subject:"simplifying chromatic scale notation"

Malte Meyn  writes:

> Am 25.01.2016 um 22:19 schrieb musicus:
>> 
>> See attached. Comments, suggestions are very welcome ;)
>> 
>
> I see some problems for pianists:
>
> 1. I like to know where exactly I am at a given time. For example I’d
> like to know “c sharp on second beat” or “thumb on e sharp”. This is
> very useful in complex pieces like Sergey Taneyev’s prelude and fugue in
> g sharp minor op. 29.
>
> 2. Such an even notation doesn’t match well with the uneven keyboard. In
> our traditional system there are seven note positions per octave and
> seven white keys per octave, not twelve equal keys ;) This unevenness is
> necessary for fingerings.
>
> (2a. This is also why I don’t really like Clairnote, Twinline, and
> similar systems; though they might be good for symmetrical keyboards
> like the Jankó keyboard or the keyboard of a chromatic button
> accordion.

CBA player here.  The problem I see is more one that such "even
notation" doesn't match well with our standard tonalities.  Play a C
major scale.  Now do an accompaniment in "Küchenmädchenterzen", namely
just play the same melody a third up or a sixth below.

Now write down what you just did in any chromatic notation and try
understanding its irregular patterns of major and minor intervals.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread musicus


Dear Paul,

I really admire the effort and courage of alternative notation systems, 
but I cannot see a reasonable improvement in this case. I don't think 
it's a good idea to remove all great advantages, which our standard 
notation system has. IMO, there are only a few problems to be solved - 
chromatic scales are one of them - with as little as possible 
interfering with the remaining music.


Especially the Liszt example doesn't gain a lot in your version, i'd say 
;)

Is the left hand correct? (I didn't check out the rules entirely...)
It looks very strange to me...___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

On 26 January 2016 at 05:35, Paul Morris  wrote:

>
> One idea would be to use triangle shapes for the accidental notes to
> better clarify their relation to the “natural” or rather in-the-key,
> non-accidental, notes.  Like a diatonic-staff version of Reed’s Twinline:
> http://musicnotation.org/system/twinline-notation-by-thomas-reed/
>
> Although, I’m not sure how that would work with sharp or flat notes in a
> given key... (are they ovals or triangles?)
>
> BTW, is there a standard term for non-accidental notes?  You would think
> it would be “natural notes” but sometimes natural notes are also accidental
> notes.
>
>
In a chromatic scale, what are the accidental notes? They're certainly NOT
notes with a sharp or flat, since you may already be in a key signature
with those notes.

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

On 26 January 2016 at 12:06, Sharon Rosner  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

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> I just struggled with studying a complex music piece and thought that all
the chromatic lines are horrible 
> to read in standard notation.

and later

> Maybe there is a problem for some instruments to find the right pitch
> (especially for those with pitch 
> perfect), but i don't think that they are focussing on every single note
> in a chromatic scale.

This last bit made me laugh out loud. Well I guess some musicians do not
really feel like focusing on every single note. The good ones do though.

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



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186445.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> "make transposition harder"? Of all the disadvantages to attribute to
equally-spaced notation systems,
> this one seems like an unlikely candidate. It's one of their redeeming
> features.

Of all alternative systems discussed on this thread, the only one which is
really appropriate for transposition is the "Lines a Whole Step Apart"
system (http://musicnotation.org/systems/gallery/). There it is just a
matter of moving the clef or switching the clef.

The rest of them use either special note shapes for sharps/flats
("Clairnote", "Simplified notation"), which is not any better for
transposition, or special note shapes for the in-between notes ("Twinline
Notation").

The OP's system uses Four vertical positions between staff lines (including
on-the-line). How do you transpose that by half a step?

In contrast, in traditional notation you can easily transpose by moving or
changing the clef and changing the key signature. Admittedly this is harder
today with the modern accidental display practice (displayed once per bar),
but 300 years ago musicians were able to do this on sight by imagining an
alternative clef and key signature. See also the practice of Chiavette or
chiavi transportate - transposition clefs.

And, this works for both transposing by a semitone or by a fifth.

Sharon

--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186456.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Kieren MacMillan

Hi Sharon,

> 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?

The point is: there have been many times in the history of Western music that 
someone offered to [try to] improve the notation system, and others said 
“What’s the point?”, and ultimately we (i.e., people who use the Western 
notation system) adopted many of the suggestions and didn’t adopt others, and 
we now have a system which — as you correctly point out — works so well for so 
many different kinds of music.

Is there room in the Western notation system for improvement and growth? 
Absolutely.

Is this particular suggestion an improvement? Not in my opinion.
But then again, I’m not the only person using the Western notation system…  ;)

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Kieren MacMillan

Hi musicus,

> Of course a good musician needs to focus on every detail, but only the "bad" 
> ones neglect the bigger context. The key is to focus on the "right" thing, 
> which is in many cases NOT every single note of an chromatic scale, IMO.

I agree, 100%.

> It was never my intention to question our well proven notation system, but 
> only to improve some awkward side effects of it.

In that spirit, I have a question…

In the jazz and musical theatre (MT) worlds — and, I would offer, most 
contemporary classical music — nobody spends the time anymore to write out 
glissandi when the exact notes are inconsequential. In the most obvious 
example, consider harp music: usually, the “pitch set” is indicated (either 
through pedalling, or the first few notes of the gliss/gesture, or both), and 
then graphic lines are used to indicate duration and direction of the glissandi 
[or whatever the gesture is]; this is exactly the same in most MT scores, where 
the pianist is expected to gliss.

And this is all done extremely effectively in the accepted/shared/codified 
Western notation system, without any changes to the fundamental way that notes 
themselves appear on the staff.

Why is that concept not sufficient for your needs? Why, for instance, can you 
not just come up with a graphic notation that DOESN’T change the note placement 
or shape (cf. the standard gliss), but gains you the benefits you are seeking?

Best,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi musicus,
>
>> Of course a good musician needs to focus on every detail, but only
>> the "bad" ones neglect the bigger context. The key is to focus on
>> the "right" thing, which is in many cases NOT every single note of
>> an chromatic scale, IMO.
>
> I agree, 100%.
>
>> It was never my intention to question our well proven notation
>> system, but only to improve some awkward side effects of it.
>
> In that spirit, I have a question…
>
> In the jazz and musical theatre (MT) worlds — and, I would offer, most
> contemporary classical music — nobody spends the time anymore to write
> out glissandi when the exact notes are inconsequential. In the most
> obvious example, consider harp music: usually, the “pitch set” is
> indicated (either through pedalling, or the first few notes of the
> gliss/gesture, or both), and then graphic lines are used to indicate
> duration and direction of the glissandi [or whatever the gesture is];
> this is exactly the same in most MT scores, where the pianist is
> expected to gliss.
>
> And this is all done extremely effectively in the
> accepted/shared/codified Western notation system, without any changes
> to the fundamental way that notes themselves appear on the staff.
>
> Why is that concept not sufficient for your needs?

"when the exact notes are inconsequential".  In general, they are, and
so is their timing.

I repeat the suggestion to see how the reasoning here applies to Fučik's
"Entry of the Gladiators": in the first part we have rising chromatic
sequences which have their accents aligned with the harmonies (like in
the cadenza immediately before the repetition of the theme).  Both
timing and pitches are quite consequential and that leaves limited
leeway for glissando symbols or similar glossing over the details.  In
fact, I'd say that already the originally proposed notation for
chromatic scales does not do this alignment justice.

For the player of a chromatic instrument, some chromatic notation might
be helpful for the _execution_ since it might make it more obvious where
the very economically employed short turns or whole note steps have to
be played in order to keep the piece firmly in solid diatonic march band
tonality.  It's basically the musical equivalent of a slapstick
rendition of intoxication: to appreciate it, you need a steady camera
delivering the sober point of view and showing the steady ground.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:35 AM, Chris Yate  wrote:
> 
> BTW, is there a standard term for non-accidental notes?  You would think it 
> would be “natural notes” but sometimes natural notes are also accidental 
> notes.
> 
> In a chromatic scale, what are the accidental notes? They're certainly NOT 
> notes with a sharp or flat, since you may already be in a key signature with 
> those notes.

