Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Farnaby]

I was simply responding to the question about why there is an accidental when there is already one in the key signature. The answer is a simple one.

You state that standard notation is heavy, clumsy, etc. as if that is an established fact. It clearly isn't an established fact, but you are entitled to your opinion of course, however daft.

[Pashkuli]

The question is what would be enough proof of the clumsy and ambiguous nature of "standard" music notation?
If you have simply chosen to 'learn\study' it without questioning... then that was your choice.
It certainly was not mine.

I have no intention to bash against it. It is 'one sided', special case, favouring concept by inception.
This was enough for me to discard it when I was about 14 years old.

[poonna]

I think an ideal proof, although virtually impossible, is to conduct a scientific test, employing a number of people who have no background in score reading. Separate them into two groups and teach one group how to read standard notation and another group your notation. Let them do it for, let's say 3 months or 6 months or so, and conduct a test of how fast and accurate each group read their respective notation types.

Intuitively, we may think that our idea is superior in some ways, but sometimes it can be wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong though, just that it's often not enough to just strongly believe in your own solution. Effectiveness of something like new methods of doing things is often not apparent, and sometimes cannot be proven just by giving reasons (many things are actually against intuition). Experiments are probably needed to prove it.

You said that people could learn and read PMN faster than the standard one once they remember it "by heart". The same could be said if those same people remember the standard notation "by heart". What need to be proved are (1) how long it takes to remember either of them "by heart", and (2) once remembered "by heart", which one can be read and executed faster.

Again, not saying any is better. I actually like PWN's cleanliness. But I can't say which one is going to win if a real experiment could be done.

[Erisian]

I think an ideal proof, although virtually impossible, is to conduct a scientific test, employing a number of people who have no background in score reading. Separate them into two groups and teach one group how to read standard notation and another group your notation. Let them do it for, let's say 3 months or 6 months or so, and conduct a test of how fast and accurate each group read their respective notation types.

Intuitively, we may think that our idea is superior in some ways, but sometimes it can be wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong though, just that it's often not enough to just strongly believe in your own solution. Effectiveness of something like new methods of doing things is often not apparent, and sometimes cannot be proven just by giving reasons (many things are actually against intuition). Experiments are probably needed to prove it.

You said that people could learn and read PMN faster than the standard one once they remember it "by heart". The same could be said if those same people remember the standard notation "by heart". What need to be proved are (1) how long it takes to remember either of them "by heart", and (2) once remembered "by heart", which one can be read and executed faster.

Again, not saying any is better. I actually like PWN's cleanliness. But I can't say which one is going to win if a real experiment could be done.

That would be useful. I have warmed a little to PMN having seen more info. My only thing is the way he spits on traditional notation and won't even listen to those who understand it. I think I would personally find his system more difficult to learn but then I don't have a need for it so maybe I have an unconscious bias. I think an experiment like you suggested would be well worth a shot but sadly, I doubt it could be set up.

[Niklashe]

Congratulations! You have invented a notation system thats even harder to learn than the standard notation. I can't imagine how you think anyone will be able to read it. Do you realize the complexity of your system to describe intervals? Now a "forth" will have to be described in twelve different ways (if you don't count the inversion which doubles that). In standard notation the spacing between two notes in a forth is always the same which makes it easy to see movements of fourths, it's just an example. What if there are movements of easy triads (like major chords)? Your system makes it almost impossible to read "on the fly", yes and I mean that even if you know the system and is trained in it. How much information do you think you can take in at a glance?

And why did you invent those clefs? That means that with different clefs (twelve of them) the notes aren't fixed in one "renova" but different octaves with different clefs. You don't think that will be a problem?

Different symbols for different rests? Without any resemblance between them? And why should a quaver be without a stem when a crotchet has one?

I actually do see some potential in your notation system, standard notation is not without flaws as you know, but if you want people to take it seriously it has to be much simpler system than what we already have. The standard notation system is much more a graphical representation of note placement and movement than you think. You still think people who reads standard notation reads "all the notes", but they simply don't. And thats nothing you learn after several years of training, kids learn this early, the movement of noteheads in the system, the naming can come much later.

With a bit of tweaking your system might not be so bad.

One question, on your keyboard (the one that looks like buttons on an accordion) are the notes you show as one "system" in the picture in the same renova?

Best of luck!

[Erisian]

A question. Where does your notation show the octave the music is to be played on?

[Pashkuli]

A question. Where does your notation show the octave the music is to be played on?

In PMN an octave is just an interval. I think by "octave" you mean renova.


Each row is an "octave" of the respective root (key\renova-separator).
I have them encircled (underlined notes show "current middle" ) on the very photo you quoted.
Thus overlined notes can show "sub-middle" renova ("octave").

