SaLaTa background

[Dan Lindgren]

For those of you that recently visited my website, you may have
noticed that I now also present the SaLaTa system as a PDF.

Allow me to add a little background info to the SaLaTa system.

Way back in the past, I experimented with chord symbols
and intervals like the ones I employ in "SaLaTa", only to
abandon the idea when I learned that there is a difference
between, for instance, F# and Gb - even when you play
them on the piano. However, an intonation system, such as
the one that I now provide, could perhaps make a chromatic
approach easier to be generally accepted.

Previously, Ivaylo asked if the o-a-o-a sequence of
vowels in SaLaTa would automatically yield the interval,
and the answer is (as Ivaylo correctly anticipated) no - but it
does make it easier to judge an interval.

Of course, there have been previous attempts in history to
modify or extend the Solf ège names - let's be clear about that.

Using an apostrophe when writing chords as a sequence
of numbers (without any space between consequtive
numbers) is something I tried a considerable number of
years ago. If I remember correctly, I hesitated to use
semitone steps to describe intervals since I had to replace
10 and 11 with something else (I wanted to avoid using dots
or anything like that to separate the numbers). My solution,
at the time, was to use a simplified interval naming system.
Instead of the usual
m2 M2 m3 M3 P4 -5 P5 m6 M6 m7 M7, I wrote:
-2 2 -3 3 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 7
I could then write a seventh chord like this:
35-7

I actually happened to find an old sheet of paper where I had
drawn the predecessor of the Nydanalyzer (it had only twelve
notes per octave). On that very same sheet of paper I had
written chords that used the simplified intervals as described
above. Finding this sheet of paper helped me to remember
more about my previous work on this. It is likely that Ivaylo's
proposals triggered my brain to revive ideas I had in the past.

BTW, thanks Ivaylo, for making your treatise available for free
as an uncompressed PDF document - I enjoyed reading it.

Ivaylo asks some questions in his treatise, and I'll give my
own view, below, on some of the issues.

To me, the piano keyboard layout and the TN nomenclature
both reflect Pythagorean tuning - which is the foundation for
nearly all music in the history of the planet. The whole
system is designed around the tuning of perfect fifths. You
take seven notes from a sequence of perfect fifths, rearrange
them so that they come in order, and then give them simple
names (A B C D E F G). You have to take a minimum of seven
pitches from the sequence of perfect fifths if you want
to avoid scale steps consisting of more than a whole-tone.

The nice thing about TN nomenclature is that when you
modulate to a closely related key, you see that one of the
notes is altered. For example, F becomes F# when we go
from C major to G major. This may give you an indication of
where you are on the spiral of fifths. It is also important when
we play our instruments, since the note name tells us how the
note could be intonated.

Another potential problem with a purely chromatic approach
(that has no intonation system) is when you want to know
which button/key to depress on a microtonal keyboard.

Dan

P.S. I have replaced Wo with Vo in SaLaTa. I mentioned that
Germans pronounce V as F, but that is not quite the whole
truth - actually they pronounce V as V in words they have
borrowed from other languages.

[John Keller]

I enjoyed reading your SALATA pdf.

Questions came to mind. Do you still call the chords, major minor, seventh,
diminished etc? Do you still call intervals by the traditional names? Would
you teach "Do" as well as "C", or just the Do?

I liked your smiley and frowny symbols, but you dont say what to call them
(other than the traditional terms).

Cheers, john K

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Lindgren" <ny.d...@ownit.name>
To: "The Music Notation Project | Forum" <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:21 AM
Subject: [MNP] SaLaTa background

For those of you that recently visited my website, you may have
noticed that I now also present the SaLaTa system as a PDF.

Allow me to add a little background info to the SaLaTa system.

Way back in the past, I experimented with chord symbols
and intervals like the ones I employ in "SaLaTa", only to
abandon the idea when I learned that there is a difference
between, for instance, F# and Gb - even when you play
them on the piano. However, an intonation system, such as
the one that I now provide, could perhaps make a chromatic
approach easier to be generally accepted.

Previously, Ivaylo asked if the o-a-o-a sequence of
vowels in SaLaTa would automatically yield the interval,
and the answer is (as Ivaylo correctly anticipated) no - but it
does make it easier to judge an interval.

Of course, there have been previous attempts in history to

modify or extend the Solf �ge names - let's be clear about that.

Dan

--
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

[Dan Lindgren]

A major chord could simply be referred to as a "four/seven"
chord, and so on.

Regarding intervals: instead of saying "this is a perfect fifth",
you could say "this is seven steps".

The octave ('0) could be pronounced "prim zero", perhaps;
and two octaves (''0) could be pronounced "bis zero".

(... Although I have to admit that I don't know what to call it when
you put modifiers > and < in front of step intervals ...)

"Do" would have to replace C when you're teaching salata.

An open mouth smiley, for example, would read "four/seven/x".

Well, those are my suggestions anyway.

Cheers,
Dan

[John Keller]

As a music teacher, I dont think it is feasable to abandon the familiar
terminology. Major and minor chords etc. Why are they called thus? - they
contain major and minor 3rd degrees (major means larger, minor means smaller
...) A major scale contains the major 3rd degree. If you dont at least refer
to these terms you are going to get very uncommunicative!

John K

PS I dont mind adding new terminology. As you know, I refer to black keys as
HI JK and L, but I always explain to students that they are my inventions
and other teachers will just refer to them as sharps and flats of the white
keys.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Lindgren" <ny.d...@ownit.name>
To: "The Music Notation Project | Forum" <musicn...@googlegroups.com>

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Hi, Dan
Hi, John

I see and I know that both Dan and I share almost the same idea of naming notes and intervals... pretty close. I tend to use the traditional names of the chords though.
Yes, in our interval system 4 means major3rd and 3 means minor3rd. While 4>3 and 3<4 the usage of terms major and minor is still applicable. 4 is major than 3 and 3 is minor than 4 you might see it that way. So everything is fine with those traditional majors and minors. I stick to these rules:

1. in 12-TET (twelve Tones Equal Temperament) there are 12 (twelve) different tones so they must have their unique names (simple and distinctive from one another by using simple consonants and vowels to form the names)
2. this 12 tones repeat in higher or lower pitch registers called (I suggest) by the latin term Renova (R-va on the staff) meaning Anew, Again (traditionally it is called Octava or 8-va on the staff)
3. basic intervals (in a renova) are also 12 when 0 means Unison (coincidence); first (prima) means neighbors (traditionally called semitone or half-step which is a nonsense to me! you make a step by a tone of the 12-TET not a half-step... the problem is with the traditional reference system which is always C major and its modes - a special case evident on the piano keyboard only!); 2 means second (obviously) - the old whole-step and so on

Thus you can write every chord and its inversions by simple note name (consonant letter) and numbers for each of the intervals to the included tones in that inversion like: D4.7
meaning Do major in first inversion while 4D7 is another inversion and it is obvious how you should play it on every instrument (you see the base tone and which tones are lower or higher and by how many steps in 12-TET)
The writings are very short, clear and recognizable all around the world, compared to the traditional latin abreviations lik: maj, min, dim, semi, no3rd, sus, aug, moll, dur.


--
 --- van Loyden 

Treatise On Pentatonics (e-book)

[John Keller]

But wont we still want to refer to the MAJOR scale and sing it and call the notes the 7 DEGREES of the scale? and so on ... and talk about singing in harmony, ie "3rds"? or that a melody mainly moves by steps and skips in the scale etc

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Of course we do not want. There are many and many new musical instruments comming like Haken Continuum, Madrona, Axis-64, Daskin, Cromatone, iPad apps for music and multi-touch devices used as music controllers. The major scale (natural and from Do = C and its modes) are only on the big piano keys (usually in white/ivory color). That same keyboard is proven non-ergonomic and despite the great composers used to play it, nowadays it is getting obsolete. Conventional music theory nomenclature is difficult (based on the special case of the natural major scale again from Do = C).

step 1: Why we do not give names to all of the 12 notes in 12-TET
- children are thought to use the conventional music theory nomenclature, that is why... when they grow up as adults they do not want to change their habits in that manner, we call it: difficulty
- children are still thought to play the conventional piano keyboard (thanks lord... or thanks to my will I quit those classes at an early age)
- a great amount of money to start the whole concept (instruments, notebooks, competitions, education) as a business process

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

P.S.
I made a mistake writing the inversion of D4.7 from the post above (copy/paste mistake).
Of course the inversion should be written as: 8D7
because when 4 moves to the left side of D it inverts like 12 - 4 = 8 (12, because 12 are the steps in 12-TET)

:)

[Dan Lindgren]

John, I agree that it may prove very difficult to abandon the old
nomenclature. However, I think that fusing G# and Ab is a
much bigger step than the issue of naming chords/intervals.

I can think of scales where the major third is not the third note.

As an aside: I found an ES-related note naming scheme on
a printout from the internet, dated 1997. The inventor proposed
a stave with three lines + two lines, like the piano layout. He
used A B C D E F G, plus R M and S L T. He took these letters
from Re Mi So La Ti.

Regarding the pronunciation of salata's interval y:
In French, for example, y is pronounced "i grec", which might
be somewhat difficult to say each time, so in that case they
could simply say "onze" (11), and likewise "dix" (10).

Here's a little quiz, by the way (if anyone is interested):
In one of my note naming schemes I used these consonants
for one whole-tone scale...

C D G P T V

and for the complementing whole-tone scale...

F L M N S X

Why did I do that?

I will reveal the answer eventually.

Dan

[John Keller]

Hi Ivaylo,

 

Are you saying we DO want to give names for all 12 et notes, or we DON'T??

 

When I click on Your link "Treatise On Pentatonics" i get the following message.

 

Hmmm, we can't find this product, but we have many other great offerings!

 

You and Dan have very different ideas!

 

Dan, I find your insistance on Pythagorean tuning and distinguishing F# from Gb rather perplexing! I tried your experiments with playing E louder and softer than CG but cannot say which I prefered. They all sound nice! Nicer than an equal touch on CEG. I think this is because as a pianist and teacher I prefer to bring out certain parts, to "voice" chords by tightening the little finger etc. To complete your experiment write ups, you should add what YOU prefer!

 

On violin and viola, intonation is critical. Playing E on the D string varies in double stops with the string on each side. But this is not because it is Fb in one case! E as a maj6th above G implies a C chord and the E must be lower to sound nice (just). E as a p4th below A implies an A chord and it needs to be higher (Pythagorean).

 

In the melodic passage D E F# G I actually preferred the lower E. The Pythagorean one sounds a bit too high and out of tune to me!

 

I am very skeptical that string players play F# higher than Gb, even if they think they do. They just use different fingers. F# has 1st finger pushed up. Gb has 2nd finger leaning back.

 

Cheers, John K

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

From: Ivaylo Naydenov

To: musicn...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:49 PM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Re: SaLaTa background

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Hi, John
Thank you for your interest. Due to some inconvenient download policy at Lulu.com I decided to give personal links to thouse interested in reading my Treatise (for free!).
In it I do criticize the conventional notation system, the standard piano keyboard and music theory nomenclature while at the same time I propose new decisions and answers to some basic questions that have bothered me since I was 12 or 13 when I started "learning" music. Music is art... we do not have to learn it. Every one should make his/her own decisions about what is music and how to play it, write and compose. Art obeys no rules if you will though certain suggestions are a demand... especialy if you have to show or explain what your music is all about and how do one sees music from own perspective.
Dan and I have some similarities in what we do here and yes the do not match perfectly. There is no need to.
That is what I did in my treatise and you might want to download it here:

Treatise On Pentatonics by Ian van Loyden

P.S.
Be advised that it is a rapid translation in English done by me (no editors cuts or whatsoever). Yu might stumble across some grammar mistakes here and there but it is readable and (I hope) understandable piece of text and illustrations.
I am will to reveal the final design of the suggested new piano keyboard hardware at a later time if I cannot succeed in manufacturing it.
Happy reading!

 --- van Loyden 

[Dan Lindgren]

Hi John,

> Dan, I find your insistance on Pythagorean tuning and
> distinguishing F# from Gb rather perplexing! I tried your
> experiments with playing E louder and softer than CG
> but cannot say which I prefered. They all sound nice!
> Nicer than an equal touch on CEG. I think this is because
> as a pianist and teacher I prefer to bring out certain parts,
> to "voice" chords by tightening the little finger etc.
> To complete your experiment write ups, you should add
> what YOU prefer!

Well, my own preferences should, ideally, not be important.
I accept that we are all different, but some things have been
examined from a scientific point of view, and that is what I try
to rely on.

> On violin and viola, intonation is critical. Playing E on the
> D string varies in double stops with the string on each side.
> But this is not because it is Fb in one case! E as a maj6th
> above G implies a C chord and the E must be lower to
> sound nice (just).

What *you* want here is to reduce the beat rate; but why then
isn't the pure major third preferred generally?

> E as a p4th below A implies an A chord and it needs to be
> higher (Pythagorean).

Well, the equal-tempered P4 is often preferred actually; but
the difference, compared to both pure and Pythagorean, is
only 2 cents.

