![]() Consider the robustness of the radio alphabet, even on a noisy line. Compare music, which is notoriously difficult for beginners to read and often criticised by even rather experienced performers, to the kind of mathematical typography available in TeX (even when printing very small symbols, or after photocopying). How many times do people misread chords with an accidental or two set next to a group of adjacent notes?Ī good notation doesn't force the reader to spend many hours internalising its obscure conventions, particularly when that notation should allow reading and interpreting at speed on the first run-through. Meanwhile, a simple (and often poorly printed) dot has a profound effect on the timing, and there is very little visual distinction in vital symbols like some of the rests, or the appearance of notes several lines above or below the main stave. These things are counterintuitive, and represent concepts that aren't necessarily consistent with how a practised musician really thinks. There are also strange things like the way that the more extra marks a note has, the less significant that note becomes in timing. As a consequence, it is unnecessarily difficult to read and comprehend in realistic contexts.Īs you say, it would make far more sense in some ways to write in terms of where you are on a scale and which key you're in, rather than specific notes. Rather, it's just got too many symbols that are neither particularly representative of their concepts, nor particularly unique compared to the others, nor particularly clear when poorly printed. ![]() ![]() In principle, the notation's meaning should be entirely unambiguous, up to the level of artistic interpretation. The problem with music notation isn't really ambiguity in the design, IMHO. However, I always thought this should be pretty obvious since ornaments depend on the mechanics of the instrument, which are obviously different.Īm I missing some massive ambiguity? I can understand if you just want musical notation to be easier to use for the common man, but that's like saying C or BASIC should be easier to use oversimplification would remove the flexibility the system offers more advanced musicians (or programmers). The only ambiguities I can think of in musical notation are things like trills, turns, and other ornaments that are similar but often subtly different depending on the instrument (I'm including voice as an instrument here too). Meanwhile, a key signature is given and the decomposition into the base theoretic components is still easy, so that improvisation and understanding of the piece is simple for the more advanced musician. These clear definitions mean experienced musicians can pick up intricate passages quickly, too. Standard notation clearly defines what notes are to be played, so it's useful to beginning musicians. However, it's hard for beginning musicians to think purely in these terms they need absolute locations like "C F C G" rather than "I-IV-I-V In the key of C major." Thus, in order to understand a song enough to make it his own, the musician must understand this as well. The typical listener (e.g., not fans of Schoenberg) is most concerned, subconsciously, with our location relative to dominant and tonic. From the standpoint of learning and performing music, it makes more sense than anything else anyone's come up with. Musical notation, especially at its core (e.g., representing tones in relation to time), isn't ambiguous at all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |