• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

What is so difficult with Standard Notation?

#41
Forgive me if I'm being a bit obtuse here, but there is a lot of focus in this argument on note names.

But surely if we are talking about "standard notation" these don't come into it at all - it's dots/circles with tails or not - little symbols that elegantly represent both the pitch and rhythmic information in one compact, visual reference that can be read at a glance - who cares about what the notes are called?

I would challenge anybody to find a better system that includes all the information about music that say a Mahler score does!! So apart from the staves which contain huge amounts of info, there are all sort of additions which can be fitted in, so that any orchestra can play an incredibly complex piece without necessarily having heard it.

I have quite a few orchestral scores and they are works of art in their own right - just looking at, say the score of the "Planets Suite" is hugely entertaining - I have a full-size facimile of Holst's original fullscore.

I cannot believe that any other system could possibly convey the complexity of something like a 90-minute Mahler symphony and that it is only because of the incredible effectiveness of the notation system that this is in fact possible at all!
 
#42
Originally posted by Pacman

ignorance comes from not actually doing something.
Click to expand...

I would say Ignorance comes from not actually LEARNING something, ;) but otherwise I am afraid Mock Turtle Regulator, I have to agree With Pacman and Bruce Lindfield.

You said it yourself we only use English because we have been indoctrinated with all of its Idiosyncracies from an early age, well it's the same for a lot of musicians they are Indoctrinated with standard notation while (As Musicians) they are still young and it sticks, while it may not be a perfect system it works! As does TAB, for what it is there to do, and I think this point really, it may not be great but it does what it needs to do well enough.

I can't remember in who's sig it's in but there is a quote of the Dalai Lama I have seen on here and goes a little like this:

"Learn the rules, so that you can break them properly."

I think that sums it up!!

Krakkers
 
#43
Learning to read music well is not different than becoming conversational in a foreign language. Their really is only one way to do it. Practice it everyday and then use it. It is just unrealistic to think that one can become a good sight reader without doing it daily.

Personally, I get too few "reading" gigs to justify keeping "fluent" in it. Ipractice it so don't lose it and if I know a big reading gig is coming up, I'll woodshed on it.

That being said, reading is one of the tools that make us versatile and valuable and we need to do it. I wrote some lesson a few months ago for Bass Frontiers Mag on reading hints. Let's see if I an summarize some techniques here.

1. Don't try to conncect a note to its name to yur fingering position - it is just too much work. Look at the piece or section thereof, check out the key and the range. Adopt a position and fingering pattern that works. Now try to see a pattern - up or down a scale, arpeggio, etc. Try to read the shape.

2. Memorize the sound of tricky rhythm patterns, espcially those with eighths, dotted eighths and/or sixteenths. Bang them out on the table or clap your hands. Memoriaze the way they sound. That way you will not be intimidated when they arise and you'll have a good handle on their sound.

3. If you have a difficult rhyth pattern amde up of 16th notes. take a moment to rewrite the pattern double all the note values (8ths become quarters and 16ths become 8ths) - learn the sound and play it twice as fast.


Mike
 
#44
mock:

what you should be questioning is the method of equal temperment rather than note count convenience.

the notes we currently use derive from the harmonic overtone series...its physics, its the way we hear.

equal temperment is a compromise.

The first observation that can be made about the overtone series is that its lower elements together form a MAJOR seventh chord, lending weight to the words of taxonomic distinction "major" and "minor". A major chord is somehow more natural in the context of simple vibrating things.

If we tune the C major scale according to the overtones of C, using also the overtones of the F (a perfect fifth below) and G (a perfect fifth above).

C = (1) C
D = (9/8) C
E = (5/4) C
F = (4/3) C
G = (3/2) C
A = (5/3) C
B = (15/8) C
C' = (2) C

This defines the relations between the frequencies of a justly tempered major scale; C major when the frequency of C is inserted into the formulas. This pattern of ratios is extensible in both directions to tune all the white keys of the piano.

