Improving presentation
Nextstep Musical System
the new sender info reflects the new system name; I find a more
meaningful name is necessary and a contribution to presentation.
I've finally removed notation as a center, among other reasons because
there are too many talented and successful musicians without reading
music, then considered between Multipurpose Musical System and
Nextstep Musical System (NMS) choosing the last one.
Though inconsistent with names, I have been consistent in a few things:
- that the solution should be a continuation of the simplification of
the musical practice as a complete and integrated system, not just
about notation.
- that it should improve the automated transcription of music as much
as possible to propagate through technology, being an alternative to
both conventional and space-time notation.
- that reforming the traditional system is a very slow and complicated
process and the alternative had to find a feasible way of coexisting
and being implemented in our lifetimes.
- that everything had to be shaped out of practice, not out of
theoretical design.
I have resisted the idea (as certainly many of you) that we could not
give a next step after having consolidated a system with one third of
the notes and a uniform distribution of its intervals.
While one part of the system evolved towards simplification the other
one remains complicated. It could remain the same forever, but if we
are not able to implement and propagate at least an alternative it
would be a failure of mankind.
An alternative to the CS is not as optional nowadays as it was before
the personal computing and internet era, many things that were not
feasible then are feasible now and the amount of people that can
benefit from it is highly significant.
Then,
Is really necessary a next step towards simplification?
Is there solid ground now for giving it?
Have we found a solid way for giving it?
While there should be a consenting 'Yes' for the first two questions,
the last one remains highly questionable and many proposals contradict
each other.
It does not mean that there is only one way of giving the step nor
just picking a name is the solution, but with the name I intend to
create awareness, which will be followed by detailed explanation.
This is a new era, people have access to information like never before
and can make a decision by their own, contribution of music academia
would be great as well as support of big names of the industry or
companies but if they lack the vision or don’t care, the door of
direct access to people is always open nowadays.
Well, this is an introduction because of the new name, as time allows
will share my point on old but important topic revived recently by
John, Paul and Doug.
Regards
Enrique
Ivaylo Naydenov
If so there should be prime rules (axioms) like many discussed before as disadvantages of the Conventional Music System (CMS).
Do not forget also that the current (CMS) resides heavily on the Conventional Piano Keyboard Design (a.k.a. Black-and-White or 7-5 design). Thus the System is full of spacial cases for its basic elements.
P.S. Of course, after all, that has nothing to do with your musical creativity or ability to play music instruments.
~~ Ivaylo
Nextstep Musical System
> I suppose that by a System you mean
Hi Ivaylo,
Previously, I was using 'Interface' but I think 'system' defines
better what I mean, according to main definitions.
System:
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements
The elements I find functionally related comprise: musical (notes,
intervals…), musical notation, nomenclature, terminology, musical
instruments note's layout, musical instruments orientation, musical
mental processes or operations (methods) and methods of analyzing
music.
Originally I started looking for a notation-like visual interface for
commanding computers to play music, I did not have a problem reading
TN and playing the trumpet but I did have a problem playing the
trumpet without reading.
It has been a long process, soon I wondered how am I going to command
the computer if I cannot command properly the trumpet without
reading?, this is not only about visual interfaces, also mental
processes and other elements are involved.
The alternative system had to contribute improving:
a- playing (writing) what we hear (external or internal)
b- hearing (singing) what we read
c- playing what we read.
I also drafted desirable criteria and experimented several resources
but without imposing them over results, if the previous requirements
are achieved all our desirable criteria and preferences occupy a
second place.
A system that only improves playing-what-we-read but do not support
(is not concerned) or makes more difficult the other activities is
what I have been calling 'not fully functional system' but it could be
called also special-purpose system.
While 'playing what we read' is a more mechanical process, the other
two activities highly depend on mental processes and a different kind
of training.
By mental processes I mean operations (methods) related to:
1- diatonic fixed Do (just called fixed Do)
2- tonal movable Do (called movable Do)
3- atonal movable Do
4- chromatic fixed Do
5- symbolic (no use of names) equivalent to chromatic fixed Do
6- no Do.
7- a combination of some of them.
There could be others but this are the methods I have experimented,
you may not find exactly this terminology anywhere else, as it may not
be part of music academia but most of it, self explains and I will
explain the others, Roy Pertchik has been practicing and explaining a
method that I don’t know how to name but it seems to me is a kind of
combination of 4 & 6.
My pick is a combination of 5 & 6, I don’t think they are possible to
be used with TN (not even with all chromatic notations) but I think
they could make a significant contribution in giving a solid next
step.
There is nothing wrong with chromatic notation per se, what is wrong
is trying to continue using methods that do not belong to them,
especially when those methods do not even fit properly for the system
that are intended.
Enrique.
Nextstep Musical System
not mean traditional notation, it means the practice based on
conventional notation, nomenclature, methods 1 or 2, the standard
piano keyboard, analysis based on theories of musical functions and
the like; it can be compared with a narrow and winding road, for which
we can travel and get to a point, but as a narrow road it does not
allow multitudes and is hard to travel.
By Nextstep musical system I mean, a practice based on reference head
notation, proprietary nomenclature and methods like 5 & 6, musical
instruments with isomorphic note's layout and orientation like Janko
kb, and analysis based on an objective description of music, it can be
compared to a wide and straight road.
That is why I consider is better stop talking about alternatives to
music notation and talk instead of alternatives to music education and
promote a more pleasant journey.
Enrique.
