Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get started making music

learningmusic.ableton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 476 posts

Re: Get started making music

#311

Post by fahadkhan »

derefr wrote: post #297
Johnny_Brahms wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current system is 800 years old, and over that time it has won over hundreds of different systems. A new system is proposed every now and then, and even though they might be better in a specific problem domain (say, microtonal music), but they always fall apart. I have thought a lot about the problem (worked as a professional bassoon player for a very long time), and I can't say I have had many good ideas. There…

What do you think about parallel visualization? Right now, musical notation strives for a single notation that tries to encompass the entire work—and to also serve as a canonical, lossless transcription of the work, from which it can be recovered. If you drop that requirement (and then assume digital storage) you could have 1. an underlying canonical format that has "all the information" but which is never presented…

"Right now, musical notation strives for a single notation that tries to encompass the entire work—and to also serve as a canonical, lossless transcription of the work, from which it can be recovered."

I don't believe this to be true. (Modern) Guitar Music is most often written in tab often without accompanying staff notation. Also staff notation is not loseless, musicians will interpret the music differently. For example, with violin, whilst some instruction is given on bowing it is almost never complete and the musicians will find different ways to fit the bowing to the rhythm, this can make a huge different to overall tone as (most simply) the up bow sounds distinctly different to the down bow.

Re: Get started making music

#312

Post by kybernetikos »

dizzystar wrote: post #267
tannhaeuser wrote: post #200

I always wondered why musicians keep up with the conventional musical notation system, and haven't come up with something better (maybe a job for a HNer?). I mean the conventional music notation represents tones in five lines, each capable of holding a "note" (is that the right word?) on a line, as well as in between lines, possibly pitched down and up, resp., by B's and sharps (depending on the tune etc.). Since wes…

Music notation does take time to learn how to read well at, but it's no different anything else that takes time to learn and master. Once you get past a cursory "eff this" reaction, you start to see how downright brilliant notation is. The vast majority of music focuses on 7 notes at a time. If you alter a key signature, you are playing 7 other (non-distinct) notes. Music notation encapsulates this concept very well.…

> Once you get past a cursory "eff this" reaction, you start to see how downright brilliant notation is.

In this it reminds me of vim.

Re: Get started making music

#313

Post by Johnny_Brahms »

derefr wrote: post #297
Johnny_Brahms wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current system is 800 years old, and over that time it has won over hundreds of different systems. A new system is proposed every now and then, and even though they might be better in a specific problem domain (say, microtonal music), but they always fall apart. I have thought a lot about the problem (worked as a professional bassoon player for a very long time), and I can't say I have had many good ideas. There…

What do you think about parallel visualization? Right now, musical notation strives for a single notation that tries to encompass the entire work—and to also serve as a canonical, lossless transcription of the work, from which it can be recovered. If you drop that requirement (and then assume digital storage) you could have 1. an underlying canonical format that has "all the information" but which is never presented…

I do think this is the direction it is heading. There are new "smart" music stands coming to the market now with similar features.

Conductors can write notes about certain parts that can be accessed by musicians. Opera musicians (where different people play the same music every night) can have their own personal notes.

Most exciting is ofcourse that everyone has instant score access. That removes a shit-tonne of time wasted during rehearsals.

Those are just traditional use cases. I'm excited to see what will come. I don't know ifusic as it is practicedtoday can be "expanded" in any meaningful way, but that only time will tell

Re: Get started making music

#314

Post by breadbox »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #239
breadbox wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always wondered why musicians keep up with the > conventional musical notation system, and haven't come > up with something better (maybe a job for a HNer?). Before starting down that path, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the wide range of music notations that already exist and continue to be used, and then the ridiculously varying plethora of failed alternative music notations that have been invent…

That doesn't jive with the "I can do better" mantra around these parts. I say that both sincerely and sarcastically.

