[HN Gopher] Clairnote: An alternative music notation system ___________________________________________________________________ Clairnote: An alternative music notation system Author : agmand Score : 161 points Date : 2022-05-04 13:21 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (clairnote.org) (TXT) w3m dump (clairnote.org) | KaiserPro wrote: | As someone who has a difficult time reading music, at first | glance this looks like it might help. | | My main issue is that note in the middle of the stave are | essentially unknowable for me. middle c-f is doable. but in the | middle it get very fuzzy, too many lines. | | I thought this notation might solve that, but instead of having | notes with lines through them to indicate notes on a line, they | are slightly above/below. That for me makes it very hard, even | though most of the stave has been removed. | the_other wrote: | At first I thought the "missing" line in the middle of each stave | would help me. My myopia, astigmatism and nystagmus make | traditional notation incredibly difficult to read, on top of its | inherent complexity. The "missing" line actually clarifies the | top and bottom two lines. However, the multiple positions notes | can sit relative to a line, and the seemingly arbitrary number of | optional lines make this system completely unworkable, for me. | TOGoS wrote: | I like it. As a kid (and well into my 30s[1]), any time I tried | to learn 'music theory' I was put off by the feeling that what I | was learning was more about the goofy and confusing standard | notation than it was about music. By fixing the notation that | barrier could be removed and students could get straight into the | interesting stuff sooner. At least I think it would have helped | me! | | [1] I eventually came to understand a lot of the concepts about | scales/keys/etc by ignoring the notation and just horsing around | on my MIDI keyboard a lot. | throwaway675309 wrote: | The problem with something like this is that it's basically the | musical equivalent of the artificially constructed language | Esperanto. It will NEVER gain any significant traction in the | existing world of musicians. | jancsika wrote: | Has anyone tried turning the entire grand staff 90 degrees | counterclockwise and animate the notes toward the player, Guitar- | hero style? | aikiplayer wrote: | I'm a still learning guitar player (I think I've been taking | lessons for ~8.5 yrs and did some piano lessons as a kid and was | in school bands). | | I usually work on solo style arrangements of popular songs but | sometimes dabble into learning solos, different parts of songs, | etc. | | I try to transcribe what I'm working on in standard notation | generally. For me the hard part isn't writing down the pitch; | it's the rhythm and timing. Trying to document vocal parts and/or | solos is hard, because they float all around. | | As others have mentioned, different genres of music document | their music differently. Standard notation is probably actually | pretty rare. | | I don't think the pitch notation system in standard notation is | harder than learning the underlying concepts (scales are 7 notes, | there are half steps between the 3rd and 4th degree and 7th and | 8th degree (the octave) of the scales, etc.). It's an interesting | approach but I don't think it's solving the harder problem. | abecedarius wrote: | > In traditional music notation notes an octave apart do not | resemble each other. | | This is what I'd emphasize. To sight read, the mapping from sign | to note has to be so automatic it's unconscious. In standard | notation this mapping looks different at every one of the middle | four octaves, which nearly quadruples the size of the | "multiplication table" you're installing in memory. Since your | exposure in practice to the further ends of that range is less | frequent, you're still slowed down by some notes even once the | middle ones are automatic to you. (And there's probably some | "cross talk" for a long time -- at least, that's how it felt to | me.) | | It's strange to me when people are like "eh, what's the big deal" | about a UX failure that seems this big. | bentcorner wrote: | At least for me as a very casual musician, I instinctively know | how to map all the notes on the staff and maybe 2/2.5 lines | above/below. Most sheet music uses the octave above/below | notation when necessary too, so it's not common (for me) to | need more than that. | | When I was younger and played more complex pieces, my teacher | and I would sometimes write down notes that were way out there | just to help things along. | | Personally at first glance this notation is jarring to read, | and I don't know if it would make sense investing in learning | this when literally everything else I've seen and own is | traditionally notated. Where I find challenge in music is not | understanding notes quickly enough, it's my physical mechanics, | memory, and expressiveness. | reikonomusha wrote: | I don't agree with this "multiplication table" idea. Octaves | have the same physical distance between notes on the page in | traditional notation, so they can be identified at a glance. | People typically do _not_ read octaves by deciphering the | bottom note, deciphering the top note, and saying "ah, this is | an octave". | abhorrence wrote: | And even if they did, the stems of the notes (excluding half | and whole notes) traditionally are as long as the distance | between octaves. One of the things that I think makes | traditional notation more robust for experts is the | redundancy of information. | | It also helps that for many instruments there's a mapping | between the layout of the instrument and the notation! This | is less true for brass and the violin family, though I think | even with them there are probably some arguments to be made | about the harmonic series, or the spacing of strings in | fifths. | midenginedcoupe wrote: | I'm not entirely sure who's the target audience of this new | notation. I've been reading music for 40 years and don't think | I've once needed the vertical gaps between notes to tell me | whether an interval was a major or a minor third. In fact, I | think in terms of steps in the scale, not whether those steps are | flattened or not. So equi-distant vertical spacing for the notes | in a major scale better fits my mental model. | | But that's just my own preference/habit. The real sticking point | for me is the ambiguity of whether a note head is exactly on a | line or just below. Sight reading needs that decision to be | immediate - picking out whether the note is just below the line | inamongst some large and rapid intervallic jumps is going to be | almost impossible. | | Also, I'm not sure the author has understood one of the key | rationales for these other clefs - that the number of ledger | lines can be minimised. E.g. Playing in the upper register of the | trombone is an exercise in parsing 4-6 ledger lines, which can | get tricky especially with rough hand-written charts. Switching | to tenor or even alto clef keeps everything nicely within the | stave and easier to read. Where in the staff the 'C' sits is just | a detail, and it's surprisingly quick to get used to different | clefs with different centres. | sfblah wrote: | I basically agree. On a piano, this notation has the | significant negative of making it unclear which notes are | played on "white" keys and which are played on "black" keys, in | the key of C. It's pretty useful to have that explicitly | marked. | spicyusername wrote: | Very cool. Every domain is always in need of fresh ideas. Even if | they don't directly take off, they still provide valuable | perspective and help bolster the process of slow, constant | improvement. | | It would be interesting to see how this, or a similar system, | could be extended for any X-TET system, not just 12-TET. | yboris wrote: | There's also _Hummingbird_ notation: | | https://www.hummingbirdnotation.com/ | InitialLastName wrote: | At a glance, this is a neat concept, but doesn't seem to come at | the problem from the perspective of the most common users of | music notation (experienced musicians); rather, it appears to | have been written by somebody who was frustrated by trying to | learn to read music. For experienced musicians, the priorities | are a) legibility for sight-reading and transcription (which this | system, with indistinguishable sitting/hanging notes and | pervasive ledger lines fails) and b) musical context for | expressive decisions, such as information about key, mode, | modulation and harmonic content as hinted at by the key | signatures and accidentals (which this system downplays as | unnecessary). | chrismorgan wrote: | I've gained that impression from every single alternative | notation system that's come up here (a new one comes up every | year or two). They have a habit of solving problems that just | aren't problems for experienced readers, while causing problems | for experienced