Do you have much experience reading musical notation?

I've found that engineer types tend to immediately bristle at the weird parts of how notes are named because the system seems really kludgy until you realize that there's actually a utility in the weirdness - namely, that scale patterns look roughly similar in any given key and so sight reading is counterintuitively easier with the current system than it would be in a system which assigned a different position on the staff (or a different name) to each note.

Furthermore - we have seven note names because there are seven notes in the major scale, so changing this count would definitely not make sense.

To be clear there are definitely warts in the current system, lots of confusing stuff around enharmonics. But there's definitely babies in the bathwater and any alternate system would not want to toss them out.

Yeah, I work in programming languages and always liked the idea of notation do-overs. But after getting more into music these days, I've returned to learning and appreciating musical notation. For better or for worse, it is the standard way of writing music. If you want to get serious at music, you need to know it.

There's a lot to hate about musical score, but the A-G notes and sharps and flats aren't all that bad once you realize that everything is based on the 7 note diatonic scale. In C major, it's just the names of the letters with no sharps or flats. On the piano, C major is just the white keys, which will get you pretty far--tons of songs are in C major. You have to remember B-C and E-F are the short intervals, and memorize the 2-2-1-2-2-2-1 semitone pattern, but after that, a lot follows. Then minor is just starting a different note in this pattern, as are all the other modes. There are other scales too, but this one main pattern is going to cover 98% of all music you run across.

There's a huge amount of stuff that gets unlocked when you just give up fighting the standard and instead learn to go with it. Music is a language, and the way we write it down is maybe a little suboptimal, but then again, the "optimal" way to write it down has a maximum on how much better it could possibly be.

I do have a beef with the notation for rhythm, because as it is, the standard musical notation is just a shorthand form for fitting more music horizontally. For computer-based music, I find it a lot easier to follow a display where horizontal length is proportional to time. We've got infinite screen space, so no need to compress anymore.

There's also a huge amount of math behind music that is fascinating.

The first-approximation engineer realization about music (which I suspect the GP is going off of) is "okay, there are 12 notes in the chromatic scale, each octave doubles frequency, therefore the frequency ratio between two adjacent notes is the 12th root of 2 and we should just have 12 names for the notes". This is what's called an "equal-tempered scale"; the gap between each note is the same ratio, and you have a simple geometric progression upwards.

Except we don't actually have an equal-tempered scale. If you try to play on an equal-tempered scale, it'll sound subtly "off", and certain chords will result in "beats" (pulsing) where the frequency ratios are off just enough to cause an unpleasant modulation in loudness.

The modern diatonic scale is based on the circle-of-5ths [1], where the fundamental ratio is the 5th at 3/2 the frequency. It works like this because now chords are an even multiple of frequencies, while you would get an irrational number with the equal-tempered scale. Going up from the root (C), the next 5th up is G at a ratio of 3/2. Then you go up to D (9/4); when you reduce this to lowest terms because you've ascended a full octave, it gives a ratio of 9/8, which is one whole tone above. Next 5th up is A (27/16), which is the ratio in frequencies of a 6th. And then you get E (81 / 32 = 81/64), a major 3rd. And so on. The frequency ratios of the diatonic scale come from repeatedly reducing powers of 3/2 to lowest terms after dividing out the octave.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths