4 ms·

The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs, and being more friendly to amateurs would mean even more users. The vast majority of decision-makers

by blagie 5y ago

The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs, and being more friendly to amateurs would mean even more users. The vast majority of decision-makers are experienced users with a vested interest in the status quo. The issue is very similar to why corporate systems have such horrible user interfaces. The people making the decisions in IT aren't the normal users of the system. IT cares about features, integrations, and high-level analytics. Employees care to be able to sanely input their time sheets, file an expense report, or buy a stapler. I'd like a system simple enough to use by all the kids in my local elementary school music class, much more than I care about what happens in the local orchestra.

tgv 5y ago
The problem, IMO, is that once you have acquired a notation system is that you can’t/won’t make the jump the another one. So if you train beginners with eg. clairnote, they will have a hard time making the jump to a higher difficulty level. It’s not unlike a walled garden.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  It's a bit like the Dvorak keyboard problem. It's slightly better, but too much of a hassle to bother with. You need something between 2x and 10x better to displace an entrenched incumbent.
  - blagie 5y ago
    I think a better music notation system would easily be at least 2x better for beginners. A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, and anyone could understand how to play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at full speed). My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as the people whom it would benefit. Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled garden problem. That's especially true of fields like medicine, chemistry, and biology where things were named before we understood them.
    - reikonomusha 5y ago
      To be clear though, a lot of kids do understand the current notation system fine. Most kids aren't saying "hey! this chord is a minor third in frequency space but occupies the same vertical distance on the page as a major third! so confusing!" They instead approach it very much "monkey see, monkey do". That's not to say many folks don't have trouble with notation, but if I had to place a bet, almost any notational system that abstracts away from letter names or (in the case of piano) keyboard positions will pose difficulties.
    - danachow 5y ago
      > A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, and anyone could understand how to play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at full speed). I played in school bands and marching band - very very few of my classmates took up music seriously beyond high school, but music reading just was a complete non-issue for everyone involved. I don’t see how the current system is limiting anyone. > My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as the people whom it would benefit. Who are these “decision makers” you keep speaking of. There is no global cabal of music notation protectionists. I don’t think the forces that lead to internal corporate IT decision making really have anything to do with a music notation system. There are already simplified notation systems like tabs and piano rolls and annotated staves. Your argument seems to assume there is a notation system that really is 2 to 10 times better (which obviously is mostly subjective) - but you haven’t even given an existence proof of this, so it is all hypothetical. > Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled garden problem. Example?
    - MandieD 5y ago
      Over a third of the students at my middle school were in band, and lots of them had academic problems. By eighth grade, they were all ok enough at reading music to get through multi-page pieces together. Only a few of us could have told you what a major third or the circle of fifths was, but frankly, even that meager level of theory was useless for the immediate task of playing the same note at the same time as all the other second clarinets.
apendleton 5y ago
> The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs I'm not sure the claims you and OP are making here are actually in tension. They said: > the most common users of music notation (experienced musicians) which is ambiguous, and might mean something like "of all the people that ever do any music-reading at all, the majority are experienced musicians," which would indeed be the opposite of your claim. But it might also be "of all the people that are reading music at any given moment, the majority are experienced musicians," which would be a proxy for "most hours spent reading music are spent by experienced musicians"; this could be true simultaneously with your claim (it stands to reason that experienced or professional musicians spend comparatively more time reading music than do novices or amateurs). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the thing you want to optimize for is maximizing the average quality of experience for all users regardless of how much they use the thing, vs. maximizing the quality of the average hour of use.
zozbot234 5y ago
I might agree with the general claim, but diatonic notation is a lot friendlier to amateurs. Traditionally, kids in early education learn solfège (Do, Re, Mi...) which is very much based on diatonicism.
Aidevah 5y ago
Many people seem to not realise that there is already an alternative to staff notation; it is called the piano roll. It has all the advantages that alternative notations propose (proportional intervals and note lengths), is already in widespread use, is available in all professional music software, and is by far simpler and easier to learn. For many professional musicians the piano roll may be the only type of notation they deal with on a regular basis. Any eclectic modification of standard western notation therefore needs to justify itself not just against staff notation, but also the simple piano roll.
- armagon 5y ago
  Is there a nice way (ie. not screenshots) to print piano roll notation?
- vintermann 5y ago
  Piano roll is certainly better than traditional notation for writing down music that will be played by a computer anyway. It's not great for live play.
danachow 5y ago
This analogy doesn’t fit at all. > I'd like a system simple enough to use by all the kids in my local elementary school music class, much more than I care about what happens in the local orchestra. Amateur doesn’t mean lack of experience or skill - what you seem to be meaning is “casual”. There are already a number of simplified notation systems for casual use. And this alternative notation is definitely not positioning itself for casual use based on its examples - and it sits in a sort of uncanny valley.
scrozier 5y ago
As an experienced (semi-professional) musician, I think this is probably a false dichotomy. For one thing, "users of music notation" implies that these users know how to use it. Very many "amateur" musicians read traditional notation just fine. It's not that hard. There is really no such thing as a "decision-maker" for music notation systems. That ship sailed a long time ago. There is no orchestra conductor anywhere pondering whether or not they should abandon a millennium or two of traditional notation for something "better." You would be doing your elementary music students an enormous disservice by teaching them some "alternative" music notation system. And for what reason? As I've said elsewhere, learning to "read music" is far easier than many things we ask elementary students to learn. Apologies for excessive "quotation marks."

