 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 15:08
Hi there,
Just hoping to get some opinions on a transposition issue.
Firstly, is there any general consensus on what is more comfortable to deal with, for B flat clarinets, out of lots of flats or lots of sharps?
Secondly, specifically, this is my situation:
I have a piece that uses, pretty much exclusively, the following mode (concert pitch) - B, C#, D, E#, F# G#, A#. The key signature is given as three sharps (i.e. F#, C#, G#) as that is the closest I can get, and I have notated it on Sibelius which has no option for non-standard key signatures (and non-standard key signatures are a bit controversial with some players anyway, who find it easier to read a standard key signature with accidentals added). But obviously the piece is not in A major or F# minor. Anyway, I am currently transposing the part for Bass Clarinet in B flat, for the final score. It seems to me that I have three options:
1) Write it out exactly a tone higher, so that the notes used are:
C#, D#, E, F double#, G#, A#, B#. The key would be five sharps (C#, F#, G#, D# and A#), so my mode would result in the following accidentals throughout the Bass Clarinet part: F double sharp and B#. (This is what Sibelius does when I select 'Notes' > 'Transposing Score'.)
This has the advantage that it is 'true to' the mode of the piece, i.e. it is technically correct to think of F double# as the fourth degree of the scale, rather than as a flattened fifth degree, which is what replacing it with G naturals would imply. However, it has the disadvantage that double sharps are, perhaps, weird and uncommon, and it may make matters needlessly difficult for the player.
2) So, option 2 is the above, but with all F double#s changed to G natural accidentals.
3) Or, I could instead write the Bass Clarinet part so that the written mode is: D flat, E flat, F flat, G, A flat, B flat, C. The key would be four flats (B flat, E flat, A flat, D flat) so my mode would result in the following accidental throughout the Bass Clarinet part: F flat.
This has the advantage that it is both 'true to' the mode (we have seven different note names) and avoids any double accidentals, and only has one normal accidental. However, it has the disadvantage that the key signature that I would be giving it would not be a direct transposition of the actual key signature, and it seems a bit odd for the Bass Clarinet to be playing in flats when everyone else is in sharps.
This is part of a composition portfolio for a degree submission, so the score will be being read to be marked, rather than performed. For that reason, I am inclined at the moment towards option two as that would seem to make it a little easier for the markers to read (since the key signature is a direct transposition up a tone, and we remain in sharps) and it also takes the player's convenience into account by removing the F double sharp. (Both these things probably go in my favour in the eyes of the markers!) However, if I write a part in a transposition that would be an absolute nightmare for the Bass Clarinettist to play, that would be a definite black mark, no matter how convenient it might be for the markers to read.
So, what I want to know is: clarinet, and hopefully bass clarinet, players, as a performer, which of the above options, 1, 2 or 3, sounds most comfortable to you? Would any of them be definite a no-no, a total pain in the backside? And do you have any preference between flats and sharps? Is one type of accidental easier to work with because of key systems etc? (Sorry, I'm an ignorant string player...)
Many thanks for reading and hopefully offering some thoughts.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-12-13 16:02
Not option #2. If it's mostly stepwise motion, seeing G and G# is distracting.
1 and 3 are more or less equal. 3 sounds a bit friendlier to read. Clarinetists are used to reading keys that aren't the original ones written. We know that, due to transposition, that Eb may actually be a D# (or, before transposition, a C#) based on the theory.
Don't use key signatures. They're outmoded, and they're ESPECIALLY unhelpful if, as you suggest, they don't match the key you're actually in. Put the piece in "Open Key / Atonal" and mark the accidentals.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2011-12-13 16:03
First off: bass clarinet is written a 9th higher than sound, which puts the part in treble clef. But you knew that. Of your three options, I personally would prefer option 3; I'm not crazy about Fb, but I could get used to it.
Double accidentals are almost never a good thing for anyone. I can't see why it would matter which key signature you use, as long as it's the correct one.
However, I have one off-topic suggestion: move the whole piece up half a step. Your primary scale would then be C, D, Eb, F#, G, A, B. You would then have a key signature of 1 sharp, with the Ebs written as accidentals. The primary scale for the Bb instruments would then be D, E, F, G#, A, B, C#, for which you would use a key signature of 3 sharps, with the F naturals as accidentals.
This would get rid of a lot of sharps for everyone, and make the parts easier to read and play in the event that you can get the piece performed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 16:05
For me, I prefer to read sharps and double sharps to flats. I don't know why; it must just be personal preference. The best solution here would be a bass clarinet in A, but those aren't so common anymore.
I see no problem with writing it in "flats" even if the orchestra is in sharps. It's the nature of the instrument. It happens all the time.
In addition, please use a standard key signature with accidentals. Why? Because players practice the "real" keys, and it makes far more sense intellectually to have some sort of logical "key" as the basis for your fingers, even if it's not technically in that key and there are accidentals all over the place.
Personally, I love new music. But I find non-standard key signatures to be pretentious and inconsiderate of the performer.
EDIT: I second the above motion to just transpose the whole piece. It sounds like it's written in a difficult key for everyone just for the sake of being in a hard key.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
Post Edited (2011-12-13 16:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2011-12-13 16:34
I would also prefer the option of no key signature and the accidentals marked by note. A key signature would imply some type of standard tonality that you aren't using. Flats v. sharps won't matter to an experienced player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 16:36
Many many thanks for these quick and helpful replies.
Davyd - sorry, when I said 'up a tone' I meant in the sense of the key going up a tone, explained myself poorly there. Also the problem is that for the mode I'm using there is no 'correct' standard key signature. As for shifting the whole piece up a semitone, the thought had crossed my mind, but a) the piece is already written, b) I have other instruments with various considerations e.g. strings, harp etc. (especially harp...), c) Not sure if you subscribe to the view that different keys have distinct sonorities even if the notes, relationally, are the 'same', but I want it in this key!
Although all very helpful replies there seem to be some disagreements among you! (which is perfectly natural) on the usefulness of standard key signatures and whether or not double sharps are annoying. I may have to just decide for myself on these.
But I'd like to ask about your comment, Alex, that if going in stepwise motion seeing G#s and G naturals in quick succession is distracting. Is this something that other people generally agree on? The piece does have a fair few stepwise 'runs'; would it perhaps be less distracting to see, for example, a descending scale run of fast notes go: 'C# B# A# G# F double# E D# C#' than 'C# B# A# G# G-natural E D# C#'?
Many thanks again for the help.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 16:43
Everyone would agree on that... It's better to read a different harmonic spelling, even if it's unnatural, than to see the same note name flying back and forth.
The piece already being written is no excuse not to change the key. You mentioned you were using sibelius, so nothing could be simpler. Sure, different keys may have different sonorities, but if you were to take this to a reading session, how many right notes do you want to hear in the limited time that you have with the orchestra that's willing to play it for you, and how much do you want the musicians to like you?
PS: After reading your question about step-wise motion you have me concerned. If you check how to write chromatic scales effectively in a visually-recognizable way this should answer your question.
Nobody wants to see a note name change just for the sake of changing note names. Some ways of writing things can be very confusing. If a line is descending it's generally easier to read flats, if it is rising, then sharps.
For example, you would never write:
Descending: A, G#, G-natural or A, G#, F-double sharp
You would say: A, A-flat, G (unless the key dictated otherwise, but if this piece isn't really in a key and you're more concerned about sound upon its being sight-read by an orchestra for a project, then write it in a readable fashion).
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
Post Edited (2011-12-13 16:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 16:55
Haha, thanks Sean. You are of course correct that on Sibelius there is no excuse per se, but you're certainly not correct that it's in the key it is in 'just for the sake of being in a hard key' - I'm not that immature! There are various passages, for instance in the cello part, or the harp part, that simply don't sound the same transposed. The reason I'm asking about the bass clarinet is that, musically, on balance, I think it makes more sense to keep it in the mode it is in.
What you are right about is that the trade-off between this and ease/performers' friendliness is something to think about, so I will!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 17:00
Re: your edit, it is not in a standard key but it is very much in a set mode, and I think that once the performer knows that and knows what the mode is, it would probably be more confusing to keep switching between flats and sharps? Or perhaps not?...
