5 ms·

What a mess. Have there ever been any serious efforts toward “modernizing” musical notation?

rewgs 8y ago
It's really not a mess. It's a solution to a problem, and it works well. To give you an idea of how not-a-problem it is, many composers (myself included) prefer to read orchestral scores (so, a page will have roughly 15-20 staves) that are transposed. So, instead of reading each instrument in the same key, we see what each player is reading. If the concert key is C, I'll see the clarinets and trumpets reading in D, etc. I prefer it because you get a better sense of how the music feels to each individual player, and can better respond to any issues they're having. It's a mess to look at, I guess, but to any reasonably well trained musician, it's clear as day and conveys far more useful information than the "cleaner" way of seeing everyone in the same key, which really just obfuscates what's really going on.
- thosakwe 8y ago
  Besides, the only reason different instruments are written in different keys is because that’s how they’re pitched. So if there even is a “problem,” that’s it.
- matell 8y ago
  my guess is, the world of music theory seems like an epic mess to a novice due to the fact that it maintains full backward compatility and is instrument agnostic. e.g. there is a concept named "octave", but it actually consists if 12 intervals (on chromatic scale), and "mysteriously" there is no B# between B and C, and so on. it is like leaving types and pointers in every programming language, even if the lang is Ruby which is "typeless" and has garbage collector.
  - rewgs 8y ago
    I think that the problem is you're not learning in order -- like, if you learn functions before variables or data types, you're gonna be confused. Those things you mentioned actually make perfect sense when you arrive at them with the following assumptions/understandings: -Western music is founded (not limited to, but founded) on the concept of a "tonal center." -Western music is founded (again, not limited to, but certainly founded on) limiting the number of available pitches to those available in the equal temperament system, which is to say that the distance between the smallest internal, a half-step, is equal. This means that no tonal centers, or "keys," are favored by the tuning system. In the past certain keyboards might have been tuned to favor pieces written in G, for example. On a "G keyboard," a 5th from G to D would actually be a different number of cents than a 5th from, say, D to A (more on that in a moment). -Western music also tends to like returning to said tonal centers. Going away from it -- tension, and returning -- release. It's emotionally satisfying and, while I'm only really barely scratching the surface, this concept can explain a lot. With all this in mind, the "octave" thing makes sense, because for whatever reason, humans like to resolve to tonal centers in a similar fashion -- the basic culmination of all of this is a major key, which no matter what your tonal center is, can be created by starting at a note (let's say C for simplicity), and then counting up the following interval pattern: WWHWWWH, where W = whole step, and H = half step. Therefore, the key of C is C D E F G A B (and then C to complete the final half-step at the top, but we already said that tone so it doesn't need to be included -- but, C to C is 8 notes!). If the tonal center (or "tonic") is C#, then your major scale is spelled C# D# E# F# G# A# B#. This can answer your B/B#/C question: yes, from the "perspective" of a major scale in the key of C, which unfortunately is what most "layman" musicians tend to think of when they think of a scale due to where music education usually starts, then yes, no B# exists, and the "gap" seems in-congruent, inconsistent, a flaw in the system, like something was bolted on to make it work. But from the "perspective" of C#, then not only does a B# exist, but so does an E#! It's actually a very elegant and, I guess you could say, "self-correcting" system. The lack of a B# from the "C major perspective" is actually a fault of our tendency to start there, but is also an inevitable outcome of a system that is designed to treat all keys equally. If anything, Western music terminology has a "tonality" bias, which is true, and might be what you're running into and what is confusing you. Once you start really stretching the limits (but this stuff really isn't at all pertinent to this discussion, or really what most people would generally like to listen to...it tends to mostly exist in academic circles), the limitations of the terminology become obvious. But mostly, it perfectly reflects what the vast majority of our music is. The only thing I'm not quite getting from your post is bringing up backwards compatibility. I get the sense that you're trying to express a fuzzy concept and are arriving at the nearest programming terminology, but I'm not sure what that concept is. Backwards compatibility doesn't really make any sense in the context of harmony. If anything, it technically breaks backwards compatibility with music written before equal temperament was fully adopted, since music written using other tuning systems now sound slightly different. Can you try explaining what you mean by it more? Maybe I can help out.
- burfog 8y ago
  It's a mess. The relevant badness is that the interval from one line to the next is not constant. This makes transposition far more difficult than it needs to be. If the 12 notes of the octave were on 6 lines and 6 spaces, perhaps with a distinct (dotted, wavey, thick, missing, etc.) line to aid in not getting lost, the situation would be far better. There wouldn't need to be a key signature at all, or any accidentals. Stack as many octaves as needed for the part. Probably we'll never transition to something sane. We can't even manage to get grand staves with middle C in a unique (shared, central) position, which is what you want when hand distinction isn't required.
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    But this papers over a lot of useful information. An accidental is clearly marked when we use a key signature. A stack of twelve tones does not clearly mark which tones belong to the key center and which do not. This is very useful information when reading. We use twelve tones, but most harmony is arranged in seven note scales. Representing those scales easily is important.
  - rewgs 8y ago
    Question, so I better understand where you're coming from: are you a musician, and if so, at what level would you consider yourself?
    - burfog 8y ago
      I suppose I understand this stuff far better than most people who have bothered to learn an instrument. I frequently arrange music for flute, trumpet (my primary instrument), and garklein recorder. I'm at the level where usability matters. Top experts, not that there are enough of them to care about, can handle anything. Beginners will be lost in any case. I would greatly prefer a chromatic notation. Accidentals ought to be reserved for quarter-tone needs. Chromatic notation gives music the same shape on the page no matter what pitch it is transposed to; this is an extremely valuable property. Sight-transposition would be trivial. Imagine a world in which an ordinary clarinet player could play music for the flute, horn, or bassoon. Sight-transposing, even by other than an octave, would be easy for most players.
zozbot123 8y ago
Sheet music notation actually works very well at conveying what it needs to. Transposing instruments are a bit of an annoyance if you need to read, e.g. a full score, but they come with the huge advantage for the player of working a bit like guitar tabs - the note position tells you instantly how to play it, no matter how the instrument is pitched. It is a good compromise.
mrob 8y ago
The chromatic staff approach does away with key signatures and accidentals entirely, which makes transposition trivial: http://musicnotation.org/ http://musicnotation.org/ This sacrifices vertical density, but density can be recovered by using finer vertical resolution and using notehead color to clarify position so it's still readable.
jdietrich 8y ago
It's a mess in the same sense that Vim and Emacs are a mess. Traditional notation is designed to be maximally efficient for expert users at the expense of being more difficult to learn.
- roryokane 8y ago
  I disagree that the notation is maximally efficient for expert users. Transposed notation does make it easier for expert players of the instrument to learn fingerings for multiple instruments, but as zozbot123 mentioned, the notation makes it harder for expert readers of sheet music to read a score for multiple instruments and imagine the resulting sounds in their head. I think a maximally efficient notation would not have that drawback.

