I'm not sure about other systems, particularly any that replace the staff with something fairly similar-looking, even if the interval spacing is different, but perhaps that's my piano-keyboard bias. I believe that any system where all semitones are given a unique and reliable notation is objectively better than the traditional system, with its sharps, flats, clefs and key signatures, but the inertia of the latter is so great that I imagine it would take more than that to have an impact, and any similarity of a new notation to traditional notation is potentially a drawback, since it introduces confusion to the reader.I hope I might contribute to the development of (a) better system(s) of notation. My musical theory isn't great, but I have several skills that might be useful. I hope to share some ideas and suggestions. One important one to consider nowadays is how valuable are the Project's preferences around simple inscription - particularly things like being able to write a script with a pen or pencil, without the use of a ruler. We live in times when people don't carry paper and pencil or pen and rarely write anything, we carry phones that draw straight lines according to our programming requirements, and accept all manner of input types, from alphanumeric language to taps, to humming or playing your favourite instrument. Composers use these in preference to paper. They play music back to us. So, if we're serious about rolling out a new system, it needs to be of the moment and the future, and I don't think we should afford ourselves the minimal luxury of requiring that we can scribble a tune with a graphite stick.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/dd020e85-455c-48a4-bda8-9a4a9ba77e90n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0-9CjFwO4Oot3kLfL4Q4rES2iWP83VGD6UU5XjAvtxxnOA%40mail.gmail.com.
John,
I tried your “Geography” lesson, and it does work fine for the black keys, which accommodates any song from the pentatonic scale,
If you happen to be comfortable in the key of Gb/F#.
But for some of your other scores, e.g. Bach Prelude 1, I find it difficult to distinguish the slant notes from the horizontal notes at smaller font size.
I have had some success with another approach: I use TN with a color printer to color flats blue and sharps red. I’ve done simplified arrangements of Pachelbel Canon in D, Moonlight Sonata in C#m, Hallelujah Chorus in D, and Guaraldi Linus and Lucy in Ab, among others. The two-color approach distinguishes Ab from G#, etc., thus allowing true harmonic chord spelling. One could use additional colors for double sharp/flat if needed.
I also find it very effective to make a “notation” change that is really not a change in notation at all, but just a layout change:
I break the lines at phrases instead of measure bars. This exposes the “form” of the piece, exposes parallel passages,
highlights cadences and chord progressions, cues phrasing and tempo/dynamics changes, and assists in memory and interpretation.
It does get a bit dicey when chords change on a measure but melodies break within measures.
In principle, that could be accommodated by allowing different parts to split at different counts, but I know of no readily available score editor that would allow it. It’s hard enough to find a score editor that allows mid-measure breaks, but I’ve found Lilypond accommodates it well.
I must admit the standard office paper sizes are not ideal for this format—I’d prefer something larger and more square—but it works for “songs” or beginning lesson pieces.
Note that either of my approaches can be combined with just about ANY alternative notation, including ExpressStave and Clairnote,
And they are readily implemented in Lilypond. The colored accidentals in particular helps adapt isomorphic notations to the traditional piano keyboard, for those who do not have a Janko piano.
Joe Austin aka Dr Tech Daddy
“Music is Poetry;
Why print it as Prose?”
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/814043FA-6442-4D90-A32D-D1488C951860%40bigpond.net.au.
So let me mount my favorite soapbox:
If you want to launch a successful alternative notation, create a teaching method using the notation!
John Keller did that with ExpressStave. I’m not sure Pot actually released a beginner method, although he did release quite a bit of sheet music.
As for pianola, I have not yet found a beginner method in this notation, at least not in Synthesia.
Sure, I can get just about any song as a video in “watch me play this song and do the same thing” format.
But that’s not what I call a “method.”
I would like to see a series of graded pieces and exercises accompanied by explanatory information about the *music* that the notation represents, e.g. beat and rhythm and keys and scales and chords and chord progressions and melodic progressions, parallelism and variation, cadences and modulation, musical forms. And fingering. In other words, *music* lessons.
I had actually started to covert a standard method to isomorphic notation for Jankó, but discovered that:
And is typically sequenced to delay the introduction of “black keys” or accidentals.
Because any “five-finger” position involves two rows of keys.
Converting any standard method to Pianola should be straightforward,
But promulgating it would doubtless be a violation of copyright, so even someone who was willing to donate their time
Would be unlikely to risk the legal exposure.
