Klarinet Archive - Posting 000708.txt from 2003/03

From: alevin@-----. Levin)
Subj: Re: [kl] Key signatures
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:34:46 -0500

Okey Dokey.

Some thirty years ago I was experimenting with notation because I
was writing modal serial music (as opposed to atonal serial music). It was
a phase for me because I found myself to be more comfortable with the music
of Berg, (late) Stravinsky and Sessions, than with purely atonal serialists.
At the same time Boulanger had got it across to me that a good
readable score would often get more actual performance than a better
less-readable score - fuggeddabout adequate rehearsal time.
I also noticed that a number of current composers were writing all
full score parts in C and adding accidentals, then having the parts
transposed appropriately - the conductor continuing to work with the "C" part.
(I also wrote a couple of things without regular metered measures
- even without bar lines. That was a disaster.!)
In any event, I ran into the same problem as others: The pages
were either too cluttered - or I got only two or three bars to a page. The
performers didn't like it because it seemed to artificially change the pace
of the performance.
I noticed a couple of scores that used different key signatures
for different parts (excluding the ordinary transpositions for
clarinet,etc.). They occurred in polytonal and polymodal passages and
seemed to be done for clarity. The key signature was used to highlight the
tonal/modal passage for the performer and to make it easier to read.(Memory
and lack of library fail me here. I believe that I'm thinking of an Ives
piece, a Carter piece, a Cage piece, and -I'm certain - the Bartok
Mikrokosmos, which I do have in my library.)

At 09:27 AM 3/17/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm curious about the details of this practice, Allen. Would you please
>be a little more specific

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