Chromatic Notation

[ascottk]

http://www.mnma.org/
http://web.syr.edu/~pwmorris/www.mnm...ls/staves.html

A friend of mine, Simon Bielman, at Western Oregon University first showed me some of Bach's music in chromatic notation. Needless to say it'd take a lot of practice to learn a new notation system.


Simon wanted a new keyboard to reflect the chromatic system so he altered a keyboard himself:
http://repulse.dynam.ac/pictures.html



He told me he wants to add another set of keys on there but it was proving to be very difficult.

[stevel]

Crap, I just responded to this and hit the wrong button.

Ok, there have been and are people who are always trying to "improve" something that ain't broke. There are no flaws in the existing method of notating 12 note chromatic pitch (it doesn't suffice for non 12tet music of course though). These people should be investing their energy in the things that ARE wrong in music notation, like symbology for expressiveness. We don't need to tell people WHAT notes to play (there's an excellent system for that in place already), we need to tell them HOW to play the notes.

As a guitarist, I see a bunch of new kids every week saying they've found a "better" way to tune a guitar, thus making the chords "easier" to play. Of course they're playing 3 major chord music. When they finally, years later, learn what a min7 or 9th chord is, they find that can't play it in their "better" system.

Notation has already been through an evolutionary process where all the trial and error work has already been done. It's immature and arrogant to assume that there's a flaw in the system, and that a better one can be found. I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the system mind you, I'm saying there's no need to reninvent the wheel here. As in 19th Nervous Breakdown, there's no need to "perfect" Sealing Wax!

There are thousands of other notational systems throughout the world. You can check out shape-note hymnals in America for instance (diatonic pitches are shown by note shapes, rather than position on a staff). It's complete arrogance to think you can make one "better". It would be better for instance, to be able to read music in graphic form, like the Piano-Roll style layout of a lot of MIDI sequencers. But does anyone do that? No. There's too much existing material out there. It's like the peepul hoo want too chainge eenglish wurds too a fonetik speling ov evreething to "simplify" the langwage. It ain't gonna happen. You can't FORCE evolution. That's why all those people didn't like Schoenberg. I bet there's some Schoenberg haters in this group of chromatic practitioners (get the irony?). Anyway, my 2 cents worth. Fix what's wrong with notation, not what's right.

Steve

[ascottk]

Originally Posted by stevel

Ok, there have been and are people who are always trying to "improve" something that ain't broke. There are no flaws in the existing method of notating 12 note chromatic pitch (it doesn't suffice for non 12tet music of course though). These people should be investing their energy in the things that ARE wrong in music notation, like symbology for expressiveness. We don't need to tell people WHAT notes to play (there's an excellent system for that in place already), we need to tell them HOW to play the notes.

If it isn't broke, why do people still use other notational system? Penderecki & other composers who used graphic notation needed something else to express their ideas

Notation has already been through an evolutionary process where all the trial and error work has already been done. It's immature and arrogant to assume that there's a flaw in the system, and that a better one can be found. I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the system mind you, I'm saying there's no need to reninvent the wheel here. As in 19th Nervous Breakdown, there's no need to "perfect" Sealing Wax!

Question: have you even looked at this notation? It makes total sense for tonal music. C is always on the same place on the lines, interval relationships are easier to see, there's no need for accidentals (try writing contemporary music especially when there's no tonal center).

It might be weak microtonal music though.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by ascottk

If it isn't broke, why do people still use other notational system? Penderecki & other composers who used graphic notation needed something else to express their ideas


This is Bach, not Penderecki. Those composers developed graphic notation to suit a particular need, where pitch was largely an inderteminate item, and a staff representation was unnecessary. People like Carter developed things like "1/3" notes (instead of quarter notes, etc.) using different shapes, and of course there's microtonal notation. Those are "expansions" upon the basic vocabulary, and used expanded the basic symbols. When Earle Brown came along and decided that the basic notation was too far removed from what he was asking for, a new form of instruction was needed (Graphic notation).


Question: have you even looked at this notation? It makes total sense for tonal music. C is always on the same place on the lines, interval relationships are easier to see, there's no need for accidentals (try writing contemporary music especially when there's no tonal center).

Making total sense it what way? It makes sense in one way, the way you describe. It may make total sense to build a navy ship out of wood because wood is a bouyant material. But when it comes under fire, the wood is not going to do you any good. The existing notation system developed WITH tonal music. It is best suited for tonal music. When tonal music evolved beyond tonality, composers sought ways to either expand traditional notation, or to invent something new altogether. This is instead, reverse engineering to suit one particular purpose seen as a logical flaw in traditional notation. Many proponenents of such digressions are primarily people who are pissed because they don't understand why there's 12 notes, but only 7 letter names.

It might be weak microtonal music though.

Well, so is traditional notation in that respect. However, traditional notation can be (and has been) expanded using the basic set of symbology to accomodate microtonal music, at least that music closely related to traditional tonality (which is what the notation was developed for). If this system were to be expanded to do so, it would have to take on a staff line/space for each degree in whatever tuning it is. Then you'd have a thousand different systems that all looked very similar. It makes it harder rather than simpler. It's already built in to traditional notation - you know why - it evolved over time to suit the needs of the music being composed. This type of notation (like some others as well) is not based on any musical tradition at all, but rather an attempt to "correct" perceived flaws in an existing tradition which seem to be pervceived by only a small segment of the music-making population.

I tell you what. I've learned other notational systems. When this one becomes common enough to warrant learning it, I'll invest the time. Otherwise, we'll have to wait and see if it catches on or not.

Cheers,
Steve

[ascottk]

It's an interesting idea but it won't catch on yet. Getting a performance is probably the most important thing for a composer & it won't be performed if it's too much of a pain to learn a new notation system.

I might try to write a piece using this notation & try to get it performed by Simon & his "blasphemous chromatic keyboard" but that'd only be done at least once. Outside of this collaboration it'd be hard to get it performed.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by ascottk

It's an interesting idea but it won't catch on yet. Getting a performance is probably the most important thing for a composer & it won't be performed if it's too much of a pain to learn a new notation system.

I might try to write a piece using this notation & try to get it performed by Simon & his "blasphemous chromatic keyboard" but that'd only be done at least once. Outside of this collaboration it'd be hard to get it performed.

Shouldn't you just be able to write it in standard notation, and then "translate it" to this notation?

Yes, you've hit another important factor on the head - an essential flaw in the development of any new notation system without a musical style within which it developed - despite it simplifying some aspects, it makes it harder to perform, and get works performed. It's the same reason 18th century guitarists abandoned tablature and started using standard notation - they didn't want to cut their odds of getting performances!

Best,
Steve

[reith]

Tell you this, I can't wait to see the full score of the Rite of Spring done up like this.... or can I?

Just to add, I can't think it would offer any advantages with modern music where often specific notation has to be devised for a score, explained in a legend on the preface or footnotes.
Interesting point that Steve raises about why hasn't someone tried to establish a linear piano-roll style because looking at the score of Port Essington, Sculthorpe includes sections that are based on absolute time (if approximate, one presumes) rather than relative durations expressed through standard notes.

Reith