 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2017-06-15 02:41
Playing measure with an F# with the # then another F in same measure without the # and it doesnt sound right. Is it understood that the second F is played as sharp also and the # is not needed? What is the rule here?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2017-06-15 03:10
If there's an accidental placed before a note, then that note will be altered for the duration of that bar and not carried onto the following bar unless it is reinstated.
So if the first of several Fs within a bar has been sharpened to F#, then all the other Fs will become F#s too unless there's a natural sign placed on another F to cancel out the #.
If you have a long tied note across one or several bars and the first note has an accidental placed before it, then that will carry for the duration of the entire tied note (ties are for same pitch notes, slurs are for different pitch notes).
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2017-06-15 03:11
Normally if a note is modified (sharp, flat, or natural) in a bar, then that same modification will apply to all occurrences of that note within that bar.
[Edit]: Please see Chris' answer above...it is better - we were answering at the same time, and I didn't see his post until after I had posted this answer.
Fuzzy
Post Edited (2017-06-15 03:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bennett ★2017
Date: 2017-06-15 04:05
While the above responses are definitely true, the rules (such as they exist) are murkier for the same note in a different octave. A first space F# might not automatically mean that a top line F in the same bar is to be sharpened.
I think more often than not in practive the accidental applies to all octaves but the Norton Manual of Music Notation by George Heussenstamm (NY, 1987) page 69, says:
"An accidental applies only to the note at its original pitch level. When that note is sounded at a different octave level, another accidental is needed" (Emphasis his)
My guess is that someone can quote a rule that says the exact opposite.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2017-06-15 04:50
Bennett wrote:
> "An accidental applies only to the note at its original
> pitch level. When that note is sounded at a different
> octave level, another accidental is needed" (Emphasis his)
>
> My guess is that someone can quote a rule that says the exact
> opposite.
>
Whether or not that's true, there are certainly examples in music literature of composers who follow both conventions when an altered note appears within the measure at a different octave.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2017-06-15 05:49
Attachment: One F# and another F.jpg (5k)
Thanks for the replies. It sounds more correct if the second note is sharped also even though no sign but I wanted to be correct rather than change the music. I don't really have formal complete music training but just what I have picked up along the way.
I tried to post a sample jpg of the measure but did not know how and do not think it worked or was not allowed. Is there an instruction on how to attach a jpg?
Post Edited (2017-06-15 05:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2017-06-15 08:08
Anyway, I think I shall play it the way it sounds good to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2017-06-15 09:17
It is my understanding as well that this only applies to the octave written but you are right, there are exceptions. Composers need to get it together on this. Better yet, just be clear and put the accidental in the new octave.
The problem is that if the composer is too ignorant to know this rule, they won't think to put the reminder sharp (or natural) on the other octaves and the problem manifests itself.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2017-06-15 09:57
The safest thing to do is apply the accidentals to the notes in different 8ves to be sure that for example, if there are F#s in different 8ves, both will be marked with an accidental. If the upper 8ve one is an F natural, then it will have a natural sign placed before it just to be certain instead of left without.
One thing I'm not certain about is accidentals on tied notes spanning several bars. Should the accidental only be applied to the first note, or should the accidental also be applied to another of the tied group at the start of another line or the start of another page (and maybe with the accidental in brackets)?
Richard Strauss gets me - he does things like ties a C natural in one bar over to a B# in another even though they're the same note.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2017-06-15 14:48
Hi All,
Forgive my musings but the discussion above takes my back to the days 60 years ago when I was a brand new music education student in Sally Comin's Music Theory 101 at Ohio University on the 3rd floor of the old music building.
Miss Comin was a brand new faculty member and a recent graduate of Eastman. She was pleasant, knowledgeable, demanding, an amazing keyboard player and violinist, but above all, she was a great teacher. I was never her best student but I vividly remember even today discussions in class about all sorts of things like accidentals, figured bass, Neapolitan chords, secondary dominants, etc. I struggled but I learned so much.
Sally passed away at a very early age and has been remembered by a scholarship in her name. I'll remember her forever.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2017-06-15 17:18
Sean.Perrin wrote:
> It is my understanding as well that this only applies to the
> octave written but you are right, there are exceptions.
> Composers need to get it together on this.
Most are beyond consulting with.
Some of the late 20th century music I've read, especially a-metric music that even lacks bar lines, has a composer's note somewhere on the page to say that accidentals (or chromatic marks, since there's no key signature to counter) only apply to the note they appear with and not subsequent occurrences of the same note. It would be nice if composers going forward would tell us how they want chromatic signs to be applied, but for Debussy and Klosé and all the other dead composers we play, we just have to look at the music and figure it out.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2017-06-15 17:41
Chris P wrote:
> One thing I'm not certain about is accidentals on tied notes
> spanning several bars. Should the accidental only be applied to
> the first note, or should the accidental also be applied to
> another of the tied group at the start of another line or the
> start of another page (and maybe with the accidental in
> brackets)?
I've never seen an example in which an accidental didn't carry through all tied notes. That isn't to say some composer at some time in history (and the editor who would have had the next opportunity to clarify it) didn't take a different approach, but if so I think it would be considered a notation error and you'd have to find it by looking at the accompanying harmonic texture. If anything, if the tie were to turn at some point in a series to a slur connecting a sharp in one bar to its natural in the next, the composer ought to put the natural sign in front of the changed pitch - without brackets.
I have seen a lot of editions that do include "courtesy" accidentals as reminders to continue an accidental for a note tied over a new staff. That's a function of layout, which has less to do with the composer than with the editor (staff breaks aren't always the same from one edition to another).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
