Objections & Criticisms (3/3)

Objections to any alternative method of transcribing music usually come from musicians and instructors who have been educated entirely within the western classical tradition. It is understandable that after spending many hundreds of hours since childhood to become fluent with the difficulties and inconsistencies of traditional notation, the idea of learning a new system would seem rather daunting. It is also part of human nature to become attached to traditions, especially ancient traditions, which are very often irrationally overvalued. The idea that traditional notation is the only workable method simply because it has ‘stood the test of time’ is nonsense. The situation is actually a self-perpetuating one, for the more ancient practices are valued, the more long-lived they become. However, if bilinear notation were the established method of our time, the idea of switching to traditional notation would seem more absurd than the reverse scenario.

Nevertheless, objections to any new notation system would probably include the following:

“Students accustomed to the traditional method will find a new notation difficult to learn”.

With regard to all other proposed systems, this is true. However, the chromatic basis of bilinear notation coupled with its similarity to traditional staff notation, makes it comparatively familiar and quite readable within a few hours of practice. The notes are either on, between, or against the same lines as the lower octave of traditional treble clef notation; there are no clefs, no key signatures, and rhythmic notation can remain practically identical (except for the slightly modified half-rest).

“Students will become confused between traditional and alternative methods of transcription”.

There have been transitional periods in history when many people think quite clearly in terms of two or more equivalent systems, whether it be measurements of weight, distance, temperature, or currency. The brain has a profound ability to compartmentalise information, languages, skills and systems, without getting confused. We seem to be able to simply ‘switch’ between familiar systems –sometimes simultaneously. In piano playing for example, musicians read bass and treble clefs at the same time, and exceptionally accomplished musicians learn to switch between all the different clefs with ease[1]. While these complications are distracting and unnecessary, the mental adjustment involved in learning a chromatic method is not too different to learning a new clef. Furthermore, alternative systems such as guitar tablature and chord diagrams have come into common use, as have other forms of keyboard notation[2].

“Students who favour alternative methods will not have access to music written in traditional notation”.

This is a fair point, but if we regard the new system as a ‘short hand’ method, traditional notation can be encouraged alongside it. As explained above, it is quite possible to use both systems interchangeably. We have to remember that we are simply occupying a space in time, just like the renaissance composers who used a more primitive form of traditional notation. We are also living in an age where computer programs can read and effortlessly convert all kinds of DATA into various formats. It is quite possible that eventually, perhaps many decades from now, a new notation will become more or equally dominant. This depends on musical practices, and it is most likely that computer programs will eventually dictate our visual approach to music. If bilinear notation eventually proves to be more popular with composers –so be it[3].

“Laziness is the real reason musicians fail to become proficient with the traditional method”.

This is easy to say for someone who has been brought up with the traditional method from an early age, or who is naturally more adept with language and symbology; not all creative musicians are. Furthermore, this very statement infers that there is a great deal of effort required to master the traditional system. This being the case, can anyone blame a creative musician for not being able to face hours trying to compose something using traditional notation, when they can simply record it or play it into a computer? While these electronic methods are (presently) no substitute for writing down music directly from the “mind’s ear” without the distractions of computers and the like, they are surely a more seductive alternative.

“Sharps and flats look the same, and thus there is no visible distinction between them”.

This is true, but they also look the same on the keyboard and other instruments. But for a hairs-breadth difference, intervals and their enharmonic equivalents are almost identical on all instruments. In traditional notation, identical intervals can look very different simply because they are on a different part of the staff; for the same reason, different intervals often look identical. Surely it is preferable for intervals that are almost identical to look the same rather than intervals that are more than a semitone out!  Important though differences in intonation are, bilinear notation is representative of the ‘greater similarity’ rather than the ‘lesser difference’. It is interesting that people who talk about sharps and flats hardly mention double sharps and double flats, which can be just as important to intonation. Furthermore, players of free-pitch instruments hardly need notation to hear correct intonation. That said, with modern electronic media and printing technology, it may prove practical to colour sharps and flats differently, using say, red for sharps, green for flats, and blue where the distinction is not necessary. 

“It’s too late to recognize a new system, we should just accept the one we’ve got; after all, written language isn’t perfect but we accept it!”

Again, if there was ever a time when an alternative notation system could become widely recognised, surely it is during our ‘information age’ when DATA can be transmitted across the world in an instant, and when computers can convert information directly to and from any equivalent formats with ease[4]. With regard to the problems arising from difference between new and old notation, the benefits of bilinear notation clearly compensate for any conceivable difficulties. Again, due to their practical attributes, many forms of tablature have come into common use that are often used alongside conventional notation; why can we not simply regard a new notation system with the same acceptance? Finally, it is true that written English is far from perfect, but just listen to the complaints of foreigners trying to grapple with it!

The quality of the methods we use will inevitably affect the clarity, speed and lucidity with which we think. For instance, the average person could probably work out arithmetical problems (such as long-division) in Arabic numerals (standard digits) twice as fast as a mathematics teacher working in Roman numerals[5] –no matter how well accustomed the latter may be. Arabic numerals were favoured over Roman numerals for the same reason centimetres were favoured over inches, kilograms over pounds, and centigrade over Fahrenheit: because they’re simpler, more logical and thus clearer to think in terms of and work with.[6] 

As important as it may be, all musical notation is merely a map of the music and should never be of central importance; –music is after all as it sounds, not as it looks. However, despite the unfounded romanticism[7] surrounding accomplished musicians who are musically illiterate[8], it is surely a huge advantage for any musician to be able to read and write down music.