Klavarskribo

[Bernd Krause]

Hello,

I'm looking for any information about the notation system "Klavaskribo",
especially about its history, and also about experiences in practical use.

Thank you for your help
Greetings from Germany

Bernd

[jeannet...@aol.com]

Lieber Bernd,
Please look at Google: Klavarskribo and you will find hundreds, if not
thousends , of sites!!!
For any specific informations you can always refer to me.
I am a Dutch lady, living in France, practising Klavarskribo for over
60 years and teaching the piano
with it for over 30 years.
I was a member of MNMA since 1988, studied all other proposals for a
better notation, but there is nothing by loin
comparable with the logic and simplicity of klavarskribo!!

Grüsze , Jeannette De Buur

P.S. Sie können auch auf deutch schreiben!


-----E-mail d'origine-----
De : Bernd Krause <bgesc...@aol.com>
A : musicn...@googlegroups.com
Envoyé le : Lundi, 13 Juillet 2009 11:23
Sujet : [MNP] Klavarskribo

_________________
_______________________________________________________
Reçevez AOL Mail sur votre téléphone. Vos e-mails accessibles à tout
moment! Créez un e-mail gratuit aujourd’hui.

[Paul W Morris]

Hello Bernd,

You will find several links to Klavar(scribo) sites on this page:

http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/morenotations.html

Look under "More notation systems that use a chromatic staff".  

Greetings,

Paul

[Peter Jackson]

Dear Bernd,

you have reached the right person; but I am teaching an intensive piano course in China for this week.I will reply to you as soon as I get home.After 20 JULY.

 

Meanwhile, please look at www.klavarmusic.org  specially MEET THE TEAM  and Explanation of the system.

regards

Peter jackson

Director

Klavar Music Foundation of Gt Britain

Please send me your postal address

--
All the Best
Peter
(852)2982-1177
Mob 6771-2743

[jeannet...@aol.com]

Dear Peter,

I think we are doing the same thing: Collective courses sur portable
keyboards. I go until 10 persons.
Eager to know if we have the the way of working and the same results. I
also have courses of one week:
5 hours a day of intensive training. After 6 days practically everyone
-even complete beginners- plays
nr 35 of Pianoschool 1A, that is to say they are capable of playing a
melody in the right hand and the
rhythm in the left, opening the possibility of continuing seule with
Klavar!

Wish you good succes and hope to hear your results,
Best greetings,
Jean


-----E-mail d'origine-----
De : Peter Jackson <peters...@gmail.com>
A : musicn...@googlegroups.com
Envoyé le : Mardi, 14 Juillet 2009 13:09
Sujet : [MNP] Re: Klavarskribo

________________________________________________________________________

[John Keller]

Hi Jean,

Your intensive one week piano course sounds interesting. Is it mainly aimed
at adults? Did you design the course yourself? At 5 hours a day, what is the
timetable; do you have "lectures" then free practice times? Do you provide
refreshments, lunch etc? Do all people aim for the same end piece? And I am
interested to see what the end piece is that the people are aiming for.
Would it be possible to show us a pdf of this piece?

Cheers,
John K

[John Moriarty]

This is the first time I'm posting by email seeing as I'm having trouble posting on the site, so I'm not sure if this will respond to the topic or just start a new one.  If it is the latter, this is supposed to be a post in the Klavarscribo thread.

>but there is nothing by loin 

>comparable with the logic and simplicity of klavarskribo!!

I just want to point out that the klavarskribo staff, although yes reasonably easily applicable to other keys, still favors the tonal centering around the modes of C major.  This part of the notation beautifully compliments the terribly convoluted instrument of the piano.  The separation of the octave by two then three black lines is very convenient in visually separating the octave into sections but lacks continuity of the number of lines between intervals, and the fact that it specifically represents the the piano layout still creates an unfortunate mindset, one that visually differentiates C major and just happens to include all those other scales that fall outside of C.