So until some publisher is willing to undertake the project, or at least release the copyright,
I don’t see Pianola becoming a viable notation.
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Musical Supersystem
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 7:09 PM
To: musicnotation <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MNP] Saying hi & question about Klavarskribo
Let me say it in other words, the competitor of klavar is not the conventional notation but the pianola roll, and it lost fair and square by a mile, no need of an army of piano teachers or academies, no business selling scores, nobody criticizing the conventional notation, just type: piano tutorial on youtube and you will get a lot of pianola roll and probably no Klavar, even of just released hits, you name it.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0-9CjFwO4Oot3kLfL4Q4rES2iWP83VGD6UU5XjAvtxxnOA%40mail.gmail.com.
YouTube piano tutorials that show a video of notes cascading down onto piano keys might work for some to learn a piano piece, but requires the learner to memorise as they go.
My own system, Express Stave, solves all the problems. Like Klavar it depicts the black keys directly, just uses one line for each group of 2 and 3, rather than 2 and 3 lines.Try this page, “Black Keys Geography”:I don’t think it needs explanation. But let me know if it does!
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/814043FA-6442-4D90-A32D-D1488C951860%40bigpond.net.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/006501d72243%24a3f1e050%24ebd5a0f0%24%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0-8ppjNunmfLKxFAazRY0u8xbLoJ9nq5yPOd5KyKOvCroA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/254708cc-06bd-40f4-afff-e2176533c55an%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/353CD2DE-E4FD-48F0-8FF0-6CFD13322CA9%40bigpond.net.au.
I agree. I didn't think YY/MNP could be referring to those because they're not really a musical notation system. But after I posted I realised that's probably what they meant. They're more like a Pavlovian training exercise. An improvement in musical notation allows a great deal of simplification compared to the traditional, but cascading notes are going to far, a real "dumbing down" of piano playing.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/49e29cfe-7aa7-4760-87c2-df99d49fe982n%40googlegroups.com.
I agree that Klavar was a product of the mechanical age, but I don't see that as affecting its superiority over the traditional notation, which are due to its essential design qualities. I would like to emphasize that we can move on further in the digital age - with any notation system - because a programming approach allows easy personalisation of all sorts of features of a script. The same program can, for example, display Klavar-like notation as Pot devised it,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0--aum1CaTnPU5T0Y0NH%2BeFg1gq3ANMpv4bz-tH8uztVhQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/FEA7D2E7-513E-4C44-8855-47973076E099%40bigpond.net.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/c78f8b4a-124d-4da3-a089-e77c01c15520n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/3d883ab1-551b-4881-9157-ebccb55b22b8n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/80c8229b-9734-4ab7-a780-d3b5198b52ddn%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/61d655fd-c684-4437-94e9-6341056144a5n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0-9R2SCarofTfvdCWZezvFG-9HVx%2BBF9NOAdmRgBOMWeaA%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi John,
Surely, Tapley's notation ressembles yours in an astonishing way.
Besides, while watching his video, I was redirected towards another interesting one : 'A different way to visualise rhythm'
Many inventor have worked on the idea of the musical clock, but always for the harmonic aspect.
This time, it helps describing rhythms by beats in the measure, and it's very effective. Check this: https://youtu.be/2UphAzryVpY
Cheers !
envoyé : 5 avril 2021 à 11:20
de : John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au>
à : "musicn...@googlegroups.com" <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
objet : Re: [MNP] Gabriel Music Notation by William Tapley
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/F2954F68-8CFE-4E5E-86ED-6ABA4E6C56F8%40bigpond.net.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/c6169887-17cc-4595-bb8f-ea620984c6a4n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/24dc37db-8bff-428e-bd33-7ac5094c3256n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/235ed552-8ddc-428f-a625-86f56bbfcd96n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/235ed552-8ddc-428f-a625-86f56bbfcd96n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/1C39AA62-421D-49D8-91DC-FD081B094E25%40bigpond.net.au.
Let me comment on ExpressStave note position.
For purposes of computer implementation of ExpressStave, I find it convenient to consider the space between lines divided into thirds. Thus the octave consists of 12 equally spaced positions, six “ribbons” (1/3 spaces) and six “boundaries” between the ribbons, two of which are visible lines and four of which are “invisible”.