Well, right, that is my point.  Accidental notes are notes that aren’t in the 
current key (signature).  These are different distinctions:

1. sharp/flat notes & natural notes

2. notes not in the key (accidental notes) & notes in the key (???)

I don’t know that there's any term that’s the complement to “accidental notes” 
(besides writing out “notes in the key”).

-Paul___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Urs Liska



Am 26.01.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Paul Morris:
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:35 AM, Chris Yate > > wrote:
>>
>> BTW, is there a standard term for non-accidental notes?  You
>> would think it would be “natural notes” but sometimes natural
>> notes are also accidental notes.
>>
>>
>> In a chromatic scale, what are the accidental notes? They're
>> certainly NOT notes with a sharp or flat, since you may already be in
>> a key signature with those notes.
>
> Well, right, that is my point.  Accidental notes are notes that aren’t
> in the current key (signature).  These are different distinctions:
>
> 1. sharp/flat notes & natural notes
>
> 2. notes not in the key (accidental notes) & notes in the key (???)
>
> I don’t know that there's any term that’s the complement to
> “accidental notes” (besides writing out “notes in the key”).

Something with "alterated"?

>
> -Paul
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 4:35 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> CBA player here.  The problem I see is more one that such "even
> notation" doesn't match well with our standard tonalities.  Play a C
> major scale.  Now do an accompaniment in "Küchenmädchenterzen", namely
> just play the same melody a third up or a sixth below.

You mean like a modal transposition, where you stay in the same scale / key but 
just start the melody from a different note, right?

> Now write down what you just did in any chromatic notation and try
> understanding its irregular patterns of major and minor intervals.

This is a fair point.  Partly that's because such systems are optimized more 
for reading than writing (especially writing in a diatonic tonality / scale / 
key).  

If the music is already written out, then you can easily see and understand the 
pattern of major and minor intervals, and with experience would learn to 
recognize that it’s the same melody just at a different place in the scale.

In Clairnote you know which notes are in the key because there are 
(alternative) accidental signs that indicate when notes are accidentals (i.e. 
not in the key).  Also, Clairnote's key signatures help by showing the notes in 
the current key / scale, a reminder and aide when reading and writing.

Cheers,
-Paul

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:40 AM, Chris Yate  wrote:
> 
> Unless they spend their lives playing on their own at home, musicians have 
> eventually to play with other people who will have learnt a method of 
> notation that's been good for 400 years.

Yikes, it’s not that grim.  One can always:

1. Learn to read more than one system.  (Bilingualism is not a bad thing, even 
for kids.)

2. Bring your own sheet music in your preferred system.  

I do both.  LilyPond and this whole digital media thing make #2 much easier.  
But I agree that opt-in is the best way.  So yes, teach children to read the 
traditional system.  Learning another one should be extra and by choice.

Cheers,
-Paul___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Chris Yate  wrote:
> 
> As it is, when I mark up confusing music I sometimes use an upside-down "V" 
> to indicate semitones, "=" to indicate 'same note' and a square bracket (like 
> upside down "|__|") between notes to indicate a tone. This is occasionally 
> useful to me as an aide-memoire, in stuff where we have lots of double-sharps 
> and flats, but it's certainly not "standard".

I can’t help but point out, just FWIW, and intending this in a tone of respect, 
and as one consideration among a host of others that might outweigh it...

...that this kind of annotation wouldn’t be needed in a system where the 
differences between intervals (semitone, tone, others...) were clearly and 
consistently represented.  

Cheers,
-Paul___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Sharon Rosner  writes:
> 
>> 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,
> 
> Piano keyboards.  Chromatic button accordions would likely benefit, as
> would Janko keyboards.

