Klarinet Archive - Posting 000635.txt from 2003/03

From: b1rite@-----. Rite)
Subj: Re: [kl]Key signatures
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:51:30 -0500

Just for the record, I was looking at a sheet with many accidentals, and
the thought flashed through my mind, "This is not fun. Why not change
the signature instead?"

We've had a related conversation about time signatures. Someone (Tony
Pay?) once posted that, when a measure contains extra notes, a temporary
change of time signature can be seen as unnecessary clutter and a
competent musician will supply the appropriate changes of stress without
explicit instruction. Perhaps this is an example of the musician
already understanding something --- rather than declaring an explicit
violation of an accepted standard.

Harvard Music Dictionary mentions that "Earlier in the 18th century
[when the tonal system had been in use for most of a century, but key
signatures were not yet codified], minor keys were often written with
one less flat than is now usual, as in Bach's Dorian Toccata and Fugue
[because] this flat corresponds to the sixth scale degree, which is
often raised in any case." In a similar vein, "Keys with sharp
signatures were written with one less sharp, as in Handel's Suite No. 5
in E for harpsichord". So these are borderline cases between
keep-the-page-clean and declare-something-different.

Again according to the Harvard Dictionary, and taking enharmonics into
account, 15 key signatures "are in common use." So perhaps it can be
said that the three extra signatures don't fit neatly into the circle of
fifths.

Mixed somewhere into all of this is the concept that, with the arrival
of standards and conventions, a small portion of richness and variety
must, by definition, disappear. The trade-off is more efficient
communication (and perhaps less dissent?)

Anyway, thank you to all for the replies,
Bill

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