A flat notehead would be centered within a ribbon and would occupy one ribbon height, or 1/3 space height.
A slant notehead would be centered on a “boundary”, either a visible line or one of the two virtual lines between two ribbons, and it would occupy 2 ribbon spaces in height,
so that the two slant notes in a space would each touch a line and overlap each other in the middle ribbon, while the line notes would occupy the ribbon on either side of the line.
By my interpretation, then, E actually would occupy the same *space* as both J/D#/Eb and F, but would be located (centered) at a distinct *position* between them.
John, perhaps you would interpret the height of a slant note as closer to half a space than 2/3, but he 2/3 interpretation gives mathematical equality to the distance between note centers,
Which would be lost with ½ space notes actually touching lines.
The advantage of equally-spaced positions for a score editor is that the editor can then accommodate a variety of isomorphic notations with a simple (linear) note number to position calculation.
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of lettersquash
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 8:02 PM
To: The Music Notation Project | Forum <musicn...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MNP] Express Stave Pianoforte Notation
…excerpt…
You describe how an Eb is in the E position, but flatter, which could indicate a simple rule - (even if some are chosen to be sharps and others flats, perhaps) - but then I look at other "extras" and they have various combinations of slantiness and position. A Db is not a flatter note on the D line, it's a flatter note in the C position, and to consider it a C# would be odd because the C is pointy and the C# a "flatter" note, so the flat=horizontal rule doesn't apply, nor anything I can easily discern as a rule about placement of the extras. There is one, of course; it's just not simple.
After staring at it for an embarrassing amount of time, I realise the scheme superimposes alternating flat and slanted heads on the given pattern of the C major pentatonic scale, and the result is what gives the apparent arbitrary grouping of different shaped naturals (and extras). I then realise the slanty O is a great way to show that a note is between the one above and the one below, and, since they alternate, the flat heads also sit between their slanting partners, so there's a solid logic to it, I have to admit.
The problem is that you yourself described the Eb as at the SAME position as the E, not in between it and the D, and the notation seems designed on the idea that there are three positions a note can occupy between the lines (so four in total with the ones on lines). Looking at the video, it's clear the centres of the heads are in six positions per line division, five in between the lines. The slanty ones bridge two positions a bit (or completely - it will depend on the font, I suppose).
I keep coming back to my first principle of improving notation, which is to give every semitone a place, instead of TN's exceptionalism on the C-major scale, and the slanty-straight thing kind of does it, by the slanty notes sharing vertical space with the others, but I'm still finding it awkward. The logical, evenly spaced staff lines ought to make note recognition easier than I find it. I find it hard because I'm constantly being bambloozled by the almost non-meaning of a slanty note (it doesn't mean "sharp" and it doesn't mean "flat" and it doesn't mean "natural", it means "I'm here on this sixth division of a half octave, learn me". I accept that it may be quicker to learn than TN.
John, from your new guide, it appears that my interpretation of ExpressStave is correct,
with noteheads centered at 12 equally-spaced positions within the octave ,
And slant notes occupying twice the vertical space as flat notes.
Joe Austin aka DrTechDaddy
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/1C39AA62-421D-49D8-91DC-FD081B094E25%40bigpond.net.au.
John, Thanks for posting Tapley’s Gabriel collection—quite impressive.
Joe Austin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/F834CC02-159B-4D63-8EDB-8AE11DA3EA28%40gmail.com.
John, Thanks for posting Tapley’s Gabriel collection—quite impressive.Joe AustinFrom: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mark Gould
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:07 AM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MNP] Gabriel Music Notation by William TapleyOne thing I noticed that seemed an interesting innovation was to put tied notes in 'grey'.It must have taken a good bit of effort to copy up all that music, and if I am not mistaken the diamond notes look like strokes of a wide calligraphy nib.Mark
On 6 Apr 2021, at 06:43, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
One interesting point about the Gabriel notation is that the notes Bb, B, F and F# intersect the staff lines at the one third points of the notes rather than the midpoints as in traditional. So the staff lines are really the ‘cracks’ between the keys. I am surprised that Mr Tapley made a pdf with 96 pages of music transcriptions back in 1987.Cheers,John
On 6 Apr 2021, at 10:30 am, lettersquash <j.r.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Correction - Gabriel has 3 1/2 octaves in its two staves, not 2 1/2 - so more than ES's 3 (but it is a lot taller).