> In the melodic passage D E F# G I actually preferred the
> lower E. The Pythagorean one sounds a bit too high and
> out of tune to me!

D E F# represents major seconds; don't you want to hear them
as such?

> I am very skeptical that string players play F# higher than Gb,
> even if they think they do. They just use different fingers. F#
> has 1st finger pushed up. Gb has 2nd finger leaning back.

Diatonic scales are made up of minor and major seconds.
According to Shackford (1961 and 1962), when a string trio
was examined performing these intervals melodically, they
were, on average, very close to Pythagorean. They played
93 cents and 204 cents, respectively. Compare this with
Pythagorean 90 and 204, respectively.

In any case, you acknowledge that there is something called
Pythagorean tuning, and that it has some musical value? If you
don't deny this, then you have to explain to your students why
your notation shouldn't give such cues - or perhaps you think
it does anyway, without key signatures and accidentals?

Dan

P.S. I always like to discuss things with you, and it's fortunate
for this group that we have your kind of competence around.
I think you are more aware of these things than any music
teacher I have ever talked to.

[Doug Keislar]

On 3/27/2012 6:52 AM, Dan Lindgren wrote:
> [...] Diatonic scales are made up of minor and major seconds.

> According to Shackford (1961 and 1962), when a string trio was
> examined performing these intervals melodically, they were, on
> average, very close to Pythagorean. They played 93 cents and 204
> cents, respectively. Compare this with Pythagorean 90 and 204,
> respectively. In any case, you acknowledge that there is something
> called Pythagorean tuning, and that it has some musical value? If you
> don't deny this, then you have to explain to your students why your
> notation shouldn't give such cues - or perhaps you think it does

> anyway, without key signatures and accidentals? [...]

I know that Shackford study, which is a good one and has been cited a
lot. However, melodic intervals are one thing, and harmonic intervals
another, and musical context yet another. The whole question of
intonation in practice is quite complicated, and I'm skeptical of any
suggestion that musicians always do (or should) play with any particular
theory-based intonation. I think the reality of intonation in
performance is not so simple.

My own PhD dissertation studied the perception of two harmonic intervals
(a major third and a perfect fifth) when the tuning and the beat rate
(artificially manipulated) were varied independently of each other. The
subjects in the experiment were people with at least a moderate amount
of musical training, and mostly people with a lot of musical training.
The results were that people tended to judge the equal-tempered
intervals as the most "in tune," largely ignoring the beat rate. My
conclusion was that cultural exposure is probably more influential in
intonation judgments than are acoustical properties like beat rate. Of
course, the judgment I asked the subjects to make was how "in tune" the
interval was, not how "nice" or "pure" it sounded. The wording
matters. In some languages, the verbal distinction between "just"
intonation and "exact" tuning doesn't really exist, complicating the
discussion in a way.

Doug

[John Keller]

Thanks Doug for coming to my rescue!

There are some interesting violin tutorials on Youtube like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaYOwIIvgHg

The professor advocates Pythagorean except in double stops or in quartet
chords when they should be just.

An interesting example at the start shows a G minor chord with a higher Bb
than in the G minor scale a few notes later.

I was not totally convinced by this because although the "chord" Bb did
sound too high in the scale, the player didnt really hold the chord very
long so I am not convinced the chord Bb could have been pitched a bit lower.
When I play the same thing, I am happy with the scale having the same Bb as
in the just chord intonation, or maybe I'm happier with equal temp.

I have been playing Mary Had Little Lamb in D with and without the A string
drone as a double stop. I did find that the Pythagorean E (at 1/9th of the D
string length) sounds too high by itself to me. Whereas according to Dan I
should prefer this E, as well as a Pythagorean F# (17/81?) which is
noticeably higher than the just F# (1/5th of the string) of the double stop.
I felt this experiment showed that the melodic notes I prefer are closer to
et than Pythagorean, or at least I dont mind the ET melodically, specially
after hearing the melody with the double stopping - fiddle style.

Cheers, John K

PS thanks for the compliment Dan!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Keislar" <do...@musclefish.com>
To: <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Dan Lindgren" <ny.d...@ownit.name>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MNP] Re: SaLaTa background

[Dan Lindgren]

Hi Doug,

> I know that Shackford study, which is a good one and has
> been cited a lot. However, melodic intervals are one thing,
> and harmonic intervals another, and musical context yet
> another. The whole question of intonation in practice is
> quite complicated, and I'm skeptical of any suggestion that
> musicians always do (or should) play with any particular
> theory-based intonation. I think the reality of intonation in
> performance is not so simple.

