Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:00:44 +1300
From: "G maj"
Subject: Re: ASCII Tab Idea

> > Mike Will said:
> > >Standard notation has many problems of its own;
> it's not the perfect be-all-end-all of music notation.
> >
> > "Problems"? Care to elaborate on what these problems
> are?
>
> Well, I know I've stepped in it now.
>
> One weakness is that standard notation's time/rhythm
> notation is relative. You don't know _when_ a
> particular note is supposed to be played unless you
> "add up" all preceeding durations of notes and
> rests. You only know how long you're supposed to hold
> the current note/rest. Good style in writing standard
> notation does take this into account making the beats
> easier to see.

> Usually, it's not the note names that are the big
> problem in learning to read standard notation.
> Reading the timing is usually more difficult.

So what was wrong with the alternative I put forward? It works for diato &
chromatic as well as a generic music score... and fits ASCII.

8<
> Bottom line, I think a better "standard"
> (non-standard?) notation convention could be devised.

Yeah, so what about my previous submission? Me me me me!! ;)

> BUT, the overwhelming drawback is all
> the music already written in conventional notation,
> and the inertia involved with all those who already
> know standard notation. An analogy might be the
> QWERTY keyboard, which was designed to slow down
> typing speeds so that old mechanical typewriters
> wouldn't get fouled up.

Also placed by the likelyhood that two arms wouldn't be used one after the
other based on probability... in otherwords, the opposite of an ideal
keyboard setup.

> I forget the name of an alternate keyboard
> layout that is optimized for speed.

Dvorak

> I've read that a
> good typest can learn the new layout is a few hours,
> and from then on be able to type much faster.. but we
> don't see widespread adoption of the new layout.

Except that it takes but a minute to setup under Windows operating systems.
You don't need a special keyboard. You can place stickers on the keys, swap
the keys around, or do what I've done and simply blank the keys out.

It took me three days to memorise the keyboard, three weeks to get back up
to full speed and three more weeks to be able to swap between QWERTY &
Dvorak at a moments notice. I've been using both interchangably since
December 2001 (last year). I've been a touch typist for about 10 years,
and I recommend any touch typist to make the effort to swap over, its a lot
easier & quicker on the hands. As a sufferer of RSI this is important to
me.

> > Seems to me people for centuries have managed to use
> it to notate music a
> > heck of a lot more complex than most harmonica
> tunes. Beethoven and Duke
> > Ellington come to mind immediately for me.
>
> Sure. For centuries horse and buggy were just fine
> for transportation. For centuries pen and paper were
> the best way to have written documentation, and the
> post office was the best way to get writings from one
> person to another. Just because it's always
> been done one way doesn't necessarily mean that way is
> best.

You should see how computers of the future are going to be manufactorerd.
:o)

At any rate you'll find

has many many music notation suggestions.
But I reckon my suggestion or ABC are the best for ASCII music notation. :)
"Me me me!" I say

> I object to
> the "most people" part because 1) how do you know what
> "most people" do or don't do? In my experience, no
> diatonic player, with the possible exception of
> Howard, forgets about the hole numbers just because
> they can read standard notation. Granted the hole
> numbers
> may be used for different purposes, but reading
> standard notation is not the limiting factor. The
> limiting factor is complete familiarization with the
> note layout of each different key harp.

> Chris M writes about his goal of learning all 12 harp
> key layouts and reading music as written (without
> transposition) on any key harp. Not many players can
> do that, even if they're intimately familiar with
> standard notation.

I have similar goals, except with altered tuned chromatics and another
instrument. Transposition while reading is a skill I would like to learn as
well... all in good time.

Hole designation also gives you more information on EXPRESSIVE
possibilities. Bends, double stops, etc. quite important really. If you
are wanting to emulate a person's style, or mimick a song as it was played
this becomes an important point.

> I believe there's a better way to go. I think that
> learning the note layout for one "generic" harp and
> learning the musical relationships among all the keys
> (so transposition can be done in real-time) is
> probably a shorter path to the same goal, and yeilds
> the benefit of enhanced musical knowledge and
> understanding, as
> opposed to learning a great deal of harp-only specific
> stuff.

In Jazz I'm learning the use of digital notes.
1 2b 2 3b 3 4 5b 5 5# 6 7b 7 which makes transposition of a melody, motif or
riff very simple head work assuming you're perfectly at home with all
scales, chords and what have you.... theres the catch. But its well worth
learning.

> but you [ironman] show
> the hole numbers associated with the harp key that
> gives you the notes corresponding to the music key.

I'm not sure IronMan is the person to be arguing points about diatonic music
notation & tab when he has several times stated he only plays a Lee Oskar
key of C with valves. His view is unique, but not shared "by most people"
or "many people".

[MyQ sed]
> I think you're mixing two distinct issues. I know a
> fair amount of music theory, but that doesn't mean I
> know what the notes are in the different holes of
> differently tuned harmonicas. I can figure it out,
> certainly, but I don't know it just because I know
> music theory.

Plently of practice would sort this little hiccup out.

[MyQ sed]
> They/we don't know it because we
> haven't learned it, independent of what music theory
> knowledge we have. You also seem to be mixing a
> knowledge of music theory with an abiility to read
> standard notation. I don't think they're the same
> thing.

Takes a different mind set and different practise routines to burn into
one's brain & body. I set aside music reading time as a part of my
practise, and its quite a different experience to other practises for me.

[MyQ sed]
> I'm all for knowing as much music theory as possible.

I'm all for knowing as much music theory is appropriate for any person.
Once I read
"how much music theory is enough?
just enough and no more."

That sits right with me. Its really a matter of what works for each
individual, once it becomes theory for theory's sake and not useful in
practise for a musician... well they may want to question what they would
rather spend their time doing... learning more theory or practise?

8<
> I just don't think it's fair to characterize the use
> of hole numbers as something only for beginners whose
> usefulness is gone once you know how to read standard
> notation, and I disagree that "most people" don't need
> the numbers after they know how to read. I knew how
> to read long before I started playing harp, but that
> didn't/doesn't make hole number useless.
>
> Mike Will

I tend to agree with Mike's last point... although the reasons I agree may
differ on the specifics.

G maj