Cues, clefs, octave signs

[OCTO]

Thank you, OCTO. So would you use treble and bass clef changes to avoid octave signs when this is possible?

Yes I would do so.

[John Ruggero]

Very good. That is what I am doing.

[John Ruggero]

Sorry to beat what may be a dead horse.

I read in Gould: "It is best to notate a cue in the player's current clef, especially if the cue is short. Should this require many ledger lines transpose the cue one or more octaves and indicate the octave transposition. The resulting notation is less cluttered and thus quicker to read."

Then she goes on to say that the opposite is the case for long cues and one may change to treble or bass clef.

What do readers think of this practice?

And one other thought. In this day of chrystal-clear note size are the whole measure rests under cues really necessary? isn't note size alone sufficient?

[RMK]

And one other thought. In this day of chrystal-clear note size are the whole measure rests under cues really necessary? isn't note size alone sufficient?

Yes! and No!

[frames]

Sorry to beat what may be a dead horse.

I read in Gould: "It is best to notate a cue in the player's current clef, especially if the cue is short. Should this require many ledger lines transpose the cue one or more octaves and indicate the octave transposition. The resulting notation is less cluttered and thus quicker to read."

Then she goes on to say that the opposite is the case for long cues and one may change to treble or bass clef.

What do readers think of this practice?

And one other thought. In this day of chrystal-clear note size are the whole measure rests under cues really necessary? isn't note size alone sufficient?

For the first question I just go with whatever looks best, which might be different for different instruments and cues: as a bassist, almost all of our cues are from instruments significantly outside our default notated range, and it’s pretty common to see some pretty quick clef changes between cues and our entrances, but I also see octave-displaced cues frequently as well.

For the second question, I think rests are still absolutely necessary.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you, RMK and frames.

I have seen parts without the rests, and they look OK to me but don't have the guts to leave them out. Safety above all.

I just go with whatever looks best,

That's my philosophy too.

I am finding Gould's suggestion a good one actually and combining an Arnstein approach for very short cues with clefs for longer ones.

[OCTO]

"The best practice" is to go to IMSLP and download a lot of parts from different publishers to see how they handle cues.

Now about the cues in general.  As a violinist, I have seen many different approaches, some very helpful, others almost unusable.  Cues should be based on the musical form (i.e., phrases, sentences, cadences/closures, entrances, etc.), not on a randomly chosen "strongest" instrument, nor from a middle of a phrase where nobody understand its structure.  That is very important.  First: if the cue-instrument misses the entrance, the whole other sections could fail!  Second, if the texture is highly polyphonic and the cue is taken from the loudest instrument, it can actually make it harder to concentrate for us players, increasing the chance that we will miss our entrance, or will look at the group leader and "pray".  So, it is often better (more below) simply to indicate "16 bars' rest."

Another impression I have from playing in orchestras is the way musicians naturally count rests.  If the rest lasts for 4, 8, 16, or 32 measures, it is easy to follow because of the binary grouping, even 17 is easy: 16+1.  If, however, the passage contains changing time signatures, or has very complex polyphony, and lasts say 13 measures, it becomes much more difficult, then a cue is needed.  Most classically trained musicians have an ingrained sense of counting in groups of two: "2 + 2 (4) + 2 (6)+ …".  If this is a case, then the cue is really not needed.

[John Ruggero]

Thank you for the additional input, OCTO. This is all very valuable information. I have never considered the actual number of measures resting, other that they not exceed 10 or 12 or so and mostly less. The content and relevance of the cue is very important, as you mentioned. There should be a book on cuing with many examples, if there isn't one.

I try to put myself in the place of the player and how I might react. On the other hand, I was always nervous in my few experiences as an orchestral keyboard player because of those long waits between entrances and preferred to use a full score to reassure myself. Old habits as a chamber music musician die hard. I greatly admire orchestral musicians who bravely play with so little to guide them, especially the ones sitting in the back.

I have the impression that composers are now more knowledgeable about cues. As copyists, we would occasionally doctor parts devoid of cues, in which the musicians had penciled in their own cues peppered with a few choice non-musical comments.

[David Ward]

Here is an example, the Overture to Fidelio, of an old bass trombone part consisting mostly of rests but with no cues (apart from those I appear to have pencilled in). One might have relied mostly on memory, helped by the conductor, or failing that on accurate counting. I think these old parts have now all been replaced by adequately cued ones.

I realize that a substantial piece of mine has the five violinists (ie not a full section) counting rests like trombonists. We'd better make sure there are plenty of cues!

As a passing anecdote: in 1984 I remember violinist Nona Liddell, leader (concert master) of the London Sinfonietta, when it was the orchestra for a 50 minute theatrical piece of mine, saying in mock (I hope) despair: “He [me] is a ‘wind’ player, isn't he?”. I don't have the parts here, but I think they were well cued. (Everything went smoothly, anyway.)

[Magnus Johansson]

Here is an example, the Overture to Fidelio, of an old bass trombone part consisting mostly of rests but with no cues (apart from those I appear to have pencilled in). One might have relied mostly on memory, helped by the conductor, or failing that on accurate counting. I think these old parts have now all been replaced by adequately cued ones.

I realize that a substantial piece of mine has the five violinists (ie not a full section) counting rests like trombonists. We'd better make sure there are plenty of cues!

As a passing anecdote: in 1984 I remember violinist Nona Liddell, leader (concert master) of the London Sinfonietta, when it was the orchestra for a 50 minute theatrical piece of mine, saying in mock (I hope) despair: “He [me] is a ‘wind’ player, isn't he?”. I don't have the parts here, but I think they were well cued. (Everything went smoothly, anyway.)

Thanks again, David. Comments like this one are really interesting. What is that sign over the first bar of the second stave?