This is opposed to a notation that symmetrically separates the octave and uses some other device to define where the octave repeats, therefore creating continuity in the number of lines between intervals and a mindset where all keys are exactly the same, as it should be.  The only sacrifice of these notation systems that treat all keys equally is the playability of one instrument: the piano, which does not readily display that concept.  Any other instrumentalist will find it easier to play most any chromatic staff other than the klavarscribo staff, and would avoid inheriting this false importance of C major.

Don't get me wrong, I readily accept and praise most of the concepts of the klavarscribo method, most simply the fact that it uses a chromatic staff.  One thing I particularly like about this method is the rhythmic notation, one that I had not seen until today except for when I proposed something very similar to it myself on this very site*, apparently not having done enough research!

So my point is that the concepts of the klavarskribo staff are, as you said, simple, but do not create a consistent pitch representation among lines, and still create the same convoluted mindset favored by traditional notation as well as by the piano itself.  This is detrimental to the understanding of music theory.  If the piano is taken out of the equation, there is absolutely no need for it. I think notation systems shouldn't compromise the understanding of music theory or playability for all other instruments merely for the ease of playing one.

John M

*

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5789/ghnotationsystem.jpg

http://groups.google.com/group/musicnotation/browse_thread/thread/bcd36e40cc6fca83

[Bernd Krause]

Liebe Jeannette,
dear responders to my question,

I'm going to continue writing in English here, because everybody
should be able to take part in the discussion (Privat werde ich Dich
gerne auf Deutsch kontaktieren).

Thanks to you and everybody else who responded. I think I have to
explain the background of my question: I am musicologist and
historian, so that is why I asked for details of Klavarskribo's
history. Furthermore I am active Esperanto-speaker, and the word
"Klavarskribo" ist actually taken form that artificial language. So I
asked myself, if there is any further connection between Klavarskribo
and Esperanto, e.g.: Was the inventor of Klavarskribo, C. Pot, also an
Esperantist, or where there any other fitting backgrounds?
The other thing is the similarity of the aims: Both Esperanto and
Klavarskribo want to be relatively easily learnable "systems of
communication" (in the farest sense). So I would like to examin the
way Klavarskribo has taken from the past up to our days in comparison
to the way Esperanto has done it - especially, as I wrote, concerning
the successes and maybe failures in teaching, learning, and
practising.
Maybe there will be a stronger connection between Esperanto and
Klavaskribo in the future?

Regards to all of you
Bernd

On Jul 13, 2:55 pm, jeannettedeb...@aol.com wrote:
> Lieber Bernd,
> Please look at Google: Klavarskribo and you will find hundreds, if not
> thousends , of sites!!!

Yes, I tried this, but, as you may conclude from my above written
posting, this doesn't provide me the needed information...

[Evan Lenz]

John Moriarty wrote:
>
> So my point is that the concepts of the klavarskribo staff are, as you
> said, simple, but do not create a consistent pitch
> representation among lines, and still create the same convoluted
> mindset favored by traditional notation as well as by the piano
> itself. This is detrimental to the understanding of music theory. If
> the piano is taken out of the equation, there is absolutely no need
> for it. I think notation systems shouldn't compromise the
> understanding of music theory or playability for all other instruments
> merely for the ease of playing one.

The "same convoluted mindset"? Surely they're at least two *different*
convoluted mindsets (that of playing the piano and that of using
traditional notation)?

Both traditional notation and Klavarskribo obscure certain things.
Whereas traditional notation obscures the choreography of the piano
keyboard, Klavarskribo obscures the continuity of voices (I've found)
and the uniformity of intervals regardless of key (as you pointed out).

Many people want to play the piano (convoluted or not) and may or may
not have an interest in playing other instruments. Personally, I'm very
interested in getting better at memorizing piano music, and I've found
that a pluralism of notations (external representations) has been
helpful here, just as a pluralism of internal representations (visual,
aural, conceptual, and muscle memory) have been helpful. Actually, I
only recently had the epiphany that the missing link in my own personal
memorization of piano music is visual memory of the keyboard. I
graduated with a B.M. in Piano Performance over 10 years ago, and this
is the first time I've ever employed visualization of the keyboard.
Klavarskribo is the closest notational approximation of that
visualization. I'm interested in exploring further externalizations of
that visualization (even more depictive images or photos or videos of
the keyboard, etc.) to help further test and reinforce my memory of a
piece. A nice side effect is that when I get closer to the musical
information at this low level, the higher-level concepts (of music
theory) are becoming more present to mind, i.e. more readily observed. I
wouldn't have guessed that this would happen. The different kinds of
representations support each other, one representation picking up the
slack where another is deficient. And of course, the internal
representations can't be so cleanly distinguished from each other.
They're all networked together in our brains in ways that we'll never
fully understand.