readers. (They may also solve some real | problems, but when they do, they always involve compromises. | Inconsistent octave positioning on the staff _is_ a problem, | even if it becomes comparatively minor for fairly experienced | readers, but the solution offered for that particular issue | here looks lousy to me, the compromises made being considerably | worse than the original problem.) | | In this instance, I look at the subtle vertical placements | alone and first guessed rendering imprecision, because I've | seen that bad and worse from some digital scores, to say | nothing of older scores especially with inconsistent ledger | line spacing, especially when they've been scanned or reprinted | or are otherwise aged. I also see something that my dad would | struggle to distinguish visually except under fairly strong | lighting. This notation looks terribly unsuitable if you don't | have (a) a high-precision, high-resolution display, (b) good | lighting, and (c) good eyesight. And it certainly won't scale | down as well, nor is it in any way suitable for hand notation. | _moof wrote: | _> They have a habit of solving problems that just aren't | problems for experienced readers, while causing problems for | experienced readers._ | | If I had a dollar for every "new way of doing XYZ" made by | someone inexperienced who just doesn't want to learn the way | we're all doing XYZ just fine... | jonnycomputer wrote: | Brew vs macports in a nutshell. | Elidrake24 wrote: | What's great is I'm not even sure which one you're | disparaging; they both "just work" and stay out of my | way. | wolverine876 wrote: | Isn't that the reactionary response to all innovation, such | as in tech? 'That's not the way we do it.' | [deleted] | _moof wrote: | It rhymes with it, sure. The key difference is that the | phenomenon I'm talking about comes from people who | haven't taken the time to understand the problem, or they | come up with "solutions" that have already been tried and | found not to work. The reactionary, conversely, is simply | afraid: of change, that they won't be able to learn the | new thing, of not being important because they aren't the | one who came up with it, of losing status gained from | being an expert in the old thing, etc. | mkr-hn wrote: | There's a gradient between "there's a reason we do things | this way and you should understand it before you try to | change it" and "don't roll your own notation." | munificent wrote: | It so hard for an outsider to tell the difference between: | | 1. It is this way for logical but obscure reasons that will | become clearer later when you have deeper understanding. | | 2. It is this way only because of path dependence and | historical baggage and it's arbitrarily annoying for a new | person to learn but we don't switch because we all learned | it the old hard way. | | It's valuable for inexperienced people to question designs | that appear bad from the outside because there _are_ a lot | of examples of 2 and experienced users of a system aren 't | incentivized to fix them because they've already climbed up | the learning curve and don't personally benefit. But that | baggage is a worthless drain for every new user. | | The tax for having new users point out and sometimes fix #2 | is having to deal with them sometimes erroneously "fixing" | cases that are #1. | scrozier wrote: | As a very experienced "tech guy" and a very experienced | musician, I notice this happens a _lot_ on HN. Maybe | because there 's a very math-y, notation-rich aspect to | music that appeals to technology types. I am absolutely all | for everybody getting to music whichever way works for | them, but there has been a lot of effort spent by | technologists trying to "fix" music or make it better, when | a little humble learning would have paid big rewards. | | I wonder in what fields _I_ do this same thing.... | jnovek wrote: | How does one learn to _actually_ read music, then? | | I have been learning to play the keyboard for about a year | and I find the layout of the keys to make a lot of sense for | figuring out things like scales and chords. When I was in | high school I never really learned to sight-read a staff, it | was always a struggle for me and probably what turned me off | to playing an instrument for so long. | | If simplified notations are essentially a crutch for newbies, | how does one "git gud"? | holri wrote: | > How does one learn to actually read music, then? | | The same way millions of musicions before you. By reading | music, training, time and patience. | jnovek wrote: | Please don't take this personally, but this isn't very | helpful advice. | | I've learned how to do many things in my life, and I've | come to appreciate that it's very easy to practice the | wrong thing and never make any progress. | | Another way to phrase my question might be, "What and how | should I practice to develop my music reading skills?" | MandieD wrote: | I can only give advice for "one note at a time" | instruments like the flute or trumpet: practice sight | reading children's songs you know (and therefore can tell | if you've made a huge mistake) - sight reading, not | memorizing! As you get more proficient at reading those, | slowly choose harder things - melody lines from a | familiar church hymnal are ideal for this. If you make | mistakes, finish the phrase, then repeat it, but here, | you should be going for quantity, not quality. | | Treat this as a separate part of your practice. | | I would imagine it's similar for piano or guitar. | InitialLastName wrote: | For all of its strengths as an instrument, piano has some | drawbacks for learning to read traditional staff, as there | isn't an (obvious-to-the-uninitiated) differentiation | between notes or across octaves (you just sit in front of a | wide line of keys). I think I learned to read first on a | recorder, where you can develop a more intuitive link | between fingerings and notes (especially as the first note | you learn is the B dead in the center of the treble staff). | | I'd suggest a few paths to learning the note positioning: | | - If you're already comfortable with note locations on the | keyboard, don't be afraid of the line/space mnemonics. If | they get you to where you're making ID's faster in the | parts of the staff where your hands normally live, it can | make life much easier, and you can easily extend from | there. There are really only ~26 note/staff associations to | learn that will cover the majority of the music you'll see | day to day (with octave shifts) and knowing a few will make | the rest come more easily. | | - Similarly (and I think this is the way piano is taught to | beginners, but it's been a long time) you can make a lot of | progress by starting your thumbs on middle C, which is dead | between the staves and operating from there to play simple | music. As you play and read more music, you'll find | yourself starting to recognize the locations of more notes | across the staff, until they all come to you intuitively. | [deleted] | duped wrote: | Honest answer is to find a tutor and take private lessons. | Books and videos can't show you how to correct bad | technique and habits, and it's hard to follow the right | pedagogy without someone to guide you. | scrozier wrote: | The distinction between reading music and sight reading | aside (others have addressed it), learning to read music is | honestly just rote practice. In the grand scheme of things, | it's really not that hard. To play simple songs (all within | one octave, say) from music on a staff on an instrument, | you really only have to learn twelve associations of | positions on the staff to a key on the keyboard or a | fingering or an embouchure and a fingering, etc. It's far | easier than learning a language or a programming language | or the rules of hockey. From there, it's just extending | those associations higher and lower, and learning other | aspects of music notation, like note durations. It's just | standard repetitive learning. No magic or particular talent | is involved. | bambax wrote: | I'm working on a webapp to help learn sight reading; the v1 | is almost ready; I will do a show hn soon (hopefully next | week). | | People often associate sight reading with keyboard playing, | but they're different things. Reading the staff, as it is | traditionally taught in conservatories, means associating | the position of a note on the staff with the _name_ of the | note (in a given clef). And that 's it. | | This means, for instance, that the octave is a different | problem (I was going to say that it doesn't matter, which | isn't exactly true, but close). A C3 is a C4 is a C5 is a | C. Same with accidentals. A sharp G is a flat G is a G. | | There are many problems associated with learning to read | staff on sight. The main and obvious one is that it's | tedious and offers no immediate reward. But another is that | we are trying to learn too many things at once. | | My app is trying