Musical questions and answers thread

[EdgeleyRob]

I wonder if someone can explain some of the symbols in this please ?

The 5:4,5:6,6:4 and 7:6 markings above and below some phrases.
The flat signs with a cross through the stem.
The trill with a flat sign just above it.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

5:4 etc indicates a "tuplet" - just as with a triplet the player plays three quavers in the time of two (3:2), so with 5:4, they play five quavers in the time of four; 7:6 means play seven quavers in the time of six. In these cases, the quavers are faster than usual - it can work the other way; 5:6 in this example, where five quavers take the time of six, so each quaver is a bit longer than usual. Things can get even more interesting - 17:11; 13:15 ... In each case the player plays the first of the numbers in the time of the second. The very first one in the example refers to crotchets, rather than quavers.

The cross through the stem of the flat symbol means that there is a microtonal alteration - in the first example, an ordinary G flat is followed by a note ever-so-slightly lower in pitch (but higher than the f natural that follows it) - it's a pitch that doesn't exist on the piano, but which is easily produced by singers and string players (very often when they don't want to!) and wind players by "bending" the pitch by altering the angle of the instrument or the shape of their lips.

The trill with the flat sign above it means that the trill would normally be played with the written note and the one a whole tone higher, but here the higher note should be a semitone higher.

[EdgeleyRob]

5:4 etc indicates a "tuplet" - just as with a triplet the player plays three quavers in the time of two (3:2), so with 5:4, they play five quavers in the time of four; 7:6 means play seven quavers in the time of six. In these cases, the quavers are faster than usual - it can work the other way; 5:6 in this example, where five quavers take the time of six, so each quaver is a bit longer than usual. Things can get even more interesting - 17:11; 13:15 ... In each case the player plays the first of the numbers in the time of the second. The very first one in the example refers to crotchets, rather than quavers.

The cross through the stem of the flat symbol means that there is a microtonal alteration - in the first example, an ordinary G flat is followed by a note ever-so-slightly lower in pitch (but higher than the f natural that follows it) - it's a pitch that doesn't exist on the piano, but which is easily produced by singers and string players (very often when they don't want to!) and wind players by "bending" the pitch by altering the angle of the instrument or the shape of their lips.

The trill with the flat sign above it means that the trill would normally be played with the written note and the one a whole tone higher, but here the higher note should be a semitone higher.

Brilliant,many thanks as always ferney.
Not sure I completely understand the answer to the first question.
Isn't the very first one in the example referring to 5 quavers,not crotchets,in the time of 4,and aren't some of the examples semi-quavers rather than quavers ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Brilliant,many thanks as always ferney.
Not sure I completely understand the answer to the first question.
Isn't the very first one in the example referring to 5 quavers,not crotchets,in the time of 4,and aren't some of the examples semi-quavers rather than quavers ?

Now I'm glad you pointed this out - you are, of course, correct in both particulars; and it to avoid such hasty errors in reading that some composers put a tiny crotchet/quaver/wha'evva after the ratio numbers to make it instantly clear:

5:3♪

[EdgeleyRob]

Now I'm glad you pointed this out - you are, of course, correct in both particulars; and it to avoid such hasty errors in reading that some composers put a tiny crotchet/quaver/wha'evva after the ratio numbers to make it instantly clear:

5:3♪

Now I get it,thank you.

[Pulcinella]

But when there's just a 3, it's a normal triplet (3 in the time of 2) is it?

That seems odd and unnecesary, as correct length notation could have been used, surely, or am I missing something?

[Flay]

But when there's just a 3, it's a normal triplet (3 in the time of 2) is it?

That seems odd and unnecesary, as correct length notation could have been used, surely, or am I missing something?

I was wondering that too. Surely it's always been done this way? Or is this new notation a way of making the music appear even more complex (and elite)?

[Richard Barrett]

But when there's just a 3, it's a normal triplet (3 in the time of 2) is it?

That seems odd and unnecesary, as correct length notation could have been used, surely, or am I missing something?

A 3 on its own means 3:2, yes. This is because it's much more common than the others. Likewise, many composers use 5 to mean 5:4 and 7 to mean 7:4, although if you're also going to use 5:6 and 7:6 obviously it's helpful (and often essential) to be more specific about the denominator. I'm not sure what you mean by the second question.

This isn't "new notation" really, this kind of thing has been around since the early 20th century. It's not a way of making music appear more complex, it's a way of notating music which is more complex. How notation can be described as "elite" I wouldn't presume to know.

[Pulcinella]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question.

Nor am I now: another senior moment, I fear!


When I saw the first use of the 3 (crotchet then quaver rest; all played in the time of two -- rubato! -- beats) I originally thought that there would have been a simpler way to notate this, but I don't think there is a four-thirds of a beat symbol!

(I've probably still got my sums wrong!)

[french frank]

How notation can be described as "elite" I wouldn't presume to know.

Possibly because, in this case, you knew the answer while others expressed puzzlement?

[Flay]

Possibly because, in this case, you knew the answer while others expressed puzzlement?

Indeed. I didn't (particularly) mean it as a criticism. But I do wonder if it's really worth the effort. Does it have to be so complex? Is value added in making compositions so taxing? Surely many musicians would view this with horror if asked to perform such pieces. Would it not take hours of intense headache to master?

[Bryn]

We have had Elite Syncopation since 1902. Surely they were written using elite notation.

[Coat off peg.]

[Pabmusic]

How odd! Don't write things in a way I don't understand - otherwise you're - what? - elitist!

What would we say about James Joyce?

Seriously - the conposer tries to make it as clear as possible to the performer. (Or at least should do.)

[Flay]

How odd! Don't write things in a way I don't understand - otherwise you're - what? - elitist!

But only an elite person would be able to understand such music, not your average person in the street. And, as this is a questions and answer thread, I am just asking if your average musician would be able to understand and perform it without great effort.

Elite: A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

That's different from elitist: Demonstrating a superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite, which I didn't say

[Pabmusic]

But only an elite person would be able to understand such music, not your average person in the street. And, as this is a questions and answer thread, I am just asking if your average musician would be able to understand and perform it without great effort.

Elite: A select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

That's different from elitist: Demonstrating a superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite, which I didn't say

I doubt many composers have this rhread in mind when they write 9:7 or whatever. Almost by definition composers are an elite group.