bugaga
Oud Addict
Posts: 47
Registered: 9-14-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Key signature vs. accidentals in Arab sheet music
What I like about Turkish and Persian sheet music, is that you can find all necessary information of which notes to play in the key signature, whereas
in many Arab sheet music e.g. Nikriz was written with the key signature of C minor (three bs: Bb Eb Ab) and lots of accidentals appeared in the notes
(F#, A natural). Wouldn't it be easier to write Bb Eb F#? Same for Makams like Nawa Athar or Bayati Shuri.
Do you know which of these methods is how common and which one do you prefer? When I'm writing sheet music I always have to think about who I'm
writing for so he won't be confused reading it. So it would be great to find some standardization.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
It's important to consider what the purpose of a key signature is: to get the music played correctly by people sight-reading the notation. It has two
main ways of doing this:
1) Simplifying notation. It is easier to read music if there are fewer accidentals, and some keys would be extremely messy without a key signature
(Gb, for example).
2) Helping the performer relate in a technical way to their instrument. All instrumentalists have thoroughly internalized the fingerings for all the
major and minor scales, so seeing a key signature provides a very useful cue to what to expect from a technical standpoint.
When people bring up using "nonstandard" key signatures, usually what is happening is that they are prioritizing the first consideration over the
second one. In addition they are introducing a third function:
3) To give a musical indication of the modal/tonal structure of the piece.
The problem is that 3) is mainly useful from an analytical standpoint, and not from a reading standpoint. In Turkish/Arabic music, it makes some
sense to use some additional key signatures because you will have also learned standard fingerings for those additional modes. But for the most part,
the most practical solution is to use something as close as possible to a standard key signature—this makes the most of the way most musicians are
used to reading (assuming the goal of writing music is to have it played correctly).
Note that "minor" in most western music actually prioritizes the harmonic minor over natural and melodic minor, yet the tradition has always been to
use the natural minor key signature and introduce the raised 7th via accidentals.
In short, using nonstandard key signatures introduces a couple of problems:
1) Any key signature that looks similar to a standard key signature at first glance will likely be played incorrectly (for example, both Bb major and
C harmonic minor would have two flats—but different ones!)
2) You are usually going against the strengths of the musicians reading the music by not allowing them to rely on the fingerings that are already
automatic.
While only really solving one:
1) You may end up using fewer accidentals
As a composer and performing musician, I can say from experience that the latter is insignificant while the problems introduced are real and
vexing.
People who can read music don't have trouble with accidentals, they aren't a big deal.
In my experience, it's most helpful to stick to a smaller number of key signatures if your goal is to have the music played correctly. Less common
maqams don't need a special key signature, it's more efficient to use a more common signature and accidentals.
I'll also note that Arab musicians generally don't learn from sheet music, and don't sight read a lot.
|
|
|
bugaga
Oud Addict
Posts: 47
Registered: 9-14-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
For me it was not about key signature or no key signature, but about which key signature. You could say it's analogue to the discussion in western
music theory if to write G dorian in the key signature of D minor/aeolian (1 b) or G minor (2 bs) with and natural sign on every E natural.
So here are three versions of the same piece in Nikriz. One is in Turkish notation and is out of discussion I guess, but of the two Arab ones which do
you prefer? I think it depends on the musician. I prefer the one with less accidentals, because the other one (with C minor key signature) is really
full of accidentals. My oud teacher prefers the C minor notation, because he is used to it.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/25r0613i4duvl3c/AACTZWdgr1XApMphDBZZHR_-a...
I agree that it's easer to read something you're used to. But I have the feeling sometimes we're used to something which actually is more complicated.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
I wouldn't use any of those. I would use two flats (Bb Eb) and use accidentals for the sharps. Out of the two Arab ones, I'd prefer the C minor
signature, but there is no reason to have the Ab in the key signature.
The real analog is not Dorian but harmonic minor, which is exactly your situation: C Nikriz is exactly G harmonic minor (notation-wise). Moving the
tonic doesn't change anything. So notating it the standard way would be best.
|
|
|
Jack_Campin
Oud Junkie
Posts: 333
Registered: 5-6-2007
Location: Scotland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I far prefer the Turkish style, and not just for Middle Eastern music - I used to play (mainly Scottish music) with a wire harp player, and with that
it is almost impossible to play any accidentals at all. You want to know the scale right upfront so you can set the tuning, so a modal key signature
was the only sensible option. Ditto with any instrument with a fixed scale - there are mouth organs in harmonic minor, but the notes of that scale
are ALL they can play. You want to know before you even pick the instrument up whether the piece is actually possible.
Scattering accidentals through the score is error-prone - you will often miss one out, and the reader then has guess whether you meant to.
There is no good answer for whether you should notate D hijaz as D Phrygian with accidental F sharps (makes sense since there are more flats than
sharps) or D mixolydian with accidental flats (makes sense since it's a major tonality). You see both, it's always confusing to switch, and that
should tell you that neither is right.
There is no substitute for simply stating the makam verbally. (The Bartokian approach of presenting a list of the pitches used at the start of the
tune is also pretty good, for short tunes).
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
There are some exceptions, such as the diatonic instruments you mentioned.
But the purpose of a key signature is not actually to tell you the key, generally—it's to indicate generally what fingerings are going to be
used.
