Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Strange Notation

Below is a fragment from Arvo Pärt's Variationen zur Gesundung von Arinuschka. Does anyone know why the bar lines from the top staff do not line up with the bar lines on the bottom two? I am assuming that the beats are still meant to line up to some degree: the third beat in a measure in top staff would be played at the same time as the first beat in a measure in the bottom two. Is this an incorrect assumption?

Ted

Your assumption that the beats are lining up as they usually would is undoubtedly correct, unless there are clear written indications that the tempo of one part changes and the tempo of the other part does not.

It appears to me that Pärt has barred the top staff differently to show that the upper pattern has different logic - and perhaps different accentuation as well. Read the top staff alone, then read the bottom two together, and you hear two individual patterns with ostinato-ish rhythms on changing notes. Play them together and it's an interesting juxtaposition.

Hadn't used the word juxtaposition yet today; thanks for the opportunity.

your assumption is correct. Unless there is a performance note to the contrary explaining that there is a more complex relationship, you choose the simplest and most logical possibility.

The other indication that it is a simple half measure shift is that Part has the top barlines coming down to touch the lower staves. If he wanted a more decoupled effect i expect the barlines wouldn't come down like that.

And thanks for the opportunity to use the word decoupled

Hi Ted,

Your notation does indeed look "strange" ...most of us battle with 2 staves, let alone 3, albeit with a simple outline ... but it begs the question why the author didn’t combine the middle stave with the lower stave ... and reduce the notation to the usual twin treble and bass staves.

I’ve just played the 3 measures on the old Johanna ... no great shakes ... (to mighty applause ... but mustn’t wake the neighbours!!)

Because the composer is trying to say something about the construction of the music and the way it's phrased.

Forgive my bucking your comment Kreisler ... but a combination of the lower two staves fall comfortably within the scope of the LH bass stave ... bottom note lower A and top note E above Middle C ... a piece of cake.

My guess is that the score under consideration was originally for 3 single-voice orchestral instruments (perhaps violin, viola and cello) ... and the string notation transferred for piano .

Perhaps Ted could tell us where he dug up this Deutsch score.

The piece is originally for piano, written in 1977. I have the score. It's published by Universal.

It makes more sense when you see the first two variations. The work starts on one staff, then the second variation begins the different barring, with the LH part being in whole notes, but offset so that the whole notes sound on the 2nd beat of the RH.

The excerpt given above is the 3rd variation. While you're correct - the excerpt shown could easily be written on one staff, the range gradually increases to the bottom space A in the bass and top space E in the treble. Keeping it on one staff would require a large number of ledger lines or a lot of clef changes. Part's solution is visually cleaner and simpler.

Variation 4 is standard notation - two treble staves. Variation 5 is notated similarly to variation 2. Variation 6 is again on three staves, with each staff barred differently (each staff contains a separate voice.)

You're welcome to take issue with Part's notational decisions, but the notation is not arbitrary, there are reasons why he did what he did.

Thanks for your valued. response Kreisler.

Wikipedia threw up this background to Arvo Part:

"Arvo Pärt (born 11 September 1935; Estonian pronunciation: ['?rvo 'pært]) is an Estonian classical composer. Since the late 1970's, Pärt has been working in a minimalist style that employs a self-made compositional technique called tintinnabuli. His music also finds its inspiration and influence from Gregorian chant."

The Gregorian chant seems to be the clue to the minimalist choral approach .

However, in the good order of things, universal keyboard notation has settled for two staves ... which gives the composer a dual structure upon which to relate the two voices (our hands) ... unlike an organ score we can’t add a FOOT-NOTE (forgive the pun.)

I'm still on my first morning cup of tea.

btb, I love your question about why he uses two staves instead of three. It's a great question. I don't know the piece as well as Kreisler, but as you yourself pointed out, it seems to make more orchestral (contrapuntal) sense this way: the top line is one part, the second line is an echo of the quarter notes in the top part (an octave lower), and the bottom line is an echo of the half notes in the top part. This could also be why the bottom two lines are linked together: because they are each emphasizing a different aspect of the top line. I think it's easier to see what's going on this way, than it would be if things were squished together.

