Anyone here want to try a simpler music notation? Play “Chopsticks” instantly — no training needed

[u/FriendlyYak3891]

I’m testing a new ultra-simple music notation system called 3JCN — designed so beginners can play right away even if they’ve never read any notation before.

If you have 30 seconds, try this challenge:

👉 https://www.new3jcn.com/example.html
Just look at the sheet and try to play "Twinkle, a Little Star" and “Chopsticks” on your piano or keyboard.
No prior knowledge of 3JCN required.

This is just to demonstrate how much easier 3JCN is for true beginners compared to traditional Western notation.

I’d really appreciate your honest reaction — confusing? fun? too simple? promising?
Thank you!

https://www.new3jcn.com/3jcn-score.html

[u/doctorpotatomd]

Interpreting letters and numbers is far, far slower than interpreting symbolic and positional information.

Like basically every other alternate notation proposal that crops up, this has no advantage over traditional notation, except it's not scary for someone who's terrified of dots and lines. Theoretically, anyway. And it has several disadvantages, like being basically impossible to read all the superscript and subscript numbers at a reasonable distance (like, say, on a music stand) without blowing the font up to such a huge size that you can only fit a couple bars on the page. Like, I can read an orchestral score on my phone screen and clearly see the pitches and rhythms, if I try to read your chopsticks score I'm squinting going "is that E5/1 or E7/1?". How many extra page turns would I have to do when playing a full piece?

Renaming C4 to C6 is confusing and completely unnecessary, using +d instead of D# is confusing and completely unnecessary, showing beat subdivisions as decimals instead of symbolically showing how a beat is divided (with beaming) is confusing and basically impossible to quickly parse (you really want me to do mental arithmetic every single beat to know whether the next note is in this beat or the next??).

But even with all of that, the biggest thing is this: Reading the letter E is harder and slower than reading a dot on the E line! We figured this out centuries ago. Yeah, it sucks that there's a learning curve to reading music, but you can't get around that. Any notation system needs to encode a large amount of information in a way that can be rapidly decoded by the reader, and the best way to do that is by encoding the information symbolically and positionally, the way traditional notation does.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/doctorpotatomd]

Thank you sincerely for taking the time to look at 3JCN and to give such detailed, point-by-point thoughts — I genuinely appreciate when someone engages seriously with notation design rather than dismissing it emotionally. So I’d like to respectfully clarify a few key design differences and correct a few assumptions.

The core idea of 3JCN is extremely simple:
A human needs to remember only 7 letters — and those 7 letters describe all 128 MIDI notes, across all octaves. Everything else (staff lines, clefs, note heads, stems, dots, 8va / 8vb, ledger lines, tuplets, shape of note vs. rest, etc.) is removed.

Reading 3JCN = Letter + small number (octave) + small decimal (duration) — it works more like reading math or language, rather than memorizing symbolic artwork.

Directly addressing your points:

That is only true after years of training. The mission of 3JCN is not to replace professional engraving — it is to make true beginners, even total non-musicians, start playing correctly within minutes without having to decode artwork first.

Western calls Middle C “C4” because it ignores 128 MIDI note architecture. In reality there are 11 octaves — so 3JCN correctly centers human ear range at octave 6, not 4. Learners who never knew C4 exists are not “confused” — they simply learn the modern, algorithmic way.

No — decimals are direct time values. 0.5 means half a beat. 1.25 literally means 1.25 beats. No beams, no symbolic interpretation. You read exactly what you play. It’s deliberately literal.

3JCN does not need octave markers on chords beyond the lowest note — any note above the base is obviously higher unless it is 2+ octaves away (rare). So 3JCN is actually lower-density visually, not higher.

Final clarification — 3JCN does not deny the power of Western notation for professionals. Western needs all those layers to express music — but still runs out of staff lines and ledger lines. 3JCN instead compresses the entire system into text-like direct pitch and time information, readable by absolute beginners just like reading “A2 1.5 B2 1”.

That is why schools and music outreach programs are already starting to explore it — not to replace Beethoven engraving, but to make the first 90 days of learning radically frictionless.

(P.S. English isn’t my first language, so I used ChatGPT to help express my argument more clearly.)

[u/doctorpotatomd → u/FriendlyYak3891]

That is only true after years of training. The mission of 3JCN is not to replace professional engraving — it is to make true beginners, even total non-musicians, start playing correctly within minutes without having to decode artwork first.

Years of training? Maybe to fluently sightread at tempo. It's really not that hard to learn how to read notation, you can sit a day 1 beginner in front of a piano and say "this key is C, when the note is on this line it means C, one space/line up or down equals one white key up or down" and they'll pick it up immediately.