Please, go to the first original post of this thread to investigate the photos, but I will give a cropped screenshot below. Also, please read the provided PDF file for a basic introduction to PMN. The renovas are explained.

If you see further on the left of the above example and in the bars (the actual vertical lines of the bars) there is the root note, also used as a renova ("octave") separator. You chose either an overall one for the song or you can change them in each section for the best general key\tonality match.

PMN piano clefs.jpg

.
.
.

root-renova-clef.jpg

[Pashkuli]

I know this short example looks messy because of all those arrows and overlay text, but the concept is really simple, ones you know your music notes (symbols, letters).
Just try to forget the accidentals paradigm from a special case of "natural" major\minor.

PMN in MIDI-roll - Chopin (example).jpg

[Pashkuli]

I think an ideal proof, although virtually impossible, is to conduct a scientific test, employing a number of people who have no background in score reading. Separate them into two groups and teach one group how to read standard notation and another group your notation. Let them do it for, let's say 3 months or 6 months or so, and conduct a test of how fast and accurate each group read their respective notation types.

Hi, poonna
I absolutely agree with you. Such an experiment would be indeed the best approach on proving something in that regard, but also it's got its caveats:
· we have to invite people who are interested in music (not just anybody)
· the standard notation has almost 100% advantage in exposure, indoctrination in education and because of that our target groups most likely have already been exposed to the "standard" notation (at schools in one form or another)
· the previous means that it will be very difficult to find musically oriented target people who have never ever seen any music notation
· also keep in mind that we can not put into such an experiment very young people and the problem is young music oriented people get exposed to standard music education (system), thus the experiment will be biased towards the standard music notation!

That is what I am trying to emphasize when using the word 'indoctrination'.
It is just what it is and how it is unfortunately.

Otherwise your idea is the right path to take, but might be challenging finding such "fresh minded" people.
I know... because I have tried it already, though in a smaller scale.

[Pashkuli]

Congratulations! You have invented a notation system thats even harder to learn than the standard notation.

With a bit of tweaking your system might not be so bad.

One question, on your keyboard (the one that looks like buttons on an accordion) are the notes you show as one "system" in the picture in the same renova?

Best of luck!

Hi, Niklashe
Thank you for chiming in with the discussion!
Ok, maybe it is harder because you are already biased. It is evident by the way you think of "fourth" interval.
Keep in mind that intervals are not truly represented (as a vertical distance) in the standard notation. For example the so called "minor" and "major seconds" have the same vertical structure:
B-C is the same as G-A. And this is without including key signature. With a key signature sometimes those an interval would require a third symbol called 'accidental'. So, you have to learn it to adjust at certain movement of that interval. To learn it... to spend time, to exercise, to get used to it.

Certainly in PMN "vertical intervallic" structure is not present (besides renova, "octave").
in PMN the structure B-M is always a 'fifth' (an old "fourth") or its inversion: 12 - 5 = 7th (I do not know what is in the standard), but in PMN it is called by its absolute interval, namely a 'fifth' (up) or inverted as 'seventh' down.
So let's say we are in old C "natural" (no accidentals for you) major. This is B4·7·11 in PMN as a characteristic structure of seven notes: B·L·R·M·P·S·V
So, getting up the scale in old "fourths" we will have:
B·M
L·P
R·S
M·T (well, obviously this T is not part of B·L·R·M·P·S·V)
P·B (see how they swap diagonally)
S·L
V·R


Now, because of that T, we can rewrite the same intervals in M "natural" major. Let's see how much new things we have to learn:
M·T
P·B
S·L
T·R
B·M
L·P
R·S

And you already have memorised three roots (one without and two with "a key signature", thus six tonalities). See the vertical structure of seven notes in each column.
root B (ionian), root M (lydian + ionian) and root T (lydian).

The point is you have to learn somehow "the other way around" compared to standard music notation (based on a special case of "natural" major scale steps).
Thus, M·V will always be a 'sixth' (in every scale, from every root). It will never be an 'augmented fourth' or 'diminished fifth' or whatever else it might be called (sometimes with double accidentals, go read that nightmare).

You do not have to learn all 12 roots. You learn the ones you use most.
And they will differ by up to two letters in most cases (you call it two accidentals).

I am pretty sure no one plays Debussy's pieces from all roots. Maybe there are some "Guinness" guys who do, but we all know it is a time wasting activity.


I did not invent "the clefs". Those are roots or renova separators. It is up to you (the composer) to choose a general root from start to finish, or use most appropriate renova separator, when a key changes (which would be more appropriate but it is not mandatory at all).

You can choose to write all your work form one fixed root (renova separator). Nothing really will change, just some symbols will be shifted to an adjacent line, but reading flow stays the same.