Keyboard and tuning to C, we are also ok for the harmonically closest keys of G major (with only F#) and F major (with only Bb). The next Generate from F and from G F F' C' F'' A'' C'' Eb'' From this we get the ratios for A and F given above 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 G G' D' G'' B'' D'' F''

The just tempering scheme ulimately based on the perfect fifth runs into problems in constructing a circle of fifths because the circle does not close. The gap or discrepancy in frequency that appears at 12 consecutive fifths and 7 octaves down is known as the Pythagorean Comma.

The various schemes to reconcile the Pythagorean Comma, that is to close the circle of fifths are called cyclic temperaments. Well or equal tempering is one of them. There have been other schemes to divide the octave not only into 12 parts but also into 5, 14, 16, 19, 31 and 53 parts. These are all cyclic temperaments. The ancient Greek tuning was not cyclic and is one of the linear termperaments. Various linear temperaments have been used, throughout musical history under circumstances where the music was not essentially harmonic but linear; hence there was no need to define intervals of relative consonance and dissonance. [Helmholtz 1877] , appendix XX.

There is a mathematical story to tell associated with this construction of overtone series that centers around a very important theorem of Fourier. Cast into the current context the theorem says that any vibration that the string is capable of can be expressed by a suitable addition of the fundamental modes each with some weighting coefficient. The actual mathematical theorem takes into account that the vibrational modes can be given in terms of sinusoidal functions (sine and cosine) of trigonometry. Even among mathematicians, Fourier's theory is also called "Harmonic Analysis".

What is so bad, harmonically speaking if we approximate musical notes with an equal temperament?
It is clear that each string of a piano will have its set of overtones whose fequencies are determined by simple ratios of whole numbers. To get the G above C as above, multiply the frequency of C by (3/2)-1.500. The equal tempered G that is now there would use a factor of 1.498. So now the the equal tempered G and its overtones will beat with those of the C, where this would be minimized if the G were tuned using the 1.5 factor. Beats happen when two tones are played together that are just slightly different in frequency. The double angle formula from trigonometry is:


sin( A + B ) = sin( A ) cos( B ) + cos( A ) sin( B )
and then also
sin( A - B ) = sin( A ) cos( B ) - cos( A ) sin( B )

Adding these two formulas gives
sin( A + B ) + sin( A - B ) = 2 sin( A ) cos( B )

Change variables by letting

u = A + B, v = A - B

so that inverting and solving for A and B in terms of u and v

A = (1/2)(u + v)
B = (1/2)(u - v)

Then substituting in the last trigonometric eqation gives

sin(u) + sin(v) = 2 sin[(1/2)(u + v)] cos[(1/2)(u - v)]

The expression sin[(1/2)(u + v)] is a sine wave with a frequency
that is the average of the two frequencies u and v. If u and v
are close then (u-v) will be verry small and the factor
cos[(1/2)(u - v)] modulates the average sine wave with a
frequency that is low with respect to the average frequency.
The amplitude of the sine wave, hence it's loudness swells
and dimishes. This swelling and diminishing of loudness is
called beating.

The more beating going on, the less consonant is the perception
to the ear. Therefore, equal temperament makes fifths and fourths
(the inversions of fifths) less consonant. Since the very basis
of harmony is the interval of the fifth, some of the consonance
of all harmony has been compromised by equal tempering.



With the advent of computers and computer software powerful enough to handle the digital and analog manipulations of sound, the music of the future, providing there is one, can be free of the equal temperament that has been imposed on western music by the piano keyboard and still allow free modulation to maintain natural harmonic relations when wanted, and at the same time allow for music that can also be expressed using the rich nonharmonic linear language that has been created in many other cultures. Should this revolution come about, music may itself still not be universal, but at least it will have a much richer and universal alphabet.

for this and more:

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/MUSIC/ovrtns.html

hope that helps.

fred
 
#45
Originally posted by fhodshon

With the advent of computers and computer software powerful enough to handle the digital and analog manipulations of sound, the music of the future, providing there is one, can be free of the equal temperament that has been imposed on western music by the piano keyboard
Click to expand...