Practice comes before theory, and hopefully theory will always have a
practical purpose. I think it comes down to the question: what is your
goal in learning music? I've come to respect the fact that people have
many different goals. Sometimes they entail the use of one notation over
another. Sometimes they entail the study of music theory. Sometimes they
don't.

So my suggestion is that our critiques be conscious of underlying goals,
and of the possibility that it could be advantageous to learn and engage
with multiple notational representations of music, rather than just
picking one. I think the trap in this forum is to get so concerned with
finding the one perfect notation and defending it vigorously. Another
path would be to learn a piece in multiple notations and notice what new
observations each affords.

I think I will practice what I preach and see if I can get my hands on a
uniform/chromatic notation for Brahms Opus 118. Anyone have any idea how
to do that?

Thanks,
Evan

[John Keller]

I can help. Which piece in Op 118? I scan it in Capella scan, save as music
XML, open in Finale and do a bit of editing and then aply any AN I have a
staff style set up for. Sometimes the process takes as little as 30 min.

John K


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

[Evan Lenz]

I'm playing 5 pieces out of 6 (all except #4 because I ran out of time)
in a recital on Monday night for my neighbors. Let me pick one: how
about #2? As for an AN, I'd love to try out Express Stave. I just
watched your YouTube video about it and was impressed. Here's the link
for others' benefit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGnmiF5L2Xs

Thanks, John!

Evan

[John]

> The "same convoluted mindset"? Surely they're at least two *different*

> convoluted mindsets.

Because they both employ cetralization around the c major scale and
create a mindset where all other scales are merely modifications of
that scale, it is the same mindset. A mindset where one finds F# to
be empirically different from C because it has a certain number of
"sharps".

> Both traditional notation and Klavarskribo obscure certain things.
> Whereas traditional notation obscures the choreography of the piano
> keyboard, Klavarskribo obscures the continuity of voices (I've found)
> and the uniformity of intervals regardless of key (as you pointed out).

Notice how again the only priority is still the piano, an instrument
that, when a notation system is centered around it, creates a higher
difficulty for other instruments. Again, without piano in the
picture, other notation systems are a far better compromise among ALL
other instruments.

And you said

> Many people want to play the piano

But

Given an individual with an understanding of music theory (theory
about pitch relations, harmony, and intervals, not about how many
sharps or flats are in a certain key) and a choice between learning to
play the piano and a janko keyboard (or some other Isomorphic
instrument, meaning it can be played in any key the exact same way), I
guarantee you he would choose the non piano keyboard. My point here
is not that everyone should go out and buy a janko keyboard; that is
unrealistic seeing as there is a catch 22 about the lack of a market
due to a lack of interest and a lack of interest due to a lack of a
market. My point is that although yes people want to play the piano,
it is only because it is unique in its musical possibilities and
availability, and given an instrument that would not be obscured by a
symmetrical notation system with equal availability, anyone, I should
add anyone with no silly emotional attachment to the piano, would
prefer an isomorphic keyboard. Therefor the fact that people want to
play the piano really doesn't really help your argument. The only
reason for the piano is blind tradition and peoples unwillingness to
change. The klavarscribo method was born out of this same blind
adherence to tradition, and is completely unnecessary given a world
with an open mind to things outside new notation systems, such as new
instruments.

> it could be advantageous to learn and engage
> with multiple notational representations of music

It's easy for you to talk to talk about pluralism in notation systems
being advantageous seeing as klavarscribo and traditional notation,
some of the select few popularly accepted systems, favor the
instrument you so happen to play. I'm sure that there is a notation
system that is ideal for trumpet, and another for guitar, and another
for flute, and so on. Do you propose a new system be used for each? A
world where any instrument that displays a slightly different view of
music theory and is played through a different means gets its own
notation system is one in which there would be little inter-
instrumentalist cooperation.

