Question about scale notation...

[shreddingjoris]

Yes. In C it would look like C-E-G-Cb - it looks really weird...
ither like a mistake or like a concept of complex key change (though in this case really complex)))).

But I think the problem you have might be partly that you are somewhat confused with lots of occasional in the key of F#. Am I right?


You transpose scale - F# major is the same as C major just 6 half-steps higher, if you look from this point of view you will mechanically put E# not F.
You may ask: why? In C major I put B with no shraps and here I have to put E#?
Because the root F# is altered itself
This is because C major is initial - all the other scales are like trasposition of it, so we operate with notes of C-major just altering those that do not fit new scales.

It maybe more clear if you look at this not like notes but like seven steps, there are always 7 steps in such a scale and they should be on the different notes with different names (derived from C major names), becasue if you put С and Cb (instead of B) it looks like 6 steps and in addition one of them altered.


I would say also that this training is better on keyboard, it is more evident on it.. and with T-S-D chords behind it to hear resolutions.

PS
This is mostly for major/minor scales only

Ok, that makes sense. Just had to make the click, because it's a bit weird coming from knowing for a fact that Gb and F# (for example) are the same note (in terms of sound then).

[henryrobinett]

The word is "enharmonically" the same note.

[ECHOPLEX]

I was taught that the word scale is derived from a word(I think it was scalar)that means ladder and that you had to have one of each letter name in a scale,otherwise one of the rungs of the ladder would be missing. Made sense to me.

[Jonah]

Yeh... "Seven steps to heaven"))))

[bako]

When we notate, it is our opportunity to communicate our intention and musical understanding of our creation as clearly as possible to all who may one day read it. The way we spell notes can clarify or obscure harmonic and intervallic melodic motions.
In the same way that the use of dots and dashes, accents, slurs, dynamics, etc. point towards a performance model.

Notation is a symbolic visual language created to represent sound events. That is quite a challenge in and of itself.
One of the shortcomings to our system is the use of 7 letters to cover 12 notes.
It works pretty well for many situations but can also give the illusion of something being more difficult than it
really is by virtue of the names being more convoluted. Single accidental spellings are manageable because they are just one half step removed from the reference note and often the 2 notes can serve as alternates for each other to lend variety to the same functional move
as in C Am7 Dm7 G7 or C A7 D7 G7.
There are times where it makes more sense for expediency to override the technically correct name in favor of a simpler spelling that will be more easily understood as in the occurrence of double accidental spellings.

It would be an interesting experiment to introduce to a new student the keys of Cb or C# first to see then if the keys lacking flats and sharps would be perceived as more the strange, unfamiliar ones.

[Cunamara]

Nope. It's confusing. There are times in flat keys where # is appropriate, but don't be willy-nilly about it. That why there are key signatures. Gb has flat notes. Cb is enharmonically the same sounding pitch as B, but they're different notes. And some good readers will get confused and even angry if you make them jump through these mental hoops. They've got the keys dialed. Mixing sharps and flats, incorrectly, makes a readers mind spin.

Whereas my trumpet player gets mad at me when he has to read Cb or B# or E# or Fb in a chart, even if it is the correct thing within the key signature.

[TH]

Whereas my trumpet player gets mad at me when he has to read Cb or B# or E# or Fb in a chart, even if it is the correct thing within the key signature.

I keep a pencil and if somebody has a problem, I or they can just write an alternative notation next to the note to remind them. If they feel confused, they can put it in parentheses. And if and when they feel confident with the music, they can erase the notes and aids and no one is worse for it.
My charts and lead sheets are full of helpful notations penciled in. And when I'm playing, people really can't tell.

David

[Reg]

It's almost an oxymoron... you want the single notes notated to represent where they're from... or where they're going.
Wait there's a harmonic concept going on, maybe the notation should represent what they imply harmonically.

Will this player understand what I'm trying to say, notationally...

Personally I don't really care, there are a few levels of understanding and application. There's no doubt some lines are much easier to recognize from their notation.

I personally notate the lines for ease of sight reading and the changes to imply harmonic concepts.(most of the time)

Pretty common practice last 20 years... use accidentals, no key sigs

[cosmic gumbo]

[henryrobinett]

Whereas my trumpet player gets mad at me when he has to read Cb or B# or E# or Fb in a chart, even if it is the correct thing within the key signature.

That is true.

[targuit]

To notate without key signatures makes no sense to me. They simplify reading. Want to complicate it? Skip the key signatures....which would be ridiculous.

[henryrobinett]

Sometimes if the music is key center-less/key signature less we write with no key signature. Duh. . I've played some Ornette Coleman tunes like that. But I play with a couple of great and persnickety readers who will always stop, get their pencils out and make a big wup-dee-do if there's a misplaced accidental. Or then again if I wrote a Cb instead of a B, even though the tune is in the key of Gb, he's say, "You know I'd write that as a B natural even so. It's easier to read." You know.

[Jonah]

To notate without key signatures makes no sense to me. They simplify reading. Want to complicate it? Skip the key signatures....which would be ridiculous.

Beginning 20th century some composers did this when key became not so important to trace exactly how it works(late Skryabin's or Prokofiev's pieces)
By the way even in earlier music Recitativo in operas and cantats some times could be notated in C because there were transitional episodes with constant key change, so that it was impossible to define the key...

We should consider that notation is conventionality that should correspond something, if it stops working like this no need to use it.

But if it is really functional tonality piece than it is actually easier to read if it is written correctly - I am also afraid that in some cases if he does not care what is written f or e# he might play it wrongly because he may not hear harmony buhind though he can have it of course just by ear like many jazz players did and take note only as a signe of sound.

You know I'd write that as a B natural even so. It's easier to read.

Is it really a big deal to read Cb? Much more difficult than Ab?
The real problem they have usually is that they have plenty of sharps at the key and they cannot remember which is where, whis was canceled - also in those keys will be double-sharps accidentals...
but to play Cb is very simple.

[Phil in London]

here is a good example of the problem:



It's from David Rollin's Facebook site. The chords are inversions of iv, iii, ii in Eb maj, in a nice voicing with the third in the bass and root and fifth in the upper part. However, the last two chords (in G) have the root in the bass, indicating that we are actually in C minor, rather than Ebmaj. While the Gsus4 is correct (here the 7 [F], and the 4 [C] continue the upper voicing of a perfect fifth), the last chord should read G - F - B. The F - Cb is misleading, as there is no more fifth, but a tritone between F and B, with B of course being the third to G, rather than a diminished 4.

Now, this is of course simple and David R knows everything about it and a zillion things more. Surely only the effect of some silly notation programme. But it may add to the thread by showing why enharmonic differentiation matters. Just looking at the notation of the last chord, one might question for a second - wait, whats this?... while when using B, it's clear immediately.

[Reg]

So what should be standard practice. What should be the default notational common practice ...

We are on a jazz guitar site. I already posted how I personally notate. I read music on gigs, live and in studios all the time. There are incredibly bad notational practices both from people and from programs.

As someone posted above... we should in a perfect world have enough musicianship to read and interpret the notation for the performance. That should be the only problem. If there's time to verbally talk about the music, analysis etc... there's not really any problems.

But the live performance issue is real, intonation, phrasing etc... It would be great if the notation represented what the music was actually doing, functionally, harmonically as well as melodically or the shape of the line... from the composer's perspective.

Usually for that to happen... the "one" notating the music, needs to understand just what that is... and the "one" reading the notation needs to understand also. (and there are a few understandings).

My advice, (who cares), but many of my gigs are from being able to sight read well... be able to read and understand all notational practices... right, wrong, good, bad.... This usually comes from being aware of the big picture as well as smaller details. There is always more implied than just the basic notation, but be able to perform that basic notation.

[targuit]

Here is a question for readers. Last night I was rehearsing with my Sibelius transcription of All The Things You Are which I had transposed down a minor third for vocals from my HL Real Ultimate Jazz fakebook key of Ab. (Fm7 - Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abmaj7 ....or if you prefer to call the key the relative minor Fm. As I was cycling through the key modulations, I was thinking that one could notate each key change by changing the key signature for each section, yet I rarely see it written that way. Doesn't really matter to me, but I was wondering what you guys think.