Ivaylo Naydenov
Yes, today's information technology gives us the opps of fast spreading words and so on but all have to start with self convinced and dedicated persons that would make the effort first to create a Nextstep (a would call it Plain) System then to teach and educate little children.
Yes, that could work even with the conventional Piano Keyboard, but lets say it... the Conventional System is heavily dependent on the (Conventional Piano keyboard Design) CPKD.
So the changes should be (although not necessary) in conjunction to one another: a NSystem and a NPiano Keyboard.
In fact there are many of such designs, inventions or whatever you may call it: just read the website and the wiki of MNP (Music Notation Project) and check some Janko original designs and its sequels like Rapian, Revolution, Daskin (with respect to our dear Paul Vandervoort) or Bilinear (with respect to our dear Josè Satorrìo), Axis64, Microtonal, and so on.
And if I am suggesting something (a System, a Keyboard Design or something) that would work for me, might not be intuitive to other or vice versa. So there should be more discussions over basic elements, design and so on, supported with simple arguments, theses or whatever there should emerge as thought.
~~ Ivaylo
Doug Keislar
Thanks for you interesting observations. Could you please explain
further what you mean by these?:
> By mental processes I mean operations (methods) related to:
> 1- diatonic fixed Do (just called fixed Do)
> 2- tonal movable Do (called movable Do)
> 3- atonal movable Do
> 4- chromatic fixed Do
> 5- symbolic (no use of names) equivalent to chromatic fixed Do
> 6- no Do.
> 7- a combination of some of them.
I think I know what you mean by 1 and 4, but I'm not sure about the others.
Could 2 be called "diatonic movable Do?," or do you mean something
different?
What is the difference between "atonal" and "chromatic"? By 5, do you mean
a graphical distinction between the 12 pitches, but no corresponding
names of pitches?
Etc.
Thanks,
Doug
> combination of 4& 6.
>
> My pick is a combination of 5& 6, I don’t think they are possible to
Nextstep Musical System
> Enrique,
>
> Thanks for you interesting observations. Could you please explain further
> what you mean by these?:
>
>
>> By mental processes I mean operations (methods) related to:
>> 1- diatonic fixed Do (just called fixed Do)
>> 2- tonal movable Do (called movable Do)
>> 3- atonal movable Do
>> 4- chromatic fixed Do
>> 5- symbolic (no use of names) equivalent to chromatic fixed Do
>> 6- no Do.
>> 7- a combination of some of them.
>
>
Hi Doug,
As I said this is a terminology rather improvised,
#1 is a method conventionally used, based on seven names that
correlate with positions on the staff defined only by clefts (whether
do, re, mi…or ABC.); diatonic is to differentiate it from an
equivalent with 12 names (#4)
#2 is also a conventional method, it uses about 17 names (around the
same do, re, mi…) 'tonal' is because Do is supposed to correlate with
a tonic, which moves to any position of the staff (symbols) in the
event of modulations along the score.
Atonal in #3 means that names as in #2 may correlate with any position
(symbol) of notation but they will not change along the score, (e.g.
the first note may be always Do) it does not matter whether the music
is tonal or atonal, it removes the analysis of finding out tonics.
At this point let me say that the experiments were based on the
reference head notation and 12-TET, the reference head notation uses a
method of relationship to name intervals and degrees of scales, the
resulting names are simpler and way faster to determine than with any
other resources that I experimented.
I think note names in general rather obstruct the practice than help
it, because in fast not intended to sing music they may become
useless.
Given the symbolic notation of pitch of the reference head notation,
images allow replacing note names in practice (#5), allowing to rather
name intervals instead (#6)
There is a consensus that intervals are the most important building
blocks of music, however the traditional system does not allow to give
intervals a more practical use as the very important element of music
that they are.
The Nextstep system is intended to support primarily a practice based
on the existing (prevailing practice) notes and intervals, as a way of
prescinding from non-existing notes (meaning sharpen, flatten,
double…)
#6 'no Do' (just to fallow the rhyme of fixed Do or movable Do) means
'no focus on Pitch or discriminatory element' it is a method based
entirely on intervals; but again in my experience is possible because
of the simplicity of the reference head notation and 12-TET, intervals
can be named very fast in an objective way with the relationship
method.
While I was focused in an area rather related to music cognition I
came across an interesting article by music scholar Roland Eberlein
where he proposed an objective (descriptive) method of analysis based
on the succession of intervals or intervals patterns, and supported it
with gestalt theories of music.
The method was no other than #6, so it converged a practical use of
the method with analysis and as a bonus supported by gestalt theories
of music.
The attacks on theories of musical functions led to further
investigation, which made me think that there is solid ground for a
pragmatic, objective system, which is way simpler and stronger than
movable Do systems.
Chromatic systems are hunt by the ghost of enharmonic equivalence, and
enharmonic equivalence is necessary because of theories of musical
functions.
A system that do not depend on musical functions can safely get rid of
enharmonic equivalence; and chromatic systems can finally have its
native support without the unnecessary multiplication of unique
elements.
The practice based on #6 is solid, consistent and simple, we can write
and think of music without caring about keys, modulations; it works
for tonal, atonal any mode, scale.
I know some questions may still remain but I think it's been a lot of
talk for now.
B.R.
Enrique.
