Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Pashkuli]

it would make it much easier, which ever alphabet you choose, if it ran from 1 - 12. (1 being which ever letter you decide is your favourite to start)
the jumping up and down the alphabet makes it less logical imo.

Well, same can be said about why old C is where it is, or A... thus choosing to start a song or melody from let's say... G♯ (A♭) and go E♭(D♯), C, D♯, A, F, F♯,
how does this make it more "logical"?

No melody will follow 1:1 an alphabet anyway... unless some favourite scale starting from A.
A is not a note-letter in PMN anyway.

[Pashkuli]

I am trying to get rid of all the old status quo bad inheritance and favourisation.

To create a clean and simple Musical alphabet, symbolic, inambiguous and easy to write.

[imrae]

I come from the folklore tradition and you could say Eastern tradition. My grandad played some of those instruments and clarinet.
I never played "orchestral instrument" (flute, violin, cello, clarinet, trumpet, etc.) nor piano.
Mostly guitars and drums.

Music theory to me is not a "theory", because Music is an art form. Thus rules I prefer to consider them as styles of playing.

I like some musical ideas of very old times (baroque, classic, romantic, etc.) which are not really from folklore traditional music, but not all of it.
Those old classical pieces are too much (overwhelming) for me today. But back then people (those composers) did not have much anything else to do really (no tv, no internet, no computers, cars, robotics, they could not even listen to music unless someone played it in real time!).

This made them extremely good musician and also the composition they wrote were quite... bloated.
Many if not all such composers "stole ideas" from common folk musicians. That is no secret to anyone. Common folks could rarely afford to go to an opera or concerto. Maybe once in an year or two. For some once in a lifetime.

Who are the intended users of PMN? Is it people who, like you, do not like complex classical music and are not familiar with the existing notation? What musical scene is it for?

Because it is strange to me that you would develop a system that rejects diatonic devices in favour of an equal 12-tone description... for people who probably are not very keen on atonal music.

[Pashkuli]

Who are the intended users of PMN?

You would develop a system that rejects diatonic devices in favour of an equal 12-tone description.

Every musician who wants and alternative, easier, cleaner and inambiguous way of writing music.

It does not reject anything, besides favourisation of a scale and alphabet.

In PMN a "natural" major scale will always be:
0·2·4·5·7·9·11

In PMN a "biharmonic" major scale will always be:
0·1·4·5·7·8·11


and whatever the letters happen to be (WIP as stated above) from the intended root note.

[Pashkuli]

If you'd like to get a starting point on how to propose the noteheads\letters to match to which tone...
Here is a fairly arbitrary statistical data regarding most used keys\roots of song in Spotify:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/music/wha ... y-spotify/

Interestingly enough this G is what the current Dominant chord falls into - which by the way is the true natural major scale - if we have to refer for whatever reason to the standard piano keyboard.





With regards to classical music, another alleged statistical data shows that:
"Interestingly, D major is the most common key, but its relative minor (B minor) was quite unpopular.
Also D minor wins the award for most used minor key. I guess composers just like D/d…"

This is quite interesting because on one hand it is my favourite tone\root and on the other it is the centre of symmetry on the standard piano keyboard (the other one is 6 steps above\bellow).

https://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/pos ... -there-ive

most used root key in classical music.jpg

If no one would like to give suggestions on which notehead and note-name to get assigned to which tone\note, I will have to do it my self... as always.

Really inclined to "favour" in some way... the standard G and D notes as a starting point.
Been thinking about this for a while now (a few years at least)...

[imrae]

Who are the intended users of PMN?

You would develop a system that rejects diatonic devices in favour of an equal 12-tone description.

Every musician who wants and alternative, easier, cleaner and inambiguous way of writing music.

How many such people have you surveyed? Do they have anything else in common?

I wouldn't mind playing with an easier and cleaner system, but I believe your proposal would be slower to read, write and interpret (yes, even with practice). That rules it out of contention for me. But perhaps there are other musicians who don't care about speed. What are their priorities?

It does not reject anything, besides favourisation of a scale and alphabet.

It rejects features of the existing system that make sight-reading (especially singing) easier by reference to a scale.

