I find the transpose window very confusing.
”Quality”??
”Perfect/Augmented”??
”Calculate interval”??
”number of divisions → Quality Major”???
When selecting “unison” why can I select -3/12, -2/12 …. → +2/12?
Maybe on a very good day I would be able to see the system behind the transpose window, but not today
I often want to transpose a passage. I never use a key, I do atonal music.
So what is the easy way to e.g. transpose a passage a tritone down? Not following a scale, but simply moving all notes 6 half notes down?
I’d like Dorico to remove double sharps or flats. I figure that’s what the “respell to avoid double sharps or flats” option is for.
Have you looked at the manual section for this dialog?
If you want to transpose down by a tritone, you need to decide whether you want to use an augmented fourth or a diminished fifth. This choice will affect the spelling of all notes: an augmented fourth down from C is Gb; a diminished fifth down from C is F#.
Don’t forget, there are two kinds of tritones: diminished fifths and augmented fourths. You have to decide which you want before you can transpose that interval. (Your composition may be atonal, but transposing isn’t)
I know from Blues Brothers that there are two kinds of music - country & western
But I didn’t know that even though my composition is atonal, transposing isn’t?
I e.g. usually pick E flat instead of D sharp because I like the look of it better.
But that’s exactly what I mean. You’ve beat me to it in explaining!!! Let’s say you’re transposing a tritone down from the note A natural. You have a choice. E-flat or D-sharp. If you choose E-flat, you’ve gone down an augmented fourth (Four letters involved, A,G,F,E). If you choose D-sharp, you’ve gone down a diminished fifth (Five letters involved, A,G,F,E,D). The issue is indeed whether it ‘looks better’ or not, as you say. (In other words, is it easier to read.)
I write a lot of atonal music, too. but if I want to transpose, I have to decide what interval to transpose by. In notation there’s no such interval as six semitones. Each semitone has to be defined as an augmented prime or a diminished second. In other words, from A to the next available note downward is either A-flat or G-sharp. You have to decide which it is. It can’t be both at once. (Your fingers may think so, but the paper you’re putting the notes on doesn’t.) That’s what I meant by saying that transposing isn’t atonal. (That’s a consequence of using the tempered scale. In a ‘pure’ scale, A-flat and G-sharp aren’t the same note, as I’m sure you know.)
My own practice is to see which way has fewer accidentals total in the new version. I pick that one. If an augmented fourth looks better I pick that. If a diminished fifth, then that. Or I sometimes mix and match. That is, I use enharmonic spelling to simplify the look. (In truly atonal music, the name you choose for a note hardly matters!)
If you wish further discussion on the issue, I suggest you PM me, as by now I’m sure I’ve bored the heck out of most forum members who read this.
Theoretically true, of course, but as a post-tonal composer I will say that when there are enharmonic choices to be made, I generally favor the best “linear” spelling for players (Ab if moving to G; G# if moving to A, etc).
So, @steinfeld, @L3B’s suggested Dorico technique — picking the transposition (nterva; that will net the greatest number of spellings you want — is a good one, but I find that “massaging” is always necessary.
I agree. But there are cases where this isn’t adequate. A whole tone scale for example. Where do you put the ‘odd’ written interval? I also use an eight note scale (alternating whole and half steps) quite a bit. At some point this requires repeating a note name. (Unless I’m in Germany.) The questions is: where in the scale do I make this adjustment?
I agree that massaging the result is very often necessary. But the simpler***-looking*** the results of that massage are, the better, in my opinion.
I’m quite certain we’re in “violent agreement” () on this. As I’ve written here with some frequency, the quirkiness of spelling post-tonal pitches using a tonally-oriented system are bound to cause “awkward” spellings such as in cases you mention.
My point is simply that for me, when there are good-looking options, “simple” is oriented towards the individual players reading parts over the vertical-slice-and-dice that a conductor might have to grapple with reading. (I figure, the two or three who are even willing to perform such music are prepared to deal with it. .)
As for that case, that’s why I never use fourth- (or, if you prefer, sixth-) order all-combinatorial hexachords.
) on this. As I’ve written here with some frequency, the quirkiness of spelling post-tonal pitches using a tonally-oriented system are bound to cause “awkward” spellings such as in cases you mention.
.)