by L.A. Williams (Gibson Co.)
August 1911, Crescendo Magazine
But to make this discussion more specific: Why should the viola part be written in the tenor clef? Because it is tenor voice and, therefore, belongs there. But is this any reason why the notation of that clef should be different than the treble? The viola player can read treblc–he has to because of our present day musical inanity.
Why should the violin-cello part be written in the bass clef? Because it is bass voice and should therefore be written with the clef sign indicating the correct voice, as should also the Mando-cello. Look at the Violon-cello scores, – a few measures in bass clef, then a few in tenor, following with perhaps a whole strain in treble or tenor. Isn’t the Violon-cello hard enough to play without ths fol-de-rol in notation, notwithstanding the idealist scruples of some artists?
But weren’t you for the treble clef for the tenor Mandola and Mando-cello?
Yes, and am yet if Universal Notation cannot yet be for our instruments. Obviously, change of clef from treble to tenor and bass respectively (thus securing Universal Notation) for tenor Manodla and Mando-cello will in nowise affect the reading of these present parts which are are already in treble clef, –which is the reading notation advocated for all clefs; but with the present treble clef sign, the proper score voicing for tenor Mandola and Mando-cello is not given. The tenor and bass clef signs, respectively and properly placed to preserve treble notation for tenor Mandola and Mando-cello, give a distinction without a difference, – a distinction in voice without a difference in notation,- which is both the ideal and the absolute. It is the last word of the notation question for all instruments.
But how about the Mando-bass,-going to put that in the Treble clef?
Certainly, if universal notation cannot be realized. It is not as much wrong (if to make a part easy is to make it wrong) for Manclo-bass in treble clef as Mando-ccllo, for the Mando-bass is not thus made a transposing instrument while the Mando-cello is; and as the latter is sanctioned by both the publishers of America and abroad, as well as the American Guild, why give antiquity and diversity another boost by thus emphasizing an ancient, needless clef notation for hte Mando-bass?
But if the Mando•bass is put into the notation of the treble clef, this will necessitate an extra part instead of being able to use the double bass part of the Violin family, and you’ve just been talking about economy to the publisher, dealer, jobber, etc. What consistency is there in such an argument?
Listen: ,vhen the arranger adapts a Violin orchestra score to Mandolin orchestra. why does he not just copy first Violin part for first Mandolin? Both have the melody. They are both in the same notation. Why does he rewrite and rearrange the part, put in pick stroke when necessary, change the octaves, adapt the fingering, put in double stops, mark the slurring (indicating the tremolo), etc., etc.? Will anyone argue, even the publisher himself, that he should issue but one part and that the same for Violin and Mandolin orchestra? Everyone knows each of hte two instruments has individual characteristics that demand individual treatment and that likewise require individual technical application and interpretation.
The same apply to the Mando-bass, only doubly so, because of the two methods in playing, namely, – the forefinger and occasionally thumb stroke as one method, and the use of the plectrum as the other. Moreover the mando-bass has a wealth of harmonics that are
both powerful and usable, as well as double stops and octaves not playable on the double-bass because not bowable. Moreover, the pizzicato on the Mando-bass is a sustained tone unless dampered. And all of the above only begins to tell the differences that the arranger must recognize and the player understand. But how can he understand unless adequately indicated on the printed page for his individual instrument, –which gives evidence that two printed parts are absolutely essential to the best effects obtainable so why use a needless celf notation when it will not save publishing an extra part?
But how can the present bass clef notation be needless when constantly used by the legitimate Violin orchestra throughout the world?
While All Things Are Ours, Why Set Our Minds Mainly Upon Lumberous Trumpery?
Say, You, we’re trying to help the Mandolin Orchestra travel automobile. If you insist on hitching old Bob to the old phaeton and clucking and whipping your way through live, you’re welcome to it. Already the automobile proper has pushed aside people worshipful of antiquity. A few have been run into, they got up rubbed the dust of of their eyes and found the very thing they had been fighting made life easier and better.
It’s not, in fact, anything to be proud of to stand on a par with those who are looked back upon as opposed to the railroad, electric lights, sewing machines, and the printing press, yet everything progressive has always met with the same opposition from those immediately affected who were engaged in perpetuating the old custom.
But do you mean to say you would do away with the bass clef notation entirely for all instruments?
That’s the ideal. It’s always in advance of the real. We hope to live to see it realized. Meanwhile, we’ll publish our piano parts with bass clef notation, –not because it ought to be but because reforms cannot be brought about instantaneously, no matter how right or ideal. But we must see the trend of advanced thinkers and bend every effort to at least start new instruments right; and as the Mando-bass is new, it’s time to grapple with this question for it’s easier to build right than to tear down and build over (witness Banjo chaotic notation.)
Then what’s the stunt?
Merley put the F or bass clef sign on top line of staff, making top line F reading like the treble clef and “it’s did, Mable, it’s did,” and the coming generations of all Christendom will rise to the call this body of progressives (?) blessed.
And do you think that any such action as this will be taken by the American Guild?
It’s hardly probable the American Guild has thought much about it. Some of its members have. Those who think seriously in any organization are always in the minority, and as the majority rules–reforms are not speedily carried. The American Guild is very properly a conservative body. This is to its advantage as well as its detriment. The Guild history shows that several years of agitation are necessary to get most any reform through, –not because it shouldn’t be but because it’s necessary in order that its members may become sufficiently informed to vote intelligently. Our freedom lies in choosing whether to move with progress or against it, for we may more easily continue to oppose and misuse the very notation that would bless us, but in so doing we only postpone the lesson we at sometime are fated to learn.
Those Who Cannot See the Desirability of Universal Notation Are the More Entitled to It, for their Need Is Greater.
We today are bearing with heroic resignation the irritating follies of others without even a criticism, – to-wit: our present four notations, fictitious or list prices, etc., and some of us are ready to take up the cudgels against any individual or body of progressives who even suggests lifting our burdens. In fact, there is always plenty of “ridicule from the unthinking horde who, lacking real insight and out-sight, have only giggle and guffaw for anything not in the dog eared horn book.”
But so-called “impossible barriers” ought not be a real hindrance to our progress in the line of duty. If we have anything to do that we ought to do, we should do it. The fact that a thing cannot be done that should be done, is only an added reason for its doing and, regardless of the seeming paradox, that which can not be done but should be done will be done sooner or later.
Our trouble is that we fail to use our inheritance (divinity) for all it is worth. And we can’t wait for results even when we do use it. Publishers are now kicking because of the little sale of C notation Banjo music. Yet when they voted for it they knew it would take ten years to be universally realized for America. But it will take 20 years, if Publishers now vacillate or some or all go back exclusively to the “A”, for every rising generation will have its progressives and history will be repeated and the question re-decided, and then started over again.
If it may take fifty years to realize universal notation,–but what of it? “If God wants to make an oak he takes a hundred years; but he can make a squash in six months.” Is the Guild to stand for the squash variety of merit, worth, growth and effort, –something that in the absolute and down in our hear of hears we all know is not wanted or is best and must be destined through dry rot to oblivion,–namely the four notations,–the present bass clef notation for the Mando-bass?
Guild opportunities are everywhere and much needed and waiting to be wired, and it does look “more universaler than it usen’t to” when she (opportunity–universal notation) seeks us out, and thrusts herself upon us by the adoption of a new instrument,–the Mando-bass.
Mando-bass technique.
As the Mando-bass is tuned in fourths (not in fifths, as all the rest of the Mandolin family), the fingering, therefore, is different than in any of the Mandolin family. But this does not argue for a bass clef notation, for the instrument is more readily played by the Guitarist than the Mandolinist. The size of the body makes difficult getting the right hand into a position where the strings may be tremoloed with a pick, except in a diagonal direction of attack instead of at right angles. The pick, therefore, if thus used, wipes or rubs the strings into vibration and accordingly does not enunciate or articulate with the clearance of precision as when picked with the forefinger. Furthermore, as the shorter the string the more rapid the vibration, so the longer the string the slower the vibration. Then the strings of the Mando-bass are necessarily slow in asserting themselves. Therefore, a tremolo on these heavy basses, if used at all, must be a slow tremolo, such as eighths or sixteenths, or the pick – the very thing that is supposed to augment the power of tone – will, on the contrary, lessen it. Again the quality of tone is decidedly better from a leather pick, if pick be used: but after the player has exhausted experimenting with the pick he is quite sure to adopt the right forefinger stroke in setting the strings in vibration, which secures the desired power and quality of tone. The tremolo is not necessary except in sustained tone passages, or for two, three, for or more measures of crescendo of the same bass tone, which may be reiterated by the fore-finger tremolo instead of the pick tremolo, but the latter secures greater power. There will unquestionably be pick players for the Mando-bass though as used abroad the tremolo is seldom employed. The significance of the above is that the Mando-bass is peculiarly adapted to the Guitarist rather than the Mandolinist.
