On 30 May 2003 at 2:12, Michael Edwards wrote:
> [David W. Fenton:]
>
> >On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
> >
> >> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
> >>has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
> >>to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there.
> >
> >Actually, I would entirely disagree with that assertion. If you're
> >going to play older music, you really need to learn to read the older
> >notation.
>
> It is obvious that some old conventions have been kept in modern editions
> (such as the appoggiaturas you go on to mention), and others have been long
> since dropped (repeating accidentals in key signatures in several octaves, use
> of some C clefs).
Well, the question here is:
Does the changed notation convey exactly the same things?
In regards to clefs, it certainly does. Now, choosing clefs is
important, as it can have an effect on how easy things are to read.
In a viola or cello part, you'll use C clefs and G clefs and F clefs
appropriate to the circumstances, and the editor had better do a good
job of choosing exactly when the switches between clefs occur.
In early music, though, you are not dealing with that so much as
you're dealing with obsolete clefs, ones that modern performers don't
read nearly as well. Does anything change in terms of the music
conveyed? I would say it does not, unless the clefs had changes. In
that case, you could use beaming breaks within a clef to indicate
some of the same things that clef changes might have (i.e., changes
of register often delineate phrasing), although in many cases in a
single clef, the point of articulation will probably be more
drastically clear than in an original with a clef change.
As to the old-style key signatures, they are no longer necessary, as
the convention today is that the key signature applies to all
octaves, whereas in the time of Bach the practice was a holdover from
the days of pre-tonality, when key signatures were hexachordal, and
did not at all apply to all octaves. If the old music repeats the
accidentals, you can safely convert the key signature to the modern
notation, which will be read by the modern performer as indicating
exactly the same thing as the older notation.
However, in cases where the music is pre-tonal and the accidentals
are *not* repeated, you need to be careful what you convey in your
edition! I'm not necessarily advocating using the old notation, but
you definitely need to indicate to the performer that something else
may be going on.
The traditional method of having incipits that indicate the original
clefs and key signatures and the original note values is obviously
sufficient in most cases. However, if something really odd is going
on, something else needs to be done. This kind of thing may *not* be
doable with notational tools, and may very well require footnotes and
explanatory notes elsewhere.
> >The classic example of this is the Classical era notation of the
> >apoggiatura. Take Mozart's K. 332 Sonata in Bb, which begins with the
> >falling figure, 16th-note appoggiatura, 8th note, 16th, 16th. It is
> >played as 4 16ths, and the late 19th century Mozart edition published
> >by B&H transcribed it as that.
> >
> >But the result is that it obscres the musical significance of that
> >first note. The original notation makes quite clear that it is a non-
> >harmonic tone, that the one notated as the 8th note is the harmonic
> >tone. It points out to the reader that the passage starts with a
> >harmonic dissonance. The 4 16th-notes version obscures that.
>
> If the performer or reader has a real musical sense, that fact would be
> obvious without the notation having to highlight it by distortion of what is to
> be played.
Well, the same could be said for courtesy accidentals. They are not
*necessary*, since one could puzzle them out without any ambiguity,
but we include them to insure that the performer gets the message.
If it were not so, then the practice never would have existed!
> I agree that one is getting into murky areas if one decides editorially to
> change Mozart's notation, and update it to modern conventions generally; . . .
Why is Mozart so precious that we won't change his notation, yet
modern composers, composers who are living and you could ask about it
get their notation beaten about at the whims of the editors? Why
don't the composers of new music get the same respect Mozart gets, if
not for their music, at least for being the last word on how their
music should be notated?
> . . . but, as
> a composer, I would every time prefer the modern notation, which seems to
> reflect more accurately what is intended to be played, without there having to
> be an understanding of conventions such as "play an appoggiatura in such and
> such a way, even though it's not written like that". I prefer to avoid letting
> the correct interpretation of my notation be based on such conventions when I
> can do so clearly.
I don't know why not. You might very well choose to use it for the
very same reason Mozart did, to make something clear to the performer
without a need for analysis. Obviously, it would only be appropriate
in a style in which the concept of the accented appoggiatura made
sense, but I see no reason why it should be thrown out. You would
simply be borrowing an old notational practice with which everyone is
familiar in order to use it "by analogy" to make your *own* music
more readable.
