Sharps and Flats: Conventions in Composing

[lettersquash]

I'm still confused about sharps and flats, not in how to decipher them off the page, but in how composers decide which enharmonic equivalent to use. I'm thinking particularly of when modulating to a different key, or when the melodies and harmonies involve related chords (or implied chords?) and thus stray from the key signature and need accidentals.

There's a big element of "unknown unknowns" in this for me, so it's difficult to describe the problem, but it's something I noticed as a child when I first tried to write down a piece of music I made up at the piano. My new piece, in C major, used just the white notes at first, but then diverted to something I now know is the dominant, G major (in fact, G7, unsurprisingly), which I know uses the F#, and it returned via a D major, which I also know uses the F#.

What I'm less clear about is exactly why. My thinking goes like this: the staff without any key signature is based on the naturals of C major / A minor, i.e. it only has positions for seven notes, and G major obviously requires a G, but music in that key will only rarely have to deal with any F naturals, so the F is made sharp. If it used a Gb, we'd endlessly have to use an accidental (natural) to sharpen it for the G, while the F position would hardly ever be used. Conversely, F major will rarely need to notate a B, but will want As and B-flats, so we flatten the B, we don't sharpen the A.

So far, so good?

But that's just about key signatures and the tonic. So I think what I'm wondering is whether the choice in any instance - during a scalar melody, arpeggio or whatever - of sharp or flat comes down to knowing what the harmonic function of the passage is. When I returned to playing piano from music after about 50 years doodling at the keys, I learned one of my favourites, Chopin's Em Prelude and asked here why on earth the same note was notated as a G# and an Ab (edited to correct: I had them the wrong way round earlier) in the space of a bar, and the answer that came back was about the composer's intention, related to the harmonic progression. From a pragmatic point of view, it just seemed confusing to me to see the same note switch both its position on the staff and the accidentals associated with it to make it the same piano key!

Presumably the same kinds of reasons must be behind the use of double and triple sharps and flats. Are those just involved in "theoretical" keys? I've no idea!

What am I missing? I'm neither a great maths genius nor an idiot, but I seem to keep stumbling anywhere beyond the most basic music theory. I suspect I won't even understand the answers, but thanks for reading!

[brogers70]

The answer you've given yourself is correct. In general a composer will decide whether to write a note as Ab or G# depending on the harmonic context of the note. It can even happen, as you say, that within a single measure the same note is written first as C# and then immediately as Db - there can even be a tie joining the two notes so that you do not restrike the Db. When that happens, there's a good harmonic explanation. Musical notation has two, sometimes conflicting goals, one is to show you what buttons to press, where to place your fingers, etc.; the other is to show the musical intention of the composer, and choosing which enharmonic version of a note to write depends entirely on the musical intention and not at all on showing you where to place your fingers. The same rationale applies to the use of double sharps and flats.

The thing that will make all this clearer to you is learning more about harmony. So I'd suggest just slowly working through a college text on tonal harmony. Here's one I like - you can find cheap used copies on line.
https://www.amazon.com/Tonal-Harmony-Introduction-Twentieth-Century-Music/dp/0072852607

If you like, you can post examples of what you find confusing and probably you'll get a good explanation from somebody here, but it may be more efficient just to work through the book. It's not rocket science, it just takes a little time.

[lettersquash]

Thanks for that brogers70.

I don't imagine the simpler parts of tonal harmony are particularly difficult, but musical forms can get quite complicated, including scalar and other melodic or contrapuntal notes that aren't in the current key. I am concerned for all those - like myself - who can sit at the piano and compose (and remember and develop their compositions), and therefore know "which buttons to press," but haven't learned to identify the harmonic function of those notes. I could, of course, just choose something that seems appropriate intuitively.

Anyway, it's good to get those facts straight for myself, and the above is just me meandering towards my soapbox on the need for alternative notations (particularly ones that treat all the twelve tones equally, giving them all space on the staff rather than the relative representation that sharps and flats requires. I wonder if you'd agree that it is the seven-degree staff (the inventors never having left room for the "black notes" either on the staff or in the alphabetic naming) that leads to the necessity of relating all the musical content to a tonic key or particular related juxtapositions from it.

[brogers70]

Thanks for that brogers70.

I don't imagine the simpler parts of tonal harmony are particularly difficult, but musical forms can get quite complicated, including scalar and other melodic or contrapuntal notes that aren't in the current key. I am concerned for all those - like myself - who can sit at the piano and compose (and remember and develop their compositions), and therefore know "which buttons to press," but haven't learned to identify the harmonic function of those notes. I could, of course, just choose something that seems appropriate intuitively.

Anyway, it's good to get those facts straight for myself, and the above is just me meandering towards my soapbox on the need for alternative notations (particularly ones that treat all the twelve tones equally, giving them all space on the staff rather than the relative representation that sharps and flats requires. I wonder if you'd agree that it is the seven-degree staff (the inventors never having left room for the "black notes" either on the staff or in the alphabetic naming) that leads to the necessity of relating all the musical content to a tonic key or particular related juxtapositions from it.

I'd agree with you in the general sense that our musical notation is based on Western tonal harmony. I think it works very well for that, and that an alternate notation system based on equality among the 12 tones of the chromatic scale would be pretty inefficient for notating most Western classical music. It might, however, be reasonable, and even more natural, for serial or other atonal music.

I also think you may be overrating the difficulty of learning how to understand "notes that are not in the current key." It's really not as hard as all that. An hour a day with a good textbook for a month (maybe less) ought to do the trick.

[lettersquash]

OK, well that's worth working at, I guess, if I want to go down the traditional notation route. I'm torn, to be honest. Really, it's from a reading point of view, rather than composing, that I think the benefits of a 12-tone system come in, particularly for those who aren't set on a career in music, but would just like to learn pieces for their own enjoyment and to entertain others. And that's because I think the 7-tone system with the accidentals, key signatures, and the requirement to approach music from a theory-first point of view, puts a lot of people off from bothering. I am practising reading it, largely because I don't currently have an option, but I'm working on an alternative.

It's perfectly possible to learn which notes to play (and in what manner) and not have much idea, or none at all, of the harmonic functions in theoretical terms, but to hear them and enjoy them - indeed, I think, to intuitively understand their function.

I'm not sure what you consider "inefficient" about a 12-tone system, unless you mean a staff will have to be wider. This is generally true (Klavarskribo is stupidly wide, to be honest), but that just means more space is used - not a terrible cost - and pales into insignificance compared to all the inefficiencies of the traditional system, which imposes a high cognitive load to decipher pitches and note values until a serious amount of time and practice has been put in to become familiar with it.

Lots of people come to music in their old age, when their brains aren't up to that task. They might have given up as young people, perhaps when they were introduced to more sharps and flats and complex rhythms (also a common stumbling block). Learning music is essentially about which buttons to press. There are 88 of them on a standard piano, but think how many different symbols might represent them.

[brogers70]

If you want an example of a notation that is purely aimed at what buttons to push, there are various forms of tablature for lute (and pop guitar). They tell you what fingers to put on which strings. The systems varied from country to country, but the general principle was the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablature

An example of notation going in the opposite extreme, would be Bach notating the Art of the Fugue in open score, so that each voice is notated on a separate line. A keyboard player would have no indication at all from the score which finger was supposed to do what, but in compensation, they'd be able to see clearly how the fugues worked musically. And plenty of keyboardists in that time learned to read from open scores.

Or another notation that keyboard players used to have to learn was figured bass. It shows only a bass line and numbers over the bass notes which can be decoded to tell you what the harmonies are - then you have to decide exactly which notes to play to realize those harmonies. It's a skill that few classical pianists learn these days, but it used to be essential.

I think it's not that uncommon for adults who come to music without prior training to conclude that music notation is weird and arbitrary. I had a friend who took up piano at 55 and was constantly angry that there was a note between the treble and bass clefs (ie middle C) - it seemed ridiculous to him that the two clefs could not work without a gap between them. Then I showed him some Bach keyboard manuscripts in which the upper staff uses the soprano clef (that's a C clef with middle C on the lowest line of the staff) rather than the treble clef. Voila, no gap between the two staffs. But it's not dramatically easier to read than the modern clefs. There've been a lot of tweaks to Western music notation over the past 1000 years. I think it's easier to just go ahead and learn the system we have now than to try to invent a better one. You could spend a whole career trying to invent a better system, and then trying to sell it to a market full of people happy with the old system. It will take a lot less time just to learn enough music theory that reading the standard notation makes sense to you.