to make learning to read notes engaging, | competitive and (maybe?) addictive. I don't know if it'll | have any success, but during the weeks I've been working on | it, it was very effective at improving my own performance. | reikonomusha wrote: | Learning to sight-read is different than just reading. | Sight-reading takes an enormous amount of daily dedication | and practice for years to get to even an intermediate | level. | JasonFruit wrote: | I don't recall it being that difficult to achieve. | Probably the difference is in early teaching and | expectations: if you learn to read music as an aid to | remembering pieces that are perfected over a long time, | sight-reading would be slow to develop, but if you learn | it as a way to be able to play new music frequently, it | will come more quickly. Probably like the difference | between learning a foreign language by studying grammar | and working translation exercises as opposed to on-the- | fly immersion -- you develop different strengths. | jnovek wrote: | This is a great perspective that I hadn't considered | before. | | My previous experience, years ago in high school, was | absolutely the former. I think it makes tons of sense to | try playing a wide variety of pieces at my skill level. | ghostpepper wrote: | I am just beginning to learn piano and when I told my | teacher that I was memorizing the pieces I was supposed | to be reading, he told me to simply play each piece once, | mistakes and all, and continue on to the next - | specifically to practice playing a piece on first sight. | alar44 wrote: | Literally practice. Don't look at your hands. It takes | years and years, there is no quick way to learn piano. | phkahler wrote: | I'm not sure it's possible to say it's worse. You suffer from | having learned the traditional notation, so some of this is | going to look weird regardless. I'm not good at reading music | and agree with some of the issues it has, but looking at this | does seem like a different set of issues to me as well. I | think the only fair comparison could be done by someone with | a lot of experience using both. | | I think it's fair to say the staff has to be spread out more | for this notation since is doesn't compress 12 notes into 7 | places like traditional notation. | | OTOH be glad you're not reading guitar tablature ;-) | blagie wrote: | The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs, and | being more friendly to amateurs would mean even more users. | | The vast majority of decision-makers are experienced users with | a vested interest in the status quo. | | The issue is very similar to why corporate systems have such | horrible user interfaces. The people making the decisions in IT | aren't the normal users of the system. IT cares about features, | integrations, and high-level analytics. Employees care to be | able to sanely input their time sheets, file an expense report, | or buy a stapler. | | I'd like a system simple enough to use by all the kids in my | local elementary school music class, much more than I care | about what happens in the local orchestra. | danachow wrote: | This analogy doesn't fit at all. | | > I'd like a system simple enough to use by all the kids in | my local elementary school music class, much more than I care | about what happens in the local orchestra. | | Amateur doesn't mean lack of experience or skill - what you | seem to be meaning is "casual". There are _already_ a number | of simplified notation systems for casual use. And this | alternative notation is definitely not positioning itself for | casual use based on its examples - and it sits in a sort of | uncanny valley. | apendleton wrote: | > The vast majority of users of music notation are amateurs | | I'm not sure the claims you and OP are making here are | actually in tension. They said: | | > the most common users of music notation (experienced | musicians) | | which is ambiguous, and _might_ mean something like "of all | the people that ever do any music-reading at all, the | majority are experienced musicians," which would indeed be | the opposite of your claim. But it might also be "of all the | people that are reading music at any given moment, the | majority are experienced musicians," which would be a proxy | for "most hours spent reading music are spent by experienced | musicians"; this could be true simultaneously with your claim | (it stands to reason that experienced or professional | musicians spend comparatively more time reading music than do | novices or amateurs). | | I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the thing you | want to optimize for is maximizing the average quality of | experience for all users regardless of how much they use the | thing, vs. maximizing the quality of the average hour of use. | tgv wrote: | The problem, IMO, is that once you have acquired a notation | system is that you can't/won't make the jump the another one. | So if you train beginners with eg. clairnote, they will have | a hard time making the jump to a higher difficulty level. | It's not unlike a walled garden. | dehrmann wrote: | It's a bit like the Dvorak keyboard problem. It's slightly | better, but too much of a hassle to bother with. You need | something between 2x and 10x better to displace an | entrenched incumbent. | blagie wrote: | I think a better music notation system would easily be at | least 2x better for beginners. A rationalized system | could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, | and anyone could understand how to play an instrument | like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at | full speed). | | My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't | lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as | the people whom it would benefit. | | Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields | where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where | anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled | garden problem. That's especially true of fields like | medicine, chemistry, and biology where things were named | before we understood them. | reikonomusha wrote: | To be clear though, a lot of kids do understand the | current notation system fine. Most kids aren't saying | "hey! this chord is a minor third in frequency space but | occupies the same vertical distance on the page as a | major third! so confusing!" They instead approach it very | much "monkey see, monkey do". | | That's not to say many folks don't have trouble with | notation, but if I had to place a bet, almost any | notational system that abstracts away from letter names | or (in the case of piano) keyboard positions will pose | difficulties. | MandieD wrote: | Over a third of the students at my middle school were in | band, and lots of them had academic problems. By eighth | grade, they were all ok enough at reading music to get | through multi-page pieces together. | | Only a few of us could have told you what a major third | or the circle of fifths was, but frankly, even that | meager level of theory was useless for the immediate task | of playing the same note at the same time as all the | other second clarinets. | danachow wrote: | > A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to | read and write music, and anyone could understand how to | play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not | able to do it at full speed). | | I played in school bands and marching band - very very | few of my classmates took up music seriously beyond high | school, but music reading just was a complete non-issue | for everyone involved. I don't see how the current system | is limiting anyone. | | > My point was that it could be 10x better, and it | wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the | same as the people whom it would benefit. | | Who are these "decision makers" you keep speaking of. | There is no global cabal of music notation | protectionists. I don't think the forces that lead to | internal corporate IT decision making really have | anything to do with a music notation system. | | There are already simplified notation systems like tabs | and piano rolls and annotated staves. Your argument seems | to assume there is a notation system that really is 2 to | 10 times better (which obviously is mostly subjective) - | but you haven't even given an existence proof of this, so | it is all hypothetical. | | > Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields | where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where | anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled | garden problem. | | Example? | scrozier wrote: | As an experienced (semi-professional) musician, I think this | is probably a false dichotomy. For one thing, "users of music | notation" implies that these users know how to use it. Very | many "amateur" musicians read traditional notation just fine. | It's not that hard. | | There is really no such thing as a "decision-maker" for music | notation