Suggested Music Theory Materials?

[winsto7]

Hey guys!

I've been playing piano for a bit now, and have recently taken up composition, but have never taken the time to learn any music theory. Any good suggestions out there on favorite music theory videos or resources. (The cheaper the better). Thanks!

[brogers70]

I found this course (free on Coursera) very helpful. In spite of the title, it's less about learning to compose and more a course on basic music theory and harmony.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/classical-composition

[mad_max2024]

There are a lot of good channels on youtube that make videos explaining theory concepts.
Musictheoryforguitar, jazzpianoschool, noah kellman, adam neely, rick beato are some that I follow.

The only classical/baroque oriented one that I can think of is Music Matters but there are bound to be more if you do a search for the subject you're looking for.

You can also learn a lot by just taking your favourite pieces and analysing them to try to understand what the composers are doing and take ideas from them.

[leonieschmidt]

If you really want to improve as a musician, you should use Puck's music notation.



It takes a little getting used to, but blows the old notation out of the water. (You'll be able to transpose any piece on sight, compose far easier even when writing by hand, understand music much better when just seeing it on the page etc).

[perfect_pitch]

If you really want to improve as a musician, you should use Puck's music notation.



It takes a little getting used to, but blows the old notation out of the water. (You'll be able to transpose any piece on sight, compose far easier even when writing by hand, understand music much better when just seeing it on the page etc).

*** no... his notation is mediocre at best, and he in his own videos seems to show off a rather poor ability to sight-read. It doesn't allow people to transpose on sight, as most of that relies on proprioception - a skill that's usually only developed after at LEAST a decade of playing, so don't try and use that piss-poor excuse.

Also, the fact that you seemingly signed up and posted 4 FRICKEN POSTS advertising the rather bland and unimaginative notation of Puck seems to indicate to me that you are the user Puck, and are trying to use our forum to farm for YouTube videos.

There is a REASON that standard music notation has been used for over 3 *** CENTURIES. It's because there is no easier way to display the notes in music.

Please stop parading on this sub-optimal notation and learn to read music properly like a big boy.

[leonieschmidt]

Ahm. No. I'm not Puck. But I'm really interested in the notation he's using and want to hear the opinion of other musicians, hence my posts. I don't quite see how the man's ability to sight read is 'poor', at that. I mean... Take a Bach fugue (in the old notation) and transpose it in a random key on sight. Then we'd be talking.

And something being around for three centuries isn't really an argument. I mean... By that logic, jazz notation would be unnecessary, too. (My piano teacher taught me jazz notation with letters after about two years, which was immensely helpful for me.)

If we're being honest, Puck's notation is not really original, either. It's simply a testament to Western music being largely relative in nature, not absolute. I see his point of using a relative notation, then, not an absolute.

So, to me the question seems to be: Do we want to be able to transpose on sight or not, with any instrument? If we don't want that, we're good with the old notation. If we want that freedom, we should change something that has been around for "over 3 *** CENTURIES". Jesus. I'm a woman. Women were not allowed to vote for the majority of the last three-hundred years. Doesn't make it right. 

[keypeg]

If you really want to improve as a musician, you should use Puck's music notation.

It takes a little getting used to, but blows the old notation out of the water. (You'll be able to transpose any piece on sight, ...

And why wouldn't you be able to do that with regular notation?

[leonieschmidt]

Because it's super difficult. I mean, yeah, technically, you could do it, transpose Mozart sonatas from the old notation to any key. Possible, but super tedious. Then again, you could also eat a soup with a fork.

There's this anecdote about a young Liszt being introduced to Beethoven, the latter being super impressed by Franz sight-transposing a Bach fugue he had put on the piano. I mean... how did this become an anecdote, if it isn't a big deal? And notation hasn't changed since then, so... yeah.

[keypeg]

The OP is trying to learn theory for the first time, in order to compose.  You are proposing that he learn a different notation system.  For one thing, that creates dependence on that system.  No reference material on theory is written in that system.  Any music is not written in that system, except by the creator of that system.  The OP is also not trying to learn transposition as such.

