[the following is a two-art edited-down version of a reply I sent on
Saturday which was too big for posting without moderator approval; as
the moderator appears not to have approved it, I'm sending through
this first part of the shortened version]
On 31 May 2003 at 23:40, Michael Edwards wrote:
> [David W. Fenton:]
>
> >On 30 May 2003 at 2:12, Michael Edwards wrote:
[]
> [David:]
> >. . . courtesy accidentals. They are not
> >*necessary*, since one could puzzle them out without any ambiguity,
> >but we include them to insure that the performer gets the message.
>
> Without courtesy accidentals, it is *very* easy in highly chromatic music
> (which is where they are most likely to be used) to play the notes wrongly, even
> if accidental usage is flawlessly according to rules governing scope of
> accidentals, etc. I find it difficult to see how you could play an appoggiatura
> wrongly by virtue of its being notated the modern way instead of Mozart's older
> way.
"Play it wrong" apparently means to you only getting the notes and
rhythms correct. That's the trivial part of performance.
> What this means to me is that courtesy accidentals are more important than
> the old appoggiatura notation to prevent players from making mistakes.
"Mistakes?" What's a mistake? To me, playing the Mozart notation as
though it really were 4 16th notes is a mistake, as it is *not* the
same thing. Mozart's notation makes clear an *analytical* point that
immediately suggests to the performer something essential about the
underlying musical structure, and allows the performer to more easily
and quickly make a decision about how to perform it.
The "modern" method washes out all that information and makes it
*harder* to play with any musical subtlety.
[]
> You could almost make out a case for doing it precisely the other way
> around: leave modern composers' music alone, because it uses modern notation
> conventions, other than a few mainly cosmetic issue about house styles and the
> like; but update Mozart's notation because at least some things he notated are
> not commonly used now, and misunderstood by at least some people.
> I'm not advocating this necessarily; just raising it as an idea.
My feeling is that it's best not to update/alter *anyone's* notation,
unless the change is 100% neutral in terms of musical content and
implication. The Mozart appoggiatura changed to 4 16th notes is
patently *not* neutral -- it conveys *less* musically significant
information, and is therefore a bad thing.
I would argue that changes in older beaming styles *also* get rid of
possibly significant information. In my editions I retain the cross
beaming (i.e., d\P, with the notehead at the bottom on the 1st note,
and at the top on the 2nd), because sometimes those beaming details
make clearer changes of register and possible phrasing articulation
points. I know of no modern editions that follow the same practice,
and I think it's a shame. It's not hard to read at all.
On the other hand, I *don't* retain the practice of putting whole
notes in the middle of the measure, for instance, because it's hard
for modern readers to comprehend (they tend to read horizontally
through a measure, lining up notes not by their actual rhythmic
values, but simply according to vertical alignment. The old method
requires grasping the measure as a whole *before* you start playing
it. While I think it would be fabulous if modern players actually did
that, I don't think it's a very practical idea to try to force them
to do so by using that non-standard notational practice.
[]
> It sometimes takes scholarly research to show the proper way of
> interpreting the notation of special features from the past; but the way to read
> basic notes changes far more slowly, and is essentially the same as in Bach's or
> Mozart's day. Therefore the less I depend on conventions which can be very
> time- or style-dependent, the more readable my music will be likely to remain
> over time.
Well, that means your notation will be blander and less rich than
what it could be, which is your choice.
I detect more and more in what you write that you seem to be content
with conveying notes and rhythms and if those get performed
correctly, you're basically happy.
I think that's really too bad.
> >You might very well choose to use it for the
> >very same reason Mozart did, to make something clear to the performer
> >without a need for analysis.
>
> Clear to a performer in the right time and place; but if, later on, other
> performers don't know the convention, because it has become obsolete, then they
> will play it wrongly.
I suggested that you indicate *in the score* how the notation is to
be interpreted, the first time it occurs. Are you suggesting that
this indication will be printed in less durable ink and will eventual
wear away and be lost?
If not, then your objection makes not sense.
> Things like the old appoggiatura notation may be clear to those who are
> well-versed in that convention; but I would hardly say it is *unclear* just to
> write the appoggiatura literally in normal note-values.
And I didn't say to just do that. I said to write it, indicating the
intended performance on the first occurrence, with a "simile" or some
such after that. You might have an explanatory note somewhere in the
score that makes clear *why* that older notational technique seemed
useful.
