N.B. For rhythms in binary division, in my system a plus sign appears instead of the augmentation dot.envoyé : 22 juin 2021 à 23:44
de : J R Freestone <j.r.fr...@gmail.com>
à : musicn...@googlegroups.com
objet : Re: [MNP] Time Values in Alternative Notation
Hi JK...
On 22/06/2021 15:45, John Keller wrote:Hi LS,
The tie to a headless stem cannot possibly be mistaken for a slur, in
that you would have to make up a note to slur it to!Quite right. I was referring to TN ties.
You don’t have to count the number of beams really. Just remember that
a single beam divides the beat into two halves (quavers), and two
beams divides it into 4 quarters (“se-mi-qua-vers”).Yes, I know how the divisions and beams work, and it's generally not a problem where a whole beat is divided, it's when that gets broken up
with rests, dots, ties, and different levels of divisions, leaving
partial beams hanging, single notes with flags, and various values of
rest signs also needing remembering and processing.This is my reworking of the TN rhythmic notation. You can see the beat
grouping at a glance and if you can mentally think 4 pulses per beat,
you can see how the faster notes fit into those 4 semiquaver pulses.Yes, I think that's quite a good method where the whole beat is divided with one type, as you can see the logic of the divisions laid bare. It
doesn't quite fix all the other problems, to my mind.Here is my excerpt again, this time with the ‘classic’ ES note-head font.
I prefer the other one. In these, the different notehead shapes are difficult to discern.
Cheers,
¬~ LS
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/5e48a982-462a-be1b-6145-744f416e1b11%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/1774450181.196096.1624714689794.JavaMail.open-xchange%40opme11oxm17aub.bagnolet.francetelecom.fr.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/9aee7a15-3ed3-4eef-b490-71ced8ac5597%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/FB3A0E31-78E5-48B1-A58F-711ED17098B8%40bigpond.net.au.
--
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.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/29e4494a-93fc-4cb5-bb19-c8ed1c56c3fbn%40googlegroups.com.
<70D9E4C8-2A52-4A60-975A-8153EE048EFD.jpeg>
--
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.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/dc26b544-bfa9-4fe4-b3ec-5293c04be8b3n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/def10a0a-9246-4d32-bdda-7accc138b89an%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAO-VhJrRvbz5wjdtShz7sGO%3DN2PAhNPVbByn80qe5%3DrF6VsZFg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/E07D2A52-1D58-45CF-8C53-5BCC76C3700E%40bigpond.net.au.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/36f56e39-9128-40e0-3602-36decf05edf0%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/BFB846AA-FF23-43EF-A344-D7DAA4FA67AC%40bigpond.net.au.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/00db01d779ab%24e9b10520%24bd130f60%24%40gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/896276870.324368.1626450766632.JavaMail.open-xchange%40opme11oxm17aub.bagnolet.francetelecom.fr.--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/014e01d77a71%24339a6ad0%249acf4070%24%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/265fc679-8e59-2784-1620-6e96baf8b08d%40gmail.com.