NOTATIO

Bar 125 has the clef change placed as I'd normally expect to do it, but at bar 146 I've placed the clef before the quaver (eighth) rest as that seems to lead to better spacing on the other (RH) stave.

Do people on this forum think this is OK?

FWIW tempo is = 120 and it is a piece for two singers and piano. This is a brief and slightly wayward piano interlude within in it. Performance is anticipated in London in November.

I don't care for it, David, but E. Gould agrees with you. (See example below from page 8 in her book "Mid-Bar"). I think she means for complex rhythms that might be confused by a mid-measure clef such as your example.

Incidentally, I think that there is a mistake in the first example under "At the beginning of a bar" also in the example below. She seems to be illustrating that a clef change should happen immediately before a bar line rather than immediately after a bar line. But her counterexample shows a perfectly correct mid-measure clef (encircled in the example below.) She probably intended the clef to be before the two quarter rests (but within the second measure) rather than after them.

Thank you.

Perhaps it's sometimes a case of using one's instinct/judgment rather than of applying a preset rule. In mid-June I hope to be having a meeting in London with the pianist who should be playing it, so I may draw his attention to the conundrum and seek his opinion. (He has specialized in working with singers in recitals, master classes and opera houses, so if he does have an opinion on the subject, it might be one I should note.)

In looking through a number of piano scores, the real rule is to place the clef where it will do the least damage to the spacing when rests are involved. (When there are no rests involved, the clef should be placed to avoid unnecessary ledger lines while also avoiding breaking up musical units.)

This is actually the rule that you are following. Thus in m. 126 in your example, you placed the clef in the best position to avoid damaging the spacing of the right hand, but broke Gould's rule about not placing the clef in the middle of a beat. So her rule is no rule at all, since placing "clefs between the beats rather than in the middle of a beat" can actually be more disruptive to the spacing.

a question: my first reaction, were I to engrave this, would be to leave the bottom staff as a bass clef, and simply more the high left hand notes up into the 2nd voice of the upper staff, since there's room.

Would this not be an option?
Or are there reasons not to do this?

In some piano scores I have there are notes for left hand in the upper staff, while in others the engraver changes clefs depending on the situations.

David is using the more "recent" (like from maybe 1830 on) convention to keep the hands on different staves. You prefer the earlier convention to keep the grand staff fixed and move the hands around on it, which often preserves more of the spatial aspect of the voice leading. However in the case of the example, I think the later convention is perhaps more appropriate.

so does moving the notes from one staff to the other (the older convention) seem"outdated" in your opinion? or still acceptable?

I'm trying to decide whether or not I should consider taking on the "newer" way of doing things.

Looking at the piano reduction of my viola concerto, I'm noticing that I've gone both ways!

Where I felt the spacing would make reading uncomfortable, I kept both hands on individual staves, and where the music density was much lighter, I moved notes from staff to staff depending upon where it was needed.

Many composers have combined the two systems in just the way that you are describing. I think that that is probably the best course.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑18 May 2023, 02:46 Many composers have combined the two systems in just the way that you are describing. I think that that is probably the best course.

I agree! Minting hard rules is risky as we've seen with Gould.

Just a tiny detail:
In your example, David, you place the bass clef before the eighth rest in m. 146, but after it in m. 125. Wouldn't the spacing benefit from using the placement in m. 146 in both places?

These are all interesting and helpful responses, which I shall ponder.

In this case things are kept simple and easy to change by the piece's being only 14 pages, 205 bars, eight and a half minutes, and without the need for parts et al.