Music theory for the 21st century with notation from several centuries earlier. Hmm.... sorry but tracker's table-like views are much easier. And so are most DAWs gantt-like editors. 100 times easier to comprehend than notation having the same not written in three different ways, and then some.
DAWs have been around for a few years now. If you were right and they really were 100 times easier to comprehend people would you not see people using printouts of piano rolls to read from?
What you’re suggesting is actually hundreds of years old from well before the existence of computers or DAWs but still no one is using it.
It turns out that judging the relative length of lines is difficult at speed compared to reading distinct symbols.
Also that 88 note piano rolls are a very space inefficient way of representing music on a page. Even a chromatic stave would be inefficient.
That really matters for people that want to sight read with other musicians and have as much viewable as possible in a compact area.
Finally, standard notation is very rich and evolved, as you’d expect for something in active use for so long. It has extensions for lots of instruments.
When people say notation can’t show X it’s usually that they just don’t know it can.
Because people doing piano have never seen DAWs, or never tried to use them? Because computers are bad, and piano is good. What a nonsense! And I've heard this argument hundred of times, and then at the end most music is produced/recorded/mastered using DAWs.
I have friends who have actual degree in music composition from actual conservatories, so most of them, professionals, who actually compose and produce actual music for movies, for games, for whatever you want - well all of them use DAWs and all of them are on Ableton or Logic or something along the line, and exactly ZERO of this nonsensical notation that takes more effort to master than music itself.
Most of the new music that gets composed is written in gantt charts or tracker rows, believe it or not. Dig around, and you'll find out.
Haha! I've been using Ableton since 2007, it's not something new or secret.
You can use a scrollable chart to display notes on screen and still want printed music for live use.
I'll bet you that if your friends are professionals and using live musicians to play their their compositions then they are distributing music to them in notation form not screenshots of Logic gantt charts.
There's nothing "nonsensical" about notation, it just serves a different purpose to a DAW screen.
If you want to read from paper and play what you read in real time, a Gantt chart is harder to use not easier. Use the right tool for the job.
Anything that can be played live, can be represented with music notation.
If anything does comes along that people want to do live then notation will be extended yet again to include it.
I still fail to understand how using the gantt charts is less convenient than using the medieval scribblings? The only argument being "cause nobody uses it" is not a true argument in favor of or against the point being made. If it is easier to write gantt charts on Ableton, my gut feeling would be - it is equally easy to play off them.
Besides, I bet five years from now s.o., some genz/genalpha/ gen++ will figure out that it is in fact much easier, and I can see the post climbing top positions as something novel...
I guess what I'm saying is that Gantt charts have been tried before, they aren't novel or new. Your suggestion is hundreds of years old.
So I would definitely take that bet against you.
One of the issues is that Gantt charts don't explicitly including rests as symbols. In standard notation everything adds up to the bar length including the rests.
They also fail a bit when it comes to showing discernable short notes and long notes in the same passage of music. That's fine in a DAW because you can zoom in and out but you can't really do that as you're playing.
Finally, learning the basics of musical notation ain't that hard. If it was we would have replaced it already.
Think about this way, computer based sequencing with Gantt charts has been common since at least the Atari ST. People know about it and they use it on a computer.
But they still don't want it for paper. Ask yourself why?
Do you really think it's because everyone is just stupid and old fashioned or could it be something else maybe?
I would bet that your clever "genz/genalpha/ gen++" would be more likely to introduce better teaching system than establish replacement for musical notation.
I would bet that your clever "genz/genalpha/ gen++" would be more likely to introduce better teaching system than establish replacement for musical notation.
Well I hope than someone does.
Apart from that, I get your points, and these are valid arguments. I appreciate them, my original post had no intent of offending peoples or calling names.
Although I don't find that the notation (with the perfectly added timings) simplifies the whole 'playing instruments' thing. Said classical notation becomes crazy complex spiderweb of pause and notes when you add legatos, syncopation, triplets, arpegiation, etc. It is not as universal also, as you claim - the guitar players don't prefer tabs (barre/fret) notations; drummers use rhythm charts more often, than never.
I can agree certain instruments (such as claviers and alike) may benefit greatly from this notation, which was created for them precisely. But I totally disagree this is universally useful one, and yes - I've tried it, has a very steep learning curve, and I'm very good at telling notes apart by only hearing them. The notation stays in the way of performance for me personally.
Call me dumb if u want, but my gut feeling is my position aligns with the vast majority of modern, non-classical musicians.
The English language is messy as hell, and yet, here we are using it because it's a shared set of rules and symbols that pretty much everyone who wants to join in on this conversation already knows.
Same with staff notation: If you want to communicate music to other people, learning the slightly clunky but universally-known written language is generally the way to go.
