Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Hink]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

[vurt]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

[Pashkuli]

I found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?
taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

In the original\first post I said enough with regards to this topic (and PMN).
I did not create it (both PMN and this topic) to complain how difficult standard music notation (SMN) was (is) for me. Even less to search for a tutor or proper training.
Then, I shared what I considered drawbacks of the SMN to me and how they come to be as such for me.
It is not about who but how SMN has been spread into education and such.
And so on on historical remarks and such, which are fairly known to most people in this field.

It is an alternative, because it is intended to serve in this way: writing down musical ideas.

[Hink]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

Oh is that the rules?

[vurt]

i don't think language is much of an issue tbh, pashkuli is probably better at that than me
culture, as mentioned earlier i would agree to an extent, but surely most cultures know that bragging without substance is a bit pointless.

personality disorders, im not sure id make such a judgement, hard to with what info is available beyond "over confidence" and it's a bit personal really.
but if someone does have a disorder, does that mean they should be allowed to say anything? without correction?
the problem with that, using this thread as an example, let's say we all either ignored, or didn't point out the issues with the system.
then a few years from now, beginner, never played, does a search, finds a simple for beginners method, then tries to move in to academic circles?
better imo for the pit falls to be presented, then the hypothetical beginner can decide if it's worth it to learn.

i say this remember, as someone who is on the outside of all this, like whyterabbyt, my interest lies in the graphic notations rather than standard, although i did not study in uni to the same extent.

again, im not implying pashkuli has a disorder of any sort.

[vurt]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

Oh is that the rules?

not rules no, just a thought.

[Hink]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

Oh is that the rules?

not rules no, just a thought.

so isnt my point

[vurt]

I found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?
taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

In the original\first post I said enough with regards to this topic (and PMN).
I did not create it (both PMN and this topic) to complain how difficult standard music notation (SMN) was (is) for me. Even less to search for a tutor or proper training.
Then, I shared what I considered drawbacks of the SMN to me and how they come to be as such for me.
It is not about who but how SMN has been spread into education and such.
And so on on historical remarks and such, which are fairly known to most people in this field.

It is an alternative, because it is intended to serve in this way: writing down musical ideas.

im certainly not suggesting you need tutoring

i guess what i mean is, it didn't need all that business about indoctrination and such, that's going to put people's backs up.
but just presenting the idea, might have gone different

[Hink]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

Oh is that the rules?

not rules no, just a thought.

so isnt my point, BTW this is exactly how being moderate should look, I need to look at all angles.

[vurt]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves, in fact some cant even grasp the fact that if it works for you, that is really all that matters.

i don't think that's what people took issue with.
it was the way it was presented as a better alternative, as the other isn't fit for purpose. which clearly is not true.

had it been presented as

i found standard notation difficult, so i came up with this for myself, how do you think it looks?

then it's open to discussing.

taint what you do, tits the way that you do it!

Oh is that the rules?

not rules no, just a thought.

so isnt my point

yup. and i was just chatting about my perception, not denying you yours

[vurt]

indeed, and to help you look at all angles, i presented my perception, as another way to see it.

[BertKoor]

It is the title of the piece, dude.

Wow, really?! Ok, so then it makes sense to use those A, B, C, D, E, F, G if otherwise there could be a mismatch of titles. Imagine the apostasy naming your symphony otherwise and not using the note letters.

Me thinks this thread was not about naming conventions for titles of pieces of music used 100 to 400 years ago, however ridicule those used to be.
(it's not for nothing these often got numbered per composer afterwards)

[BertKoor]

Sorry, i had no paper without lines at hand.

Screenshot_20220110-191809_Gallery.jpg

This simple pattern is very easy to recognise. Regardless of the note it starts with, whether in major or minor key, the pattern remains the same.
In pashkuli notation there are 12 x 4 = 48 different patterns for the same simple sequence.

This is what makes standard notation easy to read.

[Hink]

It is the title of the piece, dude.

Wow, really?! Ok, so then it makes sense to use those A, B, C, D, E, F, G if otherwise there could be a mismatch of titles. Imagine the apostasy naming your symphony otherwise and not using the note letters.

Me thinks this thread was not about naming conventions for titles of pieces of music used 100 to 400 years ago, however ridicule those used to be.
(it's not for nothing these often got numbered per composer afterwards)

Bert I warned him about this going to HPC, let's not encourage that more ok, I am at the ready but hope it doesnt come to that.

[Pashkuli]

Sorry, i had no paper without lines at hand.
This simple pattern is very easy to recognise. Regardless of the note it starts with, whether in major or minor key, the pattern remains the same.
In pashkuli notation there are 12 x 4 = 48 different patterns for the same simple sequence.
This is what makes standard notation easy to read.

So it is not chromatic ascending 3 notes, then jump back to the first one? Or is it?
I suppose the third note is on the line not above it? Correct?
Or do I need to know a reference scale structure beforehand, those oval noteheads would fall onto by intention?

This is what makes SMN ambiguous... you see a fragment, someone's screenshot and you have to start a guessing game.