 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-22 19:52
Note: "octave[ s]" as written below is meant as there being no space before the "s" ....eliminating that space though would have the phorum software used to run the bboard interpret that between the square brackets as a request to strike out characters, which is not what this author intends.
This provides excellent segue to my questions below, which are on syntax, only of the musical variety. Not intended to be tricky or redundant, but rather to understand, I admit to having asked some of the same questions in different ways below.
====
I posted a thread a few days ago on something as mundance as sharps, flats and neutrals--granted my example was a bit unusual. People responded with varied opinions and levels of confidence in that opinion. So, while this may sound silly, I want to see if I have the rules correct. I recognize 1) we may not come to consensus, 2) and that there are better ways of encoding music to get around some of these dilemmas.
1) A sharp or flat symbol, when written for music, say, in the key of "C" (void of sharps and flats as most of you know) raises the note by a semitone...but when such notation is used when in a key signature that already has the musical note "C" as sharp, or if in a measure, an immediately prior "C" has already been made sharp, the apperance of such a sharp sign in front of the subsequent "C" is nothing more than a friendly reminder that the note is sharp, NOT indication to raise it yet another semitone to a "D," correct?
...and the same things applies to "flats" as well, right????
("Duh, everyone knows that," would be a fair response, or so I think??)
2) Does a neutral sign cancel out all adjustments to a note, regardless of whether it's been sharpened or flatened by the key signature, OR if its been sharpened, flattened, or DOUBLE SHARPED in the measure? If so, to drive this point home, if an immediately prior "C" note (i.e. no other "C" notes between the two described here) has been double sharped with "x" notation in a particular measure, and the composer wants a "C" natural thereafter in the same measure, (even a "C" natural that may be [an] octave[ s] above or below,) do we need 1 or 2 natural signs in front of that second "C?"
(Yes, writing the first double sharped "C" as a "D" would be the best solution.)
I guess I am asking if the rules are different for regular versus double sharped notes.
3) Back to the key of "C." If an immediately prior "C" note (i.e. no other "C" notes between the two described here) appears in a measure with a sharp before it, and then later in the measure a flat before it, even if that second "C" is [an] octave[ s] away, the second "C" is played as a "B," correct? It is not as if the flat symbol brought the previous "C" sharp down a semitone to natural "C," correct? Or to rephrase, sharp and flat symbols don't "care" what state the note was in prior (sharp, flat, neutral)....except if the note was double sharped immediately prior in the measure???
4) To go, in a measure, from an immediately prior double sharp "C" to "C" natural, (i.e. no other "C" notes between the two described here) a second neutral sign in front of the second "C" is 1) wrong, 2) necessary, 3) superfluous, 4) superfluous, and therefore wrong, 5) proper in some musical notation schools of thought, 6) other?
5) Can we double sharpen (or flatten a note) with 2 sharp (or flat) keys, and if so, is it, at least in the case of the two sharp keys, equivalent in power and scope (scope: how long and where it's in effect, and what it would take to change the note within the measure) to the "x" symbol?
6) So, if I really wanted to provide a friendly reminder that a "C" was sharp in a measure by virtue of an immediately prior "C" in that measure having a sharp sign before it, would the "King's English," err, the "King's Musical Notation" find me putting a neutral sign and sharp sign before the second "C"????!!!
(If the nerdiest of computer programmers created musical notation and music, while these questions would not be of issue, the presence of music itself might be! ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2015-03-23 02:19
Sharps , Flats , and NATURALS
If a note has been raised or flattened prior to crossing over a bar line , and then that note is returned to it's original pitch in the next measure according to the Key Signature , a Courtesy Sharp , Flat or Natural may be written in that next measure but should always be bracketed.
With pitch alteration symbols , THE BAR LINE RULES. Once crossed over all notes are returned to their original pitches unless it is required that the alteration is to be continued.
When a certain note has it's pitch altered it stays that way within that measure but quite often and conveniently, that same note an octave up or down is given a courtesy Sharp , Flat or Natural and should be , but not necessary bracketed.
This is the simplest approach to pitch altered notation.
Unfortunately one sees many examples of a more complicated approach whereas , for example , a note is double sharpened or flattened , and after the bar line is crossed, and the note is to be returned to it's original pitch. the courtesy accidental is seen as a Sharp , Flat or Natural PLUS another Sharp , Flat or Natural in front of these as a combination symbol.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2015-03-23 08:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-03-23 07:05
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> So, while this may sound silly, I
> want to see if I have the rules correct.
You always need to stop and take a breath when you invoke a "rule" of any kind in music. But, I'll bite. My answers apply to standard Western *metrically organized (barred)* music (more about this at the end). Here goes...
>
> 1) A sharp or flat symbol, when written for music, say, in the
> key of "C" (void of sharps and flats as most of you know)
> raises the note by a semitone...but when such notation is used
> when in a key signature that already has the musical note "C"
> as sharp, or if in a measure, an immediately prior "C" has
> already been made sharp, the apperance of such a sharp sign in
> front of the subsequent "C" is nothing more than a friendly
> reminder that the note is sharp, NOT indication to raise it yet
> another semitone to a "D," correct?
Correct, although sometimes "courtesy" markings add confusion if the situation would have have been clear without them.
>
> ...and the same things applies to "flats" as well, right????
>
Sure
> 2) Does a neutral sign cancel out all adjustments to a note,
> regardless of whether it's been sharpened or flatened by the
> key signature, OR if its been sharpened, flattened, or
> DOUBLE SHARPED in the measure?
All the chromatic signs identify the chromatic version of the note. They aren't additive from one note to another. A sharp or flat or natural sign in front of a C means C-sharp or C-flat or C natural, irrespective of what kind of C precedes it.
> (Yes, writing the first double sharped "C" as a "D" would be
> the best solution.)
Debatable in many cases, untrue especially if you aren't dealing with equal temperament. But this isn't really integral to your point.
> I guess I am asking if the rules are different for
> regular versus double sharped notes.
No.
>
> 3) Back to the key of "C." If an immediately prior "C" note
> (i.e. no other "C" notes between the two described here)
> appears in a measure with a sharp before it, and then later in
> the measure a flat before it, even if that second "C" is [an]
> octave[ s] away, the second "C" is played as a "B," correct?
In equal temperament, yes. No string player or well-schooled singer (or many non-keyboard players) would agree that C-flat and B-natural are the same pitch, but, again, this is tangential to your concern about notation.
> It is not as if the flat symbol brought the previous "C" sharp
> down a semitone to natural "C," correct? Or to rephrase, sharp
> and flat symbols don't "care" what state the note was in prior
> (sharp, flat, neutral)...
Correct
> except if the note was double sharped
> immediately prior in the measure???
Still don't care.
> 4) To go, in a measure, from an immediately prior double sharp
> "C" to "C" natural, (i.e. no other "C" notes between the two
> described here) a second neutral sign in front of the second
> "C" is
3) superfluous,
If you put 2 naturals there, it will be clear enough what you mean, but will contribute nothing useful that a single natural sign doesn't accomplish.
> 5) Can we double sharpen (or flatten a note) with 2 sharp (or
> flat) keys, and if so, is it, at least in the case of the two
> sharp keys, equivalent in power and scope (scope: how long and
> where it's in effect, and what it would take to change the note
> within the measure) to the "x" symbol?
That's how you double-flatten a pitch - two flat signs close together. As for 2 sharp signs, it would be clear enough, but it isn't the standard convention. It should be the same as an x in every respect.
> 6) So, if I really wanted to provide a friendly reminder that a
> "C" was sharp in a measure by virtue of an immediately prior
> "C" in that measure having a sharp sign before it, would the
> "King's English," err, the "King's Musical Notation" find me
> putting a neutral sign and sharp sign before the second
> "C"????!!!
No. Why the natural sign? You aren't changing the pitch of the C, only reminding the player of what it already is (by convention).
Keep in mind that if a "rule" doesn't convey something the composer wants, he always has the option to invent his own notation. Sometimes players have to make sense of things from context if the composer does't provide an explanation.
For example, in non-metric notation (some later 20th and 21st century pieces) where bar lines either don't exist at all or are used as section dividers and not an indication of beat groupings, chromatics are often meant to apply only to the note they appear with - there is no scope for any chromatic sign beyond an individual note.
For some slightly earlier composers, I think mostly French, chromatic marks (accidentals) apply throughout the measure, but only in the octave they are used. To apply the same alteration to a note an octave higher *even in the same measure* a new chromatic sign is used. You have to find this out from context.
No rules. Just conventions. All of which can be broken.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roys_toys
Date: 2015-03-24 00:18
I would like to check out my understanding :
1/ Is there an easy way to know whether you are in music where the accidental does not affect all octaves, but just the octave in which it appears ?
2/ I know that an accidental on a tone which is tied into the next bar also affects the tied note at first beat. It does not affect any other appearances of that tone that may occur in the bar. But does it matter whether or not the tone appears again within the same slur / phrase which has carried through the bar ? ( ie within the same slur/ phrase would there normally be a natural to confirm "no accidental" if there was a same tone accidental tie at the beginning of the bar)
3/ Does an accidental in a grace note affect all other appearances of the tone in the bar ?
thanks in advance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-03-24 01:09
Roys_toys wrote:
> 1/ Is there an easy way to know whether you are in music where
> the accidental does not affect all octaves, but just the
> octave in which it appears ?
I don't know of one. You can usually tell whether or not the chromatic affects a different octave, at least in tonal music, by the melodic result. Apart from that, if you find a situation that makes you suspect the chromatic isn't meant to affect a different octave, you have to look closely through the music for places where it is repeated for different octaves. If the composer (or editor/engraver) has deliberately given separate sharp signs somewhere for an F4 and then again for an F5, that's a loud hint. Look for a few others to make sure.
Klose is an example, or at least my old Fischer editions are. I haven't made a systematic search to confirm complete consistency, but there are many, many examples throughout the books.
> 2/ I know that an accidental on a tone which is tied into the
> next bar also affects the tied note at first beat. It does not
> affect any other appearances of that tone that may occur in the
> bar. But does it matter whether or not the tone appears again
> within the same slur / phrase which has carried through the bar
> ? ( ie within the same slur/ phrase would there normally be a
> natural to confirm "no accidental" if there was a same tone
> accidental tie at the beginning of the bar)
A tie over a bar line continues the same note, whatever it is. A slur that includes several different notes (not the same pitches) doesn't carry any chromatic alterations over the bar line with it. This might be unclear in the case where a slurred group happens to include two of the same note before and after a bar line (e.g. a C# on the last beat followed by an unmarked C on beat one of the next bar but not specifically tied with no C-sharp in the key signature) - you'd have to figure out from context whether the second C is sharp or not. It seems to me good notation practice would explicitly tie the two if they were supposed to be the same pitch, even under a longer slur.
> 3/ Does an accidental in a grace note affect all other
> appearances of the tone in the bar ?
>
That's a good question. I don't really know what the convention is for this. I'd look at the context to decide what the melodic note was supposed to be. My inclination would be that the chromatic change for the grace note would not affect a melodic note later in the measure because half-step grace notes (out of the actual key) are so often used. Sometimes you just have to do what sounds logical.
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}