Thanks
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 17:10
I don't know... Is it actually in a recognizable mode, or is it a tone row? If it's the former, it should be ok, but if it's the latter, I would say write whatever makes sense when it is read by the player, the mathematical implications can be interpreted from the C-score if need be, but make the parts readable.
EDIT: I re-read the original post and found your mode. I think it's ok if you just stick with that, but, unfortunately we are back to the original problem of what that mode looks like to a bass clarinet. If this is the case, I would change the enharmonic spelling of your mode for the B-flat (and perhaps E-flat if you have them) instruments as discussed above.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
Post Edited (2011-12-13 17:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 17:15
In fact, if I were to keep it at the pitch it is in, it seems like perhaps my 'option 3' is best? Then we avoid double sharps/flats and we avoid the same note name flitting between sharps and naturals? And as you say above Sean, clarinettists are used to playing in flats even if everyone else in in sharps.
I know it seems like I'm being obstinate about not shifting the whole piece up a semitone, but at this point (deadline is in a few days) there are so many other things - harmonics that would no longer work (apart from making them artificial), harp pedallings to be changed, string parts that would become twice as difficult and/or take on a different character etc etc. that on balance mean that making life slightly awkward for the bass clarinettist is, unfortunately, probably the lesser of various evils. Should I have thought right from the start, before I composed any of the rest of the piece, whether these problems would arise? - evidently! I underestimated the problems that would be caused when I came to transpose the clarinet parts. Live and learn...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 17:15
I'm very interested in actually seeing/hearing your piece or some of your other work. Do you have any links you could share?
If you are interested, I'd happily annotate a PDF of your part and send it back to you with some suggestions for the clarinet.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
Post Edited (2011-12-13 17:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 17:18
Sean, just seen that new post - thank you for taking the time to give all this advice! I have Clarinet in A, which (as far as I can see so far!...) transposes relatively unproblematically. The only other transposing instrument is Bass Clarinet in B-flat. So you are saying that for the BC option 3 - flats galore - would be 'least bad'...?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-12-13 17:28
A good bass clarinetist should be able to handle any of your options. I think the optimal choice (or the relative importance of choosing) will depend on the nature of the part. Specifically, if the part is otherwise pretty easy with most of the notes relatively long in duration, any of the three options should be OK. Also, once someone has learned the piece, the notation becomes less of an issue. If there are relatively quick passages, personally, I would rank your options:
1. Option 2
2. Option 3*
3. Option 1
pretty much for the reasons you give. Woodwind players (well, at least clarinet and sax) don't see double sharps and double flats all that often so using the more common enharmonic will normally make it easier on the player.*
My preference for option 2 over option 3 is relatively slight. Perhaps because Bb instruments have two less flats/more sharps than concert pitch instruments, keys involving more than 3 flats are not common, (though four flats are really not all that bad), I'd personally rather see sharps -- I'm more used to dealing with them -- but again, in this case, my preference is very slight. One suggestion I would make if you select this option: while it may be fairly common for string players, Fb is fairly rare in parts I've played over the years. I think in most situations E-natural would be a little more user friendly.*
And now for my asterisk. I would prefer not to see unnecessary use of relatively uncommon enharmonics (B#, Cb, and Fb, double flats and sharps, and, to a lesser extent E# and Gb). In some cases, I think they are unavoidable, e.g. a passage in the key of D (or more sharps) where C-natural and C# alternate back and forth but, especially where the altered note is not subsequently cancelled, I'd rather see the common enharmonic.
In a situation such as you describe where a large majority of the notes would otherwise require (consistent) accidentals, I would prefer to see a key signature. Accidentals on almost every note can be a pain in the fanny to sort out.
MOO,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 17:28
We're crossing over posts....
That is hugely generous Sean. The deadline for this particular piece is tomorrow at 4pm UK time. (Yes, I deserve a telling off for leaving transposition this late.) If you were going to give me feedback I would obviously not expect you to do it by then! However, if you are interested I can email you the file (if I can work out how to turn it into a .pdf), and any comments would be very much appreciated anyway.
Thanks
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 17:32
Well, I'm glad I came to this board to ask a question! Many thanks Jack. The piece does have quite a few fairly rapid passages for the bass clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 17:52
Oh thanks! haha.
I agree with Jack. Once a piece is known, it doesn't much matter; and a professional should be able to handle sharps or flats no matter what... but for your purposes, and if it is meant as a project that will only be sight-read, I'd make it as "user-friendly" as possible.
Good luck!
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
Post Edited (2011-12-13 17:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-12-13 18:09
Seeing a bunch of G to G# to G is also less intuitive because it eliminates the shape of the passage. If I see Fx to G#, I immediately know the passage goes up.
CL wrote:
"'C# B# A# G# F double# E D# C#' than 'C# B# A# G# G-natural E D# C#'?"
That passage could go either way. It's nice to see a run stepwise, but given that E to Fx or G is an augmented second or minor third, seeing it as a third may actually be more intuitive. Flip a coin for that, I guess.
I would NOT switch between sharps and flats in the same passage, as suggested by some others. If you use sharps, use them up and down. If you use flats, use them up and down. Especially if it stays in the same mode, it's MUCH easier to read a bunch of D#s and C#s than a combination of Eb, D#, Db, and C#. Takes a few seconds to internalize that all Ds in that vicinity are sharp, and the fingers take over from there. If it's highly chromatic, you might mix accidentals.
Don't change the key of your piece to accommodate the clarinetists. We can deal. We'll bitch at you if anything's unplayable.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2011-12-13 18:15
Quote:
I would NOT switch between sharps and flats in the same passage, as suggested by some others. If you use sharps, use them up and down.
I only suggested this for chromatic runs.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-12-13 18:28
It's hard to ask a composer to transpose a piece- he might have designed some effects to make use of very specific parts of instruments' ranges that would be queered by shifting the whole thing up or down (like, suddenly the harp part might be impossible). Having said that, I totally agree that a lot of composers today seem to put things in awkward keys almost as window dressing for the score. There's even a post on composer Kyle Gann's site about how he advised a student to shift a piece from C major to C# major for a competition because the judges wouldn't take C major seriously.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 18:32
Ok thanks Alex! I think what I may do is notate the full score with F-double#s because I believe this is more intuitive when reading a full score where all the other instruments are playing in a seven-note mode, but simply ask any bass clarinettist who might be unlucky enough to be playing this which system they want for their individual part. Although then, are you into issues of discrepancies between conductor's and performers' copies?! What a minefield!...
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CL
Date: 2011-12-13 18:37
Hi Trevor, everything you say in your post is true. All I can do is plead that with this composition the first half of your post applies rather than the second! Changing the harp part would be pretty awkward, and there are a fair few string open harmonics etc, plus, as I said earlier, I do just like this key. Having said that, I have to admit that this piece might not be as un-transposable as some pieces would be. But given that, as I also said earlier, I'm supposed to be handing this in in c. 20 hours I'm sticking for now, at least!
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-12-13 19:44
Let me chip in as a player from the lesser end of the musical food chain:
1. If the piece is written in a "weird" mode, I'd prefer it written as Cnat with explicit accidentals. Nothing worse than having five sharps or flats and a bunch of natural accidentals throughout the piece.
2. I generally prefer the enharmonic accidental-less note - the sheet simply looks less busy.
3. I know that "cleaning up" is a task of its own; when I see "E# E# E# E# | F F F F | E# E# E# E#" then I know that this step has been omitted. Same as when a complex phrase consists of mostly accidentals which could, upon typesetting the phrase half a step up or down, mostly be eliminated.
4. I am used to getting scores where none these wishes are honored, and I somehow survived it.
I am aware that many of these tweaks aren't musically "pure", and that in many people's eyes a B# is no the same as a Cnat - I don't really care, neither does my instrument. The less cluttered a sheet is, the better can I play the music. It's like driving your car through an unknown city during rush hour - the less traffic signs, the more you can concentrate on the traffic.
(I do all my music in LilyPond, so I know how much work is involved in cleaning up)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