Of course, you have to understand why it was useful in the first
instance and place value on that in your own music.
> >Obviously, it would only be appropriate
> >in a style in which the concept of the accented appoggiatura made
> >sense,
>
> If someone who is *not* familiar with the general style of my music comes
> to it and tries to play it, I want it to be as accurately readable to them as
> possible.
And even at the expense of a better performance from the performer
who *is* familiar with your musical style? And really, would
something like that trip up the performer at any time other than on
the first encounter?
> >but I see no reason why it should be thrown out.
>
> I see no reason to keep it if the effect can be clearly and precisely
> notated in standard notation.
But the whole point is: IT CAN'T.
You seem to boil it down to notes and rhythm, as though that's the
*important* part of musical performance. It's not! That's the most
trivial part, the part everyone can get. I'm talking about notational
details the do more than convey pitch and rhythm, that convey details
of small-scale accentuation and phrasing and articulation.
And even the nuances of rhythm are something that is only
incompletely conveyed.
> (I should add, if it isn't already clear, that I'm talking about what I
> would do in composing music. I'm not suggesting that editions of Mozart's music
> should, for example, eliminate appoggiatura notation. There may be a case for
> so doing in some editions, but in others a case for keeping the original
> notation. I don't know enough about all the issues involved in editing music,
> especially older music, to get into that side of things.)
We long ago left the topic of editions of music in which it's
original notation. I'm suggesting there is no reason not to use the
old notation in modern if you want to convey the same kind of
interpretive idea.
And I'm not talking about notes and rhythms.
> >You would
> >simply be borrowing an old notational practice with which everyone is
> >familiar in order to use it "by analogy" to make your *own* music
> >more readable.
>
> Maybe; it is just as readable notated literally, though.
Nobody that I know who has learned the convention for older music has
the slightest problem playing it in the correct rhythm. The vast
majority of the people who'd be playing your music would already know
the convention for 18th-century music, so it shouldn't trip up anyone
at all.
And "readable notated literally" doesn't go very far, because you've
boiled it down to nothing but notes and rhythm, and completely washed
away the significant information the old notation conveys.
If all Mozart had wanted to convey was the notes and rhythms, he
would have used 4 16th notes. He did not, so he's trying to convey
more information.
I'm arguing that you might very well find that notation useful to
convey the same information in your own music, were it appropriate to
the style.
> The appoggiatura example is perhaps not the best one to use, because, as
> you say, people who are likely to be playing Mozart probably do know the
> conventions with appoggiatura notation. But there may well be other conventions
> which are not so well-known. Even with the very common trill, there is real
> argument about which note to start on, whether to add an afterbeat or not; and
> with turns, there is sometimes argument about how to play it rhythmically. I
> just prefer to notate these aspects literally, and avoid all this uncertainty.
If Mozart had in his head a required fixed idea of how he wanted his
trills played, he would have written them all out.
The whole point of "fuzzy" notation like that is that it leaves
certain "details" up to the performer's discretion. And it also
leaves alternatives that can be adjusted to the performer's musical
conception of the piece. One performer might have 8 pitch changes in
a particular trill, while another might have only 5. Which is
"correct?" Well, both of them. And the performer who does 5 may
simply not be able to make 8 sound musical (and vice versa).
The other problem with notating trills is that there is no good way
to notate the realization of it that will not sound mechanical.
Anyone who has ever tried to get a Finale score ready for MIDI
performance and has tried to realize trills has discovered this. A
musical trill tends to linger on the first note and start slowly and
speed up to the termination (if any). There is no good way to do that
in Finale, as the gradation of note values is not fine enough to make
a gradual increase in the speed of alternations of notes.
I often use something like 2 16ths followed by 2 16th-note triplets,
and then 32nd notes. That gets something of a gradual increase in
speed of the trill, but still doesn't sound great.
Putting a trill mark over it and indicating to the performer that
trills start on the note above or on the note will probably result in
a better performance, one that can be adjusted by the performers to
fit their interpretation.
The beauty of this kind of "fuzzy" notation is that it is actually
*more* precise than the alternative, not less. It is very specific in
what is expected, even if the exact details are not explicitly
notated. By writing out the trill, you limit the performance to only
one possibility, unless you add a comment that says "freely
accelerating through the trill" or something like that. The result of
putting the written-out trill with the note will be that you may get
something close to what you'd have gotten with just the trill alone.
> >Yes, it would probably require a note to explain that you want it
> >interpreted as an on-beat appoggiatura, instead of a before-the-beat
> >grace note ("grace notes" as we conceive of them did not even exist
> >in Mozart's music, BTW, though there were before-the-beat ornamental
> >notes in some cases), but how long would it take someone to
> >understand that?
>
> But if I notate it literally the note is not even necessary.
And you lose the opportunity to convey the information that Mozart
conveyed.
> I have nothing against putting footnotes, even extensive ones, in a score,
> if they are necessary to convey the effect I want. But I only want to use them
> if the notation can't itself convey what I want.
As I said, if you don't need to notate what Mozart was notating, you
won't have need for the notational device. If notes and rhythms are
all you care about, then, no, there won't be any need for it.
> >You could easily notate with an ossia the
> >realization of it over the first one, and say "simile" for all the
> >rest, or some such. Who would have difficulty with that?
>
> If the "ossia" is what you really want to be performed, why not just write
> it in the main staff? . . .
The ossia would indicate the rhythm, not the performance.
> . . . I just don't see the point in complicating it like that,
> for the sake of using an archaic form of notation.
I think it's pretty clear that you don't really grasp why the
notational convention every existed in the first place.
> As a child, I once tried writing a passage in a piano piece like a cadenza,
> with free rhythmic notation a bit like a cadenza in a Beethoven sonata; and
> then, as a footnote, I gave a second version of the passage, notated in precise
> rhythm, suggesting that it be played like that.
> Well, I was a child then, rather slavishly imitating Beethoven, and doing
> what my edition of Beethoven's sonatas did. But of course I realize now that
> that would be a silly way of doing it. If the rhythmic distribution of the
> notes was really what I wanted, then of course it should be put into the score;
> but if I notate it as a cadenza, the only sensible reason for doing that is that
> I *don't* want to specify the rhythm, but leave it free.
Do you understand why Mozart and his contemporaries used the
convention? If so, then your objections above *make no sense* as they
are not relevant.
> >But the key point here: it would need to be appropriate to the
> >musical style.
> >
> >And that makes the larger point: the notation serves the musical
> >style and if you don't understand the musical style, seemingly
> >neutral notational changes may very well misrepresent the music the
> >composer was attempting to convey.
>
> It is a point of view, and this method may work in some situations. But I
> feel this method is more likely to be valid in editing music, especially from an
> earlier period, than for composing new music.
???
I thought we were talking about *engraving* music, not composing it?
> Counter to this, I can also see merits in a notational style that is more
> "automatic" in a sense, less dependent on conventions relating mainly to a
> particular style, that will assist performers unfamiliar with a style but who
> follow the notation carefully to get at least a semblance of a correct
> performance. OF course the sensitivity of that performance could then be
> imprpoved with practice and further study of the style.
It might also every well be improved by use of some older notational
conventions that convey subtle things about the realization of
certain pitch and rhythmic configurations.
[]
> [David:]
> >If the musical style is appropriate, I see no reason why one would
> >not use it for exactly the same reason Mozart used it, and not be
> >accused of "archaicism" in the process.
>
> I just prefer to write out what I want as literally as I can. . . .
If all you want is the notes and the rhythms, then it wouldn't meet
my definition of why it would be appropriate.
> . . . Seems
> simpler. . . .
So does what your approach can convey.
> . . . Why have a different set of conventions for different styles,
> for things that can be notated literally? . . .
Clearly you believe that the only purpose of the score is to convey
the notes and the rhythms.
I think that's the most trivial part of the notation.
I'm talking about notational conventions that convey much, much more
than that.
> . . . Well, I realize that, historically, these
> conventions for different styles *do* exist, and have to be dealt with in
> editing music. But why perpetuate them in new music?
If the new music has commonalities of style and the historical
conventions convey things specific to that style, they might very
well be as useful for the modern style as they were in the past.
> I am responding to your arguments point by point; but I suppose if my
> viewpoint is not clear from what I've already said, perhaps it just indicates
> that we think very differently about these matters.
Your viewpoint is crystal clear to me and it's quintessentially
modern and positivist.
[]
> [David:]
[]
> >Many printed editions from post-1750 are as hard to read as the
> >composer's manuscripts, at least for modern performers.
>
> Well, I find a lot of composers' manuscripts almost unreadable - not
> because of differing notational conventions, but because of simple untidiness.
> Beethoven's manuscripts are the classic example, and it is a miracle to me that
> people were somehow able to figure out what his manuscripts are saying, they are
> such a chaotic scrawl.
You could perform from just about any Mozart autograph with only a
little practice.
> I think there is a place for a kind of midway position: an edition that
> faithfully represents the composer's original notation, but engraves it for
> readability. I have an edition of Deryck Cooke's performing version of Mahler's
> 10th Symphony, which, as is well-known is unfinished: a couple of movements were
> fully orchestrated, and a few bars of another, and the remaining movements are
> in sketch form only, but complete in a bar-by-bar sense. This edition of the
> symphony gives the orchestratal score for the entire work, in Mahler's or
> Cooke's orchestration as appropriate; but, for the parts that Cooke scored,
> underneath each system Mahler's sketch on three or four staves is given so that
> you can compare the sketch with the full score. But the sketch, while very
> faithful to what Mahler wrote, is engraved, not a facsimile; but the engraving
> is very close to the original, even going so far as to indicate crossed-out
> notes, notes of indefinite or incorrect rhythmic value, and so on. . . .
That's called a "diplomatic transcription." That is an approach that
tries to convey the what the original includes, while doing it in a
fashion that is clearer and less ambiguous than the original.
> . . . I regard
> this edition as a very valuable aid to studying this symphony, whereas the
> legibility problem would constantly get in the way if I had to make regular use
> of a facsimile of the original manuscripts.
> Of course I grant that scholars have to make at least initial reference to
> these, but that's a rather different matter.
Well, I don't think the Mahler example has much to do with the
present discussion.
I'm talking about presenting the musical content of the original
source. You're talking about an edition that is basically including
the footnotes to show where the final version came from.
And to me "presenting the musical content" involves far, far more
than getting the notes and rhythms correct.
[]
> This is my exact reason for not wanting to use in composition these
> . . . . If I want a certain effect
> performed in a way, I've got to avoid using notation about which there are no
> hard and fast rules - or which may become obsolete and partly forgotten at some
> future time.
But a lack of two or there clear and unambiguous rules that apply to
all situations does not mean there there is no clear and unambiguous
way of interpreting the notation in any particular circumstance. The
fact is that there are very few specific cases where the range of
valid interpretations is not pretty clear. The people who require a
definite statement of "this is THE RIGHT WAY to play it" are the ones
who are creating the problem -- in most cases, there is a range of
appropriate possibilities, and a few that are a bit way out, but not
impossible. It's up to the performer to use her sense of style to
choose how to do it in each particular performance. And she might
very well play it differently each time, within the range of
possibilities.
Of course, you have to learn the conventions within each style to
know the appropriate range of possibilities. And that's the hard
part, of course.
Modern composers have an entirely different problem, as most of them
aren't writing in any particular stylistic school, so they don't have
a set of conventions to depend on. That means they have to borrow
from other conventions or invent their own notations to convey the
subtleties that they want to convey.
There are no problems with notes and rhythms, of course. The problems
are in all the more ineffable aspects that you might want to convey.
> >And that's where preserving the original notation comes in -- if you
> >include the original ornament/grace note, the performer gets to
> >decide. If, on the other hand, you write out what you as editor think
> >the realization of the ornament should be, you take away the
> >performer's choices (although you can also include the original
> >notation so they can see if they agree with your realization).
>
> I acknowledge these arguments for the purposes of editing music, especially
> when the composer is not alive to have any input. I don't think they apply to
> new composition, though.
See above in my discussion of your saying you write out trills in
your own music.
> I can't help wondering if we are disagreeing simply because we are talking
> about different musical activities: you about editing older music, and I about
> composing new music. Other than that, I think we might agree on some issues we
> appear to disagree about. I don't know if you are a composer or not, David;
> but, if so, it would be interesting to know what your point of view on these
> matters would be in that area.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what musical notation
is about. You seem to stop at the point that the notes and rhythms
have been clearly conveyed, and that's when *I'm* just getting
started.
[]
[continued in Part 2]
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
