You're getting this from a college music professor who taught theory for many
years (now retired).



I am writing this out off the top of my head without footnotes and references.
You can look up these things yourselves later, if you wish; but I think you'll
get the general drift from this narrative of what went on.



Historical background: Back in the days of "musica ficta," (later Medieval,
Renaissance, and earliest Baroque), rules governing proper intervals meant that
certain notes above the bass (or, in the earliest days the tenor, which used to
be the lowest voice before the advent of the contratenor bassus or "bass") had
to be altered to avoid the tritone (the augmented 4th or diminished 5th, the
"so-called "devil's interval," which was considered so unstable as to be avoided
at all costs) EVEN IF THOSE NOTES WERE NOT SO NOTATED. EVERY "good" musician
knew these rules, so there was no need to notate them in the music. Also, in
general, until Petrucci in 1501 and his first PUBLISHED music book for
polyphonic music printed from moveable type, there wasn't much argument about
what the notes were. The composer himself generally passed out the manuscript
parts, rehearsed the musicians, and he would be the arbiter of correctness.
After music began to be published, the music could be purchased by someone
hundreds or thousands of miles from the composer. The composer was no longer
there to "put things right." It became the responsibility of the publisher to
make things clear to the performer (many times an amateur performer who didn't
always know "the rules"). Each publisher set up his own essential "house rules"
for where to include accidentals. There was no common agreement. Remember that
in the days of Bach, key signatures would often be one accidental off from our
current system. A piece in D major might have only one sharp (F#) with the C#
(the "leading tone," most often the most prominent old musica ficta note in the
old days) getting a written accidental. Key signatures, as we know them,
weren't standardized until starting about 1750.



Now to today's point of discussion: The idea of whether to put an accidental in
ALL octaves of a chord, or just in one (and assume that the others were also
thus affected), again, comes from INDIVIDUAL publishers. One will find some 18th
century and even 19th century publications that include only one accidental.
HOWEVER, as we get to the late 19th c. and into the 20th c., the Garner Reed
quote (given in earlier posts) becomes the generally accepted norm for the music
publishing industry. The accidental must appear in any (all) octave(s) in which
the note must be altered. Once written, an accidental remains in effect (but
only for the single line or space upon which it is written) for the rest of the
measure until cancelled by the bar line. If such an altered note (whether it
has an accidental attached to a note, or whether it is a later note in the
measure on the same line or space as an altered note) is TIED across the bar
line, then the accidental is ALSO tied across. In that case, the accidental
will continue until the tie (or continuous UNBROKEN series of ties) ends, even
if that is many measures later. And in such a case, no accidental is need on
any of those later continuously-tied notes.



The above rules generally cover TONAL music.



With the advent of ATONAL (particularly dodecaphonic [12-tone, serial]) music,
SOME (but not all) composers look at things a little differently. For SOME 20th
c. composers, an accidental covers only the note to which it is attached. If it
is followed by another note on the same line or space, then it, too, needs an
accidental, IF it is to be altered. Otherwise, without the accidental, an
unmodified note (even if it follows a modified note on the same line or space
within the same measure) reverts back to its plain, white-note state. In the
case of atonal music, it seems to make sense to notate each individual note
requiring an accidental with an accidental even if it is in the same measure as
a previous accidental on the same line or space. It does make the music easier
to read for the performer. Again, not all 20th c. composers do this, only some.
Many still follow the standard rules (i.e., Gardner Reed).



A disclaimer: As I am an old fogey who tends to stay with tonal music, I don't
follow the atonal composers too much.


Joel Jacklich, M.F.A.
Professor Emeritus of Music: Imperial Valley College
Music Director: Imperial Valley Symphony
Founder/Arranger: Imperial Valley String Quartet
Composer/Arranger: http://stores.sibeliusmusic.com/jacklichmusic

________________________________

From: viola@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Crossley
Sent: Tue 3/27/2007 6:45 AM
To: viola@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [viola] Question RE: Rule of accidentals



All you are observing is that rules are one thing and their observance
another.

Peter

I posted this query all over the planet, and it looks to be about 50/50 in
terms of the answer, with nearly everyone being quite sure they're right.

Looks like the wiser choice would be to always include an accidental on the
other octave(s), just to clear up any guesswork. If we go by the responses
on the listservs, USENET, etc., it would seem that no certain answer is
available.

If there is a certain answer, _who would be the final authority?_ Groves?
(Certainly not Wikipedia) Music theory teachers at universities?

Connie






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]