Re: MusicXML representation of "additional" staff

On Fri, April 22, 2016 4:21 pm, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> OK. It is not unique to Debussy. But what does it mean? Perhaps another
> sample was intended to be enlightening, but it didn't actually answer
> the question asked.
>
> If I were to try to actually play that, what notes would I play, and
> would I actually obtain help from seeing those extra clef symbols, and
> what help would they give me?

I'm not confused by this. Clefs are markers for what follows. The lower clef
tells me that the following notes are to be played as if they are in the bass
clef. The upper clef tells me the following notes are to be played as if they
are in the treble clef. It is the temporary addition of an additional staff
created by collapsing two staves into one staff.

> As a very first step in the explanation (and without seeing the clefs at
> the left edges of the staffs in your sample, which, since you omitted
> them I can only assume to be treble clef for the top staff and bass clef
> for the bottom staff), I wonder, seeing the 15ma kind of grabbing the
> notes mostly surrounded by the dashed lines with funny angles at the
> bottom, whether the first note to the right of the treble clef intruding
> on the bass staff, should be interpreted as a middle C&D raised two
> octaves, or a treble A&B raised two octaves?  The latter interpretation
> would sort of bump into my interpretation of the notes on the treble
> staff being treble FG&B raised two octaves, so I would conclude that the
> interpretation intended is probably middle C&D, and then I'd further
> conclude that the treble clef is more confusing than helpful, in the
> sense that its presence only confuses the interpretation of the pitch of
> the notes on the bass staff, although one can argue that it assists in
> realizing that the 15ma applies to these notes (but that seems to be
> what the dotted line is also doing, so the treble clef becomes
> redundant, confusing, or, as Christina seems to be arguing, without
> semantic meaning [because it doesn't affect the interpretation of the
> pitch of the following notes]).

Treble clef indicates A & B. I don't see confusion here.

> There's certainly not a lot of time to figure out the interpretation of
> all that stuff while playing the quarter note before it... definitely
> not a piece for the faint-hearted to sight-read at first exposure.

'Tis true. It's actually for four pianos, about 900 measures, written in the
1970s. There are numerous notationally interesting aspects throughout the
score because the composer is indicating compositional meaning as well as
giving performance instructions.

> And it is not at all clear why, if those notes are intended to be
> interpreted as middle C&D raised two octaves, why they are attached to
> the bass staff, rather than being placed just below treble staff in its
> middle C&D positions?  The shown placement seems to overaccentuate the
> tonal distance between the notes.  And if they were placed relative to
> the treble staff, there would be no need for all those extra clefs to be
> redundant, confusing, or semantically meaningless.

Two things: First, they are attached to the lower staff, not the bass staff,
which is a combination staff, two staves in one. Second, semantics are
determined by the composer, so there is no debate there that I can imagine.
Ultimately, the composer always trumps the engraver.

> In the Debussy sample, it also seems to be confusing: the clef does not
> appear in the proper position to help avoid counting leger lines. It
> should be two staff spaces higher to help with that.

The clefs are markers that do not need positions because they are not movable
clefs in the context of a piano score from this era. One wouldn't see a
baritone clef or tenor clef or alto clef in this context.

I show this example to note that the composer determines a symbol's placement
and meaning. Until the Debussy was brought up here (and in an engraving group
on Facebook), I never would have guessed there was any possible
misinterpretation.

Dennis

Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 20:50:34 UTC