Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge another one with multiple staves

Hi Everyone,

Maybe there is consensus that here multiple staves are appropriate, as with the whole notes tied between bars 18 and 19?

Michael,

I'm sorry to tell you this, but at some point you'll need to do some pondering, of (self) studying, instead of constantly making new threads with myriads of questions in this forum. Right now your own threads are dominating this composers forum. That of course is my opinion, and I'm not a mod or anything, so take it with a grain of salt.

That said, not it's not necessary. The duration of the 2 whole notes in bars 18 and 19 is not "real", as in holding down the notes with your hands. Instead if you have a sostenuto pedal you'd held these notes of the duration indicated (the two bars), or if you had an upright piano, you'd keep the sustain pedal down, for the duration of the two bars. In both cases it's clear that the duration is 2 bars.

So, you can put the chord notes (which are always, in your recent examples, played alone with a rest below or above) in the same staves as the arpeggio and ditch the 3 and 4 staves.

You keep trying to over complicate your music when there's no need. The idea "playing a chord, held with the pedal and then anything above/below" is a really used one, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Hi Nikolas,

Thanks for that and yes I agree that I am over-posting.

Maybe after completion of going through all the music and getting everything finalized I'll post again if there is any lingering desire for input, which could be about 10 days distant or more . . . it is 135 pages total being edited yet if that time arrives I'll do my best to be more selective.

I am keenly interested in how the music looks through other pianists' eyes in terms of readability and taking all the information in, and I appreciate all the response from everyone

M.

This example doesn't bother me as much visually. But, given this and the other post, I think Nikolas is right -- you really do seem to be intentionally trying to overcomplicate the music.

Check out the 3rd mvt of Beethoven's Moonlight for a slightly simpler version of what you have written (technically-speaking). He uses two staves.

If you want to see a good example of use of a 3rd staff, check out Horowitz's Stars and Stripes. It sits in-between the RH and LH because you have to alternate hands to play it, and it was much easier to indicate that need using the 3rd staff.

You don't have this kind of need in the above.


One question I do have -- why 32nd notes? Everywhere else, it's 16th notes. Why that one half-measure of extra-fast arpeggios?

Hi Delerux,

There isn't any desire to complicate, to my eyes this music on multiple staves is much clearer and easier to read than, for instance, if it were all compressed into two as with some Rachmaninoff scores. It is only about 20 bars in 135 pages total, not a compulsive habit of mine, if I wanted to complicate for the sake of being complicated I would come up with some true absurdities - both musical and notational!

With the 32nd note arpeggios that is just the way the music was heard . . . it is not by any conscious design of mine.

p.s. - I've been cautioned against an over-density of posting in this forum. Even though this is not from a moderator it is concerning to me if someone is put-off by these posts, so while I am not going to ignore anyone I also hope that somehow these recent threads I've started can just be allowed to diminuendo away!

M.

Most pianists I know prefer the fewest number of staves to convey the musical intent. Usually, that's two. I have no problem reading multiple staves -- my first piano teacher insisted I learn to read church chorales with 4-5 lines each (great practice for sight-reading) -- but I do tend to prefer fewer lines where conceptually possible.

Like I said, in this case, not as big a deal.

As for over-posting, I don't really believe in it. The forum is here to be utilized, so I don't think you'd get in "trouble" from a mod for utilizing the forum appropriately. I think the heads-up was more of a, "People might start ignoring the threads with the quantity of questions," kind of inference.

I, for one, notice in the ABF that if someone asks for a fingering, I am happy to provide it. But if they open 10-12 threads asking for that many fingerings, I usually lose my stamina, so-to-speak.

Hi Delerux,

I have a lot of stamina but not for how the discussion has evolved in these threads.

As with the time signature discussion, the music I write down sometimes begins very simple and becomes increasingly complex, and this can be a very particular type of complexity in which time signatures other than the ones used by Mozart, Haydn, Chopin and Liszt have to be allowable . . . I don't think this particular type of complexity and the specifics through which it must be notated is something I should have to defend - all that was wanted was to know if the notation was an adequate solution for the challenges of a bar in 3 2/3 over 4 time, not if music which requires 3 2/3 over 4 time is allowable for that bar or not.

Nothing is meant to be difficult, I just hear the music and write it out as honestly and with as much accuracy as is possible, sometimes with very specific tempos and details not normally included in a score. No one has to play any music as written, the interpretation of all music and in all aspects always is up to the performer no matter what is in the notation - the allegation someone else made in one of the other threads that I want to "ultra control" performers just because I leave out less details from a score and sometimes use fractional time signatures is false. If someone isn't interested in particular details, these can be ignored - that is what I do when I play a piece of music!

p.s. - I have a lot of respect for Nikolas, and if he or anyone else has an issue with my frequency of posts to this forum then as well based on my respect for others it is necessary that I attenuate. Honestly all interest in these particular threads has dissipated.

M.

Since your interest has admittedly waned, I shall be as brief as possible. As you read, please remember one idea: those who respond are trying to help. Those who no longer care to help (or never cared in the first place) stop responding.

You've written a piece of music, of which you have posted a few measures and asked for a response. Some very accomplished people (looking at Nikolas, especially) have taken a look and provided feedback. (I am not nearly as accomplished, but I can play anything in the repertoire, so my comments are usually geared towards what a pianist would see vs a composer.)

Every single person is in agreement that the music, as such, is good. But every person is in equal agreement that the way you have chosen to break down the notes is unnecessarily complex. The solutions offered don't change the sound at all, only the math. I could, over a few hours, change your score to a complex calculus-based time signature, with quintuple-dotted fifty-second notes, and change the tempo to a logarithmic value -- but all of those complications detract from the music itself.

Think of it in terms of writing a sentence. I could very easily say something like, "If it please you, mayhaps you might consider negatively accelerating the aperture closure until it has sufficiently contacted the brass encasement such that it will fasten itself there and not move again." Or, I could write, "Please close the door."

They both mean the same thing. But the second one conveys that meaning in a far simpler fashion, while the first is unnecessarily difficult.

The way you have chosen to present those few measures in your score falls into the former category. (Admittingly, you said yourself that it is just a few measures out of 135 pages, so I cannot possibly judge the entire score; I can only review those few measures.)

I played through those measures last night on my keyboard, before my initial response, and liked what I heard and felt under the fingers. It sounds very interesting, and something I really would enjoy playing. I, for one, just think you can convey the meaning behind your composition much easier than you're choosing to do, and yet still say the same thing (ie, make it sound the same).

And herein lies the problem. Pianists these days are trained NOT to ignore details. Attention to detail is something most pianists strive for, and when a composer writes details in the score, good pianists assume that the composer did it for a reason. (Otherwise, why bother writing it?)

This is particularly true when a composer notates something in a non-standard way. The assumption is that standard notational practice was insufficient to express the composer's wishes, and this prompts us to explore the notation in even greater detail.

Of course, we could argue the validity of all this, as has been done recently in the Pianists' Corner, but regardless of the validity of this philosophy, the current trend among pianists is to respect and, at all costs, try to faithfully reproduce the markings in the score.

Wait. Why is that exactly? I mentioned in a thread, that perhaps it would be a better idea to save some space in the forum and not making new threads, one per day... I also mentioned that I'm not a mod or anything, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

But I'm not sure what's not to enjoy. Me, derulux, Kreisler and other people to a slightly lesser extent have spent A LOT of time trying to explain, find a solution and provide feedback to all those thread. So I'm not entirely sure on what's not to like here...

If you feel that you don't have to defend anything, why did you post in the first place?

In addition, I mentioned it before. It would be very very interesting and wise to post a recording of that few bars, in order for the rest of us to hear what you're listening. Perhaps you ARE actually making the time signature in a 3.666/4, or perhaps this sounds "wrong" (not wrong, "wrong"), in which case one may comment on that as well...

I've also asked if it's a part of an impro and I don't recall a reply to that question. Cause I know very well that with my own impros, I sometimes lose a beat, or half a beat or something. But while I notate the impro (if there's a need for that) I eliminate such issues from the score.

I'm afraid it's not quite like that. It's one thing to have too many dynamics (for example), which can be slightly ignored, especially if they make sense: The mp dynamic is NOT specific. It doesn't follow the thinking of "xx amount of db". So one can be vague on that.

On the contrary time signature and tempo given in q = xx.x IS specific and any pianist will attempt to follow it. Same goes for any weird new sign a score includes.

Again, it's my opinion that you should certainly not shut up, and I really believe that these threads will serve many purposes, other than just to yourself. At the same time though, I feel a little peculiar, especially after the time many of use devoted to these threads...

BTW,

The reason why 3 and 4 staves are not preferred by pianists, is simply because "we" are used to seeing two staves for the piano. Even for more contemporary music I try my best to reduce the 3 staves to 2. This is the "norm". If the music required 3 or even 4 staves, then by all means, but this, I believe, is not the case here...

Hi Derulux,

I sincerely appreciate all the responses!

What I am trying to do is back out of a debate on these ideas, without seeming arrogant and not willing to listen, just confident in my own ability to hear music in a way that overall is conceptually accurate.

I make mistakes in that area, no doubt about it - there are some concerns about the notation viewed harmonically in two bars from another (and otherwise quite simple!) piece for children I was going to post. But when there is what seems to be a principled or taxonomic opposition to fractional time signatures - an opposition which belongs more properly back in the 1840s, yet we live in 2013 - and much gets hung up on that, then probably I should work unaided since the music I write down can be quite flexible with time signatures, not at all rigid - this application of time signatures is not through an effort to be cleverly difficult, it simply is in direct conformance to the music. I don't decide the time signature, the music decides the time signature, i.e. there is no conscious decision to compose in a particular time signature, the music begins to be heard and is in a particular time signature.

