AKA gray asphalt wrote: > Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two hands on a piano?
On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > AKA gray asphalt wrote: > > Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > > and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two hands on > a piano? I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. Just space and the notes between the two clefs. There isn't anything messy at all.
AKA gray asphalt wrote: > On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef >>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? >> >> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two >> hands on a piano? > > I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't > be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. > Just space and the notes between the two clefs. Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below the treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion would make the first space above the bass-clef part a G. Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in between, there should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD (that's what it would take for an even arrangement of lines and spaces), or do you have some other arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense of leger lines between the upper and lower staff? > There isn't anything messy at all. You should look into the history of notation.
On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > AKA gray asphalt wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > >>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > >> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two > >> hands on a piano? > > > I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't > > be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. > > Just space and the notes between the two clefs. > > Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below the > treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion would make the > first space above the bass-clef part a G. > > Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in between, there > should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD > (that's what it would take for an even arrangement of lines and spaces), or > do you have some other arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense > of leger lines between the upper and lower staff? > > > There isn't anything messy at all. > > You should look into the history of notation. Here are the first measures of Moonlight Sonata in revised clef form: http://members.cox.net/goodidea/ The left hand is played as if it were written in the Treble Clef except two octaves lower.
AKA gray asphalt wrote: > On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >>> On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >>>>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef >>>>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? >> >>>> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two >>>> hands on a piano? >> >>> I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't >>> be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. >>> Just space and the notes between the two clefs. >> >> Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below >> the treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion >> would make the first space above the bass-clef part a G. >> >> Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in >> between, there should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to >> accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD (that's what it would take for an >> even arrangement of lines and spaces), or do you have some other >> arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense of leger lines >> between the upper and lower staff? >> >>> There isn't anything messy at all. >> >> You should look into the history of notation. > > Here are the first measures of Moonlight Sonata > in revised clef form: > > http://members.cox.net/goodidea/ > > The left hand is played as if it were written in the > Treble Clef except two octaves lower. Looks simple enough... now show me something containing leger lines in the left-hand's staff.
On Apr 2, 4:31 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > AKA gray asphalt wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >>> On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >>>>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > >>>>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > >>>> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two > >>>> hands on a piano? > > >>> I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't > >>> be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. > >>> Just space and the notes between the two clefs. > > >> Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below > >> the treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion > >> would make the first space above the bass-clef part a G. > > >> Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in > >> between, there should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to > >> accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD (that's what it would take for an > >> even arrangement of lines and spaces), or do you have some other > >> arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense of leger lines > >> between the upper and lower staff? > > >>> There isn't anything messy at all. > > >> You should look into the history of notation. > > > Here are the first measures of Moonlight Sonata > > in revised clef form: > > >http://members.cox.net/goodidea/ > > > The left hand is played as if it were written in the > > Treble Clef except two octaves lower. > > Looks simple enough... now show me something containing leger lines in the > left-hand's staff. I'm not getting your quesion. ledger lines below C at the bottom would be just like ledger lines on a Treble Clef. And notes above C at the top would be the same as Treble. No wonder no one did this before, if they didn't. It's hard to describe ... If you give me an address for a midi file or sheet music, I'll put it in this form. Thanks for looking at the example. I know it sounds nuts to think there is a new way to notate music that no one has done before and it's simpler. Almost scary. If it does work then I'm sure there is some reason why it hasn't been used and someone else already did it. But it doesn't look that way.
"AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in message news:... > On Apr 2, 4:31 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >> > On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >> >>> On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> >>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >> >>>>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef >> >>>>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? >> >> >>>> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two >> >>>> hands on a piano? >> >> >>> I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't >> >>> be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. >> >>> Just space and the notes between the two clefs. >> >> >> Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below >> >> the treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion >> >> would make the first space above the bass-clef part a G. >> >> >> Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in >> >> between, there should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to >> >> accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD (that's what it would take for an >> >> even arrangement of lines and spaces), or do you have some other >> >> arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense of leger lines >> >> between the upper and lower staff? >> >> >>> There isn't anything messy at all. >> >> >> You should look into the history of notation. >> >> > Here are the first measures of Moonlight Sonata >> > in revised clef form: >> >> >http://members.cox.net/goodidea/ >> >> > The left hand is played as if it were written in the >> > Treble Clef except two octaves lower. >> >> Looks simple enough... now show me something containing leger lines in >> the >> left-hand's staff. > > I'm not getting your quesion. ledger lines below C at the > bottom would be just like ledger lines on a Treble Clef. > And notes above C at the top would be the same as Treble. > No wonder no one did this before, if they didn't. It's hard > to describe ... > > If you give me an address for a midi file or sheet music, > I'll put it in this form. Thanks for looking at the example. > I know it sounds nuts to think there is a new way to > notate music that no one has done before and it's simpler. > Almost scary. If it does work then I'm sure there is some > reason why it hasn't been used and someone else > already did it. But it doesn't look that way. The G and F clef are only 2 of the many more clefs in music notation. Gonna change all those, too?
