At 1:42 AM +0100 10/22/05, John Bell wrote:
On 22 Oct 2005, at 01:28, Darcy James Argue wrote:
This is a situation where, IMO, the copyist should confront the
composer, asking "Are you _sure_ you want this clef change in the
part?" and then explaining what Andrew said, with emphasis on
"mixing the two systems is just plain wrong" and "if you want the
bcl to sound up a ninth, do not under any circumstances write a
bass clef for it."
Many composers look at the b.cl. part for the "Rite" and think, "If
Stravinsky does it, it must be okay." But mixing two different
transpositions in a b.cl. part is just begging for trouble.
I entirely agree with you, and Andrew, but Stravinsky was not alone
in this. There was a convention for a time in parts of Europe at
least, to write the bcl part up a ninth in treble clef most of the
time, but in low passages to go into bass clef and write it up a
tone.
I'm not defending this method, merely suggesting that Stravinsky was
following a convention that was fairly common at the time.
Probably quite true. And of course I accept Andrew's statement that
conventions in Germany and some other parts of (Eastern?) Europe may
differ from those here. But would a composer not be better off
notating in a way that can be immediately and unquestionably
understood at sight in ANY and every country in the world? And by
bass clarinetists who are not in the elite orchestras where they have
to understand all the historical ins and outs of bass clarinet
notation? I would vote for confrontation, but it's your client and
your job, so it's entirely up to you.
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://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
