Evolution of musical notation: Hummingbird

Open field notation? Gregorian is better, we have gone back more than a millennium

Shark wrote:

Open field notation? Gregorian is better, we have gone back more than a millennium

In an open field it doesn't really seem like it, there are staves... rather, I don't understand the utility, nor how it can be “easier to learn”, given that (at least from what can be understood) every sound of the groupings in bass clef, despite having the same value as the others and despite the pitch being established in the “conventional” way, is written with a different symbol every time... does anyone know more about this?

Here is some info

http://www.good.is/p...y-easy-to-read/

It doesn't convince me much; I would like to see a score with 30 staves or in a context of dense polyphony. The supporters of this type of writing say it is more intuitive, but from the example, it seems to me that the same information as canonical notation has simply been transcribed with another "form"... but on a simple example, so I don't see its possible evolutionary aspects compared to the "as is," and especially from an orchestral perspective... or of "simplification"

I see that anyone who applies themselves even a little succeeds in reading traditional notation without effort..

Regarding the writing mentioned by Carlos, simply the letter of the note is the initial of the English word linked to the graphic symbol:

A=Above, meaning above, and indeed the solid crescent is above the circle;

B=Below, meaning below (the inverse of A)
D=Dot; E=Empty; F=Full; G=Groove.

I find C=C quite charming

Zedef wrote:

I see that anyone who applies themselves even a little succeeds in reading traditional notation without difficulty..

Exactly, it's always been that way...

Zedef wrote:

Regarding the writing mentioned by Carlos, simply the letter of the note is the initial of the English word linked to the graphic symbol: A=Above, meaning above, and indeed the solid crescent is above the circle;

B=Below, meaning below (the inverse of A)

D=Dot; E=Empty; F=Full; G=Groove.

I find C=C quite charming

Yes, I saw it: I had missed the legend under the fragment...

But, I ask: are we joking?

Let's just drop it...

In fact, it seems more like a publicity stunt to me than something useful

To me, it seems easier to read than the traditional one anyway; perhaps it is more complex to write, even in terms of multi-staff pieces or perhaps with denser polyphony.

Marebu wrote:

To me, it seems easier to read than the traditional one anyway

Oh, sure!! Just think of Tristan and Isolde written "in confetti" and then we'll talk...

PS btw, I would like to see you reading something new, but without the little example above...

And indeed dear Carlos, people talk about evolution and the only example in the world that exists is on a piece from 2 centuries ago.

Today's needs are perhaps a bit different from those of Per Elisa's time, so if the system wants to be credible in the eyes of those who work with the score and need it to play (I hope this point is clear to everyone), it cannot limit itself to this.

As a composer, I can add that I have the need to communicate a lot of information to the performer that doesn't seem to be present in that stylization. When they play one of my pieces (unpublished, if that wasn't clear), understand that I must accompany the score with sound examples to clearly explain what needs to be done and what my expectation is; this is because notation alone is now almost insufficient... what more would this notation give me?

To me, it seems like the normal evolution of the Gregorian...

Gregorian notation (from at least a millennium ago) was much richer than this... and they had more limited needs and there was greater illiteracy. In fact, they resorted to Chironomy; no one knew how to read, so the score was intended for specialists and Chironomy was the means to communicate what needed to be done.

Marebu wrote:

To me, it seems like the normal evolution of Gregorian...

The normal and natural evolution of neumatic notation in open field (and, subsequently, of the tetragram, which is the consequence of the need to make adiastematic notation more complete) is our musical notation.

PS "Gregorian" is not a writing system, therefore the evolution of Gregorian is the music of Palestrina, whose evolution is the music of Bach etc. etc.