5 ms·

We could have that same intelligibility for less-expert users if we didn't have all the legacy gunk. Of course, the expert users have a vested interest in havin

by tropo 8y ago

We could have that same intelligibility for less-expert users if we didn't have all the legacy gunk. Of course, the expert users have a vested interest in having a more-exclusive club. Nearly all of them would reject anything new. A simple improvement is to give each of the 12 common pitches within the octave a distinct position on the staff. This eliminates accidentals from typical music, leaving them only needed for quarter-tone compositions. Sight-transposition becomes trivial, possibly within reach of beginners.

0815test 8y ago
> A simple improvement is to give each of the 12 common pitches within the octave a distinct position on the staff. This doesn't work - the staff becomes too large, or the registral range it covers becomes way too small. The current staff has evolved to be readable without expressly counting the lines or spaces, via visual subitizing. If you add more lines, you lose this property and sight-reading becomes infeasible. Plus, diatonic pitch is actually meaningful in a musical sense, and it's useful to have a notation that references it. That's why we use for instance C, D, E, F, G and not <0>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <7>. (This also describes the very real problems w/ Klavarskribo, BTW.)
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Key signatures and accidentals have a practical benefit in indicating the tonal centre. All pitches are not equal, at least not at any given moment. Sharps and flats look like a kludgy hack, but they provide clear visual hints of highly relevant musical information.
- tropo 8y ago
  There are alternatives to just having a huge number of lines. Western music notation already has one: the grand staff has a gap in the middle. Simply put a gap with a single ledger line between each octave and you get a system that looks an awful lot like the current system. It's like spreading two octaves over a grand staff, but with a more modest gap in the middle. So you can still have sight-reading. You also get fully arbitrary sight-transposition, which today is only possible for the very most elite musicians.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    But you want each key to look different because physical instruments are all tied to a key. If every transposition looks the same then you've just turned a visual transposition problem into a physical transposition problem.
    - tropo 8y ago
      Physical instruments aren't really tied to a key. Transposing instruments only even exist because sight-transposing is so difficult. There is nothing fundamental about an instrument that makes it transposing. We only use that kludge because of the difficulty sight-transposing. Suppose you do have a transposing instrument though. It's in Bb, and you'd like to play music written for an instrument in F. Very few musicians can do that without hesitation. The same applies when there is a desire to shift the entire piece of music up or down. Perhaps you are using a hecklephone instead of a lupophone, so you shift everything up. Perhaps you just lost a trumpet player with an unusually high range, and thus need to shift everything down. It would be great to be able to expect all players of ordinary skill to be able to do this without hesitation. BTW, I'm aware that one needs to avoid troublesome notes and things like impossible trombone glissandos. This doesn't change the general truth of the above.
  - jayjader 8y ago
    > Western music notation already has one: the grand staff has a gap in the middle. Simply put a gap with a single ledger line between each octave and you get a system that looks an awful lot like the current system. Except that's not how a multi-staff partition works. Each staff has a clef that determines it's offset; they can be the same or wildly different. They also usually signify different "voices" or instruments, further encoding musical nuance beyond pitch and tone.
- zik 8y ago
  You say it doesn't work but it's been used in a variety of ways such as singing video games (eg. SingStar) and music trackers [1], and it works just fine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Working in a game where mistakes don't really matter and working for professional music production where mistakes and restarts cost $$$$$$$ are nowhere close to being the same thing.
ianamartin 8y ago
Sure. And orchestras can hire teams of page turners so that people can play more than 3 measures at a time without stopping. And conductors can . . . I don't even know what a staff that large would look like for a full orchestral score. I guess you can just give the conductor a screen and have it scroll continuously. And then the orchestras can hire an ops team to support the scrolling screens. Starts to sound a lot like the same kind of thinking that gave us service oriented architecture and a new javascript framework every week. Just hire shitloads of more people to make sure it all works when it needs to. Because it's easier for beginners! In fact, with this new notation system that simplifies everything so much, you could probably fire all the older more expensive musicians in the orchestra and hire a bunch of juniors for a lot less money!
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  They use screens and color cues for performances where a live orchestra plays back the soundtrack of a film in sync with the projection. Professional musicians are a lot more open to alternative representations and technology integration then you might be aware.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    The screens are for the conductor, not the musicians. They're following the conductor's direction and don't need to know what cues they're playing to, nor can they take their eyes off their score. There simply isn't the money in the budget to bugger about with clever ideas in a sync session. Merely having a session with an orchestra is already a luxury for many productions, because most composers can knock out a reasonably convincing orchestral soundtrack in VSL at a fraction of the cost. An orchestra is an extraordinarily efficient musical machine if they're doing what they were trained to do. If you want innovation, don't hire an orchestra - experiments get very expensive very quickly when you're paying ~$50 a minute for the privilege. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWGWQJVVBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWGWQJVVBI
- tropo 8y ago
  No, the height increase is only by a factor of 12/7, which is about an extra 71%. Compensating for this, there is a width reduction caused by the loss of accidentals. There is also no need to waste space on unused octaves, so there might not be any height increase at all for some pieces of music. Trivial transposition is a highly desirable property.
jdietrich 8y ago
>Of course, the expert users have a vested interest in having a more-exclusive club. I am an almost entirely self-taught jazz musician. I learned to read notation begrudgingly, assuming it to be an archaic hurdle put in place by snobbish classical musicians. My view of classical musicians has not changed, but my view of notation has. A lot of people think that programming languages are a similar archaic hurdle and set out to build a visual programming environment that will be easy for beginners to use. Somewhere along that journey, they invariably realise that a) syntax is one of the easiest parts of programming, b) there is no good visual metaphor for recursion and c) the Deutsch limit is a cruel master. You can do simple scripting with a box and arrow diagram, you can teach kids to blink an LED, but you can't write a compiler. The advantages of stave notation (and the disadvantages of alternative systems) are non-obvious, but they are very real. Critiques of notation usually sound like "command lines are stupid, everything should be a GUI" - they're not wrong per se, they just miss the point.
- 0815test 8y ago
  > ...there is no good visual metaphor for recursion... Now, now. You're on a site that's literally named after one!
- nixpulvis 8y ago
  I'm taking classical piano lessons currently, and I have much the same reaction. I don't love all the strict rules imposed by western music, but I do love the notation and theory, because it generalized in interesting ways across tunings and notation. Just like I learned C (for example) before imagining my own languages, or how I've learned many libraries before writing my own, I also appreciate the structure of classical notation for what it is.
- hnzix 8y ago
  >c) the Deutsch limit is a cruel master. I generally despise visual programming but MaxMSP does this pretty well. You can nest components in an almost object-oriented fashion. Prior textual programming experience doesn't massively help learning the language though, it's a whole different paradigm and it's def not easy for beginners.
zodiac 8y ago
But this would make it much harder to sight-sing typical melodies, eg one whose notes are all diatonic to G major. Reason: a melody whose notes are all diatonic to G is almost indistinguishable from one whose notes are all diatonic to C in your system while in the current one they are quite distinct. Furthermore, your system would make it very easy to count chromatic distance between notes, but harder to count the diatonic distance (or the scale degree a note lies on).
zik 8y ago
It's interesting how staunchly people will defend "standard Western musical notation" but I agree with you - from a design point of view it looks like notation originally designed to match a piano keyboard which has then had many years of extra features inelegantly bolted on to it. It works well enough for the keys of C or Am but gets progressively more ridiculous the further you depart from those keys. And transposition is a mess. Some people seem to think that standard musical notation is "right" and you can't possibly have any alternative notation and yet this is clearly false. There are at least two or three alternative forms of musical notation in wide use today. Most guitarists use tablature notation because it's better suited to that instrument - standard musical notation is less useful on guitar since it doesn't clearly capture the different ways that a single chord can be played. So it makes sense to have a special notation for that instrument. Secondly chord charts are used by musicians everywhere because they're very concise at conveying the chord structure of music and often that's all the information you need. Standard notation is just way too much information in that case. The third, less commonly seen form of musical notation is just like the one you've described. It's seen in video games like SingStar[1] and in modern music composition software such as Ableton Live[2] and others. It's used so often in music composition software because as you've noted it's very intuitive and far less cumbersome than standard musical notation. Transpositions become trivial and everything just makes more sense. [1] https://www.gamesmen.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/i/singstar_celebration_screenshot_5_.jpg https://www.gamesmen.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/im... [2] http://whereisdarran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-13-at-6.50.21-AM.png http://whereisdarran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-S...
- 0815test 8y ago
  > It works well enough for the keys of C or Am but gets progressively more ridiculous the further you depart from those keys. If you're in something other than C or Am, you're supposed to use key signatures to point that out and clean up the notation. C/Am is just the default. "Standard musical notation is ambiguous when used on guitar", actually it isn't if you mark strings and fingerings as needed. This is widespread practice, each instrument has its own "tweaks" on the basic system. Standard notation in particular is quite hard to work with on guitar, and one can see why so many people just rely on tablature - but ambiguous it's not. Chord charts may be "concise" but they don't actually convey harmonic structure very well, not least because of the multitude of informal conventions and the ambiguity that these create; figured bass notation (while admittedly not very well known) does a far better job of it overall. For example, "walking" bass lines become immediately apparent in thoroughbass.
lodi 8y ago
Accidentals and key signatures are a feature, not a bug. There's a reason we don't just write everything in C major.

