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

Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

clairnote.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#151

Post by zharknado »

Music major and vocalist here. Seems like the problem is framed as “mapping dots to pitches,” which is a pretty good reduction of what notation does but glosses over some things I value in standard notation.

C4 and C5 are not the same. Singing them well requires different techniques, as would playing them well on some instruments. So it doesn’t really bother me that they’re “different” in relation to staff lines (8va and 8vb notwithstanding).

More importantly, knowing which scale degree you’re on (in relation to the key) is valuable for interpretation; it has implications for where the harmony is going. Likewise knowing how you function within a chord. If you’re on the third in a diatonic triad, much less volume is required for good balance with the other parts on the root and fifth. Even more so for sevenths, seconds, sixths.

You could argue that just listening carefully might allow you to achieve a similar balance by adjusting on the fly, but one advantage of being a skilled music reader is that you can make interpretation decisions before you execute them, even if you’ve never performed the music before.

Edit: clarified difference between scale degree and function within chord.

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#152

Post by stephen_g »

blagie wrote: post #86
dehrmann wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

I don't think any of that actually adds up though. I had about 10 years of music reading experience when I started learning the piano, and it was still hard. Took me years to get to a decent level. Because playing an instrument (or learning an instrument in a different class to ones you already know) is actually just very difficult in itself.

I don't think music notation ever held me back for a second - I remember when learning, you'd learn the music notation for something new first in a few minutes, and then spend days of practice doing exercises learning how to play it well on your instrument.

Similarly with science, medicine, etc. - you can know all the terms, but the real difficult part is trying to understand the massive complexity of what they're describing!

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#153

Post by gabereiser »

munificent wrote: post #135
_moof wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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…

I think you forgot

3. It is hard because of me?

Music isn't for everyone and reading sheet music is not for all musicians. I know plenty of guitarists who only can read tabs. I know a few serious musicians that can't read sheet music (they have to take it home to study).

Anyone that has had proper music instruction though was taught how to read sheet music in their clef. Pianists learn both.

We must also understand our own limitations and accept that there are some things in this world that we, in our current state, can't understand without either further experience or further instruction or unlearning a prejudice we have.

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#154

Post by chrismorgan »

phkahler wrote: post #97
chrismorgan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 sa…

Certainly I’m biased, but on the vertical alignment thing I think I can be objective: relying on sub-millimetre positioning is a bad idea.

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#155

Post by evilotto »

mkr-hn wrote: post #114
wolverine876 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the reactionary response to all innovation, such as in tech? 'That's not the way we do it.'

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."

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#156

Post by djhn »

jnovek wrote: post #148
yesenadam wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pianist here, regularly won sight-reading competitions in my youth etc. GP's answer seemed a good answer to me. Your first sentence seemed rude, disrespectful. What kind of music do you want to be able to read? Presumably the music you like and want to play. So read that. You will always be reading new stuff you don't know, not the same thing over and over, so I'm not sure how never making any progress is a possibili…

> Your first sentence seemed rude, disrespectful. Really? I genuinely trying to communicate that I was criticizing their opinion and not them personally. Did it come off as sarcastic? In any case, I apologize. You are being awfully presumptuous. I am doing this because I enjoy it. I don’t have a destination or a timeline. I am not asking for a “quick fix”. I’m asking how to focus studies in music because I struggled…

I don't think your question was rude at all.

I feel similarly. I've performed the Chopin/Liszt etudes and Bach's sinfonias as a kid (which I guess translate to intermediate classical piano skill) but would struggle to sight read even the two-part inventions at 1/2 or even 1/4 speed.

I'd be quite keen to use some method to upgrade my sight reading to where I find learning new music rewarding, as long as it's known to produce results.

Currently I can learn a Chopin Nocturne or Mazurka much faster by ear (listening to it to learn the rhythm/melody/harmony) to recreate it roughly and watching someone play it to get the more exact voicing (with the sheet music as a reference mostly).

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#158

Post by [deleted] »

yesenadam wrote: post #149
jnovek wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your first sentence seemed rude, disrespectful. Really? I genuinely trying to communicate that I was criticizing their opinion and not them personally. Did it come off as sarcastic? In any case, I apologize. You are being awfully presumptuous. I am doing this because I enjoy it. I don’t have a destination or a timeline. I am not asking for a “quick fix”. I’m asking how to focus studies in music because I struggled…

Ok, again you are rude, not a surprise this time. I spent time giving you a more useful answer and got multiple rude comments in return.

[deleted]

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#159

Post by vintermann »

chrismorgan wrote: post #32
InitialLastName wrote: post #7

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/ha…

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…

> They have a habit of solving problems that just aren’t problems for experienced readers, while causing problems for experienced readers.

Well, of course. They have invested a lot in the system as it is. But I've noticed even very basic changes that should not cause problems for already strong readers (e.g. a slightly thicker middle line) have zero chance at adoption, whereas changes that are not justified by didacticts (e.g. many composers inventing some quirky new way of expressing something) are.

I share your judgement that this system is poor, and that there are many poor notation systems proposed all the time, though.

Re: Clairnote: An alternative music notation system

#160

Post by vintermann »

munificent wrote: post #135
_moof wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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…

Well, it's even harder for insiders. What makes you think the would-be be reformers are outsiders anyway?

Further down this thread, someone brought up their sight reading tutor program. That's a very classic "solution" to the problem.

Also very classic is that when the well meaning "insider" who approves of classical notation finds out that his tutor program didn't really help matters, he'll come up with a reform proposal of his own...

We know that reformed notation systems can increase musical literacy, because they have. Examples are the Scandinavian siffer notation, the Chinese system (which is almost identical to the Scandinavian one, even though developed independently) and the American shape note systems.

But we also know that once they do, there is inevitably a push from educators to "graduate to real notation", and the gains are typically lost within a generation...

Post reply on HN