Clefs: how many do we really need?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

macuaig 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?

That's fine if you have two instruments that play their own part in a limited range but that's not generally how most piano repertoire is written. The hands move smoothly between low and high on the keyboard, sometimes even crossing, and it's useful to see all the interval relationships between the low and high part of the staff as one continuum.

BartK 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.

Sorry - I really thought you answered to my post, because Animisha never wrote about two bass clefs. Her example was all about G-clefs. And I agree, shifting only 1 octave is too little.

BartK 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.

This is probably the only reason. It was 1672 and is today.
Still, if you exchange the treble clef by a bass-15va clef you get rid of quite some ledger lines. And hands down, I would prefer to read one more ledger line to the bottom than constantly dealing with too many ledger lines on the top. Face it, we have a lot more ledger lines on top of the upper staff. Using a bass-15va instead is simply shifting the staff more toward the center of most notes used for piano playing.

WieWaldi
I think you're overestimating how much of an advantage it is. Like if I look at your earlier picture:

What I see is a scale pattern. The way I would read that (assuming I know that the top clef is 2 octaves higher) is to notice the starting note, notice that it's a simple scale up with a repeated note and a skip of a 3rd (did you notice that? ), and then play it with the expected rhythm. I don't really put much thinking into which specific notes I'm playing because I'm just following a pattern and noticing changes from that pattern. The only note I have to read is the starting note. In real music there is a bit more movement but the idea is similar. You only have to read some strategic notes and you infer the rest using patterns relative to your starting note. This is why I don't think having the same clef in both staves is a huge advantage. It's only a tiny advantage of consistency when finding the starting note but after that you don't really have to care.

WieWaldi Many great and good inventions have been made by beginners.

This may be OT but I'm curious about this. Can you name or describe some inventions that were invented by novices (beginners) and which worked in the field they were relatively unfamiliar with? This is not for the sake of any argument here - I'm genuinely curious.