The Gnotes System

I had already spotted SalvoJazz's link; in my opinion, the opinion of someone who doesn't know traditional solfège is more realistic compared to someone who already has studies behind them with another system.

I mention this because I find it very uncomfortable, or rather, a graphic aspect related to pitch (and therefore to the melodic profile) is replaced by a number relative to the octave... so a mathematical calculation is added.

Just based on my gut feeling, I'm not feeling it, but I already use another system and it might be natural that I don't feel at home with it... for a truly more critical opinion, I would actually need to look at it more closely and for longer...

Well... It seems to me that even this system requires effort and time to be assimilated (in short, before being able to read the imprint, which by the way I don't think is for everyone anyway).

As for the simplification of language, then... There are those who identify the idea of simplifying with progress. Everything that is simple is better and more evolved.

In my opinion, when writing simplifies, there is a risk that the substance of what one intends to communicate through writing also simplifies and becomes impoverished (this applies to language, and it also applies to music).

Still in my opinion, in music, as in all things in life, studying is not mandatory: I can improvise, I can play by ear, or I can decide to go deeper and study. The result obtained in either case depends heavily on one's own talent and the genre one wishes to practice. There are excellent jazz and pop musicians, even virtuosos, who cannot read music, and many conservatory graduates without an ear or musical spirit.

It is clear that, from my point of view, studying and struggling is beautiful and always leads to enrichment.

Turning back to solfeggio, it might be because I started at age 5, but learning to read music did not seem like all that much of a torture, and after just a couple of years, reading the score immediately became easy and natural for me again.

This does not exclude the fact that it is perfectly fine to continue playing by ear: for example, due to a personal choice, I decided to learn two Scarlatti sonatas solely by ear from CDs, forbidding myself from seeing the score unless after I had assimilated them: aside from a few wrong notes and aside from the performer's imprint from whom I learned by ear (Horowitz...), the result, I must say, is not bad: it took me less time and my contact with the "spirit" of the pieces felt much more direct than when I start studying reading with a metronome at 60.

pestatasti wrote:

In my opinion, when writing becomes simplified, there is a risk that the substance of what one intends to communicate through writing also becomes simplified and impoverished (this applies to language, and it also applies to music).

To clarify myself better with a rhetorical question: in your opinion, is a C# equal to a Db? Since the key being pressed is the same, is it indifferent whether one writes this or that?

pestatasti wrote:

Just to clarify myself better with a rhetorical question: do you think a G# is equal to a B♭?

Obviously I meant an A♭, sorry

So, in my opinion, it is necessary to have an example with at least one transcription of a somewhat more complex score.

Secondly, it seems like a method oriented towards those who already know traditional solfeggio, so it is a sort of transcoding, more or less valid (I'll get to that later), but everything is always placed on the level of "translation"

Evaluating the proposal as if it were a doctoral subject, without claiming to be some big-shot university professor, I think the educational aspect is missing; that is, everything should be accompanied by a series of exercises that lead the candidate, starting from 0, to reading notes with a reading difficulty at least equal to the contents of traditional Solfeggio courses.

The big problem I see is this: one studies for X years to master this system, and what scores would they read? To explain myself better, I would like to use the example of neumatic notation in Gregorian chants.

You can read all the "modern" transcodings of the Graduale Triplex, but then if you come across the Graduale, what do you do? Do you turn to a specialist or do you study the notation? Ergo, if you want to read the notes of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, you either study traditional notation or you rely on someone who knows it and "transcribes" it for you into the notation you know.

Now I ask:

Is there an attached project to rewrite all scores using this new system? If not, what would be the use of a student studying this system?

Do modern composers write with the traditional system or with this new system? If the answer is the traditional one, why should someone learn something that is not used?

And furthermore, usually "subsequent" notations try to respond to needs and difficulties posed by musical evolution... the point is that today there is electronics; as someone said (if I'm not mistaken, Frank), this is an area where a precise answer would be needed, because notation systems are complex and articulated and probably do not meet all needs.

I want to clarify that I wouldn't want my post to be read in a polemical way; I think it is useful for the creator of this system to also know which questions they should answer.