On Tuesday, 6 April 2021 at 01:13:44 UTC+1 lettersquash wrote:
Hello Dominique Waller, John Keller and all,As it was mentioned how similar "Gabriel" notation was to Express Stave (ES), I started looking at them more and decided to write a comparison and some of my feelings about their merits. I'm relatively new to both, and maybe John Keller will correct anything I get wrong about ES, or add comments of his own.I will also echo the sentiment that I try to keep my views about William Tapley's religion entirely separate from my view of his notation system.
A good intro to each might be this http://musicnotation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Express-Stave-Guide--reverseES-1.pdf for ES (particuarly, see the chromatic scale a short way down the page) and the chromatic scale of Gabriel in his video about it (this links to the relevant point)https://youtu.be/Hza5c7easRI?t=910
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/61d655fd-c684-4437-94e9-6341056144a5n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/02ac01d72b19%24598cb790%240ca626b0%24%40gmail.com.
I am surprised that Mr Tapley made a pdf with 96 pages of music transcriptions back in 1987.
Doug17. Frequently used symbols must be at least as convenient to write in longhand as are the corresponding symbols of traditional notation. For example, if the noteheads are all rectangular, or require unusually precise drawing, they take an unacceptably long time to draw. Exceptions are allowed for symbols that provide some benefit missing from the traditional system, as long as the overall amount of time to write a typical piece of music is not noticeably longer than in traditional notation.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/8FE2A54E-D9D5-43EC-BC6D-66438C9A16B8%40bigpond.net.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/1CDEB910-5428-4DAC-803B-29E4410230D4%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/3FDCDD70-D630-47A6-BB1B-4C657E56E336%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/61CF1E47-6635-443F-AE72-A8A97AB8F249%40bigpond.net.au.
In conclusion, just a word about our notation. It was created on the basis of the diatonic system, and—exactly for this reason—it is utterly unfit for the written reproduction of atonal music. The accidentals, for instance, mean an alteration of the diatonic degrees. Here, now, it is not a matter of alteration or non-alteration of the diatonic degrees, but of twelve semitones of identical value. Furthermore it is rather difficult to observe consistency in the method of the notation; for instance, one often hesitates whether to pay attention to an easier legibility in the vertical or in the horizontal sense.
It would be desirable to have at one’s disposal a notation with twelve similar symbols, where each of the twelve tones would have a comparably equivalent symbol, in order to avoid the necessity of notating certain tones exclusively as alterations of others. Meanwhile, however, this invention awaits its inventor.
I'm always interested in notation proposals, because there is a good solution out there. But as Bartok says this ideal notation awaits its inventor.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/4F7804DD-1147-482E-AE08-957B2CE46FED%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/CAARA0-9FHPn%2BE8M-mnorctHyq_mPtDDhM4DGcxKQOzXF1NgV8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
I don’t get your point, YY!
How are new suggestions for a 12 note system without sharp or flat signs “creativity killers”?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/02507563-733c-401c-b941-1877edf2b0fdn%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/6D55057F-0CF3-44DE-B8FF-7B53C144572F%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/E5BB1604-00C2-4308-9EDC-BA61EB62E4EE%40bigpond.net.au.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/11D8DB50-421E-4F84-A019-80490648D31E%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/59F8655F-4D21-4AB5-A214-51C1BA89B9E7%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/3AD73CA8-2040-41F0-9550-247A2A689F65%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/6D55057F-0CF3-44DE-B8FF-7B53C144572F%40gmail.com.
I think I may have to unsubscribe as I disagree with almost every point on Lettersquash's post.
My view is piano based notations are tablature. Period.
String players will tell you s D flat is very definitely not a C sharp.
I was not suggesting that the notation do everything - witness the hypercomplex notation that is Panot (the full version not just the scale)
Other intonation systems are natural to other cultures. I do not get the 'western' bias.
The 7+5 system is an outgrowth of a particular scheme of representing the diatonic scale. In global terms it is just one scale. To insist on its primacy is to be frank, cultural colonialism.
A general notation will be like a programming language, it has a syntax and semantics but you can write any programme you like.
Again, i feel the focus of the forum is very narrow minded, looking for a solution in piano tablature, with very notation-possessive people. Look outwards not inwards!