The choir director at my church, Michael Dodds (UNCSA), covers the early development of musical notation, "From Modes to Keys in Early Modern Music Theory" [0]. Currently on sabbatical at Cambridge. Once in a while during rehearsal he will give an impromptu lecture on music history, always interesting.
No, English language is easy as sh... as piece of cake. A lot of it is marginalized French tbh, sorry, no offense, and the English in the USA is further simplified. You think tis difficult, because you never tried Russian, French, or Mandarin - then we discuss again. Had it not for the simplicity of English Language, it wouldn't be so omnipresent. So you are so wrong on this account.
And I really want to see you communicate wobbling bass or fast random notes. Well you can - in Studel.cc - but is impossible in this notation. Same for complex drum sections (as in dnb, yes), and I can give you fair amount of other examples where medieval notation is useless.
I don't really agree with the person replying to my original comment, but I can see where they're coming from with respect to notating something like the pitched snares in Renegade Snares (chosen specifically because it's an Amen break that I don't know how I could write down in standard rhythm notation).
It would be really hard for me to improvise a clarinet solo based on the melody line in that kind of notation, which is something I have to do pretty frequently in my old style jazz band using fake books.
I'm sympathetic to that view; I spent all evening writing electronic music by programming it into a sequencer and spent a lot of my early career (starting in about 1999) programming using a piano roll.
But "easier for what purpose"? It'd be really tough to read at a gig off a piano-roll.
It took a long time to become comfortable with the fact that standard notation is mostly a suggestion that doesn't contain the years of context I need to get through a big band gig on double bass... but once I realized that my ability to sight read got good enough that I stopped wishing there were some other kind of notation to read.
Sorry, brov, but improvisation is not "following a notation", but exactly the contrary. And perhaps you should try to once in a lifetime use a DAW, I bet you may find yourself amazed by how easy it is to actually read these squares.
The above post mentions big band on double bass, which is precisely my main bag. This is just to clarify. The sheet music consists of portions that are fully notated (i.e., dots on the staff) and lengthy sections with nothing but chord symbols. I'm expected to improvise those parts, and to take liberties with the notated parts as well.
So it is indeed a mixture of reading and improvisation. But this is aside from the choice of notation, which is just a practical matter of finding people who can read it fluently enough to perform from it.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works in the big bands I've played in- you need to be able to both read and improvise and know when to do either.
I very much can and do read for a lot of instruments. In some situations (I played cello in string quartets for a couple of years) deviation from the written notes is limited to phrasing and dynamics and if you're playing weddings, the form gets shoved around a lot (eg don't re-start the cannon when the bride's mother is cued up to walk).
In most of the situations I've played in over the last couple of years, reading more like a teacher running off of "lecture notes" and less like an actor performing Shakespere- deveation is not just expected but required.
However, my memory and ear isn't so good I can predict the future or play a melody or form I have not heard- being able to read an idea and play it is important in the places I play.
And that's my point: standard notation never really catches all the facts about music, even in classical situations. But it's still a lot easier for me personally to read than some weird grid or table (though I have had to play charts that were almost that bad).
Well, you do you... if you're putting piano rolls in front of the folks you're performing with and asking them to use that as a basis for a tune, then that's neat. I don't believe you are, but hey I have been wrong about lots of things.
I've been using DAWs since Logic was owned by E-Magic. Much my early 2000s was spent writing music on a piano roll in Fruity Loops.
The reason I prefer to read standard notation is precisely because I know what the other alternatives are- in reality, it's not "piano rolls" or tracker data, but simple memorization or, like, chord charts- which works fine in a lot of places.
If you don't understand what I mean, then fine, but you might find the world a more interesting place when folks tell you how they have different experiences.
To use a common phrase among directors, I can indeed "read not write" (if you know you know). Playing a notated part as-written is super common in a lot of places and I do that, but you might find it interesting to know that this notation isn't the only way that standard notation is used in the world.
As a human who plays a lot of instruments for money in front of people, it is far easier for me to read and understand directions written in standard notation than it is to decode whatever the fuck is going on with a piano roll or, god forbid, guitar tab.
It might be easier to learn, but it's definitely not easier to read. It takes up many times more space both vertically and horizontally and it gives you very little visual cues in both dimensions. I mean, good luck telling apart a fifth and a sixth on a piano roll, or even telling which octave you're in. Sheet music is something you can sight-read, with enough practice.
(I also feel obligated to point out that an A sharp and a B flat are not the same note, they just happen to have the same pitch IF you're using equal temperament. And even then, the difference is important and understanding it IMO gives you more freedom as a musician to write what you actually want to write.)
Comments
Music theory for the 21st century with notation from several centuries earlier. Hmm.... sorry but tracker's table-like views are much easier. And so are most DAWs gantt-like editors. 100 times easier to comprehend than notation having the same not written in three different ways, and then some.
