[BRAVURA] What does this represent?

[erelievonen]

Actually, the numbers used with these clefs does not appear to be figured bass of the practical type at all, since #'s are used instead of the slashes through the numbers that are most common in figured bass notation.

The slashes are indeed common in practical figured bass (I wouldn't dare to say "most common", as there exist different traditions). That doesn't mean that the notation with accidentals is not used in practical figured bass just as well.

For that reason, and also because we say (at least in English, it would be interesting to know about other languages) "play a flat-five" not play a "five flat" [...] I think that the numbers should display as in the figured bass used in music analysis.

That is an appallingly Anglocentric argument! We only need to think of all the Romanic languages, where (as far as I know) the words are read in the opposite order (e.g. "quinte diminuée").
I could also argue that it makes more sense to place the more significant symbol (the interval number) first, followed by the symbol (accidental) that qualifies the first symbol.
But since I am used to reading those symbols in either order, I don't really care. In fact I believe that a worldwide consensus on the symbol order will be impossible to ever achieve, precisely because of different usage in different languages.

[erelievonen]

However, I could imagine it being useful to employ, for the horn, a bass clef with 5 below. [...]

Ted Ross' book features this exact application, and it's worth noting that this is the only glyph in this particular SMuFL group featuring the bass clef (or any clef besides treble for that matter).

I am in agreement with others about the questionable usefulness of most of the myriad transposing treble clefs.
But let's for a moment suppose that we would actually want to use those treble clefs to indicate the precise transposition of each instrument. I could imagine that, for example, in a wind orchestra score with a lot of different (and possibly unusual) transpositions, that might be helpful. (You wouldn't even need to indicate each instrument's transposition in the left margin, and every transposition would still be totally clear from the clef.)
But... what's the point of even trying to do this, if the font doesn't have any transposing bass clefs (apart from that one with the 5 below)? There are also transposing instruments that are written in the bass clef!
This is a half-baked feature if there ever was one. I cannot see why a font should have dozens of transposing treble clefs if it didn't have transposing bass clefs as well. And I could think of a few transposing instruments in other clefs, too!

[Knut]

But... what's the point of even trying to do this, if the font doesn't have any transposing bass clefs (apart from that one with the 5 below)? There are also transposing instruments that are written in the bass clef!

Beats me! However, given SMuFL's very broad scope in terms of application, it is possible that these clefs are meant to be used outside of the 'normal' situations all of you naysayers seem to be thinking of.

As I've stated earlier, I can't really see these clefs being very useful in written music either, outside of a purely analytical or pedagogical context. Since SMuFL is also developed to meet certain needs of the web based scoring community, and since, to my understanding, Sternberg's application will use vector outlines exclusively for their Icon display, there is also the possibility that these clefs are meant purely as visual representations of transposition outside of a regular scoring situation.

Personally, I won't judge the merit of these clefs until I'm sure of their intended usage.

[John Ruggero]

Ere wrote:

The slashes are indeed common in practical figured bass (I wouldn't dare to say "most common", as there exist different traditions). That doesn't mean that the notation with accidentals is not used in practical figured bass just as well.

My point was that I have never seen slash notation used in the figured bass used in music analysis; therefore the interval figures used with these octave signs in Bravura seems to me to be more in the music analysis style and, for the same reason, the accidental should precede the number because this is also in the music analysis style that I am familiar with.

John Ruggero wrote:

For that reason and also because we say (at least in English, it would be interesting to know about other languages) "play a flat-five" not play a "five flat",

Ere wrote:

That is an appallingly Anglocentric argument! We only need to think of all the Romanic languages, where (as far as I know) the words are read in the opposite order (e.g. "quinte diminuée").

I certainly didn't mean to be Anglocentric, Ere, and I am very sorry if I gave offense.

If I had said that b5 is read "diminished fifth" in English and therefore etc.…I think that would have been Anglocentric.

But I had a hope that the phrase "flat-five", which probably originated in jazz and pop music and then migrated to the "serious" side, might have become international, as other pop culture phrases have become, or at least had a close parallel in other languages that might have reversed the normal word order. That is why I said that "it would be interesting to know about other languages" because I was looking to legitimize my argument from other languages. Obviously, if the phrase is limited to English, the point has no validity. And in thinking back, the point is not a strong one in any case. The stronger point has to do with the style of figuring being used as I explain above.

Sometimes one intends to say one thing, says it badly, and it can be interpreted another way, especially in an international setting. I try to be very aware of that when I post, but I can see that I am not always successful. I'll try to do better in the future.

[erelievonen]

My point was that I have never seen slash notation used in the figured bass used in music analysis; therefore the interval figures used with these octave signs in Bravura seems to me to be more in the music analysis style and, for the same reason, the accidental should precede the number because this is also in the music analysis style that I am familiar with.

For today's score users, music analysis may indeed be a more relevant source of reference than figured bass.
But what about all the music analysis styles you're not familiar with? Would they not count?

