Earliest use/History of Octave Transposing Clefs?

[Magnus Johansson]

It's starting to seem to be a Scandanavian thing maybe.

I will have to ask Danish and Norwegian colleagues to be able to confirm that.

[RMK]

Do you mean it would be wrong in a transposing score? What stuff have I made up?

The part about using a number other than 8 above or below a clef. I challenge you to cite one example of this in a published work.

And yes, using a bass clef with a 9 under it would be wrong in any score. In a transposing score it would indicate the note would sound a tenth below the written note.

[Magnus Johansson]

Do you mean it would be wrong in a transposing score? What stuff have I made up?

The part about using a number other than 8 above or below a clef. I challenge you to cite one example of this in a published work.

And yes, using a bass clef with a 9 under it would be wrong in any score. In a transposing score it would indicate the note would sound a tenth below the written note.

I do not know if Örjan Sandred has a published work with other numbers than 8 above or below a clef but he used this method in the 1980's, and it wasn't me that gave him the idea. Peter Bengtson and I discuss this practise here: https://www.ooloi.org/home/horns-in-bass-clef#comments

No, a 9 designates a ninth. Why would it mean a tenth?

[RMK]

Because the part is in B-flat already.

Take note I said sounding a tenth lower.

[Magnus Johansson]

Because the part is in B-flat already.

Take note I said sounding a tenth lower.

But the transposition interval is measured from the note written in this method, not the note sounding on the instrument. When a tenor saxophonist plays a written c¹ the sounding note is great B flat, a major ninth below, hence the 9 below the clef; a Bb clarinet has a treble clef with a 2 below because when the instrument plays a written c¹ the sounding note is small b flat, a major second below.

[RMK]

I think you misunderstand the function of the numbers. Please don't explain transpositions to me. i have been doing this for over 50 years and play a transposing instrument (clarinet).

You want a non-transposing clef in a transposing part?

Clarinets and Saxophones are not like recorders - all notes are fingered the same regardless of the key they are in.

[Magnus Johansson]

I think you misunderstand the function of the numbers. Please don't explain transpositions to me. i have been doing this for over 50 years and play a transposing instrument (clarinet).

You want a non-transposing clef in a transposing part?

Clarinets and Saxophones are not like recorders - all notes are fingered the same regardless of the key they are in.

Do you mean that 9 functions as 10?

It is not I that want anything other here than trying to explain this to you.

I know that clarinets and saxophones are not like recorders since I have read and played music with all of them.

[OCTO]

I do not know if Örjan Sandred

He was my teacher in Electro Acoustic Music, 27 years ago.

Do you mean that 9 functions as 10?

I understand it as "you use a transposition clef" on top of "a transposing instrument," and so using that clef in transposing score would be pointless.  It is already pointless per se, except for some theoretical, schenkerian-type of analysis, etc.

#

But nobody seems to address the problem of the numbers.  What does 9 represent?  A compound second, a ninth, but which ninth: major or minor? What if I actually want to use a clarinet in "H"? (Yes, I know, historically, clarinets in H (B natural) have existed, but they are extremely rare and are not part of the standard modern clarinet family.)

This is why I find these numbers problematic in contemporary music.  For octave I would rather use (but I will never do it!) 12, which means exactly 12 semitones in the equal-tempered system.  So 8 describes the diatonic intervallic number in a nondiatonic environment, while 12 describes its chromatic/semitonal size, which is not a standard way to notate.

So, the G clef with 8 above it, the octava clef, is a non-negotiable symbol.  The G clef with 15 above it is already accepted, 22 is still under inspection, while all the others (numbers) are experimental and will probably always remain so.

#

More math: two octaves, 8 + 8, give 15 (quindicesima), while three octaves give 22ma (ventiduesima), and so on.
I gave a composition workshop for students working in a more conventional, old-fashioned environment, where Herr Professor asked all the students to write 16.  He even showed them some antiquated Edition Peters scores from around 1800 as proof.  I asked each of them to go to the piano and count.

[LSL2026]

The part about using a number other than 8 above or below a clef. I challenge you to cite one example of this in a published work.

I've never seen it in a published work - thankfully it hasn't caught on.

I thought I remembered Kurt Stone saying something like "composers are now starting to use clefs like…" but in the copy I have it simply states - essentially as fact, that Horn in treble clef "has" (not could have, or should have, etc.) a little 5 below the clef and in bass clef has a 4 above (though in this case he's specifically talking about when horn uses the different method when written in bass - like a lot of instruments that transpose differently in different clefs work).

Maybe it's elsewhere in the book but he seems to be advocating that "sounding pitch" be notated with the numeral (this is in transposed scores and in parts of course).

So French and English Horns would have a 5 below the treble clef. Piccolo would have an 8 above. Bb clarinet would have a 2 below. Eb clarinet would have a 3 above - though that one gets tricky because we might take 8, 5, and 4 to be perfect, and 2 to be major, but 3 could be major or minor…but since so many instruments are Eb instruments the 3 would imply m3.

So I'm not really sure if he's advocating using them, or stating they are used, etc. (don't feel like looking through the rest of the chapters right now) or as I thought I recalled, "some composers" use them and maybe there's merit...

It's obviously kind of redundant though, which is also why just ANY of them are not really needed…

I suppose there's a good point for instruments that transpose differently when they're in different clefs…but abny good musician/conductor should know this.

I mean, I know Contrabass sounds an 8ve lower than written. Showing me a little 8 on the score…I mean, might as well put letter names inside the noteheads…

And as a guitarist, if I get a solo guitar piece that has the 8 below, I'm like "duh". I don't need it. I KNOW it sounds an 8ve lower than written.

[LSL2026]

Because the part is in B-flat already.

Take note I said sounding a tenth lower.

That's not the way these symbols are being used, despite any math you see happening.

Simply put, a Bb Clarinet sounds a major 2nd lower than written.

What they do is put a 2 under the clef, to show this.

If an 8 means "it sounds an 8ve lower than the written pitch" then 2 means "it sounds 2nd lower than the written pitch" (and again the assumption is a major 2nd specifically).

And a 9 means "it sounds a 9th lower than written" - no one is "stacking" the major 2nd down with the 8ve down here to make a numeral of 10.

It's literally the interval of transposition.

As I noted, and OCTO said too, the problem here is with numbers other than 8, or maybe 4 and 5 - which we'd assume to be perfect intervals as diatonic, any other numerals could be major or minor 2nds, 3rds, and so on.