Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[BertKoor]

There is nothing wrong with your eyes. I don't need to explain anything. There never is any guessing.

[imrae]

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

Why is that a problem? Which group of users needs to read accurate pitches from badly cropped screenshots?

If one were designing a format to preserve information when arbitrarily cropped It would have to be fractal in some way. An interesting design problem, but not very relevant.

[Pashkuli]

There is nothing wrong with your eyes. I don't need to explain anything. There never is any guessing.

So you are saying that this is one of these:
1, 2, 3, 1
2, 3, 4, 2
3, 4, 5, 3
4, 5, 6, 4
5, 6, 7, 5
6, 7, (8), 6
7, (8), (9), 7
...

or if that note is above the top line
1, 2, 4, 1 and so on...

So it could be anything really. Ok maybe not chromatic and no hiatus intervals there.
Who knows... hiatus might be in the "key signature"...

[vurt]

try playing those youve listed.
it should give it away, which ever you choose

[Pashkuli]

try playing those youve listed.
it should give it away, which ever you choose

Do not get it. All different (mostly). And also 1, 2, 3, 4 of what?
The biharmonic major? The melodic minor? Jump scale?

[jancivil]

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

This appears to be flat parroting of a precept of 12-tone music. Most music is probably not about 12 tones are equal.
12tET means that the distance between semitones have been tempered by the mathematical device of 12th root of 2 into a system, and the actual point of that temperament was to get keys distant from the white key keys to behave the same as that, where rational intonation gets pretty out-of-whack each remove of a fifth in the cycle. It was absolutely created for a convention in music that does_not consider 12 tones equal in tonal weight or what-have-you. So the criticism that it privileges 7 while being 12 tones in an equal temperament, hence incoherent, is incompetent on more than one front.
Minor key, which once upon a time was a brand new concept, in fact will have potentially 9 and be diatonic.
Then, there was a not-trivial period of western concert music that was quite chromatic. So, check it out, 7 is diatonic (with a significant exception) and 12 is chromatic. to put simply

The same stupid argument is made by the TONUS guy, that 'the structure of western music is 7 notes repeated 7 ways'.
The structure is simply not narrow like that. 7 tones is inherited from very old convention, and one might argue that the term 'octave' is a kind of misnomer. Notwithstanding points like that you're going to have a system that by definition is to address the privileged 7, supposedly in a full set of 12. And there is no sign of an advantage but of disadvantages.

Not to mind-read, but to say that the original post sets out sufficiently the aims and in the same breath act like it's not because you have a complaint about the original system is simply lying to the room about what we saw: gaslighting, to what point we'd have to guess. This is a solution looking for and failing to locate a problem.

You push this nonsense apparently at a number of web fora, and it appears to be part and parcel of trying to promote some physical keyboard, so if we were looking at pure personal interest, it would be easy to ignore, but from the very outset there's a wild claim about a problem, which you don't even begin articulating, and now it's that we read that bit in. FO.

[jancivil]

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

In 12 tone music, or dodecaphony (typically serial dodecaphony) the signs before notes do in no way refer to anything tonal.
I don't know where the quote comes from, but the major scale as "natural" is a bogus assertion; without getting too far into the weeds, fallacious Argument to nature. The major scale is artifice and strictly from convention.

Then rather more fundamentally and obviously:
C# D# E# F# G# A# B#: looks like what, accidentals? It's a major scale, genius. What's the point, a "C#" refers to what, a C? It "refers" to 11 others then, by not being those notes. 'designate a deviation from special scale'. JFC

[jancivil]

Oh, to this mealy-mouthed 'we all have a wish for recognition' as though it excuses this particular behavior, there is deserved recognition, which when enjoyed w. enough frequency results in an individual that isn't out to be noticed for doing some whack shit; this is a weird defense as what it acknowledges is childish behavior and insecurity. If one wants their ideas to be recognized as something, be something, don't be some utter bullshit. If one wants recognition in music, do something of quality and you will be recognized, naturally.

[jancivil]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves

So, are you offering an argument in affirmation of the PMN or just insulting people and impuging their integrity for being critical
(rhetorical question)

[Hink]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves

So, are you offering an argument in affirmation of the PMN or just insulting people and impuging their integrity for being critical
(rhetorical question)

Jan, f**k off

[Pashkuli]

PMN also has dilemmas, for example if a random one row sequence of notes is given (cropped out), the first note is determined but the second might be up or down. Then generally two cases would arise (if two notes are given), three for three notes...

Here is an illustrative example:

dilemma.jpg

In any case though, the notes will have the correct names, although the pitch direction after the first in such an example is not clear. Then usually it will need renova separator note (tonal root, tonic) specification.

[jancivil]

Honestly my point is that some cant see that there might be a use for this because they cannot see beyond themselves

So, are you offering an argument in affirmation of the PMN or just insulting people and impuging their integrity for being critical
(rhetorical question)

Jan, f**k off

It isn't fair to tell people what they understand or read all that into a criticism on the merits.
I feel free enough here to say that isn't any kind of a point, it's just calling people out as having some imaginary lack, which is hardly moderate. Also, there can be a use for the individual calling themselves Pashkuli here, that isn't what the thread gets to be about, or is from the outset, so again with the telling people what they think.
You may feel free to act like I have to walk on eggshells, I don't agree, I think that's incredibly coarse or crass. "can't see beyond themself", it isn't about me, I'm remarking on the reinvention of a wheel by someone that isn't using the wheel.

I see beyond myself when I come to know things that aren't pulled straight out of my rectal cavity, which is my actual entire experience learning music as an honest actor in this.

[Pashkuli]

Then rather more fundamentally and obviously:
C# D# E# F# G# A# B#: looks like what, accidentals? It's a major scale, genius. What's the point, a "C#" refers to what, a C? It "refers" to 11 others then, by not being those notes. 'designate a deviation from special scale'. JFC

When you have to use accidentals, mind you that gothic bemol (becar: ♮) - it is also letter b but written more square like (in the old Gothic script), is also accidental...

...without reference to a key signature, accidentals will show deviation from the general pre-scribed key signature.

Also key signature has to be traced (memorised) across the bars for the respective notes and also "octave" of those.
On the other hand if an accidental inside the bar occurs it would deviate only the note to which it is attached but won't affect any "octave" occurrence of the same note\s in the bar... so it has to be written for both (or more, rare case though) "octave" twins.

Major and minor do not mean anything, rather could include numerous version of scales with "major" or "minor third" respectively.
But the rest is subjected to accidentals. It is an proof of a unnecessary complication, because of unnecessary reference to specific scale (usually "natural" major... or its parallel minor), but that has to be specified as well.

Too much complication for nothing.

[jancivil]

all that TONE, you know, 'can't see beyond yourselves'. It's actually still ASTONISHING to see people talk like that, to no other than a personal point for rancor, disrespect. The topic here is Music Notation (made "plain", ie., a lot is left out as though it's unnecessary). Your disrespect to the others is as much to me as your disrespect of me, moreso because I can't be dissed by someone that fails to get what's being said and twists it.

I don't think it's wrong to call this out, and I'm prob'ly not even in the minority this time (not that it matters)

[Pashkuli]

Stop that interpersonal nonsense. Go fight in PM.
Everyone is a fool. Or shall I say gullible. To me all people who did not ask questions on how things came to be as they are... are gullible, some of them maybe even fools.

I think Steve Jobs once said... that
"Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you."

My Physics professor used to say:
"Those who do not ask questions, either know everything, have not understood anything or would believe and accept anything others say to them."
And since the first is not possible...