(Just for the record, you never posted these "other arguments" (plural, as in more than one) that were in your favor here.) Anyway:
I don't think that olimar's notation makes the piece musically or graphically more clear, compared to several other standard ways he could have used.
Well now you're contradicting yourself:
No one would look at your score and question how it is supposed to be played (assuming he knows the note names and the note values)
If no one would question how it is supposed to be played, isn't clarity achieved? Written communication between composer and performer is literally the only purpose for written notation. We don't write novels because we like the font they're written in, or the type of paper or binding; it's the story we read them for, and as long as we CAN read and interpret them, it shouldn't matter how they're written.
To expand upon what Altissimo brought up, lets take a quick look through an old music history textbook and see if we can't "break the rules" as you say.
We've got situations with what would normally be considered too-few beams used on eighth notes in 4/4,
Rachmaninoff, Prelude in G Minor, Op. 23 No. 5
and we've got instances where there are too many beams.
Ligeti, Etude No 9, Vertige
Both of these instances could have followed the common practices, but didn't.
We've got situations with what would normally be considered too many time changes and barlines,
Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring
and we've got instances where there are too few time signatures and barlines.
Satie, Embryons desséchés: No. 3, de Podophthalma
Both of these
instances could have followed the common practices, but didn't.
Then you've got my man, Charles Ives, who does all sorts of lovely things that probably make you
uncomfortable. Here's one:
Notice those two half notes beamed together to signify their simultaneous sounding, under "Lamb."
Ives, General William Booth Enters into Heaven
Regarding the analogy of the second:
It's a completely different scenario, since there are already notes on the standard part of the stem, so, adding a second stem isn't necessary. Moreover, we're forced to write those like that, and we have established a pretty precise rule for it. In your scenario, instead, all the notes of the chord are on the other side of the stem, it's a completely different thing and for a completely different reason.
The point we're arguing here is that with the second part of your second suggestion, there was simply an added stem that you claimed justified it (so long as it wasn't manuscript
). The second interval analogy I used was in this way:
Similar to how my excerpt has a backwards note head, so does A when written as such. Ignore the fact that this is already common practice for the sake of the analogy. If we implement your idea seen in the second picture of your second suggestion, we get B. Now both note heads have a stem that can justify it's existence in both directions. Now, as you already know, we don't write B all the time, we write A. We don't need the stem in B because we know what A wants to sound like. The second stem in B is unnecessary.
I'll close in saying this: Music is constantly contradicting itself, and we have to learn how to escape the imaginary box of "rules" that we grow up learning once we understand their purpose and importance. Why you continue to argue in the favor of making this more difficult to read in order to adhere to a "norm," while simultaneously agreeing with me that the method I have used would cause no confusion for the reader, shows that the purpose of music notation is still completely unknown to you.