Website offering simplified music notation

[johnk]

How does this sort of thing get so much endorsement? Express Stave is MUCH simpler!

www.SimplifiedMusicNotation.org

[allthumbs]

Another gimmick IMO. I've seen these types of systems before.

[johnk]

As piano teachers we all know how much we have to remind students about key signatures and accidentals, so a system that makes the sharps and flats obvious would be helpful. Well they say that it even helps students in reading traditional notation because they regain confidence. Call it a gimmick if you like, but as teachers we should at least consider these systems for some students that seem to be struggling. And I agree, there are other systems out there, like different coloured noteheads for sharps and flats. But to me it only shows that i am not the only person who thinks music notation could be a whole lot easier.

But what I dont understand is how this system gets so much endorsement by so many musical professionals (such as Dame Evelyn Glennie) when here on this forum everyone pooh-poohs such ideas.

[Bob]

I'm not getting it.  They take away the key signature?  Note head shape determines sharp and flat? 

There are a lot of systems that come out.  If it gets, accepted, fine.  I doubt this one will.  So why spend much time on it?  You still have read traditional notation anyway.  All the music is printed in it (or nearly all) and they're not going to go back and redo it. 

Maybe as a teaching aid, yes.  But accidentals aren't so bad. 

[johnk]

If you actually teach some kids some music like this you may change your mind. Reminding kids whehter a note is sharped or not in a key signature is time consuming. Most teachers play along with the student at an octave when teaching the notes of a piece. With my Express Stave student I never have to do this, and i never have to go through the "What note is this" routine. I can just concentrate on counting...

[Bob]

Doesn't it still take the same amount of brainpower to learn to read note heads with different shapes?  I don't see the difference, except not having the same clutter there. 

[keypeg]

How utterly confusing.  One has no sense of key, modulation, anything.  You're practically forced to read one note at a time.  This would totally slow me down and confuse me.  I find nothing wrong with the traditional notation system.  This is coming from an adult student.

[johnk]

Bob - No, it is not the same - the problem with key signatures is remembering which notes are sharps or flats when there is no reminder. How many times does the teacher have to write in a # or b, or circle notes to remind students? Same with accidentals that must be retained for the rest of a measure. They can easily be overlooked in long measures, and close chords with accidentals can be difficult to see which notes the accidentals refer to. I think it is very helpful to have the notehead shape itself show the accidental quality. Well, alternatively you could write in every # or b. But then you get the student who is mixed up as to whether the # refers to the note before or after. C#D = C, #D - or is it C#, D???

KeyPeg, I agree that this method lumps key signature sharps and flats in with accidentals, so you get less feeling for which notes are innate or foreign to the key. But these guys have apparently done research with lots of people - and I am just amazed by the number of people endorsing it. This is what surprises me. How come so many endorse it when here everyon thinks it confusing or gimmicky?

[allthumbs]

But these guys have apparently done research with lots of people - and I am just amazed by the number of people endorsing it. This is what surprises me. How come so many endorse it when here everyon thinks it confusing or gimmicky?

I would hazzard a guess that the research people are taking their endorsements from those with little or no musical experience.

Here you are trying to introduce a system trying to simplify things that most people in this forum already deal with with no problem.

allthumbs

[keypeg]

I guess that I experience the remembering part of key signatures differently.  Originally when I played as a teen decades ago, I only had movable do solfege so my mind was sort of "inside" a scale.  I had no idea what notes I was playing but if I was in G major (not knowing that I was) and I hit an F, I'd quickly move a semitone up so it would sound "right".

Now that I know better I simply learned to play scales going along the circle of fifths and that pattern stays within my hands.  I don't try to remember sharps or flats: I go into the mental mode of being within A major.  A sudden appearance of repeating sharps tells me I've modulated and I go into a new mental mode.  The accidentals and key signatures give little codes and signals about the nature  of the music which you see in a largish sweep.  When they are missing, the music becomes harder, not easier, to read for me.

[johnk]

I would hazzard a guess that the research people are taking their endorsements from those with little or no musical experience.

Well if you look at the names, they are highly qualified musical professionals and  academics etc.

Here you are trying to introduce a system trying to simplify things that most people in this forum already deal with with no problem.

But we are all teachers, right? You and I dont have problems with reading traditional music in key signatures, but how about students? There is lots of evidence that generally most piano students never make it to a proficient level. Why are there so many different methods of teaching piano out there? Look at YouTube. SOOO many how-to-play by rote videos, and tabs of various kinds ... As someone quoted, with so many solutions, you know there must be a problem!

