[Ray Horton:]
>>>Michael Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>>(a) The use or non-use of naturals in key-signature changes should (in my
>>>>opinion) be determined by the composer (especially if he or she definitely
>>>>wants a particular method), and not overridden by the engraver or publisher.
>
>>>Ray Horton wrote:
>>>
>>>I have no problem seeing this as a publisher style, since it makes no
>>>difference to the performance.
>>
>> Ray, would you then, in that case, eliminate the various mannerisms I
>>mentioned before that can be found in Ives, Debussy, Satie, Grainger, etc.? I
>>don't like the idea at all - even though those mannerisms are not ones I would
>>ever want to use myself.
>
>Not at all. I was speaking specifically of key sig changes.
Okay; I probably wrongly generalized your remarks there a bit too much, and
applied them to other things you didn't mean them to apply to, as the discussion
itself broadened. Sorry for that.
>I have seen
>them handled different ways in different publications, but none of the
>different ways in which they were handled makes any possible difference to
>the performance except to prevent a note-reading error, so I would, in
>general, leave it to the house style.
I still can't agree, and feel that, in this issue, the composer should be
allowed to choose, if he or she has a clear preference.
>I would not assume that different
>styles of key sig changes would be mandated by the composer, anyway.
If you were dealing with my music, your assumption would be wrong.
Knowing that, would you still say to me, "You must accept our house style,
or we won't publish the music"?
Whether I would acquiesce, I don't know; it would depend on a variety of
factors. But I feel you would not be justified in imposing this on me.
>They simply don't matter.
If they don't matter, why take the trouble to impose a house style?
I take pride in doing my scores well, and have certain ways of doing them,
and the older style of key-signature changes is one of my ways.
I'm sure I can't be the only person to whom scores have an aesthetic
element, and where certain inoffensive things are done for this reason. To me,
the naturals in key-signature changes are a part of this feeling of what looks
right.
>Any other mannerisims, such as unusual beaming (or Grainger's "louden lots"
>in place of a crescendo), that could more effectively communicate the
>composers intent to the performer, would be, in general, left in. But I see
>no way in which the inclusion of naturals, or not, in a key sig change, or
>the placement of the naturals before or after the new key sig, would affect
>the performance of music beyond avoiding a sight-reading mistake.
You are making judgements there about what another composer thinks matters
or not: "louden lots" matters enough to be left alone, but naturals in
key-signature changes don't, and should therefore be removed if house style
requires it.
But I think, for instance, you could make out a case that Grainger's
"louden lots" means exactly the same as "molto crescendo", and you could then
justify changing it accordingly. But I would not do so for another composer.
(If there is to be a subtle difference in meaning here, it would be entirely
subjective, depending on the way you interpret words.)
The inclusion or exclusion of the naturals changes the musical meaning no
more and no less than the use of "louden lots" or "molto crescendo". But at
least some composers care about the look of their manuscripts, too, and this
should be respected at least as long as the clarity is not compromised.
I would take a bit of convincing that the inclusion of the naturals
detracts from readability: no-one ever complains about this in Beethoven,
Chopin, Rachmaninov, Debussy (in his slightly different way), and almost any
other composer before the 20th century, and many well into the 20th century
also.
>For example, cautionary accidentals is a similar, but not identical, matter.
>I haven't spent a lot of time looking at great composer's mss, but I would
>imagine that, in general, cautionary accidentals don't show up a lot in
>those mss. It would be the editor's responsibility to place them where
>needed.
Once again, I give careful thought to this, and do my own cautionaries. I
would consider constructive suggestions, but would not react favourably to
compulsory overriding of my own method.
>If the publisher has a "house style" in this case [cautionary accidentals] I
>suppose it would come into play, but common sense would be the better rule
>here.
Whose common sense?
I still say: impose the house rules only if the manuscript clearly shows
that the composer hasn't paid a lot of attention to such matters. Mark Lew has
already told us (to my surprise) that there are composers like this. But please
do not override a composer's carefully-thought-out system just because it
doesn't agree with the house rule.
>(The other problem here is our silly use of am identical or
>nearly-identical curved line for both ties and slurs but it would take some
>doing to change that.)
Here is another mannerism I have which no doubt violates lots of house
rules: I always make ties touch the noteheads affected (or very nearly touch
them, in difficult situations like chords with lots of seconds in them, or
accidentals getting in the way); and I always allow a perceptible space between
the end of a slur or phrase line and the noteheads affected.
There are relevant examples of tie/slur confusion in Beethoven piano
sonatas - I grew up on these, which perhaps explains why I often use them as
examples to illustrate a point. Quite often, especially in cadences, there is a
chord resolving into another chord, and some of the notes are common to both,
and are tied. Also some notes change, and their noteheads are also connected by
curved lines, but acting as slurs instead of ties. It takes a few moments of
scrutiny to work out what's going on. (Of course, you get to know the passage,
and then it's no real bother.)
In cases like this, I always separate out the notes into two voices, with
stems pointing up and down: one voice contains all the tied notes, and the other
the non-tied notes. I use the ties in the normal way; and I add the slur to the
ends of the note-stems opposite to the noteheads, rather than to the noteheads.
(In general, I always try whenever possible to avoid combining tied and struck
notes on a single note-stem. They are logically separate voices, different
rhythmically, so I think this is appropriate.)
This probably also violates some house rules; but it makes the music much
easier to read. If I am ever lucky enough to get published, I hope some editor
is not going to obliterate all my carefully-worked-out methods such as this of
improving clarity. There are many other devices I use to aid clarity, some
mildly idiosyncratic like this; this is just one example.
>Anyway, back to the subject, I agree that composer's idiosyncracies should,
>in general, be left in, especially if they help the performer in
>interpretation.
... except for those things where you've already said house style should
prevail.
You seem to be giving contrary arguments to some extent. But surely you
must either respect the composer's notation, or impose a house style. I don't
see how you can have it both ways, unles you arbitrarily decide to respect some
things and not others, based solely on your opinion about what really matters
and what doesn't.
>A wise editor will discuss these with the composer befroe changing anything.
Well, I guess that is of some comfort. Perhaps I'm attributing to you a
harder-line attitude than you really have. If so, my apologies.
>There can be pitfalls to individuality in notation. Once, I was playing a
>lyrical euphonium solo in a hand-copied Grainger piece that had his
>indication of "slow off". As the phrase should have been tapering down, I
>misread the hand-copied two fs in "slow off" as a fortissimo - and made
>started to make a rather un-musical crescendo before I realized my mistake.
I don't think the apologists for respecting composers' notation are
intending it to apply to a clear slip of the pen - if that is what it was, in
the sense of the "o" in "off" not being visible enough. Of course the word
"off" in this case should be indicated in a way that doesn't look like "ff" for
"fortissimo".
If the word "off" *was* clear enough, and you just misread it - well,
humans do make mistakes. But it seems an over-reaction to me to abolish the
word "off" in scores because, one in a thousand times, someone might mistake it
for "ff".
I've occasionally, in a less-than-clear score, or reading in less than
adequate light, mistaken a "p" (for "soft") for a minim. I'm not going to try
to eliminate the letter "p" from scores, though.
>(Shouldn't that have been above the staff? But what if the composer wanted
>it below... never mind.)
I never said there weren't grey areas; I'm talking about a basic approach
you take to respecing the composer's carefully-worked-out notation.
Perhaps we've got a bit bogged down in particular examples here, some of
which I admit are grey. But I think my basic view on respecting what a composer
has written is quite clear, even if you can find exceptions to it - especially
when it's obvioius that the composer has carefully thought it out, and not just
carelessly written whatever seems to come to mind for the situation.
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
