Why accidentals are not additive?
This question asks if the accidentals are not "additive" (i.e. placing a sharp on F where the key signature already contains an F sharp would result in an F double sharp, and placing a flat on F in the same key would mean F natural), but it does not explains why they are not.
At least in my opinion, additive accidentals would have the following advantages:
- there would be no need in a separate natural sign, since cancellation could be expressed with the opposite accidental.
- double alterations would be used much less often (in the most cases, double sharps and flats are used to raise/lower a note which has been already sharpened/flattened, not to raise/lower a natural note by 2 semitones).
- accidentals would stay the same upon transposing. In particular case, all scales would be written in the same manner (e.g. a harmonic minor scale would always have a sharp on its 7th degree, regardless of the key signature).
- the notation system would become more logically coherent (for example, a note with a sharp near it will always sound a semitone higher than the same note without this sharp - i.e. if we erase this sharp, the sound will be always a semitone lower)
So, why it was "decided" to stick to the current system?
P.S. I know that "why" may not be (or at least sound as) a correct question for the StackExchange format (because it associates with primarily opinion-based questions; so I apologise in advance for the question being out of format), but I believe that the objective reasons for this particular topic should exist (because the notation system is (almost) worldwide-spread).
notation key-signatures accidentals
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
add a comment |
This question asks if the accidentals are not "additive" (i.e. placing a sharp on F where the key signature already contains an F sharp would result in an F double sharp, and placing a flat on F in the same key would mean F natural), but it does not explains why they are not.
At least in my opinion, additive accidentals would have the following advantages:
- there would be no need in a separate natural sign, since cancellation could be expressed with the opposite accidental.
- double alterations would be used much less often (in the most cases, double sharps and flats are used to raise/lower a note which has been already sharpened/flattened, not to raise/lower a natural note by 2 semitones).
- accidentals would stay the same upon transposing. In particular case, all scales would be written in the same manner (e.g. a harmonic minor scale would always have a sharp on its 7th degree, regardless of the key signature).
- the notation system would become more logically coherent (for example, a note with a sharp near it will always sound a semitone higher than the same note without this sharp - i.e. if we erase this sharp, the sound will be always a semitone lower)
So, why it was "decided" to stick to the current system?
P.S. I know that "why" may not be (or at least sound as) a correct question for the StackExchange format (because it associates with primarily opinion-based questions; so I apologise in advance for the question being out of format), but I believe that the objective reasons for this particular topic should exist (because the notation system is (almost) worldwide-spread).
notation key-signatures accidentals
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
2
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
1
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago
add a comment |
This question asks if the accidentals are not "additive" (i.e. placing a sharp on F where the key signature already contains an F sharp would result in an F double sharp, and placing a flat on F in the same key would mean F natural), but it does not explains why they are not.
At least in my opinion, additive accidentals would have the following advantages:
- there would be no need in a separate natural sign, since cancellation could be expressed with the opposite accidental.
- double alterations would be used much less often (in the most cases, double sharps and flats are used to raise/lower a note which has been already sharpened/flattened, not to raise/lower a natural note by 2 semitones).
- accidentals would stay the same upon transposing. In particular case, all scales would be written in the same manner (e.g. a harmonic minor scale would always have a sharp on its 7th degree, regardless of the key signature).
- the notation system would become more logically coherent (for example, a note with a sharp near it will always sound a semitone higher than the same note without this sharp - i.e. if we erase this sharp, the sound will be always a semitone lower)
So, why it was "decided" to stick to the current system?
P.S. I know that "why" may not be (or at least sound as) a correct question for the StackExchange format (because it associates with primarily opinion-based questions; so I apologise in advance for the question being out of format), but I believe that the objective reasons for this particular topic should exist (because the notation system is (almost) worldwide-spread).
notation key-signatures accidentals
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
This question asks if the accidentals are not "additive" (i.e. placing a sharp on F where the key signature already contains an F sharp would result in an F double sharp, and placing a flat on F in the same key would mean F natural), but it does not explains why they are not.
At least in my opinion, additive accidentals would have the following advantages:
- there would be no need in a separate natural sign, since cancellation could be expressed with the opposite accidental.
- double alterations would be used much less often (in the most cases, double sharps and flats are used to raise/lower a note which has been already sharpened/flattened, not to raise/lower a natural note by 2 semitones).
- accidentals would stay the same upon transposing. In particular case, all scales would be written in the same manner (e.g. a harmonic minor scale would always have a sharp on its 7th degree, regardless of the key signature).
- the notation system would become more logically coherent (for example, a note with a sharp near it will always sound a semitone higher than the same note without this sharp - i.e. if we erase this sharp, the sound will be always a semitone lower)
So, why it was "decided" to stick to the current system?
P.S. I know that "why" may not be (or at least sound as) a correct question for the StackExchange format (because it associates with primarily opinion-based questions; so I apologise in advance for the question being out of format), but I believe that the objective reasons for this particular topic should exist (because the notation system is (almost) worldwide-spread).
notation key-signatures accidentals
notation key-signatures accidentals
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
asked 3 hours ago
trolley813trolley813
25815
25815
2
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
1
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago
add a comment |
2
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
1
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago
2
2
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
1
1
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Hmm.
Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.
Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.
Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.
Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78892%2fwhy-accidentals-are-not-additive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Hmm.
Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.
Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.
Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.
Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
add a comment |
Hmm.
Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.
Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.
Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.
Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
add a comment |
Hmm.
Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.
Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.
Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.
Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
Hmm.
Lets take an example of how this would work in practice.
Currently, when I see a sharp sign in front of a note (lets say F as an example) I know that the note required is an F sharp. It may be in the key signature already but that does not matter: it is an F sharp, always - no question.
Under your system when I see a sharp sign in front of an F what note is it? F sharp probably but perhaps it is F double sharp (because there is already a sharp in the key signature) or perhaps it is F natural (because there is an F flat in the key signature or there was an F flat earlier in the bar). I have to do a lot more work to know what note to play.
Can you see the problem with that? It is perhaps not the reason that the notation works the way it does but it makes me think that the current system is easier than your proposal
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
answered 2 hours ago
JimMJimM
2,27669
2,27669
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
add a comment |
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
Actually when you see an F without any accidental you have to do almost the same amount of work (to see or recall the key signature and the accidentals early in the bar) - it is probably F natural, but may be an F sharp or F flat (or even double sharp or flat in some extreme cases). So, it's probably not the main reason for it. (Upvoted nevertheless, but did not accept, waiting for other answers)
– trolley813
2 hours ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
This is what I was going to say too. Holding the key in your head as a starting point and then altering it bar by bar is much easier than holding the key plus whatever alterations have occurred thus far. Also since we are not perfect, reminder or courtesy accidental are used to help us out.
– b3ko
56 mins ago
2
2
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
@trolley813 that's not the way any of us musicians see it. Knowing key signatures and scales is fundamental to playing. Further, music scores are chock-full of "reminder" sharp, flat, natural indicators to avoid uncertainty while playing.
– Carl Witthoft
27 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78892%2fwhy-accidentals-are-not-additive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Interesting concept. I'm sure various derivatives have been mooted and tried over time, but the 'old' method was the one that won through. Similar idea to both # and b in the same key sig. Never caught on.
– Tim
2 hours ago
1
It would be way too confusing. Notation should be crystal-clear, not "absolute minimum to be correct."
– Carl Witthoft
29 mins ago