I’d also add guitars, most string instruments, and any other isomorphic 
instruments:

http://musicnotation.org/wiki/instruments/isomorphic-instruments/

Although, I wouldn’t say “unsuitable” but maybe just "a little less ideal" for 
traditional 7-5 keyboard layouts, especially if you color them (or just 
conceive of them) in this way:

http://musicnotation.org/wiki/instruments/6-6-colored-traditional-7-5-keyboard/


>> unsuitable for tonal music,
> 
> Not "unsuitable" as much as intransparent.  It's harder to see the
> tonality.

Yes, or you could say they provide a different perspective on the tonality of 
tonal music, by revealing the interval patterns behind it, which also happen to 
be the interval patterns you have to play on an instrument to produce it.

Cheers,
-Paul



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

On 26 January 2016 at 16:02, Paul Morris  wrote:

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Chris Yate  wrote:
>
> As it is, when I mark up confusing music I sometimes use an upside-down
> "V" to indicate semitones, "=" to indicate 'same note' and a square bracket
> (like upside down "|__|") between notes to indicate a tone. This is
> occasionally useful to me as an aide-memoire, in stuff where we have lots
> of double-sharps and flats, but it's certainly not "standard".
>
>
> I can’t help but point out, just FWIW, and intending this in a tone of
> respect, and as one consideration among a host of others that might
> outweigh it...
>
> ...that this kind of annotation wouldn’t be needed in a system where the
> differences between intervals (semitone, tone, others...) were clearly and
> consistently represented.
>
> Cheers,
> -Paul
>

Yes, you're probably right.

Though whatever you choose would have to be:

1) equally easy to read in all keys (which is demonstrably NOT the case for
traditional notation)
2) easy to manage when key changes
3) make it easy to identify octaves, and possibly the tonic, and harmonic
relationship between notes etc.
4) suitable for all tessitura, which of course we currently manage with
clefs
5) compact
6) easy to notate by hand
7) avoid confusion with traditional notation (here Clairnote fails very
badly indeed for me)

This discussion has gone way off-topic!
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Sharon Rosner  wrote:
> 
> Of all alternative systems discussed on this thread, the only one which is
> really appropriate for transposition is the "Lines a Whole Step Apart"
> system (http://musicnotation.org/systems/gallery/). There it is just a
> matter of moving the clef or switching the clef.
> 
> The rest of them use either special note shapes for sharps/flats
> ("Clairnote", "Simplified notation"), which is not any better for
> transposition, or special note shapes for the in-between notes ("Twinline
> Notation"). 
> 
> The OP's system uses Four vertical positions between staff lines (including
> on-the-line). How do you transpose that by half a step?

I see what you’re saying.  Seems to me that transposing on the fly is generally 
not an easy thing to do in any case, without a lot of practice.

Transposing by an octave is actually really easy in Clairnote.  Transposing by 
a major 3rd (or minor 6th) would be as easy as transposing by a semitone in a 
“Lines a Whole Step Apart” system, since the lines are that far apart.  
Transposing by a whole step would be next easiest, but...

Ultimately, I think you would learn to read and play by intervals and do it 
that way.  Making it easier to read by intervals is a strength of these systems.

> In contrast, in traditional notation you can easily transpose by moving or
> changing the clef and changing the key signature.

Well, there’s a lot of work that goes into getting to the point where this is 
easy.

> Admittedly this is harder
> today with the modern accidental display practice (displayed once per bar),
> but 300 years ago musicians were able to do this on sight by imagining an
> alternative clef and key signature. See also the practice of Chiavette or
> chiavi transportate - transposition clefs.

Hmmm… Seems like this primarily works for music without accidentals.  Does it 
really work when you have a lot of accidentals?

Say a note that was a natural in the first key is a sharp in the new key…  in 
the music that note appears altered by a sharp sign…  you have to read that 
sharp sign as if it were a double sharp sign.  

Or, say a note was a sharp in the first key, but is a natural in the second 
key…  and that note appears in the music altered by a natural sign…  you have 
to read that natural sign as a flat sign.  

Or am I missing something?

-Paul

P.S. To musicus, apologies that this conversation has expanded beyond your 
proposal…  It seems I have a lot to say on this topic.  I’ll try to pipe down...