DAWs have been around for a few years now. If you were right and they really were 100 times easier to comprehend people would you not see people using printouts of piano rolls to read from?
What you’re suggesting is actually hundreds of years old from well before the existence of computers or DAWs but still no one is using it.
It turns out that judging the relative length of lines is difficult at speed compared to reading distinct symbols.
Also that 88 note piano rolls are a very space inefficient way of representing music on a page. Even a chromatic stave would be inefficient.
That really matters for people that want to sight read with other musicians and have as much viewable as possible in a compact area.
Finally, standard notation is very rich and evolved, as you’d expect for something in active use for so long. It has extensions for lots of instruments.
When people say notation can’t show X it’s usually that they just don’t know it can.
The only downside is that you have to learn it.
Because people doing piano have never seen DAWs, or never tried to use them? Because computers are bad, and piano is good. What a nonsense! And I've heard this argument hundred of times, and then at the end most music is produced/recorded/mastered using DAWs.
I have friends who have actual degree in music composition from actual conservatories, so most of them, professionals, who actually compose and produce actual music for movies, for games, for whatever you want - well all of them use DAWs and all of them are on Ableton or Logic or something along the line, and exactly ZERO of this nonsensical notation that takes more effort to master than music itself.
Most of the new music that gets composed is written in gantt charts or tracker rows, believe it or not. Dig around, and you'll find out.
Haha! I've been using Ableton since 2007, it's not something new or secret.
You can use a scrollable chart to display notes on screen and still want printed music for live use.
I'll bet you that if your friends are professionals and using live musicians to play their their compositions then they are distributing music to them in notation form not screenshots of Logic gantt charts.
There's nothing "nonsensical" about notation, it just serves a different purpose to a DAW screen.
If you want to read from paper and play what you read in real time, a Gantt chart is harder to use not easier. Use the right tool for the job.
Anything that can be played live, can be represented with music notation.
If anything does comes along that people want to do live then notation will be extended yet again to include it.
I still fail to understand how using the gantt charts is less convenient than using the medieval scribblings? The only argument being "cause nobody uses it" is not a true argument in favor of or against the point being made. If it is easier to write gantt charts on Ableton, my gut feeling would be - it is equally easy to play off them.
Besides, I bet five years from now s.o., some genz/genalpha/ gen++ will figure out that it is in fact much easier, and I can see the post climbing top positions as something novel...
I guess what I'm saying is that Gantt charts have been tried before, they aren't novel or new. Your suggestion is hundreds of years old.
So I would definitely take that bet against you.
One of the issues is that Gantt charts don't explicitly including rests as symbols. In standard notation everything adds up to the bar length including the rests.
They also fail a bit when it comes to showing discernable short notes and long notes in the same passage of music. That's fine in a DAW because you can zoom in and out but you can't really do that as you're playing.
Finally, learning the basics of musical notation ain't that hard. If it was we would have replaced it already.
Think about this way, computer based sequencing with Gantt charts has been common since at least the Atari ST. People know about it and they use it on a computer.
But they still don't want it for paper. Ask yourself why?
Do you really think it's because everyone is just stupid and old fashioned or could it be something else maybe?
I would bet that your clever "genz/genalpha/ gen++" would be more likely to introduce better teaching system than establish replacement for musical notation.
Well I hope than someone does.
Apart from that, I get your points, and these are valid arguments. I appreciate them, my original post had no intent of offending peoples or calling names.
Although I don't find that the notation (with the perfectly added timings) simplifies the whole 'playing instruments' thing. Said classical notation becomes crazy complex spiderweb of pause and notes when you add legatos, syncopation, triplets, arpegiation, etc. It is not as universal also, as you claim - the guitar players don't prefer tabs (barre/fret) notations; drummers use rhythm charts more often, than never.
I can agree certain instruments (such as claviers and alike) may benefit greatly from this notation, which was created for them precisely. But I totally disagree this is universally useful one, and yes - I've tried it, has a very steep learning curve, and I'm very good at telling notes apart by only hearing them. The notation stays in the way of performance for me personally.
Call me dumb if u want, but my gut feeling is my position aligns with the vast majority of modern, non-classical musicians.
".. most music is produced/recorded/mastered using DAWs."
But not sight-read when playing an actual instrument.
The English language is messy as hell, and yet, here we are using it because it's a shared set of rules and symbols that pretty much everyone who wants to join in on this conversation already knows.
Same with staff notation: If you want to communicate music to other people, learning the slightly clunky but universally-known written language is generally the way to go.
The choir director at my church, Michael Dodds (UNCSA), covers the early development of musical notation, "From Modes to Keys in Early Modern Music Theory" [0]. Currently on sabbatical at Cambridge. Once in a while during rehearsal he will give an impromptu lecture on music history, always interesting.
