Update: I now have a functioning prototype of my app. If you’d like to try it, get in touch.
My NYU masters thesis is a drum programming tutorial system for beginner musicians. It uses a novel circular interface for displaying the drum patterns. This presentation explains the project’s goals, motivations and scholarly background.
If you prefer, see it on Slideshare.
Leo, as always, you’re full of constructive ideas. You’re perfectly correct that my thing would be a bad notation system for trained musicians. (Though I do think that if you’d spent your whole life studying radial notation, you might find it easier.)I’m less concerned about supplanting current notation and more trying to provide a new on-ramp for beginners. I’ve tried to differentiate the different beats with different shades of grey, so stronger beats are darker. Their spatial location helps with that too. If you can think of a way to further visually clarify the beat-counting, I’d be all ears.
Love it! This is great. I have long thought that a “driving” interface for just about anything time-related is the way to go. The radial thing does seem very cool for loop based stuff, but you need a better symbology. The beauty of a bar of western notation is that it is a very flat — if cluttered — information delivery system. A trained musician can tell at a glance (to refer to your examples) not just whether a beat is syncopated, but also exactly how to play it. In much the same way that we don’t read books by sounding out each word, we don’t really read music note-by-note. We recognize patterns and sequences of information. The problem I have with the radial symbology is that the only way I can figure to clap a beat is by actually doing, one compass-point at a time. I can’t tell from a glance what I’m going to be playing. I could see getting used to a strict 4/4, 8-unit circle. But I think I’d immediately get thrown if it changed to a 16-unit one. And triplets? Fuggedaboutit! Also, the fact that half the time you’re reading right-to-left is hard, as is the vary-ing size relationships as you go from the center to the perimeter (the driving metaphor shares this problem). The nice thing about the grid or traditional notation is that it represents time relationships uniformly. Looking at a circle filled with boxes, it’s hard to tell which subdivisions belong to which beat, etc.
It seems to me that the circle functions superbly as a metronome — a counter of repeating units arrayed about the circumference, as it presents that information as flat-ly and intuitively as possible. But it’s weak as a replacement for a grid or grid+symbol based notation system. It could be helped by adding a more differentiated symbology for beat-counting. This would help to flatten the information presentation a little.
Rock on Ethan!
One solution I’ve seen for adopting colour-based interfaces to the colourblind is to combine each colour with a unique subtle texture. It only scales to a limited number of colours though, obviously. (For best results use simple tiled shapes with distinctive character, kinda like swatches, rather than a mere noise/grain-type area fill.)
The mouseover thing sounds like a good idea, or maybe having labels that follow the playhead or something? It’s definitely a tricky thing, and there are likely a few good solutions to try and see what people find most intuitive.
50% transparent sounds cool! Looking forward to seeing/reading more about it!
Amar:
When I was putting this together, I was under the impression that our presentations were going to be more like fifteen minutes, and so this was just going to be one section. Now that I know it’s four minutes, I guess I’ll be blowing through slides a lot faster.
I forgot to mention the thing about the spiral pitch/chroma thing, I’m going to add that.
I have been considering using something other than colors to label the rings other than color, but haven’t thought of a good one. Maybe the name pops up as you mouse over it? Maybe the text is always there in transparent grey? I haven’t hit on a solution yet. I hadn’t considered colorblind people but will now.
The playhead is going to be 50% transparent, so the colors underneath it will show through somewhat. We actually just implemented that this morning, I’m pretty psyched about it.
Andrew: there’s a term for what you’re feeling when you’re confronted with a DAW: option paralysis. There are specific circumstances when you need all of the bells and whistles, like editing a complex film soundtrack. But for most music purposes, constraints are a positive.
I think if I spent more time programming I would very quickly get frustrated with the single instrument view but yes – it’s more about information overload when it comes to most DAWs.
The amount of options are overwhelming and the interface is just intimidating. My learning style is to leap in and learn it by doing but I find most DAWs are so opaque that it’s hard to know where to start. Sure i could read the manual or follow some online tuts but who has time for that ;-p
I think simplifying DAW interfaces and options – mirroring the major trend we’re seeing in website design – is going to open the door to a lot more people.
The Penrose spiral reminds me a lot of the drawings for perception of pitch vs chroma that are often used, where chroma is circular and pitch is vertical.
Cool!
Are these your slides for the 4min presentation?
Have you thought at all about finding some way to label the individual sample tracks/regions aside from colours? The colours are awesome for distinguishing between various sections and it looks very cool and slick and minimal, but I personally find it a little confusing to keep referring back to the legend (especially as someone who is colourblind!)
When the playhead passes over the region, how do the colours change?
Cheers!
I feel kinda guilty that I’m getting to learn vicariously through you – when I make it – hit me up for some of the tuition fees! ;-)
I found the deck interesting and enjoyable to follow (nothing like counting out beats and slapping the table to Hound Dog!) – I didn’t quite get the jump from 11 to 12 – got back on track fairly quickly but was ultimately thrown by the last visual on 19 as the head position on the radial seemed at odds with the linear ;-)
I like the idea – I am notoriously shy of programming – there’s something about the whole digital interface that can be intimidating; I find it much easier to actually play with a real physical 808 than sit checking boxes on a screen.
I’m intrigued by the idea of a “driving” editing interface and wonder what that would look like for someone like me who composes less on a cyclical basis – could be awesome. But for the purposes of loop building, I think you’re onto a winner here – if you’re looking for beta testers at some point – count me in!
Don’t feel guilty. Part of the reason I share stuff publicly is to get feedback from folks like you, it helps clarify my thinking. The graphics are still coming together a bit — it didn’t occur to me to align the playback head on the two different views until after I posted it. Also, my wife had the bright idea to keep the regular linear TUBS in the final product underneath the radial one. So I have to think about that some more.
It’s interesting that you prefer physical 808 to software drum programming. I get where you’re coming from, but doesn’t it bother you to only be able to see your drum pattern one instrument at a time? That was my major headache with Rebirth. Does software bother you because there are too many options, or do you just not like the screen interface for the lack of tactile quality?
I love the “driving” view concept for composing. The only place I’ve ever seen it implemented was in the game FreQuency. I lack the programming chops to carry something like that off, but I’d love to work on something like that.