Forum rss-feed

Forum

General Discussion: Eigenharp notation

Most Recent

written by: geert

@NothanNumber I think we shouldn't mix the purpose of the physical and the musical notation, I think there's no combined notation than can successfully capture it. For instance, the intervals change with scales, how do you handle micro tonal scales or non westen tunings, etc etc. All these have their own way of writing the music down so I think we need to focus on finding a common physical notation way that is as appropriate to the Eigenharp as tablature is to the guitar. Regular guitar tablature could even work for the Eigenharp, but given the various unique aspects of the Eigenharp, I think we can come up with something that makes our lives easier both for reading and writing.

Indeed, the divide by 4 approach for the location I took is rooted in the physical layout of the current instruments and on the Alpha the markings on the back give nice indicators for that.

That being said, I'm pretty certain that what I came up with last week can still be dramatically improved, it was just an initial take on this problem, combining all of the ideas in this thread with previous thoughts I already had about the subject.

written by: NothanUmber

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:14:07 +0000 GMT

Sorry, forget what I wrote. Had only a very glimpse look and thought the numbers are fingering (1-4 top hand 5-8 lower hand). Not the case, they are key positions...
Yes, this can work on Pico. For Tau and Alpha direct addressing of the keys might be not easy to read, there something along the lines of Geert's proposal could be easier to find (e.g. 4-row block 3, row in block 2, course 1: 321 for the first note in a chord and then row delta -2, course delta +1: -21 for next note in chord etc.) - directly written to the note as you suggested.
This is actually a really nice concept that works with any existing notation software. (Not ASCII compatible though)


written by: Zygurt

Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:07:37 +0000 GMT

Yeah in the 'tab' example the numbers work that way. In the previous examples it works a bit like this

First Bb example
1 5 \
2 6 \
3 7 top hand
4 8 /
1 5 \
2 6 \
3 7 Bottom hand
4 8 /

Second Bb Example
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
88

The hardest thing that I've found when learning or figuring out new songs is what key to put the pico in. Even just having the key at the start of the piece, with key changes written in.


written by: NothanUmber

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:57:55 +0000 GMT

Another episode in the notation quest:
Played around with Geert's approach. The outcome was something closely related with some aspects of John's approach (and it's a diagram-chord notation as Mike suggested and likes):
* First I replaced the fixed "offset of 4" position description system by something layout specific: Where would you place marker lights when you only have one color available? (Usually e.g. the base notes of a scale) These markers are then counted either from the top to the bottom or from the bottom to the top per course. (First I thought about always counting from the top but the other way around makes it easier for ascending layouts - especially when reading diagrams written for a Tau on an Alpha, because the numbers stay the same then)
* Position markers are directly written into the diagram blocks. In the case that a note is played on a marker position, the position is marked with "x" and the position and the fingering for "x" is written below the diagram (e.g. 4i meaning position x is the fourth marker on this course and played with the index finger)
* each diagram has to contain at least one marker. The number of columns of a diagram is always the minimum needed to describe the chord with the marker
=> that way the markers give you a better way to interpret the key functions when you are familiar with the layout and scale and is equally fitting if you don't

A downside compared to Geert's original approach is that it doesn't lend itself so easily to "compressed" notation - on the positive side the diagrams are usually slimmer (in average 3 columns instead of always 4) and need less rows (5 for Tau or 6 for Alpha instead of 6 for Tau and 7 for Alpha)

Regarding note lengths:
* If written inside a usual staff the note lengths are represented by the normal notes
* notes that are still pressed from the previous diagram are marked with a "=" (that's taken from John N.'s proposal)
* If written with pure ASCII the notation depends on the complexity of the score:
- If note lengths are always a multiple of the musical time for simple pieces then there is one diagram per beat and the "=" notation allows to describe all lengths.
- If many very long and very small note lengths appear (e.g. whole note + 32th notes), so there would be many diagrams necessary to describe the long notes with the "=" approach the note length could be written below the diagram for each note in the diagram from the top left to the lower right (e.g. 2.884 - upper left note is a dotted half, middle left is 8th, middle right is 8th, lowest note is quarter)

"R" (for right hand) and "r" (left hand) indicates that the last written chord should be repeated.

Here the first few bars of Händel's Largo as PDF and MuseScore score (you need a nightly build >= 5312 to open it. Experimented with some new feature first but realized that I don't need them in the end. So theoretically this would also have been possible with the 1.1 release version...)

