Sight Reading - Accidental Over Bar line Question

[dustandbarley]

Hello All,

I've been a little confused about this for a while. My understanding is that if an accidental is tied over a bar line, the next note shown on that pitch reverts to that of the key? Does that make sense?

So in the example below:-
The purple circled note is sustained from the previous bar F#.
The red circled notes are F naturals.
I'm confused about the natural sign on the yellow circled note,

When the program played the melody, it played the red circled notes as F naturals, which is what I thought it should do, then why is there a natural sign (yellow circle) in the following bar? I hope its just a glitch with the software. Any thoughts?

[url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4894275/Music/BassChat/Posts/F%23.png"][/url]

Whilst we are at it, am I right in thinking that if an accidental appears, its NOT carried over to the same note on a different octave - an additional accidental is required.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

Cheers

Edited August 1, 2016 by dustandbarley

[enricogaletta]

You're right, is a bit confusing, if there are not alterations in key, than a # or b have the value until the bar end. The natural sign shouldn't be even in the third bar but the matter is that several writing software, I use sibelius, act in a weird way. They always needs to use natural, flat or sharp sign, I don't why, indeed if you remove, leave the chart as rules want, and than let the midi play, it will sounds wrong.
Probably is a software algorithm. What I usually do with sibelius is check everything with the midi playing and than at the end, I remove the unnecessary natural, sharp or flat.
Cheers.

[Bilbo]

Often the naturals are simply there to 'remind' the reader of the fact that the notes in the second bar that are NOT tied to the previous bar's accidental should be played as naturals. The purpose of notes is not to be accurate but to be played. When a computere reads them, none of this matters as it is not 'reading' the chart, it is reading the 1s and 0s that make up the programming. When a human being reads the chart, the notes need to be presented in a way that makes it readable.

[ras52]

What Bilbo said.

I'd expect the first red-circled note to have an accidental to avoid the ambiguity.

[dustandbarley]

Thanks for your quick answers.

From your replies, I gather that the above chart isn't scored so well and I'd probably only come across this if reading a chart scored from software that has some quirks... I'm happy that the consensus is that the red circled note should be natural ( a reminder natural sign would be nice) and that the natural sign on the yellow circled note shouldn't really be there (is a bar too late). When reading this in practise, I was clocking the yellow circled note's natural sign before I had reached the point of playing the red circled notes and then having to decide whether the score was wrong and the red noted should F#'s until I reached the yellow circled F natural, or go with what I thought to be correct in that only the tied purple circled note from the previous bar would be sharpened.

Just FYI the "chart" is from [url="https://sightreadingfactory.com"]Sight Reading Factory[/url]

Once again, many thanks - what about the octave accidentals?

[ras52]

What consensus?

It looks to me like the red notes are supposed to be F# - especially given the "cancellation" of the F# by the yellow note's accidental - but I'd still want a courtesy accidental on the first red note to confirm that.

[Bilbo]

I cannot see the dots here so cannot comment on the chart being discussed but, is an accidental appears in a bar then all notes of that kind are effected unless they have another, different accidental. The only exception is a tied note.

[dustandbarley]

Hmmm.... Maybe I've misunderstood.....

If we can pretend that the score is as given and we are sitting at a reading gig there was no time for rehearsal, or time to skim through the pad... What would you play for the red circled notes and why?

Am I right in thinking ras52, you would play F#'s for the red circled notes but feel there should have been accidentals for those notes to avoid ambiguity?

Thanks very much
(do different octaves need their own accidentals - ♯♭♮?)

[simonlittle]

The accidental applies to all octaves of the same note. The natural sign after the tied note is technically unnecessary but is the remind the player that the note is now naturalised. In proper classical notation that would not be there but in more modern notation it's often added for clarity.
Personally I prefer it to be there as it avoids confusion when sight-reading. If I was writing the chart I would include it, but possibly in brackets...
Hope that helps!

[dustandbarley]

Bilbo, I didn't realise you can't see the dots. Can I ask you to [url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4894275/F%23.png"]follow this link and have a look?[/url]

Thanks Simon, so the red circled notes should be F#... even though there is no accidental in their bar, they have 'borrowed' it from the previous bar because the last note in the previous bar was F# and it tied into the their bar.... I need to improve my communication skills as well as my sight reading ones

Edited April 16, 2015 by dustandbarley

[ras52]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429183749' post='2748825']
Am I right in thinking ras52, you would play F#'s for the red circled notes but feel there should have been accidentals for those notes to avoid ambiguity?
[/quote]

Yes. My thoughts would be: "Hm, is that red note an F# or an F natural? I wish the editor had made it clear! I see that the F# is explicitly cancelled by the natural at the yellow note, which suggests that the red note's an F#."

[dustandbarley]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1429187976' post='2748938']
Yes. My thoughts would be: "Hm, is that red note an F# or an F natural? I wish the editor had made it clear! I see that the F# is explicitly cancelled by the natural at the yellow note, which suggests that the red note's an F#."
[/quote]
Great ras52, and just to emphasise the poor job the editor has done; IF the yellow circled note DID NOT have the natural sign, you would have played F NATURALS for the previous red circled notes (despite the purple circled note).

Many thanks for your continued help.

[ras52]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429188351' post='2748948']
Great ras52, and just to emphasise the poor job the editor has done; IF the yellow circled note DID NOT have the natural sign, you would have played F NATURALS for the previous red circled notes (despite the purple circled note).
[/quote]

In a band situation I'd ask what the others are playing... or if the chord names were given, I'd play F# for D and F for D minor... or I'd ask the question on Basschat

[dustandbarley]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1429189058' post='2748968']
In a band situation I'd ask what the others are playing... or if the chord names were given, I'd play F# for D and F for D minor... or I'd ask the question on Basschat
[/quote]Ha Ha - and look at the trouble that's causing... But really thanks for your help.

