* David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> [2011-03-14 14:40]:
And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than _interval_-oriented. So even singers tend to be better off with a notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to sing Schönberg.
Even if they sing Schoenberg frequently, familiarity of notation is more important than effectiveness or elegance, and so especially in music that they view as difficult they will insist on traditional notation in preference over anything touted as "better". People (by and large) are simply not going to learn a new system of notation until the majority of others (especially including the majority of music teachers and the majority of mainstream music publishers) have already adopted it. Therefore ANY new system of notation is, in practical terms, doomed to obscurity. A small circle of friends and/or students around each notation inventor may adopt a system, but it isn't going to go farther than that unless the advantages provided are orders of magnitude greater than the advantages already provided by the many well-thought-out, elegant, and interesting notation systems already swelling the trash heap of history. In my opinion, for starters, any new system that requires an explanation of its features is out. If it isn't obvious without explanation, then the advantages are probably not great enough to get anybody to switch. -- David _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
