non-traditional notation

Is anyone else a fan? Not that staves and notes aren't a simple, useful way to notate, just sometimes it's not the best way.

I'm only a fan of it if it is necessary to what I am doing, like writing some chance music, some electro-acoustic music, writing for odd or recently invented instruments or music using extended technique.

Other then that, non-traditional notation for no reason other then artistic reason is not a bad thing, but it is bound to give you and your performers a headache.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. Generally my composing isn't concerned with the actual notes being produced so I've just really never found traditional notation useful.

I've always wanted to find some qin notation and apply it to playing my all-FUBAR guitar...

Traditional notation has been expanded greatly to accommodate almost all music being written today. There really isn't a reason why you shouldn't use it.

Because I don't want to use it! That's the best reason of all, isn't it? :)

Traditional notation has been expanded greatly to accommodate almost all music being written today. There really isn't a reason why you shouldn't use it.

Yeah, on the one hand. But you can't deny that notation systems focusing on other things than note would provide different performances, even of the same music.

I agree with Plutokat. I can't say I'm a "fan of non-traditional notation", nor am I a "fan" of notes on a five-line staff - but I appreciate all the possibilities these notations can offer, so when I feel it's adequate for a piece, sure, I'll use them.

But still, 95% of my music is written in "traditional western notation", with some deviations. Even if I use space notation/aleatoric techniques (which I rarely do) I still tend to use "notes" and "staves" etc. - simply because it is in my opinion a rather versatile, yet pretty clear system. Most of the time I do want specific pitches, specific rhythms, specific dynamics etc., and for these things this notation is quite an effective tool. It has some ugly deficiencies, sure, but every kind of notation has.

But that doesn't mean I restrict my notation to the elements that were common 100 years ago. I certainly use many notational elements that have been devised by composers over the last century and I often invent my own ways of notating certain things if I think it would be helpful. Actually I think most of my pieces use some forms of notation that aren't a "standard" in any way - but that just seemed like the best way to get my idea across. But the core is still almost always "traditional western notation".

Even if a piece of music made more sense with a custom notation, it would be harder and more time consuming to explain it to people, and therefore isn't even worth it.

Sometimes, sure. But sometimes it's a lot quicker to explain an unusual kind of notation than to ask the performers to practice something for a long time that is awkwardly made fit into traditional notation, whereas another notation might have made them understand what to play a lot more quickly.

If you want all violins of an orchestra just to play random notes within a certain range, they may have a much easier time if you just write that down (or invent a sign for it) than if you meticulously notated all kinds of pitches and rhythms which you just selected "to make it sound random". There are a lot of non-common forms of notation which are still very easy to understand. Just take things like Stockhausen's "Intuitive music" which simply consists of short verbal instructions of what to think or not to think when playing etc.

The most extensive usage I've made in recent years of non-traditional notation was actually for an amateur orchestra - exactly in order to make it more quickly accessible and achieve a certain effect by relatively simple means. Writing down precise rhythms and pitches would either have required me to make them very simple for them to be able to play them, or to accept a lot of wrong notes, imprecise rhythms and a horrible intonation. That's why for large parts of this piece I went for certain semi-aleatoric effects (somewhat similar to Lutoslawski's stuff) which simply gave the performers a specific "action" to execute and left it to the (rather excellent) conductor to coordinate the timing by giving them signs when to execute their "actions". Sure, at first it took some time for them to understand everything, but once that was solved coordination was a lot easier than in a piece with precisely notated rhythms.

To expand on Gardener's perspective, I usually find extending standard notation is the best way to extract what I want from the players. inserting some sort of visual/graphical depiction of the desired effect over or in the familiar 5-line-stff give me an easy way to manipulate and control the performers, without resorting to a complete re-education.

To expand on Gardener's perspective, I usually find extending standard notation is the best way to extract what I want from the players. inserting some sort of visual/graphical depiction of the desired effect over or in the familiar 5-line-stff give me an easy way to manipulate and control the performers, without resorting to a complete re-education.

I agree to a certain extent. I know in the past, I've asked my friends to play my stuff and I'll hand them a graphic score or something and they'll just be like, "what the hell is this?" but I think that re-education is fun! and necessary to progress the evolution of music.

I more or less agree with Nicola and robinjessome. The audience doesn't care how it's notated; they just want to hear the damn music, so notate it in the easiest way possible. And in most cases, that's either with standard notation or a combination of it and something else - a graph, a picture, a short description, performance notes, whatever. I wouldn't write a score in graphic notation unless standard (Western) notation was completely out of the question. And I think it's silly to make things difficult on your performers just for novelty.

The 20th century is over. The time for doing ridiculous things for the sake of novelty and "progression" is also, therefore, over.

Hmm. But we all do probably have certain personal ideals by which we go when composing. The 20th century may be over, but postmodernism and the deliberate rejection of modernist thought is a part of the 20th century as well. I can't see why "novelty" can't be an entirely valid ideal to strive for in art. The problem is just the way terms like "progress" have become connotated in the aftermath of modernism.

For me, "novelty" in the sense of "discovering something that is foreign to me" or "seeking new perspectives on music" is something I find worthy of writing music for. "Progress" in the sense of moving on to something different does matter quite a lot to me, even though I'm not "modernist" enough to value it in the qualitative sense of "progress to something better".

But sure, I do think one should ask the question of where to "progress" to and why - instead of hoping that "just doing it some other way" is the end of all in creating new music. But I don't think that was so much different in the 20th century…

The 20th century is over. The time for doing ridiculous things for the sake of novelty and "progression" is also, therefore, over.

Why? Cuz you say it is?

Yep.

K.

The motivation for alternative notations is often not simply the desire for more effects made possible by newly invented symbols but instead a decrease in the intrinsic UI (User Inter phase) load inherent to reading the music.

If reading music in a certain notation involves large amounts of thinking on the part of reader that is not involved in the actual musicality of the information displayed, then that notation has a high UI load. Traditional notation has a very high UI load because the representation of pitch is not regular. A movement up the staff one position can mean both one or two semitones, so one must consider where one is in the layout before one realizes what the interval to be played is. Also, depending on the accidental, any line or space can represent at least three different tones depending on how harmonically adventurous the piece is. These discrepancies (which have nothing to do with the actual musicality of the piece) lead to a high amount of difficulty in relating notation to its musical intent, and therefor has a high UI load.

Any decrease in UI load helps musicians to learn pieces faster and more easily relate music they compose to notation. Note that traditional notations do so by making certain patterns in music more transparent and relatable to pitch, not by dumbing down notation and reducing the potential for large amounts of expression.

Consider now a chromatic staff, that is, a staff with twelve lines/spaces per octave. Now every chromatic note has a line/space and every interval on the staff that is the same looks the same. That is, from a C to a G it looks the same as a B to an F#. This is FAR more convenient than traditional notation for just about every instrument out there, save the piano which is built off of the same high UI load inducing concepts as traditional notation. Once one sees the interval, the next note to be played is obvious and requires no thought processes that are completely unrelated to the actual intended musical idea.

But what about the sharps and flats?? They are (at least) theoretically relevant and each enharmonically equivalent note will now be given its own space! How will we know if an interval is an augmented second or a minor third?

This issue is generally solved by means of alternate note heads so that the location on the chromatic staff for both Eb and D# can be notated with say different shapes to differentiate between whether it is a sharped or flatted interval. Notice the immense benefit that if, on a chromatic staff, one were to just "play the staff" without regard to alternate note heads that discern sharps vs flats, one would still have the correct end result, whereas in traditional notation if one were to just "play the staff" without regard to sharps and flats, one does not end up with the correct result.

Alternative notations have come a long way and people have even developed plugins to finale to notate their music with their alternate methods. Believe me when I say from experience that alternative notations are beneficial beyond just being able to develop one for a one time use with a specific effect or piece. Chromatic staves make learning to read music more intuitive and display the underlying concepts of music far more readily than traditional notation.

There is an entire site devoted to the exploration of alternate music notations and it explains many of them along with their benefits and costs.

Here is that site:

The Music Notation Project | Exploring Alternative Music Notations

Here is a video that explains the method of modifying percussion maps in finale to employ alternate notations:

John M

The 20th century is over. The time for doing ridiculous things for the sake of novelty and "progression" is also, therefore, over.

Ah! Well, I guess I didn't get the memo.

UI = User Interface.

One needs to have in mind that the phychology of the performers might also play an important part. I"m sure Robin could find alternative ways to notate his music, but in fact his scores are better this way, since they allow a certain freedom, which brings out the personality of each individual.

Same goes for other scores and non traditional notation scored... scores! :D

I find that the traditional mans of notation (five note staff etc etc) is effective, but is lacking and can be very vague when it comes to modern music. This is where I become very fond of George Crumb's writing everything down on the score, and Penderecki's way of notating diettro il ponticello, and tons of other things They are great!

I find that the traditional mans of notation (five note staff etc etc) is effective, but is lacking and can be very vague when it comes to modern music.

Care to elaborate?

Where is it lacking? What is vague about it?

What effect in modern music is impossible to accomplish using slight modifications to extend the standard notational system?

...

FYI, I consider THIS to be still within the realm of "standard" notation.

Hur rob, that's not standard. You have graphical elements, etc etc. In fact, the only thing standard about it is you're using a traditional staff, but everything else has to be explained, etc.

Likewise, I would've done it differently too since all you're using the traditional staff for is to give a pitch range but it's not exact. Why not just define a central reference pitch (ala Berio) instead? IF you write the staff like that, it could be confusing since traditional staff = exact pitches but the type of notation you're using isn't exact, so this could make someone play the bits that intersect with the actual staff as exact as possible but the stuff outside of it totally free (or not even in relation, since you aren't specifying relative distances in that graphic.) Dealing away with the staff altogether would make the idea that much easier to understand and execute since all you seem to want in those sections is just "play THIS around this pitch area/register."

... but anyway, the point is that there are tons of things that can't be accomplished depending on what you want using traditional elements or adding things to the regular staff system (and like the above, you can end up giving mixed signals without realizing it.)

(IE; http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/attachments/11979d1211673411-linespartitura.pdf where I use a mix of different systems when necessary, I couldn't have written the graphic areas using any sort of "standard" notation since I wanted to get rid of the context/baggage that signifies (which I use later.) Plus psychologically it DOES make a difference if people see traditional elements or something purely graphical and it most likely also has an effect on how they play the piece and understand what you wanted.)

Hur rob, that's not standard. You have graphical elements, etc etc. In fact, the only thing standard about it is you're using a traditional staff, but everything else has to be explained, etc.

No, it's not "standard", but it is still something (I feel) is easily interpretable by anyone familiary solely with the "standard" system.

i just mean it's in the same jurisdiction, and doesn't require a complete re-education or re-definition of the notation.

:dunno:

No, it's not "standard", but it is still something (I feel) is easily interpretable by anyone familiary solely with the "standard" system.

i just mean it's in the same jurisdiction, and doesn't require a complete re-education or re-definition of the notation.

Well you could get away with simple explanations, yeah, but you shouldn't think anything like that is automatically obvious as to how to play it, as I already commented how the notation itself is confused about what it wants and is sending mixed signals. You have to write them explanations anyway to iron those out.

I find that it's pretty much the same effort to do it that way than to use a new notation system, people end up learning how to read the piece anyway.

...I already commented how the notation itself is confused about what it wants and is sending mixed signals.

I don't see how there's mixed signals. ..."could make someone play the bits that intersect with the actual staff as exact as possible but the stuff outside of it totally free (or not even in relation, since you aren't specifying relative distances in that graphic" ... Perhaps I want them to be as close as possible. Also, when it leaves the staff, it's all still relative to that particular instrument's range, in relation to the staff. If I want it exact, I write the pitch... if I want contour and approximations, I give a squiggly...

In the end, for ME, the whole point is to force the performer to decide how they interpret it.

Also, this was an assignment/exercise ... nothing to be taken seriously.

I find that it's pretty much the same effort to do it that way than to use a new notation system, people end up learning how to read the piece anyway.

I lean the other way. I find the time wasted in rehearsal explaining/teaching a new system isn't worth the effort. However, in the end, this really only applies to me, and the musicians I choose to work with; this won't work for everyone, but it does for me.

;)

I don't see how there's mixed signals. ..."could make someone play the bits that intersect with the actual staff as exact as possible but the stuff outside of it totally free (or not even in relation, since you aren't specifying relative distances in that graphic" ... Perhaps I want them to be as close as possible. Also, when it leaves the staff, it's all still relative to that particula instrument's range, in relation to the staff. If I want it exact, I write the pitch... if I want contour and approximations, I give a squiggly...

If this explanation you just gave was written in the score, it would've made it clearer. That's what I'm saying.

The problem shows up when someone wants to play your music and you're not there to explain it to them. They'll see that score and genuinely ask (and I do mean professional musicians who are experienced playing modern music, etc) what you intended and the question I posted IS going to come up. Unless you SPECIFICALLY tell them "OK so this is relative to this other thing, and this is not supposed to be exact, etc etc" then they won't know just by looking at the score.

Like I said, regular staff implies, even if you do graphical figures ontop of it, that you have a set of defined pitches. Often when a composer doesn't want exact pitches to be notated they'll use something else (Berio is an example I mentioned already, but there are tons of others like Penderecki or Brouwer and they had their own symbols for this type of thing that they clear up elsewhere.) This automatically clears up your intention, otherwise the question is going to pop up "OK so when it intersects with the staff, it should be exact?"

The worst thing you can do is assume that within a modern context there's anything "given," even concerning traditional-ish notation, since this is not the case. Look a the pages of explanations a lot of the most well known pieces need just to make sure they get played properly (ok it's often just one, but that's almost standard.)

In the end, for ME, the whole point is to force the performer to decide how they interpret it.

I lean the other way. I find the time wasted in rehearsal explaining/teaching a new system isn't worth the effort. However, in the end, this really only applies to me, and the musicians I choose to work with; this won't work for everyone, but it does for me.

That's fine and dandy, but for me it's never time wasted when it enhances the performance and gets my idea through better. Maybe all your ideas fall within the scope of the systems you're using in that example and that's peachy, but as you can probably guess 90% of mine don't.

Also, a well written graphical score shouldn't necessitate much time at all to explain, and in fact it should be clear from the score itself. If the composer NEEDS to actually interact with the musicians to tell them what his score means, his score is failing at clearing his ideas up on its own (which is what it should be doing) and needs fixing.