[lelle]

This video covers a lot surrounding why western notation works like it does, including why alternative notation systems, such as those being discussed in this thread, have failed to take off. It's entertaining and well worth a watch.

[lettersquash]

If you want an example of a notation that is purely aimed at what buttons to push, there are various forms of tablature for lute (and pop guitar). They tell you what fingers to put on which strings. The systems varied from country to country, but the general principle was the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablature

Yes, that's right. But tablature was perfectly respectable and the norm for early lute music. I object to the repeated phrase, "which buttons to press," as it insinuates this style of notation is inherently mechanistic and will result in unmusical playing. There is no reason to assume that.

An example of notation going in the opposite extreme, would be Bach notating the Art of the Fugue in open score, so that each voice is notated on a separate line. A keyboard player would have no indication at all from the score which finger was supposed to do what, but in compensation, they'd be able to see clearly how the fugues worked musically. And plenty of keyboardists in that time learned to read from open scores.

Sure, but again there is a whole history of contrapuntal music as separate parts, and Bach often wrote them knowing that they would suit singers and instruments in an ensemble as well as (or perhaps even prior to) use by keyboardists. At one time keyboards were vastly expensive pieces of equipment and singers ten-a-penny. If anything, this method espouses a pragmatic approach, not "the opposite direction" - which to me would mean "more complexity and arbitrariness". But sure, trying to read four (or whatever) different clefs at once and combine them on a keyboard would be torture - about twice as bad as reading two.

Or another notation that keyboard players used to have to learn was figured bass. It shows only a bass line and numbers over the bass notes which can be decoded to tell you what the harmonies are - then you have to decide exactly which notes to play to realize those harmonies. It's a skill that few classical pianists learn these days, but it used to be essential.

Demonstrating that different notation systems are valuable in different circumstances, surely?

I think it's not that uncommon for adults who come to music without prior training to conclude that music notation is weird and arbitrary.

How does someone "come to music" with prior training? Maybe you didn't quite make the point you were intending. But they're right, it's weird and arbitrary.

I had a friend who took up piano at 55 and was constantly angry that there was a note between the treble and bass clefs (ie middle C) - it seemed ridiculous to him that the two clefs could not work without a gap between them.

Hmmm. Good question.

Then I showed him some Bach keyboard manuscripts in which the upper staff uses the soprano clef (that's a C clef with middle C on the lowest line of the staff) rather than the treble clef. Voila, no gap between the two staffs.

But that's just moving the index, isn't it? And it's still the "upper staff" - presumably there was a different clef on the lower staff, and a gap between the two? I'm not sure this goes anywhere near answering the question. It would be fun to actually think about.

But it's not dramatically easier to read than the modern clefs.

Indeed. It's approximately as difficult. There's also the wider issue: aren't different clefs unhelpful (in this day and age)? They take the five lines and spaces and make those positions mean different things (before we even begin adding key signatures and accidentals).

There've been a lot of tweaks to Western music notation over the past 1000 years. I think it's easier to just go ahead and learn the system we have now than to try to invent a better one.

Well, it might be easier to do that, yes. It was easier for the ancient Egyptians to keep learning heiroglyphs than invent an alphabet.

You could spend a whole career trying to invent a better system, and then trying to sell it to a market full of people happy with the old system.

But I'm hoping to spend a few years developing a better system and give it to people who aren't happy with the old system.

In my experience, people who are happy with the old system have been through quite a lot of theory and practical training, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced it distorts their view of the task of communicating music. The newbies who think traditional notation is weird and arbitrary haven't been taught how to extract twelve musical tones and temporal values from seven positions with all manner of switches, and an array of flags, beams, dots, ties and rests. There are immensely simpler ways to communicate tone and timing. As you say, there have been a thousand years of tweaks ... of a system that wasn't designed for more than seven short or long notes in the octave.

It will take a lot less time just to learn enough music theory that reading the standard notation makes sense to you.

It might, but besides my objection above - sometimes we have to take the less easy route in order to make life easier for people who are following along after - I'm not convinced that it's actually efficient at all. I can't know this, because for that I'd have to spend that month or so reading and learning and doing some practice of the art, but what I suspect is that it would give me insight into the basics of the language that's being used, while I would still face daily challenges in actually reading music - I mean struggling bar by bar sometimes - until years of practice have passed (and at my age, that's dangerous thinking).

