The piano keyboard is arranged the way it is for 2 reasons. 1- if you tried to put 88 keys in a row, you would have to have about a 80 inch wingspan in order to play it. 2-You would not be able to figure out where you are without some kind of additional que such as color coding or Braille.
The musical information presented here is misleading bordering on inaccurate. The system of musical notation evolved over many centuries; it wasn't "invented" in the fifteenth century. The major scale without sharps or flats goes from C to C not because "monks performed in a-minor" but because of the organization of hard and soft hexachords and the solmization names assigned to pitches from an eleventh-century mnemonic device. E-sharp is only the same note as F on keyboard and mallet instruments. For the presenter to criticize the western system of music notation from basic misinformation like this is like dismissing the idiosyncratic spelling of modern English with no understanding of etymology. This talk does a great disservice to the general understanding of music.
Hi Jeffrey - Note that I said "developed," not "invented," and I'm referring to the development of printed music (the printing press), which greatly expanded the distribution and use of music notation in the fifteenth century, making it accessible to many. (Also, your points are well taken, but advanced - throughout the talk I'm discussing graphic visualizations and early exposure to math and the music notation system in education - at early learning levels, when students may either latch on or shy away.)
I just double-checked my guitar and I think I can pretty much verify that there is not a note between E and F; likewise, between B and C. It has been that way for the 56 years that I have owned a guitar. I admit I may have overlooked or misunderstood something but I'm fairly sure.
@@jamesbarros950 Violin, Viola, Cello, all unfretted string instruments. Certainly true for the many wind and reed instruments as well. Basically any instrument where pitch is not confined and inflexible. I play violin and cello
@@BBQDad463 Because your guitar is an inflexible equal temperament instrument. On my violin you will find there are many notes and harmonies you can play that aren't even possible on your fretted guitar.
Creating music is one thing, trying to interpret and convey is another. Let's just keep making great music and worry about its transcription far second.
I don’t know about that. The way we create the music, is music creation. Great music is a subjective topic usually critiqued using cultural aesthetic standards. I find tonal harmony to be a ridiculous system, unfortunately it is the standard for the world over, and as a result people on average around the world consider great music based on western aesthetics. I suggest to use math itself to understand and generate music, after all, music essentially is shapes/geometry/relationships in the dimension of time.
As a life-long musician and engineer, I loved your talk. The world could not write all the books that would be needed to cover this topic which you did such a fine job addressing. Love your humor also. Thankfully, I use both sides of my brain to enjoy working together to solve problems and perceive my surrounding environment. I most enjoy how beauty is found in math. I know that all things are the result of analog math taken to the smallest scale. Too bad we don't have a better musical notation system. What we use today is the progression of many people working together from their private perspectives, melding all those ideas together to make our musical instrumental implimentation. Many people today have gone on to create instruments that leave all these old designs behind and show us that something much better can be realized. I think mankind will continue to advance the science of math and music. I look forward to it.
I think engineers are among the few people in this comment section who understand the lecturer's plight. Most people ranting against him seem to be seasoned musicians that are too used to the current system to change it. Many people in the computer and engineering fields get frustrated when they learn music theory due to how convoluted the current notation system because they are used to dealing with more mathematically-oriented and logical concepts. There are alternatives however, but they are just not very popular
This was a thought provoking video presentation of problems with notation and not a specialist course on musical notation and not the history of musicology. I do think that serious students can abstract the thesis and then chill on the minutia. There is always something new to think about and without taking chances or even leaps of logic, without generalization and normalization many new thought come out null. Consider Feynman's glorious leaps. I think Dan Formosa has a lot of insight on notation and that it is well presented.
I appreciate that you see there's value to be found, but I disagree that the misinformation about notation/history of musicology (presented authoritatively, as facts) amount to minutia. Ideally TED is a place we can go to learn with minimal need for fact-checking, in my opinion his insights do not make up for the misinformation he presents in a self-aggrandizing fashion.
Music notation has been refined so that it's the most efficient and accurate method to write music on paper. The "notes that don't exist" actually do exist in some contexts. Guitar tabs lack notation to describe note duration and dynamics precisely (you have to hear the song to fully understand it), plus it can't be applied to other instruments. The Nashville system seems like a crude derivation of the traditional system, and it would have trouble portraying note duration without using traditional note symbols. With the Nashville system, it would be impossible to accurately describe a piano piece with two hands and any kind of rhythmic synchopation. A midi grid with a velocity map is the only way to display piano music without abstractions, but you can only pull that off with a digital interface. If you tried to transfer that midi system into sheet music, each staff would need 88 lines, and a single sonata would require a novel's worth of paper. Music notation is weird and it intuitively feels wrong or overly complicated, but once you understand what every little symbol means, you quickly realize there isn't a better way to write music.
The number system will notate chords only, not melody or rhythmic figures, all of which are essential to music. You can have the same chord progression for any number or different melodies, so this method tells you very little of what the piece should sound like. Also, you would still have to know what notes equal the numeric values in every key in order to play a song, (in G, 4 = C, but in C, 4 = F) so you would have to know all the scales of Western music anyway for the numbers to mean anything. Knowing the scales in Western music is integral to using this number system.
If one intends to compose music with chromaticism and spell chords correctly (rather than enharmonically for convenience), it is absolutely necessary to use the notes he said don't exist. E7(#5) contains a B# and it must be spelled that way in order to show how the 5th of this chord is functioning and how it might resolve. Likewise, a Bb7(b5) has an Fb and must be spelled that way for the same reason. He also didn't mention double sharps and double flats. These exist for the same reason. Modern notation is justifiable and logical when composers require specific and complex information such as a piece by Bach, Beethoven or any serious composer - but not required in a studio in Nashville (or other places) where complexity or specific information is not required. Nashville number systems are easy to read and yield to the interpreter's inclinations but more often than not, require very little from the musician with the exception of an improvised solo or incidental obbligato parts. This lecture had some interesting and amusing stuff but left me with something to be desired.
Yep. JUST when you thought it was safe to watch a Tedtalk WITHOUT reading the comments first, you are proven way wrong. Should have started here (and skipped the talk altogether).
E# is not F in general. They are tuned to the same tone in 12-tone equal temperament, but that's just one way of tuning music that's only been adopted as a standard fairly recently. During the Renaissance, meantone temperaments were standard, and even through the Classical period they were fairly common, and in at least quarter comma meantone (which was the most common) E# is a distinct tone that is flatter than F. And even within 12ET (as another commenter pointed out), E# is the correct enharmonic spelling of the leading tone in the key of F#, and calling the tone E# rather than F makes its function as the leading tone (and the major third of C#) a lot clearer. There are good reasons musical notation is the way it is. A haphazard attempt to overhaul it by someone who doesn't understand music theory is not going to succeed.
E# and F are played differently on a fretless string instrument, and good singers will also play them differently. There are plenty of good complaints to be made about music notation. For example, it was designed for tonal music so is highly suboptimal for atonal music. The number-based alternative that Dan Formosa described in the talk would be even worse! Try analysing modal jazz that way and see how far it gets you.
This is a great example of how people retreat to what they know when faced with the challenge to 'think outside the box'. By positing there may be better information design systems that will create an analogue for music or that reduction is not always the best way to teach trigonometry Dan Formosa is not challenging the viewers knowledge of music theory or trigonometry neither is he denigrating the time and effort spent in learning those systems. Appreciate that in this talk, Dan Formosa challenges us to find alternatives to expert systems to improve literacy. I've just expanded the note from Ted above, and the author has done a more authoritative job of explaining the same point.
Reading notes using symbols is completely easier than numbers since their placement on the staffs can be used to generalize the note's pitch. I understand that the system might not make sense to anyone not trained in music but as most people find that the current notation is fine without math intervening.
This is one of the most favorite videos that I’ve ever found on RUclips. I’ve watched it probably 20 times over the last 10 years. And I’ve probably shared it and discussed it with hundreds. When I describe what is in this video to others, it blows their minds
An intelligent man speaking outside of his expertise. Western notation is older than the fifteenth century, monks didn't conceive of music in major and minor keys, and the Nashville Number System is a stultified reinvention of an older wheel popularized by Jean-Philippe Rameau in 18th century France but understood much earlier.
If you are transposing a song from one key to another, you are still keeping the intervals same. As long as the intervals are same, the tune is same. Changing the key just changes the pitch, not the tune of the song. It is for this reason I believe music scores should be written using intervals. You can start at any key, as long as the intervals don't change. Consequently, there are 12 ways to play a song (one in each key). The note you start from will fix the key of the song. Determining the key is to be done by testing with the singer's voice and his/her comfortable range. No matter what key you play in, the same score consisting of intervals can then be used without needing to change the score. Eg. Jingle Bells: 1,1,1 | 1,1,1 | 1,2.5 | -1,0,1 jingle bells | jingle bells | jin-gle | all the way Intervals are measured using tones/steps. If you don't like decimals, this would be the equivalent (using half steps/semitones): 1,1,1 | 1,1,1 | 1,4 | -3,-1,1 If G=1, it would be: GGG GGG GBb EbFG If E=1, it would be: EEE EEE EG CDE If C=1, it would be: CCC CCC CEb AbBbC
@@heidsland Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can actually verify what I said by playing these notes. You will find its the same tune. The only difference is in the pitch. Starting at lower/higher key will result in the same tune being played in lower/higher pitch as long as the intervals are not changed.
jdbceb yeah I was very disappointed too. You know the dude was exposed to the truth at some point, but chooses to complete ignore it because it’s inconvenient for his message.
"equal temperament produces irrational ratios." . . . and really, I think that is an important secret of the universe -- right there. Translates to all sorts of understandings.
I've played the guitar for 14 years and I never learned how to read music outside of a choir setting. I can put my finger on a string someplace and play that note and have no idea what it is. But you know something? I play music. I play in different tunings and timings. I can listen and repeat or I can compose my own lovely series of notes. The written form makes no difference to me and I don't require it. Do I wish I could wrap my head around it all? Sure. But is it necessary in order to play music? Absolutely not.
Ah, I always wondered what the difference was but was too lazy to look it up, thanks Scott. Yes, this would then be an excellent example of that lack of quality control. >Pianist shaking her head
And not even that. Note the disclaimer text under the video: "NOTE FROM TED: We've flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx's curatorial guidelines for its assertions about math and music."
Wow, what a lot of misinformation! Pythagorean tuning is not at all like modern equal temperament. The relative distance between all the notes were different, not the same. For instance the difference between c and d is narrower than between d and e in his sister. Western monks singing Gregorian Chant certainly did not sing everything in A minor. Modes 1 and 2 were similar to a minor mode, Modes 7 and 8 were similar to a Major Scale. 3 and 4 were similar to phrygian, and 5 and 6 had a lot in common with lydian. These were different than the so-called "church modes" you read about in music theory, Meantone tuning used in Western music from about 1400 till the 1800 used at tuning system were C# and Db were different pitches, like other "enharmonic" notes. The real interesting conflict between math an music is the Pythagorean Comma (that he discovered) that when you tune a chain of perfect 5ths ( C - G, G - D, D- A . . . and get back to end Bb - F, F - C, your C you end up with is like a quarter tone flat than the C you started with. Sometimes called the "Mistake" in the universe. The modern tuning system gets around this problem by making ALL the 5ths just a little narrow so we wind up back at the same C. Making the 5ths narrow is vary slight, but it results in very wide 3rds which are modern ears have gotten used to, but which come out much more beautiful in other tuning systems with pure thirds.
True enough. But without tempered tuning you can't modulate, and without modulation you can throw out a large percentage of western music starting with Bach.
"There is no such thing as an E# or B#." I didn't need to get past that point. It's perfectly OK to criticize the existing notation and propose something better, but make sure you understand the system first.
