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.
I have to chuckle, because in my line of work Bach and Mozart are late!
> >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.
And this I would entirely agree with, but in our musical culture it doesn't happen in normal teaching. Late 13th-early 14th century mensural notation is quite easy to read, but only if you've studied it in pretty fine detail. It provided the basis for common practice notation, but it doesn't look anything like it. And any singer can learn to read chant notation in about 10 minutes flat.
Well, the question here is:
Does the changed notation convey exactly the same things?
In regards to clefs, it certainly does.
Not in early music. One of the reasons for choosing particular clefs, going back to Guido in the 11th century and his movable use of the letters C and F, is to keep the range of the piece within the confines of the staff. And because that is true, a glance at the clef at least through the end of the 16th century gives you a quick and almost always accurate idea of the range of that part. When an editor substitutes a modern clef, that information is no longer given. Which is why an incipit is always a good idea when transcribing early music.
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.
For a modern player, absolutely. And you have to make your editorial choices while keeping in mind the level of players you are writing for. Most high school cellist, bassoonists, and trombonists, unless they have studied pretty advance stuff privately, have never seen a tenor clef and will simply stop playing if you use one. But my own pet peave is viola parts that switch into treble clef when there's no real need to, or that switch back and forth between treble and alto until you can't keep track of where you are. Played some Dvorak like that recently.
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.
Take that back to the 15th, 16th, and early 17th century and you find another problem. Much music was copied either in separate partbooks or as separate parts on facing pages, and it did not use barlines. Putting this music into score notation and imposing barlines on it destroys the independence of the individual lines in this kind of music, and obscures rather than illuminates the differences between the phrasing in the different parts, exactly what makes this music come to life. And in this same music it is often unclear when accidentals, written or ficta, should be repeated. In fact, it isn't unusual to find a written accidental as the penultimate note in a cadence but discover that that accidental needs to be anticipated in the ornamental figuration approaching the cadence.
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),
In the case of Mozart's use of appogiaturas in what will be played properly as 4 16th notes, his use of the appoggiatura does convey information that writing it out would destroy. An appoggiatura not only comes on the beat, but it is STRESSED more than the beat would normally be. Yes, the modern player has to be taught that, but once taught he can get usefull information from that appoggiatura.
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.
Amen, brother! That's why 19th century musicians thought Palestrina's music was slow and draggy; they couldn't imagine using whole notes and breves to notate lively tempos, but that's exactly what they did.
Nobody said transcription is easy, or at least nobody who has ever tried it seriously!
John
-- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
