Setticlavio

It can be very useful for reading scores for other instruments in your key, for example the B-flat trumpet or the E-flat saxophone. By changing the clef, all the notes for your instrument also change automatically. In particular, if for example you want to read a score for B-flat trumpet, you must read in alto clef, whereas if a trumpet player wants to read one of your scores, they must read in tenor clef. However, be careful because changing the clef corresponds to a change in key for the same notes. For example, a piece written in D major that has two sharps in the key signature for trumpet, if you read it in tenor clef to play it on the piano, becomes C major; therefore, the alterations in the key signature must be modified. Accidental alterations within the piece (i.e., the notes intentionally altered) remain altered, since even when reading in other clefs, the melodic relationships of semitones and tones (above or below) are maintained.

But is it true that at the conservatory it is mandatory to study all seven of them? Doesn't one get confused knowing all seven clefs? I imagine, however, that it is useful to know the septiclavio (seven-clef system), as the great composers certainly knew it; otherwise, for example, how could Mozart have written for a full orchestra? Speaking of Mozart, is it true that he was often drunk, as Milos Forman reveals (or imagines) in his film about Mozart?

Mozart loved Marzemino, a light and sweet wine. It seems to me that this little wine is also mentioned in Don Giovanni!!!

IT is NOT DIFFICULT TO READ IN ALL CLEFS AND I DID IT IN DUE TIME FOR THE THEORY AND SOLFEGGIO EXAM. It was not useful to me later for piano study, but it is nonetheless very useful for the completeness of a musician who might subsequently approach composition. I think, however, it is simply a matter of method.

Exactly!!! It's a matter of method and ...of practice. A good system for learning to read in all clefs ...is not to refer to the previously learned clef or to refer to the one you know best. Think about languages: You must learn to think directly in the new language. That way, you perform only one operation. You learn that "maison" is where we live and that "book" is what we read. Going through the Italian translation of "casa" and "libro" forces us to perform an extra operation, with a waste of time (lack of immediacy) and energy.

In the seven-clef system, it is useful to learn, for example, the tenor clef by thinking about and visualizing middle C on our index finger. By touching the other fingers, we will pronounce the names of the notes, perceiving their position through touch. Between one finger and the next are the notes on the spaces. Touch the fingers and pronounce the notes. When, at speed, you no longer make mistakes, take a sheet of lined paper and put random dots, then quickly write the name of the notes under their sign (first the sign and then the name). Reverse exercise. It is important to do both exercises. This way, in twenty days of study, one can learn the seven-clef system, recognizing the physiognomy of the notes in each clef without making references to the others. Try it to believe it. Of course, none of us reads the seven-clef system with ease if we do not continue to practice it. What do you think?

I wanted to say it but I didn't want to be prosaic. I am one thousand percent with you. Everyone was telling me.... just read a line below and then a line above but.... I didn't like it and I did exactly as you said. For me, reading in tenor, baritone etc. was just like with languages and I never related to other keys and it was, among other things, very satisfying. I went fast like a true arrow but during the exam I found a very boring stanza that sent me into a crisis. Great Paolo!

DanielePiano wrote:

Could it be useful to learn how to read the seven-line staff?

It depends on what you want to do in life, think simply about transposing instruments 😉

Examples:

You want to read an orchestral score

You are a pianist and you want to accompany a violist

You are an organist, it often and gladly happens that you also encounter the alto clef

You look at ancient repertoire

You want to write a piece for transposing instruments

You have a student who asks you this same question

How are you doing with Gregorian chant? You will discover that the seven-line staff is also useful for the tetragram {

Etc.

You will have understood that it is fundamental 😉

I, on the other hand, do not entirely agree: perhaps it is a limiting and very crude reasoning, but for example, to play the piano, only two clefs are required.

For the purpose of understanding one's own instrument, whatever it may be, in my opinion, learning to read in seven clefs provides redundant information. It is clear that in orchestral composition it is an important thing but not a necessary one: I think there are software capable of transferring a melody written in one clef and converting it into another.

Everyone has their own points of view. It's true, the piano requires two clefs, but think for a moment about what you want to be: a musician or a piano performer?

A musician must know the seven-line staff because, as Frank rightly reminded us, it can be useful in various situations. Of course, there is software capable of transposing melodies into different keys, but in your opinion, if a mathematician doesn't have a calculator, are they unable to do division? Technological tools help, certainly; I also prefer reading in treble and bass clefs, but I don't disdain it if I am asked to play a vocal line written in tenor. Obviously, if I have the time, I use technology to transpose into standard piano clefs, but if that is not possible, I must know the seven-line staff if I want to be a musician.

The original question was:

DanielePiano wrote:

Could it be useful to learn to read seven-staff notation? How useful? An effective method for learning?

Camy86 says “to play the piano, only two clefs are needed.”

Your answer is limited to only a subset of pianists (there are those who would also like to be musicians) … for organists it would already be different

I would specify that in any case, the point made by Camy86 can only apply to the SOLO pianist... even in chamber music, I see things getting grey.

I would also like to hear the transposition of a pianist who does not know seven-staff notation 😉

camy86 wrote:

For the purpose of understanding one's own instrument, whatever it may be, in my opinion, learning to read in seven clefs provides redundant information.

An instrument is called an orchestra, and when they give you theory lessons as a child, who knows if one day you won't also want to become a composer or conductor?

