[pistoleer]

E-G is a 3 semitone interval and G-C is 5 semitones so it's an E+3+5 chord. If you wanna play it on piano, that means leave a gap of 2 keys and then a gap of 4 keys.

Known in western classical harmonization theory as "Em+" (E chord with minor third, augmented 5th). C first inv is actually Gsus4add6no5 or as I like to call it G+5+4. It has an incredibly warm and rich tone, nothing like C+4+3 (C major triad).

It works in C because all of its notes are also present in the C major scale, but that's just a coincidence. Calling it a C inverted chord is like making astrological or numerological conclusions.

And no, shifting up or down by octaves is not the same sound. It's close but not equal. You can probably get away with octave substitutions in a busy song but you can not say it sounds exactly the same. A 9th is not a 2nd. 11 not 4, 13 not 6. When you play La Campanella, is that your excuse for skipping those octave jumps? :)

As I said, unpopular opinion :)

[tunesmith]

It would make jazz lead sheets impossible to read and play. The whole point of a jazz lead sheet is that a chord symbol can be played in a huge variety of different ways depending on how the jam is going. If you followed the chord symbols literally and only played them all in root closed position then depending on the stage you might get a cymbal thrown at you.

[pistoleer]

I don't understand how this is a relevant criticism of my system.

If you are already ignoring the actual chord "voicing" as written in the "classical" system, then just keep doing that in my system??

If you are already able to intuit that a note should go elsewhere, then keep doing that for your jazz sets? What's the issue again?

"Gsus4x5" is just as unreadable and ignorable and malleable as "G+5+4".