Re: simplifying chromatic scale notation

[Paul Morris]

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Sharon Rosner <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Of all alternative systems discussed on this thread, the only one which is
> really appropriate for transposition is the "Lines a Whole Step Apart"
> system (http://musicnotation.org/systems/gallery/). There it is just a
> matter of moving the clef or switching the clef.
> 
> The rest of them use either special note shapes for sharps/flats
> ("Clairnote", "Simplified notation"), which is not any better for
> transposition, or special note shapes for the in-between notes ("Twinline
> Notation"). 
> 
> The OP's system uses Four vertical positions between staff lines (including
> on-the-line). How do you transpose that by half a step?

I see what you’re saying.  Seems to me that transposing on the fly is generally 
not an easy thing to do in any case, without a lot of practice.

Transposing by an octave is actually really easy in Clairnote.  Transposing by 
a major 3rd (or minor 6th) would be as easy as transposing by a semitone in a 
“Lines a Whole Step Apart” system, since the lines are that far apart.  
Transposing by a whole step would be next easiest, but...

Ultimately, I think you would learn to read and play by intervals and do it 
that way.  Making it easier to read by intervals is a strength of these systems.

> In contrast, in traditional notation you can easily transpose by moving or
> changing the clef and changing the key signature.

Well, there’s a lot of work that goes into getting to the point where this is 
easy.

> Admittedly this is harder
> today with the modern accidental display practice (displayed once per bar),
> but 300 years ago musicians were able to do this on sight by imagining an
> alternative clef and key signature. See also the practice of Chiavette or
> chiavi transportate - transposition clefs.

Hmmm… Seems like this primarily works for music without accidentals.  Does it 
really work when you have a lot of accidentals?

Say a note that was a natural in the first key is a sharp in the new key…  in 
the music that note appears altered by a sharp sign…  you have to read that 
sharp sign as if it were a double sharp sign.  

Or, say a note was a sharp in the first key, but is a natural in the second 
key…  and that note appears in the music altered by a natural sign…  you have 
to read that natural sign as a flat sign.  

Or am I missing something?

-Paul

P.S. To musicus, apologies that this conversation has expanded beyond your 
proposal…  It seems I have a lot to say on this topic.  I’ll try to pipe down...