Why do people write like this?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I don't remember if this was Scriabin or Babajanian, but I saw this thing and it really pissed me off...  So get ready for this Menz!

Okay, SO...  there were two connected notes, and one was on the higher staff right?  Let's say it was an F or something.  Then the note that came after it was on the lower staff, but it was a B, IN THE SAME CLEF!  The higher note was in the lower staff?! What the heck is going on here?! 



I know there's not really a rule that says that the higher staff = higher notes than the lower staff, but why would you do this!  This is just like the other complaint I had like a week ago about how you have a F# but a G natural in the next measure!  Do you intentionally make it harder to sightread?  Do you think this is cool or something?

So yeah, why did the composer decide to do this?  This was another piece without a key signature.  I know my sightreading is a tad bit below par , but I still don't see how anyone this is easier to sightread, because you have to think the opposite way.

[j_menz]

I don't remember if this was Scriabin or Babajanian, but I saw this thing and it really pissed me off...  So get ready for this Menz!

Okay, SO...  there were two connected notes, and one was on the higher staff right?  Let's say it was an F or something.  Then the note that came after it was on the lower staff, but it was a B, IN THE SAME CLEF!  The higher note was in the lower staff?! What the heck is going on here?! 

I know there's not really a rule that says that the higher staff = higher notes than the lower staff, but why would you do this!  This is just like the other complaint I had like a week ago about how you have a F# but a G natural in the next measure!  Do you intentionally make it harder to sightread?  Do you think this is cool or something?

So yeah, why did the composer decide to do this?  This was another piece without a key signature.  I know my sightreading is a tad bit below par , but I still don't see how anyone this is easier to sightread, because you have to think the opposite way.

You forgot the j_ 

I am not defender in chief of all notational quirks, btw.  It's a bit difficult to judge without seeing the example (or at least having the composer pinned down).  Some composers have a habit of using the staves to indicate the hands that are to be used, and some use them to keep the lines of polyphony distinct. Some are just crazy.  Not sure which is the case here. 

My chief gripe is where they use 3 (or more) staves. Both of your idols are in my bad books on that count!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

In my new edition of La Campanella, after the first page, I saw the same thing!  Well, not exactly, but close to it.  The higher notes were in the bottom staff!  What the heck?!  And they were both in the treble clef!

[j_menz]

In my new edition of La Campanella, after the first page, I saw the same thing!  Well, not exactly, but close to it.  The higher notes were in the bottom staff!  What the heck?!  And they were both in the treble clef!

If you mean the quasi tremolo bits, Liszt appears to have used the staves to indicate which hand to use (ie, left for the top note (bottom staff) and right for the two note chords (top staff)).

[rachmaninoff_forever]

If you mean the quasi tremolo bits, Liszt appears to have used the staves to indicate which hand to use (ie, left for the top note (bottom staff) and right for the two note chords (top staff)).

I could have seen that because some people do that cross handed.  I'm still trying to find the one that pissed me off.  It was a slow piece so there's no reason to do any fancy stuff.  Just wait, I'll find it.  I guarantee won't be able to find an explanation for this!
 

[j_menz]

I guarantee won't be able to find an explanation for this!
 

I think my "Some [composers] are just crazy" covers just about anything.