No problem–although I reserve the right to be seriously annoyed if you label that pitch 3 different ways in the same piece of music. Especially if it’s a handbell piece and different ringers are ringing the G, the A and the B. Although actually, mark it clearly, give me a pencil so I can change the marks if the first set don’t work, and it’s no big deal. Except for my non-note ringing companion who doesn’t get why the music isn’t written the way which makes the most sense to her.
I have sung music that had a double flat in it. Our leader/director/expert music theorist tried to explain why double flats make sense if you are transposing music. He failed. We sang the music anyway.
It’s quite likely that the passage including the E# has modulated to F# minor, which is the relative minor of A major, i.e. sharing the same three sharps in the key signature. The E# is necessary to produce the dominant chord of F# minor, which is C# major.
GorillaMan,
No. Well, I don’t think so, anyway. I think I’d have been able to tell if it “modulated”–although maybe not because we were missing three ringers on my right. Although, this may be a case where I define modulated differently than real musicians do.
I think what happened is that the melody has some pitches in it which are represented by accidentals. If the song were in the key of C, there would be a few sharps scattered across it. But it isn’t. The song is in the key of A, so there are three sharps in the key signature, and then a few sharps scattered elsewhere.
The melody has an awful lot of half steps in it–like E F E D# E F F# G–although I’m cheating–those note names come from an online version of the sheet music in the key of C.
Eureka, the names of notes are usually chosen according to music theory rules, likewise, accidentals (sharps/flats not part of the key sig). These may make no sense if you aren’t familiar with the theory behind it, but it makes perfect sense if you are.
As a very simple, crude example, a C triad – tonic in the key of C Major – is composed of (some variation of) the letters C, E, and G. Not F double-sharp, not A-double flat, not F flat.
For that basic major triad to be altered to a minor triad would require the E to become E flat. It can’t become D sharp, because a “C” triad doesn’t have a “D” in it! So, in order for the E to remain in the note list, it must be made into an E -something, or in this case, E flat.
Musicat,
It makes internal sense. I mean, your explanation sounds reasonable, in and of itself, but I’m not sure I could convey it to someone else.
Which actually leaves me more or less where I was after the lightbulb moment at bell choir. I don’t have enough music theory understanding to explain what the rules are for why someone would write the music the way they did, but I have enough understanding to know that there are rules, and the composer/arranger didn’t label the note E# and F natural in different measures just to be difficult for the bell ringers.
Standard notation has probably become entrenched because it has turned out to be best compromise available. A popular alternative for stringed instruments is tablature, which tells you exactly which fret and which string to play. It’s easier for beginners but is a lot less helpful once you become more familiar with where the notes on your instrument are.
Tab also isn’t very good at indicating rhythm and phrasing, and much of it is aimed toward people who already know what the tune is supposed to sound like rhythmically and just need to be told where to put their fingers. It is also usually more difficult to read, physically.
Just as a possibly interesting aside, we could say that in computer science terms that standard notation is analog and tablature is digital.
Yes, tablature is very much instructional, notation the actions required, whereas standard notation is representational and indicates the resultant sound. It sounds like some of the requirements of bell ringing are for the former - you’re not so concerned about the relationship of E# to the subsequent F# as with which bells to ring!
(Also, as an aside to an aside, tablature has also been around for centuries, and has changed less over that time than regular notation)
Well, the physical height of the note on the staff, more or less, indicates the height of its pitch. The notes on the staff indicate the rise and fall of the melody, which certainly seems like “analog” to me.
I’m not sure whether you meant to imply otherwise, but well temperament is not the same as equal temperament. Equal temperament can be considered a special case of well temperament, by well temperament is not necessary equal temperament, and the term is not usually used for equal temperament. A well-tempered clavier would allow one to play reasonably in all keys, but the keys would not be exact transpositions of one another.
One other little detail on sharps and flats: in a chromatic (half-step by half-step) series, the convention is to sharpen notes in an ascending chromatic run, and flatten them when descending.
If I may offer a simplification (the matter has already been mentioned): E-sharp exists because, for “technical” reasons, sometimes one is simply raising E by a half step. Example: an A-major chord is A - C-sharp - E; an augmented (raised fifth) A chord is A - C-sharp - E-sharp. A - C-sharp - F would, technically be an A chord with a diminished sixth (and no fifth). It’s all a technicality. (As to which player should take the E-sharp, in the bell choir I was in often as not the matter was decided by which player happened to have a free hand at the time!)
I once did a handbell transcription of Franck’s Panis Angelicus and took the liberty of noting a double-sharp as it’s equivalent “regular” note. Saves a few minutes of head scratching in rehearsal. In some long-forgotten book I once read, “Composers make the rules - and break them.”
