5 ms·

> The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bug

> The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. There is no simple way of saying Gbmin7/B. It's just complex. It takes years of learning. The syntax is as efficient as it can be, it's not like millions of musicians aren't thinking about this stuff. It's complex, because simple music is for children. Music has its jargon, as does medicine, geology, or programming, and you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it.

silicon2401 6y ago
> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  >> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. > I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." OP is making all kinds of claims about how current keyboards, music theory, and notation ("verbiage" -- jargon?) are overdue for a "refactoring" to the "codebase". My evidence is: the current state of the art of music theory and practice in Western civilization. OP's evidence is hand-waving conjecture not backed by anything. But you want me to defend my side? > get in line If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. > Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. Nothing of the sort. The complexity of language is baked in there. Whether it's one character that says 47 different things depending on the inflection, or 47 characters that describe one thing not depending on inflection, the complexity is going to be there. OP wants to make an improvement to the music system to ostensibly reduce complexity, which while appearing admirable, seems to be based more on his frustration that the "vain professional musicians" are making things too hard for him. Which is misguided energy in my opinion. > You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement. As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. But improvements are always welcome. > cultural factors There is no way to separate cultural factors from music, which innately involves culture. It's not like music exists in an ethereal vacuum and if it wasn't for politics and culture, music would be better. Music is part of the fabric of culture.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. Jimi Hendrix. Elton John. David Bowie. The list goes on. Just because you are happy with an arbitrary barrier to entry does not mean that everyone around you must be. Music is a wonderful thing. Anyone can learn to make it. Telling someone they need to learn their scales first is just condescending. > As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. > But improvements are always welcome. Hah. You have already proved this statement wrong. You do not welcome changes. You approach the very idea of progress with condescending skepticism. Need more examples? How about the article we are discussing? The fact is that it is prohibitively difficult to market a piano with slightly smaller keys. Getting something like the Janko keyboard to get traction in this industry is practically impossible, and not because Janko's design lacks merit. Look: Nowhere did I say that musicians shouldn't learn scales. That's absurd. Neither did I complain that, "I don't want to learn scales, because it's too hard." On the contrary, I have learned scales. I have been playing music since childhood, and am quite proficient. My point is that learning scales is arbitrarily difficult, by nature of the way we write them and talk about them. We have Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian. We call Ionian "Major", and Aeolian "Minor". When we write anything that isn't Ionian, we use "accidentals". It's a mess. We can do better. We can make learning scales a simpler process. We can make better abstractions for them, which will make it easier to talk about more complicated theory. Instead, people like you insist we all stick with 17th century western notation for eternity, because that's what we've got, and it's good enough. People like you insist that new players must be motivated to learn overtly unnecessary skills, for no reason other than "that's how piano keyboards are shaped". In doing so, you turn away intelligent people who are more interested in music than slogging through the centuries of cruft that traditional western music theory is made of.
    - sporkologist 6y ago
      > Nowhere did I say that musicians shouldn't learn scales. That's absurd. Yes you absolutely did. Your whole point is that 11/12ths of musicians' muscle memory is needlessly redundant. Let's see what you got that is better than this. You use a fully transposing MIDI keyboard and play everything on the white keys, am I right?
thomastjeffery 6y ago
I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as efficient as it could be. Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. > It's complex, because simple music is for children. Oh, I'm a child now? I'm talking about "simple" music? Get of your high horse. I wish I could say that your attitude was rare in music. Unfortunately, it represents the majority in professional circles. The status quo is protected by this vain professionalism at a heavy cost.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  > Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. Your approach is simply not feasible. Let me demonstrate. Here are some options: The newly chromatic keyboard is all white/black/white/black alternated keys, WBWBWBWBWBWB for one octave. How do you look at that and figure out where C is? Likewise, a new keyboard can be all white keys. WWWWWWWWWWWW How do you know where anything is? We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. The pattern of WBWBWWBWBWBW (standard 12-note sequence on keyboards), is a well-understood one that makes it practical for keyboardists to make music. If there exists a 3rd option which makes orientability and fast muscle memory easier than it is, it needs to be innovated. You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. It doesn't work that way. However if you in fact have an improvement not obvious to those in the industry, many players would be thankful for your work. The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. Now to address your mode concept..... Your presumption that everything is just Ionian mode transposed is absolutely incorrect. Each different mode (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and Locrian (those are all modes of just the major scale)) has its own identity. I'm surprised that you as a musician are unaware/blind to this, or consider it "needless complexity imposed by the vain professional musician community". Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard.