> and may or may not have an interest in playing other instruments

It is our mission to find a compromise because there needs to be a
mutual understanding among musicians on how certain musical ideas are
expressed visually, not just because one who plays multiple
instruments would have to learn more than one otherwise.

> I think the trap in this forum is to get so concerned with
> finding the one perfect notation and defending it vigorously

Again, we search for the best compromise or “perfect notation” because
of the need for a common visual musical language, and it IS a
necessity. You say we defend it vigorously, as if we have found the
perfect one already, which we certainly have not. but if we were to
find it, it is unlikely that we could even know for sure that we had.
What we can do is judge how good of a compromise it is and decide its
value to all instruments compared to other systems. And of course I
would defend this hypothetical system vigorously if I thought the one
challenging it was not as good a compromise. If you proposed a better
system, and could convince me so, there would be no reason for me to
continue use of the old one. Unless of course, hypothetically, I was
emotionally attached to this system and the instruments that it
apparently would have favored. But that would be silly and immature,
to be unwilling to accept or at least support, a better idea because I
had already put forward so much mental and emotional effort learning
an inferior system.

John

[John Keller]

Hi Evan,

I attach the Brahms piece in Express Stave. The PDF shows the formal ES
font, and the MUS file shows the 6-6 "jazz" font. You will need to install
the font to see this in Finale.

You can get Finale NotePad 06 here:

Windows:
www.ausmidi.com/finale/notepad6.zip

Mac:
www.ausmidi.com/finale/FinNPMac2k6.dmg

This took quite a few hours work, since the cross staff and part writing was
tricky. And the cross staff results in some unnecessary legerlines, but
without doing an extra percussion map and staff style, this is unavoidable.

I played this piece myself from TN many times and I wanted to get it into ES
so thanks for the boost!

Enjoy your recital!

[Evan Lenz]

Hi John,

Very impressive! Thanks for all the work you put into it. I'm glad I
helped spur you onto doing something you had wanted to do anyway.

I'm still figuring out the notation. What is the significance of the red
note coloring in the Finale Notepad version?

Thanks again. This will make for some interesting study!

Evan

[Evan Lenz]

John wrote:
>> The "same convoluted mindset"? Surely they're at least two *different*
>> convoluted mindsets.
>>
>
> Because they both employ cetralization around the c major scale and
> create a mindset where all other scales are merely modifications of
> that scale, it is the same mindset. A mindset where one finds F# to
> be empirically different from C because it has a certain number of
> "sharps".
>
>

That clarifies what you mean. Thanks!

>> Many people want to play the piano
>>
>
> But
>
> Given an individual with an understanding of music theory (theory
> about pitch relations, harmony, and intervals, not about how many
> sharps or flats are in a certain key) and a choice between learning to
> play the piano and a janko keyboard (or some other Isomorphic
> instrument, meaning it can be played in any key the exact same way), I
> guarantee you he would choose the non piano keyboard. My point here
> is not that everyone should go out and buy a janko keyboard; that is
> unrealistic seeing as there is a catch 22 about the lack of a market
> due to a lack of interest and a lack of interest due to a lack of a
> market. My point is that although yes people want to play the piano,
> it is only because it is unique in its musical possibilities and
> availability, and given an instrument that would not be obscured by a
> symmetrical notation system with equal availability, anyone, I should
> add anyone with no silly emotional attachment to the piano, would
> prefer an isomorphic keyboard. Therefor the fact that people want to
> play the piano really doesn't really help your argument. The only
> reason for the piano is blind tradition and peoples unwillingness to
> change. The klavarscribo method was born out of this same blind
> adherence to tradition, and is completely unnecessary given a world
> with an open mind to things outside new notation systems, such as new
> instruments.
>
>

I suppose we can agree to disagree about whether wanting to play the
piano is blind, silly, and immature.

