New Music Notation

[leonieschmidt]

Hey, fellow-musicians. Recently, I have come across a new kind of music notation. I have played with the old notation for most of my life, but I am pretty much blown away by the new one. It lets me transpose any kind of piece (even Bach fugues) on cue in any key, is universal for any sort of instrument, far quicker to write than the old notation etc etc...



The guy who invented it has weekly practice sessions using it on youtube, the name's channel is: "Herr Puck".

What's your take on it, y'all?

[bwl_13]

I looked at this channel, looks kind of interesting but in the Bach video he puts a tea cup on the piano and I cringed so hard. I'll take a look into it. It seems to have some merit.

The whole thing with this channel and you new profile does read as a little fishy, but so far it seems legit.

[perfect_pitch]

Hey, fellow-musicians. Recently, I have come across a new kind of music notation. I have played with the old notation for most of my life, but I am pretty much blown away by the new one. It lets me transpose any kind of piece (even Bach fugues) on cue in any key, is universal for any sort of instrument, far quicker to write than the old notation etc etc...



The guy who invented it has weekly practice sessions using it on youtube, the name's channel is: "Herr Puck".

What's your take on it, y'all?

Easy... by my viewing of a couple of his performances, he seems rather good at identifying small intervallic gaps in the music. Notice how most of the music he plays doesn't have large leaps or major octave gaps in the playing. He also seems to somehow play fast and loose with the octaves as if he knows something about the music that his 'interpretation or notation' isn't showing.

=235

If you scroll to 3:55, you'll notice that somehow he goes down an octave, despite the notation seemingly staying in the SAME octave. Follow the notation and you'll see some discrepancies.

Also, notice this:

=177

at 2:57, the lack of ledger lines make this hard to read, even he himself has trouble reading a lot of these in the style he has notated.

If I HAD to guess, I'd say he's tried to simplify the process of note reading as he himself is very poor at note-reading, but he (like many students) tries to ascertain music by the shape and the small intervallic steps between the notes. Most students guess the interval of large jumps and simply assume that if it moves from line to space that it music be scalic.

I suspect he is doing the same. May be far quicker to write, but it's a sh*t LOAD harder to read. No offence, but most of the music he sight-reads could be sight-read by most University students, so this is nothing impressive.

[leonieschmidt]

I don't quite agree with you. In your first example, you didn't notice that the orientation of the stem indicates an octave, too. He doesn't arbitrarily go up and down but just follows what's written in the original, I'm pretty sure. I can see that causing some intrinsic problems with, say, four-voice fugues, 'cause then the orientation of the stem can't indicate octaves anymore, but that could be indicated by some remark at the beginning, or something (whether the stem is indicative of octaves or not). In the example you give, he's clearly sticking to the original, though.

As for the second example... I think you'd stumble a little, too, if you were to play something prima vista, allt he while transposing it on the fly in c-sharp-major, wouldn't you? 

In general, I don't think he's saying that he can sight-read faster than when using the old notation. I think he's saying it's about equal, but in any of the twelve keys. And it's certainly not a - as you say - "sh*t LOAD harder to read". I mean... Take a Bach fugue in, say, g-flat-minor. I reckon you'd much rather analyze it in a-minor, if you wanted to be fast and precise. His notation seems to be doing just that.

I think, in the end, we'd have to weigh the pros and cons of both notations. Ease of use, speed of writing, ease of music analysis, ease of transposition, 'universality' (as in: playability with any instrument, although I find his clarinet playing to be a bit lackluster, to be honest, not saying a more skilled clarinet player couldn't do much better with his notation, though) of melodies written in his notation are all very big pros for me. Don't quite see the cons.

[perfect_pitch]

So this 'new system' can't indicate octaves... there's a major con right there.
So you don't think it would work with four voice fugues... there's ANOTHER con right there.
I can transpose on the fly and have been doing it for years - never needed this notational system.
I can read the current notational system VERY well, but I can't see any logic behind this new system. The central lines he use for each hand seem to be based on something that has nothing to do with the tonic line, which seems counter-intuitive.
I'd rather analyse music in the key it's in because a lot of them have modulations, so trying to do it in one key is an idiotic thing to say. Every Mozart Sonata modulates at some point in the exposition to another key. The Development is usually a cacophony of keys, so starting in a minor will invariably lead to a MESS of sharps and flats at some point in the music, so I don't see the pro there either.
Again, as I mentioned - transposing means having to hold and manoeuvring your fingers in different ways because playing a piece in E flat Major, when it's originally in C results in different fingering, and this new notational system isn't just going to help you magically figure out the fingering.

I think it's easy to sum up - there are no pros in this system. He's essentially tried to take the standard 5 line system, get rid of some of the lines, and completely mess up the ledger line system while claiming it's easier to read. It's not... and I suspect you feel this way because you have trouble reading the current notation system (sorry), I mean the CORRECT way.

You come across as some sort of salesman who's trying to sell us this new type of notation... no ones buying it. Find something else to yammer on about.

[leonieschmidt]

First of all, can you turn it down a bit? Your words: 'p*ss poor', 'idiotic', 'sh*t load'. 'completely mess up'. I was just posting something I found on the internet (something I happen to like and have been using for the last month or so), because I wanted to hear other musicians' take on it. You don't seem to like it. That's okay. But if you seem to hate this system so much, just write to the guy directly and don't let it out on me. Okay?

I'm still going to go over what you say: It clearly can indicate octaves. It just leaves it up to the performing musician to chose the root. I mean... the guy frequently remarks in his videos when he remembers the original key. You could just write that down next to it, like a tempo indicator, no biggie. I really don't see the con here.

Why wouldn't it work with four-part fugues? He's playing a three-part fugue in his last episode, so there's no reason to assume the system couldn't handle additional voices. Also don't see the con here.

I actually find the system rather intuitive and understand why he (Jesus, it is even stated anywhere whether he invented the system, is it? It might just be that he's using or something... Can someone weigh in here?) didn't use the 'big line' for the tonic. The way I read it is - I think - the way most musicians would instinctively do it: middle-C, treble clef. That's what's the common standard most real book editions use. That's what he picked. What's supposed to be more intutive than middle-C, treble clef?

About music analysis: If your grandmother's life depended on a swift and flawless music analysis, of - say - a four-part Bach fugue, and you were given the chance between analyzing one in C-major, or F-sharp-major, you'd very likely go for the former, wouldn't you? From this, it's only logical that music analysis is far easier with that new notation, because - in a way - it's always C-major (at least visually).

Here I actually see a little problem with that system you haven't brought up. I think that beginner's could be tempted to play everything in C-major. They'd need a teacher to break them out of that habit. In this guy's video he plays somewhat noticeably smaller in some keys than in others, so he's guilty of that as well.