The piece is notated for Tau, it can easily be played on Alpha, too of course by ignoring the first course. The mapping diagram contains these infos:
- layout + scale (don't differ here because for the player it does not matter how the mapping is achieved)
- tuning
- markers (1:g1 etc.)
- boundaries of Tau keyboard (being transcribed for the Tau the piece always stays inside these boundaries. Alpha players are of course welcome to use the keys in the first course in cases where this might lead to an easier fingering)

Largo Tau (first few bars) MuseScore
Largo Tau (first few bars) PDF

For me this is pretty nice to read and write, what do you think? If liked I'll continue to notate the piece.

Edit: fixed some wrong chord diagrams


written by: NothanUmber

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:43:18 +0000 GMT

After hearing the recording of today's hangout I tried to get comfortable with the idea that Geert's inital proposal might become the new Eigenharp standard notation and played around with this notation again today in combination with my horizontal layout.
Still don't get to grips with this combination: I can find out which keys to press but found no intuitive (non calculating) way to find out what chords are actually notated without putting my hands on the keyboard to see what I am actually playing. (every 3rd row in the horizontal layout is an octave, with 3 and 4 being coprime the pattern is - just not intuitively comprehensible for me).

So I see three approaches on the horizon:
* We try to find a common notation that works equally well for all layouts. If you try something like that: Please really try these out with different layouts and beside all optimization for easy key location with the instrument also try to "just read" the notation - try to figure out what is written there in your mind. (Perhaps it's just me, but at least I don't see a point in a "physical only" notation for everything beyond the very first steps)

* Or we could try to really optimize for different layouts with dedicated notations. That e.g. would allow to make full use of the proportional properties of the horizontal layout or the multiple-of-four property of the Geert layout, perhaps something that makes use of the repetition pattern and "diagonal symmetry" of the normal layout or just the normal guitar tabs for a guitar-like layout etc..

* Or we just use normal notation and everybody has to learn the note to key mapping like for every other instrument (which makes different layouts essentially different instruments - what they most probably are given the different technique, musical possibilities etc.)

The upside of the "common notation" approach is to encourage people to experiment with different layouts (they don't have to relearn the notation and can immediately play - very easy pieces at least).
The "dedicated notations" approach might lead to more specialization but more comfort within these "niches". (Probably many will nonetheless mainly settle on a specific layout at a certain point? - we don't know yet - this would certainly favour this development though)

Most people who favour a specific layout would most probably do one of these things (at least I can find me in this description ;) )
1) use a generic "standard" approach (as long as it matches the favoured layout - if it does not then it's probably not worth notating as nobody would care for layouts nor pieces for them that do not match the "standard notation")

2) something that is specifically suited for their favoured layout (This at least offers a chance that some specialists will have fun with this then in a really comfortable and matching way.)

3) just use standard notation. This can be read by most and played with any layouts that meet the "minimal physical requirements" e.g. regarding tonal range, key distances etc. So the first thing you have to do is to learn the note to "physical ways to produce this note" mapping for a new layout - like with every other instrument that uses standard notation.


This does not mean Geert's approach does not make sense - not at all, it's just perhaps not well fitted for "reading" notation in every layout - I think. If it get's established it just means that users of e.g. the horizontal layout (that would currently be - just me ;) ) would most probably fall back to standard notation for pieces for "their" layout (at least as long as I am on a one person isle I'd probably do that instead of coming up with something "proprietary" :P ). Although not being my personal favourite solution I could live with that - and I'd most certainly use the Geert notation as well for Geert-layout pieces I might read or write when it get's established of course :)


written by: NothanUmber

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:52:57 +0000 GMT

On a second thought: Geert's layout IS really good to find physical positions on an Eigenharp (e.g. the 4-pattern also matches the marking on the back of the Alpha). What I could imagine: Notating music for the horizontal layout in a normal staff with Geert-notation below it - then I still can't "read" this but I don't have to either - and it helps people playing...
Not "optimal" - but more positive on that prospect again...


written by: geert

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:00:17 +0000 GMT

@NothanNumber I think we shouldn't mix the purpose of the physical and the musical notation, I think there's no combined notation than can successfully capture it. For instance, the intervals change with scales, how do you handle micro tonal scales or non westen tunings, etc etc. All these have their own way of writing the music down so I think we need to focus on finding a common physical notation way that is as appropriate to the Eigenharp as tablature is to the guitar. Regular guitar tablature could even work for the Eigenharp, but given the various unique aspects of the Eigenharp, I think we can come up with something that makes our lives easier both for reading and writing.

Indeed, the divide by 4 approach for the location I took is rooted in the physical layout of the current instruments and on the Alpha the markings on the back give nice indicators for that.

That being said, I'm pretty certain that what I came up with last week can still be dramatically improved, it was just an initial take on this problem, combining all of the ideas in this thread with previous thoughts I already had about the subject.



Please log in to join the discussions