What's up with having more than two staves?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

What the heck is up with these guys.  What's the purpose for having more than two staves?  Like three...  Or even four!!!

Initially I thought it was to separate voices or some business like that.  But I realized, that can't be true!  Cause then Bach would have multiple staves per fugue right?!


I've noticed that all of rachmaninoff's music only deals with two staves!  That makes me like his music even more!

[zezhyrule]

It is for multiple voices as far as I know. Maybe in Bach's day it wasn't a common way to notate, or maybe some composers just prefer not to use more than two staves. But yeah, pretty sure it's to show the separation of the voices or whatever.

[j_menz]

noticed that all of rachmaninoff's music only deals with two staves!  That makes me like his music even more!

His C#m Prelude (the one you don't like) uses 4 staves in the recap. It's one of the reasons I've never finished playing it.

I think some composers/publishers think it makes it easier to read. I can't say I agree and always find it a right pain.

[mike_lang]

I think some composers/publishers think it makes it easier to read. I can't say I agree and always find it a right pain.

I strongly disagree.  I think often times in highly contrapuntal music it makes it much easier to see voice leading, and when textures are dense (Ligeti, Dutilleux, and Nielsen come to mind) it expedites the learning process.

[davidjosepha]

I strongly disagree.  I think often times in highly contrapuntal music it makes it much easier to see voice leading, and when textures are dense (Ligeti, Dutilleux, and Nielsen come to mind) it expedites the learning process.

I think it makes it easier to read if you're looking for voices, but harder to read when playing. You play with two hands, and the two staves are generally separated so the top is for the right hand and bottom is for the left, unless stated otherwise, so the music is very easily divided so you can see what hand plays what. I personally dislike more than 2 staves.

[scherzo123]

His C#m Prelude (the one you don't like) uses 4 staves in the recap. It's one of the reasons I've never finished playing it.

I think some composers/publishers think it makes it easier to read. I can't say I agree and always find it a right pain.

I think that part of the prelude is just showing two different ways to play that part, two staves for each staves (four staves total). That's how I think of it. If it isn't, then I really don't know. 

[j_menz]

I strongly disagree.  I think often times in highly contrapuntal music it makes it much easier to see voice leading, and when textures are dense (Ligeti, Dutilleux, and Nielsen come to mind) it expedites the learning process.

If you can't see the voices on two staves, then I doubt spelling them out on 3 or more is going to be much use.  Of course, if you learn the notes first, rather than read it, the problem I see may well not be there.

[j_menz]

I think that part of the prelude is just showing two different ways to play that part, two staves for each staves (four staves total). That's how I think of it. If it isn't, then I really don't know. 

No. You are supposed to play the lot.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

If you can't see the voices on two staves, then I doubt spelling them out on 3 or more is going to be much use.  Of course, if you learn the notes first, rather than read it, the problem I see may well not be there.

Which is why you take a highlighter and highlite all the different voices.  You learn how to distinguish voices and develop your coloring skills!

[j_menz]

Which is why you take a highlighter and highlite all the different voices.  You learn how to distinguish voices and develop your coloring skills!

I only ever mark my scores to correct errors.[Edit: clarification: printing errors, not on own]  Worst one I encountered was where they thought it unnecessary to include the key signature on any page but the first. And yes, Kalmus. Bleah!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I only ever mark my scores to correct errors.  Worst one I encountered was where they thought it unnecessary to include the key signature on any page but the first. And yes, Kalmus. Bleah!

Half of my Kalmus WTC pages already fell out after one week.

...
...
...
...

What the freaking- never mind...

[mike_lang]

If you can't see the voices on two staves, then I doubt spelling them out on 3 or more is going to be much use.  Of course, if you learn the notes first, rather than read it, the problem I see may well not be there.

Of course you can see all the notes on two staves; it's the clarity afforded by a little extra space to see where things are leading, and what is grouped with what that makes it easier to play at sight from multiple staves.

[j_menz]

Of course you can see all the notes on two staves; it's the clarity afforded by a little extra space to see where things are leading, and what is grouped with what that makes it easier to play at sight from multiple staves.

Interesting that you find that. In my case, I'd rather give up that clarity for having all the suspects lined up in the usual place. The bit of my brain that sorts out what voice is going where is fine with then all being crammed on 2 staves, but the part of my brain that sorts out what finger plays what has conniptions if there are 3 lines, and goes completely AWOL if there are more.

