 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: georgE11
Date: 2004-11-15 19:33
Attachment: SCAN001.jpg (95k)
Hi all.. I know the book says that a flat or sharp remains in effect throughout the entire measure unless cancelled by a natural.. but does it only affect the whole measure if the flat/sharp is placed in the beginning of the measure? or can it still affect the whole measure even if it's playced by a note?
I'm going to post this screenshot from the book, maybe you guys can answer their questions for me and i can make some sense out of this..
Please click on the Attachment at the top.
Thanks!
George
Post Edited (2004-11-15 19:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2004-11-15 19:42
i even know what book thats from
are you asking us to do your homework for you?
stays in effect from the point of the accidental forward until the end of the measure, unless cancelled.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-11-15 19:42
Hi George,
It might be better if you took a crack at this and then posted your answers. You are correct with "a flat or sharp remains in effect throughout the entire measure unless cancelled by a natural." Also, an accidental (a written in sharp or flat as well) lasts for the whole measure unless another accidental or natural comes into play.
Give it a try and just answer the question with a yes or no and then any of us can help you with your errors. If I were you, I'd write down the note names under each note first. For example, the first one is E flat, E natural, F, and E natural. Get the idea?
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2004-11-15 19:43
The accidental applies to any similar note that FOLLOWS the accidental up until the bar line, including the same note an octave higher or lower. The accidental doesn't affect any notes previous to it. If the composer wishes to have the accidental continue into the next measure he has to write the accidental again in the next measure.
Sometimes composers will do you a favour by writing the sign for the accidental again within the measure if the same note appears again (or in the next measure they'll write a reminder to return to the key signature), but they're not required to do so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: georgE11
Date: 2004-11-15 19:58
I'm not in school, i'm just learing on my own, but it's more like RE-learning for me. 
But I do like this book a lot. It's great for beginners. "Clarinet Note Speller by Fred Weber"
Ok, i'll give it a try here...
From left to right, then bottom measures from left to right..
1. Is the last note like the 1st note? YES
2. Is the last note like the 2nd note? YES
3. Is the last note like the 3rd note? NO
4. Is the last note like the 1st note? NO
5. Is the last note like the 1st note? YES
6. Is the last note like the 1st note? NO
7. Is the last note like the 1st note? YES
8. Is the last note like the 1st note? YES
9. Is the last note like the 1st note? YES
10. Is the last note like the 1st note? NO
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dori
Date: 2004-11-15 20:17
I took your little test for fun. We disagree on 1 & 5. Anyone want to grade us?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2004-11-15 21:40
dori is correct
#1 first note is Eb, last note is E natural
#5 the accidental sharp carries across octaves last note is a C#
and yup, weber's little book is a good one for beginners, its available for most instruments
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
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)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bill28099
Date: 2004-11-15 23:38
The definition from the front of Klose states "These symbols are called accidentals and they affect all the notes on the same line or space throughout one measure only". Except when you're playing Rose and Jean Jean where my teacher gets very excited if you don't carry the accidentals to other octaves.
I give #5 a maybe, depends on who wrote it.
A great teacher gives you answers to questions
you don't even know you should ask.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-16 01:56
The octave tradition has even been written the opposite way from a book 1 to a book 2.
Book 1 says no they don't carry over and book 2 says that they do (a theory book that one of my college students had).
You really have to use your ear to determine what should and shouldn't be.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-11-16 03:10
Jack Kissinger wrote:
" but it seems clear that these are not "courtesy" accidentals because they are not put in parentheses."
Courtesy accidentals are often not in parentheses. Some composers believe that the parentheses just clutter up the page, and might only use parentheses if a courtesy without would cause even more confusion (I've personally been guilty of over-courtesying a piece, but that's another topic)
The last note of example 5 above is where I might use parentheses... but my answer to most of the examples is that they could have been rewritten much more clearly.
Granted, each piece of music is slightly different, and has its own potential for flakiness and ambiguity.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2004-11-16 06:56
pewd wrote: " the accidental sharp carries across octaves"
I would say about 50% of musicians agree with you, and 50% disagree with you. I thought like that for a long time, then played a piece in front of the composer (his name is Tzvi Avni, a very respected one who wrote pieces for many orchestras throughout Europe, if anyone have heard of him) and I played Bb because of the octave rule. He then stopped me and said I didn't play it correct. I didn't know what he meant so I tried again and then he said I played Bb instead of B natural. I asked him why because I had a Bb an octave down in the same measure. He said it doesn't carry across ocvates. I then told my (now former) teacher (who is one of the best clarinet players in my small country), and she said it does carry across octaves.
In university we had a big argument about it and our teacher (who was also my clarinet teacher for one year) said it's maybe 50/50. No ne really knows the answer, you either have to know the composer, or figure it out your self. In the piece I played Bb was more tonal and maybe more "pretty" but the B natural was harsh and surprising. Both made sense (although I think most pepole would play Bb if went only by musicaly) so you couldn't tell from the music.
Anyway, this is one of the oldest mysteries or music that will probably never be resolved.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-16 12:08
A composer who doesn't add a courtesy accidental for the octave is being stupid.
IMHHO
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-11-16 13:26
Perhaps the octave rule is a European thing. Never encountered anyone carrying the accidental to the octave in my experience. But...let's not forget the carryover to the next measure if the note is connected....
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2004-11-16 13:31
There is one additional complication, if the note gets the sharp or flat from the previous measure by a tie (english?). I think the sharp or flat must then be repeated.
?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-11-16 13:44
For a note tied to a note from a previous measure, the accidental certainly carries over; otherwise, it wouldn't be a tie, but a slur. It may not be a rule, but any subsequent notes in the second measure should be written so that there is no confusion as to what they are; i.e., add a sharp, flat or natural as necessary.
As far as the octave rule, if there is one, I would suggest to a composer that he/she should write in the accidental for the note in a different octave, if it should be flatted or sharped, so as to prevent any confusion. As with the written word, the composer should strive for clarity of intent. Then again, the vast majority of us are more concerned with how to read music than how to write it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2004-11-16 14:00
I agree with georgeE11 on all but #1 & #5. I agree with pewd on #1 and #5 unless the carry over octave rule for #5 is not in effect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-11-16 14:41
I recently ran into a tidy little music notation guide that covered a lot of "grey" areas in my notation knowledge. It even provided me with a memory jogger for a form of staccato that I had completely forgotten (the one indicated by the solid black "inverted mountain" symbol). However, I can't recall the name, as I bought it and gave it to my "notationally challenged vocalist" who is making a serious effort to learn the systems, at least as far as the non-pitch elements are concerned.
That guide was adamant that courtesy accidentals should be enclosed in parentheses.
What really chaps my ass is when flats are used in a sharp key or vice versa...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2004-11-16 14:46
David Blumberg I don't know you (that is saying something too I guess) but this composer is anything but stupid! He is one of the greatest composers in my country's history (eventhough it's only 56 years old).
Not putting a courtesy accidental was maybe something the publisher decided (it was a piece that is published for many years not something in his hand writing).
You are judging a person based on one small detail and you are very offensive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-16 17:13
Publisher, composer - whatever................ but tell you what claribass, I'll change my sentiment to "a composer or publisher who doesn't furnish courtesy accidentals is not being very courteous."
is that better? Also, the word "being" is not "is". I could be a genius and do something stupid - that would not be "is".
ps - did I just catch anybody thinking about Bill Clinton? 
Post Edited (2004-11-16 17:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark G. Simon
Date: 2004-11-16 17:20
The convention of accidentals carrying over different octaves is more often found in older publications than new ones. I seem to recall that Jean-Jean's studies assume this convention (better check your copies before you take my word on this).
In modern music it is more conventional for an accidental to apply only to the octave in which it is written.
Some contemporary composers, such as Henze, insist that an accidental modifies only the note it immediately precedes, but this practice requires a specific statement from the composer in the preface to the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-11-16 17:29
EEBaum wrote,
"Courtesy accidentals are often not in parentheses. Some composers believe that the parentheses just clutter up the page, and might only use parentheses if a courtesy without would cause even more confusion (I've personally been guilty of over-courtesying a piece, but that's another topic)"
Alex,
I never heard this before. Could you please provide reference to some specific works by major composers where this is true (or texts on composition where the author makes this point). I guess I've lived in Missouri too long but I'd like to see some examples for myself. (And note that the example should be for a repeated pitch in the same octave because "repeating" the accidental for a note in a different octave could simply indicate that the composer was following the convention that accidentals only apply to one octave.)
Thanks
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
