Composer query - Britten

[makropulos]

So do we have any insight into why Prokofiev and Messiaen chose to write in C?

Important to make a distinction between composers who *write* in C (lots of them, at some point in the process –viz. Britten) and those who choose to publish their scores in C. In Messiaen's case I'm pretty sure it was to avoid any ambiguity about pitches for conductors. With Prokofiev it's more puzzling –does anybody have any ideas? Incidentally, slightly (but not completely) beside the point, who remembers Penguin Scores? They gave all the instruments in C for ease of use. I wonder if that's what Prokofiev had in mind, aiming for clarity and simplicity in the presentation of his scores.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Incidentally, slightly (but not completely) beside the point, who remembers Penguin Scores? They gave all the instruments in C for ease of use. I wonder if that's what Prokofiev had in mind, aiming for clarity and simplicity in the presentation of his scores.

Inexplicably the Penguin Scores were not consistent in this. Of the 30 scores published, 21 had all instruments printed in the actual sounding keys, but the other 9 had transpositions where appropriate. There was no logical change of heart in the publishing timeline either.

[Pulcinella]

I have occasionally shown great ignorance in this Forum (Mario, you're not alone ) and here I go again: I don't understand the term 'written in C', and this is despite having several study scores of Britten, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky works (which I should have looked at first, no doubt).

Does it mean that the stave that that instrument's part is written on has no key signature, so if, say, the work is in E flat major, any note in that key has to have an accidental put in front?

Or does it mean that the instrumental part is written simply as it sounds to the person listening, so the stave has the same key signature as all the others?

Of course Stravinsky (and Bizet, for that matter) both wrote a Symphony in C.


Thanks in advance for what I'm sure will be a very simple explanation, to which I'll respond:

[smittims]

'Written in C' ( or 'scritto in Do'as Berio writes in his score) means that each note is written as it sounds, i.e. a middle C played either on a B flat clatrinet or a French Horn would be written as middle C and not as D or G. 'Written at concert pitch ' is another way of putting it.

[Pulcinella]

'Written in C' ( or 'scritto in Do'as Berio writes in his score) means that each note is written as it sounds, i.e. a middle C played either on a B flat clatrinet or a French Horn would be written as middle C and not as D or G. 'Written at concert pitch ' is another way of putting it.

, and not so much of a !
I thought that was what it meant, but some of the postings had got me a bit confused.
Written at concert pitch is much clearer.
So same key signature for all instruments (with piccolo just sounding higher than written, for example)?

[smittims]

Prokofiev does some odd things, for instance writing the cor anglais part (which he calls a contralto oboe) in the alto clef, which wouldn't please many players if they saw their part written that way. And he puts the trumpets above the horns. I think it was to help the reader.

But also I think many composers write the way they were taught and keep to it until they're advised otherwise. In 'The Dream of Gerontius' Elgar writes the trombones in the alto clef and puts the voices between the violas and cellos, but later he changed to the tenor clef and put the voices above all the strings. Bax writes all his trombones in the bass clef.

[smittims]

yes, same key signature, unless you're Holst, who , in the orchestral version of 'Hammersmith' writes different key signatures for the instruments playing in different keys (polytonality). There was also a convention for many years that Horns were written without key signatures, e.g. all their F sharps written as if they were acccidentals, and so on. I think this came from the days when the horns changed their crooks for each key.

[RichardB]

It would be interesting to know when the practice of writing scores in concert pitch started and whose idea it was. I'm sure somebody knows, but I haven't been able to find out. Some corner of my memory had it that Schoenberg's op.29 (1927) was the first score published at concert pitch, although I can't find any corroboration of this. Looking at it, one sees that one reason must be that an alternative scoring is given (flute, Bb clarinet and bassoon) to the original Eb clarinet, Bb clarinet and bass clarinet, so that to use the same score for both would necessitate it being written at concert pitch. Grove cites Schoenberg's op.31 Variations (1928) as among the first orchestral scores to be published at concert pitch. Any advances on this?

Edit: yes. From a biography of Prokofiev: "It was while working with Tcherepnin [1912 or 13] on a Berlioz score that Prokofiev came to the idea of writing his own full orchestral scores "in C" -- that is, a transposed score in which the parts for all instruments are written down as they actually sound to the conductor (or, as they would be played on the piano). Why not simplify, he asked in his characteristic rage for clarity? He eliminated the tenor clef and used only three clefs -- soprano, bass and alto -- believing this system was more logical, simple and efficient. The transposing instruments in the orchestra (clarinets, trumpets, English horns, French horns, saxophones) would play from transposed parts while the conductor worked from a score in C. Prokofiev used this system throughout his career..."

[Dave2002]

, and not so much of a !
I thought that was what it meant, but some of the postings had got me a bit confused.
Written at concert pitch is much clearer.
So same key signature for all instruments (with piccolo just sounding higher than written, for example)?

Let’s not get into “authentic” performances then, in which some “concert pitch” notes might sound a semitone or even a whole tone lower, or less frequently higher.

To be really clear the concert pitch intended might be declared - for the benefit of any pedants. I recall reading that Bach wrote some pieces in different keys because he knew that they were to be played by French and “German” ** bands combined as the individual bands played at different pitches.

