I’ve been hoping to come up with something snappier than “Numerical Notation”, but it seems to be sticking so maybe it’s snappy enough. I think it’s unique enough to avoid confusion with other notation systems that may use numbers but not numbers exclusively. For example, Scientific Pitch Notation.

Scientific Pitch Notation is not to be confused with regular old Scientific Notation and it won’t be, so let’s stop worrying that. And don’t think I’ve got some beef with science over 4ths and 5ths. I’m not saying it’s magic, it’s just something very interesting that does not have an easy, intuitive explanation. If it did, every music teacher would just tell you the first day of class and every book on music would have in the first few pages, instead of just trudging you through all the stuff to memorize and hoping you don’t notice until it’s far too late for you to do anything else with your life but teach the exact same system and the whole cycle perpetuates.

Is it so bad? Maybe. Can you make through the second paragraph of this entry without your eyes glazing over? Because that’s a less subjective question. Giving numbers to each octave on the piano is a great idea, but there’s just this silliness with starting the octave on C I can’t get over. A is the first letter and the first key. Why not make more of those last high notes the freak notes? (What I’m trying to do here is make this system sound even less “scientific” than my own fudging of the term. Is it working? Works for me.)

Ah, and there’s the staff. SPN changes nothing about that. Trad bass and treble clefs. Can’t improve on that. Could improve on the tone of these posts, probably, but is that important, and can I end this sentence without making it another annoyingly rhetorical question—a habit that I can’t believe I’ve picked up as it annoys even me—I think I can. I’ve done it, yes. No, not that. Designed a new staff system. Well, I haven’t really done it, I’ve just thought about a lot. (Not a metaphor.) It’ll have to wait for another post. %