by tropo 8y ago

0815test 8y ago

> A simple improvement is to give each of the 12 common pitches within the octave a distinct position on the staff. This doesn't work - the staff becomes too large, or the registral range it covers becomes way too small. The current staff has evolved to be readable without expressly counting the lines or spaces, via visual subitizing. If you add more lines, you lose this property and sight-reading becomes infeasible. Plus, diatonic pitch is actually meaningful in a musical sense, and it's useful to have a notation that references it. That's why we use for instance C, D, E, F, G and not <0>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <7>. (This also describes the very real problems w/ Klavarskribo, BTW.)

jdietrich 8y ago
Key signatures and accidentals have a practical benefit in indicating the tonal centre. All pitches are not equal, at least not at any given moment. Sharps and flats look like a kludgy hack, but they provide clear visual hints of highly relevant musical information.
tropo 8y ago
There are alternatives to just having a huge number of lines. Western music notation already has one: the grand staff has a gap in the middle. Simply put a gap with a single ledger line between each octave and you get a system that looks an awful lot like the current system. It's like spreading two octaves over a grand staff, but with a more modest gap in the middle. So you can still have sight-reading. You also get fully arbitrary sight-transposition, which today is only possible for the very most elite musicians.
- pishpash 8y ago
  But you want each key to look different because physical instruments are all tied to a key. If every transposition looks the same then you've just turned a visual transposition problem into a physical transposition problem.
  - tropo 8y ago
    Physical instruments aren't really tied to a key. Transposing instruments only even exist because sight-transposing is so difficult. There is nothing fundamental about an instrument that makes it transposing. We only use that kludge because of the difficulty sight-transposing. Suppose you do have a transposing instrument though. It's in Bb, and you'd like to play music written for an instrument in F. Very few musicians can do that without hesitation. The same applies when there is a desire to shift the entire piece of music up or down. Perhaps you are using a hecklephone instead of a lupophone, so you shift everything up. Perhaps you just lost a trumpet player with an unusually high range, and thus need to shift everything down. It would be great to be able to expect all players of ordinary skill to be able to do this without hesitation. BTW, I'm aware that one needs to avoid troublesome notes and things like impossible trombone glissandos. This doesn't change the general truth of the above.
- jayjader 8y ago
  > Western music notation already has one: the grand staff has a gap in the middle. Simply put a gap with a single ledger line between each octave and you get a system that looks an awful lot like the current system. Except that's not how a multi-staff partition works. Each staff has a clef that determines it's offset; they can be the same or wildly different. They also usually signify different "voices" or instruments, further encoding musical nuance beyond pitch and tone.
zik 8y ago
You say it doesn't work but it's been used in a variety of ways such as singing video games (eg. SingStar) and music trackers [1], and it works just fine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_tracker
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Working in a game where mistakes don't really matter and working for professional music production where mistakes and restarts cost $$$$$$$ are nowhere close to being the same thing.

ianamartin 8y ago

Sure. And orchestras can hire teams of page turners so that people can play more than 3 measures at a time without stopping. And conductors can . . . I don't even know what a staff that large would look like for a full orchestral score. I guess you can just give the conductor a screen and have it scroll continuously. And then the orchestras can hire an ops team to support the scrolling screens. Starts to sound a lot like the same kind of thinking that gave us service oriented architecture and a new javascript framework every week. Just hire shitloads of more people to make sure it all works when it needs to. Because it's easier for beginners! In fact, with this new notation system that simplifies everything so much, you could probably fire all the older more expensive musicians in the orchestra and hire a bunch of juniors for a lot less money!

anigbrowl 8y ago
They use screens and color cues for performances where a live orchestra plays back the soundtrack of a film in sync with the projection. Professional musicians are a lot more open to alternative representations and technology integration then you might be aware.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  The screens are for the conductor, not the musicians. They're following the conductor's direction and don't need to know what cues they're playing to, nor can they take their eyes off their score. There simply isn't the money in the budget to bugger about with clever ideas in a sync session. Merely having a session with an orchestra is already a luxury for many productions, because most composers can knock out a reasonably convincing orchestral soundtrack in VSL at a fraction of the cost. An orchestra is an extraordinarily efficient musical machine if they're doing what they were trained to do. If you want innovation, don't hire an orchestra - experiments get very expensive very quickly when you're paying ~$50 a minute for the privilege. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWGWQJVVBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWGWQJVVBI
tropo 8y ago
No, the height increase is only by a factor of 12/7, which is about an extra 71%. Compensating for this, there is a width reduction caused by the loss of accidentals. There is also no need to waste space on unused octaves, so there might not be any height increase at all for some pieces of music. Trivial transposition is a highly desirable property.

