On 26 January 2016 at 12:06, Sharon Rosner <cico...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But seriously, I see no reason to change a system which works so well for > so > many different kinds of music. All these alternative systems, I don't see > what advantage they offer. On the contrary, there are many downsides - > they're unsuitable for keyboards, unsuitable for tonal music, unsuitable > for > music in unequal temperament, unsuitable for microtonal music, require > relearning how to read music, make transposition harder. So what's the > point? > > Sharon > Well, quite. Although I can see the benefit of some simplified notation for chromatic runs, that would only be appropriate for certain types of music. As it is, you will occasionally see a line between two notes in modern music, with the explanation that you're supposed to play gliss / chromatic scales. But the Simplified Notation says on its website: "Simplified Music Notation eliminates the need to make constant ‘mental translations’ for accidentals and key signatures. Players no longer have to remember the key signature or accidentals, because all flats and sharps are represented by their own unique symbols." Right. So all those annoying sharps and flats go away. To be replaced with weird shaped blobs. So we lose all the advantage of a key signature, which is designed to simplify the music by hiding implicit "black notes" (for they are not accidentals). Clairnote uses "white notes" to achieve the same increase in visual noise. I'm sure it's a fine idea if all you play is pieces in C major, but realistically, it's solving a problem that isn't really there. Chris
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