Isn't it a bit easy to say that there are no 'pro's whatsoever? It's far easier and faster to write. It's easier to switch instruments. Music analysis is faster. It encourages people to do more than just playing the piece in one key (while they're still perfectly free to play the piece in the key they're used to). Those are four pros.

Advocating for the old notation - in contrast - would sound absolutely lunatic: "Hey, here's this old system. You can hardly write it by hand. Also you need ruled paper or special computer programs. You're mostly stuck with the key that the composer settled on. If the key is too complicated, it's very hard to figure out what's going on harmonically. Most musicians write down melodies they hear wrongly in eleven out of twelve cases, 'cause they don't have perfect pitch [which doesn't matter at all in the new system, as it should be, because absolute pitch is important for neither enjoyment nor analysis of music]. Oh, also we have transposing instruments which are notated not in the key we actually hear [although most musicians can't hear] but in a completely different ones." – I mean, those are some REAL cons right there.

Also, I never had nor had trouble reading and playing from the old notation, thank you very much.

(Also, where is he trying to sell it? I might want to buy.)

[leonieschmidt]

P.S.: I forgot replying to something you mentioned about modulations in Mozart sonatas. He's using roman numerals for that [which I don't find the best solution either 'cause it reminds me of functional harmonics, I would rather use '+5' instead of 'V', as it also says whether it goes up or down, but maybe that's just me]. So when a piece modulates to the subdominant, he just writes 'IV'. Even irons out a few accidentals and makes the text a little more tidy than the original. Also no con here.

[keypeg]

I'm continuing the discussion (where I had a part) in the other thread over here.  In that thread, someone brand new to theory was asking for resources to start learning, and the suggestion was this system.  For a novice, that would be awful because, among other things, he would be stuck with only one resource.  When I studied theory I liked getting multiple angles.  Since all theory books, on-line etc. use regular notation (just like we are using letters of the alphabet here, and the English language) it is best to be familiar with it.  You don't start with an alternate system.  You might dabble or experiment further on (or even invent your own, for yourself.)

[leonieschmidt]

Hey, man, that's alright, but you guys won. I have no interest in continuing the discussion here with you ganging up on me.

I am really interested in this system and wanted to share it here. There was no need to subject me with this barrage. I always find it a bit cheap to play the "toxic masculinity" card as a woman, but, boy, you guys can really scale it down a bit.

Adios!

[keypeg]

Continuing:

What he does is similar to how I used to "read" music for decades because I had no training whatsoever and had to find my own way.  I had a kind of reference line, which was the Tonic, and saw (and heard in my head) the notes as they went up and down from that reference line..  I related to music in relative pitch, and everything was highly diatonic.  The major Tonic was Do, the minor Tonic was La.  The piano likewise had a reference spot.  If in D major, the "reference spot" corresponding to the reference line was the "D key" on the piano.  This works especially well for melodic passages, or music with interweaving melodies, or something with simple predictable accompaniment.  I played mostly Clementi sonatas back then with its ubiquitous Alberti bass which is both (because that's what I had for playing.)

For the transposing question.  All I had to do was pick a different piano key as my Tonic while still eyeballing the original score for its Tonic, and go "above and below" intervallically the same way.  In fact, back before I knew much, I did that accidentally, and wouldn't know I was in the wrong key until I had to hunt up a bunch of black keys to make it sound right.  Had I also learned to play scales in different keys, and how keys worked, it would have been different.  I could do that now.  You asked why I "don't do that anymore".  Who said I didn't?  From time to time I pop over to that old world and explore.

The "key of C major" also represents diatonic notes of music in rather ordinary major and minor, in a very visible form, i.e. "all white keys".  My mental soundscape, since I thought in major and natural minor, did the same thing.  If a piece is in E major, and very diatonic, then you have your 4 sharps: You can draw an imaginary coloured line on "E" in the score, and maybe another on B - and if you do that, you could easily transpose that music on the fly to any key.

Supposing that song is Twinkle:  E E B B C# C# B ........... and I decide to "play it in Db major".  How I'm actually perceiving this in the music is: Tonic - up 5 (P5), up one (m2), back down (continues down the scale to the tonic for "how I wonder what you are".   So "Db" is "that black key below it, and then "up 5" etc.   If I have a solid handle of the Db major scale and thus Db major (visibly on the piano it maps out as all black keys plus two whites) then I'm good to go.

Essentially, that is how I transposed using my old frames of reference.  The lines and spaces sort of "erased themselves" except for the "reference line (or space".  In fact, there are some old scores where I literally drew in that line using a highlighter.

Since I primarily hear music in relative pitch, and only recently learned to perceived "A as A", transposing this way is relatively easy.  Here, "perfect pitch", i.e. hearing pitches as pitches, is a handicap.

To bring this round to the alternative notation; what he is doing seems similar to how I used to relate to music, except that he uses middle C as a reference line.  I don't like that much, and I also don't want to perceive music in relationship to C, or middle C.  There are a few reasons for that.

I also noted the idea of changing stems to indicate octave below or above in his notation.  Piano music spans a LOT of octaves, and some music jumps around tons, in wide leaps.

What I do see here is that it may give other ways of perceiving music - maybe some angles that some of us already have (or not).  Perceiving music via multiple angles is very useful.

Meanwhile, the person who created the notation and is demonstrating it has his own musical background and will be drawing on all of it.  Some may be subconscious, even to himself. Whatever he demonstrates will come from his abilities and background, and not just the notation.  If you yourself find it expands what you can do, and/or how you perceive or work with music, well that's fantastic.

(As an aside: That cup of coffee or tea on sitting on the keyboard makes me cringe. )

[keypeg]

Hey, man, that's alright, but you guys won. I have no interest in continuing the discussion here with you ganging up on me.

I am really interested in this system and wanted to share it here. There was no need to subject me with this barrage. I always find it a bit cheap to play the "toxic masculinity" card as a woman, but, boy, you guys can really scale it down a bit.

Adios!

So I just wasted my time?

[leonieschmidt]

No, apparently I did.

[leonieschmidt]

Ah, didn't see you wrote a longer message. Am reading that now.

[leonieschmidt]

Okay, so... sorry. I find this discussion far too theoretical. Like... we can talk and write about music all day long. But that would be like describing colors with words. You can get close, but it's nothing compared to actually seeing colors.