The 2-stave rule, although the norm, is actually not totally universal. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Liszt's "Un Sospiro" which also has three staves. Other examples of 3-staff notation, with links to the scores, albeit from lesser-known composers (since I've been focusing on their music lately):

Solomon Rosowsky's "Poem"

The end of Joseph Achron's "Dream" Op. 56 No. 1


Now here's an example of four-staff notation in a piano solo:

The end of Joseph Achron's "Symphonic Variations and Sonata" Op. 39


And here's another interesting example - the fourth piece from Weinberg's Op. 11 is written only on one stave:

score

So the general rule is 2 staves, but on occasion a composer will do more or less for particular reasons. And on those occasions, it's totally appropriate and important to ask "why".

Whilst it's a gross over-simplification of Part's "mature" style (in comparison to his earlier flirtation with serialism), it may be useful to understand that one of his compositional/stylistic features is to explore the interaction between a relatively static voice on the one hand, and one that is more free-ranging (see, for example, in a vocal context, the sublime Magnificat). I'm sure this is why Part has laid out the score in question in this way.

The fourth of Liszt's Paganini etudes is also a good example of a piece notated on one staff.

All you clever professional chappies seem to enjoy digging up exceptions ... only to prove the rule .

If there was any merit in the use of 3 staves ... surely Mozart, Beethoven or Chopin would have jumped onto the bandwagon ... PJs questioning of "squishing" the LH role onto one stave doesn’t hold water, once you play the jolly old 3 measures ... IMHO the LH note sequence of A, C.., E, B, C..., A, C, E, A is so ordinary as to be considered dull.

Of course they are exceptions, but every (good) exception has its reasons.

In the Liszt "Un Sospiro" - it shows very clearly not only what the melody is but also the technical idea to alternate playing it with the right hand and the left hand.

In Rosowsky's piece - it also serves to separate the melody. Because the left hand chords are so wide and thick, the danger is that the melody might [1] be mistaken as part of the chords, or [2] be difficult to read at a glance. Also, it clearly separates three main elements in the piece: the shimmering 2-note chords at the top; the melody; and the supporting chords.

In Achron's "Dream" - it makes the canon very prominent visually. One voice of the canon is in the top voice (strengthened by octaves and other various notes), the second voice of the canon is in the middle voice, and there's an ostinato in the bass. The three-stave structure further allows us to see very clearly how the canon eventually meshes itself together, independent of the bass ostinato. If the top voice weren't strengthened with octaves, then maybe he might have written it on two staves, but those octaves (and extra notes for particular harmonies) might make that less clear.

In Achron's "Symphonic Variations and Sonata" - the four-stave ending allows us to separate the variation theme (in tremendous bass chords) from the arpeggiated octaves. It not only shows very clearly what the theme is, but it also shows us that it is being held by the pedal while the arpeggios fly across on top. If this were written on 2 staves, the theme would be visually hidden, and the performer might not even realize that the theme is there! The 6-part fugue (beginning on page 21) is written on 3 staves, because, well, it's a 6-part fugue!


In all of these cases, the use of 3 (or more) staves is meritorious for its own reasons. This doesn't mean that every piece should be written in three staves - not every piece needs it. To be sure, there are pieces written with 2 staves that would be better written with three. But for the most part (with exceptions), two is perfectly sufficient.

If I may try to get back on topic, I would like to say that the purpose of having different bar lines for the two sets of phrases is to change how the beats within each phrase are stressed using the usual conventions for such things: a three note phrase crossing a bar line will have a different sound than a three note phrase contained within a measure. I should probably play them separately to hear this difference before I put them together.

I also like Pärt's choice to use three staves in this variation for two reasons. First, it is quite easy to read and avoids changing clefs later. Second, the engraving is visually beautiful. In a piece about healing, I find this to be an appropriate consideration.

Ted

I think that's part of the beauty of notation - it's not just a MIDI piano roll, it doesn't just tell you what keys to push down and when, notation is also a window into the composer's thoughts, and in some cases, a work of art unto itself.

