Response to Ray Cook's "A New Key"

Response to Ray Cook's "A New Key"

Submitted by Sandra Aberkalns - Oct 5, 1999

I was interested to read what you are trying to propose since I have also come across this dilemma in my scores. However, the problem is to define what is "normal" or "natural."

For example, what may be "normal" in a Taylor work is not necessarily "normal" in David Parson's work. Similarly, a "natural' walk in Anton Dolin's Snow Pas would be considered quite stylized in Edward Stierle's Lacrymosa.

So, the question that needs to be addressed is what is "natural" or "normal" for any given work. These terms cannot be standardized to mean one thing for every score; the issue needs to be defined specifically for each work.

In your August 17th discussion you write, " The indication in 1a) is better for a Key as it says the action is normal." Are you saying that 1a) should have a new meaning, i.e. that the symbol should mean something different than current understood usage? If this is your intention, then what can/will we use to indicate body parts returning to what has been defined as normal carriage/placement.

From our previous discussions it is my understanding that you do not approve of any given symbol having more than one meaning. Since the return to normal already has standardized meaning, I would recommend that more discussion/research be conducted to find a completely new symbol that does not conflict with established symbols and usage.
I also feel that Charlotte Wile's idea/recommendation in her Aug. 17th discussion has similar problems. The symbol is too close to current usage and could easily be misread.