Why are the accidentals here written in a rather complex way, when there exists simpler notation?

Question

(Score taken from Tchaikovsky Symphony No.1, Op13, Bassoon part. PDF file from IMSLP.)

I'm referring to the second line, starting from the mf. The melody goes on temporarily on another key but the composer didn't explicitly make a key change. So we have a lot of accidentals here.

My question is, since we also have far simpler ways of adding accidentals to represent the same tune (as shown below), why did the composer still write in a complicated way? And given the reason, is this way of notation optional or a common practice?

Answer 1

Notating this in a flat minor requires fewer accidentals, but those that it requires are more obscure. A player might well prefer well-known notes to less well-known notes. Remember that woodwind instruments have to know the exact fingering for every tone they play. An f flat is much rarer and more annoying to read than a plain e, while the g sharp, f sharp etc. occur much more often.

If you wanted to improve this score, a much better way would be to simply switch the staff accidentals to B major for that passage.

Answer 2

The simple answer

By convention, one writes in B major rather than Cb major. The exception being when Cb major better expresses key-relationships.

---

But some parts are in sharps at the same time others are in flats. Why?

---

An answer that begs the question

The bassoon is notated in B major, because it is playing with the strings, which are notated in B major. The real question is, "why are the strings notated in B major?"

Unfortunately, in the absence of an explanation by Tchaikovsky or his copyist, one can only speculate. Thus...

---

Rank speculation

---

Possible reasons

There are generally two reasons why a passage is notated enharmonically. Either

1. It better expresses the key relationships; or
2. It's easier to read.

The case against "key relationships"

In this case, notating in Cb major would better express the relationships: the passage is sandwiched between two Ab major sections. Modulation by minor third would generally make more sense than modulation by augmented second. There's a possibility Tchaikovsky was considering this passage in terms of C minor, B being the key of the leading tone, but this seems unlikely since the C minor passages are relatively distant.

The case for "ease of reading"

I think it's more likely Tchaikovsky felt it would be easier to read. For one thing, up to this point, the score has been notated primarily in flats. Tchaikovsky may have felt it would make the modulation easier to see/understand if he switched to sharps. The preceding passages were in C minor, where no additional flats were needed, and Ab major, which required only the addition of Db. That pitch, Db/C# does not occur in the Cb/B major passage. Tchaikovsky may have considered its presence in the preceding Ab major section and then absence in the Cb/B major section could lead to confusion. In other words, writing in Cb major would involve acts both of inclusion (Cb, Fb, Gb) and exclusion (Db); whereas, writing in B major involved only inclusion (B-natural, D#, E-natural, F#, G#, A#).

Why not notate the other winds in B major?

Here I'd go with ease of reading. Since the winds are playing accompaniment chords and relatively few different pitches within each part, easier to just keep them in flats.

So why are the horns notated in both sharps and flats?

Best guess...because they're the vertical mid-point in the score. So Horn 2, vertically nearer the strings in the score, is notated in sharps, while Horn 1, vertically nearer the winds, is notated in flats: a visual aid to the conductor.

Answer 3

This might be becouse it was written with strings in mind. Remember: even though F# and Gb are enharmonically equal, they are not absolutely equal. There is a slight difference between the two, is only in the way it is approached by winds and strings.

Most of the time, you won't notice this difference, but it is there