I get your point, but at the same time I would say that it's often much harder to "do better" when you don't even have a clear idea what it is you're trying to improve upon.

Re: Get started making music

#315

Post by acarabott »

derefr wrote: post #297
Johnny_Brahms wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current system is 800 years old, and over that time it has won over hundreds of different systems. A new system is proposed every now and then, and even though they might be better in a specific problem domain (say, microtonal music), but they always fall apart. I have thought a lot about the problem (worked as a professional bassoon player for a very long time), and I can't say I have had many good ideas. There…

What do you think about parallel visualization? Right now, musical notation strives for a single notation that tries to encompass the entire work—and to also serve as a canonical, lossless transcription of the work, from which it can be recovered. If you drop that requirement (and then assume digital storage) you could have 1. an underlying canonical format that has "all the information" but which is never presented…

I think this is a great idea as part of a learning tool, being able to simultaneously visualise a musical idea on a score, in guitar TAB, woodwind fingering, piano roll etc.

I've got a plan on the backburner to do something like this using Ohm https://ohmlang.github.io/

Re: Get started making music

#316

Post by dsmithatx »

Did this get voted 1023 points (so far) because, it's a great article or does everyone love music? Btw, I use Ableton after my Pro Tools rig was stolen and, I'm buying a new MatrixBrute. I can't wait to checkout this site.

Re: Get started making music

#317

Post by ChristianGeek »

compiler-guy wrote: post #294
ganonm wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have played piano and guitar (piano for almost my entire life and guitar for several years) and have used both tabular sheet music and traditional sheet music. Tabular sheet music is much easier to read initially as it provides a one to one mapping between the visual representation and the physical location of the notes - i.e. 5 frets along on this string . However, from my experience there is a cap on the 'bandwid…

Great point. To a first approximation: Tablature is a _physical description_ of how a particular stringed instrument should be played, and the notes are a side effect of that. It is instrument specific and it doesn't contain much information about the musical details of the piece. For example, tablature doesn't describe the key the piece is to be played in. To figure that out, you have to mentally translate the mecha…

Tablature is also needed because the same note can be played on different strings, notes can be doubled, there are different ways to transition from one way to another, and there are various other nuances that are messy at best to try to express in standard notation.

Re: Get started making music

#318

Post by boomlinde »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #200

I always wondered why musicians keep up with the conventional musical notation system, and haven't come up with something better (maybe a job for a HNer?). I mean the conventional music notation represents tones in five lines, each capable of holding a "note" (is that the right word?) on a line, as well as in between lines, possibly pitched down and up, resp., by B's and sharps (depending on the tune etc.). Since wes…

Since music notation is a form of communication, wide adoption is a huge factor in what is considered better.

We could come up with more precise and effective languages than the ones we naturally speak, as well, but the good-enoughness of the ones we already have and the fact that others around us are very likely familiar with them is more important. Utility trumps quality, and worse is better.

That said, if all you want is a different notation system for you to use personally or with small groups of other proponents, there are plenty to choose from. ABC and MML variants use letters for notes and numbers for note lengths, for example. Probably not optimal for sight reading, but maybe better than staff notation when writing or transcribing music. There's also trackers and piano rolls. Neither is very good for quick conprehension, but maybe lay things out in a way that makes more intuitive sense.

Re: Get started making music

#319

Post by polotics »

weavie wrote: post #79
whiddershins wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think either my phrasing was terrible (likely) or people aren't seriously considering what I am saying. Try just looping a sample that is of arbitrary length, not some multiple of beats. This is something that we could do fairly easily since the 1980s, and with moderate effort before that. Ableton made this in to an unusual technique. The entire arrangement view only superficially resembles protools, the automation…

If it's not a multiple of beats, would it generally sound good in any musical kind of way?

I recommed Steve Reich - Music for 18 musicians :-) Composing in the DAW is the best way to make someone else's music. Create your own creative process, then you are on the way to your own sound.
Post reply on HN