jdietrich 8y ago

>Of course, the expert users have a vested interest in having a more-exclusive club. I am an almost entirely self-taught jazz musician. I learned to read notation begrudgingly, assuming it to be an archaic hurdle put in place by snobbish classical musicians. My view of classical musicians has not changed, but my view of notation has. A lot of people think that programming languages are a similar archaic hurdle and set out to build a visual programming environment that will be easy for beginners to use. Somewhere along that journey, they invariably realise that a) syntax is one of the easiest parts of programming, b) there is no good visual metaphor for recursion and c) the Deutsch limit is a cruel master. You can do simple scripting with a box and arrow diagram, you can teach kids to blink an LED, but you can't write a compiler. The advantages of stave notation (and the disadvantages of alternative systems) are non-obvious, but they are very real. Critiques of notation usually sound like "command lines are stupid, everything should be a GUI" - they're not wrong per se, they just miss the point.

0815test 8y ago
> ...there is no good visual metaphor for recursion... Now, now. You're on a site that's literally named after one!
nixpulvis 8y ago
I'm taking classical piano lessons currently, and I have much the same reaction. I don't love all the strict rules imposed by western music, but I do love the notation and theory, because it generalized in interesting ways across tunings and notation. Just like I learned C (for example) before imagining my own languages, or how I've learned many libraries before writing my own, I also appreciate the structure of classical notation for what it is.
hnzix 8y ago
>c) the Deutsch limit is a cruel master. I generally despise visual programming but MaxMSP does this pretty well. You can nest components in an almost object-oriented fashion. Prior textual programming experience doesn't massively help learning the language though, it's a whole different paradigm and it's def not easy for beginners.

zodiac 8y ago

But this would make it much harder to sight-sing typical melodies, eg one whose notes are all diatonic to G major. Reason: a melody whose notes are all diatonic to G is almost indistinguishable from one whose notes are all diatonic to C in your system while in the current one they are quite distinct. Furthermore, your system would make it very easy to count chromatic distance between notes, but harder to count the diatonic distance (or the scale degree a note lies on).

zik 8y ago

It's interesting how staunchly people will defend "standard Western musical notation" but I agree with you - from a design point of view it looks like notation originally designed to match a piano keyboard which has then had many years of extra features inelegantly bolted on to it. It works well enough for the keys of C or Am but gets progressively more ridiculous the further you depart from those keys. And transposition is a mess. Some people seem to think that standard musical notation is "right" and you can't possibly have any alternative notation and yet this is clearly false. There are at least two or three alternative forms of musical notation in wide use today. Most guitarists use tablature notation because it's better suited to that instrument - standard musical notation is less useful on guitar since it doesn't clearly capture the different ways that a single chord can be played. So it makes sense to have a special notation for that instrument. Secondly chord charts are used by musicians everywhere because they're very concise at conveying the chord structure of music and often that's all the information you need. Standard notation is just way too much information in that case. The third, less commonly seen form of musical notation is just like the one you've described. It's seen in video games like SingStar[1] and in modern music composition software such as Ableton Live[2] and others. It's used so often in music composition software because as you've noted it's very intuitive and far less cumbersome than standard musical notation. Transpositions become trivial and everything just makes more sense. [1] https://www.gamesmen.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/i/singstar_celebration_screenshot_5_.jpg https://www.gamesmen.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/im... [2] http://whereisdarran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-13-at-6.50.21-AM.png http://whereisdarran.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-S...

0815test 8y ago
> It works well enough for the keys of C or Am but gets progressively more ridiculous the further you depart from those keys. If you're in something other than C or Am, you're supposed to use key signatures to point that out and clean up the notation. C/Am is just the default. "Standard musical notation is ambiguous when used on guitar", actually it isn't if you mark strings and fingerings as needed. This is widespread practice, each instrument has its own "tweaks" on the basic system. Standard notation in particular is quite hard to work with on guitar, and one can see why so many people just rely on tablature - but ambiguous it's not. Chord charts may be "concise" but they don't actually convey harmonic structure very well, not least because of the multitude of informal conventions and the ambiguity that these create; figured bass notation (while admittedly not very well known) does a far better job of it overall. For example, "walking" bass lines become immediately apparent in thoroughbass.

lodi 8y ago

Accidentals and key signatures are a feature, not a bug. There's a reason we don't just write everything in C major.