Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-11-15 23:09
I think, at best, that it is debatable whether accidentals are intended to affect any octave other than the one they are written for. For example, according to Turek (The Elements of Music, p. 10):
"By tradition, an accidental affects all recurrences of the pitch prior to the occurrence of a bar line .... However, it does NOT affect that pitch IN ANY OTHER OCTAVE." [I use capitals here to substitute for italics in the original.]
He further emphasizes this point in an illustration.
I have also noticed that in the Hite edition of Rose, at least, accidentals are not repeated when they are intended to carry through to subsequent notes in the same octave, but are added for notes of the same pitch in different octaves. I don't know whether Rose or Hite is responsible for this but it seems clear that these are not "courtesy" accidentals because they are not put in parentheses.
On the other hand, I have seen compositions where context made it clear that the composer intended the accidental to hold through all octaves.
Following the axiom that "there is nothing new under the sun," there has already been an extensive discussion of this question in the following thread:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=127711&t=127693
In there, one of the posters cites another music theory book that takes the same position as Turek. I haven't seen anyone cite a theory book that takes the opposite position. Do any of you out there know of one?
The answer to number 5 may well be "it depends," but, personally, I would give it to georgE11.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2004-11-15 23:11)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
