Comments

My first attempts at a notational system for patterns were very unsatisfying. Although I like the completeness of the system (using h, w m or M, or numerals 1, 2 , 3 or 4 for number of half steps) I was very frustrated by the alternate meanings that these symbols have and the potential for confusion.

For example, one can notate an interval as w for a whole step and it can mean a major second, a perfect 4th or a major sixth. If you allow for two strings it can also mean a major 16th or something else incalculable [think Bflat on the G string (2nd finger) and f on the e string (1st finger)]

This bothered me to the point of recalling the common notation of ^, (sideways bracket or flattened down bow), and x. These symbols can have the meaning half step whole step or minor third but they are most commonly used to signify width, not harmonic function. This makes them somewhat more direct.

One of the problems of any system of symbols is the potential for saturation. When we say major and minor many things come to mind. Major could mean bigger, wider, larger but in fact on the violin a major third sounded simultaneously requires a narrower pattern than a minor third. (I almost wrote narrower interval but interval is saturated and pattern seemed more appropriate.)

I am not a teacher so I can't say what the long term impacts are of one system of pattern notation vs. another. Certainly violinists that master the ambiguity of linear relationships in a discontinuous environment of 4 strings tuned in fifths) are commendable indeed. But some of us probably need a bit more direct help.

For now I will stick with my Finger Patterns III system of symbols to denote patterns.