> On 27 Sep 2020, at 22:17, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It is common, for example, for a composer to write D sharp for some >>> instruments and E flat for others. >> >> A composer should write so that it becomes easy for the musician to >> perform, otherwise they will have to edit the score, which costs >> time and money. The musicians then listens to the other musicians >> and adapt so it sounds right—this is what one of my flute teachers >> said, who sits in an opera here. Or modern composers just haven't >> checked it out. Some do, though. > > Well, almost all orchestra musicians think linearly, this is, > horizontally, not vertically. Consequently, composers (at least up to > the late romantic era) write music that can be easily read linearly. > This is what sometimes leads to have d sharp and e flat at the same > time.
Right. For example, on older clarinets, it was difficult to switch between flats and sharps, having B♭ and A clarinets, so it must be written for that. With modern mechanics, it does not matter so much. > Hans, please note that your opinion is that of a minority IMHO. You are free to implement whatever you like, as you are ones doing it. > In > all classical, romantic, or impressionistic scores that I'm aware of, > pitches of enharmonic changes are completely insignificant. Musicians > are expected to automatically adjust the pitch so that it sounds ok > within chords. They will adjust even if it is written it enharmonically wrong. But if one is choosing it wrong on an instrument that can play it accurately, one gets a wolf interval, which sounds like it is named. > However, this gets *never* notated as such. I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as diminished sevenths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord > Consequently, we have ties between enharmonic changes and not slurs. Whatever.