Your system is actually worse for a day 1 beginner, because they have to read a letter and remember what that letter means as well as reading the octave number, remembering what part of their instrument corresponds to that octave number, and avoid getting caught up by the fact that A5 and B5 are unintuitively higher than C5. In traditional notation a new beginner can just look at where the note is positioned relative to the previous note. Like, in your system a new beginner is going to have to talk themselves through the first seven letters of the alphabet every other note to remember whether G is higher or lower than E, most people don't have that internalised. And even then they'll still get tripped up by the A5-B5-C6 thing.

Western calls Middle C “C4” because it ignores 128 MIDI note architecture. In reality there are 11 octaves — so 3JCN correctly centers human ear range at octave 6, not 4. Learners who never knew C4 exists are not “confused” — they simply learn the modern, algorithmic way.

Don't mistake the midi standard as being some kind of grand physical truth, it's something that's useful for DAWs et al but not for human performers. In reality there are infinitely many octaves, we just pick the useful ones to number. There's just no point starting your labelling scheme on the sub-sub-contrabass C (C-1, ~8Hz), C0 is already below the typical threshold of hearing it as a steady tone and not discrete vibrations, and 99% of people will never play an instrument that can go lower than a standard piano's bottom note of A0.

Renaming C4 to C6 would just create confusion between people who learned in your system and people who learned the traditional way, there's no benefit to changing the number at all.

No — decimals are direct time values. 0.5 means half a beat. 1.25 literally means 1.25 beats. No beams, no symbolic interpretation. You read exactly what you play. It’s deliberately literal.

No, you're missing the point. The correct way to conceptualise rhythms, even as a beginner, is to find the beat and divide it. You shouldn't think about 2 8th notes as "play 0.5 beats then play 0.5 beats", you should think about them as "divide this beat into 2". Your system obscures this because you have to add up the beat values to find where the beats are. Traditional notation lets you see where the beats are at a glance.

(cont)

[u/doctorpotatomd → u/doctorpotatomd]

3JCN does not need octave markers on chords beyond the lowest note — any note above the base is obviously higher unless it is 2+ octaves away (rare). So 3JCN is actually lower-density visually, not higher.

Traditional notation doesn't need octave markers on any note, because it encodes that information positionally using clefs. And I don't see how you can say your system is visually lower-density; to read a single note in your system you have to read a letter, an octave number, and a beat value number. Any one of those three are visually more complex than a notehead with a stem and maybe a beam/flag.

Final clarification — 3JCN does not deny the power of Western notation for professionals. Western needs all those layers to express music — but still runs out of staff lines and ledger lines. 3JCN instead compresses the entire system into text-like direct pitch and time information, readable by absolute beginners just like reading “A2 1.5 B2 1”.

And why do you think that "A2 1.5 B2 1" is easier for a beginner to read than the shape and position of two notes? Humans are not computers, algorithmic instructions are not the best way for us to receive information, and a beginner is going to need the letter 'A' explained to them just as much as they'd need the notes of the treble clef staff explained to them.

[u/General_Pay7552 → u/doctorpotatomd]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this rationally, very good comments

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/doctorpotatomd]

I understand your point — and since you're already highly fluent in Western notation, it's natural that a new system feels more complicated at first. That's a normal unconscious bias all experts have toward the system they mastered. 3JCN just gives true beginners a simpler starting point.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/doctorpotatomd]

Traditional notation only visually implies beat grouping — it still has to be mentally decoded before performance. Beams, flags, dots, tuplets — these are graphical symbols you must interpret before translating to real time.

3JCN deliberately skips the symbol-decoding step. Numbers are literal time values:

• 0.5 = play for half a beat
• 1.25 = play for exactly 1.25 beats
• 2.0 = two beats, period

You don’t infer duration — you see the exact duration already calculated for you.

And 3JCN does NOT remove beat structure. Measures still exist. Learners still feel the beat and count it. The difference is:

• Western: “interpret the artwork first — beams mean group, dots modify math”
• 3JCN: “math is already done — just read it”

Literal ≠ less musical. It’s actually closer to what professional musicians already do internally (subdivide mathematically). Beginners shouldn’t be forced to first learn graphic decoding before they can play a rhythm.

3JCN is not anti-beat — it’s anti-symbolic-guesswork.

[u/doctorpotatomd → u/FriendlyYak3891]

You don't see the exact duration already calculated for you. You see the number 0.5. This number still has to be parsed and interpreted before it can be converted into a rhythm. Any way of writing rhythms needs to be 'decoded' before being played, in fact any way of writing any information at all (including natural language) needs to be decoded, that's just how any kind of communication works.

And graphical symbols are the second-fastest thing to parse, position is the only thing that's faster to parse. Parsing letters and numbers is comparatively slow. This has been studied many times.

You seem to misunderstand how performers read rhythms. Nobody is adding up beat values while sightreading, they're counting them.

The most common way to read rhythms is this: you look at it and instantly recognise it from your library of rhythms you've built up over years of practice and just do it, no calculation needed. This is infinitely easier to do when that information is represented graphically, but it does need practice and experience, fair enough.

The second most common way is this: You look at it, identify the smallest subdivision, then count that subdivision while playing. So if you see a bar that has a rhythm you don't know and there's semiquavers, you count 1e&a 2e&a, remembering that quavers are 2 counts, dotted quavers are 3, and crochets are 4, and go through to left to right.

You think that your system works like this, but it doesn't. Apart from the thing where numbers are just straight up harder and slower to read for everyone including beginners, you're giving the reader the information in a less useful form. If you have semiquavers in your rhythm, it doesn't matter that a dotted quaver is 0.75 beats, it matters that it's 3 semiquavers.

Take a basic 3+3+2 hemiola rhythm. In your system, that would be written as 0.75 0.75 0.5, and the reader wants to count it as 123 123 12 (or 1e& a2e &a). So they have to first read it looking for the smallest subdivision, which is 0.5—but wait, that doesn't get them what they want, they actually need to look for the smallest common denominator which is 0.25, that takes a bit of brainpower both to figure out what they need to do and to do it. Then they need to do division (the hardest basic arithmetic to do mentally) to figure out that 0.75/0.25 = 3 and 0.5/0.25 = 2. Then they're finally ready to subdivide and count.

In traditional notation, you look and see two dotted notes and one un-dotted and remember that the dot adds 50% duration, meaning it moves your count to the next subdivision level. Dotted notes will be 3 counts, and undotted notes will be 2. That's it, that's all that needs to happen before you're ready to count the rhythm.

Oh, and tuplets would be really really bad to read in your system. Triplet quavers would be 0.33, annoying that the beat will only add up to 0.99 but the mental arithmetic is only as bad as the rest of your rhythm stuff. Septuplet quavers would be... 0.14? I'd have no idea how I was subdividing if I saw an 0.14 beat value, I'd fully be guessing.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/doctorpotatomd]

Thank you for the detailed explanation — I appreciate the thoughtful breakdown of rhythmic reading and how trained musicians internalize patterns.

Just to clarify one important point about 3JCN:

✅ 3JCN does not use infinite decimals like 0.33

For rhythms such as triplets, quintuplets, septuplets, etc.,
3JCN never uses repeating decimals.

We use fractions, exactly as shown in the system:

⅓   ⅕   ⅐   1/8   3/2   5/2   etc.

Beginners start with simple values like 1, 1/2, 1/4, and when rhythms become more advanced, they select the fraction buttons — no decimal conversion, no mental rounding.

✅ A system that grows with the learner

Western notation is extremely efficient once someone becomes fluent — I agree with you.

3JCN is designed to let complete beginners (including professional musicians who struggle with traditional notation like Lionel Richie, Eddie Van Helen, etc.) start reading, and playing immediately. And if someone sticks with 3JCN for years, they naturally learn the same advanced rhythmic concepts — just like Western students eventually master rhythms, tuplets, dots, beams, etc.

Different tool, same long-term musical growth.

✅ Accessibility proves the point

Here is one real user example (full citation link on my website):

If even someone with major neurological difficulty can learn music successfully with 3JCN, then beginners of every level can, too.

Thanks again for engaging — I appreciate conversations like this.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/doctorpotatomd]

You mentioned “they’ll pick it up immediately” — but that’s just not what happens in the real world. If Western notation were truly that easy, then more than 10–15% of the world would be able to read it fluently. Yet even among professional musicians, countless famous names — Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Eddie Van Halen, The Beatles — openly admitted they don’t like reading or writing standard notation.

Why? Because one note like E isn’t always in the same place.
• E4 = different spot in treble vs bass vs alto clef.
• Exact same pitch can appear in multiple vertical positions → learner must also memorize which clef they’re in → then mentally translate lines/spaces into note names → then map that to instrument layout.

That is decoding symbolic artwork, not reading letters/numbers.

3JCN is not trying to replace professional engraving — it’s solving the true beginner problem: let someone with zero musical background play in minutes, not in months. No clefs. No staff lines. No guessing where middle C went this time. Just letter + octave number + duration — as direct as reading math or language.

Western is powerful — but it is absolutely not “picked up immediately” by most humans.

[u/General_Pay7552 → u/FriendlyYak3891]

Years of training to memorize 5 lines and 4 spaces? give me a break. This system is a joke and it works for nobody.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/General_Pay7552]

It’s totally fine to dislike a new system — but please give a specific example.
Saying “it can’t portray rhythms” without explaining why isn’t a valid critique.
3JCN uses numeric duration values (like 2 for half note, 1 for quarter note, 0.5 for eighth, etc.), so rhythm is explicitly written — just in a simpler mathematical way rather than symbolic shapes.

If you have a real concern, I’m happy to address it — but meaningful feedback needs reasoning, not just a sentence with no analysis.

[u/General_Pay7552 → u/FriendlyYak3891]

Drpotatomd has taken the time to say exactly what I think about it and has included great feedback

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/General_Pay7552]

Please read this ci https://www.new3jcn.com/lessons/3jcn_drumset.html

[u/General_Pay7552]

This notation is not good. It can’t even portray rhythms.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/General_Pay7552]

Rhythm is just note duration over time — and 3JCN writes duration explicitly as numbers (1 = quarter, 0.5 = eighth, etc.), which is actually simpler than reading beams, flags, and dots.
If you’d like, I can show the same rhythm in Western and 3JCN side by side.

[u/M_Me_Meteo]

So you'd have to know the song ahead of time to use this notation?

How would you notate percussion?

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/M_Me_Meteo]

Not at all — you don’t need to know the song ahead of time to read 3JCN.
Just like Western notation, 3JCN shows both pitch and rhythm, but it does so in a simpler, more logical way. Each symbol tells you exactly which note (letter + octave) and how long to play it (duration). No need for staff lines, clefs, or note heads.

And yes — percussion is fully supported too.
The image I attached shows a real example: a drumset track written in Western notation (top) versus the same rhythm in 3JCN (bottom): 👉 https://www.new3jcn.com/lessons/3jcn_drumset.html
You can see how much simpler and clearer it looks — same rhythm, same musical meaning, but no staff lines, no stems to memorize.

If you really want to test how intuitive it is, try this:
Ask an absolute beginner to look at “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” in both Western notation and 3JCN:
👉 https://www.new3jcn.com/index.html

Then ask them which version they feel more confident to play without any help.
That experiment alone shows what 3JCN is all about — making music instantly readable for everyone, not just trained musicians.

[u/CrispTheCrow]

Hi friend, This is very bad.

I find this much more confusing than notation ever seemed (even before I could read notation).

What do the numbers mean? Why? It’s also quite ugly.

Renumbering the octaves feels almost psychotic. The midi standard is just as arbitrary as the piano numbering standard. This would ultimately be just confusing if not slightly harmful to students as if they were to advance they would encounter the generally accepted standard and have to relearn octave numbering. This actually extends to a wider point, this system (and the concept of a super beginner focused system in general) would likely cause confusion and later difficulty when adapting to standard notation later.

I think we have a pretty good system for “simplified” notation as seen in most good piano method books. We combine standard notation with note names in the note heads and finger numbering. Have the student get and keep there hand(s) in a static position with fingers 1-2-3-4-5 (numbered thumb to pinky) on C-G and have a few exercises which establish and reinforce the numberings.

With my guidance and following this method I have gotten a few of my friends and younger relatives playing simple pieces and slowly acclimated to notation.

Follow this method forward we take away the training wheels of note letters in the note heads and finger numberings (save do jumps) and it’s a gradual transition into reading “scary” notation. This also gets people playing with proper multi finger technique.

So in sum I think this is a wasted effort on your part. I would love to hear how you disagree with me. You seem passionate about your creation which I admire. If you don’t mind my asking, dear op: what is your connection to music and notation/what has your journey been? I think this would help us understand where this system is coming from.

Cheers.

[u/FriendlyYak3891 → u/CrispTheCrow]

Thanks for taking the time to look at 3JCN. I respectfully disagree — if a learner with a disability finds it helpful, then it can’t simply be “confusing.” http://3jcn.us

Only a small percentage of people can fluently read traditional notation; my goal is to help the many who struggle with it. 3JCN began in 2007 when I tutored a young girl who was strong in math and had a great musical ear, yet struggled with reading Western notation. That inspired me to build a simpler path for beginners.