Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Anomalies

Can anybody explain these ANOMALIES in our music?

1. Note location on the stave varies each octave.
2. Short notes more complicated than long notes.
3. Space (large) between treble and bass clefs
4. Clefs (treble and bass) interchangeable.
5. Measures of irregular length.
6. Musical flow (lines) limited to 6 measures.

Here’s the first page of Grieg’s "March of the Dwarfs" Opus 54, no. 3 to put the above anomalies in context.

web page

It’s too easy just to say "because that’s the way it is written" ... but it’s another thing to realize that it presently takes a 3 year slog for a novice to even qualify to play the March.

Why the anomalies? (Can anybody play this Zug der Zwerge?)

I'll answer with a parallel to written language:

Anomalies in Written English

1. Pronunciation depends on the letter, the context, AND the etymology. (We should all speak Spanish or German.)
2. Long words more complicated than short words. (Are complicated things really necessary?)
3. Space (narrow) between lines is difficult for people new to reading.
4. Capitalization at the beginning of sentences is unnecessary. The new thought is already signaled by the period and spaces, why clutter it up with a big capital letter?
5. 6-letter words with one syllable are the same length as 6-letter words with two. What's up with that?
6. Lines should always end with sentence-ending periods. It's too hard to keep a thought going as you move down a line!

You are good at ducking the nitty gritty Kreisler ... but thanks for the quick response ...

So where's page two, and how many pages are there. I'm hooked! What a fun piece!!!

I have a theory. We are a "digital" society that organizes information in a pinpoint kind of way. 3:21 instead of "half past three" which looks at time in relationship with surroundings. Our mentality has been changed so that we become incapable of seeing the world as our forefathers used to in their "analogue" days.

If this music is anomaly, I'm one too - a throwback. If I try to udnesrstand this music digitally, that is in the modern pinpoint manner, read the notes as notes, pinpoint them all, "know" what they are, "figure out" note value in a left brained manner, I suppose that music would be hard.

But I learned to "read" music without knowing note names and had to do it intuitively in left brained fashion. I have a theory that the people 400 years ago were all left handed. Not one of them owned a digital watch.

Ok, so I've started to learn to read music conventionally, and I know the note names now. I get to this dwarfish piece and I can see that the left hand starts on D because I've been drilling that part - the A jumps out at me. That is: playing piano about 7 months by now as second instrument. After that it's patterns like the ticking of a clock - visible at a glance, miles ahead the clock ticks. Right hand? Seen as a picture: first bunch of notes go "br-r-r-r/eep!" and settle into the ticking clock. Chord forms automaticaly in hand. A glance at the whole picture shows them descending in chromatically at the top: taken in at a glance. It's already singing itslef. The music itself is so logical and predictable - tells a story with a smile.

I'm the novice here. A left-handed, right-brained, analogue-type novice who learned the piano haphazardly without knowing the names of notes three decades ago and has not touched it since. I played the left hand through - slowly of course. I started the right separately but the notes were so logical, fell so readily into the hand, that I dispensed with that and went straight into HT.

It will not take me five years before I am able to produce these notes on the piano because of reading diffiulty.

My difficulties with this piece are physical-technical and have nothing to do with reading. I've onlly played a few months. I cannot do staccato pianissomo. Some of the right hand chords are quite a stretch and I assume the top notes played with the weak 5th finger are voiced. I cannot do this piece justice. But oh, it is such a fun piece! It is such a pleasure to have the sheet music there, and sit down and play it. I almost wish there were a difficulty in the reading, but there isn't. I go by my digital/analogue mind theory. Or is it that reading music is taught in a way to make it difficult, and since I wasn't taught, it isn't?

I'm not an expert, but I'll offer my thoughts. I don't consider these anomalies. Rather, it's a matter of style, or perhaps layout. Like laying out a book for printing.

The arrangement of the music on the page is the work of the editor. He lays it out to be readable (one hopes). Some do a better job than others.

1. Note location on the stave varies each octave.
I don't understand the issue here.
2. Short notes more complicated than long notes.
I assume you mean that the 32nd notes have short stems. I think it's a matter of grouping the notes together, so that your eye can recognize it easily. Or matter it's a question of not needing a long stem when they're single, sequential notes.
3. Space (large) between treble and bass clefs
I think this is to allow for ledger lines, dynamic markings, etc.
4. Clefs (treble and bass) interchangeable.
If one hand jumps from one part of the keyboard to another, this is one way of handling it. Another way would be to use the "8va", etc. notation. Maybe a matter of style?
5. Measures of irregular length.
Why should they all be the same size? You'd end up with a lot of wasted space in some music.
6. Musical flow (lines) limited to 6 measures.
I don't think there's a hard and limit to the number of measures per line. Instead, it's a question of how many lines will fit if the notes are readable. Some music (e.g., duets) are often printed in landscape, and have significant more measures per line, but fewer lines per page.


I'd like to read what the experts have to say.

Mary

I think that btb is refering to our music system as a whole as being an anomaly. He would like to reform the system, and has an alternate in mind.

