|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 13, 2018 16:14:26 GMT
Sorry. Just one more bit of help needed until the next time I have a delicate, I daresay beautiful little piece that makes limited use of chromatics. I've never been sure of the spelling conventions. In the attached excerpts (b33-47) there's a repeating phrase underpinned by moving from F#>G>F>F# as well as b43-44 where high winds and strings move chromatically downwards. As far as I can tell this section of the piece is in F# minor - are chromatic scales written differently in different keys? The start of the piece is G minor, so would chromatics be written with flats there? Bear in mind this is a session score that doesn't use key signatures. Of course there's years of knowledge that I'm bypassing by wanting the subject broken down so simply. You know me. Any help much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Oct 13, 2018 16:33:12 GMT
Short answer, yes.
In F#min, the scale would read F# G# A B C# D E. Any time those notes appear, that's the pitch should be written. Any alteration would be indicated with the alternate accidental. If ands when you go back to Gm, the scale would become G A Bb C D Eb F, and those would become the written pitches. In this case Bb is not the same as A#. Does that make sense?
FYI, in the 7/8 time sig, your timp rolls should be notated as half note tied to dotted eighth. That way the player knows where the subdivision is.
Once again, sounds like another fine work by you, Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 13, 2018 16:55:47 GMT
Short answer, yes. In F#min, the scale would read F# G# A B C# D E. Any time those notes appear, that's the pitch should be written. Any alteration would be indicated with the alternate accidental. If ands when you go back to Gm, the scale would become G A Bb C D Eb F, and those would become the written pitches. In this case Bb is not the same as A#. Does that make sense? FYI, in the 7/8 time sig, your timp rolls should be notated as half note tied to dotted eighth. That way the player knows where the subdivision is. Once again, sounds like another fine work by you, Dave. So the full chromatic scale when working in F# minor would be F# G G# A A# B C C# D D# E F and in Gm, G Ab A Bb B C Db D Eb E F Gb? I am now shakily aware that Bb and A# are not the same - two years ago I did _not_ get that - and thanks to the efforts of you and some other gentlemen the spelling clangers are becoming fewer. Thanks for the help and I'm glad you think this new slice of loud is "fine work"! Re timps, they're not rolls but indicating the note isn't to be damped. I indicate rolls with a triple slash so hopefully they won't get confused. I'm not sure how I would change the notation as you suggested but I'll explore my menus.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 14, 2018 1:12:44 GMT
Ok, now I'm confused. My almost constant state of mind, these days. So as to the timp part ( not your question, I know), you tie repeated notes to indicate no damping. I know electric bass players will damp the end of some notes so the sound is clean. I was unaware that timp players would do the same. I would understand damping before a different pitch, but not the same pitch. Also, how do you crescendo the whole note in measure 34?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 14, 2018 1:33:44 GMT
Ok, now I'm confused. My almost constant state of mind, these days. So as to the timp part ( not your question, I know), you tie repeated notes to indicate no damping. I know electric bass players will damp the end of some notes so the sound is clean. I was unaware that timp players would do the same. I would understand damping before a different pitch, but not the same pitch. Also, how do you crescendo the whole note in measure 34? For a tidier score I would use shorter note values but I don't want them cut off that soon. Obviously some damping happens when the next drum is struck, if it's a different note. However, from b47 you can see I clearly got fed up of ties and switched to semibreves - making the part, if read literally, "damp for the last three beats". I'll decide a strategy and make sure I'm consistent. Good spot on the cresc. timpani b34 - that's the end of a very long roll starting b17, so the notation that would make sense of it is some pages before the sample starts.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 14, 2018 9:37:58 GMT
This is interesting Dave. If the section is in Fsharp minor, then the F natural should technically be e sharp (the leading note). What makes it interesting in a geeky way is that if you write e sharp, you create a more unusual interval (g natural to e sharp). This interval is related to Neopolitan second harmony, but as this is a session score I'd be half inclined to leave the spelling as you have it because it is un-fussy and direct. I'd have deliberated this for hours in my head if it was my session.... To answer your query about chromaticism, chromatic harmony does have correct spelling and is important in most cases for voice leading to give the player a sense of gravitational pull within the piece, but as with all spelling, context and style is important too. For a fast chromatic run, I tend to spell in such a way that will avoid awkward intervals, whilst acknowledging any underlying harmony and as Tim says, key signature. So for example a chromatic, stepwise run up in the key of c major will use the white note (natural ) spelling for any note in the key and sharps for the chromatic notes. For a run down, the non-key notes will be best served flattened. Sharps for up and flats for down is a little simplistic sometimes, but the principle is often effective. In a key like E major, where sharps are already in use in the signature, a run down is better served using naturals for non key tones. A run up could still use sharps and double sharps, although one might find a natural more legible than a double sharp! Remember though that there is no exact rule for all situations apart from common sense, harmonic background, key signature and clarity of intention.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 14, 2018 13:17:07 GMT
This is interesting Dave. If the section is in Fsharp minor, then the F natural should technically be e sharp (the leading note). What makes it interesting in a geeky way is that if you write e sharp, you create a more unusual interval (g natural to e sharp). This interval is related to Neopolitan second harmony, but as this is a session score I'd be half inclined to leave the spelling as you have it because it is un-fussy and direct. I'd have deliberated this for hours in my head if it was my session.... To answer your query about chromaticism, chromatic harmony does have correct spelling and is important in most cases for voice leading to give the player a sense of gravitational pull within the piece, but as with all spelling, context and style is important too. For a fast chromatic run, I tend to spell in such a way that will avoid awkward intervals, whilst acknowledging any underlying harmony and as Tim says, key signature. So for example a chromatic, stepwise run up in the key of c major will use the white note (natural ) spelling for any note in the key and sharps for the chromatic notes. For a run down, the non-key notes will be best served flattened. Sharps for up and flats for down is a little simplistic sometimes, but the principle is often effective. In a key like E major, where sharps are already in use in the signature, a run down is better served using naturals for non key tones. A run up could still use sharps and double sharps, although one might find a natural more legible than a double sharp! Remember though that there is no exact rule for all situations apart from common sense, harmonic background, key signature and clarity of intention. Ah, Neopolitan second harmony! I know it well. 2nd harmony is when you've eaten the vanilla and can relax, with the strawberry and chocolate still to enjoy? I will keep it as is, as long as it's a correct spelling, because I'm all about unfussy and direct within my means and if any piece is going to hit roadblocks it's this/the other piece with extended chromatic runs. But that's very interesting! I don't believe I've ever considered or notated an E sharp before. It sounds like said runs in the other piece are probably safe enough too, based on what you and Tim have said. Double sharps are like pickles in your neopolitan. Memorable, but I prefer to avoid. I try to remember how fluid these things are, keep in mind the players and be as unambiguous as possible with clear parts. If I make an odd spelling choice here and there - the strange arpeggio from b29 obliged some creative harp pedalling - I know pros will handle it, if everything else is neat. Or they'll storm the control room and flay me, swings and roundabouts though.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Marko on Oct 14, 2018 14:22:03 GMT
Good plan Dave, "keep it as unambiguous as possible."
I got curious and checked to see what Gould says about this. I've always notated as Mike said, sharps up, flats down.
According to Gould; Use familiar intervals rather than augmented or diminished. Sharps up, flats down Spell stepwise ie, F# G Ab as opposed to Gb Gnat G#
As to the tymp part, the clearest way to notate would be a quarter note with tie quarter rest dotted quarter rest. Use the notation "L.V." above the quarter note. This will tell the player the rhythmic subdivision and also to allow the kettle to ring naturally. (I assumed you wanted a roll, the player may also.)
By the way, you can have my strawberry!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Porter on Oct 14, 2018 15:15:20 GMT
Or a slightly different way to say the same thing would be raised seventh in ascending passages, and not raised seventh in descending passages. But the whole thing is probably more adhered to by theorists.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 15, 2018 11:51:25 GMT
Dave, I just looked at your 'strange' harp in b29 - re-spell the b flats as a sharps and your fine, no quick pedalling required. Of course this depends on what is just before b29! I like the 7/8 feel, it has a good, exciting drive to it.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 15, 2018 12:36:02 GMT
Dave, I just looked at your 'strange' harp in b29 - re-spell the b flats as a sharps and your fine, no quick pedalling required. Of course this depends on what is just before b29! I like the 7/8 feel, it has a good, exciting drive to it. How did I miss that? I was trying to avoid pedalling (it's just the same pattern over and over) and I'd even used that principle by having D and Eb to avoid D#, how did I miss that B/Bb? I'll go with overworked, instead of underprepared. I can't wait for the session but being able to take a month off afterwards is looking great as well. Glad you pointed it out though!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hewer on Oct 15, 2018 12:48:37 GMT
Even better, use b flat for, well, b flat and c flat for the b natural....
|
|
|
Post by fuguestate on Oct 16, 2018 23:01:18 GMT
<clownface> Now if you were writing this in 19edo, the different enharmonic spellings would spell different pitches, and thus it would be unambiguous which one is correct. </clownface> But what Mike Hewer said about the Neapolitan 2nd is particularly interesting, because the E# to G natural interval would actually spell a minor 3rd in 19edo, whereas if it were E# to Fx, it would be an augmented 2nd / diminished 3rd, a particularly pungent interval in 19edo. In this particular context, though, if I were to write/transcribe this piece in 19edo, I'd write Fx (or Gb) and F (or Ex), since as far as my ears can tell, the function of these chromatic tones are mainly ornamental rather than harmonic, even if there may be some taking advantage of the chromatic tones to form incidental harmonies in distant keys. So I'd use the chromatic semitone (1/19 steps) rather than the diatonic semitone (2/19 steps) in this figure. In 12edo, of course, there's no difference between Fx and G or between E# and F, so I would just write E# instead of F because E# is already "expected" in F# minor. And I'd write G instead of Fx just because it's easier to read when the figure is being repeated the way it is here, instead of having to keep changing the accidental on the written F in the score. Writing it as F# - G - E# makes the shape of the figure much more obvious than any other spelling, IMO. And since the function here is mainly ornamental, I wouldn't worry too much about the transient G minor chords as far as spelling is concerned. Only if you were actually modulating I'd think twice about how to spell those notes. Otherwise, just write them in the easiest-to-read manner.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dexter on Oct 17, 2018 14:48:06 GMT
<clownface> Now if you were writing this in 19edo, the different enharmonic spellings would spell different pitches, and thus it would be unambiguous which one is correct. </clownface> NOPE I'm a little confused, and didn't fully pick up on this when Mike mentioned it. If there's an E#, then it's no longer F# minor surely - sharping the E makes it F# harmonic minor? I feel it's philosophical at that point whether the piece slips into F# harmonic minor, certainly improvising in that scale doesn't work as well as sticking to the plain minor; so to my mind the Fnat makes more sense because it's a momentary deviation from key instead of a movement into a different, if very similar, one. If there was an extended solo in harmonic minor I might re-spell but I think it's staying as is despite these interesting and conflicting ideas. The other prosaic concern is that I would have to re-print the score and some parts and I'm bogged down in another piece with three (well, two, to avoid being wholly last-minute) weeks to deadline
|
|
|
Post by driscollmusick on Oct 17, 2018 15:42:38 GMT
Dave, I'm actually dealing with the same thing in my opera--literally the same notes, F->F# and back. It's a very small gesture that appears in critical points in the plot and like all sneaky theater composers (see: Bernstein's tritone in West Side Story), I'm trying to work it in lots of interesting, subtle ways.
Anyway the problem is often spelling. *In my mind* it's always F/F#/F/F#, but sometimes with surrounding harmonies (or implied harmonies), those notes really don't make sense. So I'm constantly weighing readability vs. [subtle conceptual composer thing].
I think there's an argument for both E# and F in your example. G-E# is probably correct, but that interval is dicey and could be an issue if read quickly. I got reamed once by a composition professor for writing Bb-G# in a melodic line, although that was really how I had conceived it.
|
|