3 ms·
Your argument feels quite subjective - the exact opposite argument seems like it could just as valid to somebody else: "looking at sharps is annoying, with 12 d
by sunaurus 4y ago
Your argument feels quite subjective - the exact opposite argument seems like it could just as valid to somebody else: "looking at sharps is annoying, with 12 distinct notes you can just count the intervals".
I think in an alternate universe where a 12 (or 6+6) notation had historically been used instead of 7+5, the 7+5 option would seem quite unnatural to most people. In any case, starting from a blank slate without historic context, the 7+5 naming scheme just isn't intuitive.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago6+6 doesn’t make sense, though — there are 7 notes in any given diatonic scale. You could change the scales around so that they only have 6 notes, but then we’re discussing an entirely different system rather than just a different notation. Anyway, you can count the intervals now. For example, I know that there are five half steps between F and A#. It is slightly annoying to keep the B and E exceptions in mind, but it’s definitely possible — most people just find it easier to use the sharps and flats as a shortcut.
- sunaurus 4y agoA 6+6 notation can be used for any kind of scale, including diatonic ones. Just like a 7+5 notation can be used for non-diatonic scales. A 6+6 system makes more sense in terms of fundamentals - there's the exact same distance between each "full" letter. That doesn't limit what kind of scales you can annotate with the letters at all.
- jakelazaroff 4y agoSure, but the flip side is that every scale now has one repeated letter and at least one sharp or flat. Take C major; in hypothetical 6+6 notation, it becomes C D E E# F# A# B# In fact, I think every diatonic scale in 6+6 notation will have three or four sharps/flats.