Looking for an authoritative resource to settle a dispute

[Graeme Gilmore]

Amazing.

One hopes Behind Bars by Elaine Gould would be authoritative. On page 81, she discusses when accidentals after a barline are needed. The text with the example is

The barline cancels an altered pitch. However, it is essential either to restate or cancel the accidental when the repeated pitch recurs immediately after the barline: [example omitted: c-sharp before the barline; then either another c-sharp or a c without any accidental after the barline].

Otherwise the note after the barline should theoretically be a natural, but, in the absence of a natural sign, the reader will question whether the second bar has a missing sign.

This practice holds good even when a key signature corrects the accidental.

accidental.jpg

This example clearly shows that the a-flat in the second measure means just that and cannot be interpreted as a double flat (an a-flat in the key signature + a flat just before the note). Also if the flat on the first note of the second measure should "usually" be interpreted as a double-flat, the example would need clarification that the example is an exception to the "rule."

[FwL]

The problem here is akin to proving a negative. There are many examples of cautionary accidentals without brackets that simply indicate the shown pitch, but I don't think any authority has gone to the trouble of explicitly stating that a cautionary accidental without brackets does not double the sharps or flats found in the key signature. There's only the lack of warning that such a thing exists.

Example from Gould pg 83:

However, since many bracketed accidentals (as in the example above) reduce overall legibility, the use of brackets is feasible only when there are just a few cautionary accidentals.

There's no indication that one needs to be concerned with creating double sharps or flats under certain circumstances.

[HaraldS]

One hopes Behind Bars by Elaine Gould would be authoritative. On page 81, she discusses when accidentals after a barline are needed.

Elaine Gould obviously does the same as the literature in my bookshelf - "Die Praxis des Notengraphikers" by Herbert Chlapik and "Die Notenschrift" by Albert C.Vinci: they explain the rules of the use of accidentals. But "when accidentals after a barline are needed" isn't the basic problem in this thread.

For this basic problem of how to prove that accidentals don't add up to the key signature's alterations, these books don't help at all. Simply because it's a groundless point of view that they should add up. The literature on music notation doesn't argue against false facts - that's why Elaine Gould's book won't probably convince the original poster's questionable colleague.

I can't help, but have the "alternative facts" already arrived in music notation ?

[Zoots]

Since there apparently is nothing in the authoritive resources, it shouldn't be too hard to find a well-known melody that when played would demonstrate the additive nature is obviously wrong - after all, music is all about what you hear.

[Anders Hedelin]

Some things may not need spelling out. Nothing in the editions of Beethoven's piano sonatas, known to me, explicitly says they are written for two hands. Fx.

I'm intrigued by the many serious attempts at explaining, and even questioning, what's obvious to any fairly educated musician.

That seems like an unnecessarily academic or "scientific" approach to me.

[Graeme Gilmore]

I agree, courtesy accidentals after a barline are not the focus of the topic: It is meant to be a clear exception to the original premise. Logically, if the original premise were correct, an A-flat in the time signature with a flat before a particular A would mean that the pitch to sound is an a-double-flat. The example shows that, in at least this case, the flat shown in bar 2 does not further change the note to a double-flat.

I'm also wondering if the older custom of cancelling a double-sharp or a double-flat by putting a natural+sharp or nature+flat may have twisted its way into the person's thinking, possibly without their being aware of it?

[FwL]

I agree, courtesy accidentals after a barline are not the focus of the topic: It is meant to be a clear exception to the original premise. Logically, if the original premise were correct, an A-flat in the time signature with a flat before a particular A would mean that the pitch to sound is an a-double-flat. The example shows that, in at least this case, the flat shown in bar 2 does not further change the note to a double-flat.

I'm also wondering if the older custom of cancelling a double-sharp or a double-flat by putting a natural+sharp or nature+flat may have twisted its way into the person's thinking, possibly without their being aware of it?

Unfortunately, logic doesn't always persuade a person to give up an illogical notion.

[motet]

It's actually logical in a way. In G major, a sharp affects other notes--why shouldn't it affect F's, too? Such logic is not practical for a human reader, though.

[Vaughan]

Isn't the proof in the pudding? All this 'teacher' needs to do is go through printed repertoire from different eras. It'll be immediately clear that this curious idea has never been applied.

[Anders Hedelin]

Isn't the proof in the pudding? All this 'teacher' needs to do is go through printed repertoire from different eras. It'll be immediately clear that this curious idea has never been applied.

Yes, and that's it!