On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote: > As you point out, that leads to a contradiction: by rule one, a tied > note is the same as the note in the preceeding measure; by rule 2, it > can't be the same note since the accidental has just been cancelled by > the bar line. Bingo, contradiction!
What does this prove, except that *your* rules are self-defeating and incomplete? If your rules imply a contradiction where even novice musicians agree on a single interpretation, don't you think maybe the problem is with how you stated them? > While it avoids this particular problem, I can imagine that there may > be another situation in which that rule conflicts with *another* rule. > A further, even more careful statement would clear that up...and so > on. If this is the case, and I doubt it, then the problem is with careless statements being made, not the the practices that they are meant to describe. An accurate description of a rule *should* require careful language, and it might require exceptions, or even exceptions to exceptions. But that doesn't imply a contradiction. > We have indeed discussed this, and I'd hate to undermine any > consensus the list has by dragging it out. I used this as an example > because we *had* discussed it, and had agreed on it. Actually, this interpretation did not come from any discussion or consensus on this list. I took it directly from The Norton Manual of Music Notation. We aren't breaking new ground here. > Sure, I interpret it as an f sharp too, but...well...suppose > that the second accidental was smaller and had parentheses around it, > making clear it was a courtesy accidental. Would that change > anything? No. A courtesy accidental is still an accidental. In fact, the use of parentheses is unnecessary, and not recommended. They don't communicate anything useful to the performer. > Would the third f now be sharp or natural? The conflict for me is > this: The accidental on the second f is indeed physically printed in > the second measure. But the accidental is printed before the note, > which is also physically printed in the second measure. Now we agree > that the note is "really" part of the previous measure, When did we agree to that? The (sounded) note is clearly part of *both* measures. The second written note simply indicates how much longer after the barline to sustain it. And since it describes what is happening *after the barline,* why should the note or its accidental be considered part of the previous measure? John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