The accidentals and key signatures give little codes and signals about the nature  of the music which you see in a largish sweep.  When they are missing, the music becomes harder, not easier, to read for me.

I also read TN like this, but there are often frustrating times when even I have to count up legerlines, or stumble over multi-accidental chords, or search back through a bar to see whether a note is meant to be a sharp or flat etc. I have a masters degree in piano performance, have played piano concertos, learnt all the Chopin etudes etc, shouldnt I be able to read new pieces without these hesitations? After all they are just the 12 piano notes.

Since I have transnotated a lot of music into Express Stave, I can assert that the clarity it gives in any key is an advantage. If you havent learnt an alternative system you really cannot compare them with TN.

I had no idea what notes I was playing but if I was in G major (not knowing that I was) and I hit an F, I'd quickly move a semitone up so it would sound "right".

A friend who reads piano music ok in the more common keys, explained the same thing - he just plays till something sounds wrong, then adjusts a note by an extra flat or sharp. He doesnt think about it much, cant tell me which notes are the #s or bs in a given key signature, yet seems to get by. He is not a teacher or a professional, but as we ARE, shouldnt there be a more definite way to get the right notes?

[ginevrastar]

I work for the inventor of Simplified Music Notation, Peter George, and have been involved in getting this project up and running.  I'm an ethnomusicologist (MMus) and a diploma-level amateur pianist.  I work for the project because I've found the notation very helpful in my own playing and as a musicologist I feel it addresses some unneccesary complications in traditional notation.

I'll try not to get involved in the debate about the relative merits of the system - that's up to teachers and players to decide. But I hope no one will object if I post responses to a few of the points raised.

They take away the key signature?

The key signature is still very much there. The idea with Simplified Music Notation is that ALL the information in the original score should remain so that you can see exactly how the composer wrote it.

Doesn't it still take the same amount of brainpower to learn to read note heads with different shapes?

The idea is that it takes less brainpower/ memory while you're playing, as you don't have to carry information about key signature and accidentals around in your head.

there are other systems out there, like different coloured noteheads for sharps and flats

Incidentally, Peter tried experimenting with colours, but of course this rules out anyone who is colour blind.  The notation was designed to make music more accessible to people with dyslexia, memory impairments, etc. so this approach was abandoned.

I had no idea what notes I was playing but if I was in G major (not knowing that I was) and I hit an F, I'd quickly move a semitone up so it would sound "right".

I also rely on my ear a lot when I play (I'm a terrible sight-reader), which is fine as long as you're dealing with diatonic music.  But what about contemporary music?  Bartok, Debussy, Scriabin, Shoenberg, Ligeti?  It's not always possible to guess how it should sound. 

Since the late 19th century, music has become increasingly chromatic, complex and unpredictable, while notation has remained fixed.  I honestly don't think traditional notation deals at all well with atonal music like 12-tone serialist works - its a mess, and I've met few composers or players of modern music who would disagree.  One of the reasons Simplified Music Notation was created was to try to address these problems.

[johnk]

Thanks for your response, Ginevrastar.

One of the things that your site claims is that this is good for people with visual imparement (I think?) but I found the notehead shapes difficult to see at the size they show on the screen. I note you dont mention the visual here, just dyslexia and memory.

Another point that I think is valid, is that with traditional notation, the accidentals point out the non-diatonic notes (for the most part) whereas when you put all the inflections in the notehead, it takes that extra information away. Unless you added a new sign to indicate those notes outside of the key signature.

This is one thing that the Music Notation Project forum has discussed, and basically has come to a consensus that any chromatic staff can have the option of adding some such signs to remind the player - or singer - of notes outside the key (of course this is only apt if you are in a key to start with.)

I wonder what you think of my Express Stave notation, which shows the naturals as white noteheads and others as black.

My other big question is how did you go about getting so many people to review the system? And how can they afford to have paid staff members ... Is it a paying business already?

Cheers, John

[keypeg]

Ginevrastar, the one thing I'm getting out of this is that traditional music is at a disadvantage for modern music which is non-diatonic.  That makes sense.  I would feel, though, that the new system(s) are at a disadvantage in traditional diatonic music because those same markers are not there.  You can take in the nature of the music, modulations and such, with a sweep of the eye because of the familiar patterns of where accidentals occur and how - and that's all missing.

The other concern is that there must be millions of copies of music written the traditional way.  If somebody learns to read according to a new system, will they be able to read the majority of music, or would they end up in some kind of a ghetto.  It would be as though we all suddenly converted to the Cyrrilic alphabet and our children could not read our old books anymore.

