A major chord is a root, a 3rd on top of it, and another minor 3rd (or R+3+5 relative to its root). Add another 3rd (R+3+5+7) for a major 7th chord. Add another minor 3rd (R+3+5+7+9) for a major 7th(9) chord. Etc.
This is easy to see at a glance, both in pentagram (where thirds are line-to-line or space-to-space) and solfege/letter form (where a C chord is C-E-G, or Eb for minor, but always E). This is the reasoning behind enharmonic notes like G# and Ab (same frequency, different name), so E major is E-G#-B, and F minor is F-Ab-C. Chord inversions are then super easy to identify: G-C-E is C major in first inversion.
The notation looks great for mathematical operations, but it's not a replacement for solfege as a quick reading/writing notation. It misses a lot of implicit intent.
Alternate approaches to notation aren't meant to supplant traditional notation. It'll be centuries before today's notation goes anywhere. It's very well established and does indeed do a good job of representing traditional western music.
New notations just make other styles of music more legible, which makes it easier to compose them, and easier to perform them.
There's no competition involved, nor anything being doomed to failure.
You got a nice point there. I guess I conflated western music with triadic chords, when in this case it just means 12TET.
All chords and scales are spelled the same, just with different accidentals. For instance, all variants of triads starting on all variants of D are spelled D-F-A. The one with no accidentals happens to be D-minor. D-major is D-F#-A. D#-minor is D#-F#-A#. D#-major is D#-F##-A#. And so on. By holding this pattern, chords always look the same on the staff no matter what key you're in, which makes reading and writing tonal music easy, once you get the hang of it. The key signature captures everything that varies between keys. Although, on instruments that represent pitches differently in how you physically play them, the difference between keys is very noticeable.
The problem with dozenal notation is that intervals have to be identified by subtraction instead of their shape on the staff, which is a lot of mental effort. That said, the staff requires its own mental effort depending on what you're doing. For example, translating from staff notation to guitar fingering is a difficult exercise in real time, which motivates the need for tablature.
For some styles of music and some instruments, I can see dozenal being nice. But for the most part, it would be more useful to use standard pitch notation (e.g. C#5), because it makes intervalic/tonal relationships more obvious, at the cost of an occasional additional glyph per note.
This is only true for equal temperament.
Somewhat related to that, I had a teacher that also worked out a harmonic theoretical framework based on overall degrees of dissonance and consonance which had some relatively interesting properties for analyzing both common practice and later music within the same framework. It had something akin to set theory's interval classes, but rather than representing a pure measurement of scalar intervals, it was measuring relative dissonance of intervals and groups of intervals. The dissonance values were on an arbitrary scale, but the system nonetheless provided an interesting and different perspective on musical constructs and harmonic progression.
At the time I knew the person that put this together, I think it was his thesis that he was writing... I'll have to see what ever became of it (of course, I haven't talked to the guy in over 30 years... but hey... )
As a pianist, I'm certainly not looking for this, but a piano keyboard is designed exactly the same way that standard music notation is; the notes for a C major scale are the default, and then there are the other notes that you can access differently. I would suspect that vocalists would prefer standard notation also, since their ear naturally understands things in terms of the scales that they are used to.
From talking to advanced classical guitar players, I get the sense that standard musical notation is generally preferred over tablature. They know where the notes are already, so they don't need notation that tells them where the notes are. Their chief aim is to play the music in a way that understands the material and treats it well, so for them the standard music notation that provides easy musical understanding is an advantage.
I've programmed some things that worked with music, and it's annoying to have to convert between standard notation and integers that represent unique notes. This proposed notation system might make an ideal specialized notation for programming music applications.
You’re dropping the notation relating to keys, why still base it around C? I’d prefer to make A zero, or E, for guitar players.
I do like having the octave embedded in the notation.
I’m not comfortable with using 0-9 and a-b as pitch. The last two (known for hundreds of years as G and g#) stand out awkwardly.
Maybe just ditch the whole thing and use Hz.
A more interesting question in my mind is if you're going to change things up, why keep 12 notes per octave? Why not 8 notes per ... octave :-) Or 16?
Also, since this is a log scale, could we write a new notation which indeed does have 8 notes per 'octave', but which uses a different definition of an 'octave', and could be used to write the same music we play today.
Why not have 16 notes per octave? Uh... wow, well, because it sounds bizarre and would make it difficult to play all existing western music in addition to confusing to every musician practiced in contemporary standard music. Why not 8? Hmm. Are you actually a musician or just speculating?
https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/24/why-are-there-t...
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/11669/mathematical-...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaron_Herman
Edit : so it seems that method was somethin called the Schillinger system, based on numbers.. but i couldn’t find anything more detailled online.
