----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 21:08
Subject: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
To: finale@shsu.edu
I have a brother that plays in a prestigious big band, and I
have recently been hired as the copyist for this particular
band.
I had done non-contracted copy work for them before, and need to
clear up some notation issues with the experts, because we
argue. I'm not extensive in jazz, but I know some things
can't be as awkward as what he claims they are, as follows:
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.
Definitely restate the Ab. It is correct practice. Even if someone
uses another convention, it is better to be completely unambiguous.
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.
I would go with B, B#, C#, CX, etc, since that is what is generally
correct and these ARE professionals. In the absence of a key
signature, I would avoid double sharps and double flats, though.
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?
That's what I think.
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?
Right. In this case, DEFINITELY G# to FX is more readable. With only
one instance of a pitch (like your chromatic run) there might be a
case made for natural-sharp, but here where the figure repeats, the
double sharp is better, no question.
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.
Please let me know if these two points are common (and / or
correct) in standard jazz notation. I appreciate it.
Common? Maybe double sharps and double flats are not as common, but
they are certainly correct. Musicians might complain about them
because they haven't seen them much, but that is no reason to
complain, IMO. As soon as you write ANYTHING that is newish, you get
complaints, because jazz musicians are a conservative bunch, and
they seem to have gotten their panties in a twist about enharmonics
in particular. I've had musicians screaming at me about spelling
Gbm7 instead of F#m7 (in the key of Db, no less!) and I have to just
shrug and end the conversation.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