The scope is that of general culture (that's what it's called), a bit like knowing how long the Po river is, what quadratic equations are, etc. What is the use of knowing all this? … to live, a GPS is enough, knowing how to do addition and subtraction (so as not to be cheated by the greengrocer), etc.

camy86 wrote:

It is clear that in orchestral composition it is an important thing but not a necessary one: I think there are software capable of transferring a melody written in one clef and converting it into another.

Oh yes, the software is called jaws (http://webdesign.htm...ai-non-vedenti/), you feed it the MIDI file of the orchestral score you want to study and it reads the notes to you.

Joking aside, if you have to resort to software ... it's because on one hand you have a need and on the other a deficiency … you answered yourself.

.

pianoexpert wrote:

What do you think?

Sorry for answering with a question, what method did you use to learn how to read bass clef?

Perhaps I was too brief. I will try to explain myself better.

In reality, I see it as a constraint: to play an instrument (not meant as an orchestra) it takes x keys, which one may or may not know how to read. I think that being a musician (even if limited in the field of reading) does not imply knowing how to read music.

It is clear that if someone has a context of composition and/or arrangement and/or conducting an orchestra and/or playing with other elements that require the seven clefs, they cannot do without knowing how to handle the seven clefs; but what I cannot understand is why children especially, and people in general who are starting to approach music, are made to learn solfège in all seven clefs by default.

In my opinion, this imposition limits the creativity (regardless of musical genre) that can be expressed on one's own instrument(s): time is dedicated to the mere reading of notes just to pass the theory exam without contextualizing why it is being taught. One should wait until the student, supported and advised also by a teacher, is able to understand that they actually need the seven clefs to proceed, rather than telling them: study the seven clefs because that's what the ministerial program says. They should be told that the seven clefs are used for a dialogue between instruments with different registers that need to be written in the seven clefs for their dialogue, which forms the musical discourse.

In short, in my opinion, note reading must be separated as little as possible from what they express when played: if the goal of passing the theory and solfège exam is prioritized without contextualization, in my opinion, it is a decoding useful only for learning to read things that could limit creativity.

I hope I haven't said anything stupid, but that is my thought.

camy86 wrote:

One should tell them that the seven-line staff is used for a dialogue between instruments with different registers that need to be written in the seven-line staff for their dialogue, which forms the musical discourse.

Good teachers usually explain it to you because of learning to read in the 7 clefs. Then there is certainly also the matter of exams... If you want to study piano, the solfeggio exam is the first one you must pass... So the seven-line staff must be learned, period; I see no alternatives or controversies. If one does not want to become a professional musician but wants to play at home for oneself, then perhaps learning the seven-line staff is not necessary. I have often rewritten melodic lines on the spot for sax and trumpet in B-flat starting from the piano melodic line - read in alto and they rewrite themselves, conversely from sax to piano, read in tenor and you don't have to rewrite anything.

TheSimon wrote:

Good teachers usually explain it to you because learning to read is key.

Unfortunately for me, it wasn't like that. Maybe I wrote a bit from the gut! Thank you all for clearing up my ideas.

Even if in the end you write

camy86 wrote:

Maybe I wrote a bit from the gut! Thanks to everyone for clearing up my ideas.

But

camy86 wrote:

In my opinion, this imposition limits creativity

Impositions are never good, but knowledge is never a limit... it is only a means to express and give vent to one's own creativity.

I would like to give my opinion. I am not against "scientific" knowledge, but one must learn how to manage it. What do I mean? I will tell you a fact. Years ago, I was with a Polish friend of mine who was an Orchestra Conductor, pianist, concert artist, someone who played all of Chopin's studies in concert and learned Liszt's 1st concerto in one afternoon because the pianist who was supposed to perform it at 9:30 PM had fallen ill. A monster of skill. He often performed Mozart concerts in Rome as a pianist and Conductor. He had also been my "score reading" teacher and used to tell me: "You Italians, study seven-line staff, friends, fine... but we think key tenor... note below... viola note above... easier.... we three years reading the score and start conducting"... In short, he advocated for practicality. Eastern culture suggests this to us. Think of the Kodaly method for singing with movable do. This practicality produces synthesis and speed of learning. The result is achieved quickly. So, as far as the seven-line staff is concerned: it's okay to study it, but try to resolve things practically when we have to read the score. That is my idea.

pianoexpert wrote:

"You Italians see, study seventh clef, friends, fine... but we think tenor clef ..note below..viola note above... easier....we three years reading score and start conducting"... In short, he was calling for practicality. The culture of the East suggests this to us. Think of the Kodaly method for singing with movable do. This practicality produces synthesis and speed of learning. Results are achieved quickly. So regarding the seventh clef: okay to study it, but try to resolve it practically when we have to read the score. This is my idea

I am for practicality and I value the Kodaly method, imported into Italy thanks to Goitre ...although in my opinion they complicate life a bit when it comes to modulations … but for those who have intonation problems, I find it to be a very appropriate method

Closing parenthesis 🙂 ... that is not to say that the tenor clef does not exist, but rather the C clef which also gives life to the tenor staff, and above all, who establishes which is the best staff to take as a reference?

If you have to read in mezzo-soprano or soprano clef, what do you do? Do you transpose by two or three lines respectively?

When do you have transposing instruments? I don't know, like the clarinet in A?

... mmhm

It's correct, but in jargon it is said: The B-flat clarinet reads in "tenor clef". The C, G, and F clefs represent the three families, "in different clothes," which give us an initial reference for C, G, and F respectively.

Some instruments play in C clef only out of tradition and certainly not due to range necessity. This is the case with the viola, which reads in alto clef, but could read perfectly well in treble clef, don't you think? What do you say? (at least that's what they teach you in Conservatory!!)