In conventional practice, the notation mainly contains playing instructions on how to use the musical instruments, for example specifying the pitch of the basic tone; its overtone structure, however, is not in any way noted down. In a conventional score, only limited information about the spectrum of overtones can be gathered from the instrumentation; thus only a limited spectrum of overtones is realized in the actual performance.

We can presume that in former times, in the early days of this form of limited playing instruction, musicians had a far greater potential of inner enlivened fantasy at their disposal, and had a substantially greater formative will than the musicians of today. And in all likelihood this musical wealth was perceived and appreciated with due respect by the listener of that time.

How else can we explain the impact that a magician of his instrument had like, for example, Paganini who, through his miraculous play, made his audiences ask themselves seriously whether he actually existed as a human being, or whether he was only a figment of their imagination (they even rushed on stage and touched the violinist to decisively answer this question).

Only the enlivened fantasy of such musicians justifies historically a notation so limited as the conventional one, which is still in general use today.

Later, however, the world gave up the former, rather philosophical, inner way of description and, during the last centuries, went through a radical change towards a concrete, outer description of primarily physical phenomena. Thus, the musician of today expects a similar picture of gross, scientifically exact definitions in the scores. He even considers it a great ideal not to deviate in any way from this apparent outer form of description; and, trying to adhere as closely as possible to this seemingly fixed information, he simply thinks as a child of his time.