[mjedwards]

     There are various reasons why a composer might write piano music on 3 or even more staves (up to about 5 or 6 on occasions with Sorabji).  But I also firmly believe that the majority of music written on three staves could quite conveniently be written on two staves with no real loss of legibility.  I suppose composers' tastes vary, and some just seem to like to spread their music out onto three staves.  If it's necessary, this should be done in something like a logical fashion, to separate out voices that might otherwise get confused if combined onto one staff.  But passages in Book 2 of Debussy's Preludes give me the appearance of quite haphazardly being scattered around the three staves, with no particular pattern to it.  I firmly believe that few passages in the entire Book 2 of the Preludes needed to be written on three staves.
     You raised J. S. Bach as an example, and suggested that if the purpose of multiple staves was to separate out voices, he would have to write each voice of a fugue on a separate staff.  But that would be a bad mistake, and would make reading at the piano extremely difficult.  Yes, a principal purpose of extra staves is to separate out voices - but it can't be done automatically every time three or more voices exist - a composer would need to carefully consider when it would help matters, and do it only then.  I would tend to do it, for example, only if the voices separated out into two or more groups were rhythmically quite independent from each other.  That makes it far easier to read the multiple staves and consolidate their contents into a unified whole in your mind.  And to justify that, in my opinion at least, there would have to be considerable and confusing clutter resulting if you forced the music to fit into only two staves.  Reading extra staves *can* be more difficult; so the benefit you get from it has to outweigh that.
     Scriabin quite often uses three staves - occasionally four.  If I had composed that same music, I would have used the normal two staves in most cases.  But I don't find his multiple-staff passages difficult to decipher at the piano.
     I can cope with three or even four staves with no difficulty at all, so I have never viewed this as even a minor irritant, even when I believed it was not really necessary.  In my own composing, despite complex, multi-tiered textures with inner voices and the like, the vast majority of the time I find two staves sufficient; but I don't hesitate to use three, or even four, if I believe it would be better.  (I don't think I've yet exceeded four, even briefly.)  This policy may partly result from the fact that I tolerate more clutter on a particular staff than some other people do.

     As to Rachmaninov's 4 staves in his famous C# minor Prelude - I would consider it a great overreaction to reject playing the piece (or dislike doing so) because of that.  While I consider the 4 staves unnecessary and believe two would be entirely sufficient with no increased difficulty in reading, I think the 4-stave passages are extremely easy to read and put together mentally at the piano, all the same.  I don't think it is an issue anyone need get hung up on at all - that passage is essentially very simple in its structure - far more so than the majority of passages Rachmaninov notated on only two staves.

     It seems to be quite a divisive topic.  As for myself, I don't strongly side either way - but slightly prefer two staves, except in those cases where three or more really do make the music easier to read and learn.
     I have no rules or procedures for determining when that is.  I don't even bother deciding it in published music, because it's the way it is and I have to deal with it.
     In composing my own music, I do have to decide staff arrangements, and I just have to evaluate each case on its own merits.  I probably decide in favour of two staves 80 or 90 percent of the time, three staves the rest, and maybe four a tiny, tiny percentage of the time.  I occasionally use polyrhythmic time signatures, and that can influence a decision to add an extra staff - although two time signatures *can* (at least briefly, or in simpler textures with regular rhythmic structures) be combined on one staff, one stacked on top of the other.

Regards, Michael.

[liszt1022]

Trying to read through Godowsky's first Chopin study made me wish it was on four staves. So I started writing it out in four staves. I didn't finish because I decided I couldn't play it anyway.

[mjedwards]

Trying to read through Godowsky's first Chopin study made me wish it was on four staves. So I started writing it out in four staves. I didn't finish because I decided I couldn't play it anyway.

     I was curious enough to look that up - and assuming I've got the right Etude (Op. 10, no. 1, First Version), I would definitely regard that as a firm candidate for remaining on two staves.  Three, never mind four, seem totally unneeded to me.
     I'm curious to know what problems you had reading this.  I don't mean playing it - I'm sure it's difficult, and if I were able to learn it, I'm sure it would be with considerable difficulty - but I find it easy enough to read and comprehend mentally.  It's not a complicated texture at all - just very hard to physically play.

     I haven't ever heard these - just seen the score.  Are they really good music?  They do look very interesting indeed.

Regards, Michael.

[j_menz]

I haven't ever heard these - just seen the score.  Are they really good music?  They do look very interesting indeed.

I certainly haven't played many of them, but those few I've had a go at are very good indeed. And very good for you, too.

There are actually four, I think, categories of them, which have different starting points. The LH studies are basically fairly straight transcriptions, some are embellishments, some apply the techniques of one to the outline of another, and some combine two or more into one.