Originally, I think, there were lines and that's about it. Someone removed one of the lines and the Treble and Bass staff appeared. If they had removed two lines then then the two staffs would have the same notes on them. It's pretty easy to read notes on two missing lines. It's just like above and below the current staffs. Does that make sense?
On Apr 2, 5:36 pm, "sambodidley" <> wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in messagenews:... > > > > > On Apr 2, 4:31 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >> > On Apr 2, 2:48 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >> >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >> >>> On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: > >> >>>> AKA gray asphalt wrote: > >> >>>>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > >> >>>>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > >> >>>> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two > >> >>>> hands on a piano? > > >> >>> I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't > >> >>> be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. > >> >>> Just space and the notes between the two clefs. > > >> >> Well, that would present one obvious problem: the final space below > >> >> the treble-clef part of a full staff is a D, and your suggestion > >> >> would make the first space above the bass-clef part a G. > > >> >> Are you proposing that instead of two spaces and one line in > >> >> between, there should be 9 lines and 10 spaces in there to > >> >> accomodate GABCDEFGABCDEFGABCD (that's what it would take for an > >> >> even arrangement of lines and spaces), or do you have some other > >> >> arrangement in mind that allows players to make sense of leger lines > >> >> between the upper and lower staff? > > >> >>> There isn't anything messy at all. > > >> >> You should look into the history of notation. > > >> > Here are the first measures of Moonlight Sonata > >> > in revised clef form: > > >> >http://members.cox.net/goodidea/ > > >> > The left hand is played as if it were written in the > >> > Treble Clef except two octaves lower. > > >> Looks simple enough... now show me something containing leger lines in > >> the > >> left-hand's staff. > > > I'm not getting your quesion. ledger lines below C at the > > bottom would be just like ledger lines on a Treble Clef. > > And notes above C at the top would be the same as Treble. > > No wonder no one did this before, if they didn't. It's hard > > to describe ... > > > If you give me an address for a midi file or sheet music, > > I'll put it in this form. Thanks for looking at the example. > > I know it sounds nuts to think there is a new way to > > notate music that no one has done before and it's simpler. > > Almost scary. If it does work then I'm sure there is some > > reason why it hasn't been used and someone else > > already did it. But it doesn't look that way. > > The G and F clef are only 2 of the many more clefs in music notation. Gonna > change all those, too? Yes. I think they could all be the same. I don't understand about the clefs that are played in a different key that they are written, though. Don't you think it would be cool for people to learn only one set of notes instead of two and for players of one instrument to be able to read from an arrangement for another instrument more easily? Thanks for continuing this conversation.
"AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in message news:luSIj.1474$... > Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? Besides centuries of tradition and libraries of music that would all have to be changed, you mean? ;-) But besides that, I suspect the various clefs developed for good reasons. More on that below, but first to more your your notes: > It would mean that all notes would go by the EGBDF > pattern that many of us learned. Yeah, Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge (the way I learned it) or Every Good Boy Does Fine (probably more common). But at the same time I learned that, at the age of 4, I also learned Good Boys Deserve Fudge Always (i.e. GBDFA, the "F clef", or bass clef lines) and "All Cats Eat Good" (i.e. ACEG, the bass clef spaces). It's not rocket science, and you get used to it really quickly if you're using it. I found the notation you gave as an example of your idea disconcerting because, even without the little bass clef sign, my inclination, after 40-some years of playing piano, is to read the notes as being bass clef in that position. Of course, even with normal piano notation, sometimes things go up high for the left hand, and get treble clef notation, but then there is a treble clef down there to make it clearer, too, and it is relatively rare, and mostly confined to relatively small sections of songs that need to use it. > There would have to be two lines between the Treble > and new Bass clef so it wouldn't be THAT easy, but it > would be a lot easier than the way it is now for people > just starting and like me who just didn't ever get past > the Treble Clef. So you're suggesting we should change centuries of tradition in notation, which all piano players have had to get used to, as well as trombone players, tuba players, and various other low instruments, because there are people out there who had troubles learning the extra clef? And what about the alto and tenor clefs used for other instruments, such as the viola (from memory, I think that one is alto clef, but I'm not positive on that, only that it's the C clef -- I'm not a viola player, though my daughter is, and she seemed to have no problem learning it after having already learned the treble clef back when she played violin)? Do we need to change those, too, for the "clef-challenged"? ;-) Maybe while we're at it, we should change the rules of basketball so those of us who can't sink a basket worth beans can just walk over and drop it in something at the height of a wastebasket? ;-) But setting aside the notion that a system that's been used for centuries should be changed to suit some number of people who have difficultly learning that system, it is worth considering