Let's say we have a flute and an oboe that begin a phrase in dead unison, and then split off. For example:
FLUTE: C - C# - F# - E - A - G# OBOE: C - C# - F# - F nat. - C nat. - D
The oboe part would be easier to read if it were spelled with flats:
OBOE: C - Db - Gb - F - C - D
But then the unison with the flute for the first three notes is obscured.
My preference so far has been to write unisons as unisons, even if that results in less-than-optimal spelling for some players in some cases. But I'm curious how others feel about this.
- Darcy
----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
On 18 Jul, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 17, 2004, at 9:18 PM, Taris L Flashpaw wrote:
I keep hearing my old composition prof in the back of my head saying that I should spell intervals as diatonically as possible (ie: write G-Bb instead of G-A#). What I need to know is:
1. Is this a good practice to follow?
Yes.
does it matter so much for a pianist or an oboist, for example?
Yes. It's just plain easier to read.
2. If this is a practice to be adopted, should it be followed between staves of a two-staff part (like piano)?
Intervallic simplicity is more important within a staff than betw. staves, so if eliminating an augmented third between staves results in a diminished fourth within one of the staves, don't do it. But if no such trade-off is involved, sure, simplify the interstaff intervals too.
Same for full scores, I'd say: after all, conductors have to read the music too.
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