Reg, I understand what you are saying about the swing and triplet feel to jazz and the problematic thing about notation in that regard, but I think getting the phrasing and groove is not as difficult as you suggest sometimes. I mean, that's what comes with getting more sophisticated as a jazz musician, no? And certainly, it is one thing to be "sight-reading" a song you already know pretty cold versus an unknown composition. For me in that situation I would like to hear even a simple demo of the song as I read it to get the composer's feel and intention.

Jay

[JonR]

here is a good example of the problem:



It's from David Rollin's Facebook site. The chords are inversions of iv, iii, ii in Eb maj, in a nice voicing with the third in the bass and root and fifth in the upper part. However, the last two chords (in G) have the root in the bass, indicating that we are actually in C minor, rather than Ebmaj. While the Gsus4 is correct (here the 7 [F], and the 4 [C] continue the upper voicing of a perfect fifth), the last chord should read G - F - B. The F - Cb is misleading, as there is no more fifth, but a tritone between F and B, with B of course being the third to G, rather than a diminished 4.

Now, this is of course simple and David R knows everything about it and a zillion things more. Surely only the effect of some silly notation programme. But it may add to the thread by showing why enharmonic differentiation matters. Just looking at the notation of the last chord, one might question for a second - wait, whats this?... while when using B, it's clear immediately.

Sure. It's a simple mistake. As you say, hopefully a silly notaton program, and poor proof-reading from the publisher. I would suspect David R is extremely embarrassed that that one got through. If not, then he should be.
Any argument about flattening the previous 4th would be feeble in the extreme. There are places where Cb makes perfect sense, but this ain't one of them.

[JonR]

Here is a question for readers. Last night I was rehearsing with my Sibelius transcription of All The Things You Are which I had transposed down a minor third for vocals from my HL Real Ultimate Jazz fakebook key of Ab. (Fm7 - Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abmaj7 ....or if you prefer to call the key the relative minor Fm. As I was cycling through the key modulations, I was thinking that one could notate each key change by changing the key signature for each section, yet I rarely see it written that way. Doesn't really matter to me, but I was wondering what you guys think.

It just depends on which way is easiest to read.
Easier to see key sigs switching every few bars? Or to see accidentals in the music? For me, it depends on the tune, and how long is spent in each new key. 8 bars? New key sig, probably. 4 bars? maybe not.

[Reg]

Here is a question for readers. Last night I was rehearsing with my Sibelius transcription of All The Things You Are which I had transposed down a minor third for vocals from my HL Real Ultimate Jazz fakebook key of Ab. (Fm7 - Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abmaj7 ....or if you prefer to call the key the relative minor Fm. As I was cycling through the key modulations, I was thinking that one could notate each key change by changing the key signature for each section, yet I rarely see it written that way. Doesn't really matter to me, but I was wondering what you guys think.

Reg, I understand what you are saying about the swing and triplet feel to jazz and the problematic thing about notation in that regard, but I think getting the phrasing and groove is not as difficult as you suggest sometimes. I mean, that's what comes with getting more sophisticated as a jazz musician, no? And certainly, it is one thing to be "sight-reading" a song you already know pretty cold versus an unknown composition. For me in that situation I would like to hear even a simple demo of the song as I read it to get the composer's feel and intention.

Jay

Hey Jay... I don't rehears old standards... but if I was reading an arrangement... your right, it wouldn't matter how it was notated, I could read the tune upside down, the tune's 75 years old, 1939 from the musical Very Warm for May. Being honest... I try and not play or think about the tune. The tune is from the key signature pop musical period... My comments were for tunes composed within the last 20 years or so. And obviously not all of them. Key signatures are for a style of music with generally one tonal or key center. Key signatures imply that tonal reference and make notation easier.

With the introduction of Modal being used as a harmonic reference, as compared to melodic ...and other harmonic organizational compositional devices etc... key signatures tends to cause more confusion and get in the way of what tunes imply... not to mention the notational mess.

Yes in this perfect world... rehearsals... paid rehearsals are great. But being aware of all the possible implications from
charts... any notated music, is what we as so called pros are paid to do... usually with no rehearsals.

When there is a key signature... there's a reason the composer decided to use one... when there's not a key signature... there is also a reason a key signature was not used.


So reading through the Metheny... it's actually easier to read with the Cb and there's no real misunderstanding of the sus resolve ... C to Cb as compared to C to B nat.