why these systems may have developed, and what benefits come from using multiple clefs. I'm going to start with the one the viola uses, because, when I first saw that, it struck me as ludicrous. Why would viola players, most of whom started out as violinists, be forced to learn a new clef that very few other instruments used? And it's only something like a step off in where notes reside from the treble clef, too. I fact, the way I learned to read parts written for viola to play them on a piano to help my daughter learn parts at times was to mentally transpose up the notes I was seeing. However, if you look at the parts the instruments are playing, and where the open strings of the viola sit in relation to the clef it uses (e.g. the highest string, the A string, sits right on top of the clef, while the lowest string, the C string, sits just below the first ledger line below the clef -- where a B below middle C would sit on a treble clef), it seems to fit comfortably, and the general parts written for the instrument tend to stay within reasonably readable positions on the staff. I'm not so sure it would be all that much worse if they were just forced to use the treble clef, but it would be slightly worse on the bottom end. With the piano, though, one of the nice things about the treble clef/bass clef arrangement is that the clefs both arrange themselves around middle C. It is one ledger line down from the treble clef and one ledger line up from the bass clef, and a grand staff puts it right in the middle. Going down for lower right hand parts usually keeps the number of ledger lines reasonable, as does going up for higher left hand parts. Also, within the relatively comfortable ranges for normal playing, for example on the bass end, if you consider, for example what notes would correspond to clean-sounding bass notes similar to the range of a bass guitar, for example, you are also keeping the number of ledger lines below the bass clef staff fairly reasonable, and that is also true above the treble clef staff on the high end. When you shift the normal left hand playing range to a double octave-down treble clef, though, that is not true. While you get to deal with less ledger lines going down for low notes, you have to deal with an unwieldy number of them when going up for high notes. You've also lost the symmetry of the staff placement around middle C, creating an awkward crossover between staves, with middle C up on the second ledger line above the double octave-down treble clef. I suppose I could also ask the question that, if you're trying to simplify things here, why not just make one grand staff that runs everything together, so you don't have to worry about clefs at all, just keep track of relative positions of notes or some such thing? Of course, that would make it very tough to read because keeping track of where something is would become much more difficult than when you only have 5 lines and four spaces in each hand, and a few ledger lines above and below, to help you home in on the predominant range of those two hands. Or maybe we should just all get used to reading piano rolls? After all, that would create no rigid note length restrictions, ledger lines would be a thing of the past, no one would ever have to remember line and space letter correspondences, etc. And some people never learn to read even treble clef notation, so why should we disadvantage them? ;-) The fact is, people do write octave-shifted music, in both clefs, all the time, when it is convenient to use those. For example, lead sheets and sheet music for songs sung by male singers are almost always written in the treble clef, with the idea that the actual notes sung are one octave down from the notated value. And the 8va, 16va, and equivalent octave down shifting marks are also frequently found when they make music for an entire piece, or even just a passage from one, easier to read. IMHO, removing the symmetry from the clef arrangements for piano music would not be helpful. Of course, I've been playing piano music for decades now, but I also know, at the tender age of four, it didn't take me terribly long to learn to read treble clef and bass clef. I figure if a four year old can do it, it can't be all that difficult. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
On Apr 2, 11:05 pm, "Rick Paul" <> wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in messagenews:luSIj.1474$... > > > Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > > and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > Besides centuries of tradition and libraries of music that would all have to > be changed, you mean? ;-) > > But besides that, I suspect the various clefs developed for good reasons. > More on that below, but first to more your your notes: > > > It would mean that all notes would go by the EGBDF > > pattern that many of us learned. > > Yeah, Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge (the way I learned it) or Every Good > Boy Does Fine (probably more common). But at the same time I learned that, > at the age of 4, I also learned Good Boys Deserve Fudge Always (i.e. GBDFA, > the "F clef", or bass clef lines) and "All Cats Eat Good" (i.e. ACEG, the > bass clef spaces). It's not rocket science, and you get used to it really > quickly if you're using it. I learned Every Good Boy Does Fine > I found the notation you gave as an example of your idea disconcerting > because, even without the little bass clef sign, my inclination, after > 40-some years of playing piano, is to read the notes as being bass clef in > that position. Of course, even with normal piano notation, sometimes things > go up high for the left hand, and get treble clef notation, but then there > is a treble clef down there to make it clearer, too, and it is relatively > rare, and mostly confined to relatively small sections of songs that need to > use it. I wouldn't suggest that anyone change what works for them. This is just an alternative for people who like it. > > There would have to be two lines between the Treble > > and new Bass clef so it wouldn't be THAT easy, but it > > would be a lot easier than the way it is now for people > > just starting and like me who just didn't ever get past > > the Treble Clef. > So you're suggesting we should change centuries of tradition in notation, > which all piano players have had to get used to, as well as trombone > players, tuba players, and various other low instruments, because there are > people out there who had troubles learning the extra clef? I would much rather make it easier to make music than to keep up tradition. Isn't music the goal? OTOH I really like studying chords and stuff even though it doesn't add much to the music I try to play. > And what about > the alto and tenor clefs used for other instruments, such as the viola (from > memory, I think that one is alto clef, but I'm not positive on that, only > that it's the C clef -- I'm not a viola player, though my daughter is, and > she seemed to have no problem learning it after having already learned the > treble clef back when she played violin)? Do we need to change those, too, > for the "clef-challenged"? ;-) Well, I'm not really saying anyone should use this idea. Mostly I wanted to see if anyone had any reasons why it wouldn't work, especially if someone else had stumbled across it before I did. I think those who are talented and 'clef challenged' as you call it should be helped find a way to express their talent. I wonder if the whole thing isn't kind of right brain / left brain. > Maybe while we're at it, we should change the rules of basketball so those > of us who can't sink a basket worth beans can just walk over and drop it in > something at the height of a wastebasket? ;-) There aren't rules about music notation that I'm aware of. I don't blame you for wanting to keep things the way you learned them and I think most people will. Actually this idea, if it is even workable will probably die as the Dvorak keyboard. > But setting aside the notion that a system that's been used for centuries > should be changed to suit some number of people who have difficultly > learning that system, it is worth considering why these systems may have > developed, and what benefits come from using multiple clefs. OK. > I'm going to start with the one the viola uses, because, when I first saw > that, it struck me as ludicrous. Why would viola players, most of whom > started out as violinists, be forced to learn a new clef that very few other > instruments used? And it's only something like a step off in where notes > reside from the treble clef, too. I fact, the way I learned to read parts > written for viola to play them on a piano to help my daughter learn parts at > times was to mentally transpose up the notes I was seeing. > However, if you look at the parts the instruments are playing, and where the > open strings of the viola sit in relation to the clef it uses (e.g. the > highest string, the A string, sits right on top of the clef, while the > lowest string, the C string, sits just below the first ledger line below the > clef -- where a B below middle C would sit on a treble clef), it seems to > fit comfortably, and the general parts written for the instrument tend to > stay within reasonably readable positions on the staff. I'm not so sure it > would be all that much worse if they were just forced to use the treble > clef, but it would be slightly worse on the bottom end. Do all of the clefs fit comfortable or is this the one of many that happens to fit nicely? > With the piano, though, one of the nice things about the treble clef/bass > clef arrangement is that the clefs both arrange themselves around middle C. > It is one ledger line down from the treble clef and one ledger line up from > the bass clef, and a grand staff puts it right in the middle. Going down > for lower right hand parts usually keeps the number of ledger lines > reasonable, as does going up for higher left hand parts. Also, within the > relatively comfortable ranges for normal playing, for example on the bass > end, if you consider, for example what notes would correspond to > clean-sounding bass notes similar to the range of a bass guitar, for > example, you are also keeping the number of ledger lines below the bass clef > staff fairly reasonable, and that is also true above the treble clef staff > on the high end. For me it would be best if the D were in the middle between the staffs because it is actually the center of the keyboard. Getting out of using C seems to be a hurdle to me and maybe people would learn to transpose more quickly if the staffs were set up to match the keyboard. > When you shift the normal left hand playing range to a double octave-down > treble clef, though, that is not true. While you get to deal with less > ledger lines going down for low notes, you have to deal with an unwieldy > number of them when going up for high notes. You've also lost the symmetry > of the staff placement around middle C, creating an awkward crossover > between staves, with middle C up on the second ledger line above the double > octave-down treble clef. I'm not sure if I see that this relates to having clefs that have the same letter assignments. > I suppose I could also ask the question that, if you're trying to simplify > things here, why not just make one grand staff that runs everything > together, so you don't have to worry about clefs at all, just keep track of > relative positions of notes or some such thing? Of course, that would make > it very tough to read because keeping track of where something is would > become much more difficult than when you only have 5 lines and four spaces > in each hand, and a few ledger lines above and below, to help you home in on > the predominant range of those two hands. Wasn't the large staff the original way music was notated? They removed one line to make it easier, probably to the same arguments you raise here. It might have been better to remove two lines, though, imo. > Or maybe we should just all get used to reading piano rolls? After all, > that would create no rigid note length restrictions, ledger lines would be a > thing of the past, no one would ever have to remember line and space letter > correspondences, etc. And some people never learn to read even treble clef > notation, so why should we disadvantage them? ;-) I'm just trying to help. : -) > The fact is, people do write octave-shifted music, in both clefs, all the > time, when it is convenient to use those. For example, lead sheets and > sheet music for songs sung by male singers are almost always written in the > treble clef, with the idea that the actual notes sung are one octave down > from the notated value. And the 8va, 16va, and equivalent octave down > shifting marks are also frequently found when they make music for an entire > piece, or even just a passage from one, easier to read. IMHO, removing the > symmetry from the clef arrangements for piano music would not be helpful. > Of course, I've been playing piano music for decades now, but I also know, > at the tender age of four, it didn't take me terribly long to learn to read > treble clef and bass clef. I figure if a four year old can do it, it can't > be all that difficult. > > Rick The level of difficulty will dictate whether this idea is used. Do you use tabulature for guitar? Has that always been around? Can't guitar be played from regular staves and clefs? : -) > ======================================= > Rick Paul > Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) > Web:www.RickPaul.info > MySpace:www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic > =======================================
"AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in message news:... > On Apr 2, 11:05 pm, "Rick Paul" <> wrote: > > I wouldn't suggest that anyone change what works for them. > This is just an alternative for people who like it. > Wouldn't that be problematic in the end? If you consider notation as a language which provides common symbology for communication of musical ideas (which it is), then using a different version would limit the user's ability to reach the goal that notation was originally designed to achieve.
Without getting into a lengthy discussion there's so much more you can do, e.g. communicate, with multiple clefs than with the same notes everywhere. If your education stopped at every-good-boy-does-fine, you're missing out on a lot of good stuff. Sure your idea might make it easier/simpler for people with no/incomplete education to read a bit more music, but as soon as it needs to advance this would not cover the basics. It's hard enough for composers to communicate with the system we've got now Not dissing you. I just think'd you'd end up with the current one plus your system at best, two imperfect systems instead of just one. Have you thought about going back to school? JC or to private teacher? Advancing your music theory and advancing your music foundations in general, might cause you to agree with some of us --OR-- develop one system that's better than the one we have now -- Sue Morton AKA gray asphalt wrote: > On Apr 2, 2:07 pm, "Michael" <> wrote: >> AKA gray asphalt wrote: >>> Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef >>> and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? >> >> Because it would make an illegible mess of anything written for two >> hands on a piano? > > I must not be explaining it well. There wouldn't > be any lines between the Treble and Bass clefs. > Just space and the notes between the two clefs. > There isn't anything messy at all.
"AKA gray asphalt" wrote > It really helps me but I'm probably representative of a very > small percentage of the population. In short, do whatever works for you. Just don't expect much company. <g>
sambodidley wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" wrote >> It really helps me but I'm probably representative of a very >> small percentage of the population. > > In short, do whatever works for you. Just don't expect much company. > <g> .... and I can agree with all of these statements.
"AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in message news:43a8f814-4cf0-460b-ab9d- > I wouldn't suggest that anyone change what works for them. > This is just an alternative for people who like it. Sue Morton and BobF really gave replies that addressed this. Just to add slightly. There are basically three purposes for which I could see you, or anyone else, using notation: 1) To help you remember something you've written to play it back later. 2) To communicate your piece to other musicians working with you. 3) To communicate your piece to other musicians who aren't working with you (e.g. someone else trying to play your piece). In case #1, you can certainly use any system you're comfortable with because it really doesn't matter -- it is just your own memory aid. I frequently use really messy notation for this stuff -- sometimes even the stuff spit out by SONAR itself (shudder) -- because I'm just going to toss it out after I've played the part, and no one else will ever need to see it. And I probably know what I'm doing well enough that having even a very rough reminder of that will help me get past what I'd have forgotten without any memory aid whatsoever. In cases #2 and, especially, #3, it is a different matter. I might have been tempted to say it's a bit like trying to speak English to someone who only knows Spanish, but that's not quite the right analogy because people who are used to using the bass clef probably also know the treble clef, and piano players, where the dual clefs in use at the same time come into play, will certainly know the treble clef. Thus, a better analogy might be using job-specific lingo when working on a given type of job, rather than just speaking plain everyday language that may, for example, not be as precise, or may simply be less efficient for the purpose at hand. For example, actors in a theater are told to move "stage right" or "stage left" or "upstage" or "downstage". Why not just use the plain English "right", "left", "backward", and "forward"? Well, that would depend on the orientation of not only the actor, but also the director (or whoever is blocking the action), and there would be too much potential for miscommunication. Perhaps using the lingo