JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Music Theory and Education A Question About Music Notation in the Future

Hi Folks,

I was thinking earlier today about the fact that almost no children in their public education get any exposure/education on music notation. Even in my generation (I am 39) I never had a single day of lessons on how to read or write or understand music notation. Now, 21 years later, that lack of music education is even more prevalent where many school systems have no music teachers at all and those that do generally only teach music notation to those in band etc.

When we have kids graduating who are functionally illiterate (we have adults who come through here sometimes that can't form a complete sentence) how can we hope that many will have any knowledge of music notation? The answer, it seems to me, is none.

So.. if that is the case, I want to pose a question. Music notation has been relatively unchanged for a long time (as far as I am aware.. those of you with formal music educations please chime in), would there be a way to simplify written music for a new generation? In other words, if you could update the way music is written for the 21st century, how could/would you go about it? I don't want to get into an argument about if it would be the right thing to do or not.. I am more curious about those who have expertise in this subject and what they might do to update or alter the way it's done now to make it even more accessible to a new generation. Or.. is the way it's done now simply perfect without room for improvement?

Mike? Bob? Anyone else?

Brian

Brian, I am 52 and I was never taught to read music in school. I learned to read music when I studied piano, guitar and then later in college. In my area, Band and private lessons were where children learned to read and not in the elementary schools.

Music education is alive and well in other countries who value the Arts more than this country does.

I don't see it changing in the near future. People just need to learn to read it.

If you want to talk extreme future however, I think music may eventually go totally synthetic. We'll tell the computers what we want and it will play whatever sounds we want. We do that now of course but the sounds will be better and possibly not even based on real instruments. The computers will more than likely be operated by electrical impulses from our brains via some sort of sensor device. I also think that music will be tied into visual art as well and the two combined will create musical sculptures and fill the room with color and shapes etc.. It may even evolve into sensory experiences. We will actually be able to think what we hear in our heads.

Just a theory but I think something like that will happen.

JeanB

[This message has been edited by AKA JeanB (edited 01-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by AKA JeanB (edited 01-25-2004).]

I think it would be pretty hard to improve on standard music notation and here's why.

Standard notation has been so prevalent in western music, the music itself has evolved and developed within the confines and nuances of notation. Portamento is the only major device I can think of ( see the thread in this forum for a discussion on portamento ), that is not easily and accurately represented by standard musical notation.

The number system is inadequate to express melody. Tablature is specific to certain instruments. There have been other attempts, like shape notes, neumes, syllables, and figures, to visually communicate music, but none as complete and efficient as standard notation.

What are its drawbacks: for one, the inability to accurately transcribe microtonality, which covers, as I've mentioned, portamento. Another drawback would be the expression of swing feel that moves between "straight eighths" and a "shuffle." In both cases, it is the ability to express playing "in the cracks," so to speak. I don't know how one could convey these nuances without losing the convenience and simplicity of standard notation.

I'm going to look at Indian and Middle Eastern notation, their musics require the expression of microtonality, maybe they have something we could borrow.

Basically, though, I feel standard notation is to Western music as the alphabet is to English. The development and evolution of the language has been inextricably linked to the alphabet. The development of Western Music has also been inextricably linked to standard notation. Some alternative notation would have to share so many chores with standard notation, that I imagine it would only be different, not better.

As far as the instruction of music in schools, things changed drastically when recording was invented. In the past, if there was going to be music taught, there was no alternative to using standard notation to teach it. Now, every school has several cd players and radios. You don't even need a teacher, the Sesame Street characters can teach the kids to sing along. This is a profound change, not only on the education of music, but on music itself. Years ago, the most popular song in America was probably a folk song. Today, the most popular song in America is not only a song written by one or a few persons, it is one arrangement and, indeed, one PERFORMANCE! As obvious as this is, it as an astounding sociological phenomenon.

So, my vote is to have more music programs in schools. The MENC, the Music Educators National Conference, is a great resource and proponent of this. Maybe we could work with them? I, from my perspective as a dilletente, would be in favor of children learning standard notation reinforced by a (not the) number system. This would mean more music teachers, more music training for general teachers, and more music programs in schools.

Great thread, Brian, let's see where it goes.

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Brian,

Great question!

As a child, I had wonderful music education in elementary school...I lived in a few states ( Michigan and Maryland) that had strong music programs -which DID include music notation.

As an adult, I have taught music to all ages of kids for the last 25 years. I include music notation as part of my curriculum, so that kids who don't know the first thing about notation come out of my program knowing a minimum amount of reading music.

I firmly believe in teaching music notation the way it is - "if it ain't broke , don't fix it!!" The system is timeless and doesn't need to be changed, IMHO.
However, the way it is presented needs to be appropriate for the age that is learning it.
I have been amazed at how quickly students learn to read music if it is taught in a fun atmosphere!

However, as all of you know, funding for elementary music is a real struggle. Even in the affluent public school district that I have worked with for 15 years, my program constantly appears on lists for budget cuts.

One of my professional goals as a music educator is to increase my students' cultural literacy. I integrate music appreciation, music notation, choral singing,
composers and their works, performance and
basic rhythm instruments into my program. I am lucky that I receive more funding than some music programs do.

There are state mandated music text books that we use ( Sliver Burdett and Ginn) - Some districts in CA use the ones by McGraw and Hill - Both are beautifully written and inlcude components of music curriculum that I described above.

One of the saddest aspects of the decrease in formal elementary music programs is that less and less kids will end up participating in choral and instrumental music programs in middle and high school, and many will be culkturally illiterate, unless they are fortunate enought to get arts experiences outside of school...

In middle and high school funding, choral and instrumental music is often funded by the district because it is considered part of the "core" program...But, in elementary, classroom music is not mandated by the state -very little is - outside of academic subjects...

Over the course of my career, I have helped to train classroom teachers to integrate music into their lessons for English and Social Studies, written music curriculum guides ( which include music notation!)and taught thousands of kids of all ages.

I would like to think I have made a difference in the cultural literacy of these
people!

Support your local public schools' arts programs!!!!

Emily

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

Jean,

The problem I see with the fact that schools aren't even making music education available and that kids have to take private lessons is that as a kid (and even later as a teen) my family couldn't afford music lessons or an instrument. So what we have is music has become the domain of the privileged only. Rich/upper income class kids for the most part get lessons (and often hate them) while all the others are left out, even if they have a burning passion for music.

We have new types/styles of music developing out of these impoverished situations that have really removed melody and standard types of music creation from the past in favor of lyrical (it costs nothing to write words down, or simply memorize them), and rhythms from songs on the radio. That's a big part of why Rap is now among the most widely influential music forms. Rap artists have no need for music notation and have invented a style that ensures they probably never will. What would those same creative people have done if they had an easy to access/learn system to write melodies and more musical passages? Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything.. but I have a feeling we'd probably have more brilliant/timeless writing in the vein of Mozart in the world versus the vocal/rhythmic ramblings of 50 Cent. (Who, by the way, sent us a video for the awards this year.. hahaha).

Ironically, computer use has actually done more to teach young people proper word usage and spelling than the schools have done in the past 20 years. People had lost the art of writing until it became the only way to communicate in the last 10 years due to email and the internet. However, as communication skills in language are improving due to IM's and Email, ironically, the art/skill of writing notation and music theory are disappearing just as quickly. Technology encourages text communication, but discourages written music communication.

Perhaps the "new" music theory should be a written language using the Alphabet (and the keys on the average computer) as the characters going forward? That's what I had in mind when I made this post. I think we should be able to type and write musical notation directly and easily from our QWERTY keyboard. THAT would bring notation and theory back to the masses and make it accessible.

Thoughts?

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 01-25-2004).]

Brian, we can already type in musical notation on the keyboards. Finale, Siblelius and other notation programs allow the user to do that. You can use a mouse to enter notes as well. The music plays back for you as you have notated it.
You can compose with the software and you don't even need to play an instrument.

You can learn rather quickly to notate properly because of the playback. You then alter the notes and rests until the music is the way you want it.

Autoscore and I think some other programs now allow you to sing into a microphone and the program will notate it for you. (You need to be somewhat on key, though.) Although I read music at an intermediate level, when I began using Finale, it helped me to improve my reading skills.

Jean


Oh, and I am not completely sure about this because I don't have the new Finale upgrade but I think you can now tap the rhythm of the notes out on the spacebar and then place the notes in the right places on the staff. Don't quote me on that though because I read through that part of the new features blurb kind of fast.



[This message has been edited by AKA JeanB (edited 01-25-2004).]

Jean-

You are right - there are already many good computer programs that automatically notate music for you.

That's great - for people who have access to computers.

Brian, you make an excellent point about music becoming a priviledge only for the affluent.
I couldn't agree more. I think it would be wonderful for people to learn to read music on computers - it seems like the most logical way to reach people.

Bringing music education to kids who can't afford lessons is being done by a number of great organizations who devote themselves to helping underpriviledged kids learn music:
The Herb Alpbert Foundation, VH1 Save the Music, and several others that I know of...

I am distrubed by the selfishness of people who have the means to give and simply don't.
For instance, even where I work, there are parents who can not afford to buy/rent their child an instrument. ( The weekly band/orchestra classes are free, students provide the instruments).

When my son was done with his 1/2 size and 3/4 size violins, I gladly donated them to the program for students who needed a scholarships. Yes, I could have gotten money for them, but wanted to help a child who
needed those violins. MANY of the parents I know who had instruments to get rid of refused to donate them like this. What a shame...

I wish more people would take the time to donate an instrument to a school program. It makes all the difference for many children.

Emily

Brian,

I like the keyboard idea, but the problem is time. You can express, with one symbol, either a pitch or the time allotted to it. Standard music uses twelve pitches, there are twelve symbols, then you need something to express relative or real time (relative being related to a pulse, for example a half note when the quarter pulse is X number of beats per minute.)

This is the beauty part of the staff. It is the placement on the staff that gives you the pitch, the shape of the symbol that gives you the relative time, and the measure of the staff that gives you the meter. Tone and volume are easily suggested.

Music has four elements: pitch, time, volume, and tone. Having one symbol, or keystroke, represent all four would require more keys than are on a standard keyboard and the learning of such a keyboard. Now if you use a program that reproduces in real time, you may have a "do-able" thing there.

Still, I think the solution to the problem is to make music a greater part of standard classroom curriculum, even if you develop a keyboard based musical notation system.

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

[This message has been edited by Mike Dunbar (edited 01-25-2004).]

Technology has changed education in many good ways, and I believe that it will ultimately benefit music education as well.

However, there is nothing that can replace the feeling of your hands on an instrument!
We've become a socity that does so many things vicariously through the internet!

My dream is that piano instruction - and music reading - would become a standard part of elementary curriculum. Many studies have proven a strong connection between high achievement in math and other academics and music instruction.

Brian, you might want to check out the computer program that Yamaha has for the music classroom. It has many of the components that you are talking about
- teaches music elements with computers.

Unfortunately, I don't know of many schools that have the funds to invest in that type of technology...But I still think it's a great idea -

Emily


[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

Brian...

A Very good and relevant question...

I agree with Mike...standard music notation has been in place for a long time...
I don't think modifying it is the answer...
There are lots of ways to learn...computer software etc....

It used to be that everyone read except guitar players...
I see more and more young guitar players who can read...

I think standard notatrion is here to stay !

Bob

I have noticed that there are many programs for teaching music available for young people on the web, but I have also noticed a huge discrepency in schools' funding for computers.

Some districts have a computer lab AND a computer in each elmentary classroom...while others don't have a thing...

Then, there is the problem of the teachers' computer literacy; many teachers I know never thoroughly learned how to use their computers much and, as a result, aren't able to use the wonderful materials and resources that the internet can provide.

These days, many school districts are faced with millions of dollars that have to be paid in Special Education lawsuits, since many districts can not afford to provide the services recommended, so they hire outside contractors to provide special services...

Many school districts have to do this because they have been caught being out of compliance with the federal regulations for Special Education...
This is one of the reasons that public schools are in such trouble - they get less and less federal help, and each state is left to "fill in the blanks".

I don't mean to be negative here, but I just want to put a little reality into the discussion of using technology for music education, and the complex financial challenges that public schools face today.

Emily


[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-25-2004).]

Is a good question Brian.
Pretty sure the answer is no though.
I was not taught to read music at school. A little old Lady with a concentration tattoo on here arm who apparently survived the Holocost because of her harp playing, lived two dors up from us, and she taght me how to read basic music when she heard me killing a piano that happened to be in a furnished house Dad had bought for us.
I did nothing with what she taught me until I stared tryoing ot play guitar inmy mid twenties. Then not a lot.
Wasn't untill I bought the keyboard about 3 years ago, I decided it was time to get back to it.
I found I hadn't forgotten much she had taught me.
What she did teach me was enough for me to be able to go on with teaching myself, albeit the odd odd questionto these guys in here.
I do note a lot of the music teacher her, in guitar are teaching TAB and to me that is counter productive.
We do have a couple of teachers here who do in fact teach the reaql stuff, and it is usually their students I see shine in the music festival we have each year.
Today. The West Australian Libry Sysytem had an out of date book sale and I scored a Conductors manual, An electronic Composision and devices manual, and a marching band manual.
I can understand most of all of them, and know I will get a heap out of them.
All because of what that little old lady taught me in notation in the late 40s.
Thanks Miss Newbecker.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

In Ohio in 1959 we were taught some notation in the 4th grade. Then I learned a lot more when I took piano for 2 years in the 7th and 8th grade. In 9th grade I was playing baritone sax in school and the school owned the instrument. I don't know if my parents were paying a fee to rent it. I got my own used tenor sax in high school.

It saddens me no end when I hear about all the cutbacks in the arts. I think more students can learn something useful playing in the band than they can participating in sports, and nobody talks about cutting out the sports programs. Being in the marching and symphonic bands in high school was decidedly a "Mr. Holland's Opus" experience for me.

I came across an interesting speech about the future of music education at the web site of the World Association for Symphonic Band and Ensembles, which you can find at
this link . The author, Dr. Gary Hill, Director of Bands, Arizona State University,
and President, College Band Directors National Association, suggests that the way music is taught needs to change. One suggestion was for teachers to support the students in forming smaller non-traditional groups and even encouraging original composition rather than just performance of established works.

Greetings Theory Buffs. I have some rather strong opinions about the way music is taught, and teaching in general, for that matter. Having suffered at a young age (about 9, as I recall) from an inability to focus (not visually, mentally) simultaneously on the note and the staff, I think the use of color would do wonders for making standard notation more accessible. Simply color coding the lines of the staff would make it more clear which line is which. I know most of you will think that this is pointless, never having gone through the experience I describe, but to me it was real, frustrating, and emotionally painful. To help you understand the problem, I'll just say that I had to reach out with a sharp pencil tip, point to the lines, and count them in order to identify the note that was intended. It's pretty hard to play any instrument with one hand hold the sheet music, so it won't move, and the other holding a pencil, while you count lines.

So, that's my suggestion. Color coded staff lines, maybe even color coded accidentals. Who knows, there could be other uses as well.

Later,
Emmit Sycamore
sixstringsnsongs@yahoo.com

Emmit -

Lots of people have trouble understanding the complex language of music; I have heard others of all ages express their frustration with learning to read music. It's not as uncommon as you think. I taught private piano, voice and guitar for years, and
met many kids who struggled to learn
to read music...

You might be pleased to know that many
music materials today use color in creative ways - especially the way you suggested.
Many of the beginning piano books used
today use color to highlight specific notes/lines, etc.

Emily



[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-26-2004).]

That is great news! I thought, right after I posted, that beginners materials may already be available in just such a form. I'm very glad to know that has in fact begun.

Thanks for the scoop!
Emmit Sycamore
sixstringsnsongs@yahoo.com

This is terrific.

I'm all for colors, numbers, computer keyboards, smells, anything that gets it across. I still, however, haven't seen anything as efficient as standard notation, though it's not for everybody.

Personally, after majoring in music and teaching it for a while, it was only from working in the studio with numbers that I had a real epiphany (not a brand of guitar) and understanding music became much easier to me.

Children should be offered many approaches to the understanding of music. Suzuki has several games that aid in this, and his methods are old stuff by now.

Still, the problem is not the method, it's the will. People think music is free, I guess. Until music becomes a regular part in school curriculum, we'll miss out on all those young Mozarts.

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

One approach might be to teach the music first and then the notation. So there is some understanding of what music is about so you know what it is you are trying to write down or read. Like learning to converse in a foreign language before you learn the spelling rules?

I remember my first day in Spanish class in the 9th grade - not a word was written on the blackboard. And the teacher even tried to get through the period without speaking English. Just so we would get the sound of the language into our heads.

Want my 2 cents?

I think it's sad that music education is not valued more in our public school system. It was among the first programs on the chopping block when I was growing up, but I did have music class twice a week in elementary school.

Where I live now, the elementary students get music class once a week, and they are learning music notation starting in about 3rd grade. They also learn the violin in 3rd grade, and can participate in strings class the next 2 years if they have an interest. In middle school, music is an elective course, either "orchestra' or one of the choirs, but it does meet daily.

The high school music teachers have noticed a decline in the level of musicianship and in the sheer numbers of interested students at the high school level, compared to a couple of decades ago. They attribute this to a lack of exposure and training at middle and elementary schools. I think it's very sad. They have also seen that trend start to turn around.

We have not lived here long enough to have seen firsthand what was offered before, but we have been told that music and the arts were brought back into the schools after being cut. Some of the reasoning was that test scores in other subjects were better for students who studied music. I am not surprised by the higher test scores, but it would be nice if music were valued for everything it offers, which goes far beyond higher test scores.

Music is a big part of everyone's life, as far as listening to it and incorporating it into other activities. However, there is no substitute for learning to MAKE music. That is different from just listening, and I think every student should at least have the opportunity to learn to make music at some level.

I wouldn't change written music. It works really well. Keeping in mind that music is auditory, not something that really exists on paper, being able to read it is like being able to read words--it can open up a whole wide world of music the way being able to read opens a world of literature. My children have found learning to read music an easy task. I believe they got instruction on making music before learning to read it, though. I think that is best.

The children here seem to have more opportunities than some other school districts in the country that I've heard about. I hope we can bring it back full force. --Jean

Brian:
Great question. As a 40 something year-old who only began to take guitar lessons 3 years ago, my most difficult task has been learning music notation and theory. I was not forunate as a kid to have taken up music during my primary education years. I have even taught guitar and music theory to some 15 year-olds for last year and can tell you that kids pick this stuff up way easier than I can.

All that aside, I don't think understanding music theory is as hard as it looks if given sufficient time to learn it, but what I find most difficult is building the synapses in the brain required to convert the knowledge in my brain to the action required by my fingers (on guitar) to play the stuff correctly (time signatures, pauses and all the other nuances involved). If I had only learned it when I was younger and kept at it. I learn more by listening, seeing and experimenting than by memorizing charts, notation or theory. If this continues unchecked, my degree of skill in playing guitar will of course be limited at least to some degree.

So really there are two processes at work here, the theory, notes, chords, keys and time verses the application of the written music to the instrument of choice.
Perhaps my instrument should have been simpler like piano where only one finger is required to make a note ring. On guitar two fingers from (usually) different hands have to work simultaneously to make the same note. So, imagine how cumbersome this is learning to play a classical style of guitar where you are trying to play bass, chords and melody at the same time?

Nonetheless, I am happy to report that old dogs can still learn new tricks, and whatever the future holds, I think we will still need to go back to basic music notation and theory to truly understand what we are doing and how we do it. If nothing else, it has made my appreciation of music much greater and has taken out a lot of the mystery to songwriting, melody-making and given me a better understanding of the various genres of music. Sign me:

Having fun and frustrated at the same time.

Tony M.
(Growing up as a big-city kid with parents of limited means, I always thought music was for 'rich kids'. Sadly, to some degree, I think that is still true today)

tony -

You are proof of the fact that "you are never too old to learn music."

You're truly an inspriration to those who grew up without msuic training;
music is for everyone at any age!

Keep playing and singing!

Emily

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-29-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 01-29-2004).]

Tony--I agree with Emily. Keep it up!

As a pianist, I agree it's easier to start with piano because you can just press a key and get a sound. You started with an instrument that is challenging right off the bat. (Of course, if you learned piano, you would eventually graduate to playing melody, harmony, bass, and rhythm all at once on the piano, and you'd even have to use your feet at the same time! You'd also have to pay someone to tune your instrument. And, if you wanted to play somewhere besides home, you'd have to play someone else's instrument, which may sound lovely or may sound horrible! I have often wished I played something I could carry around with me!)

My advice (not that you asked for it) is be patient with yourself, and keep doing what you're doing. I don't play guitar, but I think it's a wonderful instrument with a beautiful sound and so much versatility. I'm sure you have found it rewarding as well as challenging. It's been my experience at the piano that the rewards get bigger and better as I work at it.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Have fun!! --Jean

Thinking more on this, I believe the use of colour in notation would be a step backwards as the idea of teaching the art of reading music is to in fact do that, and I believe a simple score sheet written in how it will be in any sheet music a musician may encountre when and if they progress to any higher level is best used.
The Eye trains itself to see the big picture at varying rates of knots, and to have to re-learn in higher levels that the G note is not nipple pink etc, is just anothre lesson I think is best done without.
That said. I do use colour in the scale and chord transposision chart I am developing, and that works fine.
Much easier to find evrey thing than the old black and white scale trasposision charts I developed it from.
Colour does have a place in learning.
Not in sheet musoiv in my belief.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Australian children in the New South Wales school system have some note reading instruction in years 4 to 6, and most schools have school bands which give to student the option to play an instrument, on loan. In secondary school, years 7 and 8 do a half year of music, and a half year of visual arts. Formal note reading is taught, as well as TAB for guitar players. From year 8, music can be taken as an elective subject, and becomes far more intensive.
If taken right through to year 12, the last year of High school here, music is part of the Higher School Certificate, the final examination.
As to the comments about TAB for guitar, earlier, I find it far easier to sightread notes, but my students, who have been taught both methods, prefer TABS, because they are available free from sites like OLGA and MXTabs..and sheet music is $AUD9.00 per copy.
...and when I raise to fact that it is not possible to represent the duration of the notes, the comment is "" who needs that? We already know the song, and so know how long the notes are..."' Makes sense, in a way, I guess.

""That said. I do use colour in the scale and chord transposision chart I am developing, and that works fine.
Much easier to find evrey thing than the old black and white scale trasposision charts I developed it from.
Colour does have a place in learning.."'
There is a system used for dyslexic children which uses a different colour for each note of the scale..MusicFun market this in Australia.
Of course, if you are dyslexic and colourblind....

------------------
Fucarta Non Perfecta: Carpe Cerevisi

Dont realy have a reply on the future of notation but i did see an add in a magazine for an electronic music folder. It's like a laptop for sheet music. You download your sheet music on it and set it up on your music stand! Push a button and your page turns! Very readable too. I see that being the future of music charts when you are on the go.

Yep that would be a problem Satu.
I'll look into it as soon as I get the braille verson of my scale finished.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Rereading this, I've come to think that the new notation is the midi file.

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music

Thanks for reviving this post Mike. It's a really interesting discussion. It's posts/responses/discussions like this that set our site apart from many others.

Anyone else care to chip in?

In response to one of your early responses Mike, what if the length of time you held a key down indicated the time you wanted? Would that add the dimension you'd need? And could you also use after-touch on the keyboard to express additional info?

Brian

Well. Considering, with midi, the parts of all tracks can be read and edited individualy and pretty much totally, it sure goes a long way to being something to learn Mike.
There are so many ways to read it, ans then comare what you read in the other formats, I am sure it goes a long way toward reinforcing theory.
Even for the totally devoid of basic training in the subject.
Every single note has it's duration, velocity, effect etc, attached to it to be read in some way.
I know I sure have learned a lot from reading it in all forms.

Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

You just hit on a pet peeve of mine, Emmit, since I am color blind. Ten percent of males and one percent of females have classic red/green color blindness which means, even though we do see colors, we see green and red differently from others with less intensity. Many people who are colorblind are closeted because their situation could bar them from many opportunities. They are able to keep up the deception because they learn to compensate to a degree but performance will never equal that of people who are not colorblind.

Color coding music (or anything, for that matter) would shut out approximately 5.5% of the population. That is quite a few people.


------------------
Jeannie

[This message has been edited by Lady Fitzgerald (edited 07-23-2005).]

My opinion is that adding color would make music notation needlessly more complicated.

A friend of mine, who was a very fine drummer even as an elementary school student, is color blind. It seems that with a little care, selecting colors that are unlikely to perceived by some students would be feasible. Blue, orange, yellow, and brown (tan) would be enough to fill the spaces bewteen the staves so that the positions of notes could be distinguished more easily.

If pink and pale green were used on the top and bottom spaces, even if they were seen as gray, the intervening colored spaces would provide adequate separation. In other words, it is not a problem without a solution, but it does require awareness.

Thanks for your feedback!
Emmit Sycamore


[This message has been edited by EmmitSycamore (edited 07-26-2005).]

You might not feel that way if you couldn't distinguish between the positions of notes on the staff. It is normal for those that don't suffer from a particular difficulty to fail to recognize the problem. This is very closely related to the post above, about color blindness.

I'm for trying anything that will help students get past the barriers, and get on with learning that learning is fun!


Emmit Sycamore

Fascinating discussion, folks. With the something-ly impaired in mind, how would you teach music to the tone-deaf? (It can be done. I did learn music. But it wasn't easy. I'd like to know if there's an easier way.)

Joe
www.soundclick.com/bands/7/joewrabekmusic.htm

If you change music notation in order to teach someone how to play, you have to assume that they'll either scrap the traditional way entirely or learn it later.
If you assume they'll learn it later, you're making them learn two systems instead of one.
There's no reason to do that. Traditional music notation isn't unduly difficult. My goddaughter was sight-reading simple melodies and chords on the piano by the time she was five.
The issue is access and exposure, not simplicity. People now are no stupider than they've ever been.

