Klarinet Archive - Posting 000282.txt from 2003/07
From: "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Teaching problem
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:03:33 -0400
Kelly,
I missed the post that started this, so I apologize if it's off the original
point. I think it's obvious there IS no useful rule about this - certainly
not an absolute one. Even where specific composers may have followed one
practice, there's little to guarantee a later (or even contemporary) editor
hasn't meddled and followed some other method.
Just to grab two method books that are within easy reach (both standard
teaching texts that you would expect would be rule-bound because of their
purpose:
Klose isn't even consistent within his method book. The scales and many
places in the duets show accidentals once in a measure and assume that they
apply to other octaves within the measure (it's especially easy to tell the
intent in the Major and Minor Scales). Then look through the Twenty Studies
and you can find numerous places where accidentals are indicated in each
octave within the same measure - in fact there are instances where the
accidental sign is repeated even for the same octave (with no intervening
change to require it).
The Bettoney Baermann method is consistent in repeating accidental signs for
each octave (although there are places where this is omitted, I'm certain by
accident - no pun intended - since there's no apparent system to it).
I wouldn't want to try to go through the entire range of orchestral and
chamber music, but enough examples have already been given in other posts,
yours included, to show that there isn't a standard, the Harvard Dictionary
notwithstanding. And in the end, it doesn't matter what any theory book says
(and Harvard Dictionary doesn't really fit this description) - we deal from
our first experiences as music readers with real-world notation. Composers
have throughout history been the models on which theory has been based, not
the followers of theory book editors. We have to deal with what's in front
of us, whether it follows someone's rules or not. We have to read what the
composer (or his editor) wrote, not what he "should have" written.
Karl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CBA [mailto:clarinet10001@-----.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:58 PM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Teaching problem
>
>
> 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/
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
