[Brad Beyenhof:]
>Would you, on a sextuplet of Ab's, include the flat symbol on all six notes?
>That seems needlessly space-wasting to me,
Yes, I admit that would look a bit strange; I see the point you're making.
I haven't actually been faced with such an obvious example, so I really would
have to think about that. In some contexts I might possibly do that, if the
overall style was such as to make a strict application of the rule desirable.
And I have seen scores that do that, and, in the overall context, it seems
acceptable.
If the sextuplets were happening all the time, it would very likely be
suggesting a style where I would be using the traditional rule anyway. But I
will talk about a hypothetical piece where, overall, the style calls for the
no-repeated-notes rule, where situations such as you describe occur
occasionally.
While I see the anomaly of what you say, I nevertheless find that, if I try
to find sensible ways of modifying the rules to allow for the repeated notes, I
would not always be able to avoid those ambiguities creeping back in again.
Perhaps I might relax the rules a bit if, upon examining the entire piece, I saw
none of the ambiguities I mentioned before - and I would put in a footnote
explaining what I was doing. But if the piece contained some of the ambiguous
examples of notes that might or might not count as repeated notes, I might in
the end decide that I have to apply the rule strictly.
I had already been leaning that way for years, but perhaps had a smidgen of
doubt about whether that was going too far. But what really persuaded me that
it might be best, nonetheless, was examining the score for Sorabji's "Opus
Clavicembalisticum" several years ago. This is an extremely complex piano work
which is very chromatic, without key or time signatures, and with extremely long
unmetred bars several systems long. The composer has inserted a note at the
start of the score saying that accidentals applied only to the notes they stand
in front of, except for repeated and tied notes - but the score has many
problems with this rule - both in the rather inadequate way the composer has
applied the rule in practice, and also with the nature of the rule itself.
First of all, there is plenty of evidence in the score that the composer
has not himself followed his rule, since there are very often repeated
figurations (arpeggiated chords and the like) which are obviously intended to be
the same pattern repeated several times; but he sometimes repeats the necessary
accidentals, and sometimes doesn't, in a quite random way. In some passages,
there isn't the slightest chance that the passages are intended to be different
even when the accidentals are missing; in others, it's not clear whether the
repetition without accidentals is meant to be a bit different or exactly the
same - and, because the composer has notated the piece so carelessly (or
hurriedly), his notation in general cannot be trusted. Many, perhaps even most,
passages are sufficiently distant from traditional harmony that expectations
about what it should be cannot guide one. (A missing accidental would be
obvious in Beethoven or Mozart - but not always in Sorabji.)
This is not just my arrogant opinion (who am I to judge such things? you
may wonder): the curator of the Sorabji Archive acknowledges this to be so.
But that is mere carelessness, in passages that *could* have been written
more clearly and consistently. What is more important is this: there are many
instances of especially complicated or subtle instances of repeated notes that
could be counted or not, depending on an extremely fussy definition of what is
and isn't a repeated note - the things I mentioned before: repeated notes
involved with changes of clef, 8va signs, repetitions split between different
voices, and all the other kinds of instances I mentioned before. I'm talking
about instances that would remain ambiguous even if the composer had written his
score with more care than in fact he did - simply because the stated rule itself
doesn't exactly define these borderline cases.
It is genuinely difficult, even impossible, to know whether or not some of
these are meant to be affected by accidentals, using the "repeated notes" clause
of the composer's rule, because nowhere does he define exactly what he meant by
"repeated notes". This served to strengthen my view that the only easy way of
avoiding ambiguity is to be strict in saying "one accidental, one note" - no
exceptions. The down side of that (I guess everything has one) is that you also
have to use it in obvious cases like the simple, unambiguous repeated Ab's you
mentioned.
There is one other way out of the dilemma, but it isn't easy: and that is
to define repeated notes with full precision and fussiness in some way you deem
fit - to build exceptions into the rule - and then apply that. And it might
possibly include the instances involving 8va signs, different voices, and so
on - or it might not - or it might include some, and exclude others. But,
however you decided this, the rule itself would be more of a burden to remember
and apply while performing, and I would in fact find it just easier to cope with
the repeated accidentals even in simple repeated notes such as the Ab's you
cited - which is probably an example that wouldn't come up all that often in
most pieces.
And if it did arise often in some piece, I would perhaps formulate the rule
differently to allow for that, and state it clearly, making sure there was no
ambiguity. When I gave the rule in my previous posting, I was just giving a
kind of default general case I would use in highly chromatic music - not
necessarily saying I would have to use it in all pieces that are without
tonality (which are probably the only ones where I'd use any rule beyond the
traditional rules plus whatever cautionaries I felt necessary).
But the bottom line seems to me to be that a successful rule has to do two
things: it has to be sufficiently clear that it divides all situations into two
clear-cut categories: those which it applies to, and those which it doesn't; and
then it has to be simple enough that it is easy to remember and apply while you
are playing.
I might also add that perhaps, in my previous posting, I made the two
systems I use sound a bit too black and white, and I probably didn't mean to.
In fact, it would probably be rare for me to use a strict application of the
one-note-per-accidental rule - but it was the extreme end of a spectrum which I
could reach on occasion, if the music seemed to call for it.
But my more common situation of using the traditional rule together with
(sometimes) many cautionary accidentals still satisfies the two conditions I
just mentioned: it divides all notes into the two categories I mentioned, and it
is easy to apply. There may not be such a rigid system to when I use
cautionaries, but that doesn't matter, because they are technically redundant
anyway - but nonetheless helpful.
>and would seem to dissociate the
>notes from each other rather than treating them as the group they are.
This is not a factor I would consider in deciding how to treat accidentals;
it seems utterly unconnected to me, and I cannot see that the way accidentals
are used either forms notes into groups, nor dissociates them - it gives me no
information whatever about that. The beaming, articulation, or phrasing used
might reasonably convey information about grouping - but not accidentals.
What notes form a group would often be a very subjective matter, and
different musicians might group notes together in different ways.
I don't see the repeated flat signs for the Ab's you cited as dissociating
the notes from the group they form; to me, the notation is simply saying that
all the notes are flat, and I think it would be reading subjective meaning into
the notation to see anything more there.
>I would tend to think of a "repeated note" as a same-staff-position,
>same-clef, same-octave note, so a change of staff (in keyboard music), a
>change of clef, or an 8va marking would necessitate a restatement of the
>accidental.
>
>What would be unclear about that?
The fact that you had to describe what you regard as "repeated notes" - I
couldn't have been sure what you included and didn't include if you didn't
describe it. I have seen scores which do treat some of the things you mentioned
as repeated notes, and left out the accidental.
In fact, I can't tell from your description whether you also include notes
that are split between different voices, or notes repeated in one voice, but
with notes in another voice intervening (so they are, at least in a sense, not
*immediately* repeated).
And this uncertainty is the point I'm making. I don't know for sure how to
take these things if they are not defined; and any detailed definition of all
these things is usually going to be harder to remember than the strict rule
which always requires accidentals, that allows no exceptions.
Yes, if the piece in question had none of these ambiguous cases, I would
probably consider making some allowance for repeated notes. In practice, I have
largely worked in an idiom where the customary rule plus varying numbers of
cautionary examples suffices.
>Also, be reminded that perceived
>ambiguities can always be resolved with parenthesized cautionary
>accidentals.
What people find ambiguous can differ from one person to another, and I
wouldn't want the clarity of notation to depend on subjective judgements by
performers about what is or isn't ambiguous, that I can't foresee. However, if
you depart from the traditional rule, and try to cover all ambiguities, it
inevitably moves you to the strict rule I mentioned.
I did use parentheses at one time for cautionaries, but I later abandoned
that as unnecessary clutter. I don't currently use them, although I am aware
that some consider that they do convey useful information (i.e., the fact that
the accidental is cautionary).
Regards,
Michael Edwards.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
