On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:43 AM, David Rogers <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com>wrote:
> * Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> [2011-03-14 04:01]: > > > -- O -- (O is the body of a note here) >> -- O -- >> >> the interval between both pitches depends on the location. >> Why? >> >> Why should e-g be different from g - h ? >> >> Wouldn't it be easier to assign notes (c,d,e,..) natural numbers? >> then define >> >> could be: >> ---O- nr 16 >> ---O- nr 12 >> ---O- nr 8 >> ---O- nr 4 >> ---O- nr 0 >> >> to be always 4 semitones? >> >> Then many tasks such as transposing music to a different key would >> become a simple math operation: simply add a number. >> >> Many musicians who play occasionally only would benefit a lot. >> >> Has anyone else thought about this before? >> > > > > Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and > useful (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the > trick is not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to > adopt it. The "installed base" (to mis-use a term) of traditional > notation is very large, and people who already know any system at all > are reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and > immediate benefits. > > In other words, your system is good but everybody will ignore you > anyway. Sad, and not ideal, but I think it's true. > > @Marc The website below may be of interest. It has a number of alternative music notation systems that have been proposed as replacements for traditional notation. http://musicnotation.org/musicnotations/index.html Many of them are quite clever but I think David's comment is correct. It's extremely difficult to get people to abandon what they've spent years learning. Cheers, Mike
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