Keislar, Doug
--Doug
________________________________________
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com [musicn...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Nextstep Musical System [mtall...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:37 PM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MNP] Improving presentation
--
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
Doug Keislar
I find your comments interesting, and I completely agree that music education should focus more on training the ear.� However, your "short form comments" below seem to argue against the value of notation:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. �Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. �It is not spatial. �It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
To which I would point out that one could rewrite most of those sentences, replacing "music" with "speech."� (We'd omit the points about its being poetic and not prose.)��� Would you then argue against teaching the written form of language?
Doug
On 2/23/2012 7:09 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Enrique,
RE:"The alternative system had to contribute improving:a- playing (writing) what we hear (external or internal)b- hearing (singing) what we readc- playing what we read."
I suppose I would call what you are seeking a "Mucic Representation System".
SHORT FORM COMMENTS:�
Music is sound, Music is temporal. �Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. �It is not spatial. �It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
LONG FORM COMMENTS:
Music itself is a transient succession of patterns of sounds (pitch/volume/timbre) in time,whereas a notation/presentation/representation is a permanent arrangement of symbols in space.
For my part, I've been especially concerned with the *pattern* aspects (phrases, rhythm, form)�
which seem to me to be woefully neglected in conventional representations.
In an earlier post, you spoke of "commanding the trumpet without notation",�which I took to mean what I would call "playing by ear".�
Actually, it is quite amazing that a human, even a young child, can hear a tune and sing it--without notation, without formal instruction in scales or intervals or rhythms.But prior to Edison, we had no practical way of preserving a tune without converting it into writing.
But for that, we need some theoretical model of what we are hearing, e.g. pitches, frequency ratios (intervals),
relative durations and patterns of same, etc. �The evolution of notation seems to follow the evolution of theory.But as the music, and hence the underlying theory, becomes more complex,�a desire of compatibility with prior notations has resulted in just "adding on" to an accumulating hodge-podge of notations�
instead of redoing the entire system to match the new theory.
Compatibility has its advantages, but sometimes, especially for beginners,�
it may be better to just start over with something new rather than to keep modifying the old.
I, too, long to be able to comand my voice or my instrument from the musical ideas in my imagination or memory without the intermediary of a written notation. �So let me suggest that, what you are really looking for is not merely a representation,�but a pedagogy, a method of teaching and learning music! �
Now, for such a purpose, we need not confine ourselves to written representations, or even use them at all.
With current technolgy, it is possible to present the music to the student aurally! �Listen; Play! (or Sing.)
Using current technology such as MIDI instruments or sound analysis, it is also possible to compare the playback to the original cue, for tutorial and evaluation purposes.
I suppose, with proper training, a performer could even be listening to a recording through headphones instead of "reading" a score.�
(As singers, for example, we may "listen" for the accompaniment as a cue to a basically memorized performance.)
Imagine a music class in which the student was taught to play a heard pharae, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern,�instead of translating inkblots on ruled paper, or even pitches, intervals, and dureations.�In other words, what if we taught music as the reproduction, combination, and creation of patterns--patterns of sound,�not patterns of ink? �Then notation, if it existed at all, would serve merely a secondary function of archive or mnemonic cue to a performance.
But let me get back to the pattern concept. �"Pattern" is more than the sum of its parts. �Try this thought-experiment:Put the score through a shredder, then smooth out the strips in whatever order and try to "play" it. �Clearly you still have all the original ink and paper, but you have lost something crucial--the "pattern".��Now take a score, such as from a hymnal, and erase all the staff lines. �If the note spacing is somewhat time-proportional, you could even erase the stems and flags. �Now try to sing it. �If you can read music at all,�
you'ld probably have little difficulty.
In fact, when singing from a hymnbook, I mentally find "do" and follow the ups and downs, without paying much attention to the absolute staff position that reflects the key.In this case, we have preserved the patterns, even though we have lost much of the original ink!
The way music is often printed, we lose the visual impact of most of the higher-level patterns:�
the steady beat and hierarchy of the rhythms,the similarities and differences among phrases,the symmetry or contrast in the form.It's like reading a poem typeset as prose, or following a large map cut into small sheets and stapled into a booklet.
Let's develop a system to free music from the tryanny of the printing press!
Joe Austin"Music is Poetry--why print it as prose?"
On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Nextstep Musical System wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose that by a System you mean
Hi Ivaylo,
Previously, I was using 'Interface' but I think 'system' defines
better what I mean, according to main definitions.
System:
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements
The elements I find functionally related comprise: musical (notes,
intervals�), musical notation, nomenclature, terminology, musical
method that I don�t know how to name but it seems to me is a kind of
combination of 4 & 6.
My pick is a combination of 5 & 6, I don�t think they are possible to
be used with TN (not even with all chromatic notations) but I think
they could make a significant contribution in giving a solid next
step.
There is nothing wrong with chromatic notation per se, what is wrong
is trying to continue using methods that do not belong to them,
especially when those methods do not even fit properly for the system
that are intended.
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 musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
Nextstep Musical System
> We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in
> patterns!
> Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the
> intermediary printed notation.
>
I agree that technology makes the difference and is key for moving on, however
restricting notation to an aide-memoire is not the solution either
It reminds me a quote:
If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not
bother trying to say it in music. ~Gustav Mahler
Which I would adapt:
If we could find a substitution for musical notation we would not
bother notating it. ~
As a problem, the activities of reading or writing music on TN seems
to me unrelated to playing instruments and mental processes, which in
the RH (reference head) notation are not, but when notation becomes a
link between the different activities, is like they are pushing
towards the same direction, or what I have previously called
contribute to improve each other (meaning the activities).
