{"id":2134,"date":"2014-05-12T08:00:36","date_gmt":"2014-05-12T06:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=2134"},"modified":"2015-05-29T12:29:35","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T10:29:35","slug":"best-until-how-long-does-an-accidental-last","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2014\/05\/12\/best-until-how-long-does-an-accidental-last\/","title":{"rendered":"Best until… How long does an accidental last?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Today\u2019s musicians tend to react to the above question with raised eye\u00adbrows. Isn\u2019t it clear \u2013 accidentals in the key signature are always in force and for all octave registers unless annulled by natural signs. An ac\u00adci\u00adden\u00adtal found in a measure is valid for this note and for the entire measure \u2013 no longer, no shorter. But this was not always so.<\/p>\n

For instance, there were other rules in Johann Sebastian Bach\u2019s time. Key-signature accidentals were indeed used as they are now, though the accidental placed within a measure was valid only for this one note. If the same note was later repeated in the bar, then the accidental had to be given again in order to be further valid.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In Bach\u2019s Invention No. 5 in E-flat major<\/em>, the left hand of the second half of measure 4 looks like this in the current Henle edition (HN 64<\/a>; to be read in the bass clef):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Whereas in Bach\u2019s autograph there are here three natural signs for note a<\/em> instead of the one natural sign:<\/p>\n

Even the reverse is revealing. Bach does not have to notate any kind of accidental where in the modern edition the one-time accidental that is not supposed to be valid for the entire measure has to be annulled again.<\/p>\n

In m. 3 of the 11th<\/sup> invention in g minor, it is f\u266f<\/em> within the 1st<\/sup> beat, f<\/em> within the 3rd<\/sup> beat. Henle records this measure as follows (again to be read in the bass clef):\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Whereas in Bach it is:
\n\"\"<\/a>So editors have to know the old ac\u00adcidental rules and translate these if they want to transcribe Bach\u2019s or\u00adtho\u00adgra\u00adphy into modern notation.<\/p>\n

As is so often the case when trans\u00adlating, clarity is also in our case almost unavoidably lacking. That is, the source text of Bach\u2019s notation is unfortunately not always absolutely clear, a fact confronting the editor with the question of what is actually intended and which of the possible solutions are to be selected in the \u2018translated\u2019 \u2013 thus edited \u2013 text. Here is a prominent example that would be familiar to many mu\u00adsi\u00adcians.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In the Flute Sonata in b minor<\/em> BWV 1030, m. 6 of the 2nd<\/sup> movement\u2019s solo part, Bach notates a sharp for g<\/em>2<\/sup> four times, each time to be played g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup>. There is no ac\u00adci\u00adden\u00adtal for the third from last note \u2013 so, based on the old accidental notation, g<\/em>2<\/sup> is obviously meant.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Likewise in m. 13: There is a sharp at the start of the measure making g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup> out of the note g<\/em>2<\/sup> (valid even for the following tone repetitions). The sharp is subsequently repeated only once, which means that the sixth 32nd<\/sup> note is to be read as g<\/em>2<\/sup> and not g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Why then does the Henle edition (HN 269<\/a>) raise a question at both places?\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the inventions cited above there are always passages where Bach did not notate ac\u00adcord\u00ading to the \u2018old\u2019 accidental rules, but again naturalised an accidental found in the measure. In the 5th<\/sup> invention in E-flat major, left hand of m. 11, it would not actually have been necessary to put the \u266d sign at the 7th<\/sup> note:
\n\"\"<\/a>The natural sign for the 4th<\/sup> note is, according to the old rule, valid only for this note \u2013 even without the ac\u00adci\u00adden\u00adtal the 7th<\/sup> note would still be read as a<\/em>\u266d instead of a<\/em>. Bach ev\u00adi\u00addent\u00adly felt here that the nat\u00adu\u00adral sign was still in effect longer than would actually have been the case based on the old rules. In order to make sure that the 7th<\/sup> note would indeed be played as a<\/em>\u266d, he thus notated a \u266d sign and hence approached modern notational conventions.<\/p>\n

This \u2018grey area\u2019 in Bach\u2019s notation as to the effective duration of an accidental leaves so many musicians in doubt at mm. 6 and 13 of the b-minor flute sonata\u2019s 2nd<\/sup> movement. Did Bach here also feel that the accidental lasted for the entire measure? So, do the notes in question read g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup>? If he had really meant g<\/em>2<\/sup> instead of g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup> wouldn\u2019t he have given a natural sign for clarification? The harmonic context does indeed rather suggest g<\/em>2<\/sup> in both cases, yet g<\/em>\u266f2<\/sup> is definitely conceivable.<\/p>\n

The question of the duration of accidentals is not at all answered so easily as it would appear. In particular, the \u2018old\u2019 rule for placing accidentals sometimes leaves questions open that cannot really be completely clarified. Indeed, modern notation attempts to forestall misunderstandings in this regard, nevertheless giving itself occasion for doubt (see Peter Jost\u2019s blog posting on 3.9.2012<\/a>). Our editors have to weigh all these instances and make decisions \u2013 and, where problems cannot be solved conclusively, pass on for the musicians\u2019 experience and stylistic perception the possible variants.<\/p>\n

How would you decide? And \u2013 do you know of similar cases?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today\u2019s musicians tend to react to the above question with … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[274,329,395,3,24],"tags":[72,653,40,188,189,190,191,192],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}