I am composing a piece that contains many alterations, a modern piece.
The doubt I have is about the type of KEY SIGNATURE to use. At first, I thought of A+ (3 sharps), but now I have chosen F#+ (6 sharps). The problem is that in the composition I use many alterations: naturalized sharps and then sharps again, flats, and so on. So I thought that if I didn't use any key signature it would be better, as I would save myself many naturals, but I noticed that where I removed naturals in one part, I still had to add all the sharps that the F#+ key signature would have covered in other measures (B is the only note that undergoes alterations only sporadically, which is why I was thinking of F#+).
I imagine, however, that there is no way to avoid the effort. And then... being a contemporary composition, it doesn't even have a defined melodic character, in the sense that it starts in D- and ends in G#+. Furthermore, inserting various key signatures within the score would be useless... every measure is its own story... I would have to use a different key signature for every measure.
Has anyone ever found themselves in a similar situation during the composition phase?
Are there examples of scores, even by contemporary authors, with many alterations, so that I can realize what kind of key signature to choose?
you have encountered one of the limitations of the traditional notation system, but one that you can customize with personal assumptions and graphic signs, adequately described in a legend.
the possibilities are infinite; you just need to spend a little time on it. surely other composers must have dealt with the same problem. I wouldn't be able to point any out to you right now. but since it is your music, feel free to write it as you please, free even from notational stereotypes. if you describe everything in detail in a legend, the job is done.
Every sign in a score must be useful; if the piece is not tonal, the key signature has no meaning. It happens in some scores—experimental ones from a century ago—to find unconventional key signatures because certain sounds were always at that pitch, or even that there is always a prescription (#, b, or natural) before every note; in this case, it was merely an aesthetic matter.
To this day, only what is truly useful is indicated; if the piece is not tonal (or modal), the key signature is essentially useless.
So I can choose a key signature that doesn't give, how should I say, a tonal sense to the piece... or even choose not to use any key signature at all; it wouldn't change much since, in effect, the piece has no tonal melodic sense. Ok.
ScalaQuaranta, I really wouldn't know where to begin with personal graphic notation, partly because I have very little time to finish the piece and send it. However, what you are saying seems truly interesting and useful. Are there perhaps any study texts on the subject? Or did you simply mean to advise me with amateur customization?
Frank, you said something that struck me:
Frank wrote:
...unconventional key signatures since some sounds were always at that
...this opens up a whole new world for me. I had never thought of this!
Reasoning this way, I feel much more confident in choosing the type of key signature. Without overthinking it too much.
...here a whole new world opens up to me. I had never thought of this!
Reasoning this way makes me feel much more confident in choosing the type of armature. Without worrying too much.
I'm glad, but keep in mind that as I was saying, they were experimental scores that never really took off; over time, other techniques for notation of accidentals have become established... so it seems like a fairly dead end to me. In fact, however, these examples do exist in the repertoire.
I have never studied composition, but I only have the basic notions that allow me to compose. Little by little I study, but there are many things I don't know. For this reason, I was wondering if there was any text where I could study
You can get some ideas from here, convenient in that besides the translation into 4 different languages, you also find references to the pieces, which you can obtain. There is no better way than listening with the score in hand
today I tried to make some changes to my piece. At a certain point, I change the key signature and make it atonal, that is in C+ and then I put back the one in F#+. I don't know if it is truly beautiful stylistically, but it is very functional for me. In fact, this was my problem. The "stylistically beautiful." But it makes no sense.
It seems to me that the use of musical notation ultimately has the purpose of making the composer's intentions clear. And I, until today, have always thought that in composition there was almost an obligation to be strict and very structured. You start, say, in F+ and you must conclude in F+ or D-, that is, staying within the initial key signature. Too classical and limited a vision.
I'm stepping in quietly... I am not a composer, but through my knowledge of scores, I have noticed that rigidity and stylistic severity are old-fashioned things. In modern scores, there is much more freedom. I have seen this very often in the scores of Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc., which I invite you to consult to understand how far you can push yourself. Stockhausen used to include, especially for electronic music, a sort of preface or instruction booklet for the performer when complexity required it (In some cases, instruments had to be prepared according to his directives; in other cases, audio systems were positioned according to a well-defined scheme). You understand well that as complexity increases, the symbols used to represent it must necessarily increase as well.
I imagine that there are also symbols and notations for the piano that could help those who haven't studied, as in my case, when dealing with contemporary compositions. In addition to the text recommended above, I will see what else I can find.
TheSimon, wouldn't there be some other video on YouTube regarding piano sheet music? That is, I mean with modern notations like the video above?
Simone, with the word "ancient" you made me think of a friend who always used to say: "you don't say ancient, you say classical"
In effect, scores from the '60s are now classicism and an 'interpreter must know how to read a classical score (even more ancient, do we want to talk about the Gregorian tetragram with open field notation? Very current in some 1900 aesthetics) let alone a composer who certainly cannot ignore notes because they are ancient and have been used for centuries.
I notice that you use the term "rigid" ambiguously; in reality, the score is the only medium between composer and interpreter, in a world where performance practice no longer exists (even if contemporary performance practice courses exist), the only means is the richness of the writing. Even the most aleatoric writing is now very controlled, so even if the scores appear cleaner, they are rich in prescriptions. I would say: sufficient information so that the score is self-sufficient, meaning it must function even in the absence of the composer.
Stockhausen is just one of the examples (there is also his aleatoric writing) and indeed a rich anthology of the most varied solutions from a rhythmic point of view (even if not complete) is not enough, to which a lot of scores must necessarily be paired. Do we want to talk seriously about Messiaen?
That being said, I have seen musicians fall on 4 against 3, let's not even talk about the Scriabin I was mentioning. The modern musician neglects nothing; they do not ignore how much must be known in the field of music theory. In American schools, you might think that there is no composition course, but this concerns only the creative sphere of what is theory, of which there are instead chairs and courses in abundance.
There is only one right path, that of studying and doing everything possible - I speak for myself - to ignore less and less; unfortunately, it is an unequal struggle
As I said, they are not modern, they are classical (after half a century and the help of the internet).
There are texts that discuss semiography and semiology of the 1900s extensively, and any trained interpreter has no difficulty reading Berio's sequences, if anything, in playing them (or singing them) in a credible way; what needs to be done is quite clear.
Often one needs to have the title pages of the works to be able to play correctly what the composer requires, and it is unlikely that signs are invented today; it only happens if strictly necessary, such as when they do not exist in literature. How can one know if it is "legitimate" to invent a symbol? This brings us back to an in-depth knowledge of theory, and of what has been done and entered into common knowledge.
It occurs to me that there is also a new discipline that deals with studying a very widespread phenomenon: it happens that writing is not sufficient to communicate the desired outcome; in these cases, multimedia supports are provided with the sonic result and the request to realize it. Practically, it is the case where there is no exhaustive sign in the score and the result can only be guaranteed by providing a precise example. YouTube is full of examples ....
We are a bit outside the strictly rhythmic component but more related to sound; consider that some sounds depend on the attack speed and execution which could be indicated in the score but ... an audio-video is needed
