Pianissimo [...]but there is a new problem now: the F# is almost sitting on the middle of the entire F head, and the Bb is sitting almost entirely on the middle of B head. This is not good when you play chromatic passages, because the shift of your thumb underneath your middle finger, will encounter different distances in those two areas.

This is true also on the standard keyboard layout though? In our "mental map" of the keyboard the F# is in the middle between the F and the G, and it is often drawn this way in diagrams (e.g. see the book page photo above). But on the actual physical keyboard it's mostly over the F.

And this is (arguably) a good thing! Sure, it makes chromatic runs and clusters slightly trickier, but it makes the normal western scales easier. Because F# is the "first sharp". If you are in a key with any sharps at all then you are using the F# key instead of the F key. Having F# almost over the F makes the E-F#-G spacing similar to the E-F-G spacing. Meanwhile the same key's role as Gb is relatively rare: It's the last of the black-key flats and you have to be all the way out in Db major before it replaces the G in the scale.

With Bb its the symmetrically opposite situation: It's mostly used as Bb, rarely as A#, and you find it out over the B key.

The second sharp and second flat are also shifted over the keys they most often replace, but not by quite so much.

Only the G#/Ab key, simultaneously the third sharp and the third flat, sits exactly between the keys it replaces.

If nothing else, all of this means you don't have to mentally go through "F-C-G-D-A" or "B-E-A-D-G" when sat at the keyboard: You can see the orders of flats and sharps written in the displacement of the keys.

I promised to not open any other threads so here we are (I am… it will be a monologue for sure) discussing the problems of Music notation:

. . . : : :  M U S I C  N O T A T I O N  : : : . . .

To understand the current Musical notation (please note, that understanding it is completely different from learning it!) one should first know how it came to be, its origin and what it represents. What makes (or had to be made) the need for distinguishing certain 7 notes from 5 at least in 12 TET (12 tone equal temperament).

Is it a special case? Yes, it is.

Can it (flat\sharps) seen clearly seen anywhere? Yes, it can – on a Halberstadt ("standard" piano keyboard).
• the 'black' keys are representing such "accidentals"
• so, there must be a correlation… and there is!
• so why call them "accidentals"… well, those keys were not present there and when they were introduced they were used quite "accidentally" as a 'chromatic' colorising mode (see, ancient hellenic genera from Pythagoras\Aristoxenus and Alypius times)
• but not every musician is a pianist, therefore it is yet another special case
• at the very beginning of creating the "standard" music notation (year 1017) B (♮) and B♭ (♭) were both considered accidentals for the Roman church (catholic) chants. That was not the case in other parts of Europe and certainly not in folk music!

Does it lead to ambiguity? Yes, it does.
• a 'black' key can have two accidental sufixes or prefixes (♭ or ♯) depending on the chosen modal structure (already included notes as written symbols); same is valid for yet another special cases of double alterations to escape structiral ambiguity… and that is the irony of it!
• this all originates from the special case of naming only 7 of the notes (originaly only 6 as explained about ♮ and ♭) as the eraly church chants were strictly modal or diatonic (to use the hellenic terminology)

Similarly, at the very origins staff had 4 lines, later a 5th was added. Then the introduction of clefs made each staff lines and spaces between lines represent different notes (mismatch).

Some modern (pianolla roll and MIDI) type of 'chromatic' staves eliminated such problem (mismatch). The problem is they would take enormous space.

The typical stave with 5 lines sacrifices 42% of that space (as 5 out of 12 notes are not represented vertically!) but if we take into consideration the 'double accidentals' and 'octave' designations this % goes to 50% and a bit more.
So, no… The "standard" music notation does not give us a correct interval structure vertically but a special case one.

Introducing key signatures makes it even worse as they have to be imprinted and shown but usually learned. Then there are rules for an alterated note within a bar which would be valid for any note on same line but not 'octaves' of same note till the end of the bar. Then it has to be written again (otherwise it stops affecting the notes).

