Thank you for the comment, maybe I haven't been clear enough. I have been working on just such a system - to provide a notation that covers every instrument and every playing situation. To do this I categorised the untuned percussion instruments into four conceptual typologies of membranophones, metal idiophones, wood idiophones and "frictophones" (my word for loosely defined 'friction' instruments that cross boundaries of construction, such as scrapers, shakers, whistles etc).
Then I created a set of note shapes for each category and articulation markings across them. This produced a set of simplified playing directions, usable with tuned percussion, that will readily and consistently identify:
1. which instrument is to be played in all multi-percussion set-ups;
2. what part of the instrument will elicit the specific musical effect;
3. which beater is to be used;
4. what part of the beater will produce the particular sound;
5. which specific articulation is relevant to each instrument and playing context; and
6. what manner of playing will evoke the composer’s musical intent.
I decided it was important not to be tied to traditional ways of composing for and playing the instruments, but rather to express musical and technical possibilities. Composers could still in this system leave a broad area of interpretation to the player, but this notation would give them the possibility of determining accurate playing directions.
Now I have to explore how the glyphs I have concocted can be turned into a font - not my area of expertise. I had hoped to find a software designed on this list who might be interested in working with me on this, but it seems the discussion is indicating that I need to look further afield.
Creatoing a new notation for untuned percussion
-
Ryszard Pusz
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 20 Jun 2024, 07:10
Re: Creatoing a new notation for untuned percussion
There have been so many attempts to improve percussion notation. Most of these don't ever take off beyond one composer, or they are never adopted widely enough to become anywhere close to a standard. I commend you for attempting to create a comprehensive standard, and I do hope you are aware of the difficulty of such an endeavor.
A few things to consider, and I apologize if I'm sharing things you already know (I don't want to be condescending or dismissive)...
1. Trying to tell the difference between various noteheads while sight reading at a percussionist's distance from the music can be difficult. Open, closed, X, and diamond are fairly clear (diamond the least clear), which is why they have stuck around. Having to perform various types of novel noteheads in succession while sight reading can be a nightmare. I know percussionists who loathe triangle noteheads because of the difficulty they can pose when read from far on a small, or less than well-printed part.
2. Articulations are clear, pictograms often are not. In a quick glance, it can be almost impossible to tell if a dot is centered in a circle or offset to indicate the playing area. Sometimes a single word like "edge" or "center" can be processed more easily. We read shapes. Those words are not shaped the same. Circles or boxes with dots inside have identical shapes. Again, the potential for error is greater when reading from a distance.
3. Most often I see percussion shapes, noteheads, and pictograms used in music where practice and rehearsal time is available. I rarely see them used in recording sessions because of the sight-reading difficulty.
4. The choice of technique may vary based upon the hall, the particular instrument, and the various techniques available to the percussionist. Some composers and orchestrators will go to great lengths to specify the type of mallet and where and how to play the instrument. Then you get in the room, or play on a different instrument, and realize that the sound they want may be better achieved with a different mallet, and a tighter grip, angle of attack, etc. This means all that specificity by the composer gets ignored. All those pictograms and special noteheads become visual noise. It's often far better to specify the sound or color, perhaps a simple direction of how to play, and let the percussionist make a judgement on how best to achieve that sound based on the factors listed above.
There are still a number of works which use specific notational symbols for percussion, but they are most often used in specific situations like percussion ensembles and solo works. It's unlikely any complex standard will be widely adopted for some of the reasons above. Years ago, even the Percussive Arts Society put out a full standard for drumset notation. I see it used in method books, academic circles, transcriptions in magazines; but almost never in recording studios where sight-reading is paramount. This is primarily because of the reasons above, and the fact that most drummers see so much different music, that they never know if what they are reading is adhering to the PAS standard. Then there is always the question of the specific instrument. One kit's ride may be much brighter than the next and may not deliver the desired sound when played as specified.
A few things to consider, and I apologize if I'm sharing things you already know (I don't want to be condescending or dismissive)...
1. Trying to tell the difference between various noteheads while sight reading at a percussionist's distance from the music can be difficult. Open, closed, X, and diamond are fairly clear (diamond the least clear), which is why they have stuck around. Having to perform various types of novel noteheads in succession while sight reading can be a nightmare. I know percussionists who loathe triangle noteheads because of the difficulty they can pose when read from far on a small, or less than well-printed part.
2. Articulations are clear, pictograms often are not. In a quick glance, it can be almost impossible to tell if a dot is centered in a circle or offset to indicate the playing area. Sometimes a single word like "edge" or "center" can be processed more easily. We read shapes. Those words are not shaped the same. Circles or boxes with dots inside have identical shapes. Again, the potential for error is greater when reading from a distance.
3. Most often I see percussion shapes, noteheads, and pictograms used in music where practice and rehearsal time is available. I rarely see them used in recording sessions because of the sight-reading difficulty.
4. The choice of technique may vary based upon the hall, the particular instrument, and the various techniques available to the percussionist. Some composers and orchestrators will go to great lengths to specify the type of mallet and where and how to play the instrument. Then you get in the room, or play on a different instrument, and realize that the sound they want may be better achieved with a different mallet, and a tighter grip, angle of attack, etc. This means all that specificity by the composer gets ignored. All those pictograms and special noteheads become visual noise. It's often far better to specify the sound or color, perhaps a simple direction of how to play, and let the percussionist make a judgement on how best to achieve that sound based on the factors listed above.
There are still a number of works which use specific notational symbols for percussion, but they are most often used in specific situations like percussion ensembles and solo works. It's unlikely any complex standard will be widely adopted for some of the reasons above. Years ago, even the Percussive Arts Society put out a full standard for drumset notation. I see it used in method books, academic circles, transcriptions in magazines; but almost never in recording studios where sight-reading is paramount. This is primarily because of the reasons above, and the fact that most drummers see so much different music, that they never know if what they are reading is adhering to the PAS standard. Then there is always the question of the specific instrument. One kit's ride may be much brighter than the next and may not deliver the desired sound when played as specified.
Last edited by JJP on 02 Jul 2024, 15:20, edited 1 time in total.
There is no computer problem so complex that it cannot be solved by a sledge hammer.
Symbols of Sound - music preparation and consulting
Symbols of Sound - music preparation and consulting
-
Ryszard Pusz
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 20 Jun 2024, 07:10
Re: Creatoing a new notation for untuned percussion
Thank you, yes you are spot on, and I don't feel offended by your comments as it's always good to get wider perspectives on issues.
I have been in situations that you raise, and they have brought up for me questions of interpretation - be they technical execution, musicality or emotional atmosphere. In Australian composer Peter Sculthorpe's 'Sonata for viola and percussion' at about 5'30" the viola part is played on harmonics. To me, after a number of performances, it made musical sense to play the tom response at the edge with 1 beater. For playing convenience I used clapsticks. Sculthorpe agreed with my interpretation, but was not able to change the score - he was also too busy with his continuing projects. But it has been this kind of situation that set a focus to my thinking. The video of a performance is in my thesis on https://hdl.handle.net/2440/135817, Part 2 Australian Landscape, at the 33' mark.
As you intimate, I think for the time being at least, where time is of the essence such as sight-reading in recording studios these subtleties of execution will take a while to catch on. My focus is to develop a system that enables composers/arrangers to quickly input the sounds, and enables players to read them easily. I have decided on 12 notehead shapes across 4 conceptual typologies of instruments. To these I have added lines in different directions for articulations. If my symbols are adopted (and perhaps even adapted over time), I imagine they will first be used for percussion-only and chamber music pieces where those nuances are more obvious. There will always of course be differences because of the nature of the instruments as well as a hall's acoustics and what is available to the player.
I have been in situations that you raise, and they have brought up for me questions of interpretation - be they technical execution, musicality or emotional atmosphere. In Australian composer Peter Sculthorpe's 'Sonata for viola and percussion' at about 5'30" the viola part is played on harmonics. To me, after a number of performances, it made musical sense to play the tom response at the edge with 1 beater. For playing convenience I used clapsticks. Sculthorpe agreed with my interpretation, but was not able to change the score - he was also too busy with his continuing projects. But it has been this kind of situation that set a focus to my thinking. The video of a performance is in my thesis on https://hdl.handle.net/2440/135817, Part 2 Australian Landscape, at the 33' mark.
As you intimate, I think for the time being at least, where time is of the essence such as sight-reading in recording studios these subtleties of execution will take a while to catch on. My focus is to develop a system that enables composers/arrangers to quickly input the sounds, and enables players to read them easily. I have decided on 12 notehead shapes across 4 conceptual typologies of instruments. To these I have added lines in different directions for articulations. If my symbols are adopted (and perhaps even adapted over time), I imagine they will first be used for percussion-only and chamber music pieces where those nuances are more obvious. There will always of course be differences because of the nature of the instruments as well as a hall's acoustics and what is available to the player.