systems. That ship sailed a long time ago. There is | no orchestra conductor anywhere pondering whether or not they | should abandon a millennium or two of traditional notation | for something "better." | | You would be doing your elementary music students an enormous | disservice by teaching them some "alternative" music notation | system. And for what reason? As I've said elsewhere, learning | to "read music" is far easier than many things we ask | elementary students to learn. | | Apologies for excessive "quotation marks." | Aidevah wrote: | Many people seem to not realise that there is already an | alternative to staff notation; it is called the piano roll. | It has all the advantages that alternative notations propose | (proportional intervals and note lengths), is already in | widespread use, is available in all professional music | software, and is by far simpler and easier to learn. For many | professional musicians the piano roll may be the only type of | notation they deal with on a regular basis. | | Any eclectic modification of standard western notation | therefore needs to justify itself not just against staff | notation, but also the simple piano roll. | armagon wrote: | Is there a nice way (ie. not screenshots) to print piano | roll notation? | zozbot234 wrote: | I might agree with the general claim, but diatonic notation | is a lot friendlier to amateurs. Traditionally, kids in early | education learn solfege (Do, Re, Mi...) which is very much | based on diatonicism. | mkr-hn wrote: | You see the same with people suggesting MIDI is a replacement | for notation. I program MIDI in a MIDI roll and still | appreciate notation. MIDI is to notation as a play is to a | script. Notation is more like a script. It's there to guide the | performance. Notation has persisted and evolved for centuries | for a reason! | aidenn0 wrote: | Right, some highly chromatic music would be better represented | in this notation, but it seems a poor fit for traditional | western music. | | Also, a single, brief, look at a piano keyboard will expose why | whole-steps and half-steps always being equidistant on the | sheet music might not be a desirable goal. There are similar | affordances on woodwinds as well. Maybe a string-instrument | player could comment on usefulness for string music? | | [edit] | | I'd also be interested in seeing examples of transposing in | Clairnote; all of the examples in TFA were in the key of C and | I don't have an intuition for how easy/hard this would be. As | an amateur clarinetist I was often handed oboe music... | LegionMammal978 wrote: | > Maybe a string-instrument player could comment on | usefulness for string music? | | Speaking from my experience playing violin (as an ameteur), | players generally practice their scales until the finger | positions become muscle memory. This way, the key provides | the entire note position -> finger position mapping, and | accidentals simply become half-step modifications. Since the | scales would need to be learned anyway to play tonal music, I | don't see how this notation would simplify anything. | _moof wrote: | Can concur as a bass player. Tell me to play (for example) | a B and without even thinking, my hand will move to the | second fret on the A string. Put a flat sign on it and I | just move one fret down. | | I also know the "shapes" of intervals though, and they are | constant. A half-step is always one fret, a whole step is | always two. A minor third is a minor third is a minor | third: one finger on fret N of string M, the other finger | on fret N-2 of string M+1; the names of the notes are | irrelevant. | MandieD wrote: | I pulled my flute out of its case after over five years, | and within minutes was playing all my scales, and able to | play the melody lines out of a hymnal. My tone was awful, | and my lips got tired long before my hands. | | To this day, I still associate flute fingerings with | music I read for singing. | | Or piano, which gets messy... | jhasse wrote: | As a guitar player I find this very useful as half-steps | _are_ equidistant on my instrument. | taylodl wrote: | Exactly! It's like designing a language making _Hello World!_ | programs trivial to create but makes the actual programs we | write a little more difficult to create and doesn 't solve the | actual problems experienced by day-to-day developers. Not | useful. | balabaster wrote: | Well I can't speak for everyone else obviously, but I find | traditional notation much easier to read than Clairnote's | alternative. Even with the description, I find it harder to | glance at the Clairnote notation and see what it means. | tomComb wrote: | But isn't that because the Clairenote alternative is new to | you? | | Seems like an unfair comparison. | WhitneyLand wrote: | >for experienced musicians priorities are legibility.... | | For novices too! Just increasing the physical size of standard | notation would be a big help. 13x19 sheet music would be nice. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | That does appear to be its origin. And if you take 12 equal | divisions of the octave as a given, Clairnote seems more | natural. OTOH once you're thinking in terms of a 7-tone subset, | maybe traditional notation is more natural. (It certainly is to | me, but I haven't given Clairnote a try.) | | Traditional notation uses the scale degree as the fundamental | unit, whereas this uses the 12-edo chromatic tone as the | fundamental unit. While it's not a big deal to most musicians, | there are a lot of microtonal variations of traditional | notation (my favorite is HEWM[1]). A 12-edo notation like | CLairnote could be similarly modified, but it seems awkward, | because (most) microtonal systems don't start from 12 equal | divisions of the octave. | | I don't think the sitting/hanging notes are indistinguishable. | But they do need to be distinguished, which means it's more | work than looking at a traditional between-two-lines note. I | find it difficult. | | Clairnote does make key signatures available. Surely any real | composer would include them, or something equally or more | informative (e.g. the text "G dorian"). | | [1] http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/h/hewm.aspx | iainmerrick wrote: | I'm very surprised they don't make the sitting/hanging notes | semicircular, so they're much more visually distinct (like | stalactites and stalagmites). | | Instead they seem to have tried two different systems for the | sitting/hanging notes, both of which look very hard to read | to me: https://clairnote.org/clairnote-dn-clairnote-sn/ | (although as you say, if you already know traditional | notation it's hard to look at this with an unbiased eye). | dwringer wrote: | I always thought one of the main benefits of a 7-tone subset | is that it fits inside working memory. It's also what anyone | who grew up with commercial pop music or western classical | music has a natural ear for. Not to mention that even just | looking at it harmonically, all 12 tones are most certainly | not equal from a given root. | | AFAIU, historically 12-TET is really a compromise, | sacrificing some harmonicity to simplify and enable having | symmetrical 7-note tonality in any traditional mode starting | from any point in any scale. Some modern styles definitely | subvert this idea, embracing the full range of chromaticity - | but without abandoning 12-TET, they are still playing with | the audience's harmonic preconceptions that are based in | conventional tonality. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > AFAIU, historically 12-TET is really a compromise, | sacrificing some harmonicity to simplify and enable having | symmetrical 7-note tonality in any traditional mode | starting from any point in any scale | | It is. And it's a surprisingly lucky compromise. By some | metrics 19-EDO, 22-EDO and 31-EDO dominate 12-EDO for | traditional (5-limit) music theory. (And of course every | multiple of 12 does.) But if you want strictly better | thirds and fifths, the smallest EDO that qualifies is 41. | | For anyone interested in big microtonal scales, there's a | great website[1] that will render a touchscreen-friendly | virtual keyboard with whatever scale and layout (provided | it's hexagonal) you want. Don't worry about all the menus | to start, just pick something from the first menu, | "Tuning\Layout Quick Links". | | [1] http://terpstrakeyboard.com/web-app/keys.htm | InitialLastName wrote: | > I don't think the sitting/hanging notes are | indistinguishable. | | They aren't indistinguishable when rendered by a computer. | When rendered by hand (where space notes have a tendency to | float from the line to avoid being interpreted as line | notes), the F and G especially would be indistinguishable. | exabrial wrote: | > microtonal variations | | The vast majority of music probably doesn't need this | nameless912 wrote: | The vast majority of _Western_ music doesn't need it, but | microtonal music is extremely important in a number of | Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and even Eastern European | systems. | exabrial wrote: | Ok... so? Use a different notation, duh. See my point | about letting edge cases drive the bus off a cliff. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Continuing to use the status quo notation would hardly | constitute driving the bus off a cliff. And the cases of | microtonality are not that edge. Beyond allowing | interoprability among musicians from different cultures, | western notation has been critical to most (and there's a | lot of it) western microtonal music. | exabrial wrote: | Who the hell cares? Use a different notation for the | .00000000001% of the time you ever have to interop with a | non 12-tone equal temperament scale. | ajkjk wrote: | Yeah, agreed. I'm totally on board with fixing the fact that | you have to learn ledger lines / note placements separately for | each clef. Besides that, none of this seems necessary, and the | legitimately of sitting/hanging notes is a big problem. | | I'm all for a notation system that distinguishes major/minor | thirds more clear. It's a neat idea. | throwaway675309 wrote: | Even _if_ the system was superior, at this point in history it | 's irrelevant because you simply won't be able to gain traction | or hit critical mass for large scale adoption for all existing | musicians. | | The only thing this will do is teach you a completely different | system and as soon as you move out of your own isolated | learning and into working with other musicians and gigging or | other public functions you will just get frustrated. | | At the very least you would wanna system that would be somewhat | transferable to the existing sheet notation and tablature | systems. | rawling wrote: | I couldn't figure out the justification for middle C being on a | ledger line, and then the D above it being higher up, but on the | higher of two ledger lines. | projektfu wrote: | It follows the same pattern in the middle of the staff. Between | the two bottom lines is another whole step represented by a | ledger line. | | I thought it was odd too but I can see how it makes sense, | given that they want to unambiguously represent half steps. | karmakaze wrote: | [I don't read music.] From stories/videos I've watched on the | topic, musician's don't so much read absolute notes but notes of | a scale. A trained one knows their scales and can represent them | with the letters A-G once each, using sharps or flats as | necessary. I'd also expect them to know exactly where each note | name/sharp/flat is on the instrument they play. | | There's also an affinity for piano being a sort-of reference | instrument pertaining to mapping of scales as it has the least | idiosyncratic placement of notes compared to other instruments. | | What about a scale that has lines for the white keys of the piano | and larger spaces where black keys appear would be 1:1 with | piano, but there would be too high a density of lines. | | So how about we make the black keys the lines and we can have | single spaces for single white keys and double spaces where two | white keys intervene the black ones? That almost makes sense as | the lines are black and the page/spaces are white. | gnulinux wrote: | I don't like it because it's not backwards compatible with | traditional Western notation. This will cause problems with | anyone transcribing Clairnote work without being an expert. What | looks like G, actually notates G#. Major problem imho. | iainmerrick wrote: | I hate to be too much of a downer as there are some nice ideas | here, but I can see at least three problems with this: | | 1) First and foremost, of course, the massive entrenched | investment in traditional notation. It's like trying to replace | the QWERTY keyboard. | | 2) More risk of transcription errors in written music. The | difference between "sitting just above the line" and "sitting on | the line" is quite subtle. | | 3) This is strictly tied to the 12-note equal temperament scale, | with enharmonic sharps and flats. Traditional notation works | fairly well with many alternate tunings, e.g. 19-note equal | temperament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_equal_temperament) | _Edit to add:_ looking more closely, it does include a notation | to distinguish between e.g. G# and Ab, but as it 's optional for | most music it comes across as an afterthought that most people | won't learn; and as in the previous point, it looks ripe for | transcription errors. # and b are a little weird but at least | they look very different! | | I really like that this tries to be a more general-purpose system | without being biased towards western classical diatonic music, | but it looks significantly worse for that style of music (point | 2) while not necessarily being significantly better for other | styles (point 3). | | Easy transposition across octaves is nice, but not exactly a | killer feature. That's already one of the easiest things you can | do on most instruments. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > the massive entrenched investment | | At first I thought it would be like switching from Facebook to | Mastodon. But if there is automatic translation software, it | wouldn't actually be as hard -- you can just wear your own | Clairnote lenses when you want, without bothering the other | musicians. | | > The difference between "sitting just above the line" and | "sitting on the line" is quite subtle. | | Agreed. It seems worth using different heads for the two kinds | of notes. | iainmerrick wrote: | That's a good point; if/when all the scores are fully | electronic, they could easily be transcribed automatically. | | Anyone know how close we are to that? I feel like I'm seeing | many more professional classical musicians using iPads rather | than paper scores, but I don't know if they're just looking | at scanned scores, or something like MIDI that can be freely | transliterated. | TremendousJudge wrote: | We are very, very far away from that. To get a feel of what | scorewriter software is like nowadays, Tantacrul's | videos[0] on the subject of UI are very good at showing | what the state of the art is. On one of his videos he shows | that the best score engraving can only be achieved by using | a closed source, now-unsupported command line program from | the 80s called Score[1] | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKx1wnXClcI [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(software) | reikonomusha wrote: | At least in Western classical music, there's a lot of | emphasis put on Urtexts (scores that contain exactly the | information the composer wrote and no more), composer intent, | distinguished voices (stem up v down), diatonic scales | (enharmonic choices matter), etc. This would make it | nontrivial to simply switch notations. | | In some sense it's like saying "finally, I can read Don | Quixote in whatever language I want because of Google | Translate!" | jhasse wrote: | IMHO that's a very bad example because there's a big loss | of information with Google Translate (you wouldn't get the | Urtext when translating back), but there isn't with | Clairnote. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Yeah, if the original score is digitally encoded such | that everything really is a first-class citizen (and not, | say, a GIF of some scribbles) -- a very big if -- but if | so, it's not obvious that any information has to be lost | in translation to Clarinote, nor that Clairnote would | impose any additional information. If you want to know | the scale you could encode the key signature, which | Clairnote seems to make possible, just unnecessary. | jef_leppard wrote: | I'm a musician who can't read music notation and found it hard to | pick up when I've tried. I assume I'm the target demographic for | this system. At first glance I can't for the life of me | understand why I'd put the time into learning this. For one, it | doesn't appear to make anything that I personally struggle with | any simpler. For two, the entire point of learning to read music | is to communicate with other musicians. If I am writing my ideas | in some bespoke system that no one else knows, what's the point? | kadenwolff wrote: | This music would be extremely hard to sight-read. The only aspect | of it that I like is that it is key-agnostic. It would be cool to | see atonal music written in this notation system. But for | professional musicians this isn't worth learning. | harry-wood wrote: | Top search result for "alternative music notation" is | https://www.dodekamusic.com which looks like it has the same | ideas, plus a rectangular rhythm design which makes it all _look_ | different at a glance (for better or worse) | Toutouxc wrote: | What I like about Dodeka is not their notation, but the Dodeka | keyboard. | | I'm learning to play the piano now and the amount of stupid | unnecessary complexity stemming from the fact that