| Author |
Topic: ? on music theory |
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 27 Jan 2001 8:12 pm |
|
I urgently need to find out what music theory books contain DEFINITIVE explanations as to the rule regarding the reversion to the original (key signature) pitch of notes affected and preceded by accidentals.
I know we all? know this rule , BUT , I have tried and tried to find this information in music theory books and have come up with nothing.
I need this info for some students, even a pic. of the relevant passage would do , if the source was also given.
BTW. The main theory book I work from as a rule , is "Rudiments and Theory of Music" published by The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music.
Baz
------------------
Basil Henriques
Emmons D-10 1970
and
Emmons D-10 1970 "Anniversary"
1949 "Leilani"
1939 Dickerson
RICKENBACKER "Olde Uglie" Twin 8
"Fender 1000"
"Gibson 3x8 Electraharp"
| Quote: |
| Steel players do it without fretting |
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~basilhenriques/
http://www.stax-a-trax.com/
[This message was edited by basilh on 28 January 2001 at 11:25 AM.] |
|
|
 |
Marty Pollard
|
Posted 27 Jan 2001 10:27 pm
|
|
If I understand your question, the answer is that all the 'accidentals' in any given key signature are referred to as 'temporary modulations'; i.e.; an A Major is considered a temp mod in the key of G Maj...
I think the book I got this from is 'Improvising Jazz' by Gerry Coker.[This message was edited by Marty Pollard on 28 January 2001 at 07:02 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bill C. Buntin
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 4:19 am
|
|
Baz, I've got a theory book written by Richard Ottman. This book came from University of North Texas, One of the premier Jazz/Commercial schools in the U.S.
I know I've seen that in that book. I will look this week and see if I can post what it says. Ottman writes pretty deep, but generally you can figure out what he means. |
|
|
|
Lindley
From:
Statesville, NC...USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 5:25 am
|
|
| I am playing better all the time, but somehow, I don't think I'll ever need to know this information...*smile* I just make it "sound" good... |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 11:31 am
|
|
My problem is that I need to show the students the answer in some type of acredited form , rather than just pass on what I've learnt
BTW Appologies for the slow load tine for the graphic........"Netscape's" server is even slower than Eircom's
Graphic gone 'till I find it a better home ! 
Baz[This message was edited by basilh on 28 January 2001 at 11:32 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 11:58 am
|
|
In "The New Harvard Dictionary of Music", edited by Don Randel, ISBN 0-674-61525-5, the lengthy definition of "Accidental" includes the following text:
| Quote: |
| According to modern notational practice, an accidental remains in force for all notes occurring on the same line or space in the remainder of the measure in which it appears. This practice is not well established until the 19th century. |
Is that what you're looking for, Basil? It's a wonderful book, by the way.[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 28 January 2001 at 11:59 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 12:08 pm
|
|
| As an aside, I usually put a natural or the key signature's accidental on the note in the next measure, even though it's not technically needed. When I do that, I put it in parentheses. It doesn't hurt anything, and it helps slow readers (like me). It's part of the penciled markup that I do on sheet music to help me read it. |
|
|
|
David Pennybaker
From:
Conroe, TX USA
|
Posted 28 Jan 2001 6:47 pm
|
|
Technically, that isn't music "theory". It's just convention of how music is written.
I agree with Bobby, though. It's quite helpful to "neutralize the accidental" in the next measure where it's no longer applied by notating it.
It's certainly not required, and only a true purist would object to it.
------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
|
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 29 Jan 2001 12:03 pm
|
|
Thanks a million b0b and all,
That IS the sort of definition I was looking for.
Regards to all,
Baz |
|
|
|
Drew Howard
From:
48854
|
Posted 30 Jan 2001 6:56 am
|
|
Improvising Jazz (Coker) and the Harvard Dictionary of Music are both excellent references. I use the Dictionary with my students all the time. And the Coker book has a lot of cool examples for playing over chord changes.
Drew Howard |
|
|
|
Bill C. Buntin
|
Posted 30 Jan 2001 9:08 am
|
|
| Drew, could you tell us where to get ther Coker book? thanks |
|
|
|
P Gleespen
From:
Toledo, OH USA
|
Posted 30 Jan 2001 9:36 am
|
|
| That Jerry Coker book can be ordered online from Jamie Aebersold. The web address is http://www.jajazz.com/ |
|
|
|
Sage
From:
Boulder, Colorado
|
Posted 30 Jan 2001 10:53 am
|
|
| I have the Coker book and it is really good. It explains things very clearly with simple examples. |
|
|
|
