Ottevanger's Omphaloskeptic Outpost

[lukeottevanger]

Aren't I Mr Popular today, then! 

[karlhenning]

Well, and why should today be any different? 

[lukeottevanger]

Sorry to do this to you -  here's a better version. The last page was bugging me, but this more streamlined version is more like it. Elsewhere, string mutes more carefully notated, and the typo picked up by Karl corrected.

[lukeottevanger]

(Note the double bass harmonic on the last page  )

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

(Note the double bass harmonic on the last page  )

M's immortality is assured.

[lukeottevanger]

M Forever, indeed!

[M forever]

It is not entirely clear though how that harmonic is intended to be plated. It probably is supposed to be the one where the C on the G string is. In which case, it would sound as G two octaves above the open string (the G that the violin clef circles around).

[lukeottevanger]

Yes, that's the one - the violin and, in fact, everyone else too, apart from the piano.

And, as I showed with my previous examples (from Ravel, Ades, Powell, Walton, Enescu, and I could have found many others - I saw the same in a Schnittke score today...) this kind of notation is common practice. When used, a natural harmonic on the nearest available string - the G string here, as you say - is indicated. So there's no doubt about which string is intended, just as there isn't in all those score samples I posted.

[M forever]

So is this supposed to be a sounding C or G?

[lukeottevanger]

As I said, it's as you said. The G.

[Guido]

M Forever is just being obstreporous. Makes a change.

anyway, I do actually have a genuine question about harmonics now - the viola one at "3 still slower" is not possible play. Unless you meant to make it a diamon head (!) which would of course produce a G an octave higher. And a similar question of that 1st violin harmonic at "5 - still slower". Obviously, that one is producible on the fourth or at the actual pitch of the note way up in the stratosphere on the G string. My guess is that these things are all to do with Sibelius playback not being able to deal with harmonics...

[lukeottevanger]

M Forever is just being obstreporous. Makes a change.

anyway, I do actually have a genuine question about harmonics now - the viola one at "3 still slower" is not possible play. Unless you meant to make it a diamon head (!) which would of course produce a G an octave higher. And a similar question of that 1st violin harmonic at "5 - still slower". Obviously, that one is producible on the fourth or at the actual pitch of the note way up in the stratosphere on the G string. My guess is that these things are all to do with Sibelius playback not being able to deal with harmonics...

No, these are just open strings (as is the cello one at no 2). Limitations of notation, perhaps!

FWIW, to my mind the note+circle = octave harmonic (i.e. one which sounds at the pitch where the finger is placed) or open string, whichever makes sense. And in fact, I always assumed that was the norm, but perhaps you've learnt differently. Or perhaps all this talk of harmonics is sending you down the path of seeing harmonics where they aren't intended!

So, to my mind, and common practice as I read it - note+circle = open string/octave harmonic
                                                                   - diamond = placement for non-octave natural harmonic
                                                                   - note+diamond = artificial harmonic

[M forever]

I didn't before see the examples you posted a few pages back. Whatever other composers may have done in the past, it is better if you are more specific exactly because there are so many different ways to notate harmonics. I only looked at the first example you gave from the Ravel score, but I am not sure why you chose that - it illustatrates exactly what I meant. For instance, in the bass part at the bottom, you can see that he writes one harmonic A with a circle which means this sounding note (an octave lower, of course) is supposed to be executed as a harmonic which means the octave harmonic on the A string. There is really no other option. The E is notated as a diamond and Ravel clarifies that by giving the small solid note to indicate the sounding pitch. Which in this case means that harmonic is supposed to be played on the A string, a fifth above the open string, NOT the octave harmonic on the E string.

In any case, I can tell you from my time as an orchestral musician that there is often a lot of confusion about harmonics when they aren't notated very explicitly. Just from a practical point of view, it is better if the composer is as specific as possible. The easiest and quickest way to use the diamond is simply to add a letter or number for the string on which this note is supposed to be played (in this case, "A" or "III", but it isn't necessary because of the small solid note). The diamond then indicates the location of the harmonic on that string. This is particularly important when we are dealing with "modern" music in which a "traditional" harmonic (in he sense of harmonies used) context isn't necessarily there which makes it easy to clarify which sounding pitch is meant.

It is just good style and a matter of courtesy towards orchestral musicians to give specific indications which don't necessitate guessing or detective work.
I have played a lot of contemporary music in orchestras, and often, you have to ask the composer (if he is present) or the conductor what exactly is meant not only when it comes to harmonics, but also to other effects and playing techniques. All too often, the composer and/or conductor don't immediately know themselves, they have to look in the score and start figuring stuff out. That is embarrassing and costs unnecessary time. By that time, the musicians' respect for the music and the composer is on its way out, too.

So when you get a chance to get your music played, you can be ivory tower man and start a discussion with the musicians about which composer wrote like this or that, or you can just be specific from the beginning. It is in the best interest of your music and its reproduction that you are.

[M forever]

M Forever is just being obstreporous. Makes a change.

anyway, I do actually have a genuine question about harmonics now - the viola one at "3 still slower" is not possible play. Unless you meant to make it a diamon head (!) which would of course produce a G an octave higher. And a similar question of that 1st violin harmonic at "5 - still slower". Obviously, that one is producible on the fourth or at the actual pitch of the note way up in the stratosphere on the G string. My guess is that these things are all to do with Sibelius playback not being able to deal with harmonics...

This is a really stupid post. M was trying to help Mr O from the perspective of a former professional who has often encountered these problems, not being "obstreporous".

And then you go on asking questions about what is actually meant there yourself. Are you trying to make a complete fool out of yourself?

[Guido]

This is a really stupid post. M was trying to help Mr O from the perspective of a former professional who has often encountered these problems, not being "obstreporous".

And then you go on asking questions about what is actually meant there yourself. Are you trying to make a complete fool out of yourself?

I was actually asking a question which had nothing to do with the kind of harmonics that you are whinging about. It would be far too much to ask you to actually look at the materials under discussion though of course! It's just plain rude not to acknowledge the wonderful score samples that Mr. O has so kindly provided you - surely an invaluable opportunity to learn, nicht war? Odd when you are normally so concerned with being right. Anyway, I'm not interested in this petty frippery - it's just tedious beyond words, so lets please leave it at that.

FWIW, to my mind the note+circle = octave harmonic (i.e. one which sounds at the pitch where the finger is placed) or open string, whichever makes sense. And in fact, I always assumed that was the norm, but perhaps you've learnt differently. Or perhaps all this talk of harmonics is sending you down the path of seeing harmonics where they aren't intended!

Well personally, I would indicate an open string with a 0 (zero) rather than a circle, but the confusion is probably arising because I will play open strings wherever possible! I am shameless!

@ the musing tuffet: We're playing Brahms 2 in CUSO this term - had a chance to sight read that infamous opening cello line from the second movement - I can see why every major professional orchestra sets this as an excerpt!

[lukeottevanger]

So Ravel, Enescu, Walton, Ades, Schnittke etc. are wrong, then?

In my first example - the only one you comment on, I notice, presumably because it's the only one which even slightly relates to your idea of how things should be done - Ravel does indeed give a few 'sounds as...' indications, but no more than that. There's no indication of the lower note except with the artificial harmonics - importantly, this makes the score at this point, which could otherwise be a hard-to-untangle mess of harmonics, much easier to read. In the too-plentiful other examples - the ones you ignored  - and in dozens of others I could show you - just the diamond is given. Pretty common practice, as I say.

It's emphatically not 'ivory tower', this, M  - it's just a desire for clarity, for not cluttering up the score when it's not necessary. That double bass harmonic, for instance - if that was Schoenberg he'd not only write in the lower G, he'd also superimpose and parenthesise a small treble clef with a miniscule G on it, or perhaps a G in bass clef but with an 'octave' line. To me, this seems excessive, and out of aesthetic kilter with the music as it is here. (It's fine in the Schoenberg String Trio, for instance, because the manic, fussy and complex notation is in keeping with the nature of the music itself).

And that last point is important to me, as a composer: I think notational choices are expressively important, as I mentioned in my longest post on Ravel's notation (someone as highly attuned as you are to the smallest nuances of phrasing etc. ought to see that Ravel's notation in the Ma Mere l'Oye example I gave impacts on the way the music seems to the performer, and thus possibly impacts on the way he approaches playing it - and whether it does or not, it's an interesting clue as to Ravel's conception of the music here, I think, and thus valuable). I think that a composer's notational choices can reflect the character of the music (and of the composer, perhaps) very well, and just as I'm determined never to change my notation style because Sibelius makes it easier to work another way, so I'm determined to write the music the way it seems right to me. I'm not dogmatic about my notation, either - in other pieces I've indicated the sounding notes too, or written in the lower note, or both. But here it simply doesn't seem necessary - the passage is too simple and self-evident.

I'm sorry if your own experiences playing contemporary music have been confusing, and that the composers didn't always seem to know what they wanted. But it's pretty clear, I hope, that I know precisely what I want, how to achieve it, and that the notation I'm using isn't outlandish but has a pretty good pedigree (doesn't come much finer than Ravel, IMO). I've never had performers confused by my notation before; I've never known other performers confused by this sort of notation (and I know plenty of performers, from amateurs to the finest professionals). But if someone raises a hand and says 'what does this mean', it will be a matter of seconds to tell them.

[M forever]

It's just plain rude not to acknowledge the wonderful score samples that Mr. O has so kindly provided you - surely an invaluable opportunity to learn, nicht war?

I have seen all that stuff and even more variations many times over, little college boy cellist. That is why I am urging him to be more specific. In his own best interest. A well meant tip from someone who knows what he talks about from professional experience. So that is an area you should just keep out of. BTW, it's "wahr", not "war".

FWIW, to my mind the note+circle = octave harmonic (i.e. one which sounds at the pitch where the finger is placed) or open string, whichever makes sense. And in fact, I always assumed that was the norm, but perhaps you've learnt differently. Or perhaps all this talk of harmonics is sending you down the path of seeing harmonics where they aren't intended!

So, to my mind, and common practice as I read it - note+circle = open string/octave harmonic
                                                                   - diamond = placement for non-octave natural harmonic
                                                                   - note+diamond = artificial harmonic

A circle generally means the sounding pitch, it doesn't have to be an octave harmonic. For instance, the last E in that bass part by Ravel could also simply be written as the E on the second line above the system, with a circle over it. But there is mor than one way to play that. Ravel is more specific, for good reasons. He usually is.

[M forever]

So Ravel, Enescu, Walton, Ades, Schnittke etc. are wrong, then?

In my first example - the only one you comment on, I notice, presumably because it's the only one which even slightly relates to your idea of how things should be done

I didn't say that they were wrong. I said there are many, sometimes confusing ways to notate that. I have no absolute idea how things should be done. But I know there are many different ways which often cause things to be less than clear.

Just forget it, OK? I just meant to help. Just be ivory tower man. You are too much of a genius to accept tips from idiots like me who never got beyond scratching around in professional orchestras but never composed timeless musical materpieces. Who am I to tell a genius like you how you could be more easy to understand in your notation?

Man, I have had to deal with people like you way too often when I still played professionally. I have also dealt with some - very occasionally - who were actually open to practical tips and questions. Usually they were the better ones. Like Philip Glass with who I had the pleasure to work last year and who was open to questions and who wanted things to be as clear and unmistakeable for the players as possible. Reminds me of the old French bass player I once met whose father was a bass player, too, and he told me that he had told him how Ravel sometimes came to the podium in rehearsal or even concert breaks to show manuscripts to the bass and other string players and ask them if everything he wrote was clear and playable. But that is below your dignity, apparently. So you shouldn't use Ravel as an example. You are so much better than he was.

I actually had a few comments about some of the music you posted, but since you aren't even interested in a discussion of notation, I will refrain from saying what I thought. You aren't interested in real criticism anyway, just in ass kissing from other posters. Good luck with your incredible and infallible genius.

[lukeottevanger]

Oh, just seen your latest post. Looks charming. Let me send this first...

I have seen all that stuff and even more variations many times over, little college boy cellist. That is why I am urging him to be more specific. In his own best interest. A well meant tip from someone who knows what he talks about from professional experience. So that is an area you should just keep out of. BTW, it's "wahr", not "war".

So Ravel is wrong, then. I see. BTW, if you'd seen 'all that stuff and even more variations many times over' before, why did you say that my use of it was so 'odd' and 'strange'? Perhaps you don't like it, but it's neither odd, strange nor wrong.

A circle generally means the sounding pitch, it doesn't have to be an octave harmonic.

...yes, that's true, I wasn't thinking clearly there. But when used in this way - as, for instance, and to stick with Ravel, in the cello parts I mentioned in the Piano Trio and the Madagascan Songs - it's usually used so that the finger is at the same pitch as the note produced, as is always the case with octave harmonics - (harmonics are a pain to describe in words sometimes!)... And that's what I really meant.

For instance, the last E in that bass part by Ravel could also simply be written as the E on the second line above the system, with a circle over it. But there is mor than one way to play that. Ravel is more specific, for good reasons. He usually is.

Except that, as I've shown, he isn't. That first example I gave, even though very sparse by the standards you described, is unusually prescriptive for him (I couldn't find better at the time because I was at work and didn't have a long slot at the computer). He very rarely writes in 'sounds as...' notes - this is one of the few examples - and he never, to my knowledge, indicates the lower note for natural harmonics.

[Guido]

I have seen all that stuff and even more variations many times over, little college boy cellist. That is why I am urging him to be more specific. In his own best interest. A well meant tip from someone who knows what he talks about from professional experience. So that is an area you should just keep out of. BTW, it's "wahr", not "war".

A typo. I am German too you know. Again, let's please end this; as I said it's really very tedious - even for someone as immature as I am. This great thread is being sullied!

On a brighter note it would genuinely be really great to get your comments on the latest orchestral work or any of Lukes piece, beyond the technical details.
EDIT: forget I said this then! One has to wonder what has gone wrong in a person's life, when at 39 they still post stuff like that!