Do they become bilingual to two systems?  But there is also a different mentality or view to music involved, I think.  That feeling of context (which belongs inside diatonic, again) is gone.

[johnk]

Well Schoenberg was a proponent of a chromatic staff, but the arguments made at musicnotation.org are that chromatic staves make even diatonic music clearer. But it is a different mindset. With TN we are aware of modulation to sharper or flatter keys, whereas the chromatic staves see modulation as simply shifts up or down. Simple Music Notation keeps the sharp/flat distinction.

Express Stave does  keep some of the feel of keys being sharper and flatter. You get a visual cue in how black or white the music looks, and sharp keys have the black noteheads under the lines, flat keys have them above the lines. Think of how F# and C# are at the low side of the black key groups of two and three, whileBb and Eb are at the tops.

The other concern is that there must be millions of copies of music written the traditional way.  If somebody learns to read according to a new system, will they be able to read the majority of music, or would they end up in some kind of a ghetto.  It would be as though we all suddenly converted to the Cyrrilic alphabet and our children could not read our old books anymore.

The answer to this is that the people in the 'ghetto' would be the ones that would not have learnt to read tradtional notation, so would have been 'homeless' otherwise. The aim of all the alternative systems is to allow more people to read music. Do you want to deny some people the chance?

[keypeg]

But how much music would be available for them to read?  It would be limited to the music that is printed in new notation.  Does the idea of new notation provide a bridge?  Do students starting on that new notation also learn to read regular notation?

I come from that ghetto.  I was in my late 40's before I learned to read music.  Don't ask me what I did before.

[a-sharp]

I just don't see how music notation as it has existed for hundreds of years is "broken" enough to need fixing.

It's far easier to learn how to read music than it is to learn how to read many spoken languages.

These things are interesting, but I don't see a world-wide re-vamp of music notation. However, it is somewhat entertaining, if you've got time for it.

[johnk]

Well apparently quite a few people do think it needs fixing. Here is another website with different noteheads for the sharps and flats.
www.PrimaVistaNotes.com

I dont necessarily like all these systems of course, I am just pointing out that a lot of people think the hundred year old notation system (actually a thousand years old) is not as efficient as it could be.

Are all the teachers here basically saying they never have students who have difficulty learning to read music

[keypeg]

The original question still remains.  Supposing you teach students a different notation system.  How will they be able to read the music that exists?  Will they be restricted to a small body of music written in the new notation?

[timothy42b]

Ginevrastar, the one thing I'm getting out of this is that traditional music is at a disadvantage for modern music which is non-diatonic.  That makes sense.  I would feel, though, that the new system(s) are at a disadvantage in traditional diatonic music because those same markers are not there. 

I have to side with keypeg here.

As another adult beginner (age 55) I don't have any trouble remembering key signatures.  If I play a note wrong it's because my finger hit the wrong spot, not because of my brain.  To me these simplified systems just switch complexity to a different point.  That might work better for some people, or for some types of music, but correspondingly worse for everybody else. 

With age comes some fading of vision.  I would have trouble seeing either colors or notehead shapes in anything but perfect conditions. 

[ginevrastar]

Thanks for the responses and feedback. This may be a long reply...
 

But how much music would be available for them to read?  It would be limited to the music that is printed in new notation.

There is an awful lot of music out there to transcribe, isn't there?  To start with (because you have to start somewhere) we picked a selection of piano works from beginner to diploma level to showcase the notation.  But of course, people want the piece they want, and on their own instrument,  so we offer a transcription service as well.
 
Our next big step is developing a plug-in for Sibelius, then maybe Finale.  This will allow individuals and other publishers to transcribe pieces themselves.
 

Does the idea of new notation provide a bridge?  Do students starting on that new notation also learn to read regular notation?

Absolutely - SMN is intended to be completely complementary to traditional notation and students should definitely learn the two side by side.  As it is based on the familiar 5 line staff and note duration symbols (crotchets, quavers etc) players who can already reach should only need a few minutes to learn it, and it should be easy for anybody to switch between the two.
 
Basically, it's an aid to sight-reading, and can be used as a learning tool.  Personally, I prefer to use an SMN score when it is available, and often transcribe pieces I want to learn - I'd like to see people offered a choice of the two as standard by publishers but that may be a good few years off...
 

If somebody learns to read according to a new system, will they be able to read the majority of music, or would they end up in some kind of a ghetto.

