Re: Nested transposition

[Valentin Petzel]

I'm sorry, I worded that badly. I did not mean the note C#, but the scale or 
harmonic concept of C# major, that is, C#, D#, E#, F#, G#, A#, B#. While C# can 
be reached in C major, it usually belongs harmonically to A major or A dom 
major, which is quite close to C major.
But Db major is quite common, as you said, it is the base of the neapolitan 6th 
chord.

And yes, it is very well possible to get to C# major from a C major context, 
but it is usually not very common. Usually you need a good reason, and my point 
is that this particular problem is caused by the uncommon choice of C# over Db.

Anyway. Even if you have relative inside of transpose, I've found that it seems 
to cause problems with having multiple voices. And then, relative music is very 
instable anyway, so I suggest using Frescobaldi's conversion feature to write 
in relative, but to make is absolute when you are done.

Cheers,
Valentin

13.03.2021 11:18:56 Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de>:

> Am 13.03.21 um 02:16 schrieb Valentin Petzel:
>> As far as I know transpose should only really be used with absolute pitches,
>> as it would be quite impossible to do it otherwise. Think of it like this:
>> Say we are in relative mode and have c' f. Then f will be above c. If you 
>> then
>> do c' \transpose f a f, then the transposed a would be above the c – so it
>> would need an octave indication. But the octave the music has to be put into
>> depends of the previous note. So a single transpose function cannot provide
>> this.
> While that is true, I think your next two remarks are overgeneralisations:
>> So, always use absolute pitch with transpose!
> 
> \transpose and \relative live happily together as long as \transpose is 
> _outside_, so it's fine to use
> 
> \transpose c d \relative e' { ... }.
> 
> In particular, it's no problem to \transpose a complete score, no matter what 
> combination of absolute and relative note entry is used in the score.
> 
> So, I propose to rephrase your rule to:
> 
> - "Avoid using \transpose inside of \relative" ("and if you have to, remember 
> to issue a new \relative block inside the \transpose").
> 
> And of course there's
> 
> - MacMillan's strengthening: "Avoid using \relative altogether" :-). (I don't 
> agree but understand his rationale; I think it's a matter of weighing up the 
> pros and cons.)
> 
> In my experience, there are few use cases for transposition inside \relative 
> except for precisely the case situation the OP described: Enharmonic 
> respelling of a complete passage, most often needed in situations where a 
> whole-score \transpose creates awkward key signatures for some sections of 
> the score. This happens quite often when engraving Kunstlieder, for example, 
> because with them it's common to issue the same piece in various transposed 
> versions. I did an edition of Norbert Burgmüller's "Wie der Tag mir 
> schleichet" last year, 
> https://imslp.org/wiki/5_Lieder%2C_Op.12_(Burgm%C3%BCller%2C_Norbert) last 
> year, and I remember having to wrestle quite a lot with enharmonic 
> respellings for that one...
> 
>> And by the way: Lilypond transposes you example correctly. Your main problem
>> is that usually there should not be a C# in C tonality. Usually it is easier
>> to go from C to Db, which is a minor 2nd instead of an augmented prime.
> 
> I disagree that C# is an improbable note in C tonality.
> 
> In classical ("Mozartian") harmony, a C# arises in all situations where a 
> secondary dominant to ii is used, which occurs as soon as you write a 
> step-wise sequence from I to ii (or the other way around). For example, the 
> ubiquitous "fonte" model 
> (http://openmusictheory.com/schemataContinuationPatterns) automatically 
> creates a C# when used in c major.
> 
> But since of course also a Db may arise easily in a C tonality (the most 
> obvious example being as a Neapolitan Sixth), I'd argue that C#/Db is not a 
> good example of an unconditional enharmonic spelling preference in C 
> tonality. But such examples do exist of course: There are enharmonic 
> spellings that seem improbable in C tonality at least before late 19th 
> century music. My candidates would be Fb, Cb, Gb and A#, E#, B# (as well as 
> all pitches using double accidentals), whereas for all pitches occuring 
> between those in circle-of-fifths ordering, to wit
> 
> Db, Ab, Eb, Bb, {C major scale}, F#, C#, G#, D#,
> 
> it's quite easy to construct very natural occurrences in standard c major/c 
> minor tonality. And in chromatic neighbouring note situations I even wouldn't 
> be terribly surprised to find Gb or A# in a C-tonal context.
> 
> Lukas