Originally Posted by dcuny
Changing notation isn't changing theory, it's changing notation.

There have been a ton of attempts to clefs, and there are a lot of reasons they fail. "Fixing" the bass clef to make it the same as the treble clef solves the "problem" for a piano player, but what about for the viola player? And introduces a bunch of other issues, like the treble and bass no longer aligning over Middle C.

Changing scientific naming because he doesn't like it, isn't really a compelling reason.

Multiple dots for repeats? His argument for not using numbers on top for repeats is that it's "ambiguous", and then he proposes... putting the number in the repeat symbol instead, which has exactly the same issue.

Figured bass isn't "ultimately very confusing". Roman numerals are used for analysis, not for actual playing. Notation like "F/A" works just fine for playing.

Same thing with his issue with Roman numerals and minor scales.

Time signatures are only a problem... when they aren't notated? So let's just get rid of the bottom number? And his "reform" for compound time can literally be done using standard notation.

I was going to respond with virtually everything that David had already posted.
Thus I completely agree with him.

My boss calls me "the computer".
Nothing to do with intelligence. I go to sleep if left unattended for 15 minutes.

64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware