• MRC

  • Post #1

Some of the posts in the thread on alternative music notation got me thinking about clefs. Most musicians need to learn to deal with different clefs: pianists must learn two, cellists three and conductors at least four. If you study Solfège in France, you will end up learning no less than seven clefs. Many people find all these different clefs tiresome and it's certainly reasonable to ask: do we really need them all?

There's a lot to discuss here. I'm going to start with a personal anecdote:

How I made friends with the bass clef

I started learning to play the piano by ear, at around the age of four. I found learning to read music very tiring, and a few years later I had a reasonable grasp of the treble clef, but it still took me ages to decipher the notes in the bass clef.

Then at the age of eight, I started cello lessons. My teacher explained to me how the four strings are tuned: you start with the top one, A, then go down in fifths to D, G and C (oh the wonderful sound of those fifths!). She got me plucking the strings and showed me where to put the fingers of the left hand on the strings to produce some simple tunes. She asked me how good I was with the bass clef, and I looked at her sheepishly and said something like "not very good". That didn't discourage her. She told me:

"We cellists are so lucky to have the bass clef"

What did she mean? She took a piece of manuscript paper, drew a bass clef on the staff and pencilled in the notes of the four strings:

Then she drew 4 lines through those notes:

This was a revelation. There were the four strings of my celIo, visible on the staff! I realised that I didn't have to go through those tedious steps of remembering which mnemonic I needed to use, then getting the letter name from this, then remembering where to find the note with that name on the instrument. I could see the direct connection between the line of the staff and the corresponding string of my cello.

This started a revolution in the way I read music, and considerably sped up the learning process. I found I could apply the same principle to the piano. I could easily see which notes on the piano keyboard corresponded to the strings of the cello, and thus connect them with the lines of the bass clef. These notes became landmarks for me.

Thus I made friends with the bass clef.

In the discussion about alternative music notation, WieWaldi asked the question : which clef is the best one? Maybe we only need the bass clef? To be continued...

    There was a time that I taught rudimentary theory based on RCM. When I got to clefs, I likened it to territory and a map of the territory. In fact, I used to drive north in Ontario, and at some point had to flip the map since it continued on the other side. The whole of the province can't be held on one road map and still be functional.

    So you have this vast territory of the gamut of notes, and you choose the best map to show the area you're in. Your cello lives in the area "down there", the piccolo lives in the area "up there".

    What might be harder are the clefs that slide around. I'm thinkin of the C clef which is in one spot as a tenor clef, and another as alto (viola) clef. In that other thread, the invented G clef placed to show G on the 3rd line actually showed the same thing as the old soprano clef, that has the C clef on the bottom line. Both show that C = bottom line.

    Another question might be how we learn to read, and can that be different according to your instrument? Can you have a "cello mind" and a "piano mind" or a "trombone mind"? On piano, the best approach I was given was to associate the bottom, middle, and top lines with a particular piano key and refine from there. On cello, you have that fantastic correlation to the strings.

    • MRC

    • Post #3

    I think you can well swap between "cello mind", "piano mind", "clarinet mind", or whatever. When you know the piano keyboard, and you start on the cello, you find high notes and low notes are reversed. The lowest string, C, is on the right, and the highest, A, on the left. Also, the higher the notes on one string, the nearer your hand gets to the floor: play an ascending scale on one string, and your hand actually goes downward.

    The violin is quite different: the highest string is on the right, and the higher the notes get on a string, the nearer your hand is to your face. Each instrument has its own geography.

    The map analogy is useful. You may need two maps for a certain country, but if you happen to be moving around in a region that's on the edge of each map it's a bore, and it's better if you have a third map that puts the region where you are in the middle. This is why the clef of choice for viola players is the alto clef (Middle C on the third line), which sits squarely between the treble and bass clefs.

    On cello and violin, the same note and pitch will be in multiple locations. On piano, one note/pitch has one single location. On recorder, some notes are sequential as you lift successive fingers, and some are a weird finger combo. The fingers have to stay in one spot. Strings and keyboard, any finger can play any key. Brass, you have to preconceive a sound and make sure you produce that sound (as it's been explained to me) and you're aware of the overtone series. You have a different relationship to the notes.

    Viola uses alto and treble clef. Bassoon uses three clefs, if I remember correctly.

    MRC that sounds similar to "anchor notes" method I've used. In which, one learns these notes first then resolve other notes relatively:

    This was way easier than my first attempt of using mnemonics.

        • MRC

        • Post #6

        I don't think mnemonics are suited to learning the notes on a staff. Mnemonics are good for memorising sequences that have no particular logic, like the order of the planets:

        My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Noodles
        Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

        For a musical staff, anchor notes make much more sense.

        hebele I think we all have seen this nice looking picture. So ordered, so symmetric. Until we read what is written. G as anchor notes on the upper clef, buf F on the lower one. And on top of that, the anchor notes are placed on different locations. Meaning we need to mirror them in our mind to get the same location.

        IMO, this anchor notes are all arbitraty. You know the notes, you read the most and you play the most. And those notes are becoming your personal anchor notes. And the more you play read, the more anchor notes you have. Until every note is an anchor note.

