[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: tie over clef change

From: Lukas-Fabian Moser
Subject: Re: tie over clef change
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 00:26:06 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0

However, this gets *never* notated as such.
I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as 
diminished sevenths.

I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"? (Augmented sixth chords, at least "Italian" and "German" augmented sixths, are identical to dominant sevenths without or with fifth on a modern keyboard, e.g. c-e-[g]-a♯ vs. c-e-[g]-b♭, but none of them yield diminished sevenths.)

But anyway, I'm not sure that your statement holds true invariably: I'm pretty sure that in late 19th century composers like Bruckner, the difference between both chords becomes blurry. I will see if I can find an example, maybe even older than Bruckner.

On a related but different note, I always found it funny how certain editors of Mozart's Requiem, of all things, tried to "improve" Mozart's chromatic/enharmonic spelling. See the old Peters vocal scores on IMSLP at the end of the "Confutatis maledictis"

vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully):

I would not claim that this change generates any measurable difference in what the musicians actually play and sing, but I imagine it changes the way they _think_ their lines. In particular, I like Mozart's notation for the clarity with which he expresses that he uses the diminished seventh as a triple-leading tone neighbour to the ensuing dominant seventh - not to mention the fact that this exact device is all over the place in the second half of the Confutatis, and it's frankly silly to change it just once, only to avoid a double flat...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]