makes it harder, initially, for inexperienced actors, but it is a lot more it is a lot more efficient for communicating directions once people get used to it, and actors with even a little experience get used to it rapidly. Sure, they could probably follow your directions if you used plain English to tell them what to do, but it would likely slow things down due to the inevitable "your right or my right" and "my right or stage right" sorts of ambiguities in the cases where there might be different points of reference, and just having to stop and think about if there might be ambiguities might slow things down a bit. And, as I said yesterday after looking at your example, having to read a left hand piano part in treble clef slowed me down significantly. Odds are it would do the same for the musicians in both cases 2 and 3. The difference is, you can be coaching the ones in case 2, but you have no control over those in 3. Also, if you are pushing something out to the world, it is less likely to meet resistance if the form used conforms to the expectations of the potential users. You'd have to change their expectations to overcome resistance to your non-standard method of communications, and what reason would they have to want to do that? Maybe if you had an extremely compelling piece that was only available in that form of notation, but, even then, if the market were big enough, someone would probably just convert it to standard notation to make it easier for people to use. > I would much rather make it easier to make music than to > keep up tradition. Isn't music the goal? OTOH I really like > studying chords and stuff even though it doesn't add > much to the music I try to play. But it doesn't make it easier to make music, other than possibly for some beginners. As I suggested in my notes from yesterday, it would actually make it harder to read much standard piano music because of the number of ledger lines that would have to be read (and those are one of the hardest things to read quickly when reading music, once they get beyond two or three ledger lines, which you'd certainly do commonly if using a what you are suggesting). Sue's thoughts on needing to learn a bit more to be comfortable with new things are right on the money. If you're only playing right hand music, like sometimes is the case for beginning piano players (I actually learned both pretty early in the game with the method I used -- Theodore Presser), then knowing only the treble clef may be okay, but, when you get to learning left hand music, any teaching method in common use will be introducing the bass clef right away, so anyone learning to play even elementary piano music will have learned it. > I think those who are talented and 'clef challenged' as you call it > should be helped find a way to express their talent. I wonder if the > whole thing isn't kind of right brain / left brain. There are many who are talented and notation challenged in general, who just play by ear. That includes many professional, world class musicians. And instrumentalists who play treble clef only instruments and do read music, wouldn't likely have to know bass clef anyway. But any musicians who do play bass clef instruments, or mixed clef instruments (mainly keyboards), would also have learned the bass clef early on, so it's really hard for me to see your point here. Perhaps reading music in general does have a bit of right brain/left brain stuff going. I also think the earlier you learn something that is initially a left brained sort of thing, which reading notation initially certainly has to be, the better the odds it will be indoctrinated to the degree that it becomes intuitive, and thus a right brain sort of thing. I learned to read music very early -- at the age of four, very likely before I even learned to read English as my hazy memory of that far back suggests we didn't really start learning to read until the first grade, and I can definitely place myself playing Christmas carols from mixed clef notation for my kindergarten class. It is a very intuitive thing for me to do at this stage, though certain types of notational conventions do require thought. Mostly those are complex conventions that I don't use very much, but something like a bunch of ledger lines, where the "picture", if you will, gets less distinct, can slow me down to the point of needing to count how many there are in some cases, whereas stuff that stays within the staves or within 2-3 ledger lines above or below doesn't make me think at all. I don't even think I really think in terms of note names, but rather just what I play -- i.e. it is more of a notation to note played connection than a notation to note name to note played connection. > There aren't rules about music notation that I'm aware of. I don't > blame you for wanting to keep things the way you learned them > and I think most people will. Actually this idea, if it is even > workable will probably die as the Dvorak keyboard. Actually, there are lots of rules about music notation. I've got a few books on the subject that I purchased to help me learn orchestration and transcription beyond what comes intuitively from four decades of reading music and playing piano and other instruments. There are even rules for when you do things like use stems going up and down. While no one's going to crucify you if you violate such rules, and there are even cases where you may want to intentionally violate them, the "rules", which are more documentation of customs than "laws", are basically about making things easily readable, and hopefully sight readable, for trained musicians. Without conventions, communication becomes much more inefficient. I think that is also why the Dvorak keyboard died. Had it come around at a much earlier time, perhaps it would have become the defacto keyboard. But years of QWERTY keyboard experience from typewriters through computers has resulted in most everyone who uses a keyboard regularly being relatively comfortable with that keyboard. And consider what would happen if half the world had Dvorak and half the world had QWERTY. You'd go to use