Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: natural-sharp and natural-flat (Read 4559 times) previous topic - next topic

natural-sharp and natural-flat

when I typeset a piece that has double-sharps/flats, and the next note need a natural, only a normal natural is displayed, not a natural-sharp or natural-flat

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #1 –
Hm, at least I've been taught that when you restore a double-sharp or double-flat to sharp or flat, it is indicated by a sharp or flat sign, not with natural-sharp or natural-flat. In fact I've never even heard of such signs!

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #2 –
I've been playing instrumental music for 40+ years, and have encountered double sharps and double flats so infrequently that I don't recall ever seeing the need to revert to a normal sharp or flat within the same measure.

What I'm driving at, if it's so complicated, why don't you just use the enharmonic?  It may not be theoretically correct, but the musician reading the part will understand it better.

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #3 –
I'm currently working on Guys and Dolls, which has a piece in Gb major (22 Adelaide's Second Lament).  At one point, the chords are Cb6 then Cbm7, then Gb, each in a bar (measure) of its own.  The Cbm7 chord has printed Ebb and Bbb, as you would expect.

The next chord (the Gb) needs only Bb rather than Bbb, so as a courtesy (as it's in the next bar/measure) the correct accidental is printed.  But it's printed in the old natural-flat notation, which is very confusing to read at sight.

The current and more readable practice is to simply use just a single flat.

The alternative, writing out the piece in F# major, would also be a problem as chords Gb Bb7 Ebm Abm7b5 would become the equally unwieldy F# A#7 D#m G#m7b5.

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #4 –
I think we're in basic agreement. I'm not suggesting writing out the entire piece in F#, but consider changing the occasional troublesome chord.  (Bear with me if my chords aren't spelled correctly here - I don't know my chords very well.)

Why not spell the Cbm7 chord enharmonically as Bm7?  B(nat), D(nat), Gb (I hope) and A(nat)?

Visually, the following chord would not be so jarring, since it would be a Gb chord, with Gb, Bb, Db.  You could use courtesy accidentals without confusing the reader, and wouldn't need to worry about using a two-accidental combination.

I know you'll scare the trumpet players since they usually don't work in mega-sharp keys, but hey, what's a couple of extra sharps between friends?

(Guys and Dolls will be around forever, I think.  I first played it in the late 1960's, and I think I've done the show 3 or 4 times since then).

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #5 –
Mmm, Bm7 as a replacement for Cbm7?  Doesn't work.  We have subdominant 6th, followed by sub-dominant minor 7th leading back to tonic.  If it were written as Bm7, the progression would no longer be a recognisable (and thus not so predictable to sight read).  This is in the printed piano vocal book.

OTOH, if I were writing parts out for single line instruments, I'd much more likely have Eb - D - Db rather than Eb - Ebb - Db.

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #6 –
The practice of following double-sharps/flats, with natural-sharps-flats is now obsolete.
If you are sequencing an old piece of music that already employs this practice, and you want to remain "true" to the composer's/editor's intentions, then I would suggest adding a natural sign as a text item ahead of the "real" accidental.
 

Re: natural-sharp and natural-flat

Reply #7 –
Told you I don't know my chords (sure glad I explained that up front).