Timeline for answer to Does an accidental apply to all octaves? by Dom
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2023 at 22:54 | comment | added | rubebop | Interestingly, the german, french and spanish Wikipedia state wholeheartedly the opposite of the english version... So I guess that can only mean, that as other wrote, it depends on the used convention. | |
| Feb 14, 2023 at 22:40 | comment | added | rubebop | Perhaps the Wikipedia article was been edited, since it actually says the opposite from what your are saying: "If a note has an accidental and the note is repeated in a different octave within the same measure the accidental is usually repeated". | |
| Dec 5, 2021 at 17:47 | history | edited | Dom♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Jun 11, 2021 at 19:46 | comment | added | MattPutnam | @JosephSilber I would say that looks like a typo, and they should be G#s. | |
| Jun 11, 2021 at 19:40 | comment | added | Joseph Silber | @MattPutnam - Would you say these Gs are meant to be G#s? It's from the book Stievenard, Emile - Practical Study of Scales, published in 1909. I see elsewhere in that book (and even on that same page), those Gs are always marked sharp twice in the same measure for different octaves, but it doesn't look like the 2 G notes in that screenshot were meant to be naturals. | |
| Oct 21, 2016 at 6:01 | comment | added | yo' | @dtldarek Sorry, "independently" is not the correct term. I mean, each accidental shall be repeated before the first accidented note in each voice in the bar. The truth is, (1) there are as many "good" (/sarcasm) ways as people who write music and (2) publishers are sloppy. | |
| Oct 21, 2016 at 5:15 | comment | added | dtldarek | @yo' Right? Perhaps the editor thought different voices were different insturments... I don't know, but often, esp. outside of the most common symbols, musical notation is a mess (and this is not even about typos that plague less reliable publishers). | |
| Oct 21, 2016 at 4:25 | comment | added | yo' | @dtldarek That's slightly unusual. What's usual is that different voices in the same staff are accidented independently if they are played by different instruments. This is even true in some scores for piano pieces if both hands are written in one staff for a part of the piece. | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | dtldarek | @Siyual I have seen scores of choir music where accidentals were applied to all octaves, but only of the voice where that accidental was, other voices were unaffected despite being written on the same staff. Again, in another score accidentals applied only to the nearest note, but at least there was editor's note (which was great because it would be impossible to check by ear with so many dissonances). | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 20:51 | comment | added | user19146 | In general, with original manuscripts and published editions of "old music" (e.g. before about 1750) , you first have to figure out what convention was actually being used for accidentals (there were several different ones in use), and then figure out how carefully, or not, the copyist or engraver actually followed their chosen convention! | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | MattPutnam | Old French music used to apply accidentals to all octaves, and occasionally you'll find an old edition that hasn't been re-edited, but this is rare. | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 14:32 | vote | accept | Siyual | ||
| Oct 20, 2016 at 14:32 | comment | added | Siyual | Very strange - I've always been under the impression that it applied to all octaves. Thanks for the clarification! | |
| Oct 20, 2016 at 14:14 | history | answered | Dom♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
