|
From: | Urs Liska |
Subject: | Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation |
Date: | Tue, 26 Jan 2016 00:24:29 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 |
Am 26.01.2016 um 00:05 schrieb musicus:
@Simon: I was not aware of Clairnote, but that direction was not my intention... This is a perfect example why I severely doubt this works. It is immediately clear that (e.g.) the second measure features a *scale* with a d sharp somewhere. But which notes *exactly* are to be played is totally unclear. The notation suggest as much that the second measure starts with an a as it suggests an ais. And if I look at that sequence I would immediately say that between the third and fourth note there is a whole tone and not a semi-tone. The main problem is that I have to *estimate* where the "notehead" is printed and what that means. And if that's intentional or inexact. This definitely does *not* make it easier to read, quite the contrary: it adds ambiguity and room for misreading. This notation looks like (and would IMO be more appropriate for) an inexact and somewhat aleatoric notation where the written notes only approximate the intended "outline" of a melody. Not giving a pitch an exact position (such as *on* or *between* staff lines) guarantees ambiguity. A much more consistent approach to what you suggest would be (as was discussed recently) a notation where each chromatic pitch has its own place on the staff, i.e. a system with more lines. This is unambiguous - but I doubt that it makes reading easier either. My 2cts Urs
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |