Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
On Jul 31, 2008, at 11:56 AM, John Howell wrote: 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). ... The two bands I'm thinking of were, of course, Blood, Sweat and Tears and the original Chicago Transit Authority. I can't for the life of me see how either of those bands can be considered as anything but rock groups, either musically or sociologically. And both of them are from the *late* 60s: Chicago from 1967or '69, depending how you count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicago_Transit_Authority_(album)) , and BST from 1968 (Hardy and Laing: _The Encyclopedia of Rock, vol. 2_ [1976]) Frank Zappa, by contrast, was already recording music in 1960, and came to major public attention in 1966. His case is particularly interesting because his style gave him the choice of presenting himself equally convincingly as a classical composer, a jazzman, or a rock-'n-roller. He chose the last of these precisely because he wanted to reach the largest audience possible. Jazz in the '60s was most definitely *not* a form of popular music, and CTA and BST developed huge audiences precisely because theirs *was* popular music. That's what popular means! Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
John Howell wrote: The two bands I'm thinking of were, of course, Blood, Sweat and Tears and the original Chicago Transit Authority. Well, those bands are actually products of the late 60's, but I see where you're coming from. That said, I look at doubles as obstructions to clarity. Yeah, I read them when necessary, but because the vast majority of musicians I've worked with don't have a lot of practice with them (and some of those have been very good, but most have been jazz players), and because I've long kept to the ideal of "Keep it simple", I tend to re-spell double sharps and flats as their chromatic equivalent in the key in question. Theoreticians can quibble all they want, but I'll stick with practical use. cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
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
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
Carolyn Bremer wrote: Here's my take. I think all notation books will agree that accidentals apply only to one octave. In usage, I find that players will play all octaves with the same accidental. Perhaps your particular ensemble is used to having an accidental show on only one octave while applying to all, but it is technically incorrect. That said, in my book, the players win. The answer is - the second octave note should have a sign in front of it, whether or not it agrees with the note in the first octave. Any other practice is asking for wrong notes. In a passage like this, where the small letters are in a higher octave: G bA G e b a it may be obvious that the composer is following the 20th century rule (that the first A flat has no effect on the higher A), but I guarantee that some players will try to follow the old rule they learned as a child and play the higher one Ab. Also, a few editors out there still follow the archaic old rule. Raymond Horton ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
On 30 Jul 2008, at 9:02 PM, Patrick Sheehan wrote: 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#, etcORB, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. In chromatic scales, sharps are used going up, flats going down, but double flats and double sharps rarely. Your second example is better. This is not the same as your G# - G nat example, which is better with a double sharp, or Ab - G, depending on context. RBH ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
I approach things like this on a case by case basis and usually seek the solution that requires the fewest markings on the page. I agree completely about the F double# to G# decision, when the notes are alternating, and I can't think of any circumstance where I'd prefer G nat., G#, G nat., G#. On the subject of notes altered with accidentals and displaced by octaves: my assumption has always been that each octave is independent, but I was caught by another convention when recording a piece with the Metropole Orchestra in Holland where I had written a B flat in the lower octave and a B natural in the upper one and failed to put a courtesy natural on the second one (there were intervening pitches, by the way - though both were in the same measure). Both were played by the strings as B flats, and I was listening to so many things - mostly to balance and the emotional, dynamic shape of the piece, that I didn't notice it until the piece had been recorded. I don't know that it has a profound affect on anyone else's perception of the music, but it annoys and frustrates me every time I hear it. Please take this as a cautionary tale. "Be impossible to be misunderstood." - Bill Duncan On the subject of chord symbols - this becomes problematic as roots progress around the circle of fifths and move from flats to sharps ( or vice versa). Christopher's example of hearing complaints about Gbm7 rather than F#m7 is a good one. Is the following chord a B7? Then maybe, since they are "paired" and part of one basic sonority, either F#m7 - B7 or Gbm7 - Cb7. The question for me is usually one of where to make the switch. I work with some musicians who usually prefer spellings "in the key," but this principle becomes hard, and sometimes impractical, to maintain when the harmonic language is full of chromatic side-steps. (Horace Silver's "Strollin" - DbM/// Em7/A7/ Ebm7/Ab7/. No jazz musician in his right mind would insist on the correct spelling of Fbm7/Bbb7/.) On the other hand, a descending line in the key of Eb (single notes, not chord symbols) can be read easily as Bb, Bbb, Ab. However, chord symbols imply a pitch collection, so this is much more easily read as Bb, A nat., Ab, when chord symbols are involved (Bb7, A7, Ab7). As I said earlier, context must be a consideration. I look for the solution that requires no questions from the reader. There are more important things to be talking about; things that are not possible to notate precisely, or conveniently. My 2c. Chuck On Jul 31, 2008, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - 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#, etcORB, 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
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
- 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#, > etcOR 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
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
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#, etcORB, 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
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
Hi Patrick, On 30 Jul 2008, at 9:02 PM, Patrick Sheehan wrote: 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, YES. Definitely. This is unambiguous. Not restriking the Ab is wrong. 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#, etcORB, C-natural, C#, D- natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. Opinions differ. I would *definitely* go with naturals and sharps (especially for a rapid chromatic run like you describe). Some on this list will disagree vociferously. 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"? No, of course not. You shouldn't confuse "musicianship" with "what I'm used to." Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Jazz Notation Standards...what's correct?
Here's my take. I think all notation books will agree that accidentals apply only to one octave. In usage, I find that players will play all octaves with the same accidental. Perhaps your particular ensemble is used to having an accidental show on only one octave while applying to all, but it is technically incorrect. That said, in my book, the players win. It is almost always easier to read two different note heads, as you suggest. But, I think in practice (again) that G# - F-double sharp is so unusual that it is difficult for players to get quickly. Can you respell to Ab - G? The rule I use is to consider what the players have most often encountered (and particularly in scales that they'd practice frequently) and notate to that when spelling gets complicated. Theory loses this one. Musicians of decent caliber who complain do so because they haven't seen something often enough for it to become part of their arsenal. Should the copyist "teach" a musician to read double flats and sharps, or should the copyist work within the tradition of what a musician most often sees? I am sure there are good reasons for both, but again, I come down on the side of the musician. I look forward to reading the other responses, as these questions don't have a perfect answers. -Carolyn On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Patrick Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > 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#, etcOR > B, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. > > 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? > > 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. > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
