Week 9 Blog Post
I had a feeling when I chose the topic of how to improve the classic Western way of music notation that it would be very broad, deep, and complex! It turns out, after perusing http://musicnotation.org/, that I was correct. There are so many alternative music notation systems archived and presented on musicnotation.org that it really leaves one's head spinning.
However, the core issue is fairly easy to understand. The classic music notation system was in a sense built around the key of C. So if a song is composed in the key of C, there are no sharps or flats, and musicians can play the notes that are written without having to memorize whether any of the notes are sharped or flatted (my apologies if you don't know music theory!! I'll try to make it as clear as possible, but I have to assume *some* prior knowledge of music reading).
However, the key of D flat major has 5 flats!! This means that when a musician is reading the music, he/she must memorize those flats and apply them to the correct notes. This is a massive cognitive load compared to the key of C--and yet, why is this? Sonically, to our ears, the keys are not that different other than pitch.
Another issue is in quirky or irregular spatial distances. There are 12 semitones in the Western musical system; a major third is defined as being 4 semitones apart. However, depending on the notes, due to the idiosyncrasy of the classic system, the spatial distance between two notes a major 3rd apart can be different! This is a serious hindrance, as one cannot trust one's eyes to determine the interval between two notes, but must cognitively translate whether the interval is a major or minor 3rd.
This idiosyncratic system is a big reason, I believe, that many musicians play by ear and don't really know how to read music or grasp music theory on paper--it takes a lot of effort to become fluent in the current, widely accepted music notation system.
Many of the alternative music notation systems proposed address the problem of irregularity between keys and the irregularity of spatial representation of intervals. Why then, have any of these systems not caught on? Perhaps the classic system is too entrenched.
Edward Tufte, Yale professor emeritus and pioneer of data visualization, writes that using color and additional dimensions more effectively transmits more information. So one wonders why neither the classic nor alternative notation systems uses either color, the third dimension, or the fourth dimension; perhaps they are accepting as a constraint that the system must be written or printed on paper. Yet with the advent of technology, particularly tablets, whose very name implies an evolution of a very old writing instrument, isn't it time to leverage advances in technology to create a much more intuitive and communicative music writing system?
As a result of my preliminary research, I think that I am pivoting away from doing a literature review of alternative "traditional", i.e. paper-based, notation systems and moving towards a literature review of the use of technology in teaching music theory and notation. For example, DAWs (digital audio workstations, or software used to create music), often eschews traditional music notation in favor of a piano roll on a timeline. This system is quite effective for creating music; spatial intervals are regular, and no key is much more difficult to view than another key. However, it is rather difficult to see at a glance which row is which note, so I think that utilizing color, and possibly 3D if there is a way, would improve upon this typical DAW system.
So the next step is to find articles on the efficacy of technology and software on music learning! Talk to you soon :)
Daniel
However, the core issue is fairly easy to understand. The classic music notation system was in a sense built around the key of C. So if a song is composed in the key of C, there are no sharps or flats, and musicians can play the notes that are written without having to memorize whether any of the notes are sharped or flatted (my apologies if you don't know music theory!! I'll try to make it as clear as possible, but I have to assume *some* prior knowledge of music reading).
However, the key of D flat major has 5 flats!! This means that when a musician is reading the music, he/she must memorize those flats and apply them to the correct notes. This is a massive cognitive load compared to the key of C--and yet, why is this? Sonically, to our ears, the keys are not that different other than pitch.
Another issue is in quirky or irregular spatial distances. There are 12 semitones in the Western musical system; a major third is defined as being 4 semitones apart. However, depending on the notes, due to the idiosyncrasy of the classic system, the spatial distance between two notes a major 3rd apart can be different! This is a serious hindrance, as one cannot trust one's eyes to determine the interval between two notes, but must cognitively translate whether the interval is a major or minor 3rd.
This idiosyncratic system is a big reason, I believe, that many musicians play by ear and don't really know how to read music or grasp music theory on paper--it takes a lot of effort to become fluent in the current, widely accepted music notation system.
Many of the alternative music notation systems proposed address the problem of irregularity between keys and the irregularity of spatial representation of intervals. Why then, have any of these systems not caught on? Perhaps the classic system is too entrenched.
Edward Tufte, Yale professor emeritus and pioneer of data visualization, writes that using color and additional dimensions more effectively transmits more information. So one wonders why neither the classic nor alternative notation systems uses either color, the third dimension, or the fourth dimension; perhaps they are accepting as a constraint that the system must be written or printed on paper. Yet with the advent of technology, particularly tablets, whose very name implies an evolution of a very old writing instrument, isn't it time to leverage advances in technology to create a much more intuitive and communicative music writing system?
As a result of my preliminary research, I think that I am pivoting away from doing a literature review of alternative "traditional", i.e. paper-based, notation systems and moving towards a literature review of the use of technology in teaching music theory and notation. For example, DAWs (digital audio workstations, or software used to create music), often eschews traditional music notation in favor of a piano roll on a timeline. This system is quite effective for creating music; spatial intervals are regular, and no key is much more difficult to view than another key. However, it is rather difficult to see at a glance which row is which note, so I think that utilizing color, and possibly 3D if there is a way, would improve upon this typical DAW system.
So the next step is to find articles on the efficacy of technology and software on music learning! Talk to you soon :)
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWith the hope that never is too late to learn something, I have started learning how to play violin a few weeks ago. As a novice music learner, I totally relate to the cognitive load you mentioned in your post when reading the notes and instantly translate it into proper movements of hands to control the instrument. Too many things need to processed in such a short period of a beat. I think this really causes a huge stress for learners. I can't wait to see what you will find out with regard to using technology to support music learning.
Best,
Minh
Hi Minh,
DeleteI think that is so awesome that you are picking up the violin as an adult! I started off playing the violin when I was pre-K, but unfortunately did not appreciate classical music as much as I could have and quit in high school. Still, I'm thankful that I learned how to read music and some music theory. I think the violin is such an expressive instrument, and the electric violin opens nearly infinite new vistas for the instrument! Let me know when you perform :).
Danny