Double sharp

[hookedonguitar]

Hey everyone, just a quick question! I'm doing some sight reading and the piece is in the key of A Major. At one point there's a double sharp on the F# (Providing I'm right in thinking the symbol for a double sharp is an X?). Does that technically mean to sharpen by three semitones? So Playing a G#?

Thanks

[guitarjazz]

That doesn't make sense to me. There could be a double sharp on 'f'. Any notation experts out there?

[EdByrne]

Hey everyone, just a quick question! I'm doing some sight reading and the piece is in the key of A Major. At one point there's a double sharp on the F# (Providing I'm right in thinking the symbol for a double sharp is an X?). Does that technically mean to sharpen by three semitones? So Playing a G#?

Thanks

It means that the F pitch class is double-sharped (=s G). The X symbol is specific to the letter name, not the key signature.

[BWV 1080]

I thought any key signature that might possibly have a double sharp was banned in jazz :)

[EdByrne]

I thought any key signature that might possibly have a double sharp was banned in jazz :)

I suspect that hookedonguitar has been reading classical music!! Should we report him as an enemy combatant? :secret :cry: :confused2 :fineprint :D :tearhair:

[Slant]

It means that the F pitch class is double-sharped (=s G). The X symbol is specific to the letter name, not the key signature.

Ah...the ambiguity of symbols. I love it. Mix that with the lack of a hard and fast consensus and you've got nothing short of a recipie for personal interpretation!

Thanks, Ed, for setting us straight.

[Franzman]

I suspect that hookedonguitar has been reading classical music!! Should we report him as an enemy combatant? :secret :cry: :confused2 :fineprint :D :tearhair:

I think I speak for all when I say to hookedonguitar:

BEGUN THOU FOUL BEAST, TO HADES FROM WINCE YOU CAME!

;) ;)

OnT:

I have never encountered a double sharp in Jazz.. :indiff:

[Phil Kelly]

double sharps ( and double flats ) are a pedantic theoretical construct to "technically" spell certain chords "correctly" in situations involving a lot of either set of accidentals.

In practice for sightreading, they are a major pain in the ass.

Than god for the "respell chord" function in Finale. I use it quite often!

[engelbach]

The double sharp is obviously in the melody, not the chord name.

F double sharp is useful in the key of A in a sequence such as:
G G# G G# G G#, etc., saving a lot of confusing and cluttered alternating natural and sharp symbols. Instead of G natural, indicate F double sharp the first time it occurs in the measure and no other accidentals will be required.

If you want to be a good sight reader you have to know what key you're in and be able treat double accidentals as you would any other notation.

(How do you type a natural symbol in a conventional, non-musical, font?)

[BWV 1080]

A trained musician can hear the difference between a F## and a G

[engelbach]

A trained musician can hear the difference between a F## and a G

Trained in ESP, maybe.

[BWV 1080]

Trained in ESP, maybe.

Although I was being facetious, if you were aware of the key and heard the note as a leading tone then actually you could differentiate

[engelbach]

Although I was being facetious, if you were aware of the key and heard the note as a leading tone then actually you could differentiate

Not on my piano.

[hookedonguitar]

Heh the replies on this one made me chuckle :laugh:

Honest, I haven't been reading any classical music... honest...:eek:

I've started working on sight reading as of the past month or so, at the moment I'm using a book called ' melodic rhythms for guitar'. Bloody hard work! I really don't think I'm cut out for this! One look at 4 #s or bs, I feel like running for the hills!

[hookedonguitar]

It means that the F pitch class is double-sharped (=s G). The X symbol is specific to the letter name, not the key signature.

thanks for that by the way! Problem solved! Good old AAJ!

[Phat Boi]

How about double augmented?

[EdByrne]

thanks for that by the way! Problem solved! Good old AAJ!

Glad to be of help, hookedon.

[BWV 1080]

Behold the horror (http://imslp.ca/images/imslp.ca/5/56/Chopin_-_2_Nocturnes,_Op_32.pdf)

[bgp]

How about double augmented?

I think that's how they came up with the programming language C++.

[EdByrne]

How about double augmented?

What are you referring to?

[BWV 1080]

What are you referring to?

Pamela Anderson perhaps?

[engelbach]

Behold the horror (http://imslp.ca/images/imslp.ca/5/56/Chopin_-_2_Nocturnes,_Op_32.pdf)

The double sharps are logical in terms of the keys.