Yes, it would probably require a note to explain that you want it
interpreted as an on-beat appoggiatura, instead of a before-the-beat
grace note ("grace notes" as we conceive of them did not even exist
in Mozart's music, BTW, though there were before-the-beat ornamental
notes in some cases), but how long would it take someone to
understand that? You could easily notate with an ossia the
realization of it over the first one, and say "simile" for all the
rest, or some such. Who would have difficulty with that?
But the key point here: it would need to be appropriate to the
musical style.
And that makes the larger point: the notation serves the musical
style and if you don't understand the musical style, seemingly
neutral notational changes may very well misrepresent the music the
composer was attempting to convey.
> I suppose most would agree with me on this instance of appoggiaturas: I
> very rarely, if ever, see appoggiaturas written in Mozart's way in music of the
> last 200 or so years. If I have ever seen it on rare occasions, it is probably
> a deliberate archaism because the music is itself evoking an old style.
If the musical style is appropriate, I see no reason why one would
not use it for exactly the same reason Mozart used it, and not be
accused of "archaicism" in the process.
> >> But surely such editions should labelled "edited by <so-and-so>", with
> >>annotations about the changes that have been made. And, especially for
> >>scholarly or purist use, you could have another edition that reproduces Bach's
> >>notation exactly. . . .
> >
> >Well, a facsimile does that for you.
>
> A facsimile of the original edition, that is? - not the manuscript (which
> is likely to be difficult to read)? I guess that is what I was referring to
> here.
No, I don't mean an original edition. I mean the original manuscript.
Many printed editions from post-1750 are as hard to read as the
composer's manuscripts, at least for modern performers.
But I wouldn't say that's a terrible thing. The "hard-to-read" parts
are pretty easily learned (such as whole notes placed in the middle
of measures, etc.), and then you get to see all sorts of things.
Of course, it depends on the composer. Nobody is going to get much
done with many of Beethoven's autographs! And after around 1850 or
so, the first edition became the composer's real statement, so not
much is gained by looking the composer's final autograph (which was
usually prepared as a printer's model, and in that case was often
created from the actual working copy the composer used, and doesn't
include any of the "interesting" things!).
> Like it or not, though, some old conventions of notation are not well-known
> by non-specialists - and sometimes apparently not by specialists either: I have
> often read of extensive debate between knowledgeable people on how to play
> grace-notes (on or before the beat), mordents, and so on. . . .
The reason there are debates about it is because there are no hard
and fast rules.
And that's where preserving the original notation comes in -- if you
include the original ornament/grace note, the performer gets to
decide. If, on the other hand, you write out what you as editor think
the realization of the ornament should be, you take away the
performer's choices (although you can also include the original
notation so they can see if they agree with your realization).
> . . . I still don't know
> whether to play grace-notes on or before the beat, and in which composers or
> periods, because I've read so many arguments either way. In practice, I let the
> feel of the music dictate this, plus my own feelings about how I want to
> interpret it.
Well, your "feel of the music" may have been developed from erroneous
ideas about what the music should sound like, but in general, I think
that's the right way to go, anyway.
I don't think it's all that complicated, to be honest. In general,
it's on-the-beat before 1820, and before-the-beat after that. From
1790-1840, there's lots of gray area where we don't really know the
practice. After that time, it's fairly rare for on-the-beat to have
been expected, before that time, fairly rare for before-the-beat.
I am never quite sure what to do with Beethoven, myself, so I try
both and see which I like best. I also tend to play Chopin with above-
the-note trills, just because I don't think the practice ended as
quickly as people seem to think (and it sounds better than you might
think, and sometimes works better with the terminations Chopin
wrote).
But it depends on context, harmonic and melodic, and that's where you
make the choice.
I recently played a Schenk duet for two viols and most of our
ornaments started above the note. But in certain contexts, we did
start the ornaments on the note. Likewise with on-the-beat vs. before-
the-beat. Context indicated where the departure from the norm made
sense.
And, of course, the writings about French-style ornamentation (the
Schenk is definitely French in style) include the proviso that you
can start some of the ornaments on the note and before the beat, so
it's a perfectly valid choice in some cases, justified by the
historical facts.
It doesn't take that much effort to learn these things. And it would
be foolhardy to tackle music in as different style without trying to
do so. You might as well not even bother, as you're going to be
missing most of the content, because ornamentation may very well be
structurally non-essential, but stylistically, it is almost always
the whole ball of wax.
> >> But where a composition is recent enough to be using essentially the same
> >>conventions we understand today, mere differences of style should surely be
> >>honoured, and a meaningless conformity to one style not imposed on everyone.
> >
> >Hah! There are more different notational conventions going on today
> >than perhaps at any other period in musical history that I can think of!
>
> The difference appears to be that the various old conventions were
> alternative mainstreams, whereas the mainstream today is more consistent, but
> the additional conventions you mentioned are added on top of the mainstream by
> composers trying to invent new notations to apply to their own style or
> techniques.
And the problem with that is what?
> At a base level, ignoring the additional conventions modern composers make
> up, notation seems less ambiguous to me than it used to. We don't have to
> debate the interpretation of dotted notes, appoggiaturas, and so on today,
> provided the composer hasn't needless invented new conventions about such
> matters. . . .
What debate is there on these subjects within a particular style
period? I know of none.
You seem to be confusing the style of a period with the whole
agglomeration of styles of music history as a whole. Yes, there will
be changing sets of notational rules throughout history, but within a
period, some fairly set conventions applied.
I see no difference whatsoever in modern music.
> . . . Dotted notes have a precise meaning now;
They did in the past, too. It's just that the precise meaning was not
always conveyed by the strict rhythmic value, but by the value plus
the context, just like modern notation of swing. No jazz player is
going to complain about the fact that you don't precisely notate the
rhythm you expect to hear -- they will understand what you want,
within the conventions of the style.
Historically that was also the case.
No, that doesn't apply in much modern music, to the detriment, I
think of the performances of much modern music. I do think many
composers try to be *too* precise, trying to treat their performers
as imperfect synthesizers.
However, I think notation is incomplete without an understanding of
the style, even in the most meticulously notated music.
> . . . appoggiaturas are written out
> in normal note-values, not in the Mozart style you need to understand before you
> can play it properly - and so on. . . .
Well, how much modern music is in a harmonic style in which the
concept of the appoggiatura even applies? If it *does* apply, I see
no reason why a composer could not avail herself of a commonly
understood convention.
> . . . I feel notation is more standard now than
> before, in spite of new "standards" invented by some composers. It appears to
> me that the invented conventions are about more esoteric things such as
> quarter-tones, aleatoric rhythms, unpitched sounds (such as playing behind the
> bridge on strings), and other oddities of that sort that are not quite
> mainstream.
Why would *any* of those things be considered "esoteric?" If the
music the composer is trying to convey requires quarter tones, non-
specified rythms and unpitched sounds, or playing behind the bridge
(which is not at all "unpitched," just indefinitely pitched and
variable from instrument to instrument), then those things are not
"esoteric" -- they are absolutely 100% essential for the notation to
be able to convey the composer's musical ideas.
> >Orthography has not been as well-defined in the past as it is today.
> >Lots of things were tolerated back then in terms of inconsistency of
> >spelling that would not be tolerated in modern usage.
>
> This more or less backs up what I've just said, and seems to contradict
> your earlier statement that there are more different notational conventions now
> than in any earlier time.
I was not speaking of musical orthography, but it actually does
apply. One of the reasons for spelling inconsistency was multi-
lingualism. Mozart's native language was German, but he also spoke
Italian and French and was knowledgable of Latin and English. As was
common at the time, various names from the various languages got
"transcribed" into the orthographical conventions of the other
languages (for instance, the English soprano Nancy Storace's name was
pronounced in Vienna as though it were Italian and was sometimes
spelled as Storazze; in Viennese dialect, the "eu" sound, which is
pronounce "oy"in standard German, was pronounce the same as "ei"
(like "I"in English), so in Mozart's letters you see the name of the
horn player Leutgeb sometimes spelled Leitgeb; and so forth). This
worked just fine because the people reading the variant spellings
were expected to understand and recognize the origins of the various
spellings, since they were likely to be conversant with the set of
languages involved.
