Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Erisian]

Most young people would use the MIDI-roll inside modern DAWs or tablature tailored software.

I'm far from the greatest sight-reader, but even I find regular music notation way quicker to parse than midi piano roll. more than four notes in a vertical group and it all becomes a blur.

Me too.

[shawshawraw]

Which one was that, the Debussy fragment or some other form earlier posts? I will look back.
In other forums they ask me to transcribe whole pieces... I really do not have time to do it for everybody.

The earlier one if you let me choose:



I think it's a challenge to fit these 5-note stacks into limited vertical spaces while maintaining the octave differences. It surely is an extreme case but it means a lot if you can handle it!

Regarding shapes and transpositions. Yes, once you know the shapes of the notes, you would spot intervals regardless of used symbols. We talked about that in another website a few days ago.

I trust that practice makes perfect, but when there's an easier approach getting there we'll make our choices. The analogy on shapes/transpositions would be reciting the spelling of a chord progression in 12 keys. Definitely it's doable and crazily good for piano playing, but obviously things like I-V-vi-IV is way easier to grasp and remember and to be compared with whatever newly learned. I'd agree it's a YMMV thing, so we're not really seeing the common music notation using purely scale degrees but enough of absolute-ness with the G and F and C clefs

[Pashkuli]

Most young people would use the MIDI-roll inside modern DAWs or tablature tailored software.

I'm far from the greatest sight-reader, but even I find regular music notation way quicker to parse than midi piano roll. more than four notes in a vertical group and it all becomes a blur.

Me too.

No one really reads from a MIDI-roll. It is for recording. Why would you read something already recorded and even producing a sound? MIDI is not for reading, it is a protocol for communication of data.
Piano-rolls could be read from a screen but it will require a big screen and bouncing of eye movement, not to mention how difficult that would be for reading note durations with all those lines of the background piano layout. It would be insane to do that, but I am sure there will be people who can master it (some Guinness record guys).

[Pashkuli]

The earlier one if you let me choose:



I think it's a challenge to fit these 5-note stacks into limited vertical spaces while maintaining the octave differences. It surely is an extreme case but it means a lot if you can handle it!

Got it, thanks for the reminder. It was form a "Berkley Jazz Standard" modern jazz exercise book, if I remember correctly. Will download the image for another time.

[Pashkuli]

@shawshawraw
I am not sure if that would at least point to the right (acceptable) answer to your questions about stacked intervals, shapes\chords, but just a quick response:

in PMN you have the freedom to write any chords, harmonies even separate voicings in various ways... and even combining them!

For example, let's consider the simple C chord (that is C major in root inversion): C-E-G-B-D
Ok, sorry that would be the Cmaj9 or is it C9, I can't remember which one was the correct.

If you have troubles memorising the letters\noteheads of PMN, you surely are familiar with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 symbols.
You can use those to tell you the intervals and they will be the same in every transposition, so might be more suitable for most newcomers to PMN.

So, we have B4·7·11:2
Transpose that down one "semi-tone" (one tone in PMN) you get: V4·7·11:2

With practice the single middle dot could be spared: B4711:2
:2 means it is the old "ninth" interval, which is actually the second (duh!) note in the next "octave".

So, there you have it.


Cool thing is, with this PMN system you can explicitly make the inversions as you please. Just subtract the interval form 12 and write it on the other side of the root it will be inverted.
Here are the exact inversions of the simple "major" chord:

B4·7
5B4
8B7
8·5B

You can write slash chords (C\B♭) and have them in exact intended inversion:
2B4·7
or
TB4·7


In the actual score within the rows, some of the notes will jump on the adjacent rows thus a chord would take 3~4 symbols in width, depending on how you like them written.

[gaggle of hermits]

No one really reads from a MIDI-roll. It is for recording. Why would you read something already recorded and even producing a sound? MIDI is not for reading, it is a protocol for communication of data.

so why did you write this?

We don't need Music notation from modern audio recording point of view. Most young people would use the MIDI-roll inside modern DAWs or tablature tailored software.

make your mind up, mate.

[Pashkuli]

make your mind up, mate.

I did. It is for recording.

* the software or the protocol reads it for you and sends the read data to the sound producing device or plugin\sampler... whatever you have.

[shawshawraw]

So, we have B4·7·11:2
Transpose that down one "semi-tone" (one tone in PMN) you get: V4·7·11:2

With practice the single middle dot could be spared: B4711:2
:2 means it is the old "ninth" interval, which is actually the second (duh!) note in the next "octave".

So, there you have it.

Ah I get what you mean.

Check N__K's post here: viewtopic.php?p=8226669#p8226669 It's a similar semitone figure-based stack notation.

I'm still curious to see how it will show up graphically on a piece of paper. You know... seeing is believing!

btw, C-E-G-B-D = CMaj7/9, C-E-G-Bb-D = C9

[gaggle of hermits]

make your mind up, mate.

I did. It is for recording.

* the software or the protocol reads it for you and sends the read data to the sound producing device or plugin\sampler... whatever you have.

maybe you want to look at a few YouTube videos. people are clearly reading from a midi roll. also, you're more likely to read from it than use it to punch in the notes: that's why we've got midi instruments hooked up to the DAW, though there will be people who inevitably mouse it in.

so, slap your head as much as you like, it's not going to help your argument.

