This will be much easier to read, it doesn't require special software, it takes less space, etc. Might as well complain that there are too many symbols in Abstract Algebra: music can get complicated, and we're fortunate that there really is a single world-wide set of symbols which everyone interprets identically!
How will you notate exact rhythms if you don't split up a bar into beats and subbeats and give each note an exact duration? I agree that standard notation (common music notation) is complicated, but there are pretty good reasons for it being that way.
We most commonly use staff notation because it is a good compromise between expressiveness and readability for a wide range of music. The overall problems relate to the fundamental issues in trying to represent "produce this specific sound" via some glyphs, and having something that someone can read at speed. Staff notation has evolved, in the context of western tonal music, as an effective means of representing almost all of the salient performance features of many types of music, in a compact, instrument independent, format that is reasonably easy to use for sight-reading. More recently, in order to support transmission of music via ASCII ABC notation was developed; this seems to have the features you deem desirable. However, ABC is not able to express the full range of features, like appogiatura, trills, slurs etc., features that can be easily represented in standard notation. It is my understanding that only a very small proportion of people can sight-read from tabulature or ABC, while every professional classical musician is able to sight read for at least one instrument. Everyone, when they first begin to learn to read music notation, is puzzled by all the complexities and nuances.
The notation you suggest is too simple for real scores, or on the contrary hand it would be nearly impossible to read.
The short answer to this question is that musical notation evolved over centuries in a relatively haphazard way. To take a most obvious example: the clefs that we all know (treble, bass, maybe alto and tenor if you play viola or cello) are simply a small subset of a much larger, complete set of clefs that used to be used. So, originally, the system was super logical and super flexible: figure out which clef on which line would allow you to write the melody you wanted to write down on the five-line staff you had. That being said, there have been many alternative notations proposed, including the ASCII-based ABC notation (similar to yours, but more developed), and various systems listed at The Music Notation Project based on the chromatic scale.
Traditional notation did evolve rather haphazardly, and so suffers from a few flaws, mostly in the non-isomorphic positioning of pitches.
Now we get to the notes themselves which along with the clef and the key signature tell us exactly what note to play and how long. There is a lot of information compact into a language that musicians can easily understand.


After the language, notation, encoding or other similar communication standard becomes widespread, a popularity becomes its major positive side (net effect). The new standard can only emerge and become more popular if significant problems have been discovered with the current one.
Short answer: Yes you are right, but classic pianoforte notation is too common to be avoided, your best bet is to try to find either another notation that is also common like MIDI or Tablature, or either find a ressembling notation system that is easy to convert back and forth with the classical one like the Simplified Music Notation. Thus there's no reason why you should not use your own notation system, as long as it can represent what you want to express. So as you can see, the primary reason for making this notation was not because of expressiveness or any other artistically elevated concept, but because of practicality: piano was the most used instrument historically in occident and this was a kinda straight way to represent a score to play on this instrument. And this historical relationship directly influenced the notation a lot further: at first, pianos didn't have accidentals (the black keys) but only the white keys, and thus that's why they are not represented on the notation. Another historical anecdote: piano was initially made primarily to play in the C key (since C was and still is the most used key), hence why chords are so easy to play in C, but so weird and hard in other keys.
About expressiveness, in fact, MIDI is the most expressive standardized notation, and is a superset of standard piano forte notation (and you can often find a "convert midi to notation" option in softwares, but the other way is much more hard because notation lacks informations that can be encoded in midi, so to do that softwares must rely on AI algorithms or just on the user to fix stuff).
But even with midi, after using it for a while, you will soon come to the conclusion that it's not nearly expressive enough to convey and reproduce all the expressions you may want.
Other solutions exists, and a lot of alternative notations have been made over the centuries. On the simplicity side, one of the most common but simple notation is the tablature, which is quite widespread for guitar songs.
As you can see, you have a wide range of possibilities, and can easily imagine anything between tablature simplicity and midi expressiveness, or maybe even beyond or combining both. Why then use such an old, deprecated musical notation system that can't even account elegantly for accidentals nor the latest findings in musical theory like microtonality? So in the end, it's up to you to choose the musical notation system you prefer, but you should not only choose it because you feel comfortable with it: it should also be expressive enough for your needs, and most important easily convertible back and forth with the classical piano notation, or sooner or later you will get tired of using your notation. I have learned how to play the piano, but I don't have a real piano so I am playing a virtual piano.
Staff notation allows you to very quickly and easily see the relative pitches of notes (i.e. First off, a written word is a series of letters that represent its sound instead of something more obvious, like a picture of the thing. The usual notation has a visual aspect (higher pitches are written higher on the score) which I find very important when following a score.
You have to already know the rythm of the melody or to complete the tablature with a standard notation.


Specific example of the problem: Rise Up Singing gets 1200 songs into a convenient-sized book by giving only lyrics and rough chord changes. You can easily apply it to alternative tuning systems where MIDI would fail horribly, incorporate a lot of microtonality without much hassle or danger of confusing the performer. You know so little about playing music at this point that you cannot fully appreciate all that is involved.
Many aspects of it are optimized for situations that no longer exist, or assume limitations on musical conduct that we no longer respect.
Soprano and baritone clefs were once pretty common, and, in fact, it is theoretically possible to put a "C," "F," or "G" clef on any staff line. The first is the clefs (the treble and the bass) that tell you exactly what notes to play and in what octave. Then we have accidentals marked as necessary and also expressions marked as necessary (such as the fermata in measure 10 and the retardando starting in measure 7) that give a better understanding of how to play.
Sure it is not the easiest to a beginner, but it is rich with information that just can't be replicated with the notation you suggested. I think, maybe the current notation is actually not so bad and this is the reason why it does not change. Accidentals came later, and to accomodate this evolution, the notation was "tweaked" to be able to represent them.
There are more expressive specifications in various softwares but these internal notations systems are not considered standard (since most are closed source anyway).
You can find a good list with critical reviews at musicnotation.org and a historical review here. Furthermore, nearly all scores use this notation, thus if you want to use another notation, you will have the double burden to first learn the pianoforte notation and then learn how to convert it into your own notation of choice. Since, as I demonstrated above, pianoforte is not the graal of expressiveness, a lot of experimental music composers and some contemporary classical composers use their own notation system, sometimes just twists on the classic pianoforte, others making a whole new notation system. There's even a system for writing Bohlen-Pierce–scale music in staffs, which one could think would be totally uncompatible. Even then printers had an aversion to ledger lines which caused difficulties in setting type, wasting space on the page and causing a messy appearance. It is very common for piano music to have a treble and a bass clef on the grand staff, but there are exceptions.



Keyboard percussion instrument played with hammers
Prices of yamaha digital pianos
Best learn play piano software android
Easy piano lessons pdf ita


Comments to «How to learn a long piano piece perfectly»

  1. Zayka writes:
    Child grand piano, which has been used to play the move their students to higher not to say.
  2. ALLIGATOR writes:
    Selection of organ, jazz piano, and learn how to choose.
  3. HULIGANKA writes:
    Keyboards with 'piano sounds' should have the weighted key, and rD-64, gigging.
  4. kis_kis writes:
    Consult a piano scale and chord e book getting your palms snug.