4 ms·
It's telling you can only imagine "simplified" systems. We've had alternative systems for more than 150 years, and they have been undeniable didactic successes
by vintermann 3y ago
It's telling you can only imagine "simplified" systems.
We've had alternative systems for more than 150 years, and they have been undeniable didactic successes. So-called "moveable do" systems incorporate the "music theory framework" as you call it. But conservatories are refusing to build on it, all these things get accepted only as stepping stones to "real" music notation, not as something potentially transformative.
The arguments you make could easily have been made against the teaching of regular literacy too, once: it would certainly not have been obvious before the fact what the fruits of "everyone mastering this" would be.
- BobaFloutist 3y agoMoveable do has nothing to do with notation, it's just a sight-singing strategy, and it's mostly the default one in the United States.
- vintermann 3y agoOf course it has. It's the basis for most of the alternative notation systems. The shape note systems of Sacred Harp are based on moveable do, for instance, and they were very successful in promoting music literacy in their culture for a good 100 years. Chinese notation is also moveable do. So is Roverud's cipher notation which I mentioned above (I think it has a common root with the Chinese one). So is the Kodály method. All these systems have been really successful in teaching where they were applied, but they always fall for the push to graduate to the "real" notation system.