Simply write the music for Mando-bass in the bass clef with the P or bass clef sign placed upon the top line instead of fourth line, so that the part will be read the same as in treble clef but in the correct voice (as indicated by bass clef sign) without transposition, except that the part is written one octave above where it sounds, then the part can easily be played by any Guitar player, for the strings of the Guitar, from the third to the sixth inclusively, are the same in name and arrangement as those of the Mando-bass, G,D,A and E, so that any player of Guitar can play Mando-bass without extra study of clef or fingerboard.
Consistency So Now Lacking Is Desirable and Easily Securable,
Tenor Mandola and Mando-cello parts may be left in the clefs as now employed (both treble), or put in the C or tenor clef sign on C, third space, line for tenor clef, and put the F or bass clef sign on top line, same as treble clef, instead of fourth line, –and thus are both tenor and bass instruments place in their respective clefs, giving the proper score voicings and retaining the reading of the present treble or universal notation. Changes of clefs for any other instruments need not necessarily enter into our present thinking or discussing, but the above change of clef notation for Mando-bass should, in the writer’s opinion, be voted upon in this Convention lest the publishers know not the pleasure of the Guild and adopt diversity of clefs for the Mando-bass at the expense of uniformity, –and uniformity should be our slogan.
Why Cleave to the Mud and Mire of a Precedent Not Yet Emerged from the Earth?
Why should it be necessary to argue against a self-evident absurdity?
Why should it be necessary to argue for a self-evident truth?
Why use the present bass clef notation for Mando-bass when neither the Mandolin nor Guitar family of instruments has heretofore required study or familiarity with this clef?
Why use the reading of the present treble clef which puts the music for the Mando-bass out of its proper score voice?
Why not use the present treble clef notation with bass clef sign properly affixed on top line thus adopting universal notation, inasmuch as one notation only is necessary, and that the one mostly used and the one familiar to all players of the mandolin and guitar family which players can read at sight without extra study of clef or finger-board?
In the light of the above, are we to break our minds on small observations and not recognize the utility of the universal idea? Can’t we be practical as well as artistic? Or must our idealistic scruples hold us with bars of steel to red tape, tommy-rot and poppy-cock, just as the same idealistic scruples held back the tenor Mandola and Mando-cello for years till treble clef was adopted for these instruments. All these years tenor Mandolas and Mando-cellos were hanging in two factories that we know of,–and the Lord only knows in how many others,–but the tenor and bass clef insistency of idealists gave these instruments a side entrance into the grave. Nobody could sell them. Nobody would play them, for nobody would learn tenor and bass clef. Would any idealist here present argue that it would have been better or be better now to dispense with these instruments form the Mandolin Orchestra and go back to large Mandolin clubs doubling parts to accommodate the idealistic scruples of the few artists who strenuously opposed the treble clef movement? Isn’t it a little more sane that when the action of a remedy is worse than the disease it is better to dispense with that remedy?
Progress is the law of God, but when the vain idealism of man conflicts with laws of God, man is pretty sure to get the worst of it as did the manufacturer before treble clef adoption; and when the manufacturer suffers the profession suffers, the publisher suffers, we all suffer for we are all bound together.
If the will of the unprogressives and ultra-conservatives (who many now be in the majority) goes astray against reason and judgement in voting bass clef notation for the Mando-bass, the manufacturer has be two ways to go,–cease making the instrument which can not be largely sold at most, or go contrary to the vote of the Guild, publish music himself that the player can read without the extra study of clef or finger-board, and thus create a market for this instrument. In either case the manufacturer wins, for if the Guild and the publishers go for bass notation, you may depend upon it the players will buy from the house that publishes music requiring no extra study of clef for Mandolin and Guitar players are not, generally speaking, musicians, and, therefore, are averse to studying or learning any needless clef notation. On the other hand, if you grant the contention of the manufacturer, you acknowledge his solution to the problem is right and, therefore, in either case the manufacturer wins and not only for America but abroad as well.
To therefore, legislate with a reverence for precedent that out-weighs present actualities is to do well that which is not worth doing at all, and is establishing a policy that is contracting instead of expanding in tendency, when our policy should be making the point that yesterday was invisible, our goal to-day, and tomorrow our starting post.
If great advantage is to be gained by writing high or low parts in various notations rather than marking 8va. above or below, it’s a wonder some of the 4 clef notationists do not agree to increase or present clef notations and have another, a high or super-treble clef notation for flute, piccolo and their like, as well as a contra-bass clef notation so that the bass viol part and its like might indicate absolute pitch instead of as now written. The bass vil in fact sounds an octave lower than written. In other words, if four notations are so desirable to be perpetuated that absolute pitch may be conveniently be preserved within the various clef notations, and these same clef notations are universally recognized as inadequate for convenient present absolute pitch orchestrations, it must be time (is it?) to condemn the long historical ascendancy of elimination of clef notations and to immediately invent at least two more notations for the two extremes of high and low voices or parts!! Why not thus argue and be consistent?
But no! Your consistency (!) is without either logic or reason, for neither in theory nor practices do you agree nor can you agree. You offend against reason and are offended by reason, and now would conceal the absolute of notation ideality–universal notation–from the music world lest you lose your guardianship over a coercing precedent. Like Nero, ye count all things good which immediately please, regardless of ultimate consequences.
All things are ready if our minds be so, but when there sit in our midst men who know the talking machine can not be, nor wireless telegraphy, nor “bird men”, then do we know these are myths, as is likewise universal notation, and Edison, Marconi, and the Wright brothers are crazy, as is also anyone who talks of the universality of notation. Let’s stay planted and rooted to diversity of notations,–the very genesis of musical dogma,–for if there be a “why” that gets into our musical vocabulary and sets us thinking it might lose us our dogma, which now so seemeth to constitute our musical immortality.!
The Depth of Perverted Musical Consciousness Before the Process of Rectification
The impressive phase of every argument by him who lauds the old and harder way, is that he does not appear to realize his words re-freighted with nothing but self-accusation and self-condemnation. It’s “I can do something hard and needless and it didn’t take but a little of my time to learn how,–therefore you can and should do it because all the great who have preceded us have done it.
In fact all the world before us have made the same mistakes. Then, why should not we instead of profiting by and mending our mistakes, deliberately work and vote to perpetuate them, for verily or glory doth not consist in falling, but rather in staying down wherever we fall, for its more musicianly to perpetuate error, –and we should at all hazards be musicianly.”
He does not quite stick this sentiment to the fore in such plain English, –he doesn’t have to. He plants himself squarely in front of the wheels of progress and assures us that the logic of facts is without meaning or value. Only precedent is paramount. And thus the most insidious, subtle, and fascinating dangers to Guild progress and achievement, as well as individual or organized initiative, are perpetuated.
The writer is aware there are a number of so-called explanations which the conventional musician is able to formulate as a basis or working hypothesis for perpetuating this vain and foolish twaddle, any one of which is more satisfactory to him than is the truth fully demonstrated. He is simply so bound by his habit of playing and thinking in four clef notations that he cannot now trust the integrity of his own senses which give intellectual assent, but which can not change the affection of his heart for the old with which he is accustomed.
Thus we see to what heights and depths of absurdity precedent worship leads us. Even within the hearing of this article are our good brother Ultra-Conservatists who cannot help but regret that musical error and dogma are being unearthed, for both have served us so kindly notwithstanding this same Musical Error and Dogma are ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing that keeps the masses from musical education by frightening them away at the start.
Years ago the writer’s first piano teacher didn’t know why the bass clef should read differently than the treble, and nobody has told why since. She would have changed it but she couldn’t for it takes organization to carry reforms.
Given a musician’s heredity and environment, one can say with certainty just what he believes concerning this question. And this brings us to the realization that there are other requirements which enter a proper advance movement of the matter in hand than the truth of the question itself or the rightness or accuracy of the writer. These other requirements rest upon those within the hearing of this article and comprise, in fact, a willingness as well as understanding on their part commensurate with the importance of the question presented. If we have a bigotry of faith without understanding, or a bigotry of understanding without faith, the true success of the issue runs a terrible gauntlet.
Furthermore, if we as a body do not reach our proper destination in achieving bigger things each year, it is because of our conservative principles, not because of insurmountable obstacles.