Because subtle nuances might be hard to communicate/misinterpreted, when attempting to transcribe indigenous music using Western notation, a better approach may be to look at sound rather than music. Since music is organized sound.

Article The OREMA Project: A call for the liberation of sound analysis

If we take a strong position that indigenous music has too many out of world nuances that escape the Western Octave system, then, there is no reason to argue further on 'whys' .

But if you ask me why, I would say from a weaker stance that perhaps Western music notation system (Octaves)  is unnecessarily too complex for indigenous music that is quite often Pentatonic  (five notes per Octave) such as most of Far East folkloric music including China and Korea, as well as Andean Indian music

What can be used as an alternative?

Perhaps (just a conjecture)  1. Gregorian pentatonic notation system 2. JJ Rousseau's numbered musical notation

One more observation although I am not totally certain.  I think you have rightly put a quotation mark to 'Original version'. Strictly speaking, there is no original of any music sound in the world until two  events occur ;

1. invention of Phonautograph circa 1857

2. painstaking consensus  over pitch standard only in 1926.

Phonautograph is perhaps more important. Everything before 1857 is oral or phonetic tradition, from sound to ear; ear to brain and brain to instrumental sound (incl. voice)...

To top it all, musical instruments evolved quite substantially in some cases. For example, Clarinet used for Mozart's Concerto in A major. To this, we cannot even fathom the exact pitch of 'that' A major

First question to ask yourself is not about the notation system itself, but your reasons for wanting to transcribe the music. If it is for preservation, then today sound and video is much better. For musical analysis, despite the imprecisions and limitations, Western notation can be OK, or if you simply want Western-trained musicians to have an idea of the music. Music, however, is sound itself and any notation is simply a form of attempting to represent the sounds of that music in graphic form. Any notation form, therefore, will never be more than an approximation. Your job is to work out which elements you which to compromise, and who is your intended reader.

I think most of the discussions of notation miss the most important point: notation shows perceived musical structure, not sound. Western musical notation - used by a western musicologis - will show the musical structure as perceived from a Western point of view - and that may (of may not9 be totally different from an insider's perception of the musical structure of the same sound. Music is NOT sound, it is sound perceived as specific structures that the culture designates as musical.

Hi Mohammad, I would in part reproduce John Griffiths answer, as it highly depends on the purpose, but also on the characteristics of the music itself. That said, and being myself a contemporary composer that has to deal with challenges of notation, and many times extend it in order to accommodate unusual or new sounds/techniques; I believe that if faced with the need to transcribe such music, a similar approach can be taken in order to adapt the notation to the music (instead of the music to the notation). Provided that the score is accompanied by a glossary explaining any newly developed symbols and techniques, it should work. In a sense, such glossary is like bringing a bit of the oral side into the score.  

I very much liked the expression of Nuno “adapting the notation to the music instead of the music to the notation.” In some of my books and articles I developed some new symbols and techniques and I always had to have a side notes explaining what they mean. I am also thinking of establishing a study group in our ICTM (International Council for Traditional Music), to gradually extend and standardize new symbols. I am thinking that this solution might also have some disadvantages that I might not be aware of. Please let me know anything coming to your mind my friends.

I want to suggest something that might not be what you are asking, but I do believe it is relevant.  When non-Western music is notated into Western format, it places a demand upon the one interpreting it to do so understanding that there are elements "lost" in that transcription.  All too often, musicians--especially young ones--are trained to play (or sing) what they see, which is appropriate in the right context.  However, when music, such as Negro Spirituals, are set using Western notation for concert performance, the performer must "add" the interpretative elements that make that music distinctive, or the presentation will lack the essence of the music. 

I agree with many points posed by R. Jones, Tellef Kvifte and John Griffiths. Cognition and semiotics studies show that the western notation reflects only part of what is perceived by a western interpretant (to use a Peircean concept). So when dealing with non-European musical traditions, especially with complex and sophisticated traditions such as Persian and Indian classical music, we must ask ourselves if we want to colonize them by imposing a listening and an interpretation based on Western perceptions or if we want to consider the native notations and highlight their own perceptions (that can be different and revealing). In my case the experience of learning to read Indian notations was quite revealing about the conceptions of time and timbre, uncommon in Western music systems.