Then alternative notation goes beyond traditional roles of notation
and contrary to become less necessary because of technology it becomes
more useful.
Enrique.
Nextstep Musical System
>
> So let me suggest that, what you are really looking for is not merely a
> representation,
> but a pedagogy, a method of teaching and learning music!
>
Joe, as for me the search is over, at this point I consider I have a
complete functional solution, which of course could be modified, but I
am rather concentrated on presentation and implementation, at the time
that improve my practice.
So I will use the term "reference head notation" when referring to
notation, and 'Nextstep musical system' when referring to a complete
alternative system, which I consider as a solid contemporary
alternative to music education.
B.R.
Enrique.
Joseph Austin
Do you have a published document that covers your complete RHN or NMS?
I think I've seen bits and snatches of your work here and there, but don't feel I have the complete picture.
I myself am only in the earliest stages of grappling with ear-to-performance.
But I've found that improving eye-to-performance tends to make me less musical rather than more--
the less I have to think about it, the less attention I pay to the structure.
Of course, that could be due to the complexity and asymmetry of the piano keyboard--
on an isomorphic instrument, the visual structure would be closer to the musical structure.
A "shape-note" system is somewhere in between, bringing out the intervalic structure of melodic phrases and chords, but in an intellectual way rather than an aural way.
Of course, this could be due to my age, or just my individual characteristics.
So far I haven't been able to persuade any teachers to try my techniques on a larger population,
and don't feel qualified to undertake teaching myself.
Joe
Nextstep Musical System
> I think I've seen bits and snatches of your work here and there, but don't feel I have the complete picture.
>
Hi Joe, I have not published a complete document intended to explain
the system, I am working on too many things at the same time, some of
them have not been exposed in any way, I wish I could concentrate
entirely on music.
Most of the time I have spent on documents is intended to present the
ideas to people with different background or from different angles and
a common question keep on coming: why should people select your system
among others? why any company should license your ideas instead of
creating their own?
It is not possible to completely avoid comparison, at some point we
have to face it; I have found interesting declarations on a book
(Harmonic function in chromatic music ) which talks about a similar
situation many years ago but related to the analysis of music which is
also of great interest for me, the next quote is in reference to
forewords of some H. Riemann books.
6.2 RIEMANN’S THEORY OF HARMONIC FUNCTION (page 283)
"The forewords to these editions give a revealing look at Riemann’s
attitudes and motivations surrounding the creation of his analytic
system. It becomes increasingly clear as one reads through these
forewords that Riemann wanted to eradicate Weber’s system and
moreover, that he in fact gave considerable thought as to how to
accomplish this goal. It was not enough for Riemann to invent and
present his system: he also wanted to sell it and crush the
competition."
Humm….
B.R.
Enrique.
Nextstep Musical System
motivations, when he is writing a book for the same one; his reference
to crushing the competition seems exaggerated to me as that is rather
a consequence than a goal.
I have ended admiring more to Riemann the human, who was very serious
about his work and was successful in every project he committed to.
Enrique.
Joseph Austin
Hi Joe,
I find your comments interesting, and I completely agree that music education should focus more on training the ear. However, your "short form comments" below seem to argue against the value of notation:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. It is not spatial. It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
To which I would point out that one could rewrite most of those sentences, replacing "music" with "speech." (We'd omit the points about its being poetic and not prose.) Would you then argue against teaching the written form of language?
Doug
On 2/23/2012 7:09 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Enrique,
RE:"The alternative system had to contribute improving:a- playing (writing) what we hear (external or internal)b- hearing (singing) what we readc- playing what we read."
I suppose I would call what you are seeking a "Mucic Representation System".
SHORT FORM COMMENTS:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. It is not spatial. It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
LONG FORM COMMENTS:
Music itself is a transient succession of patterns of sounds (pitch/volume/timbre) in time,whereas a notation/presentation/representation is a permanent arrangement of symbols in space.For my part, I've been especially concerned with the *pattern* aspects (phrases, rhythm, form)
which seem to me to be woefully neglected in conventional representations.
In an earlier post, you spoke of "commanding the trumpet without notation",
which I took to mean what I would call "playing by ear".
Actually, it is quite amazing that a human, even a young child, can hear a tune and sing it--without notation, without formal instruction in scales or intervals or rhythms.But prior to Edison, we had no practical way of preserving a tune without converting it into writing.
But for that, we need some theoretical model of what we are hearing, e.g. pitches, frequency ratios (intervals),
relative durations and patterns of same, etc. The evolution of notation seems to follow the evolution of theory.
But as the music, and hence the underlying theory, becomes more complex,
a desire of compatibility with prior notations has resulted in just "adding on" to an accumulating hodge-podge of notations
instead of redoing the entire system to match the new theory.
Compatibility has its advantages, but sometimes, especially for beginners,
it may be better to just start over with something new rather than to keep modifying the old.
I, too, long to be able to comand my voice or my instrument from the musical ideas in my imagination or memory without the intermediary of a written notation.
So let me suggest that, what you are really looking for is not merely a representation,
but a pedagogy, a method of teaching and learning music!
Now, for such a purpose, we need not confine ourselves to written representations, or even use them at all.
With current technolgy, it is possible to present the music to the student aurally! Listen; Play! (or Sing.)
Using current technology such as MIDI instruments or sound analysis, it is also possible to compare the playback to the original cue, for tutorial and evaluation purposes.I suppose, with proper training, a performer could even be listening to a recording through headphones instead of "reading" a score.