The idea of "augenmusik" dates back to the renaissance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_music

Similar is the idea of a puzzle canon - a piece of music notated so as to obscure the means of performance. Part of the fun is in deciphering how the music is to be realized. Several of the pieces in Bach's "Musical Offering" fit this description:

http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/moweb/part3tcg.htm

I find some parallels with writing. Some writing is meant to be as easily readable as possible. AP style (as used in American news publications) was invented to be easily understood by as wide an audience as possible. Vocabulary and sentence structure is limited to a grade school level. Great literature is also possible in this format - Hemingway being a prime example.

But some authors do not write for as wide an audience as possible. Umberto Eco isn't easy to read, although his vocabulary, grammar, and style is entirely traditional. Others are more adventurous - Stein, Faulkner, and Joyce for example.

The same ideas exist in the visual arts. Before 1900, art was expected to accurately represent a visual image. If you painted a person, it was supposed to look like a person. After Picasso, art could be expected to represent more than just an image. In a sense, the accuracy of the visual image was distorted so that the underlying feelings could come through.

Romantic period artists tried to capture a beautiful image that was also realistic:



(Houses of Parliament by Claude T. Stanfield Moore, 1877)

Whereas more modern artists captured images that were less visually authentic, but every bit as beautiful:



(Houses of Parliament by Monet, 1904)

Thanks for the Bach canons Kreisler ...fascinating to see how the violinist is given two staves so that he can scrape the jolly old cat gut to produce two different tunes ... but we all know that JSB wrote for many voices (an orchestra) and that his trump card (besides harmony) was counterpoint (the art of combining melodies) ... but for keyboard ... the merry WTC is written on TWO STAVES (even if for 5 voices).

Enjoyed your voyage into literature (Hemingway) and fine art (Moore/Monet) ... although you wisely don’t take sides photographic/impression, there is a slight suggestion that accuracy can be boring and that you savour the fading impression of a sunset ... don’t we all if we’re smart?

But accuracy needn’t be boring ... here’s a sample of Charles Dickens in The Old Curiosity Shop (the contents of the shop as the old grandfather moves through it)

“The place through which he made his way at leisure, was one of these receptacles for old and curious things which seem to crouch in odd corners of this town, and to hide their musty treasures from the public eye in jealousy and distrust. There were suits of mail, standing like ghosts in armour here and there; fantastic carvings brought from monkish cloisters; rusty weapons of various kinds; distorted figures in china, and wood, and iron, and ivory; tapestry and strange furniture that might have been designed in dreams. The haggard aspect of the little old man was wonderfully suited to the place; he might have groped among old churches, and tombs, and deserted houses, and gathered all the spoils with his own hands. There was nothing in the whole collection but was in keeping with himself — nothing that looked older and more worn than he. ”

The Old Curiosity Shop
http://www.ukattraction.com/london/2214SYJ-0-1.jpg

There are so many examples of piano music from the last 150 years that use three staves that I don't even take special notice when I come across it anymore - I automatically adjust without particularly thinking about it. If it is more than three, I'll probably be aware that it a bit unusual. So I'm not really convinced that three staves is so much exceptional as just simply one of the options. On the other hand, I sometimes see music I wish had been spread over three staves that isn't.

Whose music?

wr I agree that 3 staves is not a statement of difference, just a way to make reading easier in some cases. I'm not a very experienced pianist but i have seen it enough not to be surprised anymore. btb - Liszt, Rachmnaninoff, Skryabin to mention a few where i've definitely seen it. Ummm seen it rather than actually played it apart from a bit of a read through.

This case of the Part is different though, because it's really about the bar lines being staggered, and about the beautiful and calm pattern that the score makes on the page. A piece of Part is a strange thing when you first see one (for me anyway). I like Part a lot.

And to go completely OT, Happy 200th me (i think...)

And Debussy, Ravel, Albeniz, Dohnanyi, and many more.



Yes, Happy 200th to you! You are right, the staggered bar-lines in the Part are a different sort of thing, and quite elegant. What I've seen other composers do to indicate the same kind of offsets or super-impositions is to add dotted vertical lines within the regular bar to indicate the overlaid patterns.