Other problems also arise if composers want slight tuning variations, such as the sound of a military bugle, and a very competent performer even when playing on the correct instrument manages to get every note precisely in tune - thus denying the intended effect.

** Of course in JS Bach’s time, Germany as we know of it now, did not exist.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I have occasionally shown great ignorance in this Forum (Mario, you're not alone ) and here I go again: I don't understand the term 'written in C', and this is despite having several study scores of Britten, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky works (which I should have looked at first, no doubt).

Does it mean that the stave that that instrument's part is written on has no key signature, so if, say, the work is in E flat major, any note in that key has to have an accidental put in front?

Or does it mean that the instrumental part is written simply as it sounds to the person listening, so the stave has the same key signature as all the others?

Of course Stravinsky (and Bizet, for that matter) both wrote a Symphony in C.


Thanks in advance for what I'm sure will be a very simple explanation, to which I'll respond:

The simple explanation is that the scores in question are written untransposed. They’re (mostly) not written in C at all. It’s just a convenient mistake in terminology.

Untransposed scores are in some ways easier to read, but harder to conduct from.

[smittims]

Thanks for the quotatiion about Prokofiev, Richard.

Schoenberg, whose inventiveness extended beyond music to designing playing cards, tennis notation and even a new type of pencil sharpener, went through a phase of writing his scores in a sort of 'short score' with several different instruments on the same stave, which involved writing them all at concert pitch. He said his aim was clarity, but the score of the four orchestral songs, op.22 was printed this way and is , ironically, difficult to read. Different type-faces are used and he has to keep telling you which instrument is playing which notes. I think he gave it up after a few years.

The copyright date of the songs is 1917, and the op.29 suite 1927. Rufer's catalogue says Schoenberg completed the score of op. 31 in September 1928 so presumably publication must have been after that.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The simple explanation is that the scores in question are written untransposed. They’re (mostly) not written in C at all. It’s just a convenient mistake in terminology.

Untransposed scores are in some ways easier to read, but harder to conduct from.

I suppose the phrase we should use is “written without any indication of key in terms of key signature “ which is a bit of a mouthful compared to written in C. As you imply Atonal composers use the sharp and flat-less stave because otherwise they be putting in naturals and double sharps and flats all the time making it very difficult for players to follow.
Returning to the original question Britten has a key signature indicating a sequence is in F but transposing instruments are written in that key rather say writing a B Flat clarinet part in G major (think I’ve got that right ) . Just to add too the confusion B flat clarinets are B Clarinets in German scores .
It was said of Horowitz that he could sight read virtually any orchestral score ( I think John Ogdon could do that as well) . I suppose it helps if you know the piece already . Still a phenomenal achievement.

[ahinton]

It was said of Horowitz that he could sight read virtually any orchestral score ( I think John Ogdon could do that as well)

John Ogdon could do this almost in his sleep. I don't know how that facility arose, still less developed, in him but, in a break in a recording session with him. someone placed a piece by his old friend Ronald steenson in front of him and he glanced through it and then not merely sight read it but performed it at sight (a big difference, what John did involving interpretative decision making without the time customarily required to be able to make them); at one point the page turner deliberateluy turned two pages at once but the evidently unpeturbed John continued to play the music that he'd clearly memorised and so carried on playing the piece as written. Only one other musician with whom I've ever had the privilege to work who could do this with such apparently natural ease was the soprano Jane Manning; I once told someone that these two seemed somehow able to sight perform from memory...

[Lordgeous]

John Ogdon could do this almost in his sleep. I don't know how that facility arose, still less developed, in him but, in a break in a recording session with him. someone placed a piece by his old friend Ronald steenson in front of him and he glanced through it and then not merely sight read it but performed it at sight (a big difference, what John did involving interpretative decision making without the time customarily required to be able to make them); at one point the page turner deliberateluy turned two pages at once but the evidently unpeturbed John continued to play the music that he'd clearly memorised and so carried on playing the piece as written. Only one other musician with whom I've ever had the privilege to work who could do this with such apparently natural ease was the soprano Jane Manning; I once told someone that these two seemed somehow able to sight perform from memory...

My mentor, Richard Rodney Bennett, could sightread the most formidable contemporary stuff - Boulez for example!

[RichardB]

Schoenberg, whose inventiveness extended beyond music to designing playing cards, tennis notation and even a new type of pencil sharpener, went through a phase of writing his scores in a sort of 'short score' with several different instruments on the same stave, which involved writing them all at concert pitch. He said his aim was clarity, but the score of the four orchestral songs, op.22 was printed this way and is , ironically, difficult to read. Different type-faces are used and he has to keep telling you which instrument is playing which notes. I think he gave it up after a few years.

In fact, after the op.22 songs, he didn't write anything at all for a few years. I just had a look at the score, which I hadn't done before. I imagine it's extremely hard to conduct from, although from a reader's point of view it's quite interesting to see the material, especially the harmony, laid out in that way.

Schoenberg also invented a new way of holding a pen, between the first and second fingers rather than the thumb and first, claiming it gave him more control. It isn't difficult to do and doesn't affect one's handwriting at all, in my experience. I didn't notice any particular advantage, but of course everyone's hands are different.