E# F flat B# C flat and double naturals

[rachmaninoff_forever]

WHY DO THEY EXIST?!?!?!!

I've asked my teacher this several times, and he keeps giving me this half hour long music theory lecture about they key signature of the piece, or something like that.  FINE...  I guess I can deal with that.  I still think it makes no sense, but... *deep breath* okay...

But when I see this in Scriabin or anybody who writes without a key signature, I have a problem with that!  I first saw this in Scriabin's prelude Op. 67 No. 1.  The first chord that starts the piece had a E in it.  Okay no problem.  But what really got me mad was that the chord after it had a F flat IN THE SAME MEASURE!!!  And that's not the worse of it either.  The next measure, it went back to the original chord that started the piece.  But in stead of leaving E alone, he decided to put a Natural in parentheses!  Are you kidding me?!  It was already natural to begin with!  Why would you make a it a double natural?!!!?!??!?!  

It's not even in a key signature, why is Scriabin writing like that?!  Does he intentionally want to make it harder to read?!  I know Scriabin was crazy, but this is just too much!  Just because you think you're god, doesn't mean you can add redundancy to your music.  

[j_menz]

WHY DO THEY EXIST?!?!?!!

I've asked my teacher this several times, and he keeps giving me this half hour long music theory lecture about they key signature of the piece, or something like that.  FINE...  I guess I can deal with that.  I still think it makes no sense, but... *deep breath* okay...

But when I see this in Scriabin or anybody who writes without a key signature, I have a problem with that!  I first saw this in Scriabin's prelude Op. 67 No. 1.  The first chord that starts the piece had a E in it.  Okay no problem.  But what really got me mad was that the chord after it had a F flat IN THE SAME MEASURE!!!  And that's not the worse of it either.  The next measure, it went back to the original chord that started the piece.  But in stead of leaving E alone, he decided to put a Natural in parentheses!  Are you kidding me?!  It was already natural to begin with!  Why would you make a it a double natural?!!!?!??!?!  

It's not even in a key signature, why is Scriabin writing like that?!  Does he intentionally want to make it harder to read?!  I know Scriabin was crazy, but this is just too much!  Just because you think you're god, doesn't mean you can add redundancy to your music.  

Haha.  Leaving aside their existence in common practice pieces (ie, tonal classical theory pieces) which you don't like but appear to accept (if only to spare yourself another lecture on their theoretical foundations  ), not all atonal composers use the same theoretical foundations to write the music they do.  The most common is one or more variations of serialism, and there you are unlikely to encounter these keys (unless the composer is just showing off, not that that would ever happen, of course  ).

Scriabin wasn't a serialist, and appears to have his own underlying theoretical framework. I don't claim to understand it, but that may explain his odd practices (it would also explain how he manages to actually write music that makes some sense).

In any case, since you are largely a memoriser rather than a sight reader, it shouldn't affect you as badly as it does those of us who have to decipher it every time. That said, there are plenty of examples of it throughout the repertoire, and some even worse, so suck it up! 

[ajspiano]

Short and sweet -

When reading intervalically..  As in "I know my key very well and I can see that that pattern of notes is a scale, or an arpeggio or whatever" ........

This - Eb F G Ab Bb C D Eb

is WAY better on the score than..

This - D# F G G# Bb C D Eb

.........................

And for the same reason - in F# major say?
This - F# A# C# E#
beats
This - F# A# C# F

Or

This E# F# G# E# F#
      C#               F#

beats

This F  F#  Ab  F  F#
      C#               F#

ASSUMING - that you know your scales like the back of your hand, not just in isolation but as key centres that you are familiar with playing pieces in.

_______________________________

As far as scriabin - I'm no expert on his particular tendencies..  But, from a jazz perspective when improvising and constantly modulating I don't really tend to use the theoretically correct enharmonic equivalents for whatever chords are in action. Eb7 is ALWAYS Eb7 in my mind, even if theory dictates that it should be D#7 - when writing atonally without a key signiture I suspect it would be common place to improvise odd transitions and think of them as whatever you are most used to thinking of them as, rather than an enharmonic equivalent since you're not in a scale to begin with at all anyway.

[zezhyrule]

Stuff like this makes it so hard to sight read:



The last interval in the first measure shown is the same as the last one in the third measure. But for some reason Bartok felt the need to use a doublesharp G and B# the first time, and just natural them the second time. Whyyyyyy? Does the same thing again many times in that same image. Also random naturals for seemingly no reason 

I mean sure, I already have this piece memorized and never had to sight read it for any reason but... it's pointless, right?

[ajspiano]

Maybe because the musical intention of bar three is chromatic downward shifts moving into bar 4 where as this is not the case in bar 1?

I appreciate that it's confusing but it does make sense, at least to me - There's more to a score than just the exact notes.