Again, anyone serious about music should learn both.  But I just want to echo what John said: many people are already in a musical ghetto because of the difficulties with traditional notation.  I often meet professional jazz or rock musicians who find themselves constantly frustrated because they can't play fluently in traditional notation.  This kind of problem robs talented people of an essential way of communicating musical ideas.  It also, I'm told, discourages many from pursuing a musical career. 
   

I would feel, though, that the new system(s) are at a disadvantage in traditional diatonic music because those same markers are not there.  You can take in the nature of the music, modulations and such, with a sweep of the eye because of the familiar patterns of where accidentals occur and how - and that's all missing.

For analysing music, I agree that these visual clues in traditional notation are important.  For playing, the advantage of SMN is that you play each note as you see it, exactly as it appears on the stage.  It cuts out the need for that analytical level of cognition while you'replaying, connecting directly from eye to hand. 

Of course, everyone has a different way of sight reading...

I wonder what you think of my Express Stave notation, which shows the naturals as white noteheads and others as black.

John, I've been searching online and couldn't find clear instructions or a score to print out - didn't have time for the YouTube link (I'll try to watch this week), and Music Notation project gave a description rather than instructions.  Can you post a link please?

how did you go about getting so many people to review the system? And how can they afford to have paid staff members ... Is it a paying business already?

Annelie and Peter have been working on this for over 15 years.  They set up a charity to support the R&D - Creative Arts Research Foundation - which they funded from their savings.  They sent a lot of sample books out to music professionals, and were surprised by how much positive response they got back.  The thing which seemed to strike people was how similar it is to traditional notation, so you don't have to relearn how to read music.

More recently, we set up a non-profit publishing branch to get some books out there -  any UK profits will (if we ever make them!) go back into the charity, to support disadvantaged music students. We've sold a fair number of books since we launched last month - mostly to teachers with students who struggle with sight-reading and to adult amateurs. 

It's likely to be a long time before we recover our setup costs - nobody makes their fortune out of printing music books! The main drive behind this is to make music learning more accessible to everyone, not just the sight-reading elite. 

[icanpiano]

This one has a different approach.

www.PrimaVistaNotes.com

And many more pieces for download.

[ginevrastar]

Thanks for the link - Prima Vista is an interesting example, and it does everything it needs to in terms of being making sight reading easier (although I found the half notes/ minims a bit hard to read).

But one major piece of feedback we got from pro musicians in the development stages of Simplified Music Notation is that you must be able see how the composer wrote the work originally - that's why there the History Signs were added in, to show when double sharps and flats etc. have been transposed to actual pitch.   This info is lost in Prima Vista, so although you can play it fine, you can't analyse the harmonic structure of the music.

 

[icanpiano]

Double sharps and double flats have a solution in Prima Vista Notes.
Look for pianist version and composer version explanation:

https://www.primavistanotes.com/HowtoPlay.asp

Attac. is an example.
You can Find it in FAQ page.

[rob_the_dude]

I'm sorry, but how can staring at a tiny black/white dot on a page to deduce whether it is a sharp or flat 'i-note' ( ) be quicker and easier than reading a large (by comparison) b or #??? 

Oh, and what is the point of putting the key-ish signature at the start of the score if 'all sharps and flats are already indicated inside the piece' ??

[icanpiano]

Well...
It is not small on a music chart. It can be spot easily with the direction of the black Vs. the white spot.

The system do not ask you to think about sharps or flats rather then to look for the side of the black key in proportion to the white one. It is a different concept.

The key signature at the beginning of the piece is to tell us in what key do we play. It's just for a reminder to the piano player. It might help while reading.

[keypeg]

It is hard to read such tiny symbols unless you have very good and young eyes.

[musicrebel4u]

How does this sort of thing get so much endorsement? Express Stave is MUCH simpler!

www.SimplifiedMusicNotation.org

Another half educated approach to deal with an obstacle: clash of coordination and reading.
In order to provide healthy balance between these two we have to provide step by step gradual curriculum from ’ground zero’  to advanced level. Rule of thumb suppose to be: as more struggles we offer for student's coordination – the less suppose to be for reading.

Best example in history of teaching: ABC books, picture books, chapter books and novel’s formats in reading.

Otherwise students after such approach would be left in the middle of desert.

[rob_the_dude]

Another half educated approach to deal with an obstacle: clash of coordination and reading.
In order to provide healthy balance between these two we have to provide step by step gradual curriculum from ’ground zero’  to advanced level. Rule of thumb suppose to be: as more struggles we offer for student's coordination – the less suppose to be for reading.

Best example in history of teaching: ABC books, picture books, chapter books and novel’s formats in reading.

Otherwise students after such approach would be left in the middle of desert.