[gaggle of hermits]

So what if that sort of music needs to be notated? Do you get sick of all the chromatic accidentals? What if it's so atonal that defining the main scale is pointless? Then you need vertical space for twelve notes instead of seven.

I had a think about that. you don't need to throw out the positional encoding to the degree that Pashkuli has done. I reckon you could probably squeeze an octave of 12tet down into three lines or so and use almost the same notation as now (with notes either on a line or halfway between) and then use a shape (square vs lozenge) or some other modifier for the ones in between those.

having an octave tab is just asking for trouble, imo, because even chunking into chords is not going to help you with grace notes or mordents around one note while two other notes are held in the same hand. having three lines minimises the vertical space needed but doesn't entirely throw away the advantage of positional encoding. but that's only important if you really have some kind of animus for having everything as related to, say, a C scale with sharps and really want to rename the notes as Dave, dee, dozey, mick, titch etc.

[jancivil]

To me this is a mess

And you're the arbiter of the usefulness of notation by what metric? By what argument?
You aren't making arguments for your assertions. There is naught but assertions, this is as good as your assertion there were some big problems "particularly for vocal music"* during the Church polyphony days, somewhere in there. Not saying a single thing in support of it.
(*: that is hilarious because 'for vocal music' is pretty much all there is to discuss)

What's the problem? The problem is you don't understand what that music is or how it works. So as I have said, it's too difficult for you, "To me this is...". this absolutely demonstrates my point. Too much information is conveyed for you, someone that let's just say is not demonstrating competence or experience or that you understand a damn thing that's said in deconstructing and criticizing the point. Now it's you're too busy to prove anything. You're not being asked to prove anything like a mathematics would prove, you've been challenged to show why this useful situation needs this change. You have nothing.

Rhythmically I have it immediately. 6/8 with some syncopation. It's kind of what's called a black page, and you're afraid of the amount of information and detail.

it's written from the vantage point of 4 part harmony writing, so the stem directions function to reveal that. (yes, there is a doubling at the tenor level)

It's very chromatic music. There's a double sharp corrected to a regular sharp which uses two accidentals in that case, because that's the convention. You probably object to that, while you cropped it to leave off the key signature, so this G double sharp (you have ridiculed a double sharp per se, having apparently not the first clue of its point) is there because the A it leads to is A#. You don't know why these things are notated that way at all, that's a certainty. The reason is function, and these signs are coherent and entirely reveal the harmonic function. You've even ridiculed that there was a change of clef. All this tells us is that you don't have any idea of why that is notated. It's for the player, it will be done to obviate ledger lines, it's simpler to see and anyone seeking to perform this has no problem reading music like that.

Do you have a notation for this that's, in the first place, more readable? Have you read this kind of music in your life? No. You have absolutely no clue and this steps in it worse than you did choosing the Chopin you also have never read or performed.

There are 9 different pitches, which all mean something there is not an actual alternative for, or it's simplifying it* and leaving meaning aside. This is the idea in the NOTUS videos, reduce complexity *arbitrarily because it's too much for you. For you many things are going to be a bafflement, because you lack basic competence. Are you going to have 9 alternative signs which convey the harmony? You would have to understand the music to have an opinion, but you have a super-strong opinion drawn from up your ass. Your ass is what you have to show and you're really going for the gusto there.

[jancivil]

Reading it, the first thing we see is natural signs correcting from previously established signs: C, E, B natural. In context of this still very sharps-prevalent moment we must have come from seven sharps, which we know from the B, B# is the seventh sharp. Now, apparently abrubtly a C major/major 7th chord. So: the complexity that bothers you is just how this music is. An honest person that recognizes where they are in all this would know to leave it alone. You don't. This is the very picture of Dunning-Kruger Effect, you lack the competence to understand from competence at all, so of course to you all your bullshit is perfect by definition, coming out of a perfect ass.

[Pashkuli]

@jancivil
whatever, mate... nobody really cares. Not here to discuss or read standard music notation for exercise or its quirks.

I see it (music notation) from a different tower (perspective). So it is what it is.

[Pashkuli]

Check N__K's post here: viewtopic.php?p=8226669#p8226669 It's a similar semitone figure-based stack notation.

btw, C-E-G-B-D = CMaj7/9, C-E-G-Bb-D = C9

7°(0,5,7) - 8°(0,2,7) - 0°(0,3,5,7)
those digits with degree symbols, not sure what they mean: short way of the ones in parenthesis maybe?

The interval notation is present in every software as it does not require additional symbols, only numbers. It's been like that for decades now (in software, behind the scenes).

C-E-G-B-D = CMaj7/9, C-E-G-Bb-D = C9
Had to check online but it gives me so many inversions to choose under Cmaj9 or C9. Nevertheless it was close enough.

[fmr]

C-E-G-B-D = CMaj7/9, C-E-G-Bb-D = C9
Had to check online but it gives me so many inversions to choose under Cmaj9 or C9. Nevertheless it was close enough.

"close enough"?

Any chord has as many possible inversions as it has notes. So, a 9th chord has FIVE possible inversions. This is Music Theory 101. Someone claiming to be creating a "new notation system" is supposed to know this.