Most of the relevant answers were given above:

(1) It all depends on the reasons why you want to transcribe unwritten music.

(2) Western notation -- as any notation I have heard of, as a matter of fact -- is not a notation of the sound of the music.

Yet, Western notation has proved its capacity to notate a large number of different types of music: in the West only, it began notating 11th-century polyphony, and soon was used for modal plain chant. It then served all the developments of Western music up to the 21th century. This alone should convince you to consider it with attention.

The problem often is that even Western musicians expect from the notation things that it cannot give. For instance, contrarily to what many believe, Western notation does not prescribe the intonations: one cannot deduce from the notation the tuning or the temperament of the music notated.

Western notation serves particularly well a music of seven notes per octave, even if these notes are fluctuating. If the music you want to notate is a music of seven notes (or better, seven note names) in the octave -- as is the case with many pentatonic melodies! --, then you should consider Western notation with even more attention.

What is notated in Western notation are semiotically distinctive categories -- categories of pitch and duration that allow an identification of the music notated. If the music you want to transcribe is mainly a matter of pitches and durations, then Western notation deserves close consideration.

Beyond that, the matter is highly complex. One starting point is Charles Seeger's paper on "Prescriptive and Descriptive Music-Writing" (The Musical Quarterly, 1958). Note that his examples of "descriptive" music-writing do indeed describe the sound of the music, but cannot be read in the sense that ordinary (Western) notation can be read.

Although I have directed a Western Conservatorium for many years, I have grave reservations about using Western notation for any other purpose than supporting people who play Western music and are familiar with the sound of that music and its conventions. No notation system works without a thorough knowledge of the music it refers to. I have been playing Hindustani music (sitar) for forty years, one of the most refined music traditions in the word, and Western staff notation is simply not capable of capturing its essence, or even its basics. Even more upsetting is the extensive use of staff notation in music education (often without reference to the sound), which runs the risk of making most world music traditions appear like bad Western music by ignoring the musical qualities (in rhythmic subtleties, timbre, expression, etc.) that characterise it. I've lectures and published about this extensively, including in my monograph Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective (OUP, 2010).

Huib Schippers, even for Westerners, Western notation does not work without a thorough knowledge of the music it refers to. How could one hope that it would for any other music? But what you write (also in your book) is that some musics should not be written at all. Perhaps, but that was not the initial question. I trust that someone (1) conscious of the aims and purposes of Western notation and not expecting of it what it cannot provide and (2) in full knowledge of the music transcribed, can benefit, for specific purposes, of a transcription of non Western music in Western notation.

May I revive this discussion and try to get from those of you who probably know better some ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of Western notation?

Western notation mainly notates pitches, or, more precisely, "notes". The relation between "notation" and "note" resides in the fact that notation records pitches as conceived – say, as a do, or a C, or whatever.

Many cultures in the world know a system of notation (or several) of some kind, and many of these similarly seem to notate individual pitches or notes. And many cultures also know names for pitches (say sa, or rast, etc.), i.e. names for notes, even when individual pitches or notes may not play such an important role in their music.

But these cultures (other than the Western one) manifest limited interest in notating their music. This is apparent also from some of the answers above, and indeed one does not see what interest there may be in notating a music of oral tradition. And if such music is notated, why is it piches (or notes) that are written, why other elements may be more important?

My own impression, considering some ancient systems of notation, is that these were conceived not so much for writing pieces of music than for describing scales (and modes). This seems to be the case not only for Babylonian musical terminology, but also for Ancient Greek alphabetic notation, for early Chinese notation, etc., which appear more concerned with theoretical discussions than with writing music. And this would explain why these notations were concerned with defining degrees of scales more than with writing other aspects of music itself.

I'd like to read the opinion of others, especially those who belong to other musical cultures than the Western one.