Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[David W. Fenton]

On 9 Sep 2005 at 6:21, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> [So far, the thread seems to be leaning towards "or not," especially 
> if the accidental in question is parenthesized.]

My feeling is that you don't really need a "rule" for this. All you 
need is to ask yourself:

Is the notation unambiguous so that every musician, whatever their 
assumptions about "rules," will play exactly the same notes?

So, it seems to me that, whether you think the tiedl accidental 
carries through the whole measure or not, you *must* put a cautionary 
or real accidental on the additional notes in the measure to clarify 
what pitch is to be played.

That issue is entirely independent of the system break circumstances.

To me, a tied note's accidental continues through the remainder of 
the measure it initiates, even if it's not repeated at a system 
break, but I probably reach that conclusion because my work is mostly 
with music that is wholly tonal where it's quite common to be 
parsimonious with accidentals (indeed, leaving out many that would be 
considered obligatory in modern engraving, i.e., in 18th-century 
sources, one G# makes all the Gs sharp, in all octaves).

This reminds me of arguments about bibliographic citations -- it 
doesn't matter which style you use, as long as your provide all the 
information unambiguously, and do so consistently.

Indeed, I've always been hostile to the whole concept of using Ross, 
Read, et al., as authorities, since their "rules" are not binding on 
me, they are just recommendations for a consistent style of 
engraving. Yes, there's lots of common sense in there, but that 
doesn't mean that the rules they come up with must apply to all 
cases.

In fact, I think the Peters organ music I looked at that lacked the 
accidental at the beginning of a tie broken across a system was 
completely unambiguous, because it's *keyboard music* and there's 
plenty of information in the other voices to provide a clear harmonic 
context that makes the cautionary accidntal wholly superfluous.

It's very different in, say, a violin part, where the harmonic 
context can only be inferred. Then, the cautionary accidental after 
the system break beomces pretty important, as there's no other 
information for the player to use to disambiguoate the accidental.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Sep 2005, at 6:15 AM, dhbailey wrote:


Darcy James Argue wrote:


On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:09 AM, dhbailey wrote:

I can't recall where I've read this, but I'm sure a search of  
Stone  or Read or Ross will support it -- the later note in the  
second  measure requires an accidental.  The rule about  
accidentals working  throughout the measure only applies when  
there has been an actual  accidental placed in the measure.   
Since with tied notes, there  isn't an accidental placed in front  
of the tied note in the second  measure



[sigh]
David, I don't mean to get snippy, but for crying out loud, this  
is  *exactly what this entire thread has been about* -- situations  
where  there IS an accidental placed in front of the tied note in  
the second  measure (because the second measure begins a new  
system, or a new  page, etc).




And didn't my second sentence above: "The rule about accidentals  
working

throughout the measure only applies when there has been an actual
accidental placed in the measure." answer the question?


Well, no, clearly not, since pretty much the entire thread has been a  
debate about whether an accidental placed before a note that  
*continues* a tie counts as an "actual accidental placed in the  
measure" or not.


[So far, the thread seems to be leaning towards "or not," especially  
if the accidental in question is parenthesized.]


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[dhbailey]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:09 AM, dhbailey wrote:

I can't recall where I've read this, but I'm sure a search of Stone  
or Read or Ross will support it -- the later note in the second  
measure requires an accidental.  The rule about accidentals working  
throughout the measure only applies when there has been an actual  
accidental placed in the measure.  Since with tied notes, there  isn't 
an accidental placed in front of the tied note in the second  measure



[sigh]

David, I don't mean to get snippy, but for crying out loud, this is  
*exactly what this entire thread has been about* -- situations where  
there IS an accidental placed in front of the tied note in the second  
measure (because the second measure begins a new system, or a new  page, 
etc).




And didn't my second sentence above: "The rule about accidentals working
throughout the measure only applies when there has been an actual
accidental placed in the measure." answer the question?

I'm not sure what you're crying out loud for, but cry more quietly -- I 
can hear you all the way up here in New Hampshire!




--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Darcy James Argue]

On 09 Sep 2005, at 5:09 AM, dhbailey wrote:

I can't recall where I've read this, but I'm sure a search of Stone  
or Read or Ross will support it -- the later note in the second  
measure requires an accidental.  The rule about accidentals working  
throughout the measure only applies when there has been an actual  
accidental placed in the measure.  Since with tied notes, there  
isn't an accidental placed in front of the tied note in the second  
measure


[sigh]

David, I don't mean to get snippy, but for crying out loud, this is  
*exactly what this entire thread has been about* -- situations where  
there IS an accidental placed in front of the tied note in the second  
measure (because the second measure begins a new system, or a new  
page, etc).


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:


Darcy James Argue écrit:


I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy
accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not
carry through the measure



But what if you don't use parentheses? Then it would carry through. One 
more reason for not having them...




Without parentheses it wouldn't be a cautionary accidental -- it would 
be a real accidental and as such it would carry through the entire measure.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[dhbailey]

Ken Durling wrote:

I agree, it's never been an issue for me either - more problematic is a 
reiteration of the same note later in the  2nd measure, and whether the 
measure rule applies from the tied note.  But still the courtesy 
accidental is always the safe road.  (I do like "curtsy" accidental 
though :-) - perhaps something in a French Overture?)




I can't recall where I've read this, but I'm sure a search of Stone or 
Read or Ross will support it -- the later note in the second measure 
requires an accidental.  The rule about accidentals working throughout 
the measure only applies when there has been an actual accidental placed 
in the measure.  Since with tied notes, there isn't an accidental placed 
in front of the tied note in the second measure, there isn't an actual 
accidental to carry through the measure, thus the need for an accidental 
in front of that later note in that measure.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 17:22 Uhr dc wrote:

The Peters Urtext edition of the (manualiter) Toccatas, 1956, seems to 
follow the rule. All my other volumes of organ works are Bärenreiter 
(with one Breitkopf).




Thanks, that's what I needed to know.
The client has actually given in. He actually checked his own Peters, 
and to his surprise found that I was correct...

Of course now his trust in me has quadrupled. Took me a whole day, though.


Yes, but sometimes that confidence boost is worth far more than a day's 
work -- word of mouth referrals from him will now paint you as a god 
among engravers and he will convince everybody he knows who might need 
an engraver that you are the only one with such deep knowledge of proper 
engraving techniques.  :-)


In any event, you won the battle and that counts for something to offset 
those battles with clients who simply won't be convinced, even in the 
face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Raymond Horton]

Darcy James Argue écrit:


I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy
accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not
carry through the measure



But what if you don't use parentheses? Then it would carry through. 
One more reason for not having them...


Dennis

Some 19th Century composers, most prominently Berlioz and Verdi, 
followed this norm in their music.  They normally repeated the tied 
accidental on the downbeat, which then carried through the bar.  I have 
observed it in instrumental music of these composers many, many times.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Andrew Stiller]

I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy 
accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not 
carry through the measure, and if it's e.g., an Eb, the next Eb in the 
measure would require a (non-courtesy) accidental.


But it would be nice to know what others do in this situation.

- Darcy


I agree. The parenthesis signals that the parenthesized instruction is 
merely a reminder and is not technically needed. If an accidental 
carries information about succeeding notes, it is not a courtesy 
accidental at all!


That said, however, I would be careful to place a(n unparenthesized) 
courtesy natural before any repetition of the pitch within that bar 
just to make sure the player understands.


Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Andrew Stiller]

On Sep 7, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

I can't find this in Ted Ross, and am looking for a rule: When a tie 
reaches across a System break, should an accidental be repeated on the 
second note?


My policy is to do this only following a page turn.

Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Ken Durling]

Interesting.  I have the IMC score, and although the pagination is 
different, I can see that they follow a similar practice - but here 
accidentals are only rarely repeated on ties over system breaks. I've 
only found one example so far.  Lots of non-repeated ones.


Ken


At 12:14 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:

Figured I'd pull out the old Stravinsky Sacre score, the Kalmus reprint
that I bought in the 1960s. Not exactly a monument to engraving, but very
legible in general, considering how much is going on.

So no answer. It goes both ways. The English Horn line from p1-2
repeats the sharp as does the flute line from p2-3. But the clarinet line
doesn't repeat the flat from p103-104 or 121-122. The oboe repeats a flat
from 115-116 but not from 109-110. It's not consistent (though I was
surprised at how few ties Igor uses over the barlines).

Dennis





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 20:57 Uhr David W. Fenton wrote:
The Peters volume that I was looking at is a reprint of one of their 
old editions, with a preface dated 1852, so one might guess that the 
musical text reflects much older engraving rules.




This reflects my observations as well. I have here a volume of various 
organ preludes published in 1927, and it is extremely inconsistent. 
That's the music I am currently working on, hence the problems trying to 
convince the client that the extra accidentals after system breaks are 
necessary.