I certainly didn't mean to be Anglocentric, Ere, and I am very sorry if I gave offense.
[...]
But I had a hope that the phrase "flat-five", which probably originated in jazz and pop music and then migrated to the "serious" side, might have become international, as other pop culture phrases have become, or at least had a close parallel in other languages that might have reversed the normal word order. That is why I said that "it would be interesting to know about other languages" because I was looking to legitimize my argument from other languages. Obviously, if the phrase is limited to English, the point has no validity. And in thinking back, the point is not a strong one in any case. The stronger point has to do with the style of figuring being used as I explain above.

No offense taken, John. I meant it more along the lines of "Someone could be appalled at such an argument..." - Where is the "tongue-in-cheek" emoji when you need it? After all, you did express an interest in knowing about other languages. And even in my native tongue, the word order in question is the same as in English!

I believe the English expression "flat five" is quite well known among musicians worldwide. Yet I think it is very unlikely that the word order for describing intervals would ever get reversed in those languages where the "number" comes before the "accidental". Not only because old habits die hard, but also because that order makes a lot of sense. As I've said before, it makes sense that the more significant "digit" comes before the less significant "digit" (the accidental). Isn't that how our Arabic numeral system works as well? The hundreds come before the tens, the tens come before the ones.

There are other comparable incongruences between written and spoken symbol order which don't seem to bother anyone.
For example: in English, we say F sharp and B flat. How would you react if someone suggested that English-speaking people should change their note names to "sharp F" and "flat B", because in staff notation, the accidental comes before the notehead?

[John Ruggero]

Ere wrote:

But what about all the music analysis styles you're not familiar with? Would they not count?

As an ardent Schenkerian, I can say without hesitation that those other systems don't count! [Now I need the tongue-in-cheek thingy, but I don't see one over there. (-: ]

Actually, I think my impression of the normality of the flat before the number may also have to a lot to do with jazz and pop chord notation that I am familiar with (East Coast style) which also has the accidental (and other symbols) before the number, hence "flat five". Apparently Wikipedia (English version) also thinks that this is normative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_nam ... lar_music)

But you are right, I am just reporting my own impression of what I have seen, and that is limited. I would be interesting to see analysis that uses the reversed symbols just for my own education. Almost every theory of music has its own notational innovations and that interests me. All except the Riemannian symbols, that is, because I have such a distaste for the theory behind them.

A student of mine, an advanced pianist, once brought in an original piece, their first, with all the accidentals written after the notes they pertained to. When asked why, the student said "Because it is a C...sharp" pointing to the symbols in succession. I was amazed. "But look at this piece by Bach that you are playing, the sharps are before the notes." Then the student was amazed!

[John Ruggero]

So, I guess the strongest argument in favor of "accidental first" as being the "natural" order is that that is the way we now write it in musical notation: the accidental first and then the note or in this case a number representing a note. Why and how this has come to be is an interesting question, and there may have been times in the musical history when it was not true.

[dspreadbury]

Those clefs were requested by Emil Wojtacki, an engraver who works primarily on Polish and other eastern European music, and has done with work with major publishers of this repertoire, such as PWM. These clefs apparently came into use in the middle of the 20th century to more clearly indicate the transposition properties of wind and brass instruments in concert scores (i.e. scores in C).

I'm not personally crazy about them (though I am pleased with how Emil's design turned out, and with the implementation of them in Bravura as OpenType ligatures, which is neat), and I would probably personally not use them: there are, after all, not so many wind and brass instruments out there that you can't learn their transpositions.

[erelievonen]

Those clefs were requested by Emil Wojtacki, an engraver who works primarily on Polish and other eastern European music, and has done with work with major publishers of this repertoire, such as PWM. These clefs apparently came into use in the middle of the 20th century to more clearly indicate the transposition properties of wind and brass instruments in concert scores (i.e. scores in C).

I'm not personally crazy about them (though I am pleased with how Emil's design turned out, and with the implementation of them in Bravura as OpenType ligatures, which is neat), and I would probably personally not use them: there are, after all, not so many wind and brass instruments out there that you can't learn their transpositions.

Thank you Daniel for the explanation. (You probably meant that these clefs are used in transposed scores, not concert pitch scores.)
Having it confirmed that these were indeed intended to be used in the context of transposing instruments still leaves me puzzled as to why only treble clefs were included.

I agree that one should be able to learn the standard transpositions of common instruments, but what about nonstandard transpositions and uncommon instruments? These do exist – and someone, somewhere, does write music using them.
A real-life example... I've played in a group that mixed modern instruments (tuned at a=440) and period instruments (tuned half tone lower at a=415). In our scores, one pitch was chosen as the main pitch, and the other instruments were treated as transposing instruments. This created some rather weird instrument designations, such as "Melodica in C#"... Of course we knew how to read our scores, but an outsider might have been baffled!