At some point in our lives, we realize that typographic letters and handwritten letters vary. In print, we decode multiple symbols as the same letter with little trouble. More or less, our brains see these symbols as variations on a theme and interpret them appropriately. For example, most of us would instantly recognize any of the following as A:
Also, these are all recognizable a G:
Our minds simply compare the glyph we see with the fifty-two letter variations with which we are most familiar, and they decode the given glyph based on the closest comparison. Most of the time, we are right. This translation happens in an instant, and we aren’t even aware of the process.
Since the wife and I both teach young children, we are reminded of this decoding process every day. Emergent readers and writers often have problems decoding letter variations that we take for granted – especially lowercase a. This led me to create a collection of fonts in Font Book of typefaces that include what I dubbed “friendly a’s.” From here, though, my wife (who works with threes and fours) pointed out that lowercase a is only one problem. There is also lowercase g and differentiating uppercase I from lowercase l. Unfortunately, many fonts that include a child-friendly a end up failing on those other letters.
If you are working from a Windows-based PC at your school, chances are you default to one or two fonts when preparing a document you want young children to read:
Comic Sans
Century Gothic
Century Gothic suffers the same problem many sans-serif typefaces have with its uppercase I and its lowercase l. They might as well be the same letter. Again, most developed readers can quickly determine which letter they are looking at by the context of the word, but this can be a hangup for very young readers. Comic Sans, on the other hand, overcomes this obstacle, but poor kerning and letter-spacing can make this font very difficult to read in smaller sizes. Remember, Comic Sans was designed for use on low-resolution computer displays before being included in Microsoft Word back in the 90s.
If you have Macs at your school or a couple of the more popular Linux distributions, you might have some more options at your disposal. For example, I find Chalkboard a preferable alternative to Comic Sans. Also, one of the programming fonts on the Mac called Monaco is a fantastic alternative for those problematic letters.
Chalkboard
Monaco
Monaco may seem an odd choice at first. It’s a rather rigid-looking, fixed width, programming font. Its very design philosophy, however, centers around quick and easy readability. It was designed so coders could quickly scan and digest blocks of text at a time. When I was coding more, Monaco was my preferred font, and I kept it in that niche. The wife, on the other hand, instantly saw its benefits to her work when she stumbled across it recently.
Unfortunately, Monaco is a font distributed by Apple for Macintosh-based systems. Therefore, it is of little help to Windows users. This is where Mark Simonson Studios comes to the rescue. Mr. Simonson is a professional graphic and typeface designer, and he offers a free font on his site that is very similar to Monaco. The font is called Anonymous. It’s very complete for a free font and should serve the basic needs of most teachers.
Anonymous
If you want to give Anonymous a try, you can download it here.
You might notice another character I’ve been including in the samples – the number 4. This is my wife’s newest mission: to find a font that not only displays her problematic characters correctly, but also features an open-top 4, much like you or I would write. That mission is still unfulfilled. (Chalkboard comes close, but it’s not quite right.) Perhaps my next project will be to learn how to design her ideal font!
As a final resource, you should check out a site called Flipping Typical.
Flipping Typical is a simple website that displays a text sample in a variety of fonts installed on your computer. You can change the sample text as you like, and you can even manually check specific fonts if you want. It’s handy when trying to find a good typeface for a specific situation. Unfortunately, I haven’t found the panacea of fonts for working with young children as of yet, but hopefully this post gives you some starting points.
Update: Turns out Anonymous has one slight problem, too. The zeroes have slashes through them; great for programming, less so for reading. If you do choose to use Anonymous in any school documents, you will want to use a secondary font for numbers.
I don’t know if you got a chance to see Jon Stewart’s interview with Lou Dobbs on The Daily Show, but one moment in the very long interview really stuck in my head.
Dobbs: …the majority of Americans are saying they are opposed to the Obama healthcare legislation, and that, by the way –
Stewart: But there is no Obama healthcare legislation. There’s a Senate bill; there’s a House bill. Obama really hasn’t said anything, to his discredit, I think. I think he should have said strongly, a simple plan.
Dobbs: If the polls were saying there’s strong support for the Obama healthcare plan, would you be making the same point?
There were many great moments in this discussion, as there are in many of Stewart’s interviews, but Stewart’s statement that there is no Obama healthcare legislation – no ObamaCare, if you will – really made me sit up. Of course, I already knew that the President had not drafted a bill to present before congress. He merely presented an outline of what he would like to see. He has presented a plan, not a bill, and I think this fact is lost in much of the coverage – particularly the oppositional coverage – of healthcare reform.
If You Don’t Define Yourself, Others Will
Looking backwards to that fateful 2000 election, Evgenia Peretz wrote in Vanity Fair:
George Bush made it easy—he handed them a character on a plate. He had one slogan—compassionate conservatism—and one promise aimed squarely at denigrating Bill Clinton: to restore honor and integrity to the White House. He was also perceived to be fun to be with…But Gore couldn’t turn on such charm on cue…
Gore needed to give them hamburger, as Carville put it—a simple, dramatic character; a simple, dramatic story line; a 10-word slogan. If Gore couldn’t provide it, the press would.
Ms. Peretz is writing about characterizations. Mr. Bush played a role in the 2000 election the media could understand. Mr. Gore did not present such a simple characterization, so the media made one up for him. He did not clearly define himself early in his campaign. Therefore, others defined him for him – whether their characterization was accurate or not.
This is the challenge healthcare reform is facing under the Obama administration, and I agree with Jon Stewart that it is to Obama’s discredit that he has not been more forward. The issue has become more complex than the media is willing to present, and it takes more effort to understand than many individuals are willing to invest. Therefore, since the President has not clearly defined his plan through legislation, the media has been defining it for him. These generalizations are then passed on to viewers who are unlikely to verify the accuracy of the reports, advertisements, or talking points.
If There Is No ObamaCare, Anything Can Be Credited To It
Since the supposed Obama healthcare legislation is, in fact, fictional, ObamaCare has become a canvas on which critics can paint a bleak and dismal future based on suppositions and false applications. Media outlets are able to say, “Here’s how we define ObamaCare. Now respond in this poll about ObamaCare as we presented it.” (Is it any wonder, then, that poll results vary so vastly network to network?) For example:
- Neither Senate nor House bills create “rationing Mandates” based on task force recommendations about preventative testing, but ObamaCare apparently does. These recommendations also provide a basis for ObamaCare “death panels,” despite the fact that the Bush administration also oversaw a task force that made similar recommendations against screening for certain forms of cancer (one form of which I battled a few years ago).
- The 10 year $247 billion price tag involved with budgeting for “fixing” pay cuts for doctors that have never happened (since they were introduced a decade ago) has nothing to do with the House or Senate bills. We can blame it on ObamaCare, though.
- Both the House and Senate bills are alive and well, but we can use some recent Republican gubernatorial victories to “prove” ObamaCare is dead. After all, it was never really there to begin with. (Is it me, or is that argument a complete non sequitur?)
- Nothing in the House or Senate bills will create schools “sex clinics.” They will merely increase funding for those school health clinics that have been around since the days of Reagan. We can say ObamaCare does, though.
- Nothing in the House or Senate bill seeks to infringe on Second Amendment rights, but watch out. ObamaCare is coming after your guns (and probably your gas and religion for good measure).
- Finally, neither of the major healthcare reform bills look smother our individuality, rob us of our humanity, or make us all slaves. Apparently, ObamaCare is capable of all that, though, as well as present a greater threat than terrorists.
For a piece of imaginary legislation, the ObamaCare Bill is one mean piece of work. It is capable of turning us all into communist Nazis who are enslaved to a system that will kill the old while only doling out benefits to the worthy, all while teenagers can have irresponsible sex so they might go and enjoy more fun abortions. Don’t worry, though, because two Republican governors have killed it; just be very afraid.
If the Playground Is Open, the Children Will Play
It sounds crazy when put so succinctly, but that is what the narrative has devolved into. The term ObamaCare has become a playground for dark fantasies and dire predictions intended to do two things: forward a specific political agenda and drive ratings. After all, who doesn’t like a good scary story? Unfortunately, President Obama has left the playground gate wide open because he has not imposed himself strongly enough on the debate. He has outlined a general vision, but he has left the specifics up to others. While this might be a proper way to guide this reform, it has given the media and his opponants an opportunity to define his vision for him.
We just have to remember that most horror stories are just that – stories. Narratives can become very deeply rooted, however, and that interview between Jon Stewart and Lou Dobbs illustrates the point perfectly. Stewart says, “There is no Obama healthcare legislation,” and Dobbs follows up by asking how Stewart would react to strong public support for Obama healthcare. He refuses to allow facts to derail his narrative, and that is how the general public can support the Public Option in polls while opposing ObamaCare. In one case, the polls reflect people’s views on something factual and real. On the other, they are opposing a work of fiction.
If healthcare reform fails, it will not be because of what it would have accomplished. Rather, it will be because of what some said it could have done, and that’s a big difference.
If you’ve done any congregational singing, chances are you’ve run across something like this at some point:
Instead of customary note heads, every pitch has a unique shape. Ironically enough, a trained musician may find this system disconcerting because they may have never encountered this method of notation in any other setting. These note shapes are based on the seven basic scale degrees, and each shape represents one of those pitches.
seven shapes for seven basic pitches
A Little History
The seven shape system of notation is not very old and is usually credited to Jesse Aiken. In fact, many music manuals and notation software packages refer to these notes as Aiken Note Shapes. His 1846 book The Christian Minstrel brought shaped notes to spiritual music, and, while gaining little traction overseas, the seven-shape system became very popular in the United States – particularly in southern states. Four-shape notation can be traced a few years farther back but never gained the popularity of seven-shape notation.
In their original form, shaped notes were supposed to be self-sufficient. Aiken’s books would contain simple time signatures and no clefs or key signatures. Absolute pitch was considered unnecessary when singers could easily see the relative relationship between notes through Aiken’s system. (Remember that a capella singing was more prevalent in congregations of the 1800s than today.) Today, many hymnals use a hybrid system where absolute and relative notation is combined.
We Shall Overcome – traditional notation
We Shall Overcome – Aiken notation with clefs/key signature
Lowell Mason – a name that is probably familiar to many Christian musicians – would later seek to eliminate shaped notes from Christian hymnals, but they were too firmly entrenched. Some northern hymnal publishers have abandoned shaped notes in favor of traditional European notation, but Aiken notation is still popular among southern hymnals.
Shaped Notes’ Worth
I, for one, do not like shaped notation. I find it a distraction from what I already know about music. On the other hand, another member of the congregation I attend swears by them. He has only a small knowledge of music literacy, but he can sight-read almost any song with Aiken notation. So when are shaped notes appropriate to use and teach?
- If you’re teaching in a music curriculum, vocal or instrumental, I’d avoid shape notes altogether. Most choral music does not use them, and instrumentalists rely wholly on absolute pitch. The note shapes would provide no benefit.
- However, note shapes can be useful in teaching sight singing. In the 1950s, Gerorge H. Kyrne carried out a study that Aiken notation is more effective in teaching vocal sight-reading than traditional notation.
- If you’re writing music for professional musicians or any instrumentalists, don’t use shaped notes. They will only distract from what these musicians already know.
- If you’re writing music for congregational singing, shaped notes may be appropriate. Individual music publishers will often have the final call, but, if you are independently writing for a single congregation, check their hymnals and use the system to which they are accustomed.
Shaped notes are an interesting footnote in American music history. The Aiken notation system is one of the very few musical innovations unique to our hemisphere. While they remained limited to a specific musical culture, they enabled whole groups of people to experience and create music they might have otherwise been too daunted to try.
Though I’ve been blogging now for nearly five years (and steadfastly failing to run out of ways to put my foot in my mouth), I’m relatively new to the world of social networking. Here are the stats: I created an Epsilen ePortfolio for a graduate class in 2007 and have barely touched it since. I’ve been faithful to Twitter since I joined (also in 2007), but I’ve been very picky about who I follow. Finally, earlier this year, I joined Facebook – an event that will live in infamy with friends and relatives.
“What’s on my mind?” Do you really want to know?
I wasn’t around to experience previous versions of Facebook, so I have little point of reference; but I couldn’t help but notice striking superficial similarities between Facebook and Twitter. However, over time, I also found the focus of the two site were very different despite similar façades, and this simple difference influences how people use and react to the two sites. This is not a judgment of one site over the other – simply an assessment based on observations over the last several months.
Facebook: All About Me
Facebook takes a very me-centered approach to the site design. No one can friend me unless I approve them. I can spend all day distracting myself with games and quizzes on Facebook. I can choose to friend someone while hiding their updates, so I don’t have to be bothered by them. I set my profile to give you as much personal information as I feel comfortable. I can tell you what books, movies, TV shows, bands, etc. I like, and I look for people who are already somehow connected to me. Even the recent redesign of the Facebook News Feed reinforces this. Now, instead of being inundated by everything my friends do, I can see reduced highlights of the day.
Look at your friend count if you have a Facebook account. What percentage of them regularly comment on your statuses – even the really good videos and links you share? The impact of the me-centered approach to Facebook is that you and I can spend hours on the site without interacting with anyone else. It’s apparent that several users don’t even read others’ updates (and I’ve even gotten a few to admit that). As an anecdotal illustration, a few weeks after my wife and I finally announced our pregnancy, I had several people say something like: “When are you going to announce it on Facebook?” The kicker: we already had.
Twitter: All About You
Twitter is about as bare-bones as you can get. There is a box for your tweets, some trending topics in the sidebar, and a timeline of tweets by people you follow in the center. That’s it. You have to engage with the community to get anything at all out of Twitter. No Mafia Wars, no FarmVille, no Bejeweled Blitz, no polls – nothing exists but what other people share. You can’t even write that much. You get 140 characters (counting spaces and punctuation), so conciseness and clarity are paramount. Even your profile description is limited to 160 characters and one link.
The impact is one of community – you have to reach out to perfect strangers and take an interest in them if Twitter is to be any benefit at all. Conversation is the rule, and, chances are, a Twitter veteran will be following a large number of people he or she has never met in person. Instead of reinforcing old connections, they have used Twitter to forge new ones. This is the secret of getting the most out of Twitter – finding the perfect mix of individuals to follow, converse with, and learn from.
What Does This All Mean?
What does this mean to you when signing up for one or the other? Joining one from the other? It depends on what you are looking for, and I can’t predict how you will react to either. I have noticed some trends, though, between each community’s reaction to the other service.
- If you are coming from Facebook to Twitter, you may see Twitter as pointless and restrictive. The minimalist nature may be off-putting, and the lack of familiar faces may seem daunting. I suggest using tending topics to find individuals with similar interests when getting started. Most celebrities and business aren’t worth following.
- If you are coming from Twitter to Facebook, you may see Facebook as ultimately shallow and diversionary. You will get friend requests that make you scratch your head. (“Really? Didn’t you give me wedgies in middle school?”) You will find out things about your friends and family you’d rather they not share. It’s okay to reconnect and embrace the diversity you might not have known existed in your established social circles.
Do I prefer one over the other? Of course, but I can appreciate both for what they are. The key is understanding the differences between the sites’ designs and how those designs affect the community built within the provided space. At heart, I’m a Twitter user more than a Facebook user. I feel I can express myself more honestly on Twitter, and I benefit daily from the observations, links, advice, and quips from those I follow. I love to see my friends and family on Facebook, though, and I do try to read every update they write, visit some links, and look at their pictures. I have to admit to using Facebook a little like a second Twitter, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy a “Which Beatle Are You?” quiz from time to time.
Note: I’ve noticed that this post looks just fine in about anything but Internet Explorer. In IE, you may not be able to read the flat and sharp symbols in the text.
Despite being a music teacher by trade and having a great interest in general music and music theory, I don’t blog much about the topic. Perhaps I dwell on it too long throughout the day, and I use this site to escape into other avenues of interest. Perhaps I agree with the statement that “talking about music is like dancing about architecture.” Regardless of the reason, I’ve found myself looking at more than one musical topic and thinking they could make for good posts. One such topic is that of the odd creatures known as C-flat (C♭) and F-flat (F♭), E-sharp (E♯) and B-sharp (B♯).
Not misfit notes…just misunderstood.
A Little Background
To understand why C♭ is such an odd note, you have to understand a little about musical pitches, and the best way to describe this is with a keyboard. On a piano keyboard, there are black keys and white keys. The white keys are usually whole steps apart, and they get names like A, B, C, D, and so forth until you get to G. The black keys exist at half steps between those white keys; notes like G♯ and D♭ exist on the black keys.
Notice the space between E & F and B & C, however. There are no black keys between these notes – meaning they are already half steps apart. That means an F♭ is an E, and an E♯ is an F. C♭ is B and B♯ is C. (These are called enharmonic equivalents for those of you seeking to expand your vocabulary. They produce the same tone while written differently.) The question remains, however, that if these are essentially the same notes, then why bother?
Learning to Spell
One explanation for the use of enharmonic flats and sharps boils down to spelling the chord to which it belongs correctly. The basic triadic chord for A is spelled A-C-E. An A major chord is spelled A-C♯-E, and you lower the C♯ to C to make the chord A minor. Now, if your chord is an A♭ major chord, then you would lower everything by one-half step and spell it A♭-C-E♭. Lowering the third to create an A♭ minor chord would necessitate the use of a C♭ if the triadic spelling is to remain correct. This also applies to the rare usage of double-flats and double-sharps in specific keys.
In order: A major, A minor, A♭ major, A♭ minor.
If you were to substitute the C♭ with a B (its enharmonic equivalent), it would disrupt the triad spelling and create a very unusual-looking chord.
Now you might still ask, “What does it matter so long as both spellings sound the same?” Yes, they do sound the same. So do their and they’re, yet we wouldn’t advocate interchanging them in writing because of their phonetic similarities. Correct spelling in music matters as much as it does in prose.
Where Are You Going?
The other reason for using these unusual notes is a bit more subtle and a little psychological. It has to do with voice leading – the way notes move from one pitch to another. In any given key signature, when you raise a pitch by using an accidental, you are creating upward voice leading. That pitch should continue moving upward. The opposite is true if you lower a pitch using an accidental.
I’m going to stay in A♭ major for the next couple examples.
Pay attention to the notes in the box. By adding a natural sign to the B on the second beat of measure two, we create an upward leading phrase. The next pitch, however, is lower, disrupting the flow of the voice leading. It’s the musical equivalent of saying, “I am going to a movie yesterday.” I am going leads the reader to expect a given time-frame – later, tomorrow, next week etc. The word yesterday disrupts that expectation. Resolving a raised pitch downwards (or a lowered pitch upwards) creates the same level of cognitive dissonance.
Instead, the passage should have been written this way:
Now, using the C♭, the overall chord will be spelled correctly when put in context of the other parts, and the performer sees correct leading. The lowered C naturally will draw the performer in a descending pattern. Likewise, the upward leading of F♯ and C♯ become very important in some minor scales and a few modal scales.
Coda
It may seem a small thing, but notes like C♭ and E♯ (as well as those double-flats and double-sharps I didn’t include in this post) serve a purpose in writing music correctly. Both in voice leading and in chord spelling, it may be necessary to use a note whose enharmonic equivalent seems simpler at first blush. Despite their auditory sameness with those equivalents, these misunderstood notes are important composing with musical integrity.
