The 1812 Overture in piano roll format (in MIDIgraphy, a now-ancient Mac MIDI authoring program)
You can scroll vertically to have access to more octaves, and the zoom-in / zoom-out has independent vertical and horizontal zoom.
To me this is thousands of times more intuitive than this or this
Yipes. I wouldn’t even want to begin to try playing the music in piano roll notation format.
Thank you. This is why I said above to study music theory, because with the knowledge of harmonic structure that pulykamell described, you can transpose in your head.
My friend needed to rehearse for a voice audition, and I offered to provide the piano accompaniment for his practice. He had “Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child” scored in E minor. But it didn’t suit him exactly. He asked if we could lower the key. I said no problem and tried increasingly lower keys until we reached C# minor, and that was the one he liked. It not only fit his vocal range better, it suited the mood of the song better. C# minor sounded far darker, heavier, more sombre and sorrowful as befits that song. Besides, it sounded a lot more Russian, and he’d been studying Russian and had brought along a CD of Rachmaninoff songs for me to hear. (Rachmaninoff was nicknamed “Mr. C# Minor”.)
So I sight-read off his score and simply transposed everything down a minor third; it’s easy if you understand what pulykamell said above. Harmonic structure is set up so systematically that if you grasp the system, transposition becomes clear and straightforward. This systematic nature of harmony ultimately derives from the whole-number ratio of pitch frequencies that generates scales and chords from pure mathematics.
I composed “Shadow-Bride” in E-flat minor (6 flats) because I think of it as the darkest key of all. Rachmaninoff used that rare key for his early piece “Élégie” which I’ve always loved to play. My piece sounded awfully dark and gloomy in E-flat minor, I wanted it to sound misterioso, so I transposed it up a half step to E minor, which had the right touch of sweetness.
They’d be in different staves, one for each octave.
Isn’t it strange, that even with equal temperament, and piano-dominated sounds, there’s still such associations to keys? (Shostakovich’s 15th quartet, Prokofiev 6…the ‘darkest of all’ tag might be right)
So that’s four staves, just for four notes. And this makes things easier, errr, how? How about a concerto for two pianos…that’s eight staves for each piano, four each for violins 1/2 violas and cellos, three-ish(?) for basses (we’re assuming no harmonics, otherwise we’re potentially up to six or seven). And the wind…oh, the transposing instruments…trumpet in B flat, horn in F, maybe an Eb clarinet…
Am I being awkward enough, or should I carry on? 
Like you said. And they don’t have to be the same two staves, do they?
It makes it easier to learn music because the note is always in the same place in the stave and you don’t have to consider sharps or flats. Maybe people who can already read music do not appreciate that. And if you need to transpose some music, you simply move it up or down.
OK, so we have at least four staves. Then, what if we’re dealing with something with a stride bass, with lots of jumping around to lower octaves in the left hand? Then we definitely need a fifth staff, or perhaps deal with the awkwardness of notating every other stride note with an “octave lower” notation or something like that. I can easily think of left handed stride parts requiring three octaves to notate. And then if we have running octaves in the right hand? We’re talking a minimum of five staves, or some very awkward notation.
So what if it is five staves? The staves can be more tightly spaced, because there is no need for all the extraneous information that is currently conveyed by key signatures and sharps and flats. The amount of musical information conveyed per square inch is probably going to be the same as under the current notation, and you retain all the advantages of a key-neutral notation scheme.
It’s just going to be a real bitch reading vertically (chords) that way. I find the amount of information packed into two staves on a normally notated piano score to be both comprehensible and easy to read. I can’t imaging trying to read five staves of music at a time where two used to suffice, nor could I imagine how this would make things easier at all.
You know, maybe you just read music differently than I do. For me, accidentals are not extraneous information, they’re useful harmonically. While I like the idea of a notation that’s not dependant on key signature, I do like the use of accidentals, especially when you’re dealing with tonal music based on the Western tradition.
When I play a song in A flat, most of the music is written on the staff without any accidentals of any sort. (Those are all specified by the key signature). It’s very clean notation, and I know that when I see an accidental, I should expect a note outside of the usual scale for that key. Sharps, flats, and naturals tip me off way ahead of time.
It seems more natural and easier to read to me. In this way, every note of a major scale is equally spaced. If the first tone starts on a line, the next is in the space, the next is in the line, the next is in the space, the next is on a line, etc… It’s very neat. With discrete notation such as yours, you’d have the first note, then the next note two steps up, the next two steps up, the next one step up, the next three two steps up, and then one step up. If you’re born into and used to Western major/minor tonality, then the system we currently have works well. If you want to start talking atonal or 12-tone music or whatnot, then your system may very well be better, as accidentals don’t have the same meaning in this context.
Y’all keep talking about two staves. I don’t think you get it.
Look at this sheet music again. All those lines, top to bottom? They play simultaneously. This is a symphony orchestra score we’re talking about here.
The piano roll score I posted for comparison, which is Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture, is also for all the instruments.
I’ll grant that if you actually sightread conventional music scores, the first example may still “sing” to you when you look at it more readily than the foreign piano-roll system which you aren’t used to, but let’s not be comparing apples to oranges. We’re not talking two staves’ worth here.
I’m talking about piano music, here, that’s why I’m talking two staves. Trying to read piano roll notated music in the piano would be excruciatingly difficult because of all the vertical information you have to process. It ain’t pretty.
I don’t know what to say here. The conventional music score still seems a hell of a lot easier to read than the piano roll. I don’t like the way note lengths are marked on the roll, there’s no phrasing markers, there’s no tempo cues, there’s no room for interpretation. It’s just an exact graphical representation of exactly what is played. That’s not music to me.
As pulykamell says, key signatures and related accidentals are absolutely integral to the way western music functions.
I don’t think you fully appreciate just how much information is present on the conventional score, above and beyond the pitches and durations indicated on a midi transcription or piano roll. At a glance, I can see the harmonic structure of that passage, aurally envisage the combination of instrumental sounds into an overall timbre, understand the rhythmic structure (both the overall 2-beat pulse and the details such as the double-dotted opening and the gentle rocking of the last bars in the example), and so on.
It’s not just lack of familiarity with ‘reading’ a piano roll that prevents the same information being conveyed with immediacy. The information is absent.
All I see are a bunch of blackbirds with silly feathers sitting on telephone wires.
An orchestra conductor, now, has to read any number of staves (singular: staff) at once. Clearly one pair of eyes cannot take in all the information vertically all at once. A conductor does a lot of homework with the score in preparation for rehearsing it with the orchestra. She has to sit with it at the piano and review all the individual parts horizontally and then get a feel for how they all fit together vertically. She marks up the score before taking it to the orchestral rehearsal to remind herself in advance which staves need more of her focused attention at certain times.
There’s a complex skill involved in paying attention to a particular focus while simultaneously keeping global attention. I find it useful in many other areas of life, like driving a car, watching ahead of you while being alert to the 360° range of perception all around you. The point focus combined with global attention uses both sides of the brain at once. Conductors have to master this level of attention with the score to do their job.
I heard that somewhere, too. 