I'd like to learn to play a Janko keyboard too. I'm very intrigued by
them and by instrument innovation in general. I also like the piano, and
I don't see a conflict there. :-)

>> it could be advantageous to learn and engage
>> with multiple notational representations of music
>>
>
>
> It's easy for you to talk to talk about pluralism in notation systems
> being advantageous seeing as klavarscribo and traditional notation,
> some of the select few popularly accepted systems, favor the
> instrument you so happen to play. I'm sure that there is a notation
> system that is ideal for trumpet, and another for guitar, and another
> for flute, and so on. Do you propose a new system be used for each? A
> world where any instrument that displays a slightly different view of
> music theory and is played through a different means gets its own
> notation system is one in which there would be little inter-
> instrumentalist cooperation.
>
>

Ah, that's where we misunderstood each other. A special notation for
each instrument? Yes, why not? If it's shown to be a helpful supplement
to more common notations, why not? When I spoke of the advantages of
pluralism, I had in mind the advantages to a single musician of learning
multiple systems, such that each contribute to a different aspect of
understanding. I'm not suggesting that there should be no common
notation, or that people should not try to find a better compromise that
works across multiple instruments. However, I'm personally less inspired
by that project (finding a one-size-fits-all replacement for traditional
notation). I'm finding that exploring alternative music notations is
valuable regardless of an attachment to global reform. And if you let go
of global reform, it widely opens up the possibilities for how music can
be visually represented--to the point of considering that each piece of
music (not just each instrument) might justify its own sort of notation.
I'm guessing this goes well beyond the scope of the Music Notation
Project; with parameters this wide, the various notations on
musicnotation.org all start looking pretty alike.

>> I think the trap in this forum is to get so concerned with
>> finding the one perfect notation and defending it vigorously
>>
>
> Again, we search for the best compromise or “perfect notation” because
> of the need for a common visual musical language, and it IS a
> necessity. You say we defend it vigorously, as if we have found the
> perfect one already, which we certainly have not.

I think I spoke too strongly there. You're helping clarify what MNP is
about for me, i.e. that it's about global reform. However, its mission
is worded fairly broadly ("to explore alternative music notation
systems"), so I still wonder if everyone views it the way you do.

> but if we were to
> find it, it is unlikely that we could even know for sure that we had.
> What we can do is judge how good of a compromise it is and decide its
> value to all instruments compared to other systems. And of course I
> would defend this hypothetical system vigorously if I thought the one
> challenging it was not as good a compromise. If you proposed a better
> system, and could convince me so, there would be no reason for me to
> continue use of the old one. Unless of course, hypothetically, I was
> emotionally attached to this system and the instruments that it
> apparently would have favored. But that would be silly and immature,
> to be unwilling to accept or at least support, a better idea because I
> had already put forward so much mental and emotional effort learning
> an inferior system.
>
>

Culture isn't always based on logic. Music is a cultural phenomenon, and
it's even been known to be mixed up with emotion (gasp!). I hear what
you're saying, but you should also step back and listen to the way that
you're saying it (here and above). It sounds to me like this: "People
only want to play the piano because they live in the real world and not
in my more-perfect hypothetical world. If they still wanted to play the
piano in my more-perfect hypothetical world, then they would be silly
and immature." It comes across as inconsequential whining, which is
unfortunate since I think you have a valid point lurking there.

Evan

[jeannet...@aol.com]

Hi John,

I try to send you the Czerny peace in klavar, and to answer your
questions.
My one-week course is indeed mainly for adults. They may bring their
children from about 11 years on.
Timetable? Very cool. I try to feel how much they can absorb. Breaks
for coffee, thé, lunch, trampoline,
ball, singing, discovering instruments: piano, accordeon, flutes,
guitar.
Those who come from further away sleep in the dormitory and are
nourished. Others pay for lunch or bring
their picknick.

To learn the klavar -notation = finding the notes for any key (black,
white, low, high) on the keyboard, we need only some minutes.
As klavar is the image of the keyboard, it is not necessary to know
the names of the notes . In fact we
learn them much later. The first aim is to get used to the image:
look and touch!! It does not pass
the brains!!

Then starts the work of the fingers: two, three, four, five, right,
left, together, up, down.
simple tunes (read), right hand, left hand, together same notes,
together different notes.

