[David W. Fenton:]
>On 29 May 2003 at 8:10, Michael Edwards wrote:
>
>> I guess the situation is a bit difficult for older music, where notation
>>has changed sufficiently that older music might be difficult for modern people
>>to read. I suppose we have to accept standardizing there.
>
>Actually, I would entirely disagree with that assertion. If you're
>going to play older music, you really need to learn to read the older
>notation.
It is obvious that some old conventions have been kept in modern editions
(such as the appoggiaturas you go on to mention), and others have been long
since dropped (repeating accidentals in key signatures in several octaves, use
of some C clefs).
>The classic example of this is the Classical era notation of the
>apoggiatura. Take Mozart's K. 332 Sonata in Bb, which begins with the
>falling figure, 16th-note appoggiatura, 8th note, 16th, 16th. It is
>played as 4 16ths, and the late 19th century Mozart edition published
>by B&H transcribed it as that.
>
>But the result is that it obscres the musical significance of that
>first note. The original notation makes quite clear that it is a non-
>harmonic tone, that the one notated as the 8th note is the harmonic
>tone. It points out to the reader that the passage starts with a
>harmonic dissonance. The 4 16th-notes version obscures that.
If the performer or reader has a real musical sense, that fact would be
obvious without the notation having to highlight it by distortion of what is to
be played.
I agree that one is getting into murky areas if one decides editorially to
change Mozart's notation, and update it to modern conventions generally; but, as
a composer, I would every time prefer the modern notation, which seems to
reflect more accurately what is intended to be played, without there having to
be an understanding of conventions such as "play an appoggiatura in such and
such a way, even though it's not written like that". I prefer to avoid letting
the correct interpretation of my notation be based on such conventions when I
can do so clearly.
I suppose most would agree with me on this instance of appoggiaturas: I
very rarely, if ever, see appoggiaturas written in Mozart's way in music of the
last 200 or so years. If I have ever seen it on rare occasions, it is probably
a deliberate archaism because the music is itself evoking an old style.
>> But surely such editions should labelled "edited by <so-and-so>", with
>>annotations about the changes that have been made. And, especially for
>>scholarly or purist use, you could have another edition that reproduces Bach's
>>notation exactly. . . .
>
>Well, a facsimile does that for you.
A facsimile of the original edition, that is? - not the manuscript (which
is likely to be difficult to read)? I guess that is what I was referring to
here.
Like it or not, though, some old conventions of notation are not well-known
by non-specialists - and sometimes apparently not by specialists either: I have
often read of extensive debate between knowledgeable people on how to play
grace-notes (on or before the beat), mordents, and so on. I still don't know
whether to play grace-notes on or before the beat, and in which composers or
periods, because I've read so many arguments either way. In practice, I let the
feel of the music dictate this, plus my own feelings about how I want to
interpret it.
>> But where a composition is recent enough to be using essentially the same
>>conventions we understand today, mere differences of style should surely be
>>honoured, and a meaningless conformity to one style not imposed on everyone.
>
>Hah! There are more different notational conventions going on today
>than perhaps at any other period in musical history that I can think of!
The difference appears to be that the various old conventions were
alternative mainstreams, whereas the mainstream today is more consistent, but
the additional conventions you mentioned are added on top of the mainstream by
composers trying to invent new notations to apply to their own style or
techniques.
At a base level, ignoring the additional conventions modern composers make
up, notation seems less ambiguous to me than it used to. We don't have to
debate the interpretation of dotted notes, appoggiaturas, and so on today,
provided the composer hasn't needless invented new conventions about such
matters. Dotted notes have a precise meaning now; appoggiaturas are written out
in normal note-values, not in the Mozart style you need to understand before you
can play it properly - and so on. I feel notation is more standard now than
before, in spite of new "standards" invented by some composers. It appears to
me that the invented conventions are about more esoteric things such as
quarter-tones, aleatoric rhythms, unpitched sounds (such as playing behind the
bridge on strings), and other oddities of that sort that are not quite
mainstream.
>Orthography has not been as well-defined in the past as it is today.
>Lots of things were tolerated back then in terms of inconsistency of
>spelling that would not be tolerated in modern usage.
This more or less backs up what I've just said, and seems to contradict
your earlier statement that there are more different notational conventions now
than in any earlier time.
I think a lot of the individual mannerisms we've been talking about in
connection with house style are more cosmetic than actually changing the musical
meaning: note-beaming (well, that *may* possibly change the interpretation), use
or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes, and so on. But composers seem
to have preferences in such matters, and I don't really want to see editors
riding rough-shod over such things and stamping them out.
>I think modern editors should lighten up.
I hope I haven't given the impression that I think anything less than that
using notation in a correct, clear, and consistent fashion is a good thing to
do. But I don't think the way to do this is always as clear or singular as it
might appear (although I often have my own very definite, singular preferences,
and some of these are slightly unconventional); and, if a composer has a
different way of showing some features, I would prefer to give him or her more
room than less room, such as in the issue of naturals in key-signature changes.
So I would suggest composers give thought to their notational practices (if
they don't already), but also suggest that editors not be too dictatorial about
practices they see as unconventional, if they appear deliberately thought-out.
And, on clefs:
[still quoting from David Fenton:]
>Clefs have always been considered as having no musical meaning.
What is "musical meaning"? To me, they clearly have what I would call
musical meaning: they decide on the range of pitches that are to be read from a
staff of 5 lines that would appear the same except for the clef. For some
instruments, this information may seem superfluous, because only one type of
clef is used; but obviously there are some instruments where more than one clef
can be used, so the clefs are needed there, and do convey useful information.
This is so obvious that perhaps I have misinterpreted your comment, David.
>And I think that's definitely the case after about 1700 or so.
>But before that time, they served lots of purposes besides being a
>mere marker of relative pitch. They indicated things about scoring
>and key signature, sometimes very crucial things that were not
>conveyed in any other way.
So the role of the clef became more specialized, and some of its uses were
delegated to other notational elements. That's not the same to me, though, as
having no musical meaning.
>So, one may very well be transcribing out important information. In
>that case, one needs to find some alternate method of conveying the
>same information.
Of course. No disagreement here.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
