|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Windows - FORUM HAS MOVED! > OT: accidentals question | Forum Quick Jump
|
 |
Flint
silly bear
      
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 3151
| Posted 8/5/2016 3:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | If it's for piano, leave the courtesies in, if it's a split wind/string part, I think you're fine leaving them out.
woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2014d using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 4 Full, Garritan Jazz & Big Band 3, Garritan Concert and Marching Band 2, Windows 10, 12GB RAM, frequently RTFM.
If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read
| | Back to Top | |
|
Michel R. E.
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 7430
| Posted 8/5/2016 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Mike Rosen said...
Also, an accidental should he repeated on an octave note, if you want it. You have a C# on the third space, and then an octave above two notes later. Should that be a C# or a natural? Later in the measure, you have it marked as a natural.
Confusing, to my untrained eye.
1) those are two different examples (each measure represents a different way of notating it).
2) not meant for an untrained eye
3) my initial question was to see whether the extra accidentals, while not strictly necessary, would clutter the score.
this isn't "C major" tonal music, so not always easy for the musicians to guess what the notes should be.
**********
Regarding the example in question, I COULD use enharmonics to avoid entirely having to deal with same notes with different accidentals: make the C# into Db, or vice versa make the upper C naturals into B#... except I REALLY don't like seeing augmented 2nds or diminished 3rds in string writing.
Finale (started with ver. 3.0) using 2012 and now 2014 under Windows 8.1
basically ALL Garritan libraries, plus XSample Chamber Ensemble.
"Art critics suffer from Pigeon Syndrome. Pigeons like to leave their mark on monuments. But at the end of the day, the pigeon remains a pigeon, and the monument remains a monument." | | Back to Top | |
|
Claus
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2010
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 8/6/2016 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | I would recommend to leave them in, just because of the vast number of situations (even with "pro" players) I found myself arguing about the rule, that (to my knowledge) says, that accidentals outside the key-signature are not only "just for that bar" but also "just for that octave".
Since at the end of one of those time consuming discussions a clarinet player being happy and proud presenting me a bunch full of publications (especially old LeDuc /France), where that rule obviously wasn't followed-
(i.e. a lot of arpeggio situations where a second note in the same bare appearing an octave higher without another accidental),
I tried to figure out, whether this "rule" is more or less a "habit" or a "house style" but unfortunately to no avail.
So now when preparing music somebody else I don't know has to (sight-)read, I rather go for an extra accidental instead of another go in the "who remembers his theory best?"-quiz show. | | Back to Top | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Tuesday, December 19, 2023 8:08 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2023 |
|
|