Re: what about simplifying music notation?

[David Kastrup]

David Rogers <address@hidden> writes:

> * Marc Weber <address@hidden> [2011-03-14 04:01]:
>
>>-- O -- (O is the body of a note here)
>>-- O --
>>
>>the interval between both pitches depends on the location.
>>Why?

[...]

> Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful
> (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is
> not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt
> it. The "installed base" (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation
> is very large, and people who already know any system at all are
> reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and
> immediate benefits.

It brings large and immediate drawbacks.  The _only_ non-fringe (and you
might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_
designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have
their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion.

Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its
controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C
major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation.

Playing notes on a system not matching the controls requires mental
effort.  Which gets worse when we are talking polyphony.  It is the
_main_ deterrent against people playing the chromatic button accordion
in spite of numerous mechanical and musical advantages.  It is also the
main deterrent against guitar players learning to play from notes rather
than tabulature.  Because for guitar players, tabulature naturally
corresponds to the controls on their instrument.

And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than
_interval_-oriented.  So even singers tend to be better off with a
notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to
sing Schönberg.

-- 
David Kastrup