Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[gaggle of hermits]

you posted an example fragment yourself of something that fits the bill (and to my recollection haven’t provided a version in Pmn): viewtopic.php?p=8310327#p8310327

you called it a mess btw.

[Pashkuli]

you posted an example fragment yourself of something that fits the bill (and to my recollection haven’t provided a version in Pmn): viewtopic.php?p=8310327#p8310327

you called it a mess btw.

So what is it actually? It will be a waste of time for me to try and figure out what the exact notes really are... and hope it is not micro-tonal or such, though the accidentals do not seem to be micro-tonal, but after all, what do I know...

For me it is difficult to decipher the actual notes to play at the end of the day, regardless of the mess used for those to be written.

[whyterabbyt]

Ive got a longstanding interest in notation as a concept, from back when I was researching graphical notation for my MSc. Does someone have a list of bullet points on how this improves on what I'd call 'traditional western notation?'

Im mostly interested in the perspective of (escaping) what Trevor Wishart calls the 'pitch/duration paradigm' and the limitations in what a traditional score can represent, which Ive referred to before ie: "timbral, spacial, conditional, generative, or semantic directions" but on first reading this basically seems like a transliteration of the same lattice of information as traditional notation?

[gaggle of hermits]

So what it is actually? It will be a waste of time for me to try and figure out what the exact notes really are... and hope it is not micro-tonal or such, though the accidentals do not seem to be micro-tonal, but after all, what do I know...

it's not microtonal - at least it can be interpreted as squarely 12tet, though you did your best to remove useful context. assuming you have the surrounding context that you clipped out, you have everything you need to reconstruct it.

[BertKoor]

You are free to write whatever you want in traditional notation.

Nah, not true. You have to write too much unnecessary stuff... by the "rules".
Constant reference to a prescribed "natural" mode as either by default or as a key signature.
It is just clumsy, bad inheritance and quite frankly... wrong!

I thought by now you knew there IS no wrong or right, only different.

The ledger lines come pre-printed on music paper. It takes just a sec to draw these on blank paper.

It's true that septatonic scales is what it is made for. But what a surprise, so is 99% of the music in the western world. Chromatic / atonal music is not impossible to write down, the system does facilitate it. Perhaps clumsy, but it is not against any rule.

Pedigree? Oh, that pope thing again? Source reference please? How relevant is that?
Then also look where the meter, autobahn, Puma & Adidas shoes came from.

[Pashkuli]

I'm mostly interested in the perspective of (escaping) 'pitch/duration paradigm' ie: "timbral, spacial, conditional, generative, or semantic directions" but on first reading this basically seems like a transliteration of the same lattice of information as traditional notation?

Sound design instructions is not the premise of this (topic) PMN notation.
I think we already discussed that. Sound design is not the music. Sound design is the way the notes (if notes have been established) sound.
Atmospheric, timbral, spatial are technical parameters of sound design. This has nothing to do with writing the music itself. Music is notes and durations (implied rhythm) in time.

[whyterabbyt]

Sound design instructions is not the premise of this (topic) PMN notation.

Its not the premise of my question either. Do you not understand why we have notation in the first place, or what a score is?

This has nothing to do with writing the music itself. Music is notes and durations (implied rhythm) in time.

Ah okay; you're locked into that particular historical simplification of what music is and isnt, and thus the inherent constraint of that on what notation can encompass.
My apologies for assuming you were less, erm, indoctrinated, than you actually are, and actually had a consideration for something beyond the legacies of the 15th Century.
Ah well, never mind.

[Pashkuli]

Ah okay; you're locked into that particular historical simplification of what music is and isnt, and thus the inherent constraint of that on what notation can encompass.
My apologies for assuming you were less, erm, indoctrinated, than you actually are, and actually had a consideration for something beyond the legacies of the 15th Century.
Ah well, never mind.

We are talking about a Music notation, not about what instruments should we use to get a Music idea to sound better. Music composed for or on one instrument may sound completely weird played on another. Modern synths sounds are crazy weird, to the point of not being able to really recognize a note.
Some modern extreme music genres such as metal and electronic music also fall in that category.
They deal more with rhythm though... as compensation for the lack of definition in the note\pitch tangent.

Music notation, not music sounds, not music\sound arrangements\parameters, not music instruments.
I have another topic about the music instruments here (if you are interested):
Pashkuli Keyboards: discussion + demos

[whyterabbyt]

We are talking about a Music notation, not about what instruments should we use to get a Music idea to sound better.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. I didnt mention instruments at all, or sound design.

These are strawmen; Ive been very specific that Im talking about notation.

And you're avoiding my main actual question.

Music composed for or on one instrument may sound completely weird played on another. Modern synths sounds are crazy weird, to the point of not being able to really recognize a note.
Some modern extreme music genres such as metal and electronic music also fall in that category.
They deal more with rhythm though... as compensation for the lack of definition in the note\pitch tangent.

