5 ms·

I don't agree that this is an improved notation at all. It has its advantages, it highlights the physical distance between notes in a uniform way across key s

by Timpy 7y ago

I don't agree that this is an improved notation at all. It has its advantages, it highlights the physical distance between notes in a uniform way across key signatures. But it obscures harmonic function, which is much more important. Array indexes starting at 0 is unintuitive for beginners, I would never recommend a programming student learn arrays starting at 1 just to make it easier. Proper playing technique is often unintuitive for the beginning musician, but encouraging it for accessibility will be destructive to their progress. Conceptualizing a new difficult concept in a way that makes sense to you is good, foregoing convention is bad.

digitalsushi 7y ago
There are some people, maybe not many, that have a difficult time trying something new unless they have something familiar to form a relationship, even if the relationship is inaccurate and requires iterative improvement. We might say, that finding the Rosetta Stone hindered those who knew Greek trying to learn hieroglyphs. I was deathly afraid to try woodworking until someone showed me how to construct familiar angles on the machines using basic trigonometry. After I had a tiny relationship formed, I was able to experiment on my own (and then adopt woodworking vocabulary, to become entrenched in that community). I think using some arithmetic rules to entice someone who knows arithmetic, but otherwise is awkward around music theory, is an agreeable compromise to get them on the way.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > I think using some arithmetic rules to entice someone who knows arithmetic, but otherwise is awkward around music theory The biggest win from that POV would actually be numbering the diatonic scale degrees starting at 0 for the tonic, and the diatonic intervals starting at 0 for the unison. Unfortunately, it heavily conflicts with all sorts of existing notations. But once you think of the third as a "2" interval, the fourth as a "3", the fifth as "4" etc. you can arbitrarily add intervals together and to scale-degrees, without having to constantly correct for the archaic 1-based counting.
xtracto 7y ago
So you would subscribe to the notion that BASIC is not a proper introductory language because it hides some of the theoretical CS complexities while exposing the lowest hanging fruit to beginners?
- Timpy 7y ago
  I wasn't introduced to programming through BASIC so I can't speak to your analogy, but I believe you've taken me to say "hiding complexity is wrong." I don't think any point that I've made can be interpreted this way. There's plenty of low hanging fruit for beginner music theorists. "V7 resolves to I" is low hanging fruit, and it has tons of underlying complexity that you don't need to understand as a beginner. It's understood by every educated musician. My point is that if you want to be understood by other musicians you should learn this: V7 -> I and not this: (x+2, x+5, x+7, x+11) -> (x, x+4, x+7, x+12)
  - billfruit 7y ago
    Nonetheless I do think that music theory jargon is too dense and could do with some reform in terminology and notation. A lot of obscure terms could possibly be replaced (longer) plainspeak terms that expresses their function and meaning. At the moment, though a good concrete example eludes me, perhaps be something in lines of 'scale' -> 'basis', 'tonic' -> primary, etc..
    - klodolph 7y ago
      Without a good concrete example, this sounds like a terrible idea. Scale -> basis makes no sense to me. The scale climbs up and down, like how you scale a ladder. The basis… does not do that. Tonic, dominant, subdominant are used mostly in discussions about functional harmony. The biggest reason why it would be a total disaster to rename tonic -> primary is because we already use the terms primary and secondary here! For example, V is the “primary dominant” but nobody actually says the word “primary”. Primary chords are taken from the scale of the tonic, and secondary chords are taken from a different scale. So V/V is a “secondary dominant”.

by Timpy 7y ago

digitalsushi 7y ago

There are some people, maybe not many, that have a difficult time trying something new unless they have something familiar to form a relationship, even if the relationship is inaccurate and requires iterative improvement. We might say, that finding the Rosetta Stone hindered those who knew Greek trying to learn hieroglyphs. I was deathly afraid to try woodworking until someone showed me how to construct familiar angles on the machines using basic trigonometry. After I had a tiny relationship formed, I was able to experiment on my own (and then adopt woodworking vocabulary, to become entrenched in that community). I think using some arithmetic rules to entice someone who knows arithmetic, but otherwise is awkward around music theory, is an agreeable compromise to get them on the way.

zozbot234 7y ago
> I think using some arithmetic rules to entice someone who knows arithmetic, but otherwise is awkward around music theory The biggest win from that POV would actually be numbering the diatonic scale degrees starting at 0 for the tonic, and the diatonic intervals starting at 0 for the unison. Unfortunately, it heavily conflicts with all sorts of existing notations. But once you think of the third as a "2" interval, the fourth as a "3", the fifth as "4" etc. you can arbitrarily add intervals together and to scale-degrees, without having to constantly correct for the archaic 1-based counting.

xtracto 7y ago

So you would subscribe to the notion that BASIC is not a proper introductory language because it hides some of the theoretical CS complexities while exposing the lowest hanging fruit to beginners?

Timpy 7y ago
I wasn't introduced to programming through BASIC so I can't speak to your analogy, but I believe you've taken me to say "hiding complexity is wrong." I don't think any point that I've made can be interpreted this way. There's plenty of low hanging fruit for beginner music theorists. "V7 resolves to I" is low hanging fruit, and it has tons of underlying complexity that you don't need to understand as a beginner. It's understood by every educated musician. My point is that if you want to be understood by other musicians you should learn this: V7 -> I and not this: (x+2, x+5, x+7, x+11) -> (x, x+4, x+7, x+12)
- billfruit 7y ago
  Nonetheless I do think that music theory jargon is too dense and could do with some reform in terminology and notation. A lot of obscure terms could possibly be replaced (longer) plainspeak terms that expresses their function and meaning. At the moment, though a good concrete example eludes me, perhaps be something in lines of 'scale' -> 'basis', 'tonic' -> primary, etc..
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Without a good concrete example, this sounds like a terrible idea. Scale -> basis makes no sense to me. The scale climbs up and down, like how you scale a ladder. The basis… does not do that. Tonic, dominant, subdominant are used mostly in discussions about functional harmony. The biggest reason why it would be a total disaster to rename tonic -> primary is because we already use the terms primary and secondary here! For example, V is the “primary dominant” but nobody actually says the word “primary”. Primary chords are taken from the scale of the tonic, and secondary chords are taken from a different scale. So V/V is a “secondary dominant”.