[j_menz]

I find it easier to read as it is than as you suggest. The sharps being added or taken away follow the common practice methodology and so the chords make sense in that way (ie, you don't wind up with odd chords that have, say, an F natural but a D#.

The "unnecessary" natural signs also make sense if you accept that the the convention of "in the same octave" does at times lead to confusion, whereas here the intent is clear.

[zezhyrule]

Ooh thanks for the knowledgeable responses. I understand a bit better now. 

[aindavou]

And too because others instrument non-tempered have a small difference in a E# and F. Music writing is not a privilege to pianists.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

The "unnecessary" natural signs also make sense if you accept that the the convention of "in the same octave" does at times lead to confusion, whereas here the intent is clear.

Leads to confusion?  How does it lead to confusion?!  It's the exact same note that you just played two seconds ago!

I refuse to accept this redundancy. 

[j_menz]

Leads to confusion?  How does it lead to confusion?!  It's the exact same note that you just played two seconds ago!

I refuse to accept this redundancy. 

If you look at the score, you'll notice that the only "unneccessary" natural signs occur on the octaves of notes that have previously had a sharp or flat. Strictly, they would not be given those accidentals anyway, since they are not the same note in the same octave, but it makes it clear that they shouldn't. I find it quite useful, especially in pieces with lots of accidentals (and especially where there are lots of notes to a bar).  That is a sight-reader's perspective.

For memorisers, I fail to see what difference it makes since you'll not be looking at the score anyway.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

For memorisers, I fail to see what difference it makes since you'll not be looking at the score anyway.

Hey, I'm not THAT bad of a sight reader now.  It'll only take me a couple hours to sightread through the whole Rach 3!  It's a couple hours, but at least it's still a note perfect performance!   Now all I need to do is find an orchestra...

[j_menz]

Hey, I'm not THAT bad of a sight reader now.  It'll only take me a couple hours to sightread through the whole Rach 3!  It's a couple hours, but at least it's still a note perfect performance!   Now all I need to do is find an orchestra...

Try the NY Phil, they've had practice playing that slow :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Philharmonic_concert_of_April_6,_1962

 

[philb]

I know Scriabin was crazy

Scriabin, in my mind, was anything but crazy. He, of course, was quite a megalomaniac, and had many eccentric theosophical beliefs, but much of his supposed "insanity" is far too exaggerated.

[mjedwards]

     I'm very familiar with Scriabin's harmonic style, and he is one of my favourite composers - so I feel I can offer a few thoughts on this - largely in response to comments by rachmaninoff_forever.

     I can assure you that Scriabin's system of notation as regards the choice of accidentals and enharmonic notation is entirely logical, and there is nothing arbitrary or "mad" about it.  If he writes E-natural, then immediately after that Fb, you can be sure there is a reason for it - very probably that the underlying harmony changes, and thus the root of the chords changes, and that can change the enharmonic spelling of other notes, because the enharmonic notation is chosen to have the right relationship with the root.
     I just looked up the Op. 67, no. 1 Prelude, because I couldn't recall the exact situation from memory.  To begin with, we have a chord based on C7, essentially, with F# added immediately above the root (C).  E makes perfect sense there.  On the fourth quaver, the harmony changes - essentially to a slightly similar chord based on Eb7, with other notes added.  The Fb played by the left thumb there is a semitone (and an octave, but that doesn't matter in a sense) above the root, Eb, so needs to be an F, to show the 2nd (or 9th) interval.  And of course it has to be Fb, because F-natural would be a *major* 2nd (9th) higher.  So the movement from E to Fb makes perfect sense, and it would be incorrect to change either of these.
     I do disagree with a couple of other notes, though: consideration of the horizontal movement in the melody would have prompted me to write the Eb in the right hand as a D#, and the Gb as an F# - but that's entirely separate from the Fb-E issue you raised.  I do occasionally disagree with Scriabin's enharmonic choices, but these usually concern passing notes or decorative notes, and very rarely the essential notes that define the harmony, which without exception are rigorously logical.
     You also objected to putting a natural sign in parentheses (a cautionary natural) before a subsequent E that appeared immediately after an Fb, which you presumably thought should be notated as E anyway.  This is an entirely orthodox and correct thing to do.  Cautionary accidentals are defined as those which are not needed by the normal rules governing the scope of accidentals, but which are provided as a guard against misinterpretation of accidentals that may occur otherwise.  After Fb, there might be a tendency to think an E following it should be Eb, even though it doesn't have a flat sign in front of it: so Scriabin carefully and correctly placed the cautionary natural in front of the E to guard against that.  While an application of the rules governing accidentals would not dictate an Eb in that position, one of the quirks or frailties of the human mind might lead some performers to unconsciously make that E flat; so it is actually very thoughtful of composers to be aware of that and put in cautionary accidentals to steer you away from that.
     Whether Scriabin's world-view and spiritual philosophy were crazy or not may be open to debate - I think his supposed "craziness" in real life has coloured some people's opinion of his music, and caused them to think his music is a touch mad or insane; but there is nothing in the least bit crazy or irrational about his music or his notation of it.  In fact, he is one of the most careful, consistent, and logical of all composers when it comes to the details of notation.

