Patrick Sheehan wrote:
[snip]
1. Accidentals He claims that, in a (e.g.) scalar run:
(Key of Bb Major), if the clarinet plays a scalar run
(with Ab accidentals only, outside of the key) starting
on it's written low F (below the staff), it will play F,
G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, THEN... should the upper
A-flat be remarked since it's in the next octave, or is
it automatically assumed that it's flat, because it was
flat in the lower octave? I claim that's not the
practice, he claims it is. Answer on that one, please.
Yes, the upper Ab should also be marked. I expect the same
in "classical" or non-pop music as well. The older practice
of an accidental affecting all octaves within that measure
was passe when I was in music theory class in 1970! My
professor then impressed on us that each octave was its own
pitch and the rule for accidentals affected ONLY that single
pitch it was applied to.
2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: As we all know, some big
band ballads or jazz chart ballads can be in some nasty
keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts are in Db and
Ab), moreso in favor for the vocalist, and my question
is: if something like a chromatic scalar run in the
woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would
you write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C
double-sharp, D#, etc....OR B, C-natural, C#,
D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former.
Leave the double-sharps and double-flats out of such a
passage as much as possible.
My view is, the natural-then-sharp accidental fashion is
much too difficult on the eye. Isn't this what double
sharps and double flats (respectively) are for? How
about if you had a figure that went inbetween a G# and a
G natural for two pairs of sixteenth notes (for two
counts in 4/4?). Would you want to have to read a G#
G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat mess?!?! Or, easier,
a G#-to F-double sharp breeze-of-a-read?
It's only a "breeze-of-a-read" if you're used to reading
double sharps. If you're not, then it's more difficult than
what you call a "mess."
I'd use the G#-Gnat everytime -- the "language" of jazz
musicians, from my experience, doesn't include double-sharps
or double-flats except in the cases of the very esoteric
jazz bands, which Miller's band was hardly one of. Kenton's
band or Herman's band I would expect to be able to read
double-sharps/double-flats. Toshiko Akiyoshi / Lew Tabackin
Big Band is another such band. But the majority of them are
used to reading music with single flats and single sharps.
Lots of accidentals don't bother them, but double-sharps and
double-flats aren't second nature to many musicians in jazz
bands.
I'll ask a bold question: Do you think musicians who
complain about double sharps and double flats exemplify
poor musicianship, because they're "too hard to figure
out"? Anyone with me on that? I have seen
double-sharps and double-flats in ALL kinds of stock
arrangements, engraved or (poorly) hand-written.
I do not think that such complaints reflect poor
musicianship any more than I think that people who choose to
use them reflect musical snobbery.
Every genre of music has its own vocabulary that the
majority of people comfortable playing in that genre are
most used to seeing and that they expect. To bring the
expectations and standards from one genre to another is to
invite problems unnecessarily.
You're entering their world -- don't try to force them to
enter your world or you'll soon be replaced by another
copyist who better understands what they're looking for.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
