Reading matter to accompany a warm bath ("winter is a cumin’ in") took the form of an ancient copy of Pears Cyclopaedia ... and somehow the chapter on "The World of Music" caught the eye ... after an entertaining romp through the contributions of our worthy composers, the next chapter hit on a GLOSSARY OF MUSICAL TERMS.

But it was the definition of "Accidental" that hit me in the eye ... the more so because of flagellation (it was quite sore chaps) by
a Forum moderator for yours truly referring to any sharp, flat or natural willy-nilly ... as defined in Pears ... it would appear that in his book an accidental can only be attributed to a note falling outside a major or minor scale.

Is the Pears definition of accidental wrong as shown below?

web page

Well when you have a key signature in front (for example A major, F# C# and G#), you no longer need to put them in score, so there is no "accidental thingy" going on! If you do decide to use something else (for example A#) then you will need to put it on score, which will apply for that bar and that pitch only (alhtough in contemporary scores it becomes a bit confusing at times) and then there is an accidental!

The definition is not precisely "wrong" as much as not complete, I think.

Hi btb,

I'll see your Pears and bid one Grove's Concise Dictionary of Music:

Grove is considered a reliable authority.

Some online glossaries give a version of that definition, while others just say:

"A sharp, flat, or natural not included in the given key. "

I think the point is probably in the way they are used in practice. Sharps and flats are indicated at the start of a line, in the key signature. Any additional sharps and flats that actually appear in the body of the score are therefore going to be outside the key signature pretty much by definition. So purely on the basis of usage, an 'accidental' would generally be understood as being outside the key.

The only exception that springs to mind is some beginners books that I've seen where where the first few time a key other than C maj is used they sometimes dispense with a key signature (when the concept hasn't been explained yet), and write all the sharps in individually. Maybe that's being incidentally accidental, or even occidental...

Maybe this is one you can all live with:

From http://www.songstuff.com/glossary/A


Cheers,

Chris

What are the thingies called that we stick in the beginning of music to create a key signature that look like # and b?

Keystring: those are optional.

J/K!!

Seriously, While that definition in Pears is incomplete (probably for the sake of being concise), it is pretty much implied that an accidental does not happen in a key signature. Since they define it as a "sign which alters a note by a semitone", ideally they should have added "when placed before the note in a score" so that it is referring only to those sharps, flats, etc. which occur within the measure and excludes those placed at the beginning of each line intended for a key signature. Although you usually don't see pieces with all accidentals and no key signature (except for perhaps some atonal stuff), I would like to point out that there are "cautionary accidentals" that are used often after a key change or after an accidental outside the key has been used in the previous measure as well.

Well I know what accidentals are. But seriously, what do we call the thingies when they are not accidentals? Like, you can say "The number of sharps in a key signature determines that key signature, and the sharps are presented in a particular order." and you can say the same thing about flats. But what do you **call** sharps and flats as an entity when they are used in key signatures.

If you wanted to make a generic statement without using the word sharps and flats, I don't want to say "the number of thingies in a key signature determines....." What do we call the thingies when they are not accidentals? "Semi-tone related symbols"?

I was going to add a quote from the Harvard Concise Dictionary of Musical Terms of their defintion of "accidental" but it's half a page long.

"Key signature" is equally lengthy but the 1st & last paragraph are probably worthy of quote:
The asterisks indicate other entries.

The "thingies are simply called "sharps or flats". I don't think they have a name.

There was a thread about this sometime last year - not sure which board and the consensus was that they didn't actually have a name in this context, but that they should, so people suggested some, ranging from "chromatic alteration signs" to "flarps"

FLat + shARP = flarp. Neat
The alternative
SHarp + flAT = shat would sount a tad rude.

In working up the first page of the Chopin Scherzo Opus 20 in B minor ( 2 sharps) ... the reality of the accidental convention is clearly apparent ... moving off (#) or returning (natural) to notes within the key signature.

However, there is an apparent shortfall in the B minor number of sharps (only 2) necessitating an A# to be indicated for the (7th degree) leading note.

Here is the first page of the Scherzo ... see m5 and later A#s.

Any thoughts as to why the leading note is not included in the minor scales ... requiring the marking up of that extra sharp or flat?

PS The neighbours have fled ... so with my earplugs in place I am ready to do the dirty ... hope my dog doesn’t leave home.

web page

LOL!

Why not just say the number of sharps in the key signature, or the number of flats in the key signature, depending on what one applies to that particular piece or lesson? I don't think I've ever run into this lack of proper nomenclature in my teaching, but I do like the idea of flarps. I'm sure my student would get a kick out of it. But definitely not shats!

Nobody thought of it? I just drew up a bunch of "harmonic minor key signatures". With sharps, you get a "typical look" in which the last two sharps are almost beside each other since they are apart from line to space or space to line (i.e. D# C# for B minor, for the last 2 sharps in the key signature), and for flats key signatures, you have a flats key signature with one sharp.

That altered key signature shouts loud and clear "minor key" - a lot easier than scanning the score for recurring accidentals. So why not?

With a "harmonic minor key signature" you would have to have a recurring accidental whenever you have a natural or melodic minor, and when modulating to the major.

Which happens more frequently in music: harmonic or melodic?

Ahhh, good to see btb flogging this one again!

My understanding is that accidentals are sharps, flats, naturals, double sharps and double flats which prefix notes during the course of a piece of music. The word accidental is used as the general term which applies to these symbols. Accidentals have nothing to do with key signatures though.

In the key of G major (assuming you have the key signature) the F#'s are not accidentals. The F# in the key signature is not an accidental either, it is simply a sharp.

Keystring (and of course btb ), the idea of including the raised 7th of the harmonic minor scale in the key signature has been considered by some. There are two main arguments against this. The key signature should only include sharps or flats which are consistently applied throughout the music. The raised 7th is often applied but not always. Also it leads to problems with flat keys. The key signature of F minor for example would become 3 flats (Bb, Ab and Db) as the raised 7th would be B natural. This would be illogical and confusing.

I know that btb will not accept any of this.

It looks really cute. I wrote out a bunch of "harmonic minor key signatures" this morning. It's a jaunty silly key signature. It needs a straw hat.

Um, couldn't you write that one as (Bnat, Ab, Db)?

OOOPS, sorry. The raised 7th of F minor is of course E natural, not B natural.

Again, you could write the key sig as Bb Enat Ab and Db but that E is not always natural so it's better to leave it as Eb.

And I didn't notice the mistake.

Or to make things even more confusing, why not have melodic minor key signatures? They look just like the parallel major except for the lowered 3rd (i.e., C mel minor would just have E flat). Of course, it sounds darn confusing in any descending passage .

So a sharp or a flat can only be called an accidental when it falls OUTSIDE the range of the key signature .

But what happens when the MINOR key signature is shy of a LEADING NOTE ... as with D, E, G, A and B minor ... and falls on a black key ... do we call the A# (as with the Chopin Scherzo in B minor) an accidental ... even though we really shouldn’t ... knowing that the darn A# leading note falls WITHIN the legitimate B minor scale?

Sorry chaps ... just stirring.

What does "accidental" mean? That seems to be the question.

If in C major we suddenly have G# or Db because of something musical, those notes do not "belong" to C major. If the melody modulates to G major, we will have F#'s beside the note because the F# does not belong to C major. However, the F# does belong to G major. We could almost simply change the key signature at each modulation but I am guessing that there are musical reasons why this would not be good.

The notes that we raise or lower by a semitone by the use of a sharp, flat, or natural sign, thus do not belong to the key. But does it just happen to be so? Does "accidental" mean that it is something that does not belong to the key?

Or does "accidental" mean that it is not INDICATED in the KEY SIGNATURE? I have always thought that it was the latter. Actually I had not thought about it at all until I saw your question, btb, and didn't understand it. Your question makes sense if the first scenario is true.

No harmonic minor or ascending melodic minor has a leading note created by the key signature. In the same way, some intervals in modes (depending on which system is used to write them as per another discussion) are not created by the key signature.

Is this really a question on how things work, or does it lead to an appreciation of your notation system, btb, which I seem to recall is chromatic, is it not? That is to say, if I remember correctly, there is a line and space for every semitone that makes up the 12 notes of the octave of our Western system. I think (?) that the distinction between G# and Ab also falls away under that system, am I right? In such a system, which I remember only vaguely, key signatures themselves would not be needed though the nature of reading music in the way I do it presently would change.

If your questions are leading into a notation system that reflects semitones, then your mentioning of "falls on black keys" makes sense. Until now I didn't get the significance. To me, B# and Cb are as altered as G# and Ab even though the former fall on white keys. But in a notation system that shows every semitone individually, that distinction would make a difference.

Am I off track or on track?

It's only a problem when you confuse the issue of accidentals with scales and key signatures. Try to get away from this idea that an accidental 'does not belong to the key'.

I will try again. If one of the symbols (# etc.) appears during the music (regardless of key signature) then it is an accidental.

In the key of G major you might find a passage where the F# is cancelled and then re-sharpened.

G - F# - F nat - F# (within one measure)

The first F# would not be an accidental as it will appear in the key signature. However, both the F natural and the following F# would be accidentals. If one of those symbols appears next to a note then it is an accidental.

In the minor keys you mention the raised 7th's would be accidentals. Yes they are included in the harmonic minor scale but that has nothing to do with it. They would not be included in the key signature ans so would need to be altered during the music by use of the # sign. This is an accidental.

Does the proposition hold water or not ChrisH ...
a simple yes or no will suffice?

No.

Yes.

ChrisH,

So you are saying that your
"My understanding is that accidentals are sharps, flats, naturals, double sharps and double flats which prefix notes during the course of a piece of music."

and

"So a sharp or a flat can only be called an accidental when it falls OUTSIDE the range of the key signature."

don't say the same thing ... it goes without saying that these accidentals ... as you so neatly put it "prefix notes during the course of a piece of music."

Btb, does your question relate to your proposed system, and do I remember correctly that your proposed system involves the chromatic scale i.e. all semitones, each with its own line or space?

Heh...I'm amazed at how complicated these simple issues can become.

An accidental refers to the SYMBOL used to denote sharp, natural, and flat. That's all.

Seems to me that Grove and the original post stated this pretty clearly.

Thanks Kreisler, that sums it up better!

The problem is that people mix up accidentals with key signatures. Accidentals are accidentals, and key signatures are key signatures.

btb, that is exactly what I am saying. In the example I gave (measure of G major - G, F#, Fnat, F#) that final F# belongs to the key signature but would still be an accidental as the # sign is used. Like Kreisler says, it's the sign that is the accidental.

As an interesting coincidence, I just received a question from my theory student, asking whether the sharps, flats, or natural signs you add for the seventh note in minor keys are still called accidentals, since they are in fact part of the key signature. She must have been thinking in the same direction as btb in his question.

But keystring, they are not part of the key signature.

Kreisler has hit the nail on the head. It isn't the raised 7th note which is the accidental, it's the sign (#) which is the accidental. In the key of A minor the note G# as played on the piano is not an accidental, it is just a G#. But if it is written down on manuscript paper then the # sign placed before the G would be an accidental.

Thank you for the correction. I should have said that they are a part of the KEY. That is, A# is part of the key of G minor (unless natural min.)

Essentially I told my student that what matters is that we have a symbol that we must place beside the note in that measure to change its note value, and we are using that symbol because the key signature itself doesn't change the note as we would want it. Whether it's for musical effect, modulation, or to create a leading note, we're only concerned with the fact that we have to stick a symbol in there to change note value.

I'm afraid that brings us to the original question on page one. When we write sharps and flats in the key signature, if accidentals are symbols, are these sharps and flats in the key signature accidentals by definition?

That's an academic and useless question, though. The important thing to know is that the symbols in the beginning of the key sigature affect every note henceforth, but that the symbols coming afterward affect only the notes in that measure. In practical terms, that's all we need to know.

In practical terms again, when we play in a minor key, mentally we treat that seventh raised note as though it were in the key signature. That is, in A minor we don't have to look for the G#, we assume it the same way as we assume other sharped notes existing in key signatures. Music is above all practical and linked to real things. But in writing music, we have to keep these things in mind.

I'm not sure you can assume any such thing. Even if you THINK a piece is in A minor, if you see a measure where a G occurs without an accidental, you will still play a G natural; you will not assume a G sharp.

Well I certainly don't.
I may expect to come across it pretty often, but in an A minor piece, for example, you are likely to find just as many G naturals as G sharps, depending on the melodic and harmonic shape of the piece.

What I mean, Currawong, is that it behaves minorish and the F# is expected in A minor in a way that an A# is not expected. By the same token, I expect C major to have an F, but it will often modulate to the dominant and I'll have an F#, but my general expectation or feel for the piece will be "F". What I meant is the F# in A minor tends to be there for me as a probability as I play because generally it's part of that key, and we develop a feeling for majors and minors. Never mind, it's not important. I think I was looking at how we actually interact with music, key signatures, accidentals beyond theory.

You mean G# I assume. But yes, I follow your drift .

G#, yes, or F sharp double-sharp, ###. I've been translating "innovative technology" all day and I'm still at it. My mind is full of helixes, electromagnetic fields - not my cup of tea ...which maybe I should brew around now. Glad if I made some sense.

Thanks to Late Beginner for raising my original Pears bid of an accidental "The sign which alters a note by a semitone" with Groves
"A sign placed (in modern practice) before a note to alter its previously understood pitch by one or two semitones" ... and for moderator
Kreisler to have endorsed the Groves version.

Does this mean that we can refer to sharps and flats as accidentals?
Please don’t answer that!!!