Because you have not learned to read music at speed, it is difficult for you to see what is lost by removing key signatures. For some reason you also refuse to believe experienced musicians when they explain this.

[Pashkuli]

Because you have not learned to read music at speed, it is difficult for you to see what is lost by removing key signatures. For some reason you also refuse to believe experienced musicians when they explain this.

It is all about practice and knowing your instrument (voice range as well).

When you compose you usually stick to 3 or 4 roots (keys). At least most people do.
Practice makes perfect.

There is no difference in learning:
D, F, G♭, A, C♯, B

or

B, D, M, P, T, S

Actually the first is more difficult.

No one has ever explained "what is lost by removing key signatures".
If you know the notes on your instrument... nothing is lost.
Quite the contrary, it is and will be much faster to side-read even if the player\performer has never seen the piece before and has not practiced it.

Once: because the notes are 1:1 matched (no need to adjust prescribed accidentals or guess in bar).
Second time: because PMN is less cluttered with visual elements.
Third time: because PMN has text to notehead interchangeable swap and actually is highly encouraging to do it, especially in chords.

[vurt]

thinking about it a little more, one thing i cant see in this system is consistent naming across scales.
ie with the current system, all scales use a - g, with some being accidental.
it's not about favouritism, it's about simplicity.
you don't need to learn all the keys, just one. and everything can be derived from it.

something like this, may be the biggest hurdle for you?

[Pashkuli]

something like this, may be the biggest hurdle for you?

Writing accidentals never worked for me.
Apparently it does not for many, many musicians out there, even pros who use MIDI-roll.

Well usually in a scale (mode) you will have the amount of symbols of two chords + one extra note, thus 7.

They all repeat. Even if you have to remember 9 for other 3~4 roots it is nothing.
Step by step. Circle of sevenths.
Think of rewriting my book from 2010 on this subject using PMN and not D, R, M, F... (Do, Re, Mi, Fa...).

xxx.jpg

[vurt]

something like this, may be the biggest hurdle for you?

Writing accidentals never worked for me.
Apparently it does not for many, many musicians out there, even pros who use MIDI-roll.

i get that, but there's a certain simplicity to that method (admittedly took me 30 years to pick it up )

im not in the same boat as many here, didn't learn all this as a kid, was a metal head, didn't need that nerdy rubbish
came to it much later, not from necessity but just out of interest really.

so i can see the benefit of a simpler system, im just not seeing it here (yet, as i know it's a work in progress).

hope my thoughts inspire some thoughts, if nothing else

[Pashkuli]

i can see the benefit of a simpler system, im just not seeing it here (yet, as i know it's a work in progress).

I ask many people in your position or people in general who say "give me something ready, show me a proof".
Ok, but what would be enough proof for you? And if it proves anything to you... what if it does not for the next person in a similar disagreement?

As with every proof of course we have to take certain prerequisites as axioms – as evident.

There is no proof in having 12 notes but naming 7 of them because of favourite scales.
It only proves that favourite things are subjective predispositions.
Saying country music is the best proof why we should use this and this chord progression is just one sided perspective. Same with classic music or jazz...
You do not use 5-note chords? Oh, that is a proof your harmonies are inferior.

Such point of view or attitude would be nonsense.

[vurt]

im not asking for proof of anything
just explaining that in its present state, im finding it difficult to understand.

i thought that was what you wanted? some input, on making a useful system? my apologies

[Pashkuli]

im not asking for proof of anything
just explaining that in its present state, im finding it difficult to understand.

i thought that was what you wanted? some input, on making a useful system? my apologies

Ah, ok I lost track who was the one with the Berkely Jazz exercise excerpt.
Nevermind. The concept is there. Will have to decide soon on the notenames, assign the letters and continue further eventually developing a basic JavaScript app to write music with it.

I know no one would like to jump on this train (wreck), so I will do it on my own... as usual.

[Pashkuli]

Just stumbled upon these "tricks" regarding key signatures and recognising\memorising tonality.
I really think this is some madness and am glad I never fell for it.

tricks.jpg

[N__K]

I know no one would like to jump on this train (wreck), so I will do it on my own... as usual.

Well, maybe you could partner up with the Japanese fellow who has very similar objectives:


https://muto-method.com/en/