Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de writes: David Kastrup I'm lacking knowldege here. All I know is that in simple orchestras are using electronic tuners here. So they don't care about whether a note is 2 cents higher or not. Trust me, a violinist cares whether he has tuned reasonably pure fifths or not. He'll stop tuning when he has to, but be less happy in the process. And I have been singing in choirs specializing in old music, and yes, you learn which intervals you have to take how flat or sharp compared to the equally tempered keyboard. I've never seen pitch annotations such as +10cent on notes. So most music huge masses plays from paper doesnt care about it. It depends on the musician playing. Singers, wind instruments, brass instruments, (unfretted) string instruments: all those are _correcting_ their pitches semiautomatically in order to get reasonably pure intervals and harmonies. When tuning an orchestra, there is a hierarchy of instruments consulted for concert pitch, depending on how hard they are to tune/pitchbend: if you have an organ, it rules. If not, other keyboard instruments follow, then the hautboys and so on. String players are most flexible. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
* Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de [2011-03-14 17:19]: Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:58:39 + 2011: You'll find that at the end of the day, they sit down at a keyboard rather than just letting intervals play by numbers in their head. *g*. I agree. The goal in all cases is: read a stream of music from paper, hear it in your head before playing it on any instrument. I'd expect that you can reach this state faster if notes are represented more logical. However I don't have an empirical proof yet. Not more logical, but more familiar. Logical sounds like it should be better, but it is not. If we had no system, and we needed to decide between a good system and a bad system, of course the good system should win; but instead we already have a system. Even if the present system is somewhat bad, still, it is the one we know. To succeed, a new system must be a hundred times better, and must be available for free, and must be obvious to every idiot - or else the old system is still better. Not all musicians are smart. And not even many of the smart ones want to learn a new notation system. I don't like to be discouraging, but I am certainly discouraging on this one. Use your skills to create something that many people are asking for. Nobody is asking for a better system of music notation - except for a few notation-system-inventors. :( Even if some students adopt a new system, they will just have to learn the old way eventually, so their time will have been (partly) wasted. -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Marc Weber wrote: Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers? then define could be: ---O- nr 16 ---O- nr 12 ---O- nr 8 ---O- nr 4 ---O- nr 0 to be always 4 semitones? Hi Marc, If you still want to experiment with this kind of alternative notation in LilyPond, here are a couple of snippets that will help: http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=694 http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=755 They show how to remap the vertical positions of the staff to regular intervals (semitones, wholetones, or whatever you want). The followingpage on the music notation project wiki collects more info on how to use LilyPond with these kinds of alternative notations: http://musicnotation.org/wiki/LilyPond David Kastrup wrote: The_only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls_deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every_other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. For anyone who's curious, here's a listing of instruments that have been designed to be key-neutral and scale-neutral. There are saxophones, flutes, vibraphones, panpipes, string instruments, keyboards, accordions, etc: http://musicnotation.org/wiki/Isomorphic_Instruments A benefit they offer is that, like voice or stringed instruments, once you learn the pattern for one diatonic scale, it's the same pattern for every diatonic scale. Whereas on a piano (based on C major), you need to learn a different fingering for each scale/key. They may be more fringe than other instruments, but I'm still interested. It seems like it would be easier to learn to improvise on one of these. Basically, one approach treats different diatonic scales/keys as modifications of a built-in C major scale/key, the other sees diatonic scales/keys as the same diatonic pattern, just starting from a different note within a key-neutral chromatic series, like on a guitar. Mike, thanks for sharing your script for using different note names. Cheers, Paul ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:43 AM, David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.comwrote: * Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de [2011-03-14 04:01]: -- O -- (O is the body of a note here) -- O -- the interval between both pitches depends on the location. Why? Why should e-g be different from g - h ? Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers? then define could be: ---O- nr 16 ---O- nr 12 ---O- nr 8 ---O- nr 4 ---O- nr 0 to be always 4 semitones? Then many tasks such as transposing music to a different key would become a simple math operation: simply add a number. Many musicians who play occasionally only would benefit a lot. Has anyone else thought about this before? Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt it. The installed base (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation is very large, and people who already know any system at all are reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and immediate benefits. In other words, your system is good but everybody will ignore you anyway. Sad, and not ideal, but I think it's true. @Marc The website below may be of interest. It has a number of alternative music notation systems that have been proposed as replacements for traditional notation. http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/index.html Many of them are quite clever but I think David's comment is correct. It's extremely difficult to get people to abandon what they've spent years learning. Cheers, Mike ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
David Rogers davidandrewrog...@gmail.com writes: * Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de [2011-03-14 04:01]: -- O -- (O is the body of a note here) -- O -- the interval between both pitches depends on the location. Why? [...] Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt it. The installed base (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation is very large, and people who already know any system at all are reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and immediate benefits. It brings large and immediate drawbacks. The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Playing notes on a system not matching the controls requires mental effort. Which gets worse when we are talking polyphony. It is the _main_ deterrent against people playing the chromatic button accordion in spite of numerous mechanical and musical advantages. It is also the main deterrent against guitar players learning to play from notes rather than tabulature. Because for guitar players, tabulature naturally corresponds to the controls on their instrument. And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than _interval_-oriented. So even singers tend to be better off with a notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to sing Schönberg. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly chromatic to me. Here, all scales have to be fingered on purpose and equally no matter the pitch. Granted, open strings tend to be natural pitches. Forget open strings. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly chromatic to me. What about _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) did you not understand? Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly chromatic to me. What about _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) did you not understand? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Let me add Stanley Jordan's guitar tuned by fifths which looks fairly chromatic to me. What about _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) did you not understand? Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets corresponding to black keys put someplace else. The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics. Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a _deliberate_ design of controls. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets corresponding to black keys put someplace else. I a sense, frets behave like buttons. The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics. Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons. Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a _deliberate_ design of controls. That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making frets look as if they were buttons :-)) -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets corresponding to black keys put someplace else. I a sense, frets behave like buttons. The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics. Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons. Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a _deliberate_ design of controls. That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making frets look as if they were buttons :-)) I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by fifths, like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and phrygian) have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th degrees of each mode. See the diagram below. HEAD --- . . . . . . c g d a e b . . . . f c d a e b . . . . f c g d e b . . . . f c g d a b So the major scale patterns are very easy to visualize. Of course you need to have huge hands or play high on the neck to execute them without shifting. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets corresponding to black keys put someplace else. I a sense, frets behave like buttons. The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics. Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons. Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a _deliberate_ design of controls. That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making frets look as if they were buttons :-)) I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by fifths, like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and phrygian) have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th degrees of each mode. See the diagram below. HEAD --- . . . . . . c g d a e b . . . . f c d a e b . . . . f c g d e b . . . . f c g d a b So the major scale patterns are very easy to visualize. Of course you need to have huge hands or play high on the neck to execute them without shifting. Oops! Typo in last line of diagram. Highest note is, of course, e instead of b. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
* David Kastrup d...@gnu.org [2011-03-14 14:40]: And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than _interval_-oriented. So even singers tend to be better off with a notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to sing Schönberg. Even if they sing Schoenberg frequently, familiarity of notation is more important than effectiveness or elegance, and so especially in music that they view as difficult they will insist on traditional notation in preference over anything touted as better. People (by and large) are simply not going to learn a new system of notation until the majority of others (especially including the majority of music teachers and the majority of mainstream music publishers) have already adopted it. Therefore ANY new system of notation is, in practical terms, doomed to obscurity. A small circle of friends and/or students around each notation inventor may adopt a system, but it isn't going to go farther than that unless the advantages provided are orders of magnitude greater than the advantages already provided by the many well-thought-out, elegant, and interesting notation systems already swelling the trash heap of history. In my opinion, for starters, any new system that requires an explanation of its features is out. If it isn't obvious without explanation, then the advantages are probably not great enough to get anybody to switch. -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
2011/3/14 Michael Ellis michael.f.el...@gmail.com: On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/14 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes: Frets in a guitar are absolutely chromatic. I did not mention fretless instruments. So please explain how you are would sort frets into a diatonic scale arrangement corresponding to white keys on a piano, with the frets corresponding to black keys put someplace else. I a sense, frets behave like buttons. The frets in a guitar are not _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale, but because their positioning is dictated by physics. Still, frets behave somewhat like buttons. Contrast that with a flute or a saxophone or anything else with a _deliberate_ design of controls. That's why I mentioned Stanley Jordan who percutes strings against the fretboard only, thus allowing complex two-hand polyphony and making frets look as if they were buttons :-)) I'm not familiar with Stanley Jordan's music but a guitar tuned by fifths, like a cello or violin, has a very convenient relationship to diatonic scales because the first 3 modes (ionian, dorian, and phrygian) have symmetric tetrachords starting on the 1st and 5th degrees of each mode. See the diagram below. Something very similar applies to chromatic button accordion, it offers an even more convenient relationship to diatonic scales despite of the fact that the controls are specifically chromatic. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Excerpts from David Rogers's message of Mon Mar 14 16:11:47 + 2011: In my opinion, for starters, any new system that requires an explanation of its features is out. If it isn't obvious without explanation, then the advantages are probably not great enough to get anybody to switch. :) Of course you all are right. Getting trained on music system takes effort and time. So nobody knowing it will switch. But you got the point: Its not obvious why e-f is a semitone having the same visual appearance as let's say c-d. You have to explain that. You have to learn it. You have to pay attention to it if you're playing two voices one written in Es, the other in C... The last is the main point. My mother started playing the Saxophone (Es). The other instruments we have at home are Xaphoone's (C,As). So there is no choice: Either we have to rewrite notes or transpose on the fly (which means one is waiting for the other). http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/gallery.html The link is fine. And its crazy to see how many different systems have been tried. However they all are base don the e-f semi step. I feel that some people playing music only once a year would benefit from equal appearance meaning equal intervals. This would help them recognize intervals faster etc. I know that there is no way rewriting traditional music. There is too much available. I still think it should be easier for untrained people to get started with music. That's all. Marc Weber ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de writes: I feel that some people playing music only once a year would benefit from equal appearance meaning equal intervals. Only if they are playing an instrument where equal intervals are represented by equal key distances. Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching better what they hear rather than what they need to play. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:32:56 + 2011: Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching better what they hear rather than what they need to play. First this could be changed (I know nobody will be doing so ..) Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48. Thus you're brain is more likely to make the association about the same intervals being equal. Thus you don't think mentally: I have to play C-E but you think manually: I have to play 12-16 and every musician who went to school will instantly know that those are 4 semi tones. If you try to teach a grown man /woman about intervals it must sound crazy to them. They will never know instantly that a fifth up on g is a d. But they will always (instantly!) know that 7 + 7 will be 14 (which would represent a d) And this gain will also apply to piano players. I'm not talking about professionals who are spending 8 hours in front of the piano each day anyway.. I'm talking about people who have a day job and do this just for fun. Marc Weber ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de writes: Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:32:56 + 2011: Since that is not the case for most instruments (in particular not for piano keyboards), they have nothing to gain from a notation matching better what they hear rather than what they need to play. First this could be changed (I know nobody will be doing so ..) Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48. A piano has keys, not numbers. I'm not talking about professionals who are spending 8 hours in front of the piano each day anyway.. I'm talking about people who have a day job and do this just for fun. You'll find that at the end of the day, they sit down at a keyboard rather than just letting intervals play by numbers in their head. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
2011/3/14 Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de: Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48. And how would you represent quarter-tones? 5.5? And other kinds of tonal inflections? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Excerpts from David Kastrup's message of Mon Mar 14 16:58:39 + 2011: You'll find that at the end of the day, they sit down at a keyboard rather than just letting intervals play by numbers in their head. *g*. I agree. The goal in all cases is: read a stream of music from paper, hear it in your head before playing it on any instrument. I'd expect that you can reach this state faster if notes are represented more logical. However I don't have an empirical proof yet. quarter tones? They are seldomly used in Germany. .5 .. why not? Marc Weber ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:02 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote: 2011/3/14 Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de: Second: You're wrong. By giving pitches numbers you'll naturally feel than the distance 2-5 is the same as 8-11 and 27-30 and 45-48. And how would you represent quarter-tones? 5.5? And other kinds of tonal inflections? That's how software like Pure Data deals with it.. As a composer working often with algorythms, number for notes feels 'natural' for me, but i'm afraid it would be hard to convince musicians to read from them. one line per note otoh, doesn't seem such a strange system to me. people who work in 'piano roll' view in sequencers are used to think this way.. i've seen people who 'can't read notes' intuitively create melodies this way in no time.. cheers, Kristof http://soundcloud.com/kristof-lauwers http://kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Then you know that 6A is one octave above 5A, etc. Not that crazy midinote notation.. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B]. You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then. In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale, be consistent with your system :-) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote: we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B]. You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then. In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale, be consistent with your system :-) in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being middle C, 72 the C above that, ... as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in just intonation.. http://soundcloud.com/kristof-lauwers http://kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM, i...@kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net wrote:
On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote:
we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system
based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B].
You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then.
In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits
computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale,
be consistent with your system :-)
in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being
middle C, 72 the C above that, ...
as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although
they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand
them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as
far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in
just intonation..
@Marc
I think we're offering too much discouragement here instead of helping
you figure out how to use LilyPond to experiment with your ideas. So
here's an adaptation of a script I use to generate solfege syllables
using the NoteNames engraver. By mapping numbers to the Dutch
notenames, you can print them under the notes. It's probably not the
complete solution you have in mind and you may want to use a different
numbering scheme but at least you can use it to enter some real music
and see if having the chromatic note numbers under the notes is truly
helpful.
Cheers,
Mike
%
dutchtonumbers =
#`((ceses . 10)
(ces . 11)
(c . 0)
(cis . 1)
(cisis . 2)
(deses . 0)
(des . 1)
(d . 2)
(dis . 3)
(disis . 4)
(eeses . 2)
(ees . 3)
(e . 4)
(eis . 5)
(eisis . 6)
(feses . 7)
(fes . 4)
(f . 5)
(fis . 6)
(fisis . 7)
(geses . 5)
(ges . 6)
(g . 7)
(gis . 8)
(gisis . 9)
(aeses . 7)
(aes . 8)
(a . 9)
(ais . 10)
(aisis . 11)
(beses . 9)
(bes . 10)
(b . 11)
(bis . 0)
(bisis . 1)
)
noteNumbers =
#(lambda (grob)
(let* ((default-name (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
(new-name (assoc-get default-name dutchtonumbers)))
(ly:grob-set-property!
grob
'text
(markup #:italic #:smaller new-name))
(ly:text-interface::print grob)))
mymusic = \relative c' { c d e f g a b c }
\score {
\new Voice {
\mymusic
}
\context NoteNames \with {
\override NoteName #'stencil = #noteNumbers
} { \mymusic }
}
%
attachment: notenumbers.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
@Marc I think we're offering too much discouragement here instead of helping you figure out how to use LilyPond to experiment with your ideas. So here's an adaptation of a script I use to generate solfege syllables using the NoteNames engraver. By mapping numbers to the Dutch notenames, you can print them under the notes. It's probably not the complete solution you have in mind and you may want to use a different numbering scheme but at least you can use it to enter some real music and see if having the chromatic note numbers under the notes is truly helpful. Cheers, Mike Mike, Beautiful! Now I can prepare set-theory examples for classes! --David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
i...@kristoflauwers.domainepublic.net writes: On Mon, March 14, 2011 6:57 pm, Bernardo Barros wrote: we have a decimal system and you want to represent a numeral system based on 12 or 24 like [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B]. You should propose a system base on 12 or 24 then. In computer science they use the hexadecimal system because it fits computer's bytes representation, if your object is the 12-tone scale, be consistent with your system :-) in practice, most computer programmers think in midi notes: 60 being middle C, 72 the C above that, ... as an extension, some software allows 'factional midi notes' (although they are not in the midi standard, and hardware synths won't understand them). so 62.33 is on third of a semitone higher then D. this is not as far fetched as it may seem. i use it e.g. to present overtone scales in just intonation.. This sort of linear-think is not necessarily helpful. Just right now I discussed how to put Werckmeister 3 into Roland's tuning tables. Roland has thought it a good idea to divide a half tone into 128 steps rather than 100 cents. Higher resolution. Unfortunately, a pure fifth is almost exactly 2cents off. Werckmeister has eight pure fifths, and four compensating fifths that are 4 cent off. Roland's higher resolution means that you can't really make anything reasonably close to Werckmeister tuning. You get intervals that are not pure, and the compensating fifths are not all of the same size. All a mess because computer scientists decided they'd do something clever. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Bernardo Barros 0,1,...,A,B (base 12) Yes, you're right. Tell me one programmer who can count in Hex by heart. I can do so on paper. But I can't tell you instantly what B*C gives. (11 * 13 = .. back to hex? let me use a calculator). You're right. Base 12 would be fun. But its not tought in school. Thus its harder to learn. That's why I chose 10. I have to think about whether 6A 7A being one actove is worth this effort. This would be a thing which must be tested in real life. Mike: I'm a programmer. I know many languages upside down (unfortunately not lisp) And I experienced the replies as being full of interest and doubts. And there doubts are correct. I could not move to the local music orchestra asking anybody to adopt a foreign system because they all have been trained on the Do Re Mi .. thing for years. (They call it C D .. but its the same) There are at least two skill sets: 1) make your fingers move what notes say 2) hear and recognize sound and make your fingers move By using alternative notations (eg write notes by using intervals: +2 +2 +2 -1 +7) and making pupils play it they will get a feeling for intervals faster. Thus they will listen to the radio and start thinking: +2 -4 +8 .. and you won. They can use this thinking on and instrument. That's what will make them appear somewhat smarter than others. This all only makes sense if I can make a business out of it which means: - print music yourself - find teachers - find stutends - hope that the students learn faster than using traditional systems. After 3min practise I can write down numbers myself. That's not the real point right now. Anyway thanks for your contribution :) It has helped someone else. If I do some real tests I have to hack the core somehow. don't think it'll be too hard though. David Kastrup I'm lacking knowldege here. All I know is that in simple orchestras are using electronic tuners here. So they don't care about whether a note is 2 cents higher or not. whether you have 100 cents or 128 or whether you say +20,34345 cents is only a matter of representing a number. I've never seen pitch annotations such as +10cent on notes. So most music huge masses plays from paper doesnt care about it. It depends on the musician playing. All I wonder is: Is it worth learning that 3rd+ is the same as a 4th etc ? Its nice to learn about history and what some componists thought about using which notes which had assigned what char. But is it important to most musicians today? In Germany there is even a song such as C A F F E, drink nicht soviel Kaffee which is translated to C A F F E E don't trink so much coffee. and you guess it: the first tones are C A F F E E. But those are corner cases. So in this regard my ideas don't improve anything neither do they anyhting bad. Thanks for all of your ideas! Marc Weber ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
Marc Weber schreef op ma 14-03-2011 om 21:01 [+]: I'm a programmer. I know many languages upside down (unfortunately not lisp) Your brackets already match, I hear that's the hardest bit ;-) Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
what about simplifying music notation?
-- O -- (O is the body of a note here) -- O -- the interval between both pitches depends on the location. Why? Why should e-g be different from g - h ? Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers? then define could be: ---O- nr 16 ---O- nr 12 ---O- nr 8 ---O- nr 4 ---O- nr 0 to be always 4 semitones? Then many tasks such as transposing music to a different key would become a simple math operation: simply add a number. Many musicians who play occasionally only would benefit a lot. Has anyone else thought about this before? Marc Weber ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: what about simplifying music notation?
* Marc Weber marco-owe...@gmx.de [2011-03-14 04:01]: -- O -- (O is the body of a note here) -- O -- the interval between both pitches depends on the location. Why? Why should e-g be different from g - h ? Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers? then define could be: ---O- nr 16 ---O- nr 12 ---O- nr 8 ---O- nr 4 ---O- nr 0 to be always 4 semitones? Then many tasks such as transposing music to a different key would become a simple math operation: simply add a number. Many musicians who play occasionally only would benefit a lot. Has anyone else thought about this before? Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt it. The installed base (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation is very large, and people who already know any system at all are reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and immediate benefits. In other words, your system is good but everybody will ignore you anyway. Sad, and not ideal, but I think it's true. -- David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