     You also grudgingly (I thought) accepted the use of double-sharps or -flats in tonal pieces with a key signature, but thought them totally irrelevant in music that uses no key signature and does not use traditional tonality.  I completely disagree here.  Possibly (I won't say certainly) they make no sense in serial or 12-tone music, and some other atonal types of music; but Scriabin's music, and much music not in traditional tonality, is not atonal either, much less serial or 12-tone, and in many such pieces double accidentals can still be logical and indeed correct.  You will see frequent double accidentals in Scriabin's most abstruse music - completely correctly so, in my opinion.  Scriabin was rarely if ever truly atonal (without any tonal centre), but he grew away from traditional tonality, and developed or invented a totally new tonal system, with its own rules governing things like accidentals.
     You will even see a major triad in the upper reaches of some complex, multi-tiered chord notated something like this: E# A C.  This may seem like a needlessly obscure F-major triad, but the notation is entirely correct, and precisely what I would do in the same harmonic situation.  For instance if, in the bass, you had a B7 chord sustained (or treated like arpeggiated figuration) for a bar or two, and in the upper voices you had those notes E# A C, the logic of the situation would require you to notate them just like that.  The reason is that each note is related to the B7 harmony underpinning it - and, technically, the upper notes are not at all an F-major triad, or any kind of triad.  The E# is an augmented 4th above the root (a fundamental relationship in Scriabin's system of harmony - exactly parallel to the F# above the C at the start of the Op. 67, no. 1 Prelude discussed above - F-natural would be incorrect here - which would be more obvious if Scriabin included an F# in the lower harmony, as he occasionally does, but usually doesn't.  The A is obvious enough: the min. 7th that is an essential component of an ordinary B7 chord.  The C-natural is a minor 9th (plus 1 or more extra octaves) above the root, and so has to be C-natural.  (If the C-natural were in a melodic voice that moved up to C#, you might then write it as B# instead - so your "F major" triad would then be E#-A-B# - entirely correctly and properly.  So much depends on the surrounding context.)
     That is a simple example: other examples in Scriabin are far more complex, but can essentially be analyzed in a similar way, and, almost without exception, his apparently odd notation can be rigorously analyzed in an analogous way.  That often explains why chords in late Scriabin appear to have a bunch of grapes hanging in front of them, combining sharps, double-sharps, flats, naturals, etc., sometimes even in the same chord or in succeeding ones.
     This is a radically opposite approach to the one that doesn't take much notice of such things, and where an Eb7 is just that, regardless of whether it should theoretically be a D#7, etc.  I guess one can take that more casual approach and consider it acceptable and simpler.  It does make many chords look more familiar, but does tend to obscure the harmonic structure of the music, which can be very important.  Scriabin obviously chose not to take that approach and worked out logically correct ways of notating everything - an approach I favour myself, too, with equal rigour.
     (Alkan was notorious for apparently refusing to notate anything enharmonically differing from the norm - but in fact I have seen scores by him which do, so he did not always apply this policy fully.  Scriabin almost always did, however - to the nth degree.  If you think Scriabin was bad, try looking at some scores by Nikolai Roslavets on imslp.org - makes Scriabin's notation look like that of a suckling babe!  I don't understand Roslavets' style well enough to determine if he had as logical reasons for his thickets of double accidentals and even occasionally triple ones - but the music has the appearance of having a logical system behind it.  Listen to him on YouTube, too (the score displays as the music plays) - it's fascinating - truly intriguing music, quite beautiful in a very alien sort of way.)

     In the Bartok example given further on, the second chord is simply an E# major triad - it's just a remote key, but a perfectly orthodox major triad otherwise.  That he notated this chord as E# major here, and then as F major a few bars later, is presumably because the context (the preceding and following chords) is different, and that can affect your enharmonic choices, especially if you have a melodic or linear or horizontal interpretation of harmonic progressions.  Actually, in that case, I think the first of those chords could have been written either as E# major or F major, with no obvious "more correct" option (even if you take care to be rigorous, sometimes the better choice can still be ambiguous); the second could only be F major, I think.
     When you have a notational system that was designed to cater only for 7-note-per-octave scales, with the rest treated as accidentals of lesser importance, and then you try to adapt that system to modern styles where all 12 chromatic degrees are of potentially equal importance, you are always going to have enharmonic anomalies somewhere or other, points of ambiguous choice of notation here and there, no matter how logical and rigorous you try to be.  As for the "random" naturals - again, they are cautionary naturals provided for the same reason I mentioned earlier in connection with Scriabin.

Regards, Michael.