your friend's computer and all of a sudden you'd be reduced from a 70 wpm typist (or whatever rate you're at) to a hunt and peck typist. That is pretty much exactly what my reaction to your example notation was. I had to stop and think about what note I was reading, as you'd broken the automatic connection that had become intuitive over my years of experience. > Do all of the clefs fit comfortable or is this the one of many > that happens to fit nicely? I couldn't say, but I didn't pick the viola as an example because it fit nicely. Rather I picked it because it used a clef that is much less common, so not likely to be known except by people who play the specific instruments that use it. I do know, however, that some other instruments do use octave shifting to make them fit more comfortably within the staves for the clefs they use. For example, I'm reasonably sure the piccolo is one of those, writing notes on the treble clef and octave down from how they sound, so the parts fit more comfortably within the staff. I also seem to remember the tuba goes in the other direction, writing the parts an octave up (in the bass clef) to avoid excess low ledger lines. > For me it would be best if the D were in the middle between the staffs > because it is actually the center of the keyboard. Getting out of > using > C seems to be a hurdle to me and maybe people would learn to transpose > more quickly if the staffs were set up to match the keyboard. While I've never counted notes on a piano to have even considered the concept of the absolute middle position, I do think there is good reason why we start out with this concept of "centering", if you will, on middle C, when learning piano. In fact, perhaps multiple reasons. One is that, in the spirit of "one thing at a time" to learn, when reading notes, playing in the key of C avoids accidentals, and C is obviously the root note in the C scale. Also, most of us have five fingers in each hand, and beginning piano music also generally starts with learning the right hand slightly before putting both hands together. Thus placing the thumb of the right hand on the root note of the key of C makes a lot of sense. That can therefore be the landmark that helps all navigation to other points. For example, the book I used started out with little exercises that only used the notes C through G, conveniently allowing you to place one finger on each note, without having to move your hand at all, and thus starting to develop some initial multiple fingering techniques, thus resisting any hunting and pecking urges. (That method also started out placing the fingers of the left hand on the C through G an octave below, but, of course, with the pinky on C and the thumb on G. This allowed for both unison exercises and finger number exercises to allow for keeping with a "one thing at a time" sort of variation before getting to true note and finger independence between the hands. And that part could be done without even introducing notation, since they could just print the letter or the finger number.) Another is simply the general point in the overall range of the scale where things start to divide up in terms of where you can more easily get away with playing closely voiced chords, versus playing more widely voiced chords or individual notes or octaves. While there may not be an absolute borderline in that sort of consideration, middle C tends to be a reasonable sort of dotted line border, beyond which going lower sometimes does and sometimes doesn't work, depending on context, whereas most everything above it does work (bad taste in note combinations' excepted, of course). > Wasn't the large staff the original way music was notated? > They removed one line to make it easier, probably to the > same arguments you raise here. It might have been better > to remove two lines, though, imo. I don't know the history of it, but you may be right. I've only seen the grand staff in my first piano book, and it was never actually used, just mentioned, probably in demonstrating something like the symmetry of the treble and bass clefs around it. And it definitely does make things easier to read to keep the space between clefs, not to mention also making it easier to notate what parts are meant to be played with each hand, since the staff used can show that, leaving you free to use note stem direction for legibility, whereas I'd guess that, in a grand staff, you'd be forced to use note stem direction to show which hand is intended (i.e. if you wanted to show that). I have to disagree, though that it would have been better to have removed more lines. See my note above about middle C and the natural "dotted line" boundary with respect to closely voiced chords. This also relates to the number of ledger lines you get when going up from the bottom staff or down from the top staff. For example, when going down from the treble clef you can still have two ledger lines when going down to a G, and that is extremely readable, while also being still pretty likely to work in closely voiced chords. Going down further gets you further and further away from both considerations, with E still not being horrendous on the readability, and starting to push the borders on fit in closely voiced chords toward sounding like mud. If you go down to C, though, readability starts going to hell, and you're much more likely to start sounding like mud, and when you go down below that, you're really at the point of needing, for most purposes anyway, to use octaves or at least wider intervals. Of course, your argument is more in the other direction, but I'd maintain that it is fairly common to want to be able to go up to at least a G with the left hand, for example to play a closely voiced C chord, and that is around the limit of fairly easy readability with a bass clef, but beyond the point of easy readability if using the double octave-down treble clef. > Do you use tabulature for guitar? Has that always been > around? Can't guitar be played from regular staves and clefs? I don't play guitar very well, and the one book I started trying to learn from early on used a treble