Accidental spelling question

[MichelRE]

This is probably a stupid question, but then, I've never professed to be a genius.

I'm having trouble with the spelling of this passage.
It seems that no matter what I do I get an augmented 2nd in there somewhere.

Violas and cellos have life easy, their passage at that moment is easily spelled all in sharps.

But the 1st and 2nd violins? It can go either way.

The music has a tonal bent to it but doesn't utilize any concepts of traditional diatonic harmony (lots of polyharmony, quartal structures, etc...), so I can't say "well this passage is in X-minor, therefore I need to use X-spelling."

I'm trying to make READING the passage as easy on the eyes as possible for the performers. (I have LOTS of other passages like this, it's a 20-minute work for string orchestra.)

Please, some advice, suggestions, reassurances, something! anything!

[RMK]

It's perfectly fine the way it is. Maybe put a cautionary natural on the Vln.1 B just to be safe.

[MichelRE]

The danger with putting a cautionary natural in 1st violin is that the musician will then think they missed a Bb in the previous measure (which there isn't.)

I am considering respelling so that the augmented 2nd arrives on the half-bar...
so violin 1 would be A (previous measure), then B, then C#, which would then transition to Db and the rest as written.
and violin 2 would do the same: E nat (previous measure), F#, G#, then Bb, and the rest as written.

[RMK]

Musicians rarely read backwards...

[LSL2026]

This is probably a stupid question, but then, I've never professed to be a genius.

Not at all as it's one of the more inconsistent things we deal with. And I'm no genius either so, grains of salt.

It seems that no matter what I do I get an augmented 2nd in there somewhere.

I think you mean diminished 3rd

But yeah the whole tones are tricky this way.

I don't have any problem with the way you have it.

Can I assume you're getting performances from pro players? Not just writing drawer music?

I'm not even a super pro player or anything but I'd have zero trouble reading this on piano or guitar.

Of course I've also written enough stuff like this that I "get" the whole "crossover point" issue. That said, any pro player shouldn't have any problem with this.

As a composer, I feel like I would have made similar decisions - I like that the "gap" appears between the first two notes, and on a longer note (more time to parse!), and that the spelling at least between these two parts, makes sense as dyads. You've got perfect 4ths and minor 3rds between the parts - if you re-spelled say the Db and Eb as C# and D#, then you'd have the augmented 2nds in the dyads!!!

Now, whether the Cello and Viola "spell good chords" for all 4 parts may make that a moot point, but only the conductor is reading the score. 1sts aren't going to see how the 2nds parts are spelled...but together the parts "make sense" and it's a bit easier to grok what's going on even for the conductor.

Spelling the 1sts as sharps also introduces the need for a courtesy accidental in the next measure, so there's that.

But I mean, I'm not even going to bat an eye at these lines.

If the 1sts were C# and D#, that wouldn't cause me any issues either tho...

But in the 2nds I'd rather read the F# as that, not Gb...and Bb as that, not A# - no other considerations.

And I think that's just an artifact of the way we learn key signatures - F# C# G# D# A#...

A# is the 5th sharp, but Bb is the first flat.

Likewise, Gb is the 5th flat, and F# is the first sharp. They "crossover" at that point.

The ones after - E#, yuck, and Cb, yuck - I mean, sure, necessary in keys, but if I don't have to, I'm not gonna!!!

I see the G#/Ab as six one way half dozen the other - they're both the 3rd accidental. Then the others are 2 and 4, so not too bad - but by the time you get to 1 and 5 - the 1 makes way more sense!

So you could call a sort of logic, or at least method to madness.

I'd leave it like you have it.

[John Ruggero]

I like your second spelling using the C# and G# before moving to flats because it points out that the harmony changes in the second half of the measure from quartal to triadic. But what the other parts are doing could also be a factor.

[MichelRE]

I like your second spelling using the C# and G# before moving to flats because it points out that the harmony changes in the second half of the measure from quartal to triadic. But what the other parts are doing could also be a factor.

John, the other instruments are all in sharps... but they are also basically not in the same tonal zone! LOL
this music shifts quite quickly from one general tonal zone to another, which is the source of many spelling questions.
Generally I don't bother making the whole section's harmony try to make sense from a spelling perspective, but there are moments where it looks strange in the score (even if the parts won't really be affected by it.)
For example, there is one measure where IIRC the 2nd violins are in flats while the rest of the section are in sharps, because the voice leading for the 2nd violins makes more sense to be read in flats.

[dircknagy]

...
I'd leave it like you have it.

Then why post all the other stuff? THis isn't Reddit; nobody is impressed with all that gobbledegook.

Do you have a name, by the way?

[OCTO]

The danger with putting a cautionary natural in 1st violin is that the musician will then think they missed a Bb in the previous measure (which there isn't.)

I am considering respelling so that the augmented 2nd arrives on the half-bar...
so violin 1 would be A (previous measure), then B, then C#, which would then transition to Db and the rest as written.
and violin 2 would do the same: E nat (previous measure), F#, G#, then Bb, and the rest as written.

If the phrase starts from E , maybe you can respell F -G etc.
Otherwise it is ok.

[MichelRE]

If the phrase starts from E , maybe you can respell F -G etc.
Otherwise it is ok.

I'll look at it again.
I have a tendency to avoid writing C and F and B and E