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Kieren MacMillan

Hi all,

>> I don’t know that there's any term that’s the complement to “accidental 
>> notes” (besides writing out “notes in the key”).

Most people I know use “diatonic” — though it’s inaccurate a lot of the time.

What about “signatured”?  =)

Best,
Kieren.



Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

Kieren MacMillan  writes:

> Hi all,
>
>>> I don’t know that there's any term that’s the complement to
> “accidental notes” (besides writing out “notes in the key”).
>
> Most people I know use “diatonic” — though it’s inaccurate a lot of the time.
>
> What about “signatured”?  =)

"in-key"?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 4:49 AM, musicus  wrote:
> 
> I really admire the effort and courage of alternative notation systems, but I 
> cannot see a reasonable improvement in this case. I don't think it's a good 
> idea to remove all great advantages, which our standard notation system has. 
> IMO, there are only a few problems to be solved - chromatic scales are one of 
> them - with as little as possible interfering with the remaining music.

Thanks for your thoughts.  All systems have advantages and disadvantages, 
tradeoffs and presuppositions, things they emphasize and de-emphasize, obscure 
and reveal.  

I mainly play guitar (no white and black key distinction) so I think that’s 
probably why Clairnote and its approach appeals to me.  

> Especially the Liszt example doesn't gain a lot in your version, i'd say ;)
> Is the left hand correct? (I didn't check out the rules entirely...)
> It looks very strange to me...

Yes it is correct.  (Note how you can see the ascending and descending 
chromatic lines in the highest and lowest notes.)  

Cheers,
-Paul___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> Hmmm… Seems like this primarily works for music without accidentals.  Does
it really work when you 
> have a lot of accidentals?

Of course this practice is made for tonal music, but I've known musicians
who could sight read and transpose entire scores. It's just a question of
having the chops.

> Say a note that was a natural in the first key is a sharp in the new key… 
> in the music that note appears 
> altered by a sharp sign…  you have to read that sharp sign as if it were a
> double sharp sign.  
>
> Or, say a note was a sharp in the first key, but is a natural in the
> second key…  and that note appears in 
> the music altered by a natural sign…  you have to read that natural sign
> as a flat sign.  

> Or am I missing something?

Let me give you two examples:

A diatonic chord:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/chord_d.png> 

transposed up a semitone:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/chord_eflat.png> 

And a bit of chromatic music:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/oferring_c.png> 

transposed down a *triton*:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/offering_fs.png> 

So you see, it's quite a straight-forward a technique. Yes, accidental
translation can be tricky, but with practice it becomes second nature. And
again, 300 years ago it was considered a basic skill for any musician worth
his salt, it's just modern musicians that are handicapped.

Sharon



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186483.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Thomas Morley

2016-01-26 13:40 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Chris Yate  writes:
>
>> Wow. Clairnote looks like an incredibly stupid idea, and a grand
>> disservice to any poor child who you teach to read it.  Simplified
>> notation is not a lot better.
>>
>> Unless they spend their lives playing on their own at home, musicians
>> have eventually to play with other people who will have learnt a
>> method of notation that's been good for 400 years.
>
> You could say the same about tablature.  Obviously, it has its place.
> Even Bach wrote stuff for lute tablature.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

For the record.
There are some lute tablatures of Bach's works for lute, namely for
BWV 995, 997, 1000.
But for some of them it's sure Bach didn't wrote the tablature
himself, for others it's quite unlikely.
Ofcourse this is a sidenote, not meant to challenge your argument.
Replace Bach with S.L.Weiss (or other lute-players/composers) and
you're right anyway.

Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> > You could say the same about tablature.  Obviously, it has its place.
> > Even Bach wrote stuff for lute tablature.
> ...
> There are some lute tablatures of Bach's works for lute, namely for
> BWV 995, 997, 1000.
> But for some of them it's sure Bach didn't wrote the tablature
> himself, for others it's quite unlikely.

FWIW tablature was a very popular notation system for lutes and viols, from
late 16th to early 18th century, especially in England, France and Germany.
Lute/viol tablature is actually a very good fit for the nature of the
instrument because these are solo instruments with a range of 3, 4 or more
octaves. Using staff notation, notating a chord spanning 3 and a half
octaves would normally necessitate using 2 staves, like in keyboard music,
but unlike keyboards on the lute and viol the hands are not independent of
each other. So tablature is actually a great solution.

There's also this substantial and sadly practically unknown repertoire for
the lyra-viol, which employed some 30-odd different tunings. Using tablature
allowed players to easily switch between the different tunings without
thinking about fingering.

If you look at music for the modern classical guitar, you'll it's notated
one octave above sounding pitch, just so the music would be centred more or
less on the staff, but every time there's a 6-string chord you get these
enormous ladders extending above and below the staff. But then again, you
don't hear any guitarists complaining...

Apart from lute tablature there's of course also organ tablature, which was
more or less a local north-german phenomenon, but which held at least from
the 15th century through the late 17th. In organ tablature pitches are
notated using letters, bearing a vague resemblance to lilypond code
actually. A good portion of Buxtehude's organ music is notated in tablature,
as well as some of his sacred vocal music. Parts of Bach's Orgelbüchlein are
also notated in tablature. As to why the practice existed, it's not very
clear but one can guess that tablature was a fast way of writing music at
the keyboard - no need for drawing staves and a each note requires a single
stroke, instead of drawing note heads, stems, beams etc. It is also very
economical for homophonic music.

Sharon





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186504.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:01, Sharon Rosner  wrote:

> So you see, it's quite a straight-forward a technique. Yes, accidental
> translation can be tricky, but with practice it becomes second nature. And
> again, 300 years ago it was considered a basic skill for any musician worth
> his salt, it's just modern musicians that are handicapped.

One way to learn it might be to try out the file diatonic.ck [1] I wrote for 
ChucK [2]. It starts up in quarter-comma extended meantone, setting the major 
third to the rational interval 5/4, though one can easily choose another tuning.

One plays on the typing keyboard in a 2-dimensional layout, corresponding to 
the two generators of the staff notation system, then. A transpose is then same 
as a translation on the keyboard.

If one makes the wrong choice of E12 enharmonic note, then one plays a wolf 
interval. So that gives an interactive way to discover the difference. 

1. 
https://secure2.storegate.com/Shares/Home.aspx?ShareID=f2f70b60-a7f7-4d15-9c36-6763de133c62

2. http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

2016-01-26 Thread Hans Åberg

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 18:01, Sharon Rosner  wrote:

> So you see, it's quite a straight-forward a technique. Yes, accidental
> translation can be tricky, but with practice it becomes second nature. And
> again, 300 years ago it was considered a basic skill for any musician worth
> his salt, it's just modern musicians that are handicapped.

One way to learn it might be to try out the file diatonic.ck [1] I wrote for 
ChucK [2]. It starts up in quarter-comma extended meantone, setting the major 
third to the rational interval 5/4, though one can easily choose another tuning.

One plays on the typing keyboard in a 2-dimensional layout, corresponding to 
the two generators of the staff notation system, then. A transpose is then same 
as a translation on the keyboard.

If one makes the wrong choice of E12 enharmonic note, then one plays a wolf 
interval. So that gives an interactive way to discover the difference. 

1. 
https://secure2.storegate.com/Shares/Home.aspx?ShareID=f2f70b60-a7f7-4d15-9c36-6763de133c62

2. http://chuck.cs.princeton.edu/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:24 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> "in-key"?

Hmmm, yeah, that works and is clear.  I think I’ll start using that.

Thanks,
-Paul
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Sharon Rosner  wrote:
> 
> So you see, it's quite a straight-forward a technique. Yes, accidental
> translation can be tricky, but with practice it becomes second nature. And
> again, 300 years ago it was considered a basic skill for any musician worth
> his salt, it's just modern musicians that are handicapped.

Thanks for the examples.  I can see how this would work fine, especially for 
music with fewer accidental notes and assuming proficiency in all clefs and key 
signatures.  