clef, shifted an octave up from where the notes sounded, to notate the music. This was back when I was a teen or preteen (it was my brother's guitar and book), and I have no clue if tablature was in common use back then. I find tablature tough to read, but I'm not a guitarist, so that is a fairly meaningless statement. ;-) In general, I think one of the things that stymies me in learning to play the guitar is that there isn't the sort of direct correspondence between notes and hand positions that exist with the piano, so, for me, it is counter-intuitive. I hear good guitar players talking about positions and shapes, and I know from the little guitar I do play that you more or less have to get used to those to get to a point where the guitar would start becoming intuitive. But the musician in me wants to play notes, not shapes or patterns or positions. When I hear, say, "CEG" (i.e. a C major chord) in my head, I want to play CEG, which my hands easily do on a piano or keyboard. But I have to put my fingers in a pattern to play that on a guitar, and the pattern is not really intuitive because of the way the strings are arranged. By contrast, I think guitar players tend not to think of playing CEG, but playing a C chord in a certain position, and what eventually becomes intuitive to them is the finger positions/patterns for certain types of chords, perhaps even somewhat independent of the root of the given chord to a degree, with the actual notes being somewhat incidental to the whole thing. This is also the sort of thing that tends to give me grief with the Nashville number system (which I tend to think is oriented mainly at guitarists, even though keyboard players end up using it, too). I am very fast at transposing in my head from the key of C to the key of G, for example, when I read music. But if I have to read a 1 chord or 6m chord, and just play it in any given key, I have to stop and think what number is what note in that key. (I suspect even many piano players don't transpose as readily in their heads, but I probably started to develop that part of what is intuitive to me by doing a bunch of orchestrations for non-C instruments, such as Bb clarinets and trumpets, back when I was in high school, and then just getting used to it for transposing sheet music from the key it was written in to the key that was most comfortable for me to sing it in.) Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
AKA gray asphalt wrote: > For me 'middle D' might be better situated > in the middle of the clef, if possible. "middle D > means, to me, that the D is symetrically in the > middle of the group of keys C thru E and just > looks like the 'middle' key. Your perspective seems to be somewhat myopic. Notation was invented long before the pianoforte or harpsichord, and it has _nothing_ to do with where the C key sits on a keyboard. -- Gary R. Hook ________________________________________________________________________ Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
Tell me the truth. Is this thread an April Fool's joke? -- Dave Burns Lowell, MA "AKA gray asphalt" <> wrote in message news:luSIj.1474$: > Why not just replace the Bass clef with a Treble Clef > and indicate that the notes are played 2 octaves lower? > > It would mean that all notes would go by the EGBDF > pattern that many of us learned. > > There would have to be two lines between the Treble > and new Bass clef so it wouldn't be THAT easy, but it > would be a lot easier than the way it is now for people > just starting and like me who just didn't ever get past > the Treble Clef.
Because something is conventional, such as traditional notation, of course that doesn't mean there isn't something 'better' (subjective!) to be developed and adopted. Getting 'the masses' to accept something new, however, almost always requires widespread and majority *rejection* of the old, so that change is wanted and embraced. Since conventional notation enjoys widespread *acceptance*, regardless of potential difficulty for people at various levels of music education, it is possible but not probable that a marked change in notation standards would be embraced. The DVORAK/QWERTY keyboard evolution already mentioned, is one example. A widely accepted convention is a large mountain that is difficult to move So. A broad and well rounded beginning music education is not only useful, but creates a solid foundation on which further levels of difficulty can be built. No person with two years of piano study is expected to pick up an orchestral score for the Boston Pops and understand it fully and completely, or even be able to sight-read it all. But the education can continue and the foundations built upon and enhanced, rather than *replaced*, to the point where that long-ago two year student is now the conductor of that orchestra. It is human nature to want to learn and build basics that can be enhanced to any potential, and not to learn an alternate that may be easy in the beginning, but must be abandoned and the skill re-learned in order to advance. Any new form of notation should be prepared to replace the current form in entirety or it stands little chance of acceptance (IMO). -- Sue Morton
"Sue Morton" <> wrote in message news:UbrJj.188$... > Because something is conventional, such as traditional notation, of course > that doesn't mean there isn't something 'better' (subjective!) to be > developed and adopted. Getting 'the masses' to accept something new, > however, almost always requires widespread and majority *rejection* of the > old, so that change is wanted and embraced. Yea, like those bilinear keyboards they came out with many years ago. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.spectralmusic.com/sotorrio keyboard/accordion.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.spectralmusic.com/sotorriokeyboa rd/bilinearchromatickeyboard.htm&h=252&w=395&sz=155&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=W1jd H9Pe4Gm08M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalternate%2Bpiano%2Bkeyboard %2Bdesigns%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff Poly
