Klarinet Archive - Posting 000306.txt from 2003/07

From: "Doug Sears" <dsears@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] accidentals
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:03:57 -0400

Kelly Abraham wrote:
> 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.

"When an accidental not included in the key signature precedes a note, it
affects only that pitch in that octave, for the duration of the entire
measure ..." _Music Notation_, Mark McGrain.
"When an accidental not included in a key signature precedes any note, it
affects the pitch it precedes -- and _no other_ -- for that _one measure
only_. [In an example,] the natural sign before the c'' affects only that
pitch, not c' nor c'''." _Music Notation, a manual of modern practice_, 2nd
ed., Gardner Read.

I believe your many counter-examples are all cases of "courtesy accidentals",
to make sure there's no ambiguity, and could well have been put in
parentheses. "Another common use of courtesy accidentals occurs when an
accidental is canceled by an octave leap ..." -McGrain. From the responses so
far, it looks like liberal use of courtesy accidentals is necessary to avoid
misunderstandings.

> I *am* trying to be argumentative, but not because I take this
> as a personal hit

Certainly not meant personally; just an interesting topic.

Karl Krelove wrote:
> 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.

I agree, but this is not theory, just a typographical standard, and music
editors and engravers have a responsibility to keep to standards, so that
people in many lands and perhaps many succeeding centuries will be able to
read their work.

--Doug Sears

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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org