Klarinet Archive - Posting 000199.txt from 2007/06

From: "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Accidental Usage Question
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:02:45 -0400

It's common knowledge, but it isn't consistent or reliable even in 19th
century music. For example, check your friendly Carl Fischer edition of the
Klose books. The only reason for repeating the chromatic markings in each
octave even within a measure is that otherwise he expected (or at least
feared) that the player would revert to whatever the key signature required
when the note in question appeared an octave higher or lower.

My experience is that this practice varies from composer to composer (or
editor or copyist) and that when there's a real question, you need to look
for other situations in the same piece to see if accidental markings are
ever repeated across octaves. If they're repeated anywhere else, it's likely
that not repeating them indicates a different note (or there's a misprint
involved).

Most of the time in pre-twentieth century music you can work it out from the
context and it's a question of applying common sense. Sometimes very modal
or chromatic 20th century music takes a little further looking and analysis.

Karl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Audrey Travis [mailto:clr91nt@-----.ca]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Accidental Usage Question
>
> All same note names of any octave within the same measure. The bar
> line at the end of the measure cancels accidentals and one reverts to
> the key signature unless an accidental is used in the following
> measure. It's common knowledge.
>
> Audrey
> On 29-Jun-07, at 10:50 AM, Bill Daniluk wrote:
>
> >
> > When an accidental is used in musical notation, does it apply to just
> > the
> > pitch noted, or does it also apply to nominally identical pitches in
> > other
> > octaves?

------------------------------------------------------------------