Chromatic passages: # or b, and when?

If it was up to me I wouldn't mind as a rule to write always # when the passage is ascending, and b when the passage is descending. But I have many doubts about it:

1- Why baroque or classical composers wrote # in descending passages where the 7th of the harmonic minor was involved? For example in C major they would never do: A-Ab-G, because the 7th in A harmonic minor is always G#. So they would go: A-G#-G.

2- Why composers such Mozart would respect the rule above, but in all the other cases would write both # or b for ascending or descending chromatic passages? There was any rule or was random choice?

3- If I write something in baroque style do I have to respect the rule above?

What do you guys think?

thanks

well if the #/b belongs to a chord like an augmented, C aug for instance, the G# can not be Ab because everybody knows the 5th is the augmented and the 5th of C is G.

if there is no harmony aspect to guide you, if it's just a chromatic passage, I would say that # for ascending and B for descending .... sometimes is equally correct

You are right on #1. classical composers would actually be moving through different chord progressions and keys when writing chromatically (even if it is single line). This explains #2 as well.

#3 is a "yes" as well. Writing modern pieces composers still try to stick with #1. It just makes the music easier to read and understand the tonality. Also, you don't have to put in so many natural signs if done correctly. If you sharped everything going up, you have to naturalize the sharps going down and put in flats. I've seen that a couple of times.

The thing is that there are often two sometimes conflicting approaches when dealing with enharmonic spellings - one being vertical harmony, the other being voice leading, and often one can't do both of them justice at the same time. As you said, writing "A, Ab, G" in a piece in A minor makes totally sense if you think of the musical line primarily, whereas if you think in the vertical harmonies this usually suggests in a traditional context, G# makes more sense.

In this special case, almost always the vertical consideration takes precedence, since the raised leading tone is classically the standard in minor (and not actually natural minor), so this 7th is actually considered a "diatonic" note and not an alteration. But it depends on the actual harmonies. If, for example, below the melody "A, Ab/G#, G" in A minor you had the harmonic progression Amin, Fmin, Cmaj, then Ab would make a lot more sense of course - but again, this kind of mediantic chord progression isn't very typical for baroque or classical music (but of course you'd find it alot in Schubert or Bruckner, etc.).

In other cases however it's sometimes less clear and can change a lot from composer to composer. A composer who mainly composed in (polyphonic) lines and for whom harmony is more the -result- independantly led voices might lay more focus on the linear aspects of notation, whereas a composer who thinks more in harmonic successions might tend towards always indicating the harmonic functions clearly, no matter how weird the individual voices may look then.

And then there are of course also cases where even the harmonic function can lead to different spellings, such as if you use two different enharmonic interpretations of a chord to modulate. (Such as a diminished 7th chord or augmented triad, which you can spell enharmonically in all kinds of ways, after which it has different resolutions. If you use this property to modulate, your question is whether you use the spelling of the tonal context -before- the chord or the tonal context -after- it, or even a third kind of spelling that may come from the voice leading. Diminished 7th chords in modulating passages are really an excellent example of how differently different composer may spell the same thing enharmonically.)

I was talking only about situations where chromatic note are used just as ornament, embellishment, without changing the function of the chord. Anybody knows for example why Mozart (see the strings quartets etc.) used all those chromatic notes without worrying whether it's flat or sharp?

Well, as an ornament/embellishment etc. the fact that the raised leading tone is considered a diatonic note is the crucial thing. G# is part of A minor as it is traditionally used, even without chromatic alterations. Harmonic/melodic minor are quasi the standard case and not natural minor. Ab on the other hand isn't a diatonic note of A minor.

I can't really answer this question about Mozart without specific examples, but most times such seemingly "random" choices come from having to choose between vertical and linear thinking, as I mentioned, so depending on what was important to him in a specific passage, he based his spelling on a different thing. Also note that even when there aren't any vertical harmonies below a note that doesn't mean there aren't any implied harmonies that progress there. A passage such as "A-G#-A-C-B-C-G#" has classically rather strong implied harmonies, even if they aren't spelt out, particularly whenever the leading tone of your key is involved, which (if there aren't any other notes at the same time) almost always implies "dominant" in a classical context.

But of course, even Mozart may have made a "mistake" from time to time, or simply made a decision "because he felt like it".

Do you know of Albrechsberger?

Basically every note has a purpose. Nothing is left to chance. Nothing is arbitrary. All notes in chromatic relation are accounted for.

His e-book is online for about 5 bucks.

Thanks for your replies. But I am still confused. If Bach or Mozart considered G# as a diatonic part of A minor why did they write A-G#-G even in contexts where they are clearly in C major rather than A minor?

Today composers they just use # for ascending and b for descending chromatic passages, I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as you consider them as passing notes, it looks like the most logical thing. That's why I don't understand the way they used it in the baroque period.:wacko:

Thanks for your replies. But I am still confused. If Bach or Mozart considered G# as a diatonic part of A minor why did they write A-G#-G even in contexts where they are clearly in C major rather than A minor?

Today composers they just use # for ascending and b for descending chromatic passages, I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as you consider them as passing notes, it looks like the most logical thing. That's why I don't understand the way they used it in the baroque period.:wacko:

There I'd still assume it's because of voice leading, but I'm not sure...

But I highly doubt that modern composers solely use any rule for #/b... I mean, I don't, but I blow at notation.

There I'd still assume it's because of voice leading, but I'm not sure...

But I highly doubt that modern composers solely use any rule for #/b... I mean, I don't, but I blow at notation.

I think in music, like in spoken language, there are synonyms, and people sometimes are afraid of using them or how to use them.

The difference in enharmonic spellings ARE theoretically relevant, but not applicably relevant to piano like instruments that play in 12-tone equal temperament, or use the same pitch for G# and Ab. If one was playing in a tuning that used all of the perfect intervals based of the tonic, as opposed to the compromised ones in 12-TET, then not only would there be a difference theoretically between Ab and G#, but they would slightly differ in pitch as well. So then it really would matter which one you used in notation because depending one which diatonic note (note of the major scale and its related modes) one had modified to create the accidental, one of the notes would sound "righter".

The point of all this is that when using in accidentals in a composition, the choice of which one to use in notation is determined by which note of the diatonic scale was modified to get to this accidental. (This is where we get double flats. If the note modified in the original key was a "flat", then one would flat that note itself.) So if the accidental were a grace note, then the one to which it led was the one that was modified. Otherwise it is up to the composer to analyze his work theoretically to see what he was actually doing in the theory of his piece to create this accidental in his run, melody, or chord.

Nowadays the method you described in using different enharmonic spellings when ascending vs. descending is perfectly fine because it allows better ergonomic interpretation with no sacrifice, but back when instruments were tuned differently it could really have meant a different pitch or at least represented one. That is why they used different spellings in they're chromatic runs rather than use the easiest ones to read.

Some even deeper stuff comes out of this topic, believe me ;)

John M

I use the sharp for when i want angry music and i use flats when i want music to be more melancholy and flat!

I use the sharp for when i want angry music and i use flats when i want music to be more melancholy and flat!

Wow that is a surprising method of using #/b ..... :P .... astonish, just impressionnant.

Wow that is a surprising method of using #/b ..... :P .... astonish, just impressionnant.

I don't find anything particularly WRONG with that.