        This anchor note picture is IMO the attempt to convince musicians that combination of both clefs is great. But in reality, this picture is the proof that it is not.

          MRC You know my opinion, one clef for LH and RH staff is better than having two different clefs. And you know I would prefer to have the bass clef everywhere because of the D=center-line symmetry.

          I made this statement for the piano. And as piano has a huge tonal range of 88 keys, nobody can tell a certain clef is better suited than another. It depends on the music. For some music, a XXX clef turns out to be perfect (no need for ledger lines) and for some other music you will see ledger lines all the time.

          I don't play string instruments those tonal ranges are more limited. And if someone claims that clef YYY is perfect for this instrument, then go for it.

          But for the piano with 88 keys, there is no thing like a "perfect" clef. All you can do is to find a criteria that allows to claim to be an advantage. Like the D symmetry, this maybe allows to learn a clef a little bit faster for the piano keyboard (at least theoretical).
          But for sure our learning curve in note reading would go up 2 times faster, if we used two times the same clef for both hands. No matter what clef we would use for both staffs.

              • macuaig

                • Post #9
                • Edited

                So there was once a chance for all clefs to retain the same note names & positions, just a shift of octave? But that would mean there’d be many more ledger lines, plus either more overlaps or gaps. And the solution was to have every clef rename every line & space. Ugh.

                I’m a perpetual beginner coming from trumpet & recorders, and wow, would I have plunged in faster and deeper if a G was an G always on the same line. But I get it, that’s my problem!

                Perpetual Beginner, Yamaha P115

                WieWaldi But for sure our learning curve in note reading would go up 2 times faster, if we used two times the same clef for both hands. No matter what clef we would use for both staffs.

                Do you mean you want to use the treble clef twice, even for low notes? You would have an incredible number ledger lines going down. Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower so that C is still on the 3rd space and then somehow we deal with the fact that the first ledger line up is A so that we no longer have a smooth continuity?

                We can have the same clef for both hands if both the left and right hand are playing higher notes (treble), or right and left hand are playing very low notes (bass clef). I think you're referring to the lower and higher staff.

                    hebele that sounds similar to "anchor notes" method I've used. In which, one learns these notes first then resolve other notes relatively:

                    I tried anchor notes for a while and abandoned the idea. I adopted a different method which worked very well. Associate first, the bottom, middle, and top line with the respective piano key. This is visual, physical, and also involves your ear. Add the remaining lines. Spaces as spaces, or as the white key above the line notes. Names (A, B, C) get attached to the dual experience.
                    Sharps and flats are traffic signs pointing to the left or right (semitone lower or higher) so you're not learning G# and then learning Ab. You're on G and go up one. You're on A and go down one. Both G and A are this dual association between written notes and piano keys.

                      hebele For me, the one most important anchor note on the bass clef has been, and still is D - because it is exactly at the middle, and the top one is mirrored from the bottom one.
                      Logically, B should have been my anchor note on the treble clef, but it is C, because that is the one note I could with certainty when I started to play the piano. Both the lower one and the one between the lines, unfortunately not the higher one.

                      *
                      ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                        keystring Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower so that C is still on the 3rd space and then somehow we deal with the fact that the first ledger line up is A so that we no longer have a smooth continuity?

                        This would be the way I would prefer it.

                        *
                        ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                            keystring Do you mean you want to use the treble clef twice, even for low notes? You would have an incredible number ledger lines going down. Or do you mean having a 2nd treble clef but an octave lower...

                            Two octaves lower.
                            It would look similar tothis one (but with another clef symbol that indicates the octave shift). (And I made the pic with bass clefs instead of treble clefs). (The upper bass clef is shifted two octaves up):

                            (See also this video around 43 minute mark)
                            You see, my approach had been on the table a long long time ago. It was refused, because... watch the video.

                                • BBartK

                                • Post #15

                                All these notational reforms seem to be either invented by beginners or aimed at beginners for a perceived convenience or simplicity, whereas the notational system that is currently in widespread use was invented by and for the convenience of professional musicians. So, to understand it you have to get into the mind of how a professional musician approaches the score.

                                The first problem with a double-G clef or double-F clef notation is the range. The bass C on the image above is the C that normally sits on the second space from the bottom of the staff. That means you need a lot more legder lines than normally used to reach the lower notes. I know about 8va notation but having octave transpositions all the time is also not convenient for reading because you lose the intevallic relationships. The double-F clef would be even worse for range because to reach the top note you would need to use both a 15 on the clef and a 15ma notation above the staff, and you would still need ledger lines.

                                Speaking of intervallic relationships, the second problem I see with this is around the middle. The ledger lines in between the staves preserve all the intervallic relationships between the hands because middle C is the same line above and below. If you have notes going up several ledger lines from the bass staff you know how they relate to the notes in the right hand, and vice versa. This is not so clear when the top note is F and the spaces and lines are inverted when going further up.

