Gfyuki

This question asks if the accidentals are not "additive" (i.e. placing a sharp on F where the key signature already contains an F sharp would result in an F double sharp, and placing a flat on F in the same key would mean F natural), but it does not explains why they are not.

At least in my opinion, additive accidentals would have the following advantages:

• there would be no need in a separate natural sign, since cancellation could be expressed with the opposite accidental.


• double alterations would be used much less often (in the most cases, double sharps and flats are used to raise/lower a note which has been already sharpened/flattened, not to raise/lower a natural note by 2 semitones).


• accidentals would stay the same upon transposing. In particular case, all scales would be written in the same manner (e.g. a harmonic minor scale would always have a sharp on its 7th degree, regardless of the key signature).


• the notation system would become more logically coherent (for example, a note with a sharp near it will always sound a semitone higher than the same note without this sharp - i.e. if we erase this sharp, the sound will be always a semitone lower)

So, why it was "decided" to stick to the current system?

P.S. I know that "why" may not be (or at least sound as) a correct question for the StackExchange format (because it associates with primarily opinion-based questions; so I apologise in advance for the question being out of format), but I believe that the objective reasons for this particular topic should exist (because the notation system is (almost) worldwide-spread).

Hmm.

Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.

Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.

Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.

Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal

A lot of this also has to do with convention. Once we learn certain patterns, we can respond to them quickly and efficiently, even if there are more logical ways to notate them. We see "of" and say "uv", without blinking an eye. "Once" = "wunce". But if we were to change the standard spelling of such words, it would take quite a bit of getting used to.

Situations can arise, especially in multi-voice music where a performer would have difficulty determining whether a note has an accidental or not. Consider, for example, choral piece on F major with two vocal parts on the same staff; one sings a marked B natural early in the measure and the other sings an unmarked B at the same staff position later in the same measure. A vocalist playing off that score would be unlikely to see the accidental on the other part, and thus sing Bb, but a pianist who is sight reading the score would be unlikely to notice that the later note wasn't in the same part that had the accidental, thus playing Bnat.

If accidental markings indicate absolute pitches, the later note may be explicitly marked as Bb or Bnat (depending upon which pitch is needed), ensuring that it will be played consistently whether or not the performer noticed the previous accidental. If accidentals indicate relative pitches, however, then it would be difficult to notate the piece in such a way as to facilitate sight reading by both singers and pianists.