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/6D55057F-0CF3-44DE-B8FF-7B53C144572F%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/8403e06b-d470-7101-800c-6ecac471da08%40gmail.com.
I think Mark has left the forum.
He emailed me privately but we ended up at an impasse. I found he was unwilling to answer my questions or have a dialogue. He is basically totally against the 12 et system and totally for the infinite line of 5ths with sharps and flats at opposite ends, and no possibility of any other terminology.
This is despite writing about the 12-tone serial system.
John, thanks for the references to his Wordpress blogs, I hadn’t found this before, basically because i was looking for Equitone instead of Equiton.
I might later copy some of my emails here in which I described ES theory regarding how to follow tonality around the key clock while reading ES.
Meanwhile I have been practicing reading Gabriel notation.
Thanks for your more diplomatic approach than I could muster, and your support in the things I was saying.
Cheers,John Keller
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/C3BE243C-F9AA-4D24-A4FF-F42362B49B83%40bigpond.net.au.
I would really like to know how you would write this in ES. There are passages that contain deliberate enharmonic shifts, say Db C# or D# Eb in the same voice.
John,
As a last try, I have included a couple of you tube links to music by Vicentino. This is not unknown music, but it demonstrates what I have been trying to explainI would really like to know how you would write this in ES. There are passages that contain deliberate enharmonic shifts, say Db C# or D# Eb in the same voice.
I did see the last two posts on the group. I am not totally against 12ET, I just think diatonic music cannot be written in a 12 tone notation. 12 tone music can be written in and needs such a notation. I was trying to demonstrate why I believe this to be so, and why I believe there is a difference between the two. And why I have an interest in music notation, both 12 tone and the more esoteric forms that depict actual tonal relations accurately.This is why I have no trouble with H as a key in german as it's a chromatic tone, but I have problem with your H I J K and L because they erase the enharmonic relation.
In my writings about 12 tone music I am forced by convention to use TN to depict 12 tone examples, so I didn't appreciate being taken out of context. If we had a 12 tone notation that people generally understood then my examples would have been in that.
It is imperative to understand the enharmonic relation in diatonic music, and it's impossible to discuss music notation properly without an appreciation of the real structures in diatonic music and what tuning systems do when representing it, or removing it in the case of 12ET. I don't think people appreciate there are many subtleties and intricacies, and so often people start with the keyboard, and thereby miss entirely the richness of tonality.
The paradox is that composers from the renaissance onwards, especially Bach expected the enharmonic relation to work both ways, as an equivalence (g#=ab) and as *two different notes*. The legacy of this is still with us today.
I hope this goes some way to explaining my position.RegardsMarkMark,
Are there other groups you are in or could join to get more satisfaction with your ideas?
Good luck with your endeavours!
I guess we have indeed come to an impasse.
You say there are no such keys as K major or J minor. I have played in them since the age of 17 and I’m now 72! They are the Black Key Etude and the Barcarolle of Chopin. They are the Eb minor prelude and D# minor fugue in WTC Bk 1 of J S Bach. Why do most editions reprint the fugue in Eb minor? When I play it in J, there is zero information lost.
What about the German key H? Does it exist or not?
OK I am bombarding you with questions again.