My original way of reading music was probably quite similar to how it is shown in the alternate system.  For diatonic music (Clementi, Mozart) I could transpose into another key while reading the music in front of me.  Sometimes I did it accidentally.  That was while I was still untaught.  Much later I did study music theory, and it included transposition.  It was a different method, and it was really not that heard.  Change the key signature: slide all the notes up and down the required number of spaces: use accidentals to show "move up one / move down one" as in the original - presto, done.  Doing so for transposing instruments from or to concert pitch was harder.

But the question isn't about transposition in the first place.

(All of your posts so far seem to have been about that system.) (??)

[leonieschmidt]

I think that a musician who can sight-transpose a piece at first sight has a higher chance of fully grasping the harmonics/ the musical 'innards' of that piece than a musician who cannot. Not saying it's fully guaranteed, but a very strong indicator. Kind of like... a native-speaker's ability to swiftly conjugate and decline all words in a dictionary without making mistakes being indicative of their grasp of grammar.

So my proposal is probably a bit 'out there', but it's very likely a better approach to learning music theory than the 'old' way. I can see the lack of sheet music is indeed an issue. So far, I have found this thing here: https://herrpuck.com/djangostatic/books/LittlePuckBook.pdf – The voice is missing from the jazz songs, though, which I would have gone about differently. Don't know.

My question to you would be: If you could transpose music to another key when you were younger, then why did you stop?

(And I really find that system interesting, that's why I'm posting about it. I mean... What other subjects to post on that haven't been around for centuries?  This one seems new, and I also want to find out whether that guy really invented it or whether it originates from somewhere else. It reminds me a bit of a super-old notation that was invented by J. J. Rousseau in the 18th century, I think.)

[perfect_pitch]

I'm going to track and make this really simple. Most pianists CAN transpose and they don't need this new notation system to do so. As I said as well, this system doesn't really help with transposition either because playing music in different keys alters the fingering. Try playing Mozarts Sonata K. 545 in C Major, then try and transpose it into C# major, or E flat major. EVEN if you had the music written in moveable sol-fah, the ability to play these in different keys isn't born from the sheet music - it's done from the players ability to take the standard major or minor tonality and replace it with another (e.g. C   E G, becomes C#   E# G# etc...)

Even if every piece of music was written in C Major or a minor on sheet music, the ability to transpose it into different keys would be STILL Dependant on the players ability to weave around all 12 major and minor keys on the piano with their fingers.

I CAN transpose music on the fly - done it all the time. Did it for a choirs performance once (though they definitely don't make it a habit).

Problem is - we here on the forums have seen MANY people come up with a so-called 'better notation system', and the actual fact is there ISN'T any better notation system than the one that is already in place. Most people don't transpose based on what they see on the score - they transpose by what they hear in their head.

[leonieschmidt]

If "most pianists can transpose", then why isn't there a single video on youtube of a pianist playing a Mozart sonata or a Bach fugue in another key than the original?

(I actually can think of one single example:

. But that's Gabriela Montero, one of my favorite musicians, has perfect pitch, and is super good at improvising. Once went to a concert where she improvised on themes given to her by the audience. But, like, if most pianists - as you say - could do such a thing, then why is she showcasing that here?)

I propose a simple challenge: Could you record Bach's inventions, but one position moved up in the circle of fifth? The first inventions wouldn't be in C-major but G-major, the second not in c-minor but g-minor, the third not in D-major but A-major etc etc. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if what you say is true ("Most pianists CAN transpose and they don't need this new notation system to do so"), then this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

[perfect_pitch]

If "most pianists can transpose", then why isn't there a single video on youtube of a pianist playing a Mozart sonata or a Bach fugue in another key than the original?

Probably because piano players would have to rework the entire fingering system, since most fingering only works in the original key. Also, have you considered that the composer intentionally CHOSE the key they have written in for a particular purpose? Beethoven didn't just wake up one day and think 'I'll put Fur Elise in a minor because I can't be arsed dealing with g sharp minor and 5 bloody sharps'.

I propose a simple challenge: Could you record Bach's inventions, but one position moved up in the circle of fifth? The first inventions wouldn't be in C-major but G-major, the second not in c-minor but g-minor, the third not in D-major but A-major etc etc. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if what you say is true ("Most pianists CAN transpose and they don't need this new notation system to do so"), then this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

First of all - I find it rather egotistic of you, a seemingly new user who just wandered onto our forums less than 48 hours ago spewing how great this notation system is. I've been here for 15 years, so I think it's fair the other users can account for my credibility as a piano player, arranger and teacher.

Second of all, I'll admit, I haven't played all the 2 part inventions, and hell - the ones I did play I played over 20 years ago in HIGH SCHOOL. Haven't touched them since them. My party piece at University was transposing Fur Elise into whatever key people would demand... ON THE SPOT.

I don't do it by sheet music, I do it by ear. This new fangled notation system is USELESS to me in every regard. I've shown you my cards... how about you show yours.

This sales pitch you're going on about isn't going to get much admiration or even positive comments from the other users on this forum (as this again, isn't the first time someones ranted on about a new system of notation), and I feel my tone (as you commented on the other forum) is one who has been here for 15 years, and seen every advertisement for new fangled systems, devices, software that gets peddled as some 'new way of learning'. After 15 years of it, you'd be rather sick of it too.

But you're right - anyone else care to comment how 'great' this system is???

[leonieschmidt]

'Für Elise' was written in 1810, long before something close to today's 440 Hz was established as concert pitch. Ironically, it's far easier to remain faithful to what pitch composers had in mind when using the new notation as opposed to the old. (The Moonlight sonata, for instance, we would have to play in c-minor instead of c-sharp-minor in order to hear the frequencies Beethoven heard back then. Well. Whatever he still heard back then. Deaf composers. Uncomfortable subject.) You wouldn't have shot yourself in the foot if you'd have picked an example from a composition from after today's concert pitch was established.

I think it's rather telling you back out of the simple challenge I gave you. (I have only played piano for about five years and I don't think Bach's inventions are too difficult.) This discussion is about music, not about words. Asking you to prove your words by playing music only makes sense and is by no means egoistic. What do you do? You don't play music, but instead say more mean words. I'm sure that makes the discussion very appealing for anyone reading this. Not.

If you're such a great piano player, arranger and teacher, playing those simple two-part fugues in another key shouldn't be much of a problem, should it? I mean, the guy basically says in his video: "Hey, there's a new notation, and I think it's better than the old one. I can transpose pieces on sight to any key." And then he proceeds to do just that. We can argue about whether he stays 100 percent true to the original or whether he could be faster, but it seems to work out for him. At least enough to convince me. Also, I kind of took his videos as practice vlogs, not, like, concert-level stuff.

You - in contrast - say: "The old notation is the CORRECT way of going about it and the new one is trite. Because reasons. Most pianists can transpose at first sight without it. Oh, also I have such credibility as a piano player, arranger and teacher. Wait, what? I am supposed to transpose rather preparatory fugues to prove my point, the very thing I just said most pianists can do? Ooops. I can't. Played those two decades ago. But I had this ONE piece I was famous for transposing on parties." 

Come on.

[perfect_pitch]

I don't have to prove anything to you. I've been playing piano for over 25 years, and teaching for almost 15 of them. I'm not backing out of the challenge - I just refuse to do it for YOU of all people. If any of the other respected users on the forum asked me to do it, I'd probably do that because there's a level of respect I give them given our years of discussion.

I didn't say the inventions were too difficult - I just haven't played them in 20 years for goodness sake. Some upstart tells me to do it? I'm not going to waste my time for you.

I can see you're going to become a pariah on this forum very quickly. I won't bother discussing with you, since I doubt you'll be here much longer. Everyones going to get sick of this 'new notation system' you keep yammering on about, and will eventually ignore you.

If you really want to improve as a musician, you should use Puck's music notation.

It takes a little getting used to, but blows the old notation out of the water.

That's LAUGHABLE!!!

[leonieschmidt]

Mister, that's exactly what I'd say if I pretended I could do something that I'm afraid to admit I actually can't do. I'm really sorry for your pupils.

[perfect_pitch]

Mister, that's exactly what I'd say if I pretended I could do something that I'm afraid to admit I actually can't do. I'm really sorry for your pupils.

I think it's clear who the real troll is. Go find a bridge to live under. I've been playing for over a quarter century. When you have my experience - you come find me and tell me what it is I can and can't supposedly do.

As I said, I've a great level of respect for a lot of the other users here, but for you? I don't have to prove sh*t. And given you don't even know my pupils, and you don't even know me - you don't get to mouth off at a user who you've BARELY known on a forum for less than 2 days. One of us can transpose on the fly, the other can't and is trying to pester people about a whole new 'notation system' which doesn't work.

I'm not going to be egged on into doing some idiotic feat for a nobody who hasn't earned my respect. You can go on and on thinking I'm incapable of transposing... but the matter of fact is I don't give a crap what you think of me... because to me, you're a nobody.

Grow up Mate.

[leonieschmidt]

It's not about me thinking you're incapable of transposing on the fly. You are incapable of transposing on the fly. Or did you prove otherwise? We're on some anonymous internet forum, after all.

Isn't it funny how you keep on talking about being able to do things (why even mention you haven't played the inventions in 20 years, when it's so easy for you?) while I never claimed that I was able to but at least referenced videos of two pianists who actually can?

This is a discussion about music that would be best settled by means of music. You're a talker, and a rather foul-mouthed one at that. Have a nice day, Sir.

Greetings from Germany.

[lostinidlewonder]

What the Puck is going on? Lol Why learn a different system of reading and isolate yourself from the vast majority of music which is written in the standard system? You just set yourself up for a world of pain and marginalisation which is rather idiotic. What, you going to edit every piece you come across into some obscure system to read it every time? You have a lot of time to waste if so.

If you're a jazz musician or singing accompanist I can understand transposing has use but they generally are not restricted to transpose every single note of a written composition and instead improvise/fill in certain chord accompaniment.

This Puck system does not allow easy transposition at all and there has been ZERO evidence to prove otherwise. You'd still need to apply the same knowledge to transposing standard notion, there are no short cuts evident.

There are better things to do and transposition is not a useful measure of sight reading prowess. If it matters so much buy a digital piano and voila press one  button to transpose the entire keyboard for you (this can be useful when playing pieces over and over again in practice sessions so the sound doesn't become monotonous).

[leonieschmidt]

First of all: I find myself in kind of a weird role here. I discovered Puck's videos, and wanted to know other musicians' opinion on his system and now find myself in a suuuuper heated discussion. But okay.

First paragraph: With that reasoning, no change whatsoever would ever be possible. People in the 18th century could have gone like: "Huh? Why re-tune our pianos when we have an old way of tuning it just so we can modulate to all keys?" Also, the new system seems anything but obscure to me. It literally used, dunno, one third of the ink the old system uses.

"ZERO evidence"? Please look at the guy's videos. – Also, the problem (again, I only have five years of musical experience, so that's just my opinion) with transposing from the old notation is that you have to 'override' information that you see instead of seeing it in a neutral key. I think that most pianist, if having to transpose, would rather transpose from C-major/a-minor than from any other key.

Also, the concert pitch has changed in the last couple centuries. Bach's prelude in C we actually would have to play in B if we wanted to stay faithful to the original (I live in a small city in Germany where we have many old churches with old organs from which you can tell that standard A was about one semi-tone below today's tuning standard). Ironically, when using the old notation we don't even play music in the "key which the composer judged as best".

What I'd wish for anyone to do is simply take a breather, try out the new notation for a couple hours and THEN form an opinion. What's happening instead, I fear, is that everyone is just getting enraged over something they can't really judge without having tried it out. I asked one Mister to play Bach's inventions in new keys to prove his claim that he could "transpose on the fly", as he put it, but he wouldn't do it.

And, please. Don't the transpose button on digital pianos as an argument.

[lostinidlewonder]

Still zero evidence one only has to look at the system to see that. There are zero short cuts, it offers no benefits, end of story. If you knew what the short cuts are demonstrated it clearly here  video tells nothing.

Why are you babbling on about concert pitch as a reason to transpose every single single you come across? Pucking silly

Digital piano transposition is perfect use of technology sorry to burst your bubble lol.

[leonieschmidt]

Ahm... Is he transposing a Bach fugue (and other stuff) in his video or not? What else would be evidence if not that?

Then I'm asking you the same thing I asked the other Mister, too. Please record some of the inventions in other keys. If you can't do it, that's "zero evidence" that the old notation enables users free transposition.

[leonieschmidt]

Also, using a digital piano for transposing is like using autocorrect. Sure, it's faster, maybe. But it's certainly worse than knowing how words are spelt.

[lostinidlewonder]

Again that is zero evidence it requires explanation not demonstration. This is a discussion board so discuss it, you obviously have no evidence juxtaposing the standard notion to this Pucking dumb one to prove the dumb Puck is any easier. Lol.

Digital transpose button defeats all, it wins instantly.

[leonieschmidt]

Then what would be evidence? This forum is called 'pianostreet'. A piano is a musical instrument. So this forum is about music. What you're saying would be like a chess player on a chess internet forum not wanting to play chess, but instead 'discuss' it.

The old notation hadn't been changed for centuries before digital transpose buttons came to be. Your reasoning makes what kind of sense?

[lostinidlewonder]

There is no evidence so prove me wrong by providing it. So far you fail to provide any evidence that the dumb Puck makes transposition any easier than the standard notion. Why you avoiding giving written evidence and clearly demonstrating it with logical conclusions? It's because you can't? Stop avoiding it then lol. Stupid Puck. One just has to look at the two systems side by side to notice Puck has zero advantages in terms of transposition or anything else for that matter.

Digital transpose button makes transposition skills obsolete for the vast majority of situations so your emphasis on the importance of transposing "classical" pieces is simply reduced to a miniscule dot.Even without digitals transposing piano solo pieces is just obsolete by nature, transposing if you didn't realize is more important for CERTAIN accompaniment situations as I mentioned before.

[leonieschmidt]

Aren't the videos enough practical evidence? I mean, if transposing with the old notation was super easy why aren't there tons of videos like it on youtube? That's practical evidence for me.

If you want theoretical evidence, let me indulge you: Let's say you'd have to go on stage in five minutes and have to transpose a piece (doesn't matter what genre, Scarlatti sonatina, Duke Ellington standard, Bach fugue) to a key randomly determined by the audience. Playing on a real piano with actual strings, and not a digital one. You can either have the piece in C-major or A-flat-major. Of course, most musicians would rather pick the sheet music in C-major, because it's much easier to transpose from there. That's a clear evidence that Puck's notation has an edge over the old one, because it's practically always in C.

Same goes for musical analysis.

Same goes for reading music. I mean... Major and minor chords literally look the same in the old notation. You always have to refer to the accidentals in order to determine what is what. Why cast two glances instead of one?

About what that other Mister said about fingering: It's not like the old notation magically makes any pianist play the correct fingering at once. (There are different hand sizes after all. I have fairly small hands for a woman, so my fingering is going to be different than, say, for a male concert pianist.) That's why people used numbers in order to indicate fingering.

More evidence: Play a random melody to any musician. If they don't have perfect pitch (and the vast majority of professional musicians does not, I don't, I presume you don't either) they'll write down in eleven out of twelve cases (because there are twelve keys) something that's objectively wrong. – If you say now: "Well, then let's write out everything in C-major, so that doesn't happen"... I applaud you, because that seems like a first step towards Puck's notation then.

Also, you'd need ruled paper. Makes it less likely people compose. Written evidence.

I can probably think of more. How about you show us how well you can transpose music in the meantime (I propose Mozart's second piano sonata, second movement, link is here: https://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.2_in_F_major%2C_K.280%2F189e_(Mozart%2C_Wolfgang_Amadeus))?

Or if you'd rather avoid it... well. Then this forum seems to be for 'theoretical musicians' only. Didn't know those were a thing.

[leonieschmidt]

Also, about the side-by-side of both notations... Are you for real? The old notation looks like a monkey was given a ruler and too much time and ink, in comparison. Jesus. Why make things complicated when they can be easy?

[lostinidlewonder]

That's a clear evidence that Puck's notation has an edge over the old one, because it's practically always in C.

That is not evidence at all, you still need to apply transposition awareness no matter what key the piece is written in. C does not provide any advantage at all. You fail to appreciate the changes in fingering awareness which is the major challenge with transpositions and the Puck system does not address this one iota thus the most problematic situation is not made any easy at all. 

Same goes for musical analysis.

No evidence just by saying it, this is not made easier at all, C major does not make analysis any easier at all.

Same goes for reading music. I mean... Major and minor chords literally look the same in the old notation. You always have to refer to the accidentals in order to determine what is what. Why cast two glances instead of one?

This demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about unfortunately. How does the puck system make major and minor chords look different? It doesn't and even if it does it provides zero advantage to the sight reader. The standard notation does not make the major and minor look the same at all, are you arguing that accidentals make reading excessively more difficult? That is a ridiculously empty statement.

About what that other Mister said about fingering: It's not like the old notation magically makes any pianist play the correct fingering at once. (There are different hand sizes after all. I have fairly small hands for a woman, so my fingering is going to be different than, say, for a male concert pianist.) That's why people used numbers in order to indicate fingering.

You fail to understand that tranpositioning causes changes in fingerings, the Puck system does not address this at all, thus it is no easier in any way.

More evidence: Play a random melody to any musician. If they don't have perfect pitch (and the vast majority of professional musicians does not, I don't, I presume you don't either) they'll write down in eleven out of twelve cases (because there are twelve keys) something that's objectively wrong. – If you say now: "Well, then let's write out everything in C-major, so that doesn't happen"... I applaud you, because that seems like a first step towards Puck's notation then.

This is not evidence this is just you talking in your own little world. Use the Puck notation to demonstrate what you are saying, I bet you cannot because there is no way you can demonstrate it. All you are saying is hot air.

Also, you'd need ruled paper. Makes it less likely people compose. Written evidence.

This is not evidence demonstrating that transposition is made easier at all by sight.

I can probably think of more. How about you show us how well you can transpose music in the meantime (I propose Mozart's second piano sonata, second movement, link is here: https://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No.2_in_F_major%2C_K.280%2F189e_(Mozart%2C_Wolfgang_Amadeus))?

You are illogical, again I said demonstrating a skill is NOT evidence. Use the Puck notion to prove that it is easier to transpose, that doesn't require someone playing to demonstrate it requires theoretical concepts which juxtapose the traditional system to this Pucking bad one and demonstrating that the Puck is any better, unfortunately for you there is no way you can do this, thus Puck fails to be any improvement at all.

Or if you'd rather avoid it... well. Then this forum seems to be for 'theoretical musicians' only. Didn't know those were a thing.

It is you who is avoiding providing theoretical information demonstrating Puck has any advantage. No amount of smokes and mirrors you put up can hide this fact. You have still failed to provide any theoretical perspective using the actual notation to prove that it is easier.

[keypeg]

To the OP Winsto7, and answering his question

Hey guys!

I've been playing piano for a bit now, and have recently taken up composition, but have never taken the time to learn any music theory. Any good suggestions out there on favorite music theory videos or resources. (The cheaper the better). Thanks!

For a free resource, have a look at Teoria.  I've referred to it before.  While I studied via some heftyish books, I have actually referred back to this a few times.

https://www.teoria.com/

[lostinidlewonder]

Also, about the side-by-side of both notations... Are you for real? The old notation looks like a monkey was given a ruler and too much time and ink, in comparison. Jesus. Why make things complicated when they can be easy?

If Puck is so much better this juxtaposition should be made obvious and demonstrate how good it is. There is no way you can however package that it is any better. I have trapped you and you have no way out of this requirement.

[leonieschmidt]

Dear Mister, first you want theoretical text-based evidence. I gave that. Now you want a demonstration. Just watch the videos, for crying out loud. And if you feel up to it, play the songs he's playing, but with the old notation. It's as simple as that.

[leonieschmidt]

Also, there's a juxtaposition literally at the beginning of each of his practice videos. Literally.

[perfect_pitch]

OH LOOK... I found the ignore user button...

[clicks away for a couple of seconds...]

Ahhhh...

[keypeg]

TO THE OP

My answer, with a link to a resource, is a couple of posts above this one.

To everyone:  Someone just starting theory started this thread.  As we all get side tracked, we lose someone who asked for help.  I objected to the suggestion on that basis.  It would be best to discuss the "other thing" in the thread that was started on that subject, maybe?

The resource again:

https://www.teoria.com/

[leonieschmidt]

Happily agreed.

My main take-away: "You are illogical, again I said demonstrating a skill is NOT evidence."

[perfect_pitch]

To everyone:  Someone just starting theory started this thread.  As we all get side tracked, we lose someone who asked for help.  I objected to the suggestion on that basis.  It would be best to discuss the "other thing" in the thread that was started on that subject, maybe?

That is fair... although it was leonieschmidt who hijacked 3 different threads in less than 10 minutes, as well as creating a new thread just to babble on about this so called 'notation system' that... 'blows the current one out the water'.

Maybe it's fair to put this discussion in with the thread he started: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=68850.0

...that way we can all ignore it. I'm off to watch a movie.

[lostinidlewonder]

Dear Mister, first you want theoretical text-based evidence. I gave that. Now you want a demonstration. Just watch the videos, for crying out loud. And if you feel up to it, play the songs he's playing, but with the old notation. It's as simple as that.

And i have responded to all of them demonstrating that they are useless and do not demonstrate anything at all. I did not ask for a performance playing demonstration at all, I asked for you to provide clear evidence that the Puck system has any advantage over the standard system in terms of transposition, you have no way to prove that it allows the fingerings to be easier at all which is a major challenge for transposing. So although you have responded you failed to actually say anything convincing at all.

I'm satisfied that you are unable to prove it by juxtapositioning the standard notation with the Puck. If it was so obvious you could do it, but you absolutely cannot. Oh well for you!

Also, there's a juxtaposition literally at the beginning of each of his practice videos. Literally.

Then it should be very easy for you to put in words proving that it is much easier, unfortunately for you you have no way of actually explaining it, thus the Puck notation has no advantage at all.

My main take-away: "You are illogical, again I said demonstrating a skill is NOT evidence."

It is not evidence that the Puck is any easier, just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner which makes logical sense and demonstrates that it is easier in that manner. If you do not understand this then you are simply a lost cause.

[keypeg]

TO THE OP

answer:  https://www.teoria.com/

To everyone: let's discuss the ot in the thread dedicated to it, and NOT HERE. 
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=68850.0

[leonieschmidt]

An actual quote from this discussion: "Just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner".

Bye, folks! 

[lostinidlewonder]

We just have to prove that suggestions that are bad in a thread are debunked, threads never stay completely on topic anyway as you should know over the years. Snake oil salesmen demonstrate amazing things but you actually ask them to explain how it works they cannot lol

"Just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner".
This is important because if you can do something without explaining how you came to do it then it means nothing at all. If you suggest the Puck system is easier to transpose with then you should be able to explain why it is so not just say, look here's someone doing it, that alone tells us nothing at all. You seem to fail to make this connection thus you are utterly lost.

[keypeg]

An actual quote from this discussion: "Just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner".

Bye, folks! 

I just finished discussing the ideas in the thread dedicated to the topic, and put a fair amount of time and effort into it.  Then see "bye" there and here.  I'd like to NOT have wasted my time.  I'm giving it 48 hours.  If you've not responded by then, I'm replacing my post with a dot.  This is disappointing.

Btw, since is "toxic masculinity" desplayed by females?  Is that even possible?

[leonieschmidt]

I suspect those two obnoxious people were males. I was not referring to you.

What I find disappointing is that no one even thought of giving the notation a try. If it would look bad I would understand it. But, like... I tried that notation for one month now, and it really works for me. Wanted to share. Probably should have kept it to one thread, I admit, but still. Two guys shouted at me. I mean, that sentence: "Just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner." Jesus.

[perfect_pitch]

What I find disappointing is that no one even thought of giving the notation a try.

We're experienced enough in music to know it has no merit.

[leonieschmidt]

Yeah. Says the guy who can't transpose simple fugues after... what did you say? 25 years of playing the piano? And, please. If you could do it, you would have done it. You don't know me. I'm not insulting you. You actually are. Kinda goes to show who's the better (wo)man here.

But, come on, indulge us with a little party trick: 'Für Elise', f-sharp-minor! 

[keypeg]

What I find disappointing is that no one even thought of giving the notation a try.

Since we've lost the OP anyway.  I've seen demos.  I haven't actually seen the notation anywhere other than scrolling on top of those videos.

edit: found the PDFs.  played with them (see other thread)

[perfect_pitch]

This reply has been moved to: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=68850.msg718275#msg718275