I also have several older editions of various organ works, dating back 
to about the turn of the century, and they seem to not have these 
courtesy accis. So from what I am seeing I think I can make a case that 
practice changed in the first half of the 20th century, and that by 
about the 40s the extra accis were pretty much established convention.


That is not to say that the rule will be followed without exception, I 
am certain one will find exceptions even in major publications (although 
having looked through quite a number of them I didn't find any).


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

Figured I'd pull out the old Stravinsky Sacre score, the Kalmus reprint
that I bought in the 1960s. Not exactly a monument to engraving, but very
legible in general, considering how much is going on.

So no answer. It goes both ways. The English Horn line from p1-2
repeats the sharp as does the flute line from p2-3. But the clarinet line
doesn't repeat the flat from p103-104 or 121-122. The oboe repeats a flat
from 115-116 but not from 109-110. It's not consistent (though I was
surprised at how few ties Igor uses over the barlines).

Dennis





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Ken Durling]

Yes, I follow you and concur for the tied note.  I was just talking 
about subsequent iterations of the pitch.


Ken


At 12:05 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:

On 19:04 Uhr Ken Durling wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure being on system break or not affects 
this question.  If an accidental is tied across a barline it seems 
to me it raises the question of subsequent identical pitches in the 
following bar in either case, so that adding an accidental - 
probably NOT courtesy but normal - should be the norm, as others are saying.


Well, by traditional European convention there should definitely not 
be an accidental on a tied over note unless the tie goes over a 
system break. All the editions I listed completely go by this convention.


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 19:04 Uhr Ken Durling wrote:
Well, I'm not entirely sure being on system break or not affects this 
question.  If an accidental is tied across a barline it seems to me 
it raises the question of subsequent identical pitches in the 
following bar in either case, so that adding an accidental - probably 
NOT courtesy but normal - should be the norm, as others are saying.


Well, by traditional European convention there should definitely not be 
an accidental on a tied over note unless the tie goes over a system 
break. All the editions I listed completely go by this convention.


I also think this is influenced by the presence or lack of key 
signature.  My own work is almost entirely without key signature, and 
I think that adds another level of necessity for clarity.  When sight 
reading music "with" a key signature I think my tendency would be to 
revert to the non-accidental note in the situation we're discussing.


Ah, for music without a key sig, and even more so for atonal music the 
case may indeed be different. I wouldn't know, I don't do that kind of 
music very often.


Johannes

--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Sep 2005 at 13:23, Phil Daley wrote:

> As a sight reader, I would expect that, if there was an accidental in
> a previous measure that was tied over into the current measure, the
> next time that note appeared in the current measure, it would have a
> normal accidental.

I would expect exactly the opposite.

If the first note were *not* tied, the accidental would carry over 
for the whole measure.

I see no reason why tying should change that.

In either case, tied or not, the appearance of the note a half step 
away from the first instance seems to me to require an explicit 
accidental for any kind of clarity at all. That is, the second note 
needs an accidental no matter if it's the same or different, since 
otherwise, it's going to be open to interpretation.

Indeed, in older engraving styles (e.g., 20 yearw on either side of 
1800), accidentals in one voice are not even indicated in other 
voices. It's quite common in the music I'm working with to see an 
octave in the left hand of a piano part with the accidental only on 
the top note of the octave. It doesn't indicate a diminished or 
augmented octave, wich doesn't exist in that musical style, but 
implies a harmonic context where all instances of that pitch class 
get the accidental.

Sometimes it's very unclear whether or not some notes should or 
should not retain the accidental. Sometimes those accidentals even 
carry over to the next bar line. In those repertories, you really 
have to use your ear to figure it out.

To avoid that, it seems to me that one should be explicit about it. 
And any time you're changing the accidental of a pitch within a 
measure, it seems to me obligatory to indicate that explicitly, 
rather than ever assuming that a note without an accidental will be 
interpreted as natural.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Sep 2005 at 17:22, dc wrote:

> Johannes Gebauer écrit:
> >If anyone has the time I would really be interested if a (any) Peters
> > publication of Bach Organ works follows this, sometimes or all the
> >times, or not at all, since he seems to claim that they don't. I
> >cannot check this since I don't own one. Please also let me know the
> >year of the publication.
> 
> The Peters Urtext edition of the (manualiter) Toccatas, 1956, seems to
> follow the rule. All my other volumes of organ works are Bärenreiter
> (with one Breitkopf).