Yes and No! (Good explanation about temperament though!) I always hark back to a series of programmes I saw on the BBC by Michael Berkeley who was charting the biggest innovations/developments in music - one of the series was about notation being a big breakthrough and "enabling" orchestras to play.

But, anyway - to get back to your point - another programme in the series was about equal temperament. So Berkeley looked at Japanese classical music, which is one of the longest-running traditions that doesn't use equal temperament. However, japanese youth are now exposed to so much "western" music based on equal temperament (ads,films etc.) , that their own musical tradition now sounds "out of tune" to them and so the music is dying for lack of new performers who can make it sound convincing - they just can't hear anything other than equal temperament as musical!

I think that our ears are even more "attuned" to equal temperament and that any music that doesn't use this nowadays is going to have very "limited" audience!! :D


PS - I still think that note names are a red herring - notation is the dots and staves - this system is unsurpassed for elegance and clarity! Forget about the A - G stuff, just look at the score! ;)
 
#46
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield

PS - I still think that note names are a red herring - notation is the dots and staves - this system is unsurpassed for elegance and clarity! Forget about the A - G stuff, just look at the score! ;)
Click to expand...


Coming from the perspective of someone who deals with and teaches jazz nomenclature on a daily basis, I have to disagree with this. Think about what this would do to all chord alterations and color tones. I can think of few things more illogical than each scale degree not having its own name.
 
#47
Whow - what a thread!!!

I know from my own experience that I found the thought of learning standard notation very daunting. I took what I consider to be the easy option - I used a lot of TAB. I have to admit that old habits die hard and I still use TAB to a fair extent and have never really forced myself to learn standard notation!!!

I wish that I had. If I'd had 12 extra year of learning standard notation I think I would have become a better player! I know that Steve Harris and Billy Sheehan up until recently (I believe) could not read standard notation - so I think there is hope without it. But, I think these examples ar few and far between!

I find that I get TABs to songs I know - ones I can 'think' how the tune goes!! Unfortunately if I can't get a copy of the song I will have difficulty in learning the song! If I had learned to rean standard notation, at least I could work out how the song goes properly. D'oh - why didn't I learn it sooner!!!


And by the way - I have never seen so much maths/physics since I did my degree. And I was never really that good at Simple Harmonic Motion!:D
 
#48
bruce:

my point in bringing up the compromise that is equal temperment was to sate Mock's desire for something different.

you even bloster this by saying that NON-equal temperment these days has a limited audience.

we's on zee same path me thinks.

my other point to Mock, was that the notes that we use today were not arbitrarily derived.

the names, maybe, but not the intervals.

i heard a demonstration comparing true intervals and tempered intervals...it all has to do with being "tuned".

while non-equal temperment has no "beating" per se...the usable number of intervals in this system is limited.

with equal temperment, most the intervals are equally out of tune just a teensy.

so, Mock, have at it...i'd start with the physics that is our ears first and move from there.

where'd he go anyway?

this is just starting to get interesting.

f
 
#49
Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



Coming from the perspective of someone who deals with and teaches jazz nomenclature on a daily basis, I have to disagree with this. Think about what this would do to all chord alterations and color tones. I can think of few things more illogical than each scale degree not having its own name.
Click to expand...

But I only mean in the context of this argument! ;)

So - the initial subject was about "standard notation" - now my view is this is the dots and staves.

So if you compare the elegant way that this conveys all the information you need with either Tabs or the Mock Turtle's criticism, I was just saying that note name are irrelevant - where do you see these used in a score or any piece of "standard notation"?

So if we are talking about written systems of notation then I am saying that these note names simply aren't used - OK we talk about them and they are very useful in education, but the strict definition of "standard notation" for me, is the stave and dots - this is the system we're discussing!
 
