What was I thinking? That was over two years ago now, so I have no idea. And now that I'm composing again and going through old scores (and half scores and quarter scores, etc....), I'm finding all sorts of gems like that.
And don't get me wrong, I think this bar is marvelous. When I listened to it again, it fit perfectly. I just find it incredibly peculiar. The most interesting part for me is the ambiguity of notation. How many of those are supposed to be Eb? When I use Sibelius 7 now, if I were to write that top note, it would automatically give me a courtesy accidental (fourth wall broken!), as it would if I started a new bar with an E--provided I clicked the space for E without selecting sharp, natural or flat. However, when I wrote that in Sibelius 5, it obviously didn't do that.
It is entirely possible that I wrote it without realising. At the time that was composed I was working on two or three other pieces for quartet for composition class. I quickly dropped all of them but one, so I might have missed out on this little point. I knew I wouldn't be taking the piece any further, so I wasn't too concerned with details at this point; there were no dynamics, phrasing or articulation marks to be seen.
I think its nature being accidental makes the most sense. If I really had intended the high E to be natural, I would have notated it. But I still wonder if the next E is supposed to be Eb (which is how it is played back in Sibelius). I am neither keen on the picardy third nor the split third (neither of which really fit this position, but you get my drift), which makes me doubt that it was intentional.
And yet, it sounds really good. I both lament the fact that I don't think I would have thought of that and am grateful that I have moments of...convenient forethought? I'm actually discovering a lot of inspired moments in this piece. I've spent the last few days tempering my hastiness and reorganising my thoughts, which is making it much more coherent. Onwards!
No comments:
Post a Comment