NOTATIO

Knut wrote:The 15ma indication makes it necessary to extend the system with one extra staff, at least, but 5 seems excessive to me too.

Nope. Not if you notate the left hand on one stave as well.

Alexander Ploetz wrote:

Knut wrote:The 15ma indication makes it necessary to extend the system with one extra staff, at least, but 5 seems excessive to me too.

Nope. Not if you notate the left hand on one stave as well.

I agree. A pianist cannot play in three different octaves (one hand). Even if one line is 15, another line performed by the same hand is maximum at decima (compound third) or max max undecima frame. Practically, if everything in one hand is in a frame of 11, it is possible to notate without splitting the octaves into 15/8. Even if there are jumps from tone to tone it can be covered in two-staff system.

AFAIK, Xenakis was not pianist.

Durand should consider a new edition of this piece. In a way it is interesting to analyze from a composer's perspective, but ridiculously unuseful for the pianists.

We are making anew edition. For now I am entering the data as per the original. I have not yet seen/heard what the editor intends, nor have I yet seen the ms. I have a fair list of questions for the editor which may or may not duplicate his own thoughts.

Your discussion is interesting, and I note the opinions, especially of pianists, but at present editorial change is not my brief.

There are clearly errors in the hand written first version. Until I've seen the ms and discussed with the editor, how we will resolve the errors is still unknown. Of course the right hand cannot span 2 octaves. There may be an octave missing, or the 15 may be an 8va...

Alexander Ploetz wrote:

Knut wrote:The 15ma indication makes it necessary to extend the system with one extra staff, at least, but 5 seems excessive to me too.

Nope. Not if you notate the left hand on one stave as well.

You're absolutely right, Alexander. It didn't occur to me to reduce the left hand staves as well.

I see that one of these pieces, Mists, was written for Roger Woodward. I met him in the late 1960s or early 1970s. He seemed more than intense, but was clearly brilliant both pianistically and musically.

After all of this very interesting discussion, I looked through the two original online scores again, admittedly not in great depth, but enough to get a feel for them, I think.

They are clear and seem to be the way the composer wanted them to be. The notation is idiosyncratic but reflects the composer's ideas concerning different layers of sound. As a pianist, I see nothing about the style that screams that the composer didn't know how to write or notate his music for the piano, if anything, it is quite sophisticated. (However, there was one spot a bit after Peter's last example where there seem to be middle notes that cannot be played by the RH.)

The music is more spread than in Peter's last example, but this actually makes it a little easier to read. I don't know how to reconcile this with page-turning, however. Maybe such music needs an electronic music reader.

In Peter's last example, I prefer the composer's a normal brace for the two staves. The octave signs and extension lines etc. are non-standard in the original, but quite clear. One could just leave them and other such idiocyncarises as is. I would certainly not condense the score, or the composer's ghost will haunt us all...

I love this thread!
ADD: A lot to learn from you all, good to refresh my own doubts!

David Ward wrote:I see that one of these pieces, Mists, was written for Roger Woodward. I met him in the late 1960s or early 1970s. He seemed more than intense, but was clearly brilliant both pianistically and musically.

Yes, I met him when I was preparing material for Dominic Muldowney's Piano Concerto in the early 80s. As you say "more than intense"

John Ruggero wrote:After all of this very interesting discussion, I looked through the two original online scores again, admittedly not in great depth, but enough to get a feel for them, I think.

They are clear and seem to be the way the composer wanted them to be. The notation is idiosyncratic but reflects the composer's ideas concerning different layers of sound. As a pianist, I see nothing about the style that screams that the composer didn't know how to write or notate his music for the piano, if anything, it is quite sophisticated. (However, there was one spot a bit after Peter's last example where there seem to be middle notes that cannot be played by the RH.)

The music is more spread than in Peter's last example, but this actually makes it a little easier to read. I don't know how to reconcile this with page-turning, however. Maybe such music needs an electronic music reader.

In Peter's last example, I prefer the composer's a normal brace for the two staves. The octave signs and extension lines etc. are non-standard in the original, but quite clear. One could just leave them and other such idiocyncarises as is. I would certainly not condense the score, or the composer's ghost will haunt us all...

What you have seen is a copyist's hand written fair copy. Xenakis's hand writing is one of the worst ever, and extremely difficult to decipher. As an example my score of Pleiades is 88 pages of A3, the composer's ms is 18 pages !) of spidery scrawl.

I'd like to see a facsimile of the ms of these to determine what has been interpreted by the copyist and what reflects exactly the composer's ms. Certainly the first version of Pleiades had some errors, I doubt this is any different.

I was pleased to hear, John, that you implicitly (I hope I inferred correctly) that the multi-stave layout clarifies the intentions of the composer rather than making it more difficult. I'm sorry if you think my layout is too tight, perhaps the editor will agree. However, in a score without (probably) page turns, I think it is better if it uses less pages, within reason.