The issue with the precise tempo for a few pieces of music is understandable in a way, yet I can round 46.5 down or up to 46 or 47, and so too can a performer - or he can manage it as an eighth note = 93. I believe a music score does best to include as much information as possible from its originator even though a pianist is free to choose a different path with the music. Maybe the music when it flows through him is at a different tempo. Or with different dynamics and different sonorities and notes must be added or removed. Maybe he never uses a metronome for anything and lets the music operate through him to decide all. Freedom of expression is essential to action with a full purpose, and no one is to attempt its removal.

I am glad you like the music, I like it too, and I am sure you could play it effectively and differently than I hear it

I am just not up to debates about the acceptability of fractional time signatures in music, or of specific tempos when a performer has the a priori freedom to choose any tempo he wants.

I don't have an axe to grind or anything I want to prove here on these subjects - the posts have focused purposes such as about technical aspects of a proposed notation in fractional time signatures involving thirds of a beat as online information about the subject is inconclusive, and I really believe at this point I should just resolve the various issues on my own.

This is nothing against anyone here. When views on music misalign this dramatically and music is involved it won't be easy to have agreement or to foresee where disagreement may possibly end!


M.

In regards to tempo marking of 46.5

when you put something like that for tempo, the impression you give is very exact: There MUST be a reason for such a tempo marking to be notated as such! So pianists WILL try to accommodate for that, in some way (even if it means translating the quarter to an 8th at 93...).

But here's my question to you: 46.5 means that you will get 93 8ths in a full minute. Will it be too much trouble if it was 94 8ths in the full minute? Especially considering that it's filled with technically demanding stuff, which might get lost (we ARE talking about 1 8th over a full minute here). If not, then why should we deal for so long about the 46.5 and not make it 46, or 47 and get it over with. I don't think many people are that sensitive over that kind of tempo markings. I know that I can't differentiate between 46 and 47 in quarter... :-/

Ah, good! I had hoped not to be boring or pervasive.


Yeah, saying that you don't have the stamina for the conversation can be misconstrued in many different ways. Seems Nikolas and I perceived similar meanings, and likely were both wrong! lol


I think this is the heart and soul of the discussion, right here. I don't want to speak for Nikolas or Kreisler, among others, so I'll leave them out, but I think based on the contents of their posts, we might be in agreement.

It sounds to me like you believe each of us has some fundamental reason why fractional time signatures either don't or shouldn't work. I don't think that's the case at all. I think, rather, that music should be expressed in as simple a form as possible. In math, we very rarely write 3.6/4. We usually reduce fractions to the lowest whole-number value. In this case, 9/10. It is unconventional, for example, to write pi/(1/3), and indicates to mathematicians that the person writing such a fraction either doesn't understand standard notation, doesn't recognize the math fraction they're writing, or for some specific reason is purposely choosing to ignore that they could simply write 3pi.

In this case, I'm pretty sure we all agree you understand standard notation, and that you recognize the time and key signatures you're using, so what we're all struggling to understand is why you would specifically choose to write the score in a more complex manner than is necessary (my pi/(1/3) example).

You write:

But really, what it boils down to, is that it is intentionally difficult, whether you intended it or not. (I know... Catch 22, lol.) Let me try to explain it differently, because this may be a secondary "meat and potatoes" of the discussion: you seem to believe the way the score is written is the "only" way it can/should be written. But that really isn't true. It can be written many ways. For example, and getting away from time sigs/tempo (edited out "key" sigs, which is exactly what I discuss next...lol), I could rewrite the score in B-sharp minor, and still play all the same notes. It would just look ugly as heck and far more difficult to decode than necessary, but it wouldn't add anything at all to the music. It's just difficult for difficulty's sake; there's no real "reason" to do it. Does that resonate more?


It is very nice! I definitely caught myself wanting to play the 32nd note runs (in the other thread, I believe) on the first half-beat, rather than waiting for the second beat. That half-beat change really impacts the swell-and-ebb of the line, and where the emphasis goes within that line. I would like to know how you hear it; and where the 'beat' is in your head.


Ah, see! This is it! I had a feeling! I'm pretty sure none of us have been debating the "acceptability" of either; rather, the "necessity" of it in your specific case. We've yet to hear a substantive argument for why there needs to be a fraction/decimal in your specific score, because to us, it doesn't seem necessary. But, I think we all agree (and I think both Kreisler and Nikolas posted) that it is perfectly acceptable -- when it's necessary.

