Silly notation

Topic: Silly notation (Read 103443 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Silly notation

Reply #50 – 2008-01-09 11:06 pm

Just ran across another example of "silly" notation.
Dotted-eighth and sixteenth with a staccato dot on the dotted-eighth note.
Just use an eighth note with a sixteenth rest and a sixteenth note (or a sixteenth note, eighth rest, and sixteenth note, whatever seems more appropriate).

Re: Silly notation

Reply #51 – 2008-01-09 11:48 pm

Quote from: K.A.T. – 2008-01-09 11:06 pm

Just ran across another example of "silly" notation.
Dotted-eighth and sixteenth with a staccato dot on the dotted-eighth note.

Not always. Dotted 8^th takes less horizontal space. Might add a page, or put a page turn or special ending in an awkward place.

If part of an established rhythm pattern, I think I'd rather see the pattern stay the same.

16^th/8^th/16^th is not one of my favorites.

Players reading a single staff may prefer K.A.T.'s method, but piano players have different needs.

I find measure 1 less confusing than measure 2:

Quote

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:8th,Dotted,Staccato|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-1
|Bar
|Note|Dur:8th,Dotted|Pos:3|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:2|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:1|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=First
|Rest|Dur:8th
|Note|Dur:16th|Pos:0|Opts:Stem=Down,Beam=End
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:-1
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Re: Silly notation

Reply #52 – 2008-01-09 11:53 pm

Hi Kevin:
Personally I prefer the "Silly" notation.
It's simpler, easier to read and the intention is understood.
Used quite often in commercial charts.
The intro to the "Odd Couple" comes to mind.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #53 – 2008-01-10 05:43 pm

Wow, didn't see that comin'.
The dot on a dotted note is an augmentation dot - "to make bigger."
Isn't that the "opposite" of a staccato dot? Seems oxymoronic to me.

Quote

Dotted 8^th takes less horizontal space. Might add a page, or put a page turn or special ending in an awkward place.

I can usually find ways around that (one of them thanks to Rick!).

Quote

If part of an established rhythm pattern, I think I'd rather see the pattern stay the same.

It's not part of an established pattern, it's how the pattern is established (and then it disappears purty quick).

Quote

16^th/8^th/16^th is not one of my favorites.

Mine either, so I'd like the first option I gave.

Quote

Players reading a single staff may prefer K.A.T.'s method, but piano players have different needs.

It's in all the strings and winds.

Also, I've always thought of the intro to the "Odd Couple" as swing eighths, or maybe twelve-eight time.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #54 – 2008-01-10 06:33 pm

O, would life were simple....!

This is one of those things that varies a great deal with context, including time period (neither the staccato dot nor the time-extension dot was used in its current manner in earlier music, up through and including the time of Brahms); style (dotted rhythms in jazz are different from dotted rhythms in "classical" music); character (in a lyrical line, a staccato dot may simply mean a slight shortening of the note; in a dance, it often means to play the note as short as possible); and probably a host of factors I've missed. And of course there is also the portato - which is usually indicated by both a staccato dot and a slur, but may be indicated by the dot alone if it is clear from context that this is what is desired. In that case, the rhythm in question would have dots over both the dotted quarter and the eighth.

Bottom line: sometimes a staccato dotted note is silly, sometimes it isn't. (Oh, yeah, Bill, that's a lot of help....)

Cheers anyway,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #55 – 2008-01-11 06:36 am

Quote

The dot on a dotted note is an augmentation dot - "to make bigger." Isn't that the "opposite" of a staccato dot?

Not really. A staccato note doesn't necessarily have to be "smaller," it just has to be detached, i.e., with a clear separation from the next note.

I'm not sure I've actually ever seen a real-life staccato dotted eight followed by a sixteenth. I'm not sure what the composer intended. He may just have thought the page would be easier to read of the barred notes weren't separated by rests. Who knows.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #56 – 2008-01-11 10:26 am

Quote from: K.A.T. – 2008-01-10 05:43 pm

Wow, didn't see that comin'.

Sorry. I was abrupt.

"Duration" could be indicated exactly. A good example is a MIDI Import with short Note and Rest resolutions. Very hard to read.

I put "duration" in quotes since, in music, it is used to mean two things:

The time between attack and release
The time between one note/rest and the next.

For most percussion instruments and some other instruments, the first sense is meaningless. To indicate it on a chart would, in many cases, be silly indeed.

It seems to me that rhythm is concerned only with note attack. In pieces where the rhythm is complex, formal indication of note release often must be abandoned for clarity. Slurs, articulations, pedal marks, playing style indicators and good taste become the guides as to when notes are released.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #57 – 2008-01-12 02:11 am

Quote

It seems to me that rhythm is concerned only with note attack.

Generally I agree, but there are times when a wind player might use volume changes within a sustained note to create a sense of rhythm. While one note is held, the player blows harder and softer.

Realistically, though, I doubt if my suggestion would be encountered/used very often, nor do I think it could be a fast rhythm.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #58 – 2008-01-12 03:12 am

There are other examples of non-attack rhythms besides Dave's example of wind players. There is, for example, the bebung technique on the clavichord. The clav has a very simple action - basically, just a key on a pivot. You push down on one end and the other end goes up and hits the string with a vertical metal tab called a tangent. If you keep the key held down, the tangent stays in contact with the string, allowing you to change the pitch by increasing or decreasing pressure on the key. This can be done in imitation of vibrato, or it can be done as a rhythmic device. Interestingly enough for the present discussion, bebung is notated by a dot (or a short line of dots) under the note to be modified. This technique has been around since at least the late Renaissance. I don't go quite that far back, but I did use it in grad school in the late sixties, when I was directing an early music ensemble.

But basically Rick is right. The attack sets the rhythm. Duration is a separate issue. And release, while it can be generally indicated by the composer, is largely a matter of good taste on the part of the performer - despite attempts by the total serialists to take it over in the middle of the last century.

Best,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #59 – 2008-02-21 02:41 pm

To get back to enharmonics: I read in a MIDI file in G minor and it produced Gb instead of F# throughout. Now I thought the Audit Enharmonics would handle that, but of course it didn't; G minor is a flat key so it kept flats. So I changed the key signature to a user defined Bb, Eb, F# thinking that it would recognise the Gb as enharmonic to F# in the signature and change them all. It did. It also changed every Bb to A#!!! Is this a bug, or is it supposed to do this, or what?

Re: Silly notation

Reply #60 – 2008-02-21 02:59 pm

Currently, the enharmonic audit only favors accidentals in one direction, either in the sharp or flat direction. There is not a note re-spelling function that supports all variations of accidental assignment.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #61 – 2008-02-21 03:41 pm

Ah, I see. In that case, the documentation is misleading; it says that notes enharmonic to notes in the key signature are changed to match them. Clearly this is not correct for user-defined signatures, and this needs stating. Might it be best to bar the Audit Enharmonic altogether when the key signature is user-defined?

Re: Silly notation

Reply #62 – 2008-02-21 04:19 pm

Bar it? Well, better not. Try it - if it does a useful (if not 100 %) job, enjoy the results. If not, undo the Audit and try something else.
A warning would be in place, but going along an unusual path (user-defined signatures are not common; I have never seen one- please help) makes you run the risk that the programmer did not go the same way before you. And that's when you should check the outcome.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #63 – 2008-02-21 04:46 pm

"Audit Enharmonics" is basically useless in its current state. See the discussion here. Best to do without it whenever possible. Hand-correcting the enharmonics is time-consuming, but you will have to do it whether or not you use the tool. I have stopped messing with it except in those cases where, in glancing over a part after I've used "transpose staff," I see a lot of double sharps or double flats. Auditing the enharmonics can save some effort there. Beyond that, it's questionable.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #64 – 2008-02-21 05:32 pm

I think 'useless' is a bit too strong. It could be better, though, and (pace Rob den Heijer) in the case of userdefined key signatures it probably is useless. If it just changed notes which are enharmonic to a note in the keysignature (irrespective of sharpness or flatness) and NOTHING ELSE then it would be a lot more useful than it is and userdefined key signatures would give users a degree of control which they lack at the moment.

