Cleaning up some notation
So, I'm working on transcribing Ornstein's 4th piano sonata (I posted on it before, over some tuplets that extend beyond a single measure; I think I have that handled when I get to it though), and there's one part that I'm not exactly sure how to notate. Specifically, Musescore doesn't really play nicely with what he's trying to show, and I doubt any other software is by default either. So, any advice on how to notate this?
It's a pseudo-arpeggio, except there starts to be problems since there's a whole lot of adjacent notes playing at once.
Actually, in general, how would one notate in Musescore (the proper way, specifically) playing, say, a natural and a sharp of the same note at the same time? I've usually seen it transcribed as both noteheads adjacent to each other, with whichever note has an accidental off to the right with the accidental spanning the gap, and the stem being diagonal to meet the principal note stem. You can see an example in what I linked above. How would one go about doing that in Musescore, or is there a more modern way of notating this that Musescore does better?
Comments
There is, of course no easy way to do this. I have had a stab at it using three approaches -
1] Use Horizontal offsets to move noteheads and accidentals; add diagonal lines to indicate linked notes
2] Move some notes up with cross-staff beaming- requires a bit of studying beforehand but at least it's fairly clear.
3] Use sharps everywhere instead of flats. Maybe use double-sharps if they would help (possibly not in this case, though)
4] (not illustrated) - Add a temporary third stave.
You can't put accidentals on the second note of a tie in 2.0.3 so if you want to do it you have to use 2.1 (which is what I use daily). You CAN do ties from one voice to another, so if you set up your notes with their ties and then move the 1/2 notes and accidentals around you can make it look very close. You will need to use 2.1 to see the accidentals on the half notes, but the file opens fine in 2.0.3 with the accidentals missing.
What is very interesting is that the printer used different arrangements of the half notes in all of the measures, even when the notes are identical.
Maybe, some enharmonic notes make the look clear; Maybe not...
Just a suggestion. (But, isn't correct tonal notation):
This guy clearly had very big hands.
In reply to This guy clearly had very big by AndreasKågedal
The opposite, actually; I'll quote from here :
"Although some of the piano pieces are simple to play, in general his extraordinary pianistic ability is manifested in the difficulty of much of his piano music. Thanks to this same pianism, however, the music often lies happily under the hand and is a pleasure to play. Looking at some of his works it is difficult to believe that Ornstein himself had an unusually small hand. In later life he felt that it had been madness for someone with a hand of that size to attempt to play the piano professionally."
In reply to The opposite, actually; I'll by LuuBluum
Explains why he wrote the arpeggio that way. He can play one note at a time with the pedal down.