(As singers, for example, we may "listen" for the accompaniment as a cue to a basically memorized performance.)
Imagine a music class in which the student was taught to play a heard pharae, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern,
instead of translating inkblots on ruled paper, or even pitches, intervals, and dureations.
In other words, what if we taught music as the reproduction, combination, and creation of patterns--patterns of sound,
not patterns of ink? Then notation, if it existed at all, would serve merely a secondary function of archive or mnemonic cue to a performance.
But let me get back to the pattern concept. "Pattern" is more than the sum of its parts. Try this thought-experiment:
Put the score through a shredder, then smooth out the strips in whatever order and try to "play" it.
Clearly you still have all the original ink and paper, but you have lost something crucial--the "pattern".
Now take a score, such as from a hymnal, and erase all the staff lines.
If the note spacing is somewhat time-proportional, you could even erase the stems and flags.
Now try to sing it.
If you can read music at all,
you'ld probably have little difficulty.
In fact, when singing from a hymnbook, I mentally find "do" and follow the ups and downs, without paying much attention to the absolute staff position that reflects the key.In this case, we have preserved the patterns, even though we have lost much of the original ink!
The way music is often printed, we lose the visual impact of most of the higher-level patterns:
the steady beat and hierarchy of the rhythms,the similarities and differences among phrases,the symmetry or contrast in the form.It's like reading a poem typeset as prose, or following a large map cut into small sheets and stapled into a booklet.
Let's develop a system to free music from the tryanny of the printing press!
Joe Austin"Music is Poetry--why print it as prose?"
On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Nextstep Musical System wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose that by a System you mean
Hi Ivaylo,
Previously, I was using 'Interface' but I think 'system' defines
better what I mean, according to main definitions.
System:
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements
The elements I find functionally related comprise: musical (notes,
intervals…), musical notation, nomenclature, terminology, musical
method that I don’t know how to name but it seems to me is a kind of
combination of 4 & 6.
My pick is a combination of 5 & 6, I don’t think they are possible to
be used with TN (not even with all chromatic notations) but I think
they could make a significant contribution in giving a solid next
step.
There is nothing wrong with chromatic notation per se, what is wrong
is trying to continue using methods that do not belong to them,
especially when those methods do not even fit properly for the system
that are intended.
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 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 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
Doug Keislar
These are great points.� I agree with almost everything you say.
One caveat is that the structure of music (and natural language) is not always unambiguous.� Sometimes, especially in music and poetry, the ambiguity can't necessarily be resolved, and the composer (or poet) might not even want it to be resolved!� I think for music education it would be great for notation to express the structure more clearly, in ways like the ones you suggest, but eventually one wants to be able to read what a composer actually wrote, without an externally imposed, unilateral interpretation of the structure.� Two different music theorists might analyze the same piece of music in two different ways.
Doug
On 3/22/2012 2:35 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Doug,
You make a good point.i do appreciate the value of the written language, and written music.
But of course spoken languages have similar problems with the visual and audio representations getting out of sync, �e.g spelling of words.�
And lack of tonal cues in written conversation such as e-mail can lead to misinterpretation--e.g., is the writer expressing anger, sarcasm, humor, resignation?I attribute the divergence to the fact that writing and printing was invented centuries before sound recording.
The aural language continued to evolve,�while the visual representation was frozen in time.�
And the "TN" of spoken language is not without it's critics:some serious teachers of reading have even proposed alternative "phonetic" alphabets for beginning readers.As we evolve the era of computer generated and recognized speech, I would predict more calls for a phonetic writing system.
Of course, when we teach our natural language, we teach it orally/aurally first,and introduce reading and writing only later.
My primary issue is that we are teaching students to play notes before they have learned to '"understand" the sound sequences.It would be like teaching the alphabet and vocabulary before the child could understand or construct a sentence.
In fact, there is a danger that "performing" the written word becomes the end itself, not just a medium for the presentation of ideas.I've been working with sixth grade students who "read" text aloud word by word, showing no evidence, via tone, inflection, or spacing of words,
that they realize those words make a sentence; �for example, they pause at the end of the line on the page, not the end of the thought.When asked to give an oral presentation of a project, they write it out, then memorize the words. �
You can tell as they recite, they are trying to remember specific words;
they aren't just verbalizing an internal thought. �
I often perceive a similar phenomenon in church when the congregation recites prayers or even sings hymns.
Getting back to music:Let's say a note is a letter, an interval or chord is a word, a resolved chord progression is a phrase, a simple song is a sentence.Can't we teach our students to "appreciate" a musical phrase or sentence or paragraph before we teach them to play it?
Since we know, whether reading or playing, students tend to stop at the end of a line or page instead of the end of a thought,
couldn't we reformat our books / scores to bracket the "ideas units" more effectively? �
And shouldn't we teach the higher-level structures from the beginning?For example, when I was first taught keyboard, I was taught to play I V7 I, and simple songs using it.But the teacher never bothered to explain about a cadence, or a consonance-dissonance-consonance progression.Maybe something as simple as contrasting it with a V7 I V7 progression and corresponding melody would have been enlightening.
It may be that this isn't such a new idea after all.My present teacher says that, in the classical period, music students were taught composition as they were taught to play (or maybe the other way around).In any case, I got the impression that students were taught to express musical ideas, eventually their own, not just mimic them.
