Why do we need any music notation system?
Despite its inherent problems, traditional western notation has enabled musicians to explore and rework music visually, to indicate the pitch and rhythm of all western instruments, and to convey some idea of pace, tempo, dynamics, mood, and articulation. This visualisation of music led to the development of structured tonal music in the west, in a similar way to how accurate measurement and precise draughtsmanship led to more elaborate architecture, complex machines, and so on. Therefore, with regard to pitch and harmony, staff notation has played a vital part in the development of western tonal music.*
However, notation is not simply for composers of highly structured music, it can help any musicians to jot-down and experiment with melodies and harmonies on paper, to learn compositional techniques, and to be develop more specific creative ideas.
What is so wrong with traditional notation?
The western notation system evolved through trial and error accordingly, with the changing trends and requirements of European music. Because notation could not be designed with the music of the future in mind, systems and methods were constantly altered as musicians struggled to adjust it to the new technical and creative innovations of each period. Advancements did not replace older forms of notation but instead fused with them, resulting in the notation used today –an admixture of symbols, methods and languages from the entire history of western music. The traditional system is, and will thus remain, only a compromise between old and new musical requirements.
Traditional notation has many inconsistencies and irregularities that not only hinder the creative process, but cause many musicians to give up on it. The various problems encountered with traditional notation are as follows:
Because it is an uneven number, a sequence of seven notes does not loop on the staff. Therefore, if a note occurs on a line in one octave, it appears in a space in the next (and vice-versa):
Due to ‘enharmonic equivalents’, there are fifteen key signatures in total, which become more difficult to write down as they embrace more ‘black-key’ notes:
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Enharmonics) |
Four (unnecessarily ornate) clefs are commonly required to avoid ledger lines: bass, tenor, alto, and treble –all of which alter the position of notes on the staff. Thus, each stave may represent a different set of notes on different lines and spaces at the same time. Compare the positions of the C flat major key signature and the position of C flat in the following clefs:
Clefs and key signatures must be laboriously written at the front of every stave throughout a composition, and may change at any point in the score. Clefs are also used to indicate the register of musical instruments, but since there are too few to account for all the octaves used in music, registers are often misrepresented in the wrong clefs.
Interval relationships are poorly represented, with scales of regular intervals often appearing as irregular sequences. For example, the ‘whole-tone scale’ is a regular six-note sequence of identical (major 2nd) intervals, which looks irregular on the staff:
Consequently, music based on other scales may not fit into any key signatures comfortably, thus causing some music to appear more complex than it is. Similarly, equivalent intervals look very different on different parts of the staff, and then again in different keys and clefs.
When a note is ‘off key’, it must be altered using accidentals, which may include sharps, flats, naturals, double sharps, or double flats; this becomes even more difficult when the music is written in a complex key signature.
The overall result is difficult to read, to understand and, laborious to inscribe. Consequently, even many well-trained performers and composers are restricted (or at least distracted) when music is difficult to read and notate. More importantly, relatively few modern musicians ever learn to master traditional notation well enough to read or write down music freely. Notation especially remains a major hurdle to any musician who wishes to embark on a formal study of music.
How can a new notation system compete with traditional notation?
For centuries, musicians have struggled with the traditional notation system, resulting in numerous suggestions for improvement by composers and non-composers alike. Today, musicians almost unanimously agree that modern music requires an improved or completely new notation system altogether. Nevertheless, an evaluation of modern proposals published by the Chroma Foundation in 1983, concluded that:
“… it cannot be the aim to replace traditional notation with a new one. The aim can only be to replace the chaos of uncountable notations by the interchangeable use of two notations, namely the traditional diatonic notation and one new chromatic notation”.
The primary objective of bilinear music notation, therefore, is to offer an alternative notation system that best compliments the traditional notation, so that both can be used interchangeably, yet still function as two autonomous methods of transcription.
Alternative Notation Systems
Attempts to improve on traditional staff notation date back to the late 16th century, from about the time of its emergence as the standard format. Gardner Read’s 1987 publication, “Source Book of Proposed Music Notation Reforms”, contains 391 reform proposals dating back three centuries, including contributions from Michael Haydn and Arnold Schoenberg; there are also over 80 patents pertaining to new music notation dating back to 1849.
For an overview of alternative notation proposals, as well as a complete explanation of bilinear music notation, (including how it can be applied to all instruments, voices, ensembles, and all forms and styles of composition), please order or download:
'Bilinear Music Notation -A New Notation System for the Modern Musician'
Next: How can we overcome the problems of traditional notation? >
*The art of composition cannot always be mastered through listening alone. Indeed, we can no more easily study the complex art of counterpoint by listening to sound recordings alone, than we can learn tapestry by looking at a finished garment. Because the linear elements are intertwined and thus immersed by the whole, only by the dissection of the whole into parts can we hope to understand the ‘craft’ of these kinds of musical creation. In the case of African rhythmic counterpoint, this is done by learning rhythmic principles and playing different roles within an ensemble; in western ‘classical’ music, compositional techniques are studied through notation-based exercises, enabling musicians to see how individual melodic parts form a harmonious ‘tapestry’.
All text & diagrams © 1997-2007 by José A. Sotorrío