There are many criticisms to level against the conventions of how we talk about musical theory and notation. This little post addresses just a few that seem glaring to me. Buckle up, and try to consider why you are comfortable with the way you've been told to think of these things.
Music is commonly expressed through numbers, especially when one is trying to be key-agnostic. For instance, within the key of C, the tonic note C is dubbed by the Roman numeral I. The sub-dominant F is IV (because, counting up from C (1), CDEF, we've reached 4). And the dominant, G, is V.
Roman Numerals
Ok. Needle scratch. Roman numerals are right out. They are an offense of the first order. Kiss them good-bye.
But there are still two things here that can be rapidly and decisively improved. All that is needed is to discard our familiarity with the inappropriate norms we've been saddled with for centuries.
What do these numbers COUNT?
First, let us observe that the 1-4-5 (I-IV-V) basis of Western music, although the frequencies of these notes have a mathematical and undeniably aural magic about them, already impose an arbitrary demand upon the brain of the student as well as the accomplished musician. Therefore, the numbers being used here cannot be viewed as sacrosanct. Let's examine what these numbers mean, at present, before we discard these associations in favor of an even simpler mapping.
To this point, we've been assigning numbers to the notes within the major key: C=1, D=2, E=3, etc. But what of C#? D#? They are punted into a space outside our number line. They become 1# or 2♭. Let's stop doing that, and use our numbering system, which we've already decided is arbitrary, to count the 12 semi-tones within the scale. Now, C=1, C#=2, F=6 (5 semitones up from C), and G=8.
But is this really the best? No. We should start our count from zero, such that C (the tonic) is 0, F is 5 and G is 7. The angels sing!
By assigning the tonic the value of 0, we acknowledge that it is the origin of our spectral space. Just as in time (an hour starts at the zeroeth minute), number lines, geometric spaces (origin at zero) and in programming languages for people who've thought things through, an ordered series is counted from 0. It delivers the enormous benefit of making any element's displacement from the origin (the tonic, here) the number of the element. Any guitarist would readily abandon I-IV-V for 0-5-7, as this is so visually apparent on the fretboard.
Counting Time
Lastly, I'd also change time counting to zero based (saying "oh" rather than "zero", to keep things monosyllabic), as this would make each measure in 4/4 time start at 0 and end on 4 minus epsilon. Right now, they are starting at 1 and ending on 5 minus epsilon. It's manifestly wrong.
I've seen some brilliant musicians struggle to see the simple truth in this, but I hope this explanation makes it clear.
Under the present system, when we count off "1", the measure has just started. We count "2" when the measure is 1/4 through. Skipping ahead, we count "4" when the measure is 3/4 through. This invites the question, "when does the measure end?" The answer is: 5. Is that right? Obviously not.
If we counted "oh, 1, 2, 3", the math actually WORKS. How much longer are we going to fight this?