silicon2401 6y ago

> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement.

sporkologist 6y ago
>> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. > I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." OP is making all kinds of claims about how current keyboards, music theory, and notation ("verbiage" -- jargon?) are overdue for a "refactoring" to the "codebase". My evidence is: the current state of the art of music theory and practice in Western civilization. OP's evidence is hand-waving conjecture not backed by anything. But you want me to defend my side? > get in line If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. > Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. Nothing of the sort. The complexity of language is baked in there. Whether it's one character that says 47 different things depending on the inflection, or 47 characters that describe one thing not depending on inflection, the complexity is going to be there. OP wants to make an improvement to the music system to ostensibly reduce complexity, which while appearing admirable, seems to be based more on his frustration that the "vain professional musicians" are making things too hard for him. Which is misguided energy in my opinion. > You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement. As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. But improvements are always welcome. > cultural factors There is no way to separate cultural factors from music, which innately involves culture. It's not like music exists in an ethereal vacuum and if it wasn't for politics and culture, music would be better. Music is part of the fabric of culture.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. Jimi Hendrix. Elton John. David Bowie. The list goes on. Just because you are happy with an arbitrary barrier to entry does not mean that everyone around you must be. Music is a wonderful thing. Anyone can learn to make it. Telling someone they need to learn their scales first is just condescending. > As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. > But improvements are always welcome. Hah. You have already proved this statement wrong. You do not welcome changes. You approach the very idea of progress with condescending skepticism. Need more examples? How about the article we are discussing? The fact is that it is prohibitively difficult to market a piano with slightly smaller keys. Getting something like the Janko keyboard to get traction in this industry is practically impossible, and not because Janko's design lacks merit. Look: Nowhere did I say that musicians shouldn't learn scales. That's absurd. Neither did I complain that, "I don't want to learn scales, because it's too hard." On the contrary, I have learned scales. I have been playing music since childhood, and am quite proficient. My point is that learning scales is arbitrarily difficult, by nature of the way we write them and talk about them. We have Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian. We call Ionian "Major", and Aeolian "Minor". When we write anything that isn't Ionian, we use "accidentals". It's a mess. We can do better. We can make learning scales a simpler process. We can make better abstractions for them, which will make it easier to talk about more complicated theory. Instead, people like you insist we all stick with 17th century western notation for eternity, because that's what we've got, and it's good enough. People like you insist that new players must be motivated to learn overtly unnecessary skills, for no reason other than "that's how piano keyboards are shaped". In doing so, you turn away intelligent people who are more interested in music than slogging through the centuries of cruft that traditional western music theory is made of.
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    > Nowhere did I say that musicians shouldn't learn scales. That's absurd. Yes you absolutely did. Your whole point is that 11/12ths of musicians' muscle memory is needlessly redundant. Let's see what you got that is better than this. You use a fully transposing MIDI keyboard and play everything on the white keys, am I right?

thomastjeffery 6y ago

I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as efficient as it could be. Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. > It's complex, because simple music is for children. Oh, I'm a child now? I'm talking about "simple" music? Get of your high horse. I wish I could say that your attitude was rare in music. Unfortunately, it represents the majority in professional circles. The status quo is protected by this vain professionalism at a heavy cost.

sporkologist 6y ago
> Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. Your approach is simply not feasible. Let me demonstrate. Here are some options: The newly chromatic keyboard is all white/black/white/black alternated keys, WBWBWBWBWBWB for one octave. How do you look at that and figure out where C is? Likewise, a new keyboard can be all white keys. WWWWWWWWWWWW How do you know where anything is? We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. The pattern of WBWBWWBWBWBW (standard 12-note sequence on keyboards), is a well-understood one that makes it practical for keyboardists to make music. If there exists a 3rd option which makes orientability and fast muscle memory easier than it is, it needs to be innovated. You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. It doesn't work that way. However if you in fact have an improvement not obvious to those in the industry, many players would be thankful for your work. The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. Now to address your mode concept..... Your presumption that everything is just Ionian mode transposed is absolutely incorrect. Each different mode (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and Locrian (those are all modes of just the major scale)) has its own identity. I'm surprised that you as a musician are unaware/blind to this, or consider it "needless complexity imposed by the vain professional musician community". Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard.