Basic Question about Accidentals

[atticus]

Hi All,

General question...If you have a Db in the key signature but then you see a natural sign next to the D (below middle C) does this natural sign affect all of the Db's on the keyboard?  For example, is the D above middle C also considered a D natural or is this still a Db?

Thanks,
atticu

[hyrst]

There are different trends by different composers.  I believe that technically the sign only applies to the pitch it is beside.  Therefore, it will often be placed next to the Db again if it is to be applied at a different pitch.  I have found it rare to come across such a situation where a high and low Db are played in the same bar with an accidental applied to one.  Part writing, such as the Baroque counterpoint, is the most common place.  I believe that Bach, for example, would only apply the accidental to the specified pitch.  However, I have seen examples in his Fugues where I think the omitted accidental should have been there and wonder if it is editorial or the way Bach wanted to section to work.  Rightly or not, I have tried to work out what is correct by theory and if that isn't clear, what sounds right to me.

The general rule I use is in Baroque or 20th C, apply only to the pitch indicated, in Romantic apply to all of the same pitch name, Classical tend to marked pitch but listen carefully.  (Tonal structure is usually more stable in the middle period, but frequent modulations occur in Baroque and tone can be ambiguous in the 20th C.)

I don't know a lot here, am no expert in this area, so I will be happily corrected if my general knowledge is wrong.  Hope this helps, though.

[musicman99]

I have always been taught that it only applies to the note it's beside, and this has always worked for me. However, I acknowledge that the opinion varies, so I'm not saying it's definitely as I say.

Carlos R.

[pianoplunker]

Hi All,

General question...If you have a Db in the key signature but then you see a natural sign next to the D (below middle C) does this natural sign affect all of the Db's on the keyboard?  For example, is the D above middle C also considered a D natural or is this still a Db?

Thanks,
atticu

I always have thought it affects each measure so all Db in a measure are natural until the next measure. Unless it is marked as Db in the same measure

[j_menz]

I have always been taught that it only applies to the note it's beside, and this has always worked for me. However, I acknowledge that the opinion varies, so I'm not saying it's definitely as I say.

Carlos R.

Then you have been taught wrong. It at least affects every note of the same pitch for the remainder of the bar (unless cancelled). There are exceptions, but they only crop up in more advanced repertoire.

[musicman99]

The AB Guide to Music theory which is the official book of the ABRSM Theory exams begs to differ.

Once an accidental has appeared it remains in force until the end of the bar, but it only applies to the line or space on which it is written.

If it was to be done in an exam as you said, then points would be lost.

[j_menz]

The AB Guide to Music theory which is the official book of the ABRSM Theory exams begs to differ.If it was to be done in an exam as you said, then points would be lost.

Please quote, or preferably point me to a copy of, the passage you mention. Either you have misunderstood it, or we've all been playing a heck of a lot of wrong notes for a long time.

[yale_music]

Uh, this isn't a matter of opinion...there's an established convention in musical notation. I.e., there is one correct answer to this question:

An accidental applies only to the line or space on which it is found and only for the duration of the measure.

[j_menz]

Once an accidental has appeared it remains in force until the end of the bar, but it only applies to the line or space on which it is written.

I'd actually misread that as a quote of what I'd said.  It is what I meant.

There are some exceptions. Ottavo or 15vo notation is sometimes quirky, but mostly doesn't have a new accidental even though the octave has changed.

I have an edition (Bissel) of Alkan's Trois Morceaux Dans Le Genre Pathetique where there is a bar where there are two separate voices, in one of which a not (F? - whatever) is natural in one voice and sharp in the other (on the same stave). There are many instances of each, but only one accidental which then applies to each whole voice throughout. Hard to read at first, but a lot less cluttered.  And some editions apply an accidental to all notes of the same name on the staff (eg, C4 sharp implies C5 sharp as well). Not strictly correct, but not that uncommon.

[musicman99]

Yes, older editions print music according to different rules. Bach sometimes wrote the accidental for the exact note and didn't account it for the rest of the bar, leaving out natural signs after a flat or sharp note. It is up to the discretion of the performer to work these out, so this can be quite inconvenient.
I don't know much about the behaviour of accidentals in 8va and 15va. To be honest, I've never really thought much about it. However, the commonly accepted rule is that the accidental only applies to the note it's beside (in that octave) until the end of the bar. If this is what you meant, then I apologise as I misunderstood.

Carlos R.

[yale_music]

I'm pretty sure this was an amateur music student asking a simple question about notation, and we've probably confused the hell out of them...lol. As others have said, there are old practices of notation that differ from today's convention. But for someone who just wants to play the piano from modern printed scores, there's a simple rule.

[musicman99]

It's just that we get so carried away... 

[keypeg]

When I was a relative beginner in music theory I was given a complete answer to this, and it included that fact that older editions followed other conventions.  I did not find it confusing. What I have found confusing in the past is when I was given simplified partial information for the purpose of not confusing me, and then encountered things in music that didn't match them.  I like seeing the more complete answer here.

[mjedwards]

     I thought I was pretty familiar with the basic rules of notation, and yet this thread seems to make it sound like a very complex question.
     I always thought the situation was crystal clear: accidentals apply only to the exact pitch, not to notes of the same letter-name in higher or lower octaves; and they apply till the end of the bar or until negated by some other accidental.
     Composers, usually in a rather advanced or complex style, may adopt another rule occasionally - but they should *always* clearly explain the rule they're adopting in an easily visible footnote.  The commonest alternative rule is to let each accidental last for one note only, or (sometimes) also for immediately repeated notes - although I believe even that additional clause can introduce ambiguity.
     I have composed music, and I tend towards complexity and chromaticism.  I normally use the conventional rule (except that when notes tie into a new bar I prefer to repeat any accidentals in the new bar); but on occasion I have judged that the score would be easier to read if I used accidentals on every note that needed them (without the additional provision about immediately repeated notes which can be ambiguous on occasion).  But I put a note in the score saying that I am adopting that rule, and that each accidental lasts for the one note only.  But I still defer to the conventional rule and put in cautionary accidentals that, under my adopted rule, would not be needed, but which would be needed under the normal rule.  I tend to find that this arrangement makes very chromatic music easiest to read - especially when bars are long, with many notes in them.
     And in more ordinary situations, when I use the normal rule, I am generous in providing cautionary accidentals wherever I think confusion could potentially arise.  If anything, I err on the side of too many cautionaries, rather than too few; but I think that is better, on the whole.
     (I hope I haven't confused things further - the basic situation, though, is very simple and quite clear, and not subject to opinion.)

Regards, Michael.