I think that this guy displays the ability to transpose anything he sees (provided he doesn't actually prepare what he's playing and is actually randomly drawing the pages, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt), something I have only ever seen once or twice and then with pianist who had actually prepared it, which is a major difference. I don't know anything about the guy nor about his musical background. He has two hands, like, the rest of us, and plays a couple instruments, like some of us. (I only play guitar besides piano.) It's his notation that is the difference, so I logically conclude that this is the reason why he can do those things.

He's not just playing stuff like Clementi sonatinas. I find him a bit lacking in suavity when it comes to jazz, but he's playing jazz standards alright. He played some Debussy in some episode which is far harder to transpose than, say, a Scarlatti sonatina.

Logically, the notation can handle large leaps pretty well. I noticed he's using additional 'big lines' if need be, in addition to the orientation of the stem (both things together are causing a bit of a headache for me, so if I was him I would do one or the other, not both).

I also don't perceive the notation as based around middle-c. I mean, visually, yeah, which makes it easy to pick up. (I think it's a horrendous proposal that one guy made with the 'big line' having to be the tonic, or something.) But does he even play anything in C? I tried zooming into the video to see what's written on the cubes (like... does he just draw major keys and deducts the minor parallel from there?).

About the cup. Yeah, I get it. My piano teacher would have freaked out. But what's the worst that could happen? Piano keys are made from wood. Even if he spilt some, he would just take them out and dry them. I mostly perceive it as 'shock value' for the audience in order to prove he's doing things differently. Honestly, it didn't really bother me.

So, to sum it up: I think talking all day long about what that guy is doing is not going to lead us anywhere. Instead we should just try and do what he does. If we can do it faster with the old notation (I sure can't), he'd be debunked. Or we could conclude (like that one guy with the digital piano did) that transposing isn't important (which I - in turn - cringed at - 'cause, seriously... what kind of professional pianist would argue like this... it's like a racer at the Tour de France still having his training wheels on). Or we could assume he's actually preparing the stuff he's showcasing in the video in order to sound better.

I really don't know. I wanted to hear from the musicians here, but instead I got shouted at.

[perfect_pitch]

1) Everyone who tried to discuss this idiotic notation system had their time wasted...

2) You did hear from the musicians here, you were just too narrow-minded to listen to people who've had more experience in piano than you, and you wanted us all to somehow believe that you had stumbled onto something miraculous in music - you didn't.

3) Adios to you too...

[leonieschmidt]

1) 'discuss', dear Mister. How about you actually try it out. You called the dude's sight-reading ability 'poor', giving no frame of reference. I asked you to give a frame of reference by actually playing something. You didn't want that.

2) ... says the anonymous person who said playing 'Fur Elise' back in university was his 'party piece'. Like... seriously?

3) How about you just stay out of this thread? Once it was rightfully moved here, there was no reason whatsoever for you to contribute. Now you're just being hateful. You want to contribute something? Spend the time on an actual piano transposing and not in the keyboard.

Thank you.

[keypeg]

1) 'discuss', dear Mister. How about you actually try it out. You called the dude's sight-reading ability 'poor', .................

Since I did not characterize the sight reading, your response is not to me, I take it.

Have you read my post?  Thoughts?
(I'm not a dude, btw, but a gal.)

[leonieschmidt]

JESUS! I was referring to "perfect-pitch", not to you!

And, yes, I did read your posts and thoughts. Still, it seems there's only theoretical musicians here. Like... I quote this one guy's sentence: "Just because someone can do something doesn't mean anything at all, you need to actually demonstrate it in a theoretical manner."

Doesn't that make you smile?

[keypeg]

And, yes, I did read your posts and thoughts.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on those thoughts.  And can you tone it down in the impatience?  It comes across as unfriendly and hostile.  I don't know if you are aware of the tone.

Still, it seems there's only theoretical musicians here.

What I wrote were experiences - not theory or ideas.

We're in the student forum.  I'm a learner.  I'm on my particular path because of where I'm coming from, where I'm going, where the holes and non-holes are.  Undoubtedly you're on your own path.

[leonieschmidt]

Ahm. Did you hear that other guy? He's cursing all over the place and insulting me and the other guy. I am aware of my tone. I also am aware that I'm not cursing and not insulting anyone.

Here's a link I found: https://herrpuck.com/djangostatic/books/LittlePuckBook.pdf. Pick a piece and try playing it in a couple of keys (the one at the beginning are what I started out with). I'm sorry, but "thoughts and thoughts" are kind of a waste of time for me. If you want to make actual experiences and put yourself in a position where you can judge what I'm talking about, just sit down at the piano and play.   Have a nice day.

[keypeg]

Here's a link I found: https://herrpuck.com/djangostatic/books/LittlePuckBook.pdf. Pick a piece and try playing it in a couple of keys (the one at the beginning are what I started out with). I'm sorry, but "thoughts and thoughts" are kind of a waste of time for me. If you want to make actual experiences and put yourself in a position where you can judge what I'm talking about, just sit down at the piano and play.   Have a nice day.

I already found your link to the PDFs in the other thread. I was sight singing it off the page.  This is exactly what I did for several decades because the way I read music, my mind sort of erased the other lines.  I asked you to read what I wrote so you'd know where I was coming from.  In order to dialog with others and come to an understanding, that is part of it.  The reason for the strife is exactly people not listening.

I can play these things off the page (PDF), including in other keys, because it's what I've always done.  He has put into notation form the manner in which I used to play.  "The key of C" is like our diatonic system - the major and natural minor scale.  It turns out that the line is not C, as I thought, but E.  He's using middle C as we find it in the treble (G) clef, and bass (F) clef - but not where middle C would be in the tenor or alto clefs.  So I "got it".

This gives me what I've always had.  AS A STUDENT, my journey is elsewhere atm, in the opposite direction, because of where I'm at, and what I need and want to learn.  I can see how this might help people in other circumstances.

[bwl_13]

I've tried the notation and found it to have some uses that perhaps other musicians would find more valuable. I have little use for transposition as I am most interested in solo performance and pedagogy. It might be useful for analysis, but I personally find the specific keys that pieces were written in to be relevant as to what the composer had in mind. Yeah, analyzing in Fb major would be annoying, but 6 sharps/flats tends to be the most composers will go before switching to the enharmonic. I haven't found it frustrating in any of my experience analyzing.

I will also note that pianists and musicians have been transposing for years using the older notation system. Composers needed to know how to do it in order to write for different instruments. I have also heard of many educational institutes that would have their students transpose in all sorts of settings. There are plenty of systems that were used for teaching composition which would require being able to transpose on the fly. There's an interesting lecture by "cedarvillemusic" on YouTube which talks about some different systems.