For example, on the first page are two instances of a measure with arpeggiated chords B7 - A#7 (second measure in the example below).

http://www.engelbachmusic.com/forums/Chopin_Sample.jpg

The Gx (rather than A) in the B7 chord is the leading tone for A#, and the Cx in the A#7 chord is the leading tone for the next measure's D#m.

I'm not sure of the correct way to analyze the Gx in the B7 chord. Perhaps the B7 functions as the tritone equivalent of the dominant of A#, which would be E#7. The notes in an A# scale, starting on E#, are E#, Fx, Gx, A#, etc.

The A#7 is easier, because it's obviously the dominant of the next chord, D#m, whose leading tone cannot logically be D natural, but Cx.

Perhaps others on this thread can analyze this better (Ed?), but in any event Chopin's notation is logical and would present no difficulty to a well-schooled classical musician.

I don't happen to be one of them …

[BWV 1080]

The double sharps are logical in terms of the keys.

For example, on the first page are two instances of a measure with arpeggiated chords B7 - A#7 (second measure in the example below).

http://www.engelbachmusic.com/forums/Chopin_Sample.jpg

The Gx (rather than A) in the B7 chord is the leading tone for A#, and the Cx in the A#7 chord is the leading tone for the next measure's D#m.

I'm not sure of the correct way to analyze the Gx in the B7 chord. Perhaps the B7 functions as the tritone equivalent of the dominant of A#, which would be E#7. The notes in an A# scale, starting on E#, are E#, Fx, Gx, A#, etc.

The A#7 is easier, because it's obviously the dominant of the next chord, D#m, whose leading tone cannot logically be D natural, but Cx.

Perhaps others on this thread can analyze this better (Ed?), but in any event Chopin's notation is logical and would present no difficulty to a well-schooled classical musician.

I don't happen to be one of them …

Specifically it is a German Augmented 6th chord (which is identical to a tritone sub except that augmented 6th chords typically only resolve to dominant chords and it explains the spelling). The B - G## resolves to the octave A#

[engelbach]

Specifically it is a German Augmented 6th chord (which is identical to a tritone sub except that augmented 6th chords typically only resolve to dominant chords and it explains the spelling). The B - G## resolves to the octave A#

Sure, that's what I meant …

Excellent, BWV. Thanks for your learned clarification: the Gx is not a minor seventh but an augmented sixth. The reason for the double sharp.

[guitarjazz]

Pamela Anderson perhaps?

Stay away from open flames for fear of melting.

[EdByrne]

While the above statements are correct, given the example cited, I think the answer is simpler than that: It has more to do with how, in a sharp key, a pitch class resolves upward by 1/2 step. This is common practice in keys with a lot of sharps, especially with regard to chromatic non-harmonic tones--most often involving the two notes of the scale in 1/2 steps: 4 & the leading tone, when they are already sharped. You don't see X's in descending passages--or flat keys. Accidentals are are employed solely based upon movement and resolution direction--without regard to harmonic function.

[engelbach]

While the above statements are correct, given the example cited, I think the answer is simpler than that: It has more to do with how, in a sharp key, a pitch class resolves upward by 1/2 step. This is common practice in keys with a lot of sharps, especially with regard to chromatic non-harmonic tones--most often involving the two notes of the scale in 1/2 steps: 4 & the leading tone, when they are already sharped. You don't see X's in descending passages--or flat keys. Accidentals are are employed solely based upon movement and resolution direction--without regard to harmonic function.

I hoped you'd weigh in on this.

You don't see X's in … flat keys.
I guess because they're not needed. In flat keys you see double flats.

You don't see X's in descending passages …
Is this true? Would there then be no ascending passages using bb in flat keys?

Accidentals are employed solely based upon movement and resolution direction -- without regard to harmonic function.
I don't see why you would separate them. It looks as if the melodic resolution has a harmonic function.

[EdByrne]

I hoped you'd weigh in on this.


I guess because they're not needed. In flat keys you see double flats.
Obvious, but true.


Is this true? Would there then be no ascending passages using bb in flat keys?
Correctamento

I don't see why you would separate them. It looks as if the melodic resolution has a harmonic function.

Gesualdo used them in modal music, in which the lines rule. The basic rule is: when ascending, use sharps, double-sharps (or naturals in flat keys); when descending, do the opposite. It's about the logic of the line. Having said this, depending on the circumstance I often use a G instead of Fx; but, while subjective, it is often about minimizing the number of accidentals needed in a given line. Therefore, most of my lines have both sharps and flats in the same passage.