As far as the standard, traditional grand staff goes, I found the example well laid out and therefore easy to read. I went through the course work last year of a course that teaches how to write notation by hand. It was something like 150 pages and went into every detail, aiming for manuscript style. I became very sensitive to spacing. In a given measure, two 16th notes should use the same space as one eighth, and four of them should occupy the the space of a quarter. You should be able to smell the meter merely by the spacing. In many modern, computer-generated scores, that is missing. I had a violin score like that. The half note took up the same amount of space as an eighth note. I was making mistakes. Finally I took out some blank note paper and rewrote the whole thing and played from that. The music jumped out of the page. You could practically hear it just by seeing the overall shape. I see the same thing in this rendering of Zug der Zwerge. All other things being equal, the rule for spacing should be adhered to imho, especially for pianists, where rhythm is so important.

The spatial aspect of written music is incredibly important in reading. I can't see any way of getting rid of it. Same with interchangeable clefs. What if both hands are on the low side of the piano? We don't have a choice but to put two bass clefs on the top and bottom staves. The formation of the chords themselves are also a clue as to what they're going to be like (and sound like) on the piano. That's 2 "anomalies" that we can't do away with, right there.

Anamolies?

1 - There are 7 tones in our Western diatonic scale, thus 1 octave is 8 notes, 2 octaves cover 15 tones, etc. Seven is an odd number, so tones in each ascending or descending octave will alternate between lines or spaces. If they didn't, that would be an anamoly!

2 - Shorter notes (time duration) were notated by a hash mark, indicating to the performer to cut the hold time in half. The anamoly here is going from the half note to the quarter note. The stem and the flags are both derivations of hash marks originally used.

3 - The grand staff is one complete 11 line staff with the middle line (Middle C line) removed. For ease of reading, the staffs are separated a bit, and as noted above, it allows for insertion of text.

4 - The clef signs, G, C, or F, indicate which line or space has that precise tone. All clefs were originally moveable. We've dropped that, but the C clef remains moveable. The knob of the F falls on the line which is the f immediately below middle C. The cross bar of the G, now highly stylized, indicates the G above middle C.

5 - Measures are not irrigular in length, unless there is a tempo change or the performer is adding rubato. Notation of measures differ depending upon content. Two measures of whole notes need not occupy notational space occupied by two measures of 64th note runs.

6 - There is plenty of literature where more than six measures per line. Take a look at some organ literature.

The real question here is why is it taking you 3 years to learn March? 3 months I can understand.

NOTE VALUE COUNTING
From a whole note, (note head) 4 beats (pulses)
Dividing in half adds a stem 2 beats
Dividing in half adds shading in to black 1 beat
Dividing in half adds a flag 1/2 of 1 beat
Dividing in half adds a 2nd flag 1/4 of 1 beat
(Like "Chits"?)

Whole Note
Half Note
Quarter Note
Eighth Note
Sixteenth Note

Lengthing is done by use of a dot (.) which adds half of the note value to the note.

I teach this by drawing on a blank paper either in the Interview lesson or the first lesson, and we count alound using Magic Counting Words while clapping steadily each 0 is one beat.

The counting is done syllablically.

Hold That Whole Note (repeat)
0 0 0 0

Half Note (repeat)
0 0

TA (repeat)
0

ti ti ((2 claps on one beat) (repeat)
oo

With this system, the student does not have to enter metric counting until a higher level. Metric counting works well for bands, orchestras, ensembles, choral groups.

In piano, many notes are played at once, some with sustained notes, and moving parts, the only way to keep track of everything (simplifying) is to note it's construction (the symbol) and do a duration count, or when proficient in counting, a steady metronomic beat from within.

This is only one part of reading a piece of music, the others being note name, fingering impulse, keyboard location, touch intended (dynamic,staccato, legato, accents)and duration (attack/release).

I also do eye movement training in the first lesson by the way my pre-charts are structured so that the eye moves equidistantly to the next note so that the present moment (beat) is moving ahead in a consistant speed because of the eye movement.

Some of these tricks are what I would like to incorporate and show as missing parts in method books. They don't show the system as a whole that you are moving through, the progressive steps in thinking from within. The pianist needs to hear him/herself thinking with the "inner voice".

This is what my "Piano Power" is all about - teaching recognition and action as one step.

Betty

I learned a long time ago about changing perspectives. You look at things from a different angle and you see new things. Some call it "paradigm shift".

I've just had one to day - first John, then Betty, writing about the notes being divided. It should have been obvious - "breve" "semi breve", "quarter" "half" "hemi" "demi" ... everything speaks of fractions.

Yet we do the opposite. We count forward. Sometimes we count the two eighth notes in a quarter, and mentally the quarter gets the value of 2. We count our measure to completion: 3/4 time 1 - 2 - 3 (done) 1 - 2 - 3 (done).

Does it make a difference if we think fractionally? What if we perceive the measure as a unit, the beats as fractions within that unit with its strongs and lights gifiving rhythms. Will that make a subtle change to our playing as some underlying primordial rhythm emerges?

It is something to wrap one's head around.