There's another matter of writing for a specific instrument. Chopin for instance, writes music that fits the hand very well, and that would be lost if you decided to transpose the 2nd Scherzo for instance, into A minor rather than Bb minor. Bach and Mozart didn't seem to care as much (in my experience with their music), but Chopin, Beethoven, Liszt etc. wrote music with the piano in mind.

Again, I don't want to be attempting to prove you wrong. If you've found the system to be beneficial, that's awesome and I hope it can continue to aid you in your journey. I'm giving you my thoughts after having tried the system. Another thing that turns me off of it is the lack of music written in the notation, and as somebody who primarily wants to play the piece, not transpose it, I wouldn't find the need to transfer massive Beethoven sonatas into a new notation.

About the cup, I perceive it as showing a bit of disrespect for the instrument. It's the principle that bothers me, not necessarily what would happen to the piano if it spilled. It also made him out to be a bit smug in my opinion, but regardless...

[perfect_pitch]

Thought I would put this in here, instead of vandalising poor Winsto7's thread.

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

Done... I'd like to point out it wasn't even 9am here in Perth, I'd just woken up and I haven't had my bloody coffee. No practice, music or anything - literally opened up the piano and did it on the fly.

Granted there's the odd wrong note, but the priority in my head was reworking the fingering on the fly in the new key.

I'm going to have my motherf***ing coffee now.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sips coffee...]

Anyways, after a little more research into this so called 'Notation system', it seems to me that all he's done is essentially use the 5 line system we already have, but he's eliminated all but the middle one and the middle line is ALWAYS 'mi' in the moveable sol-fah system. I don't see the point then in eliminating those extra lines then, because in some cases the notes are so far from the 'mi' line (when he doesn't use ledger lines) that it's hard to sight-read the interval.

Either way, it leads me to believe that either he has a very good level of aural ability, or possibly years of solfege training which a lot of piano players don't have, he seems to have the ability to play in different keys which leads me to believe he could be a good piano player... NEITHER of which actually really allows people learning piano to easily sight-read and transpose... again, the reason being because the ability to transpose DOES NOT rely on muscle memory. When you transpose a piece of music, your muscle memory cannot be depended on (don't believe me? Try playing E flat major with the finger of C Major... its not comfortable, forcing the brain to work out the correct fingering on the fly).

What he seems to have tried to do is strip away the extra lines, but as I said due to large intervals in music and in some cases, his notation does not include all the ledger lines makes me think that this would seriously hamper their sight-reading skills.

Problem is - the current style of notation has been used for HUNDREDS of years, and has had centuries for any improvements to be made. So far, it hasn't really needed any.

Why mess with perfection???

[leonieschmidt]

Okay, so you did something you said you were able to do 20 years ago! How about transposing Mozart's 12th piano sonata, 1st movement, maybe the first page, to A-flat-major!

[perfect_pitch]

Okay, so you did something you said you were able to do 20 years ago! How about transposing Mozart's 12th piano sonata, 1st movement, maybe the first page, to A-flat-major!

There you go - whole first theme of the Exposition. Didn't realise I had the music for this one - I've only got the 2nd volume of the Mozart Sonatas - lucky it was in there.

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.

Don't ever bloody lecture me on my abilities. I'm not in the habit of talking sh*t about what I can and can't do. You'd be LUCKY to be one of my pupils if I can do that on the spot. Sounds like you need a decent teacher.



Hope you're hungry.

[leonieschmidt]

Ahm... Is that possible without all the bragging, too? Nice playing, by the way!

How about the 14th Piano Sonata, Adagio, in... say... B-major!

[perfect_pitch]

Ahm... Is that possible without all the bragging, too?

You're the one who challenged me - I'm the one who accepted.

How about the 14th Piano Sonata, Adagio, in... say... B-major!

I could... I'm not going to. You asked me to play Fur Elise in f sharp minor - something I haven't had to do in almost a decade... AND I DID, before I had my morning coffee.

You chose a random Mozart Sonata, random movement and asked me to play it in A flat Major - a random key you chose on the spot... AND I DID without hesitation.

I've proven myself twice now. Now you're just looking for a crack in my skills... and I'm not going to take part, because I know every time you put me up to the challenge, I'm going to win... and every time I win, you'll just ask me another frickin' piece to play until you 'potentially' see a slight crack in my skills... and frankly I have a full time job and plenty of things to do, rather than play your idiotic game - I have better things to do with my time. While I'm happy to prove myself over and over again, you're just hoping to keep betting me over and over and until I potentially have one slight slip... and then use that to criticise me.

Ahm... Is that possible without all the bragging, too? Nice playing, by the way!

Hey... I've got the skills, I have the right to brag. You posed a challenge, I accepted - I WON, YOU LOST!!! Accept it.



I think someone is afraid to swallow something...

[leonieschmidt]

Ahm... Not exactly. I asked you to play that particular Mozart movement, because it has a more difficult key signature than the first one. Afterwards, I would have asked you to play the first couple bars of Debussy's Arabesque No 1... and that would have been it. That's actually what I came here to do: Ask musicians whether transposing with the old notation could be done. Not getting shouted at.

Besides, I'm a young law student, so, other than music being a really dear hobby horse of mine, I have no bets going, and am simply interested, but more from an academic point of view, I think.

I think (but maybe that's just me) that whatever one's skill is, bragging is never a good thing. It's just off-putting for me. Like... Just be good at what you do, and people will see that.

Still, I don't really see a difference between Puck sight-reading in his videos and you sight-reading that Mozart sonata. I don't think he played that particular one, but stuff just as simple/complicated. He blunders sometimes or plays slower, you do, too. So if I, as a student, were to make a decision between the two system, I'd probably go for the one that looks cleaner, because it seems to be just as good for sight-reading and transposing.

And, no, I don't think that a notation that cannot be written down without ruled paper or special computer programs and has to be written differently for, say, a clarinet, a viola and a trumpet can be called 'perfect'.

If you don't agree, that's perfectly fine. No reason to shout at me for having my opinion.

And, again, thanks for taking the time and making the latter recording, as this was - finally! - what I was looking for. I'm sure (and maybe just accept that compliment without further bragging) most pianists would have had more trouble transposing it as fast!

[keypeg]

Leonie - where you're coming from is more clear now.  For example, being able to transpose music and improvise are things you are after (as I understand), and what you've been given up to now has closed the door on that . - I'd like you to consider what I'm going to write.

First, in what I've experienced and seen, really good and comprehensive teaching is rare.  What any of us got, along with our makeup, will govern how we relate to and understand music matters.  Often that involves incomplete teaching and even misteaching.  Here we have: a notation system -- key signatures -- reading music - and how you learned to relate to, and navigate this set of things.  You were probably taught toward an invisible set of goals: something like, to be able to read stuff off the page as it was written.  You got good at that.  And it's the only thing you are able to do, and you want to get past that.  That set of goals is also common, so most people you encounter, including many who teach, will be limited in the same way that you find yourself limited.  Does this make sense so far?