                                As a beginner you might not encounter music that has these issues and it might seem simpler at first but that kind of puts a limit on your development. As a more advanced pianist I can assure you that the way I think about the music when I look at notation is very different than what it used to be as a beginner. Most of the time I don't really care about what the actual notes are (although I learned to recognise all the note and it didn't really take very long and I don't get all the fuss about having to learn it) but I care a lot about intervals and shapes of chords. If I see a big chord that has a top note something like 5 ledger lines above the staff I don't even count those lines because normally I see chord shapes. I just look at the lower note of the chord and visually recognize all the other notes as intervallic relashionships from there. This happens in a split second without thinking about it.

                                  WieWaldi You see, my approach had been on the table a long long time ago. It was refused, because... watch the video.

                                  Got it. Why it was refused wasn't really explained though. Only that it was refused, in long arguments (the reasons for refusal) which we're not told about. Tantacrul's point is that different notation systems and reforms have been proposed, tried, discarded, discussed.

                                  What I wasn't sure about initially is because you referred to the clefs for the hands. Either hand can play either clef, so I figured you might have been referring to the top and bottom staves, which turns out to be the case.

                                  I scribbled out some music on the proposed system you outlined. There's a problem, in particular for piano, when you get to where currently we have middle C. In the current system there is a symbolic overlap: The note "on" the first ledger line below the treble clef; and the note "on" the first ledger line above the bass clef, both denote the same note, middle C, and in the vicinity of those notes you can travel seamlessly. It provides a continuance. We lose that continuance in the proposed system.

                                      About Tantacrul's video - the important thing repeatedly being missed

                                      The important point comes in the very last section of the video. Instead of trying for yet another reform to notation, Tantacrul is arguing the use of a system that our modern electronic age affords us. Software can be created and already exists (he demonstrates it) where notation in one form can be instantly turned into tablature or other systems, including other clefs or clef systems, at the push of a button.

                                      Tantacrul is both a musician with in depth knowledge about music and theory, and also an IT specialist. He had a major role in the creation of both MuseScore and Audacity, and oversees both.

                                      OT to the recent turn of this thread, but not completely. I work as a translator and am active on a site for translators. A gentleman joined who had immigrated to an English speaking country in his early teens, and was now teaching English as a second language. He was part of a movement for reforming the spelling of English - passionate and insistent about the movement and his cause, writing incessantly about it. There's a group out there intent on changing how English is spelled. The arguments went round and round, on a site with linguists who worked with two or more languages professionally. It was also similar to here, for similar reasons.

                                      English spelling is indeed ridiculous. "though, through, tough, thought" - what sound does "ough" represent? English spelling evolved over time and history, like music writing did - got patched and tweaked in its present form. It's antiquated and outdated. If it gets "modernized" will the next generation be able to read any books or even this discussion (though software would be able to 'convert' these words)?

                                      If English spelling becomes phonetic, how will be distinguish "ate" and "eight" - "gate" and "gait". You may say from context - and in music we can also argue about musical context, if one grasps the language (of either).
                                      If phonetic - according to whose pronunciation in what region and era? I ran into "shack" in a vehicle context, was picturing cars in shacks, but it was a "shack absorber" = "shock absorber" = the "Mid-Atlantic Vowel Shift" (a vs. o). And where did Americans put the T in "moun'n" (mountain) that I keep hearing? Shall it be spelled "moun'n"?

                                      An obvious thing in teaching is that you cannot teach English spelling according to the phonetic patterns you are used to your (and most?) languages - and if the foreign student's native language is phonetic, there has to be a mental shift for approach. And how is reading music taught?

                                      In the round and round discussion that went on at the time, my final conclusion was that we would be best off with a system like Chinese or Japanese, where a symbol or set or symbols represents a word or word-combo (I'm picturing typewriter as a word combo). Regardless of how you pronounce it in your geographic area, regardless of how spoken language shifts over time, your word still means what it means. The final conclusion, tongue in cheek, was that we must all learn Chinese or Japanese. 😃 (I am largely ignorant about either language, and seem to remember there is also a phonetic component).

                                      Any system that humans invent is going to flawed, favouring this or that.

                                      Also, I like Tantacrul's idea at the end of that last video, where the digital age allows us to switch systems.

                                      keystring I scribbled out some music on the proposed system you outlined. There's a problem, in particular for piano, when you get to where currently we have middle C. In the current system there is a symbolic overlap: The note "on" the first ledger line below the treble clef; and the note "on" the first ledger line above the bass clef, both denote the same note, middle C, and in the vicinity of those notes you can travel seamlessly. It provides a continuance. We lose that continuance in the proposed system.

                                      We can't lose something we don't have.
                                      You are saying, it is the middle C is a sybolic overlap between both staffs, sitting on the 1st ledger line. You see, it is already on a legder line, meaning it is already outside of the staff. The staffs don't overlap.
                                      And if you insist, there must be a note, placed exactly between both staffs, (making a symmetrical center), you will find the middle D within my system.

                                          WieWaldi You are saying, it is the middle C is a sybolic overlap between both staffs, sitting on the 1st ledger line. You see, it is already on a legder line, meaning it is already outside of the staff. The staffs don't overlap.

                                          They don't overlap literally but there is a role. In transcribing some music recently and making choices, I ran into this. that particular continuance I referred to exists, or I would not have referred to it.