NOtation

This feels like a stupid question, but since no questions are stupid, and only people are stupid, I figure what the hell.

I'm writing a piece that has ties and lot of offbeats, sometimes awkward ones. Specifically wondering though, if anyone has seen a triplet dotted note?

Also, has anyone ever seen a triple sharp/flat? I can't think of any reason to use one, could you?

This feels like a stupid question, but since no questions are stupid, and only people are stupid, I figure what the hell.

I'm writing a piece that has ties and lot of offbeats, sometimes awkward ones. Specifically wondering though, if anyone has seen a triplet dotted note?

Also, has anyone ever seen a triple sharp/flat? I can't think of any reason to use one, could you?

Dotted notes quite often get the beat, so I don't really see a problem with a triplet. But no, I have never seen it. And neither those accidentals you mention.

But why not leave it with all those ties?

Sharps and flats are reached by extending fifths above and below D, Re of the C major diatonic scale. As you stack up fifths from D you first reach naturals, then sharps, double sharps, triple sharps, etc, while as you reduce fifths below D you again get naturals, but then flats, double flats, and triple flats, etc. The farther one distances one's self from Re in these stacks and reductions of fifths, the less likely their harmonic functions are to be tonally applicable to your given tonic. As it turns out, only about 19 of these stacks and reductions are ever used in common practice tonal music for a given tonic, the nine stacks and reductions of fifths above and below your tonic. So, in common practice, given that the key you're playing in isn't already a double sharp, you will be very unlikely to make use of a triple sharp. This is because you only reach single, and maybe double, sharps (and flats) within the first nine stacks and reductions above and below your tonic if you start in a reasonable key to begin with. The reason these note names are still important is that though you would never start a song in Fx, you might happen to get there through modulation in a harmonically adventurous piece.

John M

Why do you need a triple sharp anyway??

Well, as has been said, in common practice tonality you'd almost never reach a point where a triple sharp would be "needed". In fact, I've never seen one. It is however technically totally conceivable.

Say, you have a piece in C# major, which is already quite far out there in the sharp region (7 sharps). From there you might easily modulate to B# major, by using the tonic of C# major as the Neapolitan of B# major, which already has 12 sharps. From there on there are quite a few harmonies that would, if spelt "correctly", have a triple sharp.

Of course, pretty much nobody would spell all these like theory would command it. Composers have always tended to simplify even much simpler harmonies to reduce the number of sharps and flats they require, for easier readability. Double sharps are sometimes almost unavoidable in certain keys, if you don't want a rather unclear and confusing notation (regarding harmonic structures). I can't really imagine a piece where you couldn't exchange enough stuff enharmonically though in order to avoid triple sharps, and still staying quite clear about the harmonic context.

And as soon as you leave common practice tonality, even the use of double sharps and flats goes down to almost zero. In an atonal piece there generally isn't any point in using them, since notes tend to be enharmonically exchangeable anyways. (Of course, some composers still used them, for various reasons, but that's an exception.)

Regarding triple dotted notes: Sure they appear. Bruckner, for instance, used them rather frequently, and so did a few others. Usually they are only used in rather slow tempi on quarter or eighth notes though, much more rarely on other note values. When you use them for shorter note values, you'll generally have to have a really slow tempo for them being accurately playable; when you use them on longer note values, this will often lead to obscuring the beat somewhat - then it may be better to work with ties. But combinations like triple dotted eighth plus 64th, or triple dotted quarter plus 32nd are not too uncommon.

"Dotted?"

LOL. Do you mean staccato?

If so...of course I have. Is there anything WRONG with "dotted" triplets?

Triple sharps and flats? What the...why would you use THOSE?

I already sorta think double sharps and flats are somewhat useless :ermm:

"Dotted?"

LOL. Do you mean staccato?

If so...of course I have. Is there anything WRONG with "dotted" triplets?

That's a different thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_note

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staccato

And double sharps and flats are surely not useless at all. Of course, if you just want to PLAY something and are not interested in composition at all, then they're redundant for you. And you could perhaps feel the same about flats - why not have just sharps? And naturals could be too considered useless. Let's just have sharps and write them each time there is supposed to be one.

But that would make it way difficult for composers (to whom this forum is dedicated). That we have sharps and flats and also double sharps and double flats helps us understand what's going on with the harmony. So they're all very useful. The difference with triple accidentals (I haven't seen one anyway) is that these could occur only in key which already include double accidentals. And practice shows that composers avoided such keys (e.g. if you had a piece in Cb major and a modulation to its parallel minor, this would command use of double flats and this way a triple flat might be called for in some harmonic context, so you would prefer to write it in enharmonic H minor instead).

"Dotted?"

LOL. Do you mean staccato?

If so...of course I have. Is there anything WRONG with "dotted" triplets?

Triple sharps and flats? What the...why would you use THOSE?

I already sorta think double sharps and flats are somewhat useless :ermm:

Good morning sir,

Dotted means dotted half/sixteenth/eighth, etc. Staccato is very different. but this has been established.

anyhoo, the reason I mentioned the triplet sharp/flat is because I was looking at the music of Charles-Alkan. I read him up on Wiki and apparently from time to time you'd stumble upon one. I wouldn't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised.

John, why do you start out on D? Why not C that is the center of the circle of fifths?

So they're all very useful. The difference with triple accidentals (I haven't seen one anyway) is that these could occur only in key which already include double accidentals.

That's not strictly true, when you include secondary/tertiary/etc. harmonies, modulations, etc., as I mentioned in my post. There's quite a bit of music that would contain triple sharps/flats if spelt "correctly" - yet common practice has led almost composers to enharmonically simplify stuff, in order to avoid such things (as well as too many double sharps/flats in the first place).

It is also not strictly true that double sharps/flats don't matter for playing a piece. Depending on your choice of intonation/tuning, a played Fx may sound quite differently than a G.

Anyways, I just noticed I misread the OP in regards to the dotted notes. I read "triple dotted", when it said "triplet dotted". Dotted notes in triplets are of course entirely common. Just take the typical siciliano rhythm:

Those almost only tend to exist in combination with other, undotted notes within the same triplet. Triplets consisting of all dotted notes are rather unnecessary on the other hand, since a dotted triplet note is exactly as long as an undotted non-triplet note of the same base value. Three (or two etc.) dotted eighth notes forming a triplet, are rhythmically identical to three (or two etc.) eighth notes - so you'll very rarely find the former written.

That's a different thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotted_note

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staccato

And double sharps and flats are surely not useless at all. Of course, if you just want to PLAY something and are not interested in composition at all, then they're redundant for you. And you could perhaps feel the same about flats - why not have just sharps? And naturals could be too considered useless. Let's just have sharps and write them each time there is supposed to be one.

But that would make it way difficult for composers (to whom this forum is dedicated). That we have sharps and flats and also double sharps and double flats helps us understand what's going on with the harmony. So they're all very useful. The difference with triple accidentals (I haven't seen one anyway) is that these could occur only in key which already include double accidentals. And practice shows that composers avoided such keys (e.g. if you had a piece in Cb major and a modulation to its parallel minor, this would command use of double flats and this way a triple flat might be called for in some harmonic context, so you would prefer to write it in enharmonic H minor instead).

Oh...that dotted...I see :) and yes I have seen it. I've used it

I don't think that flats or sharps or naturals are useless...I just think that if you have a c double sharp, why not just write d? or a c double flat...why not just b flat? If it's in something where you truly need it, go ahead (though I still don't know WHY you would)

And why would anyone write anything in c flat major in the first place? I get using a c flat in a piece..but not the whole piece being in c flat!

if you have a c double sharp, why not just write d?

A# major triad is written: A# Cx E#. It is appropriate to use it in F# major as a V7 of vi, where A# D E# would look totally wrong, and take some time to figure out which chord it is, and Bb D F would make no sense at all.

A# D E# would on first glance not look like a major triad and therefore slowing down the sight reading. Bb D F would require more naturals and flats than the one double-sharp that A# Cx E#

And as soon as you leave common practice tonality, even the use of double sharps and flats goes down to almost zero. In an atonal piece there generally isn't any point in using them, since notes tend to be enharmonically exchangeable anyways. (Of course, some composers still used them, for various reasons, but that's an exception.)

Regarding triple dotted notes: Sure they appear. Bruckner, for instance, used them rather frequently, and so did a few others. Usually they are only used in rather slow tempi on quarter or eighth notes though, much more rarely on other note values. When you use them for shorter note values, you'll generally have to have a really slow tempo for them being accurately playable; when you use them on longer note values, this will often lead to obscuring the beat somewhat - then it may be better to work with ties. But combinations like triple dotted eighth plus 64th, or triple dotted quarter plus 32nd are not too uncommon.

Well, in all fairness, Scriabin DID use double sharps and double flats. Though, I'm pretty sure he did this to coincide with the particular transposition of the octatonic mode he was using. And, to also be fair, Scriabin isn't exactly the poster child for notational clarity. I'd have to look in my Ameriques score again but I'm fairly sure Varese used them as well. Though, hell if I know the reason why he chose to use them.

You can always avoid awkward dottings with triplets and other fractions.

A# major triad is written: A# Cx E#. It is appropriate to use it in F# major as a V7 of vi, where A# D E# would look totally wrong, and take some time to figure out which chord it is, and Bb D F would make no sense at all.

A# D E# would on first glance not look like a major triad and therefore slowing down the sight reading. Bb D F would require more naturals and flats than the one double-sharp that A# Cx E#

Well okay...I suppose if there is a piece that has an A# triad, then a Cx would be fine...

John, why do you start out on D? Why not C that is the center of the circle of fifths?

Our current view of music is very C-centric, or more relevantly, "Do-centric". That is, we start everything from Do because it the most stable of the diatonic modes and is used most in common practice. Because of the western pitch focused orientation, we even tend to think of everything from a given Do, our C on the piano's C Ionian scale, or the white keys.

Consequently all diatonic modes are, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, viewed as "modifications" of the Ionian scale (Mixolydian is "Ionian with a flatted seventh"), instead of simply a different combination of intervals or a different starting location in the same diatonic scale, and all keys are viewed as, again, "modifications" of our C Ionian scale (G major is C with "one sharp").

But when looking at the diatonic scale as a MOS scale (or "Moment of Symmetry" scale, one created from a continuous stack of fifths), one starts the circle on Fa (F) and ends on Ti (B). Playing the acquired scale starting on each different note gives you each diatonic mode. The exact center of this circle is Re (D). Any fifth above or below this circle of fifths yields a sharpened or flatted note, Te (Bb) or Fi (F#). The center of this generated circle of fifths is Re (D), that is, there is an equal number of pitches on each side of Re in your circle of fifths for any MOS scale (these include pentatonic, diatonic, chromatic, etc). If defining your MOS scales as pitches reached while extending your fifths from a given point above and below, you would need to start in the symmetrical center of all your MOS scales so as to reach the same number of naturals in each direction, as well as the number of sharps vs. flats, double sharps vs double flats, and so on, so that you are correctly representing your desired theoretical information. This symmetrical center is Re (D).

If you instead started extending fifths starting on Do ©, you would reach four flats; Ti, Me, Le, and Ra (Bb, Eb, Ab, and Db), before having reached all of the naturals up to Ti (B) in this circle of fifths.

Am I making sense?

John M

http://www.tonalcentre.org/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generated_collection

http://www.igetitmusic.com/blog/2009/10/isomorphism-diatonic-set-theory.html