[danachow]

> A rationalized system could mean 100% of kids learn to read and write music, and anyone could understand how to play an instrument like a piano from music (even if not able to do it at full speed).

I played in school bands and marching band - very very few of my classmates took up music seriously beyond high school, but music reading just was a complete non-issue for everyone involved. I don’t see how the current system is limiting anyone.

> My point was that it could be 10x better, and it wouldn't lead to a switch. The decision-makers aren't the same as the people whom it would benefit.

Who are these “decision makers” you keep speaking of. There is no global cabal of music notation protectionists. I don’t think the forces that lead to internal corporate IT decision making really have anything to do with a music notation system.

There are already simplified notation systems like tabs and piano rolls and annotated staves. Your argument seems to assume there is a notation system that really is 2 to 10 times better (which obviously is mostly subjective) - but you haven’t even given an existence proof of this, so it is all hypothetical.

> Coincidentally, there are a lot of scientific fields where jargon could be dramatically simplified, to where anyone could learn them too. Same entrenched walled garden problem.

Example?