Earliest use/History of Octave Transposing Clefs?

[Magnus Johansson]

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.
[...]

That understanding resembles this: "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."

Why is it pointless to see the transposition by just looking at the clef? Why is a more explicit method pointless?

[...]

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.)

That problem could be solved with an additional sign after the numeral, but as far as I know this method 2, 6 and 9 mean major intervals, 3 and 7 minor, and 4 and 5 perfect intervals.

[Magnus Johansson]

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...

Kurt Stone's Music Notation in the Twentieth Century seems to use bass clef with 5 below for French horn, otherwise it uses treble clef with 8 above for soprano recorder and piccolo flute, and bass clef with 8 below for contrabassoon and contrabass.

[David Ward]

FWIW (not much) I use the treble (G) clef with a small 8 below for tenor singers, but otherwise I never add an octave (or any other) transposition number to a clef.

[Magnus Johansson]

FWIW (not much) I use the treble (G) clef with a small 8 below for tenor singers, but otherwise I never add an octave (or any other) transposition number to a clef.

OK, David, so you stick to the historically first use of this kind of clefs. I wonder if the same clef for guitar music was the second, and the treble clef with a small 8 above for soprano and sopranino recorder was the third.

[OCTO]

Why is it pointless to see the transposition by just looking at the clef? Why is a more explicit method pointless?

Because (I think you ask about nonconventional clefs):

- a) In a transposed score: If the score is already transposed, the written notes are the notes the player reads.  The transposition is therefore already built into the notation.
If you invent a clef such as a G clef with "5 below" (for the French Horn) to mean "read everything five diatonic steps lower," you are essentially adding a second encoding of the same information.  That is why it becomes pointless, or at least unnecessarily complicated.  The reader doesn't need to calculate the transposition from the clef: the written pitch is already the conventional horn part's pitch.
The unusual clef would make the notation look cleverer, but would not have anything musically useful.  In fact, it would force the performer to learn an additional reading system, forcing them to see one pitch and play a fifth below, (as they use to do with "gestopft" technique and the interval of a second).

- b) In a concert-pitch score: Here the situation is different, you deliberately want the notation to show the actual sounding pitch. So the horn's written C (in G with 5the below) would have to appear as F, etc. So you don't do it here either.
Now there is a genuine need to distinguish:
-- What is written for the instrument?
from
-- What actually sounds?
A clef should primarily tell you where the pitches are on the staff, not encode an entire instrument's transposition system, because you notate transposed clef in a concert-pitch score.


- So the fundamental argument is:
In a transposed score, the transposition is already represented by the written pitches.  In a concert-pitch score, the purpose is precisely to eliminate the transposition from the notation.  In neither case does a special transposing clef add proper information.

[OCTO]

FWIW (not much) I use the treble (G) clef with a small 8 below for tenor singers, but otherwise I never add an octave (or any other) transposition number to a clef.

OK, David, so you stick to the historically first use of this kind of clefs. I wonder if the same clef for guitar music was the second,

I am not sure if the gutar uses it at all, I would say traditionally not.  I am not guitarist so I might be wrong, but their instrument just sounds an octave lower.  When they see E on the bottom of three ledger lines, they just play it as the open string, and don't care if the clef has or has not 8.

This reminds me something similar to MIDI: Yamaha and Roland use different octave numbering standards for Middle C (MIDI note 60). Roland = Middle C as C4 (matching so-called Scientific Pitch Notation), while Yamaha = C3 (from older synthesizer/MIDI workstation standards).

[Magnus Johansson]

Why is it pointless to see the transposition by just looking at the clef? Why is a more explicit method pointless?

Because (I think you ask about nonconventional clefs):

- a) In a transposed score: If the score is already transposed, the written notes are the notes the player reads.  The transposition is therefore already built into the notation.

Yes, of course, but the added interval number does not change anything of that, it is a clarification and to cite Abdy Williams "[...] an excellent guide to the eye of the reader [...]"

[...]
If you invent a clef such as a G clef with "5 below" (for the French Horn) [...]

As I have already shown, it is not my invention, but a system Örjan Sandred introduced me to in the 1980's.

[...] to mean "read everything five diatonic steps lower,"

That is not the meaning of it; it is instead telling the reader what sounds.

The reader doesn't need to calculate the transposition from the clef: the written pitch is already the conventional horn part's pitch.

For a reader not being the instrumentalist the part is written for it is an aid. The instrumentalist, however, already knows this and can ignore it if he wants.

The unusual clef would make the notation look cleverer, but would not have anything musically useful.  In fact, it would force the performer to learn an additional reading system, forcing them to see one pitch and play a fifth below, (as they use to do with "gestopft" technique and the interval of a second).

The usefulness I believe I have already covered, and the performer is not forced to learn or do anything new.

- b) In a concert-pitch score: Here the situation is different, you deliberately want the notation to show the actual sounding pitch. So the horn's written C (in G with 5the below) would have to appear as F, etc. So you don't do it here either.
Now there is a genuine need to distinguish:
-- What is written for the instrument?
from
-- What actually sounds?
A clef should primarily tell you where the pitches are on the staff, not encode an entire instrument's transposition system, because you notate transposed clef in a concert-pitch score.


- So the fundamental argument is:
In a transposed score, the transposition is already represented by the written pitches.  In a concert-pitch score, the purpose is precisely to eliminate the transposition from the notation.  In neither case does a special transposing clef add proper information.

In a concert-pitch score all numbers other than 8 and 15 should not be used, and like Fred has pointed out, even 8 and 15 should be avoided as much as possible.

[David Ward]

Some of the first full scores I ever possessed (in the 1950s) were Ricordi editions of Verdi and Puccini, which employed the G/C clef hybrid for tenor voices. Ever since I have referred to this as the ‘Ricordi clef’.

In 1955, when I was 14, a generous (and rather grand) kinsman took me to Covent Garden for a performance of Verdi's Otello. We were sitting a few rows back in the centre of the stalls. As soon as the orchestra began with what seemed to me an overwhelming sound, I leapt to my feet with excitement. Afterwards, when my kinsman realized how engaged I'd been in the whole performance, he presented me with a copy of the full score. This was the first time I saw the ‘Ricordi clef’.

[Magnus Johansson]

FWIW (not much) I use the treble (G) clef with a small 8 below for tenor singers, but otherwise I never add an octave (or any other) transposition number to a clef.

OK, David, so you stick to the historically first use of this kind of clefs. I wonder if the same clef for guitar music was the second,

I am not sure if the gutar uses it at all, I would say traditionally not.  I am not guitarist so I might be wrong, but their instrument just sounds an octave lower.  When they see E on the bottom of three ledger lines, they just play it as the open string, and don't care if the clef has or has not 8.

Maybe LSL2026 can give a percentage of guitar music with treble clef ottava bassa, but if you had studied with Per-Olof Johnson I believe you would have used it always.

[OCTO]

but if you had studied with Per-Olof Johnson I believe you would have used it always.

A bit of a joke to put into the thread:

Once upon a time, I was giving a lecture at the University of Chicago, in the Department of Music, for their whole composition class.  I was talking about a particular subject, I don't remember it now, when one of the students raised his hand and asked:
- "So, tell me, what is the source of your statement?"
I replied:
- "I am the source."