When to use sharps vs flats

I have a few questions regarding key changing within a piece, and when to use sharps vs flats.

Let's focus on the f minor scale, since I am engraving my finished 4th Ballade in F minor I want to make sure I am engraving it correctly:

F minor as you all know, contains 4 flats, (d e a b). The scale would be f g a(b) b(b) c d(b) e(b)

So obviously when writing the music, the convention is to not have a single note name repeat in the scale, AND all accidentals should be flats in this key.

My questions:

1. The key is strictly F minor. If I need a G flat, can I choose an F sharp? Or is that illegal?

2. Lets say I stay in F minor, and I am going up the chromatic scale. When must I use sharps and flats? This has always confused me, and all the examples I look at seem to use them whenever. Should all the notes be flats? Sharps? Sharps AND flats? Does it matter?

3. I am in F minor, then head on off to A major. A major has 3 sharps BUT I keep the global key signature F minor. Must I use the sharps instead of flats to designate the new key change, or does it matter?

As you can see I never had formal copyrighting lessons, but need to know it now that I am engraving my music. Thanks!

I have a few questions regarding key changing within a piece, and when to use sharps vs flats.

Let's focus on the f minor scale, since I am engraving my finished 4th Ballade in F minor I want to make sure I am engraving it correctly:

F minor as you all know, contains 4 flats, (d e a b). The scale would be f g a(b) b(b) c d(b) e(b)

So obviously when writing the music, the convention is to not have a single note name repeat in the scale, AND all accidentals should be flats in this key.

My questions:

1. The key is strictly F minor. If I need a G flat, can I choose an F sharp? Or is that illegal?

2. Lets say I stay in F minor, and I am going up the chromatic scale. When must I use sharps and flats? This has always confused me, and all the examples I look at seem to use them whenever. Should all the notes be flats? Sharps? Sharps AND flats? Does it matter?

3. I am in F minor, then head on off to A major. A major has 3 sharps BUT I keep the global key signature F minor. Must I use the sharps instead of flats to designate the new key change, or does it matter?

As you can see I never had formal copyrighting lessons, but need to know it now that I am engraving my music. Thanks!

1. I think it is best to use a Gb instead of a F#. However, I myself generally follow to rule that if i am moving upwards i sharp and down words, I flat. Or If i am changing the pitch to make an alt chord, then I would use the sharp or flat to depict the chord the best way.

2. I always learned it is sharps going up and flat going down chromatically.

3-I would personally just change the change sig. It seems like to much work to natural Bb Eb Ab and then sharp F# C# G#

3-I would personally just change the change sig. It seems like to much work to natural Bb Eb Ab and then sharp F# C# G#

What if I am constantly changing key though? It would not be practical to keep changing the global key signature. For example, if my root key signature is F minor, then I change into A major then 2 measures I am in D major, what do I do? Would I continue to use the flats, or would I use the sharps to match the correct key? This would be a pain if this was the case, but I never really thought about this until now.

Or If i am changing the pitch to make an alt chord, then I would use the sharp or flat to depict the chord the best way.

Is it ok to use whatever accidental to make a chord readable?

The way I've always gone about it, if I am in the key F minor (as you suggested) and I am on the flat side of the circle, I use flats. Therefore, Gb would be what I would use. When reading music especially on a performance aspect, it is much easier to read a Gb. Just follow the circle of fifths. Even though an F# is a more common way to use that particular note, it just seems more organized.

What if I am constantly changing key though? It would not be practical to keep changing the global key signature. For example, if my root key signature is F minor, then I change into A major then 2 measures I am in D major, what do I do? Would I continue to use the flats, or would I use the sharps to match the correct key? This would be a pain if this was the case, but I never really thought about this until now.

Is it ok to use whatever accidental to make a chord readable?

Well, i'm trying to think of a chord that would require you to change the accidental to make it more readable. I can only think of extended chords. I would try my best to keep the chord name exactly but if you have to or no one will be able to read it, change it.

What I do is stick to the given key. For example, if there are flats in the key signature, write everything in flats and if sharps, use sharps.

However, when you decide to change key, you use the exact notation you would in that key. For example you mentioned that from F minor, you would go into A major - just use A naturals, E naturals and C#'s there. If you wanted, you could try and write it in B double flat major, thereby using B double flat, D flat and F flat as your tonic chord but that will get very, very confusing!!!!