Believe it or not, sometimes a double sharp makes it possible to use fewer accidentals, as was the case in an example Jay sent me to edit last week. I didn't save it, but if he were to post it, we could discuss that. This, of course, like analysis, is not an exact science. Different composers will treat this principle differently. Also, in jazz we have to be more pragmatic than classical composers (in general), since we don't have as many rehearsals (no grants). Guys like Stravinsky couldn't care less what was difficult for the player, but even he (a White Russian aristocrat, before the revolution) was contantly--even dramatically--revising his notation with re-issues of his publications (The Rite of Spring is a notorious example).

Gardner Reed wrote a great book on Western art music notation, Music Notation, in which, in addition to the logic and common practices, he also astutely supplies the entire history of the evolution of notation in the West.

[Phil Kelly]

Gesualdo used them in modal music, in which the lines rule. The basic rule is: when ascending, use sharps, double-sharps (or naturals in flat keys; when descending, do the opposite. It's about the logic of the line.

This agrees quite well with something a string contractor of mine for many years taught me ( BTW: he was concertmaster of the Philly Orch with Ormandy for 15 yrs.) and it has always stood me in goos stead with the players
( winds as well as strings ):

he said ( or words to this effect ):

"Screw all that pedantic correct theory bullshit! When the lines ( especially fast ones ) are ascending
spell the scale you desire with SHARPS and enharmonic NATURALS ..deep six the double sharp crap ..and the reverse goes for descending lines
FLATS and enharmonic NATURALS. It may not be academically correct, but trust me, the players will love you for it ! "

It made sense to me and I've been doing it for over 30 years ..and it works!

Now then: how about all the spelling gyrations you go through for harp tunings ?

:gavel: :gavel: :gavel: :gavel: :gavel:

[BWV 1080]

The basic rule is: when ascending, use sharps, double-sharps (or naturals in flat keys); when descending, do the opposite. It's about the logic of the line.

Sure, but direction and harmonic function are linked. In common practice music, leading tones resolve up and 7ths (the rationale for most flatting of notes) resolve down. The "7th" in the German Aug 6th chord resolves up so it is sharp.


Guys like Stravinsky couldn't care less what was difficult for the player, but even he (a White Russian aristocrat, before the revolution) was contantly--even dramatically--revising his notation with re-issues of his publications (The Rite of Spring is a notorious example).

But Stravinsky was not motivated about the notation - he was just getting the copyright renewed - which is why he wrote new editions of much of his music after he arrived in the US

[engelbach]

Gesualdo used them in modal music, in which the lines rule. The basic rule is: when ascending, use sharps, double-sharps (or naturals in flat keys; when descending, do the opposite. It's about the logic of the line. Having said this, depending on the circumstance I often use a G instead of Fx; but, while subjective, it is often about minimizing the number of accidentals needed in a given line. Believe it or not, sometimes a double sharp makes it possible to use fewer accidentals, as was the case in an example Jay sent me lasts week. I didn't save it, but if he were to post it, we could discuss that. This, of course, like analysis, is not an exact science. Different composers will treat this differently. Also, =iIn jazz we have to be more pragmatic than classical composers (in general), since we don't have as many rehearsals (no grants). Guys like Stravinsky couldn't care less what was difficult for the player, but even he (a White Russian aristocrat) was contantly--even dramatically--revising his notation with re-issues of his publications (The Rite of Spring is a notorious example).

… sometimes a double sharp makes it possible to use fewer accidentals …
I said the same thing in a previous post above.

But …
The key of Fb = Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb Fb
The key of E# = E# Fx Gx A# B# Cx Dx E#
and so on.

Theoretically, isolated passages could occur in these keys with ascending bb and descending x. But as you say, pragmatism generally saves us from such arcane notation.

Still, ostensible sight readers should be prepared to encounter double accidentals with no opportunity to stop and figure them out. Rehearsal / audition pianists I've known deal with them.

[engelbach]

This agrees quite well with something a string contractor of mine for many years taught me ( BTW: he was concertmaster of the Philly Orch with Ormandy for 15 yrs.) and it has always stood me in goos stead with the players
( winds as well as strings ):

he said ( or words to this effect ):

"Screw all that pedantic correct theory bullshit! When the lines ( especially fast ones ) are ascending
spell the scale you desire with SHARPS and enharmonic NATURALS ..deep six the double sharp crap ..and the reverse goes for descending lines
FLATS and enharmonic NATURALS. It may not be academically correct, but trust me, the players will love you for it ! "

It made sense to me and I've been doing it for over 30 years ..and it works!

Now then: how about all the spelling gyrations you go through for harp tunings ?

I'll promise not to write anything with double flats and sharps if you will.

Say more about harp tunings.

[EdByrne]

[QUOTE=BWV 1080;332891]Sure, but direction and harmonic function are linked. In common practice music, leading tones resolve up and 7ths (the rationale for most flatting of notes) resolve down. The "7th" in the German Aug 6th chord resolves up so it is sharp.

I think you are knit-picking here, BWV--& you've already made the above point with regard to your specific example.

But Stravinsky was not motivated about the notation - he was just getting the copyright renewed - which is why he wrote new editions of much of his music after he arrived in the US

The facts do not bear this out. In the case of Rite, he obsessed especially with the rhythmic notation, changing all the meters, while retaining the ideas. S was very outspoken about his processes. Robert Craft wrote several books documenting S's stated views on his musical thinking, and S himself gave a lecture series (later published) at Harvard which was very revealing on a variety of topics.

He became increasingly obsessive about distrusting interpreters--conductors in particular, so much of his re-notating process was motivated by being impelled to clarify his music so it wouldn't be mis-interpreted my intermediaries.

[Phil Kelly]

I'll promise not to write anything with double flats and sharps if you will.

Say more about harp tunings.

I eliminated double anythings years ago ( except when ordering single malt scotch )


Harp tunings are odd because you are dealing with seven strings to the octave and each string is affected by a pedal that has three notches: flat-natural- sharp. This creates some wierd compromises if youre notating a glissando ( a common cliche ). For example, you cannot have a plain C triad gliss . .. you have to have a 6/9 or MA 7 or 9 .

For example: C D E Fb G A B# = C 6-9

Theres a great section on harp tunings in Sammy Nesticos "Complete Arranger"

[engelbach]

I eliminated double anythings years ago ( except when ordering single malt scotch )

Harp tunings are odd because you are dealing with seven strings to the octave and each string is affected by a pedal that has three notches: flat-natural- sharp. This creates some wierd compromises if youre notating a glissando ( a common cliche ). For example, you cannot have a plain C triad gliss . .. you have to have a 6/9 or MA 7 or 9 .

For example: C D E Fb G A B# = C 6-9

Theres a great section on harp tunings in Sammy Nesticos "Complete Arranger"

Right. Thanks, Phil.

Seconds on the single malt.

[EdByrne]

By extension, I should bring up a related issue: Fbs & E#s; Cb's & B's, etc. When I studied with Bert Kasow, the grandaddy of NYC copyists, many years ago (remember him, Phil?--I'll bet you do!), one of his basic rules was never to use them (his method was based on the NYC recording session: sight reading for the date).

I have found, however, that I use them not infrequently--to minimize the number of accidentals. For example, I just wrote a passage in Bb a minute ago in which I had descending passages in which there were both Fb's & Eb's. If I had used E's I would have had to use many more accidentals (naturals & flats). I choose to use Fb's--but only under the circumstances mentioned above.

What do you guys think?

[engelbach]

By extension, I should bring up a related issue: Fbs & E#s; Cb's & B's, etc. When I studied with Bert Kasow, the grandaddy of NYC copyists, many years ago (remember him, Phil?--I'll bet you do!), one of his basic rules was never to use them (his method was based on the NYC recording session: sight reading for the date).

I have found, however, that I use them not infrequently--to minimize the number of accidentals. For example, I just wrote a passage in Bb a minute ago in which I had descending passages in which there were both Fb's & E's. If I used E's I would have to many more accidentals. I choose to use Fb's--but only under the circumstances mentioned above.

What do you guys think?

It made sense to Chopin. Why not you?

Like anything else, the more you read Fb, E#, Cb, and B# the more you get used to them.

Anyway, the correct spelling of a Dbm triad is Db Fb Ab, which looks like a triad on the staff and is faster to recognize as such and to read than Db E Ab.

Gershwin used many Fb's , Cb's, E#'s, B#'s, and double sharps and flats in Rhapsody in Blue.