Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Olimar12345]

I'm just kind of here.

Spoiler

[close]

Well Pianoth, this was fun. I'll make a quick final reply to your post (which you may not even read!) but it's clear here that we come from different musical backgrounds and have different sets of ideologies.

1. I still think mine is clearer than any of the other options you gave, but thanks for posting them!
2. Well, I meant read and comprehend the musical meaning behind the technique. This is such a minuscule thing to textwall over, since regardless of whichever way we wrote that passage, it would still be understood.
3. Noooooo I didn't mean for you to have to post all of that! I was just taking tid-bits of things that you don't usually see or that you could rewrite in more standard ways to fit this discussion. I was not posting "hey, lets analyze all of these rn okay go!" I thought that was apparent from the beginning, lol. Also, say what you want about that Ives excerpt, I guarantee that you won't find that technique used anywhere else. (Now if we're talking about our own compositions, I've done some pretty neat things, too. One that comes to mind was a three part fugue that I wrote using twelve-tone technique, but we can talk personal works elsewhere!)
4. I know what you were suggesting, I was just using the ends to justify the means. Even if you added the second stem after the downward stem, you would still be left with two stems on a single note, not to mention, the order in which you add the stems cannot be determined from the end product! xD
5. I think you misread the quote in this fifth spot; I was not asking a question, lol. There was a musical reason I did it this way, but with how long our posts have been I can forgive you for overlooking it.

Cheers!

[Pianoth]

which you may not even read!

I saw you were online and you were "posting", so it wouldn't be kind to ignore it. Today I even showed your score to a friend of mine, which is a composer too. He also thought those chords were strange. So it's not like I'm the only one thinking that (you may as well not believing me, since I can't provide proof, but I can assure you I wouldn't say this randomly if it didn't happen) Anyway, I found that last part, "the purpose of music notation is still completely unknown to you", kinda offensive, since I always make sure my scores are as good as possible in every possible way. So, sorry if my answer wasn't as kind as possible.

[Olimar12345]

Today I even showed your score to a friend of mine, which is a composer too. He also thought those chords were strange. So it's not like I'm the only one thinking that

Of course it looks strange! That's kind of the whole debate here! lol I totally agree that it looks odd and that it will raise an eyebrow or two, but for the purpose of keeping as many things in alignment as possible and to preserve the mood of the piece, (which I have explained now every which way to Sunday!) through my training in composition and theory, it is in my opinion that anyway (that I have seen thus far or can imagine) but how I have it now would break the consistency that the piece is built upon.

Anyway, I found that last part, "the purpose of music notation is still completely unknown to you", kinda offensive, since I always make sure my scores are as good as possible in every possible way. So, sorry if my answer wasn't as kind as possible.

I'm sorry if this offended you. However, I'm still not quite convinced the message in that paragraph got across...

[Bespinben]

Since Olimar seems to be enjoying this, I'll pick up where the train left off. I feel this quote has a lot of wisdom:

or use a different way to write it (you don't need to write it this way after all).

There's always a myriad of ways to express a thought, and sometimes you have to make a sacrifice of what you want communicate artistically for the sake of aesthetics (a blasphemous thought, but hear me out). Using cross-staff notation for the sake of visually representing the unity of parts works, but I feel that same notion is expressed (albeit less deliberately) with split voicings in the same staff:



I feel this notation best overcomes the challenge faced at measure 3, and others like it. I don't feel this notation is ideal (ex: to hide or not hide rests; to beam or not beam; 8ths or 16ths?) but perhaps this is a step in a better direction. Don't get so hung up on doing things one way that you don't experiment with all the possibilities.

[Olimar12345]

The issue with doing this in one staff arises at the bottom of the first page though, when the LH moves to the bass clef. Now a change in staves becomes necessary (well, it avoids more ledger lines, at least). This is why I had separate staves for each hand in use from the beginning: so that it would be more consistent throughout. (since the second page is just a repeat of the first page, but down the octave in the LH and with slightly different inversions).

Don't get so hung up on doing things one way that you don't experiment with all the possibilities.

I know it wasn't said anywhere, but there most definitely was a period of experimentation in writing this transcription, in which I had a version that looked similar to your example, and one that looked similar to one of Pianoth's examples. I just ultimately decided to use the one you see in the op.

[mikey]

Ya know, just maybe, some people care about notation. It's this dismissiveness towards discussion of notation that gives modern composers a bad rap. But hey, on the bright side, it's also why professional copyists and engravers can still exist in the era of digital music, so thanks for keeping me employed. I for one have quite enjoyed following this discussion, but it seems those intent on prioritizing PR over our craft do not. Thank you Olimar for defending your choices; thank you Pianoth for questioning them; screw off social justice bystanders.

for those of you who don't speak Ben:

If you're not here to discuss notation shove off

[Pianoth]

Actually, I think Bespinben's idea is also really nice. The lower note you wrote in the piece can be written in the treble clef with only 2 ledger lines, and you're already using 4 ledger lines in the beginning for the higher notes. So, I don't see how this can be a problem for you. You could literally write the entire piece using only one staff. I can even give you an example in which something similar is done:

Spoiler

That's from Marc-André Hamelin's fifth etude. Notice how the last bar in the image totally avoids any problem. Also notice that the presence of ledger lines isn't really a problem.

[close]

If you really don't want to change your score it's fine anyway.

[Latios212]

Actually, I think Bespinben's idea is also really nice. The lower note you wrote in the piece can be written in the treble clef with only 2 ledger lines, and you're already using 4 ledger lines in the beginning for the higher notes. So, I don't see how this can be a problem for you. You could literally write the entire piece using only one staff.

This:

The issue with doing this in one staff arises at the bottom of the first page though, when the LH moves to the bass clef. Now a change in staves becomes necessary (well, it avoids more ledger lines, at least). This is why I had separate staves for each hand in use from the beginning: so that it would be more consistent throughout. (since the second page is just a repeat of the first page, but down the octave in the LH and with slightly different inversions).

I know it wasn't said anywhere, but there most definitely was a period of experimentation in writing this transcription, in which I had a version that looked similar to your example, and one that looked similar to one of Pianoth's examples. I just ultimately decided to use the one you see in the op.

[Pianoth]

I've read what Olimar wrote, that was my opinion on the argument: I think it wouldn't be a problem writing the whole piece in one staff, I don't see why a change in staves would be necessary. Just my opinion.

[Olimar12345]

Yeah Latios, he's right. I didn't realize it until after I posted, but it only goes down to a G, and like Pianoth said, it's already using more ledger lines in the opposite direction. This is definitely a solid option.

[Olimar12345]

Updated the file with the following changes:
-Time signatures now reflect the pattern starting with the wider intervals (in most cases) rather than just being syncopated throughout.
-Note stems throughout have been meticulously realigned to make it easier on the eyes.
-Many tiny nuisance have been cleaned up.

[mastersuperfan]

Well, I think I went through a whole bag of popcorn while reading that.

Anyways, my suggestion would be to have it more widely spaced so that the systems fill up the third page completely. It's pretty cramped right now, and I'm finding it difficult to understand what's going on in some measures without squinting.

[Olimar12345]

There are only two pages. View the PDF.

[mastersuperfan]

The MUS has three. Finale export issue?

[Olimar12345]

It's your version. Works well in 12.
I'll see what I can do later.