> On 28 Sep 2020, at 00:26, Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> wrote: > >>> 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 > I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"?
Right. Typo. > (Augmented sixth chords, at least "Italian" and "German" augmented sixths, > are identical to dominant sevenths without or with fifth on a modern > keyboard, e.g. c-e-[g]-a♯ vs. c-e-[g]-b♭, but none of them yield diminished > sevenths.) They are equal in E12, but not in the staff system or in an orchestra. > But anyway, I'm not sure that your statement holds true invariably: I'm > pretty sure that in late 19th century composers like Bruckner, the difference > between both chords becomes blurry. I will see if I can find an example, > maybe even older than Bruckner. Some composers though seem to be careful about the difference, and it is a bit curious why. > On a related but different note, I always found it funny how certain editors > of Mozart's Requiem, of all things, tried to "improve" Mozart's > chromatic/enharmonic spelling. See the old Peters vocal scores on IMSLP at > the end of the "Confutatis maledictis" > > <oeehcojnehmnfcpd.png> > > vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully): > > <bggdfflenejgmfad.png> Because of such a practise, one would have to go back to originals or use Urtext which have footnotes about the changes. > I would not claim that this change generates any measurable difference in > what the musicians actually play and sing, but I imagine it changes the way > they _think_ their lines. This is an important point, I think. One should notate the musical intent, not merely as a line of notes. For example, ornaments do not necessarily become clearer if written out explicitly, but the converse may happen. There is a difference between the type of music: Jazz is pretty much E12, and the Mehegan Jazz Improvisation books use enharmonic equivalents without discrimination, if I remember it correctly. > In particular, I like Mozart's notation for the clarity with which he > expresses that he uses the diminished seventh as a triple-leading tone > neighbour to the ensuing dominant seventh - not to mention the fact that this > exact device is all over the place in the second half of the Confutatis, and > it's frankly silly to change it just once, only to avoid a double flat... I did try to measure a dominant 7th chord in some Beethoven's orchestral work, I think it was, and from what I could see, they just play stacked thirds. Not the 7th partial, as has been suggested. Also, I used to play along with a meantone tuning with some Balkan piece, it may have been a Paidushko with Petko Radev on clarinet, and I found that it did not blend well. So when I measured the clarinet, I found it was a comma off, suggesting he is playing in Pythagorean tuning. As for spelling, the violin pizzicato in the tune below is in F♯ harmonic minor, so when written out, one gets an E♯, not an F. If one plays along with an E12 instrument, it sounds a bit of tune, even adjusted for pitch as it is an original analog recording. I originally thought it might be because of the pizzicato, which stretches the octave, but perhaps it is because there are no other good pitch references on the violins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvSNAfSaezk&list=PLJ2I_U9XF3oDMwyVjAULrShxZKWlmHOGy&index=6