we've | designed the keyboard to make playing in a single specific key | easier and fuck everything else, is hurting my programmer | brain. | | That, and the fact that small-handed male players like me (and | like 80 % of women) are gate-kept forever from a significant | portion of music, just because. | | It's a shame that our most versatile instrument is actually not | that versatile. We could do better as a humanity. | stephen_g wrote: | Would their keyboard really be better for hand size? Seems to | me that unless the keys were uncomfortably narrow, it would | actually require bigger hands to play big chords than on a | standard piano because they're fitting all the notes in a | single row instead of two? But I've never seen one in real | life, let alone tried to play one. | | I wouldn't say that the standard keyboard is designed the way | it is to make any one key "easier", it's more just the result | of mapping the mapping based on how our notation works, and | it's just happens to be that one key doesn't have sharps or | flats so you don't need the black keys, so it's easier at | first... Thinking of it in the way you said is probably | unhelpful. | | Eventually every scale becomes as easy with muscle memory if | you practice enough, but the best thing to do is to try and | do scales and chords by thinking about what the intervals | should be. Getting intuition for that is a killer skill, | especially for playing by ear when you can hear something and | your fingers instantly know where to go to play it after | finding the first note. | abhorrence wrote: | I'm curious, which key do you think is the easiest to play on | piano? | | I've found that newer folks tend to prefer keys with fewer | accidental: C, G, F, D and Bb | | Whereas there is a tendency for more experienced players to | prefer keys with many flats: Db, Ab, and so on... | | And (appropriately for the submissions topic), I think lot of | this preference comes down to the fact that we tend to learn | keys like C first, because the notation is simpler and it's | easier to remember the spacing. However most of the pianists | I've talked to who prefer the flat keys will prefer them | because of "how they fit under the hand". | Toutouxc wrote: | > which key do you think is the easiest to play on piano? | | Sorry, "easiest" may not be the best word. C major is THE | key of the piano keyboard and playing in C major is so easy | because all of the non-exotic chords (sorry, I don't know | the english nomenclature) are played on the same kind of | keys and they have identical, predictable shapes. | | On a keyboard like Dodeka, all chords in all keys have | predictable shapes, because why shouldn't they? You should | be able to transpose any song by simply moving your hands a | little to the side, anything else is just bad UI. | yboris wrote: | Makes me think of the _Janko keyboard_ which has so many | benefits I would love to get one someday. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard | jedimastert wrote: | The main "problem" I see this notation style as trying to "solve" | is that the standard 5 line western notation is built around a | very strong affinity and "default" of the western diatonic | scales. For any key/mode, if you're within that pattern then | relationships of notes and notation is very clear. This is also | enforced by the note names themselves, with A to A being a | Aeolian/natural minor scale that fits into this same pattern. | | It's interesting (and useful) to step outside of this default, | but IMO in for a penny in for a pound; there really should be a | commitment to a complete separation, at least as a "default". The | examples are trying to connect a notation decoupled from the | diatonic scale back to that same diatonic. | | Even if you do stick with the other "assumptions" made here: | - 12 equal tones per octave - octave-equivalent - | divisive rhythm | | IMO you should change the note names. Numbers would be preferable | to me, although maybe confusing given the use of numbers in | western music analysis. Perhaps O-Z? | andrewzah wrote: | To my eyes this is way harder to read than traditional notation, | which really isn't hard to learn and works well for most music | (and non-12TET music). It's hard to see if a note is on a line or | just above/under it. | nameless912 wrote: | Same. Maybe it's my bias from having played piano for going on | 25 years, but this notation is just irritating to look at, and | has way more ambiguity than the standard system to my eyes. It | also seems like it's less compact, which is a _huge_ problem. | If you ever look at older urtexts and the like, music notation | is traditionally very dense to save paper and engraving costs. | I don't think anything that makes music less dense is going to | fly in the industry. | MattPalmer1086 wrote: | Same here. The different notes look too similar. | skybrian wrote: | I play both piano and chromatic button accordion (a little). One | thing that seems a bit harder on button accordion is going up the | scale playing thirds or sixths, because you need to be aware of | which are major versus minor thirds (or sixths) in the diatonic | scale you're using. With a piano, the keyboard mostly takes care | of this, at least in easier keys. | | It seems like this notation has similar issues in emphasizing the | chromatic scale over diatonic scales maybe a little too much? | scrozier wrote: | Interesting, well thought out, and well-presented. Just not sure | that it solves a problem. It certainly isn't _radically_ easier | to learn than traditional notation. And despite other comments | here, huge numbers of young people learn traditional notation all | the time, with little stress. Maybe, as is true with spoken | languages, it becomes harder to learn musical notation as we get | older? | | All the "problems" that this notation "fixes" are essentially | non-issues for musicians who already know traditional notation. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Huge numbers of young people learn traditional music notation | all the time, yes, but I wouldn't say with little stress. Music | notation evolved much like English, and much like English it's | widely recognized to be full of kludges and unnatural | constructions. And similarly, changing it would resemble | switching to Esperanto. | TremendousJudge wrote: | To add to your point, many people already use other systems. | Tablatures are very, very common for guitar. Lead sheets are | used in jazz, and they do away with many of the problems of | regular notation (notably, the legibility of chords, and | different clefs) by only using it for melodies. In a way, | traditional music notation is really only used in classical | music. And they're never ever going to adopt another system. | The people who wanted another system have already split off. | code_runner wrote: | tabulature is really just used for starting out on guitar | in my experience and it works because the alternative is SO | approachable and SO instrument specific. | | lead sheets are solving a whole different problem and | almost ALWAYS have the melody in traditional notation in | addition to the chords. some lead sheets assume you already | know the melody and can transpose to whatever key is | relevant.... but still a lead sheet is there to give you | hooks in order to aide improvisation. | | jazz musicians have not "split off", they have added some | chord notation above the traditional stuff. | scrozier wrote: | > traditional music notation is really only used in | classical music | | And jazz and pop and rock and.... It is a universal | language that allows musicians from many backgrounds to | come together and play a tune together. Jazz is the most | obvious example--where musicians often sightread a tune | together. (Although, to be fair, a substantial part of jazz | notation is chord symbols, which are not (directly) a part | of traditional notation.) | olau wrote: | Well, it says it fixes visual representation of intervals and | huge inconsistencies between how similar notes are notated. | | Meaning new students would have a much easier time learning | naming notes and where they are - in my experience the typical | child that has taken lessons for a couple of years is still | scarcely capable of naming notes outside perhaps the 6-10 | they're most comfortably with. Accidentals do not help. | | And everyone would benefit from visual support for the | intervals. | | Here's an anecdote: I have been playing piano for many years | but recently discovered, because my son is learning to play | cello, that I have trouble taking his cello scores and playing | them with my right hand. I can play bass clefs no problem in | piano music with my right hand, but my brain is apparently | trained to do the translation in that context. Without it, I | have to focus to not accidentally read his single system scores | as a G clef. | | Similarly, I've seen his teacher, a cellist giving