Here's my take. I think all notation books will agree that accidentals apply only to one octave. In usage, I find that players will play all octaves with the same accidental. Perhaps your particular ensemble is used to having an accidental show on only one octave while applying to all, but it is technically incorrect. That said, in my book, the players win.
It is almost always easier to read two different note heads, as you suggest. But, I think in practice (again) that G# - F-double sharp is so unusual that it is difficult for players to get quickly. Can you respell to Ab - G? The rule I use is to consider what the players have most often encountered (and particularly in scales that they'd practice frequently) and notate to that when spelling gets complicated. Theory loses this one. Musicians of decent caliber who complain do so because they haven't seen something often enough for it to become part of their arsenal. Should the copyist "teach" a musician to read double flats and sharps, or should the copyist work within the tradition of what a musician most often sees? I am sure there are good reasons for both, but again, I come down on the side of the musician. I look forward to reading the other responses, as these questions don't have a perfect answers. -Carolyn On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Patrick Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a brother that plays in a prestigious big band, and I have recently > been hired as the copyist for this particular band. > I had done non-contracted copy work for them before, and need to clear up > some notation issues with the experts, because we argue. I'm not extensive > in jazz, but I know some things can't be as awkward as what he claims they > are, as follows: > > 1. Accidentals > He claims that, in a (e.g.) scalar run: > (Key of Bb Major), if the clarinet plays a scalar run (with Ab accidentals > only, outside of the key) starting on it's written low F (below the staff), > it will play F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, THEN... > should the upper A-flat be remarked since it's in the next octave, or is it > automatically assumed that it's flat, because it was flat in the lower > octave? I claim that's not the practice, he claims it is. Answer on that > one, please. > > 2. Double Sharps, Double Flats: > As we all know, some big band ballads or jazz chart ballads can be in some > nasty keys (e.g. a lot of Glenn Miller's charts are in Db and Ab), moreso in > favor for the vocalist, and my question is: if something like a chromatic > scalar run in the woodwinds would have a heavy-sharped key (B Major), would > you write a chromatic run as B, B-sharp, C#, C double-sharp, D#, etc....OR > B, C-natural, C#, D-natural, D#, etc.). I would always go with the former. > > My view is, the natural-then-sharp accidental fashion is much too difficult > on the eye. Isn't this what double sharps and double flats (respectively) > are for? How about if you had a figure that went inbetween a G# and a G > natural for two pairs of sixteenth notes (for two counts in 4/4?). Would you > want to have to read a G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat G# G-nat mess?!?! Or, > easier, a G#-to F-double sharp breeze-of-a-read? > > I'll ask a bold question: Do you think musicians who complain about double > sharps and double flats exemplify poor musicianship, because they're "too > hard to figure out"? Anyone with me on that? I have seen double-sharps > and double-flats in ALL kinds of stock arrangements, engraved or (poorly) > hand-written. > > Please let me know if these two points are common (and / or correct) in > standard jazz notation. I appreciate it. > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