For chromatics, again stick to the key signature and write it how you want to see it. I was writing a piece in A minor recently and had a chromatic scale falling down from an E to a G. Now I felt that the G natural after the G# looked confusing so I changed the natural to F double sharp (as I wasn't using the F at all). It seems confusing in text but generally works ... well, that's what I think! :(

Chopin:

In my opinion you should go with what is logical for the chord you're writing at the time. For example, if a secondary dominant comes along, say for example a D7 chord to a Gm (but you're still in Fm at the time) use F# not Gb. The F# is the leading tone to G, so it's usage that predominates here. If you indicated Ab7 the 7th would be written as a Gb of course, and its tendency is to resolve downward to the F.

As far as being in remote keys only briefly, you should keep the original key signature and use accidentals as necessary.

As for chromatic scales I would use accidentals that would cause the least amount of additional accidentals. For example: NOT F Gb G(nat) Ab A(nat) etc. Instead: F F# G G# A A#, if you were going down flats would be better, anything to keep from naturalizing a note you just flatted or sharped.

Finally, you should look at ease of reading. The first rule I mentioned will keep triads looking like triads (D F# A, NOT D Gb A) and not changing key signatures every two measures keeps the interpreter from mentally switching gears too much.

Hope all this helps a little.

Earl

My comment would simply be that if you have two notes in a row which are both G, but are enharmonically inequivalent, e.g. Gb followed by a G, it might be clearer to write F# then G because it is clear we are moving chromatically up from one note to another. This is in consideration of pieces that involve mainly stepwise movement.

IF you're writing a piece which doesn't really bother with traditional tonality, however, I don't think there are really any rules..just try to find a way of notating it that looks the clearest and makes the most sense. That's where our system of notation came from anyway...slow evolution of the simplest, most logical way of writing down music on paper.

Ah yes... but now say you're using an octatonic scale...

Say... C symetric diminished....

C D Eflat F Gflat Gsharp A B C

Those two altered G's are the problem. I'm assuming what I have there is preferable to

F Gflat Aflat A B C

but this one might arguably be better...

Eflat F Fsharp Gsharp A B C

Sorry... it's late and I just walked home from work.

thar be necromancers afoot

Yeah, I was just taught whichever best explains what you're aiming towards in the piece. If you want a silent key change, then hide it in the notation -- if you want a jarring change, make the notation jarring.

"Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice" by Gardner Read - Chapter 9: Accidentals and Key Signatures

If you are taking yourself and your music so seriously as to be "engraving" your own music and worrying about "never [having] formal copyrighting lessons", then first of all learn what "copyright means", and secondly read a book.

It completely depends on voice leading.

That is all.

But it's not that simple.

Would you ever see an F-sharp in f minor? Of course! But it depends on the voice leading surrounding that note. If, for example, you have a chord that is V of ii in the key of f minor, you are not going to spell it D, G-flat, A. You are going to use D, F-sharp, A. Now, would you have a V of ii in your style of music in the first place if it is "strickly" f minor; who knows but that isn't my point. :)

Another way to look at it is to use as few accidentals as you need to. If you have a passage with e, eb, e, eb, e, f, e, eb then it might be easier to read if you used e, d#, e, d#, e, f, e, d#. It would look nicer because you wouldn't need accidentals on virutally every note, and you want to alter each letter as few times as possible, plus the voiceleading suggests the notes e, d#, and f, rather than e, eb, etc in the first place. (See my first sentence!)

And, finally, on non-tempered instruments, d-sharp and e-flat are not the same note.

I know the original post of this thread was over two years ago, so how have you made progress on this topic during those two years?

Another way to look at it is to use as few accidentals as you need to. If you have a passage with e, eb, e, eb, e, f, e, eb then it might be easier to read if you used e, d#, e, d#, e, f, e, d#. It would look nicer because you wouldn't need accidentals on virutally every note, and you want to alter each letter as few times as possible, plus the voiceleading suggests the notes e, d#, and f, rather than e, eb, etc in the first place. (See my first sentence!)

Apart from that reason, the second is also much easier to read, because you have notes on different note positions, i.e. actual "steps" instead of just raised and lowered notes on the same position. Like that it's a lot quicker to see the direction of musical lines, since the noteheads actually "move up and down". Using e-eb-e-eb, just looks like you can't make your mind up about writing an eb or an e :P

The main reason though would be that you should show the direction a note is going to with the accidentals, if possible. An eb is lowered downwards and thus "points downwards", so if it's followed by an e, a d# makes more sense - assuming that there are no vertical harmonical considerations to make. If you're composing tonal music or any other music that strongly relies on vertical harmony you often have to make a compromise between vertical and horizontal thinking.

Or, there's always the good'ol possibility of not giving a scraggy and writing whatever you want so long as you have an idea of why you're doing it.

I mean, what gardener says about the "looks different" is pretty good advice. But it's not 100% necessary. You can as well write e-eb-e-eb if you want, if that's what you want. I hate arguments about this type of scraggy because it always end up in "blue is better than red."

I mean, if you want to write something that sounds like C E G triad as B# Fb F##, then why not? It's "hard to read", but so what? It's not like anyone's asking someone to play scraggy first-sight. Plus, it's not like anyone's using completely out-there notation systems or anything. Just different accidentals.

There's something to be said also if you're in the mindset of having a dissonance between what you read and what you actually hear, which is to me rather interesting. You won't play B# Fb F## the same as simply C E G, there's a visual point there that they're not the same even if they may be enharmonic in some instruments.

So, honestly, unless you're writing according to traditional harmony/? and have clear chord constructions, you can go crazy. Nobody can really say anything against it since it's a dead-end argument.

it depends what the note is in your mind. is it a sharp tonic? or a flat supertonic?

it also depends what note it leads to. if it leads to G, then use F# as a leading tone.

if i were you, i wouldnt care about theory. i would write what i have in my head, and even if it doesnt make a difference in the listener's ear, at least it does in the composer's mind.

I mean, if you want to write something that sounds like C E G triad as B# Fb F##, then why not? It's "hard to read", but so what? It's not like anyone's asking someone to play scraggy first-sight. Plus, it's not like anyone's using completely out-there notation systems or anything. Just different accidentals.

I really agree with your post. Of course there aren't any definite rules in not classically tonal music concerning the use of accidentals. In the end it's just your decision. And I often write stuff like e-eb-e-eb myself, even without a harmonical justification. But there are situations where it's crucial to get your idea to the musicians as efficiently and quickly as possible - especially if you're writing for a larger ensemble/orchestra where there's usually not much practice time before the performance. In such cases every notation that makes the music "easier" for the performers will help you to actually get the musical result you desire, since it allows the musicians to focus on other stuff. Then you sometimes have to make compromises between writing it the way that is most right for you, and the way that is the quickest to understand for the musicians.

(That doesn't mean you have to "dumb down" everything. You just have to get an idea about how perfect you want the performance to be, what you want the musicians to focus on and what is secondary.)

I really agree with your post. Of course there aren't any definite rules in not classically tonal music concerning the use of accidentals. In the end it's just your decision. And I often write stuff like e-eb-e-eb myself, even without a harmonical justification. But there are situations where it's crucial to get your idea to the musicians as efficiently and quickly as possible - especially if you're writing for a larger ensemble/orchestra where there's usually not much practice time before the performance. In such cases every notation that makes the music "easier" for the performers will help you to actually get the musical result you desire, since it allows the musicians to focus on other stuff. Then you sometimes have to make compromises between writing it the way that is most right for you, and the way that is the quickest to understand for the musicians.

(That doesn't mean you have to "dumb down" everything. You just have to get an idea about how perfect you want the performance to be, what you want the musicians to focus on and what is secondary.)

Psst, you can always make more than one version of the score. The "practical playable one" and the artisty one, if it's really important like that that people can read it easily etc and you don't want to compromise.

Personally, I think it stems from the fact that I consider scores also something where you can have artistic freedom/creativity. Even sacrificing practicality (like I said, make more than one score. :>) if that's the point. I like to use every chance I get to do something creative or whatever, so writing a score for me isn't just "how to make it sound like I want it to" but there's also a visual/conceptual/etc dimension to it sometimes that I like to explore.

Simply put, to me it's like this: you write the music and you also draw the score. Since both are artistic practices, why not take advantage of it?