Rhythms: notes can last one, two, three four beats. Even longer. They
last untill the next note appears
or till a "stop-sign" ("v") appears. Come also half notes, ( even
thirds and quarter-notes ).
We try to hear the rhythm of melodies, listening to the music that is
built in their e-keyboard.

Five days have ten half days. At the end they know at
least ten (easy )
pieces of music with the right way to play:
slowly, fast, soft, harder.....

What a pleasure to pass the Czerny-test: I give them the paper and
everybody tries to perform without help!
And they deserve their first diploma!!
Now they are able to read any music in klavar and to study any piece of
the klavarskribo catalogue in degree "b"( a-e).

Well this end is for everybody, but some came avec already some
experience ( e.g.: 2 years of lessons in TN when they were younger ..)
Of course they advance faster and I give them during the courses some
more difficult pieces.

I hope to have answered your many questions.

Greetings,
Jean











-----E-mail d'origine-----
De : John Keller <jko...@bigpond.net.au>
A : musicn...@googlegroups.com
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 15 Juillet 2009 1:02
Sujet : [MNP] Re: Klavarskribo

[John Keller]

Hi Evan,

I presume you understand how to read Express Stave from my YouTube video/s.

In Finale, you can write in 4 different "layers" which appear on screen as
different colours. Printouts and pdfs come out in black. I suggest you print
out the music as it looks less busy on paper. The layer buttons (1 to 4 on
the lower left of the screen) allow for part writing. Red is layer 2 and
green is layer 3.

It is interesting to compare reading the piece in TMN and ES and trying to
pinpoint the difference.

Thanks for your interest,

[John Keller]

Hi Jean,

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like a lot of organisation.
Congratulations! If you could just tell me the Opus number of the Czerny
graduation piece, I may be able to see it, rather than having to send me the
image. I do already have software to make Klavar images, as well as many
other notations.

Best wishes, and thanks again for the information.

John K

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

[John]

> I suppose we can agree to disagree about whether wanting to play the
> piano is blind, silly, and immature.

Sorry to sound like I'm attacking anyone who plays the piano, but the
alternate keyboards are so incredibly, vastly, undescribably easier to
play with next to zero sacrifice that if someone truly understood that
but wanted to play the piano merely because of tradition or emotional
attachment, I think I would go as far as to say that they are silly
and immature.

> A special notation for
> each instrument? Yes, why not?

I think here we really can just agree to disagree, it just seems to me
that anything more than simple symbols varying among instruments in
their notation would be extremely inconvenient. For people to have to
familiarize themselves with multiple notations to play multiple
instruments or an unlimited number of notations to just read other's
music, transcribe, or compose would be a nightmare.

> I think I spoke too strongly there. You're helping clarify what MNP is
> about for me, i.e. that it's about global reform. However, its mission
> is worded fairly broadly ("to explore alternative music notation
> systems"), so I still wonder if everyone views it the way you do.

Although you are correct, the statement is broad, I can see no other
end to this exploration other than as you put it "global reform" other
than the one you discussed about pluralism in notations, unless there
is no intended end and it is a pointless exorcise, only to give us
something to dream about. I hope not, because I'm not just dreaming
big; I really do think that global reform is possible, with the right
people supporting it and a loyal following with an open mind.
If this is the metric system, can we please be Europe, not the US?

> Culture isn't always based on logic. Music is a cultural phenomenon, and
> it's even been known to be mixed up with emotion (gasp!). I hear what
> you're saying, but you should also step back and listen to the way that
> you're saying it (here and above). It sounds to me like this: "People
> only want to play the piano because they live in the real world and not
> in my more-perfect hypothetical world. If they still wanted to play the
> piano in my more-perfect hypothetical world, then they would be silly
> and immature."

I think it's you that needs to really step back and listen to what
you're saying.

> Culture isn't always based on logic. Music is a cultural phenomenon, and
> it's even been known to be mixed up with emotion (gasp!)

