 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-01 23:44
First, for those needing a primer, or at least so that even if I'm wrong, that we're talking about the same thing, musical "accidentals" are things like sharp and flat symbols that alter the pitch of a note; at least that's how I'll define there here.
And of course they need to exist and my acceptance of them are givens over 50 years of play.
What bugs me though, and sure, those piano players out there who read two bars of music concurrently, and multiple notes/rhythms, most commonly in with two different (treble and bass) clefs, (and foot pedal) are probably rolling their eyes justifiable at my so called plight, are when two or more differences from some base note played on clarinet have to be delt with concurrently, or (and I'll explain both of these) the musical notation could have been written in ways easier to digest.
Let me provide some examples. Why notate (at least in clarinet music) an E sharp. Just write it as an F. (Now I know, musical purists are going to make the case about staying in key signature.) And sometimes on top of this, do away with "8va" notation unless the notes are so stratospheric the such compact notation is warranted.
Now, in an instant in my mind I have to translate that an E sharp is an F, and to play it one octave up, as part of some complex sight reading rhythm no less played at reasonable speed.
And G double sharp....just write "A." Yes, I know, to singers and violin players and other non-fret musical instruments an E sharp and F, for example, can be subtly different notes.
I seems to me the composer shouldn't have to alter the pitch or rhythm of their composition. But present it in musical notation with the fewest modifications to the base note possible.
The other night at a rehearsal I was presented with a relatively easy 8th note rhythm to site read otherwise full of double sharps and "weird sharps" (e.g. B, E) on top of "8va notation."
"Ok, in this measure that I'm in the G's double sharp and the E is sharp, and I'm coming off an F sharp to an E sharp, all written below the staff, played one octave up, care of 8va notation, so I need to take the F sharp with the chromatic side fingering....."
That is too much to translate on the fly and remember!
Off soap box.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2026-10-02 01:35
Quote:
Let me provide some examples. Why notate (at least in clarinet music) an E sharp. Just write it as an F.
Because E# and F are different notes (tonal music allows for enharmonic spellings only in certain instances). E# and F exist in different contexts, resolve to different notes, are played with slightly different intonations, etc.
If I saw an F in an F# major scale, I'd probably throw the music in the trash can because it was no doubt written by someone who doesn't have a clue about music (and it would be much harder to read because the F# scale is a learned pattern that has an E# in it, not an F).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: farabout
Date: 2026-10-02 04:21
On this I fully agree with 2ndTry. That's why it's good to keep the Wite-Out & pen handy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2026-10-02 06:10
My take is that you get E#s and double sharps/double flats because if you have, say an F natural followed by F# (or vice versa adding a natural sign) they are on the same line, which perhaps is more confusing than E#, F#. The latter also tells you the phrase is going up. My exercise "Double Sharps & Double Flats" in the book is one where I TRY to be as confusing as possible. But we don't need that in stuff we're performing. As a clarinetist, I don't think it has to do with E# being different from F -- they're the same note.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book -- Songburd Music (paper and digital)
Search title. Amazon.com (search Tom Heimer).
Boreal Ballad solo -- Songburd Music item -- search title.
Post Edited (2026-10-02 08:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-02 08:36
For the record, my gripe expressly does not apply to the aforementioned and excellent etude book Tom H wrote, I own, and wholeheartedly recommend.
Tom’s etudes in this book throw the “kitchen sink” at players so that it becomes near impossible to use patterns to memorize their notes or rhythms, forcing the player to give 110% of their attention to them and practice with the metaphorical equivalent of “ankle weights” so that when faced with composed music, some of the stuff I gripe about becomes easier to handle.
Tom obfuscates to train the player; it is part of its purpose. Everyone should own his excellent book, quintessentially exempt from my very gripes as they help address them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2026-10-02 09:12
I agree, it should just be hash tags and bees, not double hash tags or double bees, they're dumb. Oh, AND all music should be printed with the note names written above.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2026-10-02 16:45
Alternate symbols like D# and Eb for the same note are exactly the same thing. E#, Fb, B#, Cb and double accidentals are unfamiliar only because the keys they appear in are unfamiliar. Scale books like Baermann's or Jettel's and etudes like Jeanjean's "Progressive et Melodiques" vol 3 can remedy that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2026-10-02 17:02
It really doesn't bother me that much. Tom H and brycon make good points; they are written that way because of the specific musical context. It's not as if you need to use a special fingering. After a few run-throughs I usually read them pretty automatically as they become an expected part in the melodic flow. And if a problem persists, pencils are a time-honored and acceptable crutch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2026-10-02 17:52
I think this is really part of a larger discussion of written musical theory in general.
The act of trying to convert something one human sense experiences into something another human sense can interpret. In this case, what our ears hear, to what our eyes see (and what our mind interprets). Nearly like translating from one language to another - our mind needs training and repetition to learn this, think about it, etc., until the process is instantaneous.