Like I said previously... melodic notation is generally notated for ease of reading and the changes imply the harmonic concepts. I don't believe the use of Cb was a mistake.

[targuit]

Actually, I agree with Phil in London. In this context, with the G7sus resolving to G7, I believe the notation of the "Cb" should have been a B natural. Cb? Not in the context of this song to my mind.

In fact, as an edit, I just looked the song up in my Pat Metheny Song Book. Pat does not write out the melody to this one, but the chords are written by him as

Abma7/C - Gm7/Bb - Fm7/Ab - G7sus4 - G7 -.... where G7 sounds like the V7. And the next chord is Cm.

Jay

[Phil in London]

not sure, but we might talk about 2 different issues here. I agree fully, if one stands on a stage or needs to perform in a studio job, there are 1000s of things that are more important than differentiating between Cb and B. Who cares, as long as its playable.

On the other hand, chords based on simple diatonic triads and 7th chords, such as a Gmaj triad or a G7 chord, conventionally dont use a diminished 4th to depict a major 3rd. In any case, it really does not matter so much, its just explanatory and maybe looking at things with a different emphasis.

[Reg]

So any answer can work depending on the reference and context.

When I read through the lines... That's just what I did... I read the three notes, the lines. I didn't play the notes from the chord notation, I read the three actual lines.. and it read easily... sure i could have easily read a B with a natural accidental... but the lines read fine. No complications.. and in this simple harmonic context, sure the G7sus to G7 with possible function of resolving to the relative Min. Cmin. (as Jay said actually did in Metheny song book), would through analysis imply using a B nat..... Although in the example it obviously didn't, it went back to Ab , part of the IV III- II- etc..

The diatonic concept... I always thought the notes were confirmed to the notes... the diatonic notes from the implied note collection... the scale or key etc... Obviously use of implied Min. makes exception to make use of different note collection which creates Dominant functional chord of that implied relative Min. reference. So here's where it can get complicated...

If your going to start using harmonic organizational concepts and implications for why and what accidentals you choose to use.... your getting into very complex organizational references. Of which most don't really have a clue, I'm not trying to say anyone doesn't know or understand harmonic implications... but from general observations on this forum... like I said... most know just enough to barely have a conversation using the language, let alone understand what the language may imply.

So getting back to the topic... what is the organizational concept of notational practice. What does one use to justify one's choice of notational practice. Theoretically there are five basic notational forms of any note... natural, flat, double flat, sharp and double sharp.

OK... I'm runnin a few lines of BS, and who really cares... but if one is going to say something is wrong, at least have some sort of organized rationality beyond what one feels at the moment in one situation.

Phil and Jay I apologize if I offended in anyway... not my intent. Comments are for all

[targuit]

Not sure if you are familiar with that song, Reg, but in this song the A section is this kind of dirge-like double measures of eight note block chords with "gradual build-up to solo section B while maintaining relative dynamics in rhythm section" .
So that chord progression you see actually repeats twice. The first time after the Fm7/Ab comes a Gm7/Bb; the second time around comes the Gsus4 -G7 resolution, each a single measure. The B section then commences as Cm.

No offence taken, Reg.

[Vladan]

Is it possible, whoever wrote down the tune, did not think about resolutions and had some other goal, like to stress that's the same note from previous circle, only flattened? You know, "play all the same, but flatten this one"?

Seams there are at least 2 concepts of notating. One geared towards performance and performers, other towards theorists, conductors and bandleaders?

I've no idea, it just emerged from previous posts.

[Reg]

Thanks Jay... yes I know the tune... and as i tried to explain, I understand why you and others may feel what is the correct notational practice for the tune. I'm just trying to push you to use a concept which will become common practice... a reason beyond what works for the moment, because reasoning from momentary understandings generally will have personal opinions, which become subjective....yada yada.

Yes Valdan... notational practice has a few references, which may fall into the two categories of performance and composition. I believe I've tried to convey this concept for a few years and are not my personal discoveries. I apologize for lousy explanations.

I'm just wondering... how many of you have made parts from scores... a copyist. Somewhat an extinct job... but may also be one of the problems of not understanding what notational practices are.
Just a thought.