Ultimately a lot of things around music are cultural and/or arbitrary. It's like languages in that sense. Personally I don't find this sort of analytical study to be that helpful for actually playing or improvising music, but it is neat information. You don't have to clinically study grammar and language theory in order to be a great writer; it's the same with music.
Something that's very important to note is that music theory and playing music are very different. Music theory allows us to understand what someone played, and lets us communicate to other musicians in a compact manner. Theory by no means imposes rules, unless you are specifically wanting to write music exactly like Bach or something.
As a logical-minded person myself, it's tempting to really dive into theory and the root of things, but I've found that it's a trap most of the time. For getting better at songwriting or composing, I've found the best thing to do is transcribe the songs you like (or portions of them) and see what they do, then incorporate those ideas into your own playing.
I also get the frustration around enharmonics (e.g. C# vs Db), but honestly it's not an issue in practice. I had no opinion until I started typesetting songs myself, and it just looks cleaner to sometimes have Cb or B# depending on the context. The circle of 5ths also neatly puts scales in the order of how many sharps or flats they have. Also, C# is not a commonly used key anyways.
From a theoretical perspective C major and A minor share the same notes, but when I improvise I do find the distinction meaningful. Having multiple ways to think about things is helpful. There are other things too: C minor 7 is the same as Eb major 6. Or if you play a rootless voicing, the harmony could be ambiguous. Etc.
Yes, our music notation system has some issues. But this article is overanalyzing it from an armchair. It's mostly fine in practice.
Something that's very important to note is that music theory and playing music are very different. Music theory allows us to understand what someone played, and lets us communicate to other musicians in a compact manner. Theory by no means imposes rules, unless you are specifically wanting to write music exactly like Bach or something.
As a logical-minded person myself, it's tempting to really dive into theory and the root of things, but I've found that it's a trap most of the time. For getting better at songwriting or composing, I've found the best thing to do is transcribe the songs you like (or portions of them) and see what they do, then incorporate those ideas into your own playing.
I also get the frustration around enharmonics (e.g. C# vs Db), but honestly it's not an issue in practice. I had no opinion until I started typesetting songs myself, and it just looks cleaner to sometimes have Cb or B# depending on the context. The circle of 5ths also neatly puts scales in the order of how many sharps or flats they have. Also, C# is not a commonly used key anyways.
From a theoretical perspective C major and A minor share the same notes, but when I improvise I do find the distinction meaningful. Having multiple ways to think about things is helpful. There are other things too: C minor 7 is the same as Eb major 6. Or if you play a rootless voicing, the harmony could be ambiguous. Etc.
Yes, our music notation system has some issues. But this article is overanalyzing it from an armchair. It's mostly fine in practice.