On Jul 18, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
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.
I agree with you. Reason: Enharmonic unisons are "real" only on keybds. Betw. Fl. and Ob., C# vs. Db would not really be a unison. Both the players and the conductor (if any) would be inclined to downplay the intonation of the unisons were they not in fact notated as unisons. (Remember, even if they play from separate parts, conscientious players will look to see what others have in their parts, and/or what is in the score.)
In the particular case you cite, the immediate cancellation of F# by a following Fn should not strain the player's brain at all. What really should be steered clear from is the more uncommon sorts of aug. and dim. intervals.
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
