Enharmonic Accidentals in Modal Writing
Hello!
I'm running into some dilemmas when it comes to choosing between accidentals and their enharmonic equivalents. It's a bit of a headache, honestly. I work mostly by ear and I’m not in the habit of systematically analyzing chords or knowing exactly which key I'm in at any given moment. My music tends to be modal, with tonal ambiguities and subtle modulations, so sometimes I just don't know whether I should write an E-flat or a D-sharp.
I used to follow a simple rule: stick to the same type of accidental as the key signature—flats if I'm in a flat key, sharps if I'm in a sharp key. But I'm starting to realize that if I want to do things “properly,” it's more nuanced than that. When I look at scores by Beethoven or Mozart, for example, they definitely use sharps in flat keys when it's musically appropriate.
MuseScore has a feature to recalculate accidentals, but it doesn’t seem to be perfect.
What would you recommend? Is it important to follow the convention of choosing flats or sharps based on the key of the passage? Or is it better to just follow a kind of “logical line” for chromatic movement, where each note has its own identity? Or do I really need to analyze every accidental to figure out whether it’s part of an ascending melodic minor scale, a minor third, a raised fifth, etc.? It’s not always easy to decide, especially when the music is driven more by melody than by harmony.
Sorry if I'm not being entirely clear—this is already a translated message (I'm French), and I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of this.
One last thing: the question is even more relevant because I’m working on a string quartet, so it's for fretless instruments. Does it make any real difference to string players whether I write E-flat or D-sharp, for instance?
Thanks so much for any advice you can offer.
Benoit
Comments
A sharp can make sense in the key of C or in a key with flats, and there is a lot in music theory about this. On a pragmatic level, write the music with flats, write the same thing with sharps, Then ask the players.
In reply to A sharp can make sense in… by underquark
Hey thanks for your reply.
The problem is that I'm preparing this score for outreach purposes, and I don't want it to look amateurish by making a mistake on this aspect. I'd be happy to make changes based on the performers' feedback. I just wanted to know what your rules of thumb are for these kinds of issues.
I am not a professional musician/composer/arranger, but my humble opinion is that in the main score, you should use the "correct" accidentals when you know what that is. If you use a D-major chord, write F# and if you have a Eb-minor chort, used Gb. etc. And when it is unclear, just use what is easiest to read.
and for Parts, always use what is easer to read.
Prefer sharps for pitches which are often raised (in major keys like G, D, A). F#, C#, G#.
Prefer flats for pitches which are often lowered (in major keys like F, Bb, Eb): Bb, Eb, Ab.
A string quartet is probably more used to sharps than flats, which might be a reason to prefer D# over Eb sometimes etc.
If in the same measure you have first a Gb and then a G, write F# and then G, to not have to "undo" the flat with a 𝄮. Try to avoid B# and E#, Cb and Fb whenever possible.
In reply to I am not a professional… by AndreasKågedal
Thank you for these valuable tips! I’ll make a note of that. Indeed, we’re starting to get a clearer picture of the issue.
To illustrate a bit of my confusion when reading some scores, here are two examples — one from Mozart and one from Beethoven — where you can clearly see the common use of sharps even when the key signature has flats.
In reply to Thank you for these valuable… by benoit.baudrin
From a player's point of view, I would say that it is important that a scalar passage looks like a scale with noteheads on alternating lines and spaces. So E, F#, G#, A, B, C#, D#, E. Not E, Gb, Ab, A, B, Db, Eb, E where there are two noteheads at the same level for Ab and A and Eb and E and gaps at E to Gb and B to Db. It would take some study to realise that the latter version is an E major scale. And you don't have time to do that when you are sight reading and pattern recognition is the name if the game.
And chromatic passages should generally use sharps on the way up and flats on the way down - that minimises the number of cancelling naturals
In reply to From a player's point of… by SteveBlower
Thank you for your point of view! So readability takes precedence over the theoretical accuracy of how accidentals are written in relation to the key at a given moment.
I'm trying to establish some golden rules for myself, so it's well put to say that in a chromatic passage, sharps should be used when ascending and flats when descending. The choice becomes more complex when there are many accidentals in the key signature, or when there's both an ascending and descending motion within the same staff, using the same notes.
But then I wonder: for certain modal or exotic works that make heavy use of accidentals, wouldn’t it sometimes be better for the sake of readability to omit the key signature altogether and systematically write all accidentals directly on the notes? Because honestly, the two examples I sent you from Mozart and Beethoven — as a performer, I find them quite difficult to read...
Honestly, I’m all in favor of making the performer’s job as easy as possible — you’re absolutely right to raise the issue this way.
That said, on fretless instruments like the violin, isn’t it true that a sharp and its enharmonic equivalent don’t necessarily have exactly the same frequency? Especially in a context with only string instruments.
In reply to Thank you for your point of… by benoit.baudrin
@Benoit no, Steve is not writing that readability takes precedence over theory.
Not at all.
All he says is that when theory as no answer at all, then readability is the criteria.
And in fact by following theory, you will make them more readable because you will write what players expect to see.
Which has also the nice side effect that when you don't know the theory, if you aim for better readability chances are that you'll be right for theory as well. At least in not too complex cases.
In reply to @Benoit no, Steve is not… by frfancha
Thanks for the clarification. I just tried the accidentals recalculation feature in MuseScore (I'm still on version 3.5), and I'm quite impressed because it seems to have recalculated everything correctly. I analyzed it afterward, and everything seems consistent. Do you use it on your side? How does it work? I can't find detailed information about this feature.