Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum altered chords and chord progressions

In ANY key, not just in C. Accidentals do not accumulate; they override.

Whatever the key signature or prevailing sharps, flats, double sharps or double flats, a # before a G makes it G#.

According to the definition here, sharp raises the note by half step, and flat lowers the not by half step, so a sharp before a g would make g a g sharp in key of C , but in key of D it would just make g flat a g natural


http://musictheorysite.com/sharps-and-flats/

You are completely misunderstanding what the article says as well as how accidentals are applied.

Then the definition is incomplete. A sharp raises a note by a half step from the normal note, a natural, regardless of the prevailing key signature or other accidentals.

Exactly. It's designed to be as simple as possible, so you can just read and play. You don't have time to figure a lot of stuff out.

so accidentals are only apply on the naturals whether it is double flat/ sharp, single flat/sharp, it is only referring to change the natural note, regardless of key signature?

Yes, now you have it.

wow, i've been playing for a while, but am self taught, but sometimes i get hung up in simple things like this.
What is your background in piano?

Also , one last thing about accidentals, to make sure i understand, the accidental will only hold for that measure, unless it is noted other wise, and it only applies to that note, for that octave?

Starting from scratch, there are only seven white notes on a keyboard. The term ‘natural’ has come to mean ‘white’ note’. In fact the ‘white’ notes can, of course, be, and were, any colour. The ‘black’ notes (or brown or green) are accidentals. They were added to the naturals to allow pieces of music to start on a different pitch and yet still retain the same ‘step’/half-step’ character of a given piece of music. Not all singers have the same vocal range, so it was useful when a keyboard was used to accompany them.

Accidentals only hold for that measure. If a note with an accidental is tied over the bar-line, then it continues as a an accidental ONLY for that note.

Accidentals only apply for that stave position. But, sometimes this convention is not followed.

The other thing is not to put too much value on key signatures. They have little real meaning in the context of a piece of music. They are a convenience only, used to reduce the clutter on the page.

Bach and others have used key signatures in pieces that are not the key in which modern key notation would imply. This is particularly true of pieces in minor. But, if you are constantly shifting modalities, then the key signature is irrelevant.

I thought you might be interested in how Debussy uses tension in a piece. Notice that there is no key signature, though you could argue the key is C Major. Notice also the use of accidentals. G# and Ab in the same measure. The pedal Bb that runs through the whole piece.

What key is it in? Can it be in a key, given that most of the piece is written in the whole tone scale? If it has no key, is there a tonal centre? If so, does it ‘feel’ relaxed when you hear the tonal centre, or does Debussy leave you always ‘hanging in the breeze’? Was that his point?



Prelude 2, Book 1, (...Voiles)

I was under the impression that this was a strict rule. I mean how could someone tell if a composer were not following the rule, except by ear? That would be very bad. On the other hand, I am seeing a lot of courtesy accidentals. I assume because people tend to forget the rules. But still, to not follow a rule at all, that seems chaotic because notation is supposed to communicate, and if you don't use the correct grammar and lexicon, it's doing a crap job of communicating.

It probably is a strict rule, and the few occasions where I have run into it over the years, were probably editorial errors, not the composer’s intentions. I find this particularly the case with Hal Leonard publications that I am sometimes forced to use. They have note errors all over the place. My guess is that they employ non-musicians to transcribe public domain music so they can hold copyright on their publication.

OT, but about key signatures or lack thereof. Here is a sample from one song from de Falla’s Siete canciones song cycle.The first publication is the original. The song is in E Major, but the only ‘black’ note is G#, so de Falla doesn’t bother with a key signature.

The idiots at Hal Leonard decided to transpose this one song, out of the seven songs, down a whole tone. Of course, that means the piece is now in D Major, but still only needs an F# and a couple of B flats. So what do the idiots do, they choose A Flat Major for a key signature, and then have to still put in all the F#s, but also natural signs on just about everybother note!

Original


Hal Leonard

This is the kind of idiocy that makes me swear. This is so stupid, on so many levels, that it makes me cry. I know this piece well, only from hearing it, and it's stunning. I first heard it sung by Marylyn Horne. Just from memory I would immediately say it is in A minor, but in that special Spanish style where 5 of the key is used as a tonal center. I'd have to listen again, but I think this is basically like A B C D D F G#, so like harmonic minor. I would use no key signature, so if I brought it down a whole step, I'd probably go with two flats, with F# notated.

The whole idea in Spanish comes from this progression:

Am G F E, and when you put this together you get the harmonic minor scale which goes over this progression. You have the same thing in Havan Nagila, which if in A minor sounds like it is centered around E until the final chords.

And of course the people at Hal Leonard are total idiots.

how did you all insert an image, I have questions as I did in this thread but always have to put my image as a link to my google drive

Take a photo or better, a screenshot of the desired image. Make sure it is not much larger than 2 MB. I use .png or .jpeg.

Go to the photo gallery here at PW, start a thread and insert your image from your iPad or computer or whatever, and post it. Then, open the image in a new window, copy the url, at post it in the desired thread using the full editor function. I am sure there is a better way, but I find this easy.

In this song - ‘Nana’, it spends most of its time with a tonal centre of E. I agree that a key signature of 2 flats makes sense for a whole tone down transposition. How Hal Leonard came up with 4 flats is beyond my comprehension.



There you go. I uploaded the whole song - between this post and my earlier post. It is public domain so feel free to copy it.

I've stayed out of this question because of possible side issues clouding the waters, and how hard is it to get at those. So here goes:

The original question in part was:

The first thing I'm asking myself is: what has this person learned about chords and progressions up to now - what is the frame of reference?

What I've seen in how music theory is commonly taught (how I started), it gets simplified and reduced to "functional" chords that are based on the notes belonging to a key (signature) and that key stays stable for a long time. Every chord has to be a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 of that key, and every chord also has a function of some kind. But not all music works like that. And even when it does, maybe not everywhere in the music. So is this even the right question to ask: is it the right way of looking at the music to understand it? And what, at present, is understood?

I saw a potential can of worms which is why I didn't write anything. I still don't know what to write.

Dire Tonic wrote a succinct and good answer for a passage that was provided that went:

It describes what is happening in the music as way of helping understand and work with it. What we do NOT see here are any note degrees: any 1's, 2's, 3's, 5's (esp. functionally) .... which brings me back to the original point that maybe the perspective of degrees doesn't always have a place.