Culture isn't based on logic, therefore we should accept the illogical
systems that arise from it!? Of coarse not! We should constantly
attempt to better the corrupt or imperfect societal systems that arise
from emotional persuasion. If we didn't globally reform systems that
are revealed to be illogical we'd still be using roman numerals. I'm
not saying emotion is always bad. I am saying emotion is never
directly a good influence on the creation of systems like musical
notation or instrumental invention, systems that become more
functional the more logical and intuitive you make them. Put your
emotion into the music itself, not the way we display it.

> It sounds to me like this: "People
> only want to play the piano because they live in the real world and not
> in my more-perfect hypothetical world. If they still wanted to play the
> piano in my more-perfect hypothetical world, then they would be silly
> and immature."

Like I already said, the advantages of the alternate keyboards and
notations are so great that if someone did want to play the piano in
this hypothetical world, it could ONLY be due to emotional attachment
to the instrument. This person that sacrificed his ability to better
express himself musically for nostalgia has every right to be called
silly and immature. Unless you see this person's willingness to
sacrifice his musical potential for his nostalgic attachment to a
physical, fleeting, ephemeral object, as some sort of poetic beauty.
In this case there is really nothing I can say but that that would be
silly and immature in and of itself.
And I think that my hypothetical world where we educate people about
the true nature of music and better possible avenues for musical
expression is not just my own, it is one that belongs to very many.
But still yes, that quote pretty much sums my up that part of my
argument.

Again, I realize that this sounds like an attack on you and on on all
piano players. But really it is an attack on ignorance, ignorance to
the true nature of music and ignorance of better solutions
instrumentally and notationally that would contribute to its display.

[Evan Lenz]

Hi John,

I don't think we'll get past some of our philosophical differences, so
I'd rather focus on where we agree.

I support yours and the Music Notation Project's efforts in finding a
better notation system to replace traditional notation. I also see there
are many opportunities besides this for making music more accessible
(which pretty much sums up my ambitions), including instrument
innovation (such as the Janko keyboard), instrument-specific visual
notations (such as Klavarskribo), video games for learning music,
pedagogical methods and exercises, etc. Some of these projects
necessarily have long time horizons (such as replacing TN); others can
be more productive more quickly. I'd like to have my fingers in a
variety of these projects. (Otherwise, I may go to the grave having
forgotten to enjoy music along the way since things aren't perfect yet.)

So I support Klavarskribo (as an alternative notation for the
traditional piano), and I support MNP's more ambitious project of
finding a new common notation. I think it's possible to be supportive of
both projects, and I encourage you to consider that just because someone
supports Klavarskribo doesn't mean they're opposed to any other innovations.

If you choose to see Klavarskribo as an evil that only impedes the MNP,
then I can at least encourage you in this: no one I've ever talked to
(outside of this forum) had ever heard of Klavarskribo when I told them
about it, including all the pianists I know. It's still barely a blip.
On another topic, I believe the only way we'll see real reform is if a
disruptive technology comes along (something along the lines of Jim
Plamondon's Thummer, but changed somehow so it has a bigger impact, such
as made as an iPhone application or something).

Evan

[Paul W Morris]

I wonder if some of the differences in views articulated by John M.
and Evan here are due to how the piano is, but isn't really, just
another instrument among others that one can take or leave -- it has a
privileged and hegemonic position in western music, composition, and
theory. It is hard to avoid it. Music students and teachers are
often expected to know how to play it. Traditional music notation and
the piano are tightly aligned, and music theory is taught through TMN,
making the piano the privileged instrument for learning music theory.
For example, all the keys are understood as transformations from C
major, rather than being derived from a consistent interval pattern,
just as they are learned on the piano. Intervals are obscured in the
notation and on the piano, making things harder than they need to be,
etc.

I like Evan's pluralistic approach to instruments and notation
systems, and I think the more of it the better so that alternative
instruments and notation systems can become legitimate options,
ultimately in the eyes of musical institutions (this will take awhile
since institutions are slow). If everyone had the option and could
simply choose whether or not to play and think with the piano and
traditional notation, or with another instrument and notation, then
that would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about
traditional notation (and the 7-5 piano layout).

(Then through use and experimentation, a consensus on a best common
notation for use with all instruments might emerge over time, in a
best-case scenario.)

