Forum

Well, being a simpleton, I might just use standard note shapes and write a number in the center of the body of the note for the row.

This does not seem to be a lot different than just putting tails on the existing tab to show timing (as is sometimes done in guit tab). Or am I misunderstanding as a basic level? We could also adopt / adapt some other tab markup symbols.

@Mike: Essentially it's like a tab, yes, but a tab with a line per row, not per course. (In order to get it halfway dense the same trick as for piano standard notation is used: you can define transposition "key markers" (corresponding to treble and bass key - just more of them and more logical) e.g. if you have accompagnement several octaves deeper than melody.) The note heads can essentially be replaced with numbers 1-5, yes. Then you won't get the pitch proportional property for the horizontal layout and for the others you don't visually see the horizontal shape of the chord anymore (added a second tri-chord for horizontal and vertical to illustrate that - zoom in a little to see the proportional property better). But numbers can be faster to write - important for handwriting.

perhaps it would be better to add a dotted line between the two systems, too, so people are not mislead to interpret that as two tabs of courses instead of as one tab of rows (with an optional offset if the transposition markers are non-continuous)?
Then you couldn't use normal staff paper anymore though (without adding the missing in between line)

Yes, this is indeed better!
Changed the clef concept according to your suggestion.
Edit: Used 10th row as the one between the staffs by default (centering the treble staff around it would not leave much below for Tau players)

cute notational symbol - ya gotta *love* it

Further simplified handwriting - a 32th note Eigenlabs logo is nice but slightly redundant :P

Good point!

Would something like this be thinkable? (It's an attempt of an ASCII representation of the example in the file above):

layout:horizontal

scale:chromatic

root:C4

 7|__________________1_________

 8|              2 4         1

 9|        1 2 4           4 2

10|=/2=1=3=============/32=5=2=

11|                        5



layout:vertical

scale:chromatic

root: C4

 7|_____1___2__________4_12________4|_

 8|           2    3         12    5|

 9|       1                        6|

10|=/32=========2====3====2========7|=

11|                           2   14|

edited row-tab ASCII example above - it could make sense to trim rows from above and below that don't contain any notes at all (in the ASCII representation), so depending on piece you can show fewer lines. (one convention could be that the === row (usually the 10th) is always in the visible interval, so you have a visual immediate orientation). So for the row numbers you just have to have a look at:
* what row is the === line (usually 10)
* what row is the line below the === line (usually 11)
The rest of the numbers can be ignored as they are dependent on these two infos and can be visually retrieved by looking at the vertical distance.

Also took out the infos that likely don't change over the piece to make the header shorter.
Changed representation for note length: /X

For the cost of a horizontal density factor of 2,5 one could get full pictograms, so you'd see the position of chords in all two dimensions.
Could be worth it.

layout:horizontal

scale:chromatic

root:C4

 :7 |____|____|____|____|____|____|____1____|____|____|

 :8 |    |    |    |    |    |2   |  4 |    |    1    |

 :9 |    |    1    |2   |  4 |    |    |    |  4 |2   |

:10 1====|=3==|====|====|====|====|====|====|===5|2===|

:11 |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |   5|    |

Rhyt| /2                                    | /32     |





layout:vertical

scale:chromatic

root: C4

 :7 1____|2___|____|____|____|____|__4_12___|____|_:4 |_

 :8 |    |    |2   |    | 3  |    |    |    12   | :5 |

 :9 |    1    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    | :6 |

:10 |====|====|====|2===|====|=3==|====|2===|====|=:7 |=

:11 |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |2   |:14 |

Rhyt| /32                                             |

I think its worth transcribing a few pieces to these various tab styles to see what makes the best sense. Its possible to support both in a software tool, of course - but one is always better than two in notation.

One thing that's always bothered me with guitar tab and other ascii styles is it is a pain to type out. You need to edit multiple lines (in the text editor) for a single point in time. A nicer form would be to have a single line in the text editor represent a single point in time - think piano roll. Maybe we could try twisting the column based version across the page (text columns = eigenharp columns) and use the idea of (1,2,3...) representing the course (and for the moment ignore note length). I'd do an example but I'm rushed....will do it later to make it more clear. this form could always be used to show sustain of notes over time...but things like slides...?

I think the declarations should include scale (both name and belcanto offset array),tonic and optionally keygroup config info (for those times you've laid the keyboard out non-standard - in particular I'm thinking of Ferdinands interesting bottom-up layout)

Tab to me is a guide to where to put your fingers on an instrument - note length is an annotation to that information. Think of the difference between a slide (/) and a dotted minim.