Can we assume that this is your avoidance of admission that your notation system is inadequate for these scenarios? I seem to be correct in thinking that you've basically maintained the scope, and thus limits, of traditional western notation, not really doing much more than transliterating its visual representation into a different form?

Music notation

Yes, that's what Im talking about. Please stop introducing other things.

not music sounds, not music\sound arrangements\parameters, not music instruments.

No, not these. Again, these are strawmen you're introducing, and nothing I have any interest in discussing in the specific context of notation. Please stop.

Now, given that you're strongly inferring that your system appears not to extend to notating anything more than traditional western notation does, are you prepared to stop with the strawmen, and answer my actual question?

Does someone have a list of bullet points on how this improves on what I'd call 'traditional western notation?'

[imrae]

We are talking about a Music notation, not about what instruments should we use to get a Music idea to sound better.

That's a very limited perspective on composition and arrangement; no doubt a result of indoctrination.

[BertKoor]

This is very true though. Only the form is a different representation of the very same content.

[vurt]

Does someone have a list of bullet points on how this improves on what I'd call 'traditional western notation?'

1: the little icons are prettier.

2: i got nothing else

[Erisian]

Does someone have a list of bullet points on how this improves on what I'd call 'traditional western notation?'

1: the little icons are prettier.

2: i got nothing else

[N__K]

Sorry for out-of-order commenting, I'm picking and choosing what to reply to.

Check N__K's post here: viewtopic.php?p=8226669#p8226669 It's a similar semitone figure-based stack notation.

btw, C-E-G-B-D = CMaj7/9, C-E-G-Bb-D = C9

7°(0,5,7) - 8°(0,2,7) - 0°(0,3,5,7)
those digits with degree symbols, not sure what they mean: short way of the ones in parenthesis maybe?

The degree numbers there mark the pitch counting upwards from tonic, which is assigned as 0°. The numbers in parentheses mark the intervals starting upwards from that degree in 0-11 range.


Here's an image to help understand it:

12-pitch markup example.png

It is a relative-pitch markup system, in concept similar to representing scale degrees with roman numerals - except that it's in 12-pitch (0-11).

Like roman numerals, that markup disregards exact voicings. Its main purpose is analysis and planning of harmonic progressions, rather than performance.




However, in my personal use I also have a markup that specifies exact voicings, reminding somewhat of your solution [for that purpose]. In it, a particular pitch (usually chord's root) is marked with intervals above and below it.

For example { [C2] 0 7 ; 0 4 7 ; 4 }, which is decoded thusly:

Code: Select all

{ [C2] 0   7  ;  0   4   7  ;  4  }
       C2  G2    C3  E3  G3    E4

As another example, a second inversion of C major chord which has its root at C3 might be written as { 7 ; [C3] 0 4 }, meaning:

Code: Select all

{ 7 ; [C3] 0   4  }
  G2       C3  E3

I use that markup for personal notes as well as naming WAV files that are samples of chords, so I know which sample is what chord directly from filename.

The difference to your way of marking voicings/chords is that here, intervals are numbered only to 0-11 and are always marked by numbers with "counted up from root" logic, so for example a "7" of C is always G .

Obviously, it is read left to right (left=lower pitch, right=higher pitch) and the semicolon (;) marks change of octave... or renova - because I have to admit, I like the sound of word "renova" more than "dodecave"

Please, do not tell me you have hard times remembering the months of the year, or the zodiac signs.

Actually yes - I have problems remembering and associating things like month names, their order and meaning, and many other things which require symbol-to-meaning processing, especially in real-time. That abnormality (?) has been tested and confirmed, so in that sense I'm "certified"


***

On meta level, I suppose that we both are aspiring innovators of some kind, and differences in our systems highlight our personal differences in cognitive abilities and approach to music. You seem to be a player of physical instruments; I am a DAW-reliant "sequencing composer", so to speak.
So it is natural that we arrive at somewhat different solutions

This should not be brought in, this was someone else posturing hard to seem more advanced than the discussion.

That hard-posturing person was/is me.

The differences of our paths in life seem to be of such magnitude that I and my methods will never be of the right shape to fit into doors of your acceptance.

But that is all fine. If I cannot help but to be some kind of phantom menace in your neural reflection of reality, then so be it... Master Jedi

[Pashkuli]

We are talking about a Music notation, not about what instruments should we use to get a Music idea to sound better.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. I didn't mention instruments at all, or sound design.

See, notation is 99% related to pitch\duration of notes.
Everything else is... rather optional:
· which instrument or synthesized sound to use
· how loud, how spacious,
· how timbre\synth would modulated

Those are not music notation, rather sound attributes automations.
Some of them are present as sidenotes in music notation, such as dynamics, tempo, etc. but they are not crucial to the (musical) information.

Actually because of the lack of audio recordings those parameters are the one, every performer "thinks" their performance is more close to "what the author played".
They are all wrong about that.

Just open Youtube and see how mediocre most (99%) of the cover or 1:1 attempts on original songs are, compared to original audio recording by the author. There are rare cases where "cover is better or exact on par" with the original.