I have no opinion to offer here on how to write accidentals in twelve-tone music, but I do want to take issue with this sentence that dhbailey wrote:
Good musicians will be able to perform it however it's written and bad musicians won't be able to perform it no matter what.
I'm not quite sure is meant by this, but the implication seems to be that since good musicians can read anything anyway it's not important to be clear. If so, I strongly disagree.
You could print all your parts in blue ink on green paper and good musicians could still play it. That doesn't mean it's OK. Clearer is always better, no matter how good or how bad the musicians. I don't know what's most clear in this case, but whatever it is, it's worth doing.
I didn't say it wasn't important to be as clear as you can be, but in the cited example, G-A# vs G-Bb there are two different sorts of clarity. There is the clarity of the printed notes which might obscure the clarity of the melodic line (i.e. writing a minor third when you really want the implication of an augmented second) and there is the clarity of the melodic line which might obscure the clarity of the printed music (there seems to be agreement that augmented seconds will confuse some musicians, so most people are suggesting the notation of a minor third).
Since it seems in this instance that both sorts of clarity (clarity of meaning and clarity of notation) can't co-exist, my point was simply that it won't matter how it's notated, good musicians will figure it out and play it properly while poor musicians won't get the right idea no matter how you notate it.
I don't seem to recall blue ink on green paper being a salient point in this discussion so far -- I thought it was dodecaphonic music the original poster was asking about, not suitable ink and paper colors.
Guess I was sleeping again.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