Are you a teacher:-\?

[johnk]

It is hard to read such tiny symbols unless you have very good and young eyes.

Yes, but I think they have hit on something by making the notes look like eyes. We all have extremely highly developed facial recognition software in our brains, and this may be tapping into it. Think how easily we can see exactly where another person is looking.

Otherwise students after such approach would be left in the middle of desert.

Good point. There are two answers to this. Some people, like those who read Klavar, might be happy to remain just Klavar readers, and there are millions of pieces available in it . Also with your system. What if some student wants to just remain at the stage of vertical stave with the notenames in the notes? You can provide this format for any piece they want to play.

Others will want the alternative notation to lead into reading conventional. Some of the endorsements indicate that with both Simplified Music Notation and PrimaVista music, this leads to better reading of traditional. One of my colleagues reported that a student who learnt to read Express Stave easily then became more confident with traditional notation. Ideally we would hope people could read traditional, but if an individual wants to stay with an easier notation, thats ok too - they are still making music, which is the aim. Reading traditional notation is not the aim.

Again I say look at YouTube. There are a million how-to-play-by-rote videos, some with millions of views. A lot of people out there want to play the piano, but dont read traditional notation.

[musicrebel4u]

What if some student wants to just remain at the stage of vertical stave with the notenames in the notes? You can provide this format for any piece they want to play.

Others will want the alternative notation to lead into reading conventional.

When first ABC with pictures was created, there was the same concern: what if readers would need picture for every letter forever? You know the answer to this question already.

There has to be several formats to provide gradual flexibility for any student, but they work much more effectively also with interactivity and support for focus line.

[keypeg]

I've been pondering the reading (word) question.  No, the pictures are not the main thing, M4U - it's the patterns in language and making them visible and obvious - that's what makes a system effective.

When I helped a learning disabled girl, I used the British "Jane and Peter" books.  True, there were pictures, and the first books had few words.  But they also went from known to unknown, simple to complex, and added one element at a time.

Second experience is my own learning.  I am in an English speaking country and so had English readers, but I was also sent German readers by grandparents and taught myself.  I found those readers superior.  They showed patterns in language.  There was one where the Punch character Kasper pours words into a mill, and they come out altered, one letter changed at a time.  Some creature has shredded words and the shreds are lying all over the bookshelf so you are putting them back together again with pencilled lines.

I would say that the abstract elements of language were made concrete through imagery such as the shredded words and the word-grinder, and it was also made magical.  The theoretical elements of language were handled in a playful fun manner, held much depth to them, and had a sense of magic and imagination.

Simply having a picture of a cat with the word cat is not that fantastic.  It's a start.

[musicrebel4u]

I've been pondering the reading (word) question.  No, the pictures are not the main thing, M4U - it's the patterns in language and making them visible and obvious - that's what makes a system effective.

Well, in reading music notation recognizing and determining visual PATTERNS is essential especially when beginners have to deal with white and black strips of Grand Staff. They are equally important in music notation (even though many beginners think that black lines are source for information and spaces just ‘break’ between them like in books}

Thumb rule in visual perception is: human being unable to grasp more then 3-4 similarly looking objects at a time. Even 5 lines and more then 5 spaces of Treble or Bass Clef already unsuitable for human’s eyes. Before talking about patterns in actual notation our goal is to teach what space or line where on the piano keys

Simply having a picture of a cat with the word cat is not that fantastic.  It's a start.

Why put picture of cat under ‘C’? Person who can read and understand that ‘cat’ starts from C does not need picture. I think, you are not familiar with Soft Mozart.

[keypeg]

Why put picture of cat under ‘C’? Person who can read and understand that ‘cat’ starts from C does not need picture. I think, you are not familiar with Soft Mozart.

I was talking about early readers, not Soft Mozart.  You should know that I am very familiar with SM because I tried out several of your programs and wrote about them in this forum.  Sometimes I made a mistake on purpose so an apple would fall on the ground so I could feed that cute spider. 

In terms of recognizing five lines - that is probably true.  However, I learned to "read" music on my own when I was young.  I did not think about lines, spaces, or names.  I could sing solfege first and I simply followed patterns.  I'd find out where the tonic was and climb up and down the scales or arpeggios that presented themselves.  I was never aware of the lines or spaces.  I looked at the patterns of notes in groups.

[icanpiano]

I think all of these alternative notations should deal with one question:
Where does it bring the pianist after a while?

If it is easer to grasp then the results are that the pianist would be able to play at a shorter time then he would if he had learned the traditional way (notes).