Being taught toward those goals, the teaching also tends to go a particular way, which then gets you to relate to music (including notation) in a given way.  Thus for example you write about "difficult key signatures" and "easy key signatures".  This also reflects how things are commonly taught.  One thing that the Puck system has done, is to transport you into a different way of seeing things, because it looks so different.  As I wrote, what he does is close to how I originally saw music, where my mind erased those extra lines.  The idea of paradigm shifts - of seeing things from totally different angles, is a powerful one.  You seem to have touched upon such a thing.

To go back however:  PP, when he transposed that music, he was drawing on contexts that he learned, ways that he learned to relate to the structures and shapes of music, and applied all that to what he did.  There is notation - whether Puck's or traditional - and there is how we have learned to relate to that notation AND to music, and thus what we do with it.  It's both.

The ultimate reality is that you want to get out of the box you've been put in; it's not loyalty to Puck's system, but the possibility of getting beyond what you've been taught to do.  Puck's system may be one ticket out, if only because it represents a paradigm shift.  Have you yourself tried Puck's system?

The other side of Puck's system is what Puck already knows and can do?  What part of his own knowledge and pre-existing skills he draws on, as he plays from his own notation.  If his demos alone are persuading you, because of what you see him do, that's not a good criterion by itself - because if he is super-skilled he might be able to do the same thing reading tea leaves.  That is why I asked you whether you tried it.

Another thing you might ask is "What new aspects of music am I seeing in this system that I wasn't aware of before?" and have that as part of your journey.

Still another is to go back to what you understand about music and notation, and see whether that understanding may have created blinkers and roadblocks.  What I have found in life is that the concept of paradigm shifts; of going at things from totally new angles; seeing in new ways, and multiple ways; is one of the most powerful concepts I was ever given.  What I suggested is something that I have done myself.  Even though my first journey with piano was self taught as a child, I still had my grandmother's books, and merely through what music they presented, and what music they left out, I formed a picture that was in part incomplete, and in part fantastic.

I hope this makes sense, and also that you will take the time to read it.

[keypeg]

(again to Leonie) In regard to what Puck did, I've stated that it is very close to how I used to "read" music.  Therefore I could easily put myself in that space looking at that notation.  Playing from that score was like doing what I did for years.

There are also skills I didn't get back then.  The piano has black and white keys, and each key (as in A major, F# minor) is a set of black and white keys that light up in your fingertips and mind's eye if you know them.  In order to transpose like Puck did, or like PP did, you need to have that "keyboard map" in your body and mind.  If you don't have a firm map, you'll be hunting for the right key.

Another skill is probably having at least the main chords in the different keys at your fingertips.  Otherwise you're hunting again.

I'm not going to argue that Puck already has those skills, as a way to "expose" anything.  Instead I'll suggest that these are two things to go after if you want to learn to improvise and transpose.  In fact, from what I've seen in looking around, it seems that those who teach jazz, for example, get students to know their scales (including modes) down cold in all keys, and have a solid handle on chords.  This can become a path.  And Puck's system can be a door opener to wider view of things, as "one of".

Btw, I tried that Fuer Elise in F#m thing myself last night.  (1) Where I got hung up was my still weak handle on the "keyboard map" (2) still relatively weak handle on chords specifically as keyboard entities (I'll hear V7 in my head, "relatively", which goes to Puck's system = my old thinking; but not have the black and white keys for C#7).

I suggest looking at MANY angles.  Don't jump into Puck's system as the right system, from a wrong system - jumping ships - rather expand all over the place, and don't get caught up in any system - but do look for patterns.

[keypeg]

To PianoPitch:
Fantastic, and on behalf of everyone here, the time you took out on a Sunday morning is much appreciated.  This is the student forum and it's all of us as students who get to watch and pick up things.  Plus - as a professional you're putting yourself out there a lot more than if I played something and people would shrug and say "Oh well, she's still a student.  We expect glitches."  So thank you in that sense.

I saw your Fuer Else post in the wee hours and had to go to bed.

you wrote

Anyways, after a little more research into this so called 'Notation system', it seems to me that all he's done is essentially use the 5 line system we already have, but he's eliminated all but the middle one and the middle line is ALWAYS 'mi' in the moveable sol-fah system. I don't see the point then in eliminating those extra lines then, because in some cases the notes are so far from the 'mi' line (when he doesn't use ledger lines) that it's hard to sight-read the interval.
 

and I had written

The key of C" is like our diatonic system - the major and natural minor scale.  It turns out that the line is not C, as I thought, but E.  He's using middle C as we find it in the treble (G) clef, and bass (F) clef - but not where middle C would be in the tenor or alto clefs.  So I "got it".

So we both noted this.  Frankly I would have preferred the line to be through the Tonic.

Either way, it leads me to believe that either he has a very good level of aural ability, or possibly years of solfege training which a lot of piano players don't have, he seems to have the ability to play in different keys which leads me to believe he could be a good piano player

That goes with my impression that when he plays from his own notation, he is using all of his pre-existing skills.

What he seems to have tried to do is strip away the extra lines, but as I said due to large intervals in music and in some cases, his notation does not include all the ledger lines makes me think that this would seriously hamper their sight-reading skills.

And that goes to where I am personally, because I lived that solfege world, and something similar to that way of reading music.  It works well for diatonic music, and music that is mostly melody, versus dense chords.    I ended up being able to read some music fluently, anticipating in part, and being totally lost in other music, and wondering why.  A note way up somewhere else, I'd not see that this  relates that piano key over there and is F.   I'm still rretraining.  Fortunately I'm working with an out of the box senior teacher who is up to speed.  I don't like the idea of anyone starting with that kind of notation.

[leonieschmidt]

I really agree with what you say, Mrs. Keypeg.

About the key signatures: I think it goes beyond that we're all primed to like C-major because it's the first thing taught. I find arpeggios, for instance, always a little harder in flat keys (E-flat-major, for instance) than in sharp keys (let's say D-major).

I would very much like to know Puck's musical background, as it would tell us a lot about what he's doing. I don't know whether he studied classical music (as I said before his jazz playing seems a bit wooden to me, so I don't think that this is where he comes from).

Given PPs really good transpositional video I do agree with you that it's not all about what's on the music stand, but also on the individual musicians' experience. Given that Puck's notation can't be that old, I wonder what a musician would sound like who was brought up with that kind of a notation and (maybe more importantly) the constant necessity of transposing everything.