Such problems are inherited by the special cases mentioned above.

But all those chromatic notations, besides taking up much more vertical space (MIDI roll is not good for human reading from paper anyway!) and paper or screen estate (turning of pages), they also are either bound to the piano layout (Klavarskribo and Clairnote, Muto and others) or using quite a lot of ledger lines – which does not make them any more good than the typical music staff.

All those require pre‑rendered or pre-engraved staff lines – special paper (score paper). Bach used to draw his staff lines with a 5 pointed rastrum (special pen-like instrument) before the printing machine and engraving tablets for Music application got implemented across its country of origin Germany and subsequently in Europe.

The key separation and accidentals are sort of a 'geocentric' model view on Music.
MIDI‑roll is a modern tool and its Music notation based derivatives (Dodeka and ) but it only suits computers, not humans. Print out a MIDI‑roll and you'll understand what I mean.

Both Music notes as letters and names also originated from special cases – the Latin alphabet (A, B, C…) despitе the fact its original creators (church clerks and monks) actually used a few hellenic (greek) letters especially the first note Г and for the notenames (Ut\Do, Re, Mi, Fa…) they used the lyrics of a well known psalm at that time which had its first 6 notes matching those exact sylables from the lyrics.

This has been 1000 years of… indoctrination. Learning without understanding.

Yes, it's all about finding the right balance, it depends on the priority. The perfect symmetry in the tails is not our priority, and it's achievable only if you make a very small octave span. In Pashkuli case, he managed to make symmetrical tails, but he didn't tell us that the span of his octave is only 130mm, instead of 165.5mm. That's a toy, not a grand piano. If you make such a small octave, you end up with a total span of only 1003mm. From the bass side of A1 to the treble side of C88, including all the spaces between keys, a modern piano span can go from 1216mm to 1240mm. Every brand has a different span, and even within the same brand the total length can vary. But if you ask a good pianist to play with something as small as 1003mm he would laugh at you, it would be considered just a toy.

Pianissimo The perfect symmetry in the tails is not our priority, and it's achievable only if you make a very small octave span.

In fact, the symmetry does not depend on the span at all. It is present in most (but not all!) well build pianos whos builders know how to do it.

The problem is by default on top of those two symmetries the typical pianos divide the keys in two groups as well. That is where the different widths of the tails come from – not from the symmetry, which many builders have not spotted anyway (let alone piano players).

Regarding the span. You will have to agree that a shorter span will allow you to play wider chords and make usual chords (and especially their inversions) much easier (less strtessful on the fingers) to play.

Now, here is the main consideration. Originally pianos (first ones, called suare or based on clavichords\cymbalum) had narrower keys. They had less strings per note as well (up to two).
With the concert orchestras and pianos having to play along, there was a need for more strings per note besides extending the range to 88 keys for the piano.
Certainly they could have had two pianos and pianists on stage (similarly to 1st and 2nd violin, and so on other instruments) but that would have lead to less definition of notes between two pianos and more rehearsals with two pianists for better synchronicity.
Thus the piano got wider to accommodate for mor strings per note.

Here is onther fact of physics:
with more strings per note and if we'd like to keep the keys\span as narrow as possible the construction of balance pins and lenghth of keys to accomodate for the more and more complex and heavy action (Erard's double escapement) and mass involved… narrower keys would be prone to torque\twist oleng their length, especially after the weakened spot past the balance pin, besides the risk of snapping there. Yes, the balance pins could be thiner but with teher is another problem…

The piano keys are not straight after the 'ivory' covers and the back of the black keys end!
This is as such because with a heavier construction (both action and string count wise) there was a need for sturdier support frame, which has legs that inevitably would step between the keys (usually past the balance pins). Therefore the force from the fingers and the belenca pins are not on the same line as the castan pin (screw) which pushes up the whippen and jack and hammer (where weight is concentrated). This leads to torque in the key's lenght.

