Klarinet Archive - Posting 000279.txt from 2003/07

From: CBA <clarinet10001@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Teaching problem
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:57:42 -0400

Doug,

There are MANY books that would disagree about this with you.
Yes, Harvard Dictionary does have that example of accidentals in
music NOT being applied to other octaves. I have a stack full of
PRACTICAL theory books which disagree with you and the Harvard
Dictionary, PLUS, I have been corrected on MANY occasions in ALL
genres of music by applied music teachers in making sure the
accidental follows all of the notes, regardless of octave, in
the measure.

I *am* trying to be argumentative, but not because I take this
as a personal hit (for all of the people ready for war out
there, calm down...lol!) I don't know of other references to
this scenario in any book which backs up the Harvard Dictionary
theory, and have only experienced a few people (not teachers)
that have been proponents of not applying the accidentals to
other octaves.

Besides just the printed work, what would the people here on
this list say in relation to this? I am very curious, since this
does make quite an impact on music from the Romantic period to
present, moreso than other music.

By the way, if you look at most 20th century music, including
Schoenberg, you will find that he would use a natural later in a
measure to cancel the accidental on a note on a different
octave. Gunther Schuller...the same. Bernstein also... They were
(are) rather definitive examples of modern theory practices, in
my opinion.

Again, I am just trying to work this out. I just need a little
more than the Harvard Dictionary, since I have been exposed to
practical examples of my version of the accidental rule, from
teachers, music, and text books throughout my studies over the
last 25 years in music, and I really have NOT been exposed to
situations where a note in a different octave would NOT follow
an accidental's change. You *could* be right, but I would need
something else more magnanimus to make me forgo all the books,
composers and teachers who have instructed me differently than
what the Harvard Dictionary says.

(I *am* looking forward to responses, as this really interests
me.)

No anonymous responses please <ROTFLMAO> (Just kidding)

Kelly Abraham
Woodwinds - New York City
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- Doug Sears <dsears@-----.net> wrote:
> I'm surprised that ten people haven't already jumped in here.
> Maybe y'all
> didn't read Kelly's long post very carefully, but this really
> jumped out at
> me. The book is correct, and Kelly is not. "In modern practice
> a sign affects
> the note immediately following and is valid for all the notes
> of the same
> pitch (but not in different octaves) within the same measure."
> --Willi Appel,
> Harvard Dict. of Music, 1944. What Bach would think isn't the
> issue, because
> notation practice has changed more than once since his time.
> Kelly seemed to
> be talking about 19th- and early 20th-century practice. You
> have to be
> careful about context when making blanket statements about
> notation: a
> manuscript from 1560 or a "serious" work written in 1960 might
> have an
> accidental applying _only_ to the one note, not to repeated
> notes following
> it.
>
> --Doug Sears
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CBA" <clarinet10001@-----.com> [how's that for an
> anonymous e-mail
> address?]
>
> > accidentals. The book erroneously says that an accidental in
> the
> > measure only affects the notes on that space or line, and
> not
> > the octaves. I think Bach would have some choice words for
> > her...lol! I just make sure I cross that out WAY before we
> get
> > to it, and rewrite it to say that an accidental affects ALL
> of
> > the notes in that measure, regardless of the octave.
>
> > Kelly Abraham
>
>

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/