[0] https://a.co/d/0bLcrlyE
A certain Amazon Web Services comes to mind…
No, English language is easy as sh... as piece of cake. A lot of it is marginalized French tbh, sorry, no offense, and the English in the USA is further simplified. You think tis difficult, because you never tried Russian, French, or Mandarin - then we discuss again. Had it not for the simplicity of English Language, it wouldn't be so omnipresent. So you are so wrong on this account.
And I really want to see you communicate wobbling bass or fast random notes. Well you can - in Studel.cc - but is impossible in this notation. Same for complex drum sections (as in dnb, yes), and I can give you fair amount of other examples where medieval notation is useless.
Can you give a specific example of a drum patten you think can't be represented with music notation then?
Since you mention Drum and Bass, here's the Amen break in drum notation:
https://www.elephantdrums.co.uk/blog/guides-and-resources/am...
I don't really agree with the person replying to my original comment, but I can see where they're coming from with respect to notating something like the pitched snares in Renegade Snares (chosen specifically because it's an Amen break that I don't know how I could write down in standard rhythm notation).
I’m sympathetic to this viewpoint, but most music students in the classroom will be playing instruments or singing rather than working in DAWs.
The instruments, music, and notation all evolved together in a shared tradition that make them well-suited for one another.
It would be really hard for me to improvise a clarinet solo based on the melody line in that kind of notation, which is something I have to do pretty frequently in my old style jazz band using fake books.
I'm sympathetic to that view; I spent all evening writing electronic music by programming it into a sequencer and spent a lot of my early career (starting in about 1999) programming using a piano roll.
But "easier for what purpose"? It'd be really tough to read at a gig off a piano-roll.
It took a long time to become comfortable with the fact that standard notation is mostly a suggestion that doesn't contain the years of context I need to get through a big band gig on double bass... but once I realized that my ability to sight read got good enough that I stopped wishing there were some other kind of notation to read.
Sorry, brov, but improvisation is not "following a notation", but exactly the contrary. And perhaps you should try to once in a lifetime use a DAW, I bet you may find yourself amazed by how easy it is to actually read these squares.
The above post mentions big band on double bass, which is precisely my main bag. This is just to clarify. The sheet music consists of portions that are fully notated (i.e., dots on the staff) and lengthy sections with nothing but chord symbols. I'm expected to improvise those parts, and to take liberties with the notated parts as well.
So it is indeed a mixture of reading and improvisation. But this is aside from the choice of notation, which is just a practical matter of finding people who can read it fluently enough to perform from it.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works in the big bands I've played in- you need to be able to both read and improvise and know when to do either.
I very much can and do read for a lot of instruments. In some situations (I played cello in string quartets for a couple of years) deviation from the written notes is limited to phrasing and dynamics and if you're playing weddings, the form gets shoved around a lot (eg don't re-start the cannon when the bride's mother is cued up to walk).
In most of the situations I've played in over the last couple of years, reading more like a teacher running off of "lecture notes" and less like an actor performing Shakespere- deveation is not just expected but required.
However, my memory and ear isn't so good I can predict the future or play a melody or form I have not heard- being able to read an idea and play it is important in the places I play.
And that's my point: standard notation never really catches all the facts about music, even in classical situations. But it's still a lot easier for me personally to read than some weird grid or table (though I have had to play charts that were almost that bad).
Well, you do you... if you're putting piano rolls in front of the folks you're performing with and asking them to use that as a basis for a tune, then that's neat. I don't believe you are, but hey I have been wrong about lots of things.
I've been using DAWs since Logic was owned by E-Magic. Much my early 2000s was spent writing music on a piano roll in Fruity Loops.
The reason I prefer to read standard notation is precisely because I know what the other alternatives are- in reality, it's not "piano rolls" or tracker data, but simple memorization or, like, chord charts- which works fine in a lot of places.
If you don't understand what I mean, then fine, but you might find the world a more interesting place when folks tell you how they have different experiences.
To use a common phrase among directors, I can indeed "read not write" (if you know you know). Playing a notated part as-written is super common in a lot of places and I do that, but you might find it interesting to know that this notation isn't the only way that standard notation is used in the world.
As a human who plays a lot of instruments for money in front of people, it is far easier for me to read and understand directions written in standard notation than it is to decode whatever the fuck is going on with a piano roll or, god forbid, guitar tab.
It might be easier to learn, but it's definitely not easier to read. It takes up many times more space both vertically and horizontally and it gives you very little visual cues in both dimensions. I mean, good luck telling apart a fifth and a sixth on a piano roll, or even telling which octave you're in. Sheet music is something you can sight-read, with enough practice.
(I also feel obligated to point out that an A sharp and a B flat are not the same note, they just happen to have the same pitch IF you're using equal temperament. And even then, the difference is important and understanding it IMO gives you more freedom as a musician to write what you actually want to write.)