Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Pashkuli]

You know, with strict, I meant perceptually strict.
I have no idea why you think your symbolism should be more easy to the eyes and brain, to me it certainly ain’t. Frankly, to me its looks funny, but a mess, compared to the perceptually strict example above it. Besides, I do not think your argument about losses in your system vis a vis traditional notation are valid, but I will leave that discussion to Jan.
I just stick to the fact that perceptually, your system does not look like a simplification, on the contrary, just look at how many different symbols you need in your own comparison. Overwhelming compared to traditional notation. A complication and not the opposite, I am afraid.

12 symbols. All with strict assignment and designation. Oh and a dot, sometimes even one "ledger" line. So 14 symbols. Compare that to the old notation. But keep in mind to learn all the ovals on their lines in correspondence to at lest 2, rather 4 clefs. Keeping track of changes for the key signature as well. This is complication...

Like having to guess the orbits of the planets according to the geocentric point of view. It is not wrong, but there is a simple explanation and point of view. If you know what I mean.

Oh, could you do me a favour and write down that inscribed low (G, or P in PMN) note on the standard stave from the example:

PMN-note-Pu (low).jpg

PMN-note-Pu (low) on piano.jpg

[Pashkuli]

Pashkuli - Your ongoing sarcasm towards people who don't support your position is very offputting. With your system, I have to learn a bunch of symbols whereas with the old system I only need to learn 3 types of circle and what a dot means.

Sarcasm is towards the old notation. This is not intended personally to anybody here. No one forces anyone to give an opinion. It is a discussion. It is supposed to be both educational, funny (maybe witty) and interesting.

Regarding the traditional notation symbols and how many you need to learn, please read the above answer. You need clefs, an oval notehead on a line or between lines does not mean anything, unless referred to other elements (stave lines, accidentals, key signature).

I showed that ambiguity already. Forget for a moment, that you have spent days, weeks, months learning and practicing the old notation. And see it as it is.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

12 symbols. All with strict assignment and designation. Oh and a dot, sometimes even one "ledger" line. So 14 symbols. Compare that to the old notation.

No need. Your own comparsion of Fantasie Impromtu speaks for itself. To me, it looks like a mess in comparison, and you certainly have more symbols in play than the traditional notation above. A finite number of symbols does not change that.

[Pashkuli]

@TribeOfHǫfuð
It is hard. Maybe it is too advanced for you. Or simply you prefer the comfort of the geocentric point of view, because you've been taught that way. I understand that. Reminds me of my friends who studied Music. They hated the time to learn solfege\score-read, but... they had no choice. No other choice.

I made a choice (pun intended). I literally made it. That is the big difference.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

@TribeOfHǫfuð
It is hard. Maybe it is too advanced for you.

No, just too messy and inconvenient as such. If we move forward to 4 parts or 5 parts writing, it will undoubtedly get worse. More messy does not equate more complicated or a more "advanced system". It may just mean that you have chosen to write simple things in a unnecessary complicated manner.

Or simply you prefer the comfort of the geocentric point of view, because you've been taught that way.

Absolutely. If you add this to the perceptual inconvenience, I have a serious problem to see any reason to adobt to your system.

I made a choice (pun intended). I literally made it. That is the big difference

Wow. So only if I choose your system and do not stick to the old one, it is a choice? Otherwise I am brainwashed or so? I understand you have put a lot of effort in this, and it is no aim of mine to convince you about its usefulness in an universal sense. I have just given my own opinion on it, and this will hardly change from your objections or pretendings that the system is superior, and implications that I cannot cope with complexity or am a brainwashed conformist not to comply. Best of luck with that sales strategy. I have made my point, and the conclusion is that it ain´t a sound alternative to me. Sorry.

[Pashkuli]

@TribeOfHǫfuð
Yes, your opinion is subjective. You just see something that is less cluttered, need only a pencil and blank (no specially pre-engraved) paper, has direct and lightning fast resemblance\representation of a musical note, takes less space (sometimes even above 50%), also has explicit chord inversions (imbedded by design), without any need to be written on a "score"... although it can be and is of course...

You say it is messy. I disagree.
It is unknown to you. And that is a normal reaction. 99% of the readers would react the same way. Those ones who have spend years learning and getting accustomed to reading the old notation, might even get a bit defensive. Changing a point of view about something indoctrinated for centuries in education is quite an effort and a leap forward. Most people like the flow of the established status quo.

Nothing new here. History has plenty of examples in most arts and sciences.
Somehow though writing\reading music got stuck in the Dark ages.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

You say it is messy. I disagree.