[ras52]

Happy to "pitch" in

BTW, such matter pre-date computer notation by a long way, see e.g. http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2207676/Silly_question_Chopin_C_minor_

[philparker]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429188351' post='2748948']

Great ras52, and just to emphasise the poor job the editor has done; IF the yellow circled note DID NOT have the natural sign, you would have played F NATURALS for the previous red circled notes (despite the purple circled note).

Many thanks for your continued help.
[/quote]

Sorry if I'm repeating what has been agreed, but if the yellow circled note, was without the cancellation natural sign, I would have still played all the notes in that bar as F#. I use Guitar Pro 6 and even after a tied note in the same bar is sharpened or flattened, I still have to add a sharp or flat to the remaining notes in the bar - it is just poor computer programming!

[Bilbo]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429183888' post='2748832']
Bilbo, I didn't realise you can't see the dots. Can I ask you to [url="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4894275/F%23.png"]follow this link and have a look?[/url]

[/quote]

Link doesn't work on my work computer. Will look at it later.

[Bilbo]

Have checked it out and tea up on the theory and, to be blunt, I think there is sufficient ambiguity for us all to be right It would be necessary to speak to the composer/copyists to clarify their intentions or compare charts with other musicians. Obviously, as the machine plays naturals, it is obvious that this was his or her intention. The use of accidentals in parentheses is, for me, the safest option.

[dustandbarley]

Thank you all for your thoughts and comments. I am happy to accept that the score as it is lacks clarity, thats great. As this example is from an exercise produced by a "sight reading practise" website, I was thinking that there was specific score writing practise that I just didn't know, hence the topic. Thank you again for your contributions, Out of interest, I will email the website and ask them what they would play and why.
Cheers

[ambient]

I would play the red circled notes as F#s because there's an F# tied over from the previous bar. You then get an F# tied over to the next bar, that's why you have the natural sign for the next F. Basically play it as it is, I can see what they mean.

However -

I just did an experiment typing the same notes into Sibelius, and it recognised the first tied note as being an F#, but it wanted another # sign by the next F, it didn't automatically make it a sharp, and wouldn't let me just delete the natural sign.

[TKenrick]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429183749' post='2748825']
(do different octaves need their own accidentals - ♯♭♮?��)
[/quote]

It's my understanding that accidentals in key signatures apply to all octaves of a given note, but accidentals within a bar only apply to that specific pitch. If the above example had any low F#s in the offending bars then they would need their own accidentals.

[paul_5]

I'd interpret that as the F# accidental carrying over the bar line (as it's tied) throughout bar 10, then it get cancelled out by the accidental in bar 11.

A second 'courtesy accidental' for the F on beat 2 of bar 11 would be nice though.

[dustandbarley]

Thanks again for your contributions - I've sent an email with the example to Sightreadingfactory.com and hope they'll reply. I see we are leaning toward playing the red notes as F#'s, but there are a few things that bug me about that.
Firstly - you would have to be reading a bar ahead (which I should be doing anyway) to notice the natural sign in the following bar - yellow circle - is cancelling the accidental from two bars previous, so it seems weird that something in the following bar alters what is played in a previous bar.
Secondly - if the natural sign wasn't there, should the red notes be natural anyway?
Lastly - the program (composer?) played naturals.
To quote Bilbo:-
[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1429210553' post='2749346']
Have checked it out and tea up on the theory and, to be blunt, I think there is sufficient ambiguity for us all to be right It would be necessary to speak to the composer/copyists to clarify their intentions or compare charts with other musicians. Obviously, as the machine plays naturals, it is obvious that this was his or her intention. The use of accidentals in parentheses is, for me, the safest option.
[/quote]
I hope they reply.

Once again thanks to you all for your very much valued contributions.

Edited April 20, 2015 by dustandbarley

[dustandbarley]

Hello,

I heard back from Sightreadingfactory.com as follows:-

[color=#000000][font=Verdana][size=3][i]Thank you for the detailed feedback. We actually are aware of this problem with regards to accidentals not carrying over the measure line like they should in the audio playback. You are correct though, [b]if there is an accidental that is tied over a measure line, any other notes that are spelled the same should also be played with that accidental in the next measure.[/b] We will let you know once we resolve this issue.[/i][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Verdana][size=3][i]Thanks again![/i][/size][/font][/color]




[color=#000000][font=Verdana][size=3][i]Don Crafton[/i]
[i][url="http://sightreadingfactory.com/"]SightReadingFactory.com[/url][/i][/size][/font][/color]

Sorry for the confusion, and I learned that the red circled notes should be sharps because of the tied accidental from the previous bar, which I would have played as naturals... Happy Days

Edited April 20, 2015 by dustandbarley

[Romberg Bevel]

[quote name='dustandbarley' timestamp='1429533925' post='2752302']

Sorry for the confusion, and I learned that the red circled notes should be sharps because of the tied accidental from the previous bar, which I would have played as naturals... Happy Days
[/quote]

I don't think that's right. Notes revert to the key as you originally said - another accidental would be required. Oddly enough, I was revisiting a piece yesterday that has exactly the same thing. I've played this piece to two teachers in the past, either of which would certainly have pulled me up about it. Recordings of the piece also do the same thing (play naturals after a tied sharp).