It's one of those cases where you can do whatever you want. If you feel the music can't be expressed any other way than fractional, and that simplification is out of the question, then you've got to follow that feeling. And I will only interject one idea regarding "details" as you make (or have made) your decision: sometimes it's really hard to see the forest through the trees.

Hi Nikolas,

With time signatures, the music for every time signature has a unique stamp to it, clearly distinct - a bar can be in 4/4, 2/4, 3/4, 6/8, 5/4, 9/4 and endless others including fractional time signatures - no bias belongs in 2013 that one time signature is suspect vs. the others.

The metronomes are not the law for all tempo possibilities, with no tempo increments whatsoever otherwise possible. 46.0 has a reality just as does 46.5, both are equally precise . . . this is art, not a project that has to find its justification with predetermined schemata.

We've corresponded enough that you know how much I value everyone here including you Nikolas in a brotherly sense, there should be no doubt about this.

There is nothing in any of the time signatures or with the tempo that needs explaining - they are self-explanatory - yet the response to these two features is intensely querulous.


M.

Hi Derulux,

I enjoy your posts and energy a great deal - this is with all sincerity - yet the music has been composed, the reason for having started these threads is for non-musicological improvement of the notation and nothing more, all tones, key signatures, time signatures, tempos and so forth are in place.

I believe everything in the score speaks for itself.

And I am sure your playing of it would be fantastic.

The focus is with final steps toward "production", the composing and theoretical aspect of all 135 pages is in the past.


M.

Fair enough. You want it your way; you got it.

What would you consider non-musicological improvement? I can try to look for things of this nature, but I am unfamiliar with the term. (I am not an expert at composition like the others -- I've dabbled, but I can really only comment on what I see as a pianist.)

Hi Derulux,

I owe Kreisler, Nikolas, you and others, an apology. It is deeply upsetting the way these threads have played out . . . much of the 135 pages of music has aspects that were not in notation during the 1800s and I don't think it is possible here Derulux to efficiently zero in on what is specifically at concern without the non-19th century aspects and also the futuristic aspects of certain tempo markings having to be contested every single step of the way.

And, as has been said, I do not wish to dominate this forum, a lot of persons need to be able to post about various issues and get responses.

I really will do everything else on my own, any engraving issues can in some future edition be fixed, no big deal as all tones, rhythms and time signatures already are 100% correctly entered and proofread with now all notation issues of accidentals fixed - and there is no need to have these challenges over the music content in which regard there are multitudes of bars that would or could have their music content challenged one bar at a time.

I appreciate the concern. Feel free to send an email sometime - and that goes for anyone - this was sufficiently disturbing that a need is felt to disengage from pianoworld for a while.

Thanks to all for the sincere and passionate help.

M.

I don't think that an apology is necessary. This discussion is rather tame compared to some I've had. Michael asked for suggestions. Several of us offered ours. And he's welcome to take our advice or not.

Regardless, if the score ends up self-published, then chances are Michael will know and have contact with any pianists performing the work and will be able to answer any questions. If a publisher picks it up, they'll re-engrave the whole thing anyway to match their house style, and this discussion is purely academic.

My guess is that, since the work is 135 pages, the only likely performer is Michael himself or someone with a keen interest who's interested in working closely with the composer, in which case the universal clarity of the notation is less important.

Hi Kreisler,

I am calmo for years at a time, certainly anything that can break that inner tranquility needs to be reflected upon . . . maybe it actually is healthy to be head-butted from time to time in which case I should be thankful?

The idea of any of this music being published is only fantasizing so I don't think about it . . . and getting back to the "this is 2013" theme, I do wonder if it is appropriate for music scores to be made into an economically scarce good and have price tags stamped upon them even though we live in a time when with only a little cost and hassle everyone can have a printing press equivalent for standard A4 paper in his home.

The Fantasy March is only 10 to 15 pages depending on spacing, the 135 pages is for a variety of titles.

About working with the composer, musicians seem to do fine with music on their own. Contact in that way would be awkward and is something to be avoided, it would be acutely embarrassing to be on any sort of a pedestal even if in one person's mind as with very few exceptions I put no compositional effort into the music, normally I only listen to the music and write it down. There is really not much I can even say about the music or why any features are what they are since this is music not composed in the normal way. Why is a bar in 3 2/3 over 4? I do not know, I have not a clue, but I am competent enough to hear what the time signature is, no need to think about or analyze it.

Performing musicians can be highly flexible. If a musician feels that a work of music if for him to play then it is for him personally and can be personalized. If there is concern about not being able to advance through a music school or a piano competition in that way because of the desire to make a living at it, then there is nothing wrong with having a normal job in this world, I have done that many times.

Let the professionals have their music schools, competitions and concert halls . . . play at churches and nursing homes instead without thinking this is beneath you because otherwise if that represents your attitude and lack of empathy toward others then how can your playing have the necessary expansiveness and fire?

M.