It looks really neat, although I have to admit as a person that doesn’t compose music I wouldn’t exactly know what to use it for. I can certainly imagine that the traditional music notation is limiting, but I don’t quite understand how a written score (which looks beautiful!) would be translated to actual audible music.
Would love to see more of this in use, but I suppose it’s a rather young project so it might need more time to build up a larger gallery of scores.
Non-standard notation can more clearly convey a lot of things that are not easily expressed in the standard one, for example compositions that makes use of improvisation or particular aural effects that are not heard very often in conventional music. It’s almost always accompanied by written notes explaining the notation more or less clearly depending on the effect that the composer wants to convey.
For example R. Murray Schafer experimented a lot with graphical notation in order to render particular soundscapes; his scores make some use of conventional notation but also include lots of weird ad hoc notation, and if you listen to them you’ll certainly understand why they had to be written that way and how impossible it would be to write them using only conventional notation. There’s a lot of videos by the Vancouver Chamber Choir on youtube that also show the scores like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUXzu7JYFc
I’ve had several conversations with Sam Aaron (author of SonicPi) about this. Western musical notation today largely dates back to the Gutenberg press. It was a compromise between the various hand-drawn notations that could be printed with hand-carved printing blocks in a single colour (a lot of the older notations used colour to convey meaning). We’ve kept this notation for centuries, not because it is a good way of communicating semantics from the composer to the performer but because it works with a Gutenberg-era printing press.