If you assume they're going to scrap the old system, then they're going to need someone to "translate" everything that's been written before or they won't be able to play it. It's much simpler in the long run to learn the traditional system.

Also, the theory that has evolved around the traditional system is a very powerful tool for communicating ideas about how music is structured. If the simpler system didn't do that, an awful lot would be lost.

It would be a good idea for someone to develop software that allows for colors in reading music for those who need it. But, once again, the idea that the whole world is going to adopt that is not true.
If you count on colors for spotting accidentals, for example, you're going to be behind when you have music in front of you that isn't colored.

I think the best music education for kids is getting them to love music and understand that they can do it before you ever introduce them to written music.(That's why guitar is so popular. You can learn chord figures and bang out music without having a clue why your fingers are where they are.)
Whether that's Suzuki or unison choirs or whatever. Dance! Make percussion instruments out of whatever's in your mother's grocery bag. Whatever.
Love making music and learning to read notation is like eating ice cream.

I am now using colour when making my Karaoke backing tracks.
I don't do the rolling colour change most used in karaoke as I find it very hard to get it in syc with the music.
Rather, I put the first section up in one colour, and the next in another and do this through the whole song.
I found using one colour throught, I was having trouble registering the new bit had arrived and adjusting my eyes to it.
The swaps of colour fixed this no sweat and so well, I am re-doing the early made ones.
By the way.
I now make my karaoke tracks before doing a demos sing, and do these to the karaoke tracks as it is way easier to have no paper for the lyric or another window open.
Once the sing is done, I then delete the backing only in the karaoke track and insert the sing one so i have both a karaoke track and a sing with the lyric coming up to play on the DVD or puter at home to practice enough I actually learn my words which has always been a hassle for me.
Colour has it's p[lace in things for sure.
GRaham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

I like that, Graham.

I've been playing a lot of bluegrass lately. It seems to be learned primarily by ear. It's a very complicated style with many rules and a need for great speed (I can only keep up on the bass.)

Perhaps playing "by ear" could be thought of as a form of notation?

Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music

This is a fascinating thread. (He says 27 months after the last post).

I'll just background my path then share some observations.

I learned to play by ear from 9 to 19. I then had a few classical guitar lessons, then got sprung when I read music with my ears. The teacher changed some notes on the music and I was caught out. And lessons stopped abruptly.

Then for another 10 years I played by ear.

Then I learn to read notation on guitar at a guitar school. Then I learned notation even deeper when I studied arranging and wrote scores of charts for 25 instruments I don't play.

After that period I finished up with a forensic grasp of notation that helped me earn a living as a teacher, arranger and player.

Now for some observations about people I frequently deal with: guitar students.

The biggest difficulty that todays guitar learner has is in relating the music they HEAR in everyday life to notation symbols they SEE on the paper.

Especially when they see that music performed **without** any notation on MTV, YouTube and elsewhere.

To cut a long story short, in my experience, guitar players are being asked to read a language "they do not speak".

I don't know anyone who can read languages they can't speak. Do you?

So the question becomes: what language do you speak to represent music they hear?

One thing I noticed over all the rehearsals I've been to over the years is that parts are most efficiently explained to people with "scatting".

Scatting is a verbal system, right? Highly idiosyncratic! But what would happen if the verbal system was standardised? So that each word had only one rhythm meaning and only one notation?

Well, they verbalise music in South India. They verbalise pipe tunes in Scotland to learn them.

Long story short. I created a rhythm language that is concise, comprehensive with no ambiguity or duplication. It uses phonemes native to the English language (actually five vowels and six consonants). Vowels represent rhythm duration. Consonants represent rhythm position.

One of the beauties is that these vowels and consonants create specific words. Each specific word corresponds to notation. Example: dababo ALWAYS writes as 8th 8th quarter or quaver, quaver, crotchet.

So there is now a totally reliable correspondence between sight and sound. Between ear and eye.

An example.

I have taught big groups of people very quickly to read notation. If it's a half hour session they each have a rhythm word as their name and they are going to a cocktail party where they have to pair off, tell each other their name (in time) then move on.

Then they get in groups of four and do the same thing. Then groups of eight. Then back to four, back to two and then stop.

Then in the last ten minutes, I'll refer to a song they know, make monosyllabic rhythm sounds and ask for the "owner" of that rhythm who will say the rhythm (use dababo example again) which I write on the board.