This is why current pianos get fitted with narrower keybeds (see DS6.0 and DS5.5 by Steinbuhler\Donison) which have even more off‑centre ballance as they are fitted to a wider and heavier action and strings. Especially on the lower notes Steinbuhler had a lot of trouble with that torque or any keys in the midrange hit with a forte which leads to loss of dynamic feel for the player besides touch friction to the adjacent keys.

Mozart played on a "toy" piano if we can use your terminology. Beethoven also. Just around the 1820s piano got bigger and especially bigger after Liszt got famous. And he had big hands compared to Chopin and others. Rachmaninov also was a big guy (200 cm tall).

So, there is your answer. With current digital hybrid pianos there are no such issues. I undestand… you need an acoustic. But I doubt you need it to play with an orchestra. Yous a lighter acoustic piano won't sound as full as the 'three notes per string' pianos. But why should they?

Even the early harpsichords and pianos had an octave span bigger than your 130mm. Modern piano range is now more or less standardized close to 165mm. Here is some data from various sources,regarding the history of one octave span:

Cristofori (1726) = 164mm

Pohlman (square, 1770) = 178mm

Stein (1780s) = 156, 158, 160mm

Schiedmeyer (1780) = 156mm

Schiedmeyer (1785) = 180mm

Longman & Broderip (square, 1790) = 169mm

Schantz (1790, 1805) = 160mm

Schmid (1794) = 158mm

Clementi (1805) = 163mm

Erard (Beethoven's piano, 1803) = 162mm

Walter (1795) =159mm

Walter (1803) =153mm

Walter (1815) =160mm

Streicher (1814) = 158mm

Kirckman (1820) = 162mm

Broadwood (Beethoven's piano, 1817) = 166mm

Broadwood (1819) = 164mm

Boehm (6 oct) = 158mm

Fritz (in workshop of Paul Poletti, c1825) = 167mm

Graf (1826, similar to Beethoven's Graf) = 161mm

J.B. Streicher (1841) = 158mm

Pleyel (1852, cf Chopin's Pleyel of 1839) = 164mm

Steinway (Hamburg, 1937, modern range) = 165mm

Bluethner (modern range) = 165mm”

As you can see, the span didn't change, what changed was mainly the passage from smaller hammers to bigger hammers, and the passage from a wooden plate to a cast iron plate. These two things had a big impact on the sound, and that's for the good, because honestly (with all the due respect towards the early pianos) a modern grand piano sounds better than a Piano used by Cristofori Mozart or Beethoven. Having a narrow keyboard is not an advantage, simply because you increase the chance of pressing unwanted keys, especially when you play near the fallboard. Technique also evolved alot thanks to Beethoven and Chopin. The grand pianos we have today are just a dream come true, I wouldn't change a single thing. But the experiments never stop, for example in the case of upright pianos, having 2 or three strings per key it might be overkill, which is why one string per key (like the Una Corda from Klavins) is becoming more popular, it offers a less powerful and more gentle sound, but it works so well considering the limitations of an upright (shorter bass strings, smaller soundboard).

Pianissimo

Having less strings is going to sound quiter as uprights are not exactly suited for orchestra.
The renova ("octave") span is and has been fluctuating. There are bespoke pianos of famous pianists who used special shorter spans to their advantage but more likely to suit their hands.

Not going to mention the alleged tales for pianists who tried to overstrecth their fingers.

Acoustic piano is terribly designed instrument. From its keys, through its action and lack of expressiveness: vibrato, pitch bend and volume of a faster notes (you can not play fast and quiet unless maybe change to 'una corda' or 'other pedal' who lifts the hammers).
On top of that if we account for dexterity (left and right handedness) it completely dismisses that natural property of humans. It forces one way of dexterity as the layout is one directional contrary to the symmetry of the finger from hand to the other.