Bye for now,
John
On 10 Apr 2021, at 8:51 pm, Mark Gould <equit...@gmail.com> wrote:JohnI think we will also have to beg to differ - you simply cannot consider diatonic music without thinking in sharps and flats. Doing what you do merely exposes the issue central to temperament, but 'elides' it. The thinking is still there but you merely 'use the symbol' which is just the same as pressing a key on the piano. The problem is that I think you misunderstand the purpose of notation. The problem is that 'reformed' notation schemes *start* with the a priori notion of the twelve notes - which is fundamental disconnect between what TN is *for* and what composers/theorists devised reformed notations for a very different music. The confusion is down to the piano keyboard and I've already tried to dispose of the 'tablature' issue.The 'key clock' you mention is a direct result of the ET scale, but this is a 'representation', of the line of fifths. We can make other 'clocks' of 19 / 31 and other numbers that embed a representation of the diatonic within. Are they wrong? No they are not, and these do include sharps and flats. Would we, if we had such a keyboard as the 19 tone one, be arguing about this in the same way? This is hypothetical, I grant, but it exposes deep misunderstandings about "notation". And why we don't have 'K major' or 'L minor', as your key clock would imply.I did a private email because I have decided to leave the group. I feel I am beating my head against a brick wall of understanding - that the 12 tone scale and the diatonic scale (including the different keys) are *completely different things*. They cannot ever be equated. This is the fundamental failure of modern music theory. It leads everyone into the trap that the diatonic scale *is* the white notes of the piano and that A flat *is* g sharp. It isn't, and the sooner people realise this the better it would be. The Diatonic Scale is a construct with implications and ramifications far far wider. TN makes a stab at capturing those relations, but it is imperfect. The issue is that people sit at a piano keyboard and think what they see is *all there is* - it's not - it's a shadow of something, and then perceptually they lose the real thing that lies beyond what the piano keyboard merely represents.There is a deep semantic issue here which is obscured by the 'syntax' of notation. If you understand the semantics of the diatonic scale, you cannot do without the ideas of chromatic alteration and so forth. But, composers in the 20th century got to understand they were no longer writing using that scale so its structures were no longer relevant. Hence their desire for a notation that didn't require chromatic alteration of notes. Notation reform is linked very firmly to a development of the language, and this is completely different requirement for a 'notation' that gives each key on the piano its own note. TN is designed for 'tonal' music because it makes no 'temperament requirement' for how you might play it; why shoehorn it into a 12-tone notation?I'm going to leave it there.MarkOn 10 Apr 2021, at 11:02, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:My paragraph showed that by considering tonal movement around the key clock, this is the equivalent of your thinking in terms of sharp or flat keys, but I just think of the right or left side of the key clock and relative movement around it. I tried to go into the ES theory to show you that there is an equivalence without necessary keeping the complexity of enharmonic note naming.I feel we are not communicating too well here, in that I ask specific questions, but you reply with your generalised theory without answering me.I do understand most of the points you make here. I will look into the renaissance vocal music, but I get the impression you don’t really try to look at my points or consider my specific questions much.On another topic, Im wondering why you have opted to do private email to me instead of the public forum? Part of my aim is to air my thoughts and explanations more widely so as to attract various diverse responses.And why have you labelled this email stream “ledger lines”??Just curious!Maybe we need a meta-discussion.Maybe your idea of a music notation is much wider that the 12 note criterion of the MNP, so no suggested systems in this site would satisfy you.Do you like TN? Do you want to expand it to a more comprehensive system which accommodates commas, deliniations of E as major thirds vs 4 perfect 5ths etc? What about all the different TN clefs? Keep or unify? What instruments do you play yourself?More question, I know, i am sorry …Regards,JohnOn 10 Apr 2021, at 7:03 pm, Mark Gould <equit...@gmail.com> wrote:HI JohnThis paragraph illustrates the point I have been making all along. Diatonic music *requires* an understanding that there are sharps and flats, you cannot interpret this music without them. The keyboard is a convenience for the *performance* or *rendering* of this music. The scale and its structures lie *outside* this rendering.For some, they just want to make sure they want to press the correct key, but as sooon as you want to know what's going on in the music, you need to know when a note is a sharp or a flat or even a double sharp or a double flat.My circle of fifths was meant to say - this is what diatonic music is - an endless sequence, within which we make music. We *approximate* this infinity. TN has evolved to notate this infinity, and it is *interpreted* as 'enharmonic' at a point for a given tuning/temperament. I suggest you acquaint yourself with renaissance vocal music to understand just how big this infinity is; d'India, Gesualdo, Vicentino.Even the line of fifths as you know is only a tiny part of the story, as when major thirds intrude, we get even more variety of pitches (the E a proper major third above the C is not the same as the E four fifths above). So the reality of diatonic music is huge. TN is silent on the matter of 'commas' and other very small intervals. For reasons of practicality, we find a pair of points on the 'line of fifths' that lie close enough together to declare "we will assume them to be the same note and adjust all the fifths accordingly", and from this a temperament happens. And not just at the Ab = G# point.When I speak of notation, I am thinking of the richness of musical expression. Notation is on the one hand a convenience, but it is _not_ the basis of the music - it is a 'representation' of something far more complex. To remove the sharps and flats from diatonic music then misses the meaning for its basis. Its a bit like a colour palette - you can render an image in a few colours or even black and white, but something is lost from the original, but the original is still there implying the full range of colour.But, when one *chooses* the basis of music to be the twelve tones (and therefore _not diatonic_), then TN becomes a chore. And this is leaving aside any other possible scales.RegardsMarkOn 10 Apr 2021, at 03:04, John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:I would keep the sharp and flat terminology as a historical archive, just as we keep roman numerals, but they don’t appear in the notation as # or b signs. But you can discern them in a piece by these methods above. In fact, in playing from ES, I must mentally track the tonality around the key clock in order to understand it, rather than just blindly pressing black and white keys.
Mark,
I've been investigating music notations from the perspective of computerizing them.
My original purpose was not to perform but to enter and edit. I was planning to use the computer to play the accompaniment while I sing.
(Obviously, this paradigm could work for any solo performer.)
It occurred to me (and apparently many others) that it would be easier to invent a notation that is easy to computerize
than to computerize existing notation. So called piano roll is about the easiest to do.
Klavarskribo, of course, was invented for the purpose of being mechanically produced.
If the computer is the performer, MIDI works well,
but it is missing some function the prevents it from being a satisfactory encoding for scores that will be read by human performers.
But looking at notation led me to your question: what is it we are really trying to notate?
Which ultimately gets to the question: what is music?
It seems to me music is about patterns and progressions:
Set an expectation, perhaps via repetition.
Challenge it.
Resolve it.
Repeat with a sequence of more interesting challenges.
If you accept my notion that music is about patterns and progressions, comparison and contrast,
then the "ideal" notation would expose the patterns and progressions, similarities and contrasts.
It would not only express "letters" but also syllables, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc.
It would enable one to recognize harmony and dissonance, theme and variation, climax and resolution, etc.
The simple rise and fall of notes on a staff exposes some of the "progression" in melodies,
and I've experimented with shape notes as a way of exposing melody relative to scale or tonality.
I've used Pertchik's tri-color and my own quad-shape noteheads (Chromatonnetz) as a way of exposing harmonic intervals.
I've tried the ought-to-be simple idea of breaking lines at phrase boundaries to expose form
(it ought to be a lot simpler than it is in typical commercial score software).
I think traditional rhythm notation actually hides the rhythm, and coupled with the aversion to splitting lines at phrases,
obscures the repetition and progression of rhythm patterns. I tend to favor time-proportional notations.
But I must confess to not having yet tackled the challenge of representing harmonic progressions, cadences, etc.
The other challenge for music notation is the beginning student.
Many proposals for a "better" notation seem to arise from the frustration of would-be musicians trying to master an instrument
while also having to decode our arcane notation. That should tell us something:
whatever the virtues of Traditional Notation, it might not be the best way to introduce students to music.
Why not have the student develop basic facility with an instrument, and learn the rudiments of *music*, before forcing the student to decode "professional" notation?
For that matter, with available technology, why not create instruments that are intuitively and ergonomically easier to play?
Joe Austin aka DrTechDaddy
"Music is Poetry;
Why print it as Prose?"
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/B88CDDFF-4797-4A71-9473-7DE95779A244%40gmail.com.
Mark,
Yes, but...
Regarding form:
When humans perform music, "lines" have a maximum effective length--how long one can sustain a breath, or the stroke of a bow, etc.
I understand in some polyphonic music, the voices overlap. But for any individual performer, there are still lines.
But I agree, the conductor score may be a challenge.
Some hymnals actually do break lines in the middle of a measure, to match the lyric breaks, yet we are still able to "count" the time.
My point is that it's often do-able to print 4 measures per line (the typical line length for a song), but publishers seem to prioritize saving paper.
Of course, if one is viewing the score on a tablet, as many do these days, there is no "paper" to save,
and it's easy enough to turn the screen landscape for longer lines.
Regarding accidentals vs equal temperament:
I've seen many arguments. I've even read proposals to use strict just-intonation.
I would argue that if you really want to notate just intonation, you would want to at least distinguish a minor from a major third.
Traditional notation obscures the difference by using the same staff separation for both major thirds, e.g. C-E, and minor thirds,
e.g. E-G. Even traditional sharps and flats are not enough.
True just/Pythagorean/diatonic notation would seem to require at least two and up to four separate Pythagorean scales for all possible "stacked thirds" tetradic chords,
even limiting the intervals to 1:2:3:4:5:6 (octave, fourth/fifth, and major/minor thirds/sixths) and multiples. And that doesn't even include 1:3:5:7 chords, etc.
12-TET is satisfactory for equal-tempered instruments, and I would suspect, for modern orchestral scores.
Soloists on continuous-pitch instruments might be better served by some kind of shape-note or numerical system,
which could identify the exact pitch or interval intended.
So I claim it is disingenuous to advocate for TN vs 12-tone on the grounds of "just" intonation--neither is fully satisfactory.
If you really want to preserve the "meaning" of pre-ET music, you must of course address tuning as well as notation.
Some performers actually do this.
Both of the above suggest that the ideal individual performer's score may need to be part and instrument specific,
yet reconcilable to a generic reference notation for the composer/conductor.
With modern computer technology, this is not unreasonable.
I have been focusing my efforts on the sort of pieces that appear in typical beginner methods and pop fake-books--
typically 16-32-bar songs, 1-4 pages, perhaps excerpted from longer classical works.
I think this represents the most problematic area--the "music" encountered by the beginner.
I suspect that, for larger works, the performer does not really "read" so much as use the score as cue-cards to supplement memory.
Indeed, virtuoso performers typically perform completely from memory. And folk artists perform "by ear."
Joe Austin aka DrTechDaddy
From: musicn...@googlegroups.com <musicn...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Mark Gould
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 4:21 AM
To: musicn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MNP] Gabriel Music Notation by William Tapley
Hi Joe,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the forum of the Music Notation Project (hosted by Google Groups).
To post to this group, send email to musicn...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Music Notation Project | Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to musicnotatio...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/6B7DCF01-B697-41C8-9BB1-F8E4FC61CBC4%40gmail.com.
Mark,
Yes, but...
Regarding accidentals vs equal temperament:
So I claim it is disingenuous to advocate for TN vs 12-tone on the grounds of "just" intonation--neither is fully satisfactory.
If you really want to preserve the "meaning" of pre-ET music, you must of course address tuning as well as notation.
Some performers actually do this.
Joe Austin aka DrTechDaddy
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/1D8D06AE-0966-4051-8254-938F6AAC9EFB%40gmail.com.
JohnWe obviously hear music differently. I hear the german 6ths as german sixths. The classic example ofthe pun you speak is in Beethoven 5th in the slow movement when a dominant 7th from A flat is turned into a german sixth. If you can't hear the subtle shift in the violins on the change into a german 6th, as is quite clear in the score and the musicians _can_ see this, I am very surprised.
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/92331521-7C56-49D9-988A-78C98B3147FA%40gmail.com.
Hi John,I think the violins go up a little so in this case F# is higher than the Gb, as you correctly point out their tendency to pull leading notes up.Even if they were the same pitch, it's just my point about it having been written as Gb then later as F# for the purposes of conveying his meaning... "it *was* this note, *now* I mean it as an aug 6th".As a corollary - how do you name intervals in Es, without the way that TN can label notes? Most 12ET notations could name them as some number of semitones. But, what would someone say who only had a 12ET version of the Aug6th Ic V7 I progression? The same issue happens with augmented seconds.I forgot about the subscription thing. I have print copies of a good deal of the writings - this is in my copy of Perle's "The right notes". Not sure what subscriptions cost but:A tiny synopsis is that composers use notation to convey meaning in their music, and that how notes are spelled (Gb or F# for example) is a key to understanding how a composer 'self analyses' their works through their notational choices. The main part of the article is about Scriabin's late piano music, which despite evidently being in 12ET, using octatonic scales and other types of 'pitch-class collections', Scriabin notates in a very consistent way to emphasise the interval cycles. This leads to bizarre spellings of notes and intervals, e.g. diminished 9ths or augmented 7ths instead of octaves, but from these spellings it is possible to get at Scriabin's meaning of the progressions and chords.In the Beethoven example the arrival of the D# can't be heard differently from an Eb, obviously. The notation conveys the meaning change, which is what I've been trying to make my point about. Lose that differentiation in notation and you lose the meaning.On the other hand, this, from Schoenberg's 4th String Quartet
<image2.jpeg>
is meaningless in TN as none of those notations actually mean what they do: that 1st violin line looks like it's in a sort of extended Bb or Gminor which the TN implies. This music *needs* a 12ET notation. As does this from Bartok, which TN is having fits over trying to actually notate at all...
<image3.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/musicnotation/AAED5BA0-5A74-4D2F-B6E6-3E0CAB879558%40gmail.com.