It's really not a mess. It's a solution to a problem, and it works well. To give you an idea of how not-a-problem it is, many composers (myself included) prefer to read orchestral scores (so, a page will have roughly 15-20 staves) that are transposed. So, instead of reading each instrument in the same key, we see what each player is reading. If the concert key is C, I'll see the clarinets and trumpets reading in D, etc. I prefer it because you get a better sense of how the music feels to each individual player, and can better respond to any issues they're having. It's a mess to look at, I guess, but to any reasonably well trained musician, it's clear as day and conveys far more useful information than the "cleaner" way of seeing everyone in the same key, which really just obfuscates what's really going on.

thosakwe 8y ago
Besides, the only reason different instruments are written in different keys is because that’s how they’re pitched. So if there even is a “problem,” that’s it.
matell 8y ago
my guess is, the world of music theory seems like an epic mess to a novice due to the fact that it maintains full backward compatility and is instrument agnostic. e.g. there is a concept named "octave", but it actually consists if 12 intervals (on chromatic scale), and "mysteriously" there is no B# between B and C, and so on. it is like leaving types and pointers in every programming language, even if the lang is Ruby which is "typeless" and has garbage collector.
- rewgs 8y ago
  I think that the problem is you're not learning in order -- like, if you learn functions before variables or data types, you're gonna be confused. Those things you mentioned actually make perfect sense when you arrive at them with the following assumptions/understandings: -Western music is founded (not limited to, but founded) on the concept of a "tonal center." -Western music is founded (again, not limited to, but certainly founded on) limiting the number of available pitches to those available in the equal temperament system, which is to say that the distance between the smallest internal, a half-step, is equal. This means that no tonal centers, or "keys," are favored by the tuning system. In the past certain keyboards might have been tuned to favor pieces written in G, for example. On a "G keyboard," a 5th from G to D would actually be a different number of cents than a 5th from, say, D to A (more on that in a moment). -Western music also tends to like returning to said tonal centers. Going away from it -- tension, and returning -- release. It's emotionally satisfying and, while I'm only really barely scratching the surface, this concept can explain a lot. With all this in mind, the "octave" thing makes sense, because for whatever reason, humans like to resolve to tonal centers in a similar fashion -- the basic culmination of all of this is a major key, which no matter what your tonal center is, can be created by starting at a note (let's say C for simplicity), and then counting up the following interval pattern: WWHWWWH, where W = whole step, and H = half step. Therefore, the key of C is C D E F G A B (and then C to complete the final half-step at the top, but we already said that tone so it doesn't need to be included -- but, C to C is 8 notes!). If the tonal center (or "tonic") is C#, then your major scale is spelled C# D# E# F# G# A# B#. This can answer your B/B#/C question: yes, from the "perspective" of a major scale in the key of C, which unfortunately is what most "layman" musicians tend to think of when they think of a scale due to where music education usually starts, then yes, no B# exists, and the "gap" seems in-congruent, inconsistent, a flaw in the system, like something was bolted on to make it work. But from the "perspective" of C#, then not only does a B# exist, but so does an E#! It's actually a very elegant and, I guess you could say, "self-correcting" system. The lack of a B# from the "C major perspective" is actually a fault of our tendency to start there, but is also an inevitable outcome of a system that is designed to treat all keys equally. If anything, Western music terminology has a "tonality" bias, which is true, and might be what you're running into and what is confusing you. Once you start really stretching the limits (but this stuff really isn't at all pertinent to this discussion, or really what most people would generally like to listen to...it tends to mostly exist in academic circles), the limitations of the terminology become obvious. But mostly, it perfectly reflects what the vast majority of our music is. The only thing I'm not quite getting from your post is bringing up backwards compatibility. I get the sense that you're trying to express a fuzzy concept and are arriving at the nearest programming terminology, but I'm not sure what that concept is. Backwards compatibility doesn't really make any sense in the context of harmony. If anything, it technically breaks backwards compatibility with music written before equal temperament was fully adopted, since music written using other tuning systems now sound slightly different. Can you try explaining what you mean by it more? Maybe I can help out.
burfog 8y ago
It's a mess. The relevant badness is that the interval from one line to the next is not constant. This makes transposition far more difficult than it needs to be. If the 12 notes of the octave were on 6 lines and 6 spaces, perhaps with a distinct (dotted, wavey, thick, missing, etc.) line to aid in not getting lost, the situation would be far better. There wouldn't need to be a key signature at all, or any accidentals. Stack as many octaves as needed for the part. Probably we'll never transition to something sane. We can't even manage to get grand staves with middle C in a unique (shared, central) position, which is what you want when hand distinction isn't required.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  But this papers over a lot of useful information. An accidental is clearly marked when we use a key signature. A stack of twelve tones does not clearly mark which tones belong to the key center and which do not. This is very useful information when reading. We use twelve tones, but most harmony is arranged in seven note scales. Representing those scales easily is important.
- rewgs 8y ago
  Question, so I better understand where you're coming from: are you a musician, and if so, at what level would you consider yourself?
  - burfog 8y ago
    I suppose I understand this stuff far better than most people who have bothered to learn an instrument. I frequently arrange music for flute, trumpet (my primary instrument), and garklein recorder. I'm at the level where usability matters. Top experts, not that there are enough of them to care about, can handle anything. Beginners will be lost in any case. I would greatly prefer a chromatic notation. Accidentals ought to be reserved for quarter-tone needs. Chromatic notation gives music the same shape on the page no matter what pitch it is transposed to; this is an extremely valuable property. Sight-transposition would be trivial. Imagine a world in which an ordinary clarinet player could play music for the flute, horn, or bassoon. Sight-transposing, even by other than an octave, would be easy for most players.

zozbot123 8y ago

Sheet music notation actually works very well at conveying what it needs to. Transposing instruments are a bit of an annoyance if you need to read, e.g. a full score, but they come with the huge advantage for the player of working a bit like guitar tabs - the note position tells you instantly how to play it, no matter how the instrument is pitched. It is a good compromise.

mrob 8y ago

The chromatic staff approach does away with key signatures and accidentals entirely, which makes transposition trivial: http://musicnotation.org/ http://musicnotation.org/ This sacrifices vertical density, but density can be recovered by using finer vertical resolution and using notehead color to clarify position so it's still readable.

jdietrich 8y ago

It's a mess in the same sense that Vim and Emacs are a mess. Traditional notation is designed to be maximally efficient for expert users at the expense of being more difficult to learn.

roryokane 8y ago
I disagree that the notation is maximally efficient for expert users. Transposed notation does make it easier for expert players of the instrument to learn fingerings for multiple instruments, but as zozbot123 mentioned, the notation makes it harder for expert readers of sheet music to read a score for multiple instruments and imagine the resulting sounds in their head. I think a maximally efficient notation would not have that drawback.