I think something that is really important about the practice videos is that they are NOT meant to belittle newcomers or professional musicians in the way of "Hey, I'm so much better than you", but are rather like: "Hey, I can do these things because I'm using another notation; you could do these things, too". So far, it seems to work for me. I could for the live of me not imagine transposing from old notation the way PP did. Then again, I have only five years experience of playing the piano. I kinda could see myself doing something similar to that with Puck's notation in a couple of years. I don't know.

Oh, by the way (I already told Keypeg): As much as I was put off by PP's rather aggressive demeanour (sorry), I can totally see that me posting in multiple forums and being super adamant about the new notation and all (which I still am nonetheless, but less outspoken) was off-putting, too. Sorry for that!

I wholeheartedly agree with Keypeg's proposal not to think in absolutes. I gravitate towards Puck's system because I have worked with the old for a couple of years, and feel ready for it. Maybe I'd have done the same without knowing the old one? Probably not, because I would have preferred the 'standardized' way before. 'Standardized' certainly not meaning 'perfect', as PP put it: I have a napkin before me, and it would seriously bug me to not be able to jot down a melody on it. Also, I have a clarinet player as a friend, and it is really annoying (I haven't showed him the notation yet) that we have to play in different keys, with him playing a transposing instrument and all.

In either case, I think it's best to know both systems well.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

To be honest, and people may disagree, but my feeling is that if you can have learnt a piece competently from a conventionally notated score, you should also be able to transpose it at sight, unless it's something horrendous like Feux Follets. Passages such as standard four part harmony a decent musician should be able to sight read in any key, imho. Anecdotally, von Bulow expected his pupils to be able to play the Appassionata first movement in F#, ie up a semitone, on demand, but we are talking about high level students and a demanding teacher here.

[leonieschmidt]

I do look at it a bit differently. I mean... Let's be honest: Most amateurs (I kind of hope that I have left this realm, but one can never be sure) stick to pieces with none to little accidentals, whenever possible. I remember always wanting to play 'Claire de Lune' (yes, I know, there are simplified versions, but I was a little too proud to play those), but I was barred from it because it's set in C-sharp-major. With Puck's notation, all pieces would be playable in good ole C-major. The distinction mark for professional musicians would be that they can actually play it in all of the twelve keys, if need be. (Professional jazz musicians could even pull an amateur's leg by playing in keys the latter is not capable yet of playing, which would be encouraging to go beyond one's limits.)

I do agree with PP in that, say, playing a Beethoven sonata randomly in a different key has no real merit. It might enable us to play in the 'real' original key (the concert pitch having been raised since Beethoven's time and all), but that's tonal cosmetics. Also, a musician who can transpose at first sight (and I think that ability has to be cultivated and kept up in order to work) seems to have more prowess than one who does or can not.

But what really interests me is the prospect of people playing together and possible combinations of musicians that could come from one universal, tonally neutral notation. In one of the Practice videos [number 3 or 4, I think], there is a Mozart piano sonata that gets turned into a clarinet sonata without changing a single note. This is what I find interesting, especially given that it was pretty common for composers back in the day to play more than one instrument. (Mozart played the violin, I think? Beethoven the viola? I don't quite remember.)

[leonieschmidt]

I meant: no real artistic merit.   

[perfect_pitch]

And, again, thanks for taking the time and making the latter recording, as this was - finally! - what I was looking for. I'm sure (and maybe just accept that compliment without further bragging) most pianists would have had more trouble transposing it as fast!

I will humbly do so... as you said without further bragging... but surely other pianists can do it that easily as well. I'm sure it's nothing special... surely?

To PianoPitch:
Fantastic, and on behalf of everyone here, the time you took out on a Sunday morning is much appreciated.  This is the student forum and it's all of us as students who get to watch and pick up things.  Plus - as a professional you're putting yourself out there a lot more than if I played something and people would shrug and say "Oh well, she's still a student.  We expect glitches."  So thank you in that sense.

Didn't really take much time. Stuck the camera in my camera holder and hit record, played - hit stop, but thank you for the kind words. 

Ahm... Not exactly. I asked you to play that particular Mozart movement, because it has a more difficult key signature than the first one. Afterwards, I would have asked you to play the first couple bars of Debussy's Arabesque No 1... and that would have been it.

You know I can do it - I just demonstrated it twice (albeit one time I was relying on previous knowledge), but transposing Mozart isn't that hard. As for the Debussy Arabesque, I had a quick try and that's easier. It's just arpeggios for the most part of the first page, and the RH runs in triplet quavers are just based on the notes of the major scale so it isn't that challenging.

I think (but maybe that's just me) that whatever one's skill is, bragging is never a good thing. It's just off-putting for me. Like... Just be good at what you do, and people will see that.

Yes, but I literally stated I could transpose without the use of Pucks notation system and you wrote (and I quote):

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.

Bragging may not be a good thing, but when someone who doesn't even know you on the internet insults you and challenges you to prove your mettle, I rise to that challenge. Maybe one shouldn't be so dismissive of other people.

[leonieschmidt]

Oh, but I do think it's something special. I asked two amateur friends (who'd been playing for years on end, albeit not professionally), but they just couldn't do it. I mean... that's why all those stories about Brahms sight-transposing his piano concerto because the concert piano turned out to be detuned by a semi-tone, Liszt stupifying Beethoven by sight-transposing Bach fugues etc come from. Again, Gabriela Montero (I think I linked her video in a thread before) would hardly have showcased her ability to do so, if it wasn't something special. So, yeah, I think you can be rightfully proud of that!

That being said, and especially because it seems to be such a rare ability (knowing above anecdotes, for instance), I think I can be forgiven for challenging you! If you would have linked to your youtube channel I would have considered it a little more likely you could do that, but would still have asked you to do it. And yeah, I know many people (I think we all can relate to that) who are super competitive and aggressive in order to cover up things they can't actually do that. You're the odd one out, and that's good.

In return, I think me posting on several threads at once in order to ensure a response (maybe it's because I'm 22 and used to the tediousness and unresponsiveness of insta & co) and coming off far too strong at the beginning rightfully threw you off. I'm new to internet forums and don't know how these things work.

But, two important things: I think Puck is sight-transposing really well, too. Like I said before: He plays wrong notes, too, and lingers a little too long sometimes. But then again, he seems to be like...25? Hard to guess. PP is.. 40? (I find you guys really hard to guess the age of.) In either case, even if both started young (which I presume), Puck will still be short roughly 15 years of experience and building up, for instance, that proprioception PP talked about. I mean... his new system doesn't seem bad at all to me when playing in a fixed key (let's say it said E-major next to his version of Debussy's Arabesque, which I, personally, would add down, like a clef or something, just to give the musicians that information but he chose not to). So, basically, like Keypeg once said, there's more to using notation than just what's written on the page. PP is one of the few people I know who can sight-transpose from the old notation. Puck can sight-transpose with his notation... but I think he implies that many people could when using his notation. If he's right, it's like PP baked a marvelously tasting cake over a camp fire... Maybe an oven is still the better way to go? If that makes sense.

And the second thing. I initially remarked that - to me - Puck's system "blows the old notation out of the water". Well, in terms of sight-transposing we kind of have a stale mate going on. But there's a couple of aspects where, logically, I would favor the new over the old one. Like... it looks cleaner and more inviting. I literally can write melodies on the backside of my supermarket recipe. There's another aspect I think Puck isn't even aware of himself: If we can switch voices easily and no longer needed transposing instruments (he sometimes switches instruments in his videos and plays the same melodies with, say, bass, piano and clarinet) then this would mean that a conductor could stand in front of their orchestra and say: "Hey, clarinets and celli switch voices now", or "How about violins and bassoons group up now". I know, I know, more often than not this will sound distinctly not better than what the composer had in mind... but very often one might come across something. And to me, that's what music is all about: creativity. And Puck's notation seems like the far better tool for that.

I scrolled a bit through PPs video and I found a Zelda song compilation (to Keypeg: Zelda is a famous video game series). A friend of mine showed me 'Breath of the Wild' and I - although I'm not a gamer - really liked it. It was super refreshing to hear the Ocarina compilation, because I knew some of the songs. I'm sure PP had to make some decisions as to what to cut, where to transpose (I can't judge because I haven't played the original and don't have perfect pitch) and what instruments to arrange for the piano and what fashion. That, to me, is rather creative... Obviously, you were able to do that with the old notation, sure... But maybe, in a parallel universe, where we, I don't know... Mozart had thought of and established a one-lined notation PP would have had an even easier time with this?

Just a thought.

[perfect_pitch]

You do realise my links to my YouTube channel are in the signature of every post I make. I don't hide it - a little advertising can go a long way. Glad I could prove that I was a man of my word. I take offence to the 40 year old comment though... I'm a few years off that, thankfully. I'll admit my hair is receding a little faster than I like, but my body is quite young, and my mind younger.

I still reckon though there is a LOT of background knowledge that Puck has that is helping him transpose, and little of it has to do with the notation system. I suspect a lot of aural and solfege training has gone on in his early years - something most musicians don't really get to experience here in Australia, or America or a lot of other non-european countries.

But maybe, in a parallel universe, where we, I don't know... Mozart had thought of and established a one-lined notation PP would have had an even easier time with this?

If you believe in an infinite set of universes, then there's the very real possibility of this being absolutely true. Maybe it is...

Truth is, (in regard to my Zelda Ocarina medley) because the themes were so distinctive, I wanted to keep them in their original key. My actual goal was to see if I could logically line up the melodies and have them transition & modulate from theme to theme naturally without having to transpose. I was quite proud of myself for that. I spent over an hour trying to come up with the perfect order in which they linked quite beautifully and transitioned very smoothly from key to key.

I knew I 'could' have transposed them, but I wanted to keep them as authentic as possible, and this meant keeping them in the same key.

[leonieschmidt]

Oh, we kind of have the same problem here in Germany as well. I did have 'musikalische Früherziehung' (musical early development), but that had little to do with actual ear training. They mostly just sit you down in front of a keyboard and learn the note names, but I can't really remember because I was to young.

I do presume then that Puck comes from a family of musicians, if what you say is true, because I really don't think that the general musical training is better here in Europe than anywhere else. I can only speak from my personal experience, though, and from what two friends who study music said: Basically, they think that ear training, while being part of the entry exam (though kind of just a formality you need to pass), is quickly discarded. That's why I love Gabriela Montero so much! I went to one of her concerts where she asked the audience to sing her a theme (it ended up something from Piazzolla) for her to improvise. She must have perfect pitch or something close to it?

I take you do have that, too? What is that like?

[keypeg]

Leonie, the following comes from everything I've read here, plus my experiences, observations, and studies over the last decade-plus.  Here is some food for thought which in the long run may be more beneficial than any notation system.  A first insight can lead to a ton of different insights, and brand new directions.

First, the way music is taught often is toward a narrower set of goals, which we get very good at, but creates all sorts of limitations we're not aware of until we run into things which "curiously" we're not able to do.  What we learned (and didn't) forms how we are as musicians; if most people around us learned the same way, then we pick up that this is the "reality".  This certainly happened to you.  It is evident in various things you have written, and even the "challenges" you gave p_p.  It also happened to me, even if the frameworks that I had to work my way past were different in some respects.

If we've been limited or handicapped by our training, then there will be devices that appeal to us or help us, because they fit into that situation.  Thus if key signatures were presented a certain way, and certain things were not taught, then something circumventing this will be helpful.  But the handicap or limitation remains.  In a good scenario, such a system will cause you to see music from a different angle, and thus break through your original framework.  This is one of the things that has happened with Puck's system.  You can also use this to ask yourself, "Why are other key signatures difficult for me?  What is it that makes them difficult?  Is this necessarily the way it has to be?"  And that could lead you to all kinds of journeys.  In this way P's system can also become a catalyst for a journey rather than a thing onto itself.

You wrote somewhere that you hoped you had gotten past being an amateur.  I have 11 years to my relearning, having gone deeply into a bunch of stuff, with a teacher, and the 5 years before that in the violin studies that led to that questioning, and 30 years before that playing self-taught.  I'd call myself an "amateur", but there is also a problem even in this labeling of amateur and professional.  A professional is someone who does music as a living.  Not all of them are good, or know a lot.  There are those with high levels of training who decided not to pursue music as a career.  There is no glory. We are lifelong learners.  Pavarotti said at the end of his life "I'm still a student." - Also, we are all in your islands of what and who we know.  So any attempt to generalize what people have learned, know, or can do, will not really work.

Explore things BROADLY.  A door has been opened potentially.  Question what you know and what you've learned: not in order to trash it, because anything you've learned has value - but for other ways of seeing things; other ways of being in music; not only what your learning has given you but where it might have closed doors or views which would benefit you. Realize that there are many ways of perceiving and doing.

Hoping this will be of help now or in the future.

[keypeg]

To be honest, and people may disagree, but my feeling is that if you can have learnt a piece competently from a conventionally notated score, you should also be able to transpose it at sight, unless it's something horrendous like Feux Follets. Passages such as standard four part harmony a decent musician should be able to sight read in any key, imho. Anecdotally, von Bulow expected his pupils to be able to play the Appassionata first movement in F#, ie up a semitone, on demand, but we are talking about high level students and a demanding teacher here.

The big and important question is - what did those who are able to do that, learn?  How did they learn?  von Bulow would not have taken beginners, or formed beginners.  Who taught the students he took on, and how were they taught?  What things were they taught.

I played with that Fuer Elise in F#m idea yesterday.  My particular handicap was not having a solid handle on A major on which F#m is built, and thus F#m, and the chords fitting with that, esp. the C#7 at the beginning.  I'm not perturbed because I'm already aware of that; know my own history; and these are things I'm presently building.  In fact, I've taken that F#m piece on as an exercise.  But that would be an example.

There is Czerny's "Letter to a young lady" (or some such title) where he was remote-guiding a young piano student in an aristocratic family, who had her own daily tutor.  As a beginner, after every lesson and practice session, she was to write out what she had played.  What kind of connections of ear-to-paper, or hands-to-paper did that create?

What is it that jazz or non-classical is doing, which could benefit "classical"?  How close might the figured bass mostly blank scores of Bach's time and maybe a bit before - be to the reading and interpretation of lead sheets?  (This was proposed to me once.)

[perfect_pitch]

She must have perfect pitch or something close to it?

I take you do have that, too? What is that like?

Oh yes, I definitely have it. Makes teaching a LOT easier, especially when I had to do video lessons.

Can get a bit tedious at times, like when you work with choirs and string ensembles... when you know someones not quite hitting that 'E' quite right.

[keypeg]

Oh yes, I definitely have it. Makes teaching a LOT easier, especially when I had to do video lessons.

Can get a bit tedious at times, like when you work with choirs and string ensembles... when you know someones not quite hitting that 'E' quite right.

What about Baroque music - would this throw you?  (I have two friends who have PP, and we've discussed this.)

[bwl_13]

What about Baroque music - would this throw you?  (I have two friends who have PP, and we've discussed this.)

I don't have perfect pitch but I've heard it's a blessing and a curse. Apparently it drifts as you age, which I would find quite disorienting.

[perfect_pitch]

What about Baroque music - would this throw you?  (I have two friends who have PP, and we've discussed this.)

Actually, no - it doesn't throw me. I can clearly hear when Baroque music is played in a lowered pitch to best represent a more authentic Baroque sound, but for some reason it doesn't phase me. I used to play on a digital keyboard when I was younger and would often play with the transposition button (before I actually took lessons or knew I had perfect pitch), so to me I feel I have perfect pitch but my brain can accept if the 'A' note is not 440.

Apparently it drifts as you age, which I would find quite disorienting.

They say that - I'm going to prove them wrong.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Actually, no - it doesn't throw me. I can clearly hear when Baroque music is played in a lowered pitch to best represent a more authentic Baroque sound, but for some reason it doesn't phase me.

That's interesting. I also have perfect pitch and once I was playing a Scarlatti sonata (amongst others) at an event.. on a harpsichord. It hadn't occurred to be that of course it would be tuned differently, and when I started playing (from memory, which made it just that bit conceptually more difficult) it was EXTREMELY disconcerting to find the f minor materialising in e minor. My hands kept wanting to transpose down a semitone so that they would be in e minor but of course that would have led into a rather embarrassing loop...

[perfect_pitch]

That's interesting. I also have perfect pitch and once I was playing a Scarlatti sonata (amongst others) at an event.. on a harpsichord. It hadn't occurred to be that of course it would be tuned differently, and when I started playing (from memory, which made it just that bit conceptually more difficult) it was EXTREMELY disconcerting to find the f minor materialising in e minor. My hands kept wanting to transpose down a semitone so that they would be in e minor but of course that would have led into a rather embarrassing loop...

To be honest - I have played on a LOT of out of tune pianos in my lifetime. I used to play for hours on a beaten up Beale piano. Spent years playing as a Church organist on a cheezy electric organ that was flat. I've spent years transposing hymns into different keys, so I am used to playing something and hearing something different. Also, my piano at one stage when I was a teenager got tuned like every several years. You just adapt.

I did have a point years ago when I was 11 when I was asked to play on a piano probably about 50 years old, and it was a semitone out. I struggled to play it, and attempted to transpose on the spot a semitone higher, but back then my technical abilities were not up to standard back then.

Since then I've played on a lot of dodgy instruments. Helped me focus and trust in my physical memory to an extent.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Curiously, I don't have the same issue on out of tune pianos. I just perceive them as in the key I presumed, but out of tune, whereas the harpsichord was in perfect tune for a semitone low and that I perceived as down by a pure semitone thus in another key.

[keypeg]

Actually, no - it doesn't throw me. I can clearly hear when Baroque music is played in a lowered pitch to best represent a more authentic Baroque sound, but for some reason it doesn't phase me. I used to play on a digital keyboard when I was younger and would often play with the transposition button (before I actually took lessons or knew I had perfect pitch), so to me I feel I have perfect pitch but my brain can accept if the 'A' note is not 440. 

That is interesting.  My perspective on this comes from three people so far:

- My main teacher.  If he is used to hearing a piece that is, say, in Db major, and he then hears it in "C major", it will sound "wrong" to him and he needs to adjust.  This can happen when A = 440 is ditched for a lower Baroque tuning.  Also, sometimes music put on Youtube comes out altered for various reasons.

Well that's the main one, and we've talked about it the most often.  The downward drift with age was told to me by two people by mid 60's.  For those of us with relative pitch, it probably happens to us too, but we'd not notice.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

"Anecdotally, von Bulow expected his pupils to be able to play the Appassionata first movement in F#, ie up a semitone, on demand, but we are talking about high level students and a demanding teacher here."

The big and important question is - what did those who are able to do that, learn?  How did they learn?  von Bulow would not have taken beginners, or formed beginners.  Who taught the students he took on, and how were they taught?  What things were they taught?

I think we can reasonably assume that any such pupil von Bulow had was a formed concert artist, just as we can assume everyone who got a second lesson with the Weimar Liszt was (there being plenty of cases where he had given one lesson charitably, and a second was not forthcoming). Perhaps the ability to transpose at sight was something given more emphasis in education at that time? I actually can't answer fully why it should be that some people can and some can't: let's put it this way, I would assume that with most students past the beginner level if you said "play an IV V I cadence in C major" and then to play / transpose it in F# major that would not present any problem; however how easy is it for a good student to, for example, play a Beethoven slow movement from the score but in the "wrong" key? My guess is that typically it's pretty difficult: I can do it (and clearly so can perfect_pitch) but my experience is that this is not the majority view. Maybe things were different in 1850?