4 ms·

Hi Dave, Thanks for checking it out! I definitely agree; traditional notation is quite more suggestive, though I don't know how much this is because of previo

Hi Dave, Thanks for checking it out! I definitely agree; traditional notation is quite more suggestive, though I don't know how much this is because of previous exposure to it. The long term question here, I believe, is whether the cognitive overhead of using hexnot can converge to the cognitive overhead of using traditional notation. When you learn it, a notation should make things as easy as possible; so I'm interested in finding out empirically if hexnot has actual value as a notation for memorizing, interpreting and composing. As for an editor, I am considering the idea of writing a parser for hexnot, which could also generate some other kind of output, but not at this moment :). And, of course, if you're interested in experimenting with this, I'll be glad to be of help. Cheers!

davelnewton 9y ago
It's more suggestive because the shape of the music is visible; the interval relationship is tangible. Humans are visual creatures (by and large). The memorization of played music is generally proprioceptive; while the music may still be read, it has more to do with relating structure to the playing appendages once you know the piece.
- fpereiro 9y ago
  You're absolutely right; hexnot is way less visual than the standard notation. I am a quite non-visual person and I think that's part of the reason I'm inclined towards this approach. Hexnot seems to draw more on the formal and perhaps also linguistic parts of the brain. I also find very reassuring the 1:1 relationship between the numbers and the actual notes, which lets them stand a little bit more in the realm of a symbolic ideal, and less dependent on a position in the staff. Thank you for commenting!