Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[jancivil]

I'm interested in a notation that suits a purpose, and if there's a purpose not met by standard current music notation, Pashkuli has not cited it, nor does appear to have any inkling of when that has happened and why. That's the thing.
Their interest in music is not very high, once the surface was scratched that's what we have...

as to 'this kind of thing was always around', vs it being internet-fueled, how can you know? Did you encounter someone in the library giving a lecture? I think this is has to be product of instant feedback.
A truly extraordinary assertion about the entire state of music notation w. nothing, literally nothing APPROACHING an argument for what problem it addresses in 30 pgs, and we should maybe wait to see what happens? What does that mean? With their product line? No argument is coming, that's beyond doubt at this point.

To Pashkuli: I don't know if you know what you're doing or not commercially. There's a sucker born every minute and you already intuit that it's not grown people with fully-developed brains that are going to be easily excitable by the novelty. But this (I've no opinion on the keyboard) is not something organically cropping up to fit a need. Nor is the TONUS system. Some people don't have the aptitude, and it seems like these sorts are - the dynamic is they're - taken as rubes.
This isn't the place to bullshit people, music theory is really technical music knowledge and a concept with zero proof isn't taken very well, understandably.

[whyterabbyt]

What we really need is a notation system rendered as space invader characters in glittery neon with animated sparkles, so that INTRANCER finally has a notation system they're happy with.

[vurt]

What we really need is a notation system rendered as space invader characters in glittery neon with animated sparkles, so that INTRANCER finally has a notation system they're happy with.

that uses a game controller for input.

now, if he will just settle for blips and bleeps, asteroids will quiet his soul.

[mladi]

We all know that nobody will ever use this ugly nonsense to perform or write with it, while the old notation system will still be here and in use when we all are long gone. So this thread is funny in parts and totally absurd of course, but in general it's a waste of time.

[N__K]

What we really need is a notation system rendered as space invader characters in glittery neon with animated sparkles, so that INTRANCER finally has a notation system they're happy with.

that uses a game controller for input.

That reminds of Mario Paint on SNES - it had a Composer section and used noteheads to signify the sound played by that note.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/mar ... tId,85566/

It has apparently been a trend at some point to use that app (or derivatives of it) for fun, usually by remixing something. Not sure if anyone has made original and popular music with it.


A few years later on N64, there was the ocarina-playing functionality in "Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time". Button symbols were used as noteheads, and one had to learn to play simple sequences to progress in the game: https://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Ocarina_of_Time_Songs
Analysis of them can be found here: https://danbruno.net/writing/ocarina/

Obviously, the interface allowed to play more complex things as well, and it was possible to do pitch-bends with the joystick. If I remember correctly, in late 1990s the N64 Magazine held a competition for cover tunes played with it.


Interestingly, both interfaces displayed a traditional staff - I suppose that's in part because composers at Nintendo were formally trained.

[...] this thread is funny in parts and totally absurd of course, but in general it's a waste of time.

Threads like this seem to attract a lot of what Facebook would call "engagement", though - and there are more views of this thread than some of us get for our music releases Perhaps that could be called a success of some kind.

[donkey tugger]

Threads like this seem to attract a lot of what Facebook would call "engagement", though - and there are more views of this thread than some of us get for our music releases Perhaps that could be called a success of some kind.

I fear the dictum, 'all publicity is good publicity', may not universally hold true.

[N__K]

Threads like this seem to attract a lot of what Facebook would call "engagement", though - and there are more views of this thread than some of us get for our music releases Perhaps that could be called a success of some kind.

I fear the dictum, 'all publicity is good publicity', may not universally hold true.

Yep. But in this case, I'm pretty sure that at least some "Search Engine Optimization" is being gained.

[Pashkuli]

The few reasons for PMN (Plain Music Notation) to have been designed are the following:

• 12 tones are equal, none is more important than the other (despite the badly design standard piano keyboard)

• the current (old) notation favours 7 (out of 12 notes), assigned to the sequence of the Latin alphabet

• 6 of the notes got their syllable names after a specific lyrics of a psalm: Do (originally Ut), Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti (Ti was added later and originally was Si) which could have the corresponding letters: D, R, M, F, S, L, later T (to avoid conflict with S) instead (if we had to stick to the special case of the psalm)

• the old system uses 7 letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G from the Latin alphabet sequence to assign letter symbols to only 7 of the notes: this is discriminatory both linguistically and tonally

• the old systems uses 5 lines with numerous ledger lines as a stave and clefs which change the note pitch

• it also requires prescribed accidentals to tweak again the note pitch in order to cover the missing names for the rest 5 notes

• accidental designate a deviation from special scale and thus refers to those (generally the so called "natural" major scale)

Thus I came to the conclusion that the old system needs to be not just improved, but replaced overall. PMN was born.
The structure of PMN:

• the 12 notes have their own unique names (syllables, suitable for singing)

• the 12 notes have their own letters directly from the consonant letter of the corresponding name

• the 12 notes have their own unique noteheads and can be read even if 'half written'

• the main intervals can be designated as numbers corresponding to the steps in 12 note sequence (known as chromatic sequence)

• PMN stave does not use lines, ledger or any such distractions and it does not need them
  because of that (feature), the composer is free to use interchangeably the note-letters and the note-heads or even the numbers for desired intervals

• PMN does not use 'accidentals' (unless micro-tonal notes, but they will be a diacritic mark around the note-symbols)

• PMN allows for explicit writing of chord inversions

• ...and many more advantages

Scale formulas in PMN can be written explicitly either by the use of numbers or the use of special terms for every consecutive move: step (S), jump (J) and leap (L)
step is next step (in chromatic ladder) and always is an integer number
jump skips an adjacent note (chromatically)
leap skips two adjacent notes (interval known also as hiatus)

Thus no scale has any priority over any other scale, nor a scale to be used as a reference formula for the other scales.

For example the alleged "natural" major scale can be written in step-sequence as:
·J·J·S·J·J·J·S· or JJSJJJS
0·2·4·5·7·9·11:0 (0 being the start\root note)

The alleged "natural" minor scale can be written in step-sequence as:
·J·S·J·J·S·J·J· or JSJJSJJ
0·2·3·5·7·8·10:0

[Erisian]

• 12 tones are equal, none is more important than the other (despite the badly design standard piano keyboard)

• the current (old) notation favours 7 (out of 12 notes), assigned to the sequence of the Latin alphabet

• 6 of the notes got their syllable names after a specific lyrics of a psalm: Do (originally Ut), Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti (Ti was added later and originally was Si) which could have the corresponding letters: D, R, M, F, S, L, later T (to avoid conflict with S) instead (if we had to stick to the special case of the psalm)

• the old systems uses 5 lines with numerous ledger lines as a stave and clefs which change the note pitch

• it also requires prescribed accidentals to tweak again the note pitch in order to cover the missing names for the rest 5 notes

• accidental designate a deviation from special scale and thus refers to those (generally the so called "natural" major scale)

I see you misunderstand the old system. I won't waste my time answering every point but the old system does not favour any notes above others, there is nothing wrong with a 5 line stave system and sharps and flats in a key signature are not accidentals. Not understanding the traditional system does not make yours better - only for you.

[N__K]

[...] there is nothing wrong with a 5 line stave system [...]

I disagree, albeit only to extent that my personal musical reality is concerned.

The first thing, silly as it may seem (I was a kid when first bothered by it) is that black lines on the staff do not represent black keys. My brain just prefers iconic rather than symbolic associations, and apparently no amount of effort changes that. So there I was misunderstanding the staff as [some of] the teachers thought me an idiot. That left a bit of a chip on the shoulder

As I eventually learned the staff, I kept experiencing the "7 + alterations" paradigm as much less comfortable than 12 dedicated lines/grid spaces.

As far as I understand, that is because "7 + alterations" requires additional cognitive step when decoding: "is it natural, or altered in some way?"
For all my efforts, I have not been able to train my internal neural networks to do that step as fluently as I'd wish; which is part of why I prefer to utilize piano roll whenever that suffices.

In other words, in comparison to the staff, to me the 12 dedicated rows of piano roll require less cognitive effort, thus allowing to work more fluently. PMN, to me , actually requires more co/decoding than the staff, due to lack of "Y axis position = pitch" correlation.



...speaking of which, a question to topic starter:

Was the "visually higher = higher pitch" paradigm excluded from PMN in order to fit more information into less physical space, or is there other reason(s) for it?

[Pashkuli]

Not understanding the traditional system does not make yours better.

Not "understanding" the geocentric system does not mean the heliocentric system is better.
Only for Copernicus it was better. Right?

[Pashkuli]

Was the "visually higher = higher pitch" paradigm excluded from PMN in order to fit more information into less physical space, or is there other reason(s) for it?

PMN uses 12 symbols. When you know them by heart in chromatic sequence and some basic chord\scale sequences, you really won't need them jumping up and down.
Also you would usually use general root note for tonality designation (although naming major\minor would be voluntary... no one does it in today's music anyway... unless they would like to appear "classy" or deliberately making "a classical" tune like the famous composers).

Also, PMN can be "expanded" or "stretched" vertically and will match the MIDI-roll notation exactly.
This MIDI-roll is used in every modern software. So think of PMN as a "compressed" version of the MIDI-roll. Of course it has duration elements similar to the standard notation (with enormous improvement). So, it is also a 'merge point' between MIDI-roll and Stave notation.

That is its intention, besides the easy to 'text and hand-write', which is not the case with either MIDI-roll or the Grand stave.

[fmr]

As I eventually learned the staff, I kept experiencing the "7 + alterations" paradigm as much less comfortable than 12 dedicated lines/grid spaces.

As far as I understand, that is because "7 + alterations" requires additional cognitive step when decoding: "is it natural, or altered in some way?"
For all my efforts, I have not been able to train my internal neural networks to do that step as fluently as I'd wish; which is part of why I prefer to utilize piano roll whenever that suffices.

It seems you were simply badly taught, or you refused to make hat small effort necessary to understand the rationality behind the system.

I don't know if you are anglo-saxonic, but if you are, you are certainly conscious of the somehow arbitrary and somehow irrational orthography that is the basis of English. Due to the many sources incorporated, you have lost of phonemes that may be written differently depending on the source language that originated the words. Yet, I don't see you complaining about that (maybe you do, I don't know).

Regarding music, there is no such thing as "7 + alterations". There is a system of modes, that incorporated eight in the Middle Ages (four authentic and four plagal) and that gradually evolved to a different mode system that only has two (Major and minor). These two are used either in their original pitches or transposed. To transpose you have to change the pitches accordingly, to keep the relative intervals. So, the "7" may or may not include "alterations". Besides, modernly there are modes with more than seven pitches (eight, nine or even ten pitches). So, "7 + alterations" is NOT a thing.

There are also other alterations, that occur, most of the time, when you want to change from a certain transposition to another (you may also change mode, but most of the time you simply transpose the same mode. Many times, just the presence of an alteration will visually give you a clue of that's happening, and where the music is going to.

To use this system in a more advanced way, and with some "chromatic changes", the piano roll will reveal itself to be rather difficult and cumbersome, and will not allow you to quickly get a picture of what's happening.

OTOH, traditional notation allows you that quick and easily. It is also much more compact in terms of space used, since you accommodate fourteen pitches in a pentagram with five lines and four spaces. To accommodate that many pitches you need fourteen lines in a piano roll, let alone the durations, and the difficulty to read the harmonies in there.

[N__K]

Also, PMN can be "expanded" or "stretched" vertically and will match the MIDI-roll notation exactly.

Do you have visual examples of that? No problem if not yet; I understand it's a WIP project and it takes long time to manually make proofs of concept.

I suspect that PMN will receive more positive responses if you post examples of "expanded" versions where pitch is signified clearly by Y-axis position. That could also make it easier to get more interest from "piano roll kids" who naturally understand 12 pitch-rows.

***

On meta level, I believe that it is (usually) easier to popularize a product/system/etc. via incremental small steps - evolution rather than revolution. So to gather a larger audience, it would be beneficial to work from concepts already familiar to large number of people.

Similar as when inventing new languages, one would try to inherit grammatical structures and spoken sounds already known to many speakers of existing languages - unless one is designing a sci-fi language like Taelon, etc. which is meant to seem uncommon.

[Pashkuli]

It seems you were simply badly taught, or you refused to make hat small effort necessary to understand the rationality behind the system.

Nothing new as info. I know the origin. That is why I think it is not appropriate today.
A, B, C, D... for music notes is just a lazy job. Nothing else.
Stave's clefs\accidentals are a workaround for bad design.