Re: tie over clef change

[Hans Åberg]

> On 28 Sep 2020, at 00:26, Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>>> However, this gets *never* notated as such.
>>> 
>> I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as 
>> diminished sevenths.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord
> I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"?

Right. Typo.

> (Augmented sixth chords, at least "Italian" and "German" augmented sixths, 
> are identical to dominant sevenths without or with fifth on a modern 
> keyboard, e.g. c-e-[g]-a♯ vs. c-e-[g]-b♭, but none of them yield diminished 
> sevenths.)

They are equal in E12, but not in the staff system or in an orchestra.

> But anyway, I'm not sure that your statement holds true invariably: I'm 
> pretty sure that in late 19th century composers like Bruckner, the difference 
> between both chords becomes blurry. I will see if I can find an example, 
> maybe even older than Bruckner.

Some composers though seem to be careful about the difference, and it is a bit 
curious why.

> On a related but different note, I always found it funny how certain editors 
> of Mozart's Requiem, of all things, tried to "improve" Mozart's 
> chromatic/enharmonic spelling. See the old Peters vocal scores on IMSLP at 
> the end of the "Confutatis maledictis"
> 
> <oeehcojnehmnfcpd.png>
> 
> vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully):
> 
> <bggdfflenejgmfad.png>

Because of such a practise, one would have to go back to originals or use 
Urtext which have footnotes about the changes.

> I would not claim that this change generates any measurable difference in 
> what the musicians actually play and sing, but I imagine it changes the way 
> they _think_ their lines.

This is an important point, I think. One should notate the musical intent, not 
merely as a line of notes. For example, ornaments do not necessarily become 
clearer if written out explicitly, but the converse may happen.

There is a difference between the type of music: Jazz is pretty much E12, and 
the Mehegan Jazz Improvisation books use enharmonic equivalents without 
discrimination, if I remember it correctly.

> In particular, I like Mozart's notation for the clarity with which he 
> expresses that he uses the diminished seventh as a triple-leading tone 
> neighbour to the ensuing dominant seventh - not to mention the fact that this 
> exact device is all over the place in the second half of the Confutatis, and 
> it's frankly silly to change it just once, only to avoid a double flat...

I did try to measure a dominant 7th chord in some Beethoven's orchestral work, 
I think it was, and from what I could see, they just play stacked thirds. Not 
the 7th partial, as has been suggested. Also, I used to play along with a 
meantone tuning with some Balkan piece, it may have been a Paidushko with Petko 
Radev on clarinet, and I found that it did not blend well. So when I measured 
the clarinet, I found it was a comma off, suggesting he is playing in 
Pythagorean tuning.

As for spelling, the violin pizzicato in the tune below is in F♯ harmonic 
minor, so when written out, one gets an E♯, not an F. If one plays along with 
an E12 instrument, it sounds a bit of tune, even adjusted for pitch as it is an 
original analog recording. I originally thought it might be because of the 
pizzicato, which stretches the octave, but perhaps it is because there are no 
other good pitch references on the violins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvSNAfSaezk&list=PLJ2I_U9XF3oDMwyVjAULrShxZKWlmHOGy&index=6