That’s interesting about the history of tablatures.  I’ve wondered whether one 
reason guitar tablature has become so popular today among hobbyists is that it 
more closely maps to the instrument and the process of playing it than standard 
notation (which maps rather well to the piano with its black and white key 
distinction).

(In some respects a system like Clairnote lies between standard notation and 
tablature, providing a more direct mapping between notes on the page and how 
you play them on an instrument, but without being tied to a single instrument – 
so providing some of the benefits of tablature without the drawbacks.)

Cheers,
-Paul

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Chris Yate  wrote:
> 
> Yes, you're probably right. 
> 
> Though whatever you choose would have to be:
> 
> 1) equally easy to read in all keys (which is demonstrably NOT the case for 
> traditional notation)
> 2) easy to manage when key changes
> 3) make it easy to identify octaves, and possibly the tonic, and harmonic 
> relationship between notes etc.
> 4) suitable for all tessitura, which of course we currently manage with clefs
> 5) compact
> 6) easy to notate by hand
> 7) avoid confusion with traditional notation (here Clairnote fails very badly 
> indeed for me)

Yep, it’s a tall order trying to achieve all desirable features in the same 
system.  Seems there are always trade-offs.

(I originally resisted using hollow and solid notes for pitch to preserve more 
continuity with the traditional system, but then came to think the benefits 
were worth it.  Of course, YMMV.)

Cheers,
-Paul

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

Wow. Clairnote looks like an incredibly stupid idea, and a grand disservice
to any poor child who you teach to read it.  Simplified notation is not a
lot better.

Unless they spend their lives playing on their own at home, musicians have
eventually to play with other people who will have learnt a method of
notation that's been good for 400 years.

Chris

On 25 January 2016 at 21:38, Simon Albrecht  wrote:

> On 25.01.2016 22:19, musicus wrote:
>
>> I just struggled with studying a complex music piece and thought that all
>> the chromatic lines are horrible to read in standard notation. Especially
>> the "enharmonic problem" is distracting the musician from a very simple
>> musical structure. So I tried some of my ideas and can present one, which
>> is IMO good to read.
>>
>> See attached. Comments, suggestions are very welcome ;)
>>
>
> Reminds me of Clairnote, a more radical approach, which has also been
> realised with LilyPond: .
>
> Best, Simon
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

On 26 January 2016 at 12:25, musicus  wrote:

> *"1. I like to know where exactly I am at a given time."*
>
> Of course there are always some "key positions", which can help to
> organize yourself while playing (or remembering/ learning etc.).
> Nevertheless I do think that it is important to reduce the optical impact
> to the minimum necessary and therefore as far as I'm concerned I don't want
> to have every single note in a chromatic scale in my perception.
>

I absolutely agree. As a competent sight reader, the problem with chromatic
scales isn't reading chromatic scales but reading the exceptions -- where
it's suddenly a tone between notes.

Now, if you can come up with a consistent and non-confusing way to notate
those differences, that could be useful!

As it is, when I mark up confusing music I sometimes use an upside-down "V"
to indicate semitones, "=" to indicate 'same note' and a square bracket
(like upside down "|__|") between notes to indicate a tone. This is
occasionally useful to me as an aide-memoire, in stuff where we have lots
of double-sharps and flats, but it's certainly not "standard".

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

Sharon Rosner  writes:

> 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,

Piano keyboards.  Chromatic button accordions would likely benefit, as
would Janko keyboards.

> unsuitable for tonal music,

Not "unsuitable" as much as intransparent.  It's harder to see the
tonality.

> unsuitable for music in unequal temperament, unsuitable for microtonal
> music, require relearning how to read music, make transposition
> harder.

"make transposition harder"?  Of all the disadvantages to attribute to
equally-spaced notation systems, this one seems like an unlikely
candidate.  It's one of their redeeming features.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

> Of course a good musician needs to focus on every detail, but only the
"bad" ones neglect the bigger 
> context.

What like Florence Foster Jenkins-type bigger context?

> The key is to focus on the "right" thing, which is in many cases NOT every
> single note of an 
> chromatic scale, IMO.

So what *is* the right thing? The first and last notes? :-)

Sharon



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186452.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation