At 5:18 AM -0400 7/31/08, dhbailey wrote:
Patrick Sheehan wrote:
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.
Not only is David absolutely correct, but I'd take it a step
further--several steps, perhaps, although from radically different
viewpoints.
Take off your music theorist's hat for a few minutes, and throw it in
the corner. Put on your historian's hat. Double flats and double
sharps are, historically, adventures into unknown, or theoretical, or
hypothetical territory. They did not exist in historical notation,
and I'm talking up through the transition from renaissance to early
baroque style, harmony, and theory. In fact theorists fought over
whether the notes Fb or Cb were even theoretically possible, since in
THEIR theory F and C were already "fa" (i.e. the lowered form of a
variable pitch), the purpose of a flat was to alter a note to "fa,"
and the idea of making a "fa" even more "fa" was simply absurd.
Secondly, take a realistic look at jazz players prior to about 1960.
Some of them could read music, some of them couldn't. If they
couldn't, it didn't matter, because their ears worked! If they
could, they didn't let it get in their way, because it was the sound
that counted, not the little picky details of how that sound was
represented on paper. Harmony wasn't something you analyzed, it was
something you absorbed and lived in!
So why do I pick 1960 as a turning point? Simple. There were two
VERY successful bands in the early '60s that pushed the limits of
jazz/pop/rock'n'roll/classical styles and started a fusion movement
that continued for at least 15 years (and may still be happening).
They were both up at the top of the charts. And they both used
something new: horn lines made up of young, talented players who had
come up out of university study of their instruments and not just out
of playing in bars and road houses. They had technique. They had
classical tone, and classical control of their instruments, along
with solid jazz style. Yes, they would have studied and understood
double flats and sharps along with the rest of music theory, but that
isn't the question. The proper question is whether they would have
been used to seeing that kind of notation on a daily basis and
sightreading it, or whether they understood it intellectually but
didn't consider it terribly important for what they were doing.
The two bands I'm thinking of were, of course, Blood, Sweat and Tears
and the original Chicago Transit Authority. Along with everything
else, they brought straight 8th notes back into jazz as an acceptable
alternative to swung 8ths. In fact, they were ground-breaking on any
number of levels, and I marveled every time another of their sides
made it onto the charts.
So, Patrick, is it your job to educate the musicians you'll be
copying for, or to give them charts they'll be comfortable with?
Actually, I think you've answered your own question by bringing it up
here for discussion! To put it crudely, the client is right, whether
you agree or not!!
John
--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