Sorry, some combination of RUclips, my browser and modern-web gremlins is preventing me from seeing that reply. Since you took the time to read my comment, I took the time to watch the rest of the video. I found more objectionable things in it, of which I will point out four: (1) You don't see all the numbers when you look at a slide rule. For instance, you don't see negative numbers. You actually only see the positive real numbers between 1 and 1000 or so, and the rest of the positive real numbers you have to imagine, by keeping track of powers of 10 in your head. Perhaps you can keep track of the sign in your head too; but you certainly don't see zero. (2) "Numbers are digital, but math is analog" assumes a very limited view of numbers and math. The way you use real numbers might be analog, but the math used to do cryptography is digital, and being off by one or by ten is equally bad in that context (you'll just get a garbled message). (3) The number system developed in Nashville is only being used for the harmonic structure of the song, not the melody (at least in your slide). It is appropriate for the context in which it was created (playing the harmony for simple tonal music, like Amazing Grace). Jazz musicians use Roman numerals similarly (e.g., when they talk about a ii-V-I progression). But music is much more general than that, and the traditional notation has served us well. Most of classical music since the XIX century could not have happened if people had only been using the Nashville notation. (4) A slide guitar and a slide rule are not all that similar. The main feature of the logarithmic scale in the slide rule is that translating some fixed amount to the right means multiplication by some constant (e.g., you add log(2) to multiply by 2). The mapping of positions to frequencies in a slide guitar is not logarithmic, but hyperbolic. Actually a piano or a harp are much closer to the slide rule: You translate a fixed distance to multiply the frequency by a constant (e.g., you translate up an octave to multiply the frequency by 2, and two notes that are an octave apart are always the same distance away). I'm a big fan of the slide rule, and I was looking forward to an alternative music notation (since the traditional one does have a lot of limitations). However the main thing I learned from this talk is that you overestimate how much you know about both math and music. I like your delivery and you seem like a very smart guy. You are probably a very good designer. But before you promulgate your thoughts about math and music in such a public way, I suggest you bounce them off a real expert first.
Dan- I can't see your reply to jasperiscool either, and I would also like to know how you are being misinterpreted here. With all due respect, I also agree with alonamaloh: you should have talked to someone who knows this stuff first.
This guy's talk is good evidence for why we don't let 10 -year-old kids drive cars on public streets. His understanding of music is essentially at a the level of a young child and he really needs to stick to explaining why 47+26=73 and not try to go beyond that. He made sense up to about 2:30 but after that the video turns into a giant face-palm.
This system does not work for people who play melodies. It works well as a chord chart for accompanists who play with random singers. It also works for the Johnny Cash song "I Walk The Line" because that song changes key every single verse.
He's wrong, at least on music. E# and F being equivalent is an artifact of equal temperament. In other tuning systems it's not necessarily the case. That's a choice we made to enable modulation of keys. He doesn't even explain Nashville numbering well. Geez.
I'm not that sure about the music part. But the math part is kind of pointless. What he told there is he can understand stuff better if it is shown graphically. That's about all. And you can forget skipping math class and learning everything by yourself with just this sliding ruler. I don't want to say it is a bad invention, it is just outdated by 40 Years.
Dead right. This guy is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I'm sorry it took him so long to catch up with schoolroom Pythagoras , but feel he should do his homework properly before inflicting his musical misconceptions upon others.
in the world of Jazz (and all other music genres I would guess) you can have double sharps and double flats and by the same token you can have E# or C flat when applying a rule that sharpens or flattens existing scale notes. This is for clarity in reading music.
This video highlights an "improved" notation but doesn't why some notes don't possess accidentals while others do. I play the cello and guitar, sometimes expiriment with piano. Having two keys to indicate "C, D, and E" from "F, G, A, and B" is way easier than 12 white keys
They use numbers in Nashville, as I have always done when doing studio work, in order to change key easily if necessary. If a singer comes in and the key of A (1) doesn't suit, you can change to F# (1). When figuring out chord progressions from the radio or a cd, it's easy to do with numbers, and then you can play the song in whatever key you like.
I won't claim that traditional sheet music is a miracle of perfect design, but it's proven itself to be thorough and adaptable enough to last through many different eras and styles of music. The Nashville system? Highly limited (the example he gives doesn't include the actual melody of Amazing Grace!), and it's nothing but a reinvented wheel. For centuries, classical musicians have used a very similar system, based on Roman numerals, that allows compact and detailed descriptions of harmony.
There is a use for E#. It is to show you that you need to add some minor thirds for a harmonic resolution back to F. So you would go E# -> G# -> B -> D -> F. Same if you wind up with an Fb, B#, Cb, etc.
TED talks should expand our minds and perspectives on a topic from a person of exceptional maturity in his or her subject. This talk does the opposite.
Music may be best taught without instruments in order to understand the math. In Shankarian Analysis you use Roman Numerals to indicate which chord is being used and Carat on top of numbers to signify scale degree. In Functional Harmony a Septonic or seven note system is used. There are 11 different notes in all including flats and sharps. There are only 3 types of scales. They are Ionian, harmonic major and harmonic minor. They can be played modaly by centering on any scale degree other than the tonic ( the note the scale is named after). I have been creating and improving chart notation for my compositions my whole life. I agree that the notation system has it's flaws and it is nice to have an alternative. Especially for analysis.
the hardest part of reading music for most beginners is the rhythm even though it is very logical, in practice it can be challenging. Reading the pitch values is relatively easy after some practice. I would like to see alternative notations. I like to work in the tracker format,, but really i have seen nothing that beats standard music notation for playing an instrument (cept chord symbols but you need to study music theory to read them).
There are and have historically been a lot of different musical notation schemes. Some of them are good for one specific purpose (like guitar tab), but don’t generalize well to either other instruments. But standard notation has lasted because it has a few really good properties. One important one is that it uses a single symbol to convey both the pitch and duration of a note. That’s not true of the “Nashville System”, which requires both the interval number and some other symbol to convey the duration for a single note. This property of standard notation makes it efficient, compact, and easier to sight-read than a lot of the alternative systems. Especially when it comes to sight reading, the idea of having a symbol uniquely correspond to a particular pitch is a real advantage - you don’t need to be constantly calculating interval offsets in your head to decide what note to play. Another advantage of standard notation is that it is closer to universal - it makes sense on multiple instruments. Example: You can easily sight read and play a flute part on a violin because they use the same notation (and have basically the same range). This generality makes it possible to write scores for an entire ensemble comprising different instruments on the same page, and get a snapshot of what the entire sound should be. You could make things a little easier, though. For example, it’s already common to transpose standard notation when writing for Bb or Eb instruments, so the the symbol for middle-C on the piano actually corresponds to either Eb or Bb (in concert pitch) for the instrument you’re writing for. You could generalize this principle by always writing music down in the key of C, and then noting the “transpose” offset. (Kind of in the way we write the key signature at the beginning of the stave.). This would accomplish what those Nashville guys did, while still preserving the good properties of compactness and universality of standard notation. Or you could just bite the bullet and learn to read music...
Tone is duo. High and low. Bass Clef is "A" and then middle "C" Starting from the bottom,(low before high), we have your "A minor"? We start the scale with "A" instead of "C". Do we start high or do we start low? Depends on how and when we want the vibrations to go.
E# definitely exists. It is the seventh note of an F# major scale for instance. It is enharmonic with F note in the current tuning but you do indicate on the sheets as well, look at the #-s for F#, one of them is for E note.
I KNEW IT; "You cant pass this module unless you write in a key" "No its a B flat not an F but good try" This is so fantastic to hear and see put into practise, thank you smart man!
I really wish people would learn some music history before they made things like this. The reason the scale starts on a is that its the finalis of the hypodorian mode. The actual scale system of that time started on Г.
That's funny. I actually did learn both guitar and slide rule that way and continue writing by numbers to this day. P.S. B# does exist. It is the 7th in the key of C# and is used in many other keys, as well. For instance it is the third in the key of G#, the second in the key of A#, the sixth in the key of D# and so on.
A large part of this seems to be him projecting his experience (in learning math and music) on to the world at large, and it isn't correct. For instance, some people do teach Pythagoras' theorem using geometry (which was how it was originally conceived anyhow).
"What is your point" - the most relevant phrase in this talk It's really hard to figure out what I am supposed to take away from this. "A bit all over the place" is the description that comes to mind. I'm sure Mr Formosa is really intelligent and probably a very talented musician and mathematician, but something I have found about musicians - even music teachers - is that they don't explain stuff in terms that non-musicians can get a handle on. I'm reasonably good at maths but have no musical talent and although I *do* have a strong interest in the technicalities of music, I can't develop anything more than a superficial dusting of musical knowledge because no-one can explain it to me in a way that makes any sense at all. Certainly not in this talk.
WOW. The historical and music theory inaccuracies (heck, straight out wrongness) here presented blew my mind. In a really bad way. Any study of either math history, music history, or music theory will quickly sort out these "questions". While current musical notation is complex, that complexity allows the necessary flexibility for maximum creativity and idea-transmission. It records both the time aspects (meter, rhythm, tempo) and space aspects (pitch, harmony, scale, altered pitches, chords). It can record music from any culture so that it can be performed by musicians who've never heard it. Yeah it's complex, but no more complex than necessary. The flat out ignorance of where scales came from ("the monks mostly sang in a-min," WTH? Ever hear of the modes, pal?), why current Western music is mostly limited to 2 of them, of alternate scales across the globe . . . This guy needs to take some theory and history classes before opining on such subjects again.
Musical notation is as confusing as English spelling. Once you learn it, it becomes your second nature, and you don't even have to think about it anymore. The problem with this talk is the presenter doesn't even know what he doesn't know on the subject.
You are fourth thinking? Do you know that every man made takt is taktik for taxes! Or to tag the taxis? Was this made by the Thurn and Taxis that have an own palais in Frankfurt? They are all used by hollow creatures to lead the offers to a false place! They know that they know no-thing or just the things?
As the organist of my church, I am so thankful for transposers on the organ/piano/keyboards. Church music is all over the place--sometimes too high and/or too low. Thus, it's much nicer to just click a button or 3 and then transpose.
It would have been really funny if this guy could have had a conversation with Harry Partch. Harry had a better understanding of the history of musical tuning and temperament, though.
Indeed. He should at least have made the disclaimer that his description of tuning was oversimplified. Unfortunately, most of the other stuff he said about music- for instance, about the history of notation- was wrong.
Pointless! We are not your captive high school students. Prepare a talk, or pass your turn. The misleading title, hinting at a problematic which you never go into, makes it worse.
numbers have been used in music theory long before the "Nashville system" that way a dorian or aolean or whatever scale always has the same intervallic relationship to the tonic (albeit tempered)no matter what key you choose to play or transpose to.
Ok so I like that he was attempting to make some kind of connections about problems between math and music, but he is not a musician and does not seem to understand some basic concepts of the way music came to be in the west. Along with that saying that Nashville notation is the first to use numbers incorrect, check out figured bass from the baroque era. Also, his explanation of C-major and A-minor doesn't entirely make sense as notation developed over time not at one moment and E# does exist.
I think the point was that a more analog notation (and more visual way of teaching math, makes the nature of both beasts much more accessible and obvious. (And he did concede the E# thing.) The Nashville Notation bit was interesting, but as I was classically trained, I was immersed for years in functional harmonic notation, which also uses numbers, and is similar in concept. If he gets acquainted with Harry Partch's Genesis of a Music, man, though, he'll have some amazing stuff to share. He might even make it comprehensible.
His explanation of the Nashville system was lacking in historicity and detail, and in links to established music theory, especially in Baroque numeric practice.
So why is he proposing a number system which is completely digital, while the musical staff system is much more analog (since you can actually can see rising and falling sequences analog to the higher and lower pitches they produce when performed).
I don't like sheet music either, but the author blatantly omits its advantages. A piece of sheet music contains all the information required to play a song, one the performer may not have even heard before. It was developed in a world before recorded music, where if you wanted someone to hear your song in the future you had to write down every nuance in a codified way. Guitar tablature is very convenient but it really only tells you what notes to play. It's meant to work in conjunction with a recording of the song you're trying to learn. You have to already know how the song goes before tabs will mean anything to you.
In my lay opinion. The reason for actually creating a B sharp or a F flat, is necessary for describing an infinite system. I can create a song and name the chords almost whatever I deem it to be. With the knowledge that the same chord could have several other names. All depending upon how I look at it. In that sense, may I say, the sound is digital and the written musical note is analog?
I'm not sure why Mr. Formosa bothers to diss the monks for inventing a system that worked quite well for several hundred years and indeed is still easily learned today. What makes his nastiness even more disconcerting is that Arabic numbers had not yet even been introduced into the West. We are usually able to give generous credit for the advances without criticizing those upon whose shoulders those advances were built.