Paul M

[John]

> So I support Klavarskribo (as an alternative notation for the
> traditional piano), and I support MNP's more ambitious project of
> finding a new common notation. I think it's possible to be supportive of
> both projects, and I encourage you to consider that just because someone
> supports Klavarskribo doesn't mean they're opposed to any other innovations.

Yes you're right. I'm sorry I assumed you preferred one completely
over the other.

> If you choose to see Klavarskribo as an evil that only impedes the MNP,
> then I can at least encourage you in this: no one I've ever talked to
> (outside of this forum) had ever heard of Klavarskribo when I told them
> about it, including all the pianists I know. It's still barely a blip.

I don't see it as evil but I do see it as an impediment to progress in
overall notation reform because it is instrument specific (which
although may be a legitimate approach, I'm still skeptical) and
because of the old mindset it preserves. Also, because it is so close
in mindset to the older system, it is a much easier transition and
therefor is far more likely to be followed than most any other system,
no matter which makes more sense given a clean slate. Although ease
in transition should be maximized, I don't think there should be the
compromises I have mentioned.
And the fact that it is not widespread does not mean it isn't one of
the most widespread compared to any other alternate system. It has
the most extensive library of transnotated material I've come across
so in relative terms it is very widely accepted.

Paul makes a great point when he says:

> If everyone had the option and could
> simply choose whether or not to play and think with the piano and
> traditional notation, or with another instrument and notation, then
> that would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about
> traditional notation (and the 7-5 piano layout).
> (Then through use and experimentation, a consensus on a best common
> notation for use with all instruments might emerge over time, in a
> best-case scenario.)

Perhaps this is the only way to have real reform. To make any and all
new notations and instruments be as available as possible to everyone
and hope that this would, eventually, lead to the best compromise as a
decision among a public that slowly becomes educated about alternate
systems. I am only worried that with the past influences of the piano
and traditional notation that something like klavarscribo would be
chosen as the best "compromise" because other chromatic layouts that
make more sense for every instrument other than the piano do not
mirror past tradition and therefor might not be duly considered.

> On another topic, I believe the only way we'll see real reform is if a
> disruptive technology comes along (something along the lines of Jim
> Plamondon's Thummer, but changed somehow so it has a bigger impact, such
> as made as an iPhone application or something).

Very true, I don't know if you are aware or not or if that's why you
mentioned it but that was, and still is, the plan. I believe Jim
still intends to devise applications for the iphone as well as
computer keyboards to go with the wicki/hayden layout and his JIMS
notation system.
http://www.thummer.com/thummusic.pdf

[Pasqualina]

Dear Bernd,

I recently uploaded a movie (from 1974!) about the history of Klavarskribo form the inventor himself.

You can find it in the Klavarskribo group on Facebook:

part 1 - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=250629951811133&set=o.717396891610646&type=3

part 2 - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=250637088477086&set=o.717396891610646&type=3

Hope you enjoy it!

Kind regards

Op maandag 13 juli 2009 11:23:30 UTC+2 schreef Bernd Krause:

[Shirley Vanderstelt]

Hi Jeannette, 
I an extensive library of Klavar music that is needing a new home. My father played organ for 40+ years with it and he no longer plays. Do you have any idea where I can find any interest in it? 

Thank you! 

[Pasqualina]

Hello Shirley,

 

Unfortunately Mrs.  Jeanne Magteld de Buur-Mirck (Jeannette) has passed away on 9^th April 2015.

She was a very appreciated member of our Dutch Klavarskribo association.

As your name sounds a  bit Dutch (but not as in the Dutch way: Van der Stelt) I just checked if your father is or was a previous member of us but I do not see his name mentioned. If that was the case, we could have posted your message and music list in our member forum.

 

As an alternative I suggest you offer your music in the Facebook group “klavarskribo sheet music and software”à  https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=klavarskribo%20sheet%20music%20and%20software. Maybe somebody might be interested there.

Good luck!

 

Kind regards

Mrs. P.B. (Pascal) Reijmers

secretary KVN

Op woensdag 28 juni 2017 20:12:55 UTC+2 schreef Shirley Vanderstelt: