# Double Sharps, Double Flats



## Frederick Russ (Jul 5, 2007)

Its really good for deciding what key you want to write a piece in. The idea is keeping it simple for whoever has to read it - so if you have to occasionally earmark a note as a Kat rather than the correct spelling to communicate your ideas better, the end result is that the player understands what you want rather than confusing them, which neutralizes the whole purpose.

Its also good for knowing intuitively why its always better to write in the Key of Eb major versus D# major!


----------



## david robinson (Jul 5, 2007)

inaccurate notation is an insult to the performer who is trying to read the part.
although, most pro's will "notate" their own details in pencil on the part at times in sessions i've done, i would be very embarassed if the basic grammar wasn't right.
i like some of the flatter keys: Eb min being a favourite.

sample harmony(Ebm):

Ab7 - Bbbo7 - Ebm/Bb - Bb7sus4

the intent is clearer to me than:

Ab7 - Ao7 - Ebm/Bb - Bb7sus4.

best, david r.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2007)

"inaccurate notation is an insult to the performer who is trying to read the part"

On the other hand, I would personally give anyone who wrote Bbbo7 on something I was trying to read a swift kick in the ass. 

My opposing view: performers feel far more insulted when they're induced to goof and hold up a session because some prissy composer insists on being literal with his damned double flats. It's totally unnecessary.

There's no shortage of examples of when it's perfectly acceptable to violate the rules of musical grammar to make the players more comfortable. For example, you're not supposed to violate the imaginary line in the middle of the bar. And yet it would be an actionable offense to write a figure like 8th 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/8 with tied 8ths.

Get the job done. Leave the literal grammar to the librarians.


----------



## david robinson (Jul 5, 2007)

nick, no offense, but i work with classical players a lot and they're the ones who have politely corrected my grammar.
i follow their lead, not the other way around.
i follow their lead, and i get the work.
i like eating you see.
but, personally i feel the same as you, whatever gets the job done.
best, david r.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 5, 2007)

david robinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> nick, no offense, but i work with classical players a lot and they're the ones who have politely corrected my grammar.
> i follow their lead, not the other way around.
> i follow their lead, and i get the work.
> i like eating you see.
> ...


It also depends what instrument you are writing for. Brass and some Woodwind players will hate double sharps and flats, yet String players will (mostly) rather that it is technically correct. Harpists, of course, don't care. as long as the pedalling works...!

D


----------



## sbkp (Jul 5, 2007)

Frederick Russ @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> earmark a note as a Kat



That there's a little EIS action...


----------



## david robinson (Jul 5, 2007)

daryl, yes mainly string players.
the ones i work with will play a Bbb slightly sharper than they would an A.
i have found some ww players to be picky as well.
brass players are definitely the most liberal here.
we once had a cellist come in and play against a folk rock piece.
all the recorded instruments were well in tune, but none were capable of justly intoning (guitars, ac pno, etc).
at a modulation point the cellist had to play Eb leading to D tonic.(wearing cans).
every time she tried, it was sharp(the Eb) to the track, but the D was right on.
i corrected the part to show D# and she got much closer to it, eventually, she had to flatten that just slightly more. 
(she, at that point, brought the cello into the control room and after listening - went back in and nailed it. in the end, it worked out to be -11cents from D#.)
we then had a french horn player in, and he had a similar part, but nailed it first time.)
best, david r.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 5, 2007)

Ah, well string players are a different species. You wrote a bunch of chords, so I figured that was for comping, not concert music.


----------



## david robinson (Jul 6, 2007)

yep. the chord symbols were just a breakdown of the harmony.
best, david r.


----------



## Stefan K (Jul 12, 2008)

i like the question! well if it is in tonal system, than notes should better be spelled correctly. but if it is not tonal, please make it as simple as possible, and even write accidentals with every note within a measure, but spell corresponding to the chromatic scale writing rules. no necessity for doubles here. and if it gets transposed (for trumpets, horns etc.), make sure it has no key signatures. please!


----------



## Waywyn (Jul 13, 2008)

Mark Belbin @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Other:
> 
> When it's theoretically correct, i.e, an enharmonic spelling would obscure the note and or chord's function, thus not allowing the player to exercise the right musical judgment without respelling.
> 
> ...



+1 but mostly for scales etc.


----------



## madbulk (Jul 17, 2008)

ans: When you're in school. 
I haven't written, nor thought, in G# since. And can't see it going forward. As Nick said, you put a double sharp in my lead sheet, you likely get swatted.


----------



## leslieq (Apr 24, 2009)

I use double sharps and flats where appropriate if 
a) good music theory practices tell me it's the proper way and 
b) the music is intended for humans to perform it. It changes a performers psychology and approach to the passage leading up to it and away from the note.

I imagine for virtual-instruments it won't make a difference if I write Fx (double #) or G natural. I could be wrong. Do VI instruments treat these differently - seems like that would be super advanced functionality/interpretation


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 24, 2009)

Just as a "side thought":

Wouldn't it be cool anyway, if there are no flats and sharps at all?

I mean think about it. Imagine we would have numbers from 0-9 but if we add a # to the 3 it actually means 3,5, but if we add a b to it, it means 2,5 ... and then start calculating with numbers like b3 + #5 : 1# = ?!?!

To be serious, I wouldn't mind having one more line to the staff and 12 clean notes instead of having 7 notes and lots of #,##, b,bb


----------



## autopilot (Apr 24, 2009)

It can get messy,

With chord symbols for comping I have never used double flats and sharps. I think it's counterproductive for a quick easy read. 

In Dot land, to make a note the correct degree of the scale I will use them, partic for polyphonic instruments. For example Gx in a C#+ chord

For brass players I would probably never double sharp them, but I might double flat them if it is clear. (unless there is a damn good reason like moving chromatically) 

And I have absolutely no problem moving to enharmonic keys to avoid such issues in the first place.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Apr 24, 2009)

I do it because it not only because it is the correct way, but because the correct way is anticipated mostly, and it is easier to read chord structures.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 24, 2009)

misterbee @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> When do_ you _use these in notation?


almost never actually. Since I don't use key signatures and I don't write really tonal music, there's no point in using double sharps and flats. Only in cases of clusters, but again I prefer the graphic notation generally.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2009)

"ans: When you're in school. "

That's the winning answer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2009)

By the way, I break the rules of English all the time too. I'd be a prissy old lady if I put every possible comma in, for example - such as before "too" in the previous sentence.

An English teacher would hit me with a ruler, but a reader will read without breaking the flow.

It's the same thing.

(In all honesty, I would use a double sharp if I were going up the scale. But in general those things are for sissies.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2009)

Know what else still hurts my brain after all these years? Alto clef.

Fricking violas. Why can't they just read treble clef down an octave?

And don't get me stared on tenor clef.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 24, 2009)

I do hope that you're not serious about the alto clef, Nick, right? Violas, ok, who gives a fuck about them (and their performers): It's a well known fact they suck, thus the so many jokes about them (and drummers), but the alto clef? Poor old clef... So useful for those playing between the tremble and bass all the time. Give it a break, will ya?


----------



## madbulk (Apr 24, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 24 said:


> "ans: When you're in school. "
> 
> That's the winning answer.



YAY! Waited a year for this, but it was worth it.


----------



## madbulk (Apr 24, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 24 said:


> By the way, I break the rules of English all the time too.



Couldn't let "Who's on first," slide though could ya now, prissy old lady.

YES it still stings, dammit!


----------



## Reegs (Apr 24, 2009)

I agree that using double sharps should be used when you're trying to write correctly. I don't mind seeing or playing the occasional double sharp.

But I'm with Mike on this. (As a brass player,) I don't like seeing repeated groups of double sharps òô=   žJlô=   žJmô=   žJnô=   žJoô=   žJpô=   žJqô=   žJrô=   žJsô=   žJtô=   žJuô=   žJvô=   žJwô=   žJxô=   žJyô=   žJzô=   žJ{ô=   žJ|ô=   žJ}ô=   žJ~ô=   žJô=   žJ€ô=   žJô=   žJ‚ô=   žJƒô=   žJ„ô=   žJ…ô=   žJ†ô=   žJ‡ô=   žJˆô=   žJ‰ô=   žJŠô=   žJ‹ô=   žJŒô=   žJô>   žJŽô>   žJô>   žJô>   žJ‘ô>   žJ’ô>


----------



## rgames (Apr 24, 2009)

david robinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> the ones i work with will play a Bbb slightly sharper than they would an A.