Whether western music got it right or wrong would be an interesting debate - but the fact is, generation after generation has been using this foundational way of doing things, and I doubt there are (or will be) enough open minds to seriously consider changing it. Too many people rely on it for understanding - or as a way to communicate/interpret what they hear - or what they expect to hear.
Perhaps there's something better than a staff system altogether, and the note names are quaint relics of the past?
As much as I dislike the idea of written music, it has its place, its purpose, and serves those trained to use it fairly well.
Still, a re-evaluation in our modern world would be very interesting. Starting with a simple question: Is there a better way to do this, knowing what we know now?
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
[Edit: removed a weak throw-away sentence]
Post Edited (2026-10-02 18:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2026-10-02 18:03
Alternate symbols like D# and Eb for the same note are exactly the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Phil, they are not. They have different functions relative to the key they appear in.
For example, in the key of C minor you could never write a tonic chord with a D-sharp or a B major chord with an E-flat.
This also has intonational implications: in C minor the E-flat should be a few cents higher (than tempered tuning) and in B major the D-sharp should be a few cents lower.
String players are routinely taught this, but not wind players, for some reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2026-10-02 18:31
Hi rmk. My hasty wording was bad. I meant, the relation between E# and F described by the OP is the same as the relation between D# and Eb. Now I will self-flagellate with a feathered quill.
The conductor of a college band I was privileged to play with for a season did teach the intonational implications you refer to, often tuning the band on chords in pieces rehearsed to ingrain the pertaining pitch adjustments. I was surprised at the improvement it made.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-02 22:20
I get that people hold opinions on this based on music theory.
I get in non-fretted string instruments, the human voice, and chords, etc. differences exist between the B# and a C, for example.
I still contend that I'd rather see a C on the page, or even a C♮ if the key signature demands it, given C being sharp being part of the current key, than a B#.
Yes, as Phillip contends, practicing these keys will lessen the load of this burden somewhat. Truth is I've memorized many of the common Etude exercises in weird keys from "B"earmann to "Y"ehtudes https://composerjim.com/product/yehtudes/ and yet the more translations you have to put music thru (e.g. double flats, 8va, alternative clefs) the harder it will be to deal with.
Still more, I'm going to finger the B# the same way on clarinet I would a "C."
Is it possible I may snug more or less mouthpiece on a sustained note for better intonation given the subtle differences between these two notes? Sure.
I'm always trying to blend in and believe playing in tune is as much something measured on a oscilloscope as it is playing consistent with others. That's going to be the case regardless of how the note appears on the musical page.
So by this purist theory, with the exception of the "A" clarinet usually (Full Boehm Bb instruments notwithstanding) going a half step lower than the Bb (we'll forget about the Basset Clarinet and the "6 of us here that own one") why have two instruments a half step apart but to write and read in easier keys? More sharps of flats often makes for harder fingerings and trills.
I rewrote the sections of music that inspired this post with less accidentals, offered it to my section players and they were all were eager to have a copy.
We don't mean to offend purists and suspect them less offended at us playing easier to read notes correctly, than musical notation pure difficult ones incorrectly.
I might respectfully ask these purists, "could you tell I was playing an "E" rather than an F flat?" 
Post Edited (2026-10-02 22:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2026-10-02 22:30
Quote:
I agree, it should just be hash tags and bees, not double hash tags or double bees, they're dumb. Oh, AND all music should be printed with the note names written above.
Hahaha! Pretty much. The argument seems to be: "I don't care to be a good musician and composers, publishers, etc. should cater to me."
Quote:
I might respectfully ask these purists, "could you tell I was playing an "E" rather than an F flat?"
If you need to rewrite Fbs to Es in tonal music, chances are, your intonation, sense of phrase shape, sense of harmonic tension and release, and so on isn't good enough for me to tell if you're playing an Fb or an E. If it were a very fine and sensitive musician playing those two notes, yes, I could tell them apart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-02 22:35
Fuzzy wrote:
> Perhaps there's something better than a staff system
> altogether, and the note names are quaint relics of the past?
>
Interesting perspective Fuzzy. For kicks I climbed down that rabbit hole and asked a computer for a better method to note music. Perhaps I'm biased against that I'm not familiar with but boy did I get a mouthful from A.I. on this!
Of course in fairness the answer may only be as good as the wording of my question.
https://iask.ai/q/alternative-music-notation-systems-and-rhythmic-encoding-methods-mr7uhro
Post Edited (2026-10-02 22:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-02 22:42
brycon wrote:
If it were a very fine and
> sensitive musician playing those two notes, yes, I could tell
> them apart.
I'll accept that answer much as I probably couldn't do what you can, if you'll meet me half way and agree that said note, appearing as one sixteenth in a passage of 3 others, probably goes by too fast for such acumen...
or at least the acumen is reduced by the speed/duration with which the note is actuated.
And also, you must concur that if I take that G double sharp incorrectly, given this acumen you have, that that mistake is apt to be more noticeable to you than if I play an "A."
Post Edited (2026-10-02 23:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2026-10-02 23:23
If you want a laugh, look at the cor anglais solo in the 2nd movement of Philip Sparke's 'The Year of the Dragon' where it's all written out in flats and double flats when it could've simply been written in the key of A Major.
Just because brass band composers, arrangers and players seem to like keys of a billion flats or more, that doesn't mean woodwind players like that.
I think there's a moment in the pit band parts for 'Joseph ...' where the alto sax has something like a Gx followed by an Ab instead of simply writing A and G#.
There's loads of other pit band parts with stupid accidentals instead of a far more simple and instantly recognised interval or triad where you really shouldn't have to think.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
Independent Woodwind Repairer
Single and Double Reed Specialist
Oboes, Clarinets and Saxes
NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.M.I.R.
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-10-02 23:40
SecondTry wrote:
> "Ok, in this measure that I'm in the G's double sharp and the E
> is sharp, and I'm coming off an F sharp to an E sharp, all
> written below the staff, played one octave up, care of 8va
> notation, so I need to take the F sharp with the chromatic side
> fingering....."
>
> That is too much to translate on the fly and remember!
I understand all of the reasons for this kind of notation, and my first reaction is often similar to SecondTry's.
But, really, if you're talking about music for a performance, "on the fly" should at most describe the first rehearsal, or more usually your first practice session at home. A pencil works well to re-write anything you want to be clearer or easier to remember. At my age I tend to spend a fair amount of time and a lot of pencil lead adding in chromatic reminder marks. Sometimes I just don't remember unaided that the key signature says 5 sharps or that with a key signature of fewer than 4 sharps the A at the end of the bar is sharp because there was an A# earlier in the measure. I mark the second A. Or that a natural sign cancelled the key signature's Bb on the "and" of 1 when I reach another B in the middle of a melismatic series of 32nd notes later in the bar. I don't even waste time thinking about things like that - I just mark it.
8va notation can be annoying - it should be used to avoid having the player read passages with a lot of leger lines above the staff, even if some of the notes would be easy to read without the 8va help - you can't have notes jumping around between loco and 8va - THAT's confusing. 8va bassa (IMO) shouldn't be needed on a clarinet part. Three leger lines below the staff are not hard to read and are much more routine than 5 or 6 lines above the staff (how often have most of us needed to read, much less play, a C7 or D7). But in all cases, a penciled clue or reminder should help enough to allow intelligent practice away from the ensemble. The same goes for alternate fingerings - some themselves have standard reminder notation, while some may need to drawn with closed and open finger holes and key numbers.
The point is that none of this inconvenient notation should need to be read and played perfectly "on the fly," unless you're playing in a one-shot recording session of a really high class orchestra. Reading errors happen even in excellent orchestras. But the same mistake is rarely made twice by the same player in those orchestras because the pencil comes out immediately.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-10-03 00:11
Your--if I may summarize Karl, "that's what practice time is for," take is of course highly valid.
But, and I think this is a fair response, this stuff has taken far more of my practice time this week and I am--this being Friday for a Monday rehearsal--having practiced daily since last Monday, not as far into the music as I would like to be because of this and compromised practice time that could be spent on other worthwhile things like etude and solo work because of this.
But do know that I strongly subscribe to the "shut up and put in the work," edict most of the time.
(Kal Opperman: your most precious asset is your time. )
Post Edited (2026-10-03 00:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2026-10-03 01:31
Second Try-- Thanks for the kind words about the book.
Donald-- Re All note names should be written above. Funny, I belong to band directors' FB Group where directors always bring up the problem of stopping kids from writing in the note names.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book -- Songburd Music (paper and digital)
Search title. Amazon.com (search Tom Heimer).
Boreal Ballad solo -- Songburd Music item -- search title.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-10-03 07:40
Tom H wrote:
> Second Try-- Thanks for the kind words about the book.
>
> Donald-- Re All note names should be written above. Funny, I
> belong to band directors' FB Group where directors always bring
> up the problem of stopping kids from writing in the note names.
>
Because when a young player is reading letter names above the note, he/she often isn't looking *at* the note itself, missing rhythmic values and pitch patterns.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom H
Date: 2026-10-03 08:28
Karl-- Exactly. When I was teaching beginner band there were times where I had to straight out tell a kid that if they were reading note names and not the music, at some point the music would be harder and they may wind up quitting.
The Most Advanced Clarinet Book -- Songburd Music (paper and digital)
Search title. Amazon.com (search Tom Heimer).
Boreal Ballad solo -- Songburd Music item -- search title.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