But at the very least, change the documentation.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #65 – 2008-02-21 10:00 pm

G'day adge,
given that this topic is in NWC2...

How about a user tool - Global_Mod will allow you to fix specifics...

E.G. The following Global_Mod expression will fix all those (in staff treble clef) Gb's for you without affecting any other note...

Note,Pos==b-2 Pos=#-3 Note,Pos==b5 Pos=#4

If you are unfamiliar with user tools, then you should checkout the http://www.noteworthysoftware.com/nwc2/usertools/ and the Scripto: http://nwc-scriptorium.org/ (the Scripto seems to be down at the moment but keep trying - I'm sure it'll be bak up soon)

Global_Mod is part of the "Starter Kit"

Re: Silly notation

Reply #66 – 2008-02-21 10:03 pm

Quote

(the Scripto seems to be down at the moment but keep trying - I'm sure it'll be bak up soon)

I hope so.

No news yet !

Re: Silly notation

Reply #67 – 2008-09-12 03:42 am

Re: Silly notation

Reply #68 – 2008-09-12 05:14 am

Strange. Also difficult to read. I can't come up with a reason for substituting a Db for a C# in that last measure, and there are certainly plenty of reasons not to: a C# would make the line a straightforward whole step-perfect fourth instead of the diminished third-augmented third the arranger has used. Could be necessary to keep the spelling right in the other parts, I suppose, but I would wager the chord on the second beat of that measure is spelled wrong in the other parts, too.

Thanks for sharing this, David. It's always interesting to see the odd things arrangers can come up with.

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #69 – 2008-09-12 06:37 am

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2008-09-12 05:14 am

I can't come up with a reason for substituting a Db for a C# in that last measure ...

Perhaps:

there is a C in the next measue (or the one after that) and the editor wanted to avoid a courtesy accidental.
there is a C in another part and it would be ambiguous on the score
it was transposed by some clueless software...

David:
How do you think the syncopation should be written?

Re: Silly notation

Reply #70 – 2008-09-12 07:35 am

Quote from: Rick G. – 2008-09-12 06:37 am

Perhaps:
David:
How do you think the syncopation should be written?

Yeah, that's fairly similar to things I often see - except that the crotchet rest would often be 2 quaver rests - easy to see the beats but a bit messy.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #71 – 2008-09-12 02:16 pm

Skimming through this lengthy and erudite thread, I could not help but inwardly smile at the fact that a secondary school pupil in England can get a top grade pass in Music without being able to read music!

Tony

Re: Silly notation

Reply #72 – 2008-09-12 04:05 pm

Love your three reasons, Rick. I think I'll pick door no. 3.

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #73 – 2008-09-13 01:31 am

Quote

it was transposed by some clueless software...

and

Quote

How do you think the syncopation should be written?

Lawrie answered what I would have said if I wasn't so crotchety. I'd put 2 eight rests there, if that's what a crotchet is.

I too say it's door #3. We see a lot of new concert band editions that are produced with notation software. They just aren't as well done as music of 20 or more years ago.

Being very interested in NWC, I spot deficiencies left right and centre in these so-called professionally produced charts. And it ticks me off.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #74 – 2008-09-15 05:07 pm

...and while we're on the topic of misuse of Db for C#: check this one out.

Quote

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Text|Text:"Dm"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-3
|Note|Dur:4th,Dotted|Pos:-4
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-5
|Bar
|Text|Text:"A7"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:b-5
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-7
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-5
|Bar
|Text|Text:"Dm"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:n-5
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:-5
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Yes, the printed music really does place an A7 above that second measure. Go figure.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #75 – 2008-09-15 05:19 pm

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2008-09-15 05:07 pm

Yes, the printed music really does place an A7 above that second measure. Go figure.

Being short a beat and a half doesn't help either.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #76 – 2008-09-15 05:23 pm

Right. Here's the corrected version (blame a hurried life...)

Quote

!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|TimeSig|Signature:3/4
|Text|Text:"Dm"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-3
|Note|Dur:4th,Dotted|Pos:-4
|Note|Dur:8th|Pos:-5
|Bar
|Text|Text:"A7"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:b-5
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-7
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-5
|Bar
|Text|Text:"Dm"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:9
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:n-5
|Bar
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:-5
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #77 – 2008-09-15 05:54 pm

Here's my nomination to this "hall of shame".
In general, I'm in favor of reducing accidentals, but using a Bnat in an A flat minor chord goes too far.

IMO, my rework on the right makes a lot more sense.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #78 – 2008-09-15 07:53 pm

Depends, Rick. What's the vocal line here, and what are the chords before and after? Where did that F pedal in the bass come from? If you've really got an Abm-AbM-Abm-AbM over an F pedal, you're right that the notation is silly; but the chord names may be shorthand to make reading them easier. What makes me suspicious is the fact that the B-nat resolves upward to the C. Any vocalist, and any instrumentalist who has the ability to bend notes, will bend that B-nat up. They would bend a Cb down. So a Cb-C-nat progression in a melody instinctively feels wrong.

I'm thinking what we may really have here is an E^m9 with the 9th in the bass resolving to an Fm^M7. That's what it feels like when I play it. In that case, it's the Ab's in the first and third chords that are spelled wrong - they should be G#'s - but spelling them properly might unnecessarily confuse the pianist, because they are followed and preceded by the enharmonically equivalent Ab. If this is the case, spelling it this way isn't silly at all.

Of course, if the melody actually steps downward here, your analysis and your rewrite are right on.

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #79 – 2008-09-15 08:19 pm

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2008-09-15 07:53 pm

What's the vocal line here, and what are the chords before and after?

Re: Silly notation

Reply #80 – 2008-09-15 09:13 pm

Interesting progression. I like it. Thanks for the URL.

The questionable B-nat - C is in the lead trumpet, and he's bending the B-nat upward, so I suspect it really is a B-nat - C. The bass line is also prominent, and the F is not a pedal: the line goes F-Eb-F-Eb-C (excluding repeated notes). When you remember that an Eb6 is just an inverted Cm⁷, you can hear this as a sort of plagal cadence: Fm^M7-Cm⁷-Fm^M7-Cm⁷. In that case, the B-nat is simply a lower neighboring tone - it starts outside the harmony and resolves into the harmony each time it appears. I think that's the way I would analyze this passage, although it's always dangerous to analyze jazz.

I love this stuff. Ain't music fun?

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #81 – 2008-09-15 09:52 pm

Quote from: William Ashworth – 2008-09-15 09:13 pm

I think that's the way I would analyze this passage, although it's always dangerous to analyze jazz.

Glad you have time for all this analysis. I just barely have time to read it and get my fingers to respond. If I could memorize music, I might notate it differently, but I can't. I have to rely on my ears to pick up the slack on all those nuances that I can't read. There are many pieces that I could not play without reworking them with NoteWorthy or LilyPond.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #82 – 2008-09-15 11:58 pm

Well, I can analyze it easier than I can play it, which is why I was a theory & comp major, not a performance major. I remain in awe of performers.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #83 – 2009-01-15 03:23 am

Came across another one last night. It was a delightful composition by one of the better-known present-day concert band composers, but it has a lot of time changes and rests in movement two. I felt sorry for our conductor, because I don't think there were more than three or four consecutive bars of any time signature throughout the piece, and there were places it changed every single bar.

The engraver didn't plan the system breaks well, so one line would have three or even four time changes. A few times, there is a note or two to play in the last measure on one system, followed by the next system beginning with a one bar rest, and then another time signature.

This was very difficult to follow, since a whole rest can be used in either a 4/4 bar or a 3/4 bar. I found I had to pencil in the time signature three or four times in the left margin on one page.

The solution? Please, please, please use forced system breaks a single bar of a new time signature isn't orphaned at the end of one line, followed by one or two bars of rests of the same signature (unmarked), in turn followed by more time changes.

The difficulty in counting rests was compounded by tempo changes as well as time changes. We are fortunate to have a very good conductor, but sometimes he'd count a fast 2/4 bar in one instead of two. OK if you've got a melodic part, but if you're only playing sustained notes or counting rests, it can put you out of whack quickly.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #84 – 2009-01-15 11:21 am

Who is that composer?
Igor Stravinsky? ;-)

Just kidding, of course, but you made me think of "The Rite of Spring".