I perfectly agree, but I believe that Pythagorean tuning, as an
important piece of the whole puzzle, might be too significant
to be ignored...

> My own PhD dissertation studied the perception of two
> harmonic intervals (a major third and a perfect fifth) when
> the tuning and the beat rate (artificially manipulated) were
> varied independently of each other. The subjects in the
> experiment were people with at least a moderate amount

> of musical training, and mostly people with a lot of musical
> training. The results were that people tended to judge the
> equal-tempered intervals as the most "in tune," largely
> ignoring the beat rate. My conclusion was that cultural
> exposure is probably more influential in intonation
> judgments than are acoustical properties like beat rate.
> Of course, the judgment I asked the subjects to make was
> how "in tune" the interval was, not how "nice" or "pure" it
> sounded. The wording matters.  In some languages, the
> verbal distinction between "just" intonation and "exact"
> tuning doesn't really exist, complicating the discussion
> in a way.

Very interesting, Doug. Cultural exposure most definitely
plays an important role - and we have been exposed to
a lot of Pythagorean tuning/thinking also, in our lives.

There usually is a consensus that barbershop singers
would sing according to some just intonation scheme,
but as it turns out, they don't - not even when they sing
in harmony. Depending on the context, they might sing
a major third that is slightly below or above equal-
tempered (that is, neither pure, nor Pythagorean).

Dan

[Dan Lindgren]

Hi John,

> I have been playing Mary Had  Little Lamb in D with and
> without the A string drone as a double stop. I did find that
> the Pythagorean E (at 1/9th of the D string length) sounds
> too high by itself to me. Whereas according to Dan I should
> prefer this E, as well as a Pythagorean F# (17/81?) which
> is noticeably higher than the just F# (1/5th of the string) of
> the double stop. I felt this experiment showed that the
> melodic notes I prefer are closer to et than Pythagorean,
> or at least I dont mind the ET melodically, specially after
> hearing the melody with the double stopping - fiddle style.

I'm not going to tell you what *you* should like <g>.

Tuning is related to beats and frequencies, but pitch is
related to both tuning and psychoacoustical phenomena.
So, if someone prefers equal-tempered tuning, they could
still use a Pythagorean approach...

Dan

P.S. I wrote:

> Here's a little quiz, by the way (if anyone is interested):
> In one of my note naming schemes I used these
> consonants
 for one whole-tone scale...
> C D G P T V
> and for the complementing whole-tone scale...
> F L M N S X
> Why did I do that?

Here's the answer:

It's in the way you pronounce them...

Ce De Ge Pe Te Ve

eF eL eM eN eS eX

[Doug Keislar]

> Here's the answer:
>
> It's in the way you pronounce them...
>
> Ce De Ge Pe Te Ve
>
> eF eL eM eN eS eX

In English, anyway!

Interesting idea, and original as far as I know. Thanks for the puzzle!

Doug

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dan Lindgren <ny.d...@ownit.name> wrote:

> I'm not going to tell you what *you* should like <g>.
>
> Tuning is related to beats and frequencies, but pitch is
> related to both tuning and psychoacoustical phenomena.
> So, if someone prefers equal-tempered tuning, they could
> still use a Pythagorean approach...
>

ET was the solution to a problem, it is about new possibilities, it is
the most versatile of tuning methods, is unique and IT WORKS so is not
so optional nowadays; if we had to stay with just one system ET will
be, 'but for the sake of diversity we don’t'.

However 12 note names is not a solution, the practice based on naming
notes is part of the legacy of the 7 note system, which influenced
music itself, the way we notate, analyze and think of music as well as
the piano kb.

A solution is a practice based on not naming notes, the NMS has the
simplest most logical (not random) note names any system could have,
but I use them the least and try to keep them in the shadow, the NMS
has a solution to the 12 note naming complex practice.

A solution is the combination of the consistent symbolic notation of
pitch (which substitutes note names in practice) with the relationship
(isomorphic) method of naming intervals and positional degrees.
Staff chromatic notation that do not provide a complete solution
should continue to fail.

ET succeeded because it solved a problem, so should any new complete
musical system.

It is not the same proposing an alternative than solving a problem.

A solution is not based on criticism but in solving problems, 12 note
naming practice is not the best solution (even though they may not be
so random), or not solution at all .

