Pianotech

Elisha, 

It's really just because we piano techs are weird. 😉 I assume mostly for consistent "terminology". However, there is supposedly some "musical" reason for it. I go both ways depending on who I'm talking to. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Elisha, 

It's really just because we piano techs are weird. 😉 I assume mostly for consistent "terminology". However, there is supposedly some "musical" reason for it. I go both ways depending on who I'm talking to. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

While I welcome more myth and conspiracy theories, someone needs to convince me better.

We call augmented thirds, fourths...

we are indeed weird! 😂

I guess calling all black keys sharps makes sense for mental consistency. Since a note like Bb3/A#3 shifts role depending on whether you're working through the Circle of Fifths or checking chromatic M3s, unifying the terminology avoids constant switching. I was just focusing on the Circle of Fifths today, but it makes sense to unify it since we do all kinds of checks from every direction. 

There are a number of technicians that prefer the correct musical terminology in relation to other notes, including myself. Since aural checks are not musical, but functional, I understand the argument for using "sharps" terminology. However, since technicians use musical terminology (major thirds, perfect fifths, minor sixths, etc.), and have to communicate with musicians, I think there's a better case for using proper musical terminology. 

I prefer to call them black and white keys instead of sharps and naturals and make sure that the note spelling matches the musical interval I'm naming. I've found that most technicians don't object. Most technicians I've met have at least basic musical training and it's just not much of an issue.

I guess calling all black keys sharps makes sense for mental consistency. Since a note like Bb3/A#3 shifts role depending on whether you're working through the Circle of Fifths or checking chromatic M3s, unifying the terminology avoids constant switching. I was just focusing on the Circle of Fifths today, but it makes sense to unify it since we do all kinds of checks from every direction. 

There are a number of technicians that prefer the correct musical terminology in relation to other notes, including myself. Since aural checks are not musical, but functional, I understand the argument for using "sharps" terminology. However, since technicians use musical terminology (major thirds, perfect fifths, minor sixths, etc.), and have to communicate with musicians, I think there's a better case for using proper musical terminology. 

I prefer to call them black and white keys instead of sharps and naturals and make sure that the note spelling matches the musical interval I'm naming. I've found that most technicians don't object. Most technicians I've met have at least basic musical training and it's just not much of an issue.

I guess calling all black keys sharps makes sense for mental consistency. Since a note like Bb3/A#3 shifts role depending on whether you're working through the Circle of Fifths or checking chromatic M3s, unifying the terminology avoids constant switching. I was just focusing on the Circle of Fifths today, but it makes sense to unify it since we do all kinds of checks from every direction. 

I guess calling all black keys sharps makes sense for mental consistency. Since a note like Bb3/A#3 shifts role depending on whether you're working through the Circle of Fifths or checking chromatic M3s, unifying the terminology avoids constant switching. I was just focusing on the Circle of Fifths today, but it makes sense to unify it since we do all kinds of checks from every direction. 

I think that you're confusing technical terms with musical terms. A ♭ (flat) sign in music tells the musician to play the key 1/2 step below the written note. The # sign tells them to play the key 1/2 step above the written note. Doesn't matter if either one is black or white. In technical terms, we don't associate any given note with how it's being used in a piece of music. We're also only talking about black keys, never white keys. When we refer to C#4 it is always referring to, specifically, the black key above C4. We would never refer to, say, B#4 because B#4 is not a black key. In technical terms, then, it would always be just plain C4. In other words, it is strictly a numbering system, always counting up, adapted so techs all speak the same language and it has nothing to do with the actual playing of music. 

I could not find a way to type a ♭ (flat) sign, nor could I find a way to enter it as a hex symbol, and it does not show up in the drop down special character window, so I just copied and pasted a graphic from somewhere. Could be useful to have here, if anyone actually knows how to pull it off.

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

------------------------------
Elisha Katamura RPT
Katamura Piano Service
Fresno, CA
(559)765-7373
https://www.katamurapianoservice.com/
------------------------------

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

Rabbit hole for sure!

And I admit that his presentation was more than 25-30 years ago, and as we all know, memories can get a bit fuzzy. I seem to the H thing also from somewhere, whether OJ or not I cannot recall. 

Maybe they "called it" soft B, but notated it as "small b"...???  That might make some sense. 

There were no rules back then other than "if you mess with the tuning on the church organ, you are in BIG TROUBLE..."  OJ said it was a capital offense back in those days to change the "vulgar" or "common" tuning (essentially Pythagorean) on the organ. If you did, you would not be coming back to try again.  This is probably earlier than 400 years ago, but hey, the church wielded significant power back in those days like we can't even imagine. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Thanks all for the great thoughts! It's really helpful to understand the background. 

Haha! Indeed! 

Rabbit hole for sure!

And I admit that his presentation was more than 25-30 years ago, and as we all know, memories can get a bit fuzzy. I seem to the H thing also from somewhere, whether OJ or not I cannot recall. 

Maybe they "called it" soft B, but notated it as "small b"...???  That might make some sense. 

There were no rules back then other than "if you mess with the tuning on the church organ, you are in BIG TROUBLE..."  OJ said it was a capital offense back in those days to change the "vulgar" or "common" tuning (essentially Pythagorean) on the organ. If you did, you would not be coming back to try again.  This is probably earlier than 400 years ago, but hey, the church wielded significant power back in those days like we can't even imagine. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

Haha! Indeed! 

Rabbit hole for sure!

And I admit that his presentation was more than 25-30 years ago, and as we all know, memories can get a bit fuzzy. I seem to the H thing also from somewhere, whether OJ or not I cannot recall. 

Maybe they "called it" soft B, but notated it as "small b"...???  That might make some sense. 

There were no rules back then other than "if you mess with the tuning on the church organ, you are in BIG TROUBLE..."  OJ said it was a capital offense back in those days to change the "vulgar" or "common" tuning (essentially Pythagorean) on the organ. If you did, you would not be coming back to try again.  This is probably earlier than 400 years ago, but hey, the church wielded significant power back in those days like we can't even imagine. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

In the same presentation Jorgensen described various keyboards developed back then that had many more tones available, but were hard to play...thus fell into extinction. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Haha! Indeed! 

Rabbit hole for sure!

And I admit that his presentation was more than 25-30 years ago, and as we all know, memories can get a bit fuzzy. I seem to the H thing also from somewhere, whether OJ or not I cannot recall. 

Maybe they "called it" soft B, but notated it as "small b"...???  That might make some sense. 

There were no rules back then other than "if you mess with the tuning on the church organ, you are in BIG TROUBLE..."  OJ said it was a capital offense back in those days to change the "vulgar" or "common" tuning (essentially Pythagorean) on the organ. If you did, you would not be coming back to try again.  This is probably earlier than 400 years ago, but hey, the church wielded significant power back in those days like we can't even imagine. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉

In the same presentation Jorgensen described various keyboards developed back then that had many more tones available, but were hard to play...thus fell into extinction. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Haha! Indeed! 

Rabbit hole for sure!

And I admit that his presentation was more than 25-30 years ago, and as we all know, memories can get a bit fuzzy. I seem to the H thing also from somewhere, whether OJ or not I cannot recall. 

Maybe they "called it" soft B, but notated it as "small b"...???  That might make some sense. 

There were no rules back then other than "if you mess with the tuning on the church organ, you are in BIG TROUBLE..."  OJ said it was a capital offense back in those days to change the "vulgar" or "common" tuning (essentially Pythagorean) on the organ. If you did, you would not be coming back to try again.  This is probably earlier than 400 years ago, but hey, the church wielded significant power back in those days like we can't even imagine. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Peter! 

Thank you for this! I should ammend my comment to be 4 centuries instead of 6 considering key signatures came later, and their understanding of "key" was very different from ours. You are correct about the B, although I read it was called "soft B". I wouldn't be surprised if some called it "small B". I'll have to look that up. B natural was originally called "H" which is where we got the sharp sign. F# came next, and it was called "F diese", although all this is technically a bit wrong because some called the F "Fa", and some called the B "Si" or "Fa" depending on the function. Guido called them by letter names, but others used syllables, and the syllabus could change depending on function (look up hexichords, whose nomenclature was used until 1850s-ish for teaching). (Side quest: the natural sign came even later as flats were used to lower a note that would be sharp from a key signature.) There was no standard pitch, so any "key" wasn't saying the starting note as much as it was saying where the half steps were. 

Rabbit hole! Woohoo! 

I recall years ago Owen Jorgensen talking about the evolution of the keyboard as we know it now, and that the first "accidental" to be added to the diatonic scale was to the left of "B", that we now call B flat. However, at that time the term "flat" was not used, but rather it was called "small B", (a.k.a., lower case "b"), which eventually came to become the universal designation for what we call "flats", as more accidentals were gradually added to the keyboard. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Apologies for the typo. SIX centuries, not 600. 🙄🤦‍♀️🤪 

My understanding is that the reason for the sharps only method was to make teaching easier to those who didn't have an extensive foundation in music theory. I looked it up once and couldn't find a source before the William Braid White book (1917ish). For those who don't have an extensive foundation in music theory, understanding why A3 to C#4 is a major third, but the next contiguous major third is Db4 to F4 can be confusing. This method doesn't work well outside of equal temperament, IMO, but it does work for equal temperament as long as you don't need to think too much musically, which we mostly don't have to. I would like to note that this is possibly, partly an English speaking thing. While some other countries have copied this method, others have not and have always used traditional music theory terminology. I say this because I have communicated with people overseas who hadn't heard of the sharps only method in their country. I don't know how far the reach has been, but I know some Spanish speakers who learned with sharps only. There is also a large minority of English speaking teachers who have always used standard music terminology. The Chicago School of Piano Technology did, Rick Butler still does, and.there are others. NBSS & some others use sharps only. If I am teaching someone from scratch, I will use standard music terminology. If I am teaching someone who learned the sharps only method, I will use sharps only, but I will either name specific intervals or use the names of intervals generically unless both the name of the interval and its notes match. For example, I might say "C#4 to F4" without saying the words "major third", and vice versa. If my teachers and mentors heard me call C#4 to F4 a major third, they would have a kanipshin. It is hard for me to even type those two things that close together. Haha! Since the sharps only method has only been around for a century while sharps and flats related to tuning have been around for over 600 centuries, I feel it's ok that some of us prefer to keep things traditional. To each his own. 😉