concerts, | get temporarily confused over a G-clef violin score. | | Yes, these are not huge problems, but I'm personally willing to | believe we could have something better. | scrozier wrote: | Good points. I haven't thought a lot about it, but I still | don't see how this new system is radically easier to learn. | Looks like I have to be concerned with notes partially on | lines, an irregular staff, two notes occupying the same | "space" on the staff, etc. Then there are clefs with | numbers...now I have to remember what "number" octave I'm in. | And for piano, you lose the white key/black key distinction, | which is obvious with accidentals in traditional notation. | (This is specific to piano, and maybe not terrible.) I just | don't see any tremendous reduction in cognitive load. | chki wrote: | > you lose the white key/black key distinction | | I'm not sure what I think about this new system but the | "black key = accidental" association is probably not very | helpful to anybody playing on/after an intermediate level | as there are cases where accidentals mean white keys (for | example f flat or g double sharp). It might be helpful if | you're a beginner though. | scrozier wrote: | While we certainly run into Fbs or G##s, they are | relatively rare. I don't think they undo the visual cue | of seeing G# and knowing that's a black key. But you | might be right. After all, if we're playing in the key of | E, G#s are not notated other than in the key signature | (and some other exceptions that don't really matter | here). So yeah, maybe accidentals <-> black keys isn't | such a big deal. | stephen_g wrote: | Yeah, I had the same reaction. I can't really imagine this | would be any easier to learn, and doesn't seem to solve any | problem I've ever had with standard notation (this is with 20 | years of music experience across several instruments). | Cthulhu_ wrote: | I mean, English isn't hard to learn if you grew up with it | either, but it's still three languages in a trenchcoat with a | ton of weird things. | | I mean, pronounce all of these words that have the same | combinations of the letters "ough": though, through, rough, | cough, thought, bough, plough, ought and borough. The notation | is the same, but it's clearly not adequate to express the | difference between pronunciation. If you grew up with it, you | Know how they're pronounced, but as a non-native you wouldn't. | scrozier wrote: | This isn't a parallel argument. There are no ambiguities in | standard musical notation that parallel the pronunciation | issue you point out in English. Further, there are no non- | traditional-music-notation "speakers" trying to learn musical | notation. One is (almost) always learning it anew, unless | perhaps you're coming at it from a different notation system, | which is a different discussion. | wl wrote: | Intervals are ambiguous on the staff in the traditional | system. They're disambiguated by reference to the clef and | key signature. The whole point of this new system is to | remove that ambiguity so you don't constantly have to keep | the clef and key signature in mind when analyzing | intervals. | scrozier wrote: | Fair point. I can see how that might be nice. I will say | that, if you play music a lot from traditional notation, | that ambiguity completely disappears into the background. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | > English [is] three languages in a trenchcoat | | I love it. | abanayev wrote: | Applause for the effort but I doubt that this will become | popular. Music notation has been a certain way for hundreds of | years for musicians around the world - a notation with the | universal legibility of mathematics. | | However, as someone who sight-reads all of his piano music, I'd | be interested in experiencing if this makes sight-reading any | easier or harder. It's taken many years of experience to be able | to spot and predict patterns several measures ahead of where I'm | playing, and I wonder if future musicians could get to advanced | sight-reading levels more quickly using an alternative notation. | iainmerrick wrote: | The current piano layout (seven white keys and five black keys) | is pretty closely tied to traditional music notation (sharps | and flats => black keys), so I'd guess sight-reading with this | notation would be harder on current pianos. | | In principle you could imagine a more regular piano layout that | maps well to this more regular notation. In practice, attempts | to do that have generally failed and it's hard to see how to | make it work. | | The irregular spacing of the current piano layout can be | frustrating, but it fits under the fingers pretty well, and | it's very useful to be able to identify notes at a glance. | jan_Inkepa wrote: | >Applause for the effort but I doubt that this will become | popular. Music notation has been a certain way for hundreds of | years for musicians around the world - a notation with the | universal legibility of mathematics. | | This system is really compatible with the standard one though? | It's essentially a visual skin. | | Removing the middle line is kinda nice - I remember as a kid | having trouble and counting lines a lot to figure out what not | something was. | | The sharp/flat notation seems pretty week though/visually | unclear? | | I'm not sold on the the numbers in the clef symbols - I don't | find it so helpful, and don't have a very intuitive sense of | what the number of the octaves are. Especially because the rest | of the notation is quite visual/geometric, it's odd to see it | resorting to adding numbers here (where the normal notation | leaves them out unless the clefs are in non-standard octaves). | exabrial wrote: | Electric bass player here. Oh and I'm quite mediocre too. | | I think a musical notation system should not be driven by edge | cases, which is what a bunch of HNers pointing out where this | system falls short (microtonals, equal temperment sucks, etc, | blah blah). Second, I think standard notation is designed for | piano soloists, not for bands. | | I've found the most effective system for sharing musical ideas | with a band is the so called "Nashville Numbers System." Why is | this? Well because you can't apply a capo to a vocalist. Every | time I play with a different vocalist, there's going to be a key | change. When we talk in terms of scale degrees "hey guys play 6m, | 5/7, root", rather than "oh hey play a Em, D, G, wait j/k, that's | too low, can you play G#m, F#, B? oh wait, earl over there says | playing G#m on acoustic is impossible, go another half step up" | everything is easy. | | What does this require? Every musician needs to memorize scales, | which isn't very hard. The process is: decide on the root as a | band, then jam. And you handle accidentals as they come up as | edge cases, rather than have them drive the bus off a cliff. | | So how can we take this successful concept and apply it to | notation? | | I think there are two main issues with standard notation: First, | the key signature is embedded into the notation. This was like | HTML before CSS: the presentation should be separated from the | content. | | Here's the hill I'll die on: given that you're going to be | playing in equal temperament, we don't need to have _any_ | information about the key in musical notation. The only thing | that matters is intervals. 99.95% of the audience doesn't have | perfect pitch and they don't care either. All notes on the staff | should be relative to some arbitrary root. | | Which brings us to the second problem: Standard notation does not | represent octaves consistently. This is the dumbest UX failure | that annoys the absolute shit of out me as a bass player. If I | want to mirror the melody line in a song for a section, I have to | switch my brain from reading Bass clef where I live, to fumbling | through Treble cleff notes, and they're all in the wrong spots. | | Looking at the link, there are some improvements on the above two | points. I do think there is still a leaky abstraction about the | key signature. Given that I write things down as relative scale | degrees anyway, I'd take this over standard notation any day if I | learned to read it. | moultano wrote: | I've struggled with reading music despite years of piano lessons, | years of church and school choirs, and being the main arranger | for my college a cappella group. Watching the video of the Blue | Danube Waltz on that page was amazing. I felt for the first time | like the shapes of the things on the page actually corresponded | well to the musical concepts in my head. | | I know it's an extremely uphill battle to actually get anything | like this adopted, but I think it would do wonders for teaching | and working with music. How many musical concepts would suddenly | be obvious to people if they could actually see them directly on | the page without layers of translation in between? | recursive wrote: | I'm not an apologist for music notation