B.R.
Enrique.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

Hi Enrique,
could you explain in a further detail your words from:

"A solution is the combination of the consistent symbolic notation of
pitch (which substitutes note names in practice) with the relationship
(isomorphic) method of naming intervals and positional degrees.
Staff chromatic notation that do not provide a complete solution
should continue to fail."

- Enrique

 
I just could not visualize what you mean by saing "consistent symbolic notation of
pitch"; "...substitutes note names in practice"; "naming intervals and positional degrees"

 - Loyden 

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Enrique,

> could you explain in a further detail your words from:.......
>

Hi Loyden,
Even though the conventional system codifies the notation of all
pitches into seven names, we may say the practice is about naming
absolute, fix values (pitches) any way (just pitches are coded into '7
notes' by key signatures for a reason); while chromatic notation
decodes the notation of pitches, making reading easier, it brakes
compatibility with diatonic nomenclature and makes harder mental
processes and practice based on pitch naming and diatonic scales.

Try the mental construction of diatonic scales with whatever 12 names
you want starting on different names (no notation), it is the opposite
of the isomorphic keyboard idea, it is 12 times more difficult.

The NMS solution is to take protagonism away from pitches (note
naming), and give it to intervals, then a mayor scale uses only 'two'
names, the two names are the same for all mayor scales, which in the
NMS I chose " la la la na la la la na", while 12 is > 7 now 2 is <
than 7, besides the sequence of names is a meaningful pattern, there
will be other pattern for other scales.

The idea of a practice not based on note naming is not new, the
movable Do system has been the alternative and is taught extensible,
however I consider it is a biased, flawed and a complicated system
anyway.

The 'no-Do' system that the NMS exposes, is the alternative to the fix
and movable Do traditional methods, is solid, flawless and simple,
however it requires a native fusion of notation and nomenclature to be
feasible, but it should be the way to go with chromatic notation.

The no-Do system is not possible with the conventional system, the
same way total harmonic freedom and modulation is not possible with
just intonation, that is why ET is considered a solution not just a
matter of taste.

On the other side, traditional nomenclature and fix Do method do not
fit well with chromatic notation, if we want chromatic notation to
work we need to find a solution.

To make the no-Do practice feasible the NMS introduces two new
ingredients which are: (1) the reference head notation (vs. staff or
cipher) and (2) the relationship method to generate nomenclature (vs.
counting, subtracting or adding, which may be referred just as 'math
ops')

However we cannot totally prescind from some kind of fix (absolute
values) practice; reference to pitches is suggested through the mental
image of symbols (not names), that is why I said: a solution ( "for
unlocking chromatic notation") is the combination of mental image of
symbols and interval names (forget about positional degrees for now).

You may think of the no-Do method as the native method of the NMS,
though traditional methods are supported.

Though a chromatic staff notates pitches consistently and without
codification, is still a pure positional notation method without the
distinctive simplicity of stand-alone symbols to notate pitch which is
exclusive to cipher notation.

Bottom line, the reference head notation and the relationship method
to generate nomenclature are novel ingredients with so far a unique
combination that makes a difference and feasible a solution to the
long time locked chromatic notation.

B.R.
Enrique.

P.S
The selection of a new tuning method was not based on taste but on
solution, the selection of chromatic notation should be equally based
on solution not taste.
The NMS is a solution to make chromatic notation work.
I will prepare some illustrative examp.

[Ivaylo Naydenov]

It is very hard for me to understand all the concept you mention above. For more simplicity and clearance would you mind give some practical examples of how your ideas apply to: notes, scales, chords.
Please, give an example of how would you write a simple triad chord, major, minor what you'd like, without using a stuff or notation - just write the chord or the scale. :)

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is very hard for me to understand all the concept you mention above....

Let's say that paradoxically the role of notation from the
instruments' players point of view (readability) is not the most
important (paradoxically because they are the majority) and that
conventional notation was shaped and consolidated by composers (of a
certain period and mostly with a certain kind of music).

The same way composers sacrificed a little bit of beauty (?) for their
compositional purposes when adopted ET, those that had the influence
also decided to sacrifice (or keep) readability not a priority over
the writing process (this is my guess not from a studio).

When I talk about fix / movable Do I mean mainly the mental musical
processes that people use to notate music without the help of musical
instruments (transcribe).