So how might we add higher level structural semantics to notation?
In computer languages, we now have "tiled" languages [Scratch, Alice] �in which various "parts of speech" are enclosed in different shaped "puzzle pieces"that will only connect together in an order that makes grammatical sense. �"Sentences" are formed by connecting the puzzle pieces.
As a child, I learned to analyze the grammatical structure of a sentence by "parsing" or "diagramming" the sentence.
Isn't there a "grammar" of music?�Couldn't we explore ideas for representing it?
Joe Austin
On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:
Hi Joe,
I find your comments interesting, and I completely agree that music education should focus more on training the ear.� However, your "short form comments" below seem to argue against the value of notation:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. �Music is pattern--poetic.
It is not visual. �It is not spatial. �It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
To which I would point out that one could rewrite most of those sentences, replacing "music" with "speech."� (We'd omit the points about its being poetic and not prose.)��� Would you then argue against teaching the written form of language?
Doug
On 2/23/2012 7:09 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Enrique,
RE:"The alternative system had to contribute improving:a- playing (writing) what we hear (external or internal)b- hearing (singing) what we readc- playing what we read."
I suppose I would call what you are seeking a "Mucic Representation System".
SHORT FORM COMMENTS:�
Music is sound, Music is temporal. �Music is pattern--poetic.
It is not visual. �It is not spatial. �It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
LONG FORM COMMENTS:
Music itself is a transient succession of patterns of sounds (pitch/volume/timbre) in time,whereas a notation/presentation/representation is a permanent arrangement of symbols in space.
For my part, I've been especially concerned with the *pattern* aspects (phrases, rhythm, form)�
which seem to me to be woefully neglected in conventional representations.
In an earlier post, you spoke of "commanding the trumpet without notation",�which I took to mean what I would call "playing by ear".�
Actually, it is quite amazing that a human, even a young child, can hear a tune and sing it--without notation, without formal instruction in scales or intervals or rhythms.But prior to Edison, we had no practical way of preserving a tune without converting it into writing.
But for that, we need some theoretical model of what we are hearing, e.g. pitches, frequency ratios (intervals),
relative durations and patterns of same, etc. �The evolution of notation seems to follow the evolution of theory.But as the music, and hence the underlying theory, becomes more complex,�a desire of compatibility with prior notations has resulted in just "adding on" to an accumulating hodge-podge of notations�
instead of redoing the entire system to match the new theory.
Compatibility has its advantages, but sometimes, especially for beginners,�
it may be better to just start over with something new rather than to keep modifying the old.
I, too, long to be able to comand my voice or my instrument from the musical ideas in my imagination or memory without the intermediary of a written notation. �So let me suggest that, what you are really looking for is not merely a representation,�but a pedagogy, a method of teaching and learning music! �
Now, for such a purpose, we need not confine ourselves to written representations, or even use them at all.
With current technolgy, it is possible to present the music to the student aurally! �Listen; Play! (or Sing.)
Using current technology such as MIDI instruments or sound analysis, it is also possible to compare the playback to the original cue, for tutorial and evaluation purposes.
I suppose, with proper training, a performer could even be listening to a recording through headphones instead of "reading" a score.�
(As singers, for example, we may "listen" for the accompaniment as a cue to a basically memorized performance.)
Imagine a music class in which the student was taught to play a heard pharae, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern,�instead of translating inkblots on ruled paper, or even pitches, intervals, and dureations.�In other words, what if we taught music as the reproduction, combination, and creation of patterns--patterns of sound,�
not patterns of ink? �Then notation, if it existed at all, would serve merely a secondary function of archive or mnemonic cue to a performance.
But let me get back to the pattern concept. �"Pattern" is more than the sum of its parts. �Try this thought-experiment:Put the score through a shredder, then smooth out the strips in whatever order and try to "play" it. �Clearly you still have all the original ink and paper, but you have lost something crucial--the "pattern".��Now take a score, such as from a hymnal, and erase all the staff lines. �If the note spacing is somewhat time-proportional, you could even erase the stems and flags. �Now try to sing it. �If you can read music at all,�
you'ld probably have little difficulty.
In fact, when singing from a hymnbook, I mentally find "do" and follow the ups and downs, without paying much attention to the absolute staff position that reflects the key.In this case, we have preserved the patterns, even though we have lost much of the original ink!
The way music is often printed, we lose the visual impact of most of the higher-level patterns:�
the steady beat and hierarchy of the rhythms,the similarities and differences among phrases,the symmetry or contrast in the form.It's like reading a poem typeset as prose, or following a large map cut into small sheets and stapled into a booklet.
Let's develop a system to free music from the tryanny of the printing press!
Joe Austin"Music is Poetry--why print it as prose?"
On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Nextstep Musical System wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose that by a System you mean
Hi Ivaylo,
Previously, I was using 'Interface' but I think 'system' defines
better what I mean, according to main definitions.
System:
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements
The elements I find functionally related comprise: musical (notes,
intervals�), musical notation, nomenclature, terminology, musical
method that I don�t know how to name but it seems to me is a kind of
combination of 4 & 6.
My pick is a combination of 5 & 6, I don�t think they are possible to
Paul Morris
In more concrete terms, shape note notation or the moveable-do solfege seem to be good examples here, where the position of the note in terms of its relation to a tonic note, within a particular scale and key is marked rather explicitly.� That makes it easy to see a certain "tonal grammar" at work, you could say.�
But then compare that to a more neutral system that just indicates the interval relationships between notes as clearly as possible, and then any tonal grammar arises out of the notes' relationships to each other (more open to interpretation), rather than being marked/imposed on them, as it were.