as it exists today, but | it doesn't seem obvious that this is a net improvement. I | watched the Blue Danube video. Apparently, I still don't | understand the notation. There are some notes in the bottom | staff that are sitting on the middle ledger line in a group of | three. I don't see a thing where it's explained what that | means. I don't get it. | code_runner wrote: | I get the same feelings whenever somebody comes up with a | "better" flavor of SQL that is "more logical" or "more | expressive".... I know SQL well, it does what I want, and I think | its _great_. When people "solve problems" with it, they're | complaining about things they never tried to understand. | | This is a lot like that. I wish I was better at music.... I wish | I had more skill etc... but the barrier is not my ability to read | music.... | | a multi-note instrument like guitar/piano is much harder (in my | personal experience) than a single note like trumpet/saxophone... | and guitar tabulature exists for that reason... but its guitar | specific and is probably a bridge for most in the beginning of | their learning (not unlike a saxophone fingering chart).... but I | don't see general use music notation being revolutionized anytime | soon.... mostly because it does not need to be. | jedimastert wrote: | Tantacrul made a really interesting video about how _incredibly_ | difficult it is to make a notation font that might be a good | watch[0], and I say that to say this: | | I see an issue here that left me confused for several minutes: | the little bit of overlap when a note is attached to a line but | not intersecting it looks like an alignment mistake and leaves | ambiguity. My recommendation would be to have _no_ overlap, with | the top /bottom pixel of the note head in line with the | top/bottom pixel of the staff line, like traditional notation. | | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGo4PJd1lng | EamonnMR wrote: | It's really hard to see the difference between sitting on top vs | inside the line. | forthetrees wrote: | I don't like it! | severak_cz wrote: | reminds me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodeka_music_notation | lc9er wrote: | This is interesting. Growing up, I had 8 years of music theory, | so reading standard notation is second nature. In high school and | later on in rock/metal bands, I never actually used it. It was | far more common to use guitar tablature (even though I was the | drummer). Tab is more of a short-hand system, giving you fret | markings and measures, but usually omitting rhythmic notation. | | To me, this system is actually more confusing. The spacing is | kind of hard to see. Maybe it's because I keep trying to read it | as if it were standard notation. I wonder if it would help | someone starting from scratch. | michelpp wrote: | > In high school and later on in rock/metal bands, I never | actually used it. It was far more common to use guitar | tablature | | I know you know this, but I'd like to point out for others that | Tab is specific to the guitar family (basses, ukulele, etc) it | does not work for any other kind of instrument. | CuriouslyC wrote: | Tabs are so much better than old school sheet music for guitar | (drum sheet music I don't mind), maybe some people want to | figure out their own fretting but I'm fine being spoon fed | (even being a finger style weirdo). | [deleted] | acjohnson55 wrote: | This is interesting! | | As weird as the standard notation system is, it works pretty well | for tonal music. If you know how to play your instrument within a | given key, music takes the same basic shape on the staff, even if | it's transposed. It also keeps most pieces pretty compact, even | if they have a wide range. | | However, standard notation is also notoriously difficult to | learn, to the point that many virtuoso players never actually | learn it (especially guitar players). | | Clairnote appears to respect most of the most useful properties | of standard notation, except maybe efficiency with vertical | space. Maybe some day I'll give it a try. | nine_k wrote: | To me, this notation fixes a number of annoying bugs of the | traditional notation. They clearly show each fix. Each fix | clearly makes sense. | | (I wish this notation were adopted since Bach's WTK was | published. Alas.) | aidenn0 wrote: | The fixes are all about directness, consistency, and | intuitiveness. Legibility is never mentioned Tonal music is | arguably more suited to the original than this is, where | small differences in distance from the lines can make for a | different note. | | For example, I claim that the tonic scale will be more | legible in traditional notation than in clarinote; portions | of the tonic scale make up a significant fraction of music | that many people read. TFA never claims that chords and/or | arpeggios will be easier to read under the new notation, and | I don't have a strong opinion on that one after my brief time | with it. | jerf wrote: | I like the idea with the octaves. I'm not as sure about the | chromatic stuff; the key signatures are there for a reason and | I'm not sure it reduces the cognitive load in an expert. It would | in an novice, sure. Possibly said novice would then move on to | prefer it as they become an expert, so it's hard to tell. On-the- | fly transposition would probably be a bit harder, but perhaps | that's a skill level already so high that it's hardly worth | optimizing for in the notation anyhow. | | But definitely there's too much dependency on where note heads | are versus the staff. Even in the typography used in the example, | the note heads seem to noticeably hang below the line. I'm not | sure the vaguely elliptical blobs really work with this system | and I'd consider pushing another step away from conventional | notation and distinguishing with something more visually clear, | e.g., normal heads on the lines, squared-off heads if they are a | half step away or something. Something that makes it completely | unambiguous whether a note is on or in the line. ("Unfortunately" | conventional notation that this is trying to be compatible with | has already consumed whether the head is hollow.) | | I would also like to see something less trivial on the intro | page. In HN terms, visual programming _always_ looks awesome as | long as you 're demonstrating something drop-dead simple like | simply traversing a linked list or something. Show something with | a bit more crunch in it, like even something as simple as a | quicksort, and the vast majority of visual programming pitches | suddenly look a lot less compelling. All the PDFs on the bottom | of the page 404'd for me, but I'd like to see something inline. | | Still, some interesting ideas here. The standard system is | definitely a bit wrapped around a piano. I could see how this | could simplify teaching any instrument that makes one tone at a | time; all the rules for reading music become "this note -> this | fingering/position/valves/etc", which would smooth over the first | couple of years nicely. | | One of the tensions of the current system is the learning novice | vs. the expert. The current system is heavily tilted towards an | expert. At the time it was written, that was appropriate. | Building some more novice-friendly features in might be more | appropriate in a more democratized era. (Though how one gets past | the switching costs here for _any_ alternate notation I have no | idea.) | armagon wrote: | I think Clairnote is pretty neat. There are more alternate | musical notation systems at http://musicnotation.org. | | The current system we use because it is the one experts know and | music is written in. I'm sure it could be worse, but I feel like | it has a ton of backwards-compatible features as add-ons that | would be so much cleaner with a rewrite. The very simplest change | that could be made would be to have a grand staff that uses the | same clef, so people don't need to learn two of them. | | I don't think we'll actually see a change until such time as you | could put on a pair of AR glasses, which could recognize/OCR your | music, and then, on-the-fly 'transnotate' the song into a sane | notation. (Perhaps the same could be said for making English more | phonetic; and, perhaps it will never happen; in the meantime, I | can't help but feeling that hundreds of hours are needlessly | spent learning this system that wouldn't be needed with a simpler | one, many people who'd like to learn it never do, and, oddly, | plenty of singers sing better because they can't read the written | notation!). | dr_j_ wrote: | I'm a guitarist and I can't understand either. | tomthe wrote: | I am of course sceptical whether this notation system will gain a | bigger following, but I really appreciate their nice website and | how they clearly communicate their idea. They even have a nice | interactive online tutorial: https://clairnote.org/learn/ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-04 23:01 UTC)