Notating octaves?

I will second Juji's post, with a slightly more reputable source than Wiki

From Gardner Read (Yay! my library is out of mothballs):

Originally Posted by Music Notation A Manual of Modern Practice

Although there is no good reason why the sign 15ma bassa would not be used for the double octave below the bass staff, its use is so rare as to be virtually nonexistant. The test for all octave signs, as for other musical symbols, must be: "would this sign make the music easier to read? Easier to understand?"

In the example you posted above, the logical notation would be to have both right and left hands in the upper treble clef staff, while the low sutained note would be in bass clef, in the lower staff.

Another possibility, to which you may not have access depending on which notation package you are using, would be a single measure of "third staff" below the two pre-existing staves, in which to contain that bass clef note.


N.B. just an additional bit of notation correction, first staff of your example: you MUST place a sharp/natural on the right hand A to indicate whether it is still natural like the left hand or not.

I should have quoted Read's book in the first place It's the book I always suggest when it comes to notational issues. I didn't remember that it mentioned the 15ma bassa signs. Maybe I should re-read it quickly...

In fact, I find Read's book to be very very helpful - it says a few essential things about the development of notation, and then it lists the notations in quite a user-friendly way. However, I've found Kurt Stone's book on 20th century notation to be more up-to-date, and contain a bit more information on the details, like secondary beams on triplets and stuff like that. I think he actually mentions that Stockhausen has miscalculated the triplet-quintuplet-triplet's in one of his Klavierstucke, and they don't match up to the time signature of the bar... That says something about how much in detail the Stone book goes. I haven't read all of it, though, just bits that the Read book wasn't clear enough. But still, I'd recommend the Read book over the Stone.

Weird surnames, all of them.

Now, enough of my little monologue, Qcc has spoken. And yes, cautionary/auxilary/courtesy accidentals are always more than welcome by the performers - we had a workshop the other day and the amount of time we spent discussing whether or not a note was flat or sharp because there wasn't an accidental on the score after a bar on a repeated note (or similar cases) is unbelievable..

hehehe, thanks Juji, i think I'll look up that Stone book.

I think I will, from now on, finish all my posts with "I HAVE SPOKEN, so sayeth jujimufu"

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

I will second Juji's post, with a slightly more reputable source than Wiki

From Gardner Read (Yay! my library is out of mothballs):

In the example you posted above, the logical notation would be to have both right and left hands in the upper treble clef staff, while the low sutained note would be in bass clef, in the lower staff.

Another possibility, to which you may not have access depending on which notation package you are using, would be a single measure of "third staff" below the two pre-existing staves, in which to contain that bass clef note.

Hm, maybe I will try to figure out how to put a temporary 3rd staff in instead although I still don't get why it's such a bad sign to use. Ok, it hasn't been used much before, but if that was the measure against using a symbol or not we never would have developed the notational system to this point to begin with, right? It just seems as though it would be harder to follow the notation if the left hand staff information all the sudden jumped to the right hand staff than to just have a single note added here and there.

N.B. just an additional bit of notation correction, first staff of your example: you MUST place a sharp/natural on the right hand A to indicate whether it is still natural like the left hand or not.

Really? Even though it's on a different staff? Is it because the clef is the same? I know if I had a treble and bass clef and an A on each I wouldn't have to confirm whether the accidental applies to the other staff or not, right?

Originally Posted by JoshMc

Really? Even though it's on a different staff? Is it because the clef is the same? I know if I had a treble and bass clef and an A on each I wouldn't have to confirm whether the accidental applies to the other staff or not, right?

ok, I tried to play your piece (I HATE that whole hands crossing fingers twiddled together thing, but that's MY issue), and I kept thinking "damn, is that an A natural or an A sharp?"

You chose a rather difficult key signature.

MAKE it easy: at least include some courtesy accidentals where there might be doubt. You're creating a sort of false-relation chromatic effect there, and it's normal for the pianist to question whether that is or not the desired effect.

Yes, even when it's in a different staff, you should include at least one courtesy sharp if the right hand remains sharp. It's one of those instances where it is acceptable to use an accidental in parenthesis.

If the right hand is ALSO natural, you MUST include it every time.


The above is regardless of the sort of clef you are using. it's a question of clarity.
If there is ANY possibility of question, then you should opt for the safest route - a "courtesy accidental" (it's called that for a reason).

Good points.

The signature was chosen arbitrarily actually. These are just quick pieces I'm throwing together to keep my brain working (instead of working on single pieces for ridiculously long periods of time) so I figured choosing uncomfortable key signatures would fit into that a bit. Otherwise I'd end up writing everything in C because it's easy.

I'll definitely make the accidentals clearer. I'm surprised you could play through it at all though considering that I afterwards needed to fix some notes where I was telling the musician to play the same exact note with both hands at the same time, LOL.

the "same notes, different hands" thing is playable... it's relatively common in piano writing. it doesn't always work well. unless you're a pianist and have a good grasp of hand movement when working on something like that, it's probably best to avoid.

here's an image of some of the ways you could notate the passage (I just improvised a repeated pattern):

the 1st measure has the entire thing notated in the upper staff, in different layers.
the 2nd measure adds your low bass note as a 3rd "cutaway" staff, while keeping the "one-hand, one staff" manner of your original piece.
the 3rd measure simply shows how if the material warrants it, you can start out both on the same staff, then cross-staff the lowest notes into the bass clef staff.

Originally Posted by JoshMc

Hm, maybe I will try to figure out how to put a temporary 3rd staff in instead although I still don't get why it's such a bad sign to use.

I don't think anybody said using "15ma bassa" is fundamentally bad. Just that in most cases there are other possibilities that are easier and quicker to read. Personally, I have used this sign before (although rarely) and I find it does have applications where it's useful, particularly on the piano where transposing by octaves is something much easier to do than on most other instruments (and quite idiomatic).

The point is merely to consider all alternatives, keeping in mind traditional usage of such signs, and thinking about what way of writing down a specific passage is the clearest, most direct and least ambiguous notation.

No one has yet considered electronic instruments where the 15mb would certainly come into use. Extreme lowness!

Originally Posted by Justin Tokke

No one has yet considered electronic instruments where the 15mb would certainly come into use. Extreme lowness!

*chuckle* I guess my snarky reply would be, "oh, I didn't realize you weren't writing for instruments."

There are appropriate uses for this symbol, but it's highly contextual. It's always best to use standard symbols first before you consider using non-standard notation. The less confusing your notation, the more likely that it'll be played correctly.