Re: Silly notation

Reply #85 – 2009-01-15 04:16 pm

Coincidentally, I have just recently been preparing some of my early choral music for an upcoming performance, and I find that many of the time-signature changes I put in back in my callow twenties are unnecessary when looked at in my sixties. I've been taking a lot of them out. What looked cool then looks merely pretentious now.

There are several legitimate uses for short time changes (as opposed to the long ones that indicate a change in underlying rhythm, like going from a march feeling to a waltz feeling in the middle of a movement). One of the uses is to emphasize accents; that's what Stravinsky was doing in the "Rite" (although he also wrote that in his twenties, so maybe there are a few more than necessary). Another is to create written-out rubato or fermatas. However, what I've found when looking at my own stuff is that many of these time changes end up balancing each other out. A 4/4 in a predominantly 3/4 passage is often balanced by a 2/4 a few measures later....or there may be three 4/4 measures in a row that could just as easily be four 3/4 measures....and so on. Accent marks can often handle the changes better than actual time changes can.

And where time changes are legitimate, David is right that they need to be carefully placed on the page. The basic rule is to make things as easy as possible for the performer, even one who may only be sight reading an inner part. Especially one who may only be sight reading an inner part.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Silly notation

Reply #86 – 2009-01-16 06:51 am

Quote

Who is that composer?

This one was Tichelli, one of the better contemporary writers of concert band repertoire. His compositions are beautiful.

However, frequent time signature changes are often found in band music, just not quite as frequent as this one seemed to me to have.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #87 – 2018-02-07 01:41 am

Re: Silly notation

Reply #88 – 2018-02-07 07:59 am

I agree - if the grace note would also be an e natural ... (and the B grace note could even get a courtesy natural, if this part "feels" like F ...).

I also do not see why one would not also change the key signature, even for 4 measures or so - the whole passage is in F (or maybe C), after all. But this "very sticky key signatures with many "hand-drawn accidentals" have been a tradition since Beethoven, it seems - I just read through some part of a symphony of his which is ugly (for me) to read ...

H.M.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #89 – 2018-02-07 12:53 pm

Quote from: hmmueller – 2018-02-07 07:59 am

I also do not see why one would not also change the key signature, even for 4 measures or so - the whole passage is in F (or maybe C), after all.

Not being able to see the entire score, it's possible that only the bass clarinet part is playing in this key. It is my understanding that in an orchestral score, if you do a key signature change, it would be in all staves (but please correct me if this is not the case).

Re: Silly notation

Reply #90 – 2018-02-07 04:02 pm

Conductor's score, or concert-pitch score? I have a hunch it's a conductor's score, meaning that the instruments are written as the instrumentalists see them. In that case, the orchestra is playing in E Major - not that uncommon a key, but it forces the B^b instruments to play in F^# Major. Hence, notation like this. I agree about the look of the score, and it wouldn't be easy to sight read even for a clarinetist who was used to reading signatures with lots of sharps, but to write the sharps as their enharmonic equivalents would risk having the clarinets play out of tune. Enharmonic "equivalents" are only equivalents in the tempered scale, and good wind and string players (and vocalists) don't play in the tempered scale.

Re: Silly notation

Reply #91 – 2018-02-07 09:42 pm

I'm mostly protesting about composers, arrangers, orchestrators or copyists who are too lazy, ignorant or inconsiderate to take the time to engrave instrumental parts that are easy for the musicians who must play them to read.

My extract is from the bass clarinet part handed to me to play, not the score used by the guy at the front of the room.

My point is about being kind to the musician who has to sight read your music. We'd rather read a practical part than one that is theoretically perfect. If there's a pitch issue due to using the enharmonic notation, most wind players are capable of modifying their intonation to make it sound right.

In this 681 bar chart, the key changes frequently and many times you're working in keys you don't use often in the band world. Running through strings of notes like this, trying to remember which key you're in at the moment, can be challenging. Why not just write the enharmonics, even though they require accidentals, if the performer will find it easier to read?