Piano Forum

Thanks, debussychopin. I cannot agree with your view about the choice of notation (sharp or flat) suggesting an expression choice by a player in its own right, which you seem to be saying (though you begin with the point that it is fine due to a change of key). A player approaching a series of notes written one way, followed by the same note with a different name, with no other notes or instruction (just like some daft exercise), should have no reason whatever to change the way those notes are played, as far as I can see. The whole point of the thought experiment is that you've removed all indication of what the music is "doing" theoretically, what kind of cadence might be implied, just making an isolated tone repeatedly.

I can accept the logic that the progression of a piece might indicate a choice of flat over sharp or vice versa according to traditional musical theory, but I remain sceptical about the ultimate value of this. It is perhaps simply a matter of personal preference, or one method may be ideal in one situation and suit one person's needs, while not being ideal for another.

Musical notation as it has evolved, in my view, is unnecessarily difficult and thus excludes a large number of people who might learn to read a simpler, more logical notation. For example, due to the quirks of history and how different voices were written, the treble and bass clefs raise the obvious difficulty for anyone trying to learn to read that the notes are all out of sync - the middle line of the treble cleff is B, but D on the bass. To anyone approaching the task of designing musical notation without the inertia of history would see this immediately as a serious design flaw and shift one up or down to match the other (or start from another principle altogether).

Going back to the point about sharps or flats, it is perfectly possible to write piano music using "piano-roll" notation of one kind or another, using the position of the note on a staff that represents the piano keys, without any need for sharps or flats (or choices between them on theoretical grounds) - indeed, there are several versions of this, like Klavarskribo. There would be no change whatever to the theory of the music that could be analysed or applied, simply the terms used to describe it would be different (as far as I can tell - perhaps I'm wrong). Chopin's Prelude in E Minor would sound (and, I'd argue, actually be) the same written in another script that tells you where to place your fingers and using what quality of expression.

It would be the same piece if everyone switched overnight to ignoring key signatures and putting every sharp and flat as an accidental, or using a triangular head for sharp notes and square ones for flats. Music is sound. Notation attempts to represent it. That is my view. And I think we're so used to mixing the two up we forget what the dots and squiggles are. Similarly with language. The person living next door is the same person whether we call them "neighbour" or "neighbor", and both of these are probably better than the Egyptian hieroglyph, though that means the same. Why, because English is (marginally, LOL) easier to learn than hieroglyphics.

Whether there are good reasons to develop other musical notation systems is another question. It might have uses as an intermediary in learning traditional musical script. Or it may be that the digital information age sparks an overhaul of the standard system altogether, as people discover a much better way to write music that allows them to learn to read and write it much quicker. Or maybe I'm just entirely wrong. What I do know is that I play by ear, and I feel completely daunted by the prospect of learning music theory in order to understand such questions as how to notate a note, as a sharp or flat, on some theoretical grounds. So it seems a rather exclusive club that demands things should be the way they are, when those ways are patently silly and complicated.