The answer I got when I asked why there was an Ab that went to a G# was:

Chopin intended a F half diminshed 7th chord to fall to a E dominant 7th chord

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=67230

Now, that may be true, but I'm not sure whether that will help avoid reading errors in those sorts of circumstances. I'm pretty sure I'd not approach that bar and be thinking "ooh yes, F half diminshed 7th ... E dominant 7th, so that's the same note despite having moved on the staff" at all. Not in a month of Sundays.

[lettersquash]

@lelle - hi, thanks. I watched that video back in January. I've forgotten the details, but I remember one of Tantacrul's criticisms of alternative notation proposals was, "There will never be universal agreement." - I'm actually reading this from the comment a friend of mine posted under the video and sent me in an email. It's a common misconception that the point of designing an alternative notation system is to replace the old one. I (and my friend, and several others I know) don't see it that way. We just see a lot of people - older people, kids, youth, all sorts of people - failing to learn to read music they would love to play from scores because once they get past Minuet in G (assuming they even get that far) they realise it's a lot harder and more complicated than they thought it was. It needn't be.

With the advent of apps and reading music from tablets, I envisage a future of multiple notation systems suiting a range of types of player (and composer), from which might emerge a few prominent methods, or indeed apps that can present music in several systems the user can choose from.

[brogers70]

Lelle, thanks for that link. It's quite interesting how many times the same alternatives have been thought of over the past few hundred years. I hadn't realized how far back attempts at reforming notation had started.

[brogers70]

Lettersquash, I can never figure out how to respond to posts that break up my text and respond sentence by sentence. I'm not making an argument against trying alternative notations. The standard notation used now is a compromise between conflicting priorities, for example....

1. Showing "what buttons to push" or "what holes to cover" or "where to put your fingers and what strings to pluck".

2. Showing the composer's musical intention

3. Being easy to take in visually (eg avoiding having to constantly count lots of ledger lines)

4. Avoiding tons of page turns, fitting as much music on the page as possible (replace page turns with "next screen" taps, and "on the page" with "on the screen" as necessary).

5. Making it possible to see what a musician on a different instrument will be playing without yourself knowing how to play their instrument (it would be awkward to be a pianist accompanying a guitarist if you have to look at their part written in tablature, for example).

6. Having one system that works for most or all instruments.

7. Being easy to learn

8. Being an efficient vehicle for expressing Western, tonal music

There are lots of compromises that have evolved over the centuries to balance those competing goals. Often the things that seem odd are the result of balancing conflicting goals. Why do we use sharps and flats rather than naming each of the twelve chromatic tones differently and giving each their own line or space on a staff? Because Western music generally uses seven note scales, so your eye has to look at fewer blank lines and spaces with the current system than you would if you used a chromatic staff. It's easier to learn sharps and flats at the beginning than to keep counting extra lines and spaces for the rest of your musical life. Similar compromises account for the different clefs, etc.

But....there's certainly room for more intuitive notations for beginners, why not? Lelle's video gives you lots of examples of the alternative ideas people have been working on for centuries to produce more intuitive notations. And their motivations are like yours. They believe that lots of people are driven away by the task of learning notation and they'd like an easier system. It looks to me like lots of the bases have already been covered, but if you come up with a new idea, why not?

[lettersquash]

brogers70, I understand. It's fine that we have different approaches and opinions, and I'm pleased to see that I misconstrued your intention, and you're not against people coming up with new ideas and meeting different needs.

I also entirely get your point about notation being a compromise between competing ideals, and analysing and balancing those in devising a new system has been the story of the last few years of my life! I'm still experimenting, and still doubt previous decisions. Where each of us draws those balance lines will be different, but I cannot accept that traditional notation is a good balance. In particular it's the item on your list about being easy to learn, which seems to me to come well down on the TN priorities balance sheet. But I won't labour the point.

I didn't intend to get into all this, as I said. I just wanted to check with the experts if those sharp/flat choices follow from the harmonic function of the notes in a piece, of which point I have now been convinced, and for which I thank you. This enriches my understanding of TN as being a theory-first system (at least in this area), because one has to understand musical theory to make those decisions (particularly, of course, for composition - reading any of the enharmonic options if coded correctly will decode to the same tone, and any confusion over the redundancy - e.g. Ab/G# - can be explained by reference to the composer's music-theoretic intention).

[lelle]

I just wanted to check with the experts if those sharp/flat choices follow from the harmonic function of the notes in a piece, of which point I have now been convinced, and for which I thank you. This enriches my understanding of TN as being a theory-first system (at least in this area), because one has to understand musical theory to make those decisions (particularly, of course, for composition - reading any of the enharmonic options if coded correctly will decode to the same tone, and any confusion over the redundancy - e.g. Ab/G# - can be explained by reference to the composer's music-theoretic intention).

You get it!

An analogy:

The words "to", "too", and "two" sound the same way when spoken, but are spelled differently.

The spelling differences help us understand the meaning of the sound in the context it is being used.

Likewise, the use of different accidentals to produce the same key press help us understand the intended meaning of the chord or note in the musical grammar, once you have received sufficient music theory training. (We receive similar training with words like "to", "too" and "two", by the way, by learning to read and write in school). This helps us make decisions about interpretation.

[lettersquash]

You get it!

An analogy:

The words "to", "too", and "two" sound the same way when spoken, but are spelled differently.

The spelling differences help us understand the meaning of the sound in the context it is being used.

Likewise, the use of different accidentals to produce the same key press help us understand the intended meaning of the chord or note in the musical grammar, once you have received sufficient music theory training. (We receive similar training with words like "to", "too" and "two", by the way, by learning to read and write in school). This helps us make decisions about interpretation.

I'm not sure how close this is language analogy is. Being able to communicate in one's native language is essential to a normal human life, and the basic requirement for this is speaking, not writing. We understand perfectly the use and meaning of "two" and "too" from the context even if we never learn that they are spelled differently. Similarly, we learn all the correct notes of all sorts of music, and many of us can harmonize along with melodies, or at least notice bad harmonies, off tunings and poor timing with no knowledge of music theory whatever. I would argue that we understand the meaning of music intuitively.

So there's a sense in which all I'm arguing for is a simpler spelling of musical ideas, but there's a big difference. When we learn our native language, we only need to listen and speak (our incorrect speech attempts being corrected). Learning to write is, of course, part of modern life as well.

However, learning to play an instrument is different. The single most fundamental requirement is the technical skill of operating the piano keys, valves or strings. Essentially, it is about knowing "which buttons to press". In emulating another's musical expression, that is what is needed. In speaking, we come equipped with the necessary skill, or the evolved nature to acquire it. A correct comparison with a tablature notation would therefore be more like something telling the speaker how to place their lips and tongue, and then how to aspirate that physical position, in other words, how to use the basic instrument of the vocal language. Only the most extraordinary could ever learn to play complex pieces of music on the piano by trial and error, so we require that written instruction on the pattern of notes to use.

The analogy, in fact, supports my point. We can all get on fine making ourselves understood without learning to read and write. We can understand others. We can learn long pieces of prose or poetry by rote. Nobody will mistake the meaning of "two" or "too" even if they never learn they are spelled differently, because these are delivered in context. The grammar and spelling is another level of abstraction that is interesting and educational, but not essential. Similarly, to my mind, the grammar of musical theory is interesting and educational, but - as lute tablature amply demonstrates - not essential.

I can play all sorts of music if I have instruction in which buttons to push, but there is this redundancy of forms (expressing deeper grammatical purposes, perhaps). Being thus enabled to play the right notes, I can express the "meaning" of the music, because, as I said, we all understand this intuitively, so the additional redundancy of forms is mere obfuscation.

Rather than different spellings of different words, traditional notation has different spellings of the same words. All one has to do to prove this is transpose, or change clef, when the same actual notes will be signalled by different signs.

Can anyone seriously explain to me why I would not be confused reading the switched notation of a note that hasn't physically changed? Just because I've learned all of music theory?

[brogers70]

Can anyone seriously explain to me why I would not be confused reading the switched notation of a note that hasn't physically changed? Just because I've learned all of music theory?

I can understand why you would be confused the first time you see the Ab and G# are the same black key on the piano. I can understand why you might be confused that middle C is one ledger line below the treble clef, one ledger line above the bass clef, and on the middle line of the alto clef. Sure. But is it really continually confusing once it's been explained? Is the rationale for how it works really that obscure and hard to grasp?

Looking at the alternatives proposed in Lelle's video it seems to me that they all spare you a certain amount of work at the beginning of learning to read music, but they then burden you with other problems, wasted blank space, more lines and spaces to count, etc, that you just have to live with forever after. It seems to me, easier and more efficient in the long run to invest a bit more effort learning the traditional system up front. It's possible that the initial somewhat unappealing frontloaded work discourages some people (although there are many other frustrations with learning an instrument that have nothing to do with notation). If you invent a great notation system to hook people on their instruments, that would be nifty. Come back and let us know what your system looks like when you've got it worked out.

[lettersquash]

I can understand why you would be confused the first time you see the Ab and G# are the same black key on the piano. I can understand why you might be confused that middle C is one ledger line below the treble clef, one ledger line above the bass clef, and on the middle line of the alto clef. Sure. But is it really continually confusing once it's been explained? Is the rationale for how it works really that obscure and hard to grasp?

The rationale isn't hard to grasp, but yes, for me it continues to trip me up. I repeatedly find I've read a note wrongly because I interpreted it as relative to the wrong clef, or the wrong key, or I forgot an accidental earlier in the same bar, or the editor thought I might and added a courtesy sharp or flat that tricks me into thinking there's something to adjust that there isn't. These things aren't removed by understanding the reason. They are perhaps removed by thousands more hours' practice, but that is precisely my point!

I suspect this is true for players of all grades, to be honest, that with a less weird and arbitrary notation all musicians would make make better progress and fewer mistakes sight-reading. Why is music in key signatures with more sharps or flats harder than one or none? Why should it be, when it indicates precisely the same relationship of tones? It's a rhetorical question, of course: I know why it is, and I know why you think it is necessary, because most music, you say, only uses seven tones, so to supply more space for others is a waste. It doesn't only use seven, and it's necessary because there's only room for seven.

Looking at the alternatives proposed in Lelle's video it seems to me that they all spare you a certain amount of work at the beginning of learning to read music, but they then burden you with other problems, wasted blank space, more lines and spaces to count, etc, that you just have to live with forever after.

Well I can't remember which ones were illustrated, but there have been a lot of bad ones. I think I can improve a heck of a lot on Klavarskribo, which is really quite bad in a number of respects, but thousands of people use it, often to play full organ works, and they don't show much compunction to switch to TN.

As for counting lines, I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to read ledger lines.

It seems to me, easier and more efficient in the long run to invest a bit more effort learning the traditional system up front. It's possible that the initial somewhat unappealing frontloaded work discourages some people (although there are many other frustrations with learning an instrument that have nothing to do with notation).

Certainly, there is a lot more to learning to play music than reading notes. And, whatever the notation, there will be work involved in learning to use it.

If you invent a great notation system to hook people on their instruments, that would be nifty. Come back and let us know what your system looks like when you've got it worked out.

Yes I'll keep you informed.

[themeandvariation]

"Why is music in key signatures with more sharps or flats harder than one or none? Why should it be, when it indicates precisely the same relationship of tones? It's a rhetorical question, of course: I know why it is, and I know why you think it is necessary, because most music, you say, only uses seven tones, so to supply more space for others is a waste. It doesn't only use seven, and it's necessary because there's only room for seven."
This is pretty reductionist, as most piano music has 'modulations', and the navigation out of the given signature.
Plus, although there may be (mostly) 7 tones which are used in a composition, each tone has various possibilities for registration. So note reading will have to be larger in scope necessitating the need for ledger lines, etc.

Perhaps one can show you piano music by rote;  or do what Irving Berlin did, having a lever on his piano that transposed, allowing him to play in other key signatures,  while performing in the key of C.
Of course in that case, you'd have to have the sheet music transposed to C, and then shift the transposition lever to the desired key signature.
Other than that, you could bite the bullet and just learn the system, LetterSquash.
For understanding the harmonic meaning behind enharmonic spellings, etc, that might take some time to acquire. An in-depth study of chord theory is what would be needed, though not necessary in order to learn and play in tradition classical notation.

[themeandvariation]

ps.. Some who don't want to learn to read use the 'Synthesia Piano' approach.  Though missing some vital info, it seems to work happily for those who like it. I could see getting started that way to whet the enthusiasts' excitement for quickly being able to play something. But, for one who is interested in playing a lot of classical music, I think it would be harder in the long run to use 'Synthesia'.

