Klarinet Archive - Posting 000624.txt from 2003/03

From: CBA <clarinet10001@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl]Key signatures
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:31:50 -0500

Bill (and Lelia,)

I would have to agree with Lelia for that very reason. Music,
like language, is a representational thing to make understanding
and representing music to the audience EASIER. Like speaking in
PigLatin, to use a wierd key signature, it would be hard to get
the message/music across, and would end up being a musical
exercise, instead of an enabling tool to get the musical thought
across to the audience.

Except for a composition or theory exercise (not unlike *many* -
but *not all* etudes, which *can* have musical quality, but are
usually written specifically for teaching technique, and end up
NOT being very musical) I would see no reason to write a wierd
key signature like that, and would think it would make the piece
so difficult to get across, that you would never get anyone to
do "jack" with it. PLUS, the people in the audience wouldn't see
the key signature anyway, so what would it matter to them? You
could just have a BLANK key signature and put the accidentals in
where needed, and it would be easier to accomplish in this
situation.

My 2 cents (and full agreement with Lelia,)

Kelly Abraham
Woodwinds - New York City
--- Lelia Loban <lelialoban@-----.net> wrote:
> Bill Wright wrote,
> >Obviously you can create any scale you wish with accidentals,
>
> >but I'm wondering if any 'well known' compositions are
> printed
> >with a weird key signature, such as (say) two flats but the
> flatted
> >notes aren't Bb and Eb?

> Lelia Loban wrote,
> Call me a
> Luddite, but I
> probably wouldn't think the oddball key signature was cool;
> I'd just think
> it was *wrong*.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------