Transposing Instruments
opencurriculum.org
opencurriculum.org
For those who don't know how brass instruments work (and wonder how you can produce so many pitches with so little valves) this may sound a little confusing (a lot of people asked me, so I'll assume some people don't know).
I'll take a trumpet as an example, as it is the instrument I'm most familiar with.
First of all, you don't just blow air inside the instrument: you buzz your lips, as if you were making a sort of fart sound without using your tongue. Depending on the speed your lips vibrate at, you are able to make a series of pitches, which ones basically depend on the length of the instruments. The pitches you can make are part of an harmonic series, so basically (transposed from Bb) C, G, C, E, G and so on.
Pressing the valves changes the length of the tubing so you can lower the note you're playing by a half step (middle, or second, valve), one step (rear or first valve) or one and a half step (forward or third valve). So by combining them you can obtain all the other pitches you may need.
For example, suppose your lips are buzzing at a (written) G. You press the middle valve and get a F#, you press the first valve and you get an F, first and second (or just third) gives an E, second and third Eb, first and third D, all the valves Db, then you can vibrate your lips at a lower rate and release all the valves to get a C.
So if the length is set to “C” (that is, no valves pressed) and your lips buzz at “G” then you will be playing a “G”.
So, for example, a C and a D on a trumpet are different lengths. Basically: you don't get a note, or you get a funny sound. The trumpet doesn't resonate and it's very difficult to get your lips to buzz at the "wrong" note.
Some very good players who have great lip control can bend a note up and down like this for effect.
Poor amateurs like myself will often buzz not perfectly at the right tension and play slightly out of tune.
The dirty secret of brass instruments. I wonder if they could make a direct air-powered vibrator so that one doesn't have to torture their lips. It may also make life easier for amateurs. I imagine it may result in loss of control for subtle effects, but some amateurs will accept that.
This was something my instructor showed me because use way too much of my lips when I play (a very common mistake with amateurs), and a lot of the power you use should be through your diaphragm (large versus small muscles).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFDNY9_W0ws
A simpler example would be the type of vuvuzela which has a double reed embedded in the tube, so that just blowing into it causes a loud honk.
This fact is, imho, a motivating principle behind the genesis of various synthesizer designs and concepts. We synthesists wish we could do this stuff with our mouths, but the LFO's and the VCO's and the various and sundry other oscillating things represented in the electronic musical instrument world, can't blow a farts worth in comparison to a good trumpeter...
Anyway, I do have some questions:
- regarding the universalness of this. Is it (the transposing of instruments) like this everywhere or is it different in some parts of the world? (some things differ wildly, like the whole 'fixed-do' versus 'movable-do' thing.
- If I look at a score written for an alto sax, How can I tell which note is meant ?
- In jazz, people learn a standard in a certain key, and when that tune is called, it's called together with a key, usually to adapt to some constraint (like the singer's vocal range). The musicians mostly can adapt on-the-fly. Is there something similar in classical music ? (an example would be to transpose Beethoven's 9th from Dm to Em)
If it's a part for an Alto sax you can usually assume it's in Eb.
2. Alto sax is always in the key of E flat. That means the note called A flat played by an alto sax would be C on the piano. Likewise tenor is always in the key of B flat. A huge advantage to this arrangement is that the fingering is the same no matter which instrument you are playing; that means it is up to the composer to transpose notes as appropriate. The saxophone family is amazingly cohesive and consistent because Adolphe Sax invented it in one fell swoop.
3. Well-trained classical musicians can transpose at will. I read a story by the composer/pianist Andre Previn whose touring orchestra was late to a concert hall due to the bus driver getting lost. He was playing the piano in a concerto. What he didn’t know was that the entire piano had detuned up half a step. It meant that The moment he sat down to play a concerto in C minor he was therefore playing in C sharp minor. The orchestra caught this immediately and everyone transposed up for the rest of the concert – on the fly.
Edit: I mysteriously screwed up keys of alto and tenor sax, both of which I play. Idiocy caught by klez and duly corrected.
Uh? Alto sax is in Eb and tenor is in Bb.
3. Lovely anecdote, but wasn't it simpler if the pianist transposed ?
This corrected version still isn't right...
I find yours a very confusing way of saying it. Hard to parse. As a way of explaining to someone who didn't already know it would be useless, I imagine. The point[0] is:
Instruments in Bb: They play what they call a "C" and it's actually a Bb. To produce a C they have to play a "D".
Instruments in Eb: They play what they call a "C" and it's actually an Eb. To produce a C they have to play an "A".
[0] I only bother writing this because the wrong thing has been written on this page a few times, and not corrected so far.
As an aside, this is not a safe assumption and not a good habit in my opinion. If you rely on a particular key, bring properly transposed lead sheets for that particular key.
- Some musicians may not be able to transpose on the fly.
- Some musicians may not play as well if they need to transpose.
- Some musicians may resist such requests on principle.
If a vocalist can't be bothered to properly prepare their sheet music, it's often a signal that they haven't properly prepared on other respects. And they're liable to call crazy keys like F# major.
If you can't transpose on the fly, you're not a good jazz musician. Period.
If you can't play equally well in all keys, you're not a good jazz musician. Period.
If you resist on principle (where the hell are you getting this?), then you will be called out and probably asked to leave. But that never happens due to the previous two points.
Jazz has a long tradition on being a pretty hardcore meritocracy, on the grounds of achieving freedom while improvising over a tune. A group can only play as well as its weakest link, and that's no fun. So we take fun very seriously and practice our asses off so that, when the time comes, we can do amazing things together.
PS no one is gonna call out F#. They might call out Gb though. We always err to the side of flat keys, not sharps (horns like flat keys more).
If you can't transpose on the fly, you're not a good jazz musician. Period.
Well, there's transposing and transposing. Transposing up/down a tone, semitone, fourth, fifth usually isn't too hard, depending on the song and tempo. But transposing some tunes by some intervals is very tricky. Most people have, I suspect, not practised doing that much, because there's no need. (No need at all if you don't play with singers.) Some jazz musicians practise playing tunes in every key, but a small minority, I believe. (And then you wouldn't be 'transposing on the fly' but doing something you've practised.) Being able to play tunes in one key is enough. But saying what you said so dogmatically sounds ridiculous to me. (I mean really..if someone can't, say, play Stella by Starlight in E 'on the fly' you'd tell them "You're not a good jazz musician. Period."?!)
If you can't play equally well in all keys, you're not a good jazz musician. Period.
That's just rubbish.
I'm not sure who you're trying to impress or why, but what you say just sounds wrong. And so arrogant: "You are way off base" "Period." "where the hell are you getting this?" etc. Everything the GP said sounded right to me. Read it again - you weren't really responding to what they said at all, but something else. It seems you felt insulted or something, I don't know why.
How I feel seeing mostly-tech people talking about music is how tech people probably feel when they see CSI show us a "hacker." It's just way off so often, and like most people on this site, I usually like to correct incorrect statements when I see them; there's no point in letting misinformation or incorrect assumptions stand if I can easily jump in and clear it up.
I feel like you're ignoring the context of the what I was replying to, though. This discussion is talking about standards. It's a trope by this point that every serious jazz student is encouraged -- forced, even -- to learn standards in all 12 keys. I've been fortunate to study at some pretty "prestigious" schools, hang and take private lessons with some seriously heavy hitters in the jazz world, and absolutely none of my peers or educators would bat an eye at what I said. Many of them may not like it (myself included), others totally perpetuate it, but zero would disagree that it is a very commonly-held attitude.
I'm not defending the, as I called it, "hardcore meritocracy" of the jazz world -- stating that exists is not the same as defending it. It can be toxic (though it's improved a lot in recent decades), and you're correct to refer to it as dogmatically ridiculous. It's often backwards-thinking and stuck in the past. I think the whole culture of using standards as some reliable barometer of someone's skill is insane, and is a total waste of time.
These and other reasons are why I'm not longer a professional jazz musician -- I've since moved on to things that interest me far more than improvising over the Real Book. But I'm just stating facts. Waltz into any club in any serious jazz city like NYC, Boston, or Paris, ask to play, and see what happens when a tune is called out in a certain key, and you pipe up and say, "Uh, I only know that one in __. Can we do that instead?" Once is maybe fine, but after two or three and they'll tell you to get off the stage, because you're not a "real" jazz musician. The gate-keeping is real.
Again, not defending it. I want to make it clear that I think it's fucking stupid. But this is reality. Period ;)
Sure, I get the paragraph about sitting in in a club. That sounds fair enough. That would only happen with singers, right? With just instrumentalists, how often would you get asked to play a standard in a non-standard key? (Unless it's a thing to call Stella in E, which it may well be, given what you say.)
p.s. Funny story: Herbie Hancock was sitting in at a jam in a coastal town somewhere south of Sydney once in the 1980s, and he called Green Dolphin St in Eb. The bass player said "No, it's in C!" haha. [Real names withheld]
edit: I just read your other long post on this page. I have so many problems with what you say there also that I don't think it's worth engaging further. I've found this very unpleasant. Good luck!
Being able to transpose while sight reading melodic lines or chord charts is pretty rare, and seldom happens. I can play in any key if I know the tune, i.e., most standards, because I've internalized the harmonies. I can make you think that I can transpose because I know more tunes than you'd expect from an amateur. The people who can transpose complicated written lines on the fly are mostly academic classical musicians by day.
But actually, jazz musicians are losing interest in the old game of trying to stump one another on the bandstand. I hold my own when it happens, but it's really not serving the music or the audience, and is something I associate with players who are past their prime. Nobody's forgotten the standards, but the bright young players are doing more with original compositions and arrangements.
Yeah, I am so happy with about the last +/- decade of jazz's development. The crusty OG's yelling "get off the bandstand!" are dying out, and like you said, there's so much more focus on original compositions, and thus actually having rehearsal time (instead of just showing up to a gig and being expected to read everything -- though that's still super common, even with originals, in NYC. That was why I got work: I'm a guitarist who's a good sight-reader) And there's much more support amongst the players (albeit above a certain level of expected proficiency -- you gotta "join the club" still).
Overall it's nice to see. Much more positive and supportive while making (IMO) way more interesting and better music, pushing the genre forward rather than wallowing in dick-measuring contests.
Giant Steps in all 12 keys is like everybody's favorite freshman woodshedding. "Learn standards in all 12 keys" is advice that literally every teacher or mentor I've ever had has given me.
At most gigs people won't be calling weird keys, though it is pretty likely that you'll be playing standards that have been played in multiple keys throughout time and you need to know it in all of the commonly played keys. At a cutting session, though, you can expect weird shit to come up. That's just (unfortunately) the nature of jazz right now. People love to show off and jazz has developed this culture of ridiculous difficulty. This leads people who really want to be serious to be prepared for this.
Did/do you actually do it? Did they?
Ah, but are you a VOCALIST? In my experience:
* Instrumentalists tend to have a certain baseline of competence when they show up at jam sessions. Vocalists are more variable. * Possibly because of that reason, vocalists sometimes are held to stricter standards than instrumentalists.
> This practice is absolutely standard. You are way off base.
You may be moving in different circles than I do, and may assume that all of Jazz works the same way.
> If you can't play equally well in all keys, you're not a good jazz musician. Period.
"good" is not a binary thing. I don't think I've ever met a pianist who was truly indifferent to what key to play in (Generally they prefer flat keys to sharp keys, and fewer flats to more). And vocalists should know how a song fits in their range.
> If you resist on principle (where the hell are you getting this?)
It's all about the power dynamics. I've seen refusals to sight-transpose all the time.
> Jazz has a long tradition on being a pretty hardcore meritocracy
Jazz (like many institutions that hide behind "meritocracy"), also has a long tradition of cliquish behavior.
> PS no one is gonna call out F#. They might call out Gb though. We always err to the side of flat keys, not sharps (horns like flat keys more).
… which would tend to contradict your claim above that good jazz musicians can play equally well in all keys, wouldn't it?
And as I said in another post, the whole "learn your standards in all 12 keys" is such a commonly-held value that at this point it's a trope. It's such a trope that I can't even think of a programming trope (to better fit this discussion to this website) that is on par with it. "Javascript has too many frameworks," "learn C (or Python) first," etc, I dunno. "All 12 keys" is such an extreme trope, especially in jazz education and history, that I struggle to see how you could call yourself a jazz musician and not run into it left and right.
> "good" is not a binary thing. I don't think I've ever met a pianist who was truly indifferent to what key to play in (Generally they prefer flat keys to sharp keys, and fewer flats to more).
Preference for a key != ability to play in a key (the former is historical/"best-practice"/etc, the latter is personal). I'm a guitarist/bassist/pianist, and yes I'm 100% indifferent to keys (though obviously some keys can be harder to sigh-read than others). That goal exists for a reason -- to achieve freedom over the things you have control of. I'm absolutely not alone in that. Literally every single peer of mine in school and since, regardless of instrument, held the goal of achieving total freedom in any key, in terms of sight-reading, improvising, comping (if applicable to their instrument), whatever.
Again, this difference in experience might be due to the fact that you're a vocalist -- you're a different breed, especially in education (for instance, another way in which vocalists tend to differ is their relatively extreme usage of solfege -- vocalists are heavy users of it, often to the point that some can only really "think" in it, whereas the majority of instrumentalists I know dislike it, even completely disregard it, and prefer to talk in chord tones/intervals. I'm sure you know this, I'm just pointing it out for anyone else who's reading this and is unfamiliar with the difference).
>> PS no one is gonna call out F#. They might call out Gb though. We always err to the side of flat keys, not sharps (horns like flat keys more). > …which would tend to contradict your claim above that good jazz musicians can play equally well in all keys, wouldn't it?
Oh, come now. That's just being pedantic, and once again conflating reading ease with playing ease. My point was that in jazz one tends to prefer the enharmonic equivalent that favors flats over sharps for reading purposes. Obviously one should expect to play equally well in F# and Gb -- they're the same notes! Also, I was specifically talking about "all TWELVE keys," which in the context of a jazz discussion is limited to the common enharmonics of said 12 keys: going around the circle of 5ths (in the flats direction, as most jazzers spell it), it would be C, F, Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb (maybe F#, but in my experience that's far less common, which is why I pointed it out), B, E, A, D, G. There's a reason I didn't include C# with Db -- it's hardly if ever used in jazz.
Well, the post I was originally replying to WAS mentioning vocalists specifically.
> The whole "learn your standards in all 12 keys" is such a commonly-held value that at this point it's a trope. It's such a trope that I can't even think of a programming trope [...] that is on par with it.
I'd compare it with "Any programmer worth their salt should have read The Art of Computer Programming and done all the exercises". It's not that it's bad advice per se, but that it's mostly honored in the breach.
It can also lead students to trade off breadth for depth. Depth certainly is appropriate for some phases of musical development, but it can lead to musicians with a fairly narrow repertoire (and, from a vocalist's perspective, often a dated section of the vocal repertoire). Being limited in selection of songs is not necessarily better than being limited in selection of keys.
> Again, this difference in experience might be due to the fact that you're a vocalist
Sure. To us, singing a tune (as long as it's in range) in a different key is no real challenge. The challenge, then, is to pick SENSIBLE keys and stick to them.
The reason you need to be able to play in any key is because a vocalist's ideal range may be in any key. It's defined by their physiology. They can improve their range with training, but only so far. They may be able to sing in any key, but the best and most expressive sound has a much more limited range.
So if a vocalist's ideal key is Ab, you'd better be able to transpose to Ab.
Solo piano needs to be able to play in any key to fully use the range of the instrument. If you write changes that modulate somewhere weird, the band should be able to follow you. If you your weird changes have to shift key to accommodate a vocalist, the band should still be able to follow you.
It's not an unreasonable thing to expect of a performing musician. It's not the same as being able to recall any problem from The Art of Computer Programming. It's not "hardcore".
It's just a requirement of basic competence.
I think computers and software have made too many people assume that the arts should be easy, open, and trivially challenging - like those posts by someone who hacked together a few tens of lines of JS or Python and has persuaded themselves they've made interesting art, or who runs a few thousand MIDI files through an RNN and calls the output music.