Now - when such a student will be able to play he/her could easily go to a different method (traditional if needed)
It will happen mainly because the student will have a lot of confidence since he can already play.
The student will know their ability so challenge a new method and a new piece that half of it - the piano playing - is in their hands already will be easer.
The learning of the traditional notes for that sake will take less time and it will be much better then if started from the beginning.

I can tell you about my daughter (started to play when she was 10)
She wouldn't touch the piano/organ at the start. She did not want a teacher and not wanted to play. (Maybe because her father is playing)
I had a Yamaha keyboard at home and i was teaching her to play the left hand by numbers method. It was the chords that can be played by one finger for major and 2 fingers for minor.
She played chords with the accompaniment and sang the music.
After a while she started playing the melody in the right hand and put them together.
A year after i saw she is playing real chords in the left hand and started to do it on the piano. She also learned the names from the keyboard screen.

The next thing - she took one of my easy methods and picked up Bach minuet. After that when she saw another friend playing the same piece she looked up the notes and by a short explanation of haw it works which was done by her friend she started to play musical notes.

So... That is an example to what i am saying. She might not be Mozart but playing the keyboard is something that she does every day for the last 2 years so as for me i am happy cause music is at her side for ever.

In the case of the 'Prima Vista Notes' and the 'Simplefied Music Notation' it might be even a smother pass since as i said before it is very close to regular music and as john said before . People can stay with the method they learn.

The only thing that matter is if when they will be 25 or 45… they will still play.

[keypeg]

Ok, here's another story:
I learned to think of music via the major and minor scale through singing when I was about eight.  That's all I had.  When I got to a keyboard I could play anything because I sounded it out via the framework of those scales that I had in my head.  From there I had some sheet music, and somebody pointed out that I could find the tonic (do) because it was the note right above the last sharp, or the last flat was "fa" (subdominant).  I didn't know what was supposed to be easy or hard, so I just sounded out and worked out the music I had at hand.  I think I was about 11. 

My third piece was the Mozart 525.  Don't ask how I played it with what "interpretation" or how long it took.  But one thing I remember clearly: from the beginning I saw musical phrases in the context of the structure of a scale.  I would sound out a phrase and play it as a phrase.

A lot of this new software caters to doing one note and another and another.  You are working within a different context, and music becomes a different thing.  The key signature and the scatterings of accidentals indicating modulations and minor keys are meant to be seen in one swoop and incorporated into the playing as such.  I have a feeling that a false divide exists between 'by ear' players and 'reading' players.  I am actually starting to be glad that I was deprived of formal musical education and went on this alternate path by circumstance.  I've learned to read conventionally now.  I read all this hoopla about how hard notation is, and how reading is.   Something must have gone wrong with how it's presented or something.  It's not that complicated. 

[ginevrastar]

I have a feeling that a false divide exists between 'by ear' players and 'reading' players... I read all this hoopla about how hard notation is, and how reading is.   Something must have gone wrong with how it's presented or something.  It's not that complicated.

I'm glad sight-reading isn't difficult for you, and fascinated to read about the unusual path you came to reading by.  However, different peoples' brains work in different ways.  I've been reading music since I was 5 and understand the system perfectly.  I can sight-read with no problem on the violin. 

But when it comes to identifying 6 notes at once, mentally adding in the key signature and adding or subtracting for accidentals, I simply seize up.  This may have something to do with the fact that I play a lot of Chopin, Debussy, Rachmaninov (and Bach!) where the harmonic direction is less predictable than, say, Mozart or Beethoven, but in essence I think it's just about the way my brain interprets information. 

Notations like Simplified Music Notation and Prima Vista that cut out that whole level of cognition are a massive help.  You just play exactly what's on the page - straight from eye to hand.

And I am definitely a 'by ear' player.  There are plenty of people out there who can't hear a piece of music and play it back like I can, and who find it incredibly hard to memorise music, which I do easily.  Equally there are people like me who can't pick up an unfamiliar piece of sheet music and play it through fluently, like you can.

It's not a matter of how good your teacher is or how you were taught to read - we all interpret and interract with information in different ways.

[icanpiano]

Ok, here's another story:
I learned to think of music via the major and minor scale through singing when I was about eight.  That's all I had.  When I got to a keyboard I could play anything because I sounded it out via the framework of those scales that I had in my head. 

You are saying that you have started to play by ear.
I would like to tell you that the majority of the people (not just piano players) can play a tune by ear with a small instruction such as
1. Start on this white key.
2. All the song is played on the white keys.
3. Play each note in relative to the last one. Higher to the right. Lower to the left.