Just thinking out loud.
Cheers,
-Paul M
Doug Keislar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord
Joseph Austin
Interesting discussion... I don't know about a single grammar for all music, but there might be a grammar to each genre or musical tradition. And I agree with Doug's caveat that the structures of musical traditions and languages are not always unambiguous, and writers and composers playing with that is part of fun the.
In more concrete terms, shape note notation or the moveable-do solfege seem to be good examples here, where the position of the note in terms of its relation to a tonic note, within a particular scale and key is marked rather explicitly. That makes it easy to see a certain "tonal grammar" at work, you could say.
But then compare that to a more neutral system that just indicates the interval relationships between notes as clearly as possible, and then any tonal grammar arises out of the notes' relationships to each other (more open to interpretation), rather than being marked/imposed on them, as it were.
Just thinking out loud.
Cheers,
-Paul M
Doug Keislar wrote:
Joe,
These are great points. I agree with almost everything you say.
One caveat is that the structure of music (and natural language) is not always unambiguous. Sometimes, especially in music and poetry, the ambiguity can't necessarily be resolved, and the composer (or poet) might not even want it to be resolved! I think for music education it would be great for notation to express the structure more clearly, in ways like the ones you suggest, but eventually one wants to be able to read what a composer actually wrote, without an externally imposed, unilateral interpretation of the structure. Two different music theorists might analyze the same piece of music in two different ways.
Doug
On 3/22/2012 2:35 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Doug,
You make a good point.i do appreciate the value of the written language, and written music.
But of course spoken languages have similar problems with the visual and audio representations getting out of sync, e.g spelling of words.
And lack of tonal cues in written conversation such as e-mail can lead to misinterpretation--e.g., is the writer expressing anger, sarcasm, humor, resignation?I attribute the divergence to the fact that writing and printing was invented centuries before sound recording.
The aural language continued to evolve, while the visual representation was frozen in time.
And the "TN" of spoken language is not without it's critics:some serious teachers of reading have even proposed alternative "phonetic" alphabets for beginning readers.As we evolve the era of computer generated and recognized speech, I would predict more calls for a phonetic writing system.
Of course, when we teach our natural language, we teach it orally/aurally first,and introduce reading and writing only later.
My primary issue is that we are teaching students to play notes before they have learned to '"understand" the sound sequences.It would be like teaching the alphabet and vocabulary before the child could understand or construct a sentence.
In fact, there is a danger that "performing" the written word becomes the end itself, not just a medium for the presentation of ideas.I've been working with sixth grade students who "read" text aloud word by word, showing no evidence, via tone, inflection, or spacing of words,
that they realize those words make a sentence; for example, they pause at the end of the line on the page, not the end of the thought.
When asked to give an oral presentation of a project, they write it out, then memorize the words.
You can tell as they recite, they are trying to remember specific words;they aren't just verbalizing an internal thought.
I often perceive a similar phenomenon in church when the congregation recites prayers or even sings hymns.
Getting back to music:Let's say a note is a letter, an interval or chord is a word, a resolved chord progression is a phrase, a simple song is a sentence.Can't we teach our students to "appreciate" a musical phrase or sentence or paragraph before we teach them to play it?
Since we know, whether reading or playing, students tend to stop at the end of a line or page instead of the end of a thought,couldn't we reformat our books / scores to bracket the "ideas units" more effectively?
And shouldn't we teach the higher-level structures from the beginning?For example, when I was first taught keyboard, I was taught to play I V7 I, and simple songs using it.But the teacher never bothered to explain about a cadence, or a consonance-dissonance-consonance progression.Maybe something as simple as contrasting it with a V7 I V7 progression and corresponding melody would have been enlightening.
It may be that this isn't such a new idea after all.My present teacher says that, in the classical period, music students were taught composition as they were taught to play (or maybe the other way around).In any case, I got the impression that students were taught to express musical ideas, eventually their own, not just mimic them.
So how might we add higher level structural semantics to notation?
In computer languages, we now have "tiled" languages [Scratch, Alice] in which various "parts of speech" are enclosed in different shaped "puzzle pieces"that will only connect together in an order that makes grammatical sense. "Sentences" are formed by connecting the puzzle pieces.
As a child, I learned to analyze the grammatical structure of a sentence by "parsing" or "diagramming" the sentence.
Isn't there a "grammar" of music? Couldn't we explore ideas for representing it?
Joe Austin
On Feb 27, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Doug Keislar wrote:
Hi Joe,
I find your comments interesting, and I completely agree that music education should focus more on training the ear. However, your "short form comments" below seem to argue against the value of notation:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. It is not spatial. It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
To which I would point out that one could rewrite most of those sentences, replacing "music" with "speech." (We'd omit the points about its being poetic and not prose.) Would you then argue against teaching the written form of language?
Doug
On 2/23/2012 7:09 PM, Joseph Austin wrote:
Enrique,
RE:"The alternative system had to contribute improving:a- playing (writing) what we hear (external or internal)b- hearing (singing) what we readc- playing what we read."
I suppose I would call what you are seeking a "Mucic Representation System".
SHORT FORM COMMENTS:
Music is sound, Music is temporal. Music is pattern--poetic.It is not visual. It is not spatial. It is not prose.
To capture music, you must capture sound, time, and pattern.So why use sight, space, and compression?We now have the technology to capture and replay sounds, in time, and in patterns!Let's use those to teach, remember, and preserve music, instead of the intermediary printed notation.
LONG FORM COMMENTS:
Music itself is a transient succession of patterns of sounds (pitch/volume/timbre) in time,whereas a notation/presentation/representation is a permanent arrangement of symbols in space.For my part, I've been especially concerned with the *pattern* aspects (phrases, rhythm, form)
which seem to me to be woefully neglected in conventional representations.
In an earlier post, you spoke of "commanding the trumpet without notation",
which I took to mean what I would call "playing by ear".
Actually, it is quite amazing that a human, even a young child, can hear a tune and sing it--without notation, without formal instruction in scales or intervals or rhythms.But prior to Edison, we had no practical way of preserving a tune without converting it into writing.
But for that, we need some theoretical model of what we are hearing, e.g. pitches, frequency ratios (intervals),
relative durations and patterns of same, etc. The evolution of notation seems to follow the evolution of theory.
But as the music, and hence the underlying theory, becomes more complex,
a desire of compatibility with prior notations has resulted in just "adding on" to an accumulating hodge-podge of notations
instead of redoing the entire system to match the new theory.
Compatibility has its advantages, but sometimes, especially for beginners,
it may be better to just start over with something new rather than to keep modifying the old.
I, too, long to be able to comand my voice or my instrument from the musical ideas in my imagination or memory without the intermediary of a written notation.
So let me suggest that, what you are really looking for is not merely a representation,
but a pedagogy, a method of teaching and learning music!
Now, for such a purpose, we need not confine ourselves to written representations, or even use them at all.
With current technolgy, it is possible to present the music to the student aurally! Listen; Play! (or Sing.)
Using current technology such as MIDI instruments or sound analysis, it is also possible to compare the playback to the original cue, for tutorial and evaluation purposes.I suppose, with proper training, a performer could even be listening to a recording through headphones instead of "reading" a score.
(As singers, for example, we may "listen" for the accompaniment as a cue to a basically memorized performance.)
Imagine a music class in which the student was taught to play a heard pharae, or chord progression, or rhythmic pattern,
instead of translating inkblots on ruled paper, or even pitches, intervals, and dureations.
In other words, what if we taught music as the reproduction, combination, and creation of patterns--patterns of sound,
not patterns of ink? Then notation, if it existed at all, would serve merely a secondary function of archive or mnemonic cue to a performance.
But let me get back to the pattern concept. "Pattern" is more than the sum of its parts. Try this thought-experiment:
Put the score through a shredder, then smooth out the strips in whatever order and try to "play" it.
Clearly you still have all the original ink and paper, but you have lost something crucial--the "pattern".
Now take a score, such as from a hymnal, and erase all the staff lines.
If the note spacing is somewhat time-proportional, you could even erase the stems and flags.
Now try to sing it.
If you can read music at all,
you'ld probably have little difficulty.
In fact, when singing from a hymnbook, I mentally find "do" and follow the ups and downs, without paying much attention to the absolute staff position that reflects the key.In this case, we have preserved the patterns, even though we have lost much of the original ink!
The way music is often printed, we lose the visual impact of most of the higher-level patterns:
the steady beat and hierarchy of the rhythms,the similarities and differences among phrases,the symmetry or contrast in the form.It's like reading a poem typeset as prose, or following a large map cut into small sheets and stapled into a booklet.
Let's develop a system to free music from the tryanny of the printing press!
Joe Austin"Music is Poetry--why print it as prose?"
On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Nextstep Musical System wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose that by a System you mean
Hi Ivaylo,
Previously, I was using 'Interface' but I think 'system' defines
better what I mean, according to main definitions.
System:
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements
forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements
The elements I find functionally related comprise: musical (notes,
intervals…), musical notation, nomenclature, terminology, musical
method that I don’t know how to name but it seems to me is a kind of
combination of 4 & 6.
My pick is a combination of 5 & 6, I don’t think they are possible to
Michael Johnston
> teaching singing;
You might enjoy my little introduction to Sacred Harp meant for church
musicians and choir members: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyS4vtyEx-k
The quick answer is that it was never "in favor" with publishers. The
first American engravers were of course from Europe and they already
used round notes. The singing schools (think Billings) had a particular
need and shape notes provided it. It hung around for a while in the less
affluent areas and is enjoying a bit of a revival these days.
> In "praise and worship" bands, you often find two or three singers
> singing harmony, without sheet music.
This aural, "by ear," harmony is limited to the tonal understanding of
those involved. This is just folk style music dressed to appear current,
but it lacks most of the desirable facets of real folk music. So far,
none of it seems to have persistence over time.
> In fact, I often hear of pop musicians who seem to be fairly successful
> but claim they can't read music.
In the business world, "successful" is always judged by monetary gain.
There are those who have talent and can't or won't learn notation, but
they don't need to. Sir Paul McCartney's recent choir and orchestra
piece was not well received by the critics but the general Beatles fans
were amazed that he could "write" something like that. Actually, he
doesn't write music at all; he had people to do it for him. On the other
end of the spectrum was Delius, who dictated some of his music from bed
when he was very sick. We still listen to Delius today, in part, because
of his understanding of theory and greater musical range. McCartney has
a gift for good melodies and simple pop chord sequences. You can enjoy
both, but Sir Paul has proven to be much more "successful."
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"