Talk:Graphic notation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Written instructions

What do you call that notation where it says things like "repeat for 10 seconds" or "keep going until conductor's signal"? Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC) I've always seen it as written instructions. There are performance notes throughout the history of european art music. It's just increasingly more common in experimental music, due to its removal from established traditions. 129.81.180.142 (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Could someone please provide examples? Vivacissamamente 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluxus

Fluxus artists such as George Brecht and Ono Yoko produced 'event' scores as an instruction for performance. Miss.modular 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Miss.Modular

Does anyone know what the two things Graphic notation shows about the music, i could be pitch and duration im not sure??

[edit] Graphical symbols vs. graphic notation

I wouldn't exactly call the symbols that have been posted on the page "graphic notation," per se. These are for the most part semi-standard avant-garde notational symbols that most contemporary composers use to some extent. I think that there's a difference between this concept and the intentionally ambiguous graphic scores of Brown, Haubenstock-Ramati, Bussotti, etc. I would really like to see those symbols in an article on Contemporary Music Notation. At the very least, the symbols certainly need a more complete explanation if they're to be part of this article.--Wolf m corcoran (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. These symbols have been fairly standard in the last fifty years, to the point that a composer could use most of them without needing to include an explanation of what they mean. Granted, it's a bit arbitrary, but I think the threshold for what constitutes "graphic notation" is a bit higher than this. I'd put something from Penderecki or Berio at the lowest threshold. Torc2 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A lot to do!

There is a lot to do here. So much more could be said, but I'm glad someone has made a beginning! And so nice there are examples to LOOK at. It could be a job to make the copyright clearing (but well, publishing houses are generally not against so with just a little patience...) Some important points I think of right now:

1) is all non-standard notation really "graphic"? Could it not be relevant to single out more kinds and sub-species... "prose scores" / verbal notation is one (with predecessors in classical music, Italian characterizations...), tablature generally is another, in which piano rolls could be a sub-species.

2) I agree that a lot of devices have become semi-standard (cf. the books of Risatti, Karkoschka and Gieseler from the sixties and seventies...). We should make the distinction more clear between compositions who depend a lot on non-standard means and those that have the standard notation as their firm basis.

3) There is a lot of literature that could be added. (You may look into my bibliography here: http://www20.brinkster.com/improarchive/legno1uk.htm especially the section E with subdivisions - on new notations...)

Well, coming back to this some day...

Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)