I have done that with many students on the first day they came to me and it always works.
But playing chords, match them to music or understand a key signature is a different story. So if you read notes and you have some knowledge of the key signature and harmony then it helps in reading.
In that case it does not matter if the key signature is written inside the piece since you have the knowledge to distinguish it from the music notes.
After all once you play it and look at your fingers you can tell what key you are in.

The trick is to bring it as fast as you can to your fingers. Once you have obstacles on your way it just takes longer and the chances of having mistakes are higher.

 

[gyzzzmo]

Simplified notation: For dummies only?

[icanpiano]

It some times hard to see beyond the horizen.

But one day it will be clear.

[johnk]

For elementary students, key signatures are introduced very gradually. Even with just one sharp or flat, you usually have to write in a reminder accidental a few times to begin with. So how can you give these students the experience of playing, say, in 4 flats? A colleague of mine has come up with a neat solution, where the note shape for black keys actually looks like the black key shape. This is not intended to be a permanent notation, but an introduction to the key signature concept. Sharps would be written the same way, and accidentals (notes outside the signature) are written normally.

[keypeg]

That looks promising.  I would not want to see it as a "black key" shape, though, but rather as a note that gets raised or lowered by a semitone.  Why? Because I do not want to associate music theory, i.e. notes, with any given instrument. Also, later on a Cb or E# is not a black key.  But consistent with before, it is a note raised or lowered by a semitone. 

[johnk]

What other shape would you recommend? We would have taught that a flat means lower the note a semitone, the visual reminder on the notes is just that, a reminder of which notes ARE the flat ones, and that they are distributed in two groups of two. I would teach about the white key sharps and flats a little later - well you could point it out now, but not use them in pieces at this point. Thanks for the "promising" remark - I will pass it on.

[keypeg]

That shape is a good shape.  Personaly I would not want to associate it with the black key, but a teacher can choose whether to present it that way.

You can lower a C using a flat, but the resulting Cb (B) is a white key.  My thoughts are in this area.

[rhapsody4]

There seem to be loads of these systems around on the internet.

I, for one, cannot really see the point. Forgive me for not reading all of this thread because it is long and my question is probably already answered.

However, I fail to see the point in rewriting the language of music notation: it has evolved over the last 500 years and is not likely to ever be replaced by any other system, however superior they are seen to be by their creators/developers.

For this reason, I see no benefits of teaching an additional system at any learning point, since the traditional notation is not ever likely to be replaced. The current system allows all of the non-interpretive commands to be stated in a simple and concise manner - "why try and reinvent the wheel?", to coin a phrase.

Since I see no additional benefits notational benefits from any of these new systems, then where is the benefit of teaching them. In addition, they seem to be primarily used to teach younger children with, which is going to be confusing to them when, should they wish to continue learning an instrument, they begin to come across standard notation.

I fail to see the relevance of an additional interface. Sure, evidence has been stated that showing some people learn a little faster with this system. So what? Many people are fast learners and a few convenient statistics and anecdotes do not change the fact that the most talented people are going to still be musically talented and quick learners irrespective of the system of notation they are taught.

I feel that these all these are just gimmicks designed to draw people in. Does anyone really believe that someone is going to be a greater musician down the line for having learnt an additional (and, to be honest, redundant) system of notation when they could have spent that marginally extra time (I do not accept that these other systems are in fact faster and simpler, but I will ignore that sideline for the purposes of this discussion) learning traditional manuscript notation and have more time to develop the other vital skills of being a musician?

[johnk]

As a teacher, i beleive the WAY we teach does make a difference in the success of students. To use my last example, we could teach this piece by saying "B FLAT!" , "A FLAT" and rapping the kid over the knuckles when they dont play a note flat that is supposed to be; or you can use the notation shown above where the student plays successfully first go. Which way is more likely to create a musician rather than a dropout?

You could explain the 4 flats by the order B, E, A, D; or you could explain them as the order they occur on the keyboard - A and B flat together , and E and D flat together.

Alternative ways of notation music are here already. Guitar TAB. Shawn Cheek's whiteboard letter name method. Lots of people learn from them who would not otherwise make music. Widen your horizon!

Of course, if you DEFINE a musician as one who reads TN, then some of the most successful people (rock and jazz players, or Irving Berlin) are not musicians.

[rhapsody4]

As a teacher, i beleive the WAY we teach does make a difference in the success of students. To use my last example, we could teach this piece by saying "B FLAT!" , "A FLAT" and rapping the kid over the knuckles when they dont play a note flat that is supposed to be; or you can use the notation shown above where the student plays successfully first go. Which way is more likely to create a musician rather than a dropout?

