[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: tie over clef change

From: Hans Åberg
Subject: Re: tie over clef change
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:57:15 +0200

> On 28 Sep 2020, at 00:26, Lukas-Fabian Moser <> wrote:
>>> 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"?

Right. Typo.

> (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.)

They are equal in E12, but not in the staff system or in an orchestra.

> 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.

Some composers though seem to be careful about the difference, and it is a bit 
curious why.

> 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"
> <oeehcojnehmnfcpd.png>
> vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully):
> <bggdfflenejgmfad.png>

Because of such a practise, one would have to go back to originals or use 
Urtext which have footnotes about the changes.

> 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.

This is an important point, I think. One should notate the musical intent, not 
merely as a line of notes. For example, ornaments do not necessarily become 
clearer if written out explicitly, but the converse may happen.

There is a difference between the type of music: Jazz is pretty much E12, and 
the Mehegan Jazz Improvisation books use enharmonic equivalents without 
discrimination, if I remember it correctly.

> 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...

I did try to measure a dominant 7th chord in some Beethoven's orchestral work, 
I think it was, and from what I could see, they just play stacked thirds. Not 
the 7th partial, as has been suggested. Also, I used to play along with a 
meantone tuning with some Balkan piece, it may have been a Paidushko with Petko 
Radev on clarinet, and I found that it did not blend well. So when I measured 
the clarinet, I found it was a comma off, suggesting he is playing in 
Pythagorean tuning.

As for spelling, the violin pizzicato in the tune below is in F♯ harmonic 
minor, so when written out, one gets an E♯, not an F. If one plays along with 
an E12 instrument, it sounds a bit of tune, even adjusted for pitch as it is an 
original analog recording. I originally thought it might be because of the 
pizzicato, which stretches the octave, but perhaps it is because there are no 
other good pitch references on the violins.

reply via email to

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