by blagie 5y ago

tgv 5y ago

The problem, IMO, is that once you have acquired a notation system is that you can’t/won’t make the jump the another one. So if you train beginners with eg. clairnote, they will have a hard time making the jump to a higher difficulty level. It’s not unlike a walled garden.

dehrmann 5y ago
It's a bit like the Dvorak keyboard problem. It's slightly better, but too much of a hassle to bother with. You need something between 2x and 10x better to displace an entrenched incumbent.
- blagie 5y ago
  I think a better music notation system would easily be at least 2x better for beginners. A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, and anyone could understand how to play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at full speed). My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as the people whom it would benefit. Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled garden problem. That's especially true of fields like medicine, chemistry, and biology where things were named before we understood them.
  - reikonomusha 5y ago
    To be clear though, a lot of kids do understand the current notation system fine. Most kids aren't saying "hey! this chord is a minor third in frequency space but occupies the same vertical distance on the page as a major third! so confusing!" They instead approach it very much "monkey see, monkey do". That's not to say many folks don't have trouble with notation, but if I had to place a bet, almost any notational system that abstracts away from letter names or (in the case of piano) keyboard positions will pose difficulties.
  - danachow 5y ago
    > A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, and anyone could understand how to play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at full speed). I played in school bands and marching band - very very few of my classmates took up music seriously beyond high school, but music reading just was a complete non-issue for everyone involved. I don’t see how the current system is limiting anyone. > My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as the people whom it would benefit. Who are these “decision makers” you keep speaking of. There is no global cabal of music notation protectionists. I don’t think the forces that lead to internal corporate IT decision making really have anything to do with a music notation system. There are already simplified notation systems like tabs and piano rolls and annotated staves. Your argument seems to assume there is a notation system that really is 2 to 10 times better (which obviously is mostly subjective) - but you haven’t even given an existence proof of this, so it is all hypothetical. > Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled garden problem. Example?
  - MandieD 5y ago
    Over a third of the students at my middle school were in band, and lots of them had academic problems. By eighth grade, they were all ok enough at reading music to get through multi-page pieces together. Only a few of us could have told you what a major third or the circle of fifths was, but frankly, even that meager level of theory was useless for the immediate task of playing the same note at the same time as all the other second clarinets.

apendleton 5y ago

> The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs I'm not sure the claims you and OP are making here are actually in tension. They said: > the most common users of music notation (experienced musicians) which is ambiguous, and might mean something like "of all the people that ever do any music-reading at all, the majority are experienced musicians," which would indeed be the opposite of your claim. But it might also be "of all the people that are reading music at any given moment, the majority are experienced musicians," which would be a proxy for "most hours spent reading music are spent by experienced musicians"; this could be true simultaneously with your claim (it stands to reason that experienced or professional musicians spend comparatively more time reading music than do novices or amateurs). I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the thing you want to optimize for is maximizing the average quality of experience for all users regardless of how much they use the thing, vs. maximizing the quality of the average hour of use.

zozbot234 5y ago

I might agree with the general claim, but diatonic notation is a lot friendlier to amateurs. Traditionally, kids in early education learn solfège (Do, Re, Mi...) which is very much based on diatonicism.

Aidevah 5y ago

Many people seem to not realise that there is already an alternative to staff notation; it is called the piano roll. It has all the advantages that alternative notations propose (proportional intervals and note lengths), is already in widespread use, is available in all professional music software, and is by far simpler and easier to learn. For many professional musicians the piano roll may be the only type of notation they deal with on a regular basis. Any eclectic modification of standard western notation therefore needs to justify itself not just against staff notation, but also the simple piano roll.

armagon 5y ago
Is there a nice way (ie. not screenshots) to print piano roll notation?
vintermann 5y ago
Piano roll is certainly better than traditional notation for writing down music that will be played by a computer anyway. It's not great for live play.

danachow 5y ago

This analogy doesn’t fit at all. > I'd like a system simple enough to use by all the kids in my local elementary school music class, much more than I care about what happens in the local orchestra. Amateur doesn’t mean lack of experience or skill - what you seem to be meaning is “casual”. There are already a number of simplified notation systems for casual use. And this alternative notation is definitely not positioning itself for casual use based on its examples - and it sits in a sort of uncanny valley.

scrozier 5y ago

As an experienced (semi-professional) musician, I think this is probably a false dichotomy. For one thing, "users of music notation" implies that these users know how to use it. Very many "amateur" musicians read traditional notation just fine. It's not that hard. There is really no such thing as a "decision-maker" for music notation systems. That ship sailed a long time ago. There is no orchestra conductor anywhere pondering whether or not they should abandon a millennium or two of traditional notation for something "better." You would be doing your elementary music students an enormous disservice by teaching them some "alternative" music notation system. And for what reason? As I've said elsewhere, learning to "read music" is far easier than many things we ask elementary students to learn. Apologies for excessive "quotation marks."