You say... "to read "on the fly"" Again, keep in mind you have spend time to learn to "read "to read "on the fly"" the standard. Please, do not say you were a child prodigy. I will not believe you unless you prove it right now with the Hangul system (korean phonetic).

Of course you will have to learn the basic intervals (in basic roots) such as: B·R
But also you first have to learn the basic elements. Do not expect to start read ""on the fly"" in a couple of days.

What do you mean by "Different symbols for different rests?"?!
Of course they have resemblance. It is obvious. Actually they mimic resemblance of the fraction numbers they represent.

Let me show you:

PMN - rests explained.jpg

Regarding flags and beams...
Yes, quavers do not have flags nor beams because they do not need them. The reason is that arguably they are the most common used durations, also – for ease of writing\managing, moving, pasting, etc..
Crotchets have stems because usually they represent the pulse of the metrum, the main beat divisions in most beat counting. For that reason when they have a stem (also the half notes have them), it is easy to spot the inner beat division within a bar, because stems are vertical.

It is that simple. With one stone... a few birds, one cow and maybe even an elephant.

[Pashkuli]

One question, on your keyboard (the one that looks like buttons on an accordion) are the notes you show as one "system" in the picture in the same renova?

I could not understand that question.
Maybe this screenshot might help:

Pashkuli Keyboard minor 7th.JPG

[poonna]

I think the two issues raised by Erisian and Niklashe should be seriously considered.

The one from Erisian asked about the octave (renova) a note belonged to. Now, if I show you this:



I'm not going to ask what note this is. Instead, my question is: which renova does this note belong to?

If I'm not mistaken (I've briefly read your document), this cannot be answered without context. It's the same as when you showed a crochet and asked what note it was. It could not be answered without context. Granted, though, there are much fewer rows in PMN than lines in the standard notation.

Next problem with this is that you said PMN was designed for notating with pen and paper. However, I think there could be difficulty with the system when there are no lines indicating rows. A big jump or certain kinds of gaps could make it hard to discern which row the next note is in. Using pen and paper, there will be limitations in precision (we are human after all) which make discerning rows even harder.

The next issue from Niklashe regarding intervals are also worth more careful consideration. I will talk more about this later as this is already late here.

[Pashkuli]

I'm not going to ask what note this is. Instead, my question is: which renova does this note belong to?

If I'm not mistaken (I've briefly read your document), this cannot be answered without context.

I think there could be difficulty with the system when there are no lines indicating rows. A big jump or certain kinds of gaps could make it hard to discern which row the next note is in.

Yes, I already explained how we can answer the question regarding the renova ("octave") by adding a couple of dots and a line (root line).
Actually, the question is not fully defined and in PMN we can specify the renova with ease.
That should not require more than what the standard notation would do to answer the same question. And although it can be called "context", actually it is not.
A context would be a whole initial designation of the root (renova separator) at the front or in the bar line.

context.jpg

...

context-not.jpg

Next is Standard Music Notation answer (PMN answer sized for 1:1 matching comparison):
*you would have to write the clef, the stave lines and some few ledger lines, note + stem + flag

context G up.jpg

...to give the answer as obvious (well at least on a piano):

context-not-kbd.jpg

Again for big jumps (hardly will be more than three rows = renovas) you can use renova skip dots as shown above. But most likely it will be obvious by surrounding notes and bar lines.

Certainly, only with pen and paper noteheads require a basic writing skills.
I can show how the hearts can be written pretty fast (both filled and outlined).
But also remember, if you do not like the noteheads, you can always use their common letters!

Also nothing stops you from buying a notebook with engraved rows or cells, to guide you visually.
At least where I live I can by 10 of these notebooks in every store (does not have to be a music store) for about £7. All kids use them anyway at school.

grid paper.jpg

[Pashkuli]

I transcribed the other nonsensical example from the old notation – the screenshot from a score book online:

old gobberish to PMN.jpg

*the clearness of PMN speaks of itself

Here is the corresponding MIDI-roll view:

old gobberish to MIDI.jpg

So, it seems this gibberish is "Max Reger - Sonate pour Clarinette et Piano Op. 49 - No2" near the end of it. So, I found it (thanks Google image recognition).
the repeated sections apparently change keys a few times?

Sonate for Clarinette and Piano Op. 49 - No2 (Max Reger).jpg

[shawshawraw]

So, it seems this gibberish is "Max Reger - Sonate pour Clarinette et Piano Op. 49 - No2" near the end of it. So, I found it (thanks Google image recognition).
the repeated sections apparently change keys a few times?

Well, when this happens I take some time to figure out what's happening and try to understand how that was written. So thanks for pointing out where it comes from



There's also a recorded performance to treat ears. At 21:00 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDX5xNdgn4