No one can give any explaination why the notes go ascending only from left to right.
Yes, you can reverse them but does it mean one is "right‑handed" and the onther "left‑handed"? If yes, then on what merit? Same question is valid for the accordions by the way (not so much about vibra and xylo as they are played with sticks\mallets up to two on each hand but we can discuss handedness there to some extent as well).

I have given the answers and offered the solutions.
Manufacturers and actual players do not dare to even think on the possibility because both parties have invested so much time, money and attention to the current status quo, they can not see anything else. Even in digital domain it is all about sound presets and LED lights.

On a more specific and contemporary state of the art, in my opinion, if I had the resources to build pianos, I would not go for a full acoustic build with multiple strings per note and so on. I would go electro‑acoustic with single pickup per single string per key, but most likely hybrid – no actual strings but again some velocity and after‑touch sensors (for vibrato + pitch bend and volume on a single note). This is a different topic. Completely acoustic pianos are a bit limiting in sound.

Oh, but it won't be a pianoforte. I beg to differ. By definition it will be as it will be play quiet (piano) and loud (forte).
Just like an acoustic guitar to its electric counterpart from 70~80 years ago could be compared.

Pianissimo In Pashkuli case, he managed to make symmetrical tails, but he didn't tell us that the span of his octave is only 130mm, instead of 165.5mm.

As I wrote earlier in this thread (I won't repeat myself), I think this layout is bad unless proven otherwise (which it hasn't happened). Of all the problem this layout has in my views, I would not mention the octave span against it. Yes, even myself agree that 130mm is too small but….

Pianissimo Modern piano range is now more or less standardized close to 165mm.

That's a bad thing as we have discussed in other threads. There should be no "standard" like there is no standard for violin, and people should be able to purchase what fits them best. For me, that's a 140mm. I'll stop here because this is already a "monster thread", but invite you to that other small octave thread if you'd like to discuss further.

Pianissimo Having a narrow keyboard is not an advantage, simply because you increase the chance of pressing unwanted keys,

If you have large hands yes. If you have small ones, quite the contrary.

Pianissimo especially when you play near the fallboard.

In this layout, yes (one of its bad defects, IMHO). In traditional layout, not at all, because the black keys naturally allow you to align your hands correctly with the intended key.

RIP In traditional layout, not at all, because the black keys naturally allow you to align your hands correctly with the intended key.

Incorrect.

Who said 130mm span is what I advise. I do not. It is such on the uniform layout but there intervals fall differently under the fingers. It is shown (even withot any stretch you can play a so called mni7 chord in root inversion), no need to repeat it here.
With my curved design, I prefer the 'tails' and 'blacks' to be about 10.5 to 11.5mm wide. This gives a span of about 138mm to 144mm overall for small to medium size hands.

The design is completely following Chopin's instruction for better ergonomics on certain scales\phrases\chords with regards to raised 'black' keys for the longer fingers (index\miggle\ring) where thumb and pinky are on a lower level (usually 'white' keys). You have to discuss this with Chopin. Then, the same instructions are applied when the whole configuration and hand moves\transposes the thumb to a 'black' key… because that is the other case (other type of key), so the config. should be preserved. It is a simple and elegant solution.

Now, whether pianist who had played the old design would like it is a completely different thing. At first, they won't. Then they will oppose it, even ridicule it. Then – will finally accept it and swear by it.

If you can't play an instrument, practice more.

Now, let's get back to left-handed or right-handed fortepianos.
In the next fosts I will try and prove that current layout of notes on pianos are more suitable for left-handed players. Also will have to strictly point out that despite this suitability the notes for the left hand go in the wrong direction. This means that the notes for the left hand should also ascend in pitch from thumb to pinky! Then the piano will be 100% suited for a left-handed players. For right-handed players the configuration should be mirorred: left hand playes higher notes, right hand playes lower notes. Th enotes ascend in pitch from thumb to pinkie for either hand again.

My article titled "Are we all playing left-handed pianos" has been published in the British piano magazine 'Piano Journal' (#135 April 2025). It is the UK's oldest piano magazine and the international flagship publication for European Piano Teachers.