The situation in terms of musical notation was quite closely
analogous back then, in that there were several known musical styles
with their own musical conventions, and the interpretation of them
was insured by the performers' knowledge of the possible styles. They
were expected to recognize the conventions as belonging to the
particular style and then interpret the music accordingly.
We can see this with Bach's "white-note" fugues, for instance, and in
the "archaic" music of Mozart.
We are in the same boat, as we have a whole raft of historical styles
to learn. But it is really not so tough -- most performers manage it
fairly easily, though most don't go back any further than Bach.
> I think a lot of the individual mannerisms we've been talking about in
> connection with house style are more cosmetic than actually changing the musical
> meaning: note-beaming (well, that *may* possibly change the
> interpretation), . . .
I don't consider that cosmetic at all, though it *may* be in a
particular instance. Basically, if the composer notates in non-
standard beaming, I would assume it has meaning and leave it intact.
> . . . use
> or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes, and so on. . . .
That seems cosmetic to me, yes, because of the way key signatures
work. That is a key signature does not convey something about how the
piece is shaped over time. It conveys something that is fixed within
the context that it applies. Beaming is quite different in that
respect, as it can effect how the flow is articulated over time.
> . . . But composers seem
> to have preferences in such matters, and I don't really want to see editors
> riding rough-shod over such things and stamping them out.
I think an editor should use the Hyppocratic oath: First, do no harm.
> >I think modern editors should lighten up.
>
> I hope I haven't given the impression that I think anything less than that
> using notation in a correct, clear, and consistent fashion is a good thing to
> do. But I don't think the way to do this is always as clear or singular as it
> might appear (although I often have my own very definite, singular preferences,
> and some of these are slightly unconventional); . . . .
Unconventional notation is appropriate for music that is not
consistent with the assumptions behind the conventions.
The notation should reflect the musical style, and if the music is
within the style that the notational conventions reflect, then
conventional notation should be used.
If it's not, conventional notation would misrepresent the music.
> . . . and, if a composer has a
> different way of showing some features, I would prefer to give him or her more
> room than less room, such as in the issue of naturals in key-signature changes.
> So I would suggest composers give thought to their notational practices (if
> they don't already), but also suggest that editors not be too dictatorial about
> practices they see as unconventional, if they appear deliberately thought-out.
>
> And, on clefs:
>
> [still quoting from David Fenton:]
>
> >Clefs have always been considered as having no musical meaning.
>
> What is "musical meaning"? . . .
Well, what I mean is that a clef does not tell you anything about how
to play the notes -- it just tells you *what* the notes are.
> . . . To me, they clearly have what I would call
> musical meaning: they decide on the range of pitches that are to be read from a
> staff of 5 lines that would appear the same except for the clef. For some
> instruments, this information may seem superfluous, because only one type of
> clef is used; but obviously there are some instruments where more than one clef
> can be used, so the clefs are needed there, and do convey useful information.
> This is so obvious that perhaps I have misinterpreted your comment, David.
Clefs are not something that have qualitative musical value.
> >And I think that's definitely the case after about 1700 or so.
> >But before that time, they served lots of purposes besides being a
> >mere marker of relative pitch. They indicated things about scoring
> >and key signature, sometimes very crucial things that were not
> >conveyed in any other way.
>
> So the role of the clef became more specialized, and some of its uses were
> delegated to other notational elements. That's not the same to me, though, as
> having no musical meaning.
Well, notes and rhythms to me aren't "music," and clefs only indicate
notes, so they aren't that important. I was referring to aspects of
notation that indicate something about the way the music should be
performed, which is the important part. Clefs contribute nothing
there, though clef *changes* might.
> >So, one may very well be transcribing out important information. In
> >that case, one needs to find some alternate method of conveying the
> >same information.
>
> Of course. No disagreement here.
That's the key point: if you're altering the notation, you must be
certain that your alteration does not lose information that was
inherent in the original.
That's a pretty simple principle in the abstract, but very hard to
follow in real life!
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
