Website offering simplified music notation

[keypeg]

The initial phase of learning is not working for about 90% of the piano students (beginners) and among those that pass it many pianists are struggling with it and find them selves playing by ear most of the time.

There are a lot of piano teachers in this teaching forum.  So, teachers, do 90% of your students struggle with the initial phase of learning?  Do only 10% of your students learn to read music over time?

[thierry13]

A dumbass will allways be a dumbass, and a genius will allways be one. You can simplify music notation, but you can not make it better. Simplifying the notation system would be like an easy arrangement of a more complex piece. It has less elements but is easier. The notation system is perfect and has no useful alternatives. I don't think removing important elements from notation would make them play better, it would simply be an illusion.

[rhapsody4]

A dumbass will allways be a dumbass, and a genius will allways be one. You can simplify music notation, but you can not make it better. Simplifying the notation system would be like an easy arrangement of a more complex piece. It has less elements but is easier. The notation system is perfect and has no useful alternatives. I don't think removing important elements from notation would make them play better, it would simply be an illusion.

+1

This 90% statistic really seems like a mantra to me. Is there really proper evidence to support this, or is it more like 90% of people who start playing the piano give up because they lose interest or don't work hard enough? This is very different from not being able to understand notation. What exactly is it about traditional notation that is so difficult to understand anyway? I have seen very few advantages with other suggested notations - in fact, they all seem to be based upon the traditional stave and note shapes anyway! Changing the notation and then teaching someone this successfully is not convincing evidence that it is any better: you do not know how they would have performed with traditional notation.

[keypeg]

This 90% statistic really seems like a mantra to me.

That's why I asked my question of what teachers' actual experience may be.  Do they find that only 10% of their students become able to read music?  Or do they lose 90% of their students?

[Petter]

This 90% statistic really seems like a mantra to me.

[pianisten1989]

I don't get it.
Why don't you learn the real music notation?! It's not very complex or difficult to understand.?!?

[keypeg]

The initial phase of learning is not working for about 90% of the piano students (beginners)

What does this "initial phase" entail?  Can you define it?  How were these statistics derived?

[thierry13]

I don't get it.
Why don't you learn the real music notation?! It's not very complex or difficult to understand.?!?

Thank you. THAT is the WHOLE point johnk and musicrebel4u seem to not understand.

[db05]

Thank you. THAT is the WHOLE point johnk and musicrebel4u seem to not understand.

My apologies for infecting this thread as I am not a teacher yet, but studying to be one.

Maybe they had trouble reading real notation themselves, and are looking for ways to diminish the problem. In that case, I commend them for their dedication. Otherwise, I would think these are all just gimmicks.

I can accept guitar tabs because they have no similarity to traditional notation. To extend this, I can accept systems which aid teaching which have little to no similarity to traditional notation. <b>These are in no way systems to replace traditional notation.</b>

I am still wondering - in general - are these systems designed with the idea that they could in some way superseed traditional notation? Personally I see this as quite foolish, because they are never likely to be accepted. Is it seen that high end music students will use this instead of traditional notation when reading scores?

Precisely. If we want to replace traditional notation, why not a whole different concept entirely? Otherwise, it makes very little difference. Which makes it little less than a gimmick. Surely, it won't be accepted by most advanced students because they're already used to traditional notation. But if it benefits beginners and intermediates, and there's a chance of a revolution in the future (very unlikely yeah  ), why not?

We have to consider that this notation (the traditional one) is used for other instruments, not just piano. The white/ black key problem does not exist in string instruents, for example, but there are other issues like fretting and bowing. And I don't see a reason for making a notation system ONLY for piano BUT based on traditional.

[I use guitar tabs, too. Proves to be for the detriment of my sight reading, though.  :-For the sake of playing, tabs+notation works best for me, followed by tabs+figuring out the timing. The real notation is hardest still. That is my experience so far. Make of it what you will.]

A dumbass will allways be a dumbass, and a genius will allways be one.

Oh, great, there is no hope for me then... 

Simplifying the notation system would be like an easy arrangement of a more complex piece. It has less elements but is easier. The notation system is perfect and has no useful alternatives. I don't think removing important elements from notation would make them play better, it would simply be an illusion.

Although I agree with most of what you said, and there are no good alternatives as of yet, I cannot agree that the present system is perfect. Perfect is too much. Like in much anything else, it is not perfect, but it is most useful atm. And these things can always change for the better (or worse... ugh...). 

[gyzzzmo]

I think that somebody who doesnt have the brains to understand current notation shouldnt be thinking about playing piano at all. Cleaning sewers is okay, but playing the piano....

[thierry13]

I think that somebody who doesnt have the brains to understand current notation shouldnt be thinking about playing piano at all. Cleaning sewers is okay, but playing the piano....

YES! That is my whole point. They wouldn't do it justice anyways.

[pianisten1989]

And you who think this "very simple notation" will be a hit: If there were any easier way to notate music, it would be way more radical than this. Like Guitar-tabs vs notation.

One more thing: What will you students do when they have leart your notation, and try to play something harder with plenty o accidentals

[waltztime]

Most modern instruments are just as easy to play in one key as any other.  It seems to me that it should also be just as easy to read music in one key as another.  Traditional notation makes it progressively more difficult to play in each key as you move away from C major/A minor, since there are more sharps and flats to remember.  That seems unnecessary to me.

Anyone interested in alternative approaches to notating music that make each key just as easy to read, and represent the interval relationships between notes more accurately, you should check out notations that use a chromatic staff:

https://musicnotation.org

[yuc4h]

It's an amazing coincidence that you made it here just in time to advertise how great those alternative notation systems are.

I can't figure why people spend so much time fixing something that isn't broken.

[keypeg]

The first aspect of a chromatic staff is the fact that the vertical distance would be almost twice as large.  How many lines would you use on such a staff?  How do you deal with huge jumps in either hand.  My main concern would be reading everything vertically.  I am imagining the eye scanning way way up, and then way way down, trying to take in all the notes.  I have not yet seen notation of actual music written in a chromatic staff.

You do not have to remember lots and lots of sharps and flats.  Each signature only adds one. 

With a chromatic staff, you lose accidentals that give valuable information allowing the musician to orient himself at a glance.  What do you do instead?  Will there be a small note saying "modulation to dominant" or similar?  Since we read notes in clusters and take in various types of information, rather than one note at a time, this concerns me.

[waltztime]

Hi Keypeg, these are fair concerns.  As far as vertical distance goes, it may be a bit of a tradeoff, but probably worth it.  And some notation systems (Twinline) overcome it by using alternating notehead shapes and a compressed staff that uses even less vertical space than traditional notation.  (But there are tradeoffs there as well...)

Other notations space the lines further apart, by say a major third.  I think this would help since there are fewer lines to take in as you move up and down.  Moving from one line to the next still moves you a third, like in traditional notation. (only now you know it's a major third, whereas in traditional it could be major or minor...)

Also, when you're making jumps of large intervals you are mainly looking to identify the particular note that you will land on.  ("I need to hit that high D") rather than reading the interval relationship between them ("I need to play a note a ninth higher").  With a chromatic staff each note always has the same appearance, is on the same line or space on the staff, regardless of the octave. So when you're making big jumps it is easier to identify the note directly by its position on the staff.  So that probably helps with moving large intervals up and down.

As far as losing valuable information without accidentals, you wouldn't have to.  A new symbol system could indicate when a note is say a D# or a Eb.  And/or if it's an accidental that falls outside the current key.  But beginners could ignore this and just play the note based on its position on the staff.  Also, you could still have some symbol system for indicating the key and key changes.  So you don't necessarily have to give up having this kind of information with a chromatic staff.  You can have the advantages of both.

You do not have to remember lots and lots of sharps and flats.  Each signature only adds one. 

Fair enough, but it does seem to take people a long time to learn how to read in all the different keys.  It would probably be easier if the musician did not have to remember which set of sharps or flats they were playing under -- easier if the notation more directly indicated which notes to play.  (granted there are courtesy accidentals, but it seems like a cumbersome system...)

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response, and sorry for the long post!

[waltztime]

I have not yet seen notation of actual music written in a chromatic staff.

Here's some very basic "rough draft" quality examples, automatically generated from Lilypond software.  They'll at least give you a sense of what some of these notations look like.
https://www.kelphead.org/chromatic/invention-9.html

And here's more info on this software work:
https://www.kelphead.org/chromatic/

[pianowolfi]

There are a lot of piano teachers in this teaching forum.  So, teachers, do 90% of your students struggle with the initial phase of learning?  Do only 10% of your students learn to read music over time?

there is a big difference between "struggling" and being absolutely reluctant, unfortunately. Until today I could not find out why so many people of all age groups are completely unwilling to learn music reading nor did I find a way to convince them that it is important and necessary. perhaps I should study psychology...

[keypeg]

The Invention sample is relatively compact music that does not do sudden leaps.  Yet already here the chromatic notation makes some gigantic leaps.  The eye has to cover a huge vertical space across four staffs, no less.  There is no key signature, so I am entirely disoriented trying to read this score.  How can I tell where and what the tonic is?

My main concern is how hard this is to read, especially for piano, because of the huge distance between top and bottom.  And this isn't even open score.  What about when an accompanist has to accompany a choir with open score music?  What would that look like?  Or, as happened in our choir, where the accompanist had to sight read the closed score of the music in Mozart's Requiement, with the choir's part written right above.

[pianisten1989]

Most modern instruments are just as easy to play in one key as any other.  It seems to me that it should also be just as easy to read music in one key as another.  Traditional notation makes it progressively more difficult to play in each key as you move away from C major/A minor, since there are more sharps and flats to remember.  That seems unnecessary to me.

Anyone interested in alternative approaches to notating music that make each key just as easy to read, and represent the interval relationships between notes more accurately, you should check out notations that use a chromatic staff:

https://musicnotation.org

Dude, c'mon! What is the problem with learning the normal notation?! Yea, your notation might be great when you transpose a c-major scale to a E flat-major, but what are you going to do when you play a Liszt piece in D-flat major? Re-write the piece into the new notation?!

Seriously, the modern notation has been the same since... Many hundred years back. If there was any easier way to notate it, someone would already have come up with it.

Stop blame your crappy sight-reading on the notation, and practise!

[db05]

The chromatic notation is a little bit over the top in a way. What I propose is a movable-do notation based on scale degrees, since most pieces are tonal anyway. waltztime is right, reading in one key shouldn't be more difficult than the other. There is no reason why a grade 1 piano student should just stay in the keys of C major, G major and F major.

Students should master scales, chords and arpeggios in every key, much like how a non-classical guitarist would go about it. It is best that they see the pattern for intervals/ scales/ chords early on (music theory) instead of following the score mechanically, like some people do. Then have the key written at the beginning of the piece or section, and the middle do is the "do" of that key. Anything chromatic will be indicated by the normal accidentals. So it's basically the same, but instead of 5 lines, 4 spaces, it will be 3 lines, 2 spaces on a staff. One line or space for every tone in the scale.

If anyone decides to follow this suggestion, I don't mind as long as you mention that I thought of this first. I think it is best for teaching theory. Personally, I don't see the point of having 5 lines on a staff.

[keypeg]

I have always seen the notation system as reflecting a "movable do".  That's what the key signature does.  It fixes do (the tonic).  In music this movable do moves around.  It modulates to the relative minor or to the dominant, so that your "do" might be at the pitch C, then A, then G, in one and the same piece. The notation system we have takes care of this superbly.  Would it not be how it's taught, rather than what the writing system is like, which is the question?  How would you deal with modulations?

Btw

Most modern instruments are just as easy to play in one key as any other.

Does the poster know this for sure?  Certain instruments have properties that make some keys much handier than others.

[db05]

I have always seen the notation system as reflecting a "movable do".  That's what the key signature does.  It fixes do (the tonic).

True, the key signature in the traditional system is adequate for some. I myself have no problem working with different key signatures. But that wasn't always the case. And some of my classmates still believe that pieces in key signatures with many sharps/ flats are harder. So did I. We thought that the easiest major key is C (no sharps/ flats), and B is one of the hardest... The irony is, the easiest key is B, and the hardest is C. Luckily, I stumbled on CC Chang's book and this forum and now, I'm not afraid of black keys.

It is both a technical and psychological problem. The normal notation, which is based on middle C no matter what key you're in, is biased towards white key thinking and playing. Same reason why I'm not impressed with the chromatic staff. Either use a new notation or find other methods to cure the black key phobia.

[keypeg]

"Black key phobia" is one problem in this issue.  Not all of us play just one instrument.  Is the problem with the notation, or how it and the theory behind it are taught?

[db05]

"Black key phobia" is one problem in this issue.  Not all of us play just one instrument.  Is the problem with the notation, or how it and the theory behind it are taught?

Both, plus the idea behind it. Not that I'm proposing an all-black keyboard too, LOL! Doesn't matter. I'm not selling a method here, just throwing the ideas away. Maybe someone will actually consider it and materialize it. Besides, I'm not particularly interested in faster reading or first sight reading, but just making things a bit easier.

Face it, people don't usually think of learning all the basic scale/ chord theory before playing the piano. Methods would only include "easy keys" and gradually include the others by means of adding key signatures. Hanon includes all scales and arpeggios, but no explanation how they were made. So most people can get away with just playing the notes without learning the theory behind it. As an added bonus, they grow afraid of black keys because these were the last they learned.

Think about this for a second.

traditional notation = 5 lines, 4 spaces + hopelessly centered on C + 7 letters to name 12 tones + key signature + accidentals to express chromaticism/ modulations = white key preference = hard to transpose

How about...

alternative notation = 3 lines, 2 spaces (maybe x2 to include 2 8ves) + movable do + 12 letters to name 12 tones + accidentals to express chromaticism/ modulations = free choice of keys = easy to transpose (just a matter of writing key of __ on top)

This looks like an argument for movable do. So be it. Actually, I study in fixed do, but that's just because it corresponds to the current system. If it were otherwise, I would go by scale degrees all the way.

Edit:
My main problem with other simplified notation mentioned here is that they only address the non-problem of reading black keys. It is really not a problem, IF you know your basic theory. It is useless to have simplified notation if you don't know how keys work, and you're only giving emphasis to the non-problem of reading black keys by attempting to solve it.

[gyzzzmo]

They should start doing like in the film 'The Matrix'. Just link somebody to a computer and transfer all data about pianoplaying into the mind. Perfect sollution for all those people who dont have the brains or are too lazy to read that (already simple) current notation. 'Problem' solved!

Gyzzzmo

[db05]

They should start doing like in the film 'The Matrix'. Just link somebody to a computer and transfer all data about pianoplaying into the mind.

Not just piano playing, but everything else!  Why not? Uhm... because that will suck the fun out of pianostreet. Imagine if we all knew the truth, there would be no debate. Let us enjoy agreeing and disagreeing while we can! 

[pianowolfi]

They should start doing like in the film 'The Matrix'. Just link somebody to a computer and transfer all data about pianoplaying into the mind. Perfect sollution for all those people who dont have the brains or are too lazy to read that (already simple) current notation. 'Problem' solved!

Gyzzzmo

The serious issue here is that in daily life as a piano teacher you have to deal with people who "don't have the brain"(yet ) (who are significantly a minority) and people who are (or seem to be) lazy. This is where psychology comes into play. How do you encourage someone not to be "lazy"? How do you motivate someone who seems to be "demotivated"? I admit that for years one of my tendencies as a teacher was to actually provide a sort of "matrix" thinking and I regret that. Sometimes I felt that I am contributing unintentionally to the consumer mentality/lazy/"demotivated"/matrix thing. Sometimes I felt like I'm emphasizing too much the other extreme, the self-motivated, interested, intelligent learner, and in this I developed a tendency to ask too much from students. In my pedagogical education unfortunately the "matrix" thinking was very present all the time: "How can we make it easier for the poor overwhelmed kids?" easier, easier...it is not easy but it is after all not so very difficult, and who needs to balance all this out for him/herself and for the students is the teacher, after all.

[thierry13]

Most modern instruments are just as easy to play in one key as any other.  It seems to me that it should also be just as easy to read music in one key as another.  Traditional notation makes it progressively more difficult to play in each key as you move away from C major/A minor, since there are more sharps and flats to remember.  That seems unnecessary to me.

Anyone interested in alternative approaches to notating music that make each key just as easy to read, and represent the interval relationships between notes more accurately, you should check out notations that use a chromatic staff:

https://musicnotation.org

Pointless and stupid. I could see the use for jazz, but it's completly inappropriate for music. It kills the whole idea of tonality and function. Music isn't twelve tones blended in some sort of random way! It simply doesn't work that way.

[pianisten1989]

Pointless and stupid. I could see the use for jazz, but it's completly inappropriate for music.

hahahaha! Dude... Ah, that was so fun!

[yuc4h]

Pointless and stupid. I could see the use for jazz, but it's completly inappropriate for music.

Priceless!

[keypeg]

I missed that. 

[db05]

Pointless and stupid. I could see the use for jazz, but it's completly inappropriate for music.

Since when was jazz not music? And since when was this thread about bashing jazz? I thought it was about bashing simplified notation. 

[gyzzzmo]

Since when was jazz not music? And since when was this thread about bashing jazz? I thought it was about bashing simplified notation. 

cause jazz uses very few key signatures

[thierry13]

cause jazz uses very few key signatures

Jazz uses whatever is faster to know what notes they must hit. So simplified notation could work for that sort of thing.

[gyzzzmo]

I think there should also be a website that offers easier piano's. Like piano's where they removed all white keys so things get less confusing for dummies and the notes are less hard to hit. 

[Petter]

I think they should remove all education at fundamental levels, I mean at least for social groups of less importance and maybe impose some gender and ethnic restrictions aswell while we´re at it. Then we´d finaly get rid of all those stupid music lovers for good and eventually all the ridiculous connoisseurs aswell. Not the mention all the narcissistic naive artists. Maybe we´d even get rid of culture as a whole aswell. Or at least we could measure it´s worth in $ without having to look about aesthetics values in retrospect so I know what to invest in, for christ sake.. .. .

[thierry13]

I hate when people "use music has a mean of expression" or whatever, giving an excuse for untalented people to ruin it. Playing music just for fun when you're talented is okay, but studying it seriously when you're not good enough is horrendous. Those people are using music, but it should be the other way around, music uses us. Music is much greater than any human being. As rachmaninoff said, music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is never enough for music. So yes, some people should stop trying and accept the fact that the life didn't give them what it takes to be a musician.

[db05]

Jazz uses whatever is faster to know what notes they must hit. So simplified notation could work for that sort of thing.

That is understandable. Simplified notation for jazz, traditional for classical.

I hate when people "use music has a mean of expression" or whatever, giving an excuse for untalented people to ruin it. Playing music just for fun when you're talented is okay, but studying it seriously when you're not good enough is horrendous... So yes, some people should stop trying and accept the fact that the life didn't give them what it takes to be a musician.

And now you're bashing "untalented" musicians too? Considering that you don't consider jazz as music at all, I am surprised you'd say this because some real/classical musicians do express themselves... and what are "talented" people anyway? Aren't they just ordinary people who learned some skills?

[thierry13]

And now you're bashing "untalented" musicians too? Considering that you don't consider jazz as music at all, I am surprised you'd say this because some real/classical musicians do express themselves... and what are "talented" people anyway? Aren't they just ordinary people who learned some skills?

I'm bashing people who are in college/universities/music schools and have nothing to do there. I aim nobody in particular. It's okay to express yourself also, but you must not do so if it ruins music. As I said, doing music for fun is okay if you're good at it, but just don't go in a music school if you're not meant to be there. And no, I don't know where you got the idea that everybody's "normal", but there are basically talented people, and there are basically disadvantaged people, that is an obvious fact. I'm bashing against those basically disadvantaged people who try too hard, that's all. The fact that jazz wasn't music at all was a joke, btw. I don't particularly like it, but there are limits!

[db05]

This is getting a bit off-topic, no? The only disadvantages I know of are not having 10 fingers and having an IQ of less than room temperature. If you have these disabilities, or you just don't like music, then don't go to music school. If you do have the requirements, and you want to play, I see no reason why not. If it takes some sort of simplifying to do so (which is additional effort for the one doing the simplifying), wouldn't it be worth the effort?

I hope that brings us all back to topic. 

[waltztime]

My main concern is how hard this is to read, especially for piano, because of the huge distance between top and bottom.

Fair enough, but Twinline notation is more vertically compact than traditional notation.  Also, Express Stave notation uses the same vertical distance (though for express stave this isn't yet implemented in the Bach examples I linked to).  So you might want to check these out.  I agree that the vertical distance could make many of these notations more difficult to read, so I like the Twinline approach.

Re: key signatures... The examples are very rough draft, automatically generated, so there's no key signature system in place on them yet.  That's why you can't identify the tonic in those examples.  You have to view them with a grain of salt, not as a final product.

[waltztime]

waltztime is right, reading in one key shouldn't be more difficult than the other. There is no reason why a grade 1 piano student should just stay in the keys of C major, G major and F major.

Students should master scales, chords and arpeggios in every key, much like how a non-classical guitarist would go about it. It is best that they see the pattern for intervals/ scales/ chords early on (music theory) instead of following the score mechanically, like some people do.

I agree, and a chromatic staff notation lets you clearly see the interval patterns of scales, arpeggios, chords, etc.  It reveals the diatonic patterns in the music rather than hiding this diatonic pattern in the staff itself.  For me, that's one of the biggest advantages of this approach to notation.

As for a moveable-do notation system,  you might be interested in Thumline notation which is moveable-do (but it also uses a chromatic staff, so it is not exactly what you're proposing). 

[keypeg]

It reveals the diatonic patterns in the music rather than hiding this diatonic pattern in the staff itself.

For me, it hides it.  It is also impracticable for reading because of the huge vertical distance it entails.

[waltztime]

It kills the whole idea of tonality and function. Music isn't twelve tones blended in some sort of random way! It simply doesn't work that way.

Right, the 12 basic tones available on most instruments aren't combined in a random way, they're combined according to diatonic patterns and intervals.  A chromatic staff makes those diatonic patterns clear and recognizable so that the musician sees them, understands them, and knows how they go together to form diatonic music.  

These patterns are built into the traditional staff, hidden away from the student, making them harder to understand and learn.  A chromatic staff makes these patterns explicit since you see them every time you play them.  

For instance, to play a diatonic scale you have to know where the half steps and whole steps occur.  There's no way to directly see and tell the difference between them on the traditional staff.  A chromatic staff makes these fundamental building blocks of diatonic music explicit, easier to see and understand.  And other diatonic intervals as well.

[db05]

I agree, and a chromatic staff notation lets you clearly see the interval patterns of scales, arpeggios, chords, etc.  It reveals the diatonic patterns in the music rather than hiding this diatonic pattern in the staff itself.  For me, that's one of the biggest advantages of this approach to notation.

For me, it hides it.  It is also impracticable for reading because of the huge vertical distance it entails.

True. btw, I don't use the semitone conversion to find intervals ie. 1 semitone = minor second. I find it much easier to relate everything to the major scale ie. minor second = flatted major second. That's why I prefer a diatonic, but movable do staff. So the question is, what is the more efficient approach to intervals?

[keypeg]

These patterns are built into the traditional staff, hidden away from the student, making them harder to understand and learn.  A chromatic staff makes these patterns explicit since you see them every time you play them. 

These patterns are built into the key signatures combined with the traditional staff, making them highly visible.  When I tried the chromatic staff, everything is invisible and you have to play note for note for note.  I can use it if I start circling some of the diatonic things, or put little markers in to tell me things - in other words, duplicate the system that it replaces.

Right, the 12 basic tones available on most instruments aren't combined in a random way, they're combined according to diatonic patterns and intervals.  A chromatic staff makes those diatonic patterns clear and recognizable so that the musician sees them, understands them, and knows how they go together to form diatonic music. 

Can you give an example of particular instruments?  I would think that the tones are built according to the physical proplerties of the instrument itself.  Blown instruments will end up emitting certain sounds according to how air escapes, which is regulated through holes that are open and covered.  That's physics.  String instruments: you have four long pieces of string with no markings at all - only a placement along fifths. The piano and harp are two exceptions I can think of, off the bat.

[waltztime]

These patterns are built into the key signatures combined with the traditional staff, making them highly visible.

The diatonic notes are visible, but the diatonic pattern of intervals that is consistent across all the different keys is hidden because it is built-in to the staff, out of sight, out of mind. 

So to be more explicit with what I mean, the diatonic pattern of intervals that makes up the major scale, and the major keys is:

W W h W W W h

W = whole step,  h = half step

If I can't distinguish half steps and whole steps by their appearance on the staff (because they are built into the staff, so that the difference between them is hidden), then I never actually see this fundamental pattern that is common to all keys, and is the source by which the notes in each key are derived.

It's two different ways of approaching and understanding different keys.  In the traditional system I learn CDEFGAB as the basic set of notes (with the diatonic pattern already built into them), then each key is learned by altering more and more of those notes with sharp or flat signs.  "G Major is the same notes as C Major except for F#, and the tonic is now G."  etc.  In this approach the musician may never know that the notes of each key follow this same diatonic pattern: WWhWWWh.

In a chromatic staff approach the musician sees and learns this basic pattern of intervals that is common to all keys.  Then each key is understood as having that basic pattern (major or minor) but starting from a different tonic note.  Instead of building this pattern into the staff, the chromatic staff reveals the interval relationships of diatonic music, the same intervals that one has to play on one's instrument. 

Maybe that clarifies what I'm saying?  Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree about which method makes the diatonic pattern clearer. 

You said:

"When I tried the chromatic staff, everything is invisible and you have to play note for note for note.  I can use it if I start circling some of the diatonic things, or put little markers in to tell me things - in other words, duplicate the system that it replaces."

Once you learn how the diatonic pattern looks on the chromatic staff, and perhaps are familiar with the key a piece is in, then you would see the notes as following that diatonic pattern.  At first go, it will seem strange and like you're just going note to note. 

Also, in those "rough draft" examples no distinction is made between notes in the key and accidentals.  This seems like it would be a reasonable thing to show in one way or another (perhaps something like courtesy accidentals just to mark which notes are accidentals).  This would surely help, especially for those learning for the first time on such a staff.

(And rather than duplicating the system it replaces, I'd see it as combining the advantages of both...)

[waltztime]

Can you give an example of particular instruments?  I would think that the tones are built according to the physical proplerties of the instrument itself. 

Ah, sorry, when I said "the 12 basic tones available on most instruments aren't combined in a random way, they're combined according to diatonic patterns and intervals." 

I wasn't thinking of the physical make-up of the instruments.  Rather I meant that the musician and/or composer "combines" the 12 basic tones available to them on their instrument according to diatonic patterns and intervals, to make diatonic music.  So most instruments give the musician a palette of 12 basic tones per octave, and the musician selects the diatonic notes from this chromatic palette presented by their instrument. 

This is why it is good for the musician to see, learn, and know the diatonic interval patterns.  A chromatic staff makes these interval patterns visible and easy to understand and learn.

[keypeg]

Icanpiano, where is this 90% coming from.  Are you saying that the teachers in this forum are experiencing a success rate of 10%?  Alternatively, have you interviewed the teachers in any particular state or country and discovered that 90% of their students are struggling?  How have these numbers been obtained?