Here is a preview:

3 more articles to follow (summer, autumn and winter 2025)

It will be available to read online (for members) at some point or order in print on their website. https://epta-uk.org/?s=Piano+Journal

I am waiting for it in the mail maybe end of this week (19-20th April 2025).

Happy reading!

Fancy melodica with mirrored keyboards:

xooorx

Do you have access to my email correspondence???
I was in the forum of Melodica a few days ago and sending this video to the editor of the magazine and Christophfer Seed. WTF?
But regardless… if you are interested you might find this really eye-opening:

It was not only I who had seen this as a possibility. This is from 1878. I simply translated it and edit out the non-essential parts.

My second article regarding the discrepancies in piano's keys (widths and proportions) is in edit and pre-print for the next edition of 'Piano Journal' UK. The article is titled "Equalizing the widths of the pianoforte's keys".
After fore than 15 years of waiting (well, blatantly knocking on door to door) it happened. In 2025.

I also submitted a request to participate in the conference of 'Modern piano in the 21st century' organized by The Royal College of Music (UK, London) around mid December this same year but no response yet (the deadline is 18 of July, so they might not have a time slot for me). Three days to go. 30 min per presentation is not much though but even that is enormous for my endeavor.

I am thrilled to inform you that my second article has been published by 'Piano Journal UK' in the #136 edition of the magazine coming out in 14th August 2025.
This all has been made possible by Anthony Williams who was kind enough to publish my ideas for the pianoforte so we can "ruffle some feathers" in the community.

My new article has been published by 'Piano Journal' UK (August 2025) so here is the pdf format for reading:

The previous article can be found here:

For people who do not use Google accounts or simply browse from iPhones and other devices here is a QR code to the dropbox folder I share with many of the work I have done with regards to the piano, clavir, clavecin instrument. There is more to come…

Just scan it with your phone\tablet camera and choose to open it with your default Internet Browser.

or click the direct link below:
Piano Articles, Images and Books (works in progress)

Warning: this will be a long post! Buckle up because it is about knowing and knowledge.

In my almost 30 years of interest surrounding the Piano instrument only in that (other) forum I found an individual asking the right questions I tried to ask when I was a teenager. And was ignored or dismissed as seeking problems where there are none. I beg to differ and am glad I am not the only one. I am quoting this question as found in the other forum about piano and Music "theory".
This thread is for archiving purpose or for posterity in case other people look up for it online.

Question by silph: Why are we using a naming system that names the most basic scale starting with the letter 'C'?! It seems arbitrary that the name of the first note of the most basic scale we use is C, instead of A. "Why is the note that we call 'C' on the piano, actually not called 'A' instead?".

So, why A is where it is on a piano? Why is it not assigned to a different key?

Interestingly enough (not to me though) is that all the participant besides one (much later in the discussion) could not even comprehend the question as asked by silph. I do not blame them as this type of indoctrination we have discussed in another thread and I had to visualize it with a screenshot from a book on 'Music theory'.

Another participant, kosulin, makes a quick search with 'Google AI' and cites this as the answer:

Around the year 500 AD, the Roman philosopher Boethius is widely credited with assigning the first 14 letters of the Latin alphabet to the notes of the two-octave range used during his era. The simple, systematic nature of the alphabet provided a convenient way to label notes in ascending order. The system was later condensed to letters A through G.

Hi, all
I will answer your question because believe or not it caused me to realize and express certain criticism over the so called "standard" music notation which got me banned from many forums related to Piano and Music.

We have to go way back in time… in times when the Church dominated all aspects of human activity (at least in Europe… most of Europe and consequently in America after 1500s). Also, times when Latin language was the de facto international language as today is its (indirect) successor the English language (they share the same alphabet more than less).