No way. The notion that musicians do anything other than fit the note to the harmonic structure is complete baloney.

It's like equal temperament: do you think a musician playing a pitch-controllable instrument is going to intentionally play out of tune to a chord because, according to equal temperament, it's supposed to be? Maybe, buy he wouldn't stay employed for long.

I do think double flats/sharps make sense in scores or in polyphonic instruments where it adds insight into the intended harmonic structure. For monophonic instruments, though - yeah, it's silly. But, in all honesty, I've never met a professional musician who has a problem with them. It's a bit of silliness but it's not complicated...

Same thing with alto clef. Same thing with Clarinet in Bb - one freakin step. What a waste - just write the thing in concert pitch!

rgames


----------



## rgames (Apr 24, 2009)

david robinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> the ones i work with will play a Bbb slightly sharper than they would an A.



No way. The notion that musicians do anything other than fit the note to the harmonic structure is complete baloney.

It's like equal temperament: do you think a musician playing a pitch-controllable instrument is going to intentionally play out of tune to a chord because, according to equal temperament, it's supposed to be? Maybe, buy he wouldn't stay employed for long.

I do think double flats/sharps make sense in scores or in polyphonic instruments where it adds insight into the intended harmonic structure. For monophonic instruments, though - yeah, it's silly. But, in all honesty, I've never met a professional musician who has a problem with them. It's a bit of silliness but it's not complicated...

Same thing with alto clef. Same thing with Clarinet in Bb - one freakin step. What a waste - just write the thing in concert pitch!

rgames


----------



## bryla (Apr 24, 2009)

rgames - Maybe you don't know that the clarinet is written that way for players to easily switch between different sizes of clarinets and use the same fingering, without thinking about the concert pitch. Same thing goes for saxophones.

But otherwise I agree: for monophonic use the enharmonic simplest notation. But as a keyboard-player I hate ---- HATE ---- incorrect notation in chords, and would rather have double sharps/flats


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2009)

To amplify what Richard is saying, or maybe take it a different direction:

I'm a lower-intermediate level cellist - or I was a few years ago. (I picked one up to work with my daughter as part of the Suzuki program; she quit but I kept going for a while.)

One of the things I learned is how subtle intonation is. For some reason you don't think about it when you're singing, but at least I was quite conscious of it when playing a stringed instrument...probably because I was in my 40s when I started.

Anyway, sometimes you have to play sharp or flat to...as you say, fit the harmonic structure. It's a strange feeling, playing out of tune in order for it to feel right.


----------



## rgames (Apr 24, 2009)

bryla @ Fri Apr 24 said:


> rgames - Maybe you don't know that the clarinet is written that way for players to easily switch between different sizes of clarinets and use the same fingering, without thinking about the concert pitch. Same thing goes for saxophones.



Yep - I know all too well. My musical training is as a clarinetist and I've played all instruments in that family.

What you're saying is correct - we put the instruments indifferent keys so we only have to learn one set of fingeings. However, the reference is arbitrary. If the C clarinet were the most-used instrument, then sure, have the Bb instrument be a transposing instrument. But it's not - the Bb instrument IS the standard, the A and the Eb sopranino are the other two most commonly used.

So the logical thing to do is simply reassign the Bb instrument to C and adjust the others accordingly so that the fingerings stay the same relative to the written note. That way, the most commonly used instrument doesn't have to transpose.

Saxophone is different because the tranpsosition is a larger gap, so now you start to have a lot of music with ledger lines and it becomes a notation pain. The Bb clarinet, though, is only one step away, so there's almost no effect on the notation.

rgames


----------



## Cygnus64 (Apr 27, 2009)

rgames @ Fri Apr 24 said:


> david robinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > the ones i work with will play a Bbb slightly sharper than they would an A.
> ...



A string player will not play a F sharp and G flat the same way, I assure you.

There's a passage in Mendelssohn's Scherzo (Midsummer Night's Dream) that's on almost every violin audition for every orchestra. Part of the "test" is to see if the player plays the Gb lower than the F#. In the passage, the F# is a leading tone, and strings play them sky high. The Gb is part of the resolution and needs to resolve down, so you play it low.

Alto clef is *very *useful. Without it, the player would be constantly reading ledger lines and couldnt read nearly as fast. String players are notorious whiners, if it didnt make sense they would have whined so much about it 200 years ago that it wouldnt exist! Yes, it may suck for the composer, but not for the viola player. The goal is to make things as easy as humanly possible for the player, so they can spend their energy making music instead of reading ledger lines.

The lack of double flats reflect poorly on the composer. It's tough enough getting classical people to play new tunes, so you better right it correctly if you want the players to be calm. String people call you out on the slightest imperfections. :twisted:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 27, 2009)

"Alto clef is very useful. Without it, the player would be constantly reading ledger lines and couldnt read nearly as fast. "

Of course we're stuck with it, but that's only because it's the way they learned. If viola were written up an octave in treble clef, everything would be one letter higher. That wouldn't make much difference to the number of ledger lines they have to read. And tenor clef was created just to annoy me personally - it has no other earthly purpose.

I definitely agree that enharmonic sharps and flats sound different. But I still say that double accidentals only make it harder to read 99% of the time. If it's diatonic, okay, but are they really necessary in, say, melodies over a diminished chord?


----------



## Cygnus64 (Apr 27, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 27 said:


> "Of course we're stuck with it, but that's only because it's the way they learned. If viola were written up an octave in treble clef, everything would be one letter higher. That wouldn't make much difference to the number of ledger lines they have to read. ?



But viola DOES read treble clef. If it were consistently in treble, nobody could read the low notes without constantly counting lines.



> If viola were written up an octave in treble clef,



Most violists are or were fiddle players. Are you suggesting transposing an octave? That would screw everyone up. Treble clef is at the same pitch on violin and viola.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 27, 2009)

Yes, up an octave. The only reason it would screw everyone up is that viola players are used to reading viola clef.


----------



## Cygnus64 (Apr 27, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 27 said:


> Yes, up an octave. The only reason it would screw everyone up is that viola players are used to reading viola clef.



No. They are used to reading two clefs, alto and treble.

It would open up a whole new set of problems. Viola players are also violin players. I've played both on the same concert. Treble clef cant change as the instruments are too similiar. Playing on the A string is playing on the A string. If you added transposing it would be way more difficult than learning a different clef.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 28, 2009)

Well, then you'll have to agree to disagree.

Meanwhile I'll agree with myself. 

The fact is that it's not going to change - nobody is going to stop using alto clef just because Nick Batzdorf thinks it's a waste of time. The only thing I'm saying is that if every viola player grew up with my system, life would be better. Of course it would be harder to change now that we're 400 years down the road.

But I know from playing soprano and alto recorders that you can learn to read up an octave or at concert pitch without thinking about it when you switch instruments a 5th apart (so to speak).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 28, 2009)

By the way, using double accidentals in very slow passages is different from using them in very fast ones.


----------



## Cygnus64 (Apr 28, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Apr 28 said:


> The only thing I'm saying is that if every viola player grew up with my system, life would be better. .



Allow me to 'splain:


I know at least 500 pro viola players, seriously. Out of those 500, I am aware of one who started on the viola. The other 499 were violinists.

Most people make the switch when they are in college. Therefore, they have already spent years and years and thousands of hours reading treble clef. They DIDNT grow up with alto clef at all. They had to forcibly switch.

I learned alto clef at 19. By that time I was already a pro player with lots of experience. I felt like you did at the time, really! o-[][]-o However, after getting into the viola repertoire a bit, I completely change my mind. It's the most logical way to read the viola part. There are so many notes on the C string that one would go batty if they tried to read it in treble, and equally batty if they tried to read it and transpose. Viola players are like vampires that havent made the transition 100% and retain some of their former violin life forever. Transposing treble wouldnt work because they are half-violinists.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 28, 2009)

Okay, then let's argue about bassoonists and tenor clef.


----------