I wrote it looks messy TO ME and that cannot be disagreed upon. It is like saying that you disagree with the fact that I do not like fish much

I am sorry to say, but whether people will adobt to this or not wil be a highly subjective affair. You cannot force people´s taste or perceptions to be commanded by your own ditto. There are no objective facts for you to cling to here, especially when those there are speak against you, e.g. the amount of symbols needed in your own comparison. Your example speaks so much for itself that it is sufficient to see what is bought and what is rejected if you´d buy it. I won´t.

[Erisian]

I wrote it looks messy TO ME and that cannot be disagreed upon. It is like saying that you disagree with the fact that I do not like fish much

You're on your own I'm afraid. This one doesn't like differences of opinion.

[Pashkuli]

This is by the way how they teach kids to write\read old notation (from a instructional video, online course). Please, note that the "black keys" are left unassigned. Oh, you just add this and this symbol to make it higher than this white key, or lower than this other white key. It is that "simple", right?

learning music notes on the staff.jpg

Latin alphabet aside (though we know the Church imposed Latin in schools and education), the score designation of tnotes is a complete disaster of lines\spaces counting and referring to clefs (just two in this case, but in practice they are at least 4, depending on the instrument\voice range).

So those 7 symbols × 2 clefs only for the notes, then in some cases another clef (another 7 positions), and we have not included accidentals (3 types) and doubles (another at least 2 types).

This is objective proof of a mess. Not a subjective reaction.

[Erisian]

Latin alphabet aside (though we know the Church imposed Latin in schools and education),

I wonder if your real motive is to stomp your feet at religion? You go on about it enough.

[Pashkuli]

I wrote it looks messy TO ME and that cannot be disagreed upon. It is like saying that you disagree with the fact that I do not like fish much
Your example speaks so much for itself that it is sufficient to see what is.

Be more specific, please. Fish as a food, as a species or just the word and its meaning?

Let's assume you do not like to eat any fish... oh, not much, ok. So a little... maybe. On some occasions or only prepared by your favourite chef?
That is not an objective reasoning.

It is like saying you prefer to write California with a C, rather than Kalifornia with a K, not because they sound the same (objectively evident), rather because you have been taught that way and because many before you say it is "the right way".

Let's not even mention the Beatles, which is obviously Beat... music, Beat... yet sounds the same as written as Beetle. But you might not like it. I get it.

Now consider Pacific Ocean.
I do not like the objective fact that each C in this name is pronounced differently!
Ambiguous? Nah. Just the way it is.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

This is objective proof of a mess. Not a subjective reaction.

No it is not On the contrary this is your subjective and highly deviating opinion on a system that works to those using it and has done so for centuries. There is nothing in our current musical practise suggesting your "problems" are universal and thus objective. No Ph.d. report or treatise to find either that suggests such a thing. It really seems childish for you to think so. You are just saying that your opinion is objective, while others are subjective and invalid as such. Never heard on the internet before, right!

Look at it this way. By your example, you have provided an alternative and given me a choice. I choose the old one. Live with it, mate, for honestly I do not think I will be the exception.

[Farnaby]

You will have a mountain to climb to convince people that this is either needed or the solution to whatever problems you think exist. The sheer body of music and writing in existence will be an enormous barrier.
Musical notation has evolved over a long long time, and isn't perfect always, but it would be hard to devise something that is.

I do admire your endeavour and enthusiasm however, but I'm afraid it is doomed.

[imrae]

When reading traditional notation at speed I primarily read intervals and shapes; the absolute positions and key signature/accidentals are a kind of "correction" layer of information applied on top. But to play or sing a run of notes I do not really parse all the names; I see the overall shape, see that there are no accidentals, and perform a run that easily comes from scale practice.

I'm sure that there's room for improvement in traditional notation, but I think this format will not be suitable in that application. Professional musicians do spend a lot of time reading notes at speed.

Perhaps for long pieces performed slowly, the compactness of this notation will be useful.

[Pashkuli]

You will have a mountain to climb to convince people...
I do admire your endeavour and enthusiasm however, but I'm afraid it is doomed.

It is doomed only for those who see it as such.
Climbing a mountain would be easy. I will need to revive a whole planet as a comparative effort.
800 years of indoctrination is a lot!


To be honest the majority of not so pro or semi-pro (non educated in music) individuals do not read this old music notation.
They use MIDI-roll interface: the true interval representation, to record music related instructions.
Yet, again not to read it in this way. It offers reference graphics for orientation but it is not convenient for print or human reading, unless specifically sized and rolled on a screen with all graphics (piano layout background). But since not many people play piano... it is a bit of a side-trip.