I don't think mnemonics are suited to learning the notes on a staff. Mnemonics are good for memorising sequences that have no particular logic, like the order of the planets:
My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles
Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
For a musical staff, anchor notes make much more sense.
hebele I think we all have seen this nice looking picture. So ordered, so symmetric. Until we read what is written. G as anchor notes on the upper clef, buf F on the lower one. And on top of that, the anchor notes are placed on different locations. Meaning we need to mirror them in our mind to get the same location.
IMO, this anchor notes are all arbitraty. You know the notes, you read the most and you play the most. And those notes are becoming your personal anchor notes. And the more you play read, the more anchor notes you have. Until every note is an anchor note.
This anchor note picture is IMO the attempt to convince musicians that combination of both clefs is great. But in reality, this picture is the proof that it is not.
MRC You know my opinion, one clef for LH and RH staff is better than having two different clefs. And you know I would prefer to have the bass clef everywhere because of the D=center-line symmetry.
I made this statement for the piano. And as piano has a huge tonal range of 88 keys, nobody can tell a certain clef is better suited than another. It depends on the music. For some music, a XXX clef turns out to be perfect (no need for ledger lines) and for some other music you will see ledger lines all the time.
I don't play string instruments those tonal ranges are more limited. And if someone claims that clef YYY is perfect for this instrument, then go for it.
But for the piano with 88 keys, there is no thing like a "perfect" clef. All you can do is to find a criteria that allows to claim to be an advantage. Like the D symmetry, this maybe allows to learn a clef a little bit faster for the piano keyboard (at least theoretical).
But for sure our learning curve in note reading would go up 2 times faster, if we used two times the same clef for both hands. No matter what clef we would use for both staffs.
So there was once a chance for all clefs to retain the same note names & positions, just a shift of octave? But that would mean there’d be many more ledger lines, plus either more overlaps or gaps. And the solution was to have every clef rename every line & space. Ugh.
I’m a perpetual beginner coming from trumpet & recorders, and wow, would I have plunged in faster and deeper if a G was an G always on the same line. But I get it, that’s my problem!
Perpetual Beginner, Yamaha P115
WieWaldi But for sure our learning curve in note reading would go up 2 times faster, if we used two times the same clef for both hands. No matter what clef we would use for both staffs.
Do you mean you want to use the treble clef twice, even for low notes? You would have an incredible number ledger lines going down. Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower so that C is still on the 3rd space and then somehow we deal with the fact that the first ledger line up is A so that we no longer have a smooth continuity?
We can have the same clef for both hands if both the left and right hand are playing higher notes (treble), or right and left hand are playing very low notes (bass clef). I think you're referring to the lower and higher staff.
hebele that sounds similar to "anchor notes" method I've used. In which, one learns these notes first then resolve other notes relatively:
I tried anchor notes for a while and abandoned the idea. I adopted a different method which worked very well. Associate first, the bottom, middle, and top line with the respective piano key. This is visual, physical, and also involves your ear. Add the remaining lines. Spaces as spaces, or as the white key above the line notes. Names (A, B, C) get attached to the dual experience.
Sharps and flats are traffic signs pointing to the left or right (semitone lower or higher) so you're not learning G# and then learning Ab. You're on G and go up one. You're on A and go down one. Both G and A are this dual association between written notes and piano keys.
hebele For me, the one most important anchor note on the bass clef has been, and still is D - because it is exactly at the middle, and the top one is mirrored from the bottom one.
Logically, B should have been my anchor note on the treble clef, but it is C, because that is the one note I could with certainty when I started to play the piano. Both the lower one and the one between the lines, unfortunately not the higher one.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
keystring Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower so that C is still on the 3rd space and then somehow we deal with the fact that the first ledger line up is A so that we no longer have a smooth continuity?
This would be the way I would prefer it.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
keystring Do you mean you want to use the treble clef twice, even for low notes? You would have an incredible number ledger lines going down. Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower...
Two octaves lower.
It would look similar tothis one (but with another clef symbol that indicates the octave shift). (And I made the pic with bass clefs instead of treble clefs). (The upper bass clef is shifted two octaves up):
(See also this video around 43 minute mark)
You see, my approach had been on the table a long long time ago. It was refused, because... watch the video.
All these notational reforms seem to be either invented by beginners or aimed at beginners for a perceived convenience or simplicity, whereas the notational system that is currently in widespread use was invented by and for the convenience of professional musicians. So, to understand it you have to get into the mind of how a professional musician approaches the score.
The first problem with a double-G clef or double-F clef notation is the range. The bass C on the image above is the C that normally sits on the second space from the bottom of the staff. That means you need a lot more legder lines than normally used to reach the lower notes. I know about 8va notation but having octave transpositions all the time is also not convenient for reading because you lose the intevallic relationships. The double-F clef would be even worse for range because to reach the top note you would need to use both a 15 on the clef and a 15ma notation above the staff, and you would still need ledger lines.
Speaking of intervallic relationships, the second problem I see with this is around the middle. The ledger lines in between the staves preserve all the intervallic relationships between the hands because middle C is the same line above and below. If you have notes going up several ledger lines from the bass staff you know how they relate to the notes in the right hand, and vice versa. This is not so clear when the top note is F and the spaces and lines are inverted when going further up.
As a beginner you might not encounter music that has these issues and it might seem simpler at first but that kind of puts a limit on your development. As a more advanced pianist I can assure you that the way I think about the music when I look at notation is very different than what it used to be as a beginner. Most of the time I don't really care about what the actual notes are (although I learned to recognise all the note and it didn't really take very long and I don't get all the fuss about having to learn it) but I care a lot about intervals and shapes of chords. If I see a big chord that has a top note something like 5 ledger lines above the staff I don't even count those lines because normally I see chord shapes. I just look at the lower note of the chord and visually recognize all the other notes as intervallic relashionships from there. This happens in a split second without thinking about it.
WieWaldi You see, my approach had been on the table a long long time ago. It was refused, because... watch the video.
Got it. Why it was refused wasn't really explained though. Only that it was refused, in long arguments (the reasons for refusal) which we're not told about. Tantacrul's point is that different notation systems and reforms have been proposed, tried, discarded, discussed.
What I wasn't sure about initially is because you referred to the clefs for the hands. Either hand can play either clef, so I figured you might have been referring to the top and bottom staves, which turns out to be the case.
I scribbled out some music on the proposed system you outlined. There's a problem, in particular for piano, when you get to where currently we have middle C. In the current system there is a symbolic overlap: The note "on" the first ledger line below the treble clef; and the note "on" the first ledger line above the bass clef, both denote the same note, middle C, and in the vicinity of those notes you can travel seamlessly. It provides a continuance. We lose that continuance in the proposed system.
About Tantacrul's video - the important thing repeatedly being missed
The important point comes in the very last section of the video. Instead of trying for yet another reform to notation, Tantacrul is arguing the use of a system that our modern electronic age affords us. Software can be created and already exists (he demonstrates it) where notation in one form can be instantly turned into tablature or other systems, including other clefs or clef systems, at the push of a button.
Tantacrul is both a musician with in depth knowledge about music and theory, and also an IT specialist. He had a major role in the creation of both MuseScore and Audacity, and oversees both.
OT to the recent turn of this thread, but not completely. I work as a translator and am active on a site for translators. A gentleman joined who had immigrated to an English speaking country in his early teens, and was now teaching English as a second language. He was part of a movement for reforming the spelling of English - passionate and insistent about the movement and his cause, writing incessantly about it. There's a group out there intent on changing how English is spelled. The arguments went round and round, on a site with linguists who worked with two or more languages professionally. It was also similar to here, for similar reasons.
English spelling is indeed ridiculous. "though, through, tough, thought" - what sound does "ough" represent? English spelling evolved over time and history, like music writing did - got patched and tweaked in its present form. It's antiquated and outdated. If it gets "modernized" will the next generation be able to read any books or even this discussion (though software would be able to 'convert' these words)?
If English spelling becomes phonetic, how will be distinguish "ate" and "eight" - "gate" and "gait". You may say from context - and in music we can also argue about musical context, if one grasps the language (of either).
If phonetic - according to whose pronunciation in what region and era? I ran into "shack" in a vehicle context, was picturing cars in shacks, but it was a "shack absorber" = "shock absorber" = the "Mid-Atlantic Vowel Shift" (a vs. o). And where did Americans put the T in "moun'n" (mountain) that I keep hearing? Shall it be spelled "moun'n"?
An obvious thing in teaching is that you cannot teach English spelling according to the phonetic patterns you are used to your (and most?) languages - and if the foreign student's native language is phonetic, there has to be a mental shift for approach. And how is reading music taught?
In the round and round discussion that went on at the time, my final conclusion was that we would be best off with a system like Chinese or Japanese, where a symbol or set or symbols represents a word or word-combo (I'm picturing typewriter as a word combo). Regardless of how you pronounce it in your geographic area, regardless of how spoken language shifts over time, your word still means what it means. The final conclusion, tongue in cheek, was that we must all learn Chinese or Japanese. 
(I am largely ignorant about either language, and seem to remember there is also a phonetic component).
Any system that humans invent is going to flawed, favouring this or that.
Also, I like Tantacrul's idea at the end of that last video, where the digital age allows us to switch systems.
keystring I scribbled out some music on the proposed system you outlined. There's a problem, in particular for piano, when you get to where currently we have middle C. In the current system there is a symbolic overlap: The note "on" the first ledger line below the treble clef; and the note "on" the first ledger line above the bass clef, both denote the same note, middle C, and in the vicinity of those notes you can travel seamlessly. It provides a continuance. We lose that continuance in the proposed system.
We can't lose something we don't have.
You are saying, it is the middle C is a sybolic overlap between both staffs, sitting on the 1st ledger line. You see, it is already on a legder line, meaning it is already outside of the staff. The staffs don't overlap.
And if you insist, there must be a note, placed exactly between both staffs, (making a symmetrical center), you will find the middle D within my system.
WieWaldi You are saying, it is the middle C is a sybolic overlap between both staffs, sitting on the 1st ledger line. You see, it is already on a legder line, meaning it is already outside of the staff. The staffs don't overlap.
They don't overlap literally but there is a role. In transcribing some music recently and making choices, I ran into this. that particular continuance I referred to exists, or I would not have referred to it.
keystring I scribbled out some music on the proposed system you outlined. There's a problem, in particular for piano, when you get to where currently we have middle C. In the current system there is a symbolic overlap: The note "on" the first ledger line below the treble clef; and the note "on" the first ledger line above the bass clef, both denote the same note, middle C, and in the vicinity of those notes you can travel seamlessly. It provides a continuance. We lose that continuance in the proposed system.
In fact I don't think that would be a problem. In WieWaldi's proposed system, the continuance is at the note D, being on a space at the same distance down from the bottom line of the top clef (1 1/2 spaces) as it is up from the top line of the bottom clef.
Fun fact: there is already a clef that is exactly two octaves above the bass clef: the French Violin Clef. This is what it looks like:
It can be found in original French scores from the 17th or 18th centuries (Couperin, for example), but all modern editions have replaced it with the now standard treble clef.
If you want to give it a try, here's what the beginning of the last movement of Beethoven's op. 2 N° 3 looks like if the treble clefs are replaced with the French violin clef:
I actually can't find any real downside to this system. If this clef had become the standard, instead of the treble clef, I think it would work just as well not only for piano, but also for other instruments. There's one more ledger line to deal with at the bottom, but this means you have one less at the top, which doesn't seem a bad idea.
But would it be worth changing the present system and replacing it with this one? I would say, definitely not!
I think that the only people who would benefit from it would be the new learners. And I think that that benefit would be very slight.
BartK All these notational reforms seem to be either invented by beginners or aimed at beginners for a perceived convenience or simplicity, whereas the notational system that is currently in widespread use was invented by and for the convenience of professional musicians.
Many great and good inventions have been made by beginners. The beginners, that were learning the existing system and figured out some flaws. The people you describe as "professional musicians" simply didn't see the shortcomings. Or they got used to the existing one, and they don't see a need to change it. And sure, why should they change something they have become a master of?
I think it was Mark Twain who said something like this: "If one does something always the same way and never thought about changing it, it is likely he did it in a bad way, all the time."
BartK The first problem with a double-G clef or double-F clef notation is the range. The bass C on the image above is the C that normally sits on the second space from the bottom of the staff. That means you need a lot more legder lines than normally used to reach the lower notes.
True, BUT you would get rid of one ledger line on top of the upper staff. And if I overfly my sheet music, I see a lot more ledger lines on top of the treble clef compared to the bottom of it. Result: a big win in terms of range for double F-clef. Hands down.
BartK The double-F clef would be even worse for range because to reach the top note you would need to use both a 15 on the clef and a 15ma notation above the staff, and you would still need ledger lines.
Please, Bart, don't play the "pretend to be stupid"-game. Or course there needs to be a different clef symbol that indicates the octave range. Someone can invent new fancy symbols or just go with the approach of Referend Thomas Salmon from 1672, to use "Tr", "M" and "B" as clef symbols.
BartK Speaking of intervallic relationships, the second problem I see with this is around the middle. The ledger lines in between the staves preserve all the intervallic relationships between the hands because middle C is the same line above and below. If you have notes going up several ledger lines from the bass staff you know how they relate to the notes in the right hand, and vice versa. This is not so clear when the top note is F and the spaces and lines are inverted when going further up.
Come on, we both know this would be the same with two F-clefs. Except it isn't the middle C in the very center, but the middle D instead.
BartK As a beginner you might not encounter music that has these issues and it might seem simpler at first but that kind of puts a limit on your development.
And again, the "you are a beginner"-card. I might be a beginner, still I understand enough to defend my points with ease.
BartK As a more advanced pianist I can assure you that the way I think about the music when I look at notation is very different than what it used to be as a beginner.
You can assure me. But you failed every time when you tried to point it out.
BartK Most of the time I don't really care about what the actual notes are (although I learned to recognise all the note and it didn't really take very long and I don't get all the fuss about having to learn it)...
Then you wouldn't care as well, if you learned it differently?
BartK ...but I care a lot about intervals and shapes of chords.
Good point. But this would not change. You can recognize the intervals and shapes of chords as you can today.
BartK If I see a big chord that has a top note something like 5 ledger lines above the staff I don't even count those lines because normally I see chord shapes.
Whoa - one ledger line less. Would this really be a problem for you? Do you really think it gets harder because of that?
Forgive a novice, but why do the staffs on a score need to connect at all? Instead of renaming all the lines and spaces, couldn’t it just be two separate tonal locations with the same map?
I played Bb Cornet in school, but most other instruments assumed their own interpretation of range, so the burden was placed mechanically by instrument design. I realize some of my friends were reading the bass clef, but the saxophones and clarinets had an equal interpretation of where their notes were.
Perpetual Beginner, Yamaha P115
MRC f you want to give it a try, here's what the beginning of the last movement of Beethoven's op. 2 N° 3 looks like if the treble clefs are replaced with the French violin clef:
I'm in a good position for this because of my weird background. I only learned to associate lines and spaces with piano keys a few years ago and I turn 71 this month. Totally untaught, my way of reading music was a bit like the first attempts at notation with neumes dancing around a single line, with note patterns reflecting common shapes of music. I "found Do" and drew an imaginary line on that line or space, and all the notes were above or below that spot.
Therefore it was relatively easy, when I studied theory, to work with variously positioned C clefs, historical positions of the G or F clefs like yours here. I simply reverted back to the imaginary line and an intervallic feel.
There were major weaknesses in the manner that I "read" music, and I retrained largely using the ideas of a teacher who had a perspective on reading piano music which made sense to me. I built an association where "this line" automatically makes me hand want to go to "this piano key", and note names attach to this dual experience afterward. It goes with teaching principles I got in teacher training: the abstract follows the physical. (sharps and flats become directions to go higher or lower, right or left - I adopted this when I found it worked better than learning what G# and Ab "were").
If for strong piano readers, this association (among other things) of line or space to piano key is automatic - then switching to the clef being on a different line can really mess them up. While I can read such notation, I don't like to go there because my new strengths are relatively fragile. I still manage not to see what line something is on, or how many leger lines are involved, because for decades I mentally erased all but the single "here's the Tonic" line. That's fine for predictable diatonic music, but not the kind of music that I now play, among many kinds.
It would indeed have been nice of the French violin clef had become the standard.
Or the D idea (strings players would be deleted) - but the Western world is very C-major-centric. (more history)
WieWaldi
I'm replying in good faith. No need for the sarcasm.
When I wrote my post I was replying to Animisha and I didn't see your post yet so I assumed two bass clefs one octave apart. If they are two octaves apart then indeed you end up with preserved intervals. That's an advantage, granted, but a really small one if you look at all the other things you have to learn to read music.
Anyway, if you want to propose a new system then it has to be significantly better for the majority of musicians, not just for learners. You might complain about that but that's just how things work. People don't adopt a new system unless there are clear advantages for them. Most musicians would just go "meh! whatever!" because the change of clef has a really tiny advantage and a huge disadvantage that you need to change all existing music and teach the new system to everyone. It's not worth the effort unless the advantage is overwhelmingly significant.