Sixteen words later we have a verse on the board. I get them to recite what they see. This shows them they can describe rhythm in simple English WITHOUT notation.

Then I write up the notation above each word and get them to read it again. Then I ask them to remember what their rhythm looks like.

Then I rub off the words and get them to read the notation.

Over half the people are reading the notation aloud at any one time.

Now they have had an experience of connecting a song they know by ear (as a listener) with speech with rhythm notation.

(If you're asking me what I do with pitch in this example I use solfa)

Another example.

With private students, I get them to talk the rhythm syllables and words frequently. I talk with them first. Then they talk with videos at home that I create and provide them. As they talk they read the text and peripherally notice the notation as well. The emphasis here is on talking throug ha script.

When they report they are feeling confident with talking then I give them a 32 page chapter with rhythmwords and *they* transcribe the words into notation. After they solve the first two pages the following 30 become very easy.

After they have made this text-notation link strong in their minds, then they receive another chapter just with notation which they read and talk out loud.

The silly words they speak have another benefit. They make wonderful dummy words for melody until you find lyrics.

The biggest benefit at this point is that they have a language they can talk, read and write.

But the plot thickens.

Now I find that I am using shapes to help some people make sense of the language.

This system works easiest for people whose native languages distinguish vowel length. For some monolingual English speakers, attributing different lengths to familiar vowels, for the sake of rhythm, is not intuitive.

For them, I find that teaching them with different shapes they can handle or draw first, that have these different vowel names, allows them to recontextualise the vowels as different sound lengths much easier.

When that's established, then we can start talking rhythm.

(Now I'm starting to think of lots of other ways that children can learn to talk rhythm in their play.)

Once we can talk the language (face to face or remotely) then we can read it, write it and transcribe it.

Then we'll have readers who can not only read the dots but can play comfortably by ear.

And ear players who can talk music and read words and dots.

For me personally, this path has thrown up a couple of pleasant surprises.

For one, it's given me a much more efficient way of verbally communicating rhythm that students and musicians can either write down in text or notation.

Dadaba daboba daboba dababo is easier to say, dictate and transcribe than 8th,8th,8th,8th | 8th,qtr,8th | 8th,qtr,8th | 8th,8th,qtr.

Secondly, it's a much more efficient medium for reordering rhythm and melodic events. Sibelius, Finale et al cannot reorder rhythms and melodic events with the speed and ease that text based applications can. (Actually the problem is not with Sibelius or Finale. It's with (gulp!) midi. But that's another story!)

To wrap, my experience has been driven by the hypothesis that music is a language that we need to talk in order to read.

And that my drive has been to give people music language experience that provides a verbal base for notation.

What I have described is one way to simplify musical notation for children in public education and for 43 year olds who missed out at school and start threads like this.

Thanks for joining in Taura. This is all above my head (I don't read music myself) but I am looking forward to reading what Mike has to say about your post.

Brian

Taura,

I like your system.

Over the years, there have been many systems adopted and adapted to communicate music. Most obvious is demonstration. Listening to music, and watching it performed is a good way to learn, but it requires that you have someone who can perform and demonstrate the music.

Kodaly came up with hand signals, made famous in the film, "Close Encounters," that represented diatonic scale tones.

There is, of course, the solfeggio, or "do re mi" system. A lot of people know the basics of this, but few employ it the way it was designed.

Then there is standard Western notation, the old dots on the staff. Useful and fairly well designed.

These days of YouTube, DVDs, and download tutorials, folks are, as you alluded, less interested in learning a system to communicate music when the aforementioned demonstration is available. When I was a kid, I'd have loved to been able to see just how folks fingered and plucked certain notes in tunes, so I can empathize with the students in your statement:

______________________________________________________________
"Now for some observations about people I frequently deal with: guitar students.

The biggest difficulty that todays guitar learner has is in relating the music they HEAR in everyday life to notation symbols they SEE on the paper.

Especially when they see that music performed **without** any notation on MTV, YouTube and elsewhere."
________________________________________________________________

I do, however, believe that the more systems one learns to communicate and imagine music, the more one understands music itself. That's at the root of many of the systems, from Suzuki getting kids to step back and forth while singing scales, to Kodaly making hand gestures with scale tones, singing the "do re mis," reading dots while playing the flute, deciphering guitar tablature, to your well-thought-out system of syllables. The more approaches one takes to music, the more they fully understand it.

All the Best,
Mike