If we are going to create a somewhat artificial system, at least we
should keep the writing (mental) process important; do not expect that
a system that is created giving priority to the read-&-play role is
necessarily better, I mean from an overall point of view, yet it could
be better for performers, specially on instruments that generate the
tones regardless of what is on the players' minds.

However it doesn't mean that the conventional notation and fix/movable
methods are the best possible solutions just because they somehow came
naturally into existence, they work but require excessive effort (at
least for most of the people), ET was a created solution and it also
works.

The point I am trying to make before showing any more illustrative
examples is that the practice with twelve-tone notation requires also
improvements on the mental process department, the traditional
fix/movable don’t let unleash its advantages and make a significant
difference.

B.R.
Enrique.

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Ivaylo Naydenov <adxo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is very hard for me to understand all the concept you mention above. For

> more simplicity and clearance would you mind give some practical examples .....

Though still a kind of draft I think this doc may indirectly show
also why the Pythagorean approach should remain with the conventional
system, as it may obstruct taking advantage of the inherent benefit of
the twelve tone system.

Just take a look at it please, I will continue working on it as there
is more to be said.

http://enjoy-technology.com/Documents/Fundamental%20differncies.pdf

B.R.
Enrique.

[John Keller]

Hi Enrique,

 

I looked at your pdf link with the first part of Beethoven's Pathetique sonata quoted.

 

You mentioned that the E flats in the first chord should be repeated, but actually all the notes are meant to be tied over! The piano roll indicating the restruck notes is obviously a mistake, and your RH (Reference Head) notation should not have repeated the Heads.

 

The automatic transcriptions from midi into Finale and Sibelius are, of cause, very bad. But I think any midi file played with agogic (timing) expression will not come out "correctly" (as in the original composer's notation), not even in your system. And a notation system is unlikely to be ably to tell whether midi notes were played by the right hand or left hand.

 

I think I understand your "no Doh" interval naming system. For benefits of others who may find your explanations difficult to understand, I include here a table. (I do realise English is not your first language :) )

 

The 1st number is number of semitones. The second indicates traditional naming such as minor 2nd (m2), major 2nd (M2) etc.

Lastly your syllabic name.

 

0    U     sa

1   m2    na

2   M2    la

3   m3    se

4   M3    ne

5   P4     le

6   A4     si

7    P5    ni

8    m6    li

9    M6    so

10   m7   no

11   M7   lo

12   O     sa ?

 

This is for acsending intervals. As I understand, for descending intervals they will be the same EXCEPT that the consonants "n" and "l" must be swapped.

Is this correct?

 

Cheers, John K

Express Stave Notation

 

Original Message -----

From: "Nextstep Musical System" <mtall...@gmail.com>

To: <musicn...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 12:28 AM

Subject: Re: [MNP] Re: SaLaTa background

>
> B.R.
> 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

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Enrique,
>
> I looked at your pdf link with the first part of Beethoven's Pathetique
> sonata quoted.
>

> You mentioned that the E flats in the first chord should be repeated, but......

Hi John,
Thanks for the feedback, but let explain how I obtained the MIDI file,
there is a good software application called PDFtoMusic
http://www.myriad-online.com/en/products/pdftomusic.htm it does a good
job generating the MIDI files out of PDF scores that were created on
score writers , not from those that were scanned.

The pdf score is from free-scores.com, the program also allows to play
the files and believe me (or make the test), you can hear the notes
played as the PR view shows, I don’t know what the original intention
of Beethoven was, but for the sake of analysis, it is a real simple
MIDI file that shows some of the deficiencies due to the conventional
method.

The RH notation is good and intended for transcribing not for
transnotating ; that is why I convert to MIDI and then to RH notation,
it is a lot easier and I think this score shows it.

As you can see in the PR view, this is a very mechanical file where
every note seem to have been manually adjusted, the challenge of
automatic transcription on the CN goes beyond that.

The naming method is not the no-Do method but what makes it feasible,
due to its objective approach and relation with notation; the no-Do is
an alternative process to the traditional fixed and movable methods,
it rather has to do with music education, music cognition or cognitive
processes, which I have called musical mental processes here.

Definitely I have to continue working on presentation, I still
struggle to communicate and is not exactly because of the English
language, what seems very simple and comes easily and natural to me,
seems to be shocking for first time readers.

Your names are right, for compound intervals I repeat a vowel for each
additional series, so the equivalent of the octave will be 'saa' the
names are the same whether ascending or descending (between any two
notes) because what swaps is what is considered next and alternate in
the sequence of positions, 'same' remains same.

I suggest to take a fresh look to the doc again, I made improvements
keeping the original intention of the doc.

http://enjoy-technology.com/Documents/Fundamental%20differncies.pdf

Thanks

Enrique.

[John Keller]

I would like to try PDFtoMusic and downloaded the program. I opened a PDF
and it processed it, but playing the file in the application resulted in
wrong timing of eighth notes ...

I could not see how to generate a midi file. It only made a .myr file. Can I
get a midi file without paying $?

I found it frustrating!

John K

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nextstep Musical System" <mtall...@gmail.com>
To: <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MNP] Re: SaLaTa background

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:43 PM, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Enrique,
>
> I looked at your pdf link with the first part of Beethoven's Pathetique
> sonata quoted.
>
> You mentioned that the E flats in the first chord should be repeated,
> but......

Hi John,
Thanks for the feedback, but let explain how I obtained the MIDI file,
there is a good software application called PDFtoMusic
http://www.myriad-online.com/en/products/pdftomusic.htm it does a good
job generating the MIDI files out of PDF scores that were created on
score writers , not from those that were scanned.

The pdf score is from free-scores.com, the program also allows to play
the files and believe me (or make the test), you can hear the notes

played as the PR view shows, I don�t know what the original intention

http://enjoy-technology.com/Documents/Fundamental%20differncies.pdf

Thanks

Enrique.

--

[Nextstep Musical System]

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> I would like to try PDFtoMusic and downloaded the program. I opened a PDF
> and it processed it, but playing the file in the application resulted in
> wrong timing of eighth notes ...
>
> I could not see how to generate a midi file. It only made a .myr file. Can I
> get a midi file without paying $?
>
> I found it frustrating!
>
> John K
>

In the trial version it allows only one page at a time I think, but
you go to top menu File-Export-Midi, (put just page 1) yes it may not
be a perfect player but with the midi file you may compare in another
player.

Enrique.

[Nextstep Musical System]

John, I looked for original MIDI files of the Pathetique as well as
other pdf on another web site, also read something about how they
convert the pdf to MIDI and you are right it is a mistake of the
program as it seems to fail reading some ties (there is no MIDI info
embedded on the file) also the other pdf file that looks the same
sounds differently.

I still think the program does a good job but not a perfect one and we
have to review its outcome.

However the tie/slur issue and the duration figure model problems
that I present are real, just I have to change the way to present it.

Thanks
Enrique.

[Nextstep Musical System]

Well now is an excerpt with 15 less heads in just three measures,
there are no ties, no beams, no stems, no accidental and rest symbols,
wow don’t think everybody is going to be indifferent to that.

Fallowing the spirit of some members of this group I want to share
also another resource related to the guys from the pdftomusic, is on
the software menu but can go directly online.

http://www.kooplet.com/cgi-bin/kooplet/search.pl

B.R.
Enrique.

[Dan Lindgren]

Regarding my little quiz, I wrote:
> Here's the answer:
> It's in the way you pronounce them...
> Ce De Ge Pe Te Ve
> eF eL eM eN eS eX

Doug replied:
> In English, anyway!

True. I should have mentioned that it's limited to languages
using the Latin alphabet.

> Interesting idea, and original as far as I know.
> Thanks for the puzzle!

My pleasure!

Dan

[Dan Lindgren]

I have previously stated that I would preferably only promote
one alternative notation (along with only one nomenclature),
so after some consideration I've decided to withdraw everything
from my website concerning Chromatic Nydana and SaLaTa.

I will thus focus on the "classic" version of Nydana Notation,
but I am dropping the prefix "classic" and will call it simply...
Nydana Notation.

Dan

[Paul Morris]

Hi Dan,
I'm sorry to hear this, as I liked your Chromatic Nydana and SaLaTa systems. But I can understand wanting to focus on one alternative system.

Would you consider keeping them on your website, but with a lower-profile as "deprecated" or "withdrawn" proposals or experiments? Others can still learn from your efforts, even if you are no longer in favor of the results.

(Or maybe you would let us put the information about them (from your website) on the MNP wiki -- indicating that they are "withdrawn" proposals or experiments?)

Best regards,
-Paul M

[Dan Lindgren]

Paul, I'm very grateful for your kind appreciation!

I have attached some PDFs below. If you find something
useful, you can always add it to the MNP wiki; but maybe it's
not necessary since you always have the option to point to
this message if you want to refer to these files.

Anyway, thanks!

Dan