1) Very useful for knowing exactly which octave you are playing in. For any interval, odd numbers (3rd, 5th etc.) are line-line or space-space. Even numbers space-line or line-space. Basic stuff and very easy for the beginner to grasp.

2) No note is any more complicated than another. As others point out they are simply divisions of the whole note.

3) Without the space between the staves it would be less clear which hand plays what.

4) No problem. G clef marks the G above middle C. Also known as the 'treble' clef meaning high. F clef marks the F below middle C. Also known as the 'bass' clef meaning low. It is not common for the clefs to be constantly changed in most pieces.

5) Also not common unless you are dealing with more advanced music. To be honest, I have never had a student who has given this a second thought. Certainly none have been confused by it.

6) Don't understand what you mean. Is it that you can usually only fit 6 measures on each line? So what? How many measures would you like on each line?

I've a question regarding the piece itself...

The second measure of the last line there's a triangle with C#, E, C Nat. I have never before seen anything written like this. Does it mean to play them all at the same time? (I assume it does.) Why did they not write D-flat, E, C instead?

For that matter, two measures following, there's the chord: E, B-Nat., C-flat. What?

Yes, they are played together. It's not possible to notate them like other intervals.

Grieg has 3 voices going in the RH. Thus, to illustrate the harmonic progression properly, he maintains the 3 voices, even though on a piano, you can only play 2.

This is a mistake in the score. Judging by the LH notes and the direction of the harmony in the RH I would say it should be G-Nat, B-flat, C-sharp.

I'm using this as a learning opportunity. John v.D. Brook tells us that the two voices merge at that point (Cb, B nat.) and that it lies in the rhealm of formal theory - the three voices must remain three voices. Chris H. tells us that there is a mistake in the score and that this chord should be (G, Bb C#) instead of (G# B Cb).

I've only "just" finished my rudimentary theory and have barely begun harmony. But it seems that harmony theory puts out to daylight what the ear expects to hear after a lifetime of having heard classical music which is built on said harmony. So I'm giving it a shot as an exercise.

The chord after the offending chord are (F# B# C) - another set of enharmonic equivalents. This all happens just before the "molto crescendo". So in the score there are two chords with unisons, effectively giving us two notes instead of three. And these surprising chords happen just before a major change in the music which is pp just before a sudden strong crescendo to an unknown dynamic (we don't have p. 2). Thought - the sound "thins out" by having only two notes so that the crescendo can be all the more effective.

Went to the piano: listened for the patterns. The unison notes make sense. I don't have enough theory to write it out formally: those two chords with unisons lead into whatever happens next (resolve?). Chris, your correction of the score sounds wrong, like it doesn't belong. I would think there is no error in the score.

The chords work wonderfully with the molto crescendo, becoming wider and fatter, and at the end warmly and richly major. After that my imagination is going wild and I risk waxing lyrical, so I'll shut up before I make a fool of myself.

Chris H is correct in deducing that the 2nd treble chord in m27 is in error ... the offending "flat and natural" have accidentally
been promoted to the top two notes ... and should correctly drop to modify the lower two notes ... to read C#/B flat/ G natural .

This correction completes the gentle bottom voice chromatic run from C to the keynote D at m30 (picking up LH octaves)

Thanks folks for the very individual responses to the 6 anomalies ... mostly in support of the system of notation .

The word word anomaly means a deviation from the rule ... most musicians little realize that each of the 6 are irregular and would not be tolerated in the scientific classroom.

All other fields of mathematical endeavour use the familiar x/y axis format to snap true graphic shape.

Music bumbles along using a notation with anomalies (suggested improvements are bracketed)

1. Note locations and their octaves alternate confusingly ... on or in-between lines ... (need for identical settings)

2. Small notes require extra space (logically small notes should require less space)

3. Treble and bass staves are split
(complimentary hand roles are distinct - no need to break)

4. Clef symbol interchange (clef dis-location is eliminated with use of a grand-stave)

5. Measure lengths are dependent on complexity of note content (but should match the even beat of a regular pulse)

6. Continuity of musical flow hampered by line breaks (Musical flow should not be subject to measure limitations)

Thank you everybody for your much valued interest.

In that order? In the score I printed out (your score) the order of the notes from bottom to top are G B C, not C B G.

What about the subsequent chord which also has enharmonic equivalents, namely B# and C natural?
Are they also in error. That sharp is definitely across from the B and not the C.

repeat

C# (carried over from the previous chord)
B flat
G natural

Thank you. I'm still learning formal music. If someone write C# Bb G, in what order are we to understand the notes? Which is the bottom note conventionally?

keystring, I would list the notes in order of bass note first. This would be G, Bb, C#. In the following bar there is no unison or enharmonic equivalent. The notes are F#, Bb, C#. I think you are reading the # sign as belonging to the B rather than the C.

So, the three chords (from the mistake) are...

G, Bb, C#

F#, Bb, C#

F, Bb, C#

This matches the notes used in the LH part so it makes sense. Also, it is similar to the previous 4 bars where the top two notes remain the same and the lower note is a chromatic rise and fall.