Contrary to popular belief, many will say that it was Boethius (end of 5th and beginning of 6th century CE) who gave us the first letters of the notes as arranged by the Latin language alphabet (he was Italian so it makes sense). That is incorrect and incomplete because all he was marking with the first 14 letters were… intervals (in his time the letter J did not exist by the way).
Boethius did not name the notes. A common misconception apparently is that he did. He named the intervals using the Latin letters. All notes still had their own symbols (runic like, mirrored, rotated, etc., a long story) as derived from the cumulative work of Aristoxenes and then Ptolemy and Alypius (the latter in 3rd century CE, two centuries before Boethius). In his work "Fundamentals of Music" can be seen he used AB as a full tone interval, then AD as a semi-tone interval, and DB as another semi-tone. In another diagram he would use AB (full tone), BC (again a full tone!, not a semi-tone), CE (semi-tone). AB could be a semi-tone or a tone, as it is appointed as 'movable' interval (read his work!), not a specified pitch (or string). In his work "Fundamentals of Music" we can read the following:

"Take four middle notes:
A, B, C, and D. A should hold the sesquitertian ratio-the diatessaron in relation to D; likewise A should stand a tone away from B, and B a tone away from C. The remainder, C to D, should maintain the interval of a semitone [Fig. D.22] → A I B I C I D"
— Boethius

Note: The letters only designated intervals! Above, Boethius clearly says C to D to represent a semi-tone! He used the letters as we today use them for geometry problems (or alike). No indication of pitch is given in conjunction with this alphabetical series Boethius used. The enumeration of species here may be seen as an abstract demonstration that, given a two "octave" system, one octave segment remains after the seven species have been computed, and that this segment may become the basis of an eighth mode. If this series is taken concretely, on the other hand, letter A must represent the highest pitch (the nete hyperboleon). In Boethius's numbering of species and derivation of the modes, the first species of diapason, that between the nete hyperboleon and the mese, becomes the basis for the first mode.
Only occasionally in his work certain tetrachords A, B, C, D will match the intervals "tone, semi-tone, tone". But mostly, any two of those letters would make or get other intervals, sometimes A-B is a renova (an "octave").

Boethius' influence on Music theory and nomenclature (naming notes, rather intervals)

Boethius is credited for constructing the modes from lower strings to higher as today we would call and present the scales in Music (in his time the typical representation would be downwards, where 'cadence' comes from as it was very popular modal move).
Anyway, using an alphabetic letter sequence (of a language) as a Music alphabet is a predilection and should be avoided as otherwise it dismisses other writing systems. Music must have its own alphabet and I created it long time ago. Certainly, Latin was the sort of the international (at least in Europe, so hardly ever international!) language at that time and English today as its successor but that should not be "the norm".

Keep in mind that in that time up until the late 14th century there were no 'piano keyboards' with all the 'black' notes we know today. The black keys were slowly introduced by the century on portative organs with the complete set of 7 big and 5 small keys described by Henri Zwolle in 1430 for a portable clavichembalo instrument he designed.
Before him similar thing did Nicholas Faber in Halberstadt, Germany in 1361 for a organ but there were no keys, rather levers pushed with a whole hand\grip or fist.

You can see that in those illustrations A and C are placed on the keys as they are today. So, we should go further back in time when there were no black keys. The times of Boethius (6th century CE) and then when Guido d'Arezzo and Odo\pseudo-Odo (in 10th and 11 century CE) and the Church monks lived.
As you can see below, back then the portative and positive organs did not have any black keys. Encyclopedia Britannica also mentions that the key for B♭ was also a big "white" key at one point and Sebastian Virdung and Hans Beham (early and mid 16th century CE) have illustrated positive organs having a couple of black keys (B♭) and they referred to historical development of its keys as in their time all 12 keys were present.

Let's imagine those times between the 9th and 10th centuries CE in medieval Europe and Italy in particular. Church has established its dominance and in fact spreading aggressively, confronting the Byzantine Orthodox Christianity and literally killing all other denominations as heresy or apostasy. Church was governing all education as luxury as it was for most secular\ordinary people, only a few of whom in a village or a town could write or even read! No scientific notation existed, no physics, math or, God forbid, chemistry.
We see us back in those days, when the keys were just big key levers with no "accidentals" (no 'black' keys). I am talking about the time of the church monks Odo, Petri, and finally that same Guido d'Arezzo. They were totally clueless in their effort at establishing a tuning system and applied the ratio 9:8 (Pythagorean\Aristoxenian "major second = whole-tone") to the string of the monochord they used for the task at hand. For completely ignorant reason they called the whole (open) string Г… and I quote:

"Because Г is a little known Greek letter here and many do not use it."

Now here is the ironic coincidence. Г (gamma) is the third letter in the Greek alphabet. One possible phonetic transcription of Г is as G, which is the seventh letter in Latin\English\Italian\French alphabets. Although G is also pronounced similarly to J in the alphabet (but keep in mind at that time the letter J was not existent it will appear post year 1400). Also, the letter G was actually C but it got that line at the front to resemble the guttural aspect of its pronunciation as similar to how the Greek (and later Cyrillic) Г sounded to them.
Confused already? It gets even more ridiculous because Г (looks like an upside-down L) …and was similar alike to the hook or pin they attached the string on the monochord. Then we can read one of the correspondents church clerks there to say about the string:

"Divide it in 9 and take 8 and…

Note: Means, next tone is the length 8 of those 9 divisions

…and call it A, then from that A divide again with 9:8 and write B. But then go back to Г (open string) and divide its length of string into 4…

means, take 3/4ths of that new A length

…and write C. Then repeat all from that C."

As you can see, here we clearly have Г (open string), A, B, C following the interval structure "tone, tone, semi-tone" strictly as a rule by construction (Г_A_B-C). Then the same from C with the introduction to D, E, F respectively.
The actual naming of notes started by an ignorant application of both Boethius interval naming and Aristoxenus' 'division of genera' by the church monks\clerks Odo ("Musicae artis disciplina"), then Guido and Theodalus around year 1017 (500 years after Boethius).

What if…

Imagine, if they had called the whole string A as a main note from the get go (no use of a Greek letter) and started from there. We would have had A being where G is today but let's see why… because there were no 'black' keys in that time, remember?
It is ridiculous how they destroyed the works of Alypius and Boethius who lived centuries before those ignorant church monks. I mean, they literally only took the Pythagorean ratios of 3/2 (9/8 if you power by 2 and divide in 2 to lower the note one diapason\octave\renova) and 3/4. They constructed "the G Myxolidian mode" in today terms, which should be the real natural major mode also for the reasons of 'overtone series' but that is another topic and criticism I hold against modern "standard" Music notation!!!

The ignorant thing is that in the first half they do not encounter what is known as B♭, but in the next renova ("octave") they see it in the ratios of Boethius\Aristoxenes (they get smaller → better "resolution") and have no idea how to call it. So they write it as a 'square' shaped b (or b quadratus). If you combine b and q and write it in a square-like script you'll get the symbol for "natural" ♮; if you take a and d, d stands for diesis (means shift), and write in a similar combination, you'll get what today is the symbol for sharp ♯):

But didn't they have some portative organs in those medieval times?

Of course they had them. And they (their pipe lengths) were tuned according to same rations and sources. Till that time though there was a separation of instrumental and vocal chant notation, where the latter also transformed into the so called Neume notation or rather its cheironomic manuscript (curved stenographic like written symbols). Those, ancient symbols and cheironomic neumes were cumbersome for the emerging church chants and the expansion of the portative organ into positive and separating all into instrumental and vocal notation. Here it is in more detailed explanation.

In Boethius' "The Fundamentals of Music" there is the 3rd chapter in the 'Book 4'. The text gives the names of the notes, first using the Greek terms found in 'Book 1', then the later Latin names for the first time:
Quote

3. The naming of musical notes in Greek and Latin scholarship
   Since we are left with the task of dividing a string by means of a rule (according to the consonances just discussed), and since this same partition will display the requisite sounds through three genera of melody, at this point we must set out musical notes; in this way, when we inscribe the divided line 18 with these same written symbols, 19 the name of each individual note will be recognized very easily.

For the present, let us take just one of the modes, the Lydian, and arrange its written symbols through the three genera; we defer doing the same with the other modes until another time. Surely if I sketch the disposition of notes using the names of Greek letters, the reader should not be put off by anything unusual.
Then Boethius uses the actual note symbols for all notes as they were created in earlier times (Aristoxenes to Alypius) including chromatic changes and each had its own symbol (actually two for each, as they differentiated the note symbols between hardware instruments and vocal singing but that is not important)! (see attached image)

If you claim that Boethius used notation for notes, I will have to say, it is not really how he proceeded. We can see that in his work the notes B and C were "movable" or as we could say today they could have "accidental" counterparts. Same with E and F. Completely different from what the monks did in the 10th and 11th century CE. They ruined it all out of pure ignorance and total misunderstanding if at all familiar with his work (hope so, as they were all Italians after all)!

So, that 10th century alphabetic structure got with the tuning of the then developing portative organs for the Church and now they had assigned the letters to specific notes by matching the sounds with those on the monochord. There were mostly two possible matches → either today's G or C, maybe F if you push it, because the organs already had a tonal structure and did not care about how the string of their monochord was tuned! It was the other way around. Rather, they tuned the monochord to a note on the organ till their "invented" A, B, C structure matched as much as possible to the notes produced by the organ. It was that ignorant on their behalf, if you ask me!
Later when the key for what they called B♭ (B flat, as on an organ you had to flatten the nozzle of the pipe to lower the pitch and literally sharpen it to raise it) was introduced, so were the new "accidental" notes (keys). And therefore → the present layout of the piano keyboard as established in the church organs especially during Bach's time. And it was again another utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of design and handedness. On that, I have written another criticism as well.

But it gets even more ridiculous!

Then comes Guido d'Arezzo (yet another church monk in Italy in the 11th century) and says that Latin letters are good and all but why we should not give a proper names to the good notes of not only his native Latin language but also from his favorite church psalm (chant).

'do-re-mi-fa-sol-la-si' syllables were introduced by Guido d'Arezzo, who took the first syllable from each line of the hymn "Ut queant laxis" to help in memorization:
Utqueant laxis (later in time Ut will be replaced as Do by Giovanni Battista Doni in the 17th century because "do" is an open syllable, whereas "ut" is a closed one concerning singing)
Resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
Famuli tuorum
Solve polluti
Labiis reatum
Sancte Iohannes (the 7th one was not assiged by Guido, it happened later also changed to Ti from the word Sancti

I should add the fact that he used his favorite chant and took the syllables of the first six notes which matched the diatonic structure of the first different notes. At Guido's time the seventh note was not used (at least not in church chants). It was added later when it was used and quite possibly when the organs extended to positive organs (around 12 and 13 century CE). And there it is another special case' with only 7 notes (out of the 12 from the ancient chromatic genera), because at those times organs did not have 'black keys' at all!
Both such naming of notes by Guido and the earlier A, B, C… are predilections as inherited by their Latin speaking creators. Music must and should have its own Musical alphabet, the 12 notes named (not just 6 or 7). The system is incomplete, and leads to inconveniences later in time. I have dedicated articles (books) and now making videos about it with lots and lots of criticism.

So… There you have the answer. It was due to pure ignorant application of a Pythagorean ratios and even more ignorant assignment of letters to shortened string lengths following Latin alphabet sequence.
How to create a truly dedicated and neutral Music alphabet can be read in my treatise about 'Music elements' and 'Plain Music Notation system' and 'How to design a piano keyboard'.

If you like to elaborate, please, do so!