[lettersquash]

"Why is music in key signatures with more sharps or flats harder than one or none? Why should it be, when it indicates precisely the same relationship of tones? It's a rhetorical question, of course: I know why it is, and I know why you think it is necessary, because most music, you say, only uses seven tones, so to supply more space for others is a waste. It doesn't only use seven, and it's necessary because there's only room for seven."
This is pretty reductionist, as most piano music has 'modulations', and the navigation out of the given signature.

I think it's reductionist to say most music uses seven tones (obviously we mean per octave) and that this significantly undermines the criticism that the staff is unhelpfully limited in only having seven discrete positions. One reason is modulation, indeed, and even without that melodies often use tones outside the key's pitch classes.

Plus, although there may be (mostly) 7 tones which are used in a composition, each tone has various possibilities for registration. So note reading will have to be larger in scope necessitating the need for ledger lines, etc.

Perhaps one can show you piano music by rote;  or do what Irving Berlin did, having a lever on his piano that transposed, allowing him to play in other key signatures,  while performing in the key of C.
Of course in that case, you'd have to have the sheet music transposed to C, and then shift the transposition lever to the desired key signature.
Other than that, you could bite the bullet and just learn the system, LetterSquash.
For understanding the harmonic meaning behind enharmonic spellings, etc, that might take some time to acquire. An in-depth study of chord theory is what would be needed, though not necessary in order to learn and play in tradition classical notation.

All true but it could be a lot easier. But each to their own.

[brogers70]

An unspecified "something better" will automatically be free of the actual, specific compromises and oddities of traditional notation. But there's not much to talk about if one is comparing a specific system (traditional notation) to something not yet specified. So when you've devised your system, it will be interesting to see what its advantages and disadvantages are, in comparison to traditional notation. How easy is it for a beginner to read a simple "The Happy Farmer"-style piece? How easy is it to learn to sight read more complex music? What does a Bach fugue or a Beethoven sonata look like in the new system? How well does it handle complex rhythms? Can you automate conversion from traditional notation to the new system and vice versa? How would an orchestral score look?

[lettersquash]

An unspecified "something better" will automatically be free of the actual, specific compromises and oddities of traditional notation. But there's not much to talk about if one is comparing a specific system (traditional notation) to something not yet specified. So when you've devised your system, it will be interesting to see what its advantages and disadvantages are, in comparison to traditional notation.

Yes of course. I have done a great deal of thinking, designing, sketching, discussing, and programming on the specifics of my system over the last few years. I'm reluctant to illustrate it here or anywhere until the app is useable, and it will then only be a beta version. I'm sorry that leaves the discussion rather hampered, but I think we've had some good exchanges and agreed that if another system is useful, even to attract new players before they go on to do some "real music", that's a good thing.

How easy is it for a beginner to read a simple "The Happy Farmer"-style piece?

The (scant) evidence so far with similarly simple systems suggests very. There doesn't seem to have been much research on it. Cornelis Pot said he could teach people to read Klavarskribo in ten minutes, and it took me about that long.

How easy is it to learn to sight read more complex music?

That will be one of the first major tests I will apply myself to. A big part of the programming task is to parse digital data from standard scores (the most useful seems to be MusicXML files). That should give me plenty to have a go at and compare. And others can do the same when it's published. Anecdotally, I got frustrated trying to learn Moonlight Sonata with its four sharps several times I tried, and kept giving up. But then I switched to WYSIWYP, a simple system prototype - https://www.wysiwyp.org/ - and made much better progress, sight reading it without too many mistakes straight away. My system has some similarities.

What does a Bach fugue or a Beethoven sonata look like in the new system?

Different.

How well does it handle complex rhythms?

That will be very subjective. Nothing like TN, which will probably mean badly to you. It'll be more like Klavarskribo, or pianoroll as you find in digital audio workstations, rather than time value iconography.

Can you automate conversion from traditional notation to the new system and vice versa?

Only to, since the point of my system is to simplify and thus remove redundancies and various methods that TN uses to accomplish the same performance and audible result, e.g., dotted notes versus tied ones, G# versus Ab... Theoretically, one could reconstruct these using defaults and music theory principles in many cases, but I personally see no point and won't be trying.

 How would an orchestral score look?

I really don't know. This might be an area where TN excels. One step at a time. My beta version will only deal with single parts. I hope sections with multiple parts might come later, but I might need a team of programmers by then. On the other hand, it might prove better to accept that its remit is different. It might only ever suit amateur solo keyboard players.

[pantonality]

Dear lettersquash,

Nothing is more fun than reinventing the wheel,... /sarcasm. I would take you seriously if you were a long time piano professional, but the reality is you're a dilettante. There's nothing wrong with being a dilettante, but you clearly lack expertise in your chosen field to reinvent. Most people when confused about whether a G# or Ab would decide perhaps more music theory knowledge will help them and learn that in E minor G# can be interpretated a number of ways, modal interchange or secondary dominant being the two most common. An Ab in E minor is a special case and rare. I don't have Chopin's E  minor prelude handy so I can't analyze the particular usage, but my guess would be an augmented sixth or Neopolitan type of chord (or perhaps a chromatic medient), something downward facing. Here's the thing, the understanding of the composer's harmonic intent is implied by the harmonic spelling. Any reinvention of traditional notation in order to make music reading easier is going to strip that information away. You might not think it's important, but more proficient musicians would probably disagree.
Earlier in this thread you took umbrage at someone who referred to button pushing. It strikes me that your reinvention of music notation is a move in exactly that direction. Then again, the great JS Bach himself has been quoted as saying, "Playing the organ is easy, you just push down the right notes at the right time and the instrument plays itself." What's the chance he was being sarcastic?

Steve

[lettersquash]

Dear lettersquash,

Nothing is more fun than reinventing the wheel,... /sarcasm. I would take you seriously if you were a long time piano professional, but the reality is you're a dilettante. There's nothing wrong with being a dilettante, but you clearly lack expertise in your chosen field to reinvent.

Well, thanks for that, Steve. I think there are different types of musician, and different skills and abilities in different cognitive areas. I'm somewhere between beginner and intermediate on the piano, but I've been playing and singing music all my life, composing and improvising, and have a deep intuitive understanding of music, and a good ear. I think most people have an intuitive understanding of music without knowing a note of how it's written, or it wouldn't be so popular. I'm very aural, but not very good at remembering complex relationships of information, particularly of a mathematical nature. I can do maths well, just not keep great tables of data in my head. I get the impression that's how people like you think about music. It's theory-first. I'm not complaining - you do you - I'm trying to cater for the more intuitive, aural, less mathematical musician.

Most people when confused about whether a G# or Ab would decide perhaps more music theory knowledge will help them

...or give up, thinking, "this is mad"...

and learn that in E minor G# can be interpretated a number of ways, modal interchange or secondary dominant being the two most common. An Ab in E minor is a special case and rare. I don't have Chopin's E  minor prelude handy so I can't analyze the particular usage, but my guess would be an augmented sixth or Neopolitan type of chord (or perhaps a chromatic medient), something downward facing.

See, you can keep all that. I might get to some of it. I don't want to have to interpret what's what in order to press the right keys on the piano - so key signatures and accidentals and much of the theory cause additional confusion if one has to understand the theory in order to work out what the note is (or, in this particular case, just not be distracted by THE SAME NOTE moving on the staff and having a different accidental!).

Here's the thing, the understanding of the composer's harmonic intent is implied by the harmonic spelling.

I disagree. The understanding of the composer's harmonic intent is implied by hearing the music. You just think, "harmonic intent" involves all those classifications of functions, because you're a theory-first kinda guy.

Any reinvention of traditional notation in order to make music reading easier is going to strip that information away.

Yep.

You might not think it's important, but more proficient musicians would probably disagree.

They do.

Earlier in this thread you took umbrage at someone who referred to button pushing. It strikes me that your reinvention of music notation is a move in exactly that direction.

It is. But once you've worked out, through interpreting the harmonic intent, whether it's an Ab or a G#, you still push the same button. Was lute music in the Middle Ages harmonically impoverished when it was written in tablature and "stripped of that information"? Or can musicians see a note between G and A and either understand the theory of whether it's implied sharp or flat, or not give a damn and enjoy the glorious sound, and enjoy the ability to learn to play that piece?

Then again, the great JS Bach himself has been quoted as saying, "Playing the organ is easy, you just push down the right notes at the right time and the instrument plays itself." What's the chance he was being sarcastic?

I've no idea. Bach was, of course, exceptionally gifted in both areas - aural and mathematical.