 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BGBG
Date: 2015-05-01 05:03
This is not strictly about clarinet but sheet music being played on clarinet. If there is a sharp or flat in a measure, say a Bb, then more B's without the flat, are the next ones understood to be flats, or not flats; and how many measures after the first is the flat understood if not marked as a flat?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: doubleZ
Date: 2015-05-01 05:09
An accidental in a measure implies that the rest of the notes in the measure have the same accidental, unless it is otherwise marked. Outside of the original measure, the accidentals don't hold
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2015-05-01 06:14
doubleZ "An accidental in a measure implies that the rest of the notes in the measure have the same accidental, unless it is otherwise marked. Outside of the original measure, the accidentals don't hold"
Yes, unless the note with the accidental is tied across the next bar line, in which case the accidental continues to apply into the tied-to bar and for the duration of the tied-to note, and it affects the rest of that tied-to bar as if the tied-to note were actually marked with the accidental. Um, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
What about accidentals in written-out cadenzas, where the bar lines are omitted? I've seen cases where it seemed the accidental was intended to also apply to subsequent notes close by, but not to notes later in the cadenza. Usually it's been fairly obvious what was intended, but obviousness is not guaranteed, and anyway over the years I've grown suspicious of obvious.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-05-01 06:48
Philip Caron wrote:
> Yes, unless the note with the accidental is tied across the
> next bar line, in which case the accidental continues to apply
> into the tied-to bar and for the duration of the tied-to note,
Yes.
> and it affects the rest of that tied-to bar as if the tied-to
> note were actually marked with the accidental.
No. Only the tied-to note is still affected, not other notes of the same staff degree (letter name).
> What about accidentals in written-out cadenzas, where the bar
> lines are omitted?
It's hard to know how complicated to get with this topic. It depends on what music prompted the OP's question.
There are "classical" composers who only intend for the accidental to apply throughout the same measure in the octave it appears in, but not in other octaves. You have to sniff this out by looking for a systematic pattern in the music. Klose does this. I'm not sure without checking, but I think Paul Jean-Jan may be another example. This isn't likely to be something you would find in sheet music for a popular or jazz tune.
As to cadenzas without bar lines, you're generally on your own to figure out what was meant. A-metric pieces (without bar lines) from the 20th century into this one also can be confusing - the accidental logically only affects the one note it's applied to - repeated notes of the same letter name/staff degree need to have the chromatic sign repeated - or maybe not if the composer thinks exact repetition (including the chromatic) is so obvious that he doesn't need to waste the ink and labor. It's easier to work this out in a cadenza of a solidly tonal piece than it is in an aleatoric-sounding "avante-garde" piece which may lack both bar lines and key signatures or even tonal centers.
But to BGBG, this may all be more than you wanted to know. What sheet music were you thinking of?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-05-01 12:33
Also, in many cases of traditional music (printed by a publisher NOT "Finale") you are given a courtesy 'natural' that brings the note 'back' to the original state (or flat or sharp whatever the 'unaltered' version of the note was in the key).
I say this because there are a LOT of "Finale" Rangers out there who (are otherwise decent arrangers) who neglect to do this in situations where it is not always clear.
Another use for that pencil you ALWAYS carry around in your case.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2015-05-01 17:35
>> and it affects the rest of that tied-to bar as if the tied-to
>> note were actually marked with the accidental.
>
> No. Only the tied-to note is still affected, not other notes of the same staff > degree (letter name).
Yikes. Now I'm racking my brain to recall where I got that idea. That's a slow process . . . patience . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2015-05-01 17:47
>> I say this because there are a LOT of "Finale" Rangers out there who (are otherwise decent arrangers) who neglect to do this in situations where it is not always clear. <<
I don't know about Finale but Sibelius usually does that automatically (from what I remember).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris_C ★2017
Date: 2015-05-01 20:12
and to add to the brain fatigue....
On a split part (e.g. 1st and 2nd printed together by cheapskate publishers, often overlapping), does an accidental on the 1st part early in the bar apply to later instances of that note in the 2nd part? Its not an uncommon occurrence, and the only way I have ever found to resolve it is to play both ways and select the least discordant.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-05-01 20:21
Chris_C wrote:
> Its not an uncommon occurrence, and
> the only way I have ever found to resolve it is to play both
> ways and select the least discordant.
>
Yes, although it's certainly clearer in tonal music than in some "modern" atonal or polytonal pieces. The problem is that, if I'm reading the 2nd part, I don't notice the accidental in the 1st part until I've already played the wrong note and the pencil needs to come out. I just had an experience with couple of of such spots playing 2nd clarinet in Mendelssohn's Elijah from the Novello parts. You only make the mistake once if you're paying attention (that's what rehearsals and pencils are for), but it's a little embarrassing nonetheless.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-05-01 20:43
Paul Aviles wrote:
> ...a courtesy 'natural' that
> brings the note 'back' to the original state
>
> I say this because there are a LOT of "Finale" Rangers out
> there who (are otherwise decent arrangers) who neglect to do
> this in situations where it is not always clear.
>
There are several things that aren't technically correct about Finale's handling of this.
The default behavior, at least in my installation of Finale, is to mark the return to the state dictated by the key signature immediately after the note that the chromatic is applied to if it's in the same bar. This is pretty straightforward. To place repeated accidentals within a bar, you have to keep altering it, although the chromatic sign doesn't show up on the repeated notes. But that's not a "courtesy" chromatic marking - it's needed to cancel the accidental if that's what's intended.
I think to Paul's point, when I mark a B (for example) on beat 4 with a flat sign and then tie it to a B in the next bar on beat 1, there is no automatic "courtesy" accidental to return a B later in the bar to B natural. However, what I hadn't ever noticed (until I tried it just now) is that Finale doesn't recognize that the accidental is carried over by the tie, which I discovered by listening to Finale's audio rendition. The B on beat 1, even though it's tied to a Bb, plays as a B-natural, so as far as Finale is concerned, no further markings are needed. If I re-enter the flat for the tied-to B (and then hide the flat sign), a natural sign is added to the next B in that bar. So Finale's problem is that by default it apparently doesn't recognize the tie as a continuation of the previous pitch.
Of course, a courtesy chromatic *should* have parentheses around it so the performer doesn't think it's the alteration rather than the return, and Finale doesn't do that by default, either, so you have to do it manually.
Finale Rangers, beware.
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}