James - Just pointing out in this talk (to a gathering of design students in 2012) that music notation is difficult for beginners to decipher. Many drop out. That will likely continue to be the case for a few hundred more years. But I like monks.
i think his point was 'because it limits what you will do with it' and consumes mental resources you could be using better elsewhere - like making interesting music.
5 minutes a day for a month and you can learn to easily identify every single note in notation, 2 hours a day took me 2 weeks. If you don't have enough persistence for that you'll never learn any instrument
The reason a "fifth" is such a pleasing harmony is that the higher note's frequency (hz) is 50% higher than the low note and your ear hears the them synchronize. Just like an octive is double the frequency and the ear can hear the synchronicity even better. middle A is 440hz, A above is 880hz, E is 660hz
What a relief to see that so many people call out the BS in the comment section! I happen to know a thing or two about math and music and I can confirm that this talk is very ill-informed indeed! Big disappointment!
I bought an upright (fretless) bass and tuned the strings at intervals of 6 semitones, in other words the interval between each string is the tritone. This arrangement left me with the alternating strings each one tuned a full octave above the other. This is helpful for playing a variety of different popular styles. It also greatly assisted the discovery of the most amazing mathematical object ever conceived - the Spiral of Life!
Apparently this talk has a lot of inaccurate information, but I gotta say this comment section also gives me the impression that music theory types can be...a rather heated bunch. People get all kinds of upset if you dare criticize the sacred cow that is sheet music notation. I'm seeing insults to the guy's intelligence alongside rants filled with music terminology that doesn't really mean much to a layman. It's kind of like I've walked in on a cult of sorts. Are the Pythagoreans still kicking around? :P
You’re all missing the point. The speaker has thrown a dart and has obviously missed the bullseye. The fact that his flippant comment on B# has sparked gasps of horror among the music theorists in the audience however, ironically reinforces his point of the severe problematic nature of the Western academic musical notation system. Notes have functional relationships, as has been correctly noted by the theorists. Also, it is true that B# exists as the correct name in certain scale forms based on it’s function within specific key spellings. It is unfortunate he stepped in a steaming pile of B#. His main point being that this notation design obfuscates a practical understanding of music. The beauty of the Nashville system is that it is all about the functional relationships between notes regardless of key, pitch standardization, or tuning temperament. It is simple, easy to use, easy to transpose and a great tool to access an understanding of how music theory works for all levels of players. It is also true that it is designed for chord progressions and impractical for classical music but it is closely related to jazz dialogue and is a great way to dig deep into music theory beyond progressions. Note function is the heart of music theory. Alas, this heart has long been obscured by the design of musical notation which discourages accessibility for a large segment of the population, this being the speaker’s point but which he fails to articulate clearly with his lack of knowledge of the system he is criticizing. What is the ratio of students who quit music and those who continue on? I have played with Academy trained and Suzuki method teachers who cannot improvise music on the spot because they really don’t understand what is not written on the page. I also really tire of hearing people say they have no talent for music. I hate seeing people give up on their enthusiasm for music because they are led down a garden path that music is all about notes on a page. These are examples of the design problem of classical notation. At the same time I recognize it’s strengths. Perhaps the speaker would have been better off to have telegraphed more clearly that the tool of classical notation is a pedagogical design problem when it is promoted as the only tool of access. Clearly pedagogical design is an issue for him and he’s not wrong in that despite his missteps. Also read the presenters blurb below the video. The presentation was not about music theory but about improving access to understanding difficult theoretical topics.
Thanks for the comment. I also want to add (in case you didn't see my earlier post) that this technique of "exploring confusion" and reporting on the points that can cause confusion is standard practice, used by virtually all companies in product development for optimizing the design and usability of physical products, instructional materials and digital interfaces, to make them as easy to use as possible. Also, this talk is only about our first exposures (grammar school level) to math and music - in music for instance, when we're first asked to relate dots on a scale to keys on a piano. (B# comes later - unfortunately most never get that far.)
The fact that this (valid) point had to be dug out from a large pile of intellectually-lazy presentation is a testament to the poor skills of the speaker in putting his thesis across.
Wow Dan you really got em going. Careful lest you meet the same ending as 'PGOS'. Funny how as a young boy I enjoyed playing w my older brothers slide rule. Had I developed my 'rule skills' My math journey in school would have ended up a success rather than the shameful confusing mess it turned out to be. Tools that work well inspire confidence. Funny how as a young musician I learned music formally in school and by 'ear' at home and with my buddies. Read notes, play...listen to record, play. We hadn't been taught about transcribing yet but I'm not sure if it would have had the utility that careful repeated listening did. The records had so much information to give. Feel, style,taste,tone, arrangements etc. I discovered that playing delta blues had its own unique set of challenges, just as Gentle Giants 'the boys in the band' did. When I moved to Nashville, I was inundated with musical challenges. The musical info was conveyed thru tapes, chord changes and number charts. I quickly realized that these got me into the solar system but not the planet of choice. So it was with those constellations of notes that I got handed that had names like Handel, Shostakovich, Berlioz etc. Something truly amazing happens when autonomous sentient beings gather and pick up antiquated sound machines. Forgive the digression... Untill we develope real time telepathy ( which I believe happens in music) we are stuck w the analogical representations. For all their obvious shortcomings the music pours out and it is Amazing.
Hi Andy - If you're into math, slide rules (like fret boards) are graphically beautiful things to play with. And the more complex (advanced) slide rules can be mind-boggling. For the video, the RUclips audience has grown to about 5,000 times the original number of about 100 people (which were mostly design students.) Many of the comments lose the point that I'm talking about first exposure to math and music, grammar-school level. Only a few "graduate," becoming comfortable with either of the topics.
Great video. Does what it sets out to do, which is to provoke discussion. For those who can't cope with the numbers based notation, try thinking of the numbers as being called Do, Re, Mi etc. instead of one two three.
Why would this speaker claim that the notation system is somehow horrible without any statement as to his reasons for his opinion? It may not be perfect but, it can convey a vast amount of music to exactitude or close thereabouts. I have seen people take a piece of sheet music of a fairly complex piece of music they have never seen and play it so that it sounds like the music. Now that takes tons of practice with sight reading but it works very well. I don't see why you would call it horrible at all. It is sometimes amazingly effective.
He's still wrapped up in his substandard education, "teaching" by asking condescending questions and then showing derision when the answers don't, of course, come back just as he wants. If a person wants to share knowledge, then teach. Don't ridicule.
Why are there so many people who should be sitting in pupils' chairs, instead standing in front of and "educating" the class? This man obviously knows very little about music or math. TED should really better interview people before letting them lecture.
There would be a few problems with a notation based on numbers - how do you designate direction for starters. Say you have the numbers 1 and 6. Is that C up to A or C down to A? Then you would have to have a way of conferring rhythm. And then what about accidentals and modulations?
Figured Bass anyone, how about relative do in solfege? Glad that those guys get the credit for inventing something that has been known for thousands of years. The crazy thing is that this guy is talking about music and math like he is an expert, when he clearly never took a music course in college. When I clicked I thought he was going to talk about imperfect temperament, but I was disappointed. It makes me upset to think that people listen to him speak and now have negative preconceptions about musical notation, every musician knows that sheet music is not music. I am still very glad that Bach and Beethoven opted to write down their work so that society(minus Dan Formosa) can enjoy and admire their work. I would love for him also not straight up lie about enharmonic tones.
The guy simplifies a lot of things and a lot of what he says is just false. Minor and major keys (as we know them) didn't exist back when the musical alphabet were invented. The alphabet don't really start on "C". You just learn them this way today because the major key became the basis of modern music theory after the discovery of keys. Back when the note names were invented, the absolute pitches they represented weren't important. They represented relative pitches and people transposed them to whatever "key" they wanted to play in. Most music back then was vocal music, and only after instrumental music became more relevant (in the late renaissance period) did absolute pitches become more important. (So before this there was no "standard" A - the A note was whatever the singers were comfortable with. This is also why not all of the 12 notes were actually needed - there was no need to notate music in other keys, and music mostly used the natural notes and some occasional accidentals.) Also, there definitely is such thing as E#, Fb, B# and Cb (and those are not the same thing as F, E, C and B - maybe for a self taught hobbyist they are, but anybody who has actually studied music beyond the very basics knows the difference between an E# and an F natural). There is even such thing as Bbb or Fx (double sharp), neither of which are even that rare. About the "Nashville system"... People had already been referring to the chords in a key way before that with roman numerals. If you study music in a conservatory, you will study roman numeral analysis. Also, another "keyless" system is the solmization system. Do re mi fa, etc. is the same in all keys. "Do" is always the 1st note of the scale, "re" is always the 2nd note, etc. You learn these things in theory class too. The "Nashville system" doesn't really replace sheet music, because it only works for chord charts. Chord charts and sheet music communicate way different things. Chord chart is a way of seeing which chords you should play, but you need to decide the voicing yourself. Sheet music on the other hand tells you exactly which notes to play in which order. They work for different kinds of music. But if I want to communicate specific chord voicings, sheet music is way superior to the "Nashville system". I'm not saying there are no problems with the traditional notation system, but I think it's still the best that we've got, and it works pretty well for tonal music. If we are talking about atonal music, then there would probably be a use for another system, since traditional notation is based on diatonic scales and can be pretty difficult to read if the music is really chromatic. But we need to remember that most music is based on diatonic scales, and this is also why using 7 letters instead of 12 makes a lot of sense.
Excellent and informative entertainment, just three thoughts for Mr. Formosa himself. 1) Count from 0 instead of 1. 2) These counts represent tuples or half steps only. Maj triad is 0,4,7 half steps, Min triad is 0, 3,7 half-steps. 3) Take a look at the Janko, isomorphic, keyboard.
Yeah I came with an open mind hoping he'd at least explain what's so great about some system, but it was rather disjointed and just ended with a "Here's something obscure that happened" joke.
I can tell this guy was a 60s kid, but I find his position very important. Musical notation is obtuse, and could be tvastly simplified more closely aligning with mathematics.
I was expecting to hear about how things like the "perfect fifth" are not perfect at all, that music is a bunch of relationships that are ALMOST mathematically perfect, but they're not. A "perfect" fifth is 2/3 the wavelength or 3/2 the frequency of the unison, but if you start at a low A note at 110 Hz, and go around the circle of fifths using 3/2 ratios of frequencies, twelve perfect fifths gets you a frequency of 110 * (3/2)^12 = approximately 14,272 Hz. But that circle of fifths SHOULD get you to another A, i.e., a power of 2 * 110 Hz. The actual note you SHOULD end up on would be 110 * 2^8 = 14,080 Hz. That's a HUGE difference, and if you played both of these notes along with that original A 110, you'd get a horrible dissonance with the one derived by "perfect fifths". Pythagoras really, really wanted this to work out, as have countless musicians since, but it just doesn't. Ask any piano tuner - every note has to be tuned slightly flat from the perfect fifth, or it just won't work. This is far beyond the problem with music NOTATION that Mr. Formosa describes. Sure, music notation SUCKS, but the problem with the music ratios is much more fundamental.
Indeed. The most concise way of stating the problem is this: no power of two is also a power of three. The fault is not with people, or music, but with mathematics. Even God can't fix it, if She is logical.
Scott Wallace: Well put. But the fault really IS with people - we find certain intervals - the fourth, fifths, and major and minor 3rd and 6th, to be close enough to be pleasurable. But it's a good thing; it allows us to have music, even though it really just can't work!
It is mostly misunderstood. The guy presents, in a very sympathetic way, a heckload of bullcrap. But it's supposed to be an inspirational speech for design students, not an informative lecture about music and maths. And what I'm sorry about is nobody (including me) noticing the long explanation in the video description, as it is hidden behind the "show more" button. (I didn't notice it until I read some answers to the comments)
@@UBERLADEN69 A few examples of misinformation from the video: E# doesn't exist. The major scale begins on C because we started with the minor scale. Our notational system is basically the same as the monks from 1500 years ago. The Nashville system as a good way of transmitting songs (it isn't, it only transmits chord relations, so "Can't Buy Me Love" by the Beatles and "Aint Nothin' But A Hound Dog" would suddenly be identical in the notation, which leads to the conclusion that the Nashville System doesn't communicate much of the information about what makes a song a song). The idea that we don't use numbers when studying music and music theory ("skip the music classes"). The simplifications about Irving Berlin. Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find anything that's really accurate. Maybe the slide-rule stuff at the beginning is; I'm not familiar enough with slide-rules to say. But essentially all of the musical stuff was false, from the theory, to the assertions about notation, to the history.
Very interesting, but one point he seems to have missed is that in the well tempered scale, where there are twelve notes in the “octave” whose frequencies form a series with the same ratio between each note (a geometric progression) a “key change” does nothing more than shift pitch up or down. Transposing from one key to any other key requires that you retain your pattern of missed and included notes in the major scale and you just move the pitch (=frequencies). Feel free to argue. Different situation with music in the time of Pythagoras as the tuning was different.
These "notes that don't exist" in fact do: they are very necessary in keys with more than five sharps/flats in the signature, and when modulating to dominant pedals in already very sharp keys, or subdominant pedals in keys with several flats, for instance. Also in particular diminished and augmented chords. D, F, A♭, and C♭ compose Ddim7. This is a much more transparent way to communicate this diminished chord than "D, F, A♭, B"! Is he postulating that we would call the leading note in F# major "F" rather than E sharp?! That's ridiculous! One should be able to name the degrees of any tonality with consecutive letters, as in "E♭, F, G♭, A♭, B♭, C♭ D♭, E♭" for E♭ natural minor, rather than calling C♭ a B. See how every letter name is used only once? (Except the tonic) E#, C♭, B#, and F♭ EXIST. Wonder if this person even acknowledges the existence of double sharps and flats if this is already too controversial!
Indeed! LOL Good points... However, as long as we're being technical and pointing out errors: it makes NO sense to refer to the number of "accidentals IN [a key] signature" An 'accidental' is an inclusive (catch all) term which refers to notes which fall outside of (are NOT in) the current key signature. While they exist only within the context of a key signature, they are every note that is not part of that key signature and therefore can not be used to define that key signature since ITS definition is what creates/defines them.
And it is illogical & nonsensical to describe or define a 'thing' (a key signature in this case) using a concept/term or 'thing' whose definition relies on the first 'thing' for its context (the concept of an accidental is defined within the context of a key signature and is meaningless outside that context of a key signature)... It is also illogical & nonsensical to describe or define a 'thing' (still a key signature) using the very term that represents anything that is NOT [part of] that first 'thing'!!! LMAO What does that even mean to talk about the number of something (accidentals) that makes up a key signature when that something (accidental) is inherently defined as being whatever is outside of and NOT part of that key signature??? WTF?!?!? It's like slurring a group of notes with a rest in the middle, or adding any kind of articulation or dynamic markings to rests! (because you're including something (a rest, AKA a break, breath, pause or stop) in a continuous, non-stop connected group of something (notes) that by definition excludes that first thing (the rest)-so... how do you connect notes separated by a rest without eliminating the rest?) Consider this: the term 'accidental' refers to both sharps and flats (which is what you were referring to), but it also clearly includes 'naturals' (as well as double sharps & double flats)-but you will never see a key signature with naturals in it (nor double sharps or flats)! Let's not pretend that this obviously doesn't include the practice of cancelling an outgoing key signature as a courtesy if applicable. Why? Well, mainly because it's not a key signature but the CANCELLING (or negating) of a key signature that is ending [to clean the slate] before introducing the new key signature. When is it applicable? Why not always? The practice is fading and not required except when the new key signature has no sharps or flats, but it is recommended when switching between sharps and flats, or when reducing the number of sharps or flats (but not when increasing the number of sharps or flats). "... keys with more than five sharps or flats in the signature..." would be the correct way to express your idea; in case there was any doubt or confusion. You obviously have an understanding of (at least basic) music theory... So, I'm assuming you either had a brainfart-an "accidental" slip up of terminology, or your understanding of the term was slightly flawed. Nonetheless, anyone who chooses to post detailed, technical citations of an error should fully expect to be called out for even the slightest inaccuracy in their comment (which this is not, this is a significant, fundamental blunder on par with referring to an ampersand as a letter of the alphabet!).
+DJJonPattrsn22 Oops! Yes of course, made a big boo-boo. That is technically correct. I just for some reason thought it would be a quicker way to say it, but I do realize the difference. I was trying to get at the importance of white-key sharps and flats and why our current notation is more than sufficient. Thanks for your time in clarifying LOL. Just curious, what is your musical background? What instrument(s) do you play? You demonstrate a considerable depth of musical knowledge!
Imagine notating a Beethoven Sonata or Chopin Ballade in the “keyless number system”. He is clearly not a pianist or conductor as the reason for the elaborate notation system we developed is not a flaw in the “left brain” education system, but rather a necessity due to the complexity of the music which evolved since the notation system was invented.
Not only does E# exist as one of many existing enharmonic equivalents to F- it is also a member of one of the basic 12 major keys- the 7th scale degree of F# major. In fact, Ex (E double sharp) even exists as the 7th scale degree of Fx (F double sharp) major. It is clear that the presenter has no foundation in western musical notation or music theory, since he doesn't even surpass a 101 level of music theory knowledge in his "argument" against western notation. In addition, the minor, or Aeolian mode was not the only church mode- Dorian, Lydian and Mixolydian were used as well. Lastly, the "Nashville" notation referenced is a shorthand depicting the chordal analysis, and is incapable of notating melody, which makes it by definition a less capable alternative to western notation. Perhaps the presenter may look into finishing undergraduate music theory coursework before proceeding with his "studies" against western notation.
Edit 11/19- E# is one of *multiple* (actually two) enharmonic pitches to F- the other being Gbb (G double flat). My point is, E# and all of those other notes truly exist, and in fact must exist for the correct notation of all diatonic chords within the modes surrounding the 12 pitches used in western music.
I'm not saying the key of Fx needs to exist, but the pitch Fx is necessary to correctly notate other keys diatonically. In G# harmonic minor, it would not be correct to notate the leading tone as a G natural- it is an Fx, and that makes chordal analysis make sense.
The Nashville system is a shorthand notation which allows experienced musicians who know scales and chords intimately to quickly improvise accompaniments to melodies which may or may not be written down. It was never intended to be a full notation system. You can use the system whether you are fluent with musical notation or if you can't read a note, but still know chords and scales. And, by the way, far more musical theory than the speaker.
Yeah, but he spends a lot of time talking about things like where Pythagoras died, without even going into much detail on why Pythagoras's theory of music was so great. And the Nashville system that he eventually describes doesn't really use much math, it just uses numbers to replace the existing notation. Your car license plate also uses numbers, is that math? No. Your social security number does as well. Math? Not really. So the title of the talk is misleading, and really seems like a collection of disjointed thoughts that might all make decent lectures on their own, if expanded upon.
What Dan Formosa says about the slide rule and the Pythagorean Theorem is funny and thoughtful. But what he says about music is largely wrong or wrongheaded- he's obviously no musician. First off, his history is just false: he says that our current system of notation was developed by monks in the 1500's. Wrong: Western notation was in continual development, starting with neumes in about 800, lines added about 1000, mensural notation (rhythm indicated by shape of notes) around 1200, and so forth. He also says that monks in the 16th century didn't use sharps or flats. Also wrong: accidentals had been in use centuries earlier. Dan should have done some research before lecturing on the history of notation. Yes: modern notation is not ideal. In many specialized applications, for instance in lute or guitar notation (as he mentions), it's easier on the musician to use some kind of tabulature: a picture of the fingerboard with the notes written where they are fingered. But- his dismissal of E# and Cb as useless equivalents of F and B, and his touting of the Nashville system of numbers from one to twelve, shows that he isn't aware of the fact that most good musicians look at music structurally, not in terms of numbers of half steps above some tonic, and not in terms of which fingers to put down. Modern staff notation is much better than any number system for notating tonal music (as opposed to atonal music, where there are no tonal centers or scales), because it incorporates our tonal scale system (which accounts for by far the bulk of the music we play and hear) into its structure. B to C is a half step, and C to D a whole step, because our scales are built of whole and half steps. Sure, numerical (or some equivalent) notation might be more streamlined and efficient for, say, Schönberg. But not for Bach, Beethoven, or the Beatles. To use Dan's own illustration: staff notation is like a slide rule, and the Nashville system is like a pocket calculator: staff notation shows you how the music works, and numerical systems hide the structure. Sure, staff notation takes some work to learn, and it's not perfect. But the Nashville system is never going to replace it, because it's too limited and artificial. cheers from sleety Vienna, Scott
While the video has maybe a couple of valid points, it is disturbing to listen to someone with that Ted Talk Mr. smart guy tone be so factually incorrect, your comments are all right on, thank you Scott
The piano, as is our notation system, is symmetrical on the circle of fifths (or 7k%12 for k=0,1,2,3....) i.e, the major or minor more are not arbitrary at all, as they appear in sequence on the cycle (F C G D A E B) This allows to transpose one scale to its 2 neighbours by only replacing one note at a time (e.g. F -> F#, or B -> Bb) In short - the standard system is well thought of.
Why not admit there is a problem with the audio of this recording?
(Don't say that out loud, it might distract people about the fact that the content is pretty bad as well.)
Dave Suffys, the audio is the least of the problems with this talk. Drexel U is embarrassing itself.
PAN LEFT
The piano keyboard is arranged the way it is for 2 reasons. 1- if you tried to put 88 keys in a row, you would have to have about a 80 inch wingspan in order to play it. 2-You would not be able to figure out where you are without some kind of additional que such as color coding or Braille.
In this video: Guitarist mad at sheet music, a classic move.
The musical information presented here is misleading bordering on inaccurate. The system of musical notation evolved over many centuries; it wasn't "invented" in the fifteenth century. The major scale without sharps or flats goes from C to C not because "monks performed in a-minor" but because of the organization of hard and soft hexachords and the solmization names assigned to pitches from an eleventh-century mnemonic device. E-sharp is only the same note as F on keyboard and mallet instruments. For the presenter to criticize the western system of music notation from basic misinformation like this is like dismissing the idiosyncratic spelling of modern English with no understanding of etymology. This talk does a great disservice to the general understanding of music.
Hi Jeffrey - Note that I said "developed," not "invented," and I'm referring to the development of printed music (the printing press), which greatly expanded the distribution and use of music notation in the fifteenth century, making it accessible to many. (Also, your points are well taken, but advanced - throughout the talk I'm discussing graphic visualizations and early exposure to math and the music notation system in education - at early learning levels, when students may either latch on or shy away.)
I just double-checked my guitar and I think I can pretty much verify that there is not a note between E and F; likewise, between B and C.
It has been that way for the 56 years that I have owned a guitar.
I admit I may have overlooked or misunderstood something but I'm fairly sure.
I want to know what instrument E# is different than F on?
@@jamesbarros950 Violin, Viola, Cello, all unfretted string instruments. Certainly true for the many wind and reed instruments as well. Basically any instrument where pitch is not confined and inflexible. I play violin and cello
@@BBQDad463 Because your guitar is an inflexible equal temperament instrument. On my violin you will find there are many notes and harmonies you can play that aren't even possible on your fretted guitar.
Creating music is one thing, trying to interpret and convey is another. Let's just keep making great music and worry about its transcription far second.
I agree. While notation is a very useful tool, it's not music itself.
I don’t know about that. The way we create the music, is music creation. Great music is a subjective topic usually critiqued using cultural aesthetic standards. I find tonal harmony to be a ridiculous system, unfortunately it is the standard for the world over, and as a result people on average around the world consider great music based on western aesthetics. I suggest to use math itself to understand and generate music, after all, music essentially is shapes/geometry/relationships in the dimension of time.
As a life-long musician and engineer, I loved your talk. The world could not write all the books that would be needed to cover this topic which you did such a fine job addressing. Love your humor also. Thankfully, I use both sides of my brain to enjoy working together to solve problems and perceive my surrounding environment. I most enjoy how beauty is found in math. I know that all things are the result of analog math taken to the smallest scale. Too bad we don't have a better musical notation system. What we use today is the progression of many people working together from their private perspectives, melding all those ideas together to make our musical instrumental implimentation. Many people today have gone on to create instruments that leave all these old designs behind and show us that something much better can be realized. I think mankind will continue to advance the science of math and music. I look forward to it.
I think engineers are among the few people in this comment section who understand the lecturer's plight. Most people ranting against him seem to be seasoned musicians that are too used to the current system to change it. Many people in the computer and engineering fields get frustrated when they learn music theory due to how convoluted the current notation system because they are used to dealing with more mathematically-oriented and logical concepts. There are alternatives however, but they are just not very popular
This was a thought provoking video presentation of problems with notation and not a specialist course on musical notation and not the history of musicology. I do think that serious students can abstract the thesis and then chill on the minutia. There is always something new to think about and without taking chances or even leaps of logic, without generalization and normalization many new thought come out null. Consider Feynman's glorious leaps. I think Dan Formosa has a lot of insight on notation and that it is well presented.
Fantastic comment.
Bro what the heck are you saying?
I appreciate that you see there's value to be found, but I disagree that the misinformation about notation/history of musicology (presented authoritatively, as facts) amount to minutia. Ideally TED is a place we can go to learn with minimal need for fact-checking, in my opinion his insights do not make up for the misinformation he presents in a self-aggrandizing fashion.
Music notation has been refined so that it's the most efficient and accurate method to write music on paper. The "notes that don't exist" actually do exist in some contexts. Guitar tabs lack notation to describe note duration and dynamics precisely (you have to hear the song to fully understand it), plus it can't be applied to other instruments. The Nashville system seems like a crude derivation of the traditional system, and it would have trouble portraying note duration without using traditional note symbols. With the Nashville system, it would be impossible to accurately describe a piano piece with two hands and any kind of rhythmic synchopation. A midi grid with a velocity map is the only way to display piano music without abstractions, but you can only pull that off with a digital interface. If you tried to transfer that midi system into sheet music, each staff would need 88 lines, and a single sonata would require a novel's worth of paper. Music notation is weird and it intuitively feels wrong or overly complicated, but once you understand what every little symbol means, you quickly realize there isn't a better way to write music.
He forgot the left handed oil test
The number system will notate chords only, not melody or rhythmic figures, all of which are essential to music. You can have the same chord progression for any number or different melodies, so this method tells you very little of what the piece should sound like. Also, you would still have to know what notes equal the numeric values in every key in order to play a song, (in G, 4 = C, but in C, 4 = F) so you would have to know all the scales of Western music anyway for the numbers to mean anything. Knowing the scales in Western music is integral to using this number system.
If one intends to compose music with chromaticism and spell chords correctly (rather than enharmonically for convenience), it is absolutely necessary to use the notes he said don't exist. E7(#5) contains a B# and it must be spelled that way in order to show how the 5th of this chord is functioning and how it might resolve. Likewise, a Bb7(b5) has an Fb and must be spelled that way for the same reason. He also didn't mention double sharps and double flats. These exist for the same reason. Modern notation is justifiable and logical when composers require specific and complex information such as a piece by Bach, Beethoven or any serious composer - but not required in a studio in Nashville (or other places) where complexity or specific information is not required. Nashville number systems are easy to read and yield to the interpreter's inclinations but more often than not, require very little from the musician with the exception of an improvised solo or incidental obbligato parts. This lecture had some interesting and amusing stuff but left me with something to be desired.
Skip the video, the comments are where the excellent information and insight are.
hahaha
Yep. JUST when you thought it was safe to watch a Tedtalk WITHOUT reading the comments first, you are proven way wrong. Should have started here (and skipped the talk altogether).
after the first 3 comments I skipped the vid and agreed
Done it
E# is not F in general. They are tuned to the same tone in 12-tone equal temperament, but that's just one way of tuning music that's only been adopted as a standard fairly recently. During the Renaissance, meantone temperaments were standard, and even through the Classical period they were fairly common, and in at least quarter comma meantone (which was the most common) E# is a distinct tone that is flatter than F. And even within 12ET (as another commenter pointed out), E# is the correct enharmonic spelling of the leading tone in the key of F#, and calling the tone E# rather than F makes its function as the leading tone (and the major third of C#) a lot clearer.
There are good reasons musical notation is the way it is. A haphazard attempt to overhaul it by someone who doesn't understand music theory is not going to succeed.
E# and F are played differently on a fretless string instrument, and good singers will also play them differently.
There are plenty of good complaints to be made about music notation. For example, it was designed for tonal music so is highly suboptimal for atonal music. The number-based alternative that Dan Formosa described in the talk would be even worse! Try analysing modal jazz that way and see how far it gets you.
Thank you!
Adam Freese he is trying to tell you the textbook you learned from is no good
Actually E# is a little bit sharper than F, not flatter. Other than that this comment is excellent.
alonamolah- E# might well be sharper than F when played melodically as a leading tone. But it's flatter in most non-equal temperaments.
This is a great example of how people retreat to what they know when faced with the challenge to 'think outside the box'. By positing there may be better information design systems that will create an analogue for music or that reduction is not always the best way to teach trigonometry Dan Formosa is not challenging the viewers knowledge of music theory or trigonometry neither is he denigrating the time and effort spent in learning those systems. Appreciate that in this talk, Dan Formosa challenges us to find alternatives to expert systems to improve literacy.
I've just expanded the note from Ted above, and the author has done a more authoritative job of explaining the same point.
Reading notes using symbols is completely easier than numbers since their placement on the staffs can be used to generalize the note's pitch. I understand that the system might not make sense to anyone not trained in music but as most people find that the current notation is fine without math intervening.
This is one of the most favorite videos that I’ve ever found on RUclips. I’ve watched it probably 20 times over the last 10 years. And I’ve probably shared it and discussed it with hundreds. When I describe what is in this video to others, it blows their minds
An intelligent man speaking outside of his expertise. Western notation is older than the fifteenth century, monks didn't conceive of music in major and minor keys, and the Nashville Number System is a stultified reinvention of an older wheel popularized by Jean-Philippe Rameau in 18th century France but understood much earlier.
If you are transposing a song from one key to another, you are still keeping the intervals same. As long as the intervals are same, the tune is same. Changing the key just changes the pitch, not the tune of the song.
It is for this reason I believe music scores should be written using intervals. You can start at any key, as long as the intervals don't change. Consequently, there are 12 ways to play a song (one in each key). The note you start from will fix the key of the song. Determining the key is to be done by testing with the singer's voice and his/her comfortable range.
No matter what key you play in, the same score consisting of intervals can then be used without needing to change the score.
Eg. Jingle Bells:
1,1,1 | 1,1,1 | 1,2.5 | -1,0,1
jingle bells | jingle bells | jin-gle | all the way
Intervals are measured using tones/steps. If you don't like decimals, this would be the equivalent (using half steps/semitones):
1,1,1 | 1,1,1 | 1,4 | -3,-1,1
If G=1, it would be:
GGG GGG GBb EbFG
If E=1, it would be:
EEE EEE EG CDE
If C=1, it would be:
CCC CCC CEb AbBbC
I think this as well!
@@heidsland Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can actually verify what I said by playing these notes. You will find its the same tune. The only difference is in the pitch. Starting at lower/higher key will result in the same tune being played in lower/higher pitch as long as the intervals are not changed.
For being a maths guy, he totally missed the most important problem that nobody admits to: equal temperament produces irrational ratios.
Chadwick Dahlquist this comment is what I assumed this video would be about, and that never came out.
jdbceb yeah I was very disappointed too. You know the dude was exposed to the truth at some point, but chooses to complete ignore it because it’s inconvenient for his message.
Except for octaves, which are 1:2, and circle of 5ths which comes back around to a rational ratio.
"equal temperament produces irrational ratios." . . . and really, I think that is an important secret of the universe -- right there. Translates to all sorts of understandings.
@@deezynar Except be careful then about using the word "fifths" , because when you divide into 5 of 8 per octave you have the same surd.
I've played the guitar for 14 years and I never learned how to read music outside of a choir setting. I can put my finger on a string someplace and play that note and have no idea what it is. But you know something? I play music. I play in different tunings and timings. I can listen and repeat or I can compose my own lovely series of notes. The written form makes no difference to me and I don't require it. Do I wish I could wrap my head around it all? Sure. But is it necessary in order to play music? Absolutely not.
excellent comment.
this proves anyone can give a ted talk
starfire0007 - actually, it's a TEDx talk, where there are guidelines but no quality control.
Ah, I always wondered what the difference was but was too lazy to look it up, thanks Scott. Yes, this would then be an excellent example of that lack of quality control. >Pianist shaking her head
And not even that. Note the disclaimer text under the video:
"NOTE FROM TED: We've flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx's curatorial guidelines for its assertions about math and music."
Look up Sam Hyde's 2070 Paradigm Shift talk at Tedx Drexel
Wow, what a lot of misinformation! Pythagorean tuning is not at all like modern equal temperament. The relative distance between all the notes were different, not the same. For instance the difference between c and d is narrower than between d and e in his sister. Western monks singing Gregorian Chant certainly did not sing everything in A minor. Modes 1 and 2 were similar to a minor mode, Modes 7 and 8 were similar to a Major Scale. 3 and 4 were similar to phrygian, and 5 and 6 had a lot in common with lydian. These were different than the so-called "church modes" you read about in music theory, Meantone tuning used in Western music from about 1400 till the 1800 used at tuning system were C# and Db were different pitches, like other "enharmonic" notes.
The real interesting conflict between math an music is the Pythagorean Comma (that he discovered) that when you tune a chain of perfect 5ths ( C - G, G - D, D- A . . . and get back to end Bb - F, F - C, your C you end up with is like a quarter tone flat than the C you started with. Sometimes called the "Mistake" in the universe. The modern tuning system gets around this problem by making ALL the 5ths just a little narrow so we wind up back at the same C. Making the 5ths narrow is vary slight, but it results in very wide 3rds which are modern ears have gotten used to, but which come out much more beautiful in other tuning systems with pure thirds.
Thanks for posting this.
Joseph Metzinger Thanks. What you've written is exactly what I've learnt at the Geneva Music High School. I confirm what you've said.
True enough. But without tempered tuning you can't modulate, and without modulation you can throw out a large percentage of western music starting with Bach.
We were speaking about music before Bach.
What do you think would change if we tuned to 432? The gaps change right?
"There is no such thing as an E# or B#." I didn't need to get past that point. It's perfectly OK to criticize the existing notation and propose something better, but make sure you understand the system first.
Apparently what I'm saying in that segment of the video is being misinterpreted. See my reply to jasperiscool.
Sorry, some combination of RUclips, my browser and modern-web gremlins is preventing me from seeing that reply.
Since you took the time to read my comment, I took the time to watch the rest of the video. I found more objectionable things in it, of which I will point out four:
(1) You don't see all the numbers when you look at a slide rule. For instance, you don't see negative numbers. You actually only see the positive real numbers between 1 and 1000 or so, and the rest of the positive real numbers you have to imagine, by keeping track of powers of 10 in your head. Perhaps you can keep track of the sign in your head too; but you certainly don't see zero.
(2) "Numbers are digital, but math is analog" assumes a very limited view of numbers and math. The way you use real numbers might be analog, but the math used to do cryptography is digital, and being off by one or by ten is equally bad in that context (you'll just get a garbled message).
(3) The number system developed in Nashville is only being used for the harmonic structure of the song, not the melody (at least in your slide). It is appropriate for the context in which it was created (playing the harmony for simple tonal music, like Amazing Grace). Jazz musicians use Roman numerals similarly (e.g., when they talk about a ii-V-I progression). But music is much more general than that, and the traditional notation has served us well. Most of classical music since the XIX century could not have happened if people had only been using the Nashville notation.
(4) A slide guitar and a slide rule are not all that similar. The main feature of the logarithmic scale in the slide rule is that translating some fixed amount to the right means multiplication by some constant (e.g., you add log(2) to multiply by 2). The mapping of positions to frequencies in a slide guitar is not logarithmic, but hyperbolic. Actually a piano or a harp are much closer to the slide rule: You translate a fixed distance to multiply the frequency by a constant (e.g., you translate up an octave to multiply the frequency by 2, and two notes that are an octave apart are always the same distance away).
I'm a big fan of the slide rule, and I was looking forward to an alternative music notation (since the traditional one does have a lot of limitations). However the main thing I learned from this talk is that you overestimate how much you know about both math and music.
I like your delivery and you seem like a very smart guy. You are probably a very good designer. But before you promulgate your thoughts about math and music in such a public way, I suggest you bounce them off a real expert first.
Dan- I can't see your reply to jasperiscool either, and I would also like to know how you are being misinterpreted here. With all due respect, I also agree with alonamaloh: you should have talked to someone who knows this stuff first.
This guy's talk is good evidence for why we don't let 10 -year-old kids drive cars on public streets. His understanding of music is essentially at a the level of a young child and he really needs to stick to explaining why 47+26=73 and not try to go beyond that. He made sense up to about 2:30 but after that the video turns into a giant face-palm.
This system does not work for people who play melodies. It works well as a chord chart for accompanists who play with random singers. It also works for the Johnny Cash song "I Walk The Line" because that song changes key every single verse.
A rare jem.A truly original talk.
yes
He's wrong, at least on music.
E# and F being equivalent is an artifact of equal temperament. In other tuning systems it's not necessarily the case. That's a choice we made to enable modulation of keys.
He doesn't even explain Nashville numbering well. Geez.
I'm not that sure about the music part. But the math part is kind of pointless. What he told there is he can understand stuff better if it is shown graphically. That's about all. And you can forget skipping math class and learning everything by yourself with just this sliding ruler. I don't want to say it is a bad invention, it is just outdated by 40 Years.
Dead right. This guy is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
I'm sorry it took him so long to catch up with schoolroom Pythagoras , but feel he should do his homework properly before inflicting his musical misconceptions upon others.
Don't know whether it's a D-K problem ... but yeah ... E# and so is relevant due to equal temperament.
Yeah I agree about the math, too. I know a good bit of math myself and he's just whistling out his backside.
crimfan never seen the Nashville numbering before. It seems like a sort of numerical solfeggio. Where can I learn more ?
in the world of Jazz (and all other music genres I would guess) you can have double sharps and double flats and by the same token you can have E# or C flat when applying a rule that sharpens or flattens existing scale notes. This is for clarity in reading music.
WEll that's 14.5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
This was fun for a while, but now, how do I stop getting notifications for comments posted?.. its wearing a bit thin.
2x is standard insurance on youtube.
Only 13:08 for me lol
my feelings exactly
This video highlights an "improved" notation but doesn't why some notes don't possess accidentals while others do. I play the cello and guitar, sometimes expiriment with piano. Having two keys to indicate "C, D, and E" from "F, G, A, and B" is way easier than 12 white keys
I'm from Milwaukee, we play in the Fonzi key. Thee Henry Fonzereli from Happy Days dig? The key of 'Aaaay".
Very nice - if I understood correctly,the point was showing that pictures sometimes work better than letters/ formulas.
I believe you understood well :)
Pythagoras played the triangle
JAKE SKYWALKER But all the girls thought he was a square and he never got a date... 😐
Ba dump bump! :-)
And that's when they gave Pythagoras the "skip".......
JAKE SKYWALKER - Good one, my friend! 🔺
It's and INSTRUMENT, Play It.
(as by Wm S. Burroughs in some recording somewhere once)
They use numbers in Nashville, as I have always done when doing studio work, in order to change key easily if necessary. If a singer comes in and the key of A (1) doesn't suit, you can change to F# (1). When figuring out chord progressions from the radio or a cd, it's easy to do with numbers, and then you can play the song in whatever key you like.
I won't claim that traditional sheet music is a miracle of perfect design, but it's proven itself to be thorough and adaptable enough to last through many different eras and styles of music.
The Nashville system? Highly limited (the example he gives doesn't include the actual melody of Amazing Grace!), and it's nothing but a reinvented wheel. For centuries, classical musicians have used a very similar system, based on Roman numerals, that allows compact and detailed descriptions of harmony.
There is a use for E#. It is to show you that you need to add some minor thirds for a harmonic resolution back to F. So you would go E# -> G# -> B -> D -> F. Same if you wind up with an Fb, B#, Cb, etc.
TED talks should expand our minds and perspectives on a topic from a person of exceptional maturity in his or her subject. This talk does the opposite.
Music may be best taught without instruments in order to understand the math. In Shankarian Analysis you use Roman Numerals to indicate which chord is being used and Carat on top of numbers to signify scale degree. In Functional Harmony a Septonic or seven note system is used. There are 11 different notes in all including flats and sharps. There are only 3 types of scales. They are Ionian, harmonic major and harmonic minor. They can be played modaly by centering on any scale degree other than the tonic ( the note the scale is named after). I have been creating and improving chart notation for my compositions my whole life. I agree that the notation system has it's flaws and it is nice to have an alternative. Especially for analysis.
8 note systems are not functional. It is a series of diminished chords.
As Wolfgang Pauli put it in another context: "This isn't even wrong!"
the hardest part of reading music for most beginners is the rhythm even though it is very logical, in practice it can be challenging. Reading the pitch values is relatively easy after some practice. I would like to see alternative notations. I like to work in the tracker format,, but really i have seen nothing that beats standard music notation for playing an instrument (cept chord symbols but you need to study music theory to read them).
There are and have historically been a lot of different musical notation schemes. Some of them are good for one specific purpose (like guitar tab), but don’t generalize well to either other instruments. But standard notation has lasted because it has a few really good properties. One important one is that it uses a single symbol to convey both the pitch and duration of a note. That’s not true of the “Nashville System”, which requires both the interval number and some other symbol to convey the duration for a single note. This property of standard notation makes it efficient, compact, and easier to sight-read than a lot of the alternative systems. Especially when it comes to sight reading, the idea of having a symbol uniquely correspond to a particular pitch is a real advantage - you don’t need to be constantly calculating interval offsets in your head to decide what note to play.
Another advantage of standard notation is that it is closer to universal - it makes sense on multiple instruments. Example: You can easily sight read and play a flute part on a violin because they use the same notation (and have basically the same range). This generality makes it possible to write scores for an entire ensemble comprising different instruments on the same page, and get a snapshot of what the entire sound should be.
You could make things a little easier, though. For example, it’s already common to transpose standard notation when writing for Bb or Eb instruments, so the the symbol for middle-C on the piano actually corresponds to either Eb or Bb (in concert pitch) for the instrument you’re writing for. You could generalize this principle by always writing music down in the key of C, and then noting the “transpose” offset. (Kind of in the way we write the key signature at the beginning of the stave.). This would accomplish what those Nashville guys did, while still preserving the good properties of compactness and universality of standard notation. Or you could just bite the bullet and learn to read music...
Tone is duo. High and low. Bass Clef is "A" and then middle "C" Starting from the bottom,(low before high), we have your "A minor"? We start the scale with "A" instead of "C". Do we start high or do we start low? Depends on how and when we want the vibrations to go.
Saying E# doesn't exist because it's the same pitch as F is like saying A# doesn't exist because it's the same pitch as Bb.
E# definitely exists. It is the seventh note of an F# major scale for instance. It is enharmonic with F note in the current tuning but you do indicate on the sheets as well, look at the #-s for F#, one of them is for E note.
As one of my teachers used to say, "He's spreading ignorance."
I KNEW IT; "You cant pass this module unless you write in a key" "No its a B flat not an F but good try" This is so fantastic to hear and see put into practise, thank you smart man!
I really wish people would learn some music history before they made things like this. The reason the scale starts on a is that its the finalis of the hypodorian mode. The actual scale system of that time started on Г.
Matthew Hume ha! My thoughts exactly. So many problems with this talk, hard to count them!
I thought the middle'C' was in the tenor clef middle line!
That's funny. I actually did learn both guitar and slide rule that way and continue writing by numbers to this day. P.S. B# does exist. It is the 7th in the key of C# and is used in many other keys, as well. For instance it is the third in the key of G#, the second in the key of A#, the sixth in the key of D# and so on.
IT'S MATHS NOT MATH
Great whole minds play whole notes alike. Wishing nothing but good for you.
A large part of this seems to be him projecting his experience (in learning math and music) on to the world at large, and it isn't correct. For instance, some people do teach Pythagoras' theorem using geometry (which was how it was originally conceived anyhow).
There are a staggering number of proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem.
In middle school or high school, I used to carry around a textbook whose cover bore a geometric proof of that theorem.
"What is your point" - the most relevant phrase in this talk
It's really hard to figure out what I am supposed to take away from this. "A bit all over the place" is the description that comes to mind. I'm sure Mr Formosa is really intelligent and probably a very talented musician and mathematician, but something I have found about musicians - even music teachers - is that they don't explain stuff in terms that non-musicians can get a handle on. I'm reasonably good at maths but have no musical talent and although I *do* have a strong interest in the technicalities of music, I can't develop anything more than a superficial dusting of musical knowledge because no-one can explain it to me in a way that makes any sense at all. Certainly not in this talk.
Um... If Irving Berlin played everything in F# major, then he played E# quite often. (It's the leading tone of the key.)
excellant point.
I think that the numerical notation refer more about the chords number within the scale... 1:Cmaj, 2:Dmin, 3:Emin, 4:Fmaj, 5:Gmaj, 6:Amin, 7:Bdim.
“Sharps and flats are complicated. Everyone should just learn I-IV-V songs
Strawman
IMHO this guy is hilarious and cool. And he inspired, so far, 860 comments and endless discussion. Kudos.
I think you have made the best comment here. Thanks to you!
WOW. The historical and music theory inaccuracies (heck, straight out wrongness) here presented blew my mind. In a really bad way. Any study of either math history, music history, or music theory will quickly sort out these "questions". While current musical notation is complex, that complexity allows the necessary flexibility for maximum creativity and idea-transmission. It records both the time aspects (meter, rhythm, tempo) and space aspects (pitch, harmony, scale, altered pitches, chords). It can record music from any culture so that it can be performed by musicians who've never heard it. Yeah it's complex, but no more complex than necessary.
The flat out ignorance of where scales came from ("the monks mostly sang in a-min," WTH? Ever hear of the modes, pal?), why current Western music is mostly limited to 2 of them, of alternate scales across the globe . . . This guy needs to take some theory and history classes before opining on such subjects again.
It seems like he had a poor early music education and is angry about it, but like, never tried to fix the problem and even try to understand.
Bullshit-o-meter goes RED! This is what you get if someone does NOT know his musictheory.
Musical notation is as confusing as English spelling. Once you learn it, it becomes your second nature, and you don't even have to think about it anymore. The problem with this talk is the presenter doesn't even know what he doesn't know on the subject.
You are fourth thinking?
Do you know that every man made takt is taktik for taxes! Or to tag the taxis?
Was this made by the Thurn and Taxis that have an own palais in Frankfurt?
They are all used by hollow creatures to lead the offers to a false place!
They know that they know no-thing or just the things?
@@marcoandreknottjung3418 I don't understand
As the organist of my church, I am so thankful for transposers on the organ/piano/keyboards. Church music is all over the place--sometimes too high and/or too low. Thus, it's much nicer to just click a button or 3 and then transpose.
It would have been really funny if this guy could have had a conversation with Harry Partch.
Harry had a better understanding of the history of musical tuning and temperament, though.
Indeed. He should at least have made the disclaimer that his description of tuning was oversimplified. Unfortunately, most of the other stuff he said about music- for instance, about the history of notation- was wrong.
Musical score is not optimized for information density, but for reading speed.
Pointless! We are not your captive high school students. Prepare a talk, or pass your turn. The misleading title, hinting at a problematic which you never go into, makes it worse.
numbers have been used in music theory long before the "Nashville system" that way a dorian or aolean or whatever scale always has the same intervallic relationship to the tonic (albeit tempered)no matter what key you choose to play or transpose to.
Ok so I like that he was attempting to make some kind of connections about problems between math and music, but he is not a musician and does not seem to understand some basic concepts of the way music came to be in the west. Along with that saying that Nashville notation is the first to use numbers incorrect, check out figured bass from the baroque era. Also, his explanation of C-major and A-minor doesn't entirely make sense as notation developed over time not at one moment and E# does exist.
I think the point was that a more analog notation (and more visual way of teaching math, makes the nature of both beasts much more accessible and obvious. (And he did concede the E# thing.) The Nashville Notation bit was interesting, but as I was classically trained, I was immersed for years in functional harmonic notation, which also uses numbers, and is similar in concept.
If he gets acquainted with Harry Partch's Genesis of a Music, man, though, he'll have some amazing stuff to share. He might even make it comprehensible.
His explanation of the Nashville system was lacking in historicity and detail, and in links to established music theory, especially in Baroque numeric practice.
So why is he proposing a number system which is completely digital, while the musical staff system is much more analog (since you can actually can see rising and falling sequences analog to the higher and lower pitches they produce when performed).
My new motto, my new "call to arms" .... "E# does exist!"
Matthew, I agree with you. Frimmin (above) makes a good point about functional harmony. When he got to "What's my point?", I'm still waiting.
I don't like sheet music either, but the author blatantly omits its advantages. A piece of sheet music contains all the information required to play a song, one the performer may not have even heard before. It was developed in a world before recorded music, where if you wanted someone to hear your song in the future you had to write down every nuance in a codified way.
Guitar tablature is very convenient but it really only tells you what notes to play. It's meant to work in conjunction with a recording of the song you're trying to learn. You have to already know how the song goes before tabs will mean anything to you.
Where's the left handed oil test?
Aaaaaaaa it’s your boy
In my lay opinion. The reason for actually creating a B sharp or a F flat, is necessary for describing an infinite system. I can create a song and name the chords almost whatever I deem it to be. With the knowledge that the same chord could have several other names. All depending upon how I look at it. In that sense, may I say, the sound is digital and the written musical note is analog?
I'm not sure why Mr. Formosa bothers to diss the monks for inventing a system that worked quite well for several hundred years and indeed is still easily learned today. What makes his nastiness even more disconcerting is that Arabic numbers had not yet even been introduced into the West. We are usually able to give generous credit for the advances without criticizing those upon whose shoulders those advances were built.
James Kolan next he'll be insulting Guido d'Arezzo
James - Just pointing out in this talk (to a gathering of design students in 2012) that music notation is difficult for beginners to decipher. Many drop out. That will likely continue to be the case for a few hundred more years. But I like monks.
i think his point was 'because it limits what you will do with it' and consumes mental resources you could be using better elsewhere - like making interesting music.
Right, because there was never interesting music before this talk. His point is a nothing patty.
5 minutes a day for a month and you can learn to easily identify every single note in notation, 2 hours a day took me 2 weeks. If you don't have enough persistence for that you'll never learn any instrument
The reason a "fifth" is such a pleasing harmony is that the higher note's frequency (hz) is 50% higher than the low note and your ear hears the them synchronize. Just like an octive is double the frequency and the ear can hear the synchronicity even better. middle A is 440hz, A above is 880hz, E is 660hz
What a relief to see that so many people call out the BS in the comment section! I happen to know a thing or two about math and music and I can confirm that this talk is very ill-informed indeed! Big disappointment!
@@musopaul5407 see my comment above
I bought an upright (fretless) bass and tuned the strings at intervals of 6 semitones, in other words the interval between each string is the tritone. This arrangement left me with the alternating strings each one tuned a full octave above the other. This is helpful for playing a variety of different popular styles. It also greatly assisted the discovery of the most amazing mathematical object ever conceived - the Spiral of Life!
Wow!
Apparently this talk has a lot of inaccurate information, but I gotta say this comment section also gives me the impression that music theory types can be...a rather heated bunch. People get all kinds of upset if you dare criticize the sacred cow that is sheet music notation. I'm seeing insults to the guy's intelligence alongside rants filled with music terminology that doesn't really mean much to a layman. It's kind of like I've walked in on a cult of sorts. Are the Pythagoreans still kicking around? :P
Moosh - Yeah, apparently it's a touchy topic.
I almost completely disagree with almost everything you have said. But thanks for taking the time and effort to make your points.
Too many "almosts" in your comment. But thanks for taking the time....
You’re all missing the point. The speaker has thrown a dart and has obviously missed the bullseye. The fact that his flippant comment on B# has sparked gasps of horror among the music theorists in the audience however, ironically reinforces his point of the severe problematic nature of the Western academic musical notation system.
Notes have functional relationships, as has been correctly noted by the theorists. Also, it is true that B# exists as the correct name in certain scale forms based on it’s function within specific key spellings. It is unfortunate he stepped in a steaming pile of B#. His main point being that this notation design obfuscates a practical understanding of music.
The beauty of the Nashville system is that it is all about the functional relationships between notes regardless of key, pitch standardization, or tuning temperament. It is simple, easy to use, easy to transpose and a great tool to access an understanding of how music theory works for all levels of players. It is also true that it is designed for chord progressions and impractical for classical music but it is closely related to jazz dialogue and is a great way to dig deep into music theory beyond progressions.
Note function is the heart of music theory. Alas, this heart has long been obscured by the design of musical notation which discourages accessibility for a large segment of the population, this being the speaker’s point but which he fails to articulate clearly with his lack of knowledge of the system he is criticizing.
What is the ratio of students who quit music and those who continue on? I have played with Academy trained and Suzuki method teachers who cannot improvise music on the spot because they really don’t understand what is not written on the page. I also really tire of hearing people say they have no talent for music. I hate seeing people give up on their enthusiasm for music because they are led down a garden path that music is all about notes on a page.
These are examples of the design problem of classical notation. At the same time I recognize it’s strengths. Perhaps the speaker would have been better off to have telegraphed more clearly that the tool of classical notation is a pedagogical design problem when it is promoted as the only tool of access. Clearly pedagogical design is an issue for him and he’s not wrong in that despite his missteps.
Also read the presenters blurb below the video. The presentation was not about music theory but about improving access to understanding difficult theoretical topics.
Thanks for the comment. I also want to add (in case you didn't see my earlier post) that this technique of "exploring confusion" and reporting on the points that can cause confusion is standard practice, used by virtually all companies in product development for optimizing the design and usability of physical products, instructional materials and digital interfaces, to make them as easy to use as possible. Also, this talk is only about our first exposures (grammar school level) to math and music - in music for instance, when we're first asked to relate dots on a scale to keys on a piano. (B# comes later - unfortunately most never get that far.)
The fact that this (valid) point had to be dug out from a large pile of intellectually-lazy presentation is a testament to the poor skills of the speaker in putting his thesis across.
Wow Dan you really got em going. Careful lest you meet the same ending as 'PGOS'. Funny how as a young boy I enjoyed playing w my older brothers slide rule. Had I developed my 'rule skills' My math journey in school would have ended up a success rather than the shameful confusing mess it turned out to be. Tools that work well inspire confidence. Funny how as a young musician I learned music formally in school and by 'ear' at home and with my buddies. Read notes, play...listen to record, play. We hadn't been taught about transcribing yet but I'm not sure if it would have had the utility that careful repeated listening did. The records had so much information to give. Feel, style,taste,tone, arrangements etc. I discovered that playing delta blues had its own unique set of challenges, just as Gentle Giants 'the boys in the band' did.
When I moved to Nashville, I was inundated with musical challenges. The musical info was conveyed thru tapes, chord changes and number charts. I quickly realized that these got me into the solar system but not the planet of choice. So it was with those constellations of notes that I got handed that had names like Handel, Shostakovich, Berlioz etc.
Something truly amazing happens when autonomous
sentient beings gather and pick up antiquated sound machines. Forgive the digression... Untill we develope real time telepathy ( which I believe happens in music) we are stuck w the analogical representations. For all their obvious shortcomings the music pours out and it is Amazing.
Hi Andy - If you're into math, slide rules (like fret boards) are graphically beautiful things to play with. And the more complex (advanced) slide rules can be mind-boggling. For the video, the RUclips audience has grown to about 5,000 times the original number of about 100 people (which were mostly design students.) Many of the comments lose the point that I'm talking about first exposure to math and music, grammar-school level. Only a few "graduate," becoming comfortable with either of the topics.
best talk i ever seen. I loved when he lost his nervousness with the laughter....HONESTY!
Great video. Does what it sets out to do, which is to provoke discussion. For those who can't cope with the numbers based notation, try thinking of the numbers as being called Do, Re, Mi etc. instead of one two three.
Why would this speaker claim that the notation system is somehow horrible without any statement as to his reasons for his opinion? It may not be perfect but, it can convey a vast amount of music to exactitude or close thereabouts. I have seen people take a piece of sheet music of a fairly complex piece of music they have never seen and play it so that it sounds like the music. Now that takes tons of practice with sight reading but it works very well. I don't see why you would call it horrible at all. It is sometimes amazingly effective.
He's still wrapped up in his substandard education, "teaching" by asking condescending questions and then showing derision when the answers don't, of course, come back just as he wants. If a person wants to share knowledge, then teach. Don't ridicule.
Why are there so many people who should be sitting in pupils' chairs, instead standing in front of and "educating" the class? This man obviously knows very little about music or math. TED should really better interview people before letting them lecture.
There would be a few problems with a notation based on numbers - how do you designate direction for starters. Say you have the numbers 1 and 6. Is that C up to A or C down to A? Then you would have to have a way of conferring rhythm. And then what about accidentals and modulations?
Figured Bass anyone, how about relative do in solfege? Glad that those guys get the credit for inventing something that has been known for thousands of years. The crazy thing is that this guy is talking about music and math like he is an expert, when he clearly never took a music course in college. When I clicked I thought he was going to talk about imperfect temperament, but I was disappointed. It makes me upset to think that people listen to him speak and now have negative preconceptions about musical notation, every musician knows that sheet music is not music. I am still very glad that Bach and Beethoven opted to write down their work so that society(minus Dan Formosa) can enjoy and admire their work. I would love for him also not straight up lie about enharmonic tones.
I'm thankful for this talk. Some valuable insights, presented with wit.
I agree
Okay, if you don't know anything about math or music, don't talk about it on TED. Kthxbai
KthxCULtrAliGAYtor.
Wow. Someone from 1998 lost their 12 year old.
It's tedx.
Gregorian chant is written without a key. The root note can be any pitch that is comfortable to the singer(s) and the intervals are the same
The guy simplifies a lot of things and a lot of what he says is just false.
Minor and major keys (as we know them) didn't exist back when the musical alphabet were invented. The alphabet don't really start on "C". You just learn them this way today because the major key became the basis of modern music theory after the discovery of keys. Back when the note names were invented, the absolute pitches they represented weren't important. They represented relative pitches and people transposed them to whatever "key" they wanted to play in. Most music back then was vocal music, and only after instrumental music became more relevant (in the late renaissance period) did absolute pitches become more important. (So before this there was no "standard" A - the A note was whatever the singers were comfortable with. This is also why not all of the 12 notes were actually needed - there was no need to notate music in other keys, and music mostly used the natural notes and some occasional accidentals.)
Also, there definitely is such thing as E#, Fb, B# and Cb (and those are not the same thing as F, E, C and B - maybe for a self taught hobbyist they are, but anybody who has actually studied music beyond the very basics knows the difference between an E# and an F natural). There is even such thing as Bbb or Fx (double sharp), neither of which are even that rare.
About the "Nashville system"... People had already been referring to the chords in a key way before that with roman numerals. If you study music in a conservatory, you will study roman numeral analysis. Also, another "keyless" system is the solmization system. Do re mi fa, etc. is the same in all keys. "Do" is always the 1st note of the scale, "re" is always the 2nd note, etc. You learn these things in theory class too.
The "Nashville system" doesn't really replace sheet music, because it only works for chord charts. Chord charts and sheet music communicate way different things. Chord chart is a way of seeing which chords you should play, but you need to decide the voicing yourself. Sheet music on the other hand tells you exactly which notes to play in which order. They work for different kinds of music. But if I want to communicate specific chord voicings, sheet music is way superior to the "Nashville system".
I'm not saying there are no problems with the traditional notation system, but I think it's still the best that we've got, and it works pretty well for tonal music. If we are talking about atonal music, then there would probably be a use for another system, since traditional notation is based on diatonic scales and can be pretty difficult to read if the music is really chromatic. But we need to remember that most music is based on diatonic scales, and this is also why using 7 letters instead of 12 makes a lot of sense.
Excellent and informative entertainment, just three thoughts for Mr. Formosa himself. 1) Count from 0 instead of 1. 2) These counts represent tuples or half steps only. Maj triad is 0,4,7 half steps, Min triad is 0, 3,7 half-steps. 3) Take a look at the Janko, isomorphic, keyboard.
Just wasted 14 minutes
kailuafrog yes, but was it worth your time?
No, that's why it was a waste. Complete rubbish
You wasted my time reading your comment
Yeah I came with an open mind hoping he'd at least explain what's so great about some system, but it was rather disjointed and just ended with a "Here's something obscure that happened" joke.
I made it nearly to 9 minutes. and no.
I can tell this guy was a 60s kid, but I find his position very important. Musical notation is obtuse, and could be tvastly simplified more closely aligning with mathematics.
Excellent understanding.
I was expecting to hear about how things like the "perfect fifth" are not perfect at all, that music is a bunch of relationships that are ALMOST mathematically perfect, but they're not. A "perfect" fifth is 2/3 the wavelength or 3/2 the frequency of the unison, but if you start at a low A note at 110 Hz, and go around the circle of fifths using 3/2 ratios of frequencies, twelve perfect fifths gets you a frequency of 110 * (3/2)^12 = approximately 14,272 Hz. But that circle of fifths SHOULD get you to another A, i.e., a power of 2 * 110 Hz. The actual note you SHOULD end up on would be 110 * 2^8 = 14,080 Hz. That's a HUGE difference, and if you played both of these notes along with that original A 110, you'd get a horrible dissonance with the one derived by "perfect fifths". Pythagoras really, really wanted this to work out, as have countless musicians since, but it just doesn't. Ask any piano tuner - every note has to be tuned slightly flat from the perfect fifth, or it just won't work. This is far beyond the problem with music NOTATION that Mr. Formosa describes. Sure, music notation SUCKS, but the problem with the music ratios is much more fundamental.
Indeed. The most concise way of stating the problem is this: no power of two is also a power of three. The fault is not with people, or music, but with mathematics. Even God can't fix it, if She is logical.
Scott Wallace: Well put. But the fault really IS with people - we find certain intervals - the fourth, fifths, and major and minor 3rd and 6th, to be close enough to be pleasurable. But it's a good thing; it allows us to have music, even though it really just can't work!
Was the audience being held hostage?
Sorry to say, but there are a lot of inaccurate or even wrong statements made in this TEDx talk.
Don't be sorry, it's a BAD talk.
It is mostly misunderstood. The guy presents, in a very sympathetic way, a heckload of bullcrap. But it's supposed to be an inspirational speech for design students, not an informative lecture about music and maths.
And what I'm sorry about is nobody (including me) noticing the long explanation in the video description, as it is hidden behind the "show more" button. (I didn't notice it until I read some answers to the comments)
Like what?
@@UBERLADEN69 A few examples of misinformation from the video: E# doesn't exist. The major scale begins on C because we started with the minor scale. Our notational system is basically the same as the monks from 1500 years ago. The Nashville system as a good way of transmitting songs (it isn't, it only transmits chord relations, so "Can't Buy Me Love" by the Beatles and "Aint Nothin' But A Hound Dog" would suddenly be identical in the notation, which leads to the conclusion that the Nashville System doesn't communicate much of the information about what makes a song a song). The idea that we don't use numbers when studying music and music theory ("skip the music classes"). The simplifications about Irving Berlin. Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find anything that's really accurate. Maybe the slide-rule stuff at the beginning is; I'm not familiar enough with slide-rules to say. But essentially all of the musical stuff was false, from the theory, to the assertions about notation, to the history.
Very interesting, but one point he seems to have missed is that in the well tempered scale, where there are twelve notes in the “octave” whose frequencies form a series with the same ratio between each note (a geometric progression) a “key change” does nothing more than shift pitch up or down. Transposing from one key to any other key requires that you retain your pattern of missed and included notes in the major scale and you just move the pitch (=frequencies). Feel free to argue. Different situation with music in the time of Pythagoras as the tuning was different.
These "notes that don't exist" in fact do: they are very necessary in keys with more than five sharps/flats in the signature, and when modulating to dominant pedals in already very sharp keys, or subdominant pedals in keys with several flats, for instance. Also in particular diminished and augmented chords. D, F, A♭, and C♭ compose Ddim7. This is a much more transparent way to communicate this diminished chord than "D, F, A♭, B"! Is he postulating that we would call the leading note in F# major "F" rather than E sharp?! That's ridiculous! One should be able to name the degrees of any tonality with consecutive letters, as in "E♭, F, G♭, A♭, B♭, C♭ D♭, E♭" for E♭ natural minor, rather than calling C♭ a B. See how every letter name is used only once? (Except the tonic)
E#, C♭, B#, and F♭ EXIST. Wonder if this person even acknowledges the existence of double sharps and flats if this is already too controversial!
Indeed! LOL Good points... However, as long as we're being technical and pointing out errors:
it makes NO sense to refer to the number of "accidentals IN [a key] signature"
An 'accidental' is an inclusive (catch all) term which refers to notes which fall outside of (are NOT in) the current key signature. While they exist only within the context of a key signature, they are every note that is not part of that key signature and therefore can not be used to define that key signature since ITS definition is what creates/defines them.
And it is illogical & nonsensical to describe or define a 'thing' (a key signature in this case) using a concept/term or 'thing' whose definition relies on the first 'thing' for its context (the concept of an accidental is defined within the context of a key signature and is meaningless outside that context of a key signature)...
It is also illogical & nonsensical to describe or define a 'thing' (still a key signature) using the very term that represents anything that is NOT [part of] that first 'thing'!!! LMAO
What does that even mean to talk about the number of something (accidentals) that makes up a key signature when that something (accidental) is inherently defined as being whatever is outside of and NOT part of that key signature??? WTF?!?!?
It's like slurring a group of notes with a rest in the middle, or adding any kind of articulation or dynamic markings to rests! (because you're including something (a rest, AKA a break, breath, pause or stop) in a continuous, non-stop connected group of something (notes) that by definition excludes that first thing (the rest)-so... how do you connect notes separated by a rest without eliminating the rest?)
Consider this: the term 'accidental' refers to both sharps and flats (which is what you were referring to), but it also clearly includes 'naturals' (as well as double sharps & double flats)-but you will never see a key signature with naturals in it (nor double sharps or flats)! Let's not pretend that this obviously doesn't include the practice of cancelling an outgoing key signature as a courtesy if applicable. Why? Well, mainly because it's not a key signature but the CANCELLING (or negating) of a key signature that is ending [to clean the slate] before introducing the new key signature. When is it applicable? Why not always? The practice is fading and not required except when the new key signature has no sharps or flats, but it is recommended when switching between sharps and flats, or when reducing the number of sharps or flats (but not when increasing the number of sharps or flats).
"... keys with more than five sharps or flats in the signature..." would be the correct way to express your idea; in case there was any doubt or confusion.
You obviously have an understanding of (at least basic) music theory... So, I'm assuming you either had a brainfart-an "accidental" slip up of terminology, or your understanding of the term was slightly flawed. Nonetheless, anyone who chooses to post detailed, technical citations of an error should fully expect to be called out for even the slightest inaccuracy in their comment (which this is not, this is a significant, fundamental blunder on par with referring to an ampersand as a letter of the alphabet!).
+DJJonPattrsn22
Oops! Yes of course, made a big boo-boo. That is technically correct. I just for some reason thought it would be a quicker way to say it, but I do realize the difference. I was trying to get at the importance of white-key sharps and flats and why our current notation is more than sufficient. Thanks for your time in clarifying LOL.
Just curious, what is your musical background? What instrument(s) do you play? You demonstrate a considerable depth of musical knowledge!
where do you find these missing notes on the piano?
i think the entire usage of 'sharp' and 'flat' should be questioned in the first place
Imagine notating a Beethoven Sonata or Chopin Ballade in the “keyless number system”. He is clearly not a pianist or conductor as the reason for the elaborate notation system we developed is not a flaw in the “left brain” education system, but rather a necessity due to the complexity of the music which evolved since the notation system was invented.
Not only does E# exist as one of many existing enharmonic equivalents to F- it is also a member of one of the basic 12 major keys- the 7th scale degree of F# major. In fact, Ex (E double sharp) even exists as the 7th scale degree of Fx (F double sharp) major. It is clear that the presenter has no foundation in western musical notation or music theory, since he doesn't even surpass a 101 level of music theory knowledge in his "argument" against western notation. In addition, the minor, or Aeolian mode was not the only church mode- Dorian, Lydian and Mixolydian were used as well. Lastly, the "Nashville" notation referenced is a shorthand depicting the chordal analysis, and is incapable of notating melody, which makes it by definition a less capable alternative to western notation. Perhaps the presenter may look into finishing undergraduate music theory coursework before proceeding with his "studies" against western notation.
Edit 11/19- E# is one of *multiple* (actually two) enharmonic pitches to F- the other being Gbb (G double flat). My point is, E# and all of those other notes truly exist, and in fact must exist for the correct notation of all diatonic chords within the modes surrounding the 12 pitches used in western music.
I don't think we need F double sharp major, with one sharp and six double sharps, when we can use G major and play the same notes with just one sharp.
I'm not saying the key of Fx needs to exist, but the pitch Fx is necessary to correctly notate other keys diatonically. In G# harmonic minor, it would not be correct to notate the leading tone as a G natural- it is an Fx, and that makes chordal analysis make sense.
Yes, I know that.
The Nashville system is a shorthand notation which allows experienced musicians who know scales and chords intimately to quickly improvise accompaniments to melodies which may or may not be written down. It was never intended to be a full notation system. You can use the system whether you are fluent with musical notation or if you can't read a note, but still know chords and scales. And, by the way, far more musical theory than the speaker.
The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. How much clearer do you need it to be?
Why not admit there is a problem with this talk? As many have already pointed out, most of the content is either meaningless or just false.
not really - he's simply pointing out that the graphical devices we use to denote musical notes aren't that well thought out - 'ergonomically'
Yeah, but he spends a lot of time talking about things like where Pythagoras died, without even going into much detail on why Pythagoras's theory of music was so great. And the Nashville system that he eventually describes doesn't really use much math, it just uses numbers to replace the existing notation. Your car license plate also uses numbers, is that math? No. Your social security number does as well. Math? Not really. So the title of the talk is misleading, and really seems like a collection of disjointed thoughts that might all make decent lectures on their own, if expanded upon.
he's gunning after school systems, not the subject matters
What Dan Formosa says about the slide rule and the Pythagorean Theorem is funny and thoughtful. But what he says about music is largely wrong or wrongheaded- he's obviously no musician.
First off, his history is just false: he says that our current system of notation was developed by monks in the 1500's. Wrong: Western notation was in continual development, starting with neumes in about 800, lines added about 1000, mensural notation (rhythm indicated by shape of notes) around 1200, and so forth.
He also says that monks in the 16th century didn't use sharps or flats. Also wrong: accidentals had been in use centuries earlier. Dan should have done some research before lecturing on the history of notation.
Yes: modern notation is not ideal. In many specialized applications, for instance in lute or guitar notation (as he mentions), it's easier on the musician to use some kind of tabulature: a picture of the fingerboard with the notes written where they are fingered.
But- his dismissal of E# and Cb as useless equivalents of F and B, and his touting of the Nashville system of numbers from one to twelve, shows that he isn't aware of the fact that most good musicians look at music structurally, not in terms of numbers of half steps above some tonic, and not in terms of which fingers to put down.
Modern staff notation is much better than any number system for notating tonal music (as opposed to atonal music, where there are no tonal centers or scales), because it incorporates our tonal scale system (which accounts for by far the bulk of the music we play and hear) into its structure. B to C is a half step, and C to D a whole step, because our scales are built of whole and half steps. Sure, numerical (or some equivalent) notation might be more streamlined and efficient for, say, Schönberg. But not for Bach, Beethoven, or the Beatles.
To use Dan's own illustration: staff notation is like a slide rule, and the Nashville system is like a pocket calculator: staff notation shows you how the music works, and numerical systems hide the structure.
Sure, staff notation takes some work to learn, and it's not perfect. But the Nashville system is never going to replace it, because it's too limited and artificial.
cheers from sleety Vienna, Scott
While the video has maybe a couple of valid points, it is disturbing to listen to someone with that Ted Talk Mr. smart guy tone be so factually incorrect, your comments are all right on, thank you Scott
The piano, as is our notation system, is symmetrical on the circle of fifths (or 7k%12 for k=0,1,2,3....)
i.e, the major or minor more are not arbitrary at all, as they appear in sequence on the cycle (F C G D A E B)
This allows to transpose one scale to its 2 neighbours by only replacing one note at a time (e.g. F -> F#, or B -> Bb)
In short - the standard system is well thought of.