Pashkuli: PMN (Plain Music Notation)

[Pashkuli]

Hello, musicians.

I have designed a custom Music Notation. It is an alternative to the old (imposed by the Church in medieval times) notation.
By design it resembles somehow a TAB score notation... but the "strings" are tuned in "octaves" (I use the more appropriate term 'renova', means 'anew, again' in Latin).

I named it PMN (Plain Music Notation). It is symbolic and by design intention can be used as a generalised TAB for any instruments incl. drums\percussion.

Currently I am trying to develop some JavaScript app (actually am designing the font first with the music symbols needed and learning JavaScript on the go from YouTube). The idea is first to be able to translate MIDI files into PMN. Any help in that regard would be highly appreciated and it is extremely anticipated.

Here is a comparison between the "standard" music notation and PMN:





This is the mapping of the noteheads on a "standard" keyboard layout:



Link to the .pdf introduction guide:
Introduction to PMN system










This is because I have designed also two new piano keyboards:




























Will be exploring the program in the holidays!

[Pashkuli]

How PMN is structured as a generalised tablature for any instrument.
Shown bellow is a piano layout. Please keep in mind:

renova range = "octave" range

[Pashkuli]

DURATIONS

[jancivil]

Funnily enough, I saw the same notion promoted in a paper at Acadamia dot edu, "NOTUS", where the noteheads are where actual pitch is indicated. And that one makes the error of confounding 'semitones' with the black keys, even as 2 of 7 white keys in succession are semitones.

I'm not getting how learning note heads and having to correlate those to changes of pitch given at the same level as simpler than *plainly* indicating pitch as such in its own spot on the graphic. That is not me asking to see that argument in more detail, note well.

I didn't wish to be the first, let alone the only person to respond to this. There seem to be major problems of understanding so far. One of them is assigning an interval, to a specific finger as though per se, particularly as we see so few intervals depicted. Again I'm not looking for more info, I'm merely indicating what I think is a normal reaction of people that read music, and frankly the expectation of a music theory forum is that interested people do.
But, let's make this an educational kind of deal and talk actual music.

The wheel is to be reinvented here, and one may question the understanding of the extant wheel herein.
So, this particular composition seems a bad way to start, because of the understanding of what that very visual carries to the person that does read music, and by extension what a person will learn about a music like this in the reading of music as we have it.

I see within virtually one second what happens in that music, I have a very good idea from first sight/at once what it sounds like.
The piece is in C# minor, as signed by four sharps (and immediately a clear dominant-tonic (V-I) to C# minor.)
I see at once that the harmonic progression from measure 3 is the tonic harmony, "i", C# minor, arpeggiated for 2 measures. Ms. 5, and then 6 reiterating the former, shows the kind of minor, harmonic minor, by the leading tone B# (nb., a white key) while there is no raised sixth (ie., not the ascending form of melodic minor), still A natural.
(As well as a chromaticism, F double sharp, a hint of the secondary dominant D# major, dominant of the dominant "V of V", a sign of the style). Now, ms. 7 is a ii7, D# minor with a minor 7, and ms. 8 is V7, G#7 (G# major with a minor 7).

All of this is immediately conveyed. So one supposes that this "plain" music notation is intended for beginners but one learns about the composition the old-fashioned way while this other way tells us nothing (and I tend to suppose that B# and Fx are avoided in favor of simplification ["C" and "G"] for the beginner), we're missing all of this in this alt notation of the piece.
And, since rather small children are able to learn notation as well as understand simple arithmetic, a task that isn't actually all that challenging, it's hard to feature this as a viable alternative. The fact of seeing it twice in a day seems to indicate a trend. I'm not real into a back and forth on the points particularly but I think it's a strange look for the forum to let this pass without deconstructing it.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Well, it looks funny, which is no bad thing tho I’d prefer the strict structure of classical notation. However, where I come from, musicians often need something to be broken to fix it, and I cannot see from this presentation what is supposed to be the problem with traditional notation. People will hardly change life long habits for the fun of it or due to aesthetics only. Especially if some important info is lost too as indicated by Jan. Using this as a beginner’s intro to traditional notation would create interference too because of the different use of symbols. Experimenting with notation is cool, but will likely remain a thought experiment, unless you give people very good reasons to apply it instead of sticking to the language they already know and have been trained in. Another concern is that it seems that you may need big fonts for people to read those heads. Perceptually, traditional notation is way more readable by ordering pitches vertically on horizontal lines.

[jancivil]

Well, everybody should have a hobby...
but the prefatory remarks implicate a notation system as though having some inherent problems and even implies there was some untoward aspect because the Church imposed it on people. The Church, in more than one manifestation, still uses the mensural system from the 15th century for liturgical music. The standard notation system evolved over centuries to meet the needs that arose by the music's growing complexity. From a mnemonics and neumatic basis, to the mensural system... the whole concept of musical rhythm underwent a change from a strong emphasis on *three* to a duple subdivision concept before the standard notation was complete.

So we see a broad suggestion of a problem, lacking any support for it being such a problem. Other than it's supposed as too difficult for somebody, there's no real sign of that.

The paper at academia dot edu seems to have a problem (may have been removed). It's almost certainly not an academic paper. It promotes a youtube where a similar assertion regarding the point is made, that 'the western musical system' is seven notes repeated seven times, which is garbage and just ignorance, so that system (NOTUS) "reflects" this in its form. Reducing complexity by making it go away, ignoring what's inconvenient to the simple-minded, basically. There are significantly fewer signs, like orders of magnitude fewer. But it's the same deal, memorize these noteheads instead of the musical symbols. Memorize something unrelated to the way music is constructed, that is.
So we get a 2 octaves plus a P5 arpeggio, easily seen as what it is, but we're supposed to recognize it by these noteheads, as easier. well, it's clearly extraneous stuff to memorize, so I doubt it.

Whatever, this is not going anywhere, but have fun with it while perhaps tempering any expectation of people embracing it for a practice.

[Pashkuli]

@jancivil
@TribeOfHǫfuð

Guys, keep in mind a few very important details:
1. Traditional (church) music notation has been around and been imposed in education for more than 800 years now.

800 years of Church domination in almost all educational facilities across Europe! And then of course in America and the colonial world. Domination.

2. You have spent at least one full year of learning how to read old church notation. With exercises and such, some of you have taken exams! Actually most musically educated persons took at lest a couple of exams on reading music notation. This requires time... a lot of time and effort dedicated to it.

3. All classical music (mostly related to church) and even modern music is written on the old notation.
So, you have spent a lot of time learning that specific "language".

@jancivil
I saw this "NOTUS" notation and it is almost the same in design as the old one: has ledger lines (a lot), refers to C (for some reason; why not A... the alphabet starts from A; or why not D → it is one of the two centres of symmetry on the piano keyboard, the other one being A♭) to separate "octaves". And it also discriminates the "black keys" by not giving them names\letters, but also uses accidentals of almost illegible nature.

"NOTUS" notation has nothing in common to PMN.

notus.jpg

[Erisian]

Sorry, but I find your notation a lot harder to understand than traditional music notation. I really can't figure out where to begin with it.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Guys, keep in mind a few very important details:
1. Traditional (church) music notation has been around and been imposed in education for more than 800 years now.

800 years of Church domination in almost all educational facilities across Europe! And then of course in America and the colonial world. Domination.

2. You have spent at least one full year of learning how to read old church notation. With exercises and such, some of you have taken exams! Actually most musically educated persons took at lest a couple of exams on reading music notation. This it time, a lot of time and effort dedicated to it.

3. All classical music (mostly related to church) and even modern music is written on the old notation.
So, you have spend a lot of time learning that specific "language".

It was exactly with this in mind that I doubted musicians would adopt to a new system just for the fun of it. Also, mind that Jan pointed to loss of info compared to traditional notation. If the traditional system ain´t broken, why would we fix it? Especially if we actually are dealing with loss of info? It it like a salesman trying to sell a brand new and smart looking vacuum cleaner, tho the old one works perfectly, and the new one can do even less. That is no good ground for introducing alternative notation

[Pashkuli]

I’d prefer the strict structure of classical notation.
I cannot see from this presentation what is supposed to be the problem with traditional notation. Perceptually, traditional notation is way more readable by ordering pitches vertically on horizontal lines.

Strict structure you say?
Ok, please let me ask you this. Which note is this one?

note.jpg

Oh, you can't? Why? It is from the strict... ok, anyway. Let me help you by adding 1 more symbol (hope it will help). So, which note is it?

note-double-dies.jpg

What? You still can't? Maybe you have a few prospects? Here let me add 5 more symbols. Should be enough, I suppose... to make it more "strict". I will spare any 8va marks... might be even more pathetic otherwise.

note-double-dies-staff.jpg

And the note is? Oh, no. You still can not tell... Let's add 5 more symbols to make it more "strict".

note-double-dies-staff-cleff.jpg

Finally!

****************************************************************************
Now, off to PMN... (given the info from the first post and the mapping of the noteheads)
Which note is this?

PMN-note-Pu.jpg

Right away. It is the same old "G" (it is P in PMN). One symbol.
Oh you do not know how high or low? Here PMN requires "extremely complicated" designations (a line and two dots) to lower (for example) a note:

PMN-note-Pu (low).jpg

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

So, where is that old "G" (it is P in PMN). Well, it is on a third row below a line (middle "octave" = renova), so it must be this one. It is so complicated, it makes me want to take a rest a bit.

[Pashkuli]

Also, mind that Jan pointed to loss of info compared to traditional notation.

Let me remind you that the vertical interval "strict structure" in the old music notation sacrifices at least 42% of vertical interval representation (5 notes are considered accidentals).

But if you add up to that the double accidentals and 8va and 15ma designations the lost of vertical interval movement is sacrificed to 50%.

That and many other discrepancies and ambiguity in the old music notation are the 'broken things', which led to the design of PMN.

I can also mention the specially prepared paper (staves) and the ledger lines... or the necessity of a special rastrum (pen) Bach and others at that time used to draw the 5 lines of the staves.

Of course we now have it pre-engraved on paper or rendered on screen.

The "special" reference to the "natural" major in order to write all the other plethora of scales and modes. There is nothing special in the special case of the so called 'C major'? Ok, white keys on piano. But what about players who do not play piano? They do not have "white buttons" or "white strings\frets".

Almost as if we are still stuck in the geocentric point of view for the Solar system.
Funny how medieval that is... as the church music notation is.

Not to mention the amount of space\paper needed, and turning of pages and key signature.

Not to mention that an accidental sign for a note inside a bar is not valid for an octave of the same note in the same bar, just for the same line of pitch. Pathetic. And then you have to use the so called gothic bemol (bekar: ♮) to neutralise (or naturalise) a key signature accidental.
It is pathetic.

[Pashkuli]

Sorry, but I find your notation a lot harder to understand than traditional music notation. I really can't figure out where to begin with it.

It is simple. Just learn the symbols and the letters for each note. By heart.
But be careful. It might take you an "enormous" amount of few minutes and some hour of practice.
It is tough... really tough.

Here is some hint you could use for some of the notes:

alphabet-music.jpg

I have made it even easier for piano players... the hearts are the group of three "black keys".
The half-ovals (hat | bowl) are the group of the two "black keys".

All the more simplistic shapes, oval, triangles and square\diamond are the "white keys".

[Pashkuli]

Here is a video on how the notes fall in their respective renova and where they should be written on the respective rows accordingly.


Video demo of PMN (for reference only) - it does not represent the whole PMN
* change it to HD video form the 'gear' icon bottom right of the video panel

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I’d prefer the strict structure of classical notation.
I cannot see from this presentation what is supposed to be the problem with traditional notation. Perceptually, traditional notation is way more readable by ordering pitches vertically on horizontal lines.

Strict structure you say?
Ok, please let me ask you this. Which note is this one?
note.jpg


Oh, you can't? Why? It is from the strict... ok, anyway. Let me help you by adding 1 more symbol (hope it will help). So, which note is it?
note-double-dies.jpg


What? You still can't? Maybe you have a few prospects? Here let me add 5 more symbols. Should be enough, I suppose... to make it more "strict". I will spare any 8va marks... might be even more pathetic otherwise.
note-double-dies-staff.jpg


And the note is? Oh, no. You still can not tell... Let's add 5 more symbols to make it more "strict".
note-double-dies-staff-cleff.jpg


Finally!

****************************************************************************
Now, off to PMN... (given the info from the first post and the mapping of the noteheads)
Which note is this?
PMN-note-Pu.jpg

Right away. It is the same old "G" (it is P in PMN). One symbol.
Oh you do not know how high or low? Here PMN requires "extremely complicated" designations (a line and two dots) to lower (for example) a note:
PMN-note-Pu (low).jpg


So, where is that old "G" (it is P in PMN). Well, it is on a third row below a line (middle "octave" = renova), so it must be this one. It is so complicated, it makes me want to take a rest a bit.
PMN-note-Pu (low) on piano.jpg

You know, with strict, I meant perceptually strict. Your system is bending up and down in your comparison above of Fantasie Impromptu, and the heads are hard to read unless you magnify the notes beyond normal fonts. 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. If you want to sell such a perceptually challenging system, you need better arguments, like proving that traditional notation creates a lot of problems in practise. I do not think you have provided any such problems yet, and it is unlikely that you will since the historical system does not beg for any change to be usable today. What you personally think is pathetic needs practical relevance for people to adobt it. So you are going to have a hard task to convince people they cannot write their music in traditional notation, methinks. 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.

[Erisian]

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.