#51
oh, sorry, that last one wasn't directed at me.

but, one more thing Mock brought up was contemporary music.

while note names may not be used in the strictest classical scores, most modern "charts" are written with chord names.

to discard the current system would be worse than the METRIC SCARE Of the 60's.

bwahahahahahaaaaaa...INTO THE BUNKER!!!!!!!!!!

fred
 
#52
Originally posted by fhodshon
bruce:

my point in bringing up the compromise that is equal temperment was to sate Mock's desire for something different.

you even bloster this by saying that NON-equal temperment these days has a limited audience.

we's on zee same path me thinks.

f
Click to expand...

We are agreeing - it was just "crossed wires" due to my poor editing. I meant to say "Yes and No" to your point about more music being produced without equal temperament - OK we have the tools now to produce any sort of music, but our ears are very much "attuned" to Equal Temperament, as we hear so much recorded music on TV, flims, radio etc. Anything that doesn't use this system is just going to sound "out of tune" and is not likely to be very popular!

I agree with you that the dots and wires have been developed over many centuries to be the best way to visually represent how music sounds, based on the physics that makes things either sound good or "out of tune" to our ears - I don't think anybody has put forward anything that could replace this and starting by looking at the note names is just completely the wrong way round!

Basically I don't care if Mock Turtle decides to replace the note names with others - as has been mentioned they are different in German and Russian for example anyway! But I can't see any way of replacing the actual score without making it less efficient! :rolleyes:
 
#53
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield


But I only mean in the context of this argument! ;)

So - the initial subject was about "standard notation" - now my view is this is the dots and staves.

So if you compare the elegant way that this conveys all the information you need with either Tabs or the Mock Turtle's criticism, I was just saying that note name are irrelevant - where do you see these used in a score or any piece of "standard notation"?
Click to expand...

I see them in every chart I play, and I know of their existence inside the head of everyone who plays an instrument at anything higher than a beginner level, or who reads music.

I see your point in the context of this particular discussion, but from the standpoint of music education and jazz in particular, I find FAUX TURTLE OVERLORD's argument particularly destructive. There is an intuitive logic to the idea of each scale tone having its own name which I am having trouble believing that anyone would refute. But, as always, that's just my opinion.
 
#54
Originally posted by JimK
For me, getting a grasp of the rhythmic notation was the killer...anyone can learn the names of the lines/spaces & what each note looks like on paper.

The damn rhythmic notation, though, whew! Especially if a lotta ties or space was involved. :)
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I find really hard about it. If a bar's all 1/16. 1/8's 1/4 notes, its a breeze, I can even count it all out if its like a 1/4 one note or an 1/8, or whatever next.

But when they start tying notes together, piecing and throwing in a rest here and there, or combining 1/8 1/16 or 1/4 together in one long line with a rest inbetween them, (I wish I had a piece I could post to give you a great idea of what I mean by that) then I get really confused and frustrated.
 
#55
Originally posted by Kraken

You said it yourself we only use English because we have been indoctrinated with all of its Idiosyncracies from an early age, well it's the same for a lot of musicians they are Indoctrinated with standard notation while (As Musicians) they are still young and it sticks, while it may not be a perfect system it works! As does TAB, for what it is there to do, and I think this point really, it may not be great but it does what it needs to do well enough.
Click to expand...

yes, that's exactly the point I hoped people would see I was making when I mentioned language-

the "Queen's English" is full of many unnecessary quirks that American English has eliminated - need I mention the spelling of "color"? as an example- I'm all for it- there's no need for the U in the strict English spelling of colour.

I've been forced to learn all these quirks, and I see people mispelling things in England all the time- it's seriously flawed- I don't blame people for mispelling words/ making grammatical mistakes at all.

I learned French, Latin and (ancient)Greek at school (I got A Grades in all of them if you're wondering) and saw countless unnecessary complications in all of them-
the ancient Greek alphabet for a start- 2 letters for O- omicron and omega, plus different ways of writing E (epsilon) depending on the context of its use- all unnecessary.

back to music, all the objections to an alternative system as I've suggested to me seem to be akin to objecting to the elimination of petrol-driven cars saying "I won't be able to get free gifts on the points I've earned buying petrol if petrol-driven cars are eliminated".

- all the patterns seasoned readers will miss are only due to the fact that they're used to them.
I re-state a previous point- the keyboard only works as it's based around the known note system.


basically, my whole objection to this system stems from the way I view music, and the reason I choose to play it- to me it epitomises freedom and free self-expression, and this system imposes unnecessary impedance.
I see music as an escape from forced indoctrination.

believe me, I've tried to learn to read music, and to play keyboards, but I could never overlook the inherent overcomplications without questioning why it should be like this.



posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Yes, you can. I could also argue that it would be easy to theorize an alternative system for breathing- since breathing through the mouth and nose is so damned inefficient - and then refer to those who don't care to try it "gutless" and "old school".

this retort only works if you did suggest an alternative system for breathing- which you haven't;)

I see your point in the context of this particular discussion, but from the standpoint of music education and jazz in particular, I find FAUX TURTLE OVERLORD's argument particularly destructive. There is an intuitive logic to the idea of each scale tone having its own name which I am having trouble believing that anyone would refute. But, as always, that's just my opinion.

FAUX TURTLE OVERLORD?
are you deputising for Ed Fuqua?
yeah, I'm surprised this hasn't been Fuqua'd yet too. but there's still time......
 
#56
MTR said:

this retort only works if you did suggest an alternative system for breathing- which you haven't


well, i could say you've barely offered any alternatives with working models.

anyone can critisize the norm and come up with blue sky suggestions.

proof is in the putting...or as Les says pudding time.

again, i ask for worked out examples of your alternatives and a description of how they are inherently better than the system commonly used now.

i don't think that's too much to ask.

prove it to us, so we can all move to the next level.

thanks
fred
 
#57
okay, fhodshon, I'll take you up on that, but bear with me, this may take a while.

I'm going to start by keeping the note A and working from there, using a bass and working out how intervals can be referred to.
I intend at some point to modify a keyboard using a black key between every white key throughout.

I'm fully aware the chances are it'll all fail horribly and I'll fall flat on my face sheepishly acknowledging the validity of the accepted system- but hey, I can take that;)
 
#59
Originally posted by The SOCK GARGLE CARBURETOR




posted by Chris Fitzgerald
Yes, you can. I could also argue that it would be easy to theorize an alternative system for breathing- since breathing through the mouth and nose is so damned inefficient - and then refer to those who don't care to try it "gutless" and "old school".

this retort only works if you did suggest an alternative system for breathing- which you haven't;)

What FREDHOTSHOE said - all of it. He's made more sense than any of us in this thread, in my opinion.

I see your point in the context of this particular discussion, but from the standpoint of music education and jazz in particular, I find FAUX TURTLE OVERLORD's argument particularly destructive. There is an intuitive logic to the idea of each scale tone having its own name which I am having trouble believing that anyone would refute. But, as always, that's just my opinion.

FAUX TURTLE OVERLORD?
are you deputising for Ed Fuqua?
yeah, I'm surprised this hasn't been Fuqua'd yet too. but there's still time......
Click to expand...

Deputizing? I prefer to call it "improving on Ed's quirky old system". :) Truth told, Ed swiped the name thing from some old crusty guy at Jazz Korner because it amused him. He brought it here, and a bunch of crusty TB guys swiped it because it amuses us. I still think FOODSHORTAGE's point about the system being the way it is because of the harmonic series is dead on, and I still think that - as a piano player - a keyboard with alternating white and black keys would be damn near impossible to play. What about the note names? Perhaps I came off too aggressively at first, but my question was sincere: which scale degree is the lucky one to lose its name under your new system? Or do you propose to base all future music off of the whole-tone scale rather than the major-minor system? (As HASBRO will be quick to point out, this will make the modes far less interesting)

I think my main point here is that music as it exists in the major-minor system is not inherently symmetrical. Why should the symbols used to notate it be?

Yours,

HISS C FITZ
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back