The Peters volume that I was looking at is a reprint of one of their 
old editions, with a preface dated 1852, so one might guess that the 
musical text reflects much older engraving rules.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Chuck Israels]

On Sep 8, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:

I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy  
accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not  
carry through the measure, and if it's e.g., an Eb, the next Eb in  
the measure would require a (non-courtesy) accidental.


But it would be nice to know what others do in this situation.

-


I always put a new accidental after a tied one occurring at the  
beginning of a measure and don't see a way to avoid this practice and  
still be unambiguous.  I might also put a parenthesized courtesy  
cancellation, if the accidental doesn't carry over in the latter part  
of the measure, just to be clear.


I love the idea of "curtsey" accidentals though.

Chuck

Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Sep 2005 at 16:30, Johannes Gebauer wrote:

> If anyone has the time I would really be interested if a (any) Peters
> publication of Bach Organ works follows this, sometimes or all the
> times, or not at all, since he seems to claim that they don't. I
> cannot check this since I don't own one. Please also let me know the
> year of the publication.

I just pulled out Peters Bach Orgelwerke VIII (concertos & the 8 
little preludes & fugues), and on the first page of Concerto II (the 
edition doesn't have BWV numbers), I see a passage with ties in all 
the lower voices of both manuals as well as the pedal. The note in 
the left hand is a G#, tied from a half note at the end of one 
measure to two whole measures, then tied over a system break to a 
dotted half. The # is *not* repeated 

So, that's an example where Peters does break the rule.

It doesn't look like a problem in the context, though, as it would be 
completely unmusical and nonharmonic to think that the tied G were 
natural and not sharp. The notes above make it impossible to forget 
that, and the long held chord makes it very unlikely that someone 
would accidentally interpret it as a slur.

The passsage recurs later with different distribution of the parts in 
the hands (not logically, though -- it is just badly notated in the 
first occurrence), but with the system break after the first half 
note. The # is not repeated.

I also found another case in the 6th of the preludes (an alla breve), 
in which breaking the rule *is* confusing. The context is that in the 
measure before the system break, two voices land on G#. One is tied 
and on the downbeat of the next measure, the top one moves to A 
natural. So, you see a step dissonance, and in context, it looks more 
logical for it to be a whole step, but it's really a half step.

Of course, again, when playing it, it's very unlikely one would make 
that misjudgment.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Phil Daley]

At 9/8/2005 01:04 PM, Ken  Durling wrote:

>Well, I'm not entirely sure being on system break or not affects this
>question.  If an accidental is tied across a barline it seems to me
>it raises the question of subsequent identical pitches in the
>following bar in either case, so that adding an accidental - probably
>NOT courtesy but normal - should be the norm, as others are saying.

As a sight reader, I would expect that, if there was an accidental in a 
previous measure that was tied over into the current measure, the next time 
that note appeared in the current measure, it would have a normal accidental.


Phil Daley  < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Ken Durling]

Well, I'm not entirely sure being on system break or not affects this 
question.  If an accidental is tied across a barline it seems to me 
it raises the question of subsequent identical pitches in the 
following bar in either case, so that adding an accidental - probably 
NOT courtesy but normal - should be the norm, as others are saying.


I also think this is influenced by the presence or lack of key 
signature.  My own work is almost entirely without key signature, and 
I think that adds another level of necessity for clarity.  When sight 
reading music "with" a key signature I think my tendency would be to 
revert to the non-accidental note in the situation we're discussing.


Ken


At 09:23 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:

On 18:10 Uhr Ken Durling wrote:
I agree, it's never been an issue for me either - more problematic 
is a reiteration of the same note later in the  2nd measure, and 
whether the measure rule applies from the tied note.  But still the 
courtesy accidental is always the safe road.


Do you mean you put them in even in a middle of a system? That would 
really confuse me when sightreading.


And yes, that specific question is interesting. I would not add 
another courtesy acci, if the first note in the measure had one, but 
to be honest I haven't checked this out. Anyone know?


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 2005/09/08 / 12:41 PM wrote:

>I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy  
>accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not  
>carry through the measure, and if it's e.g., an Eb, the next Eb in  
>the measure would require a (non-courtesy) accidental.


This is exactly how I have been doing, and I receive no complaint.  I
even get thank you remark from sight reader sometime :-)


-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Darcy James Argue]

I had the opposite instinct -- that a parenthesized courtesy  
accidental on a tied note at the beginning of a measure would not  
carry through the measure, and if it's e.g., an Eb, the next Eb in  
the measure would require a (non-courtesy) accidental.


But it would be nice to know what others do in this situation.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 08 Sep 2005, at 12:23 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 18:10 Uhr Ken Durling wrote:

I agree, it's never been an issue for me either - more problematic  
is a reiteration of the same note later in the  2nd measure, and  
whether the measure rule applies from the tied note.  But still  
the courtesy accidental is always the safe road.




Do you mean you put them in even in a middle of a system? That  
would really confuse me when sightreading.


And yes, that specific question is interesting. I would not add  
another courtesy acci, if the first note in the measure had one,  
but to be honest I haven't checked this out. Anyone know?


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
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

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 18:10 Uhr Ken Durling wrote:
I agree, it's never been an issue for me either - more problematic is 
a reiteration of the same note later in the  2nd measure, and whether 
the measure rule applies from the tied note.  But still the courtesy 
accidental is always the safe road.


Do you mean you put them in even in a middle of a system? That would 
really confuse me when sightreading.


And yes, that specific question is interesting. I would not add another 
courtesy acci, if the first note in the measure had one, but to be 
honest I haven't checked this out. Anyone know?


Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Chuck Israels]

On Sep 8, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:The client has actually given in. He actually checked his own Peters, and to his surprise found that I was correct...Of course now his trust in me has quadrupled. Took me a whole day, though.Only a day?  I'd consider that a speed record! :-)Chuck Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com  ___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[A-NO-NE Music]

dc / 2005/09/08 / 12:05 PM wrote:

>I think I've always seen it without the brackets.


To me, without parenthesis, it can be confused with slurred instead of
tied, no?


-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Ken Durling]

I agree, it's never been an issue for me either - more problematic is 
a reiteration of the same note later in the  2nd measure, and whether 
the measure rule applies from the tied note.  But still the courtesy 
accidental is always the safe road.  (I do like "curtsy" accidental 
though :-) - perhaps something in a French Overture?)


Ken


At 08:50 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:


I was fascinated with this thread, 'coz I never thought it is an issue.
I always put curtsy repeated accidental with parenthesis (hit '*' then
'P') so we save rehearsal/studio time.

--

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

If you mean you do this for system breaks, you can use Robert's TieMover 
plugin, it can do this automatically. I let it do this in the same run 
as I move ties on lines a quarter space away from the note (it's amazing 
that Finale can now do this for slurs, but requires a third party plugin 
to do it for ties...).


Johannes

A-NO-NE Music schrieb:
I was fascinated with this thread, 'coz I never thought it is an issue. 
I always put curtsy repeated accidental with parenthesis (hit '*' then

'P') so we save rehearsal/studio time.



--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 17:22 Uhr dc wrote:
The Peters Urtext edition of the (manualiter) Toccatas, 1956, seems 
to follow the rule. All my other volumes of organ works are 
Bärenreiter (with one Breitkopf).




Thanks, that's what I needed to know.
The client has actually given in. He actually checked his own Peters, 
and to his surprise found that I was correct...

Of course now his trust in me has quadrupled. Took me a whole day, though.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[A-NO-NE Music]

I was fascinated with this thread, 'coz I never thought it is an issue. 
I always put curtsy repeated accidental with parenthesis (hit '*' then
'P') so we save rehearsal/studio time.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Ken Durling]

I have three nearly complete editions of the Bach 
organ works, (Barenreiter, EMB, Peters and a few 
Schirmers)  including most of the Peters - I'll 
check later as this has my curiosity now, but 
they are at church not here at home.


Ken


At 08:22 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:

Johannes Gebauer écrit:
If anyone has the time I would really be 
interested if a (any) Peters publication of 
Bach Organ works follows this, sometimes or all 
the times, or not at all, since he seems to 
claim that they don't. I cannot check this 
since I don't own one. Please also let me know the year of the publication.


The Peters Urtext edition of the (manualiter) 
Toccatas, 1956, seems to follow the rule. All my 
other volumes of organ works are Bärenreiter (with one Breitkopf).


