How do you call such chord?

[N__K]

WTF is a 7-pitch staff? Something you invented, too?

In case that was not just rhetorical:

Code: Select all

1  m2   2  m3   3   4  TT   5  m6   6   m7   7
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Personally I find that in many cases the lower row makes more sense. I have no problem with anyone who prefers to think of intervals according to the upper one.

All the staves I ever saw can accomodate 12 tones and more (like quarter-tones, for example - try to put that in a piano roll).

0,25
0,5
0,75
1

I have actually suggested to some DAW developers a type of piano roll where pitch offsets of notes are visually indicated in vertical position of the note on the piano roll (like what one sees in Melodyne and IL's Newtone). Not expecting it to be implemented in any DAW anytime soon.

As for staff, yes - various symbols allow for various alterations, but it also increases considerably the cognitive load of encoding and decoding. Some people can process that well, some cannot.

[fmr]

WTF is a 7-pitch staff? Something you invented, too?

In case that was not just rhetorical:

Code: Select all

1  m2   2  m3   3   4  TT   5  m6   6   m7   7
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

????????????????????????? Can't read that. And it isn't a staff.

Personally I find that in many cases the lower row makes more sense. I have no problem with anyone who prefers to think of intervals according to the upper one.

All the staves I ever saw can accomodate 12 tones and more (like quarter-tones, for example - try to put that in a piano roll).

0,25
0,5
0,75
1

That then, is completely ridiculous.

I have actually suggested to some DAW developers a type of piano roll where pitch offsets of notes are visually indicated in vertical position of the note on the piano roll (like what one sees in Melodyne and IL's Newtone). Not expecting it to be implemented in any DAW anytime soon.

As for staff, yes - various symbols allow for various alterations, but it also increases considerably the cognitive load of encoding and decoding. Some people can process that well, some cannot.

Do you really think that something like the Melodyne piano roll is easier to read than a staff with notes and alterations?
Would you be able to actually play from such a thing?

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

There are hundreds of languages in the world, many describe similar physics-based phenomena in ways that makes most sense for each culture.

Except that yours is not one of those languages. It is a private one. Solipsistic.

And in music, there are various notations and markups developed by different cultures and for different genres.

Yours does not exist, and for good reason if you ask me. It is already overwritten by far more musical and nuanced systems in use.

I don't know whether the markup I described will become common someday

Ain’t gonna help an OP who obviously asks for shared formalizations and not private ones.

But I suspect I'm not the only one to have use for (and come up with) something like it, since it's merely an extension of the idea of roman numerals into 12-pitch space.

If that really had an advantage I am sure it would be implementet already by people more intelligent and trained than both you and me.

I'd recommend to original poster to check all music theory branches available, find the ones most applicable to their use cases, and choose methods which best serve their music-making needs.

Except that your approach is none of the above and thus hardly recommendable at this stage

You do know that there are much peer reviewed research concerning alternative pitch notation, yes? Have you even reviewed this research or is it redundant to you too? Try google Scholar with this search: ‘Alternative pitch notation in music`. Start here. So many ideas, so little consequence till now. Want to beat them? Study, write, publish and show there is something to it,

At the end, this is going in circles, so let’s call it the day. Have fun.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Aside from "A(0,3,5)" I might call "A,C,D" "Am add4 omit5", but that does not seem very sensible either.

As to the loss of musicality in the notation, here is a little analysis showing the specifics in the case above. So we have

1) A (0,3,5)

2) Am add4 omit 5

Let´s start with 2). Here we have a designation of a specific chord that connotes its gender; whether it is major or minor. Typical musical concepts. Now check 1), where is such info? Nowhere. In addition we have signs for addition or subtraction of notes in relation to a basic triad, which imply the concept of diatonic scales, scale degrees, extensions and harmonics. Where is such info in 1)? Lost is the answer.

Now in roman numerials, it can be hard to describe the "chord" in question, but at least we were given the hint that A is tonic/root. A random Am would not necessarily imply it is used as tonic, it could be the dominant or any degree in any key or mode that includes the Am as such. Neither does 1) imply a function in itself and therefore cannot replace roman numerials as to which function we are talking about.

Simple as that. Let the OP or people with similar questions judge it´s usability from here. My verdict persists.

[N__K]

Do you really think that something like the Melodyne piano roll is easier to read than a staff with notes and alterations?

I don't think it - it is a reality of my life. I grew up mostly with 12-pitch piano rolls, and learned the staff later. Nowadays I'm going back to the 12-pitch grid and whatever concepts work best for it [in my use cases].

Would you be able to actually play from such a thing?

I don't really play in realtime. I draw notes into piano rolls with a Wacom tablet.

I do have a 88-key digital piano for occasional realtime sketching of ideas, but very rarely if ever record the result of playing. Instead, I think about it and draw it.

If you are interested further, feel free to send private messages.

[fmr]

Would you be able to actually play from such a thing?

I don't really play in realtime. I draw notes into piano rolls with a Wacom tablet.

I do have a 88-key digital piano for occasional realtime sketching of ideas, but very rarely if ever record the result of playing. Instead, I think about it and draw it.

So the system would be just for you and those like you?

[N__K]

You do know that there are much peer reviewed research concerning alternative pitch notation, yes? Have you even reviewed this research or is it redundant to you too? Try google Scholar with this search: ‘Alternative pitch notation in music`. Start here. So many ideas, so little consequence till now. Want to beat them? Study, write, publish and show there is something to it,

I am aware of some of that discourse in the big picture, if not specifics.

As for it being redundant for my needs: Does the fact that hurdy-gurdy is not a common instrument nowadays stop you from utilizing it in your music, when that suits your needs? No. Does the fact that FL Studio is not used in the Sibelius Academy for recording performances of acoustic instruments stop anyone from using it for other purposes? No. The list can go on.

Similar thing about my markup. It works for my needs, and occasionally I've seen some small interest towards it from others. The rest is irrelevant.

I'm not taking away concepts of functional harmony, roman numerals or the staff from you or anyone else who finds them useful. I'm not establishing a "new order" with a system of "one to rule them all" either - if that is to happen, and in same direction as the one I'm on, I'm at most a pebble which happened to roll there as part of its own insignificant path.

Right here and right now, I'm merely adding to diversity of possibilities - and if that diversity is a problem for you, it's between you and you, not you and me.

At the end, this is going in circles [...]

Unfortunately so. It could have gone like this, too:

Me: "A(0,3,5)"
You: "Well, that's an uncommon way to put it. Might work for some. Not my thing though, and I'm not sure if it's what OP asked, considering that they mentioned a diatonic scale. But if suits someone's needs, yeah, all good."
Me: "Fair thing. Doesn't seem like "Am add4 omit5" has been mentioned yet? Not sure if that's very sensible either, but there it is. "

...and leave it at that. Many people have done so, at other times, in other threads. Or, they simply ignored my writings altogether.

Instead, you seem to be playing the part of a "soulless minion of orthodoxy", while I seem to have ended up in the role of an upstart heretic - a predictable setup of social dynamics in music theory forums. I understand that forum drama can be invigorating, and I can sort-of-sense an existential undertone in our exchange as well. Fair thing, that's life. But there was a less dramatic course of action available, as well

[N__K]

So the system would be just for you and those like you?

Anyone who finds some use in it. Personal similarity to myself not required.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

You do know that there are much peer reviewed research concerning alternative pitch notation, yes? Have you even reviewed this research or is it redundant to you too? Try google Scholar with this search: ‘Alternative pitch notation in music`. Start here. So many ideas, so little consequence till now. Want to beat them? Study, write, publish and show there is something to it,

I am aware of some of that discourse in the big picture, if not specifics.

As for it being redundant for my needs: Does the fact that hurdy-gurdy is not a common instrument nowadays stop you from utilizing it in your music, when that suits your needs? No. Does the fact that FL Studio is not used in the Sibelius Academy for recording performances of acoustic instruments stop anyone from using it for other purposes? No. The list can go on.

Similar thing about my markup. It works for my needs, and occasionally I've seen some small interest towards it from others. The rest is irrelevant.

I'm not taking away concepts of functional harmony, roman numerals or the staff from you or anyone else who finds them useful. I'm not establishing a "new order" with a system of "one to rule them all" either - if that is to happen, and in same direction as the one I'm on, I'm at most a pebble which happened to roll there as part of its own insignificant path.

Right here and right now, I'm merely adding to diversity of possibilities - and if that diversity is a problem for you, it's between you and you, not you and me.

At the end, this is going in circles [...]

Unfortunately so. It could have gone like this, too:

Me: "A(0,3,5)"
You: "Well, that's an uncommon way to put it. Might work for some. Not my thing though, and I'm not sure if it's what OP asked, considering that they mentioned a diatonic scale. But if suits someone's needs, yeah, all good."
Me: "Fair thing. Doesn't seem like "Am add4 omit5" has been mentioned yet? Not sure if that's very sensible either, but there it is. "

...and leave it at that. Many people have done so, at other times, in other threads. Or, they simply ignored my writings altogether.

Instead, you seem to be playing the part of a "soulless minion of orthodoxy", while I seem to have ended up in the role of an upstart heretic - a predictable setup of social dynamics in music theory forums. I understand that forum drama can be invigorating, and I can sort-of-sense an existential undertone in our exchange as well. Fair thing, that's life. But there was a less dramatic course of action available, as well

Well as far as I am concerned, I have just debunked your notation system with an easy analysis showing the loss of musical info (check my posts above). Harmonies described in your pitch degrees contain no info as to the musical conceptions mentioned there. It does not tell about gender, triads, diatonic relations, functions and so forth. There goes your axiom as to what it can replace and is good for. Now, according to rules of logic, an argument based on false premises may be legit in its derivations, but will
inevitably be as false as its premises, and that is where it ends for me, completely independent of your sense of undertones.

At the end of the day, the OP obviously meant shared systems, not private ones, so you are off topic here with this promotion.

[N__K]

Aside from "A(0,3,5)" I might call "A,C,D" "Am add4 omit5", but that does not seem very sensible either.

As to the loss of musicality in the notation, here is a little analysis showing the specifics in the case above. So we have

1) A (0,3,5)

2) Am add4 omit 5

Let´s start with 2). Here we have a designation of a specific chord that connotes its gender; whether it is major or minor. Typical musical concepts. Now check 1), where is such info? Nowhere. In addition we have signs for addition or subtraction of notes in relation to a basic triad, which imply the concept of diatonic scales, scale degrees, extensions and harmonics. Where is such info in 1)? Lost is the answer.

Now in roman numerials, it can be hard to describe the "chord" in question, but at least we were given the hint that A is tonic/root. A random Am would not necessarily imply it is used as tonic, it could be the dominant or any degree in any key or mode that includes the Am as such. Neither does 1) imply a function in itself and therefore cannot replace roman numerials as to which function we are talking about.

"A: 0°(0,3,5)" if it's intended as tonic.

For example:

Code: Select all

A:   0°(0,3,5)      - 8°(0,4,7,9)   - 5°(0,3,7,10)   - 10°(0,2,4,7)	12-degree numerical
     Am add4 omit5  - F add6        - Dm7            - G add2		chord symbols
A:   i (add5 omit5) - bVI (add6)    - iv (m7)        - bVII (add2)	chromatic romans with qualities

[N__K]

Well as far as I am concerned, I have just debunked your notation system with an easy analysis showing the loss of musical info (check my posts above).

From where I'm looking, the need to debunk anything is mostly in your mind, as if something was being taken away from you. Nothing is being taken away from you, so chill.

Harmonies described in your pitch degrees contain no info as to the musical conceptions mentioned there. It does not tell about gender, triads, diatonic relations, functions and so forth.

Neither is it intended to tell all of that. It mostly ignores traditional functions - as does much of electronic music and pop nowadays, by the way - and aims to describe harmonic snapshots. Whatever prescriptive value it may have, depends on the user.

There goes your axiom as to what it can replace and is good for. Now, according to rules of logic, an argument based on false premises may be legit in its derivations, but will
inevitably be as false as its premises, and that is where it ends for me, completely independent of your sense of undertones.

For my part, much of your recent output towards me comes off like a mix of a hazing ritual, inquisition and existential venting at the fact that I'm not simply an obedient disciple, despite your status on this subforum

At the end of the day, the OP obviously meant shared systems, not private ones, so you are off topic here with this promotion.

Now that I can agree with. If OP tells me to funk off, I will apologize and do so.

[N__K]

...

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

"A: 0°(0,3,5)" if it's intended as tonic.

For example:

Code: Select all

A:   0°(0,3,5)      - 8°(0,4,7,9)   - 5°(0,3,7,10)   - 10°(0,2,4,7)	12-degree numerical
     Am add4 omit5  - F add6        - Dm7            - G add2		chord symbols
A:   i (add5 omit5) - bVI (add6)    - iv (m7)        - bVII (add2)	chromatic romans with qualities

I cannot see how this translates to musical signs. How does the sign A 0 (0,3,5) tells me which note is added or omited if I did not already knew what it designates in concrete chords prior to the notation? How do I know that we are dealing with a diatonical relation in relation to triads when adding or subtracting the notes (like terms like add 4 and omit 5 imply)? How do I know per sign that it is minor not major if I did not already know? Is 5 (0,3,7,10) always a subdominant? I would not know much if I only had your system. Just the pitches and a few signs from which I may be able to derive what is I or V, but not per sign, but translations of numbers. You have just confirmed my claim that you have no distinct signs for much. Your translation is one big loss. Evidently. I still see no point of it. What people need to understand and communicate as far as chords concern are already present. This looks much less usable to me.

And plz quite your pseudo-psychoanalysis bs, it just tells me you are getting desparate. Won't bite when your case is so evidently false and easy to prove as such. I have no need for personal involvement. I just need assertions like above to debunk to demonstrate my point, and they are on you.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Harmonies described in your pitch degrees contain no info as to the musical conceptions mentioned there. It does not tell about gender, triads, diatonic relations, functions and so forth.

Neither is it intended to tell all of that.

So, a confession. Thanks. And in accordance with my critique of your translation between systems a post ago. Well without "that", do not be surprised that many already trained communicating musicians will find it inferior and irrelevant. Don't take it too personal, it is just the way we grew into it

[N__K]

How does the sign A 0 (0,3,5) tells me which note is added or omited if I did not already knew what it designates in concrete chords prior to the notation?

Because nothing is added nor omitted.

Here's an example of how to decode the markup:

12-pitch markup example.png

And plz quite your pseudo-psychoanalysis bs, it just tells me you are getting desparate.

I'm always desperate at some level. Writings which imply intolerance of diversity probably add a tiny bit to it. But not much.


EDIT: updated formatting in the image