So it makes no sense to write D hijaz simply using a G signature. Bb is the signature that is appropriate. It is literally exactly the same
situation as G harmonic minor! There can be no question that this is the correct way to write it for maximum readability.
A note saying "C Nikriz", for example, at the beginning certainly is welcome, and as you note, listing the pitches covers the bases, so one might
write: "C Nikriz: C D Eb F# G A Bb C"
To totally indicate tonality, some maqams (like Saba) would require a complicated key signature with different symbols in different octaves, including
naturals, or you would still need to use accidentals in the piece. This would be far more error-prone in practice. Better to just write Bb E/b and
mark the rest. One could include the Gb in the signature, but in that case it would be very wise to include a text note so that the key signature is
not misread (3 flats usually indicates an Ab, not a Gb).
Very little music has no modulation whatsoever, so accidentals cannot be entirely avoided regardless. If the music has mistakes in it, it is the
fault of the engraver and not the method—saying that using accidentals is a bad approach because some people leave mistakes in their music doesn't
make any sense. Someone who leaves mistakes in will find a way to do that no matter what.
I have written music for many ensembles and been rehearsing/directing groups for over 20 years, often requiring people (with a variety of musical
backgrounds) to sight-read for performances. I've tried different approaches, and based on my experience, the best approach is the one that gets the
music performed correctly the first time. That is accomplished by minimizing unfamiliar elements and making the most of the skills that performers
already have. So this is just my opinion, but it's not an uninformed one.
If you are writing for Turkish musician and expect only them to be able to read it, then complicated nonstandard signatures are appropriate;
otherwise, I would recommend the above approach.
|
|
|
Jack_Campin
Oud Junkie
Posts: 333
Registered: 5-6-2007
Location: Scotland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | But the purpose of a key signature is not actually to tell you the key, generally—it's to indicate generally what fingerings are going to be
used.
So it makes no sense to write D hijaz simply using a G signature. |
For an accordionist, you want to know you'll be using D major rather than D minor chords. So you want an F sharp in the signature.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Jack_Campin  | | Quote: | But the purpose of a key signature is not actually to tell you the key, generally—it's to indicate generally what fingerings are going to be
used.
So it makes no sense to write D hijaz simply using a G signature. |
For an accordionist, you want to know you'll be using D major rather than D minor chords. So you want an F sharp in the signature.
|
So you'd expect a piece in G minor to use a G major key signature?
This is not normal. I work with plenty of accordionists, they are perfectly capable of understanding normal sheet music. Either chords are written,
or chord symbols are written (or in the case of Arabic/Turkish music, there are no chords). Either way, it's perfectly obvious what is required.
|
|
|
Jack_Campin
Oud Junkie
Posts: 333
Registered: 5-6-2007
Location: Scotland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If the piece is in G minor, no it doesn't get an F#. In that key, you might well want to use an F natural in a B flat chord; the F#s would genuinely
be accidentals.
If it's in G nihavend it probably should. The F# is not an accidental in that, and any time you use a B flat chord you've modulated away from the
basic makam.
The Turkish system handily extends to microtonal key signatures. Using the major/minor notation system beyond the idioms it's appropriate for gets in
the way.
If someone is so embedded in major/minor tonality that they genuinely have a problem reading Turkish-style key signatures, they need to learn and
unlearn a few things before even thinking of trying to play Middle Eastern music. (I often encounter guitarists whose background is
jazz/pop/classical trying to play Scottish modal idioms, perceiving everything as either major or minor - they are nearly always an elephantine
disaster, and the more Berklee materials they've studied the worse they play).
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
With all due respect, Jack, as someone who's been involved with Middle Eastern music for 18+ years and performs and records with many middle-eastern
groups, as well as others, and taught for several years at Simon Shaheen's Arabic music retreat, it's a bit misplaced for you to suggest that I have
"a lot learn and unlearn before even thinking of trying to play Middle Eastern music." I might suggest that I am in fact likely far more
accomplished, and with much more practical experience, in this area than you are. One is perfectly within their rights to attempt to legislate
musical ideology through key signatures, but professionals are better served by pragmatism in order to get the music played correctly.
I'll note that the notation system that uses key signatures is a Western invention. Its use in Ottoman/Turkish/Arabic music is a recent adoption, and
by no means uniform. Many Arab theorists strongly disagree with your position here, suggesting that only "family" signatures be used and not
individual signatures for each sub-maqam in the family. In Turkish music, multiple approaches have been used, so that one cannot even reliably
determine the makam from the key signature unless you know which system is being used (though this has become essentially standardized for recent
scores, a lot of older music uses a different system).
No one who is a serious player of middle eastern music is relying much on scores anyway, so your contention is particularly misplaced—if someone is
learning from sheet music, then the odds are very high that they are coming from a Western background. Since that is the case, the pragmatic approach
is almost always to make use of their strengths in the way the notation system was designed.
All systems are somewhat arbitrary, so as I said before there is nothing inherently wrong with having a bunch of atypical key signatures if you're
talking about expecting people to essentially re-learn how to read music. But in practicality, it is usually not a great choice, especially if there
is a 100% standard solution that already exists.
To be clear, we're not talking about say, a Rast or Bayati key signature, but a key signature that effectively presents a nonstandard way of doing
something that standard key signatures already do. It's creating a problem where none exists, and offering a cure that's worse than the disease.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