Dennis





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Ken Durling
Composition and Music Services
Berkeley, CA
[510] 843-4419


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

In case anyone is interested I have now been forced to prove my case to 
the client, so I looked at the following list of publications:


Mendelssohn, Hebriden-Ouvertüre, Bärenreiter, 2004.
Mozart, Marriage of Figaro, Peters 1941
Beethoven, Sinfonie Nr 6, Eulenburg 1986
Bach, Wohltemperiertes Klavier, Bd. I, Henle, 1950
Bach, Weihnachts-Oratorium, Bärenreiter 1960/1988
Bach, Matthäus-Passion, Bärenreiter, 1972
Haydn, Klaviertrios Band IV, Henle Verlag 1987

The bias on Bärenreiter had to do with the client.
All of these publications follow the rule without exceptions. This was 
100% of all publications I looked at.


So I guess that at least the major European publishers (I haven't looked 
at Breitkopf, didn't have any at hand) do indeed follow this convention.


I still couldn't convince the client (he doesn't understand that this is 
an exception only applicable at system breaks), so since he decides we 
will not follow the convention, even though I am unhappy about this. But 
who cares?


If anyone has the time I would really be interested if a (any) Peters 
publication of Bach Organ works follows this, sometimes or all the 
times, or not at all, since he seems to claim that they don't. I cannot 
check this since I don't own one. Please also let me know the year of 
the publication.


Johannes

On 07.09.2005 22:54 Uhr Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I can't find this in Ted Ross, and am looking for a rule: When a tie 
reaches across a System break, should an accidental be repeated on 
the second note? I know it can be, but can someone look this up in 
the other standard treatises for me, or point me to the right page in 
Ted Ross?





--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 07.09.2005 23:13 Uhr Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
I'm interested in this answer also. Often if I leave the accidental 
out (which is what I've usually done), performers ask for it to be 
inserted in the next printing of parts -- or I see it penciled in on 
parts. 


You can use Robert's TieMover to automatically insert or delete them.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 10:54 PM 9/7/05 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>I can't find this in Ted Ross, and am looking for a rule: When a tie 
>reaches across a System break, should an accidental be repeated on the 
>second note? I know it can be, but can someone look this up in the other 
>standard treatises for me, or point me to the right page in Ted Ross?

I'm interested in this answer also. Often if I leave the accidental out
(which is what I've usually done), performers ask for it to be inserted in
the next printing of parts -- or I see it penciled in on parts.

Dennis



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 23:32 Uhr Aaron Sherber wrote:
Since David has done most of this research, the least I can do is 
flip open Read. 




Thanks, that was what I was looking for.

Thanks also to David for looking this up!

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Owain Sutton]

dhbailey wrote:



I can't find any specific reference to what you're asking in either Ross 
or Kurt Stone and Gardner Read's book isn't right at hand for me to 
check, but my 2-cents' worth on it is that you should repeat the 
accidental, since it's not always clear that the curved line at the end 
of the system or the beginning of the next system are ties or slurs.


Repeating the accidental removes any ambiguity from the situation.



From a performing point of view, I wholly agree.  Unfortunately, I can 
also sympathise with the frustration for engravers, that this can look 
ugly, mess up spacing, make other ties on other staves look out of 
place, and so on.


I'd regard this as something to decide in context, on a piece-by-piece 
basis.  If it's a whole load of held major and minor chords, then 
there's little need to repeat accidentals.  If it's complex and 
unpredictable lines, then certainly repeat them.  Just my 2c.


Owain
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[Aaron Sherber]

At 05:13 PM 09/07/2005, dhbailey wrote:
>I can't find any specific reference to what you're asking in either Ross
>or Kurt Stone and Gardner Read's book isn't right at hand for me to
>check, 

Since David has done most of this research, the least I can do is 
flip open Read. 


"...The one exception to this general rule occurs when the note or 
notes affected by an accidentaland tied over the barline come at the 
end of a system or at the bottom of the page. It is helpful to the 
performer if the accidental is repeated before the tied note(s), on 
the following system or page. If the repetition gets in the way of 
the tie-sign, the curved slur may be placed somewhat higher or lower 
than usual to avoid running into the accidental."  p. 131


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] ties/accidentals over system breaks

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

I can't find this in Ted Ross, and am looking for a rule: When a tie 
reaches across a System break, should an accidental be repeated on the 
second note? I know it can be, but can someone look this up in the other 
standard treatises for me, or point me to the right page in Ted Ross?


Thanks,
Johannes



I can't find any specific reference to what you're asking in either Ross 
or Kurt Stone and Gardner Read's book isn't right at hand for me to 
check, but my 2-cents' worth on it is that you should repeat the 
accidental, since it's not always clear that the curved line at the end 
of the system or the beginning of the next system are ties or slurs.


Repeating the accidental removes any ambiguity from the situation.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale