OCTO wrote: ↑12 Jan 2021, 08:25
Actually, it is not the standard notation. It is not me who defines it, but it is defined by the music engraving standards found in numerous books of the standard notation practices. These books are written by scholars in the field of music notation. There are numerous dissertations and thesis on the subject as well.
My counter-argument would be that it is published music which sets the standard. Why not go to the source material for these books?
Elaine Gould's Behind Bars (2011) cover's Proportional Spacing (Time-Space Notation) pp.629-640.
David Cope's Techniques of the contemporary composer (1997) pp. 94-98 addressed proportional notation.
Kurt Stone's Music Notation in the Twentieth Century: A Practical Guidebook (1980) pp.96-103 looks at spacial/proportional
notation.
Gardner Read's Modern Rhythmic Notation (1978) pp. 116-122 look's at a few types of 'optically notated music'.
Or articles on the subject of notation:
Pace, I. (2009). Notation, Time and the Performer’s Relationship to the Score in Contemporary Music. In: D. Crispin (Ed.), Unfolding Time. (pp. 151-192). Leuven University Press. ISBN 9789058677358
Cohen, Dalia, and Ruth Katz. “The Interdependence of Notation Systems and Musical Information.” Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, vol. 11, 1979, pp. 100–113. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/767567.
Evarts, John. “The New Musical Notation: A Graphic Art?” Leonardo, vol. 1, no. 4, 1968, pp. 405–412. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/1571989.
Behrman, David. “What Indeterminate Notation Determines.” Perspectives of New Music, vol. 3, no. 2, 1965, pp. 58–73. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/832504.
But I would contest the idea that we should use academic books and articles blindly. The purpose of academic research is a journey, not a destination. Anything which posits claims which can't be scrutinised or re-evaluated is pseudoscience.
OCTO wrote: ↑12 Jan 2021, 08:25
Why don't you call the Byzantine notation "the standard" as well? It is "the standard" for the byzantine music only, so it is specific, as Penderecki's is specific. You can notate the byzantine music in the standard 5-line staff measured notation. You can do it as well with the "Threnody". Penderecki self told me that he didn't see the way out from the music he wrote at that period. So he moved back into the standard notation.
I don't quite understand your point here. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous point.
When I wrote
AlanPerrin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 12:07
Engraving encompasses ALL facets of music notation from mensural notation to modern staff notation (and everything in-between).
I didn't mean to say that now everything is "standard notation", but rather historical context is important when considering what was/is the standard notation. That is to say, looking at the notation of a Josquin mass in terms of its implementation of a notational standard by 18th-century music standards is ineffectual, which I believe the reverse to be equally true. In other words, it's a futile exercise to examine the notation used by Julius Eastman by the notational standards of Frederic Chopin.
That is a really interesting point. And one which raises as a lot of questions as to the ontological status of music (that is the distinction between the musical work and the musical score). It is this very question that makes notation and engraving such a rich topic for discussion.
Of course, there is no answer to the question. However, I would highlight my last point:
AlanPerrin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 12:07
To appropriately evaluate a notation or engraving process we cannot escape the philosophical and aesthetic approach to music which is
evident in the notation.
Text scores, as in graphic scores, have a clear aesthetic approach. The point at which they can be seen as the standard notation is probably on the horizon. Universal Edition publishes Steve Reich's Pendulum Music:
https://www.universaledition.com/pendul ... ve-ue16155
OCTO wrote: ↑12 Jan 2021, 08:25
AlanPerrin wrote: ↑11 Jan 2021, 12:07
I would have to strongly disagree with you that very few engraving rules are applied to Zafra's work.
Ok then, what rules are applied? List some of them, and what rules they conform.
-Modern staff notation for the treble clef.
-We can see notation for a quarter-tone equal-tempered tuning system.
-Accidentals carry across the bar.
- Extended techniques are represented in Stems which appears to be a notation of the composers own creation.
-We see the use of an action-Based music and notation system in which the actions of playing an instrument are decoupled from one another (which to me says it is built upon innovations present in the works of Luigi Russolo, Berio, Lechenmann, and Franco Donatoni).
-And of course, the use of proportionate notation which as Read tells us "substitutes a geometric for a symbolistic representation of rhythm
and duration". In addition, we see that there are no temporal distinctions in notehead colour, rather durational values are present in the beams.
I am sure there are more things I could write regarding engraving rules utilized within the piece, but frankly, the composer would be the best person to speak to this.
OCTO wrote: ↑12 Jan 2021, 08:25
IMO, the score is heavily unbalanced.
Could you expand upon what you mean by unbalanced?
I myself think there are issues present in the notation, especially regarding the dynamics, I think the idea he trying to convey by using the lower grey dynamics could have been better executed. But surely that is the purpose of the composer's journey with notation, and from these experiments we have evolution to what will be standard notation.
OCTO wrote: ↑12 Jan 2021, 08:25
I would love to see how are in Oliveros' piece above the engraving rules applied too.
Regarding how engraving rules applied to Oliveros' and other composers text and or graphic scores. Again I would reiterate, to appropriately evaluate a notation or engraving process we cannot escape the philosophical and aesthetic approach to music which is evident in the notation.
Otherwise, we are just judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.