In reality doing art at a professional level is at least as hard as cience to a professional level, and takes at least as long to learn.
No one is going to let a professional scientist get away without knowing calculus, and music and the visual arts have equivalent requirements.
You may get a pass on rudiments in the arts if your creativity and originality are genius-level and off the scale. But if not - then no.
You, sir, as the farthest thing from the example.
I play sax in two concert bands and everyone gets their own, and previously transposed, music. If someone doesn’t they’re reasonably pissed.
The musical world is not your little jazz bubble. It’s huge. And most people prefer transposed music.
And yes, I'm well aware that the musical world is not "my little jazz bubble" (not mine -- read my other replies, I left that world for a reason). Sorry I somehow gave the impression that I'm some closed-minded curmudgeon. I'm actually anything but.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis
You're possibly being a bit harsh, but only a bit - being able to transpose on the fly is a fundamental skill in jazz, akin to sight-reading in classical music. I can't sight-read particularly well and would embarrass myself in a classical rehearsal, but I can instantly transpose a lead sheet into any key and I would expect the same of anyone who expects to be called a jazz musician rather than a jazz student.
Yes, when I was learning standards, I learned them by harmonic analysis, not by literally learning them in all 12 keys. If you know that it's ii-V-I, any reasonably good musician should be able to do that in all 12 keys off the bat. Thus, you simultaneously know the tune better, and the problem of transposing disappears.
Well said!
It's true that you can assume that good musicians will play a tune in any given key. However, I think in the real world nobody plays equally well in all keys. Also, even for instrumentalists, things don't lay the same way in different keys. Sometimes people intentionally call tunes in uncommon keys to force them off the beaten path, which is telling.
I think singers should be able to sing in all keys, just like everybody else. That said, in a jam session, student practice or other informal setting it's recommended that the singer brings sheet music for everyone for other keys than the "usual one". Also nowadays people will reach for their cell phone and "real book" app.
On the other hand, I won't be caught reading standards off the paper in public, so there's that too.
Japanese flutes are transposing. The scales and keys are all numeric, instead of the alphabetic system that western music uses. For example, my #6 flute (western: "B flat") sounds 2 half-steps lower than a #8 flute ("C"). A piece might be written to start on note #4 (and not say what absolute pitch #4 means), so it would sound different depending on what flute you're playing.
> The musicians mostly can adapt on-the-fly. Is there something similar in classical music ?
When I played the cello when I was young, I remember having some sheet music put in front of me once, and being asked to play it in a different key ("up a third" or something) as part of an ensemble. It wasn't especially fast or complex music, but that was a skill that was apparently expected of a high school amateur. It's not as hard as it sounds, but it's also something we never really practiced.
Reasons I can think of would be when working with a soloist who has a particular vocal range, or if you find a piece that's not written for your instrument in particular (e.g., piano score to string quartet). I don't think anyone transposes a piece like Beethoven's 9th. When you want an entire symphony to transpose (usually up to "sound brighter", or down to emulate baroque period instruments), you just tune to a different "A".
Many parts of the world use a term called 'Modal Music' (greece, turkey, arabic,...) and it's rather unlike the western one. Although I've limited experience of it, you could say that they use the note names (do, re, me, fa, so, la, te) as absolute notes and the 'modes' are named scales that also incorporate music sequences. So you might have a song written in Rast, but the tuning of your instrument (which allows overtones and quarter notes) might be tuned to something else. As a musician you're expected to change instrument or transpose on the fly.
> If I look at a score written for an alto sax, How can I tell which note is meant ?
If it's for Alto sax it's already transposed for the instrument in the score (Eb, from memory). Looking at an orchestral score, you'll see various instruments appearing to play different notes, but due to tuning they'll come out sounding the same note.
> In jazz, people learn a standard in a certain key... Is there something similar in classical music ?
Typically not. Although the musicians themselves sometimes have the ability to do it, classical isn't transposed to suit vocalists.
Actually it is, classical pianists accompanists are supposed to know how to sight-transpose a piece to fit a singer's range - for melody, songs and lieder, usually not opera. Only pianists though, you can't ask an orchestra to transpose !
Jazz charts are usually just the composition. The arrangement is left up to the performers, which gives you a lot of flexibility in transposition (and instrumentation, and tempo, and feel, etc etc).
Classical music is usually the composition and the arrangement. So if you transpose, you're more likely to run into problems where certain notes are no longer physically possible to play for certain instruments.
Even with single-instrument classical pieces, for instance piano, compositions are very much written to be "pianistic" and fit into the piano hand in certain ways. There are definitely sections in advanced piano pieces that would far more difficult (if not impossible) to play if they were in a different key.
Even with jazz piano, while a jazz pianist might be comfortable playing a standard in every key, they've got figures and riffs that they're only going to play in certain keys, because of how they're physically shaped. For a dumb example, you can't transpose a glissando from C to Db. (Dumb since a gliss is rarely appropriate.)
Suppose I play alto sax (which I do!) and have sheet music written for a violin, in the concert key, in treble clef. If I want to transpose the music and play it on the sax, which is an Eb instrument, here's the trick: read the music as though it's written in soprano clef!
A C in treble clef will be an A in soprano clef, which is indeed the correct transposition. Of course you still have to change your key signature.
So if you can learn to be comfortable with a new clef, as was the standard when Bach was writing choral music, then this would be a great tool in the toolbox for transposing on the fly!
https://archive.org/details/a2gs_Music_Writer_Pro_1.42_1988_...
For music with multiple parts, it would be nice to transpose everything together in the most reasonable way. This would maintain relative pitch relationships, adjust the whole thing up or down to fit ranges of the players, transpose according to how the players will read music, and avoid excessive accidentals. A few alternatives could be offered: option 1 makes the trumpet player suffer really high notes, option 2 makes oboe player suffer lots of flats, etc.
To give you an idea of how not-a-problem it is, many composers (myself included) prefer to read orchestral scores (so, a page will have roughly 15-20 staves) that are transposed. So, instead of reading each instrument in the same key, we see what each player is reading. If the concert key is C, I'll see the clarinets and trumpets reading in D, etc. I prefer it because you get a better sense of how the music feels to each individual player, and can better respond to any issues they're having.
It's a mess to look at, I guess, but to any reasonably well trained musician, it's clear as day and conveys far more useful information than the "cleaner" way of seeing everyone in the same key, which really just obfuscates what's really going on.
Those things you mentioned actually make perfect sense when you arrive at them with the following assumptions/understandings:
-Western music is founded (not limited to, but founded) on the concept of a "tonal center."
-Western music is founded (again, not limited to, but certainly founded on) limiting the number of available pitches to those available in the equal temperament system, which is to say that the distance between the smallest internal, a half-step, is equal. This means that no tonal centers, or "keys," are favored by the tuning system. In the past certain keyboards might have been tuned to favor pieces written in G, for example. On a "G keyboard," a 5th from G to D would actually be a different number of cents than a 5th from, say, D to A (more on that in a moment).
-Western music also tends to like returning to said tonal centers. Going away from it -- tension, and returning -- release. It's emotionally satisfying and, while I'm only really barely scratching the surface, this concept can explain a lot.
With all this in mind, the "octave" thing makes sense, because for whatever reason, humans like to resolve to tonal centers in a similar fashion -- the basic culmination of all of this is a major key, which no matter what your tonal center is, can be created by starting at a note (let's say C for simplicity), and then counting up the following interval pattern: WWHWWWH, where W = whole step, and H = half step. Therefore, the key of C is C D E F G A B (and then C to complete the final half-step at the top, but we already said that tone so it doesn't need to be included -- but, C to C is 8 notes!).
If the tonal center (or "tonic") is C#, then your major scale is spelled C# D# E# F# G# A# B#. This can answer your B/B#/C question: yes, from the "perspective" of a major scale in the key of C, which unfortunately is what most "layman" musicians tend to think of when they think of a scale due to where music education usually starts, then yes, no B# exists, and the "gap" seems in-congruent, inconsistent, a flaw in the system, like something was bolted on to make it work. But from the "perspective" of C#, then not only does a B# exist, but so does an E#! It's actually a very elegant and, I guess you could say, "self-correcting" system. The lack of a B# from the "C major perspective" is actually a fault of our tendency to start there, but is also an inevitable outcome of a system that is designed to treat all keys equally.
If anything, Western music terminology has a "tonality" bias, which is true, and might be what you're running into and what is confusing you. Once you start really stretching the limits (but this stuff really isn't at all pertinent to this discussion, or really what most people would generally like to listen to...it tends to mostly exist in academic circles), the limitations of the terminology become obvious. But mostly, it perfectly reflects what the vast majority of our music is.
The only thing I'm not quite getting from your post is bringing up backwards compatibility. I get the sense that you're trying to express a fuzzy concept and are arriving at the nearest programming terminology, but I'm not sure what that concept is. Backwards compatibility doesn't really make any sense in the context of harmony. If anything, it technically breaks backwards compatibility with music written before equal temperament was fully adopted, since music written using other tuning systems now sound slightly different. Can you try explaining what you mean by it more? Maybe I can help out.
If the 12 notes of the octave were on 6 lines and 6 spaces, perhaps with a distinct (dotted, wavey, thick, missing, etc.) line to aid in not getting lost, the situation would be far better. There wouldn't need to be a key signature at all, or any accidentals. Stack as many octaves as needed for the part.
Probably we'll never transition to something sane. We can't even manage to get grand staves with middle C in a unique (shared, central) position, which is what you want when hand distinction isn't required.
We use twelve tones, but most harmony is arranged in seven note scales. Representing those scales easily is important.
I'm at the level where usability matters. Top experts, not that there are enough of them to care about, can handle anything. Beginners will be lost in any case.
I would greatly prefer a chromatic notation. Accidentals ought to be reserved for quarter-tone needs. Chromatic notation gives music the same shape on the page no matter what pitch it is transposed to; this is an extremely valuable property. Sight-transposition would be trivial. Imagine a world in which an ordinary clarinet player could play music for the flute, horn, or bassoon. Sight-transposing, even by other than an octave, would be easy for most players.
I think your ideas here are so interesting! I totally see what you're saying with accidentals being reserved for quarter tones. I studied microtonal music in college and hated the notation systems. They truly feel "bolted on" to standard notation.
Have you developed any sort of concrete "replacement" system? If so, I'd love to see it. This is super cool stuff.
This sacrifices vertical density, but density can be recovered by using finer vertical resolution and using notehead color to clarify position so it's still readable.
Also, as the article says, this allows players of an instrument that has different versions with different tunings (e.g. saxophones which can be in Eb or Bb depending on the type of saxophone) to learn one set of fingerings and being able to reproduce it on all tunings.
So, for example, a written C is done by pressing all but the last button (iirc). By doing this you'll play a Bb on a tenor sax and an Eb on an alto, but with the score being transposed you'll know that when you see a note one line below the staff you'll have to put your fingers in that position regardless of the sax you're playing.
On an alto sax, ‘A’ is 370Hz
On a tenor sax, ‘A’ 237Hz
But in both cases it’s the note you get when you close only the 2nd hole.
Because of the transposing convention, if you take someone who can sight read, but is familiar only with the alto sax, and hand them a baritone sax and baritone sax sheet music... they’ll basically be fine.
If all saxophone sheet music encoded A=440hz, they’d have to relearn which note on paper corresponds to which set of buttons.
That said, the relationship between the instruments in a family is important, but the specific keys are a historical accident.
In woodwinds specifically, the instruments that ‘won’ and remain common are mostly b-flat, with e-flat in second place. If we could take all existing woodwind sheet music and shift the notes up 3 semitones, we’d instead have ‘c’ and ‘g’ woodwinds, where ‘c’ meant it matches non-transposing instruments.
We could start doing that now, but no-one’s really interested in making a breaking change.
Transposing anything other than that seems silly to me.
You make it sound like it's done out of spite, or because musicians like unnecessarily complicated things.
Reasons for this are given both in the article and in this thread.
So having read those, why do you still think it's silly?
Again, any excessively too high/low (part of a) piece you can transpose in octaves to get it within a reasonable level. Then everyone can read eachother's sheet music without having to adjust.
Listen here: https://youtu.be/KfSH1ezevjM