Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[gaggle of hermits]

This should not be brought in, this was someone else posturing hard to seem more advanced than the discussion.
That kind of analysis is not meeting a real need, talking about tertial constructs that are easily understood with the extant tools. the need met by pitch-class analysis occurs with serial atonality, so-called, dodecaphonic serialism. Analyzing Webern et al. And the reason for 0 is not roots of simple chords, it has a specific application, there is no "1" as in tonal music. It is instructive, however, of a system that superseded an earlier system meeting a particular need and point in analysis. I went into it in one of those threads, I'm not going to do all that here.

i wasn't recommending it, just explaining what the notation was attempting to describe. i agree that the idea of pitch degree relative to some root tone in a 12-tone serialism context is a bit weird.

otoh, that thread as far as i can tell was about a trance tune – though i can't see why moving outside regular diatonic descriptions would be a great advantage there.

[Pashkuli]

Ironic, isn't it.
You got to love those type of chord annotation (not the notation on the sore itself).

Em13(no3)
Got to use 3 more symbols (excl. parenthesis) to annotate the lack of a note.

Genius-meme.png

[fmr]

Ironic, isn't it.
You got to love those type of chord annotation (not the notation on the sore itself).

Em13(no3)
Got to use 3 more symbols (excl. parenthesis) to annotate the lack of a note.

Or you write it ON SCORE, and have to use no symbols AT ALL

Personally, that's what I do. It's easier for me to write the chord than the figure. Anyway, I wonder how a chord without the third may be classified as "minor"

[jancivil]

the signal we all get from the way the original thread title is formed: someone citing themself in third person, as though the name means something

proof of concept, show us your superior performance using the keyboard where specific intervals are assigned to single buttons. No one that's played piano (or guitar, or...) is going to come up with that crap. Give us your rendition of the Chopin with that as your controller. Once you try, you're going to meet reality, right into a brick wall from that primrose path.

[gaggle of hermits]

Em13(no3)
Got to use 3 more symbols (excl. parenthesis) to annotate the lack of a note.

you didn't want to use "amirite?" there?

the funny thing is, you probably thought that was a clever point and look really clever for making it. if i see something like that on a lead sheet, i've got a decent idea of why it's like that and what the intention of the composer or arranger was and more quickly than having to read a set of intervals for each chord (though i might never actually come across that particular combination in the wild, for reasons you evidently haven't considered).

for similar reasons, figured bass always got abbreviated to the bare minimum to get the point across to people who were expected to play it. they similarly didn't care whether the overall result used more ink, only that it was quick and easy to parse.

[jancivil]

Anyone is going to prefer a score for something that specific.
"Em13 (no 3)", OMFG tho, three characters which mean something exact is ridiculous?
One notes you don't have a better explanation in a simple sign for that, you're just flailing about talking shit.
What's the argument? You haven't one, you haven't any so far, it's all like this.

[Pashkuli]

I wonder how a chord without the third may be classified as "minor"

Ironic, isn't it.
Cause otherwise it might be played with one if not explicitly annotated, whilst no intended by the composer.

And... keep in mind that on the stave you will have to use symbols: noteheads, stems, flags, stave lines themselves, clef and maybe a key signature symbol(s)
So there will be symbols used to get the notes being recorded as intended.
Most of those - unnecessary.

It ain't broken. It is just what it is.
Why would someone waste time to fix something utterly clumsy by inception?

[jancivil]

"to annotate the lack of a note."
You're missing the actual reason, to omit a note that's expected from the symbol.
Either you have a better way to indicate that (it's not certain what the chord is through itself; is there a 9 and an 11 in the construction?) or this has no point.

I know the arranger intends an E and a C# and really doesn't want a G. Apparently they're ok with a B.
It might be enough, but prob'ly not if I'm the pianist and the exact harmony is founded in that role. We'll tend to see a score specifying things.
Conventionally, if the next chord is an A (V of D), I'm leaning towards anticipating that during the ii chord, signaled by the C# given, in my line. Prob'ly would get away with a D major 7 arpeggio just fine. These things are for use, which we have to believe is not your interest.

[gaggle of hermits]

I wonder how a chord without the third may be classified as "minor"

Ironic, isn't it.
Cause otherwise it might be played with one if not explicitly annotated, whilst no intended by the composer.

did fmr's point really sail that far over your head?

[Pashkuli]

the signal we all get from the way the original thread title is formed: someone citing themself in third person, as though the name means something

proof of concept, show us your superior performance using the keyboard where specific intervals are assigned to single buttons. No one that's played piano (or guitar, or...) is going to come up with that crap. Give us your rendition of the Chopin with that as your controller. Once you try, you're going to meet reality, right into a brick wall from that primrose path.

Mate, honestly
you seem to write logorrhea gibberish a lot, like every other online bully with an access to a computer keyboard. Chill, please, and...

[gaggle of hermits]

you seem to write logorrhea gibberish a lot, like every other online bully with an access to a computer keyboard. Chill, please

you might want to lay off the projection. it's not a good look.

[jancivil]

I wonder how a chord without the third may be classified as "minor"

Ironic, isn't it.
Cause otherwise it might be played with one if not explicitly annotated, whilst no intended by the composer.

did fmr's point really sail that far over your head?

My first impression is that's not a very good example of the type. It's kind of a straw man, no one here was promoting that chord symbol, it's just some cherry-picked bit of posturing.

Were this reality, we'd have to make guesses from such a thing, and we'd proceed from context. Chances are not bad it's the ii chord in D but they prefer, let's guess a suspension intead of the third. A "full" 13th is said to contain a 9 and an 11. So E B D F# A C# are in all likelihood safe choices. Bm7(9)/E would be an apt symbol in this case.

Here's how making an argument works: you support your contention in some way. Do you have a better symbol your way? What is your way of explaining that, what's the symbol? There are several points I can make about the meaning, so if I were about 'this here is not very good'. I want to show a clearer way to convey it. That's what that looks like.

You're in a position to learn from people that understand notation, and music, a number of us rather well but you're instead engaged in the exercise of acting like you know better. Your grasp of the material is rudimentary at most.

[jancivil]

the signal we all get from the way the original thread title is formed: someone citing themself in third person, as though the name means something

proof of concept, show us your superior performance using the keyboard where specific intervals are assigned to single buttons. No one that's played piano (or guitar, or...) is going to come up with that crap. Give us your rendition of the Chopin with that as your controller. Once you try, you're going to meet reality, right into a brick wall from that primrose path.

Mate, honestly
you seem to write logorrhea gibberish a lot, like every other online bully with an access to a computer keyboard. Chill, please, and...

So you can't meet a point at all, that's what you show, so you're going to project how you are even as you are doing it, argument to the person.

Show us your way and how it works better.
When extraordinary assertions are made, people may well demand evidence. So I did: proof of concept is entirely missing. You talk a lot of smack. The entire exercise is an insult to everyone's intelligence that has a working grasp of the material. If you did try and produce a demonstration of the superiority of your invention, I pretty much guarantee your reality is that figurative brick wall. I'd bet the farm you haven't begun to do it.

[jancivil]

Example: "you seem to write logorrhea gibberish a lot"
Reacting to sentences that I strongly suspect you are not having trouble teading, that are constructed well enough to convey a fair amount of information and meaning.
How is it 'gibberish'? You're baffled by a number of things which are maybe intermediate level concepts.
The signal we all get from the way you formed the topic title is arrogant self-absorbed bullshitter, ok? I left that as is in implication.
Do you think your sentence structure in your "arguments" is perfect? You write like an adolescent, your disses are juvenile. "logorrhea gibberish" is poorly formed. The adjective form, genius, is logorrheaic.

Pashkuli (a name known to some here as a poseur and that's really about all) is part of the thread title like it means something. Who does that?!
Big ego/little clue.

[Pashkuli]

Show us your way and how it works better.

I have shown enough for the time being. Really no time for transcriptions on demand.
You are better off with the old. You have dedicated time and effort to it. Use it as you know best.
I am showing a different approach, way of seeing music as a written notation.
This way is not your way. There is no need to tell me how it is not your way, until I guide through.
Not my intention to diverse you from your path.