TN v CN v DN

[Ian Dey]

Hi

A year ago today, John Keller wrote that, on comparing TN and ES for Bach preludes and fugues, he’d found that ‘it was easier to read the TN in many cases’. 

This observation made me question whether a diatonic notation (DN) might prove easier to read than my own chromatic notation (CN)? I decided to put it to the test. 

My CN is minimalist: no clefs, keys, accidentals, naturals, flats or sharps; no staff lines, bar lines, ledger lines, ottavas or ties; no tuplets, beams, flags, or variable notes/rests - in short, no clutter! 

For a fair comparison, DN would have to be as minimalist. 

We are all familiar with the role of ‘placement’ in arithmetic. It is no more problematic in notation. In my CN, each note (of 12) occupies a space or line, alternate left or right of the stem.

C major in CN

So - I also demarcated DN by position, with naturals mid-stem, flattened notes to the left of stem, and sharpened notes to the right of stem. 

C major in DN

To my great surprise, this revised DN proved more readable than my CN, despite there now being 21 note positions (35 with double sharps/flats!), instead of 12.

There may be reasons for this in how we process information e.g. DN has shorter strings, and more varied patterns. Perhaps also the variations are more musically meaningful. Keys and accidentals are identified just by (horizontal) placement on the staff. And you do notice if ‘C’ suddenly becomes ‘B#’. 

One big bonus of this revised DN is that much less work is involved. These days I spend more time notating rhythm rather than pitch.  And as the pitch is not altered, I can listen to the music as well as read the notation. 

My thanks to John for his openness and honesty, which has provoked (inspired) such a substantial revision in my own notation. 

Ian