This is a poor way of teaching and I would not subscribe to this in any case. Could you explain exactly how using a slightly different system of notation prevents wrong notes being played? In my experience, playing wrong notes is due to lack of concentration or misreading when first sightreading music. I still fail to believe that there are so many people that give up music because they cannot understand the traditional system, which is not really that hard.

Alternative ways of notation music are here already. Guitar TAB. Shawn Cheek's whiteboard letter name method. Lots of people learn from them who would not otherwise make music. Widen your horizon!

Granted, but these are much less complex and limited systems which develop into learning manuscript system. Unlike these examples, the architectures of the systems described further up are in fact notationally very similar to the traditional form. I could perhaps see the point a bit more, if it was a system that was an entirely new system that had little or no similarity to one that does not exist. Moving around notes to a different part of a stave-like symbol and changing the meaning of the usual symbols on the stave seems like a total gimmick and does not add value, unlike guitar tableture which is an inherently different notation.

Of course, if you DEFINE a musician as one who reads TN, then some of the most successful people (rock and jazz players, or Irving Berlin) are not musicians.

I have never defined a musician as anything. I agree that not everyone does in fact read standard notation. But then, rock and jazz (in general) tend to be based around improvisation and repeating chord patterns and so do not require this type of manuscript. However, if you are going to teach someone Mozart or Chopin, then unless they have incredibly good hearing, they are inevitably going to have to learn to read music.


Reinventing notation seems like a backward step. I feel that it would be more beneficial designing methods to help teach existing systems, rather than overhauling the systems themselves? Unless of course, a new system brings together an entirely new framework under which new musical terms can be described. However, it does seem that the systems proposed above do not add anything that cannot be already written in traditional form.

[johnk]

We have two different things going on here. One is notations of music that are completely different to traditional and may be considered as an alternative way of notation music. My Express Stave is one of these. The other is notation which is close to traditional and could be used in conjunction with traditional as a way of making it easier to grasp. Such as showing which notes in a key signature are the ones to play on black keys (my friends example or the prima vista eye notes).

I dont quite understand your point. At one stage you say a completely different way of notationg music such as Guitar Tab is ok,

I could perhaps see the point a bit more, if it was a system that was an entirely new system that had little or no similarity to one that does [not] exist.

Then you say that improving teaching methods to help learn the traditioanl system would help

I feel that it would be more beneficial designing methods to help teach existing systems, rather than overhauling the systems themselves?

I included my friends example as just this, a way of showing a beginner how it feels to play in a key signature but before the long process of gradually introducing the sharp and flat key signatures progressively. You say

In my experience, playing wrong notes is due to lack of concentration or misreading when first sightreading music.

Students simply will not know which notes are the ones to play sharp or flat in a key signature at first. It takes a lot of reminding. Maybe i just have a lot of non brilliant students. With the great majority of students, learning to play in all the key signatures takes a decade or more. This could be hastened by methods such as my friends idea above; on the other hand, it could be completely bypassed with an alternative notation.

You do seem to accept a new notation might be useful if it allows you to see music in completely new ways

Unless of course, a new system brings together an entirely new framework under which new musical terms can be described.

The alternative notations do do this, in that they show interval relationships very clearly, but without using a key signature system, or the idea of inflected pitches.

People wanting to plkay Chopin can learn pieces with understanding from other notations more quickly than from traditional. I think I have proved this with higher school certificate students over the last few years.

[rhapsody4]

Sorry if I have not really made myself very clear throughout.

I can accept guitar tabs because they have no similarity to traditional notation. To extend this, I can accept systems which aid teaching which have little to no similarity to traditional notation. These are in no way systems to replace traditional notation.

I am still wondering - in general - are these systems designed with the idea that they could in some way superseed traditional notation? Personally I see this as quite foolish, because they are never likely to be accepted. Is it seen that high end music students will use this instead of traditional notation when reading scores?

I hope that I have not read as being close-minded, simply inquisitive. Having never really come across too many people that have particularly struggled with traditional notation (in all age groups) once past the initial phase of learning and using, it simply comes across to me as an unnecessary extra step in learning.

[icanpiano]

Having never really come across too many people that have particularly struggled with traditional notation (in all age groups) once past the initial phase of learning and using, it simply comes across to me as an unnecessary extra step in learning.

The initial phase of learning is not working for about 90% of the piano students (beginners) and among those that pass it many pianists are straggling with it and find them selves playing by ear most of the time.