Writing Accidentals

Hi,

Just a a generall question that has always niggled at the back of my mind.

When writing accidentals, are there any 'rules' for deciding when to use the enharmonic equivalent or not? For example why would a composer choose to write Dd instead of C#?

Thanks alot.

Typically it goes based on function. For example, if you were in the key of C major and wrote a ii#5 chord, you would use an A#. If you were writting a I7 chord, you would use a Bb. As you can tell, the function of the note(s) in these examples is very different.

Also, when there's no function system or tonality altogether, there's an open choice. Sometimes composers choose to write sharps instead of flats because they can sound different in certain instruments, but also because some people think things such as sharps being more "aggressive" than flats. I don't know.

Then there's the ease of reading, which I guess varies. It's good when you change the actual notes when going up or down, but not entirely necessary. Like, C C# isn't so great, you can probably read it better as C Db. But it's pretty much free, though it's good to avoid using things like E# and Fb, or Cb without a good reason. I guess overall it depends what systems you're using. If you're using 12 tone, your row is going to contain all the accidentals as you will always write them (C# as opposed to Db if you wrote it like that in the row.)

If it's something using functional harmony, the keys and chords give what accidentals they use. Hence a C sharp major chord isn't written with flats, obviously.

My position:

In the score: Derive from the harmony, as Nik suggests....

BUT,

In parts: make it easy to read. Most second tenor saxophonists don't care that they have the b9 of the chord, if it's a Db in a sea of sharps, write a C# for the sake of readability.

The score must mimic the parts though. Never have parts that are different than the score or else most conductors will get very very annoyed. Beware of flying batons!

Both Robin and Justin are correct... first, the score must match the parts, and second, make it easy to read. It's okay to "misspell" a chord if the ultimate effect is easy to read.

To go further with this topic: your accidentals should be logical. When going up a chromatic scale, it looks better to read C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C (sharps going up). Going down the scale, it looks best if it reads C B Bb A Ab G Gb F E Eb D Db C (flats going down). There are exceptions, of course, and you'll need to tailor lines so that they look "right" in whatever key you're in. The reason this looks better is that you don't have to throw in a lot of natural signs, so the music doesn't look as "cluttered" with accidentals.

The most important aspects have been mentioned, however it should be pointed out that in harmonically complex passages of classically tonal music you often have to decide between two principles of writing accidentals, while being forced to ignore the other: Either you focus on vertical harmony or on the melodic line/voice leading. In the first case, as has been mentioned, you write the accidentals according to the harmonies you write. In the second case you look at where each tone moves/resolves to: Accidentals "bend" the notes in a certain direction, so you try to resolve the notes in this direction, so that flats are resolved downwards and sharps upwards. So you'd rather write the melodic line d#-e-f#-g than eb-e-gb-g. This of course only applies when a note actually moves to a neighboring half tone. You'd still rather write g-f#-e than g-gb-e for two reasons: first, it is seen as preferable to actually move to different diatonic base tones if possible and not to change tone alterations on one single tone; second, certain intervals are commonly seen as simpler than others: g-f#-e only consists of minor and major seconds, both "simple" intervals. G-gb-e however consists of an augmented unison and a diminished third, which are considered more complex and less "natural", since they aren't intervals one would commonly hear as such if played alone (i.e. if you played gb-e on a piano most people would hear it as the major second f#-e and not as a diminished third). There are many more such common "guidelines", many of which aren't formalized but just customary. Note however that these examples were made entirely disregarding the key of the piece, which would in reality matter quite a bit too of course.

However, this was to show that some of these traditional habits of voice leading are quite independant of tonality and have more to do with our notation system and readability.

But most times you don't have either harmonically oriented accidentals or melodically oriented ones, but a compromise. In a lot of traditionally tonal music it doesn't even matter, since the the two solutions are congruent, as harmonies are generally built to resolve all voices correctly. But there are still many cases where a choice has to be made and one thing sacrificed for the other. This is where you will see great individual differences between composers, some which lay their focus more on individual lines (say, Schumann/Brahms/Schönberg) and others for whom the chord constellations are more important (say, Debussy).

It depends on the resolution. If the piece is in C major, you can borrow Ab from C minor or G# from A minor (which is the relative minor of C major). The Ab and G# are enharmonic equivalents of each other, but Ab generally goes down to G (dominant of C), while G# goes up to A (tonic of relative minor).
Although I've seen many scores where a sharpened note goes downwards (or flatted upwards), so you are free to renotate accidentals if you have a good reason.

Originally Posted by Justin Tokke

The score must mimic the parts though. Never have parts that are different than the score...

Originally Posted by flint-wwrr

...the score must match the parts

Touche.

I always keep it harmonically accurate in the score, and don't bother editing the score enharmonically until the parts are extracted...then, while formatting the parts, I'll notice something that should be changed. I suppose the new 'linked parts/score' capabilities of Finale will help with this...

For the time being, I'm the only one who might see the scores, so it doesn't really matter to me....

ALSO, my approach will differ depending on WHAT I'm writing - if it's background pads, then the harmony takes precedent; if it's contrapuntal melodic writing, the line will be more important... I'm a little goofy I guess.

Thanks alot guys. That's helped an awful lot.